Posted on 12/08/2002 5:49:57 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
SYRACUSE NY- While many local residents were making shopping lists, a Lyons man spent the first week of the holiday season in jail.
Last month, John Murtari, of Franklin Street, was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment by a federal judge for refusing to leave the Hanley Federal building in downtown Syracuse. He paces corridors there outside the offices of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton hoping to win her support for family law reform.
On Nov. 22, Murtari was taken to Oneida County Jail, where he served his sentence because the Onondaga County jail was full.
"The first thing they do is take your belongings and give you prison clothes: an orange jumpsuit, orange sweatshirt and pants, and a few changes of underwear," Murtari said Friday. "They give you sheets, a blanket and toothpaste, and a toothbrush obviously made by the lowest bidder. Mine was from China. The bristles fell apart by the end of the week.
"Then they take you to your cell - an 8-by-15 (foot) room behind a Plexiglas window with a bed, toilet, sink and table. For the first 24 hours you can't leave the cell. I read a mystery novel the last guy had left there, meditated and did calisthenics.
"After the first day, you spend most of the time with the rest of the prisoners in a common area."
Since 1998, Murtari, has been arrested 27 times for pacing the corridors, picture of him and his 9-year-old son, Dominick, in hand, in Family Courts, sheriff's stations and the federal building. Until last month, he'd never been convicted on any of the charges.
A Catholic, Murtari compared life in jail to spiritual retreats he's attended.
"It's very quiet," he said. "I spent most of the day playing chess or cards. Sometimes I watched TV.
"It's a lot safer than people think. As a typical white-collar citizen, I thought the prisoners would be dirt bags. Most of them are normal people (who are) addicted to drugs or alcohol."
In November, Murtari asked the judge to spare him the 30-day maximum because he plans to fly to Colorado Dec. 18 to pick Dominick up for the holidays.
Murtari founded the Web site Akidsright.org, and started his civil disobedience after his ex-wife won custody of Dominick in the mid-1990s.
For years, the trespassing and loitering charges against Murtari were always dropped.
"It became absurd," Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Southwick. "What he's doing is demonstrating, and for that he needs a permit."
Southwick has asked a federal judge for a restraining order barring Murtari from entering the Hanley Building. Murtari could be sentenced to six months in jail if he violated such an order.
Murtari is appealing last month's conviction, and said he will return Dec. 30 to the Hanley Building.
Funny, I've never seen anything in the 1st amendment that says "permit" to free speech.
Get enough people together and a permit is not needed. What are they gonna do, run EVERYBODY off? I don't think so. Permit, Schmermit, it's total B.S.
Give us your thoughts on the 20,000 gun control laws and the Second Amendment.
I hope this gets plenty of publicity and the entire left hears about it. Afterall, she was supposed to be so big on the Children's Defense Fund. I think the left needs to know that she had one of theirs thrown in jail for being in the corridor instead of giving him an appointment to talk to her...
These statistics only exist when pro-legalization people "cook the books." In New York State, at least, the "non-violent drug offenders" in prison tend to actually be people who are in for second, third or even fourth offenses, and often have histories of violent crime in their records.
Interesting viewpoint. However, it appears that the Florida Department of Corrections disagrees with you (in part). Here is a posting on the Official Florida Department of Corrections website, which states:
" In fiscal year 89-90, 36.1 percent of all admissions to prison were admitted for a drug related crime. Over 16,000 inmates walked through the gates with a drug charge as the primary offense. Some of these inmates were recommitted two and three times during the same year because they were released early by the "Control Release Authority" (Parole Commission). They were considered low risk offenders in comparison to the prison population. In some cases, violent offenders were released early to make room for the new admission of a non-violent drug offender. This criminal justice policy clearly made no sense."
Now, this is an official statement (its posted on their website!), made by a prison system under a Republican administration run by the brother of President Bush. This tends to disagree with you (that is, it specifically states that "violent offenders were released to make room for non-violent drug offenders"). However, note that they are describing a period of time just over a decade ago.
Why are they posting this? Because they next point out that:
"The last fiscal year (96-97), only 22.6 percent of all admissions to prison had a drug charge as their primary offense, which was less than 5,000 inmates. This was down from over 16,000 inmates in fiscal year 89-90. Although felony adult drug arrests and drug admissions to community supervision have remained fairly constant during the last six years, drug admissions to prison have decreased dramatically, thereby saving valuable prison beds for violent and predatory offenders. It is vital that the Florida Legislature continues to provide funding for community-based programs and funding for a balanced criminal justice policy. Community-based outpatient programs operate at a fraction of the cost of new prison construction and extant prisons. Also, over the last six years, residential treatment programs have proven to be very cost effective."
Hmmm. It appears that the Florida prison system under Jeb Bush thinks that locking up people who are non-violent drug offenders is expensive and inefficient. Thus they are using alternative programs.
To your point - in Florida, at least, they are trying to use the prisons for violent offenders. And since they have built more prison space, I suspect they are not having to release "dirtbags" to house these people. Thus the viewpoint that "dirtbags" are released to house non-violent offenders appears to have been true in the past but at least in Florida is no longer true.
Interesting, isn't it? I think that your view of "pro-legalization" people may be uncharitable - they were correct in the past, but due to increased prison building today and usage of programs like these in Florida, they are no longer correct. Yet I would not call them "book-cooking" - just not up to date.
No one gets put in jail because anyone, anywhere, thinks it's something they need. People go to jail because they've engaged in behavior that society wishes to interrupt, or contain (Here in America, punishment is no longer considerd a valid reason, unfortunately).
Drug abuse certainly qualifies under that definition.
You failed to give us your thoughts on the 20,000 gun laws and the Second Amendment.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also supports the Second Amendment -- they just support it as a state right , not an individual right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No problem. He has one.
"Make him disappear, you fools..." |
Very interesting, now. They have the legal means, ala Hitler, to "herd" dissenters into the cattle cars. Historical footnote: Hitler did everything by "legal" means.
Oh, and the "Patriot Act" also includes Carnivore and Know Your Customer, did you know?
You mean her!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.