Click imagine to order or pick it up at one of three branches of the SF Public Library.

Warning! This book contains adult homosexual material.

Important Press Release

Homeless until I get heard (Click image)

YouTube video

This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Compare these 3 cases

    Sure the criminal cases illustrated below (videos) happened in different states, but ask yourself, should politicians control clemency after viewing these three cases.

    Update on Bobby Bostic case 2/15/2018

      

    SF Bayview Newspaper

    Public Policy Institute of California
    Beyond Bars Videos by:

     My Philoso_tz 

    Support a new clemency system. Bye a bit of my phiosophy or whit on a T-shirt. 

     


    Wednesday
    Jul242019

    Don't buy into the Hype, closing Juvenile Hall isn't Right

    Three members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors vowed to close San Francisco’s Juvenile Justice Center “Hours” after reading, a San Francisco Chronicle series titled, “Vanishing Violence.”

    The Chronicle’s two-part series should have simply celebrated the fact, young people are committing a lot less violence. But the report twisted state data into a disingenuous and distorted excuse for non-experts at City Hall to magically turn into juvenile justice reform experts.

    As slow as governments operate in general, how and why, did San Francisco lawmakers act so quickly (2 months) to pass legislation to close The City’s juvenile hall by the end of 2021?

    Answer: 1. They used the ole White puppeteers’ political playbook that historically has treated Blacks as, inanimate objects. 2. Best described in a Letters to the Editor dated March 31, 2019, where someone acting quicker than the supervisors, has already measured drapes for the facility turned into a “Homeless shelter.”

    I support alternatives to incarceration, mainly because it is never a good idea to have juveniles who commit lower level crimes to be housed with violent juveniles who might need longer to turn from evil. But I have witnessed rival gang members share a Bible. And I’ve witnessed a teenage murderer help a teenage drug dealer learn how to read.

    I describe the actions of the supervisors vote to shut down the juvenile hall as a skydiving stunt where the skydiver tosses his/her parachute out of the plane first, and then jumps out after it.

    And the promise, of promising something better for our troubled youth is laughable, in an I'm not buying that sort of way. What Black San Franciscan, other than the one co-sponsors of this legislation, is gullible enough to fall for that San Francisco trick again? Most of the juvenile delinquents affected by this knee-jerk legislation will be young Black teenagers.

    Part 1 of the SF Chronicle’s Vanishing Violence series highlighted the fact, violence perpetrated by juveniles has drastically reduced in recent years throughout the state of California, to the surprise of all experts who follow juvenile justice.

    Part 2 revealed that the effect of this less crime by juveniles has caused cost to skyrocket.

    I admit to having my own knee-jerk response to reading the series. I even demanded the SF Chronicle correct the figures to reflect my equally bad math. Silly me.

    But then I got a little direction from one of the authors of the Vanishing Violence report. Subsequently, I called the state agency, which did verify the figures. But I also received more helpful direction in getting to the bottom of what I saw as deliberate effort to sway the public’s opinion.

    It appears, investigating journalism reporters working for the Chronicle manipulated data that easily tricked some naïve, gullible and self-serving San Francisco elected officials.

    San Francisco Juvenile Probation Chief Allen Nance encouraged me to look at the annual report and provided the link.

    According to Mr. Nance, “…the county’s investment in juvenile justice goes beyond the Juvenile Probation Department. This analysis should include the Police, District Attorney, Public Defender, Conflicts Attorney’s, Judiciary, Public Health, School District, and Community agencies.” All these services cost approximately, $41,000,000. in the year 2018.

    So, instead of singling out the cost to house one individual at juvenile hall, per year, we should consider what the entire $41 million budget was designed to do: prevent juveniles from touching the doors of our Juvenile Justice Center in the first place. Common sense says some will fall through the crack and wind up at the hall.

    Dividing the $41 million total budget by the number 5,000 (the number of 10 to 18-year-olds reached through all county youth government services) equals $8,200.00 per youth per year. So, if we on average, have 40 youth per day housed at the facility, the cost of “$374,000” per year for some who fell through the crack, if you will, seems high. But who are those youth who are most likely to be housed at juvenile hall?

    Ask Supervisor Hillary Ronen, the lead sponsor of this legislation, where she would place a teenager who runs over a police officer with a stolen car?

    Ask Supervisor Matt Haney a co-sponsor on the legislation where he would place a teenager who robs and shoots a tourist in the back? 

    Ask Supervisor Shamann Walton where he would house a teenager who murdered his adoptive parents by beating them to death with a baseball bat?

    Or ask the other supervisors who voted to close juvenile hall where they would place a 17-year-old who shot his sister in the face 5 times in an honor killing that received approval from his parents?

    I can’t say where these; now men, are today, but as teens they did show juvenile hall staff and volunteers’ appreciation when they were at the hall.

    One statement made by Supervisor Hillary Ronen read in part, “… the rising cost of juvenile incarceration is unacceptable. If the same math used in the Vanishing Violence series was applied to the net being built on the Golden Gate Bridge, we would be spending $5,275,000 per person, per year to prevent some from jumping of the bridge. Is that cost “Unacceptable”? The Juvenile Justice Center should be viewed as our Golden Gate Bridge net. But this net does have a hole that needs repairing.

    In February of 2018, the San Francisco Juvenile Justice Center had a Black History program for ten Black girls housed at the facility at the time. Nineteen women from outside of the facility came up to help and participate in the program. Of the 19, eighteen of the women were White. How did this happen? The program director for the facility is White, and all the programs for the mostly minority youth are conducted by White people.

    Earlier this year, there were two teens held at the hall charged with manufacturing firearms. But the most challenging programs at the facility for these sophisticated youth is making papier-mache. What are the chances these two young men got together and said something like, “When I get out of here, no more gun making for me”?

    I recall members of the 2018 SF Board of Supervisors crying in chambers over a recent shooting that they had denounced. This was followed up a few months later by San Francisco receiving a $185 million windfall. While members of the board went back and forth on how best to spend the funds, they even added another $52 million to satisfy all 11 members priorities. But not one dollar was added to a gun buyback program.

    Deandre Lejon Gantt was released from the San Francisco Juvenile Justice Center with his diploma in March 2019. He was re-arrested July 2019 as the shooter in a Tanforan Shopping Mall shooting. It should be noted, 18-year-old Gantt had a 14-year-old with him, during his arrest and the shooting resulted in a total of 4 San Francisco teens once housed at San Francisco’s juvenile hall are now sitting in the San Mateo County youth detention center.

    Gantt is facing an “Attempted murder” charge. Suppose young Mr. Gantt knew he could sale his guns in a gun buyback program, giving him a real reason to go to Tanforan Shopping Mall?

    July 8, 2019, a Black 15-year-old named Day’von Hann was gunned down on 24th and Capp Street in the Mission. A year ago, he handed out hundreds of flyers as a youth outreach worker for the annual United Playaz’ gun buy-back program.

    In reading of Hann’s death, I recall, the Chronicle’s Vanishing Violence series told an inspiring story of someone who currently works for the organization, United Playaz’. He too was worked at this organization.

    Then I did a little math: I took the Gantt story and added the Hann story and it equals a new piece of legislation for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to act on.

    If the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are tired of gun violence, instead of looking to Congress for stronger gun laws, pass a law that prohibits the filming of any Hollywood type gun scenes in the City and County of San Francisco, and name the legislation after Day’von Hann. If the Board of Supervisors thinks that this idea might be too costly because movie crews will just go elsewhere to film their gun movies, then we will know just how much, is too much to spend on our young people.

    Regardless of what the SF Board of Supervisors promise on housing our most troubled youth after 2021, the great Stevie Wonder has already warned us all about promises by politicians: "You Haven't Done Nothin'."

    Saturday
    Jul182015

    A New Clemency System is coming to California (2020)

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

    --Fredrick Douglass--

    ________________________________________

    Few things can help an individual more than to place responsibility on him, and to let him know that you trust him.

    –-Booker T. Washington--

    ____________________________________________

    This 1400 word SF Bayview opinion explains how clemency; the most powerful tool in criminal justice, has been used and abused over the life of this country. The article also explains why I believe it is time to place this tool for justice in the control of citizens. I do have a "How it works" draft document that I will gladly share with interested individuals upon request.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Its biblical: Exodus 18: 14-27

    14 And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

    15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

    16When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.

    17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.

    18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________

     

    Wednesday
    Jul152015

    We need a Clemency Sysytem for the 21st Century

     

    Tuesday
    Mar222011

    A Constitutional Amendment Proposal

    Background:

    CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
    SECTION 4800-4801
     

    4800.  The general authority to grant reprieves, pardons and commutations of sentence is conferred upon the Governor by Section 8 of Article V of the Constitution of the State of California.

    4801. (a) The Board of Parole Hearings may report to the Governor, from time to time, the names of any and all persons imprisoned in any state prison who, in its judgment, ought to have a commutation of sentence or be pardoned and set at liberty on account of good conduct, or unusual term of sentence, or any other cause, including evidence of intimate partner battering and its effects. For purposes of this section, "intimate partner battering and its effects" may include evidence of the nature and effects of physical, emotional, or mental abuse upon the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence if it appears the criminal behavior was the result of that victimization.

    Proposed Constitutional Amendment:

    1. Repeal the authority of the governor’s power to grant clemency and any sentencing commutations in the State of California under penal code section 4800.

    2. Adopt a new law for clemency protocol as the State's standard practice known as the California Clemency Boards by its inventor Allen Jones. This new clemency process would supersede all known and unknown laws in the State of California dealing with clemency and sentencing commutations. The California Parole Board shall send all recommendations to the new Sacramento office of California Clemency Boards under penal code section 4801.
    Under this new clemency system, a new clemency board shall be created to handle all requests for clemency, commutations and compassionate prisoner releases in State of California. At least one county clemency board shall be established in every county in the State of California to handle considerations for clemency, commutation and compassionate releases due to possible injustice on the part of the State, including prison overcrowding.
    Five citizens randomly selected; using voter or jury pool information, whom reside in the county where the inmate was convicted will judge cases from that same county. If the citizens agree to sit on a clemency board for up to one week, they will be compensated for their services. Service is not mandatory, but the sum of $100.00 a day for the week’s service will be paid within 30 days of the end of service.

    Board members will also be prescreened before sitting on any panel. Board members will review inmate request for clemency, early release, reduction of sentence. While in session, they may review multiple requests for that week’s session.
    Private Citizens, prisoner rights groups and professionals in the field may also petition the board on behalf of an inmate. The citizens of the California Clemency Board will have the power to release any qualified prisoner (once every seven years per individual) reduce his or her sentence. Members of the board can also use their common sense in viewing respected investigative journalism such as “60 Minutes”, “20/20” etc. in granting clemency to an inmate. They may also give a citizen reprimand with a granted release attached to board member’s conditions. Member of the board can choose to take no action if they feel the prisoner was treated in a satisfactory manner by the prison system or judicial process.

    An inmate can apply for a one-time appeal if he/she has been denied release, commutation or compassion by his or her county clemency board. However, the appeal will take place in another county; also randomly selected, from any one of the other 57 counties of California.

    The California Clemency Board will also have the power to grant clemency for humanitarian reasons. This act includes the granting of a State of California pardon to former felons who have turned into pillars of society, which includes no criminal activity in any state of the United States for a yet to be determined time. Release of nonviolent prisoners under established guidelines when prison overcrowding is at unsafe levels will prevent prison overcrowding permanently shall be determined by review of prisoner Central file “C-file” along with prison input.

    Any county who receives a California Clemency Board released prisoner shall also receive from the prison budget the sum of $8,000.00 per release for rehabilitation/reentry services. The county must have State approved rehabilitation services in place to receive these prison budget funds. And the released inmate must register with the county rehabilitation agency within 30 days of release to be eligible for assistance.

    3. Create a State elected clemency administrator (2 four year terms) to handle all affairs of this new agency, including that prisoner requests are delivered to the county level in a timely manner and make rulings on fairness or fraud in the clemency board.

    The first administrator (Secretary of Clemency) appointed shall by law, the inventor of this new agency at no pay to establish California Clemency Boards. Thereafter, the governor will retain power to appoint any vacancy other than due to expired elected term.

    THE CITIZENS OF THE CALIFORNIA CLEMENCY BOARD AND NOT THE ELECTED ADMINISTRATOR WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON CLEMENCY AND COMMUTATIONS. 

    Special note:

    California Clemency Boards is not a get out of jail free card for those bent on committing crime and has many safe guards to prevent abuse of this new clemency process.

    UPDATED: July 18, 2015

    Wednesday
    Mar162011

    California Clemency Boards

    California Clemency Boards is currently a pie in the sky idea that I created to address the issues of injustice in the California prison system. This includes but is not limited to prison overcrowding. The best feature is that it eliminates prison overcrowding permanently, saving billion without risking public safety.

    California Clemency Boards could be described as real, power to the people. This would make it very dificult for overzealous prosecutions. It also contains chcks and balances against prison officials. Proven injustice on the part of the state, COULD LEAD TO THE RELEASE OF A PRISONER.

    California Clemency, as I like to call it, is a 21st century clenemcy system that offers another opportunity to those who have done wrong and deserve to be given another chance in society, by the people of society. In addition, it is designed to help gain the release of innocent prisoners without having to navigate through the current appeals process, which can take years.

    I claim that releasing nonviolent and non-serious offenders can be done safely. If we follow up a release, with proper rehabilitation and incentives, like an official pardon for those who have not returned to any prison of the United States for a certain amount of time. We could greatly reduce the current 70% recidivism in the state of California. 

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-04/bay-area/24811645_1_paroled-secretary-matthew-cate-prison

    California Clemency streamlines the release process for those who are proven factually innocent before a board and not a court which can take years of appeals.

    California Clemency has many benefits. Listed below are a few, however, no prisoner release program will work without a strong rehabilitation program.

    1. Taking clemency powers from the governor, judges and the "3 Strikes law" sentencing and giving new clemency power to a county board of average citizens.

    2. Save taxpayers of the State of California billions in incarceration cost.

    3. Permanently eliminate prison overcrowding by monitoring prison levels and releasing nonviolent prisoners who qualify early to prevent unsafe prison population levels. 

    4. Make the prison and parole system more effective in concentrating on the serious and violent offenders.  

    5. Cause prosecutors to think twice before using their powers to abuse the justice system. 

    6. Offer hope to those who have been wrongly convicted without going through the many years and layers of appeals. (Claifornia Clemency's highest priority)

    7. Streamline the current humanitarian release program for terminally ill prisoners.

    8. California Clemency can be modified for other states or federal use. Once congress sees its success I expect it to see a reluctanly congress create a new federal clemency system.