Watching the Inauguration Behind Bars
Published January 21, 2009 @ 02:55PM PT
What does Barack Obama’s message of hope mean to the 5,000 men behind bars at Louisiana’s Angola prison farm? Angola’s prisoners, nearly all of whom will die behind bars, were given the day off work yesterday to watch the celebrations in Washington, D.C., and their reactions ranged from cynicism to awe (at least according to one Wall St Journal reporter):
Ronnie Moran, 50, serving a life sentence for rape, says he appreciated being able to watch the inauguration, but doesn't believe Mr. Obama's election will change anything. "Until we decide to put down the guns and the drugs and stop the violence, it doesn't matter that we have an African-American president," he says. "You can have all the Barack Obamas in the world."
…(Douglas) Dennis has little hope Mr. Obama will tackle the problems of the criminal-justice system. "He's got his hands full: Two wars, the economy is going in the tank and the health-care costs are skyrocketing," says Mr. Dennis. "I'd be surprised if he has time to brush his teeth in the next four years."
…Imprisoned the past 26 years, Jeffrey Lewis, 48, was convicted on two counts of manslaughter and is serving a total of 80 years. He says Mr. Obama's election and swearing in let him think "anything is possible."
He says he will recommit to his work with the hospice where inmates who are terminally ill spend their last days. He also intends to get other inmates to reconnect with their families. "The key is to work and stay useful," says Mr. Lewis.
Warden Burl Cain said the rest of the country could learn something from the more optimistic prisoners, like Jeffrey Lewis:
"My daddy had a phrase: 'We've got to grab a root and growl,'" he says, meaning, it is time for work. He says Mr. Obama shows his inmates that the country is full of possibilities, even in a prison. "If the men here can have hope, then why can't the rest of the country?"
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailComments (3)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Matt has worked and volunteered in various capacities in criminal justice reform for several years. When he's not blogging, he works as the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project. Views expressed here are Matt's, and don't represent the positions of the Innocence Project.
Featured Criminal Justice Actions
-
-
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
194 People
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
No one behind bars has committed crimes as lawless and cruel as the Bush gang. The rich escape punishment. It is an unjust system.
Privitization of prisons was a bad thing. It is a profit institution which seems to grow larger and larger at the expense of the tax payer for corporate profits.
Even our off shore prisons for "terrorists" around the world is abuse of tax payer dollars. We said we do not approve. Our money is used to cause fear in us.
Many prisoners are those who were illegals. They are the under belly of our society who can't seem to get ahead and do crime to survive. Their lives a mess from bad government policy here and in their native countries.
NAFTA and the WTO has just about destroyed the economy in the developed, democratic nations. The 3rd world suffers too since they are the victims of low wages and unfair employment practices. No one wins but the elite few who are heads of the corporations.
Can't they see the whole corporate greed policy of the elite few has destroyed many lives here in America and around the world?
The over population and poverty elephant in the room has not been addressed either. The religiously insane refuse to do it. They are self interested in the own power and wealth. Religion is just another corporate greed institution today.
Posted by J Stevens on 01/24/2009 @ 06:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They can see that corporate greed has contributed to the problem. Corporate/Religious leaders went to school down the hall from Government leaders. They built social networks where each could profit.
It is not in their best interests to ensure quality legal services to the population. "Rule of law" is a contrivance of convienience. We are seeing this at a national level and I have experienced it personally.
Posted by jowey styxx on 01/25/2009 @ 08:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Based on our experiences we have found that those attorneys representing clients tend to avoid engagement, using available evidence and documents to effectively defend their employers.
When we approached the Virginia State Bar about a members failed "strategy", their response was that was our attorneys "strategy" and not under their purview. That we as clients could take action through the courts, of course to solicit the aid of another member results in the same excuses and of course the cost. This meant for us that we could not address the members failure.
The Virginia State Bar then claims that the majority of its members are "diligent" in their representation. I then state that we have selected at least ten law firms to represent us and nine executed a less than "diligent" strategy. From our subset population that indicates a 90% failure rate. The Virginia State Bar cannot support or refute their claims of "diligence" - their claim has no foundation.
Some have made a claim of "word of mouth" would regulate the attorney population. Interesting concept given that the populations in need of service span thousands. Going to sites that "rate" the services of businesses I found that making posts to these sites about a law firm's service does not stick. The "word of mouth" factor does not apply.
Only two parties know what is available to represent a client and one, the client is silenced through name calling and dismissal. If the courts do not hear "extenuating" or "refuting" evidence then the courts judgement is in question. If an attorney chooses to avoid such details the client is not represented and they have not done their job as an "officer of the court".
Posted by jowey styxx on 01/25/2009 @ 08:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.