i’m scheduled to testify on felon voting again at 3 today in the minnesota senate, this time for the crime prevention and public safety committee.

the bill (s.f. 1752) is near the top of the agenda, but things can and do get moved around. i’ll bring the 936,518-page book manuscript that i’m currently reviewing, though i will likely be too caught up in discussion of the other bills to get any work done.

i’m excited and honored to testify, but need to give myself a pep talk to overcome the perceived opportunity costs — missing a good talk in the department and pushing aside other work and pressing deadlines. let’s see…

at least i’ll be able to bring some fresh information back to my delinquency and deviance classes next year. there is always room for new examples in teaching moral entrepreneurs and rule creators. these courses already take up the sociological implications of many of the bills — dna evidence, inmate health care, sex offender notification, drunk driving, and chemical dependency treatment.

these experiences should also help my research and writing. i’m giving a plenary presentation in a session titled “Can Criminology Strengthen Democratic Institutions?” in november. i was planning to focus mostly on the public criminology aspects of the felon voting issue — the johnson v. bush case, op-eds, and information sharing. the legislative experiences will really add some depth if i can get a few notes from the sessions. whether things go very well or things go very badly for me today, it will only help the presentation in november.

cool, now i’m good to go. nothing peps one up better than a nice research opportunity.

Chair: Sen. Leo Foley
3 p.m. Room 107 Capitol

Agenda: S.F. 2540-McGinn: Bloodborne pathogens collection and testing procedures.
S.F. 2380-Ranum: Child pornography offenders conditional release terms.
S.F. 3038-Higgins: Voter challenges prohibition.
S.F. 3039-Higgins: Elections deceptive practices prohibition.
S.F. 3049-Hottinger: Financing statements judicial review expedited process.
S.F. 1752-Hottinger: Convicted felons civil rights and voting eligibility restoration.
S.F. 3252-Higgins: Voters rights modifications and registration facilitation.
S.F. 2684-Johnson, D.E.: Corrections contracts with jail facilities with access to chemical dependency treatment programs authorization.
S.F. 3047-Rest: Mentoring programs BCA criminal background checks request authorization.
S.F. 3374-Ranum: DWI first degree offenses provision modification.
S.F. 3520-Ranum: Sentencing guidelines commission recommendations adoption.
S.F. 3517-Foley: DWI provisions modification.
S.F. 3100-Neuville: Governor background checks authority for residence employees and appointees.
S.F. 3101-Neuville: DNA data and specimen destruction upon acquittal of felony provision modification.
S.F. 3102-Neuville: Criminal sexual conduct victim notification requirements provision modification.
S.F. 2919-Foley: Criminal and juvenile Justice information policy group task force modifications.
S.F. 3170-Fishbach: Uniform fire code appeal procedures modification.
S.F. 3051-Fishbach: Fireworks displays operator permits suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew certification appeal authority.
S.F. 3008-Skoglund: Comprehensive incident based reporting system data access authority expansion.
S.F. 3231-Foley: Corrections Department medical director inmate health care decisions.
S.F. 3251-Ranum: Inmate health screening requirements.
The committee will continue past 5:30 p.m. if necessary.

if you haven’t experienced it, it’s hard to imagine what life in prison is really like. i don’t claim to be an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination, but in spending time with young inmates in a juvenile prison while doing research for my dissertation, i came to understand how little things can mean a lot to incarcerated populations.

the washington state penitentiary in walla walla is now in its fourth week of lockdown. more than 1000 inmates in the main facility are being confined in their cells up to 23 hours a day, fed meals in their cells, and only allowed to shower every third day. the lockdown began on march 1st after three corrections officers suffered minor injuries in altercations with an inmate. the extended lockdown was imposed because prison administrators received reports that more attacks on corrections officers were planned.

the cause of this unrest? a change in dining policies. according to a penitentiary spokesperson:

Inmates are upset because they fear new dining-hall procedures may restrict the amount of food they get as well as their ability to sit where they please, Scamahorn said. Inmate workers who dish out food and those who receive it no longer can see each other, so diners can’t get larger portions through intimidation or friendship, she said.

A new wall with small slits for food trays now separates food workers from diners, and a new rail keeps those waiting for food from mingling with those who have been served.

After they get their food, inmates are required to take a seat in a certain row of tables. In the past, they could go to any table in the dining hall.

A stricter tier-by-tier release to the dining hall also prevents inmates in one tier of cells from mixing with those in another, Scamahorn said.

it may seem like a small thing to those on the outside, but dining privileges mean a lot in prison. they mean so much, in fact, that the institution known as concrete mama is currently in its longest lockdown in more than 25 years.

on a much lighter note, the oregon department of corrections now offers inmates video games as incentives for good behavior. as the oregonian reports, prisoners may earn the right to purchase a $35 plug-and-play video game system preloaded with 50 games after 18 months of good behavior. such incentives have taken on new importance now that 40 percent of oregon’s inmates are serving mandatory sentences and cannot earn time off their sentences with good behavior.

like many other states, oregon has crowded prisons with few options for education or recreation. the dreamgear 50-in-1 video game is in great demand. such incentives seem to be showing promise. the oregonian reports that in the past three years, “misconduct reports, assaults on staff and inmate fights have declined slightly, even as the state’s prison population continued to grow from nearly 12,000 to more than 13,000. What’s more, when prisons began offering incentives in 2003, only about 20 percent of inmates had 18 months of clean conduct. Now, about 35 percent are at that level.”

little things mean a lot to those doing time in prison. whatever your thoughts about the purposes of punishment, it seems clear that offering even minor privileges and small incentives to inmates makes prisons safer places for those working and living with the walls.

eszter hargittai sends word that felon disenfranchisement arose in last night’s episode of the west wing. evidently the Democratic candidate’s partner supports expansion of voting rights. i’d love to see how they handled the issue on primetime. not so long ago, i remember a crowded presidential debate in which none of the actual candidates seemed to have even a nodding familiarity with the issue.

i haven’t watched the west wing in years, but noticed that one of the actors is named bradley whitford. i take it this is not aerosmith’s second guitarist brad whitford (poor dude, i’m sure joe perry has gotten all the play for 35 years). i wouldn’t ask, but i know that the genuine little steven/miami steve van zant has morphed into silvio on the sopranos and an absolutely smokin’ syndicated deejay. one can’t be sure, but i’d guess that the writer of freedom — no compromise would support the expansion of voting rights too.

if you haven’t experienced it, it’s hard to imagine what life in prison is really like. i don’t claim to be an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination, but in spending time with young inmates in a juvenile prison while doing research for my dissertation, i came to understand how little things can mean a lot to incarcerated populations.

the washington state penitentiary in walla walla is now in its fourth week of lockdown. more than 1000 inmates in the main facility are being confined in their cells up to 23 hours a day, fed meals in their cells, and only allowed to shower every third day. the lockdown began on march 1st after three corrections officers suffered minor injuries in altercations with an inmate. the extended lockdown was imposed because prison administrators received reports that more attacks on corrections officers were planned.

the cause of this unrest? a change in dining policies. according to a penitentiary spokesperson:

Inmates are upset because they fear new dining-hall procedures may restrict the amount of food they get as well as their ability to sit where they please, Scamahorn said. Inmate workers who dish out food and those who receive it no longer can see each other, so diners can’t get larger portions through intimidation or friendship, she said.

A new wall with small slits for food trays now separates food workers from diners, and a new rail keeps those waiting for food from mingling with those who have been served.

After they get their food, inmates are required to take a seat in a certain row of tables. In the past, they could go to any table in the dining hall.

A stricter tier-by-tier release to the dining hall also prevents inmates in one tier of cells from mixing with those in another, Scamahorn said.

it may seem like a small thing to those on the outside, but dining privileges mean a lot in prison. they mean so much, in fact, that the institution known as concrete mama is currently in its longest lockdown in more than 25 years.

on a much lighter note, the oregon department of corrections now offers inmates video games as incentives for good behavior. as the oregonian reports, prisoners may earn the right to purchase a $35 plug-and-play video game system preloaded with 50 games after 18 months of good behavior. such incentives have taken on new importance now that 40 percent of oregon’s inmates are serving mandatory sentences and cannot earn time off their sentences with good behavior.

like many other states, oregon has crowded prisons with few options for education or recreation. the dreamgear 50-in-1 video game is in great demand. such incentives seem to be showing promise. the oregonian reports that in the past three years, “misconduct reports, assaults on staff and inmate fights have declined slightly, even as the state’s prison population continued to grow from nearly 12,000 to more than 13,000. What’s more, when prisons began offering incentives in 2003, only about 20 percent of inmates had 18 months of clean conduct. Now, about 35 percent are at that level.”

little things mean a lot to those doing time in prison. whatever your thoughts about the purposes of punishment, it seems clear that offering even minor privileges and small incentives to inmates makes prisons safer places for those working and living with the walls.

eszter hargittai sends word that felon disenfranchisement arose in last night’s episode of the west wing. evidently the Democratic candidate’s partner supports expansion of voting rights. i’d love to see how they handled the issue on primetime. not so long ago, i remember a crowded presidential debate in which none of the actual candidates seemed to have even a nodding familiarity with the issue.

i haven’t watched the west wing in years, but noticed that one of the actors is named bradley whitford. i take it this is not aerosmith’s second guitarist brad whitford (poor dude, i’m sure joe perry has gotten all the play for 35 years). i wouldn’t ask, but i know that the genuine little steven/miami steve van zant has morphed into silvio on the sopranos and an absolutely smokin’ syndicated deejay. one can’t be sure, but i’d guess that the writer of freedom — no compromise would support the expansion of voting rights too.

i’ve been getting lots of research-related correspondence lately and have fallen way behind in answering it. hate mail messages are hard to ignore, though. i don’t get much real jackie robinson-style hate mail, such as that shown at left. dislikemail better describes most of my stuff. still, i’m led to ask: will internet-age attempts at public sociology and public criminology engender ever-greater hate mail?

sometimes friends forward me stuff they encounter in the blogosphere. this week i got word of something posted on a local CraigsList with the subject line: “Most Rapists Vote DEMOCRAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.” it gets much uglier thereafter. i’ll spare you the details, but this one was a clumsy political statement rather than a personal attack.

nevertheless, folks are also upping the ante on personal attacks. in particular, some have made sure to tell me they know where i live by referencing my home address, my family, my car, and other personal details. my friends and colleagues are getting more of this sort of thing too. have you gotten any lately?

i don’t hear much talk about hate mail in discussions of public sociology, but it seems like an inevitable byproduct of the enterprise. often the mail references controversial statements or stories. for example, i got some very colorful email following my appearance in an associated press story viewed as sympathetic to sex offenders. just as often, however, the ehate stems from statements that could hardly be considered controversial (e.g., “the likelihood of recidivism declines sharply with age”).

i haven’t saved this stuff, but i think i’ll start archiving it. i’d share it online, but it is usually crude — not crude in an interesting or revealing way, just crude. i’m not shocked to be called a race-traitor, for example, but such phrases are usually preceded by a string of unimaginative obscenities that i’d rather not repeat. it would sort of defeat the purpose to edit or censor the hate mail and then post it, right?

of course, sometimes people write or say very nice things (love mail?) that leave the academic feeling a little sheepish or shamefaced. i’ve been called a “distinguished political scientist,” for example, and was once introduced as a “civil rights leader from minneapolis.” to make matters worse, there were actual civil rights leaders in the audience that day.

i know that the number of people who read this blog is pretty small, but i’m still shocked that i’ve never seen any hate mail or personal attacks show up as comments — not one! this seems impressive since anyone can leave an anonymous message. so far, the only comments i’ve deleted have been advertisements (hey, you’ve got a cool blog. get cheap viagra here!). when people disagree with posts, they have always — without exception — commented in a constructive and civil way. so far, so good…

i’ve been getting lots of research-related correspondence lately and have fallen way behind in answering it. hate mail messages are hard to ignore, though. i don’t get much real jackie robinson-style hate mail, such as that shown at left. dislikemail better describes most of my stuff. still, i’m led to ask: will internet-age attempts at public sociology and public criminology engender ever-greater hate mail?

sometimes friends forward me stuff they encounter in the blogosphere. this week i got word of something posted on a local CraigsList with the subject line: “Most Rapists Vote DEMOCRAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.” it gets much uglier thereafter. i’ll spare you the details, but this one was a clumsy political statement rather than a personal attack.

nevertheless, folks are also upping the ante on personal attacks. in particular, some have made sure to tell me they know where i live by referencing my home address, my family, my car, and other personal details. my friends and colleagues are getting more of this sort of thing too. have you gotten any lately?

i don’t hear much talk about hate mail in discussions of public sociology, but it seems like an inevitable byproduct of the enterprise. often the mail references controversial statements or stories. for example, i got some very colorful email following my appearance in an associated press story viewed as sympathetic to sex offenders. just as often, however, the ehate stems from statements that could hardly be considered controversial (e.g., “the likelihood of recidivism declines sharply with age”).

i haven’t saved this stuff, but i think i’ll start archiving it. i’d share it online, but it is usually crude — not crude in an interesting or revealing way, just crude. i’m not shocked to be called a race-traitor, for example, but such phrases are usually preceded by a string of unimaginative obscenities that i’d rather not repeat. it would sort of defeat the purpose to edit or censor the hate mail and then post it, right?

of course, sometimes people write or say very nice things (love mail?) that leave the academic feeling a little sheepish or shamefaced. i’ve been called a “distinguished political scientist,” for example, and was once introduced as a “civil rights leader from minneapolis.” to make matters worse, there were actual civil rights leaders in the audience that day.

i know that the number of people who read this blog is pretty small, but i’m still shocked that i’ve never seen any hate mail or personal attacks show up as comments — not one! this seems impressive since anyone can leave an anonymous message. so far, the only comments i’ve deleted have been advertisements (hey, you’ve got a cool blog. get cheap viagra here!). when people disagree with posts, they have always — without exception — commented in a constructive and civil way. so far, so good…

does it seem strange that students convicted of rape remain eligible for federal financial aid but students convicted of misdemeanor drug possession are ineligible? under the “drug provision” of the higher education act, about 200,000 people convicted of drug crimes have been denied educational grants, loans, and work-study opportunities since 2000. drug crimes are the only offenses that trigger this sort of automatic exclusion.

the times reports on a class-action complaint filed by the aclu and student groups against the u.s. department of education. of course, the act only affects low- and middle-income students who would otherwise be eligible for financial aid. african americans are hit hardest. although most surveys find only small black/white differences in drug use, african americans are significantly overrepresented among those convicted of drug crimes.

in predicting recidivism, it is difficult to sort selection effects from education effects. nevertheless, higher education appears to provide an important pathway out of crime for many people. one could certainly argue that it makes sense to place criminal offenders behind non-offenders in the financial aid queue. that said, the selective exclusion of drug offenses seems to make little sense.

my delinquency students know from our class surveys that some of their classmates have committed serious crimes. when they form small groups to complete assignments, the thought that they may be working with admitted violent offenders sometimes causes concern. yet none of these students would give a second thought to working with kraig selken, a plaintiff in this case. he lost financial aid for misdemeanor marijuana possession — a crime to which over seventy percent of my students have confessed.

does it seem strange that students convicted of rape remain eligible for federal financial aid but students convicted of misdemeanor drug possession are ineligible? under the “drug provision” of the higher education act, about 200,000 people convicted of drug crimes have been denied educational grants, loans, and work-study opportunities since 2000. drug crimes are the only offenses that trigger this sort of automatic exclusion.

the times reports on a class-action complaint filed by the aclu and student groups against the u.s. department of education. of course, the act only affects low- and middle-income students who would otherwise be eligible for financial aid. african americans are hit hardest. although most surveys find only small black/white differences in drug use, african americans are significantly overrepresented among those convicted of drug crimes.

in predicting recidivism, it is difficult to sort selection effects from education effects. nevertheless, higher education appears to provide an important pathway out of crime for many people. one could certainly argue that it makes sense to place criminal offenders behind non-offenders in the financial aid queue. that said, the selective exclusion of drug offenses seems to make little sense.

my delinquency students know from our class surveys that some of their classmates have committed serious crimes. when they form small groups to complete assignments, the thought that they may be working with admitted violent offenders sometimes causes concern. yet none of these students would give a second thought to working with kraig selken, a plaintiff in this case. he lost financial aid for misdemeanor marijuana possession — a crime to which over seventy percent of my students have confessed.

i testified at the minnesota senate elections committee today. the “voting rights for felons” bill passed and will be sent on to the full senate. of course, it must also find favor in the house and in the governor’s office to become law. nevertheless, today was a good start for proponents of reenfranchisement.

here are a few scattered observations:

1. a social scientist cannot really present research at such hearings. the legislators want a reasonable summary of descriptive information and basic findings. i’m pretty comfortable in such settings, but i had to reconsider and amend my presentation style to make an impact. asa-style or asc-style would not have been very convincing.

2. the initial version of the bill would have restored rights to both parolees (who have been in prison) and probationers (who are conditionally released in lieu of prison). senator john hottinger, the bill’s sponsor, likely felt that a probation-only bill would have better prospects and amended it accordingly. because minnesota makes great use of probation and sparing use of parole, the amended version would restore voting rights to the great majority of convicted felons in minnesota — approximately 40,000.

3. i waited about three hours and fifteen minutes before the bill was discussed. this helped me learn the procedural norms and behavioral expectations (though, given the delay, i wished i would have eaten lunch beforehand). for example, i learned to direct my remarks and responses to “mr. chair and committee members.” the rules were not much different than those i’ve encountered at faculty meetings. as in faculty meetings, i also learned that it was most effective to keep things brief and to make eye contact with the voters.

4. the testimony on other bills reminded me of the critical importance of basic “social facts” sociology. lawmakers are often hungry for simple descriptive information. even when they are not hungry, they still attempt to deal with the best evidence that is available to them.

5. elections law is a hot area in 2006. there wasn’t an empty chair and many spoke passionately about the right to vote from a great variety of perspectives. the bills addressed issues such as voter intimidation and dirty tricks, the voting rights act of 1965, accessibility for the hearing-impaired and those with other disabilities, free speech rights to display campaign signs in apartment windows, and rules for lobbyists and open meetings.

6. lobbyists wear more fashionable and expensive clothing than state senators. all males wore ties and jackets and i would have felt out of place if i hadn’t.

7. many people duck in and out of the hearings, often whispering to visitors or senators during the testimony on a bill. at one point, lawmakers left the room and hammered out some wording that built consensus on a bill.

8. i was astounded at the recitation of “dirty tricks” used in recent elections to restrict participation. i heard evidence that literature was distributed giving erroneous election dates, that people were threatened with “10 years in jail” if they attempted to vote when they or another family member had been in trouble with the law, that voters were systematically “challenged” simply because they had not replied to certified mail sent by political parties, and other systematic abuses of the system. not surprisingly given the history of voting rights in this country, african american speakers were most passionate and convincing. they argued that such tricks have occurred and that we need to take action to prevent them from occurring in minnesota. whites and others seemed almost agnostic about it.

9. i’m glad i live in a democracy and i feel privileged to be able to participate in some small way in the legislative process. some have compared lawmaking with sausagemaking, but i’m a true believer in the process. plus, i actually like chorizo sausage.

10. two former students were involved in the proceedings. i felt ancient when one told me that she took my class “10 years ago” but happy to hear that i “hadn’t changed much.”

fyi, the picture comes from an alumni magazine thing i did two or three years ago. the photographer fussed over it pretty good — lights and generators and assistants — so i’ll probably use it until i retire. as a st. paul kid, of course, it is kind of cool to be photographed on the state capitol. the books i’m holding are a con law reader (taken from don downs’ poli sci class at the wizversity) and keyssar’s terrific right to vote.