Working

W
Working
ki to
t Extend
E t d Democracy
D
to
t All 
Volume
Volume
V
V l
4, N
4
Number
b 10
10

October

O
O t b 2015
October
2015

HUGO IS DEAD
COPS CELEBRATE THE NEWS WITH HIGH FIVES

R

egular readers may remember the
articles I’ve written about the murder of Fey Stender, a Bay Area attorney and prisoner rights activist, who was
killed by an ex-con who figured she was not
doing enough for the prisoners’ movement.
That act killed, no murdered, the national prisoner support community on the
outside. I was a prisoner rights activist in
Washington State Penitentiary at the time,
and our outside support evaporated after the
Stender killing. Some members of Seattle's
political community wrote anti-prisoner
diatribes which in effect, and actually did
say, “Supporting prisoners equals death.”
I don’t know how the murder of Hugo
Pinell happened, but in political and moral
terms it’s along the same vein as the Stender
thing—we are stupidly killing our best.
Who were the killers? Way up here in
Seattle I don't know their names, race, or
anything else about them. Were they lowly
cowards, sneaking up behind Hugo and
stabbing him in the back, as I suspect? Or
did they give him a shank and do the dance
of death with him one-on-one, like a man,
like someone with integrity and honor?
Please feel free to correct me if I’m
wrong. And while you are telling me how it
happened, any information on why would
be appreciated as well. Please do this in a
way that avoids the eyes of the state, and no
names. I would simply like to know what
Hugo’s “crime” was that got him killed. It
is hard to get my head around a prisoner
killing Hugo for the pigs. But I see no other viable explanation. Feel free to set me
straight.

In 1970, after Stender edited and arranged for George Jackson's prison letters
to be published as Soledad Brother: The
Prison Letters of George Jackson, he became a celebrity. She persuaded French intellectual Jean Genet to write an introduction, propelling the book to a best seller.
The substantial proceeds from the book
went to a legal defense fund that she set up
for George, and other clients such as Huey
Newton. She was killed because she did not
want to smuggle explosives into the prison.
Needless to say, we out here in minimum
custody decide our own level of involvement in the prison struggle. If that level
does not meet some fool’s expectations,
that’s their problem, not ours out here on
the streets.
As prisoners you should be opposed to
the state murdering us—opposed to the
death penalty. Yet you do it to each other?
That you don’t “get this” is a measure of
your alienation, confusion, and absence of
any level of class consciousness.
You in there are for the most part what
we commies call the lumpenproletariat,
also known as the dregs of society. Yet you
don’t need to be there. All you must do is a
little study and some internal discipline and
you too can become a member of the international working class. It is quite simply
a matter of elevating your class consciousness--a rudimentary sense of which you already possess.
Maybe you are one of those prisoners
who are quite satisfied with their current
level of class consciousness—which in
most cases equals zero. You rob, rape, and

kill your fellow prisoners in the name of
who, Hitler? Zapata? Malcolm X?
It was the will of the pigs that Hugo be
murdered on his first day into the general
population after decades in the SHU. Hugo
was convicted of killing a prison guard and
slammed down. Those who killed him were
either working for the CCOPA or CDCR,
or were so stupid as to be unable to see how
this act served the interests of the state. Indeed, news reports say the pigs were cheering and celebrating at the news of Hugo’s
death—high fives all the way around!
Let me take one more wild guess. I'll bet
Hugo's killers never did anything for the
prisoners' struggle while they were on the
streets. Am I right?
Was a gang responsible for this green
light? If so, that gang is a bunch of collaborators who do the will of the pigs, they act
as a brake on prisoners' struggle for progress. Now let’s see how the pigs “thank you
for your service” to their cause.
It pains me to the deepest levels of my
being to say this, and I know I'm not a
tough guy or anyone who calls any shots.
That said, please. No retaliation. No violence. Honor the Agreement to End All
Hostilities.
Prisoners cannot allow the pigs to trick
them into backsliding into the old ways of
being. Let the cronies of the inmates who
killed Hugo be shunned, not killed. To kill
the killers is to put yet another knife in the
back of what has been accomplished so far,
and the forward progress yet to be made.
Peace out! ●
Ed Mead

WE ARE SADDENED BY THE NEWS OF DEATH AND LIFE
OF HUGO PINELL
HUGO PINELL’S DEATH.
Hugo Pinell always expressed a strong spirit of resistance.
He worked tirelessly as an educator and activist to build racial
solidarity inside of California’s prison system.

I

ncarcerated in 1965, like so many others, Hugo became politicized inside the
California prison system.
In addition to exploring his Nicaraguan
heritage, Hugo was influenced by civil
rights activists and thinkers such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King as well as his
comrades inside including George Jackson.
His leadership in combating the virulent
racism of the prison guards and officials
made him a prime target for retribution and
Hugo soon found himself confined in the
San Quentin Adjustment Center.
While at San Quentin, Hugo and five
other politically conscious prisoners were
charged with participating in an August
21, 1971 rebellion and alleged escape attempt, which resulted in the assassination
of George Jackson by prison guards. Hugo
Pinell, Willie Tate, Johnny Larry Spain,
David Johnson, Fleeta Drumgo and Luis
Talamantez became known as the San
Quentin Six. Their subsequent 16-month
trial was the longest in the state’s history
at the time. The San Quentin Six became
a global symbol of unyielding resistance
against the prison system and its violent,
racist design.
As the California Prisons began to lock
people up in long-term isolation and control unit facilities, Hugo was placed inside
of the SHU (Secure Housing Unit) in prisons including Tehachapi, Corcoran and
Pelican Bay. There, despite being locked
in a cell for 23 hours a day, he continued
to work for racial unity and an end to the
torturous conditions and racially and politically motivated placement of people into
the SHU. This work included his participation in the California Prison Hunger Strikes
as well as supporting the Agreement to End
Racial Hostilities in 2011.
At the time of his death, Hugo had been
locked behind bars for 50 years yet his spirit was unbroken.
We would like to share this brief poem
by Luis ‘Bato’ Talamantez:
Hasta Siempre Hugo
Solidarity forever
And we are saddened
Solidarity left
2

You when (it) should have
Counted for something and
What your long imprisoned
Life stood for
Now all your struggles
To be free have failed
And only death a
Inglorious and violent
Death has
Claimed you
At the hands of the
Cruel prison system
La Luta Continua
-Bato and the San Quentin 3
and a short poem written by Hugo Pinell
from a publication issued in 1995.
No
Matter
How long it takes,
Real Changes will come,
And the greatest personal reward
Lies in our involvement and contributions,
Even if it may appear that nothing significant
Or of impact really happened
During our times,
But it did,
Because
Every sincere effort
Is as special as every human life ●
-Hugo Pinell (1995)

It was with true sadness that, on August
13th, I received the news that legendary
California prison activist Hugo Pinell, was
killed in a California prison. This is Jaan
Laaman, your political prisoner voice and
let me share a few thoughts about the life
and death of this extraordinary man.
I never personally knew Hugo Pinell.
The simple reason for that is because Hugo
Pinell was locked up in California state
prisons for 50 years! That is insane. It is
hard to wrap you mind around the reality of
someone being held captive for 50 years.
Even more insane, for most of those years
he was held in isolation-segregation cells.
Hugo was just released from segregation
and it is being reported that he was killed
by two white prisoners. There was a
serious uprising or riot that also took place
at this time.
Hugo Pinell spent decades teaching, advocating and struggling for Human Rights,
justice and dignity for prisoners. He taught
and fought for racial and revolutionary
unity among all prisoners. Locked up in
1965, like many other prisoners at that
time, Hugo became politicized inside the
California prison system. In addition to
exploring his Nicaraguan heritage, Hugo
was influenced by activists like Malcolm
X, Martin Luther King, as well as his comrades inside, including George Jackson.
His leadership in combating the racism
and brutality of prison officials made him a
prime target for retribution and Hugo soon
found himself in the notorious San Quentin
Adjustment Center.
While in San Quentin, Hugo and five
other politically conscious prisoners were
charged with participating in the August
21, 1971 rebellion, which resulted in the
assassination of George Jackson by prison
guards on that day. Hugo Pinell, Willie
Tate, Johnny Spain, David Johnson, Fleeta Drumgo and Luis Talamantez became
known as the San Quentin Six. They had a
very public 16 month trial. The San Quentin Six became a global symbol of unyielding resistance against the prison system
and its violent, racist design. Hugo spent
decades in segregation, but continued to
work for racial unity and human rights for
prisoners.
Personally, I am of course upset that a
brother like Hugo was killed, by what I
have to assume were some reactionary
Rock!

fascist minded prisoners. But truly what I
mainly feel is sadness, profound sadness at
this news.
Hugo Pinell is gone. His bid, his sentence is now ended. After 50 years of captivity, that is not a bad thing. Even as an elderly person, in his 70›s, Hugo Pinell died
in the struggle. The hands that struck him
down, it is reported, were prisoners, but the
actual force that killed him was the capitalist police state prison system that holds
2.2 million men, women and children in
captivity.
Hugo Pinell, we will remember you
brother and your strong lifelong example of
resistance. We will continue this resistance
and this struggle for Freedom. ●
This is Jaan Laaman.

“I don’t ever regret speaking out and standing up
for our people in here. I
regret not being able to
give more.” Hugo L.A. Pinell
(Yogi Bear)

FROM A
COMRADE

H

ugo...although we never met in the
flesh, for over four decades i›ve
known who YOU are :The fearless
and tireless Warrior...one who dedicated
and gave his ALL in the struggle for a better life for our People---a better world. i›ve
always envisioned you as an unmovable
Mountain.
Sooo, the State, in its impotent arrogance, *gave* you two life sentences...and
an ignorant and depraved assassin *took*
your life. But, what neither wicked and
doomed force can never ever understand
is that YOU were the Captain of your own
ship...YOU had already given YOUR LIFE
to the People.
Rest in Peace, my Comrade, knowing
that the trick is on them. YOU can
never die...for in death you have gained
true immortality. YOU will always be
remembered wherever people gather who
love and fight for Freedom.
Hugh Pinell, Hugo Pinell, Hugo Pinell,
Hugo Pinell...i will always remember to
whisper your name upon the WIND.
YOU fought the good fight ! We thank
YOU! ●
Comrade
Volume 4, Number 10

HUGO PINELL, MY DOCS SUGGEST
COMRADE
HUNGER STRIKES
“If ever I should break my stride
SPARKED SEG
Or falter at my comrade’s side
this oath shall kill me…”
REFORMS?
– from Ulysses’ Oath

L

ast night (8/29/2015) a comrade
called me on the phone and he was
drunk out of his skull. Larry, an anarchist former political prisoner I did time
with in the federal system, was lamenting
the decades of confinement his comrade
Bill Dunne was still doing time for the
1976 conviction he was imprisoned for.
He wanted to know why Bill wasn’t out
(our histories by the way were similar - gunfights with the police). I told him police agencies would prefer our deaths but
life without is an acceptable alternative
for them. I told him, Bill is a scapegoat, a
cover boy if not their centerfold for their
‘Police Killer’ magazine.
Hugo Pinell was one of many scapegoats
the pigs want dead or doing life without.
Hugo of the San Quentin Six was an inspiration for me. When my comrade Clemmon Blanchey and I formed the first prison
chapter of the Black Panther Party for Self
Defense it was George Jackson and the San
Quentin Six who gave us that political direction unique to the prison movement. In
prison and after my release, I have never
broken that stride. And it is the ROCK that
draws me back like a moth to the flame
when I see the current efforts of the California prisoners. Hugo in his resilience
withstanding the decades of isolation in
the hole was a symbol for all prisoners. His
words of encouragement to struggle are not
forgotten.
As for those two ass-holes to did the
dirty deed, they represent the malice of
counter-revolutionaries and lackeys of the
pigs? In you name Hugo, I will continue
my resilience until death!
If ever I should break my stride
Or falter at my comrade’s side
This oath shall kill me.
If ever my word should prove untrue
should I betray the many or the few
This oath shall kill me.
If ever I withhold my hand
Or show fear before the hangman
This oath shall surely kill me. ●
Mark Cook

By Sal Rodriguez
ow influential were the three hunger strikes held by California prisoners in spurring the sweeping
changes to solitary confinement policies
that were announced yesterday?
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has repeatedly
stated that they were already planning to
reform long-term solitary confinement before the hunger strikes of 2011 and 2013.
But internal documents obtained by Solitary Watch dispute that narrative, showing
the hunger strikes did in fact directly spark
the first movements toward reform.
On Tuesday morning, in announcing the
settlement of Ashker v. Brown, a class-action lawsuit seeking the end of long-term
solitary confinement in California, CDCR
Secretary Jeffrey Beard told reporters that
the settlement was only made possible by
the department’s proactive efforts to reform
segregation policies. Beard explained that
the department began looking into reforms
of solitary confinement in 2007 and later
worked to create a Step Down Program.
Without that program, Beard said, the settlement would not have been resolved.
CDCR spokesperson Jeffrey Callison
later clarified Beard’s remarks as saying
that “the effect of the hunger strikes and the
Ashker lawsuit may well have influenced
some of the details of today’s settlement,
but that the general direction had already
started.”
It is understandable that corrections officials want to avoid giving too much credit
to the hunger strike leaders, who were also
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, as doing so
might empower future actions against perceived ills.
In downplaying the power of the prisoner protests, the CDCR has proclaimed
that they were already working to reform
solitary confinement before the July 2011
hunger strike, which was subsequently followed by another in September-October of
that year and a third, massive strike in the
summer of 2013.
In a press release put out by the department in August 2013, at the conclusion

H

Strikes ...................... Continued on page 7
3

CALIFORNIA’S SOLITARY CONFINEMENT UNITS:
A RESPONSE TO C.D.C.R.’S PROPAGANDA!
By: Kijana Tashiri Askari, Moja Kutendo
Askari, and Sitawa Nantamu Jamaa
“Hide nothing from the masses of our
people. Tell no lies. Expose lies, whenever
they are told. Mask of no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.”
–By Amilcar Cabral.

O

n June 19, 2015, C.D.C.R. issued a
“Notice of Change to Regulations”
(N.C.R.), that took effect on June
1, 2015, and specifically deals with the various reforms being made to their Segregated Housing (e.g. “solitary confinement”).
Policies and practices, interestingly
enough, concealed in this “Notice of
Change to Regulations” (N.C.R.), is a bold
attempt to misinform the public, about the
concrete reality, that we prisoners have
been subjugated to for the past 10 to 40+
years!! (On page 2 of the N.C.R., C.D.C.R.
states in part): “There is no ‘Solitary Confinement’ in California prisons and the
S.H.U. is not ‘Solitary Confinement’. Many
S.H.U. inmates in fact have cellmates….”
My people, it is this type of sick, twisted, and illogical thinking that has made it
necessary, for us to respond to C.D.C.R.’s
propaganda. As it is line of thinking, that
makes C.D.C.R complicit in the deaths
of Johnny Owen Vick, Christian Gomez,
Hozel Alanzo Blanchard, and others via
their systemic torture practices and policies
of confining prisoners in their ‘Solitary
Confinement’ Units, for the past half-century!! Having a cellmate doesn’t eliminate
the level of “Isolation” that we prisoners
endure. I mean, think about it, if you put
[2] people on a ‘deserted island’, and completely cut them off from the worlds they
came from, this would regulate these peoples’ existence to complete isolation. Our
living conditions in ‘Solitary Confinement’
are a mirror – image of this ‘deserted island.’
The construct and purpose of Solitary
Confinement, is to isolate the individual
and/or individuals from all social activity. Regardless of the euphemisms that
C.D.C.R. tends to utilize, whether it be:
Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg.);
The Hole; Behavior Modification Unit
(C.M.U.); Communication Management
Unit (C.M.U.); Security Housing Unit
4

(S.H.U.); or any other title. The end result
is still a form of ‘torture-based isolation.’
Especially, when you factor in the number
of deprivations contained in our living conditions, such as: entertainment; recreation;
vocational training; literature; language;
art; intellectual and spiritual thought; economics; political, religious, and cultural
expressions, etc.
C.D.C.R. is attempting to take the position, that by placing [2] prisoners in a
small cramped cell, that is either extremely
cold or too hot, depending on the seasonal weather and prison location, that this
somehow eliminates the crucible o ‘Solitary Confinement.’ But what C.D.C.R. fails
to recognize is two-fold. On the one hand,
prisons are a microcosm of society, meaning there are prisoners from all walks of
life in prison, with various religious, social,
cultural, and political orientations. While
on the other hand, C.D.C.R. also fails to
recognize, that all human relations is materialized through the arenas of: Education;
Entertainment; Labor; Politics; Law; War;
Religion; Sex; and Economics. Therefore,
it is fundamentally impossible for any interaction to be taking place between [2]
caged human - beings (prisoners), when
there simply isn’t any programming for
this type of social activity to become manifest. On top of this, outdoor exercise is
essentially non-existent (1.), thus leaving
[2] prisoners cooped-up in the cell all day,
every day. Which can be a very stressful
circumstance, when the [2] prisoners don’t
know each other.
However, if you can afford it, C.D.C.R.
makes a few college courses available
through correspondence. But inside of this
policy, is C.C.R. Title 15 Section 3192,

which prohibits prisoners from sharing
reading materials (i.e. ‘college books’)
with each other. And the state-based T.V.
stations are so heavily controlled (e.g.
‘NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, and Univision’)
which is fundamentally impossible to call
this a form of entertainment, that is capable
of neutralizing the basis of our isolation.
It must be understood, not every prisoner
in C.D.C.R.’s ‘Solitary Confinement’ Units,
have a cellmate, and in some instances,
they have been restricted in having a cellmate altogether, for various subjective reasons. Prior, to any prisoner being allowed
to double-cell with each other, we must,
first sign a ‘double-cell chrono’, which is
nothing more than a punitive –based biding
contract. For example, the language in the
‘double-cell chrono’ state:
“1.) You request to double-cell with
(name); 2.) You agree that the [2] of you are
compatible; and 3.) You absolve C.D.C.R.
of all liability in the event that any conflict
should occur between the [2] of you.”
If the prisoner refuses to accept a cellmate of the prison guard’s choosing 2.),
we’re then subjected to being issued a
CDC 115, Rules Violation Report (RVR)
for “Disobeying a direct order,” and then
deprived of the relative few privileges (e.g.
“No Canteen, Time Credit Loss, and/or
T.V. Restriction”) that we’re accorded.
Notice that, none of the questions asked,
via the ‘double-cell chrono’, is designed
to determine the character of the person
you’re about to be housed with, such as:
“What is their political/religious orientation, etc.?” This speaks to the ‘coercive nature,’ of how [2] human beings are forced
to co-exist under some already stressful living conditions. And this is exactly why, the
court in Madrid v. Gomez, 3.) have already
factually determined:
“Having [2] persons occupy a cell, with
only enough space for (1) person. Doesn’t
eliminate the course of which Solitary
Confinement violently assaults the human
psyche.”
We would like to challenge any [2]
C.D.C.R. administrators to use their IPhones to record and post the live feed of
them being confined to their bathroom for
at least (6) months, with the various deprivations that they’ve subjected us to, and allow the people to bear witness to how the
Rock!

political rhetoric of Solitary Confinement
not existing in the California Prison System be thoroughly Negated!! We encourage the people to support our challenge, by
writing to Jeffrey Beard, Susan Hubbard,
George Giurbino, Scott Kernan, and other
C.D.C.R. administrators 4.) and urge them
to take on this challenge!! ●
For more information, contact us at:
Kijana Tashiri Askari,
(s/n Marcus Harrison),
CDCR# H-54077, (4B-8B-106),
C.S.P./C.C.I.-Tehachapi,
P.O. Box 1906,
Tehachapi, CA. 93581
Moja Kutendo Askari,
(s/n Larry Woodward),
CDCR# E-81171, (4B-8C-102),
C.S.P./C.C.I.-Tehachapi,
P.O. Box 1906,
Tehachapi, CA. 93581
Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa,
(s/n Ronnie Dewberry),
CDCR# C-35671, (4B-8B-109),
C.S.P./C.C.I.-Tehachapi,
P.O. Box 1906,
Tehachapi, CA. 93581
PRISONER’S HUMAN RIGHTS
MOVEMENT!!!
CALIFORNIA SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT UNITS:
Reference Notes:
1.) We housed at C.C.I.-Tehachapi
S.H.U. is considered fortunate to get outdoor exercise more than once a week via
the ‘individual caged’ yards.
2.) C.C.R Title 15, Section 3269 states in
relevant part: “Inmates shall accept Inmate
Housing Assignments (IHA) as directed by
staff…Inmates are not entitled to SingleCell Assignment, Housing Location of
choice, or to a Cellmate of their choice.”
3.) Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146,
1229-30 (N.D. cal. 1995).
4.) Members of the community can support our challenge to C.D.C.R. administrators by writing to them at:
Attn: C.D.C.R. Headquarters,
In re: ‘Solitary Confinement Challenge’,
1515 S-Street,
Sacramento, CA. 95814

Volume 4, Number 10

W E DON’T NEED TO KEEP CRIMINALS
IN PRISON TO PUNISH THEM
By Mark A.R. Kleiman, Angela Hawken, &
Ross Halperin
merica’s prison state is a disaster.
One percent of the adult population is behind bars, and corrections
is squeezing higher education out of state
budgets. We have five times as many people in prison as we ever had before 1980,
and five times as many (per capita) as any
other advanced democracy.
What’s worse is that it is, in this era, a
completely unnecessary disaster. It’s simply not true that to punish someone and
control his behavior you need to lock him
up and pay for his room and board.
While it lasts, prison is horrible for the
prisoner and expensive for the state. And
things often don’t get better when it ends:
of the people released from prison today,
about 60 percent will be back inside within
three years.
The transition from prison to the “free
world” can be very tough, both for the offender and for the neighborhood he returns
to. In the month after getting out, a person
released from prison has about a dozen
times the mortality rate of people of the
same age, race, and sex in the same neighborhood, with the leading causes of death
among former inmates being drug overdose, cardiovascular disease, homicide,
and suicide.
To get back to our historic level of incarceration, we’d have to reduce the prisoner
headcount by 80 percent
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Consider
someone whose conduct earned him (much
more rarely “her”) a prison cell. Typically, that person went into prison with poor
impulse control, weak if any attachment
to the legal labor market, few marketable
skills, and subpar work habits. More often
than not, he’s returning to a high-crime
neighborhood. Many of his friends on the
outside are also criminally active. Maybe,
if he’s lucky and has been diligent, he’s
learned something useful in prison. Perhaps he’s even picked up a GED. But he
hasn’t learned much about how to manage himself in freedom because he hasn’t
had any freedom in the recent past. And he
hasn’t learned to provide for himself because he’s been fed, clothed, and housed at
public expense.
Now let him out with $40 in his pocket,
sketchy if any identification documents,

A

and no enrollment for basic income support, housing, or health insurance. Even
if he has family or friends who can tide
him over during the immediate transition,
his chances of finding legitimate work in a
hurry aren’t very good. If he’s not working,
he has lots of free time to get into trouble
and no legal way of supporting himself.
Altogether, it’s a formula for failure —
and failure is, too often, what it produces.
But there is a better way. The current system never made sense, and it makes less
sense every day. The cost of buildings and
staff goes up every year; the cost of information collection goes down. We need to
learn to substitute effective supervision for
physical confinement. That’s the idea behind “graduated re-entry.”
Graduated re-entry: giving prisoners a little freedom at a time
To get back to our historic level of incarceration, we would have to reduce the prisoner head-count by 80 percent. We can’t
get from where we are to where we need to
be just by releasing the innocent and harmless. More than half of today’s prisoners
are serving time for violent offenses, and
even those now in prison for nonviolent
crimes often have violent histories. Solving
mass incarceration requires releasing some
seriously guilty and dangerous people. The
problem is how to do that while also protecting public safety by turning ex-criminals into productive, free citizens.
For the transition from prison to life
outside to be successful, it needs to be
gradual. If someone needed to be locked
up yesterday, he shouldn’t be completely
at liberty today. And he shouldn’t be asked
to go from utter dependency to total selfsufficiency in one flying leap. He needs
both more control and more support. Neither alone is likely to do the job.
Of course, both control and support cost
money. But so does prison. The trick is to
start the re-entry process before what would
otherwise have been the release date, so
the money you spend in the community is
balanced by the money you’re not spending on a cell. The average cost of holding a
prisoner comes to about $2,600 per month.
At the same time, even very intrusive supervision leaves a released offender freer
than he would have been on the inside. So
even a program that looks expensive and
5

intrusive compared with ordinary re-entry
or parole is cheap and liberating compared
with a cellblock.
For the transition from prison to life
outside to be successful, it needs
to be gradual
Start with housing. A substantial fraction
of prison releasees go from a cellblock to
living under a bridge: not a good way to
start free life. Spend some of the money
that would otherwise have financed a prison cell to rent a small, sparsely furnished
efficiency apartment. In some ways, that
apartment is still a cell and the offender
still a prisoner. He can’t leave it or have
visitors except as specifically permitted.
The unit has cameras inside and is subject
to search. But he doesn’t need guards, and
doesn’t have to worry about prison gangs
or inmate-on-inmate assault.
Drug testing and sanctions can avoid
relapse to problem drug use; GPS monitoring can show where the re-entrant is
all the time, which in turn makes it easy
to know whether he’s at work when he’s
supposed to be at work and at home when
he’s supposed to be at home. This makes
curfews enforceable and keeps him away
from personal “no-go” zones (the street
corner where he used to deal, the vicinity
of his victim’s residence). GPS would also
place him at the scene of any new crime he
might commit, thus drastically reducing his
chances of getting away with it and therefore his willingness to take the gamble.
The apartment functions as a prison
without bars.
n some ways, it’s a fairly grim existence,
especially at the beginning: the offender
starts off under a strict curfew, allowed out
only for work, job hunting, and necessary
personal business (food shopping, medical
care, service appointments), as well as to
meet the correctional officer in charge of
his supervision. And he’s required to work
full-time at a public-service job, earning a
little less than the minimum wage. On top
of that, he has to spend time looking for an
ordinary paying job (being supplied with
appropriate clothing and some coaching in
how to do a job search). He never touches
money except for small change; he makes
purchases as needed with an EBT or debit
card, and only for approved items. The
“no-cash” rule both makes it harder to buy
drugs or a gun and reduces the benefits of
criminal activity. Since he’s eating at home,
he needs food, some minimal kitchen
6

equipment, and perhaps some simple cooking lessons. (Whether groceries are delivered or whether he’s expected to shop for
his own food right away is another detail
to work out.)
Minor violations — staying out beyond
curfew, using alcohol or other drugs, missing work or misbehaving at work, missing
appointments — can be sanctioned by temporary tightening of restrictions, or even
a couple of days back behind bars, in addition to slowing the offender’s progress
toward liberty. Major violations — serious
new offenses, attempts to avoid supervision by removing position-monitoring gear
— lead to immediate termination from the
program and return to prison. Not, on the
whole, an easy life. But it’s much simpler
than the challenge of a sudden transition
from prison to the street.
Moreover, if you were to ask a prisoner
who has now served two years of a fiveyear sentence (for drug dealing, say, or burglary), “Would you like to get out of prison
right now and into the situation I just described?” the odds of his saying “Yes”
would be excellent. And if he didn’t, his
cellmate would. Indeed, entry to the program could be offered as a reward for good
behavior in prison, improving matters for
those still “inside” — and those guarding
them — as well as those released.
And — this is the central point — the
offender’s freedom increases over time, as
long as he does what he’s supposed to do.
Yes, violations of the rules are sanctioned.
But compliance and achievement are rewarded with increased freedom. Every sustained period of compliance with the rules
— at first, even a couple of days — leads
to some relaxation of the rules. Successful completion of the first 48 hours out of
prison might earn a few hours’ freedom to
leave the unit other than for work or other necessary business. Further relaxation
might change the rule from “out only as allowed” to a curfew (“not out after 6 pm”),
which then could be made later and later as
the offender builds up a history of compliance. All of those transitions would be by
formula, not at the whim of the supervisor,
so that the subject knows the exact timing of his next milestone and exactly how
much freedom he will obtain if he hits it.
That tight coupling between behavior and
results is the best way to gradually build
the habits that will allow the ex-offender to
stay out of trouble.
From the viewpoint of the system, the
whole process is graduated re-entry. From

the former prisoner’s viewpoint, it looks
like a chance to earn his freedom.
The goal: finding and keeping a job
The ex-prisoner’s biggest accomplishment would be finding (and holding) a
“real” job, whether private or nonprofit.
From the program’s viewpoint, an employed subject should be virtually costneutral other than the cost of monitoring.
In most housing markets, even a minimumwage job can pay the rent on an efficiency
apartment plus the grocery bill. That means
every re-entrant who finds a job would allow for the release of another prisoner;
that’s the way such a program could grow
to a scale big enough to noticeably change
the incarceration rate. Better yet, once a
former prisoner has become self-supporting, and developed the habits necessary to
hold a job, his risk of recidivism plunges.
For a re-entrant who gets and holds a
real job, life would become much less
prison-like. He would still be subject to
drug testing and position monitoring, but
employment would earn him considerably
more freedom of movement, including the
right to visit his family (until then closely
rationed) and to have approved visitors in
what is now regarded as his apartment.
For a re-entrant who gets and holds
a real job, life would become much
less prison-like
Some of his paycheck would go toward
his rent; some, perhaps, toward child support or restitution; and some to a bank account in his name but still under official
control while he remains, legally, a prisoner. But some of it — an increasing amount
over time — would be his to spend, though
still not in cash (and therefore not on anything he’s not allowed to have). If he gets
fired for cause, he loses those privileges
until he gets a new one. If he gets laid off,
he has some amount of time to find a new
position before he steps back. But the price
of sustained liberty is sustained employment.
Given the lamentable record of offender
employment programs (including the transition from supported work to the regular
economy), finding and holding a job might
seem out of reach for most offenders. But
the success of some job-oriented, incentive-based programs — federal probation
in St. Louis, the Montgomery County PreRelease Center in Rockville, Maryland,
and the Alternatives to Incarceration program in Georgia — seems to indicate that
Rock!

if supervision can make offenders genuinely interested in getting and holding jobs,
many of them are capable of doing so. For
a low-wage employer, a worker who will
show up sober, on time, and strongly motivated (by the gain in freedom he gets from
holding a job) might well represent a reasonable bet, despite a prison record. And of
course someone who has succeeded for a
while in maintaining on-the-books employment has a much better chance of finding
another job when he needs to or wants to.
We can’t predict how successful
this will be, but it’s essential to try
Eventually the transition from a prisoner
in a cell to a person with a job and an apartment is complete. (How long “eventually”
lasts is another crucial detail to be determined largely by experience, and might
well vary from offender to offender based
on sex, age, and criminal history.) At that
point, the ex-offender (and we can hope,
with some basis, that he is now truly an
ex-offender) could be released from his legal role as a “prisoner” and put on parole
or other post-release supervision, or even
given unconditional liberty.
There’s no way to guess in advance how
many prisoners would succeed in making
the transition: for all the statistical work
on risk assessment, looking into the soul
remains hard, and looking into the future
impossible. It’s not even obvious whether
the success rate would be higher with men
or with women, with younger or older offenders, with those convicted of nonviolent
crimes or of violent ones. But there’s good
reason to think the success rate would be
higher for graduated release than for the
current approach, and that the costs of the
program could be more than recouped from
the savings in reduced incarceration, now
and in the future. But budget savings aren’t
the main goal: the greatest benefits would
flow to the offenders, to their families, to
their neighborhoods, and to those who otherwise would have been the victims of their
future crimes.
Can we really get back to a civilized level of incarceration while continuing to push
crime rates down? We can’t know until we
try. Graduated re-entry might work. That’s
more than can be said for any other proposal now on the table. If we find a version
of it that works somewhere, expand it there
and try it elsewhere. If not, go back to the
drawing board. But sticking with the existing system, and accepting its disastrous results, is not a reasonable choice. ●
Volume 4, Number 10

Strikes .................. Continued from page 3
of the last hunger strike, CDCR issued a
public response to the demands of hunger
strikers. “In May 2011, prior to two hunger
strikes that year, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
began revising its gang validation and Security Housing Unit (SHU) confinement
policies and procedures,” the statement
read.
In October 2013, CDCR released a fact
sheet providing background information on
the hunger strikes which explained that the
July 2011 hunger strike ended “after Pelican Bay strike leaders better understood
the…plans already in progress to review
and change policies regarding SHU confinement and gang management.”
Most recently, this narrative surfaced
in response to a July 1 piece on Solitary
Watch, when CDCR sent an email requesting a correction. They said that the Warden’s Advisory Group which proposed
reforms to the SHU and prison gang management, was formed two months before
the July 2011 hunger strike, not afterwards,
as we reported.
The truth, however, is that the first hunger strike directly served as a catalyst for
change, and CDCRs own documents verify
that.
In a special review dated October 17,
2011, the Office of the Inspector General
informed State Sen. Darrell Steinberg of its
findings reviewing CDCR’s response to the
July hunger strike. “As a result of the July
2011 hunger strike, the department formed
a Warden’s Advisory Group (WAG) to review the current gang management program and to develop recommendations for
improvement,” the OIG reported. An internal CDCR memo further clarifies that the
WAG was formed in October 2011.
In other words, the WAG wasn’t formed
before the July 2011 hunger strike, but “as
a result” of it.
In September 2011, the hunger strike
leaders issued a statement clarifying why
the July hunger strike ended, and why they
were set to resume strike activity. According to the strike leaders, CDCR Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan repeatedly promised the department intended to
address their demands. While there was
“vague” talk of a step-down program, nothing concrete was presented, prompting an
additional hunger strike.
As it turned out, the objectives of the
WAG closely mirrored the demands of the

hunger strikers: “On October 11 and 12,
2011, the group met to begin development
of an improved, meaningful gang management strategy that is consistent with national standards, including: a review of validation and debriefing policies; SHU inmate
programming; criteria for SHU placement,
retention and release; and the improvement
of inmates’ due process protections in relation to gang validation and SHU placement.”
Presented with this evidence, CDCR responded by email to Solitary Watch a brief
statement reading, “The OIG’s characterization is accurate.
As explained in a previous post, in 2007
CDCR did commission a report by staff
from California State University, Sacramento to review segregation policies in
other states and jurisdictions. But the report went unused until the formation of the
WAG. The WAG ended up bringing the
“vague” talk of a step-down program into
reality, and led to the ongoing process of
case-by-case reviews of all individuals in
the SHU to determine the appropriateness
of their isolation.
The stance by CDCR that the hunger
strikes did not directly influence the department’s actions doesn’t surprise Taeva
Shefler of California Prison Focus, a group
working to end long-term isolation in California prisons.
“For them to acknowledge in any form
that they did something because interracial,
interfaith people from the deepest depths
called for changes and 30,000 people responded…that shows there’s still power
from within and any admission would be a
sign of weakness,” said Shefler.
“On the outside, in tandem with what
seems to be a developing movement against
mass incarceration, we see a greater focus
on torture,” Shefler continued. “You see a
lot of groups getting increasingly involved.
You see media being created by independent groups. You see legislators taking interest.”
While it may be true that, in the years before the hunger strikes, CDCR did invest
some resources in considering SHU alternatives, it is also true that CDCR did not
actually do anything with this information
until after the hunger strikes began. What
this means for dynamics between prison officials and prisoners is an interesting question, but it remains the case that the hunger
strikes are what prompted reforms, not the
unforced will of CDCR. ●
http://solitarywatch.com/
7

LANDMARK AGREEMENT ENDS INDETERMINATE LONGTERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
Settlement Reached in California Class Action Suit Moves Out of SHU Those There 10 Years or
Longer, Ends Solitary Purely Due to Gang Validation

O

n September 1, 2015, the parties
have agreed on a landmark settlement in the federal class action
Ashker v. Governor of California that will
effectively end indeterminate, long-term
solitary confinement in all California state
prisons. Subject to court approval, the
agreement will result in a dramatic reduction in the number of people in solitary
across the state and a new program that
could be a model for other states going forward. The class action was brought in 2012
on behalf of prisoners held in solitary confinement at the Pelican Bay prison, often
without any violent conduct or serious rule
infractions, often for more than a decade,
and all without any meaningful process
for transfer out of isolation and back to the
general prison population. Ashker argued
that California’s use of prolonged solitary
confinement constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment and denies prisoners the right
to due process.
“This settlement represents a monumental victory for prisoners and an important
step toward our goal of ending solitary
confinement in California, and across the
country,” the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. “California’s agreement to abandon
indeterminate SHU confinement based on
gang affiliation demonstrates the power of
unity and collective action. This victory
was achieved by the efforts of people in
prison, their families and loved ones, lawyers, and outside supporters.”
“Today’s victories are the result of the
extraordinary organizing the prisoners
managed to accomplish despite extreme
conditions,” said Center for Constitutional
Rights President and lead attorney Jules
Lobel. “This far-reaching settlement represents a major change in California’s cruel
and unconstitutional solitary confinement
system. There is a mounting awareness
across the nation of the devastating consequences of solitary – some key reforms
California agreed to will hopefully be a
model for other states.”
When the case was filed in 2012, more
than 500 prisoners had been isolated in the
Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican
Bay for over 10 years, and 78 had been
there for more than 20 years. They spent
22 ½ to 24 hours every day in a cramped,
8

concrete, windowless cell, and were denied
telephone calls, physical contact with visitors, and vocational, recreational, and educational programming. Hundreds of other
prisoners throughout California have been
held in similar SHU conditions.
Today’s settlement transforms California’s use of solitary confinement from a
status-based system to a behavior-based
system; prisoners will no longer be sent to
solitary based solely on gang affiliation,
but rather based on infraction of specific
serious rules violations. It also limits the
amount of time a prisoner can spend in the
Pelican Bay SHU and provides a two-year
step-down program for transfer from SHU
to general population.
The agreement creates a new non-solitary but high-security unit for the minority of prisoners who have been held in any
SHU for more than 10 years and who have
a recent serious rule violation. They will be
able to interact with other prisoners, have
small-group recreation and educational and
vocational programming, and contact visits.
Extensive expert evidence in the case established severe physical and psychological
harm among California SHU prisoners as a
result of prolonged solitary confinement.
Plaintiffs worked with 10 experts in the
fields of psychology, neuroscience, medicine, prison security and classification, and
international human rights law. The resulting reports provide an unprecedented and
holistic analysis of the impact of prolonged
solitary confinement on human beings and
provided guidance in the construction of

the settlement reforms.
Federal Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas
will oversee these reforms for two years, a
term that may be extended if the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is found to be violating prisoners’ constitutional rights.
Representatives of the prisoners who
brought this lawsuit and plaintiffs’ counsel
will meet with CDCR regularly to ensure
compliance. Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive
extensive documentation of the new policies and practices and will meet frequently
with Judge Vadas to oversee the agreement.
“The seeds of this victory are in the unity
of the prisoners in their peaceful hunger
strike of 2011. That courageous and principled protest galvanized support on both
sides of the prison walls for a legal challenge to California’s use of solitary confinement,” said Carol Strickman, staff attorney at Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children, which is co-counsel in the case.
Ashker v. Governor of California
amended an earlier lawsuit filed by Pelican Bay SHU prisoners Todd Ashker and
Danny Troxell representing themselves.
In addition to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, co-counsel in the case
are California Prison Focus, Siegel & Yee,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Christensen
O’Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, Ellenberg & Hull, and the Law Offices of Charles
Carbone. The case is before Judge Claudia
Wilken in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.
Read the settlement submission here,
and a comprehensive summary of the settlement terms here. All documents in the
case are on CCR’s case page. Since they
cannot speak from prison, CCR is making
downloadable video clips from the plaintiffs’ depositions available here. [URL or
links not provided.]
The Center for Constitutional Rights
is dedicated to advancing and protecting
the rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit
legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive
force for social change. ●
Rock!

Social Activists?
So Julian, I agree with your position
100% and have no arguments at all (Rock,
September Page 6). I think it’s important
to add though, that in evaluating the prison
societies, and doing so in relation to general society, it’s necessary to realize that
prison communities are indeed a direct reflection of general society, as you clearly
pointed out. But it’s also very critical to
have a good grasp of the interdependencies
between all of the different social, political,
economic elements of that greater social
construct. The prison system itself is only
one of those several elements. So it’s also
being able to have a more geometric understanding of the entire structure and the
prisons place within it. We called prisons
“institutions” and I think the definition gets
lost on a lot of people. An institution is not
just a building. The working definition of
an “institution is “an established custom,
practice, or relationship in a society.” Marriage is also an institution. So is drug addiction and religion. Each is relevant only
in how it affects, supports, lubricates the
functionality of the entire society.
The institution of prisons in our society
however, is unique in many ways, which
makes the social contradictions surrounding it unique as well. Still, coming to see
the system for what it is, two things should
become clear. 1) As the prison system itself
is a functioning part of our greater society,
prison activism should be applied in direct
relation to other motions in society. This
was me obvious by the way things went in
California (and still going in California?)
The fact that the program strikes in Oregon’s SHU are going on silently and ineffectively only drives this point home. 2)
Any fundamental changes made in the prison system will affect some type of change
in general society itself. And accepting this
truth, prisoners’ rights activism in motion
should be designed in such a way to leverage the most impact as possible. Not only
for prison societies, but in the relationship
between prison societies and greater society as a whole.
“Prison activists” - even prisoners ourselves - are by route, “social activists”.
And as such, we shouldn’t limit our scope
and involvement to present issues. It’s inter-relational. If prisoner movements can
Volume 4, Number 10

find ways to incorporate environmentalism
for example, into our list of concerns, it
will solidify our common footings -our relevance- to the world outside of our isolated
little petri dishes.
Personally, I’m only interested in prison
activism in so far as the leverage it provides
to affect a greater change in our larger sociopolitical construct. I’m a revolutionary
first, the prisoner second, only involved in
prison rights activism by default. I’m just
in one. It’s where I’m most effective.
Which brings me to the other point. Julian, you’re absolutely right that the subject of horrors of confinement are a direct
product of the objective conditions of the
system. And you make a really good point
about mobilizing people around those subjective needs - tedious as it is. So because
of those things I suppose I’m willing to
(grudgingly) forgive other people for “giving a shit” about their “subjective homers”.
But personally, I’m sticking to my guns.
I don’t give a shit. And the reason why is
because I find that those who tend to let
their own personal little situations get to
‘em - Be they agreeable or “horrific” - usually wind up limiting themselves and their
political development and involvement.
Those “subject of horrors” begin to take
presidents over pragmatic objectivism in
the resolve to resist begins to break down.
Being a revolutionary is an inherently
selfless occupation. And personally I’m a
revolutionary in the most extreme sense
of the word. Those are only focus on their
own subjective situations tend to engage
themselves only as far as their engagement
affects them directly.
It’s my opinion that there is no such thing
as a soft or moderate revolutionary. When
either is, or is not. And as such, the subject
of horrors are an expected routine matter
of course. A revolutionary is an agent of
change under the employment of conflict.
Any overwriting desire for comfort or freedom from the inflictions of one’s adversary
can cripple the will to keep up the struggle,
especially here in the heart of the imperialist beast where some of the best among us
have a constitution about as hard as a rotten banana. I’ve seen people break because
they are sick of not having a TV. Not me
my friend. Discomfort, pain, misery, even
death are all perfectly natural side effects
of struggle. Or to quote some book I read,
“if you live by the sword, you must learn
to love the sting of being cut”. Nah man, I

still don’t give a shit.
Joshua (Zero) Cartrette),

LETTERS

LETTERS

Whither the DRB?
I am one of the people that was
sent from the Tehachapi SHU up
here to the Pelican Bay SHU
(with a month or so layover in
Corcoran). We were supposedly
sent up here to see DRB, yet thus
far none of us have. In Fact there
are people that have been here
for many years that still haven’t seen DRB
and continue to be skipped over and over
again on the DRB list.
I was told at my classification committee
hearing that I will most likely go to my six
year inactive review next year, long before
I see the DRB on the case-by-case review
for the SDP. So CDC is definitely not trying
to get everyone’s DRB reviews done in a
timely fashion … no surprise there.
We are hearing that the solitary confinement for those of us who are validated
could be lowered to two years in a deal
with CDCR regarding the class action lawsuit filed by the short corridor reps. So if
that is true, that’s a big step in our struggle,
but definitely not an end to it
On another note, I wrote you over a year
ago letting you know that the Rock newsletters you were sending me while I was at
Tehachapi were not getting to me. I 602ed
it and won an appeal. Tehachapi claimed
they would allow them in and were not
keeping them from me. They also claimed
none were ever kept from me. Yet I know
from your letter to me that you were indeed
sending them to me. Well, I have been here
in the Bay for almost five months now, and
recently got two Rock newsletters (July and
August issues) that were re-routed to me
here from Tehachapi and still had my old
Tehachapi address on them, so it’s obvious
you were sending the Rock to me in Tehachapi and they were just not giving them
to me. The last issue of the Rock I received
in Tehachapi was December of 2013. So
they kept a lot of them from me and were
doing the same thing to others there as well.
Anyways, I am glad to receive the Rock
again and hope to continue to do so. I am
enclosing a few more stamps and will send
more when I can. You and Mark keep the
Rock rollin’. We appreciate it. You guys
take care and to hell with this fake ass step
down program sham!
Danny Boy Cisneros
9

Important Notice
Articles and letters sent to the
Rock newsletter for publication are
currently being delivered and received in a timely manner. Please
do not send such materials to third
parties to be forwarded to Rock as it
only delays receiving them and adds
to the workload of those asked to do
the forwarding.
Letters sent to Rock (located in
Seattle) in care of Prison Focus (located in Oakland) can take over a
month to reach us. Send Rock mail
to this newsletter's return address
(below). Anything for publication in
Prison Focus can be sent either to
me or to CPF in Oakland.

Shout Out Box
Shouting out to

Manuel Martinez
at PBSP who donated
60 forever stamps.

Rock On Manuel!

Free Electronic Copy
Outside people can read, download, or print current and back issues
of the Rock newsletter by going to
www.rocknewsletter.com and clicking on the issue of the Rock newsletter they'd like to read.
Outside folks can also have a free
electronic copy of the newsletter sent
to them each month by way of email.
Send requests for a digital copy to
ed@rocknewsletter.com.

On Jailhouse Lawyers
“…jailhouse lawyers often unwittingly serve the interests of the state
by propagating the illusion of ‘justice’
and ‘equity’ in a system devoted to
neither.” They create “illusions of legal options as pathways to both individual and collective liberation.”
Mumia Abu-Jamal,
JAILHOUSE LAWYERS: Prisoners
Defending Prisoners v. The U.S.A.

Ed Mead, Publisher
Rock Newsletter
P.O. Box 47439
Seattle, WA 98146

FIRST CLASS MAIL