Crime Committee Report e.indd - New York State Senate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• z The 2010-2011 Executive Budget states that $3.3 million is requested to supplement DCJS’s re-entry efforts of local task forces, not for profits and the criminal justice community. Exactly how will these grants be used? 16 CONCLUSION In December of 2009, Assembly Standing Committees conducted public hearings to gather initial information regarding the implementation of drug law reform signed into law in 2009. The Senate Standing Committee for Crime, Crime Victims and Correction will meet with state commissioners responsible for drug law reform implementation, as well as other stakeholders, to ensure that the law is implemented as envisioned by the law makers. Based on these interactions further action, if necessary, will be taken. 16 2010-2011 Executive Budget, Division of Criminal Justice Services, at p. 330. Standing Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction | 2009-2010 Report 11
VI. 2009 No Delay of Implementation of the SHU Exclusion Law In the 2009-2010 Executive Budget the Governor proposed to postpone the effective date of the SHU Exclusion Law for a period of three years, from 2011 to 2014. Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2008, referred to as the Special Housing Unit (SHU) Exclusion Bill, required an expansion of mental health programs within the Department of Correctional Services facilities. The bill imposed requirements for the housing of inmates with mental illness that exceed those in a Private Settlement Agreement (PSA) that DOCS and the Office of Mental Health (OMH) reached with Disability Advocates, Inc. in April 2007. The SHU Exclusion Law had an effective date of either two years after the DOCS Commissioner certifies that the first new Residential Mental Health Unit (RMHU) is completed and ready to receive inmates or at the latest by July 1, 2011. The PSA required the expansion of several existing mental health programs and creation of a new 100-bed Residential Mental Health Unit at the Marcy Correctional Facility for inmates who are in disciplinary housing but have been assessed as having a serious and persistent mental illness. The SHU Exclusion Law included provisions that could add additional RMHUs beyond the one at Marcy. The Governor also requested SHU Exclusion Law requirements that mental health services be provided at level 3 and 4 correctional facilities be eliminated; and that required special staff training programs be reduced. The Governor argued that adoption of his proposals would save $19 million in 2009-2010 and $27.4 million in 2010-2011. On March 17, 2009, the Senate Standing Committee for Crime, Crime Victims and Correction led a joint public hearing addressing the Governor’s proposal for a 3 year delay of the new law’s implementation. The Senate Committees also weighing in were: the Senate Standing Committee on Health, the Senate Standing Committee on Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, the Senate Standing Committee on Children and Families, the Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Standing Committee on Codes. The public hearing was well attended and reported in the press. Former New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, Attorneys Nina Lowenstein for Disability Advocates, Betsy C. Sterling for Prisoners’ Legal Services and Sarah Kerr for the Prisoners’ Right Project of the Legal Aid Society 17 were some of the witnesses who testified. Lawyers and advocates testified that the SHU Exclusion Law was enacted with an understanding that there was a long-standing failure to provide adequate mental health services in our prisons and that the result included far too many prisoners with serious mental health needs languishing and psychiatrically deteriorating in the punitive segregated confinement settings of the SHU and Keeplock. The SHU Exclusion Law expanded on improvements of court directed settlements and promoted prison safety and public safety. The Governor’s proposal to delay remedial implementation of the law was defeated. 17 Each of these organizations had litigated against DOCS over the rights of the mentally ill and segregated confinement for over 15 years. 12 New York State Senate
Page 1 and 2: NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMM
Page 3 and 4: New York State Senate Standing Comm
Page 5: What is all too often missing in ne
Page 8 and 9: XI. Re-entry Grants: 2009-2010 Cent
Page 10 and 11: XVIII. XIX. XX. S.3744 Transfer of
Page 12 and 13: I. 2009 Protecting The Right To Cou
Page 14 and 15: III. 2009-2010 Civil Legal Services
Page 16 and 17: IV. Stabilizing IOLA and Giving Str
Page 18 and 19: The Basics of Rockefeller Reform
Page 20 and 21: OASAS For instance, the Office of A
Page 24 and 25: VII. 2009-10 Inspection of State Pr
Page 26 and 27: ers and staff have met with scores
Page 28 and 29: IX. Division of Parole - Budget Leg
Page 30 and 31: X. Prisoner Concerns During our pri
Page 32 and 33: XI. Re-entry Grants: 2009-2010 Reco
Page 34 and 35: XII. Troubling Concerns With NYC Ma
Page 36 and 37: Police did not focus on marijuana a
Page 38 and 39: Recomendations: S.65 Sampson - Outl
Page 40 and 41: 4. Many states have declined to ado
Page 42 and 43: XVI. 2009-2010 New York State Senat
Page 44 and 45: Matrimonial Law Reform New York Sta
Page 46 and 47: 2009-2010 Domestic Violence Legisla
Page 48 and 49: Vetoed 8/13/10 memo 6759 of 2010 S.
Page 50 and 51: S6987-A Chapter 405 of the Laws of
Page 52 and 53: Once the Court found Senator Monser
Page 54 and 55: Court Administration, which also pr
Page 56 and 57: the same weight with regard to the
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 271 of the Laws of 2009 S.3
Page 60 and 61: Chapter 412 of the Laws of 2010 S.7
Page 62 and 63: In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (
Page 64 and 65: In terms of the amount of time peop
Page 66 and 67: S.8229 HASSELL-THOMPSON / A 11602 L
Page 68 and 69: 2009-2010 VETOED BY GOVERNOR Paters
Page 70 and 71: XIX. 2011 Reentry Legislative Agend
Page 72 and 73:
S.1340-A MONTGOMERY, DIAZ, DUANE, H
Page 74 and 75:
S.124 SAMPSON, DIAZ, HASSELL-THOMPS
Page 76 and 77:
S.1644 THOMPSON, KLEIN Preservation
Page 78 and 79:
S2741 ADAMS, KRUEGER, MONSERRATE, P
Page 80 and 81:
imposed, or failed to comply with t
Page 82 and 83:
crime, any recommendations by the j
Page 84 and 85:
XXI. Conclusion We have made great
show all

Crime Committee Report e.indd - New York State Senate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?