A notorious federal prison in Dublin, CA, was closed in 2024 after years of complaints of rampant and systematic sexual abuse, medical neglect, and human rights violations. Now, the Trump administration is pushing to reopen the facility as an ICE detention center, but an interfaith coalition of community members and human rights advocates are fighting to keep the facility closed.

Edited by: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Speaker 1:

The Dublin City Council and Representative DeSaulnier, as well as Representative Zoe Loughran, we would like everyone to join them in opposing the opening of FCI Dublin as an ICE detention center.

Speaker 2:

On April 16th, faith leaders and activists gathered outside of a federal correctional institute, Dublin, a site of horrific abuse, neglect, and state-sanctioned violence, calling for the facility’s permanent closure and to reject a plan to use it as an immigration detention center. That’s from a statement released by Interfaith Movement and Human Integrity and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice. The statement further details that countless people incarcerated at FCI Dublin survived being sexually abused by the Bureau of Prison staff and faced inhumane conditions, retaliation and medical neglect, and that now ICE appears to be moving forward with converting FCI Dublin from a BOP facility to an ICE facility, despite congressional opposition, its abusive history and dangerously dilapidated infrastructure.

Speaker 3:

Led an amazing campaign to organize to shut that prison down. We want to honor their dreams that this harm not be continued and perpetuated on other people and other communities. So this is why we’re preventing, here to prevent ICE from reopening Dublin as a detention facility.

Speaker 2:

Immigrants incarcerated at Dublin who are not citizens were specifically targeted by BOP staff who threatened to turn them over to immigration and customs enforcement, or made false promises that in exchange for sex, they could help them stay in the United States. In 2023, the Real News spoke with organizer Erin Neff of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners about the lawsuit filed on behalf of incarcerated women who were experiencing abuse at the prison.

Erin Neff:

In the case of Dublin, just to give it an historical context, 30 years ago there was a horrific incident of abuse upon many people, and there was a big case and a big settlement, and it is heartbreaking to see that 30 years later, the same thing is happening. And what it exposes is a culture of turning a blind eye to this abuse. There’s cooperation, there’s cover-up. It’s very difficult to report, let alone confidentially report. So in recent times, what you’re seeing are people being abused who are undocumented. So first of all, they’re being targeted because the staff knows that they are people who are going to be deported. So there’s an exposure there. They are threatened that if they say anything, they’ll be deported. So these people are people who’ve been here maybe their entire lives, all of their families here, they’re being retaliated against by putting in isolation. They are getting strip searched. It goes on and on. They’re being deprived of medical care, of mental health care.

Speaker 2:

At the recent vigil, outside the gates of FCI Dublin, Reverend Victoria Rue read a statement by Anna, a survivor of FCI Dublin.

Rev. Victoria Rue:

Like so many other immigrant women, I was sexually abused by an officer at FCI Dublin. After I was finally free from the hell of FCI Dublin, I was taken to another hell, an ICE detention center. The conditions at the detention center were terrible. I saw so much suffering. After months and months, I finally won my freedom. I am finally home with my children and trying to heal from the U.S. Government, from what the U.S. Government did to me. When I saw on the news that they wanted to reopen FCI Dublin for immigration detention, my heart fell. That prison is toxic and full of the pain of so many people. I pray that it is demolished, given back to the birds that live on the land there.

Speaker 2:

There was also testimony from Ulises Pena-Lopez, who is currently incarcerated in ICE detention. According to the Santa Clara rapid response team, early on February 21st, as Ulises was getting ready to leave his home, ICE agents showed up and forcibly arrested him, disregarding his rights and his health. Despite Ulises invoking his right to remain silent, to speak with a lawyer and to not exit his vehicle with without seeing a warrant, ICE officers responded with violence, smashing his car window with a baton and dragging him out of his vehicle. Without receiving proper medical care, Ulises was released into ICE custody and is currently being held at the Golden State Annex Detention Center in McFarland, California.

Ulises Pena-Lopez:

It fills me with strength, encouragement, joy, knowing that we are not alone. That you are standing in front of us, that you are our voice and I know and I feel that you’ll never leave us. God bless all of you. Physically, I feel like half of my body is numb, my foot, my right hand. I’m losing vision in my right eye and my face without mobility. Psychologically, I feel like I’m having pauses. They detected my medical and psychological condition as serious and they’re giving me treatment. I can’t sleep. When I call someone or whatever I need, I’m scared. I tremble. I start to sweat. My heart races because of everything they did to me; because of the way we’re not supposed to possess medication in here. If you want two painkillers, you have to submit a request. If you have to put in the request, it usually takes two or three days to be approved.

Speaker 2:

This comes from the statement of Ulises’s campaign and his supporters. They are calling and sending emails to Congress members Ro Khanna and Alex Padilla to demand ICE to release Ulises from the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Center in McFarland and provide access to medical care, treatment and medications.

Ulises Pena-Lopez:

I want to tell you that despite what ICE did to me, when they beat me in front of my wife, in front of my daughter, and they took me to an alley, they continued to beat me. They performed CPR on me to revive me. After they called the ambulance, they still had the audacity to send the ambulance bills to my wife, not once but twice, saying that she is responsible and has to pay for these bills for what they did to me.

Speaker 2:

The list of demands issued by the organizations Interfaith Movement and Human Integrity and California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice includes: honor and uplift survivors of FCI Dublin; demolish and permanently close the FCI Dublin; reject all forms of ICE detention in Dublin and the ongoing terror and criminalization of immigrant communities; return and transform the land to meet community needs and reaffirm that places of worship and religious observance should remain sensitive locations free from the reach of immigration enforcement.

Speaker 7:

Just to close, we know that if Dublin is reopened as an ICE detention center, if people are once again caged in those empty buildings across the street, abuse and neglect will continue. As Dublin survivors have said so many times, the horrors that happened at Dublin are not unique. Abuse is baked into our prison system. Everywhere there are cages, there is violence. In BOP, in ICE in the Santa Rita jail across the street. What is unique about FCI Dublin is that survivors of this violence came together and they organized and they spoke out and they made themselves heard. Dublin survivors shut for years to shut that prison down and they won and it must stay closed forever.

Mansa Musa, host of Rattling the Bars, spent 48 years in prison before his release in 2019. At the invitation of the UMD College Park Young Democratic Socialists of America, Mansa delivered a lecture on his life behind bars and the political struggles of prisoners.

Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

I hope that at the end of this conversation that we have, that y’all will be more enlightened about what direction y’all want to go in in terms of changing social conditions as they exist now. As she said, my government name is Charles Hopkins. I go by the name of Mansa Musa. Prior to getting out in December the 5th, 2019, I did 48 years in prison. Prior to going to prison, I was a heroin addict, a petty criminal, and that’s what got me in prison.

I went in early, I went in ’72, and during the seventies was a tumultuous time in this country. You had Kent State, you had Attica, you had Puerto Rican nationalists taking over the hospital in Bronx, you had the rise of the Black Panther Party in terms of becoming one of the most formidable fighting formations in this country. So you had a lot going on in society, but more important, the number one thing you had going on in society during that time that cost every sector in society was the war in Vietnam. Everywhere you looked, you had protests about the war in Vietnam. And you’re talking about every day somewhere in this country, 75,000, 10,000, 15,000.

People was coming out protesting the war in Vietnam and the establishment’s response was to suppress the movement, to suppress the war in Vietnam. Anybody who was anti-war, their attitude was suppressive. And what got people in an uproar about it was when the media started showing them bringing back United States citizens bodies, and the coffins they was bringing back, they was bringing them back in numbers. So society started looking and said, “Well, this is not a good thing because a lot of people dying.”

And in my neighborhood, I lived in projects in Southeast, my brother in ’68, back then they had, the way they had the draft was, it was like the lottery. Literally that’s what it was. They had balls that rolled up and your number came up, A1, A1. In my neighborhood in the projects in Southeast, my brother graduated in ’68, and in 68, the whole entire, everybody that graduated from high school, the men, was gone to Vietnam. So this shaped the attitude of the country. But more importantly, a lot of people that were coming back from the war in Vietnam was radicalized. And because they experienced a lot of segregation, a lot of classes in the military, a lot of them came back and joined the Black Panther Party.

During that period, the Black Panther Party was, according to Hoover, the number one threat in the country. So the response to them being the number one threat in the country was to eradicate them. Assassination. They killed Fred Hampton, assassinated Fred Hampton, little Bobby Hutton, they assassinated him. And they locked up a lot of Panthers. That’s how I became a Panther because they locked up a Panther named Eddie Conway, Marshal Eddie Conway. And they set him up and locked him up. And I got some information over there, y’all can pick it up when y’all leave.

When he came, so when you got the encouragement of Panthers coming into the prison system, prisoners are becoming politicized. Petty criminals like myself are becoming politicized because now we’re looking at the conditions that we’re living under and we’re looking at them from a political perspective, like why the medical was bad, why the food is garbage, why are we in overcrowded cells? Why is this cell designed for a dog? You got two people in it.

So these things started like resonating with people, but the Panthers started educating people about understanding, raising their consciousness about this is why these things are going on and this is what your response would be. So that got me into a space where I started reading more, because that was one of the things that we did. We did a lot of reading. You had to read one hour a day and exercise. But more importantly, you organized the population around changing their attitude about the conditions. Because up until that point, everything in prison was a kind of predatory.

Then when you had the Attica Rebellion, that created a chain reaction through the country, with the most celebrity political prisoner in prison that got politicized in prison was George Jackson. George Jackson was a prisoner in San Quentin. He spent most of his time in what now they call solitary confinement. They call it the Adjustment Center. Back then in San Quentin. Him and three or two other political prisoners was locked up in [inaudible 00:05:06] killing a correctional officer. After the San Quentin police had killed… [inaudible 00:05:14] police had killed some prisoners in the courtyard who were wrecking. And it was a dispute between white prisoners and Black prisoners. The only prisoners that got killed was Black prisoners. So that created a chain reaction in the prison system.

Fast forward, so this became my incursion into the political apparatus in prison. While in prison, and some of the things I did in prison, my whole thinking back then when I was in prison was I didn’t want to die in prison. I had life and I didn’t want to die in prison. So I would probably go down in the World Book of Guinness for the most failed attempted escapes ever. And if I would sit back here and go back over some of the things I did, it would be kind of comical. But in my mind, I did not want to die. I could have died, I could walk, literally come out on the other side of the fence and fall out and be dead, as long as I didn’t die in prison. It was just a thing about being [inaudible 00:06:19].

And in 2001, a case came out in the Maryland system called Merle Unger, Unger v. State. They said anyone locked up between 1970 and 1980 was entitled to a new trial. So I was entitled to a new trial because of the way they was giving the jury instructions. So at that time, everybody was getting ready to come out. Eddie Conway was on his way out. So everybody’s coming out. Now we’re able, we did a lot of organizing in prison. We had organized political education classes, we had organized forums where we had a thing where they say, “Just say your own words.” We brought political leaders in, radicals in to talk about, had books that they had a political discussion in a forum much like this. And it changed the whole prison population thinking about the way they thought about themselves and the way they thought about themselves in relation to society. So all of us coming out now.

And when I got out, I got out December the 5th of 2019. I got out, I had, they gave me $50 and let me out in Baltimore City. I’m from Washington D.C. They let me out in Baltimore City and I’m standing there with $50. I don’t know nothing. I don’t know how to use a cellphone, I don’t know how to get on the bus, I don’t know how to get from one corner to… I know the area because the area is the prison where the prison was at, where I lived at all my life. So I know the street name. I know this is Green Mount, I know this is Madison, I know the street, I know these streets, but I never seen, that’s like me knowing somewhere I read something about something in Paris. I know the name of the street, but put me there and I wouldn’t know what to do.

So this is the situation I found myself in and I didn’t know what, my family knew I was coming out, but I didn’t know whether they knew this particular time. And so I got $50. I see somebody coming with a cellphone and I’m like, “Look, I got, can I use?” He said, “No, I’m going to get on the bus.” So it was an elderly woman coming off. I said, “Look, miss, I was locked up 48 years. I got $50. You can get 25 of them. I just need you to call this number and tell my people.” And I heard somebody calling from the side, was my family.

Now I’m out. While I’m out, I’m out December the 5th of 2019. It was a major event that came right in that period, COVID. So now I’m like, I’m out in society, but really I’m back in prison because the whole country was locked down. So for most people it was a discomfort. For me, I was like, “Oh, this is all right. I can walk.” You know, I’m like basically walking, like I’m walking in, I’m coming back in. I’m not, you know, there’s not a whole lot going on, so you know. And I’m working out and people dealing with each other from afar. You see the same people, everybody like, “I see you, you have a group.” And we started having like a distant social relationship like, “Hey, how y’all doing? How you doing?” And keep it moving right?

After I got out and when COVID peaked out, I was doing some organizing in Gilmor projects in Baltimore, and backstory on that, we had took a house in Gilmor Projects, which is exactly what it is, Gilmor and their projects. Real notorious. So we took a house, we found out it was city property, we took it, renovated it and made it community property, and we started doing stuff for the kids. Because Eddie, Eddie Conway’s attitude, he’s like, “Kids don’t have no light in their face. It’s real dark.” So we started doing Easter egg hunts, showing movies on the wall, you know, doing all kinds of activities, gardening to get the kids to be kids.

And we took it and when we took it, we say, “We taking this house.” We put the city on and we had a press conference, “Yeah, we took this house, we doing this for the community. Y’all got a problem with that, y’all come down here and tell the community that they can’t have this house.” So the city pretty much like, “Ah, whatever, we ain’t going down there and messing with them people.” So we did, we gave out coats. So this is our organizing.

See, our organizing method was you meet people with their needs, you meet people’s needs. So it’s not only about giving out food and giving clothing, it’s about having a political education environment where you can teach people how to, you know, you got the analogy of Jesus saying like teach people how to fish. Right? Okay, I already know how to fish, now tell me how to survive. Tell me how to store, tell me how to build, tell me how to build out. So this is the things that we was doing and we would put ourselves in a position, we would network with legal organizations. The people had issues with their rent and we know it was a slum lord environment. And we would educate people about this is how you get your rights recognized.

So Eddie, and I’m going to talk about Eddie often, right? Because that was my mentor. Ultimately, he got lung cancer and passed away December, February the 13th a couple of years ago. He passed away the day before my birthday. My birthday was February the 14th. And I was like, when his wife called me and said, “Eddie is getting ready, you know, transition. They in Vegas, can you come out here?” And I’m like, I can’t come out there. But the only thing I’m saying is like, man, whatever you do, don’t die on my birthday. I’m like, because I ain’t going to be able to take it. I ain’t going to have no birthday no more. It’s already sad for me to have to deal with it the day before, but I just didn’t want that memory of him.

But long story short, this individual was responsible for changing the mindset of a lot of prisoners and getting us to think outside the box more or less, right? Our political education, this was one of the things that the Black Panther Party emphasized. So you see, we call it Panther porn. This is Panther porn for us. Panther porn for us is when you see the guns and you know the Berettas and the mugging, that’s Panther porn. What we identified with is the free breakfast program where we fed our kids. We tried to promote the hospital, we tried to promote where we was taking and giving sickle cell anemia tests to our people because we knew they wasn’t doing that. You know, we used to give them free breakfast program. We was getting our food, we had clothes, we was transporting prisoners, families to prisons in California. All out of the way prisons. We was holding political education classes in community and networking with people around their needs and making sure they understood exactly what was going on with them.

One of the questions I seen that was on the question is the difference between abolition as it relates to prison and the police. And we know we had this call for divest, and I’m going be perfectly honest with you. I don’t want to live in a society that there ain’t no law and order. That’s just not me. I don’t want to live in a society where we don’t feel safe. So it’s not an issue of whether or not police should be in the community. It’s an issue of what’s their relationship? They got on their car serve and protect. Okay, if you’re responsible for serving and protecting me, then my interest should be first and foremost and I shouldn’t be targeted. I shouldn’t be like back in the sixties, everybody that had long hair that was white, they was hippies and you was treated a certain way because in their mind you was anti-sociable or anti-establishment. That’s what made you a hippie. It didn’t make you a hippie because you didn’t… Your identity was based on, I don’t really have a lot of interest in the establishment.

But they looked at it as a threat. People had afros, they looked at it as a threat. So when we look at it’s not about abolishing the police, it’s about the police respecting the community and the community having more control over. So if you represent me in my community, then you need to be in my community, understand what’s going on in my community and serving my community according to serve and protect.

Abolition on the other hand is we’re about completely abolishing the prison system. What would that look like? And we was having this conversation, what do that look like? You going to open the doors up and let everybody out? I’ve been in prison 48 years. There’s some people that I’ve been around in prison, if I see him on the street the day after tomorrow, I might go call the police on them because I know that’s how their thinking is. But at the same token, if a civil society, we have an obligation to help people. And that’s what we should be doing.

You know, people have been traumatized and trauma becoming vogue now. You know everybody like oh, trauma experience. So trauma becoming vogue, but people have been traumatized and have not been treated for their trauma. So they dial down on it and that become the norm. So we need to be in a society where we’re healing people. And that’s what I would say when it comes to the abolition. Yeah, we should abolish prison as they exist now, they’re cruel, they’re inhumane. We’ve got the guards in Rikers Island talking about protesting and walkout, wildcat strike because they saying that the elimination of solitary confinement is a threat to them. How is it a threat to you that you put me in a cell for three years on end, bringing my mail to me and say that if you eliminate this right here, me as a worker, it’s going to be threatened by that non-existence. How’s that? That don’t even make sense.

But this is the attitude that you have when it comes to the prison industrial complex. The prison industrial complex is very profitable. The prison industrial complex became like an industry in and of itself. Every aspect of it has been privatized. The telephone’s been privatized, the medical’s been privatized, the clothing been privatized. So you’ve got a private entity saying, “I’ll make all the clothes for the prisons.” You got another private entity saying, “I’ll take, I want the telephone contract for all the prisons.” You got another company saying, “I want to be responsible for making the beds, the metal and all that.”

Which leads me to Maryland Correction Enterprise. Maryland Correction Enterprise is one of the entities that does this. There’s a private corporation that has preferential bidding rights on anything that’s being done in Maryland. I’m not going to say these chairs, but I’m going to say any of them tags that’s on your car, that’s Maryland Enterprise. I press tags. So I know that to be a fact. A lot of the desks in your classroom come from Maryland Correction Enterprise.

So what they’re giving us, they gave us 90 cent a day and you get a bonus. Now, you get the bonus based on how much you produce. So everybody like, so now you’re trying to get… Okay, I’m trying to get like $90 a month. I’m just starting. So somebody that’s been there for a while might be getting $2 a day and some. We pressing tags like till your elbows was on fire because you’re trying to make as much money as you possibly can. You’re trying to produce as many tags as you possibly can to make money.

Well, they’re getting billions, they’re getting millions of dollars from the labor. So I just recently did an interview with a state senator about that because he had put a bill in and I was asking him about it. And then I asked him, I said, “Okay, prisoners going to want to work.” The incentive for prisoners to work is in the Maryland prison system, you get five days off your sentence when you come through the door. Then if you get a job, then some jobs give you 10 days off, so that’s 10 days less that you do in a month. Everybody trying to get in them kind of jobs where you getting less days. So it’s not a matter I don’t want to work and it’s not a matter I like the work that I’m doing. I’m just, the incentive for me to work is really the reduction in my time in prison.

So I asked the state senator, I said, “Listen,” I said, “Would it be better if, okay, everybody going to want to work, wouldn’t it be better if you pass and try to get a bill passed that say that everybody get minimum wage, that they’d be able to pay their social security, they’d be able to pay taxes and they’d be able to acquire some money. Wouldn’t that be the better approach? Because prisoners going to work.” So I realized when I was having this conversation with them. In Kansas, that’s exactly what they’re doing in Kansas prison. They got guys that’s in Kansas prison saved up to $75,000. They got long-term, they’re not going anywhere, but they’ve been able to have an impact on their family and have a sense of responsibility.

So another question that came up was, that I was thinking about is what would be y’all response? What would I say to y’all in terms of what I think that y’all should be looking at? And I’m not here to lecture you, but this is for when we look at colleges and as they relate to the struggle, the majority of people that resisted in the seventies, sixties, they came out of school, they came out of college. You had Angela Davis, you had Huey Newton, Bobby Seales, they came out, they was in college, the Kent State, this was a college., they got rid of Angela Davis because she was teaching on campus, because of her politics.

So college has always been a place where you have a propensity to like being organized or start questioning things and start developing ideas about looking at what’s going on in society today in the country and around the world. We’re in a time right now where, I don’t know how many of y’all read George Orwell 1984, but we’re in like a George Orwellian type of society. And free speech, yeah, it’s only if you talk about a subject matter that is not contrary to capitalism. And then you got the right to free speech, but then you don’t have the right to be heard. So then you got who got control of the media.

So right now getting our voice out or taking a position and you take a position, oh you being anti, so therefore I’m going to take your grant or I’m going to take your scholarship. I only got like one more semester to graduate. Hey so what? And I’m going to blackball you or better still, I’m going to snowball you and put you in an environment where you ain’t going to be able to get a job at McDonald’s. Why? Because I’m trying to control your thinking and make sure that you don’t be organizing in a manner that’s going to be against anything that we’re doing.

We’re getting a lot of information coming out and a lot of people is like hysterical. “Oh my god, I don’t know what I’m going to do.” No, this is what you do, you organize. We don’t have the luxury of saying what somebody else is doing going to dictate me not doing nothing. We should be in the mindset that regardless of what you’re doing, I have a right. This is what they say to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have a right if I want to be transgender, I have a right. I have a right to that. Your morality is not going to determine what I do with myself.

We were just getting ready to do a thing on transgender prisoners. They didn’t have their biology changed. Your biology changed. According to law. You went to court and got an operation. They took you out of a female prison and put you in a male prison because they say that biology aside, you was born a male, not what you are now. And rounded them up and took them to a male prison. Who does this? Who had the right to tell you that you come from another country to come here for a better life? Oh by the way, everybody in Congress, ancestors came here for a better life. So I know they should have no issue with that because they wouldn’t be where they are right now if the Statue of Liberty would say hell no. So we passed that.

But everybody, I ain’t talking about the people that they brought here, the people that was here before them, the indigenous people who said, “Hey, everybody get the hell out. Because this is our…” No. What you want to say that you create this false narrative that people of color from another country is creating all the crime in this country, therefore we’re going to round you all up. Kind of sound like something they did with the Japanese when they put them in internment camps, right? When they say like, these are people that was fighting for this country. These are United States citizens that were fighting in this country. They rounded them up, put them in internment camps because you’re Japanese and we fighting Japan. So your loyalty can’t be with us. Your loyalty got to be with them, or we just don’t care one way or the other.

It sounds like kind of like that. But the point I’m making is we don’t have the luxury to sit back and allow the hysteria that’s going on in this country around some fools to make us say, I’m not going to do nothing, or get into a position where I’m just, I don’t know what to do, I’m giving up. No. Resistance is possible. It starts with education, it starts with political education. It starts with understanding the history. Lenin said that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. We’ve seen imperialism, we’ve seen that imperialism taking shape. So a lot of this is based on the capitalist drive for greed. It’s about greed. A lot of this.

When you talk about taking a country and say, “Oh, we’re going to take the Gaza and turn it into Disneyland.” And what you going to do with the people? “Hey we already bombed them into oblivion so they’d be glad to work, they’d be glad to put on Donald Duck suits and Mickey Mouse hats and get some money.” That’s your reality. Their reality is, “I just want to live a human life.” That’s my reality. My reality, I just want to live human. I don’t have no problem with nobody. I just want to be human and treated like a human.

But when you say something like that, “Oh, you anti.” You ain’t got the right to say nothing like that. And if you say it on campus and you try to get them to take a position on campus, their masters who they invest with, corporate America going to tell them, say no. And Congress going to say, “Oh any money we gave you, we’re taking it back.” So the money, monetary is more important than people’s lives. That’s our reality.

So as we move forward, my message to y’all is don’t settle for mediocrity, don’t settle for nothing less. Whatever you’re thinking that you think should be done, do it. If you think that, but more importantly in doing it, make sure that it’s having impact. When you’re dealing with, like I said, we took that place. We knew that neighborhood, the drug dealers in the neighborhood, this is what they used to say to us when we come through there and say, “Hey, it ain’t a good time to be down here today.” And they give us a warning like, “Y’all can’t come down here today.”

And we was good with that because they knew that it was their children that we was creating a safe environment about. They couldn’t get out of the grips of their insanity and we weren’t trying to get them out of it. Our focus was on the community and people. And we feel that if we educate the people enough, if we educate the mothers, the girlfriends, the wives enough to say like, “Y’all deserve to be safe.” The people that’s not making y’all safe is your boyfriend, your father and them. Y’all need to talk to them and tell them that y’all are making our lives unsafe. All we’re doing is educating you that you have a right.

All we’re doing is coming down there and telling you that we’re doing something with your children. We’re taking your children out of the neighborhood on trips that they’ve never been before. We’re making them feel like they have some value. We’re making them feel like, “Yeah you can get a hug today and there won’t be nothing unusual about it.” This is what we was doing and it had an impact. What they wind up doing with that neighborhood is they did with all of Baltimore, that’s a major, they started tearing down places, boarding up places. So you might be on the block or you might be in the projects and you might live in this house. The next four houses is boarded up, another house, the next two houses boarded up. How can you have a sense of community with all that blight?

Then the trash bins that’s for the area become public trash, and then people just ride by, see a trash bin, throw trash in the area. How can you live in that kind of blight? So when somebody come and say, “I’m going to give you a voucher to move somewhere that you ain’t going to be able to afford in a year,” you’re going to take it on the strength that like you ain’t factored in, I ain’t going to be able to afford it. You say, “I just want to get out of here.” And when they get you out of there, next thing you know they come in and demolish it and they got condominiums and townhouses and it’s affordable housing for somebody that’s making 90, 100,000 dollars a year. But it’s definitely ain’t affordable housing for somebody that’s making less than minimum wage. So that’s my point. And I’m opening the floor for any comments or questions.

Student:

I was going to ask what can everyday citizens, meaning not politicians do to help prisoners?

Mansa Musa:

Okay, and that’s a good question because one of the things that we had, we had a lot of people from the community come into the institution. But what you can do is educate yourself on some of the issues that’s affecting them. Like right now in Maryland they got what they call the Second Chance Act and they trying to get this bill passed to say that after you did 20 years then you can petition the court for a reduction in sentence. It’s not guaranteed you’re going to get it, but it opens the door for a person to have hope, because after you… when you get first locked up, they give you a designated amount of time to file a petition for modification. After that, it’s over with,. The only thing available to you then is parole. If you don’t make parole then you in there forever and ever and ever.

So this is a bill that’s being sponsored by people whose family members are locked up and been locked up for a long time. And it’s a good bill because what it do, it create hope. And when you have hope in an environment, it changes the way people think. So when you have a hopeless environment, and case in point the then Governor Glenn Denning came in front of the Jessup Correction Institution in Jessup because a guy was out on work release, had killed his girlfriend and he had life. So he sent all the lifers back, took them all out of camp and put them all back in prison and then stood out in front of the institution to say, “From now on life mean life, let me tell you that ain’t nobody, any of you got a life sentence, you going to die in prison.”

When he left that prison, the violence went up like that. I mean stabbings, murders and everything because there was no hope. Because now people saying, “I’m going to be here for the rest of my life so I got to dominate this environment.” When the Unger case came out, bills was passed about juvenile life, they got bills passed. They’re saying if you have drug problem you can get drug treatment and the [inaudible 00:33:05] and people started going. It was whole. So to your question, monitor some of these things and look at some of the websites of the institutions, see what kind of programs they offer. They might need some volunteers to come in help with teaching classes. They might need some volunteers to come in to help with some of the activities they doing that’s helping support prisoners. Thank you.

Student:

First of all, thank you for coming out and really appreciate it. It’s great to hear you speak. I had a question, you kind of briefly alluded to it already, but how would you compare the political conditions, especially like during Black Power in the sixties and seventies and eighties, and like the repression that everyone faced, like especially from COINTELPRO and FBI and the police to today, and like what students and people on the street are facing right now?

Mansa Musa:

I think that back then the difference was technology, the internet, where we get our information from and the AI, that’s becoming vastly like the thing now. I think the difference is like back then, and Huey Newton made this analysis, what he called intercommunalism. He talked about that at some point in time technology will become so advanced that we ain’t going to have no more borders, and which we don’t when it comes to information, right?

So the difference is that the fascists are more advanced and pluralism is more insidious. Back then, because you had a lot of repression around class, so Black people was being subjected. So you had the war in Vietnam, we had so much going on that it was easy for people to come and find a commonality. Said, “Hey, we live in this squalor here in Little Puerto Rico and New York. We live in this squalor down here in Brooklyn and so and so. We’re living in…” What’s our common thread? Our common thread is that we’re being treated inhuman. So it was easy to come together around organizing around social conditions.

Now because of so much misinformation and so much control, that it’s hard to really get a read on what is real and what’s not real. You had the president say that when they gave everybody an ultimatum to give their report by the end, like a report card or something at the end of the week and they didn’t do it. He said, so when they put the mic in front of his mouth he said, “Oh, the reason why they didn’t do it is because the people that didn’t submit it don’t work there anyway.” So somebody getting a check in their name, in other words fraud was the reason why you got a 100 workers and only 10 people work there so the other 90 don’t exist anyway, so where that money going? That money going to somebody else’s pocket.

But that was the narrative he painted. But when he painted the narrative, the media is so dim with it that they like, it’s almost like you asking them a question and it’s like, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb, no you’re dumb. And I got a Pulitzer and I’m going back and forth a whole stop. I’m not even going to ask you no more questions. So that’s what we’ve been relegated to. So that’s the difference, but in terms of our response, I’m going to give you an example. When they killed, when them little kids got killed at Sandy Hook Elementary, the children said they going to do something about it. They asked their parents, they went on social media, they started finding everybody had the same attitude. Next thing you know they had 40,000 kids that say they going to Washington.

So now I’m telling my mother, “I’m going to Washington, whether you going with me or not.” So the parents say, “Oh we’re going to chaperone you.” That’s how quick they organize. So that’s the difference. Our ability to organize is a lot fast, it’s a lot quicker now. So we can organize a lot quicker if we come to a consensus on what we’re trying to get done. And our response can be a response of like hysteria. We got to be focused. You know, we got to really sit back and say, they’re going to do what they’re doing. You know? They’re going to do what they’re doing. So if I’m doing around workers, I got every federal worker, I’m getting with every federal worker, I’m organized. I’m not going to sit back and say, “Oh well look…” No. Organized.

You know you got a right, organize, get together, organize, bump Congress, bump, bump, filing lawsuits, bump them doing whatever they’re doing. They the problem. Get organized and say, “Okay we’re going to organize, we’re going to mobilize. We got midterms coming up, we getting in your ass. In the next presidential election, you don’t have to worry about the count, we ain’t going to give one vote. That’s going to be your vote.” That’s what you do, organize. Well don’t, we get caught up in this thing like with Trump, I don’t have no problem with him. He is what he is. My problem is making sure that I tell people and organize people and help people get some type of sense of security.

So we should be food building co-ops, food co-ops. Because $99 for a dozen eggs? No, we should be building a food co-op. We should be doing things where we really looking to each other to start a network. And on campus, we should be looking at how are we going to take and organize ourselves into a block where once we decide an issue then all we’re going to be forced to deal with that issue and try to make a difference.

See some fights is not a fight worth taking because all it’s going to do is cause a loss. So you got to be strategic in your fight. We put a 10-point platform program together for the reason of identifying the social conditions that existed in society as it related for oppressed people. We chose to police the police because that was the number one issue that was affecting people. But our main thing was feeding our children, medical, housing, and education. Those were the main things we did. So we took over education institutions. That was our main thing. Our main thing wasn’t walking around with shotguns and guns. Those was things that we did to protect the community, but our main focus was programs that directly related to serving people’s needs.

Student:

Thank you. Thank you.

Mansa Musa:

You’re welcome.

Student:

Hi, I do have a question. First of all, I want to say great job, amazing conversation and the topics are so important. So I guess my question to you is how do… you mentioned this, like how do college students on campus build morale and boost momentum? Because I know it can kind of be a little iffy and hard to do so, especially if you have that backside fear of like this could cost me my entire like college education and the future I was wishing to build for myself?

Mansa Musa:

Right, and see and that’s not something that shouldn’t be taken into account. I invested in this, you know, and I invested in for a reason. I spent money. This money, my parents put in. They ain’t going to be sitting back like, “What? You did what? All that money going down the drain? Nah, that ain’t happening.” But the reality is this here, you mobilize around educating yourself, raising your consciousness and understanding historical conditions like Kent State, what college students did back then. Vietnam War and groups like this, young Democrats, socialists of America come to create political education classes, bring in speakers much like myself.

We pass around literature of books, videos, and look at those things and develop a space for y’all coming together to talk and discuss, how that’s going to come a direction. And look at issues off the campus. Look at issues like if it’s around in this area right here, how many homeless people exist? How much property do the campus, do the school own? All right, I ain’t telling you, I ain’t going to say like don’t mess with them over in the Middle East because that’s wrong. No, I’m going to say, “Oh, damn, you know what, y’all got all this land and property and within this radius you got like homeless people sleeping on the ground. We asking that you take some of this property and turn it into homeless shelter, and in the name of Ms. Snyder or give it a name of somebody. We asking, now now we’re moving in the area, we’re asking that you take this money and feed some people.

Now in this area, now we’re talking about that. We’re taking that you dig in this area and you help people that can’t, don’t have medical insurance but need certain things that you can get done, like dental. We’re asking that you take this money and putting it… This is things that free dental health. So you can take and say, “We providing free medical assistance at this level. We tested people for sickle cell, we tested people for HIV.”

When Huey and them decided to do the Black Panther Party, they looked at Malcolm and they picked up where Malcolm left off at. That’s how they got in the space that they got. They just took the social conditions said that these are areas you need to focus on, because you got what they call objective and subjective conditions. Objective conditions is what you see every day. The subjective conditions is what we do, how we organize, how we develop ourselves, what we’re doing. Because that’s going to determine how effective we going to be when we go out. So if we can’t come to no consensus on direction then we ain’t going to be effective when we go out. Because somebody going to be saying do this and somebody going to be saying do that, but that ain’t going to be the problem. Problem going to be I don’t like what you doing. So now you my enemy.

Student:

Thank you.

Student:

So I think one of the questions was actually about Maryland Correctional Enterprise. So we could talk about that. Yeah. In response to student concerns about Maryland Correctional Enterprises, President Pines said students concerns is that inmates are underpaid. That’s out of our control and we have to abide by state law. But the other side of the story is that the inmates actually want the employment because it gives them skills. How do we combat this messaging?

Mansa Musa:

All right, so the basic thing, and somebody asked earlier, what can you do? It’s legislation because the argument is why can’t you give them minimum wage? So when we tried to unionize back in the seventies and it’s a celebrity case, North Carolina versus somebody, we tried to unionize, they said no. And the reason why they said no because then you talking about the whole prison in the United States of America, [inaudible 00:44:30] you got 2.9 million people there in prison or better. So you’re saying we in the union, we got the largest union in the country.

So the issue is legislation and advocating for them prisoners to get minimum wage, a livable wage, no matter how much time you got. That allowed for MCE, we’re not opposed to them making money, we’re opposed to them profiting off of us and we’re not getting the benefit of it. So the issue is if I left out of prison and I had my quarter paid into social security, I had my quarters three times over. Now I’m forced to work. I got to work at least three more years or more before I get my quarter. Because when I left the street, I ain’t worked like maybe three years on it all.

But if a person got their quarter while they in, they get minimum wage or they allowed to save money, they can make a contribution to their family. A lot of guys got locked up, they got children, they could do something for their children. They got their mother, their families travel long distances to see them. They could pay for that transportation. The phone calls, they could pay for the phone calls. So they’d be able to take a burden off their family.

It don’t cost MCE nothing. They got preferential treatment and contract for all state institutions. Any institution that’s in state under the state of Maryland, they can do them. Whatever they make, clothes, the chemicals, signs, signs you see up and down there. They do all that. Tags, all the furniture. All the furniture you see in the state cabinet, all that. They do all that. So yeah, they could do that. That’s the alternative is for the legislator to pass a bill that says that prisoners can get minimum wage from any industry, any prison industry. If you hired in the prison industry, then you should be given minimum wage. And they got meat cutting, they do the meats, they do the furniture, they do the laundry for like different hospitals, and they do them tags. Them tags, I’m telling you, that was like… I really realized how people felt on the plantation doing them tags. That was like some… Yeah. That was labor.

Student:

This isn’t on the responses but this is like one of the questions that we’ve thought about. In your previous podcast episode, you interviewed the state senator and he mentioned the 13th Amendment and the connection between prison labor and slavery. So what do you think are some of the connections between the prison abolition movement and like the historical movement for the abolition of slavery?

Mansa Musa:

Right now, you know the 13th Amendment says that slavery is illegal except for involuntary servitude if you’re duly convicted of a crime. So if you’re duly convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. And the difference between that and the abolition movement back in the historical was the justification. The justification for it now is you’ve been convicted of a crime. Back then, I just kidnapped and brought you here and made you work. So the disconnect was this is a human, you taking people and turning them into chattel slaves. Versus, oh the reason why I can work you from sun up to sundown, you committed a crime. But the reality is you put that in there so that you could have free labor.

All that is a Jim Crow law, Black code. It’s the same. It’s the same in and of itself. It’s not no different. You work me in the system. In some states they don’t even pay you at all. South Carolina, they don’t even pay you. But they work you. In Louisiana, they still walk, they got police, they got the guards on horses with shotguns and they out there in the fields. In some places in North Carolina and Alabama, Alabama they work you in some of the most inhumane conditions like freezers, women and men, put you to work you in a meat plant in the freezer and don’t give you the proper gear to be warm enough to do the work.

And then if you complain, because they use coercion, say “Okay, you don’t want to work? We’ll take the job from you, transfer you to a prison where now you’re going to have to fight your way out. You going to literally have to go in there, get a knife and defend yourself. So this is your choice. Go ahead, work in this inhumane conditions or say no and go somewhere and be sent back to a maximum security prison where you have to fight your way out.” So now it’s no different. Only difference is it’s been legislated, it’s been legalized under the 13th Amendment.

And abolition, in response to abolition, so we’ve been trying to change the 13th Amendment. We had an attempt in California where they put a bill out to try to get it reversed, and the state went against it. The state was opposed to it. Because why would I want to stop having free labor? The firefighters in California, they do the same work that the firefighters right beside them, they do the same work, the same identical work. They fighting fire, their lives are in danger. They’re getting like 90 cent a day, maybe $90 a month. They don’t have no 401k, they don’t have no retirement plan, and they’re being treated like everybody else, go out there and fight the fire.

So yeah, in terms of abolition, the abolition movement is to try to change the narrative and get the 13th Amendment taken off, out of state constitutions because a lot of states, they adopted it. They adopted it in their own state constitution, a version of the 13th Amendment that says that except if you’ve been duly convicted for a crime, you can be treated as a slave. If you’ve been convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. That’s basically the bottom line of it. Thank you.

Student:

So like, I saw two questions kind of talking about state repression and like attempts to divide solidarity movements. So how do you kind of feel like state repression has changed over the decades and how can we kind of respond to those situations?

Mansa Musa:

The thing with state repression now is it’s a little bit more insidious. It’s not as overt like it was back in the sixties when they crossed the Edmund Bridge and they beat them, put dogs on them, or like they just took a move in Philadelphia, they burned the house down, burned the whole block down. There’s one house right here we got a problem with, oh hey, you had no business living in that neighborhood. We burned the whole neighborhood down, dropped a bomb on it. Or like they went to in California and they shot the headquarters of the Black Panther Party up. Or they ran down and killed Fred Hampton, drugged him and then came in there and shot him. His wife was in the bed with him. They put like 90 holes in him and not one on her. So you already knew you had the diagram where he sleep at, you knew he was drugged because the agent provocateur spiked his milk. So he was drugged, he was knocked out. And you came in there and killed him and said, “Oh, he fired out the window.”

So the difference is now because of the media and the propaganda, you have a different slant on things, and the fear of corporate America in terms of perpetuating this fear. So you change the narrative. You can’t say certain things. You can’t. If you say certain things about certain people or certain countries, you’re going to be Blackballed, labeled. And the pressure going to come in the form of okay, you don’t care. Okay, I’m going to attack your family. I’m going to find somewhere in the scenario where I can get you to back up. If that don’t work, then I’m going to round your ass up and send you to Guantanamo Bay. I can make up something. We got the illegal combatants. You got people that’s been in Guantanamo Bay since the Gulf War and has not been sent nowhere, had not been, no due process, no where are my accusers. Oh you’ve been labeled illegal combatant, state sponsored terrorism.

So they got so many different things they can say to make it where as though it seems to be an issue of you resisting and your right to protest and demonstration. It becomes you’re a threat to society or you’re a threat to the government. And this is how we’re saying it. We’re saying that, oh you was on the internet with somebody that’s been branded a terrorist. And that become enough to get them to say, “All right, lock them up.”

So now the difference is when they had COINTELPRO, COINTELPRO they was doing all these things and setting people up and killing them. But we knew what was going on and we made people aware of it. Now all this misinformation, it’s hard to get a read on what’s going on. So the response got to be, again, we got to organize ourselves, develop our own information source and all the misinformation, be prepared to identify it and put it in perspective. This is misinformation. And start educating people on understanding that be mindful where you’re getting your information from. We’re addicted to social media. We’re addicted to being like, how many likes I get today? Hey, they don’t like me. Oh my God, I’m having a fit. No, I don’t care if you don’t like me because if they lock you up and send you to another country, you ain’t want to be liked by nobody. I don’t know.

In terms of supporting countries and movements that’s fighting for their liberation in the Congo, in the hemisphere, South America, then yeah, we support a person’s right to self-determination. For us, our position right now should be to educate ourselves, politically educate ourselves to understanding social, economic, political conditions and the relationship they have between us and people. Because people going to resist. People going to be hungry, they’re going to go to stores and take whatever the hell they want to take because they don’t have nothing to eat. That’s just the reality. They ain’t got nothing to do with, I have a propensity to steal. No, I don’t have the ability to pay to feed my children.

Versus somebody that had ability. Food is high. And then medical, they talking about the Medicaid and all that. So if they take that and poor people rely on that, how you going to get the medical treatment that you need? How you going to get the medicine that you need? So these are the areas that, this is when you’re talking about organizing people, you got to look at what they’re doing, what the repression is, how they trying to repress people and organize around the counter to that. What’s the counter to this? What’s the counter to the medical? Do y’all have medical students here? What are their attitudes towards providing services for people?

What’s the problem with mental health? Do y’all have mental health people here that’s in that field? Social workers in that field? Then your responsibility is come and get them to say, “Listen, we need you to go in the community to organize, to help us organize this. Show us how to organize this for the community to get them to be more proactive.” Okay, what’s your purpose of your education? The purpose of my education, I want to get a degree and make some money. Okay, and what? The federal government? What’s your chances of getting a job in the federal government?

They find people that’s on probation, person that got 20 years in one job, get a better job and they put them on probation. They say, “Oh you fired because you’re on probation.” No, I just took a better job. But the arbitrariness of this thinking is that I’m putting fear and I’m turning people into snitches because I’m making you, in order to keep what you got, you got to tell on somebody as opposed to us saying, take the institution of higher learning and look at the different departments and see how you can go into new departments and get them to become more proactive in doing some things in the community.

And that’s the whole thing about the higher learning. Look at these other disciplines and start asking yourself, how can I get them to start doing some things in the community to help raise people’s consciousness? How can we come together to do a plan, a program around how we can invest in the community? How can we get a plan to start dealing with getting trauma to be recognized as a national mental health and get the government to do what they supposed to do in terms of providing services for people that’s been traumatized. And stop, oh, oh yeah, you traumatized but you shouldn’t have did what you did. But you’re saying that trauma, I’m in trauma, that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing. Yeah, but we don’t recognize that because you did it. All we recognize as a problem, we’re not recognizing as it relate to you. Double talk.

Student:

I had a question about the role of electoralism, because one part of the Black Panther Party’s historical activism that’s somewhat forgotten is elections and campaigns like Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland. A lot of the modern American left is starting to be more wary of the use of elections because we’ve seen people who maybe are supposed to represent our values get elected, and then do things against what their constituents want, things like that. But I was wondering if you had any thoughts about if there’s still a role for elections to, you know, be agitational and grow the organization, or you know, how we can make sure that we’re still, you know, being agitational against the establishment.

Mansa Musa:

And you know, Tip O’Neill said, “All politics are local.” And Tip O’Neill was the speaker of the House, the Democrat party back in caveman days. But my position, and to reflect on what you said about Bobby Seale, when the party took that position of running Bobby Seale for mayor, we knew that he wasn’t going to get elected. But the objective was, this was the ability to mobilize people around, educating them around what this government, what the city government is supposed to do, what your government is supposed to do. So now we are on the campaign trail saying, “No, the budget is the people’s budget. The money is the people’s money. The budget got to be like this. If I’m elected, I’m going to do this,” and make him respond to it.

But then at the same token we looked at, when we started doing that, I was telling [inaudible 01:01:59], we started looking at local elections. Our institution of elected. Ericka Huggins, who was a member of the Black Panther Party, she ran for the position to be the director of the Juvenile Services. And when she got in that position, she changed the whole narrative of how they treated the kids. So that was one way we got in there and changed policy.

What we recognize though, that in terms of electoral system, there’s no such thing as two parties. It’s one party, the capitalist party. That’s it, that’s all. They knew that this is reality, this is the reality we confronted with. If you know Biden ain’t going to be able to cut the mustard for two years, just hypothetical, you know he ain’t going to cut the mustard for two years. Why you didn’t in two years at the end there say, “Listen, the Democrat Party that’s responsible for putting all the money up, let’s start getting a candidate now. We’re going to have open primaries, whoever come out there.”

No, you put Kamala Harris, the top cop in this position and expected, one, they’re going to put a woman in there. Hillary Clinton was more qualified and more fascist than all of them put together. And they ain’t put her in there more qualified. She’s secretary of state, senator, her husband, Obama, Biden, Trump, Bush one, two, and three. More qualified than all of them. They definitely wasn’t putting her in there. And then they’re going to turn around and put Kamala Harris in there. That wasn’t happening.

So what you did, so it ain’t made no difference. Trump, they got somebody come on. I don’t know if it’s AI generated or not where he’s saying that he stole the election. That yeah, Elon Musk knew how to work the computers, so that’s why I won Pennsylvania. All right. What we did on that? Ain’t nobody in their right mind think they won’t let this woman get in there. And this is a two-party system and then y’all at the 11th hour, y’all got to… So now you’re putting the pressure on everybody donate, donate. And her position was, “Look what you want to do? What you want to do? So I’m going to do something but my thing is, I’m telling y’all don’t, I’m here. This your alternate. Vote for me, don’t vote for him.”

Why? “Because y’all going to… Look at him.” Yeah. It wasn’t like what I’m offering y’all, what am I offering y’all? How am I changing? Food was still high, gas was high. People’s everyday needs. And he, look, he did a whole bunch of crazy fire too but he played, he ran on that. Oh, he ran on that record. Oh look, y’all can’t put gas in y’all cars? Y’all can’t put food on your table? Oh man, y’all ain’t safe? Yeah, we wasn’t safe when you was in there, we didn’t have food on our table when you was in there. But you saying, “Look. Oh yeah, but look. Forget what I did. Look what they’re doing to y’all now.” Yeah. Come on.

So in turn, in response to I look at the electoral politics like this here, certain municipalities that you can make impact policy, that you can organize people and put people in there that’s going to be responsible to that. Yeah. But when you look at Congress and they beholding to corporations, they beholding to them. You ain’t going to find a Ron Dellums. You ain’t going to find a Clayton Powell. You ain’t going to find these people like this here, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer. You ain’t going to find these people that’s like, I’m here, I’m here as a representative of the people.

Ron Dellums and he was a member of this right here. Ron Dellums was the first one that had congressional hearings about what they were doing to the Black Panther Party. This was when he was in the office and Hoover was in power. And so everybody was scared of Hoover, but Ron Dellums wasn’t scared of him. So when you look at the electoral politics, we got to take the position of Malcolm too. Malcolm said that we’re going to register as independents, we’re going to put our agenda together. You sign onto our agenda. If you don’t represent what you say you’re going to represent, then we’re going to be calling you. The same way we got you in, the same way we’re going to get you out. And make them sign on to that.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I got some stuff over here on Eddie Conway. I got my card over there. We can take a picture of the QR code, Rattling The Bars, real news. Appreciate this, appreciate this opportunity. My call to action for y’all is, you know, just go out, sit back, get together, start brainstorming, look at some of these institutions. How can I get… That’s where you go at, go to these bodies of work, psychology, go to these bodies of work. What are you doing? What’s your position on trauma? Oh, this is my position on trauma. All right, will you be willing to do a trauma workshop in a Black community, in a neighborhood where they traumatized? Would you be willing to help set that up?

Then go out there and find a community where they’re traumatized. Get somebody to say, “Look, hey, we want to come down here and educate y’all on trauma, but more importantly, we want to get the other part of this institution that we have that’s doing wellness to get them to create a wellness program for y’all to do it and make the institution pay for it.” Yeah, you ain’t got to tell them don’t invest in somebody. Say, “Look, invest in this.”

Maryland’s Second Look Act has passed the State House, and now awaits a vote in the Senate. The bill would allow prisoners to request judicial review of their sentences after serving 20 years of prison time. Advocates say Maryland’s prison system is in desperate need of reform; parole is nearly impossible for longterm inmates, and clear racial disparities in arrest and incarceration are immediately evident—72% of Maryland’s prisoners are Black, despite a state population that is only 30% Black. Meanwhile, opponents of the Second Look Act charge that the bill would endanger state residents and harm the victims of violent crimes. Rattling the Bars digs deeper, speaking with activists, legislators, and formerly incarcerated people on the real stakes and consequences of the Second Look Act.

Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Jheanelle K. Wilkins (Maryland State Delegate, District 20):

Colleagues, I rise in support of this legislation, the Maryland Second Look Act, but it may not be for the exact reason that you would think. For me, this legislation is about justice. Was justice served in this sentence? We know that in Maryland, Black residents are 30% of the population, but 72% of our prisons. Our own Maryland data tells us that Black and Latino residents are sentenced to longer sentences than any other group or any other community. I’m not proud of that. Was justice served? For us to have a piece of legislation before us that allows us the opportunity to take another look at those sentences for people who were 18 to 25 years old when convicted, for us to have the opportunity to ask the question, if justice was served in that sentence, why would we not take that opportunity colleagues? If you believe in fairness, if you believe in making sure that our justice system works for all, then colleagues, you will proudly vote yes for this bill.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. According to press releases published by the Maryland Second Look Coalition and the ACLU, “The Maryland House of Delegates passed The Second Look Act on March the 17th, recognizing the urgent need for reform in a state with some of the nation’s most pronounced citizen disparities.” The Second Look Act, House Bill 853, passed a final vote in the House. The vote was 89 yeas and 49 nays. Now, the bill will move over to the Senate, where it has until April 7 to pass. Delegate Linda Foley, representing the 15th District, who voted yes on the bill, sent a statement to The Real News Network providing some critical context. “The Maryland Second Look Act follows many other states, including California, Oklahoma, Colorado and New York, to allow a judicial review of sentences. The Second Look Act allows the individual who was convicted between the ages of 18 and 25 years old to request a review of their sentence by the court after serving 20 years in prison.”

Delegate Foley goes on to cover the details of what this bill achieves. She states, “It’s important to note the critical safety measures in the Maryland Second Look Act. The bill does not guarantee release of any individual. It allows an individual who was convicted between the ages of 18 and 25 years old to request a review of their sentence by the court only after serving 20 years in prison. A judge must evaluate individuals based on strict criteria, including the nature of their original crime, threat to the public, conduct while incarcerated, statements from the witnesses, et cetera. The court may only reduce a sentence if it finds an individual is not a danger to the public and that a reduction of their sentence is in the interest of justice.”

Recently, I spoke with two members of the Maryland Second Look Coalition, William Mitchell, a formerly incarcerated community activist, and Alexandra Bailey, a two-time survivor of sexual violence, about the organizing they are doing around the bill, and why it’s important to support The Second Look Act.

William Mitchell:

The Second Look Coalition is a group of people who come from all different backgrounds, some being returning citizens, some being people in the political realm, some being professors, and we all support what we call The Second Look Act. The Second Look Act is essentially, when an inmate has served 20 years day for day, the judge would have the authority to possibly review that inmate’s sentence, to see if the sentence is still warranted after the person has done tons of things to change their life.

Alexandra Bailey:

The Second Look is a mechanism that is being considered all across the country, and the reason it’s being considered all across the country is because America, for a long time, has led the world in incarceration, and part of the reason that we’ve led the world in incarceration is because we have a hammer and we think everything is a nail. We’ve addressed everything from poverty, trauma, veterans’ PTSD, domestic violence survivors’ responses, young children who are led astray by giving them lengthy prison terms, and we know that this doesn’t keep us safer. This has been statistically proven. If you’re a survivor of violent crime as I am, I think the one thing that all of us would agree on is that we want no more victims. We want a safer society. We want people to be okay so that everyone can be and stay okay.

The first criminal offense that I ever lived through happened when I was a minor. It was a sexual offense, and the person who perpetrated that against me is serving a life without the possibility of parole sentence. I was plagued with the pain of this for many years, for a lot of my childhood and early adulthood, and as I came to my faith and came to forgiveness, what I wanted was to understand why this had happened. I reached out to the person who harmed me, and what I learned is that he had also been harmed. He also had been sexually victimized as a young person, really had nowhere to turn in order to gain support, and lived out the natural consequences of pain, PTSD, lack of health and support, mental health support, and I ended up caught in that cycle of violence.

What I say is, we need to get way upstream on the cycle of violence. Everyone, from those who are remorseful inside to those who are advocates for survivors, as I am, we have the same goal, and the only way that we’re actually going to address that is by taking our resources away from a public safety concept that we know doesn’t work, which is mass incarceration, and transferring it where it should have been, when the person who harmed me suffered his victimization. If that help had been there, if he had been able to go to a crisis center, receive the mental health support that he need, have the education and access that would have allowed him to divert his life and recover from his own trauma, I more than likely would not have been traumatized.

As a survivor, I’m here promoting Second Look because actually, if you take a look around at who our peer recovery specialists are, who our violence interrupters are, our credible messengers, the people who are out getting in the way of other people’s victimization, it is our returning citizens who have kept the peace not just in prison, but are now keeping the peace outside, and based on my own faith, I believe that people who are remorseful deserve a chance at forgiveness. We all deserve a second chance. Also, from a practical standpoint, if my goal is that nobody suffers from what I suffered from, then the people who are best suited to help me, unfortunately in many instances, are currently behind bars.

Mansa Musa:

Brian Stevenson says, we’re not our worst mistake. All right, William, let’s unpack the Second Look, because earlier, we talked about how this allows for a person, the bill that’s being proposed, and you can go over the bill that’s being proposed, after a person has served 20 years, they’re allowed to petition the court for a modification, or to review their sentence, and take certain factors into account. Why can’t they do it anytime? I know under Maryland’s system, don’t you have the right to modification sentence? Don’t you have a right to a three-judge panel? Explain that for the benefit of our audience that doesn’t know the criminal justice system, and understand that.

William Mitchell:

Our Maryland rules, specifically it’s Maryland rule 4-345, subsection E, what it does is, it allows for a judge to have the authority to review a sentence, but that reviewing power is only from five years from the imposition of the sentence. Meaning, if you have a lengthy sentence, no judge is really going to consider, within five years, if you have a lengthy sentence for maybe a serious crime, if you’ve changed your life. Most people’s thoughts on it are, if you’ve committed a heinous crime or something that’s bad in public view, you need to sit for a long time, which may be true. Some people transition, grow and mature at different stages and different ages. My crime, I was 23, so I really wasn’t developed. I had a very immature mindset, though an adult technically, by legal standards, I was still very immature. The law right now, as it sits, say you get 50 years for an attempted murder. You’re 20 years old, it occurred when you were on drugs, maybe you were gang affiliated, family structure was broken.

And then what happens is, you sit in prison, and right now, as the law stands, you could go into prison, take every program, become a peer specialist, work to transform everybody that comes through that door, and unless you are collaterally attacking the legality of your sentence, there is no legal means for somebody to have a judge look at their case for compassionate reasons, or to see if the very system, because the Maryland Department of Correction, their job is to correct criminalistic behavior, but right now you have a department that is supposed to be correcting it, and if they do, there is no legal avenue for you to bring it to the judicial branch and say, “Hey, DOC has done her job. This behavior has been corrected. Now, what’s the next step?”

The system was set up many years ago to punish, to correct behavior, and then in that correction or rehabilitation, to allow the person to assimilate back into the community as a productive member. That has been taken away over the years because one law is added on top of another law, which moots out the point of the first law, and before you know it, you can’t get out. For me, I had a 70-year sentence. That means I would have to serve half of the sentence, 35 years, before I could go for parole. Meaning, I committed a crime, intoxicated at 23, coming out of a broken background, and I would have had to have been 53 to show the parole board the first opportunity to say, “Hey, I’m worth a second chance.” Most people age out of criminalistic behavior, number one, and number two, if you commit in your 20s, by the time you’re 30 something, you don’t even think like that.

I always bring this point to anybody’s mind, whether an opponent or an advocate, nobody can say that they are the same person they were 20 years ago. I would like to meet somebody if they can stay the same from 20 years ago, because just life in general will mature you or change you. Right now, there’s just no way to bring it before the judge or a judicial body, to get any relief. Even if you change your life, right now, you’re pretty much stuck in prison until, if you have parole, you might get the opportunity to possibly get relief.

Mansa Musa:

Alexandra, talk about what you look for in this particular narrative, because as William just outlined, we do a lot of time, we don’t have the opportunity to get relief. We do good works while we’re incarcerated, and we have no way of having that good work brought to the attention of someone that can make a decision. Talk about that.

Alexandra Bailey:

Well, Second Look is just that, it’s just a look. It is not a guarantee of relief. It is not a get out of jail free card. It is literally a mechanism whereby, after two decades of incarceration, where the criminological curve shows us that most people have aged out of crime, that you can petition a judge to show your rehabilitation, and the survivor of your offense or their representatives get to be part of that process. Some of the most miraculous moments that I’ve ever seen are those moments of forgiveness. There’s this false story that goes around, that what prosecutors are doing is giving permanent relief to victims. I’m going to give them, in William’s case, 50 years before anybody can even say hi, and that’s going to heal you. That’s going to make you feel better.

Mansa Musa:

That’s what you mean by permanent relief?

Alexandra Bailey:

That’s what they would say. It’s permanent relief. We are making sure that this person stays safe permanently. Now, there are some people who do not rehabilitate, but in my experience, they’re very much in the minority. The people who do rehabilitate, like I said, they’re the ones raising other people in the prison, getting them out of criminal behavior, and all we’re asking is that the courts be able to take a look. When the survivor steps into that room, and I’ve witnessed this, and actually receive the accountability, the apology, the help that they need from the system, that is where the healing comes in. It’s rarely through punishment. You know that this is true because I watch survivors who have not moved on a single day from the day that this happened to them, and if you’re reliving that trauma day by day, what that tells me is that you haven’t received the mental health counseling, support, grief support that you needed. Why don’t we focus on that and rehabilitation, as opposed to permanent punishment?

To what William was saying, the criminological curve tells us that people age out of crime. Crimes are more often than not committed by young people who very frequently are misguided, and that is certainly true for Maryland, with a particular emphasis on the Black and Brown community. There was actually a national study that was done of survivors, which I was actually interviewed for, 60% of us who have survived specifically violent crimes are for more rehabilitation and second chances than we are for permanent punishment. Permanent punishment doesn’t get us to what it is that we need, which is a safer society, a more healed society, a society that when things are going wrong for folks, there is a place for them to turn. Our lack of empathy and kindness is not serving us.

Mansa Musa:

Also, I had the opportunity to talk to Kareem Hasan. Me and Kareem Hasan were locked up together in the Maryland penitentiary. He’s talking about some of the things that he’s doing now that he has gotten a second chance. I’m outside of 954 Forrest Maryland Penitentiary. I’m here with Kareem Hasan, who’s a social activist now, both us served time in the Maryland Penitentiary. When did you go into the Maryland pen?

Kareem Hasan:

1976, at 17 years old.

Mansa Musa:

All right, so you went in at 17, I went in at 19. When you went in the pen, talk about what the pen environment was like when you went in there.

Kareem Hasan:

Well, when I went in the penitentiary, like you asked me, the first day I went in there, I walked down the steps and it was just confusion. I was like, “Where am I at now?” People were running everywhere, all you hear is voices and everything. It was like you were in the jungle.

Mansa Musa:

Now, what type of programs did they have to offer when you went in there?

Kareem Hasan:

Well, when I went in there, they had a couple of programs, but I wasn’t too interested in the programs because I was still young and wild, running wild. I wasn’t even thinking about educating myself. All I was thinking about was protecting myself, because of all the stories I heard about the penitentiary.

Mansa Musa:

Right. All right. Now, how much time did you do?

Kareem Hasan:

I did 37 years.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, you did 37. I did 48 years. When I went in the penitentiary, they had no programs, like you say, and everything we were concerned with was protecting ourselves. When did you get out?

Kareem Hasan:

I got out in 2013, on the first wave of the Unger issue.

Mansa Musa:

The Unger issue is the case of Merle Unger versus the state of Maryland, that dealt with the way the jury instruction was given at that time, it was unconstitutional. I got out under Unger. When Unger first came out, what did that do for you in terms of your psyche?

Kareem Hasan:

Oh man, that really pumped me up.

Mansa Musa:

Why?

Kareem Hasan:

Because I saw daylight.

Mansa Musa:

And before that?

Kareem Hasan:

Before then, man, I was gone. I was crazy. I wasn’t even looking to get out, because I had a life sentence.

Mansa Musa:

Right. Didn’t you have parole?

Kareem Hasan:

Yes, I went up for parole three times.

Mansa Musa:

And what happened?

Kareem Hasan:

First time, they gave me a four-year re-hear, and then the second time, they gave me a two-year re-hear with the recommendation for pre-release and work release.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

Then they come out with life means life.

Mansa Musa:

Glendening was the Governor for the state of Maryland at that time.

Kareem Hasan:

Yeah, he just snatched everything from me, snatched all hope and everything from me.

Mansa Musa:

Hope, that’s where I want to be at, right there. When Unger came out, Unger created Hope.

Kareem Hasan:

Unger created hope for a lot of guys, because when it first came out, I think it was Stevenson.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

I had it in my first public conviction in 1981.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

But they said it was a harmless error.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Kareem Hasan:

And then, Adams came out, and then, everybody kept going to the library, and everybody was running back and forth. Everybody was standing in those books, because they saw that daylight, they seen that hope.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

And then, when Merle was fortunate enough to carry it all the way up the ladder to the courts, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, they made it retroactive.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

All that time we were locked up, it wasn’t a harmless error. They knew it, but they just kept us locked up.

Mansa Musa:

And you know what? On the hope thing, you’re supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act. You’ve been going down to Annapolis, supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act. Why are you supporting the Maryland Second Chance Act?

Kareem Hasan:

Look at me. I’m a second chance, and everything I do, I always refer back to myself. I’m looking at these young kids out here in the street, and when I talk to them, they relate to me. I need more brothers out here to help with these kids out here, because y’all see how Baltimore City is now. These young kids are off the chain, and they need somebody that’s going to give them some guidance, but they’re going to listen to a certain type of individuals.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

They’re not going to listen to somebody that went to school, somebody that’s a politician or something like that. They’re looking for somebody that’s been through what they’ve been through and understands where they at, because that’s all they talk about.

Mansa Musa:

When you went into Maryland Penitentiary back in the 70s, you said ’77?

Kareem Hasan:

’76.

Mansa Musa:

You had no hope?

Kareem Hasan:

Oh, no. I had a fresh life sentence.

Mansa Musa:

Right. When Unger came out, then we had legislation passed to take the parole out the hands of the governor, that created hope. Then we had the Juvenile Life Bill, that created hope. Your case, had you not went out on Unger, you’d have went out on Juvenile Life, because they were saying that juveniles didn’t have the form, the [inaudible 00:22:12] to do the crime. Well, let’s talk about the Maryland Second Chance Act. Based on what we’ve been seeing and the support we’re getting, what do you think the chances of it passing this year?

Kareem Hasan:

I think the chances are good, especially the examples that we set. We let them know that certain type of individuals, you can let out. Now, there’s some people in there I wouldn’t let out, but the ones we’re talking about will help society, will be more positive for the society, especially for Baltimore City, and we need that.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Kareem Hasan:

The Second Chance Act is something that I support 100%.

Mansa Musa:

What are some of the things you’re now doing in the community?

Kareem Hasan:

Well, I have an organization called CRY, Creating Responsible Youth.

Mansa Musa:

What is that?

Kareem Hasan:

It’s a youth counseling and life skills training program, where we get kids, we come to an 11-week counseling course. After they graduate from the counseling course, we send them to life-scale training courses such as HVAC, CDLs, diesel training, and things of that nature. The program is pretty good, and I’m trying to get up off the ground more, but I need some finances.

Mansa Musa:

How long have you had this idea, and how long has it in existence thus far?

Kareem Hasan:

Well, when I first got the idea, I was in the Maryland House of Corrections, because we had a youth organization called Project Choice.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Kareem Hasan:

I had a young guy come in, and the counselor told me, he said, “Hi son, can you talk to him?” He can’t relate to any of us.” I took the kid on a one-on-one, and the kid said, “He’s trying to tell me about my life, but he’s from the county. He never lived like me. My mother and father are on drugs. I’ve got to support my brother and sister. I’m the one that’s got to go out there and bring them something to eat, because my mother and father take all that money and spend it on drugs.”

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Kareem Hasan:

The kid said, “He doesn’t understand my lifestyle, so how is he going to tell me about my lifestyle?” And then he looked at me and said, “Now see, where you come from, I can understand you. We can talk.”

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

“Because I know you understand where I’m coming from.”

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

“Because you’ve been there.”

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Kareem Hasan:

He got to talking about his mother and father, and he started crying. When he started crying, I was telling him about when my father passed, when I was on lockup, and I was in my cell crying.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Kareem Hasan:

And then, later on that night, I was in bed, and it just hit me. I said, “Cry, create a responsible youth.” That’s how I came up with that name, and just like those boys in the penitentiary, they’re crying out, just like in the Maryland state penal system, the ones that’s positive and they change their life, they’re crying out for help, and we’re here to help. We’re here to create responsible youth.

Mansa Musa:

Last, you will hear from Bobby Pittman, who was in the Maryland Prison system and is now out, a community organizer and leading a bully intervention program. This is what he’s doing with his second chance, in the interest of justice.

Robert Pittman:

Bobby Pittman, I’m from Baltimore. I’m a Baltimorian, and I actually went to prison when I was 17 years old. I was sentenced to a life plus 15 year, consecutive 15 year sentence at 17 years old, for felony murder.

Mansa Musa:

How much time you serve?

Robert Pittman:

I served 24 years on that.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, come on.

Robert Pittman:

The crazy thing, it’s been a year and a few days, it’s probably been 370 days I’ve been free.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. Come on. Welcome home.

Robert Pittman:

Thank you. Since I’ve been out here, it’s been amazing. The things that I learned while I was inside of prison, actually, it carried over, with me out here. Within the last year, I helped 50 people get jobs with a connection with the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development. Shout-out to Nigel jobs on deck Jackson.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, Mr. Jackson.

Robert Pittman:

We’ve got individuals, like a couple of mothers, single mothers into schooling.

Mansa Musa:

Okay.

Robert Pittman:

With full scholarships. Got 10 people into schools, people that never believed that they’d have an opportunity to get their education. We got about 10 people in school. And then, I did all that through my peer recovery knowledge, my lived experience, and understanding where these individuals come from, and assessing these individuals, seeing some things that they might need or whatever.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Robert Pittman:

You know that you can get that. You can do that.

Mansa Musa:

What made you stop, once you got to a point where you said you needed to change, what made you get to a point where you started looking and thinking that you can get out? What inspired you about that?

Robert Pittman:

This is crazy. I actually fell off. I was on lockup one time, and I heard all this screaming and yelling. I’m like, “What is this screaming and yelling for?” It was 2012.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Robert Pittman:

They’re like “The law passed.”

I’m like, “What law?”

They said, “The Unger, the Unger’s passed.” People on lockup are screaming and all this stuff. I can hear, on the compound, individuals screaming and celebrating, and things like this. The crazy thing, they were screaming and yelling about a chance.

Mansa Musa:

Come on, yeah.

Robert Pittman:

You know what I mean? It wasn’t even a guarantee.

Mansa Musa:

I got a chance.

Robert Pittman:

All they know is, I’ve got a chance, because I’ve done exhausted all of my daggone remedies.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Robert Pittman:

But I’ve got a chance right now.

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Robert Pittman:

To have my case looked at again.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Robert Pittman:

That’s when it started.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Robert Pittman:

That’s when it started. The Ungers went out, it wound up being 200 and something.

Mansa Musa:

People started seeing people going home.

Robert Pittman:

People I’ve been looking up to, now they’ve taken my mentor. My mentor is gone. I was happy for them, but now, it made me like I had to step up more, because I had to prepare for my chance. I see it now, Maryland. They said that they had a meaningful opportunity for release through the parole system.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Robert Pittman:

But there wasn’t one person that got paroled since 1995.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Robert Pittman:

It was a fight. It took about six years, but it gave us hope. We’re just waiting.

Mansa Musa:

Oh, yeah.

Robert Pittman:

We’re sitting there like, “Man.” Six years later, 2018, that’s when it was an agreement with the ACLU and Maryland courts that we’re going to restructure the parole system.

Mansa Musa:

Right, for juvenile lifers.

Robert Pittman:

For juvenile lifers, and on that, they created a whole new set of criteria that an individual on parole, or going up for parole had to meet. If they meet these things, the parole commission has the opportunity to release them. I started going through that. I went through it, went through the whole process in 2018, went up for parole and all that, was denied at my first parole hearing, of course. I saw people going home.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, through the system.

Robert Pittman:

I’m sitting there like, “Oh man, I saw somebody go home from parole. This is real.” The first couple I saw, I’m like, “Oh, this is real, now. I see how real this is.”

Mansa Musa:

Right. Talk about what you’re doing now.

Robert Pittman:

Now, I do peer recovery work. I’ve got a nonprofit, Bully Intervention Teams. What we do with Bully Intervention Teams, it’s not your average bully intervention. We look at all forms of injustice as bullying.

Mansa Musa:

Right, you’re talking about bullies.

Robert Pittman:

Yeah, all forms of injustice is bullying. One of the things that I see, I was seeing bullying when I went down to Annapolis this week. They’re bullying individuals through misinformation. This organization will try to make sure these individuals that receive this misinformation will receive proper information, because they’re being bullied through ignorance. It just was horrible. What we do on the weekend, Saturdays, individuals that were incarcerated, a lot of people look at them, “They’re doing good,” but they don’t know the stress of that, because you know what you’re representing. You’ve got to be a certain type of way, because you’re trying to be an example for these individuals. You’re trying to pioneer for these individuals that come out.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, you don’t hae the luxury make a mistake.

Robert Pittman:

We have our session, our peer-run session, where we can just relieve ourselves, because it’s a lot of pressure.

Mansa Musa:

Oh no, that’s there. You’ve got a wellness space.

Robert Pittman:

We need it.

Mansa Musa:

You’ve got to have it, because like you say, our reality is this here. We don’t have the luxury of making a mistake, and everything that we’ve been afforded, and every opportunity that we have, we don’t look at it as an opportunity for us. We look at it as an opportunity to show society that we’re different. Therefore, the person that I’m talking about, who I’m representing on their behalf, I’m saying that I’m different, but this person I’m asking you to give the same consideration that y’all gave me is also different.

We want to be in a position where we can have a voice on altering how people are serving time. One, we want to be able to say, if you give more programs, if you give more hope, you’ll meet your purpose of people changing and coming back out in society. But more importantly, we want to be able to tell the person, like you said, rest assured that you’ve got advocates out there.

The ACLU of Maryland and advocates urged the Senate to pass The Second Look Act, House Bill 853. For those that are interested, the hearing for The Second Look Act, House Bill 853, in front of the Senate Judiciary Proceeding Committee will be held Tuesday, March the 25th, 2025, 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM, in the East Miller Building, room two. For more information, visit Maryrlandsecondlook.com, or ACLUMaryland.org.

There you have it, the real news and Rattling the Bars. We ask that you comment on this episode. Tell us, do you think a person deserves a second chance, and if giving a person a second chance is, in fact, in the interest of justice.

Photo of Linda Foley in committee by Maryland GovPics (CC 2.0). Link to license​.

The fingerprints of antebellum slavery can be found all over the modern prison system, from who is incarcerated to the methods used behind bars to repress prisoners. Like its antecedent system, mass incarceration also fulfills the function of boosting corporate profits to the tune of $80 billion a year. Bianca Tylek, Executive Director of Worth Rises, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss her organization’s efforts to combat prison profiteering across the country, and expose the corporations plundering incarcerated people and their communities to line the pockets of their shareholders.

Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

In the heart of downtown Baltimore lies the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center, commonly called Diagnostic, which is a place where people convicted of a crime go to be classified to a particular prison based on their security level.

December the 5th, 2019, I was released from Reception Diagnostic Classification Center after serving 48 years. I was given $50, no identification, and no way of knowing how to get home. I’m not from Baltimore, I’m from Washington, D.C, and I heard my family member called me. I realized then that I had a way home. This is the state that most people are released from the Maryland system, and prison in general. No source of income, no identification, and no place to stay. So I had a few items, so I had to go get my stuff from my apartment. So they let everybody else look… Everybody came out the back, but they let them go “pew, pew, pew.” So most of them dudes wasn’t long term, they was familiar with the layout, right? Me, I know… I’m familiar with Green Mountain Madison, right? Me and another dude stand down here on the corner. I’m like, “Man…”, because I ain’t know my people. I ain’t know my people here was going to be, I ain’t know if they had got… Because they wouldn’t let me make no collect calls. Right? So every time, and I had money.

Speaker 2:

You’ve been released, and they…

Mansa Musa:

I had money on the books. I’m serious. They wouldn’t even let you make the call. So I kept on dialing, and it would go to a certain point, then it cut off, but my sister say, “Look, come on. Something going on. Let’s go down there.” This is what this show is about. This show is about giving a voice to the voiceless.

As we venture into the segments and the stories that we’ll be telling, we want people to take away from these stories, the human side of these stories. More than anything else, this is not about politics. This is about humanity. We’re trying to address the concerns of people, their families, their friends, and their loved ones that’s affected by the prison industrial complex, be it labor, be it medical, be it the food, be it being released with all identification and just a minimal amount of money to get home, and you don’t even live in the city that they released you from. Rattling the Bars will be covering a multitude of subject matters and a multitude of issues, and we ask that you stay tuned and tune in.

Welcome to this episode of Rattling the Bars. Recently, I had an opportunity to talk to Bianca Tylek, executive director of Worth Rises. Worth Rises is an organization whose mission is to complete abolishment of the prison industrial complex as it now exists, they have a strategy where they identify major corporations that are investing in or exploiting labor out of the prison industrial complex. You’ll be astonished at how many corporations have their tentacles in the prison industrial complex and the amount of money they’re sucking out of it in astronomical numbers, but first, we’ll go to this interview I had with Lonnell Sligh, who was on one of our previous episodes to talk about the impact the prison industrial complex is having on the communities at large.

We’re in East Baltimore at Latrobe Projects talking about how, in the shadow of the Maryland Penitentiary and Diagnostic, the housing projects are affected by the existence of these prisons. Many women walk out of their houses in Latrobe into the Maryland prison system, and why? Because of the devastation of the social conditions that exist in this particular community.

Now, my interview with Lonnell Sligh.

When I first got out, I never thought I’d be out and not be in the van. These vans right here, this is all our modes of transportation, three-piece shackle, and that’s how we’re being transported.

Lonnell Sligh:

What we said about the gloom and doom, one of the first things that I noticed when I got to MRDC was the projects and the kids playing outside of their area. Looking out and seeing the kids, and they looking up at this place. So I’m making a connection of that pipeline, because this all they see.

Mansa Musa:

Then when… That’s what he’s seen. What I seen when I came here, this building wasn’t right here. This was a parking lot. This building wasn’t right here. This was a lot. So the kids had a clean shot to the Maryland Penitentiary. So every kid that lived in these projects right here, this is what they seen. They see barbed wire on the Maryland Penitentiary. Then they seen another big building come up, there’s another prison. Then they seen this is a prison, and outside their front door, what they see when they come out their house is barbed wire and a wall.

Lonnell Sligh:

So it might be ill concealed to us, but for them and their mindset, this was a perfect, “Oh man, we got our clients and our…”, what’d you call it when you check in the hotel? Our patrons, you know what I mean, right here, because they got their industry, they got their pipeline, they got everything that they designed this to be.

Mansa Musa:

As you can see from my conversation with Lonnell Sligh, the prison industrial complex has a devastating impact on everyone. The men and women that’s in prison, the communities that they come from, the infrastructure they build on, the entire system has devastating consequences that should be recognized and addressed.

Some communities that they’re building, it’s the major source of their industry, like in Attica and Rikers, Hagerstown, Maryland, Louisiana, but some communities that they’re building, they’re building it for one reason only. To occupy the psyche of the community. So people walk out of their houses every day, this is all they see, and ultimately they find themselves in these spaces, but now you are going to see who’s behind this, the corporations that’s responsible for this exploitation.

I have the list right here. The Prison Industrial Corporation Database put out by Worth Rises. Super Ammo, Visa Outdoors, Warburg Pincus, 3M, T-Mobile, Tyson Foods, SS Corporation, Advanced Technology Groups, major corporations that are using prison labor to exploit it, profit, and profit alone, with no regard to human life.

Now my conversation with Bianca Tylek.

Yeah, we’re talking to Bianca Tylek from Worth Rises. Tell us a little bit about yourself, Bianca, and how you got in this space.

Bianca Tylek:

Sure. Thank you so much again, Mansa, for having me, and so great to meet you, and I’m glad that you’re home. My name is Bianca Tylek, as you noted. I am based in the New York area, and I’m the executive director and founder of Worth Rises. We are a non-profit criminal justice advocacy organization that works nationally to end the exploitation of people who are incarcerated and their loved ones and dismantle the prison industry.

I came to this where I founded the organization, it’s seven and a half years ago now, and we’ve been doing a tremendous amount of work all over the country towards our mission, and I come to this work through a few different sort of paths. I think most recently, I’m an attorney. Before that, I was on Wall Street, and so I actually worked in the investment banking and corporate sector, and then I think previously, what really makes me passionate about this issue is that I was myself an adjudicated youth and had others in my life who had experienced incarceration and were touched by this system, and all of those sorts of experiences collectively have brought me to this point.

Mansa Musa:

Worth Rises is dedicated to dismantling the prison industrial complex, it’s an abolition group, and as I listened to some of the things that you talked about, I thought about the war in Vietnam when the North first became known for their ferocious fighting where they had what they call a Tet offense, and the Tet offense was like when they had their initial salvo of repelling or resisting the United States and South Vietnam, and I thought when I heard some of the ways you was attacking this industry, that came to mind how systematic your group is in terms of dismantling, as you say, dismantling this group.

Bianca Tylek:

Yeah, I appreciate that so much. So I would say we have a three part strategy that we deploy at the organization, and it is narrative policy and corporate, and so each one of those tentacles is sort of a part of how we approach the industry, and specifically not so much guilting it as much as demanding and forcing it and pressuring it into better getting out or not exploiting our people in the same way, and so just to expand a little bit on each, our narrative work is really designed to help educate the populace, the American people and beyond on the harms that the prison industry is committing.

I think in particular, we know that the prison industry is an $80 billion industry, more than that these days, and a lot of people just simply do not know and are not familiar with it. Folks who have done time, like yourself, are familiar with, for example, the cost of phone calls in prison, but a lot of people walking the streets are not. They don’t know that phone calls are so expensive, they don’t know the cost of commissary, they don’t know that people pay medical co-pays, they don’t know that people are making pennies, if anything, an hour for work, and I think often, when we talk about these things, people are pretty surprised, because all of the modern media has people convinced that you go to prison, you get everything you need, and it’s some kind of luxurious, pushy place to be.

So a lot of our role is to simply… Through our narrative work, what we’re trying to do is get people to understand the reality of prisons and jails, both what the experiences are of people there, the exploitation that happens, and then importantly, at the hands of who, and that’s the industry, and so we do everything from published research to storytelling and beyond to help people really understand what the prison industry is.

So that’s sort of the narrative work, and that really builds the foundation, because we need informed people in order to be able to cultivate their outrage into action, and that leads us to our policy work. Our policy work is really designed to undermine the business model of the industry, and so we work to change legislation and regulations that would sort of hinder the ability of these companies to continue to exploit people in the exact same ways, and so for example, what that means is when it comes to prison telecom, where we know that one in three families with an incarcerated loved one is going into debt over the simple cost of calls and visits, and the large majority of those folks are women who are paying for these calls.

So what we have done in the last about five or so years is we have started a sort of movement to make communication free in prisons and jails. We passed the first piece of legislation in New York City in 2018 to do so, and since then, we’ve been able to pass legislation at the county, state and federal level to make communication entirely free, and today, over 300,000 people who are incarcerated have access to free phone calls, and so that changes the business model and revolutionizes the space entirely.

We also managed to pass game-changing regulations at the FCC to curb the exorbitant charging of phone calls in those places that still do charge for calls, and then finally, in our corporate side of the work, we sort of harness the work we do on the narrative side and the policy side to bring these corporations that are exploiting our communities to account, and really, in some cases, shut them down.

So we have companies that we’ve gone… We’ve had investors divest, we have removed their executives from the boards of cultural institutions like museums. We have blocked mergers and acquisitions. I mean, we’ve done all types of corporate strategies when it comes to those who are exploiting folks who are incarcerated and their loved ones, and we’re bringing some of them to their knees fully to bankruptcy, and so that is the kind of work that we do and really stress that it’s time that this system stopped responding to the profit motives of a few.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, let’s throw in this examination because in California, they was trying to get a proclamation passed about the 13th Amendment, because the genesis of all this has come out of the legalization of slavery under the 13th Amendment. I think that a lot of what we see in concerns of us versus the interest of them comes out of the fact that they can, under… Anyone duly convicted of a crime can be utilized for slave labor, and in California, they voted against this proclamation. How do you see… Is this a correlation between the 13th Amendment prison industrial complex, and if it is and you recognize that, how do y’all look at that? Because this industry is always fluid, it’s continuing to grow, it’s got multiple tentacles, and it’s all designed around profit. So when it comes to profit and capitalism, profit is profit is profit. That’s their philosophy. So however they get it, whoever they get it from, but in this case, they got a cash cow. Talk about that.

Bianca Tylek:

So we actually run a national campaign called End the Exception campaign that is specifically about the 13th Amendment. So we’re very close to this particular part of the fight. So if you visit EndTheException.com, you’ll see that entire campaign, which is, like I said, a campaign to pass a new constitutional amendment that would end the exception in the 13th Amendment.

While we run the national campaign at the federal level, which has over 90 national partners, a lot of states are taking on similar causes, including the state of California, and so California was one of several states in the last five or six years that brought a state constitutional amendment through a ballot initiative. Eight others have won in the last five years. So I do think despite the fact, and I have thoughts about California, despite the fact that California lost, other states like Alabama, Tennessee, Oregon, Vermont have all passed, and so I remained hopeful that it’s something that we can do both at the state level, but also at the federal level.

I think unfortunately, California lost, I think for various reasons, both the moment in time in California. There was also Proposition 36, which was expanding sort of tough on crime policies, and I think Prop 6 got a little bit mixed up into that. The language of Prop 6 was really not particularly helpful, and I think some of the local efforts also needed to coalesce and have those things happen, maybe, and hopefully it would’ve passed. It lost by a relatively small margin, albeit it did lose.

So I think your question, though, about how do these things relate, I mean, I guess what I’d say which degree with you, which is that I think that exploitation in prisons and jails is absolutely rooted in antebellum slavery, right? I think that what the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment in large part did was certainly, obviously, free a lot of people, but it also transitioned slavery behind walls, where you can’t see it, and then our carceral system, because in the years that followed during reconstruction, the prison population went from being 99% white to being 99% black. Many of the practices of antebellum slavery were shifted into the carceral setting and became normalized in that setting and continue today.

I tell people all the time, when you think of solitary confinement, which, as you know, is often referred to as the hole or the box, those are terms that come from antebellum slavery. When enslaved people disobeyed, their enslavers, they would be put in what was called the hot box or a literal hole.

Mansa Musa:

A hole, exactly.

Bianca Tylek:

And held there in darkness, in solitary without food, separation affairs, things like that, and those are essentially punishments that we’ve just modernized, but don’t actually change the true function of them. They’re meant to break down people into obedience, and the same terminology is used and the same practices are used.

Consider another example. When people who are enslaved again would disobey their enslavers, they would often be separated from their families. Their children would be sold off or their spouse would be sent away. Well, similarly, when people who are incarcerated exhibit what the system would call disobedience, they can be denied visits and phone calls with their families, contact, right? All of these sort of penal sanctions that exist today were the same ones that existed then, just in a newer 2025 version, and so I’d say I think much of… And that’s not to obviously mention the most obvious aspect, which people in prison are forced to work and they’re forced to work often for essentially nothing, and then are expected to be grateful for crumbs when given 15 cents or 30 cents on the hour or something like that, and so I think it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that the system isn’t once that was adapted from antebellum slavery.

Mansa Musa:

As you can see from our conversation with Bianca Tylek, the extent to which the prison industrial complex and corporate America merge is beyond imagination.

She was once involved with the criminal justice system. This in and of itself helped her to focus on what she wanted to do. She worked on Wall Street, and while on Wall Street, she started seeing the impact that corporate America was having on the prison industrial complex, the profit margin. From this, she developed this strategy and this organization on how to attack it. As you can see, she’s very effective, as is her organization, in dismantling the prison industrial complex.

Recently, I had the pleasure and opportunity to speak to some young people at the University of Maryland College Park. The group is the Young Democrat Socialists of America. You’ll see from these clips how engaging these conversations were, and when they say we look to our future, remember, our movement started on the college campuses. The intelligent element of society started organizing. As they started organizing, they got the grassroots communities involved, and this is what we’re beginning to see once again.

Student:

So today we have a speaker event with Mansa Musa, AKA Charles Hopkins. He is a former Black Panther, political prisoner. He’s done a lot of activism after re-entering society. He spent nearly five decades in prison, and that kind of radicalized him in his experience, and you can learn a lot more about him today during this meeting.

Mansa Musa:

We’re about completely abolishing the prison system. What would that look like? We was having this conversation. What did that look like? You’re going to open the doors up and let everybody out? I’ve been in prison for their year. It’s some people that I’ve been around in prison. If I see him on the street today or tomorrow, I might go call the police on it, because I know that’s how their thinking is, but at the same token, in a civil society, we have an obligation to help people, and that’s what we should be doing.

People have been traumatized, and trauma becoming vulgar, everybody like, “Oh, trauma experience.” So trauma becoming vulgar, people have been traumatized and have not been treated for their trauma. So they dial down on it, and that become the norm. So we need to be in a society where we’re healing people, and that’s what I would say when it comes to the abolition. Yeah, we should abolish prisons as they exist now. They’re cruel, they’re.

You got the guards in Rikers Island talking about protesting and walk out, wild cat strike, because they saying that the elimination of solitary confinement is a threat to them. How is it a threat to you that you put me in a cell for three years on end, bringing my meal to me, and say that if you eliminate this right here, me as a worker is going to be threatened by that not existing? How is that? That don’t even make sense, but this is the attitude that you have when it comes to the prison industrial complex.

The prison industrial complex is very profitable. The prison industrial complex, it became like an industry in and of itself. Every aspect of it has been privatized. The telephone’s been privatized, the medical has been privatized, the clothing’s been privatized. So you got a private entity saying, “I’m going to make all the clothes for prisons.” You got another private entity saying, “I want the telephone contract for all the prisons.” You got another company saying, “I want to be responsible for making the bids, the metal,” and all that. Which leads me to Maryland Correction Enterprise.

Maryland Correction Enterprise is one of the entities that does this. There’s a private corporation that has preferential bidding rights on anything that’s being done in Maryland. I’m not going to say these chairs, but I’m going to say any of them tags is on your car, that’s Maryland, it’s Maryland Enterprise. I press tags. So I know that to be a fact. A lot of the desks in your classroom come from Maryland Correction Enterprise. So what they giving us? They gave us 90 cents a day, and you get a bonus. Now, you get the bonus based on how much you produce. So everybody… Now you trying to get, “Okay, I’m trying to get $90 a month. I just started.” So somebody’s been there for a while, might be getting $2 a day and some. We pressing tags till your elbows is on fire, because you’re trying to make as much money as you possibly can, you’re trying to produce as many tags as you possibly can to make money, but they’re getting millions of dollars from the labor.

Student:

In your previous podcast episode, you interviewed the state senator, and he mentioned the 13th amendment and the connection between prison labor and slavery. So what do you think are some of the connections between the prison abolition movement and the historical movement for the abolition of slavery?

Mansa Musa:

Right now, the 13th Amendment says that slavery is illegal except for involuntary servitude if you’re duly convicted of a crime. So if you’re duly convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave, and the difference between that and the abolition movement back in the historical was the justification. The justification for it now is you’ve been convicted of a crime. Back then, I just kidnapped and brought you here and made you work. So the disconnect was, this is a human, you’re taking people and turn them into chattel slaves, versus, “Oh, the reason why I can work you from sunup to sundown, you committed a crime,” but the reality is you put that in there so that you could have free labor. All that is is a Jim Crow law, black code. It’s the same. It’s the same in and of itself. It’s not no different.

You work me in a system… In some states, they don’t even pay you at all. South Carolina, they don’t even pay you, but they work you, and Louisiana, they still walk… They got police, they got the guards on horses with shotguns, and they out there in the fields.

In some places, in North Carolina and Alabama, they work you in some of the most inhumane conditions, like freezers. Women and men. Put you to work in a meat plant in the freezer and don’t give you the proper gear to be warm enough to do the work, and then if you complain, because they use coercion, say, “Okay, you don’t want to work? We’re going to take the job from you, transfer you to a prison, where now you’re going to have to fight your way out.” You are going to literally have to go in there and get a knife and defend yourself. So this is your choice. Go ahead and work in these inhumane conditions, or say no and go somewhere and be sent back to a maximum security prison where you have to fight your way out.

So now it’s no different. Only difference is it’s been legislated, it’s been legalized under the 13th Amendment, and in response to abolition, so we’ve been trying to change the 13th amendment. We had an attempt in California where they put a bill out to try to get it reversed, and the state went against it. The state was opposed to it. Why would I want to stop having free labor? The firefighters in California, they do the same work that the firefighters right beside them… They do the same work, the same identical work. They’re fighting fire, their lives in danger, they getting 90 cents a day, maybe $90 a month. They don’t have no 401k, they don’t have no retirement plan, and they’re being treated like everybody else. “Oh, go out there and fight the fire.”

So yeah, in terms of abolition, the abolition movement is to try to change the narrative and get the 13th Amendment taken off out of the state constitution, because a lot of states, they adopted it. They adopted it in their own state constitution, a version of the 13th Amendment, that says that except if you’ve been duly convicted for a crime, you can be treated as a slave. If you’ve been convicted of a crime, you can be treated as a slave. That’s basically the bottom line of it. That’s our reality.

So as we move forward, my message to y’all is don’t settle for mediocrity. Don’t settle for nothing less. Whatever you thinking that you think should be done, do it. If you think that, but more importantly, in doing it, make sure it’s having an impact.

There you have it. Rattling the Bars. As you can see from these conversations, the seriousness that corporations have on the prison industrial complex, how they’re exploiting prison labor with impunity. We’ve seen this from the conversation we had with Bianca Tylek, who talked about her involvement with the criminal justice system, but more importantly, how she worked on Wall Street, how she developed this strategy of dismantling the prison industrial complex by going straight to the heart of the matter, corporate America. Her strategy, the organization’s strategy is to dismantle it one corporation at a time.

We’ve also seen it from our conversation with Lonnell Sligh, as we talked about the impact that these corporations have on the community, how most communities live in the shadow of major prisons, like in East Baltimore, the troll projects, where kids come out every day and see these buildings and ask their parents, “What is that?”, and their parents say, “Oh, that’s where you going to go if you keep doing what you’re doing,” or, “That’s where your uncle’s at,” or, “You don’t want to go there.” At any rate, it has no positive value to their psyche, but more importantly, we’ve seen how the youth are taking the stand to change and find this place in the struggle.

The exception clause and exception movement to abolish the 13th Amendment is constant, and on the rise. We have suffered some major setbacks, we’re trying to get legislation passed, but the fact that we have a consensus on, “This has to go,” because this is the reason why we find ourselves in this situation, where corporations have unlimited access to free prison labor with impunity. We ask that you give us your feedback on these episodes. More importantly, we ask that you tell us what you think. Do you think the exception clause should be passed? Do you think they should abolish the 13th Amendment, or do you think that corporations should be able to profit off of free prison labor? Do you think that communities should not be overshadowed by prisons? That our children should have the right to be in an environment that’s holistic? Or do you think that our youth that’s taking a stand against corporate America, fascism and imperialism should be given coverage? That institutions of higher learning should be held accountable for who they invest in? Tell us what you think. We look forward to hearing from you.

Across Maryland’s prison system, incarcerated workers assemble furniture, sew clothing, and even manufacture cleaning chemicals. In spite of making the state more than $50 million annually in revenue, these workers are compensated below the minimum wage in a system akin to slavery. But how does the system of forced prison labor really work, and how do state laws keep  this industry running? Rattling the Bars investigates how Maryland law requires government institutions to purchase prison-made products, and how legislators like State Senator Antonio Hayes are working to change that.

Producer: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to Rattling The Bars. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak to State Senator Antonio Hayes from the 40th district of Baltimore City about a bill he sponsored around prison labor in Maryland. The bill was designed to regulate Maryland Correctional Enterprise, which is the prison industry in Maryland, around their preferential treatment they receive for contracts, be it furniture, tags, clothing, or any chemicals that’s used for cleaning. The purpose of the bill was to regulate how much money they were getting from free prison labor.

Antonio Hayes:

They bring in anywhere in a high $50 million a year in business that they’re generating. So they perform everything from furniture making to license plates, to, in some cases, even on the Eastern shore, they have inmates working on poultry farms and agriculture. So the variety of services that they offered have expanded dramatically since its inception.

So here’s the thing, it’s not just state universities. All state universities are using it. The General Assembly is using it. The Maryland Department of Labor is using it. The Maryland Department of Education is using it. Maryland State Police is using it. Maryland DHS is using it. If you are a state agency, you are required by state procurement law to purchase from MCE as long as they have the product. So that’s why they’re able to bring in that type of revenue. Like I said, if you look at their annual reports, it’s somewhere around $58 million a year.

Mansa Musa:

Later, you will hear a conversation I had with former prisoner Lonnell Sligh, who was sentenced in Maryland, but was sent out of state to Kansas. And while in Kansas, he worked in prison industry. I was surprised to hear how Kansas is treating this prison labor force versus how prisoners are being treated throughout the United States of America. But first, you’ll hear this conversation with Senator Antonio Hayes.

I want you to talk a little bit about why you felt the need to get in this particular space, because this is not a space that people get in. You hear stuff about prison, okay, the conditions in prison, the medical in prison, the lack of food, parole, probation. But very rarely do you hear someone say, “Well, let me look at the industry or the job that’s being provided to prisoners.” Why’d you look at this particular direction?

Antonio Hayes:

Yeah. So interesting enough, I’ve been supporting a gentleman back home in Baltimore that has an organization called Emage, E-M-A-G-E, Entrepreneurs Making And Growing Enterprises. So the brother had reached out to me and said, “Hey, I’m manufacturing clothing, but I hear the correctional system is teaching brothers and sisters behind the wall these skills. I’d like to connect with them. So when brothers and sisters return into the community, I’d like to hire them.” Muslim brother, real good, very active member of the community. So I said, “Excellent. Let me reach out to Corrections.”

So I found the organization, MCE-

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. Maryland Correctional Enterprises.

Antonio Hayes:

Maryland Correctional Enterprises. And I asked them to come out and do a site visit with me so we could build a pipeline of individuals returning back to West Baltimore, Baltimore City period, especially if they’re already learning these skills so they could get jobs. And I’ll never forget the CEO at the time responding to me, pretty much saying, “Look, we’re in the middle of a pandemic. How dare you invite us to come into the community?” So I was taken aback by the thought that they would clap back in such a way. But if you look at my legislative agenda, it’s really focused around economics. A lot of the things that I push is around economics.

When my mom showed me how to shoot dice in West Baltimore-

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Antonio Hayes:

… one of the things she used to always say, “If it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense.”

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Antonio Hayes:

So when I looked at this, like why MCE existed and the fact that they had a procurement law in the state, a preferred provider status, there’s three organizations that have a preferred provider status. It’s America Works, who hire individuals that have disabilities to have employment. Because if they didn’t do it, these individuals would probably be getting state resources from some other pot. But it takes people who have disabilities, so people who are somehow impaired. There’s another organization called Blind Industries.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Antonio Hayes:

They supply janitorial products to the state of Maryland, and these people are blind or visually impaired. And then you had MCE, which were people who were incarcerated for whatever reason. And it didn’t seem to really fit with the other two that were serving populations of individuals with disabilities. So then I began to research even more the existence and how much money they were generating. And I found out, here in the state of Maryland, they were generating revenue of upwards of fifty-something million dollars a year. Whereas, the individuals who are incarcerated, the individuals that were doing the work, were getting paid no more than a $1.16 a day. So that alarmed me, one, the fact that they had a monopoly, because they were eliminating opportunities for other individuals to participate in the economy. Right?

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Antonio Hayes:

So they had a monopoly over. And then two, they had an unfair advantage, because they were essentially paying wages that were subordinate to any other wage anyone could afford. So their overhead was so much cheaper, because they were taking advantage of the status of people who are incarcerated and paying them far less than anyone else could even think of competing against.

Mansa Musa:

And you know, it’s ironic, because as we’re sitting there, we’re talking, and we’re at this table, these chairs, all this furniture was made at Maryland Correctional Enterprise. But on back, I worked in the cash shop at Maryland Correctional Enterprise. And prior to becoming Maryland Correctional Enterprise, it was State Use-

Antonio Hayes:

State Use Industries, correct.

Mansa Musa:

… which is my next lead to my next question. So this particular, going back to your point, it’s three people, or it’s three organizations, three industries that get preferential treatment, but they created… In your research, did you find out that they created this entity solely to be able to get that preferential treatment procurement, or was it a bid more on who is going to get the third slot? Because the first two slots, I can understand, they [inaudible 00:07:45] the Maryland Penitentiary. Some guys had brought in. And they were networking with the Library of Congress to try to bring all the books in the Library of Congress into Braille. And they were getting minimum wage, and they were paying it to the social security. All that was being done in that entity.

But from your research, was this particular… Maryland Correctional Enterprise, was this created as an institution by the private sector for the sole reason to have access to the label?

Antonio Hayes:

Right. So what I found was, actually, the federal government at some point had made it against the law to transfer prison-made goods across state lines. So in order for the industry to… So also, there’s some tie to this. This has really evolved as a result of the abolition of the 13th Amendment.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Antonio Hayes:

So when you had the abolition of slavery, and individuals… They lost a workforce that they would’ve had.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Antonio Hayes:

So there was a need to supplement that workforce, and the way they did that was through the, what is it called? The loophole in the constitution-

Mansa Musa:

The constitution, right.

Antonio Hayes:

… that said that slavery was illegal except for those who were being incarcerated-

Mansa Musa:

Convicted of a crime, right.

Antonio Hayes:

… due to convicted of a crime. But in Maryland and another state, I think they needed a way to create an artificial audience, because they didn’t necessarily have an audience to make the purchases in order to make it sustainable. So what they did was they put this preferred provider label on it through the state procurement so they could create an audience and customer base to support the work that they were doing.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. And now I can see. I can see it now, because, like you say, it’s all about exploitation of labor on the 13th amendment, giving them the right to use convicted convicts. So they saw that loophole, they saw the opportunity.

Antonio Hayes:

Yes.

Mansa Musa:

This is continuing black hole. They saw the opportunity. Okay. As we wrap up on this particular segment of this thing, you spoke on the economics, that’s your focus. And we know that, coming out of prison, a person having job, the likelihood of coming back to prison is slim to none. Because if you got an income… This is just my philosophy, and I’m a returning citizen, I came out of prison. Once I got an income, it allowed me to be able to get my own place. It allowed me to be able to create a savings. It allowed me to get my credit score.

In terms of, from your perspective, what would it look like if, and this is something that you might want to look at from your office level, as opposed to the opposition of them having that right, wouldn’t it be more feasible if they gave minimum wage? If the advocacy from policy would be, “Okay, you get this preferential treatment, but in order to get it, you have to provide minimum wage and you got to let them pay into their social security.” Is that something that you could see happening?

Antonio Hayes:

I think something that shows that isn’t as unbalanced as the current system is, is definitely where we want to be. Remember, a lot of the stuff that I do is around economics. I would’ve never looked at the criminal justice system or this system as something that I would want to focus on. I just wanted to make sure that individuals that were returning back to the communities that I grew up in, West Baltimore, had an opportunity to be successful. And this current system, the way it’s structured, it doesn’t give individuals an opportunity to transition back into the community, to have a greater chance of success. It’s literally setting them up for failure.

And my last visit to Jessa, I met three individuals, if you combine their sentences together, they had a hundred years. Some of them were life, some of them were never coming back to the community, ever. And I know to some degree, you need something for these individuals to do. But what I’m told anecdotally is the people that most likely will have these opportunities are people who have very long sentences. Because from a labor perspective, going back to the whole 13th Amendment thing, it’s more predictable that they will be around for a long time, as opposed to just the opposite, using this as a training opportunity. So when they reintegrate back into society, they will have a better chance of being successful and a productive member of society.

I think this current system, the way it’s working, even if you look at the suppliers, where are they getting the equipment from? We’re subsidizing MCE, and the supplies we’re getting from, from somewhere out of state. Right?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Antonio Hayes:

We’re not even doing business. This wood is being procured from some out of state company. We’re not supporting Maryland jobs. So I think we need to just reevaluate and deconstruct piece by piece, how could we better get a better return on its investment, not just for the state, but also for the individuals who are producing these products that we enjoy?

Mansa Musa:

That was Senator Antonio Hayes, who, as you could see, sponsored a bill to try to get the labor force, prison labor force in Maryland regulated. We’ll keep you updated on the developments of that bill.

Now, my conversation with Lonnell Sligh. Lonnell Sligh told me about his experience in working with the prison industry in Kansas. He told me that the average prisoner in Kansas has saved up to $75,000 while working in prison industry. That it doesn’t matter how much time you’re serving, if you have a life sentence or not, most of the prisoners that’s working in the industry have long term. But because of them being able to work in the prison industry, they’re able to save money, to assist their families, pay taxes, buying to social security, and more importantly, live with some kind of dignity while they’re incarcerated.

Lonnell Sligh:

The blessing of me going to Kansas, I saw the other side of that slave industry that we called and we thought about for so many years. Now, going to Kansas, I saw an opportunity where they afforded guys to work a minimum wage job. And in that, guys were making living wages. I met guys that had 60, 70 or a hundred thousand dollars in their account.

Mansa Musa:

From working in the prison industry?

Lonnell Sligh:

From working in the prison industry. So when I saw that, that kind of changed my mindset. Because at first, I thought it was a joke. Because they asked me say, “Hey, Mr. Sligh, you want to work in the minimum wage shop? Because you’re doing a lot of good things.” And I said, “Man, get out of here.”

So going back to what I was saying, when I found out that it was true and I was afforded to get a job there, it changed my whole outlook on it. Because now, my wheels started turning on, how can we make this better?

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lonnell Sligh:

You know what I mean? How can we change the narrative?

Mansa Musa:

Right. Okay. In every regard, okay, how did you change the narrative? Because, okay, now, reality being reality, Kansas might be an anomaly, and by that, I mean that might be in and of itself something that they doing. But overall, when you look at the prison industry throughout the United States of America, and it’s massive, they don’t have that narrative. So what would you say? How would you address that? What would you say about the Kansas model and the need to adapt it to other states’ prison industries?

Lonnell Sligh:

Well, you know firsthand that when I first came back to Maryland, my whole mindset was bringing some of the things from Kansas back to Maryland and taking some of the things that was progressive and good for Kansas back to Kansas. Now, the prison industry, we are in process now trying to bring that to Maryland. And one of the things that I’m advocating for, and I’m sure, because in the process when I got the job and I saw how we can, it’s an opportunity to make some changes and make it better for the people that’s inside, I crafted a set of guidelines and things that I presented to the administration.

So one of the things was allowing people with long-term sentences to be afforded that opportunity. So when they gave it to me, and I showed them through example that… Because I was never supposed to get out of prison.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Lonnell Sligh:

So I was never supposed to have that job. But the blessing in that, I showed them two sides of promise, and that was that now the companies that were coming in there had a long-term person that can be there that they can depend on, because they had a high turnover rate.

Then secondly, I crafted a thing as far as giving dudes the opportunity to learn financial literacy, things of that nature. Because one of the things that I know for sure, a lot of guys that’s getting those jobs, that was getting those jobs were leaving out of the prison with a lot of money, but they were just as ignorant as when they came in.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lonnell Sligh:

So if you got a hundred thousand dollars in your account and you don’t know how to pay bills or you don’t know any financial literacy, the first thing you’re going to do is go out and buy a Cadillac, a bunch of flashy clothes.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Lonnell Sligh:

So you’re going to end up broke or back in prison. So that’s one of the things that we are working to craft, bringing this to Maryland, having it upfront, having a criteria, a curriculum that’s designated the design for success. And one of the things that, like I said, in Kansas, the politicians, the prison industry, the corporate industry, if y’all want to help with this cause, you say you want to give people a second chance, what better way than bringing in private industry jobs, but making it something for the better, not as a slave camp?

Mansa Musa:

In terms of, how did you come out? And were you able to come out, after being in the industry, to be able to feel some sense of security financially? Or were you in need of getting support from family members to make sure that you had what you needed? Or were you able to save some money, bottom line?

Lonnell Sligh:

Absolutely.

Mansa Musa:

Not going into how much.

Lonnell Sligh:

Yeah.

Mansa Musa:

But what did your savings allow you to do in terms of adjust, readjust back into society? That’s really what it’s all about. If you’re coming out and you can’t adjust in society with the money that you made out of the industry, if you don’t have no sense of security with the money that you’re making out of industry, then likely your chances of survival is slim to nothing.

Lonnell Sligh:

Yeah. But I’m going to take it back even before, because remember, I was never supposed to get out of prison.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Lonnell Sligh:

So having that job really took a burden off of my family.

Mansa Musa:

Okay.

Lonnell Sligh:

And it took a burden off of me, because now I didn’t have to reach out and ask for money, somebody to send me money to make commissary. So my whole strategy when I first got the job, because remember, I wasn’t ever thinking about getting out of prison, so my thing was helping my family, saving as much money as I can, building a bank account, like some of them guys that I knew had 60, 70, a hundred thousand dollars in their account.

So then I transitioned over to finding out that now I may have an opportunity to get out of prison. So that really changed the whole narrative and outlook that I had, because now I got in my mind that if I’m able to get out, not only can I afford to pay for a lawyer to help this cause, but now when I get out, I don’t have to come out in a desperate situation not knowing where I’m going to live at, not knowing if I can put a roof over my head or get a car.

Mansa Musa:

Right. Right, right. So then in that regard, the model that Kansas had in terms of giving the minimum wage, allowing you to pay into your social security, and allowing you to save, in that model, it allowed for you to transition back in society. But more importantly, while you were incarcerated, it allowed for you to be able to feel a sense of self-sufficiency in terms of taking care of your family, or providing for your children, not having to rely on them to put money on your phone or put money in your books. So that Kansas model is really a model that you think that… Well, then let’s just ask this, why do you think that other states haven’t adapted this model?

Lonnell Sligh:

Because one of the things we know is that it’s an old mindset. It’s an old way of thinking, that’s not progressive. And it’s not beneficial for a lot of states to transition or to try to do something better. They don’t want to help us. They don’t want to help the incarcerated person or the person that’s serving their times, even though they say their Division of Corrections. And they need to change that name from the Division of Corrections, because they’re not helping correct anything.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, right.

Lonnell Sligh:

But Kansas most definitely afforded the opportunity for… But their mindset when this first started was in the seventies, so they were about making a dollar themselves.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, right, right.

Lonnell Sligh:

So it evolved, and just like I said, it was still a hundred years behind the timing, by me being afforded to get in that space, it was a blessing because I was able to help bring a different light to it. But other states, just like I say, it’s about their bottom line and their control and old way of thinking. But my thing is, and what I’m advocating for is, is that you have to think outside the box. Because if you don’t think outside the box, then you’re going to get the same results, the same thing.

Mansa Musa:

Well, how do you address this part of the conversation? That long-term imprisonment people, that most people in those situations, those jobs after you spoke on this and have long-term, and so therefore, the benefits for them is not in comparison to the benefits of people that got short-term that can get the skill and get the money and come out. How do you… Can you have it both ways, or either/or?

Lonnell Sligh:

I think, for me, you can have it both ways. But one of the things that we mess up so much on in our way of thinking in society and in the department, we’re stuck on a certain way of thinking. So my thing is that, if you want to breed a successful person, no matter what kind of time you have… That’s my focus and my mindset, because I took a stance knowing I was never getting out of prison, but I took a stance that I was going to better myself and I was going to walk every day and do the things that I needed to make myself successful and act like I was getting out of prison tomorrow, even though I knew I was never getting out of prison. So for me, it was about me better than myself.

So having a minimum wage job or allowing a person to have a job that they can create wages, it makes a better person. It gives you a better product, whether you’re getting out or not. But you have to instill those things in people so that they can understand that it’s a different way. If not, you’re going to think that old way of thinking. Nothing is going to change.

Mansa Musa:

There you have it. Two conversations about prison labor. The prison industry. I worked in MCE. I earned 90 cents a day, a dollar and something with bonuses, approximately $2.10. The bonuses came from how much labor we produced.

On the other hand, you had the conversation I had with Lonnell about Kansas. In Maryland, I didn’t pay taxes, I wasn’t allowed to pay into the social security. I didn’t pay medical, and I didn’t pay rent. In Kansas, a person is allowed to pay into social security. That means when he get released, he had his quarters to retire. Pay the medical. That means, if he is released, he’ll be able to afford medical. Pay taxes. That means that he’s also making a contribution to society in that form. But more importantly, they’re allowed to save money. And in saving money, they will become less of a burden on the state upon their release.

What would you prefer? A person that earns slave wages and don’t pay back into society, or a system where the person is paying into society in the form of taxes, social security, medical, and also becoming economically sufficient upon their release? Tell me what you think.

Speaker 4:

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. We need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.

On Jan. 6, 2021, supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. In a 70-minute speech on the National Mall, Trump falsely claimed that the election had been stolen: “We won this election,” he told the crowd, “and we won it by a landslide.” Trump also urged his supporters not to accept the results: “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” he said. “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.” 

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said on stage shortly before the same crowd violently and un-peacefully descended on the Capitol building. Minutes later, at the end of his speech, Trump also warned his supporters, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  

The attempted insurrection played out on TV screens worldwide as rioters stormed the Capitol building, destroyed property, assaulted police, and stalked the halls of Congress hunting for elected officials. A large percentage of those who participated in the Capitol riot were eventually captured and placed in the notorious District of Columbia Jail, which is located just two miles from the Capitol. Unlike the countless predominantly poor and non-white detainees who have languished in the DC jail before them, the predominantly white and out-of-state MAGA rioters were immediately given preferential treatment. 

“The DC Jail is even more segregated than the city it serves,” Andrew Beaujon wrote in The Washingtonian one year after the attempted insurrection. 

Just 3 percent of the inmates, on average, are white; 87 percent are Black. What happens inside when you lock up dozens of overwhelmingly white men arrested as part of a radical-right insurrection? The jail’s overseers decided they didn’t want to find out. The Sixers—as they’re known to their faithful—were confined to a medium-security annex, away from other prisoners. The brass call the block C2B, or Charlie Two Bravo. Its 40 or so residents call it the Patriots’ Pod.

Nevertheless, it was the treatment of the “Sixers”—in particular, the delay of medical treatment for Proud Boy Christopher Worrell’s broken hand—not the decades of complaints by other inmates, that finally got people to care about the conditions inside the DC jail. Having become a cause célèbre for the MAGA right, the Sixers were even visited in November 2021 by DC Council members and members of Congress Louie Gohmert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

The Jan. 6 rioters sent to the jail complained to the court about the unsanitary living conditions, poor food, inadequate medical services; the lack of safety, recreation, case management, library services, and visitations. “After Jan. 6 defendants’ lawyers raised allegations of poor conditions at the Department of Corrections (DOC) facility, including a lack of access to medical care,” Madeleine Carlisle writes in TIME, “an unannounced review of the jail by the US Marshals Service (USMS) concluded there was ‘evidence of systemic failure.’” The report submitted by USMS was a scathing indictment of the deplorable conditions inside the DC jail, including lack of water, inadequate quality of food, and “large amounts of standing human sewage.”

Following the report, USMS announced that it would be moving 400 detainees housed in the DC jail’s notorious Central Detention Facility (CDF) to the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Those housed in the less horrifying Central Treatment Facility (CTF), however, including the Jan. 6 rioters, were not moved. According to an official statement released by USMS on Nov. 2, 2021, “The US Marshal’s inspection of Central Treatment Facility did not identify conditions that would necessitate the transfer of inmates from that facility at this time. Central Treatment Facility houses approximately 120 detainees in the custody of the US Marshals Service, including all the defendants in pre-trial custody related to alleged offenses stemming from events that took place on January 6 at the US Capitol.” 

In exactly two weeks, on Jan. 20, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States of America. He has gone on record saying it would be a “great honor to pardon the peaceful January 6 protesters, or as I often call them, the hostages … a group of people treated so harshly or unfairly.” Will Trump and the MAGA right continue to care about the conditions inside the DC jail and the treatment of its inmates after the Sixers are hand-plucked from that cesspit and given their freedom back? Let’s just say I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that… 

For those poor Black and Brown men and women who have been held inside the DC jail and who have complained about the inhumane conditions there—complaints that have continuously fallen on deaf ears—this is yet another glaring example of this country’s racist, classist hypocrisy. But it is also a chilling reminder that, for Trump and his MAGA supporters, the hypocrisy is the point: “Make America Great Again for us, not for them.”

Popular representations of the Black Panthers often focus on their armed self-defense activities, but medical services and health justice were a tremendous part of the party’s work. This legacy continues today as Black activists work to transform the medical industrial complex and its relationship to the prison system. Erica Woodland (he/him), co-author of Healing Justice Lineages, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss this history, his current activism, and the role of The Real News’s own beloved Eddie Conway in influencing his path.

Studio/Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Marshall Eddie Conway, former Black Panther and political prisoner, served approximately 44 years in captivity before he was released. While in prison, he and his wife, Dominque Conway, created a series of programs designed to raise prisoners’ consciousness. One program was Friend of a Friend. Friend of a Friend was a mentor program that taught prisoners critical thinking skills.

Throughout his imprisonment, Eddie Conway advocated for the liberation of all political prisoners and the abolishment of the prison-industrial complex. After his release in 2014, Eddie joined The Real News Network and started this very program, Rattling the Bars.

Recently I interviewed Baltimore native Erica Woodland, one of the many people influenced by Eddie Conway and Dominque Conway.

Welcome to Rattling the Bars, Erica.

Erica Woodland:  Thank you for having me, Mansa. It’s good to see you.

Mansa Musa:  All right, tell our audience a little bit about yourself and one of your latest projects.

Erica Woodland:  Yeah, for sure. So I’m born, bred, and raised in Baltimore, East Baltimore, to be specific. And for the past 20 years, it’s been really an honor to be part of abolition work and liberatory harm reduction work, and work that’s really thinking about how to disrupt every single aspect of the way the criminal justice system disappears our communities.

And so I had the great pleasure of meeting Eddie Conway 20 years ago, and when we met, he immediately decided that I was going to be part [Musa laughs] of his liberation struggle — And you know Eddie, you can’t really tell him no. And also through organizing on behalf of his liberation and liberation of all political prisoners and being mentored by him and Dominque Conway, it really, as a young person, shaped the work that I’m doing now, which is primarily focused on Healing Justice.

And Healing Justice is a political and spiritual framework that helps to remind our people that, in addition to us liberating our minds and revolutionizing our consciousness, we have to also make sure that we’re taking care of people. So feeding people, making sure people have access to healthcare, making sure people have access to spaces for healing and collective grief.

And a lot of this work might sound familiar because it’s the work that the Black Panther Party was up to. But unfortunately in our movements now, a lot of that care and safety work has been forgotten, in part because the state has been extremely strategic and successful, in many ways, of co-opting our movements and then criminalizing our traditions.

So the project that I am spending a lot of my time with today is called Healing Justice Lineages. And so, it started off as an anthology, and I was able to contribute to this with my dear comrade Kara Page, who is one of the co-architects of this framework. But Healing Justice Lineages is an opportunity to tell the true lineage of this framework, which is actually having us think about what are the ways that historical and generational trauma are affecting our minds, our bodies, our spirits, our organizations, our revolutionary groups, and our ability to actually build power to get free, right?

Mansa Musa:  Right.

Erica Woodland:  So when you have communities that are highly traumatized, cut off from basic human needs, they’ve stolen our traditions — White people are selling our traditions back to us.

Mansa Musa:  Right.

Erica Woodland:  — And they’ve demonized our traditions. You have communities that are more easily surveilled and controlled and disappear.

And so the project has tried to map a lot of different voices and trying to bring up examples like, here are people who are doing liberation work, but also thinking about how do we feed people? How do we love up on people when they’ve experienced grief, loss, and violence?

But that project has led to a lot of other aspects, including a listening and cultural memory tour that we did in 2023. We went to seven cities across the country to actually lift up local work around healing justice and collective care and safety. And then we also did strategy sessions with organizers and practitioners in particular to say, what’s possible when you have health healing practitioners and organizers at the same table before we turn up on the state?

Mansa Musa:  Right, right, right. And that’s a good observation, because me and Dominque talked about this oftentimes, about, as revolutionaries, we find ourselves in a space that we human, we made a decision to fight for our liberation, but in that, oftentimes, a lot of our emotions get wrapped up in that. And we look recognized that in the Black Panther Party — And our anniversary just passed — We recognized that, during that period, and which is a good observation on your part about the healing aspect of, is during that period they ain’t have no therapy. They ain’t have no, oh, this is trauma. They ain’t have no, oh, yeah, well, you an alcoholic, and it’s a result of the police wanting to kill you, or the police been locked you up seven times, and you been locked up, in the seven times you done spent a total of five years in and out of county jail. You ain’t have that then.

Now that particular aspect of the contradiction didn’t subsided, where the antagonism don’t exist because the formation is not in the same space. What do we do now? What do we do? But more importantly, the lessons learned and how do we pass it on? I think this is what you are telling us right now. That, OK, we need to be in this space right now because we ultimately going to have to turn it up.

Erica Woodland:  Exactly.

Mansa Musa:  And when we do turn it up, we want to be in a space where we don’t find ourselves so burned out that we become suicidal, even if it be in the form of substance use, it be in the form of spousal abuse, all the things that we oppose, if we don’t take and look at our mental health as it relates to our struggle. Talk about that.

Erica Woodland:  Yeah. No, this is really important, and I also want to just name that I’m a therapist, but mostly my work is organizing therapists to understand their role as politicized. Because for me, the prison-industrial complex is actually deeply connected to the medical-industrial complex. And we saw that very clearly with Eddie’s experience at the end of his life. That you have social workers like me who are in positions where we’re actually facilitating the dissolution of families, where we are facilitating people experiencing psychiatric detention and psych hospitals.

And so, one of the things I want to bring attention to is I was able to interview Eddie for the book. And Eddie’s interview is a lot of people’s favorite, because what we know is that Eddie was willing to talk about things that a lot of other folks weren’t willing to talk about.

Mansa Musa:  Right, right.

Erica Woodland:  And so in this conversation… I’ve been talking to Eddie about trauma, probably our whole relationship, even if I didn’t use that language, because I want to understand what made it possible for him to survive those conditions and hold onto his humanity, when many, many people are out here and they have survived much less and they don’t have that same connection to their humanity.

So I’m always thinking about, where are the ways that we’re already knowing how to heal without an external person or professional? And what are the consequences of us not taking that work seriously? So therapy is one aspect, but we have traditions in Black community, the ways that we come together when we experience a loss, the way that we pour a little bit out for the homie that we lost to violence. That these are all things that are happening. But if we don’t understand trauma, then the state can exploit that.

And so in the interview, which is the chapter’s title, “Don’t Give Up and Don’t Make the Same Mistakes”, because one of the things I really appreciated about my relationship with Eddie is that he was very generous with his wisdom. He’s very generous about, here’s what I know, here’s what I don’t know, and here’s the things we did not think about because we didn’t have the language, we didn’t have the tools.

And the reality is when COINTELPRO came on the scene, it hadn’t existed before. It’s not like the Panthers had the knowledge, they didn’t have the playbook. They were writing the playbook down.

So one of the things that I’m committed to is documenting and preserving our political and spiritual traditions. Because disconnection from those traditions, that’s a tool of genocide. That’s essentially how the state continues to dominate and control our minds, first and foremost, and our radical imagination.

So that interview we got to talk about… You know, Eddie didn’t necessarily call his work healing justice, but I’m like, I wouldn’t even be talking about healing justice if it wasn’t for the Black Panther Party and their commitment to making sure our people were well. To making sure that we preserved our dignity and wholeness, and to say, there’s nothing wrong with you. There’s something wrong with these conditions, and we actually have to build power to change the conditions. We don’t heal just to heal. That’s cute, but I don’t want to heal, I don’t want to learn how to cope with this, I want to actually figure out how we change this, because it’s unacceptable.

Mansa Musa:  And you know what I was thinking about what you were saying when you were saying how you title the chapter of Eddie and “Don’t Give Up”. Because me and him did a lot of time together, we was incarcerated together. And he was my mentor. And I used to always joke about him having gray hairs, and I would say 80% of them gray hairs in his head I put it in there myself, from him dealing with me.

But in terms of how you articulate his outlook, that’s just how it was. I recall when I hadn’t seen him for a while, we wound up in an institution together, now JCI, and he said, man, let’s go up to the library and talk. So we made a schedule, we would go to the library once a week and talk. And I didn’t think too much of it at the time. I hadn’t seen you in a while, so we just catching up. But as we talking, we’re talking about events. We’re talking about stuff that’s going on around the world. We’re talking about what I’ve been doing. We’re talking about what he’s doing.

And then it got to a point where he said, we was getting ready to bring friends of the friends in. It got to a point where he said like, yeah, well, we don’t have to come to the library no more, and we getting ready to do this with this group. And the reason why I had you come up here is because I wanted to see where your thinking was at. Because I didn’t come in contact with a lot of people in the system that started out a certain way, but as time went on, their thinking didn’t evolve. They regressed, and they abandoned any politics, they abandoned any instinct to survive, they just allowed themselves mentally to accept where they was at.

And he say, and he was telling me, he said, well, that ain’t you. And I was like, man, what you think? You the one that educated me. So I’m a product of this education in terms of, like you said, we didn’t say trauma, we didn’t say healing. If something went on. This is what we did.

And I think that, and I want you to speak on this, how you unpack that within the community. Because traditionally we always done that. And traditionally we don’t call it, we don’t give it no clinical definition. This is what we did. This is our nature, to be there for each other. What happened?

Erica Woodland:  A lot of things happened [Musa laughs]. So this is a great way to bring in the medical-industrial complex, which includes, obviously, hospitals, health clinics, doctors, nurses. But it’s a broader system that includes pharmaceutical companies. And that’s basically a for-profit system that is trying to surveil, control us, and preserve the life of certain people, primarily white men of wealth, and to exterminate or extract labor from the rest of us.

So part of what happened is, you take people, even if you just think about the attempted genocide against Indigenous people on this land. They literally cut you off. They put you in a residential boarding school, cut you off from your language, cut you off… I mean, this happened to Black Americans, too. But I want to just make that connection because I think we forget. And all of these things we innately know how to do, they turn you against them. They tell you that is uncivilized. That’s not the way to do it.

Then you bring in somebody who’s deemed professional. So, I have what one of my comrades called colonial credentials. So I’m a licensed clinical social worker. I didn’t get that license to be an arm of the state, I got that to be able to disrupt and understand how the state is working through things like social work and therapy and the mental health system. So I’m a professional, so I get told I’m legitimate. You’re allowed to work with survivors, you’re allowed to do all this healing work.

Meanwhile, this work is happening not paid. People aren’t getting support in community all the time because the vast majority of marginalized people’s mental health support comes from their friends, it comes from their family members, comes from their homies. Most people don’t have access to therapy. And those therapeutic interventions weren’t designed for us. They were designed to control us.

So one of the things that I do in my work in my organization is we really disrupt that. So we organize mental health practitioners — And that includes people like me who are licensed, but it includes all the other people who are attending to the emotional and spiritual well-being, specifically in my work of queer and trans people of color. So we don’t prioritize my training over the actual lived experience, but you’re getting on-the-job training. Actually, nobody trains you at all. You’re self-taught. You’re taught by community.

But those relationships is what the state has tried to disrupt. So we wouldn’t need a whole… Nothing’s wrong with therapy. I think therapy is actually a great tool, but it’s not a cure-all. But we wouldn’t actually need therapists in the same way if our siblings and our family members who were behind these walls were home, if we had food, if the air we were breathing was not toxic. If we actually restored our ability to be in right relationship with the land and every other being that we have to be on this planet with, we wouldn’t have this kind of trauma.

It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t suffer. But what we’re seeing at this point, at this scale, especially with the genocides happening across the globe, is this is unnecessary, manufactured suffering. And if we don’t understand how it’s affecting not just the way we treat each other, but how are you going to strategize? How are you going to make a strategy that’s actually going to work when you are highly traumatized? And the ways that you’re attempting to heal, the state is saying, oh, you have a substance abuse problem? You’re getting locked up. Oh, you are hallucinating, for instance. We’re going to lock you up in a psychiatric facility and potentially give you forced treatment — Not potentially, give you forced treatment that then takes away your rights the same way that happens when you’re incarcerated.

So it’s a setup and it’s a scam, but I think there’s a growing conversation in the communities that I’m in of Black and Brown people who are like, we are going to figure out how these systems work, to tear them down, and to abolish them. And we’re also going to create alternatives because that’s what we need.

So that story you just told about Eddie sitting with you weekly, I was like, that was therapy.

Mansa Musa:  Exactly.

Erica Woodland:  That was you having human to human connection. That was also a vetting. I keep that. I’m like, we need to bring vetting back. I just had a conversation about that earlier. I’m like, we just out here trusting people that have not demonstrated that they’re trustworthy with the kind of liberation work that we’re talking about.

Mansa Musa:  And that’s a good segue to talk about Eddie, but I wanted to unpack that a little bit more. Because right now you have trauma, and they starting to monetize trauma, saying trauma, resilience, and define it, [inaudible] and everybody and their mother coming around with an approach. But at the same token, it’s the same old story and the same old song. It’s just a different band playing it.

But speaking of Eddie, so let’s talk about the campaign to exonerate Eddie. And for the benefit of our viewers, this is one of the posters that was put out by some college students in conjunction with myself, Erica, and Dominque comrade, and some other comrade that’s advocating for Eddie to be exonerated. Speak on why do you think that Eddie’s been transitioned? Why is it important that, in your mind, or that our audience should want to know, that we should try to have Eddie exonerated? He’s gone, he was out, he lived his life, and he lived his life to his fullest, or what was left of it.

Erica Woodland:  Right. This is a really good question and I think it ties into a lot of the archival work that I’ve been a part of over the past three years, that we have to hold on to the truth of Eddie’s life, Eddie’s work, and what the state did to Eddie. There has been no redress. Eddie’s name has not been cleared, and Eddie was innocent.

So one of the things that, it happens with a lot of revolutionaries, we’ve seen it many times, is the sanitization of their actual work. And there’s a way that we all then kind of forget. You could actually make this sound like some kind of happy story in the end. Oh look, this person, wrongfully convicted. Well, they got out [Musa laughs] in the end of their life, they were able to do this, that and the third. No, let’s go back to the fact that this person literally did almost 44 years for their political work, and they were targeted by the state. And that is happening now.

Mansa Musa:  Exactly.

Erica Woodland:  So to me, part of the campaign is about telling the truth. That is always, to me, a healing act. To tell the truth of what actually happened, to move with the knowing that this was a wrongdoing. And if we do not prioritize the exoneration of Eddie and all political prisoners, then when this… Political prisoners are being manufactured right now.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Erica Woodland:  They’re being manufactured right now.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Erica Woodland:  Young people are political prisoners right now. So this is part of a larger struggle to combat state repression. And I think spiritually it’s also really important to preserve Eddie’s legacy by telling the truth. And then it’s also really important to think about how that supports our generational healing, our healing as a community. Somebody who did nothing but sacrifice on our behalf, and we’re going to let the state continue to lie? We’re going to let the state continue to try to manipulate the story of what really happened.

Mansa Musa:  When me and Dominque was having this conversation and we decided like, well, this is something that we want to look at. And we start organizing, got some of the supporters together and start talking about it. Everybody had the same perspective, just like you said, it is about we want to be able to say, like you say, tell the truth. And it’s important that we tell the truth about what happened to Geronimo Pratt, what happened to Fred Hampton, what happened to Malcolm. That because of their political views and their aspiration to be free, that they was targeted and set up and, in most cases, assassinated or died a death of a thousand cuts.

And they did the same thing with Eddie. And only for no reason other than the fact that he believed in his right to self-determination. He believed that he had a right to be treated as a human being. He had a right to our people being free.

Talk about where we at in terms of some of the things that we’re doing with the campaign, for the benefit of our viewers and listeners.

Erica Woodland:  Yeah, absolutely. So we’re doing a couple of things. We currently have a petition and a website, which is at marshalleddieconway.com where you can get information about Eddie’s case and why exoneration is so important. But you can also sign the petition so that we can actually put some pressure on Gov. Wes Moore to move forward with this exoneration.

Part of what we’re also doing with the website and with some filmmakers is to help to document more of Eddie’s story, in particular how we build a case for exoneration and why that’s so important, I think, to Baltimore City in particular. The history, the legacy, the revolutionary lineage here, I only know about that because of Eddie. And so this is part of a larger effort to get Eddie’s story out so we can have redress and justice in this situation, as much justice as you can have with how much harm and violence the state has engaged in towards Eddie. But this campaign is really, really important.

And so, I know we’re also doing some things coming up in 2025 to help honor Eddie’s legacy around his birthday in April. So there’ll be more information about that. I’m sure you’ll get the word out, Mansa.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, most definitely.

Erica Woodland:  But right now we need people to educate themselves and to sign the petition and get the word out.

Mansa Musa:  And we was real strategic in making sure that all this information that’s coming out about Eddie is not being repackaged for the benefit of changing the narrative or minimizing his contribution. We was real mindful to make sure that the social media that have any representation of Eddie is authorized by us. To ensure that the truth — Because it’s all about the truth.

And in this case, it might sound cliché, but they say the truth will set you free. What we talking about, the freedom of the truth setting Eddie free in terms of him being recognized for the person that he was and the impact that he had on people that exists today. Whenever anybody come in contact with Eddie, even to this day, they make the observation that the impact that he had on them, how he was able to tap into their thinking, how he was able to get them to maximize on their potential.

And this is something that we want to make sure that people understand. That had he not been set up, had charges [not been] fabricated against him, no telling what he would have done. And he done a lot while he was incarcerated, while he was on the plantation. But no telling what he would’ve done.

And I want to go back to your point. Political prisoners, young people right now are being manufactured to be political prisoners. And as we move forward in this country, it is going to come a time where they going to be like 1984. Like your thoughts, literally going to be the law saying, if you think this way and then you going to be charged with being a terrorist or whatever.

But as we close out, Erica, tell people how they can get the book and where we at in terms of the exoneration.

Erica Woodland:  Absolutely. So again, if you want more information about the exoneration campaign, that’s at marshalleddieconway.com. And then if you want any information about the Healing Justice Lineages project, we’re at healingjusticelineages.com. And we have a digital archive that we’re building out there so you can hear more voices about the work.

Mansa Musa:  All right, and you got the last word on this subject matter. What you want to tell our viewers and our audience as you rattle the bars?

Erica Woodland:  I appreciate the last word. I neglected to say, the work that we’re doing right now around Eddie’s legacy is also about getting ahead of and interrupting co-optation. And there’s a lot of co-optation that happens here in Baltimore City. It happens everywhere. But there’s a particular way that people like to manipulate the story of revolutionaries to actually fuel work that is deeply harmful to Black people. And so, I just wanted to end on that. That we actually need to be very clear about we’re protecting Eddie’s work and Eddie’s lineage because it deserves that much. And co-optation is a tool of the state. And even if our own people are doing it, it’s unacceptable.

Mansa Musa:  There you have it. The Real News round about. Erica, you rattled the bars today. And I’m reminded of what you just say. Dominque reminds us that she owns… She don’t own Eddie, but she’s not going to let nobody co-opt the narrative or taking change who he was. And this is something important that we must always be mindful of, that we should never let people continue to define us, tell us who we are, what we are, and what we’re doing, and then give us some money to accept that what you just said about me is acceptable because I’m getting paid. No. Our legacy, our image, our heritage is not for sale.

There you have it. And we ask you to continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. It’s only on Real News and Rattling the Bars that you get this kind of information. That we have a professional therapist. We don’t have a professional clinical therapist that’s certified by the state and recognize their state credential. We got somebody certified by the people and recognize their people credentials, which is way more important than any credentials that they can get, even though they do have the documentation that the state say they should have. But in terms of their application and practice, it’s all about the people.

Thank you, Erica. Continue to rattle the bars, and we ask you to continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. Because guess what? We really are the news.

President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Among these critics are opponents of the War on Drugs and mass incarceration, which President Biden played a personal role in architecting throughout his political career. Jason Ortiz, Director of Strategic Initiatives at the Last Prisoner Project, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss Hunter Biden’s pardon and what it means for Biden’s legacy.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  President Biden recently gave his son, Hunter Biden, an unconditional pardon. Hunter was convicted on tax evasion and federal gun charges. He was due to be sentenced this month. In pardoning his son, the president stated that he believes in the justice system, but also believes that raw politics has affected this process, and it led to a miscarriage of justice. His decision to pardon his son has created a Richter magnitude scale response from every sector of society. President Donald Trump and his treasonous cohorts, former prosecutors, convicted police, just to name a few. Everyone has an opinion on this decision.

But the voices that are missing are those who are enslaved in the prison-industrial complex. The people sitting in prison on outdated marijuana charges, people who lost their freedom because of racist three strike laws, or mandatory minimum sentences. These are the real victims of the raw politics that President Biden spoke about.

Here to help us unpack President Biden’s decision to pardon his son and the impact of that decision is Jason Ortiz from The Last Prisoner Project.

Jason, introduce yourself to the Rattling The Bars audience.

Jason Ortiz:  Sure. My name is Jason Ortiz. I’m the director of strategic initiatives for The Last Prisoner Project, which is a nonprofit organization that helps folks that are currently incarcerated for cannabis crimes achieve their freedom, get reunited with their families, and become full members of society.

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to Rattling The Bars, Jason.

Jason Ortiz:  Thank you [for having] me. I’m really excited that you’re having me here today.

Mansa Musa:  OK. So, we recently recognized that President Biden used his authority to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, from the conviction that he got for tax evasion, gun violation, among other charges. And in pardoning him — And this is what we want to hone in on this interview — In pardoning, he said that he believed in the justice system, and he believed that, the American people, when you tell them the truth, they will be fair. But he also believed that the raw politics, the decision to indict his son, and the raw politics to convict his son is the reason why his son was convicted — Not that he was guilty of anything. That wasn’t the issue, he was guilty. It was just that the raw politics superseded his guilt, and, therefore, he should not have been found guilty, but for raw politics.

OK. So, let’s look at this decision that President Biden made. Because you recently was interviewed on Democracy Now! by Amy Goodman, and in your response to this decision, you made the observation about President Biden being instrumental in creating an atmosphere where the prison-industrial complex blew up to what we know it to be now. Talk about that, and why you think that this decision should have a better impact than it is in terms of everybody coming out of the closet, war criminals, treasonous, convicted felons, in the sense of Donald Trump and his cohort. Talk about that.

Jason Ortiz:  When we heard that President Biden was going to use his pardon power to pardon his son for his various convictions, we were understanding of why a president and a father would want to help their sons avoid prison time. And so, we have seen this as an affirmation that the president and his administration understand that, while some folks have committed crimes in the past, some of their sentences are egregious and politically motivated.

That is true for all of the 3,000 federal cannabis prisoners who are currently serving decades or life sentences in prison for cannabis crimes that are now legal for half the states across the country, and producing tax revenue. We have thousands of cannabis businesses that are producing tax revenue for states and municipalities across the country as there are people currently incarcerated watching this all unfold.

And President Biden himself was one of the chief architects of the 1994 crime bill, which enhanced all kinds of sentences, both for cannabis, other drugs, other crimes, and it was on the floor of the Senate at the time, he was a Senator at the time, making the arguments that there were these big, bad drug dealers out there that were hurting all these folks, and so we should lock them up forever. That was where the whole Corn Pop meme came from with Joe Biden.

And he was very proud, at the time, to be a drug warrior and push to lock up thousands, if not millions, of Black and Brown people across the country while, at the same time, fully aware that, under Nixon, when the war on drugs was declared and the Controlled Substance Act was created, his office was very explicit that they wanted to disrupt Black and Brown communities and the anti-war community, and used the war on drugs to have a reason to demonize and vilify folks on the evening news, to go into different organizations and break up their leadership, and incarcerate folks, and much worse. There were plenty of political organizers in that time that were murdered by the state.

And so, this was the climate that Joe Biden gets brought up in as a House member, and then eventually a Senator, and then in the ’90s as a Senator, he becomes the architect of the crime bill. So, all of the really long sentences we’re dealing with now are, in part, due to that bill.

And so, we have folks like Edwin Ruiz. Edwin is a resident of Texas, he has kids, and he was arrested in the ’90s for a trafficking charge, so, selling weed, moving weed from one person to another, and he got 40 years for that offense. 40 years in the ’90s. So, 1997. He’s served 27 years already of that term. And so, these are folks that are serving decades, and have already served decades, for activity that’s legal in the District of Columbia where President Biden lives. It’s a clear hypocrisy.

They’re fully aware that the war on drugs was always racially and politically motivated, and yet, til this day, he refuses to use his pardon power, his presidential authority, to help undo that damage where he’s more than happy to do it for his son, and fully understands why parents across the country would not want their sons and daughters in prison either.

So, he still has the opportunity to make moves and use his pardon authority to commute the sentences. That’s specifically what we’re asking the president to do is commute the sentences of all the folks that are currently incarcerated to time served so that they would be let out.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah. And you know what? I like that observation in terms of, like, marijuana laws — As we’ll go into the political prisoner spectrum as well — But as a marijuana law, it is ironic that you legalize marijuana, that there’s nowhere in this country right now that a person cannot light a joint up. Literally, there’s nowhere in this country that a person cannot… You can go to a dispensary and buy. There’s nowhere in this country, there’s very few places where it’s maybe regulated, but you can have access to it.

And then a person find themselves in prison for two decades, and with no hope of getting out under this law that this very president is responsible for it being, and then he turn around and say, oh, raw politics is the reason why his son… OK, but the raw politics, the reality behind the raw politics is that you created this situation that these people find themselves in.

And I look at it like Leonard Peltier.

Jason Ortiz:  Yeah.

Mansa Musa:  Peltier is innocent.

Jason Ortiz:  Absolutely.

Mansa Musa:  He is innocent of every crime. Mumia Abu-Jamal, he’s innocent. You got political prisoners that’s innocent. You have the Treasury Committee came out and say, when they did a study on the FBI’s practice, and the counterintelligence program, they noted that who had ratted them up, was setting people up, only because of their political views, and locking people up, and kill people, the raw politics behind it was that he was representing the corporate America, and the system that, by any means, was designed to destroy any political opposition.

But talk about the impact that this decision will have, if you can speak to this, the impact that President Biden’s decision to pardon his son will have overall.

Jason Ortiz:  Overall, it is highlighting the idea of using a presidential pardon to undo damage done by politically motivated sentencing. So, the president has affirmed that sometimes the sentences people get are not there because of they’re a threat to society, or safety for anyone, that it’s all about the politics behind it, and that is very true about the 3,000 federal cannabis prisoners who are also politically motivated prisoners, and the folks like Mumia and Leonard Peltier are also politically motivated arrests and convictions. And so, if he’s able to affirm that for his son, his administration has no excuse from applying that same logic to all the folks that are currently in prison, and using his presidential pardon authority to give them their freedom and undo the damage that was done.

So, while I am frustrated that the president is choosing to only use his power in this way, it is creating a national conversation around what is the right use of the presidential pardon, and how else can he use it to help more people? While we would like to see… I’m not opposed, I don’t feel like what he did to Hunter was wrong, it’s just incredibly hypocritical and frustrating that he’s not using it for lots of other folks. We want to expand the use of the presidential authority. His predecessor, Trump, also has used it in all kinds of wild ways. So, there is really no limit on what we can do with the presidential pardon. The president could pardon all of these folks tomorrow, if he wanted to.

And so, that means it’s a political decision by him and his office to not do it so far. And that means [it’s] on us, on the people. We got to apply pressure, and we got to organize to push the government to do the right thing. They’ve already admitted that they can do it. They’ve already used the power the way they think makes sense. So, it’s on us to push and pressure them to use it in a way that we think makes sense.

Mansa Musa:  And I was listening to someone, talking heads on our network, and they started lining up and taking the position that, OK, everybody that was involved with trying to throw a coup, and was involved with the riot with President-elect Trump, then president at that time, told them, go down to the Capitol and storm the Capitol, and reverse the democratic decision to elect Biden, that they was saying, well, all of them should be pardoned, that the police, George Floyd, they should be pardoned, that everybody, former prosecutors that got caught with their hand in the till, they should be pardoned.

What you think about that? Do you think they should have the same right under this concept as those that was politically motivated, or do you think it should be a more objective approach to this whole process?

Jason Ortiz:  So, I’ll just say clearly, though, the presidential pardon is a political tool, and so, there is no limit to it. So, whether they can or can’t use it, they definitely can do that. Now who should get a pardon? Personally, I don’t think folks that committed a crime, and their sentence was just, it was fair what they were supposed to serve as far as time goes, that that is justification for a pardon.

The president gets to use it as he sees fit, however, these folks did commit a crime, and I don’t know exactly, if I would say their sentences are unjust for what they did, because what they did was a pretty serious offense: storming the Capitol and trying to seize control of the government. You used the word treasonous earlier. It’s about as close as we can get to treason as we’ve experienced in modern history. And so, there are times when the sentence is fitting the crime. And so, trying to overthrow the government, that’s a pretty serious offense.

Now, folks that have participated to a lesser extent, or simply showed up to Jan. 6, there’s always going to be a range of participation and action, and folks should be held accountable to their specific actions. And so, folks that did really egregious things in the Capitol should be punished for that. However, storming the Capitol is not a crime that is now decriminalized and legal for millions of folks to participate in, and that’s a very different [crosstalk] situation. That we have said, as a society, some people can make millions of dollars selling weed, and these other folks got punished for that crime a long time ago. Nobody is now decriminalizing storming the Capitol.

And so, we’re saying society has changed since this happened. It was originally racist and politically motivated, but even on top of that, society has now said, this is no longer a crime. We’re going to let folks operate cannabis businesses, and that’s what I believe is the moral justification for using a pardon on cannabis prisoners specifically.

There are lots of other reasons to use a pardon. Some folks are innocent of their crimes, and their original arrest and conviction was politically motivated. That is where a presidential pardon can come in, in that times have shifted, the new administration that is elected is there to push for the people that support the political movements that got folks elected. And so, that is another good justification for a pardon, because the person didn’t actually do the crime. The only reason they’re in there was politically motivated, so it takes a political resolution to undo that process. And so, I think that’s definitely what Leonard Peltier and Mumia fit into that category.

Then there’s folks that maybe did commit the crime, but the sentence is just way more than the crime that they committed. For example, folks that are on death row. There are a number of folks on death row that should not be losing their life, because of the crime that they committed. And that is another space where the president can commute their sentence to life in prison or time served, depending on the situation, and those are the folks that I think also, they are not innocent, necessarily — Although, some of them very much are — But the punishment did not fit the crime to have a life sentence.

Like, to really put someone away for the rest of their life, it has to be a pretty egregious situation where they’re also a threat to society forever, and there’s very few situations, I think, that fit that mold, where someone should be in jail for 50, 75 years.

But I do think death row and folks that are sentenced to death is particularly one that warrants presidential intervention, as we should just not be killing folks anymore using the state, and giving people death penalties — Which, sometimes, people can get charges trumped-up, because of drug charges that add to different charges, and then they end up with life sentence.

Ismael Lira is someone that was operating in a cannabis operation and got charged with trafficking, and is serving a life sentence for a non-violent drug offense. And so, honestly, I don’t care how many pounds somebody was selling, nothing justifies a life sentence. Specifically because he did way less than any cannabis company does on a monthly basis.

And so, the biggest difference I see between Jan. 6 folks and our folks is the crimes that folks are currently incarcerated for are no longer crimes —

Mansa Musa:  And talk about —

Jason Ortiz:  …And that’s a huge difference.

Mansa Musa:  Why do you think that, in regard to this country’s attitude about recognizing cannabis laws and recognizing that because of the social trend and attitudes has changed, why you think they still holding fast to this draconian position of lock them up, throw away the key. It’s a crime. It’s a crime. It’s a crime. We’re not dealing with what type of crime, we’re dealing with it’s a crime, and, therefore, we saying a person that has been duly convicted should serve the time. But at the same token, as you outlined, I can leave from visiting somebody that got locked up for marijuana, and on my way out of town, go to a dispensary and buy some marijuana. Why you think this country’s attitude is so entrenched in holding people to that standard?

Jason Ortiz:  Well, I think the United States has been addicted to punitive punishment for a very long time. Like, there have been folks that have always used ostracizing certain communities and making them the problem, or demonizing them. We see it happen in many different communities over time. Immigrants are currently being demonized in a lot of ways, as folks want to lock them up, or deport them. But Black and Brown folks, specifically leftist organizers over the years, have always been targeted, and using the legal system to not just disrupt those communities, but then profit off of those disruptions. There are private prisons, even public prisons. There’s billions of dollars in the prison-industrial complex that uses our people first to arrest them, but then also uses them for things like labor, [crosstalk] prison.

We actually saw California had a ballot measure to end prison labor, and it lost. And so, that was a pretty heartbreaking moment to hear that that ballot measure lost, and it is pretty clear that right now the way the United States is structured, we are a military superpower, we’re a prison industrial superpower. We use violence and coercive force as our number one tactic in a lot of different ways and a lot of different situations.

And so, the longer that we are continuing with that addiction to punitive punishment and incarceration, the more damage we’re doing over time. And so to undo that is a tremendous lift in the international collective consciousness. To shift people away from that addiction is tough.

And so, I think the drug policy movement has done a pretty good job in shifting public opinion of whether, or not people should be in jail moving forward. But what is really hard for, especially white folks or folks that have a significant amount of wealth, is being able to address what happened in the past. And so, we haven’t been willing to do that part. We have gotten the public to say, OK. No more people going to prison, and even that’s not really true, because we still arrest people and incarcerate people for selling weed. We say that possession is OK. It’s perfectly OK if you buy from a dispensary, but if you buy it from your homey that you used to buy it from —

Mansa Musa:  Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Jason Ortiz:  …That’s still a crime.

Mansa Musa:  Right. Right. Right.

Jason Ortiz:  And it’s a felony for the guy selling it to you still. And out of the 24 states and DC that have had some kind of real adult use legislation, zero actually let everybody out of prison when they did it. Zero.

So, there is this lack of historical understanding and saying, we’re going to address what happened in the past. We’re willing to move forward and act like it never happened and not talk to anybody about it, but we’re not going to actually address the very racist and politically motivated history of why it happened to begin with.

And so, that’s actually where the equity movement started to come out in the mid-2010s up until now where, I was part of a different organization then, The Minority Cannabis Business Association, where we were working with different states to help people figure out how do Black and Brown people get a piece of the legal pie?

Mansa Musa:  Right. Right. Right.

Jason Ortiz:  And in that equity space, we had three main pushes. So, one was helping folks achieve freedom, and things like reentry support, expungements, reducing sentences, and that was the criminal justice part of it.

Then there was the community investment part, because the other part of the war on drugs was that the police disrupted the economics of communities of color, and removing people that were breadwinners and fathers and parents and putting them in prison. So, there should be very targeted investment to undo that damage as well, which is where the state invests in community investment.

And then third was economic opportunity in the cannabis industry itself. We found a lot of ways that folks are willing to talk about how everybody can make money off of selling cannabis, but when it came to the criminal justice side, we had to really fight for all the advances in those spaces.

But this equity movement, which was, essentially, the movement to help undo the damage done by the war on drugs, did spread across the country. Now, most of the states that have cannabis operations have some kind of equity program where there are set aside licenses, community investment, expungement support, all those kinds of things, but even now they’re under assault. There’s all kinds of governments that want to move that money somewhere else.

And so, it’s been an eternal struggle. But that being said, we are making a lot of progress. Like, things are moving. So, for example, Wes Moore, Gov. Wes Moore from Maryland —

Mansa Musa:  Where we at.

Jason Ortiz:  Yeah. So, he pardoned 170,000 cannabis charges. I was there when he actually signed the paper. So, we are seeing governors across the country pick up the mission to actually undo the damage done, and making some progress. That being said, that’s one governor out of 50 that has actually done anything real serious. And so, that’s an inspiration. We’re glad he did that. Hopefully, he pushes on Biden for us to do more as well, but we still have a lot of work to do.

So, it’s a long-term standing addiction to punitive punishments, that we’re going to shame and make examples out of people. But, at the same time, I do think we are cracking the dam of the war on drugs, and we will see it end in our lifetime, I do, and in your lifetime, and all of our lifetimes. We are winning the overall war, but it is something that has been built over 125 years, and ending that is not going to be an easy process, nor a quick one. But I do see us growing and winning the fights every day.

Mansa Musa:  OK. And as we conclude, tell our audience going forward what y’all be doing going forward, and how our audience can act with your project, or your former initiatives.

Jason Ortiz:  Sure. So, actually, we have until Jan. 20 to push President Biden to use his pardon authority to commute the sentences of the cannabis prisoners. And so, folks can go to www.cannabisclemency.org, and we have a countdown clock there where you can actually send a letter to the president, and between now and Jan. 20, that is the number one priority is we have the opportunity to get folks out of prison with this one person making one decision will actually have huge impact.

So, again, it’s www.cannabisclemency.org. You can go to www.lastprisonerproject.org to see all the different campaigns we’re working on. If you’d like to write a letter to someone that’s currently incarcerated, we would love to have folks participating in our letter writing program.

And then I always say to wrap up, if you know anyone in prison for cannabis crimes, please let them know about us, and let us know how we can get in touch with them. Because we do want to be in touch with folks that are on the inside, helping them get resources so The Last Prisoner Project can provide legal support, funding in commissaries, and then also reentry funding when folks come out, so that there’s actually a grant, and you can come out and get a car license, or a house, whatever you may need.

So, help us get our message to the folks that are on the inside, and we would love to help as many people as we can.

Mansa Musa:  Thank you, Jason. You definitely rattled the bars today [crosstalk].

Jason Ortiz:  There you go.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah.

Jason Ortiz:  It’s an honor to be here with you, my man.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah. No doubt about it. We recognize that raw politics, this is a politically motivated… That’s all it is, and we recognize now, based on your education of our audience and the marijuana laws, that the hypocrisy of this country is that they’re big on saying things… Like Stevie Wonder say, we all amazed, but not amused at all the things you’ll say you do, but if you really want to know something, you haven’t done nothing.

And this is exactly what President Biden… This is your opportunity to cement your legacy, and in terms of pardoning everyone that was convicted of this draconian marijuana law, to pardon people that’s been convicted of a frame, like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, politically motivated because of their politics.

We ask that y’all continue to support Rattling The Bars and The Real News, because it’s only from this platform that you get this kind of information that Jason Ortiz gave us from The Last Prisoner Project.

We recognize that a person can come out and smoke a joint around the corner, and buy some weed, but the same person sitting back in the cell in Denver, Colorado, or Florida somewhere that’s been convicted of having four pounds or 10 pounds of marijuana is sitting back wondering, why am I still sitting here when it’s legal to sell this throughout this country?

So, we ask that you support this initiative to try to get the word out, and encourage President Biden to cement his legacy by being the architect of change, and not the architect of confusion and destruction.

Thank you, Jason.

Jason Ortiz:  Thank you. Well said.

Five incarcerated people in Alabama are fighting to push forward a lawsuit, Stanley v. Ivey, challenging the state’s power to punish prisoners who resist forced labor. Despite a state constitutional provision abolishing slavery that was passed in 2022 by referendum, Montgomery County Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing Governor Kay Ivey and Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm were protected by state sovereign immunity. Emily Early, Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ Southern Regional Office, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ ongoing fight to have their case appealed. 

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution says that slavery is legal — And they use the term involuntary servitude — They say that anyone duly convicted of a crime can be enslaved and labor can be used for slavery purposes.

Now, the question becomes what happens when a state take that clause and say it no longer should be used? And the state that’s being talked about was one of the crown jewels in slavery, the state of Alabama.

Recently in the state of Alabama, prisoners filed a suit challenging utilization of forced labor and for the abolishment of slavery as we know it. The court ruled that the defendants in the case had qualified immunity and the prisoners had no standing in bringing this suit forward.

Joining me today is Emily Early. Welcome, Emily.

Emily Early:  Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.

Mansa Musa:  And Emily, tell our audience a little bit about yourself and where you’re from before we unpack this tragedy that’s going on down in Alabama.

Emily Early:  Sure. Well first, again, I’d like to thank you for having me on your radio show to educate your audience about this really important issue that exists very much so in many of our own backyards and many people don’t know about forced prison labor and slavery that happens inside the prison walls.

I am an attorney with an organization called The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is a racial and justice advocacy organization founded in 1966. We are headquartered in New York, but we are expanding into the South through our Southern initiative, of which I am the head. My official title is the associate director of our Southern regional office, and I’m also a trained attorney. And again, I live in Atlanta, but I have colleagues who are part of this Southern initiative who reside in Alabama and who are helping to lead the litigation that I’m here to talk about today, as well as another colleague in Atlanta, and one in Jackson, Mississippi.

The case name is Stanley v. Ivey, and, again, was brought on behalf of six individuals who are incarcerated inside of Alabama prisons. I will note that one of our original six plaintiffs, Mr. Dexter Avery, sadly passed away a couple of months ago while he was in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. So I wanted to note that, unfortunately, and to make sure that we say his name in the course of this interview.

The suit was brought on behalf of these individuals who have been punished for not working, or refusing to work. And the defendants whom we sued are the governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner.

The claims that we brought were intended to, if you will, give teeth or force to the constitutional amendment that the voters of Alabama overwhelmingly voted in support of in November of 2022 that got rid of the exceptions clause, or the prison loophole clause that you were talking about, Mr. Musa, earlier, that exists, though, in Alabama’s state constitution.

After the ratification of the 13th Amendment, each state that decided to become a part of the union also had to ratify their own versions of the 13th Amendment. And so Alabama, like many other states, has its own version of the 13th federal amendment that also excludes from the prohibition of slavery persons who are duly convicted of the commission of a crime. And so in November 2022, voters voted to ratify the constitution to get rid of that prison loophole, or that exceptions clause, as it’s referred to.

Nonetheless, the state government, including the governor herself and the Alabama Department of Corrections commissioner, John Han, enacted executive laws that still proceed to punish people and threaten to punish people for refusing to work and not working. And our clients have been subjected to those laws that were passed, very much so in violation of the 2022 constitutional ratification.

So our suit, again, was filed, like I said, in May of this year. Intentionally we filed on May 1 because we recognize that this lawsuit is not only about pushing up against and eliminating this prison-industrial complex, the system of mass incarceration, but it is also very much an issue of labor rights and ensuring that individuals who are choosing to work and who do work under their own free will have the right protections of safety, adequate pay, fairness, and are treated with dignity and humanity. And this system of forced prison labor inside of the Alabama Department of Corrections that still exists, notwithstanding the constitutional amendment, is very much so not providing workers these principles, these rights, this concept of justice.

So in early August of 2024 of this year, our case was dismissed by the Montgomery County circuit court for not actually qualified immunity but what is called sovereign immunity and standing. The court gave absolutely no reasoning whatsoever in its two-sentence dismissal of this lawsuit.

But what sovereign immunity effectively is, it says that the state or the sovereign, it’s a doctrine that derives from British law that says that the king, the sovereign cannot be sued. And if the king or the sovereign or the head of state is sued then, as a matter of policy, everything that the sovereign does could be subjected to a lawsuit.

And so this doctrine of sovereign immunity was created centuries ago, and it’s adopted into many states common law, in statutes, even in federal law in one form or another. And again, that just says that the government and officers and instrumentalities of the state cannot be sued. However, there are rules that have to be met or elements that have to be met before sovereign immunity even can be triggered before it comes into play. And even if those elements are met, there are exceptions to sovereign immunity.

So our position is that sovereign immunity does not apply to this case because our clients are seeking what’s called forward-looking or prospective relief, meaning an injunction to stop the governor and the Alabama Department of Corrections from enforcing these laws that violate Section 32 of the Alabama Constitution that outlaws prison slavery, and also a declaration that declares that what these laws are doing violate Section 32 of the constitution. So because that’s the form of relief that our clients are seeking, sovereign immunity doesn’t apply.

Mansa Musa:  I mentioned earlier that we interviewed two members of a union who was involved with being co-plaintiffs in a suit, and I want our audience to know that, as you clarify, Emily, this not necessarily having anything to do with what y’all talking about, but the reality is that they complained about the same conditions that you’re complaining about and that’s being brought to the court’s attention, the inhumanity, the cruel and unusual punishment that’s taking place as it relates to men and women that’s in the Alabama prison system.

But talk about why you think that the state of Alabama, specifically the governor and the Department of Corrections, why you think that they’re taking such a staunch position to ensure and maintain this forced labor system. Because as you said, the state of Alabama, the citizens in the state of Alabama ratified the constitution eliminating any use of forced labor by getting rid of the exception clause in the state constitution. Why do you think that they’re so adamant about holding fast to this particular position?

Emily Early:  Well, I think it’s because of two justifications among others, but the two I’ll focus on here today are profit, number one, and you talked about that earlier in the interview. And number two is controlling the bodies that are inside of the prison system, which are overwhelmingly Black and low income. And as it concerns the motivation of profit, the prison system in Alabama — And I would also go as far as to say in many other states — Could not function if they did not rest on, rely on the labor of incarcerated individuals.

Incarcerated workers inside of Alabama Department of Corrections prisons, they cook the food that incarcerated individuals eat. They clean the bathrooms, the hallways, the dormitories, the grounds outside of the four prison walls. They also work — And this is a piece that I haven’t covered as much, but our lawsuit also focuses on this — They are also contracted out to private industries.

Even some of the restaurants that we frequent often in our very own communities, McDonald’s or Buffalo Wild Wings, they’re also cooking and cleaning and performing at these fast food restaurants. And then they take a van that they have to pay for, it comes out of their own pay, that Alabama Department of Corrections transports them to and then picks them back up, and then they come back and then they sleep back inside of the prison walls.

And there also are some incarcerated individuals who are performing security functions because the staff, the prison system is so understaffed and overworked. And so sometimes there are even individuals who are performing some of those same security functions that correctional officers would perform. So it definitely is profit. The Alabama Department of Corrections makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the backs of Black and Brown bodies inside of the prison system.

And the second justification for why the state is resisting and forcing this constitutional ratification, which relates to the first reason, is it is an extension, the prison slavery is an extension of slavery, a method used to control and dehumanize and subjugate individuals who are Black in society. And because they are now in this system of incarceration, I think there is very much an attitude, not just among the state government, but, unfortunately, among many in our society and in our community, that we can just do away with people who are inside of prison walls.

And that is not the case. That should not be the case at all. And they still deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity. And if they choose to work, then they should be provided with the same protections that those in the free world have.

Mansa Musa:  I want to unpack that as well because I was locked up 48 years prior to getting released. And at one time during my incarceration, I worked what we call industry, that’s what most prisoners referred to it as, industry. And they have with Maryland, MCE, Maryland Correctional Enterprises, and Maryland Correctional Enterprises is legislated by the state of Maryland. This particular corporation is legislated by the state of Maryland and all the labor for, they automatically get, they don’t have to bid for no contracts for state property to make the furniture, anything relative to the state. The chemicals that’s used in the institutions and in government buildings, the uniforms that the officers wear, the clothing that we wear, all these products are made by prisoners in MCE. The furniture for the state house is made by prisoners in MCE.

One, we wasn’t getting minimum wage. Two, we didn’t have no healthcare plan. Three, we couldn’t buy into social security. And four, in order to get any type of, which was considered money, we had to do an enormous amount of work in order to get a bonus.

And I was looking at the state of Alabama, the fact that they outsourcing the labor in Alabama and the fact that they’re outsourcing it. And most of these people in the work release or pre-release environment, they’re not getting, one, they’re not getting minimum wage, and, if I’m not mistaken, in some cases they’re paying for their own room and board. And you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. I know they’re paying for transportation.

And the last thing I noticed in the conversation we had was that in order to maintain the labor pool, they was denying people parole or the ability to progress through the system because they didn’t want to lose their labor. In y’all suit or y’all fact finding, did any of this come up?

Emily Early:  As far as the parole piece, it’s not something that we have highlighted directly in the suit, however, it’s something we’re very keenly aware of, that the rate of parole grants in Alabama is abysmal. It’s very, very low. And for that reason, we actually are representing a couple of our clients who are clients in the forced prison labor, Stanley v. Ivy case, in their parole hearings. And even there in our representation, at least on the first try, two of our clients were denied parole.

But that’s something that we’re keenly aware of. And I agree with you, Mr. Musa, that yes, the denial of parole, I think, is tied, in one way or another, to the state’s need to keep people incarcerated to continue to profit off of their labor and to continue to keep the system running.

Mansa Musa:  Another observation that was made in our previous conversations was that the fact that the utilization of prison labor automatically stopped, infringes on the rights of people having society to work. So I got cheap labor on the prison-industrial complex. I can take this labor, the same labor, and outsource it to, like you say, fast food restaurants, butcher shops, anywhere that they need labor, and they could have unions there, and I’m undermining the unions and undermining the ability for people to get minimum wage or living wage because I got cheap labor.

Do you think that this has something to do with the fact that it’s the relation between the business community has a hand in ensuring or maintaining this particular standard of slavery in the Alabama prison system? Is a connection between the business community in conjunction with the governor or the state in order to maintain cheap labor? Because if I got cheap labor and they don’t have to unionize, I don’t have to pay health, medical benefits, they don’t have to buy into social security, their pension, or none of that. Have you seen that?

Emily Early:  No, I haven’t seen that necessarily, if I’m understanding your question correctly. I think what I do agree with, and I’m gathering from your statements, is that individuals who are incarcerated within the Department of Corrections in Alabama but are contracted out to private employers don’t have to be paid health insurance, 401k, if they qualify for it, and I think that is the case. However, and many of the folks that we did speak to — And I’m not saying this is the case across the board — But many of the folks whom we spoke to in our investigation were paid the same as free world workers and I think have to be paid. They cannot be paid less.

But what happens is the State Department of Corrections takes out 40% of their paycheck and it goes back to the state prison system. And so while they may be paid the same as some individuals who are free world workers, they don’t have the same take home pay. And that’s because the Department of Corrections is taking out its own cut, fees for transportation, fees for laundry, fees for the commissary. Right there, you mentioned room and board, and that is the case as well where, in some jails and prisons, individuals have to pay for their own incarceration.

Mansa Musa:  My understanding is that they don’t have the right to say, I don’t want to work. If they don’t work, then they’re being punished even if they’re being given, in the state system they call it infractions. They’re being given disciplinary charges for refusing to work. Is that something that came out in the course of your investigation or gathering the facts of the suit?

Emily Early:  Sure. So if people have been assigned to work and they are unable to work for whatever reason, or even if they refuse to work because the conditions are not safe, as happened with one of our clients, Mr. Reginald Burrell, who was injured while working at a furniture store in the free world community and was disciplined for saying he was not going back because it was not a safe environment.

That very much so is what is happening inside of the Department of Corrections where individuals, they cannot work, they refuse to work, they exercise a choice that they should have to not work for whatever reason, and then are consequently written up. That has happened to each of our plaintiffs. That threat remains and is ongoing because of these laws that the Alabama governor and the Department of Corrections commissioner and the Alabama legislature enacted after Section 32 of the constitution was ratified.

So each of those provisions, they relate to one another. And what they effectively do is authorize disciplinary reports and write-ups for literally refusing to work or failing to work or failing to report to work.

And the consequences of those disciplinary write-ups are extra duty, so individuals can be assigned even more work, which can effectively lengthen their sentence; They can lose privileges such as visitation with family and friends who come to visit them, which is very key to their survival and mental health and stability while on the inside; They can also be transferred to more dangerous prisons, which has also happened to some of our clients as a result of a disciplinary write up; They also can lose their good time credit, which is a system where folks earn, effectively, days of time that can be knocked off their sentence for good behavior. But if they’re written up, then they can lose a lot of good time, which, once again, extends or re-extends their sentence.

So they’re being punished over and over and over again, even though they were sentenced to incarceration and, effectively, are now being sentenced to labor, to slavery, to involuntary servitude inside the prisons.

Mansa Musa:  And you know what, as you was talking, I was reminded of, I think the case was Sardin v. O’Connor, it’s a US case that came out with the concept of in order to prove an 8th Amendment claim or a claim relative to the conditions, you had to show atypical and significant hardship. You had to show that whatever you was complaining about was atypical and had significant hardship on you.

And I remember when they first came out with this concept, a lot of legal scholars unpacked it and was showing how difficult it was to meet this standard. But I was looking up in the Alabama prison system, it’s one of the most cruel, inhumane prison systems in the country. Some of the prisons — And that’s one of the things I was made aware of in terms of getting people to work — They threaten to transfer them to some of the more notorious prisons in order to pretty much get them to change their mind about not wanting to work.

But talk about going forward, what do you think the standing, what do you think the court, the higher court, going to do in terms of recognizing y’all claim that they don’t have sovereign immunity and that what y’all arguing and the issue that y’all raising has standing?

Emily Early:  Sure. So we’re not sure what the court will do, but of course our hope is, and we think we’re right, is that the court will reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the case and the judgment that the circuit court entered in favor of the defendants, and remand or send the case back to the circuit court. So the case would then be reinstated, and we would continue to litigate the case.

We think that we are right on the law. We think that the circuit court was absolutely wrong on sovereign immunity. It’s very clear that this is a case that does not trigger sovereign immunity, and even if it does, it meets one of the exceptions. And on standing, we think that our clients have fled the claim that shows that they were injured by these three laws, the Executive Order no. 725, the Administrative Regulation 403 that was promulgated in response to the executive order, and then the Alabama statutory code provision that also punishes folks for refusing to work, that all these laws have harmed our plaintiffs, and the defendant’s continued enforcement of these laws harms our plaintiffs, and the lawsuit that they have brought for injunctive and declaratory relief will redress or resolve those harms.

So we think that they have the standing necessary to raise these claims to enforce their right under Section 32 of the Alabama Constitution. So again, we think we’re right on the law, and we can only see what the court will say once the defendant submits their brief and we submit a reply brief. We are also requesting oral argument, so there may be an opportunity for us to go before the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals to have our day in court on behalf of our clients to plead our case.

Mansa Musa:  OK. Thank you, Emily. And as we close out, tell our audience how they can stay on top of this or keep being informed about what’s going on with this lawsuit, and how they can track some of the work that y’all are doing.

Emily Early:  Sure. Well, they can absolutely follow us on all the major platforms. Again, our organization is the Center for Constitutional Rights. Our website is ccrjustice.org. And this case is titled Stanley v. Ivy, and it’s currently pending in the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals. You can find a specific case page also on our ccrjustice.org website about Stanley v. Ivy. So if you just Google it, you can get updates. And again, we do try to update our casework on all the major social media platforms.

Mansa Musa:  Thank you very much. You rattled the bars today, Emily. And we want to remind our audience that we’re talking about humanity. We’re talking about people who has been duly convicted, but the sentence was what they were serving. The crime, you have crime and punishment, the crime that I committed, and then the punishment is the time that I’m given. The punishment is not that I be leased out in forced labor and subjected to inhumane working conditions and don’t have no redress.

And so we asking that you really look into this situation that’s going on and ask yourself, would you want to wake up one day and find out that you cannot refuse to work? And that if you refuse to work, that you’re going to be subjected to more punishment, more cruelty, only because someone chooses to ignore the will of the citizens of the state of Alabama.

Thank you, Emily. We appreciate you.

Emily Early:  Thank you so much for having me.

Mansa Musa:  And we ask that you continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. It’s only because of The Real News that you get this kind of coverage of what’s going on in Alabama, what’s going on throughout the United States of America and the world. And guess what? We’re actually the real news.

A new bill in Washington, DC seeks to end the district’s use of solitary confinement in jails. Rattling the Bars‘ Mansa Musa speaks with two formerly incarcerated organizers: Herbert Robinson and Cinquan Umar Muhammad of the Unlock the Box DC campaign, which advocates for an end to the barbaric practice of solitary confinement around the country and to pass the ERASE Bill.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Oftentimes we hear about Unlock the Box, and it’s almost becoming cliché. It’s an organization called Solitary Watch that monitors solitary confinement throughout the world and the United States in particular, and they’re real strategic in highlighting the torture and abuse that solitary confinement is.

What we have with us today, people that’s in this space right today. And guess where they’re operating out of? Our nation’s capital. They’re operating out of Washington DC, and they’re organizing to Unlock the Box. But guess where they’re trying to Unlock the Box at? In DC jail.

So why would you have solitary confinement in an environment where the nature of the environment is a transitory environment? The people in that environment, they’re pending conviction, they haven’t got convicted, they’ve only been charged, but yet they’re being treated like they’re doing severe time, and they’re being subjected to solitary confinement.

Joining me today is Herbert Robinson and Cinquan Umar Muhammad. Welcome, men.

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. How you doing today?

Herbert Robinson:  Thank you for having us. Thank you for having us.

Mansa Musa:  I’m doing all right. So let’s start with you, Herbert, because we had you on before talking about Unlock the Box. I was recently at an activity that y’all was doing, y’all sponsored, about Unlock the Box. That’s where I met brother Umar. And y’all was talking about some of the things that y’all was doing, some of your initiatives y’all was taking, but more importantly, y’all was in the space of educating people about Unlock the Box and what exactly that is.

Tell our audience what exactly is Unlock the Box, and where y’all staying at right now in terms of the coalition that y’all building to Unlock the Box.

Herbert Robinson:  Got you. Again, I thank you for letting me be on and appreciate you, Umar, for joining. The Unlock the Box DC is the coalition here in DC that’s trying to end solitary confinement. It’s built up of transformative justice advocates and a lot of the organizations in DC that look at solitary confinement as torture, along with the United Nations. United Nations had what they brought about as the Mandela rule that says 15 days or more in solitary confinement is torture.

And solitary confinement is often described as torture, and involves isolating individuals for 22 to 24 hours a day inside of a cell.

So the Unlock the Box campaign is here to end that. And we are offering a different change into the community. Because it’s in DC jail, it’s being looked at as a judicial issue, but we’re looking at it as a public health issue.

Mansa Musa:  And one of the things that y’all, I recall at the conference that y’all was having on it, y’all had got someone to introduce a bill to do what?

Herbert Robinson:  Yes. So that bill was introduced by a champion, and that’s councilmember Brianne Nadeau.

Mansa Musa:  From Washington DC?

Herbert Robinson:  From Washington DC. Yes. Brianne Nadeau introduced the bill for us, and the bill is to abolish solitary confinement. We are seeking to end solitary confinement, and we’re asking that each person housed in DC jail is entitled to eight hours a day outside of their cell.

DC jail uses solitary confinement, but they have named it with different names. They have a mental unit that they use for solitary confinement, they have protective custody, they have safe cells, they have disciplinary. They house the LGBT community in solitary confinement because they don’t have nowhere else to put them. And they do the juveniles like that at times on different units.

So with this being said, it’s like the jail that’s lacking the programs and the resources, and that’s what we seek, to figure out how to implement these programs and resources inside the jail. Because there’s a lot that could be done, man, to help the people adjust and better themselves under them conditions, especially when it comes to social and emotional learning and cognitive thinking and things like that to deal with problem solving and be aware of their anger and how they respond and react to certain situations.

And these are things that’s stripped away from you when you locked in that cell by yourself. You become possessive of your own material and things like that. And then the dignity of rewashing clothes that the whole unit then wore and then giving back to you to put on. These things, they take away from you, they strip you down.

Mansa Musa:  Right. Yeah. And I did 48 years before I got out, but I did four-and-a-half of them years in the supermax, which was solitary confinement. I did a lot of time on segregation, which is solitary confinement, but I never looked at it like that.

But when I got to supermax, I really realized the impact that isolation had, because sometimes it was like 24 and none, 23 and one, or 24 and none for the most part. And everything was designed around how you would do your due diligence with yourself in your cell.

Umar, talk about your experience. Tell our audience a little bit about yourself and some of your experience and your experience dealing with solitary confinement. I recall your speech at the conference that the Unlock the Box Coalition was having, and I’ve been in this space for a minute, but I was really impressed. That’s what made me approach you about coming on and educating our audience about solitary confinement.

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  Yes sir. Well, first I want to thank you, brother Mansa Musa, for having me here today. I also want to thank my brother Herbert Robinson for always bringing me along. Brother Herbert is my mentor, has been my mentor for some time, so I always try to get in any space that I can with him and get involved with any campaign he’s a part of because we both have some of these shared experiences.

At the age of 16, I was sentenced to juvenile life in DC Superior Court, and I was fortunate that at some point in time, roughly around 2017, 2018, the DC Council came up with what’s called the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act. What the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act does is it affords our juveniles who committed crimes before the age of 18, the first version, second version, the age of 25 and under who have served a minimum of 20 years or 15 years to petition the court for release.

And everything is predicated on your conduct while you’ve been incarcerated throughout these years since you were a juvenile. I petitioned the court for release after 29 years, 10 months, and I was released. I was released back into society.

And I made it my top priority because while I was incarcerated, I knew that if I should ever be released, the one thing that I wanted to work on and I wanted to dedicate the rest of my life to was working first and foremost just criminal justice reform in general, but more importantly in this solitary confinement period. But it has to be a starting point. There had to be a starting point. And I’m from Washington, DC, so what better place to start but in Washington, DC?

But over 29 years and 10 months, I roughly spent about six years, six-and-a-half years consecutively in solitary confinement. And one thing that I always say, and I shout it from the rooftop, solitary confinement is 100%, make no mistake about it, torture.

Mansa Musa:  Come on.

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  It’s mental torture. It’s physical torture, it’s psychological torture. It’s emotional torture.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  This is torture that needs to be ended because these are the same citizens that will be returning back to the community at some point in time. Who do you want living next door to you: Somebody who has been reformed, who has spent years in incarceration, who has reformed himself, bettered himself when he’s coming back out, back into society as someone who’s a better person.

Or do you want someone who is batshit crazy? Who has practically lost his mind because he’s been sitting inside of a cell alone counting bricks on a wall? I mean, this is a public safety issue. And if this is a public safety issue, then we got to treat this in a manner where this is an emergency in solitary confinement. Who would want to lock somebody in a room the size of your bathroom and leave them in there for years on top of years on top of years, but expecting them to still come out in the same conditions that they went in? That’s insanity. That’s insanity.

So Unlock the Box. I’m involved with a lot of organizations, Free Minds writing workshop and book club, building communities in our prisons. Currently, I’m a BreakFree Education hour 2024 fellow. I’m a fellow, that’s where I’m working at right now. But I just was hired for a job with Dreaming Out Loud, which is an organization that works to end the food inequities in the greater Washington DC area.

But whatever my brother Herbert Robinson is involved in because we are passionate about these same issues. But the top one being, the top one being, first and foremost, is erasing solitary confinement, unlocking the box. And that’s what I’m here to talk about.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. Hey Herbert, because Umar made a good point. And this is his mantra. That’s his mantra. He said it at the conference, the coalition, that solitary confinement is 100% torture. When we think of torture and we see the forms of torture that take place in the movies, we see torture as more physical. Why are y’all saying that solitary confinement?

And he outlined the different reasons what’s behind it, emotional, social, physical, mental. But why do you say it’s torture, and how do you get people to understand it being torture? Because when you say someone is being tortured, they waterboard people they falsely accused, they locked up in Iraq, named them illegal combatants. They waterboarded them and the US say, well, that’s torture. They did a lot of physical things to them and they claim that’s torture.

So most people might think say, well, when you say torture and it ain’t got no physical element to it, you just putting somebody in a cell, feeding them, giving them a shower, some food, break them out maybe once in a while and give them some rec, how is that torture?

Herbert Robinson:  So as the brother spoke, because when he said torture, he broke it down from psychological, emotional, mental, physical. This torture happens on every level. You come from being in society with your family to being incarcerated. Now if you’re incarcerated on population, you might have access to the phone and things at a regular basis.

In solitary confinement, you don’t get that. You might be put in a position where you can only send one letter a month, have one 15-minute phone call a month. That’s torture. Sitting there wondering what your family doing for 30 days before you could send your next letter or receive your next letter or get your next phone call.

Again, having them collect everybody’s under clothes off of the tier and wash them in the same laundry basket and then come and pass them back out. Not you, your personal stuff, but just, this your size, this yours. This the stuff the man next to you could have just, man, shitted in or whatever the day before. But this is what you got to wear now because they feel as though it’s clean enough for you to wear, that you still see hairballs and stuff in it. Like this is torture.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, that’s torture.

Herbert Robinson:  But on the flip side, just imagine being trapped in your bathroom, but there’s COVID. For the people that was trapped in their house during COVID felt as though they was being tortured. They couldn’t handle being stuck in their own home. But just imagine people that’s incarcerated as being trapped inside of something the size of a bathroom, that is considered a bathroom because they have a toilet and sink in it as well. Some have showers too.

Mansa Musa:  Right there in the cell.

Herbert Robinson:  And you’re being trapped in it. So you have some that complain about that, say it’s not solitary confinement because in some locations you have a celly. But I think at times that make it worse because now when this person has to relieve themselves or go take care of any personal hygiene or washing themselves, you are within arm’s reach at all times.

I don’t feel comfortable and could never get comfortable being trapped in a cell with a man right there that’s washing his complete body naked in the shower. But this is what you’re forced under. These are the things you want to know about torture. I call that torture, sir. That’s torture to me.

Mansa Musa:  That would be torture. Umar, how did you deal with solitary confinement? Because you say you did six in all years. And like I said, I was regimented. I was real regimented in everything I did. But when I came out of that space, when I got released from the supermax in Baltimore and they send me to Jessup, which was known as the cut, and I was standing in what they call center hall, which is where all the traffic goes.

And the whole time, this was my first time ever being out and about and around people. And I knew a lot of people in that institution, and they was coming by hollering at me and everything. They hadn’t seen me in long. But I was paralyzed. My back was against the wall and I was paralyzed. Literally I was paralyzed. And a friend of mine seen it and said, come on man, let’s go outside. No one recognized that I was paralyzed from not being around people.

Umar, how did you deal with it?

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  No, you was traumatized because you were tortured for the period of time that you was in solitary confinement. That’s called trauma, brother. That was psychological trauma that paralyzed your limbs.

Listen, listen, it’s like being sick. It’s like being sick. And you become so ill and sick that your limbs won’t even function properly no matter how much you want to move those limbs. Brother, that’s trauma.

And see, the thing is this when you ask the brother, well, some people going not see it as torture. Okay, well, go lock yourself in your bathroom without no food. Go lock yourself in your bathroom without no clothes, no TV, and no phone, no radio. And then somebody bring you what they want to give you as food three times a day. You stay in there for three, four, five, or six years and then tell me, still tell that that ain’t torture inside of your bathroom.

Tell me that ain’t torture. Somebody to come around and, at will when they want to, yank you off your cell and beat on you with not only their fists, but with instruments. Tell me that ain’t torture. Somebody that come around where you trying to sleep and hawk spitting through your tray slot or kicking your door won’t allow you to sleep every time they see you falling asleep. Tell me that ain’t torture.

Because if I’m not mistaken, what they have in the Geneva Convention also deems torture is that at a certain period of time when they continuously turn on lights and when they continuously try to, it’s called sleep deprivation. That, sir, is what torture is. And that is what’s going on not only in Washington, DC, not only in Baltimore County, but in the state prisons across the United States and in federal rural prisons.

Now you ask the question in specific, how did I deal with it? See, I dealt with it because I knew I didn’t have any other choice but to deal with it because I’m a resilient young man, first and foremost. I had already suffered so much emotional loss, so much physical loss because I’m an only child. My mother and father already died. I didn’t have brothers and sisters. So all I had was myself.

So I knew that if I wasn’t strong for me, who was going to be strong for me? So what I would do is I would get up in the morning and I would offer salat. I would offer the early morning fajr prayer. Bright and early before breakfast even came around, I would pace the floor a little bit, read the Quran, and then I wait for breakfast to come, eat my breakfast, straight back out to the salat.

Then I would work out. I work out to the zuhr prayer, which is the midday prayer. I will work out to that time, pray, get back to working out after prayer and get my food at lunch. After lunch, get back to working out again.

And I’m giving you this regimen because here’s what it entailed. It entailed every hour that I was awake that I had to be doing something that my mind could grasp onto. That I wouldn’t be looking at these walls, that I wouldn’t be trying to count the bricks on the walls or trying to count the spots on the floor. Or I may see a stain on the floor and I’m saying, oh, that look like Jesus on the floor.

Because I had almost got to that point, make no mistake about it. You see a spill on the floor, but the spill may have been on the floor so long that it takes a certain design of somebody that you may have known, right? That’s when you know you’re losing your damn mind. That’s when you know that what you are experiencing is torture. Because now what it does is it’s starting to alter your perspective on how you see the world. That’s torture, brother.

So I had to do things, man, that my mind could physically identify with, that I could grasp onto and that would keep me sane, which is prayer, which is working out, but also which was getting inside of the vents, the vent that blows out, they controls the air to the cell. And I would talk to other people in the other cells because I wanted to make sure that they was all right.

Here I am damn near losing my mind, but I wanted to make sure other brothers was all right. Why? Because we all in the same struggle. We all in the same fight and I don’t want to be the only one up here sitting like, I’m all right. But then that’s what was giving me a peace of mind, so I wouldn’t lose my mind, talking to somebody else. So I know that they needed it too.

Mansa Musa:  And Umar, that’s real succinct. And I’ve been in that space. Like I told, I said earlier, I was regimented. So I had a regimen that I had set up and everything was based on whatever I wanted to do that day. But it was a regimen. I worked out, studied law, read books, went to sleep, woke up, ate, boom, bam, boom, bam, boom.

That was a regimen to keep me from going crazy, keep me from pacing the floor, keep me from looking on the floor and seeing something down there and saying, oh look, that’s Michael Jordan shooting a jump shot. Or keep me from wanting to cut my wrist with a spoon.

But Herbert, talk about where y’all at right now, what the campaign look like in terms of, one, trying to get the legislation passed at the DC City Council. That’s what you’re talking about when you say the councilwoman, that was the councilwoman at the DC City Council. Talk about where y’all at with the Unlock the Box campaign and what’s y’all upcoming initiative around Unlock the Box.

Herbert Robinson:  So right now with the Unlock the Box campaign, the fiscal year is ending. So we have a push till December to try to get a hearing this year, but if not, we’ll be looking to secure a hearing next year, the beginning of next year. And that task is through the judiciary chair, Councilmember Brooke Pinto here in Washington DC. Right now we have nine council members that have signed on in support of the bill.

Mansa Musa:  For the benefit of our audience, what’s the bill number?

Herbert Robinson:  It’s the ERASE Act 2023. I will have to go…

Mansa Musa:  That’s good enough. Just so let them know that when you say the bill, they know it is an actual bill.

Herbert Robinson:  Yeah, it’s ERASE Act 2023. And so out of the nine that we have signed on, it’s only 13. One is being voted into office next month. But we do have, throughout one of his campaign forums, we had him actually verbally say that he agrees that solitary confinement is torture and he wants to support us ending it.

So in that sense, we have 10, we are only missing three. And that’s the chairman, Brooke Pinto, the ex-chairman, Mendelsohn, and Trayon White. Trayon White asked us to set up a conversation with him so we can explain a little bit more about the bill, and that’s where we at with that step and the process of scheduling meetings with Mendelsohn as well as Brooke Pinto.

Mansa Musa:  In terms of work, because y’all did a nice thing with organizing the coalition. So in terms of getting people involved with the coalition, what are y’all doing around that?

Herbert Robinson:  So ERASESolitary.com is the website and you can go on, there’s links on there to ask for those that want to join the coalition, want to do any volunteer work for the coalition, bring in your organizations, and we take individuals. We go out and do canvassing. It’s always something that can be done, especially when it comes to social media posts and editing, things like that, website work. We always got a space where we can find help and need help. So one could go onto the website, ERASESolitary.com, and check that out.

Mansa Musa:  And Umar, you have to answer this question. Why you think they so resistant to recognizing this torture and doing something about it? When I say they, I’m talking about the system, the state, the government, the powers that be. Why you think it’s such a resistance on their part to recognize this is torture and enact legislation to eliminate it?

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  I’ll give you a scenario better. I give it to you in the form of a scenario to help you understand it. I kill somebody in the street, but the state that got the death penalty want to kill me. That’s retaliatory in nature. But this is supposed to be a government for the people and by the people.

But now somebody killed one of my brothers in the street, I go back and kill them and they give me life. I mean what makes it right for them to kill me for killing somebody, the state, but then I kill somebody for killing somebody, the same thing they done, and you give me a life sentence? It’s retaliatory in nature.

And that’s the way that the Americans judicial system functions. You do something we don’t like… Because listen, you know, Herbert know, and many people that been in solitary confinement that hear this know, and those that haven’t been that need to be educated need to know this. Do you know that you could be put in solitary confinement because you got an extra tray out the chow hall line because you was hungry? You were hungry, so you wanted seconds, and you got in the line to get seconds, and they locked you up and put you in solitary confinement because you were hungry.

Do you know that the officer can not like you and shake your cell down because they can anytime they want to do what’s called random searches, but they’re not so random. Search in your cell and plant a knife, drugs, or whatever they want to plan in your cell just to get you in solitary confinement so that when he does his overtime mandated shift, he can be working in solitary confinement so that he can physically abuse you outside of the purview of the camera.

So what we need to do more is we need to not only educate people about solitary confinement, what solitary confinement really is, we need to educate them about how they get people into solitary confinement and for what reasons they get them in solitary confinement, so they can do torturous things to them that they couldn’t do within the sight of the camera. But when you put them in solitary confinement, they say, oh, they got a camera on the hall. I don’t live in the hall. I live on a cell in the hall where there’s no camera at. And this is where the torturous activities go on at.

Mansa Musa:  You rattled the bars that time, Umar. Took a tray. Somebody hungry, they put him in solitary confinement. Police say man disrespected him, put him in solitary confinement. Man walking too slow, solitary confinement. Oh, better still, look. Got a tray, torture you. You talk back, torture. Not walking fast enough, torture.

Herbert, you got the last word on this here. Tell our audience how they can get in touch with you and how they become involved in the campaign, and some of your other initiatives that you might be involved with.

Herbert Robinson:  Got you. So again, ERASESolitary.com is a way to get in touch with the Unlock the Box campaign and you go on there and there’s links to sign up and join the coalition and all that.

As far as me, I have a website, and on my website you could check out a lot of what I’m into, from Growing Pain Solutions to AGG transportation. I’m trying to build out one in the transportation industry and the other is in this advocacy sector.

But I have what I call Building Inclusive Communities, where I try to bring in brothers like Umar and a lot of those that I’ve worked with. And we sharing our voice, we trying to be heard, we trying to fight for what we believe in and what we feel as though the community needs and what we feel as though, when we go out into the community and talk to the community, what they tell us they need. We ain’t just doing this for ourselves and we ain’t just bringing the information that we feel, but nah, this is stuff we bringing out from the community. We out here, we in the community, we do these rallies, as you seen, and we engaging all those around us.

Mansa Musa:  Umar, how can people get in touch with you and some of the things that you’re doing, some of your initiatives you’re taking, as we close out?

Cinquan “Umar” Muhammad:  I’m actually, excuse me. Yes, sir. I’m actually on Facebook and I’m on Instagram ,and my Instagram and Facebook is basically tied together. Cinquan815, and Cinquan is spelled with a C. C-I-N-Q-U-A-N 815. You can find me on Facebook or you can find me on Instagram, the same thing.

You can see what I’m into on a daily basis. You can see the type of work that I advocate for. You can see pictures of different conferences and canvassing that we have done, and you can find out how to get involved also.

But thank you for having me, brother. I really appreciate this. This really needed to get out. People need to understand what solitary confinement is, what’s really going on. You know what I mean? And how they can help the movement. And man, anytime you need me, brother, anytime, and I know Herbert feel the same, call on us, and we going to be there because this a fight that we got to keep on fighting as long as we walking this earth.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right. This is a fight that we got to keep on fighting. Y’all rattled the bars.

And we want to encourage our listeners and our viewers to look at this particular episode of Rattling the Bars and ask yourself, just ask yourself when you get your plate, you take your plate to the bathroom, sit on top of the toilet stool, wash your hands, sit on the toilet, and start eating it. Then you wait for somebody to open the door and take it out.

Ask yourself, did you wait for them to come open your door and tell you that you got 15 minutes to take a shower? And then on top of that, they tell you that the laundry is coming back and they’re giving you some underwear that you got pick of the litter, doo doo stains in them, nut balls in them. And then they tell you that at the end of the day when you get up out of there, after doing six years in that environment, oh, you all right. Ain’t nothing wrong with you. And by the way, you wasn’t being tortured.

Y’all rattled the bars, and we thank you for y’all coming on today. And we ask our listeners to understand this and understand this real clearly. It’s only from The Real News and Rattling the Bars, you get this kind of information. All three of us have been in solitary confinement. We’re not talking about this as a theory. We’re talking about this from actual practicality. We all lived this experience and we are campaigning against it. And this is why these men are on here today to talk about it.

Thank y’all for joining us, and we ask that you continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars, because guess what? We really are the news.

Since the 1990s, 2 million people with felony convictions have regained the right to vote, thanks to crucial reforms abolishing felony disenfranchisement in 26 states. This election, these voters could play a crucial role—and based on data from 2020, many of them prefer Trump. There’s more to this story however, from incarcerated people’s limited access to information, to the role of prisoners’ race and even positive perceptions of Harris’ gender in shaping incarcerated voters’ preferences. Nicole Lewis, engagement editor for The Marshall Project joins Rattling the Bars to discuss her organization’s findings and insights into the politics of prisoners.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  We hear during this period that the most important election ever in the history of elections is getting ready to take place. We hear that if we don’t come out and vote, that Armageddon going to follow if certain people get elected. This is what we are hearing.

But for the abolitionists and for prisoners, what do this mean for them? What do this mean for us? What do it mean to say that this is the most important election ever when you are sitting in a cell serving triple life sentences? This the most important election ever, and you are in an environment where the judges have complete control over your livelihood.

Joining me today is Nicole Lewis from the Marshall Project to talk about why prisoners are voting for Trump, but more importantly, to give us some insight to the electoral process and electoral assistance as it relates to those of us are on the plantation.

Welcome, Nicole.

Nicole Lewis:  Thanks for having me on.

Mansa Musa:  First, tell our audience a little bit about yourself before we get into the subject matter.

Nicole Lewis:  Yeah, absolutely. So, I’m a journalist. I’m an editor at the Marshall Project, and we are a nonprofit news organization that covers the criminal justice system. And typically, our pieces take a systemic look at issues of abuse, harm, wrongdoing, inequality. We use journalism, we tell stories to shine a bright spotlight on where things are not working. And our mission is to create a national sense of urgency about the criminal justice system.

Mansa Musa:  OK. And right there. So, as you’ve seen how my intro as it relates to the electoral process and from the abolition, and I’m talking specifically from an abolitionist perspective or from the carceral… We’re not trying to reform prison, we’re not trying to make sanitized prisons, we’re trying to abolish prison. That’s what the abolitionist position is.

But in that regard, how do the abolitionists, and this is a question that we’ve been proposing lately, what’s the abolitionist perspective on the electoral process?

So, you wrote a piece on why prisoners vote for Trump. So, let’s talk about this, OK. And I’m going to set it up like this here.

All right. When I was locked up, I was telling one of my colleagues this. When I was locked up, I was in one institution, and when I was walking around the institution, they had, throughout the institution, vote for Robert Ehrlich. Robert Ehrlich was a Republican that was running for governor in the State of Maryland. And I’m like, why would anybody in their right mind vote for Ehrlich?

And so, I’m asking around because the population’s somewhat enlightened. I’m asking around, why are we putting this stuff up here saying vote for Ehrlich? And that’s what they said. They said that a Democrat delegate had went to Ehrlich and asked Ehrlich would he be inclined to pardon lifers or cut life with people that had life sentences, cut their sentences or look at their case? And that was the highest issue for prisoners in the State of Maryland at that time.

So, we got a secular interest that’s being represented. And somebody went to a Republican governor, a potential Republican governor saying, would you be inclined to do this? And he said, yeah.

And the delegate came back to us and said, this is what he going to do versus what the Democrat governor is doing or has been doing. So, what’s the difference? OK, we saying don’t vote for Trump or why people vote for Trump, but they saying don’t vote for Trump, but vote Democrat. However, the Democrats are in control now. You got Democratic president, vice president running, in some quarters they call it a top cop. So, why wouldn’t people vote for Trump? Come on.

Nicole Lewis:  You framed this really perfectly. I think you’re asking all the right questions here. So, let me back up before I truly get into that answer to just give a little bit more context. So, for the last three elections, I’ve run a survey of incarcerated people. It started in 2020. I did one in 2022, and, of course, I did one ahead of this election in 2024.

So, this year alone, we heard from 54,000 people across 45 different states, prisons, and 745 facilities across the country. So, this is the largest representation that we have right now of what incarcerated people are thinking about this election.

And like you said, it’s been framed in the media as a really consequential and incredibly important election. I think it’s the right question to ask: what does it actually mean for incarcerated people? That’s the intention behind it.

For the last six years I’ve been at TNP as a reporter, I’ve covered felony disenfranchisement laws. So, what I’ve seen is the way that states have reconsidered people losing their voting rights when they’re convicted of a felony.

And so, it’s really important to know that, since the late 1990s, about 2 million people with felony convictions now have regained the right to vote. And so, that’s mostly people on the outside, that’s people coming home, that’s not necessarily people in prison.

So, this is the backdrop under which I’m doing this survey. It’s the first time in 20 years that you’ve got 2 million people with felony convictions who can decide who represents them at all levels of our government.

So, when we take a look inside and we ask incarcerated people, mostly in prison who are not eligible to vote, we say, well, who would you pick? Who’s interesting to you? We’ve actually found, time and again, so we saw it in 2020, we see it again here, that many incarcerated people would choose Trump. They would choose him for president.

And I think it’s really important to know that, by and large, it’s a lot of white men who are incarcerated who feel very strongly about Trump. Black men somewhat, to some degree, but that survey result is really driven by the white prison population. So, that’s just to start there. Trump has white male supporters behind bars. I don’t actually think that that should be that surprising [laughs]. That tracks what we see.

But let me break it down even further. So, when we go and we ask people and we say, well, what is interesting to you about this candidate? Why does he appeal to you? It’s exactly what you’re saying in this previous Maryland race. A lot of people have — Or they have a false understanding, I want to make this really clear because it’s not correct. They have a false understanding that Trump is going to help them get out of prison.

And the reason they believe this is because of some of the work that he did with the First Step Act. That was federal. So, it doesn’t apply to people in state prisons. Because of some of the work that he’s done with Kim Kardashian, because of people like Alice Johnson who he was able to get out of prison. But again, by and large our surveys are entirely people in the state system. And so, it’s not actually asking federal people.

But it’s this idea that permeates the perception of his policy that he’s going to be good for incarcerated people over the facts. So, people might not have full access to news. They might not be able to watch news on the TV. They might not be able to read it. And so, if you hear someone say, Trump, he’s really good for us, he’s going to get us out, that he’s my shot, of course people are going to say, yeah, no, this is my candidate. This makes sense to us.

And so, we’ve seen again and again, like you said, criminal justice issues, getting out of prison, prison reform, abolition to some degree, reentry, release, all of these things are very important to incarcerated people. So, they’re making decisions based on who they think could support them the most.

But there’s more to the story. There’s more to the story there.

The other thing I think is really important to know is that when Kamala entered the race, when she became the Democratic nominee, we actually saw a surge of support for her. So, a lot of people, particularly Black people who were saying originally that they would vote for Trump in a Trump-Biden race, said that they would now choose the VP.

And they’re conflicted about this because a lot of people, we could, again, we could see, and when we followed up with people, we could see people saying, I’m conflicted. She’s a prosecutor. I don’t know what that means in terms of her ability to help me. That seems completely very clear. That seems like her job was putting people away.

But they’re so desperate. There’s such clarity that no system, no party, no person, particularly no man has helped them in their situation, that they’re willing to take a gamble on a woman.

So, it’s this interesting thing where her identity as a woman is now seen as like, well, maybe she would do something different than what these guys have done and not done for us over many, many years. So, it’s a complex situation where people are working on…

Mansa Musa:  And on that note right there, and I agree on the complexities of it, because prison’s not monolithic, and everything is motivated by what’s of interest to them.

And I was talking about with one of my colleagues earlier, that the only time we was monolithic in our thinking was from in the early ’60s and to the ’70s, Attica and beyond, where the prison conditions were so horrific that the repression and the brutality forced us into a position where we had to resist. It wasn’t a matter of if you going to resist or you going to die, it’s a matter of resist and possibly live or possibly die, but at least stand and fight.

And so, that attitude of being monolithic was right there. We was talking about the conditions of the prison, the way we was living, the way they was feeding us, the way they was clothing us, and the way they was [inaudible] us. When prison, they started reforming the plantation and coming up with different scenarios of getting people out. That’s where the interest became more secular in terms of what’s in it for me? Which leads me to my next question.

OK. In your survey, it was established that most people thought that Trump, because the first act is responsible for them getting out. OK. But then look at what’s been taking place for the last four years. Because I’m comparing that against… So when you come to me and say, as a candidate or you saying as a candidate that vote for me, but you don’t have on your agenda nothing about prison reform, you don’t have nothing on your agenda about changing family unification, all those things that’s of interest to me.

But I got one example, albeit far-fetched as it might be, that he didn’t do nothing, no more than do a photo op, get somebody out, and he running on the photo op. But I got that as a reference in comparison to what I got from the Democrats. So, how did you survey jails with that?

Nicole Lewis:  Yeah, again, such a good question because these are all the issues. So, let me think about where I would start on that. So, I do think that it’s perception over reality for sure.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right. That’s right [laughs].

Nicole Lewis:  And I think that an important point to be made here is that when Trump was in power, at the end of his term, he went on an execution spree. He was —

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, exactly.

Nicole Lewis:  We had a moratorium on executions. And so, he killed people. Well, he said, let’s let these executions go forward. So, I wonder if incarcerated people understood the reality, were really able to engage more deeply with what’s happening, would people still feel this way? Have some more thoughts there. So, that’s one thing.

But I will say from what we’ve been looking at and trying to get our heads around both candidates’ policies, both candidates are actually really thin on criminal justice issues right now. There is a lack of clarity on both sides about productive things that people would do.

But I will say still, when we stack the policy perspectives up against each other, Trump is much more punitive. He’s really taking a much more punitive approach. He’s really trying to limit any and all kinds of protections, trying to continue to restart the death penalty. So, it’s pretty clear that if, as a president, he would have a very different policy and position.

Kamala is sort of still undeveloped. She’s a blank slate. We don’t exactly know what a Kamala presidency means.

I think what’s more important for incarcerated people to understand is that the president can only do but so much to affect state policy. And this is really, again, when I’ve covered voting rights, we step back and we say, where could you actually move the needle at the moment? Where does this matter? Why does any of this matter?

The president is limited. They mostly oversee the federal system, federal prisoners, they oversee the BOP. Most people are incarcerated in the state system, and it’s the state leadership that basically determines that policy.

So, where I think the participation, if you were saying to yourself, I care about this democracy. I want to participate, I want to make my voice heard. If that’s your route, then the midterms become really critical elections. And so, those are elections in which people are more likely to choose their governor. They’re more likely to vote. In some states where judges are elected, they get to vote on judges, sheriffs, district attorneys, city council, state legislature, these folks who actually set the policy and the laws for how the state system is going to work.

So, we get so caught up in what’s Kamala going to do for me? What’s Trump going to do for me? And there’s really all these smaller elections where people have much more power to move the needle, to think about reform, to think about releases, to think about improving conditions, to think about how our court system operates.

And so, I’ve always said that incarcerated people have really intimate knowledge. You have real clarity about how the system functions. You have real clarity about whether or not states are using their tax dollars appropriately to house people. Are we harming people? Are people getting the rehabilitation help?

So, I think that there’s real knowledge that’s locked up. There’s a real understanding of is this working? Is this experiment that we have, is it working? Is it productive? Is it doing anything for anyone? Is it just harmful?

So, that’s really what I would say of, I know we pay a lot of attention to what’s Trump or what’s Kamala going to do for me. I would say neither person is going to do much. Trump is objectively, when we compare policy side by side, potentially much more harmful for incarcerated people. But two years from now, in the midterms, it’s really going to be consequential in terms of people’s experiences.

Mansa Musa:  And I agree with you on that, because Tip O’Neill, former speaker of the House, said all politics are local.

But I had the opportunity to interview some people in Louisiana and they got an organization called Voices of the Educated. And it’s called, it’s VOTE, Voices of the Educated. What they did, going back to your analysis about the impact of local elections, they was able to mobilize the community to vote around the sheriff election.

But the way they was able to get traction on it was, they went to everybody that was locked up, still locked up, and the ones that was out that was locked up, that went through the county jail, this particular jail, and said, man, listen, we trying to get rid of these sheriffs. You know what the conditions are in this environment. So, it’s not a matter of not knowing that. So, we are asking you to vote for this person because this person is signed onto our agenda saying that they going to do the necessary things to change the conditions.

And they was able to get the sheriff in. And the sheriff did some things and didn’t do other things, because when you dealing with the political aspect of it, you still beholden to your stakeholders, for lack of a better word. But we do get traction and do get changes.

And I think that in terms of what you just said, I think the biggest problem is we are enlightened, but we’re not educated on the electoral system as it relates to local politics.

Like you say, you can’t go nowhere in prison and not find out, talk to somebody, and they don’t know the judicial system, their appeal procedures. OK, I got my direct appeal, now I got a post convicted, I got a habeas corpus, but I do know these… Or somebody in that system is telling me about these things.

But what I don’t know is, and nobody organized me around, is that all the judges on the bench, they come up for elections. You dig what I’m saying?

So, as we close out, talk about why you think that we don’t have that kind of attention nationwide. Because like you say, on the federal level, even on the federal level, the president has so much to do. But even beyond that, the Congress, the judiciary, the committees, and the Congress where the people are locally elected, the congressperson, the Senate person, are locally elected, why you think that we don’t have that kind of insight, or why you think that it’s not being mobilized in that regard?

Nicole Lewis:  Yeah, no, this is great. I mean, it’s really what you’re talking about here is if people had more clarity, they could come up with a strategy for how they win. They could make decisions. Yes, absolutely.

And I would say that in this regard, and incarcerated people are really no different than the rest of the public. Midterm elections tend to be the lowest turnout elections. People just don’t show up. Even though the local officials are the people who are going to make the most influential decisions in their lives. So, there’s really not much difference from people on the outside who blow those off as well.

But I think there’s some unique elements to prison. One of the things we always ask in our survey is, how do you get your news? Who do you talk to about this? How would you actually go about educating yourself?

And what we’ve seen is that news is extremely controlled, information is extremely censored. So, even if you wanted to, even if you were like, I’m going to figure this out for myself so I can make decisions, you still might be prevented by the administration from accessing the news and information that you would need to have a clear understanding.

And we see this again and again. We ask people directly because we know how it works. So, we want to say, well, if you wanted to even understand more about your governor, what would you consult? And people tell us, we’re really cut out. We’re really censored. Newspaper clippings don’t come in. By and large now, many prisons have moved towards scanning mail. So, you can imagine you take a newspaper, you scan it down, you can’t even read it anymore.

So, there’s all these systemic barriers that keep people unable to really self-advocate, because information is really that power. So, that’s one component.

I think another component is just a little bit about how politics in this country works. The whole news media, we spend a ton of time on the presidential election. A lot of resources go into covering it. And so, I don’t know that we spend the same amount of time actually, as journalists, I’m saying as my industry, scrutinizing district attorneys, scrutinizing judges, sheriffs. I don’t think that they get the same amount of attention. And it’s harder for us as well. So, we actually can’t see…

The Marshall Project has done some work in Cleveland where we produced a judge’s guide to help Clevelanders make decisions about these folks. We can’t actually even see into their record fully because we don’t have access to the data. It’s really unclear.

So, people in our community are saying, our readers are saying, well, we want to know who’s tough on sentencing? And who sent more Black people? They want to know these. We can’t even truly answer them because of the way data is withheld from the public. It becomes systematically, again, a little bit harder to scrutinize these folks.

So, in the long run, they just don’t get the same amount of media attention. So, if you don’t get the media attention, and then media is censored in prison. So, you see how it works. There’s a lack of information.

But again, I think that it’s incredibly important for incarcerated people to understand that they have insights about the system that are powerful. That they are deeply informed about an aspect of pretty much every state budget. The most expensive item is the carceral system.

So, you’ve got folks who are experiencing it, who have an ability to help the public understand what is not working. And so, I think that when I talk to people, they say, oh, why does it matter? They can’t quite connect what they’ve gone through to how it could be useful in making change. And I say, well, you know something that many people don’t understand. You know something so intimately about what’s broken.

I think that’s really powerful. I think that that is enough to say if voting is the route that you want to go, if voting feels important, to take that knowledge and really think about how you’re going to apply it to the system itself.

So, whenever I’m reporting on people, I say, well, you know more than many of us, it’s my job here to try to even understand. And I feel like I understand a little, but you understand even more. And I think that alone is really powerful, and it’s something that no one can really take away. No one can contradict that you saw it with your own eyes.

Mansa Musa:  Right. And Nicole, you rattled the bars today because, at the end of the day, we look at when those of us that’s on the plantation, we have the insight to how we got there. We have the insight to who controlling it. We have the insight to how to get off of it through a system.

I suffer from the apathy when it comes to the electoral process. But at the same token, I recognized after talking to brothers and sisters in Louisiana, looking at DC code, offenders got the right to vote.

And like you said, being educated on understanding that this system, electoral system, is not national, it’s local. And there are a lot of the policies and procedures that we’re trying to have impact or effect, we can have impact and affect them through who we put in the office. And on a local level, we can control that because we have numbers. And I think that’s the takeaway for me in this conversation.

But you got the last word, Nicole. What you want to tell our audience about this system and some of your upcoming work or what you’re doing now?

Nicole Lewis:  Sure. Yeah. I would say right to that point of we’re in a really historic moment for voting rights for people with felony convictions. And so, 26 states and the District of Columbia in the last two decades have reconsidered why we even take away people’s voting rights when they go to prison. That’s a question we have to ask ourselves.

And we can see, we can locate that history. For many states, we can see very clearly that felony disenfranchisement was a way to disempower Black communities. This is something that state lawmakers were standing up openly saying at the time, in this period of Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

And so, now we’re in a moment, fast-forward, where many states have said, well, we need to redo that. We need to reconsider that. So, it’s now more than ever, people have more access and ability to participate. It doesn’t mean that they always do. It doesn’t mean that it’s a perfect system.

The other thing I think people should know is that there’s a pretty aggressive backlash to this expansion of voting rights. So, in several states, Republicans are actively trying to undermine the expansion of voting rights. So, I think it’s a really important moment for people to decide to think about that apathy and really question it and say, is this in my best interest? What can I do? No matter what your politics are.

So, as a journalist, I don’t advocate for one party over the other. I don’t advocate for one reform over the other. I’m simply here to provide this information to say you have power, you know something really unique and special. Prison is extremely expensive. So, how you’re treated there really matters. Local actors, local agents, a lot of them you get to vote for. So, you get to decide who wins and who has your interest.

And just to question if anyone says there’s one candidate who’s going to be great for you, I would just question that a little bit to say we really want to make sure that we’re making decisions based off of the full facts. And so, we just got to ask deeper, bigger questions about who’s actually good and why.

Mansa Musa:  And if our listeners and our viewers want to follow you or get in touch with you, how can they do that?

Nicole Lewis:  Sure. Absolutely. So, you can find all of my work at themarshallproject.org, and it’s Marshall with two L’s. Unfortunately, I’m not really on social media, the way that X has gone. But my email’s online at the Marshall Project.

I would say some of the next work that I’m working on that we’re trying to think about is, my work is actually very designed to understand some of the needs, issues, interests of incarcerated people and their families, and then we try to figure out how do we make work that reflects.

So if people want to email me, it’s just nlewis@themarshallproject.org. Just tell me what’s important to you, what matters, what you’re seeing. And that’s one way we try to make decisions about what kinds of stories we look into.

Mansa Musa:  There you have it. Real News, Rattling the Bars. Nicole rattling the bars today. And she reminds us that, as 2.4 million people are in prison, on the plantation, those of us that have our voting rights restored, is apathy in our best interest when it comes to the electoral process? Is it sitting back, not doing nothing in our better interests? Is it sitting back, vilifying the candidates and saying, have nothing to do with me in our best interest? Or is it, as we heard, becoming more informed about this system and how we can utilize this system to effectively change?

Because at the end of the day, we’re the ones that’s sitting behind the doors locked down. At the end of the day, we’re the ones that’s being denied parole. We’re the ones being given harsh sentences. We’re the ones who our families don’t have access to because of a myriad of reasons. And we can change these things if we can change these things. Or are we willing to try to change these things? To utilize this mechanism as a technique as opposed to anything other than that.

Thank you, Nicole. I really appreciate you coming on. And we ask that y’all continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars because it’s only on The Real News and Rattling the Bars you are going to get someone like Nicole Lewis to come in and educate us on this system, and educate us on all the myths associated with the electoral system and how this is being shaped to get us to look a certain way at certain candidates, as opposed to looking into ourselves and how we can utilize our own strength and our own powers.

We ask you continue to do this, and because there’s only one reason we ask, we are actually The Real News.

Policing and prison abolition policy questions have been minimized in the lead-up to the 2024 November election, despite their significance in the last election cycle. Yet these ideas have finally pierced into mainstream debate, and committed prison abolitionists are tirelessly organizing to free incarcerated people, improve conditions within the prison system, and close or prevent the opening of new correctional facilities. Rattling the Bars looks back on the past year of discussions with abolitionists on the stakes and political lessons leading up to November’s presidential election.

Watch the full videos here:
‘FreeHer’ activists demand Biden release incarcerated women and girls ahead of Mother’s Day (May 2024)
Will the next president free more prisoners? (Aug 2024)
How poor and working-class voters navigate an electoral system that doesn’t serve them (August 2024)
Prop 6: Could California Finally Abolish Slavery? (Oct 2024)

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  On Tuesday, this country will be holding elections for the presidency as well as other national, state, and local elections. Nationwide the cry is that the election for presidency is the most important election this nation will be having. 

Rattling the Bars and The Real News have been focusing on the impact the elections will have on the prison-industrial complex. More importantly, how does the abolition movement look at the electoral system? What role does it play in the abolishment of the prison-industrial complex? You can hear the views of abolitionists from previously recorded interviews.

Back in May, we covered the Free Her March, where formerly incarcerated women were calling for clemency for 100 women:

Mansa Musa:  Okay. We got the Bronx with us today. Why are you here today?

Star:  Because we’re here to petition the President, and everybody else on his team, to grant clemency to Michelle West and all the other women who deserve it.

Speaker 8:  He told us when we was here four years ago that he was going to free 100 women within 100 days of him being in office. And he has not done any of what he said he was going to do. So we’re here today asking for him to free our women, and free them now.

Star:  We are tired of giving the Democrats what they want, and they don’t give us what we need.

Speaker 3:  So what do we want?

Star:  We want freedom for all women and girls. We want rehabilitation, and alternatives to incarceration.

Speaker 9:  We want Michelle West Free!

Miquelle West:  I’m Miquelle West, Michelle West’s daughter. My mom was incarcerated when I was ten years old for a drug conspiracy case. She’s serving two life sentences and 15 years.

Speaker 9:  I represent the women that want to be free. Let our women be free. Let our women out of [inaudible].

Group:  Cut it down!

Speaker 10:  [Inaudible].

Group:  Cut it down!

Speaker 10:  [Inaudible]

Speaker 11:  Stop criminalizing us for poverty, stop criminalizing us for how we cope from this trauma that has been put on us historically and continues into this present day. Free my sisters.

Speaker 12:  The women get treated badly. The women get raped in jail. All kinds of things. I served federal time, and I know what it’s like to be in there. And I say free women today.

Andrea James:  We told them to free those women, and they didn’t do it. They’re sending them to other prisons that, guess what, also are raping our sisters inside of the federal system. So we’ve got a lot of work to do, people.

Laura Whitehorn:  The response is to move all the women at once, all of a sudden to just throw them out into places all over the country with no preparation, no bathroom facilities. They’re being, as one of them said, the men who raped them, should, and are, going to prison. And the women are being punished now because they’re saying that the BOP, which can’t control their own staff, has to close the prison because they can’t manage it. And they take the women. 

I’ve been walking with different friends of mine who were in Dublin with me.  It was not a low-security place at that point. And we’re all having flashbacks of what it was to be transferred in that way, where you’re treated like a sack of laundry, except that you’re chained up. You’re chained at the waist. You can’t use the bathroom for hours, you get no food. They sat on a bus for five hours in the parking lot of the prison. 

And then at the end of five hours, they were taken back into the prison. They said, oh, we don’t know where to take you. So the way that they’re being treated and then their families… Some people have children and their families are in the Bay Area. So the children were able to visit their moms in the prison, and now the moms have been sent across the country.

Mansa Musa:  All this is the remedy for their abusive behavior. The remedy for their abusive behavior becomes more abusive.

Mansa Musa:  Hear Andrea James, founder and executive director of the National Council for incarcerated Women and Girls and Families for Justice as Healing:

Andrea James:  We were incarcerated in the federal system. We were in prison with sisters who are never coming home unless their sentences are commuted. So it’s kind of different when you determine what space you’re going to work out of when you haven’t had the full experience of what we’re talking about here. 

But if you were like us, if you were women that were incarcerated in the federal system, who were mothers, who were wives, who were aunties, and grandmothers, and sisters, and moms in particular, we have been separated from our children. But some of us had the opportunity to go to prison and come home. So we’re fighting for sisters that, unless we get clemency for them, they’ll never come home. 

And we’ve got to really understand that. We’re talking about the liberation of our people, and we want to bring attention to the intentionality of incarceration of our people and the policies that led up to that. 

Now, we started our work after, we started organizing in the federal prison for women in Danbury, Connecticut, in 2010, and brought the work-out with us starting in 2011. And then other sisters inside Justine Moore, Virginia Douglas, Big Shay, they started to come home. So it wasn’t rocket science for us, but in the federal prison, you would see this from all over the country, sometimes from different Black communities around the world. And so it wasn’t rocket science for us to stop this work. 

But we started in the prison realizing not really totally clear about what clemency was as a tool. But after coming home in 2011, that became crystal clear to us. We met Amy Povah at CAN-DO Clemency. She taught us a lot about clemency as a tool. 

And then of course, President Obama, who we got in front of and who centered women and brought us to the White House. But also we should not be going backwards from what President Obama did with clemency.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, let’s pick up on right there because… Now, for the benefit of our audience, clemency is a federal mandate, and it’s top heavy in its bureaucracy. Honest you know —

Andrea James:  It’s a tool, it’s a privilege bestowed upon. It’s not a mandate, it’s a tool. It’s bestowed upon the president of the United States to grant relief to people from their sentences. And that takes many forms. It could be freedom, immediate freedom, commuting your sentence, meaning it only stops the sentence that you are serving from within a carceral place, a prison. 

We decided at some point you can only go so far with what’s happening in Congress right now, who’s controlling Congress, what they’re paying attention to. We fought so hard against the passage of the First Step Act, the way it was presented, because it’s been a big smoke screen. 

And we knew when Congress passed First Step that it really wasn’t what we needed. It didn’t address the people who needed to get out. It called out the very people that needed the most relief, and so how could we ever support a bill like that? And we never crossed over in support of it, even though we fought valiantly to try and add retroactivity and other things to the first step. 

And then it was put into the hands of the most vile regime, a think tank called the Heritage Foundation, also responsible now for Project 2025, to implement the First Step Act. 

And it’s just, we are one of the few, I don’t know if any other organizations have done it, but our legal division, led by our senior council, Catherine Sevcenko, has followed the implementation of the First Step Act. And it’s been just a sham. It’s been a [inaudible], but the PR on it would make anybody think that everybody who’s come, like 30,000 people got released because of the First Step Act. That’s not true. But I digress. 

So when we talk about the FIX [Clemency] Act, at some point, yes, we have to weigh in. We need legislators who are directly affected, like Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, to carry these bills forward for us and to at least put them into existence, knowing that we got a big struggle to get them to go anywhere because the members of Congress were satisfied with the First Step Act. 

As abysmal as it is, they weren’t going to center criminal justice reform in any significant way following that for years, we knew that. That’s the path of how things go. We haven’t heard a peep about criminal justice reform other than Trump wanting to bring the death penalty back for drug dealers. We haven’t even heard. It’s not even on the current candidates’ platforms.

And so we had to shift our energy to, and it’s not really a shift, it’s just, what are we picking up now to be present and to make sure that the concept of liberation of our people isn’t left to hope somebody’s going to keep it at the forefront? That’s our job. Nobody’s coming to save us. If nobody gives a shit about our issue, if you’re going to do this work, you have to be consistent in finding ways of staying in the public eye, of showing up, of taking up space, of getting in the street. 

And so that’s what we did with the 10th anniversary. We did this 10 years ago in 2014, and that’s how we got the attention, because of the work of Civil Rights lawyer Nkechi Taifa, who brought the National Council and the sisterhood to the attention of President Obama and Valerie Jarrett to say, yo, Prez, we see you. We see you equating. We see you connecting clemency to racial justice. That clemency is racial justice. We see you going into the federal prisons. How could it be that he was the first president of the United States to go to visit a federal prison? How could that be?

Mansa Musa:  In August, The Real News’s editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez and I talked to David Schultz, a criminal reform and social justice advocate, about how poor and working-class voters navigate an electoral system that doesn’t serve them:

Maximillian Alvarez:  So I wanted to ask, as two guys on the front lines of that struggle, what do you think the pundit class covering the elections in mainstream media should learn about the conversations that y’all are having and that folks in these communities are having about the election right now?

David Schultz:  Okay, yeah. So I’ll start with that one. So I would say it’s important for individuals. I think being in Washington DC obviously puts us in a unique position because we’re obviously a very political city. I guess it’s different when I go to different areas, different cities. I was just traveling recently, I was in Chicago, and of course it was very political there because we’re getting ready to have the Democratic and national convention. But usually it’s not.

So that puts us in a unique perspective to see how politics really affect our everyday lives. I think you’re a hundred percent correct. I think that individuals that are from smaller, more rural areas really want to see and are more concerned with that direct impact. And so elections for them seem like this far away thing. It’s like they drop something in a box, and if they’re the person they like personality wise really, or who agrees with them on more things than the other, then that’s who they go for.

But they don’t really do their research on the candidates as well as they should to see, really, are they living up to what they’re saying? Are they voting this way even though they’re saying they might be voting this way? 

And so I think that it’s important for the pundits, so to speak, to really listen to grassroots individuals because we are the ones that matter. We are the people that they say in the Constitution. We are the ones that make everything one. We’re the working class. So at the end of the day, our vote matters, and they want our vote. So I think it’s imperative that they listen to what our needs and specific asks are.

Mansa Musa:  I think on the grassroots, when you’re dealing with a grassroots level, it’s imperative that we educate the people that’s affected because, like you say, people want jobs. People want quality education. People want a safe living environment. People want food quality, cheap food, as far as food prices being so high. People want rent control. They don’t want to be living in squalor and then paying astronomical fees to live there.

So it’s important that we educate… When you’re dealing with the grassroots, it’s important that you educate the population to understand that you have to find a candidate that’s going to represent your interest. 

When the Black Panther Party bring Bobby Seale for mayor, they wasn’t running Bobby Seale for mayor to try to get Bobby Seale to be the mayor. They was educating people about how, like Dave said earlier, where the monies come from, how the monies are allocated, and how you can have a voice in monies being allocated to your neighborhood, to clean up your neighborhood, to have the trash collected. How monies could be allocated towards medical or universal healthcare for everyone. 

So when I look at it from the grassroots level, I’m always in my mind… My mind is always in this area, educating the people about the electoral process, educating the people about, okay, if you get involved with this process, then make sure you have a candidate that’s going to represent your interest because the candidate is going to come and say what they think you want to hear. They’re going to put on all kinds of activities to motivate your interest. 

But when it does settle and they leave, trash hasn’t been collected. It’s high unemployment rate in your neighborhood, housing, you live in squalor. You’re not safe, and your children being targeted because you’re not safe. 

So when I look at it from the perspective, I look at it from a perspective that it is incoming from me and people that’s in that space to educate the people on the budget, educate the people on the electoral process, educate the people on how to go about vetting accounts. 

Like you say, candidates have listening sessions. So when a candidate have a listening session, then it’s coming from people like myself and Dave to get people to come down there and educate the electorate, ask questions about, OK. Because if you don’t do what we say you supposed to do, same way we elected you in, we can get the recall and get you out.

David Schultz:  Can I just add one quick thing? Can I just say, from a grassroots level, to answer your other question is what the individuals are saying is the basic needs is what they’re struggling with when it comes to housing and especially affordable housing, it doesn’t matter if you’re a returning citizen, if you’re just a working-class individual, that basic need is a struggle that, basically, grassroots individuals are really looking to have fixed this election cycle, and the basic necessity of being able to keep food on their table and be able to feed their kids.  

So I know it sounds basic, but that’s what I’ve been hearing a lot of in the community and what they are really focusing on this election cycle.

Mansa Musa:  And we recently sat down with Jeronimo Aguilar and John Cannon to talk about Prop. 6 initiative to have removed from California State Constitution its version of the 13th Amendment legalizing slavery:

Mansa Musa: I want you to give us a history lesson on how the code that came to exist that’s legalized slavery in California. Because you made an interesting observation before, and we was talking about it again, how we got this perception of California as being the big Hollywood, Rolls Royce.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Yeah, thank you, Mansa. Yeah, no, you’re right, man. We got this idea of what California is. Not only the palm trees and the Rolls Royce, and it’s always sunny, but also that we’re soft on crime, and that criminals are out able to just do whatever they want out here, and there’s no law and order, and all that kind of stuff.

The reality is, the prison-industrial complex out here is as crooked and oppressive as it is in any state of the union. And so, when you talk about especially this exception clause, and specifically here in California, it’s the exception to involuntary servitude. But like we say, as you can see on my background there, one of our main messaging points is that involuntary servitude is slavery.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  So, they try to lessen it or give it a fancy name, but the reality is the practice is the same thing, of subjugating human beings to work against their will.

So, when you talk about involuntary servitude in California, the history, like you mentioned, it goes all the way back to when California became a state. So, back in 1849. Remember, this territory here was territory of Mexico up until then. You had the expansionist, I wouldn’t even really call it a war, but an assault on Mexico in 1848, which ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

That treaty was not honored. Or like most of the treaties that the US [inaudible] with folks of Indigenous ancestry, them treaties were nothing but opportunities for the forked tongue, as they say, to get what they want.

And so, what happened is the land was taken, and Indigenous folks, Indigenous mixed with Spanish folks, became immigrants overnight. And with that said, what you started seeing was the first Constitution of California in 1849 has that exception clause that we see today. It says that involuntary servitude is prohibited except for punishment for a crime. It’s not that exact wording, but it’s the same exact practice.

And so, that set things up. That set the stage for 1850, you started seeing this. So, this is the year right after it became a state and the constitution was introduced. You see the 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians.

And again, the forked tongue. The way that they named the act, you would think, oh, they’re protecting Indians, when in fact, it was a vagrancy law that they used to criminalize Indigenous people, and subsequently enslave them under the exceptions to involuntary servitude.

And so, I want to add to that. Indigenous peoples were already being enslaved by the Spanish colonial powers. We’ll talk about the mission system. So, the Southwest and California, a lot of it was already built by the enslavement of Indigenous peoples.

When you talk about colonization, and once the Spanish came and that era of terror, and then Mexico getting its independence, and you’ve seen Mexico actually outlaw slavery for a period of time while that practice of servitude was brought back once the US took the land from Mexico.

And so, like I said, from 1849 on, up until now, you’ve seen the consistent criminalization of Indigenous, Brown folks, later, obviously, our African brothers and sisters that were enslaved and brought to this continent, and also that ended up migrating, trying to find free states, trying to find places where they can actually be free from the subjugation of slavery, only to find the same kind of practices happening over here in the Southwest.

And so, following that 1850 Act of Government and Protection of Indians, which actually turned what’s now the LA Federal Courthouse, was a vibrant slave auction. Based on that law, you saw acts like the Greaser Act, which passed in 1855. It’s another vagrancy law. If you look at the actual statute, the statute reads, “Dealing with the issue of those of Spanish and Indian blood.” And so really, you’re talking about folks like me. Chicanos, Mexicans, those that are of Spanish or Latino and Indigenous ancestry.

And I think the point, and the benefit for our audience, I think you well represented the case to how they codified laws —

Jeronimo Aguilar:  That’s right.

Mansa Musa:  …To make sure that this exception clause could be enacted under any and all circumstances.

John, so now we’re at a place where in terms of y’all organized around the abolishment of slavery, the legal form of slavery as we know it now. Talk about y’all Proposition 6, John.

John Cannon:  So, Proposition 6 would actually be reversing Article 1, Section 6 of the California Constitution, which is basically just like the 13th Amendment of the United States.

So, Proposition 6, what it would do right now is give a person autonomy over their own body, give a person choice whether they want to work or not. Because as it is now, you have no choice whether to work or not. So, Proposition 6, it would prioritize rehabilitation over forced labor.

So, what that will look like is, right now as it stands, if you’re inside and you’re working, they assign you a job automatically. And whether you want to do college courses or rehabilitative courses or anything else, you’re not able to, because you’re assigned a job. You don’t get to pick the job. You don’t get to choose if you want a job. If you’re assigned the job, you have to do it.

So, if you did want to, say, take an anger management course, or seek anything to rehabilitate yourself, and that aligns at the same time as your job, you’ll have to go to that job or you’ll be punished for refusing to work.

Whether you have a death in the family, you have to go to work, or you’ll be punished for refusing. And all these cases happened to me while I was incarcerated, and you’re getting punished for refusing to work. You’re losing days off your sentence, you’re losing phone time, you’re losing all type of things if you refuse to work. So, Prop 6 would actually give a person their own choice over their own body, over their own rehabilitation.

Mansa Musa: how do y’all address, or how will y’all address… We know Proposition 6 coming to effect, but we also know that prison has become privatized on multiple levels. The privatization of prison is the food service is private, the commissary is private, the industry is private, the way the clothes is being made. Everybody has got involved in terms of putting themselves in a space where they become a private entity.

How will Proposition 6 address that? Because what’s going to ultimately happen, the slave master ain’t going to give up the slave freely. They’re going to create some type of narrative or create some kind of forceful situation where, oh, if you don’t work, you ain’t going to get no days, and you can come over here and work, and… You see where I’m going there with this?

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Yep. Yep.

Mansa Musa:  So, did y’all see that? Do y’all see it as a problem? Or have y’all looked at that and be prepared to address it?

Jeronimo Aguilar:  No, no doubt, Mansa. I think that this is really the first step for us, because it’s going to be a long road. And those of us that have been incarcerated or have fought against the carceral system, you know that every time you do something, they’re going to figure out a way to retaliate, and to find a way to try to circumvent it, they’re going to try to find a way to basically make whatever you’re doing obsolete so they can continue their practice.

And so on our end, it was a really long and tedious process with the language, but we wanted to make sure was that we weren’t just passing something that was symbolic, that ended up just being, oh, okay. We’re removing some words out of the constitution, we all feel better about ourselves, and people that are incarcerated are going through the same conditions.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah. Status quo. Go ahead.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Status quo. Exactly. So, the language in Proposition 6, and what was ACA 8 when we passed it in the legislature to get it on the ballot, actually says that any person that’s incarcerated cannot be punished for refusing a work assignment. Cannot be [crosstalk].

So what that does is, it’s not going to stop CDCR from definitely trying to circumvent things. But what it does is it gives folks a pretty strong legal stance. So, if they do continue to be forced to work and disciplined for refusing to work, they can go to court. And we feel, with the language that we now have in the constitution, which is supposed to be the highest letter of the law, they’re going to have a pretty strong legal stance to stand on when they get to court.

Mansa Musa:  We have amplified the voices of the abolition movement. We don’t give voice to the voiceless, because everyone has a voice. We just turn up the volume. Thank you for watching Rattling the Bars on The Real News Network.

Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina, including its prisons. Yet rather than evacuate incarcerated people, the state left prisoners locked up in their cells without running water or light to survive the storm on their own. Schuyler Mitchell, who recently covered this story for The Intercept, speaks to Rattling the Bars about this manmade disaster and its consequences.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Imagine you are told that a major storm is coming your way, a hurricane of Katrina proportion is coming your way, and you’re told to evacuate. Would you evacuate or would you remain where you at? But more importantly, imagine that you cannot evacuate because you are incarcerated, because you are a prisoner in the prison industrial complex, in a carceral system that has no evacuation plans for the people that are incarcerated, or are imprisoned, or on the plantation. Joining me today is Schuyler Mitchell, who wrote an article called Hurricane-Struck North Carolina Prisoners Were Locked in Cells With Their Own Feces For Nearly a Week. Welcome, Schuyler.

Schuyler Mitchell:

Hi, thank you so much for having me.

Mansa Musa:

All right, and tell our audience a little bit about yourself, Schuyler.

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, so I’m an independent investigative journalist. I am a columnist at Truthout, and then I also report for places including The Intercept, which is where I wrote this investigation. I report on a lot of different things, but lots of different instances of power, corruption, cases where the people in power, or powerful corporations, or whatever it is, aren’t treating people with dignity or kind of doing what they’re supposed to be doing. So I do some reporting and research on the prison industrial complex. So yeah, I started working on this story after Hurricane Helene.

Mansa Musa:

Right, and I’m going to open up by saying, well, it’s a quote that you had in your article, say, “We thought we were going to die there. We didn’t think anybody was going to come back for us.” Did anybody come back for them, or if they did come back, how did they come back?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, so for context, so Hurricane Helene hit in the middle of the night, late Thursday night, early morning hours, Friday, September 27th. And at this one institution called Mountain View in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, from late that night until Wednesday, October 2nd, nearly a week, they didn’t think anybody was going to come back for them. They had no running water, no potable water. There was a shipment of potable drinking water that came several days in. But before that, they were drinking from the sinks is what family members told me, not knowing that what they were essentially drinking was sewer water, because it was non-potable water after the hurricane hit.

They didn’t have lights in their cells, there were some emergency lights that a generator supplied in common areas. And the generator supplied, I heard, power to the prison guards’ laptops or computers, but they didn’t have power in the cell. So yeah, so for five days, thinking about being in darkness, some people reported having water in their cells from flooding if you were on the bottom floor of the facility. Very few food rations. You know, crackers for breakfast or a piece of bread with peanut butter for dinner, and the response was slow.

So there were several facilities throughout Western North Carolina that were eventually evacuated. It was very disorganized is what family members told me, right, where in the case of Mountain View, it’s less than half a mile away from another facility called Avery-Mitchell. And Avery-Mitchell also, their power went out, their water lines were busted, but they got evacuated 24 hours before Mountain View did.

And when you’re in those conditions, 24 hours, and you don’t know if anybody’s going to come save you, that’s a long time, when they’re right next to each other. So the family members were saying they didn’t understand why one facility got evacuated first, and even that one, they had a multi-day delay. And there was a period of many days where family members were trying to get information about what was happening at these facilities, but prisons are by design a black box. It’s really hard [inaudible 00:04:37]-

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Schuyler Mitchell:

… information about what’s going on.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, let’s talk about this, then. Okay, how did you become involved? Somebody reached out to you and asked that you could possibly intervene or make some noise about their conditions? That’s how you initially got involved, or was you just doing your due diligence?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, so it’s actually the second. I knew that Western… I’m originally from North Carolina, I’m not from the mountains, but I know, I grew up going there a lot, I spent a lot of time there, I knew that there were lots of facilities that were in the path of the hurricane. And so I just started doing some research to see if I had seen any other reporting about what happened at those prisons. And there was actually a press release on the morning of October 2nd from the North Carolina Department of Corrections that said that they’d evacuated a certain number of facilities. [inaudible 00:05:33]-

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Schuyler Mitchell:

… was five. And so then, what I did was I actually took the names of the different facilities from that press release, and I put them on Facebook, because after the hurricane, Facebook was still a big place for where people were exchanging information. There were all these different Facebook groups, like Hurricane Helene Safety Check-In, where people were posting, trying to find their loved ones. It was a horrible situation across the western part of the state. But what I saw when I put in the name Mountain View or Avery-Mitchell were posts for days of people posting in these groups, commenting on the Department of Corrections Facebook page, saying, “What’s going on? Do you have any information for me?”

And then, finally, after several days, on October 2nd, there were a couple posts from people who said, “I finally heard from my loved one, he gave me a call. He’s been evacuated, but for days, they were in horrible conditions.” And people were posting that, and so I just reached out to them and I spoke to… There were at least five people I spoke to that had direct knowledge of what happened at Mountain View, but then I also spoke to like five or four more family members as well from other facilities.

And everybody had the same story about lack of communication and just utter panic for nearly a week, just not knowing what was going on. And then, specifically in the case of Mountain View, everybody told me the exact same things about their loved ones calling them, finally, after nearly a week and saying, “I’m okay. I’m now on the eastern part of the state, but the things that I saw in Mountain [inaudible 00:07:11] for nearly a week were just horrible.” And having to defecate in plastic bags because the toilets are full.

You know, I went to the Department of for comment. Obviously as a journalist, it’s something that you have to go to them for comment. And what the spokesperson said to me, they acknowledged that this had happened, and they were like, “That was a solution that they devised on their own,” and were kind of dismissive, which is interesting, because the question is, “Well, why did they have to devise that solution?” So yeah, I actually found the story just from looking on Facebook and reaching out to people who had been impacted.

Mansa Musa:

And in terms of the information, and you definitely was able to capture what was going on in real time. Talk about the… Because you just mentioned about the Department of Corrections or the Division of Corrections response, and they sanitized it in certain quotes. You know, “No, no, we had water,” plausible denial. But talk about, in your investigation, was you ever able to discern from them, do they have evacuation plans for these type of events?

Schuyler Mitchell:

I mean, they said they did. Again, it’s like a black box, so it’s really hard to know. I think what we do know from what happened is that there was not a proactive response. If they’d had a proactive plan in place, there wouldn’t have been a five-day period where people weren’t knowing when their next meal was coming, or not knowing if they would have enough water. One of the things that I heard was people making decisions about, “Should I use this water to bathe myself or drink it?” You know, because there were limited rations.

So I don’t know what the plan was. Eventually, they did follow through on a plan, because they did evacuate certain facilities. But who’s to say what if things went according to their plan that they already had in place, that either way, the outcome was not what it should have been. And I did see that there is actually a petition circulating, asking the federal system… And so I should clarify, these were state prisons, but the federal DOJ, they also have a Bureau of Prisons. And yeah, there was a petition circulating, asking the government to have a clear evacuation plan in place. And I think we saw this happen then again in Florida, right, with Hurricane [inaudible 00:09:53]-

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, talk about that.

Schuyler Mitchell:

… after. Yeah, so less than, what, less than two weeks after Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Milton was barreling towards Florida, and there were state correctional facilities that were in the mandatory evacuation zones that were not evacuated. Ultimately, I didn’t see any reporting after that said… There was a lot of coverage of Florida before that happened I think because of the situation had just happened in North Carolina. I think people were more attuned to the fact that this was something that they needed to keep an eye on, the fact that incarcerated people just are often overlooked and [inaudible 00:10:30]-

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Schuyler Mitchell:

So there was definitely a lot more pressure on the State Department of Corrections in advance of Hurricane Milton to evacuate facilities. I don’t believe they did, but it’s just another example of different state systems also have different policies and respond in different ways. And one of the things that the family members I spoke with fed again and again was just people, they feel overlooked, they feel like nobody cares. And obviously, lots of people are really hurting across Western North Carolina from [inaudible 00:11:07] hurricane, but people often just don’t think about people who didn’t have any choice to evacuate or any choice of what they were going to do when the storm hit.

And we know there were lots of people that were missing after the hurricane, but these are all people that are in the state’s care, right? It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure their well-being. There should have never been a period where people didn’t know where their loved ones were. They knew, they were in the state system. Yeah, and it’s just going to be an issue that’s going to continue.

The Intercept actually did a project several years ago called Climate and Punishment, where they mapped DHS data about prisons across the country, with different information about wildfire, heat, and flood [inaudible 00:11:54]-

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, right.

Schuyler Mitchell:

And they did this in-depth investigation about the impact of the climate crisis on prisons. But whether it’s flooding, or severe heat, or wildfires, this is just an issue that’s not going away. And I think it’s right to call for more transparency about what the plan is in these.

Mansa Musa:

And I want to unpack some of you say for the benefit of our audience. Like you say, a mandatory evacuation site, a lot of the plantations in the prison industrial complex is in areas that will be evacuated, because of any type of climate situation, or be it, like you say, fires, or hurricanes, or rain, or inclement weather, like frigid weather. A lot of these prisons or a lot of these plantations are in these areas that they designate. They designate this as an evacuation zone, “This is a mandatory evacuation.”

So the reality is that they could look at it and say, “Okay, this is a mandatory evacuation zone. Oh, we got four facilities that house anywhere from 2,500 to 3,000 people collectively, or more.” And in terms of, all right, you recognize that the population that need to be evacuated, but when you start making an assessment of evacuation, they don’t even include them in the conversation. They’re not even included in the conversation in the sense of, “Okay, they’re in the path of Hurricane Helene. We know it’s coming, we telling people to get out of town. What is our plan for this population right here?”

They don’t have no plan, because that’s by the design. It’s by design. You know, according to the 13th Amendment, we are slaves under the system of the 13th Amendment. So therefore, the value that’s associated with our lives is not. Was you able to glean this from your research, or from this particular article, or your study in general?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, I mean, so the interesting thing in Western North Carolina was there weren’t the same mandatory evacuation orders, just because I think that region is not used to seeing these types of hurricanes. So I think it just really walloped the area. And it did take people by surprise, even though there were warnings and forecastings. But unlike in the case of Florida, where there were absolutely mandatory evacuation zones, where they’ve made the explicit choice not to evacuate those prisons…

I think, yeah, I mean, but in reporting on the prison system, you see this time and time again, where it’s incredibly hard, for example, for incarcerated people to win cases that they bring against prisons or prison guards for mistreatment, or for instances where their human rights have been violated. The bar for winning those lawsuits and getting any sort of justice is intentionally set really high. One of the women that I spoke with for my article, her husband was one of the people at Mountain View. They have three kids, a teenager and two young kids. And she said to me that she herself has also been in prison before. And she said, “When he was telling me about some of his experiences in the past, I didn’t really believe it could be that bad. But then, I actually was on the inside and I saw it myself.”

And that’s something that didn’t even make its way into the piece, but she was saying… But she was the one who said, actually at the end of the story, “When you’re in there, you’re treated less than a human. You’re treated like a rabid dog,” and that was an exact quote. And so yeah, once you start talking to people, lots of people have similar stories, and I think the climate crisis really exacerbates these existing inequalities, and really reveals how neglected people can be. And when I went for comment to the Department of Corrections, they said, “Well, lots of people in Western North Carolina have it way worse.” That was almost exactly what the response was. And even just in the official statement, there wasn’t a full, of course, acknowledgement of what people had said that they had gone through.

One of the other things that was interesting to me about Mountain View was actually a day before the hurricane hit, somebody committed suicide at that facility. And what one of the women said to me, she was asking questions about, “What was it like there, that he decided that he needed… That was his only way out?” And Mountain View, it’s single cells, so people are locked in their cells for most of the hours of the day, and they’re allowed to do their job for the lunch hour. But it was pretty high, it was a medium-security facility, but there wasn’t a lot of freedom of movement at that facility.

And it’s not the exact same thing as solitary, but everybody I spoke to… I spoke to somebody also who was incarcerated and who lived through everything that happened at Mountain View. His partner was able to connect me with him through the Department of Corrections phone system. And I spoke to him, and they all say that it’s a pretty… Even when there’s not a hurricane, it’s not a great place to be. I guess nobody expects prisons to be great or anything like [inaudible 00:17:58]-

Mansa Musa:

Right. No, I understand. [inaudible 00:17:58]-

Schuyler Mitchell:

… learn about it. It’s quite bad, the conditions that people have to-

Mansa Musa:

And the crazy part about that is, like you say, it’s medium security, and the security paradigm, you have max, medium, minimum, and pre-release. So in the case of Mountain View, most of these individuals are transitioning out. So it’s not like they’re having served significant time. But more importantly, the reality is that the system in North Carolina or throughout this country is really designed to dehumanize us, to ignore our humanity.

And when, like you say, global warming, climate crisis that’s developing in the world, people that’s incarcerated or on the plantation, we got it bad, because we’re not considered human to begin with. We’re considered slaves. And in terms of the monies that’s going to be invested in trying to get us out of a situation that’s a natural disaster, is not priority for the state. But answer this question, have you ever been able to glean, like is it a FEMA response that could be used for this type of situation, in hindsight?

Schuyler Mitchell:

I’m not sure about how the FEMA response would overlap with the State Department of Corrections, unfortunately. Yeah, I think that again, what we do now is that this is a population of people that are always an afterthought, and yeah, whatever resources that can be made available to prevent this from happening again, clearly, there’s a need for that. But yeah, I don’t know about FEMA specifically in this case.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, and in terms, as we get ready to close out, because you talk to the family members, and tell our audience how your sense coming from them, their anxiety and their stress, as it relates to this type of situation? Because really, we need people to understand that, okay, “You saying that I did something to go to prison, got that. You’re saying that I’m serving a sentence, got that. You’re saying that I’m going to be confined to a prison, got that. But you’re also saying, according to the Constitution of the United States, I can’t be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I got to be treated like a human being at some junction. But at the same token, my family is not locked up, my family is not sentenced to a certain time, and my family is my family, and taxpayers, and have a right to know what’s going on with me.” Talk about the family members or your conversation. What did you take away from them?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, I mean, my conversations with family members were incredibly moving. And I spoke to people who… This was an all-men’s prison, so it was people’s sons, partners, husbands, yeah, siblings, whatever that were in there. And one of the things that someone said to me, she was like, “Nobody cares or pays attention to this until someone like you, a journalist starts looking into it.” That was one sentiment that I heard. There was another woman where her 26-year-old son was one of the people in the prison, and she was saying, “He might be 26, but he’s still my son. And I called around and I got a voicemail for somebody who works in the prison system, and the voicemail said, ‘Please only leave messages in the case of emergency. Don’t leave a message if you’re asking about the whereabouts of a certain inmate’,” was the voicemail. And she said to me, she was like, “How dare he say that? Because it is an emergency if I don’t know where my son is.”

And another person said, “My Sammy, my loved one, he did something bad. He deserves to serve his time, but he’s still a person [inaudible 00:22:18]-“

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Schuyler Mitchell:

“… and he’s still very much loved.” And that was, of course, the message over, and over, and over again was like, these are people, people love them. They knew they were going to prison. They didn’t sign up for being cruel and unusual punishment, days of not being evacuated. And yeah, I think if everybody could have the conversations that I had… I mean, I was very grateful to these people for opening up to me and trusting me with their stories. I think there’s so much more coverage that needs to be done on this issue.

I mean, there’s just no end to the amount of abuses that take place across the federal and state prison system. I mean, this wasn’t even a private prison, so that’s a whole other layer. But yeah, everybody just really was saying that they felt like no one cared and they felt unheard. And I think one of the things that is good about doing this work is you do see how many people do care and want to talk about this issue. And I think as many people that can to spread important information about the prison system, like what you’re doing on the show, and report on the issue, it’s so important, and people really, really value that.

Mansa Musa:

And as we close out, I want to make sure that I always understand what we’re talking about, because if this same situation took place in a foreign country, that United States citizens was being held in captivity, that a national disaster came through there, and it came back to this country that they were standing in their feces, they was drinking sewer water, they didn’t know whether they were going to live or die, they was given food that was not nutritional, we would be up in arms and an uproar, protesting, everybody, the four winds, talking about taking any funding we giving this country, stopping everything.

We are coming short in sending a [inaudible 00:24:21] courier over there to take our people out there or take their citizen out. We’re talking about right here in the United States of America, and where we don’t have the common decency as a state to recognize that we are dealing with human beings, no matter what they did, that this is human beings that we’re dealing with. As we close out, what do you want our audience to take away from this article, Ms. Mitchell?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, I mean, I think what you just said is a really great point. I think yeah, what I want people to take away from this article is this is one specific prison, one specific case after one specific hurricane. I mean, think about it on a national scale, think about how many people we have in this country that are incarcerated. We have a massive prison industrial complex. Yeah, and I think just as we are all increasingly impacted by natural disasters and are able to make choices about what we do in those situations, this is a massive population of people that has, by definition, had choice taken away from them. And they don’t [inaudible 00:25:37]-

Mansa Musa:

Exactly.

Schuyler Mitchell:

They don’t have a say, and they don’t have a voice, and it’s really hard to get information in and out. So yeah, it’s just many layers of problems that are piled on top of each other. And yeah, that’s I think my biggest takeaway. And what you said is so important. If this happened anywhere else, people would be able to, I think, kind of see it for what it was. But it’s hard to see it when it’s in your own country, for a lot of the time.

Mansa Musa:

And if our audience, and the viewers, and listeners want to follow your work, how can they stay in touch with you or track your work?

Schuyler Mitchell:

Yeah, I am on Twitter. It’s my first name, Schuyler, with an underscore in between the Y and the L. And I think my email should be on my website, but if people actually have any insights, have anybody that they know that’s in a prison or anything that they want me to look into or cover, I’m super passionate about this issue, and I love to do investigations. So if you need somebody to dig deep, I’m your girl. So yeah, feel free to reach out to me with any tips as well.

Mansa Musa:

There you have it. Real News, Rattling the Bars. Schuyler, you rallied the bars today. You brought to the attention to raise the national consciousness about how do we treat people as human beings. How do we treat people? Should we treat them as human beings or should we treat them as numbers? It stands to reason that the state of North Carolina is looking at people as numbers, and in both sense, a number in terms of how much money they can make off of them, and a number in the sense of when they don’t have to do nothing for them, they just write them off.

We want our audience to understand, and we want our listeners to be mindful of this here, we’re talking about human beings. This is a humane issue. This is not an issue that’s dealing with whether a person did something or didn’t do something. They are wards of the state, and when you say you’re a ward of the state, the state is obligated to provide for your safety, and your safety is important, and your safety should be not compromised by virtue of you not having an evacuation plan in effect, for you not having the necessary infrastructure to ensure that people that are under your custody that’s coming home, it wasn’t like they not coming, they coming home at one time or another, and that you treat them less than human. Schuyler, we appreciate you. We appreciate your advocacy, and we look forward to staying in touch with you. Thank you very much.

Schuyler Mitchell:

Thank you so much.

This November, California voters will have the chance to pass Proposition 6. This ballot referendum would nullify the state constitution’s exception for involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, and institute additional protections for incarcerated people. Jeronimo Aguilar of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and John Cannon of All of Us or None join Rattling the Bars for a breakdown of Prop 6.

To learn more about Prop 6, visit https://voteyesprop6.com/

Studio Production: David Hebden
Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa, rattling the bars.

It might sound odd, it might sound strange, it might even be mind-boggling to believe that in this country, these United States of America, slavery is still legal in some form, shape, or fashion. The 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States codified slavery under the circumstances that anyone duly convicted of a crime, they can be a slave. They can be held accountable as a slave, their labor can be processed like slave labor, and they have no rights to say nothing about that.

Joining me today are two extraordinary men in this fight to abolish slavery. And I was amazed when Jeronimo reached out to me. We had talked before, and I was amazed when he reached out to me, and they came full circle on their strategy on how to eradicate slavery as we know it. And so, I’m going to let them explain it.

Introduce yourself, Jeronimo and John.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Right on, man. Jeronimo Aguilar here. I go by Jeronimo, I go by Geronimo. Either one is fine with me. I’m a Chicano activist, also organizer with all of us in West Sacramento, and also a policy analyst with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and just honored to be a servant to the movement, man. I’ll pass it over to John.

John Cannon:  My name is John Cannon. I also go by John John. I’m also an organizer with All of Us or None. I’m out here with the Oakland chapter. And did 10 years incarcerated, so being able to get out and just fight for the same things I saw behind those walls just gives me a real purpose.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. And all of us probably been in this space where you bring an expert witness in to court to testify. Before the expert witness testify, they run a list of all the things they have accomplished in terms of qualifying them to be an expert. So, it’s suffice to say, we are an expert in this matter when it comes to being slaves, or being on the plantation, under the prison-industrial complex.

But Jeronimo, let’s start with you. All right. I want you to give us a history lesson on how the code that came to exist that’s legalized slavery in California. Because you made an interesting observation before, and we was talking about it again, how we got this perception of California as being the big Hollywood, Rolls Royce.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Yeah, thank you, Mansa. Yeah, no, you’re right, man. We got this idea of what California is. Not only the palm trees and the Rolls Royce, and it’s always sunny, but also that we’re soft on crime, and that criminals are out able to just do whatever they want out here, and there’s no law and order, and all that kind of stuff.

The reality is, the prison-industrial complex out here is as crooked and oppressive as it is in any state of the union. And so, when you talk about especially this exception clause, and specifically here in California, it’s the exception to involuntary servitude. But like we say, as you can see from my background there, one of our main messaging points is that involuntary servitude is slavery.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  So, they try to lessen it or give it a fancy name, but the reality is the practice is the same thing, of subjugating human beings to work against their will.

So, when you talk about involuntary servitude in California, the history, like you mentioned, it goes all the way back to when California became a state. So, back in 1849. Remember, this territory here was territory of Mexico up until then. You had the expansionist, I wouldn’t even really call it a war, but an assault on Mexico in 1848, which ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

That treaty was not honored. Or like most of the treaties that the US [inaudible] with folks of Indigenous ancestry, them treaties were nothing but opportunities for the forked tongue, as they say, to get what they want.

And so, what happened is the land was taken, and Indigenous folks, Indigenous mixed with Spanish folks, became immigrants overnight. And with that said, what you started seeing was the first Constitution of California in 1849 has that exception clause that we see today. It says that involuntary servitude is prohibited except for punishment for a crime. It’s not that exact wording, but it’s the same exact practice.

And so, that set things up. That set the stage for 1850, you started seeing this. So, this is the year right after it became a state and the constitution was introduced. You see the 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians.

And again, the forked tongue. The way that they named the act, you would think, oh, they’re protecting Indians, when in fact, it was a vagrancy law that they used to criminalize Indigenous people, and subsequently enslave them under the exceptions to involuntary servitude.

And so, I want to add to that. Indigenous peoples were already being enslaved by the Spanish colonial powers. We’ll talk about the mission system. So, the Southwest and California, a lot of it was already built by the enslavement of Indigenous peoples.

When you talk about colonization, and once the Spanish came and that era of terror, and then Mexico getting its independence, and you’ve seen Mexico actually outlaw slavery for a period of time while that practice of servitude was brought back once the US took the land from Mexico.

And so, like I said, from 1849 on, up until now, you’ve seen the consistent criminalization of Indigenous, Brown folks, later, obviously, our African brothers and sisters that were enslaved and brought to this continent, and also that ended up migrating, trying to find free states, trying to find places where they can actually be free from the subjugation of slavery, only to find the same kind of practices happening over here in the Southwest.

And so, following that 1850 Act of Government and Protection of Indians, which actually turned what’s now the LA Federal Courthouse, was a vibrant slave auction. Based on that law, you saw acts like the Greaser Act, which passed in 1855. It’s another vagrancy law. If you look at the actual statute, the statute reads, “Dealing with the issue of those of Spanish and Indian blood.” And so really, you’re talking about folks like me. Chicanos, Mexicans, those that are of Spanish or Latino and Indigenous ancestry.

And so, again, following that, I believe it was, man, 1858, ’59, you saw a Fugitive Slave Act that was [crosstalk]. And a lot of you are familiar with the federal Fugitive Slave Act, but California had its own Fugitive Slave Act that they passed. Don’t quote me on those years, but it was definitely in this era of oppression.

And in that Fugitive Slave Act, what they did is that they gave slave owners from the South a year to recapture their slaves that ran off to California looking for freedom.

Well, that one year that they gave them actually turned into a sunset clause that ended up lasting five-plus years. And basically, anybody that was African-American, that was Black, that was here in California, could be kidnapped and trafficked back to the South without any evidence.

All the slave master had to say was, oh, yeah, he used to be my slave. He ran off. He didn’t need no proof. He didn’t need to know nothing. Just by his word. And they were capturing folks that never had even been enslaved.

Mansa Musa:  And I think the point, and the benefit for our audience, I think you well represented the case to how they codified laws —

Jeronimo Aguilar:  That’s right.

Mansa Musa:  …To make sure that this exception clause could be enacted under any and all circumstances.

John, so now we’re at a place where in terms of y’all organized around the abolishment of slavery, the legal form of slavery as we know it now. Talk about y’all Proposition 6, John.

John Cannon:  So, Proposition 6 would actually be reversing Article 1, Section 6 of the California Constitution, which is basically just like the 13th Amendment of the United States.

So, Proposition 6, what it would do right now is give a person autonomy over their own body, give a person choice whether they want to work or not. Because as it is now, you have no choice whether to work or not. So, Proposition 6, it would prioritize rehabilitation over forced labor.

So, what that will look like is, right now as it stands, if you’re inside and you’re working, they assign you a job automatically. And whether you want to do college courses or rehabilitative courses or anything else, you’re not able to, because you’re assigned a job. You don’t get to pick the job. You don’t get to choose if you want a job. If you’re assigned the job, you have to do it.

So, if you did want to, say, take an anger management course, or seek anything to rehabilitate yourself, and that aligns at the same time as your job, you’ll have to go to that job or you’ll be punished for refusing to work.

Whether you have a death in the family, you have to go to work, or you’ll be punished for refusing. And all these cases happened to me while I was incarcerated, and you’re getting punished for refusing to work. You’re losing days off your sentence, you’re losing phone time, you’re losing all type of things if you refuse to work. So, Prop 6 would actually give a person their own choice over their own body, over their own rehabilitation.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, let’s talk about this. And both of y’all been wearing this. You can go first, Jeronimo. Okay, I understand what you’re saying, and I come out of that space. I did 48 years in that space.

So now, how do y’all address, or how will y’all address… We know Proposition 6 coming to effect, but we also know that prison has become privatized on multiple levels. The privatization of prison is the food service is private, the commissary is private, the industry is private, the way the clothes is being made. Everybody has got involved in terms of putting themselves in a space where they become a private entity.

How will Proposition 6 address that? Because what’s going to ultimately happen, the slave master ain’t going to give up the slave freely. They’re going to create some type of narrative or create some kind of forceful situation where, oh, if you don’t work, you ain’t going to get no days, and you can come over here and work, and… You see where I’m going there with this?

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Yep. Yep.

Mansa Musa:  So, did y’all see that? Do y’all see it as a problem? Or have y’all looked at that and be prepared to address it?

Jeronimo Aguilar:  No, no doubt, Mansa. I think that this is really the first step for us, because it’s going to be a long road. And those of us that have been incarcerated or have fought against the carceral system, you know that every time you do something, they’re going to figure out a way to retaliate, and to find a way to try to circumvent it, they’re going to try to find a way to basically make whatever you’re doing obsolete so they can continue their practice.

And so on our end, it was a really long and tedious process with the language, but we wanted to make sure that we weren’t just passing something that was symbolic, that ended up just being, oh, okay. We’re removing some words out of the constitution, we all feel better about ourselves, and people that are incarcerated are going through the same conditions.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah. Status quo. Go ahead.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Status quo. Exactly. So, the language in Proposition 6, and what was ACA 8 when we passed it in the legislature to get it on the ballot, actually says that any person that’s incarcerated cannot be punished for refusing a work assignment. Cannot be [crosstalk].

So what that does is, it’s not going to stop CDCR from definitely trying to circumvent things. But what it does is it gives folks a pretty strong legal stance. So, if they do continue to be forced to work and disciplined for refusing to work, they can go to court. And we feel, with the language that we now have in the constitution, which is supposed to be the highest letter of the law, they’re going to have a pretty strong legal stance to stand on when they get to court.

So, all of those things are going to be… We’re going to have to be following and monitoring things, implement it. We know that, like you said, man, they’re not going to just give this stuff up. All of the money that’s being made. California, fifth largest economy, CDC’s got a $14 billion budget.

And so, that money… I mean, what we’ve seen here in California, Mansa, is we’ve literally reduced the prison system. We’re under 100,000 now. We’re at about 90,000 incarcerated, and their budget has gone up. So, make that make sense. They’re figuring out ways to make money.

Mansa Musa:  And tell our audience what CDCR is.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Yeah, that’s California Department of Corrections. The R is for Rehabilitation. And like John says, CDCR, we really call it CDC. But we’re trying to get that R to actually mean something by having rehabilitation, access to rehabilitation, education, and other things be prioritized as much as labor, giving folks the opportunity to work.

Because we know folks are still going to want to work inside. We’re not trying to take away that opportunity for folks. But you shouldn’t be forced into a job, and then you want to take a class, but you’re not able to because of that. They’re prioritizing that exploitation over anything else.

Mansa Musa:  Hey, John. And talk about the feedback that y’all got from the inside, in terms of educating the population about what is expected. Because ultimately, it’s going to be on the inside that’s going to be monitoring the effect of the legislation. It’s going to be on the inside where we know from our own personal experience that we create programs to help us rehabilitate ourselves and to socialize. So, this would be a golden opportunity for that kind of initiative on the part of those of us that are still behind the walls and still on the plantation.

Talk about that, John. What kind of feedback are y’all getting from those of us that’s still on the plantation?

John Cannon:  So, we have members on the inside. And some of the feedback we’re getting is, we got a lot of letters that were written to us about people’s personal experiences, and it’s a lot similar to mine. I understood a lot of what people were saying and how some people, they want to prioritize being able to continue their education. They want to be able to do stuff that’s actually going to help them for when they get out, so they are rehabilitated when they get out here into California, on the outside world.

And also, some of the feedback we’re getting, just like Jeronimo said, is that this doesn’t mean people are just going to stop working. There’s a lot of people… There’s a waiting list to get on some of these jobs in prison.

Mansa Musa:  Right, right, right.

John Cannon:  So, it’s not the fact that people don’t want to work. People do want to work. But for those people that don’t want to be forced to work, some people want to prioritize certain courses that are offered. You have anger management courses, you have drug rehabilitation courses, and you can’t even access these courses if you’re assigned a job duty. So, those courses are there for no reason if you can’t access them.

So, this is some of the feedback that we’re getting from the inside from our members.

Mansa Musa:  All right. And Jeronimo, talk about where we at in terms of how y’all assessing the Proposition 6, because you don’t have no opposition. That’s a given. I think I was looking at some of the footage, and I think, since from the ACLU say, who going to come out and say we agree with slavery? So, talk about where y’all at in terms of getting this passed or getting people to vote on it.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  So, those of us that worked on the legislation, ACA 8, it was ACA 3 once upon a time, three, four years ago, and it failed in the California Senate the first time around. We brought it back with ACA 8, and man, it was —

Mansa Musa:  What’s ACA?

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Assembly Constitutional Amendment.

Mansa Musa:  Okay.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  And so, the author of the bill was Assemblymember Wilson. She was in the assembly. Before her, it was Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager, who’s now actually in Congress, I believe. So, yeah. It was a couple of assembly members that had brought it up.

So, there were ACAs. And just the fact that it failed one time, it showed us that it’s not as much of an afterthought as folks think, as you would think, especially here in California.

And, I mean, it goes back to that history that we were talking about. I mean, shoot, California’s first governor was actually a slaveholder, Peter Hardeman Burnett. You talk about the founder of San Quentin was a California senator named James Estelle, and he was also a slaveholder.

So, I think a lot of the stuff that we have even subconsciously in the population here in California, they don’t understand that they’re aligning with… Sometimes it’s not so much like who’s going to agree with slavery, but they buy some of this stuff that the Tough on Crime or CDCR puts out around, oh, yeah. Well, that’s true. They should work, man. They’re criminals. Or, they should do this and that. And they’re not understanding that they’re actually buying into the whole thing on slavery.

And so, with the proposition itself, man, it hasn’t pulled us as high as we would have liked. I could have told you that because ACA 8 was so hard to pass. I knew it was going to be a struggle.

And then, here in California, we’re in a pretty big crisis as it comes to the criminal justice reform. You got Proposition 36 that’s on the ballot as well, which is trying to repeal some of Prop 47, which was a landmark proposition that we passed that reduced a lot of felonies down to misdemeanors. It allowed folks to not have to end up in the prison system for low-level offenses, non-violent stuff, drugs. Stuff that it’s common sense, that it should focus [crosstalk].

Mansa Musa:  Fueling the plantations. That’s it. Fueling the plantations.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Exactly.

Mansa Musa:  Y’all got that. Y’all been successful at taking the source away from where they’re getting the labor from, and now y’all killing the utilization of the labor.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  Right.

Mansa Musa:  Y’all been fighting on all fronts.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  We’ve been fighting on all fronts, and they’re pushing back, though.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, most definitely. Most definitely.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  The system is definitely pushing back, and we’re filling it right now with Prop 36 on the ballot. And it’s being funded by — And this is to your point, Mansa. We just learned that Walmart dropped another $1 million to support what’s going on with Prop 36.

And so, why would Walmart be so invested in making sure that Tough on Crime passes, that more prisons get filled up? Well, that’s because they rely on that labor.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  They’re exploiting that labor. They’re using that labor of Black and Brown people. And so, people need to see this, maybe. What I’m hoping this episode really is is public education for folks so they could really see, even in a state like California, it’s so invested and married to the idea of exploitation and cheap labor. California and the US has never lost its appetite for cheap labor.

And so, when you think about it, it’s going to find ways to do that. It’s always going to go back to the same thing that it knows. And so, that’s what we’re seeing.

So, Prop 6, it’s polling… We’re at 50/50 right now. I mean, we’re a little bit on the side of… The last polling that came out was not favorable to us, but I think that we’re getting closer to that 50/50 range. It’s going to be a tough, drag-out fight.

I think, really, the thing is, the real positive is what we’re seeing, that there’s a huge percentage of folks that are uneducated on this subject. And when you’re able to explain the stuff that we’re talking about here, all these different factors are at play, with the corporations and all these different people that are making money, and they don’t care about the regular person that’s struggling to pay his bills, even if he hasn’t been locked up. But he don’t care about that taxpayer.

Prop 6 actually will benefit the taxpayer because they’re getting return on their investment in the criminal justice system. You got $133,000 it costs to incarcerate somebody for a year. And our people in there, they’re not learning how to read, they’re not learning how to write, they’re not learning nothing. They’re just being forced to make money for these corporations.

So, once they start seeing all this stuff and we’re able to educate them, we’re able to move them to a yes at a pretty good rate. So, I feel confident.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. And John, you say you in Oakland, right?

John Cannon:  Right.

Mansa Musa:  And so, what are y’all doing now? Because just like Jeronimo said, it’s the fight to the finish. So, the fight is, we know the election’s coming up in November, but we know that we have to educate people to understand what the prop is, and now, how to counter the opposition. What are y’all doing in Oakland to get the vote out, get people out to respond to the proposition?

John Cannon:  The main thing we’re doing in Oakland is educating our folks on slavery, on the history of slavery and involuntary servitude, the history of what our constitution is, and also getting people engaged with voting.

There’s a lot of people that haven’t voted. Making sure people know their rights in California, because we’ve been encountering a lot of people that didn’t even know they could vote. People on parole could vote. In California, you can vote on parole. Technically, you’re allowed to vote while you’re in jail, you just can’t vote in prison. So, that’s the main part, is making sure people know.

Even myself, when I was released from prison, I didn’t even know I could vote until I came to All of Us or None, and we were actually one of the organizations that was on that proposition to get people to vote on parole.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. All right. And as we close out this for both of y’all, all right, so, what do we expect in November based on y’all taking the temperature of the climate out there? What can we look forward to? And then, two, how can our viewers always become more involved in the process of getting Proposition 6 passed? We go with you, start with you, Jeronimo.

Jeronimo Aguilar:  I think I’m hopeful. I’m very hopeful about particularly Proposition 6 in California. Like I said, there’s an all-out assault on criminal justice reform happening right now in California, so it’s a tough time. And this last legislative session, it was probably… The four or five years that I’ve been working on the policy side, trying to pass statewide bills at the Capitol, this is probably the most challenging year. The majority of our bills just didn’t make it through the legislature.

So, for us to pass ACA 8 in a climate like this, it shows you we got some very talented and skillful organizers. And so, I have that same faith and confidence in them that we’ll get Proposition 6 passed. God willing, we can defeat Proposition 36 as well.

But with that said, I think the way folks can activate, we have a website, voteyesprop6.com. Folks can check us out there. We also got our organization’s website, prisonerswithchildren.org.

And then, on social media, All of Us or None Action is basically housing all of our Proposition 6 work. And so, we’re teaming up with some… trying to get some influencers and high-level folks out there to get the word out, make sure they hit the polls and vote.

We’re doing big regional events out here in California on Oct. 8. We’re doing a statewide day of action. So, we’re going to be in here at Sac State. I’m doing something at the University of Sacramento. UC Berkeley is going to have a big event. They’re doing something out there in LA, Bakersfield, Stockton. So all over the state.

And like John said, the main thing, our mission as the grassroots ballot committee is really to activate our people, man, those that have been disenfranchised. Those that typically don’t vote, and they got every reason not to vote because of the way this system is designed.

But at the same time, there’s certain stuff that is important for us to get out and get active on. And so, this is one of those. We have the historic opportunity to end slavery and stop the forced labor and exploitation of our people inside.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. And John?

John Cannon:  Yeah. And I would just say, spreading the information, spreading the knowledge as much as you can. And we have materials that we’ll send out. If you’re in California, you want to do any type of outreach, you could reach out to me at john@prisonerswithchildren.org. I can send you a whole package with materials, postcards, flyers, and just make sure we’re spreading the information to everybody.

And also getting people aware that voting is coming up, and it’s important to vote. I know that I actually was one of those people that thought voting didn’t matter. And I remember my sister, she told me what someone told her, what my grandma told her, and she said, if our vote doesn’t count, then why they’ve been trying to take it from us since forever, or keep us from voting? So, it made sense. So, it does count. We’ve gotta get out there and just spread the news to everybody we can.

Mansa Musa:  And I want to add this as we close out. It does count, but the reason why it does count is because of y’all. Y’all making it count. Y’all educating people on the importance of understanding how to utilize their voice. Y’all educating people on understanding where it came from, the history of their voice.

But more importantly, y’all mobilizing people and franchising people to change and dismantle the prison-industrial complex. Y’all rattling the bars today.

There you have it. The Real News and Rattling the Bars. I really appreciate both of y’all, man. Y’all, look, y’all really made me feel good today because I’m one of those that was cynical when it came to the electoral process. I was one of those that didn’t believe in it. But then I remember what Tip O’Neill said, that all politics are local. But more importantly, y’all skill organization, y’all skill strategy, has now enlightened people on how to be effective in raising your voice and voting to get effective change. Thank you.

John Cannon:  Thank you.

Mansa Musa:  And we ask you to continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. Look, this is the only way you’re going to get this kind of information. Two skilled individuals in the state of California, Sunshine State, where you got a big Hollywood sign up. But behind the Hollywood sign is slave labor. Now we got people that’s challenging it and attacking it, and ultimately going to be a drama, or say this is a historical event. This is going to go down history as the few that tackled the many and won. I’m out.

For nearly half a century, Russell ‘Maroon’ Shoatz was a political prisoner of the United States. Prior to his incarceration, Shoatz fought against US capitalism and imperialism as a member of the Black Panther Party, and then as a soldier of the Black Liberation Army. Due to his two successful escapes from prison and organizing behind bars, Shoatz spent two decades in solitary confinement. Despite this brutal repression, Shoatz continued to struggle for liberation, leaving behind a trove of political writings that continue to inspire revolutionaries to this day. Shoatz’s children, Russell Shoatz III and Sharon Shoatz, join Rattling the Bars for a discussion on his newly published memoir, co-written with Kanya D’Almeida, I Am Maroon: The True Story of an American Political Prisoner.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Back in the ’60s, we had an organization that formed a formidable fighting formation. It was known as the Black Panther Party. The founder of Rattling the Bars, Eddie Conway, was a former member of the Black Panther Party. He was set up, framed, and locked up for almost 40 years before he was released.

During this time, while he was incarcerated, he organized a collective of prisoners that we developed. A collective called the Maryland Pen Intercommunal Survival Collective, [inaudible] as a hybrid form of the Black Panther Party.

Joining me today is the children of Russell Maroon Shoatz, who also found himself in the same situation that Eddie Conway and other members of the Black Panther Party found themselves in. They dared to struggle and they dared to win, and as a result of that, they found themselves captive, enslaved, and fighting for their freedom.

Joining me today is Russell Shoatz and Sharon Shoatz. Welcome to Rattling the Bars.

Sharon Shoatz:  Thank you.

Russell Shoatz III:  Thank you for having me.

Mansa Musa:  All right, so recently — And if not, y’all can correct me as we go along — Y’all have a new book coming out called I Am Maroon, and it’s a memoir of your father, Russell Maroon Shoatz. And it’s slated to come out this month, or is it already out this month?

Sharon Shoatz:  Yeah, the pub date, September the third, the publication date. September…

Mansa Musa:  OK. So let’s unpack. Let’s unpack. First of all, who was Russell Maroon Shoatz? You can start with this one, Russell. Sharon, you can fill in — And it’s not a chauvinist thing, it’s just the way I want to do it at this time.

Russell Shoatz III:  So my father was, basically, a young Black person growing up in a community, a Black community in West Philadelphia. At that time, pre ’60s and pre Civil Rights time, there was a gang culture in Philadelphia. He was a part of that. There was a doo-wop culture in Philadelphia, he was a part of that, singing on the corner, drinking wines, all that stuff.

Went to some juvenile detention centers for his youth involvement in some of that gang and street activity, then became older and got politicized through going see Malcolm in New York. And then was involved in a political action, which was the retaliation shooting of a police officer after Amadou Diallo style, George Floyd style shooting of a youth in Philadelphia. And that’s kind of a nutshell bio of my dad.

Mansa Musa:  And Sharon, in terms of your father’s maturation, because y’all was young when he got locked up, how did you process his maturation in terms of, like your brother said, growing up in Philly, being subjected, like all like Watts, Compton, Southeast DC, you name it, any ghetto that was being colonized by the country and policed by the police. How did you look at your father’s growth and development in terms of his ultimate maturation to become a political figure?

Sharon Shoatz:  For me, I think I lived in two worlds, one in which I knew my father was a part of something larger that I couldn’t actually define as a child. But I know my family was instrumental, his family in particular, my aunts and uncles were definitely there for us growing up and keeping us in that realm of consciousness about what was going on with my father, but not really cluing us in on it as we know it in his autobiography.

And then, on the other hand, we were children growing up, and we weren’t subjected to the type of bullying that we see today. But I know when my father escaped both times, we then encountered questions about who we were. Because the Shoatz name, it’s not a common name, and when you see that plastered all over the newspaper, “Cop Killer”, you then as a child, then get those questions.

But I didn’t feel that our community wasn’t there for us. The community was still very supportive. And again, the Shoatz family, my aunts, my grandmother, they were always there to help us understand some of what was going on, but not really the level that I know it to this day.

Mansa Musa:  Right. And OK, let’s talk about how did this particular project come about? Because do y’all have another book that was written, or was this the first book that’s written?

Sharon Shoatz:  So his first book was the Maroon the Implacable, which was a series of writings that he had did over a number of years that was out there in the ether. A lot of anarchists was publishing it, and people were reading it all over the world, really.

And then, this project in particular came about, I would say, in the ’90s, particularly in 1990 when I moved to New York City. He had asked me to get his dossier to the tribunal. They were having a tribunal at that time for US held political prisoners, the human rights abuses. And I was new to New York, the geography and the landscape, so I didn’t find it. It was on Hunter’s campus, and I didn’t know the campus, and I didn’t know where I was going.

But in the process, I end up meeting members of the Black Panther Party and the BLA. And that was like Safiya Bukhari and [inaudible], the Holder Brothers. And these people actually knew my father. So here I was meeting these 20th century revolutionaries in the Black Panther Party, and it was on the hills of the landscape of Nelson Mandela being free. I had went to LA, I happened to see him at the Coliseum.

So they started telling me stories. So it allowed me to lean in on these stories that I had never heard. I had visited them all through my life. My family was there and supportive, but they had never really shared any stories. And so from that, it allowed me to press my father, like who are you? Who are you? And I know you my father, the seed and the genetic piece, but —

Mansa Musa:  But who are you?

Sharon Shoatz:  Yeah. So that started us writing back and forth until we had this family document. And then, he wanted to then use that document to get out of solitary. And that’s the collaboration where Kanya comes in.

And now we have what you have today, which is the publication of I Am Maroon, which was a family document that was used to try to secure his freedom from solitary. Fred Ho had suggested that he use it. They brought Kanya in, and then that collaboration began. And here you have this final production of I Am Maroon.

Mansa Musa:  And Russell, like Sharon said, she found herself, at one point in time, after being exposed to our comrades, members of the Black Panther Party and other revolutionaries and people fighting our struggle. At one point, she became enlightened that, OK, my father’s my father, but he’s somebody else. Did you have that same experience, being exposed to people that ultimately gave you a different perspective of your father, or you always had this perspective of your father’s being a freedom fighter and a revolutionary?

Russell Shoatz III:  No, no. Yeah, I had this similar experience —

Mansa Musa:  Talk about it.

Russell Shoatz III:  So I had been visiting my dad and doing work around him for a couple years before my sisters joined in that movement to liberate my father. And just like her, and all of us, and people after my sister, Sharon, my other sisters and brothers, as we all came to support him at different times, would ask him, who are you, dude?

Even if I had conversations with my sister and be like, oh, dad said this, or whatever, it’s still that because it’s your biological father or whatever. It’s still that, I guess, interpersonal conversation that you want to have with that person, with your dad and say… My first question, in my naivete, my first question was, who was the shooter? Did you shoot the cop or did one of the other [inaudible].

And that question was for me to be to the next question was, if you did shoot them, then why don’t you let them dudes go? And if you didn’t shoot them, why don’t you try to get out? But that wasn’t their rubric, that wasn’t their understanding. That wasn’t going to happen. They all kind of went to death. They would die before they would tell on each other or try to get out of the situation. But yes, it went very similar. Everybody wanted to know who their father was.

Mansa Musa:  Right. And let’s frame this situation, because we’re talking about Philadelphia and Rizzo and the Gestapo. LA had a Gestapo unit, but Philadelphia had a Gestapo unit of police that even your father spoke about in the early years when he was young, that they just randomly walked down on Black youth and commenced to beating them and then lock them up.

But let’s talk about that period, to your knowledge, in terms of what led to them ultimately being captives. What was that environment, from your knowledge, because he talk about in the book, what was that environment like during that era that gave birth to Maroon?

Russell Shoatz III:  If people don’t know, they should Google Rizzo. Rizzo was the police chief in Philadelphia. He is the forerunner of the police states that we see today. They had a Gestapo unit in LA. They had a couple units around the country at that time.

But even prior to those days, when Rizzo came into office, he was the first police chief to say, let’s send our officers over to Israel and train over there with them. Let’s be tactical with the dogs and stuff like that. Let’s strip the Panthers naked in front of their office. Let’s do all of these radical things, policing-wise, to keep, for lack of better terms, the people on edge. And it really did keep people on edge.

And also, the sentencing and the judicial followed his lead in the context of Philadelphia having the most lifers, the most juvenile lifers, the most people without parole, juvenile lifers without parole, lifers without parole, just the toughest sentencing in the country over a mass group of people. And so that’s just a part of that culture.

But you also see it in the activism ideology of Philly all the way from my dad, through MOVE, through the juvenile lifers. And so it’s a certain type of energy that came out of that tough, tough repression that you’re seeing bloom 30, 40 years after.

Mansa Musa:  Sharon?

Sharon Shoatz:  And I would also just add to that, not much, but the fact of the racism was more entrenched with Rizzo, as well as the brutality and oppression. But even that racist mentality of law and order, and we have to keep these Black or minority people in their place. With housing, with discrimination, it was just rampant in Philadelphia.

So it is not a wonder that there were people taking up arms in Philadelphia to deal with oppressive state and injustice where they saw it, right in their communities where they lived at. They saw it every day.

Mansa Musa:  And also, I remember, before they dropped the bomb on the MOVE, I remember looking at an article in a radical newsletter where they had a picture of the police taking the butt of the gun and bashing one of the MOVE members’ head in. It was almost like the My Lai massacre where they showed that picture of the police shooting the brain out of that kid in Vietnam.

Russell Shoatz III:  Oh yeah.

Mansa Musa:  I like what you say about Google it, but more importantly, you don’t have to Google to find out who Rizzo is, all you gotta do is read I Am Maroon to get an understanding on who the Philadelphia police were, how they operated. That’ll give you context that this is a real live person that’s regurgitating or recounting this event.

Talk about your father in terms of working his way out and ultimately getting to a point where he was positioned to get out, and how the death of 1,000 cuts had took its toll on him in terms of his health and everything.

Sharon Shoatz:  I think Maroon, my dad, never relented from freedom. And it didn’t matter what it took or what toll his body was going to take, because ultimately, those beatings… When you escape from prison, don’t think they just rush you back in nice. I mean, he took a few beat downs.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, I already know.

Sharon Shoatz:  He took several beat downs to the point where his body ultimately succumbed to some of that, of course. And then the brutality of solitary confinement. To come out and not being able to walk up and down steps because you hadn’t walked up and down steps for 22 years.

And when he came out, we was happy, but we didn’t think about the physical toll that it would take on him. And to know that the prison, the food is unhealthy. And it’s up to the point where the medical is non-existent.

Mansa Musa:  Inadequate. Non-existent. That’s right.

Sharon Shoatz:  [Inaudible]. My sister, I mean, she was really on his medical health, and she held them to a standard. So they was calling her and reporting what his status was. You got to hold them accountable in the prison system, if not your loved one is languishing there with the run around they give you on the phone.

Russell Shoatz III:  I know that, actually, all the way up to the warden, but also all the way up to the Deputy of the Prisons, who controls all the prisons in Philadelphia, they were probably actually glad that my father was released just on the strength of my sister’s constant calling them, constantly being on them. So just one less person, all right, Maroon’s out of here. Won’t got to hear Teresa no more. We won’t hear Teresa Shoatz calling us every day about follow up, what’s going on, blah, blah, blah.

So when you talk about that ongoing struggle for freedom, there were a lot of different people involved over the years, a lot of different moving parts. And definitely towards the end, because we had pretty much threw a lot of things at the wall, but we had not engaged the medical community within the prison, the nurses, the doctors.

The doctors, when he would get sent out to other institutions, all the way up to the deputy of all of the prisons, and engaging them and saying, our father is in this situation, it was COVID, all these things. He got stage IV cancer. You guys don’t have the apparatus or anything to really take care of anybody with these conditions. Allow us to have him. And they fought that, they fought that.

Mansa Musa:  And speaking, I did 48 years in prison prior to getting out, and I did a limited amount of time in solitary confinement. I was in the super max. But more importantly, I can identify with that situation because I remember that when a police officer had got killed in the Maryland pen when they was doing an investigation, and the legislators was coming in to justify pumping more money into building more prisons, and barbed wire, handcuffs.

And they had the speaker of the House on the state level, on the Senate and the delegate side, and had the attorney general for the state of Maryland come in. They came in the South Wing, which was like the lock-up wing where most of us did our time. And when they left out of there, when they left out of that wing, left out, they was only over there for maybe a good, maybe, maybe five minutes — Maybe.

They came outside. They were like this here [panting]. Saying, we just came from the innermost circle of hell. Now imagine your father being in the innermost circle of hell 20-some years, inside and maintaining his faculties.

So the torture, it’s because of Mumia Abu-Jamal that they got medicine for Hepatitis C, that they was able to get the pill that helped to correct a lot of that ailment for people that’s locked up. Going back to your medical, it wasn’t that they got an attitude of like, we take a [hippocratic] oath and that we going to do the best. No, we are hypocrites in taking the oath that we are not going to apply. And it’s because of y’all work that your father was able to at least get out and live a semblance of life before he transitioned.

Talk about where y’all going there with the book at this time. What’s on the agenda, and what do y’all want people to know about the work and the importance of the work as it relates to raising people’s [consciousness] about the struggle and the struggle continue, and the contribution and sacrifice your father made, either one of y’all?

Sharon Shoatz:  Well, we’re on a book tour trying to get it out through the book tours, through programs like yours. So we thank you, definitely —

Mansa Musa:  Most definitely.

Sharon Shoatz:  …For having us on. And we are just trying to promote it throughout as many ways as we can, throughout media and the tours. So we’re in Philadelphia on the 22nd. I’m in Ohio next week at a [inaudible] conference with the book. And then, we’re in Philly on the 22nd. We’re in DC and Baltimore on the 28th. And then, we’re heading to Atlanta, Texas, and then we’re heading to the West Coast.

November the second, we’ll be with Mike Africa from MOVE and his book. He has a new book out, On A Move, and we’ll be with him at the Huey Newton Foundation on Nov. 2.

So we’re taking it on the road and we hope that people, for me, it’s twofold. One, that my father’s an incredible, complicated, beautifully flawed person, but he never relented from the struggle for freedom for oppressed people all across the globe. And secondly, the part for our family, they never really knew who he was.

From this perspective, I have cousins. Oh yeah, we always heard about Uncle Russell. But until he came home for those 52 days, and it was a line of family to see him, and I’m glad they were able to meet him. But again, as I didn’t know who he was, neither did they. They only knew the legend and the myth and oh, Uncle Russell.

But this story lays it out very well. And if you’re from Philadelphia, the geographics is —

Mansa Musa:  Come on, come on. That’s important.

Sharon Shoatz:  …Extraordinary because he lays it out the middle-class stronghold. And now Philly is, what, I think, the poorest city in the country? Clearly, back then there was a middle-class stronghold, and he talks about it in depth.

And so I think from those two perspectives, the part of freedom and this oppressed system and where we see an oppressed system and injustice, we need to be doing something about it in our own little way. I can’t be Maroon. I have the genetics, but he’s something special. And I can’t be him, but I can take from what I know.

And like Maya Angelou said, when you know better, you do better. When you know better, you do better. And we have freedom fighters that are still locked up.

And why? Why? And I don’t know why people aren’t on board with that. Black Lives Matter, they stood on the shoulders of these revolutionaries. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t have been an agenda regarding political prisoners. With regards to that, my brother talks about every other revolution, they free their freedom fighters.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Sharon Shoatz:  I’ll stop there and let my brother —

Mansa Musa:  Come on, Russ.

Russell Shoatz III:  Well, it’s a catch-22 for me. And it’s a little tougher for me to envision what I would like people to see. Because what I would like people to see is probably further down the road and maybe either another publication, because this publication is actually, my dad wrote this long before he got out, long before he even got sick and stuff like that. And so there’s actually a part of his life that’s not there.

And then, there’s a part of his life right when he’s transitioning, and then there’s a part of a life when he gets out and comes home and he’s actually home and not in prison. That’s not in a book. There’s a part of his life where he turns into a whole different person than we know what’s in the book that he probably even knew of himself or what he just turned into a whole nother different person that nobody knew, nobody ever saw before, any of that. And so those things are important to me.

Also, I don’t want people to get mixed up and think that this is some more of his teachings. These aren’t his teachings. This is just him saying, this is my life. This is what I did, blah, blah, blah. You can get knowledge and jewels and teachings out of that, but if you really wanted to know his teachings, the final teachings kind of, sort of, you would want to look towards his comment, or in court, his transcripts from court.

Also him being like, I’m a Muslim now and everybody should take the Shahada. Everybody should blah, blah, blah. Like, really fundamental Islamic stance. And not just Islamic, but a spiritual space, the space that most people are in when they’re about to transition. And so that transition space is a whole different space with more information, knowledge, and jewels that you really only get only if you’re there or around or hear about it or what have you.

But he was on a mission to get people to contemplate their mortality because he was at that space of really, really contemplating his mortality. But most freedom fighters have already contemplated their mortality. If you are thinking about going over that wall, you trying to escape, then you got to think about them killing you.

Or if you in some prison and they put on the Star Wars uniform and knock on the door and come in to beat you up, that’s just part of it. If you are fighting for liberation and you incarcerated, nine times out of 10, there’s going to be some situations where you got to think about, well, are they going to come in here and try to do me?

And so contemplation of mortality added with your life as a tool of liberation, because that whole book is just about him saying, you can use your life actually as a tool for liberation, if that makes any sense. So those two things, you can’t do anything. You’re not going to be real effective, you’re going to be fearful and scared if you don’t contemplate your mortality.

And people in Palestine, people in South America, people all over the world every day wake up, have to contemplate their mortality. Every day in Palestine, when you wake up, you got to be like, what’s cracking today? Is it a bomb? Is it a bullet? Is it a beating? What is it? Because it could be all them things, but I contemplated that. And now from there, I’m moving on to here.

I thought about it. Yeah, it may happen. It’s a possibility. We all came here to leave. But that was something in my dad’s last teaching, that was part of his last teaching. Are you ready? Are you ready? You built for this? You ready?

Mansa Musa:  There you have it, The Real News Rattling the Bars. You have The Prison Letters of George Jackson, you have The Autobiography of Malcolm X, You have Revolutionary Suicide, Seize the Time. You have Martial Law. You have The Greatest Threat by Eddie Conway. And now you have I Am Maroon. But in each one of these books is a story that’s woven all the way out about people fighting for their liberation. The story of us always, since we’ve been brought to these shores, fighting for our liberation.

And it’s important that y’all, our listeners and our viewers, understand this and look to the book, I Am Maroon, and enlighten yourself. And like both Sharon and Russell said, it’s not about the individual, it’s about the collective. It’s about the struggle, the struggle for liberation, and the struggle to free humanity.

Thank y’all for coming on. Really appreciate y’all, and we definitely going to be posting this information, and we’ll see y’all when y’all get on this end at Sankofa, if I don’t come to Philly and check y’all out.

Sharon Shoatz:  See you.

Russell Shoatz III:  Yeah. Come to the brunch, come and eat some of that food. It is a free brunch, you don’t want to miss that.

Mansa Musa:  All right. All right. Thank you. All right. All power to the people.

Sharon Shoatz:  Power to the people.

Russell Shoatz III:  Power to the people.

Sharon Shoatz:  Peace.

The role of the death penalty as a toll of the racist system of criminal punishment has been long documented. In the case of Alameda County, California, the inside story of how prosecutors influenced jury selections to increase the likelihood of death penalty convictions demonstrates how the racism of capital punishment remains with us in the 21st century. For decades, prosecutors worked to limit jury participation from Black and Jewish individuals in order to produce juries that were more likely to support capital punishment. Michael Collins, Senior Director of Government Affairs at Color Of Change, joins Rattling the Bars for a revealing discussion on prosecutor misconduct, and what it tells us about the state of the criminal injustice system.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

The death penalty in the United States of America. At one point in time, the Supreme Court had put it on hold because of the manner in which it was being given out. At that time, the way it was being given out is upon a person being found guilty of a capital offense, the judge made the ultimate determination whether they got the death penalty or not.

Throughout the course of litigation and the evolution of the legislative process, the death penalty started taking on the shape of a jury determining whether or not a person gets the death penalty or not after they were sentenced.

What we have now, in this day and age — And when I first heard it, it startled me to even believe that this was taking place — But in California, they have, in certain parts, the death penalty being given out, but more importantly, the death penalty given out by the prosecutor and the courts through their systematic exclusion of people’s juries of their peers.

The prosecutors, along with the courts, have systematically set up a template where they look at anybody that they think is going to be fair and impartial and have them removed from the jury. Subsequently, a lot of men and women are on death row in California.

Here to talk about the abuse of this system and the discovery of the process and exposing it is Michael Collins from Color of Change.

Welcome, Mike.

Michael Collins:  To be here. Thank you for having me.

Mansa Musa:  Hey, first, tell us a little bit about yourself, then a little bit about your organization before we unpack the issue.

Michael Collins:  I’m originally from Scotland, as you can probably tell. In the US since 2010, so like 15 years or so. Was in Baltimore for 10, 12 years off and on, and then I’m now in Atlanta.

Color of Change, where I work, is one of the largest racial justice organizations in the country. I oversee a team that works on state and local policy issues. We do a lot of work on prosecutor accountability and criminal justice reform, which is how we became involved in this death penalty scandal.

Mansa Musa:  All right.

And right there, because when I was at the conference in Maryland, [inaudible] Maryland, one of the panelists was one of your colleagues, and the topic they was talking about was prosecutorial misconduct. And in her presentation she talked about, and you can correct me as I go along, in I think it’s Alameda County in California?

Michael Collins:  Yep. That’s where Oakland is. Yeah.

Mansa Musa:  Right. In Oakland, they had, since 2001, the prosecutors always had set up a system where they systematically excluded minorities, poor people, anyone that they thought would be objective in evaluating the case, they had them excluded, therefore jury nullification, and stacking the jury that resulted in numerous people getting the death penalty.

Talk about this case and how it came about.

Michael Collins:  Yeah, it really was shocking when we first heard about it. You know, we had been doing work on prosecutor accountability in Oakland in Alameda County, and there was a prosecutor elected, a Black woman, called Pamela Price, who was elected on a platform of trying to reform the justice system and use prosecutorial discretion to right the wrongs of racial injustice and do more progressive policies within the office.

And she discovered, or one of her staff discovered, that over a period of three or four decades, prosecutors in the office had been systematically excluding Black and Jewish people from death penalty juries.

Now, in other words, how this happened was, when you go into a trial, there’s a process of jury selection, and prosecutors and defense lawyers can strike certain people from juries. Maybe people have seen some of this on TV.

Constitutionally, you are not allowed to strike people for race reasons, for religious reasons. But there was a sense from these prosecutors, who were very tough on crime prosecutors, who wanted to… They saw the death penalty as a trophy, almost, to be achieved, and they wanted to win at all costs.

And so they believed that Black people and Jewish people would be less sympathetic to the death penalty, and more likely, perhaps, to find an individual not guilty. More squeamish, if you like, about finding someone guilty who would then get the death penalty.

And so what Pamela Price, this district attorney, discovered was a series of notes and papers that documented the ways in which individual prosecutors were excluding people from juries in this way and really giving people an unfair trial.

And California has, for a number of years now, had a moratorium on the death penalty. They’ve essentially hit the pause button on the death penalty. But for a number of years it was really a state that carried out the death penalty [cross talk].

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, you’re right.

Michael Collins:  And also, one of the more startling things about this is Pamela Price, she came in, she discovered these notes. I think her reaction was, this is crazy. How does this happen? And it actually turns out that somebody raised the alarm bell about this as far back as 2004.

A prosecutor in the Oakland office who came out and he was like, listen, I was leading the trainings on this. I was somebody who was part of making these policies. And the admission went before judges, it went before courts of appeals, and they threw it out, they didn’t believe this guy. And they hounded this guy, the death penalty prosecutor, who essentially had a change of heart, and they hounded him out of town. And he now lives in Montana and practices law.

And I think he probably feels a sense of vindication about this, but it’s very troubling for us, the cover-up that’s gone on, and the number of people that are implicated. So far, we know of at least 35 cases of individuals.

The DA is investigating this. It’s probably going to be more than 35 cases. Right? It probably extends beyond the death penalty, to be honest. It probably extends to other, I would say, serious crime cases where, as I say, prosecutors wanted to win at all costs and use any tactic to get a guilty verdict, including, essentially, tampering with the jury.

And we are in a position now where I think what we want is some level of accountability. We want these individuals who have been sentenced to be exonerated. They were given an unfair trial, that’s abundantly clear. The judges and the prosecutors who were involved in this scandal, who stole lives, and who essentially put people on a path to the death penalty, what is the accountability for them? And so that’s something that Color of Change is really pushing.

Mansa Musa:  All right, so talk about the… Because now you’re saying over three decades… First, how long has the moratorium been on?

Michael Collins:  Since the current governor took office. So I think it’s four or five years.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, so four or five years. So prior to that, they was executing people.

Michael Collins:  Yes.

Mansa Musa:  All right, so how many people, if y’all have this information, how many people have been executed in that period [crosstalk] period?

Michael Collins:  We don’t have the numbers on that. I think what we are looking at just now is 35 cases where they’ve identified people who are now serving life sentences as a result of the moratorium. Because when the governor said, we’re not doing the death penalty anymore and hit the pause button on the death penalty…

And again, I’ll stress that it is a pause button, right?

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, right, right.

Michael Collins:  A new governor, a new person could take office. It’s not like it’s been eliminated. But when we hit the pause button on the death penalty, there were a number of people who had their death penalty convictions converted into life sentences.

And that was how part of this process was uncovered, because Pamela Price, this district attorney, her office was working on what kind of sentence that people, they were working with a judge to try and figure out some sort of solution to these cases where people were having their cases converted to another sentence, like perhaps a life sentence, life without parole, something like that. And in the process of working with a federal judge, that’s when they discovered these notes and files and [crosstalk].

Mansa Musa:  Let me ask you this here.

Michael Collins:  Yeah.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, so I know in the state of Maryland where I served my time at, and I’m in the District of Columbia now, the sentencing mechanism, as I opened up, was a case came out, Furman Act v. United States. That’s the case that… Furman v. United States. That’s the case that they used to change the way the death penalty was being given out back in the ’70s. Because during that time, Andre Davis had just got arrested, so there was a campaign out in California to abolish the death penalty.

But what wound up happening is they had a series of case litigation saying they violated the Eighth Amendment. So what ultimately happened was that the Supreme Court ruled that the way the death penalty was being given out, which was the judge was the sole person that gave it out, they changed it to now they allowed for after the person was found guilty, then the jury would determine whether or not they got the death penalty, that was based on the person that’s being looked at for the death penalty, or have the opportunity to allocute why it shouldn’t be given.

But how was the system set up in California? Is the person found guilty and then given the death penalty? Or is the person found guilty and then they have a sentencing phase? How is the system in California?

Michael Collins:  Yeah, I think a person’s found guilty and then there’s a sentencing phase. And there were a lot of articles about this and about the different lawyers in California. I think there’s obviously a movement to end the death penalty, and it’s gathered a lot of momentum in the last five or 10 years.

But I think if you go back to the ’80s and the ’90s especially, this era, whether you were in Maryland or whether you were in California, whether in Kentucky, just across the country, this very tough on crime era and harsh sentences, I think that the death penalty for prosecutors, or what we’ve been told and what we’ve read, the death penalty cases were almost like a prize for the prosecutors [crosstalk] do the cases.

[They were] the most complex cases, it had the most prestige attached to it, and they were really valued on their ability to win these cases. And so they would send their best prosecutors to do these cases. They would ask for the death penalty frequently.

And that’s why we have a situation where, at the very least, we know in a place like Oakland, which is not a huge place, we have 35 cases right now that they’re looking at. One of the cases has already been overturned, the conviction has been quashed for an individual. We expect that to happen in a lot of these cases as they examine the evidence, how much the jury selection was a key factor in the conviction.

But yeah, I mean, it certainly was the case that the death penalty was used very frequently in California.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. So the reason why I asked that question, I’m trying, for the purpose of educating our audience, to see at what juncture was the exclusion taking place? Or was it across the board, because [crosstalk] —

Michael Collins:  So my understanding is the exclusion took place as they were selecting the jury. You start off with a pool, maybe some of your audience have been selected for jury duty, when you go in and you’re sitting in a room and there will be maybe 100 people, and then eventually they whittle it down to 12 people and some alternates. And in that process, as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer, you’re striking people from the jury and saying, no, I don’t want this person.

The reasons for doing that are supposed to be ethical and constitutional, like, what do you think of the… You’ll be asked, what do you think of the police? What do you think of law enforcement? Do you trust the judicial process? They’re trying to figure out, are you going to be able to properly serve on this jury? Are you tainted in some way?

But the notes were really about a feeling that Black people were not sympathetic to the death penalty, [they would] not convict. Or Jewish people, because of their beliefs, because of their religion, were also not sympathetic to the death penalty. And so the prosecutors were trained and instructed to make sure, if they found out a person was Jewish, if they had a Jewish last name or something like that, or if a person was Black, ask some questions, figure it out, but essentially get them off the jury.

And there was even a case, I mentioned before, we’re talking a lot about prosecutors, judges were involved in this as well. There was a case where a judge pulled the prosecutor after jury selection into his chambers and said, you have a Jewish person on the jury. What are you doing? Get that person off the jury.

Mansa Musa:  Oh my goodness.

Michael Collins:  And so the depths of the scandal are beyond prosecutors. It’s a real institutional crisis.

And that’s why we want the governor to get involved, Governor Newsom to get involved and provide resources to investigate this. We want the attorney general to get involved and investigate this. Because this is a very clear and obvious scandal.

And it’s not enough to, in our opinion, re-sentence these individuals, exonerate them. Other people did some very, very shady things and very unethical things and illegal things, and ruined people’s lives. And as far as they were concerned, these people were going to be killed. And so we want to make sure that there’s accountability for that. They treated this like it was a sport, like it was a competition, and people’s lives have been ruined as a result. And we want to make sure that people are held accountable for what they did.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, so talk about this prosecutor, the one that came in with this reform. Was this something she campaigned on and then carried it out? What’s her background? What’s your information on her?

Michael Collins:  Yeah, it’s a good question.

So Color of Change has worked a lot on trying to reshape the way that prosecutors operate. Historically, prosecutors, they are the most powerful player in the system. They will decide how much bail you get, how long you’re going to be on probation. Everybody likes to imagine trials like judge, jury, and [crosstalk]. Most cases are a guilty plea that are executed by the prosecutor themselves. So they have tremendous power.

And very often, as we’ve seen with this scandal, prosecutors are just old school tough on crime: I’m going to get the heaviest sentence and put this guy away for as long as possible. That was their vision of justice.

And Color of Change, along with a number of other organizations, wanted to elect prosecutors that were more justice oriented, that were more reform minded, that were people who had a different view of the justice system and wanted to use some of that tremendous power within the prosecutor’s office to do good, to do justice, to reform them.

And so roundabouts of 2016, 2017, you saw a lot of prosecutors get elected that were more interested in things like police accountability: Marilyn Mosby in Baltimore, Kim Fox in Chicago. There was also Larry Krasner in Philadelphia.

Mansa Musa:  Philadelphia. Right.

Michael Collins:  And they came in and they did things like exonerations. They would investigate previous cases where the office itself had convicted somebody and they would find wrongdoing, and then they would overturn that verdict and the person would go free. They did things like non-prosecution of low-level offenses or diversion, stuff like that.

Anyway, Pamela Price came in as the Oakland DA, a historically Black jurisdiction. She herself had a Civil Rights background, was not a prosecutor, and took office really trying to reshape the office after decades of having a tough on crime prosecutor, mostly white-led office that was locking up Black people and throwing away the key. And she came in with a lot more of a nuanced approach.

She didn’t campaign necessarily on this scandal, but I think it’s true to say that a lot of other prosecutors, the traditional tough on crime prosecutors, would’ve discovered these files and been like, just put that back. Forget it.

Because you’re opening a hornet’s nest here, because if you think about… There’s victims involved, there’s family members, there’s cases. Some of these cases are 20, 30 years old. It’s not easy what the office is going to have to go through to reinvestigate these things.

But I think there’s this crop of prosecutors that have a different vision of justice and what justice is, and they do want to hold people accountable for wrongdoing, whether it is somebody who commits a homicide or a prosecutor who commits misconduct or a police killing, they apply that one standard of justice.

And so she was very open and found these files and then approached a federal judge and said to the judge, look, here’s all this evidence that there was this systemic racism, antisemitism that resulted in people getting the death penalty. And the federal judge was the one who said, okay, you need to review all these cases. You need to move forward with a full [inaudible]. So that’s what’s happening right now.

So that’s Pamela Price’s story. Incidentally, she’s actually being recalled in California.

Mansa Musa:  Oh yeah, yeah. Larry Krasner. He was like… In Philadelphia, it was the same thing we have with him.

Michael Collins:  Yeah, it’s the same thing. There was a big backlash [inaudible] —

Mansa Musa:  Kim Fields. Yeah, yeah. Same thing we have with them.

Michael Collins:  …Prosecutors in this sort of… You know.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, yeah.

Michael Collins:  And it’s hard because if she is recalled in November, I don’t really know what’s going to happen to these cases.

Mansa Musa:  Oh, I know. You know what’s going to happen. They’re going to go to the defendants, and they’re going to sweep it up under the rug.

Michael Collins:  Yeah. Well, that —

Mansa Musa:  But talk about the community, because that’s what led me right into this, because of what you say about her and the prospect that she might be recalled. Talk about y’all organization’s work in educating and mobilizing the community, because ultimately, if the community is engaged in the process because it’s their family members that’s being… Oakland is the birth for the Black Panther Party. Oakland has a rich history of civil disobedience, police brutality. The list goes on and on. Where are y’all at in terms of organizing or mobilizing or having some kind of coalition around this —

Michael Collins:  Yeah, we have a coalition on prosecutor accountability where we try and… Prosecutors are part of a very broken system, right? We don’t want to be cheerleaders for these prosecutors. We talk more about accountability, so prosecutor accountability.

So we have a coalition that we’re members of with Ella Baker Center and ACLU and a number of other local groups, where we meet regularly with the DA, but we try and push her to embrace more progressive policies. We try and push her to move more quickly on some death penalty cases. But at the same time, if she’s doing the right thing like she’s doing on these death penalty cases, we’re certainly going to defend her and go out there and support what she’s doing.

Mansa Musa:  Right, right, right, right. Because… Yeah. Right.

Michael Collins:  So we do community events. I’m actually in New Orleans just now where we’re holding an event with around about 100 folks from across the country from different groups to talk about, including people from Oakland, to talk about, how can you push your prosecutor and what should you do about it?

But as you know, it’s a very tough time for criminal justice reform, right?

Mansa Musa:  That’s right. That’s right.

Michael Collins:  [Crosstalk] public backlash, we’re coming out of the killing of George Floyd, there was actually a lot of mobilization of people on the streets calling for reform. And very quickly that’s disappeared and we’ve been attacked relentlessly. Anybody who engages in reform, police accountability, the establishment wants rid of them, the conservatives.

And to be honest, especially in a place like California, what we see is a lot of centrist Democrats running scared —

Mansa Musa:  Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Michael Collins:  …Using the same talking points as Donald Trump on crime. And that’s just very unfortunate. So it is an uphill struggle because there’s so much misinformation out there about crime and about prosecutors and about progressive policies.

But we’re trying, we’re trying to educate people. And when you see something like this happen, we try and tell people, look, other prosecutors would look the other way. And that certainly is what happened. As I mentioned before, this scandal goes back decades [inaudible].

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, that’s crazy.

Michael Collins:  And this woman is in office and she has had [inaudible].

Mansa Musa:  But the thing about the thing that, to highlight your point about reform and how we had the upper hand in terms of George Floyd, but George Jackson said that, and he was the best [described] person, he would describe it as reform. All the call for police accountability and divest, all those, the fascists and capitalists, they took them conversations and they twist it, and they twist it to the form like Cop City where we saying like, well, we’re doing this, the bill, to create the reform that you’re talking about, so we want better educating, better training. But you’re trained to be paramilitary.

And the same thing with what’s going on right now in terms of any type of social justice movement around prosecuting misconduct and what they call progressive prosecutors. I interned with a organization that that’s what they did. They got prosecutors, they educated them, got them involved and become progressive prosecutors. But all the progressive prosecutors are just doing what they was mandated to do, to find the truth for justice, search for the truth and justice, all them are being recalled, targeted, and organizations like yourself.

Talk about where y’all at now in terms of y’all next strategy around this issue.

Michael Collins:  So we are having conversations with the attorney general’s office because the attorney general plays this role where they themselves can identify that misconduct has happened, the unconstitutional jury instructions, and they can make a ruling. And they have more resources and more [inaudible] than the local DA.

So we met two weeks ago, I think, with the attorney general’s office to try and push them to get more involved. We’re pushing the governor to dedicate more resources and get more involved in this, somebody who himself opposes the death penalty. And we’re trying to keep the drum beat going in terms of attention. Good organizations like you guys, really appreciate you reaching out to us on this because it is so important that more people know about this.

I’m always surprised that it isn’t a bigger story. When I found out about this, I was like, oh, this is going to be front page.

Mansa Musa:  Right, right, right. It should be! Yeah. Yeah.

Michael Collins:  But I guess there’s so much going on just now, I don’t know, you never can tell what’s going to [inaudible].

Mansa Musa:  But in terms of, how can our viewers and listeners get in touch with you, and tell them how, if they want to support y’all efforts, what they can do to [inaudible].

Michael Collins:  Yeah, so Color of Change has a website called Winning Justice [winningjustice.org], which is our prosecutor accountability work. And if you go on there, you’ll see a number of actions that people can take around this death penalty scandal, even with their own local prosecutors, trying to get involved, set up coalitions, actions that can be taken where you can push your own prosecutor, whether they’re progressive or not, to do more justice and engage in [crosstalk].

So yeah, Winning Justice is our website. And if you search for it, you’ll find it and you’ll see a ton of actions and our positions on a bunch of different issues and what we try and do with prosecutors to get them to engage more in reform.

Mansa Musa:  Well, thank you, Mike.

There you have it. The Real News Rattling the Bars. It might be strange, it really might be a stretch of your imagination to believe that elected officials would actually say that if you are Black and you are Jewish, that you don’t have a right to serve on the jury because you might be sympathetic to the defendant, be it the death penalty, be it the defendant’s economic and social conditions.

But because they think that you might be sympathetic to that, that is saying like, well, you might just be objective to see that it’s a set of circumstances that contributed to the outcome of the charge. But no, as opposed to do that and search for the truth, what I do as a prosecutor, I put a playbook together and say, these people, under all circumstances, cannot serve on the jury, and do it for over three decades, not knowing how many people has been executed as a result of this malicious behavior.

Yet ain’t nobody being charged, ain’t nobody being indicted, ain’t nobody being fired. They’re being awarded a medal of honor for this dishonorable act.

We ask that you look into this matter and make a determination. Do you want your tax dollars to support this type of behavior? We ask that you look into this matter and check out what Color of Change has to offer in terms of their advocacy and see if it’s something that you might want to get involved with.

Thanks, Mike. Thank you for coming on.

Michael Collins:  I appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

The State of Missouri is scheduled to execute Marcellus “Khaliifah” Williams on Sept. 24 for a crime that even prosecutors now say he did not commit. On Sept. 12, a Missouri judge denied a motion filed by prosecutors to vacate Williams’ conviction and death penalty. Despite more than half a million petition signatures demanding Williams be freed, Missouri is set to proceed with the execution. Michelle Smith, Co-Director of Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty, joins Rattling the Bars to explain Williams’ case and the fight to free him before it’s too late.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

In this country, according to the Constitution of the United States, a presumption of innocence goes with a person that’s arrested. They’re presumed innocent until they are found guilty. It’s not they’re presumed innocent until they exonerate themselves. The burden is always on the state to prosecute a person beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have a situation today, where a man that is innocent — Not by me saying this, but by the very people that prosecuted him saying this, that he’s innocent. Not me saying this, the evidence, the DNA evidence is saying this. Not me saying this, but a preponderance of evidence and people coming out on behalf of Marcellus Williams Khaliifah, better known as Khaliifah, who is slated to be executed the 24th of this month.

Joining me today is a supporter and an advocate for Khaliifah, is Michelle Smith. Welcome, Michelle.

Michelle Smith:  Thank you so much. Thank you for having me on. I appreciate the space to talk about Khaliifah’s case.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, so let’s start right here. First, tell us a little bit about what you do, then we are going to what’s going on with Khaliifah.

Michelle Smith:  Sure. So, well, as far as myself and my organization, I am the co-director of Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty. We are the only statewide entity in Missouri that primarily fights to get rid of capital punishment. That is our main goal. And, in doing that, we do a lot of different things.

We do things from legislative advocacy, trying to change the actual law, to connecting with our community, and educating our citizens about the usage of the death penalty in Missouri. And also, we advocate for people who are on death row, which is what we’re doing currently for Khaliifah.

So, we do a lot. And, this case right now, it is very dire. He has an execution date in, what, 11 days, and so we’re really trying to amplify his case, this injustice, and what is happening in our state concerning the pending execution of an innocent Black man.

Mansa Musa:  All right, so let’s right there. Okay, an innocent Black man. All right, make the case based on what the facts say, why he’s innocent, but start with what they say that he allegedly done.

Michelle Smith:  Sure. So in 1998, there was a, the victim’s name is Felicia Gale, and she was in her home and there was a person who entered her home and brutally killed her, and it was a tragic situation for sure. I never want to take away from that. A family lost [crosstalk].

And so after this happened in 1998, a few months prior, another person, another woman, had been murdered in her home in a similar fashion. And the medical examiner at the time said they looked similar, but also the way that they were killed with a knife from their home, and also this knife was basically left sticking out of their bodies. So the medical examiner thought that there was some similarities, maybe it was some type of serial killer situation.

But both of the cases went cold for a very long time. There were no suspects and no one arrested in either of those cases.

A little over a year later, the victim in this case, Mrs. Gale, her husband, who was a doctor, he decided to offer a $10,000 reward for someone to come forward with information because he and his family wanted justice for the killing of his wife.

So once he offered that $10,000 reward, several people came forward basically saying that Khaliifah had confessed to killing this victim. And those people were… One was a girlfriend, someone he was dating, and another person was a person he met in jail. So we all call that a jailhouse informant, or a jailhouse snitch.

So these two particular people, who I’ve actually learned knew each other, the informant, the person in jail, and the girlfriend. So they both said Khaliifah basically told them that he had killed this victim.

And the main crux of the case during that time — And he went to trial in 2001…

Mansa Musa:  That’s right.

Michelle Smith:  So several years after the murder, he went to trial. The informants both received money, they received $5,000. In one case, with the jailhouse informant, he actually met the victim’s husband at the prosecutor’s office where the victim’s husband handed him $5,000 in cash. So it’s just egregious.

But, the main crux of the case at that time was these two people’s statements, and the fact that Khaliifah was in possession of the victim’s laptop computer.

Now, you and I both know that there is a time, and even still today, stolen property is sold, handed off, et cetera. And so the fact that Khaliifah had her laptop was not necessarily surprising to me, because people do trade in stolen property.

And, interestingly enough, the girlfriend at the time, who said Khaliifah had the laptop, it was later found out that she’s the one who gave him the laptop, because she [crosstalk] off the street. Again, at that point it had been stolen property. So he had been in possession of the victim’s laptop, and these people said that he told them that he had done this.

But, when we look at the actual evidence — And when I say evidence, I mean physical evidence, not only blood at the scene, but things like footprints. There was a bloody footprint left at the home from the person who had did this. Those did not match Khaliifah.

Also, the victim, of course, she struggled, this was a brutal situation, and the victim was clutching hairs in her hand of the perpetrator, the person that had harmed her, and when they tested those hairs that were clutched in her hand, they did not match Khaliifah either. Any fingerprints in the home did not match him either, and the blood on the knife also did not match Khaliifah.

So there is no physical evidence that actually matches Khaliifah in this case. Again, the only thing that the prosecution originally put their case on is these two “witnesses” who said that Khaliifah told them that he did it, and the fact that he had an item of the victim’s in his possession, including her laptop.

Mansa Musa:  Okay, answer this for the benefit of our audience…

Michelle Smith:  Go ahead.

Mansa Musa:  Because the error that you talking about, that he got locked up, The Innocence Project, the DNA became like the national standard for exonerating. Kirk Bloodsworth, they got a law called the Kirk Bloodsworth law. But Kirk Bloodsworth was locked up with me, and Kirk Bloodsworth was locked up in the ’80s, ’85 or ’86. And Kirk Bloodsworth was locked up for allegedly raping and killing a little young girl.

They had the underwear of the little young girl in their possession, the state did, and never tested it. So when they ultimately tested it, it exonerated him. But what that did, that started this national campaign to give value to DNA evidence. That’s what this did. And I’m setting this backdrop up.

So whenever DNA evidence came up during that period, during the late ’90s, or in that whole ’90 and 2000, after OJ, you had… DNA evidence was like the crux. It was like the end of all.

If you know, why wasn’t this evidence, which is evidence that’s scientifically sound, because you got hundreds of thousands of people that are locked up to this day based on DNA evidence. Why was this evidence excluded and didn’t go towards his innocence, to your knowledge?

Michelle Smith:  Well, I’ll say a couple of things. First, getting DNA tested in cases is always and often contentious. So, often the courts don’t approve the testing. You assume that when a case has some type of evidence, it is automatically tested. That’s not necessarily the case. So in Marcellus’s or Khaliifah’s case, the forensic evidence, the DNA was not tested until 2015. And I mean the current good DNA testing, not just like a blood test, but actual…

Mansa Musa:  Right, right, right.

Michelle Smith:  So it was conducted in 2015. And during that time what happened was the DNA on the weapon, it was not Khaliifah’s DNA, but whoever’s DNA was, it was unknown. They didn’t know who. So of course the assumption is the DNA must match the perpetrator, and they did not know who that was. They were not allowed to run the DNA through the FBI system, I think it’s called CODIS. They were not allowed to run it through the system, so for many years that DNA went unknown.

However, a few weeks ago, probably mid-August, some DNA testing was conducted further on that knife. And when that testing came back, they had tested the prosecutor who originally prosecuted the case in 2001 and one of his investigators. And, interestingly enough, the DNA came back to match them.

So what that told the current prosecutor’s office is that the evidence was contaminated, because obviously the prosecutor didn’t do it himself. So the fact that the DNA on the knife matched him, meaning that there was some contamination that happened, there was some mishandling of the evidence. And so the fact that the reality is the prosecutor’s DNA is on the weapon, and also that investigator, means that there was some type of breakdown in the chain of custody and the handling of that material.

A few weeks ago, Aug. 28 when the hearing was held, that original prosecutor, he got on the stand and testified, and he basically said that yes, I did handle the knife without any gloves. He said the trial, again, happened three years after the murder, and because they had already run the fingerprint testing and the blood testing, he felt like it was okay for him to handle the knife without gloves. Actually said he did it all the time, which is concerning to me.

And so that’s how his DNA got on the knife. He handled it without gloves. He said he pulled it out of the package, and put the evidence sticker on it, and he showed it to several of the witnesses to confirm that that’s the knife that they saw — Witnesses being the police officers — And he did.

So the fact that the weapon was mishandled and the evidence contaminated obviously means that there’s something going on, because had the prosecutor not done that, it’s possible that the actual perpetrator’s DNA would have still been found on the knife. But because it had been mishandled, right now the DNA, again, does not match Khaliifah, but it has proven the evidence has been mishandled. So that is why there is such contention around the DNA evidence in this case.

Mansa Musa:  All right, talk about this here. What about the hair follicles? Did anything come out in terms of testing that against Khaliifah’s hair follicles?

Michelle Smith:  Yes, and none of the other evidence matched Khaliifah: the hair, the footprints, the fingerprints, there is no physical evidence in that home, in that murder scene, that matched Khaliifah. The only evidence they had was the fact that he was in possession of the victim’s laptop and that these two people said that he told them he did it. They didn’t see it happen. They weren’t there either, but they both said that he told.

And the person from jail, interestingly enough, he did not know that man. He had just been in jail with him for a few days, up to a week, so the fact that you would even be in jail with someone and just confessing to them that you killed people, that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Mansa Musa:  But that’s a common phenomenon in prison. People, they sit around, and they look at the paper, and they read about somebody’s case, and they use that to get out. They call the state’s attorney, state’s attorney don’t even look and see whether or not there’s any validity to it.

But let’s talk about the current prosecutor. And the current prosecutor, and them and the states representative saying that he should be released or he should definitely not be executed. Talk about that, talk about that right there.

Michelle Smith:  Sure. So in our state, in 2021, there was a law passed in Missouri. And that law says that the local prosecutor, which is the office that prosecuted a person, that the local prosecutor has the right to bring forth a case, a motion to court to ask the court to set aside adjustment or vacate a conviction. And that happens when the attorneys for the person who was convicted brings evidence to the prosecutor, and then he himself in his office reviews the evidence.

So it’s not that a prosecutor just brings any case, he actually has his own staff review the evidence, his investigators, he runs the testing, et cetera. And once he was done reviewing this case, he decided that, yes, this case is not something I would have brought to court if I had been in court at that time. Our office messed up, our office mishandled evidence, and our office convicted someone who we today believe who is not guilty, who is innocent.

And so because of all of those reasons, the prosecutor brought the motion to court, asked the judge to review it and to vacate that conviction. But, there is another party in this matter, which is the state attorney, the attorney general of Missouri.

And so, the attorney general of Missouri has the right to challenge the local prosecutor’s assertions. And this has been done several times. Now, in the past three times, it has been used since 2021, the person was exonerated and freed — And none of those people were on death row. All three of those people had life sentences. One was in prison 28 years, one was in prison 34, and one was in prison for 42 years, and all of them were Black men. Each of those Black men have been exonerated and released after decades incarcerated.

But in this particular case, when the prosecutor brought forth the case and asked for it to be reviewed, the state attorney general has tried to block him at every point, at every turn. They were going to take a Alford plea, which is basically a plea deal [crosstalk] some evidence, but that still there is doubt in that conviction. And the judge was going to accept that Alford plea, and in exchange, they were going to give a Khaliifah a life in prison sentence.

Now life in prison is still a conviction and incarceration, however, it would’ve saved his life. He would not be facing execution. But, the state attorney General went to the Supreme Court that evening, asked them to throw out this plea deal and hold the hearing, and once that hearing was held, the judge then reviewed the evidence.

And it came out yesterday, so the judgment came out yesterday and it said that, basically, the DNA evidence that, again, points to the prosecutor, meaning that it was contaminated, is not “clear and convincing.” There’s a very high bar, when we’re talking about innocence, there’s a very high bar a person has to meet, and the judge does not feel that this case meets that high enough bar in order to vacate the conviction. So the judge denied the motion to vacate the conviction.

So at this point, again, Khaliifah is facing execution on Sept. 24. His attorneys as well as the local prosecutor are trying to figure out their next legal move in court. I’m not quite sure what that is, but of course they can go to the state Supreme Court, they can also go to the US Supreme Court. And so we anticipate them doing that, and I’m sure that they’re going to keep fighting to bring justice to this case, and to exonerate Khaliifah and also stop his impending execution. But we are in [inaudible] —

Mansa Musa:  I got you. This is literally, like you say, the 11th hour. But also from my information, the family members came out and took a position on Khaliifah. What was that?

Michelle Smith:  In these cases, the victim’s families don’t always agree with the prosecution, and I think that’s a fallacy that people assume so. But the victim’s family, Mrs. Gale’s family, have stated publicly that they don’t believe in the death penalty. Again, her husband is a doctor, and I’m sure that him being a doctor, a person that is tasked with saving people’s lives, is what grounds his own ideology in this, but the family is not for the death penalty.

Now, the family believes that Khaliifah is guilty of the murder. They have stated that as well. They don’t believe he’s innocent. They believe he’s guilty, but they also don’t believe in the death penalty. So they would be satisfied if he was just incarcerated.

But I explain to people often that the prosecutor, they don’t always align with the family. The prosecutor is a political position, and the decisions that they make in the office are often politically motivated. It’s not always about the family.

I’ve seen cases where… There’s one case of a man whose family, the victim’s family, was his own family, because in his case, when he was 19, he killed a member of his family. I believe she was a great aunt who was an elderly person, and he was doing drugs, sadly, and he killed his great aunt trying to get money. But the victim’s family, his family are the same family.

And that victim’s family went to the governor, I believe it was Texas, and went to the governor of Texas and told him, we don’t want our loved one killed. We understand what he did. We are a family of faith, we are a family of forgiveness, and we want him here, and we believe that he’s a better person, and we don’t want to lose him. And the state said, we don’t care what you think and executed him anyway.

So the prosecution is not always about the victim’s families, or the victim’s loved ones, or justice for the victim’s family. Because, like in Khaliifah’s case, the victim’s family does not agree with the death penalty, however, the state is still pushing for Khaliifah to be executed. So it is not always what the victims want.

Mansa Musa:  We want to educate our audience on this point when they offer Khaliifah an Alford, because the Alford plea is a plea that’s saying that I’m innocent, it’s just that the circumstances, I can’t overcome these circumstances at this time. It’s not that they can’t be overcome, it’s just they can’t be overcome at this time. So this is a better course. So given the Alford plea, he still would’ve been able to pursue his quest to be exonerated, which is really what this is about, an innocent man.

Talk about an innocent man getting ready to be legally murdered. Talk about the state of Missouri and how they do the… Overwhelming numbers of Blacks on death row, or is this generally that they go out, and they execute or they try to get the death penalty across the board, or is it just systemically poor people?

Michelle Smith:  Interestingly enough, when we talk about… Of course, racism is embedded in the capital punishment, death penalty system, it is the crutch of it, it’s how it was done. There was a time where we were lynched. They made it legal and they made it state and they made it in the gas chamber, or an execution chair, but it’s still state-sanctioned murder.

And since it is still embedded in racism, there is a little bit of difference. It’s not necessarily the race of the defendant, which does play a part, but statistically it’s the race of the victim.

Being a white female means that you’re three-and-a-half times more likely to receive a death sentence. So if the victim is a white woman or a white female child, whoever the perpetrator is, nevermind that it could be by whoever, but that goes to show you who’s valued in society. 

Because if Khaliifah’s victim was a Black man or a Black woman, he very likely would not be on death row right now. That’s just the reality of the situation. So, racism does definitely play a part, who the victim is plays a huge part, but it is also who the defendant is as well.

And in our particular state, because we are a state that held onto slavery, actually Missouri was the last slave-owning state. So Missouri is the South. I tell people that often, Missouri is the South. And when we look at it, we look at the lynchings in our state, and we can really overlay a map of the executions, and they almost match.

So places that did lynching, extrajudicial murders, now carries out the death penalty, capital punishment. It is definitely mostly Black men, for the most part, but the overwhelming majority of people are poor. And that’s what we need to talk about, too.

People who are facing capital punishment or lengthy sentences in prison are poor, don’t have access to the best legal help. In Khaliifah’s case, his attorneys, back at that time, his defense attorneys today, those two men are judges.

And they came to court and they said, listen, we were ineffective because we had another death penalty case at the time, and we were stretched thin. We were busy, we had more than one capital punishment case, and we did not do everything that we could for Khaliifah because of that other case. And they actually admitted that in court as well.

So the representation for people, most of the time get public defenders, and they don’t have the robust representation. Everybody’s not OJ. Everybody cannot afford Johnnie Cochran and a great legal team.

Mansa Musa:  Dream team.

Michelle Smith:  Exactly. And so most poor people are facing these particular punishments because they don’t have access to their robust legal representation, and that’s the crux of it.

Even right now in our state, there are approximately 10 to 12 pending capital punishment cases, meaning they’re sitting in jail waiting to go to trial, and they’ve been charged with murder and facing a death penalty. And guess what? All of those people right now are white men from rural Missouri. So they’re from small towns in Missouri, they’re all white men.

And it is really an indictment, again, of our system. So when we talk about racism and the division and the biases, we truly need to understand that our system, our country, hates poor people overall.

Mansa Musa:  They criminalize poverty.

Michelle Smith:  [Crosstalk] tell you is, if you’re poor and you don’t have access to resources, or access to amazing litigation, et cetera, you are going to be victimized in this system.

Mansa Musa:  They criminalize poverty.

But talk… Look, before as we get ready to close out, talk about Khaliifa. I asked you earlier, I said, make the case why you think he’s innocent, and I’ll leave that up to our viewers based on the preponderance of information that you gave us, the facts of his case is in the public record. But talk about Khaliifa, how is he doing, and what kind of person is Khaliifa, for the benefit of our audience?

Michelle Smith:  So Khaliifah is, again, his birth name was Marcellus Williams. He has been a very devout Muslim for many, many years, and he took upon the Islamic name Khaliifah upon his shahada, which is that naming ceremony. He is also the Imam at the prison he’s in. So he is a person that is looked up to, that is very admired. He guides the other Muslim men in that prison, and he’s always trying to make sure that he stays in alignment with Allah.

So because of that, he keeps his faith right up front, and he is doing okay. We talked a few weeks ago and he honestly encourages me, because I’m not… Sadly, I don’t have the faith that he has. He’s always concerned, asking me how I’m doing, telling me everything is going to be okay. Because I’m a worrier, but he is very much that person that really stays calm, keeps other people calm around him, and has the perspective that everything is going to work out because he is such a faithful individual.

He’s also a father, a grandfather. He is very involved in his family, and he’s a poet. Khaliifah writes amazing poetry, and we put together a collection of his poetry as well. He’s written poems about, one is called “The Perplexing Smiles of the Children of Palestine”, and it is an amazing poem about the atrocities that are happening to the Palestinian people.

He’s written a poem about George Floyd and the issues of what happened in 2020. So he’s very in tune with what’s going on today, and he has written some amazing poetry.

So he is a beautiful-spirited person. He is definitely someone that has so much to give to others, and we are truly fighting for his innocence and his life so that he can go on impacting people in a positive way.

Mansa Musa:  So tell our audience right now what can they do, how they can support and try to help reverse this process that we know is going to take place unless we get some support and raise the voice of Khaliifah.

Michelle Smith:  So of course, his legal team are doing all they can in court, and we appreciate that. But as far as the community, locally here in Missouri and nationwide, just amplify Khaliifah’s story and his case. Talk to your community members, talk to your family, talk to your loved ones about the fact that the death penalty does not solve anything, and actually killing innocent people should be something we as a society should not be doing.

We have a petition for Khaliifah. We also have a web page, which is www.freekhaliifah.org. His name is spelled K-H-A-L-I-I-F-A-H. So freekhaliifah.org. And it has a toolkit where we have graphics, and we have information that you can share on social media. You can print also and share as well. We have a little email template that you can email our governor, especially if you live in Missouri, you can definitely utilize that.

So we’re really asking people to learn and to amplify the case, amplify Khaliifah’s life and humanity, and we would love this to get as big as possible.

Some people have made videos on TikTok and Instagram, and those are amazing as well, because those get a lot of views and really inspire other people to learn more, and so that’s truly what we’re looking to do, amplify Khaliifah’s case.

Next Tuesday the 17th from 6:00 to 9:00 PM we will be going live on Instagram, bringing on several people to talk about Khaliifah’s case and trying to do a social media push to amplify the case, again, and to amplify his life. Because a lot of people don’t know what’s happening, so we definitely want more people to understand what is going on and how it not only affects us in Missouri, it affects us nationwide, because we should have a stop at killing innocent people. That definitely is not something we should be doing.

Mansa Musa:  Thank you. There you have it. The Real News, Rattling the Bars. We ask that you review this information about Marcellus Khaliifah Williams. We ask that you ask yourself if you was in this situation, would you want to get a fair trial? Would you want people to really look at the information and the evidence? When you confronted with this information and this evidence, ask yourself, would you, as a juror, if you knew all this as a juror, would you have found Khaliifah guilty of murder? Ask yourself, if you as a juror would not be able to discern when a person have interest over humanity, where a person would take and sell somebody out for $5,000? Ask yourself what would you do?

We’re asking that you look at this information and follow what Michelle was saying as far as on Instagram, on their webpage. It’s very interactive, and make your voice known. Because if we continue to allow this country to execute people legally with impunity, then, as Angela Davis say, “If they come for me [in the morning], they will come for you in the [night].” And this is them coming for us in the morning if we don’t raise the voice of Khaliifah. Thank you, Michelle.

Michelle Smith:  Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mansa Musa:  And we ask you to continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News because we’re actually the real news.

The role of financial incentives in mass incarceration is often thought of in terms of the role of private contractors and private prisons. But the far greater financial incentive in mass incarceration comes from the public sector—the role of police in imposing fines and fees on local residents as a strategy to secure revenues for public budgets. This practice is happening all over the country, but now, a new report from Fines and Fees Justice Center explores the extent of this perverse fiscal strategy in the nation’s capital, Washington DC. Michael Johnson, Jr. of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute joins Rattling the Bars to discuss this eye-opening report, “The Hidden Cost of Justice.”

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

In America, the prison-industrial complex has monetized every aspect of imprisonment. Every aspect of imprisonment is monetized to the extent that everybody that’s incarcerated is not only serving time, but have to pay for the time that they’re serving.

So much so that, some places, they actually pay to live, to stay in prison. And they’re being told that, if you got a job, a percentage of your money, it’s going towards us — Not going towards the home in an event that a prisoner is released. But to [inaudible] and go back into the state’s coffer.

Joining me today is Michael Johnson, a policy analyst that’s going to talk about a report that he did called The Hidden Cost of Prison. Welcome, Mike.

Michael Johnson:  How you doing, Mansa?

Mansa Musa:  I’m good. Hey, introduce yourself. Tell our audience who you are and what you do.

Michael Johnson:  So my name is Michael Johnson. I’m a senior policy analyst at D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. And my work really focuses on examining the costs particularly of jail and prison. And we focus mainly on D.C., but we know this issue is something that affects people across the country. So that’s a little bit about me.

And currently, sorry for the noise in the background and everything. I’m at a policy conference in Atlanta right now, but good to be here.

Mansa Musa:  Okay. And thank you for coming on and joining us. As I said in the beginning, you wrote this report called The Hidden Cost of Prisons. Now, we know that — And I served 48 years prior to being released. When I first went into the system, a lot of the infrastructure of the prison that I was in was funded and financed by the state. The food came from the state, the medical was state, the clothing was state. The entire infrastructure of the Maryland prison system was, basically, state. So the money that was being used to maintain the prison-industrial complex during that time was state funded.

Since that time, I’ve noticed that, as the years went on, when they allowed telephones in, they was private. The medical facilities, they became private. The commissary, it became private. The clothing, it became private.

All right, before we peel back on some of the layers, was you able to glean from your research the extent of how prison has become monetized in terms of the infrastructure?

Michael Johnson:  So we were able to definitely get a good sense of that. And so, my report focuses on D.C. specifically. So we looked at the budget and funding for the D.C. jail, in particular. And one of the things that came out of the report is exactly what you’re talking about, is this privatization of so many services that go into the prison [inaudible] and jail system.

From the phone systems, like you mentioned, which are private. And folks pay $0.08 per minute, which is just about $1.20 for a 15-minute phone call. And then, commissary as well. Those are all things that folks, while they’re incarcerated, have to pay, in addition to paying for any fines that you’re imposed at the time you’re sentenced.

But also, just being able to live day-to-day. It’s one of those things where it’s really so unaffordable that a lot of times people have to ask for support from their families, from their relatives, communities.

And that’s something that I personally experienced with my father being incarcerated for most of my life and having to send him money every now and again, pay to even email them through JPay. And that was as a teenager.

So we think about all the different costs that go into the jail and prison system, and it’s not just impacting the folks that are incarcerated. It’s really impacting, especially, the families of folks incarcerated.

Mansa Musa:  Right. And let’s talk about, because like you say, this report primarily focus on D.C. jail. But this report really is an overview of how all prisons and jails are ranked relative to the monetization of it. So we don’t want our audience to think that because we’re talking about D.C. jail, every aspect of the D.C. jail is also Cook County, also in Alabama, also in upstate Washington, any other Southern detention centers. The same principle applies. The privatization of the infrastructure, be it medical, be it food, be it clothing. And as I said early, housing.

But let’s talk about the D.C. jail. And I want to reflect on this aspect of it. Okay. The jail is primarily funded by… The money for the jails, it comes out of the D.C. budget. And they allocate so much money each year towards the maintenance and the running of the jail. Is that correct?

Michael Johnson:  Yes, sir.

Mansa Musa:  All right. So then, from what you was able to gather, how is it that they transfer the cost of telephone, the cost of medical, and the cost of commissary to the individuals that’s incarcerated when the money’s already being… Why is it not the reverse? I know these companies got to be paying the jail. So why is the cost being transferred to the individual? If you have any insight on that.

Michael Johnson:  You know, the fact of the matter is it’s really about pushing those costs onto the people incarcerated themselves. And like you said, it’s not just D.C. But we have the system where it’s intentionally exploiting and extracting resources, particularly from, when we think about the prison and jail population, Black people primarily, especially within D.C.

And it really goes into our perceptions of what people deserve, I believe. I think there’s this narrative across the country that, for the folks that are incarcerated, they should be paying for everything. But at the same time, we’re not paying living wages. We’re paying folks $1, $2 a day. Or in some states, like Louisiana, not paying them anything at all for working.

And so, a lot of it, to be honest, is just continuing from the legacy of slavery. We set this country up in a way where this country was founded from exploiting Black labor, exploiting Black resources. And so, it’s just a continuation of that.

And we saw that throughout the 20th century with Black Codes, where we would create laws to fine people for really not even serious offenses, just to get them into jails and prisons. In that sense, we’re funneling people to make money from them. Because at the end of the day, folks are going into jails and prisons and working for companies to make money for those companies.

And so, a lot of it is about exploitation of Black labor, Black resources, that has really been at the foundation of the country.

Mansa Musa:  And let’s talk about the fine system, because I think that’s one, when you look at the detention centers, and when you look at the overall prison-industrial complex, the fine system is one of the most damaging aspects of the collateral aspect of it.

Because in some situations, you can opt out. I can opt out from commissary. I can’t opt out for medical, but I can opt out for commissary. I can opt out for packages. I can opt out from buying books. I can opt out from buying different things from the commissary be it music. Or I can opt out from email, I can write a letter. But I can’t opt out from the fine because once the fine is imposed, the money is being taken. Whatever the money I get, they’re taking it even though they’re not supposed to. Talk about the fine system.

Michael Johnson:  Yeah, so that’s exactly right. That’s definitely one of the most predatory aspects of the system. One, because of just the high cost of some of the fines. In D.C., you can have fines over $250,000 for one offense. And so, when you get charged and convicted of any offense, those fines also add up. So they all go on top of each other.

But the other reason why it’s so predatory is, again, because of some of the mechanisms that they have to force you to pay.

Mansa Musa:  That’s right. That’s right. Come on, talk about that.

Michael Johnson:  And probably the most predatory way that they go about forcing people to pay is the threat of re-incarceration. So if you don’t pay, you can be incarcerated up to a year in D.C. That’s the case in a lot of other places throughout the country, and you could even be incarcerated for longer.

But then, there’s other ways in terms of, if you don’t pay, there’s certain financial responsibility obligation programs that different jails or prison systems have. But essentially, you enter into a payment plan where you agree to pay off a certain amount every month, every quarter.

And if you don’t make those payments, you can lose your access to the phones, get restricted in terms of how much you can purchase through commissary, get on restricted housing, and so many other ways where they’re coercing people to pay.

And it is important too because a lot of those fines, they’re supposed to go towards victims of crime. And a lot of times, the fines that are collected is only a very small drop in the bucket of how much actually goes towards victims. So there’s definitely a lot of different layers when it comes to that, but it’s definitely one of the more predatory parts of the system.

Mansa Musa:  And another part of the hidden cost and the impact that it has is the visitations where monies are given to put on what we call books, where I get somebody put some money on my books. Talk about that. Because I know when I was in the county jail, they was taking, like if somebody put $10, they were taking $2. They give me the money, where before, I could just send the money owed in. Or before, I could send cash, I could drop off cash.

But now, it’s a system where they tell you that you have to use JPay, or you have to use one of them pay mechanisms, or a kiosk in the lobby of the jail. And they tell you that if you want to give some money up, then you have to use the kiosk, or your family member is going to give you some money. Your family member give you $20, you might get $15 of it. Talk about that part. How is that being regulated, or orchestrated, really?

Michael Johnson:  When it comes to those types of payments, a lot of times they can take money as long as you owe a certain amount in fines. They can take up to, I believe it’s 50% of any amount that you get, whether that’s earned or if somebody sends that to you. So a lot of times, the money that’s being sent goes right back into the system. And so, the folks that are incarcerated really don’t see all of that money at any point, pretty much, any time.

Mansa Musa:  When we look at, like I said, the commissary. When commissaries privatize, like they got different corporations. When I left prison, it was Keefe, and then Keefe charged astronomical prices. And the crazy part about Keefe is the prices change wherever you at. So in the detention center, a ramen noodle might be $1.50 or $2. In the system, it might be $0.60. But it’s the same corporation, it’s Keefe. And then in other parts of the country, Keefe, got a monopoly on commissary.

To your knowledge, if you can answer this, how are they able to get away with that? Where they’re able to like, that’s price gouging really.

Michael Johnson:  I don’t have a lot of information about that. What I can tell you is, in D.C. alone, they collect about $2 million per year just from commissary purchases. That goes right back into the system. That doesn’t go towards supporting these folks’ re-entry. That doesn’t go towards any type of programming while you’re incarcerated. That’s just $2 million that Keefe and those other companies go to collect, and then go to restock the commissary.

So there is a really good research article by The Appeal that just released and talks just about that though, about how a lot of the prices that are inside are oftentimes a lot more than the cost of those things outside of prisons.

Mansa Musa:  I know from experience that prior to them privatizing a commissary, they had in the state system — And this was regulated through legislation — That the proceeds from the commissary, after they restocked, would go to the Inmate Welfare Fund. The Inmate welfare Fund, in turn, was responsible for providing indigent individuals with their necessities. So toothpaste, stamps, and things of this nature.

But now that they took that out the equation, the Inmate Welfare Fund has a retribution aspect to it in prison, where they’ll give you something, and once you become no longer indigent, then you have to pay it back. This is what privatization has created in the collateral sense, the prison-industrial complex has created in the prison system.

I think I remember in your report the cost of people incarcerated paying to stay in prison. Like I’m in a detention center, I’m on work release, and I got to pay money to stay on the work. Was you able to glean anything out of that?

Michael Johnson:  Yeah. And just one other thing about the Welfare Fund, because that’s a really important point. So that definitely was a system that was intended to support inmates. When they were actually doing that though, it was only about 10% of the money that was generated from commissary that was going into that Welfare Fund. So it was only a small drop in the bucket.

And then since, I would say, 2020, they used to do audits of the Welfare Fund every year to provide some type of transparency about how those funds are being used. It hasn’t been done since then. One, we know it’s predatory, but we also don’t know exactly how much it’s predatory, because they don’t provide a lot of that information and data. So that’s a whole another piece, is really trying to get them to actually be transparent about what’s actually going on.

But then on the other side, when you talk about the work release fee, that’s one of the most egregious fees. And it’s really just about your room and board. It’s just paying to be in, and it’s for folks that are transitioning out at a halfway house. So they’re on their way to go back into the communities. But at the same time, any amount that they earn is taxed at 20%. So if I make $100, that’s $20 getting taken out of that automatically. And that’s before if you have any other fines that are owed, that gets taken out then. And then, still having to afford to pay to stay in contact with folks.

All that to say, all this stuff adds up. And so, especially with the work release fees, that’s more than double the tax that we charge for millionaires in D.C. So we’re charging folks that are on their way back and reentering society, we’re charging them nearly double than what we’re charging in taxes for someone making $1 million, which is pretty ridiculous.

Mansa Musa:  And I think that the irony in the whole thing — And really this is where the abuses really can be quantified — Is taxpayers, your money is being taken out to support D.C. jail. You got money paying for security, money paying for everything going on in the jail. If nobody buy nothing, if nobody had no fine, you still going to put an astronomical budget aside in the maintaining of the jail.

So the fact that you’re taking now and saying that, not only we getting money from you taxpayers to incarcerate them, house them, but we also get money from them, and that money’s going to corporate America and back into the jail. So that’s the irony in the whole matter that you’re double dipping at the expense of a person that’s indigent all the while.

But talk about the impact that it be having on family members.

Michael Johnson:  For sure. I think this is one of the biggest pieces. In terms of families, a lot of times folks cannot afford all those different costs, whether it be phones, commissary, medical, the fines by themselves. So oftentimes, you have to rely on family.

And we don’t have really good data or information about D.C. specifically, but we know, across the country, families are spending over $13,000 just on court costs. And then when you think about some of those, the commissary and phone fees alone, across the country, families are spending over $3 billion just in fees for phones and commissaries. That’s $3 billion from the pockets of everyday people, in addition to taxpayers paying for the maintenance, the construction of jails.

The result is, a lot of times, folks don’t have resources to help support folks. And so, either they’re taking money from the bills, or taking money from other things.

And another thing is, about two thirds of families that did support their loved ones incarcerated had some trouble meeting their basic needs.

Mansa Musa:  Yeah, I can believe that.

Michael Johnson:  …Just from support. So about two out of every three people are having trouble supporting basic needs because of being able to support their loved one while they’re behind bars.

So that is one of the bigger issues when we think about the impact to families, to brothers, sisters, mothers, but children as well, and the generational impact that has is something that I think we need to be thinking more about too.

Mansa Musa:  Right. Man, we talking about 2.5 million people are locked up, confined, not to count the 2.5 million that’s under the criminal justice system. You’re talking about almost 5 million people that are justice involved on some level, shape, form, fashion that have an obligation. Some are paying for urinalysis. Some are paying for the box, be on electronic monitors. Some are paying to be confined to a shelter. Some paying to be able to go back and forth on work release.

But I noticed this here, none of this money is going towards child support. They haven’t constructed no, which would be idealistic, if you was to take this money that you’re talking about and help pay for the incarcerated parent’s child obligation. That obligation is going to follow them once they get out. So in addition, not having no money, having a fine, now you have an obligation with the state or city to pay child support.

But Mike, tell our audience how they can get a copy of this report so they can look at it for themselves and make their own determination on whether or not this is something that they as a taxpayer support.

Michael Johnson:  Definitely. You can find the report on our website, dcfpi.org. And again, it’s called The Hidden Price of Justice. And yeah, definitely happy to talk with anyone who is interested. I appreciate you having me on the show today.

Mansa Musa:  All right, and thank you. And there you have it. The Real News, Rattling the Bars. Somewhere along the line, I heard this saying that crime doesn’t pay. Man, crime is paying off astronomically. It’s not paying for the victims. It’s not paying for the victims or the person that was victimized. It’s not paying for the victim that’s been victimized by the criminal justice system. It’s not paying off for the family members. It’s paying off for corporate America and corporate America only. It’s paying off for capitalism, and it’s paying off in big dividends.

We need to really pull back the cover off of this. And as taxpayers, y’all should be outraged that somebody’s asking you. They raise your taxes, and your tax dollars is going to something that, if they gave you a choice to say, where my tax dollars should go? I’m quite sure you wouldn’t say that your tax dollars should go towards making a fat cat fatter.

There you have it. Rattling the Bars on The Real News. We ask you to continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News because guess what? We are actually the real news. 

Thanks, Mike.

Michael Johnson:  Thanks.

The housing and affordability crisis is getting worse, and more people around the country are facing the grim reality of homelessness. Rather than treating housing as a human right and committing to large-scale construction of accessible housing, states like California are responding with police raids of homeless encampments and imprisonment for unhoused people. On this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa discusses non-carceral solutions to the housing crisis with Zachary Murray and Estuardo Mazariegos of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE).

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcript

Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Joining me today are two men that are very active in advocating, educating, and enlightening people about the state of people that are homeless, among other things. Here today to talk about the state of California are two extraordinary gentlemen.

Introduce y’allselves to Rattling The Bars. Zach?

Zachary Murray:  Yeah, I’m Zach Murray. I’m a statewide campaign coordinator with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment based in Los Angeles.

Mansa Musa:  Estuardo?

Estuardo Mazariegos:  Yeah, good morning. My name is Estuardo Mazariegos. I’m co-director of Los Angeles ACCE.

Mansa Musa:  And what do ACCE stand for?

Estuardo Mazariegos:  The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Mansa Musa:  OK, thank you.

OK, let’s unpack this. A recent article came out, I neglected to identify the source, but a recent article came out in a newspaper in California that was highlighting the situation in California. And the tagline on it was, if California doesn’t back affordable housing, then you get what you pay for.

All right, so now what is the state of housing in California as it relates to low-income people or people that can’t afford housing? I know California got a serious homeless population, but what is the state as y’all identified in California, state of homelessness in California?

Zachary Murray:  Well that article that you mentioned, it was an editorial that was authored by one of our LA-based members, Maria Briones, and what she was calling out was the state’s underinvestment in solving the housing and homelessness crisis.

Right now, the state of California has over 180,000 homeless people. There’s only 70,000 shelter beds. So that means for over half of the homeless population, there is insufficient shelter. So when folks are being displaced or driven to homelessness, they have nowhere to go. And so, right now we have encampments, we have folks who are living in RVs and cars, and there is no place to go.

Most recently, our governor, Governor Gavin Newsom, following the grant’s past Supreme Court decision, ordered that the state of California would sweep encampments on state property. And he suggested that county and city governments do the same thing.

And so, what Maria Briones was specifically calling out was that the governor knows what it takes to solve the housing affordability and homelessness crisis. It takes more housing, it takes an investment in the creation of affordable housing.

Specifically, in 2022, Governor Newsom made a promise that he would build 1 million affordable homes by 2030. And unfortunately we’ve only made, since that time, about 12% of the investments necessary to get there. In fact, and as is called out in that editorial, last year, alone and over the past several years, the state of California has only spent 1% of its budget on affordable housing and homelessness.

And so, for most people, voters in California, housing and homelessness is an issue that they are concerned about because we all see it, and many of us are experiencing it, either homelessness or being at risk of homelessness because of increasing rents. And so, if the state is going to take this seriously, there needs to be more investment from the state of resources to address the housing crisis.

Mansa Musa:  OK. All right, so Estuardo, Zach laid out something about saying that Governor Newsom said that he was investing in. But now, isn’t the Olympics coming to California, the next Olympics, which would be, what? What year is that?

Estuardo Mazariegos:  2028.

Mansa Musa:  OK so in 2028. He was talking about building 1 million affordable housing by 2030. But now, from what I’m gathering, what is their reaction to the fact that now they have this worldwide, nationwide event coming? Just suppose to add to what Zach just outlined, so do you think this has anything to do with that or is this just the general attitude of California as well as in the nation?

Estuardo Mazariegos:  I think a lot of the issues will be front and center during this world event, if not taken care of before then. And when I mean taken care of, I mean providing folks affordable housing, access to shelter, making sure that people have a place to go, not just sweeping up.

One of the things the governor also did a couple weeks ago was he had an executive order, or a directive, and they were able to use the grant’s passing to say, hey, sweep up, city by city, every homeless encampment that is in your city.

I live in south central Los Angeles, right down the street from Expo Center, which is one of the mega centers that would host the Olympics. The LA Live area with Crypto Arena, LA Convention Center, The Coliseum, BMO Stadium, the Galen Center. A lot of different facilities here will be hosting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. And, at the same time, around these venues you have dozens and dozens of encampments that surround probably thousands of people living on the street, with a concentration of racialized poverty around these places as well.

So you start seeing a lot of pressure from corporations like Airbnb coming in, taking over units and turning them into short-term rentals where there’s already a lot of pressure happening. So it goes hand in hand.

You see the need for housing here in our community is high. We have about 17,000 children living in poverty around these stadiums. And 49,000 people, very low-income folks in that entire community around all of these venues. On top of thousands and thousands not counted because a lot of the methodology behind the count, the homeless count in Los Angeles, is wrong. So there’s thousands of homeless folks.

So putting the pressure of an event where it’s going to cost about $7 billion to build up in the City of Los Angeles from both private investment. And at the same time you have the city of Los Angeles, which only has invested $61 million for affordable housing production and preservation in 2022. So something’s got to give.

And unfortunately, it’s always the other way where it hurts people instead of helping people. So what we want to see is an event, or we want to uplift our community, and we see this as an opportunity to uplift our community and not displace it, not uproot it.

So the 2028 Olympics and Gavin Newsom are really tied together. And, as a community, we’re fighting to define the issue. We’re fighting to make sure that we bring resources, but it really does take having the type of political leadership to listen. Right now, we’re seeing that Gavin Newsom just isn’t listening.

So what we do as a community is we organize and we build pressure on the decision makers. So that’s what we’ll start doing from now on out until 2028 to try to really use that as an issue to build up affordable housing in our communities.

Mansa Musa:  And me and Zach was talking off camera about [how] the article reflected that the most vulnerable population, in addition to our children, is seniors. And the article highlighted the seniors, and the senior was saying that, I never thought I’d be in this situation where I’d be homeless. But that the reason why this person found themselves in that state was because the slumlord refused to make repairs in the housing. And the city, as opposed to having oversight and enforcement, chose to remove the person and put them in a shelter.

Is this something that’s going on throughout the state of California? That seems like the slumlords and the city, or the slumlords and the state are in cahoots with each other in terms of displacing people, Zach?

Zachary Murray:  Absolutely. We see, all across the state, a lot of pressure because of the desire of corporate landlords, and landlords in general, to run up the rents. California has very limited rent control protections, very limited tenant protections in so many corners of the state.

And so, in Oakland, where the city government has been struggling to fund its services, our ACCE office there is fighting for proactive rental inspections that aren’t punitive towards the tenants, but really help to force the landlords into a situation where they have to improve the habitability. Because part of the cost of living in a market as expensive as the cities are in California is that people are putting up with living in uninhabitable conditions.

And this particularly affects seniors because of the extent to which seniors live on limited income, Social Security income. And so, the pressure is on for people. And in the event that seniors get displaced, there is no housing that’s truly affordable to them in so many of our markets.

And so, we see this pressure because seniors and, as you pointed out, families with children are vulnerable populations. They don’t have the extra income that’s required to afford housing. And there’s a lot of pressure.

And I know here in the Los Angeles area, ACCE has been fighting to protect tenants from landlord harassment, which is an increasingly really insidious strategy that landlords have taken on to displace people.

Mansa Musa:  Hey Estuardo, what is Sacramento doing then? We’re talking about a number of initiatives that have been taken, a number of initiatives that are being proposed. We know Newsom’s attitude as you outlined, but what about the remaining body of the legislative body of California? What are their positions? Because a lot of them come out these districts where people are being displaced or are living in squalor. Talk about that.

Estuardo Mazariegos:  They’re doing too little, and it’s honestly coming too late. They’re just taking their sweet time to really think about deep and real rooted community solutions for the issue.

That answers a lot of language year in and year out. Our organizations and our movements come to Sacramento with packages of bills where we’re like, hey, make it harder for landlords to harass tenants. Make it harder for landlords to do these ridiculous rental increases of 10%. Or make it harder for corporate landlords to take over our communities. And year in and year out, we find that, even with representatives coming from areas that are directly impacted by the housing crisis, by price gouging, by corporate landlords, have the corporate landlords in their ears.

And it’s harder and harder every year to get anything passed that makes any common sense. And every time we show up with a policy and we say, hey, this could really keep thousands of families in their homes, by the time that we’re done with the political and policy process in Sacramento, it is so watered down that it makes small differences, it improves some people’s lives, but the original idea behind it always gets watered down.

So right now, Sacramento needs to really develop a bench of leaders that are willing to buck the traditional political powers in Sacramento, meaning money, [inaudible] interest, and listen to its community.

So as of right now, I would say at best, Sacramento is doing small, minor changes. What we need is big changes. We need to make housing a human right in California and spend more than 1% on affordable housing. 1% is insane in the middle of the housing crisis. You know where they’re spending the most money though? In prisons. So who have a housing policy? And guess what it is? It’s prisons. Inhumane.

Mansa Musa:  Talk about, going forward, where y’all strategy as far as mobilizing the state around this issue. Because as it stands now with Corporate America being involved and California being slated for this Olympics, I know they’re going to invest a lot of money into the infrastructure to accommodate world athletes. I know they’re going to invest a lot of money into the police to police the population that’s disenfranchised and dissatisfied with the state.

So talk about, going forward, what’s y’all strategy going forward? Because, as it stands now, y’all saying in the article, if you don’t invest in housing, then you get what’s coming down the pipe. So what’s coming down the pipe?

Zachary Murray:  I can talk about the state level work, and Estuardo can talk about the local work that’s happening. Well, I’ll just say this: the governor threatened $3 billion in cuts, and ACCE, along with our coalition partners, turned out over 600 people to Sacramento back in April to protest that and to demand very specific action. And that resulted in $2 billion of funding being restored.

But the reality is that in order to solve this crisis, the state needs to invest $18 billion annually. Now, we know we just sent a $20 billion check to Israel to conduct the actions that they’re doing in Gaza. So the money’s there. We’re calling on the State of California to invest, to step up the revenue and the money that goes into affordable housing so that we can get to $18 billion in affordable housing investments annually so that we can build a million homes by [2030].

And we’re working to build a large coalition of housing advocates, homeless advocates, folks who are focused on the climate to help address this crisis because even though, as Estuardo pointed out, our prison population in California has actually declined, the amount of money that we’re investing in prisons continues to increase every year.

And so, we know that the funding is there. What’s not there is the political will. And so, we’re organizing our members and organizing with member-based organizations across the state to make this demand. And we have a month of action that’s going to be taking place in September where, in communities across California, there are going to be town halls, candidate forums to call in these elected officials and folks who are running for office to commit to this million homes campaign.

And we’re also going to do some direct actions, including some direct action at the state Capitol to bring this issue right to the governor’s backyard because right in Sacramento today, the City of Sacramento is displacing an encampment of elders. And so, we want to bring this right to the governor and say, we need solutions right now.

Mansa Musa:  OK. Estuardo?

Estuardo Mazariegos:  At the local level in Los Angeles, we have some bright spots. We have one of the most progressive taxes,, or transfer taxes called ULA, which is essentially a transfer tax on property that is being sold that’s worth $5 million or more. And this, it’s really infusing hundreds of millions in dollars into LAHD, the LA Housing Department, which is in charge of staffing and planning a task force that will go out and inspect any tenant harassment, or any slum housing conditions, or just keep up code with apartments. And also rent control. They’re the ones in control of rent control.

And one of the most exciting parts of ULA is that it’s bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to build affordable housing and alternative housing, alternative model housing. Meaning housing that isn’t on the market, basically, that’s community controlled, and it stays affordable and community controlled forever. So common sense housing, or a lot of people would like to call this social housing. So community controlled housing, alternative models of housing.

So it’s really awesome that we have that in place already. We passed it last year and then… Well, we’re one year and a half in now, and we’ve already raised about $380 million, close to $400 million I believe, on that transfer going into LHD. And this is no sunset, meaning that it’s going to go on forever. So we potentially could see billions of dollars coming into the city of LA to build affordable housing and to staff the programs that help our community and tenants in the areas that we organize in to have dignified living conditions.

And it’s still not enough. We still have to look for more buckets of resources. And look, to be honest, the state of California is what, the fifth-largest economy in the world? There isn’t a reason why we have so many folks living in the street. There isn’t a reason why we have so many children living in slum housing conditions. We can afford it. It’s just about asking who isn’t paying up.

And we all know who it is. It’s the big corporations, it’s those big landlords, the folks that are buying up our communities, displacing our people, and profiting from our people suffering.

Mansa Musa:  Monetizing poverty.

Estuardo Mazariegos:  Yep, yep, yep.

Mansa Musa:  OK. And you know what? How can our listeners and viewers support or get more information on what y’all are doing going forward? Either one of y’all or both of y’all.

Zachary Murray:  The campaign that we’re doing statewide has a website, which is one, it’s the number one spelled out, onemillionhomesca.org. And folks can find out about the statewide organizing to get 1 million homes, to get the state to invest in affordable housing there. And like I said, there’s a calendar of events for folks who are in California that is available on that website. ACCE is hosting a number of events including a statewide town hall that’ll be virtual if folks are interested in plugging into the work that we’re doing. It’s on Sept. 7 at 10:00 AM Pacific Time.

Mansa Musa:  OK.

Estuardo Mazariegos:  And locally in Los Angeles, if you’re listening in LA or have family or friends in LA, we constantly have organizing. So if you look for us at calorganize.org, go to the Los Angeles page and you’ll find our information. If you know you need some housing rights clinics, we will hook you up.

And we’re always out in the street. So whenever we hear tenant harassment, we’re out there making sure that we bring attention to that. And we are also mobilizing all the time to create that political will.

So our next big mobilization is Sept. the 28. We’re calling it the Raise the Wages Lower the Rent March. So if you’ll be in LA that Saturday, join us 10:00 AM at Pershing Square.

Mansa Musa:  There you have it. The Real News, Rattling the Bars. I recall somewhere in my history of this country, it said that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But we’re finding now in this day and age that corporate America has deprived people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by premeditatively displacing people and putting them into a homeless situation where they’re either going to die off or go to prison.

But however, we have some people that’s organizing to prevent this from happening. And we applaud y’all for y’all work, and thank you for joining us because y’all definitely rattled the bars today. Thank you very much.

Zachary Murray:  Thank you for having us.

Estuardo Mazariegos:  Thank you.

The issue of mass incarceration has been far less central to the 2024 election thus far in comparison to the 2020 presidential race. However, that doesn’t make the matter any less pressing for incarcerated people, their loved ones, or the activists fighting tirelessly to free prisoners. There are a range of ways presidential candidates could commit to ending mass incarceration, but one tool stands out as a quick fix that can be implemented through presidential prerogative alone: the power of clemency. For months, activists with the FreeHer campaign have been building pressure for the next president to wield their clemency powers to swiftly release women serving extended sentences. Andrea James, founder and executive director of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and Families for Justice as Healing, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the importance of clemency.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bar. I’m your host, Mance Mosley. Today, we’re continuing our conversation about elections and how poor working class and oppressed people can navigate a system that wasn’t built to serve our needs. What does it mean to vote and mobilize for key policy issues rather than for a political party? And what are the issues that people impacted by the prison industrial complex are mobilizing around? When I was reporting for the Real News at the FreeHer March in Washington DC in April, I saw a lot of folks wearing stickers saying, “I’m a clemency voter.” What does it mean to be a clemency voter? Here to talk about this today is Andrea James. She’s the founder and executive director of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls. She’s the founder of Families for Justice as Healing, and she’s the author of Upper Bunkies Unite: And Other Thoughts On the Politics of Mass Incarceration. Welcome Andrea to Rattling the Bars. How you doing today?

Andrea James:

Doing okay. Doing all right.

Mansa Musa:

All right, so let’s get right into the gist of things. When we was at the march in April, the FreeHer Rally March, we recognized a lot of signs and a lot of the slogans and a lot of the shouts and a lot of the information coming from the podium was a hundred women get clemency in a hundred days. This being indicative of President Biden’s first 100 days of administration. But more importantly, the more salient point was that the clemency should be used as a mechanism to release women that are being held captive on these plantations known as prisons.

First of all, talk about why y’all went in that direction first, the clemency, why did y’all focus? Because y’all done did a lot of things. Y’all got a lot of things on y’all platform, but this right here is the more strategic and more direct approach that when you look at the results, the results will be either the person get out and we’d be celebrating the release, but more importantly, the momentum is going to come out. We’ll talk about some of the things that y’all doing to get it, but talk about how, why are y’all getting that space right there?

Andrea James:

We were incarcerated in the federal system. We were in prison with sisters who are never coming home unless their sentences are commuted. So it’s kind of different when you determine what space you’re going to work out of when you haven’t had the full experience of what we’re talking about here. But if you were like us, if you were women that were incarcerated in the federal system, who were mothers, who were wives, who were aunties, and grandmothers and sisters, and moms in particular, we have been separated from our children, but some of us had the opportunity to go to prison and come home. So we’re fighting for sisters that unless we get clemency for them, they’ll never come home. And we’ve got to really understand that. We’re talking about is the liberation of our people, and we want to bring attention to the intentionality of incarceration of our people and the policies that led up to that. Now, we started our work after, we started organizing in the federal prison for women in Danbury, Connecticut in 2010, and brought the work-out with us starting in 2011. And then other sisters inside Justine Moore, Virginia Douglas, Big Shay, they started to come home. So it wasn’t rocket science for us, but in the federal prison, you would see this from all over the country, sometimes from different Black communities around the world.

And so it wasn’t rocket science for us to stop this work. But we started in the prison realizing not really totally clear about what clemency was as a tool. But after coming home in 2011, that became crystal clear to us. We met Amy Povah at CAN-DO Clemency. She taught us a lot about clemency as a tool. And then of course, President Obama, who we got in front of and who centered women and brought us to the White House. But also we should not be going backwards from what President Obama did with clemency.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, let’s pick up on right there because, all right, now for the benefit of our audience, clemency is a federal mandate and it’s top heavy in its bureaucracy. Honest you know-

Andrea James:

It’s a tool, it’s a privilege bestowed upon. It’s not a mandate, it’s a tool. It’s bestowed upon the President of the United States to grant relief to people from their sentences. And that takes many forms. It could be freedom, immediate freedom, commuting your sentence, meaning it only stops the sentence that you are serving from within a carceral place, a prison. It doesn’t mean that you’re off of, you are still convicted, you still can leave there and be on federal parole, what they want to call supervised release with all shenanigans, with semantics of language. You’re still under the auspices of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or sentence. But you are no longer required to serve that from within the prison. Now, that takes all different levels depending on what the clemency is that you are given. Some people are given full clemency ban. You hear them come down the hall telling you to pack out. You’re like, “Where am I going?” They’re like, “You’re going home.”

Mansa Musa:

You ain’t going to pay for nothing. You gone.

Andrea James:

You going home. Our director of clemency, Danielle Metz, young woman, sentenced to triple life sentence plus 20 years for being Glenn Metz’s wife, basically and took her away from her 7-year-old and months old babies to put her in a prison for triple life sentences plus 20 years.

Mansa Musa:

And we going to get into some of the crimes they alleged committed. Yeah.

Andrea James:

But it could be a president could commute your sentence, but tell you, instead of life, you’re going to do 30 years or anything in between that. It’s not always a guaranteed immediate release. So what President Obama did was to connect the power of the tool of clemency that the President of the United States and only the President of the United States or the governor of individual states, that’s the power. No questions asked. His or her only power to commute a person’s sentence. Okay? So that’s what clemency is.

Mansa Musa:

Let’s talk about this here. Okay. Now, so we got that [inaudible 00:07:54]. And in terms of y’all introduced a bill called the Fixed Clemency Act and I-

Andrea James:

Well, we didn’t introduce it. It was introduced by, we supported it, we poured a lot of information into it. It was our Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s bill, because we need to fix women.

Mansa Musa:

I wasn’t able to track the stand. So what happened with it? Where did that stand by you?

Andrea James:

Nothing happened with it. Nothing happened with it.

Mansa Musa:

So it’s dormant?

Andrea James:

I mean, it’s a valiant effort to keep and we have to do that, but we also have to have people who are elected to office like Ayanna Pressley, she’s my congresswoman out of Massachusetts, to we need people like her that are willing to push the parameters of what we hear every day now, people talking about democracy, right? What is democracy? Well, so far in this country, democracy isn’t inclusive. It is a white male dominated vision of democracy and the parameters of what democracy and what needs to be discussed as democratic values, it’s defined to be not inclusive still of the majority of people who find themselves caught and entangled in the criminal law system, which in this country is Black people. The majority, disproportionality we’re talking about. And so we have to take this very seriously because we’re in a state in this country right now where we got this selection going on. There’s all kinds of language being thrown around, but we’re also talking about candidates and we’re still talking about it under the Biden administration with President Biden, who was one of the catalysts of the drafters of the 1994 Crime Act.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right. Come on.

Andrea James:

The drafters of the Adoption Safe Family Act. Those two things were targeted at us intentionally. The drug war started under the Nixon administration, intentionally targeted towards us to oppress and control Black communities. And so if democracy, when we’re using that term now like we’ve got a state democracy, what exactly are we talking about saving?

Mansa Musa:

That’s like Frederick Douglass saying like, “What’s your 4th of July mean to me?”

Andrea James:

Well, yeah.

Mansa Musa:

I’m on plantation.

Andrea James:

It’s still holding in place these two parties that are elitist and capitalist in ways that still do not include everyday Black folks who are entangled in the criminal law system at a disproportionate number in this country from every state and every federal prison around the country. So until we grapple with that, until we’re not afraid to talk about, well, what does democracy in this country really mean? And really have candidates and legislators, state, federal, president, governors who are willing to actually engage in that conversation about, “Yeah, we fighting to save democracy, I guess.” But how is that being defined in this country?

Mansa Musa:

Let me ask you this here, Andrea, on the clemency thing. Now, as it stand right now, it’s top heavy in dealing with bureaucracy because everything goes through the Justice Department. Justice Department is the front line in terms of getting an application.

Andrea James:

They’re prosecutors so [inaudible 00:11:51]

Mansa Musa:

Right. And now I’ve seen what y’all were saying. So this is what I wanted to unpack for our audience benefit so going forward they can understand y’all strategy. Now, when I was locked up, in the state of Maryland, they had a thing where the only way life could get paroled, it had to be signed by the governor. It had to go through the governor. So what happened is the parole board recommend you for parole and it would sit on the governor’s desk three or four years before he say no. So what we did, we lobbied and got a bill passed to take it out the hands of the governor. Now I seen, like you say, in this bill that was introduced, but one of the things that y’all was saying, in y’all position was that what clemency would do is take it out the hand of the prosecutor, the Department of Justice. So how do y’all mobilize or where are y’all at in terms of mobilizing around getting the autonomy that’s going to be needed in order to get some type of equity towards the women that deserve to be released?

Andrea James:

Yeah, I mean, we decided at some point you can only go so far with what’s happening in Congress right now, who’s controlling Congress, what they’re paying attention to. We fought so hard against the passage of the First Step Act, the way it was presented, because it’s been a big smoke screen. And we knew when Congress passed First Step that it really wasn’t what we needed. It didn’t address the people who needed to get out. It called out the very people that needed the most relief and so how could we ever support a bill like that. And we never crossed over in support of it, even though we fought valiantly to try and add retroactivity and other things to the first step. And then it was put into the hands of the most vile regime of a think tank called the Heritage Foundation also responsible now for project 2025 to implement the First Step Act. And it’s just, we are one of the few, I don’t know if any other organizations have done it, but our legal division led by our senior council, Catherine Sevcenko, has followed the implementation of the First Step Act. And it’s been just a sham. It’s been a [inaudible 00:13:59], but the PR on it would make anybody think that everybody who’s come like 30,000 people got released because of First Step Act. That’s not true. But I digress.

So when we talk about the FIX [Clemency] Act, at some point, yes, we have to weigh in. We need legislators who are directly affected like Congresswoman Ayanna, Pressley, to carry these bills forward for us and to at least put them into existence knowing that we got a big struggle to get them to go anywhere because the members of Congress were satisfied with the First Step Act. As abysmal as it is, they weren’t going to center criminal justice reform in any significant following that for years, we knew that. That’s the path of how things go. We haven’t heard a peep about criminal justice reform other than Trump wanting to bring the death penalty back for drug dealers. We haven’t even heard. It’s not even on the current candidates platforms.

And so we had to shift our energy to, and it’s not really a shift, it’s just, what are we picking up now to being present and to make sure that the concept of liberation of our people isn’t just left to hope somebody’s going to keep it at the forefront? That’s our job. Nobody’s coming to save us. If nobody gives a shit about our issue. If you’re going to do this work, you have to be consistent in finding ways of staying in the public eye, of showing up, of taking up space, of getting in the street. And so that’s what we did with the 10th anniversary.

We did this, did this 10 years ago in 2014, and that’s how we got the attention, because of the work of civil rights lawyer, Nkechi Taifa who brought the National Council and the sisterhood to the attention of President Obama and Valerie Jarrett to say, “Yo Prez, we see you. We see you equating. We see you connecting clemency to racial justice. That clemency is racial justice. We see you going into the federal prisons.” How could it be that he was the first President of the United States to go to visit a federal prison? How could that be?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Andrea James:

Right? But at the same time, Prez, we don’t see you talking about women.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right. Exactly. Come on, talk about that.

Andrea James:

He did. He brought us into that White House with the help of Nkechi Taifa, Sakira Cook, Jesselyn McCurdy, these Black women lawyers, civil rights lawyers in the district, and we were able to come in and talk about it, did a whole forum about women and incarceration, an armchair discussion with Valerie Jarrett. So we have to always find ways to center ourselves. Now, since 2014, we were able to work with CAN-DO Clemency, Amy Povah. We were instrumental in using our voices and experiences that helped more than 50 women come out of the federal system. President Obama did that. Now we certainly should not stand to go backwards in any way. Trump made a complete mockery of pardons and clemency and good for the people who got them. It was his cronies and people who supported him, and they were good. It was great. You got a pardon, I’m happy for any formerly-

Mansa Musa:

Anybody getting out the dungeon.

Andrea James:

And convicted person, right?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, anybody getting out the dun?

Andrea James:

But it also derailed the momentum around clemency that President Obama had built up. So we anticipated going forward when Biden got back in that seat. We met Vice President Biden. We were in the White House. You know who we are, who the women are of the National Council, women from across this country who were buried in prisons, who are using their voice to create significant and meaningful change. You know what this is and you also know what happened and who came out under President Obama with just impeccable stellar records of what they’ve done with their lives since then. What are you afraid of? We’ve got women who are elderly, who are sick, who are long-timers. Michelle West just exceeded her 31st year, going on her 32nd year of incarceration. What a [inaudible 00:18:56], you’re talking about three decades ain’t enough for drug war sentencing. But what [inaudible 00:19:02]

Mansa Musa:

Let me ask you this here. Okay, because I seen the video that y’all did on the clemency and we be pressed for time. All right, so map out, because this right now for like you say, for most women that got triple life, that got death by a thousand cuts, that’s locked up in prison right now, for most of them clemency is some type of change in the judicial system where a case come out that affect them. Clemency is probably the only way they going to get out.

Andrea James:

Only way.

Mansa Musa:

Going forward, what do you want to say to our audience about how do they get involved in this issue? Because this is, like you say, this is a human rights. It’s not a civil rights. This is a human rights issue. You lock people up for drug offenses, no violence involved other than the fact that they was connected with somebody that did something and they get the bulk of the sentence. So how do we deal with people going forward? What do you want our people to understand going forward? How do they get involved with this fight? The free women.

Andrea James:

All you got to do is follow the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls. The nationalcouncil.us. It’s easy. You can reach out to us, but you can do very simple things. Go onto the White House website and you can send a message on the White House website, anybody, anytime, any day, and just say, we vote clemency. We’ve got a campaign that is making it very clear. Listen, you’ve got to be using your clemency power. This is an extraordinary opportunity for President Biden to correct the wrongs of the 1994 Crime Act of the drug sentencing policies. Just understand and be strong about it. Yeah, clemency is racial justice. I am creating some injustices that were directly targeted to Black people in this country who are buried in prisons, who will never come home unless I bring them home.

And we’ve given him, when we created the list of a hundred women, it’s 99 now because Martha Ivanov died. If we’ve given him the lowest hanging fruit that exists, who’s going to deny elderly women that have served decades in a prison who are sick, have dementia, don’t know who they are, don’t know why they’re in prison. I have terminal conditions. How are you going to put a mom in prison like Michelle West and leave her there for 30 plus years and say you still aren’t going to get any relief from the legislation that was passed. So President Biden, this is the only chance these sisters have and they’ve got skin in the game. You got decades in a prison and the atrocity of rape of women. That has happened in 19 of the 29. Now, we say it’s every single of the 29 federal women’s prisons, but they have, the Justice Department has determined that in 19 of the 29 prisons, the most egregious case coming out of Dublin that we did fight to get closed, but not in the manner they closed it. They literally shut it down in a week after… they had a brothel running out of there. The warden, the chaplain was raping women in that prison for years this went on and they finally closed it. And guess what, we said, give clemency to all of those women.

Give clemency to every single one of those women that was raped in that prison. And let’s look at who else across the federal system should be released because of the atrocities that they have been subjected to. You know what they did instead? They attacked them. They sent them to other prisons where the gods used all kinds of punishment and told women when they arrived. “Don’t think you’re going to pull that shit here at this prison because we’re not having it.” They sent women to prisons where women who were unpoliticized and had been buried in a prison and just don’t know and are underneath the control of male prison administration and gods who told them, junk these women, beat up these women because they have disrupted everybody, all of you in the federal system now. And sent them to prisons also that were some of the 19 prisons where they are currently raping women in those right now.

Mansa Musa:

All right, Andrea. So as we close out, first all, we want to acknowledge that this is like a human rights issue. That the abuse of women in the criminal injustice system on these plantations is beyond anybody’s imagination and conscience. They get treated way worse than men could ever be treated. But going forward, and we know about the clemency, what’s the next thing on y’all platform? And we’ve got two minutes.

Andrea James:

Doing a 11 city tour, it’s called Nobody’s Coming to Save Us. It’s a photographic exhibit in 11 cities across the country that were photographs taken by formerly incarcerated brothers, Malik and Johnny Perez, and also a very professional photographer, David who was there who took some incredible pictures for us. We are screening that video that your group did for us that people will see with y’all’s permission, but it’s on the table to be screened as people come into this exhibit. We’re doing a community forum in each of these cities that we’re going to 11 cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, you name it. We’re going there and holding the conversation about this issue.

They’re building 11 prisons as we’re talking about this, women’s prisons across the country as we speak. And so when we talk about these issues, we’ve got to help the public understand that we need to not be building prisons, we need to be decarcerating people, not just women but women, we unapologetically advocate on behalf of women, but free them all and stop with decarceration. Not one prison should be being built in this country. The problems and the ineffectiveness, police in prisons don’t create healthy, thriving communities. Healthy, thriving people do. So talk about democracy when we call out democracy like it’s some sort of savior for this country. And if you’re for one candidate, you’re not for democracy. If you’re for another, you are. Well, for us, for our people, democracy has not expanded to cover us. And so what does that mean?

We are creating the abolitionist think tank called the Free Her Institute. And we are not doing it with any kind of C3 grant money. We are doing it by selling T-shirts and a cup of coffee. We want people to commit, buy a T-shirt or for one year commit to donating to the FreeHer Institute the cost of one cup of $5 a week for a year. You can go to freeherinstitute.com and you can click a button and you can make that commitment for one year. And if you decide after a few months, I can’t do this anymore, just call us and we’ll stop it. But help us. We are building the abolitionist FreeHer Institute think tank so that we can amplify and elevate these issues the same way that the Coke brothers, that the Heritage Foundation, that Project 2025, that these people that get flooded with all of these billionaires dollars that we don’t have.

We are formerly incarcerated, predominantly Black women that have to get out there and beat the bushes to raise every dime. And to be an independent voice, we can’t take grant money in the same way that we run our programming through for the think tank because we have to have the space to say what needs to be said without the threat of funders feeling like we’re encroaching upon what they think we should say. So we’re asking people, “Go to freeherinstitute.com, help us. We need it. We’re building this abolitionist think tank.” And it’s the work that I’m focused on right now. We’ve got to get these sisters out, send an email to the White House and the Justice Department encouraging clemency, and let’s elevate and amplify the voices of these sisters who are doing this incredible work.

Mansa Musa:

That you have it. The Real News Rattling the Bar. Andrea, you rattle the bars today. You could hear it and we ask everybody’s support, the Real News and Rattling the bar. But more importantly, look at this podcast and make a decision. Do you think one cup of coffee is worth the lives of people? Do you think one cup of coffee, just one cup of coffee, that’s it. This ain’t just, we simplify it to the most simplest term. I’m buying one cup of coffee. I do it every day anyway. So instead of me buying, I’m putting my money where I know that the result is going to be somebody going to be free. Thank you Andrea.

Andrea James:

Thank you.

Mansa Musa:

And we salute you. It’s…

Andrea James:

One cup of coffee-

Mansa Musa:

This is Black August month. We salute you in your struggle and continue work.

Andrea James:

One cup of coffee for true democracy.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right. That’s right.

Andrea James:

Let’s redefine what it looks like. So thank you so much. Thank you for always supporting us, and we’re grateful for helping us to amplify and elevate our voices. Thank you.

On Aug. 9, 2014, Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Police left Brown’s lifeless body in the hot sun for four hours, plainly demonstrating the contempt of law enforcement for the local community. The righteous rebellion that followed in Ferguson shook the nation and the world, turning the Black Lives Matter movement that had begun following the earlier murder of Trayvon Martin into a global mass movement. Ten years later, some things have changed, but most things have not. Reforms have been passed at various levels concerning the power and accountability of the police. Yet the culture of impunity and the reality of racialized police violence as a daily occurrence in the US continues. In this special episode of Rattling the Bars, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of Police Accountability Report join Mansa Musa for a look back on the past decade of attempts to stop police violence, and a discussion on why justice for Michael Brown and so many others continues to elude us.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. We’re in a period of Olympics. If we was to deal with the Olympic analysis of my guests today and we had an event, the event would be watching the police run around the track and see who cheat and get a medal for exposing them. That would be the medal we would get, the medal for exposing police corruption and police brutality and fascism as it relates to the police department. Here, welcome Jan and Taya of the police accountability.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Mansa Musa:

They’re on the dream team at The Real News Network, and I’m honored to have y’all here. When we was talking about doing something about Michael Brown and I said, “Yeah, it’s Michael Brown’s anniversary,” and we was talking about it. I said, “Maybe we can get Jan and Taya to come in,” because it’s like the highlight of my doing this is working with y’all and talking to y’all because y’all-

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Mansa Musa:

One, y’all got depth. Now, y’all real cool people.

Stephen Janis:

Thank you.

Taya Graham:

Thank you.

Stephen Janis:

Well, thank you.

Taya Graham:

[inaudible 00:01:18].

Mansa Musa:

Let’s start. This is the 10th year anniversary of Michael Brown.

Taya Graham:

Yes.

Mansa Musa:

All right. We know that what came out of Michael Brown was a civil upheaval of demonstrations all around the country and all around the world.

Stephen Janis:

True.

Mansa Musa:

But more importantly, the way it was looking in Washington, DC, and the way it was looking in the United States, the fact that it was consistent and it was long. People came out, and people made it known that they was tired of police running them up.

All right. Let’s talk about where was y’all at and how did y’all cover that?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Well, it’s interesting because I was still part of the mainstream media sort of, as you know, at a mainstream media television, actually Sinclair Broadcasting, when the uprising around Michael Brown. So I wasn’t able to cover it, but we did end up starting to work here, both of us, when Freddie Gray died in police custody. So we were thinking about it because you had mentioned to us you wanted to talk about how things had evolved over 10 years.

One of the things that we both thought about when we discussed it was there has been, since Michael Brown and since the subsequent George Floyd and Freddie Gray, there has been tremendous amount of reform on the civilian side. In other words, even in Maryland for example, you used to have the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which give police special privileges in the legal system when they do something wrong. That was repealed. So there have been things that have happened.

We have a consent decree in Baltimore. Many things that have happened. But I think on the side of policing, in terms of the culture of policing, I don’t think that has changed as rapidly as the civilian side of expectations. In other words, for a long time, the idea of police brutality was buried and not covered. I know, as a reporter when I covered it in the aughts, it was just my word against the police. Now that there had been body camera and things and there’s evidence, and Taya will talk about that in some specific cases, that makes a different type of way to process it and to push back against it.

However, I think still at this point in the actual bastion of policing, I think some of the same attitudes that create the sort of horrible situations we witnessed still persist. I think police are still trained to be very violent, to be very suspicious, especially with people of color, and to act out violently, preemptively, not as a last resort. Or I don’t think any of this talk about being able to deescalate, I don’t think that’s true.

In fact, there was just an article written by Samantha Simon in The Atlantic where she went to four different police academy trainings and what she talked about was how the police were trained to view us, and I mean the people-

Mansa Musa:

People, right.

Stephen Janis:

… as violent, possible murderers at any second and how that has persisted. So I think one of the things Taya and I talked about was you can’t say there have not been attempts and there have not been some real substantive changes. But I think police are still in this back and forth war with us that has been precipitated by the culture of policing.

Mansa Musa:

Before I go to you, Taya, let’s talk about a point you made, and I think our audience need to really understand this, is the fact that there has been some changes on the civil side. That’s the society looking for a place where the police represent their motto, serve and protect.

Stephen Janis:

Exactly.

Mansa Musa:

With the culture being what it is, how do we make inroads into that?

Stephen Janis:

I mean I think that’s very difficult because, so for example, Taya and I attended the Republican National Convention, and there was a sign, Back the Blue. The conventioneers were touting these signs, I think, because police have become a part of the political process. I mean one of the things in this country, we try to separate the military from politics because we know that people with guns and badges enforcing political ideologies can be an extremely fraught authoritarian experience.

But when you’re down in the convention, you turn around and you see all these signs, Back the Blue, it just makes policing feel like it’s in a different realm than where it really should be, which is municipal service. I think that’s a political battle, unfortunately, that is still being fought because Republicans are using it as a kind of wedge issue. You still hear this silly, and I would say extremely silly, Defund the Police mantra, which anyone who knows anything about municipal budgeting, covered cities and policing, police departments have excess funding many times.

You still hear this. They’re still throwing out, “Well, you said, ‘Defund the police,’ without ever thinking about can a municipal agency be held accountable?” So the problem is that it’s become so political that I think it’s going to be hard to change that culture because the police see the support from the right side, from our more authoritarian side, and they say, “Well, we need to just embrace this and ratchet up, and we don’t need to respond to what the civilian side wants.” So I think it’s going to be very difficult.

Mansa Musa:

Tay? Go ahead.

Taya Graham:

Can I add to that? Because you brought up something really interesting in relation to the way policing is politicized, and it’s something that we always joke. So if somebody from the DPW was supposed to-

Stephen Janis:

The Department of Public works.

Taya Graham:

… for the Department of Public Works was supposed to recycle and instead of recycling, they took all our recycling and just dumped it somewhere, would we be wrong to criticize them? Would we be attacking the very fabric of society to say, “Hey, they’re supposed to do their job this way and they didn’t?” No, of course not. That person who took all our recycling and did whatever they wanted with it would probably get reprimanded, if not fired.

But if we say, “Hey, Baltimore City Police Department has been shooting unarmed people. We have a problem with it,” suddenly, the politics are involved. Suddenly, we are anti-American. Suddenly, we’re not being patriotic. We’re not supporting our boys in blue. Well, wait a second. They are paid by us, the taxpayers. They are supposed to protect and serve. That police culture that we’re talking about, unfortunately, really hasn’t changed.

I think we have some really strong signs of that. I mean I think what we covered with Sergeant Ethan Newberg, that’s a Baltimore City police officer, one who was making $239,000 a year-

Mansa Musa:

Right. Of taxpayers’ money.

Taya Graham:

… of taxpayer dollars. But thanks to this body-worn camera program that was started in SAO Mosby’s office, they were reviewing the body camera video. They looked at about six months’ worth of it, just six months, and they found nine occasions in which he committed 32 counts of misconduct in office, 32 counts, just nine occasions in six months. Can you imagine what that man was doing before there was a body-worn camera program?

Mansa Musa:

That’s right. Yeah, yeah.

Taya Graham:

Can you imagine all of the crimes he committed against our community that we don’t even know about? Guess how much time he spent in jail?

Mansa Musa:

How much?

Stephen Janis:

Six months?

Taya Graham:

No, no. He got six months probation that he could spend at home.

Stephen Janis:

Home detention.

Taya Graham:

Home detention.

Mansa Musa:

Home detention.

Taya Graham:

Home detention. He didn’t even spend a night in jail for terrorizing our community-

Stephen Janis:

I mean it’s really kind of-

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, exactly.

Stephen Janis:

It’s really kind of interesting because I was just looking at the community report. There’s a report, State Senator Jill Carter passed a law that required a certain type of reporting mechanisms for the police department. What’s really interesting about it is right now the Baltimore Police Department in the latest survey has about 2,100 sworn officers, which is about 700 or 800 officers short of their capacity and what they normally are staffed at.

However, we are in a year of record … We probably will have a record low homicide rate, and we did last year under the kind of circumstances where there’s low police staffing. So what does that tell you? That tells you that this idea of this equation that underlies the whole political argument of police-

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Stephen Janis:

… that more police make us safer is absolutely false. But it doesn’t really get into the political equation. Now, in Baltimore, people had a choice. They could have elected Sheila Dixon, who was more the pro-police, or they could have gone with Brandon Scott, who had a more … What was it called? GVSR? A gun-

Taya Graham:

Oh, it was a gun violence reduction safety-

Stephen Janis:

Which was a complete community program, which is what he created with this. They chose the community program because we’ve seen this up close. But really, I think on the broader scale of American politics, this hasn’t been digested by people that, you know what, your main argument for more police and giving police the powers to do things that are unconstitutional is that we’ll be safer. There’s no proof of it, and Baltimore is an perfect exemplar of the fact that that’s just not true.

We have less police and less crime. So to the police partisans, I say, “Explain that to me. Why has that happened?”

Taya Graham:

Exactly.

Stephen Janis:

So it’s just a very interesting dynamic because it-

Mansa Musa:

Really, the issue it underlies is this, is that, one, the police never have been put together as representative of the community. So that’s the beginning. There’s always been there to serve and protect the property interest of corporate America and capitalists. Here we come along and we say, “Okay, but that’s not what your mandate say. That’s not what your oath say.” So we try to hold you accountable to the things that you’re supposed to be doing.

Let’s walk back. So we had Rodney King. The response to Rodney King was a spontaneous Riot, looting, killing, whatever. That was the response because of what people seen, the visual aid of what people seen-

Stephen Janis:

Yes. Absolutely.

Mansa Musa:

… more importantly, and it was in California. They showed you how the relationship between the police and Californians. They acquitted OJ because they said the police. When they interjected the police in this case, it don’t make no difference what you did, in their mind, we got empirical evidence and examples of the police being bad. So can’t nobody be worser than them in the situation. All right. All right. We got Trayvon Martin. Then we got-

Stephen Janis:

Michael Brown.

Mansa Musa:

Michael Brown. Then we get Freddie Gray-

Stephen Janis:

Freddie Gray.

Taya Graham:

Eric Garner.

Stephen Janis:

Eric Garner.

Mansa Musa:

Right. Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and then George Floyd. Not talking about what’s happening in between that.

Stephen Janis:

Because there are a lot of cases on top of that.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Taya Graham:

Sandra Bland-

Stephen Janis:

Sandra Bland.

Taya Graham:

… in 2015, all of that recorded by the dash camera. It was absolutely heart-breaking.

Mansa Musa:

And in each case, the cry from the public and the masses has been, “Change the police,” whatever we say that is. We Come up with terminology like defund, when we saying defund, better training. We come up with a whole host of things that we want to see done around the police, and the system and the capitalist response is, okay, we’re going to take what you say and we’re going to interpret it the way that advances our narrative-

Taya Graham:

Absolutely.

Mansa Musa:

… ergo Cop City. They saying what they offering in Cop City is that, “Oh, we’re training police to better serve and protect.” Okay. But going back to your point, Jan, why do you need military-style training? Why do you-

Stephen Janis:

Right. Well, you know-

Mansa Musa:

Go ahead.

Stephen Janis:

One thing that Taya and I always not laugh about, but we covered very extensively the consent decree between the Baltimore City Police Department and the Department of Justice, which was the result of the uprising after Freddie Gray. But what was amazing about it is we both looked at each other and they announced $70 million in new funding for the police department.

So the police department literally wreaks havoc in the community, creates the conditions in which people felt the need to literally rise up, and their response was, “Let’s give police more money and training.” Right, Taya?

Mansa Musa:

Money.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. You know what? When you brought up Cop City, you took the thought right out of my mind because when you said capitalism, you said policing, and you said, “What is the real comparative policing?” The Cop City that they want to create, guess who’s funding it?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. Corporations.

Taya Graham:

Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Wells Fargo.

Stephen Janis:

Private companies. The Atlanta Police Foundation.

Taya Graham:

I mean if this doesn’t show you the tie between capitalism, the protection of property, and what police are really there to do, I don’t know what will.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. So it always is, in these situations, more money doesn’t flow to the community, even though community programs are shown to be really more effective. Instead, more money flows to police. No matter what happens, it’s like heads, I win, tails, you lose. The more money comes to them in the form of this police reform infrastructure you’re talking about. It becomes almost a business opportunity-

Mansa Musa:

It is.

Stephen Janis:

… because there’s just so much money available to people who will say, “Oh, I can help reform the police.” I forget the police, the thing that there’s-

Taya Graham:

Like the ROCA?

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, ROCA. Not ROCA per se, but there’s just so many organizations and people who can take advantage of the funding that flows to policing. Go ahead.

Mansa Musa:

And the Fraternal Order of Police in everywhere, they’re like a lobby beyond a lobby because-

Taya Graham:

Because they have the power.

Mansa Musa:

… no matter what goes on, they always going to paint the narrative that we’re here to serve and protect, and you taking our ability to do that. Bump the fact that we’re killing people indiscriminate. Bump the fact that we fabricating cases against. Bump the fact that we taking and manufacturing evidence against people or like in the case that you talk about all the misconduct.

The connection is that you’re doing this with impunity. So you can take and say, “Oh, well, I’m going to cook the books or I’m going to misappropriate money and I’m doing it with impunity. But in the interim of me doing that, I was out on the street shaking down people. I got numerous of people arrested. I locked up and swore an oath that what I say they did, they did, and you take me at my word because I’m the police.” But the person that’s the real victim of it is the person that you supposed to serve and protect.

But let’s talk about the reactions from each one of these periods because, like I said, in the era of King, the beating, it was rioters. People literally was outraged because of what they seen, and it was more the visual than anything else and what they seen. And then when you had Trayvon and you had the other one, you didn’t have as much of a reaction in terms of when you got to Michael Brown. Why do you think that Michael Brown had that type of impact?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I think because I just saw from a reporter covering police brutality prior to the cell phone camera and the visuals that you would see, that it was very difficult sometimes. You’d write about really what you knew were horrible police shootings where someone would get shot in the back and you just knew it was wrong, but you didn’t have visuals.

I think in the case of Freddie Gray, you saw Freddie Gray being taken into the van. Michael Brown, you saw his body lying on-

Mansa Musa:

Just laying out there.

Stephen Janis:

Eric Garner, you saw him being in the chokehold.

Taya Graham:

Being put in that chokehold, all those officers on top of him.

Stephen Janis:

I honestly think it’s like the civil rights movement of the ’60s where-

Mansa Musa:

Right. Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Stephen Janis:

… video finally could show people and when people could finally see it, even if it wasn’t always directly what happened. I mean everyone saw Freddie Gray being put in the van on the second stop when he was hogtied. I’d say he was hogtied with handcuffs and thrown into the back like a piece of trash. And then he ended up hitting his head, but whatever. Everyone could see that. When you can see it, I think it has a bigger effect. The cell phone cameras were instrumental just as much as a body camera.

Taya Graham:

Absolutely. Cell phone cameras, CCTV footage, and now finally, body-worn camera are one of the most important tools that this civil rights movement has because just like you were talking about the Fraternal Order of Police, they’re often arguing, “The Constitution is getting in the way of our cops doing good policing. It’s getting in the way of it.”

Mansa Musa:

That’s an oxymoron.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah.

Taya Graham:

It’s ironic, that idea, well, you’re going to have to bend or even break the law to be able to uphold it and be able to serve it. When you were talking about in Ferguson, I think that moment where you saw him. He had his hands up, and he said, “Don’t shoot.” We saw that he had nothing in either hand, and that officer still gunned him down anyway. I think the visual of that, the visual of seeing Eric Garner have six officers on him with one in a chokehold-

Mansa Musa:

Chokehold.

Taya Graham:

… and knowing that all he was doing was selling some loose cigarettes, and they’re on top of him like that. You could tell he’s a big man. He’s got breathing issues. You could tell that they were harming him. You could tell that. He’s saying, “I can’t breathe.” So I think seeing those moments on camera in the same way that you mentioned with the ’60s civil rights movement, I think it’s when those images from Vietnam came home-

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Taya Graham:

… and they saw little children being harmed, being devastated by war, when they saw those images, that really helped motivate people in the same way. Seeing those images of African Americans being unarmed and being harmed and gunned down, people really started to understand that what we had been saying all along was true, that these officers were killing our people.

Stephen Janis:

To your point, I mean the one case that really influenced Maryland’s legislation, where most of the legislative action was not actually Freddie Gray, but George Floyd, because, visually speaking, George Floyd was so direct and graphic and so unambiguous. I mean it ended up actually exposing our corrupt medical examiner ruling in favor of police, Dr. David Fowler, because he ended up testifying that George Floyd did not die from positional asphyxiation, but rather the tailpipe that was next to him.

Taya Graham:

Yes, it was carbon monoxide. This is what our medical examiner-

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, who had been ruling controversial.

Taya Graham:

… the medical examiner that we had over 20 years, the one we had here, the same one who ruled that the death of Tawanda Jones’ brother-

Stephen Janis:

Tyrone.

Taya Graham:

… Tyrone West was accidental and due to him having a heart condition. It had nothing to do with the police officers that body-slammed him on the ground.

Stephen Janis:

And Anton Black.

Taya Graham:

The death of Anton Black down in Greensboro, Maryland, a 19-year-old young man that was a track star, and you can see in the body camera video, these big officers-

Stephen Janis:

Just sitting on top of him.

Taya Graham:

… sitting on top of him.

Stephen Janis:

Positional asphyxiation.

Taya Graham:

They said, “Oh, he died because he had a heart abnormality.” That’s the type of rulings that Dr. David Fowler gave.

Stephen Janis:

So-

Taya Graham:

So when he went in front of the entire country in that courtroom-

Stephen Janis:

And testified.

Taya Graham:

… and testified that it wasn’t positional asphyxiation, the police officers were not a contributing factor, that the fact that he had drugs in his system and that the car tailpipe was near him, that was most likely carbon monoxide poisoning that contributed to his death. Literally, over 400 Pathologists and medical examiners around the country said, “You need to audit this guy. You need to audit him.” They signed a petition.

Stephen Janis:

I guess my point was that George Floyd, I think, from our perspective of covering policing, had the greatest impact on legislation and just change. So that’s why I would say it’s the visual component that makes the difference.

Mansa Musa:

The thing about George Floyd, unlike the other ones, was like you said, the visual aid, but it went national and worldwide. But this was the issue with it. The only way you wasn’t affected by it, you ain’t had no conscience. I don’t care what station in life, where you at in your politics, I don’t care who you like, “Yeah, I’m all for Trump, but I can’t be for that,” because it was so graphic.

Stephen Janis:

Yes.

Mansa Musa:

That’s what caused the reaction because, in that reaction, and I want y’all to speak to this, in that reaction, you had the movement, Black Lives Matter. You had a more strategic push which led to legislation or led to people who was conscious trying to talk about this more so than anywhere else.

So why do you think that at this stage right now? We know we had that. We know we seen that. We know we seen the upheaval. But at this stage right now, the problem hasn’t changed.

Stephen Janis:

No.

Mansa Musa:

They just shot is boy in the back in Baltimore City. Go back to I think what you say, Taya, or you, Jan, where they say the training was to look at us as us as being-

Stephen Janis:

Yeah, you know-

Mansa Musa:

… look as that first. It ain’t a matter of me what I’m doing. It’s a matter of you in my view, running with your back away from me. But in my training say you a threat or I got to subdue you to stop you from being a potential threat, and the way I do that is I kill you.

Stephen Janis:

Yeah. I mean so there’s a couple things because, for example, just so people understand, despite all these reforms, in 2017, 981 civilians were shot and killed by police. In 2023, it was 1,161. So it has continued to increase, unfortunately. I think what we have to understand, there’s this idea that Taya and I wrestle with all the time about police corruption because the idea being that there’s this police force that if you just reform them to a certain extent, they will suddenly be good or whatever.

But I think what’s more important to understand is that policing just reflects the underlying problems with the society that it purports to serve. In other words, Baltimore City, the way Baltimore City’s economically and racially constituted, the way Baltimore City violated the rights of African Americans, all those things were reflected in the policing. So unless you reform society’s corrupt … As you pointed out, the idea that property is more important than human life-

Mansa Musa:

Right, than human life, really.

Stephen Janis:

Unless you reform those elements, policing is always going to be responsive to the power and the corrupt power of the society in which it is situated. So I think that’s what is very difficult about this reform problem because you really can’t just say you’re going to be able to, in isolation, reform police.

If the society or the city or the county or the country in which this policing is situated is not reformed first, I think policing will continue to be memetically reflecting what is going on in that society. What perverse incentives there are, what racial problems there are will always be reflected in policing.

Taya Graham:

This conversation’s got me thinking about so many different things. We’re talking about these lethal uses of force, and I was thinking of Sonya Massey, 36-year-old woman, Springfield, Illinois.

Mansa Musa:

Come on now. Come on. Come on.

Taya Graham:

You see her. She calls police because she believes there’s been an intruder around her home. She calls 911 for help. Officers go take a look around. They see a car that’s had its windows broken into. So perhaps she was right. Perhaps there had been an intruder around her home. She comes to the door, and she’s just wearing a bathrobe. You can tell that she has no armaments on her whatsoever. The officer goes very close to her and speaks to her, but then insists that he needs to see a form of ID. So that’s when she’s like, “Well, I have to go in the house and look for it.”

When we get to the point where he says to her, “Turn that pot of hot water off. I don’t want a fire,” she says, “Okay.” She goes over there. Until that moment, they had been somewhat laughing and joking together. She goes over there, and she makes a comment. He’s like, “Get that hot water.” She’s like, “Oh, I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” And he’s like, “I will shoot you. I shoot you in your effing face,” and he immediately pulls the gun up.

I reported on this, and I had people say, “Well, it’s possible she threw that water in his direction.” I was looking at the distance. There was a counter between her and them. I was like, “No one said, at any point, they could have left. They could have backed away.” What happened to de-escalation?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. What happened to all that? Yeah, what happened to all that? Yeah.

Taya Graham:

Although personally, from what I saw of the body camera video, I do not believe at any point she was genuinely threatening either one of those officers with that pot of hot water, if they truly believed that what was occurring, they should have retreated. There was no reason to shoot an unarmed woman in her face three times and then not give medical aid. It’s absolutely incredible.

Mansa Musa:

See, that go back to something you said earlier is they’re being trained to be assassins. They’re occupying forces in our community. They’re being trained. De-escalation is like a no de-escalation in their mind is problematic for them because I can gain control by de-escalating, but that’s not control for them. Control for them is I kill somebody and the threat of me will shoot you and kill you. It’ll help you de-escalate, get out my face. Because, like you say with Sonya Massey, it was no threat there.

When you running away from the police, when you running away, it’s only in the movie where somebody running from the police and shooting back like this here and the police get hit. That’s only in the movie. I don’t care what you got. When you run away from the police, the very act of running away is saying I’m trying to get away. So, in your mind, what do that mean? That mean that you’re trying to, what, hurt me?

But let’s talk about the reforms and how they’re not being implemented or how they’re being played because we know right now, the George Floyd Bill hasn’t been passed.

Stephen Janis:

Right. The George Floyd Act, yes, it has not.

Mansa Musa:

George Floyd Act. Every time something come up with the woman, Sonya Massey, “Oh, look, we need to sign the George Floyd.”

Taya Graham:

Oh, that bill died in 2021. It died in Congress. You know what? That bill was so reasonable. They’re saying, “Hey, let’s codify that there should be no chokeholds. Hey, let’s codify that there shouldn’t be no-knock warrants. Hey, you know what? Let’s stop the 1033 Program and stop giving small-town police officers BearCats and literal tanks to police their communities with.” There was not a thing in there that would be considered radical, just some really reasonable reforms, and it died.

So with all the public outcry, with all the pressure, the organizing, the activism, and like you said, we have the body camera that shows exactly what happened, they still couldn’t get that bill passed.

Stephen Janis:

One program that strikes me as very interesting that it’s worth thinking about in the context of this discussion is the Safe Streets Program in Baltimore because I’ve watched it evolve from having absolutely no dedicated funding to growing and getting some state-dedicated funding. But throughout that process, there’s been this pushback from police partisans specifically through our local Sinclair Broadcasting affiliate, which has continually questioned and continually pushed back and questioned the spending, which is minuscule compared to the police department.

But the main component that I think that the police partisans don’t like and is revealing, I think is the fact that Safe Streets is not an armed force. It is supposed to be de-escalation. It is people in the community who are trained and who have knowledge of the community to simply de-escalate, not shoot anybody, not put anybody in handcuffs. It’s really supposed to be a community mediation program.

I don’t know how you feel about it, but with the people that I interviewed who participated in the program struck me as extremely courageous and dealing with very difficult circumstances, and I thought it was really interesting that a program that was really saying, “We don’t need guns and badges and arrests. We need members of the community who are empowered to mediate,” I always thought it was interesting that places like FOX45, Sinclair, the people who have been very police-focused, found it to be threatening. What is threatening about mediation exactly?

Mansa Musa:

The person that started it, Leon Faruq, we was locked up together. When he got out, he created that concept-

Stephen Janis:

That’s amazing.

Mansa Musa:

… for the purpose of making the community safe and educating the community how to interact with the police, and more importantly, to get the police involved in the community and understanding the community. So what they did over the years, like you said, you get this pushback, and then you vilify some of the people that’s in it.

Stephen Janis:

You vilify people. They definitely did that.

Mansa Musa:

So now you’re saying you shift the focus off of the work that they’re to the individuals that’s involved in the group. But going forward, how do y’all see this playing out in terms of because we know that right now it’s shifting? I know in DC, when they passed their last bill, Safe Street or whatever, she put in there about chokeholds. They passed a policy about you can choke them, but you just can’t put this on them. You can put this on them.

It’s a different hand gesture. You can’t choke them with an L, just choke them with both of your hands, and it’s not lethal. But I guarantee you when you look back over all these cities that, mainly with the uptick of what they call crime, that they have went back and undid a lot of the common sense reforms.

Stephen Janis:

I agree. But I mean I think there needs to be a reckoning with what is evolving in Baltimore where you have a large reduction in violent crime, like police shootings and homicides, and yet you have fewer and fewer police. We, as media, need to force people to reconcile with that, to answer the questions about that because the narrative that has driven the excesses and abuse of police that we have seen is the narrative that more policing somehow means more safety or, as Taya mentioned, allowing police to ignore constitutional rights. Or constitutional rights are a barrier to good policing and safety and all these things.

All these things are absolutely hinged upon the fact that somehow unleashing a militarized force in a civilian society can somehow make it safer. We, as media, have to really, really push that question and question that underlying assumption. It is so important, and it really frustrates me because no one’s asked that question. It’s right there in black and white. The Baltimore Police Department is staffed at historically low levels. Why are homicides going down?

Well, it’s because Mayor Scott, and I’ll give him credit for that, invested in community-oriented violence intervention programs, not because of the police. If we can dislodge policing from that idea that somehow they’re the barrier between civilization and chaos, I think we’ll go a long way to getting real police reform.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, I agree. Taya?

Taya Graham:

But the other part of the discussion about how media should handle this is that when we report on police misconduct, we can’t have the public or the government come out to kill the messenger.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a good point.

Taya Graham:

The example I would want to give of that is when we were covering Sergeant Ethan Newberg. He’s the officer I mentioned earlier, making over a quarter million dollars a year for literally terrorizing our community. We sat in that courtroom and watched him read, I would say, what was a less than heartfelt apology to the victims of his criminal misconduct against them. During that speech, he was looking over at us, and he mentioned, “I don’t think I would be standing here today if it wasn’t for certain members of social media.” He looked over at us a couple times.

Stephen said, “He’s looking at us.” And I’m like, “No, he’s not. You’re just being paranoid.” He’s like, “No, he’s looking at us.” After he was told that he was going to get just six months home detention, another reporter came up to us and was like, “Well, what did you do? Kick his dog? Why did he keep looking at you like that?” The thing I realized is that he blamed us. It was our coverage that put him in that position, not his unconstitutional behavior.

Stephen Janis:

That’s a good point.

Taya Graham:

There are members of the public that feel that way, that if we highlight a police officer doing harm against the community, that we’re creating a problem. No, it’s the officers who are breaking the law-

Mansa Musa:

The law, yeah.

Taya Graham:

… who are harming the community that are causing the problem. So that’s the other thing that when you are a member of the media and you do step out and you do say the truth and you speak it out and you show the body camera footage and you give the victim side of the story, people turn on us and say, “You’re making it worse.” We’re saying, “No, you guys need to clean this up.”

Mansa Musa:

As we close out, y’all got the last word. We’ll start with you, Jan.

Stephen Janis:

Well, no, I mean, again, I think police reform will not really occur unless you see fundamental shifts in the way we discuss things like violence and poverty and unless we address those underlying issues. Police is a really simple solution for late-stage capitalism to suppress people’s political efficacy and suppress their ability to say, “This is wrong. I shouldn’t be going broke because I can’t pay my medical bills.” All those things are intertwined.

I think if we recognize that, that is where the real reform will occur. Recognizing police role that we talk about a lot in our show in the inequality equation and enforcing racial boundaries, that has to be discussed and fleshed out in order for real reform to occur.

Taya Graham:

The only thing I would add to that is the fact that the culture of policing is a serious problem. And it’s not just Dave Grossman’s Warrior Cop training or his Killology training or the New Jersey Street Cop training, which I would suggest anyone look up what those events look like. That Street Cop training was absolutely insane. You can understand why police would go out and just be terrible to the community after attending an event like that.

But that the culture of policing, I think the best way to think of it is what we saw with George Floyd, that veteran officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck and the two other officers just going along with it, just going along with it, not one of them spoke up and said, “Well, maybe we should render some aid now. Maybe we should stop.” They went along with it.

So as long as the veteran cops keep on replicating this unconstitutional, to say the least, style of policing, we’re going to continue to get it. So we have to attack the heart of this police culture or we will continue to get the same results.

Mansa Musa:

There you have it, Rattling the Bars, Real News. We have to attack the culture. As Jan said, you have low homicide incidents in Baltimore City and a low police force. That mean that whatever the alternatives they’re doing, they’re working in terms of making the community safe. So why are we not investing in that? Or why do we continue to invest in a police force as an occupying force in our community? We need to ask these questions.

As this is the 10th year anniversary of Michael Brown, we recognize that some changes have been made, but more importantly, the biggest change that’s being made is the consciousness of the community and people becoming more and more aware of police. This is because of people like Taya and Jan and the Police Accountability Report. Thank y’all for-

Taya Graham:

Thank you so much for having us.

Stephen Janis:

Thanks for having me. It was great.

Taya Graham:

We really appreciate it.

Stephen Janis:

For having us.

The 2024 US elections are just three months away, and with polls showing a tight race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the outcome may come down to voter turnout—and data show that there is a direct correlation between income level and voter turnout. As Katherine Hapgood recently wrote in an article for the Washington City Paper, “Of the roughly 35 million Americans living at or below the $50,000 threshold widely accepted as ‘low income,’ just about half reported participating in any of the past five presidential elections, according to an analysis of 2020 U.S. Census data. By comparison, 86 percent of Americans with incomes of $150,000 or higher reported casting a ballot during the same time period.” Many poor and working-class people understandably feel that the electoral system does not represent them and their interests, but the results of elections continue to directly and indirectly impact their lives and communities. In this special #election2024 episode of Rattling the Bars, TRNN editor-in-chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with RTB host Mansa Musa and David Schultz, a criminal reform and social justice advocate, about why elections still matter for all of us, and how poor and working-class people, and people impacted by the prison system, can navigate the fraught world of electoral politics to get what they and their communities need.

Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Post-Production: Cameron Granadino

Transcipt

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And I’m Maximilian Alvarez, editor-in-chief here at the Real News Network. I wanted to hop back in here on Rattling The Bars to once again put our incredible host, Mansa Musa, back in the interviewee’s seat for today because we’ve got a really important topic to discuss here today. And in fact, Mansa himself was recently interviewed for an article at the Washington DC city paper entitled, Left Out and Underrepresented. Low-Income DC Residents Are Convinced Voting Won’t Change Their Lives. And Mansa was actually interviewed along with our other guest today, David Schultz. And we wanted to make this the topic of today’s episode in part to continue the Real News’s ongoing coverage of the 2024 elections and to look at those elections from the grassroots, from the perspective of poor and working class people, and the people impacted by the prison industrial complex, the police industrial complex, right?

We want to continue to do the work that mainstream media won’t to look at American politics from the perspective of poor and working people, not the perspective of the elites. And so in this article in which Mansa Musa, aka Charles Hopkins was quoted, the article begins, “Charles Hopkins did not cast a single vote in any election for the first seven decades of his life. Hopkins has lived all of his 72 years in Maryland and DC and as a low-income Black man, he could have been neighbors with many of the federal office holders who appeared on the ballot.But looking back, he was never convinced that voting would make a difference in his daily life.”

“That’s why people don’t vote,” says Hopkins, “who lives in Southeast because why would I vote when it’s not changing my conditions?” Voters like Hopkins contribute to an enduring demographic disparity in democratic participation. Low-income citizens are less likely to cast ballots than those who make more money. Of the roughly 35 million Americans living at or below the $50,000 threshold widely accepted as low-income, just about half reported participating in any of the past five presidential elections according to an analysis of the 2020 US Census Data.

By comparison, 86% of Americans with incomes of $150,000 or higher reported casting a ballot during the same period. In 2020, the most recent presidential contest, just 7.4% of Americans who like Hopkins reported making less than $30,000 a year voted, despite accounting for roughly 9.7% of the population. Now gentlemen, I’m really, really grateful to you all for letting me hop in on Mansa’s great show and do this important interview. And David Schultz, thank you so much for joining us as well. And I really encourage folks out there to read this article in full, which we’re going to link to in the show notes for this episode.

Dave, I’m going to come to you in a second, but Mansa, I wanted to start with you and start where this article starts and ask if you could just unpack this a bit for our viewers. Now, obviously you and I are journalists for a nonprofit news network, so we can’t be out here talking about how people should vote, but we should definitely talk about how being impacted by this capitalist economy, this prison industrial system, what does that mean for low income folks like yourself and the millions of other around this country? When the news is talking about this election and any election is like the fate of democracy hangs in the balance, the future of the country is hanging in the balance. What do people like you see when you look at this election?

Mansa Musa:

I want to start out with saying Malcolm X came out with a speech called The Ballot or the bullet. And in The Ballot or the Bullet, Malcolm X made the observation that people that are disenfranchised when they register to vote or when they position themselves to vote, it should be around issues that’s relative that directly impact them. So there he is in my leading. My attitude has always been that the electoral process never really represented or never represents poor and oppressed people.

So the article, when the woman was talking about the article, she went on to say, “Okay, how do people that’s low income or no income, look at the electoral process. And we’ll add another caveat, how do prisoners look at the electoral process, post-release or pre-release? I always looked at it from the perspective that, one, it never represented the interest of me or people of my class or status.

Why? Because the candidates for the most part never really understood or tried to understand the issues that impacted me or people of similar class status or economic status. So if you saying that you representing me, the first thing you want to do is come and understand what it is that my needs are, but when you represent me, you’re not representing me, you representing the status.

So I never really felt as though from that perspective that the electoral process and electoral system was something that I would engage in actively to try to get people to become seasoned voters or registered voters or even take a campaign for candidates. Always was an impression that when I looked at it, I looked at it from the perspective that it’s not changing what’s going on me. And I seen it. While I was incarcerated, everybody that was low income whose family members was locked up, they wasn’t being asked about, “What do you think should be done about the criminal justice system?” Since your child is affected by it, they wasn’t talking about, “What you think should be done about housing and better housing? Since you live in adequate housing, what do you think about medical care and the lack of medical treatment since you don’t have it? Or what do you think about you living in a food desert?” Because that’s what it is.

They was talking about the alternative, you the alternative to not letting this person get an… Or the candidate here, A, is talking about this and he not going to do that because when I get in there I’m going to do A, B, C, D. But everything that you advocating and talking about once you get in there… And this has been ongoing on that you don’t do none of that. So that’s what really shaped my thinking.

Maximillian Alvarez:

And in this same article in the Washington City paper, our second guess David Schultz is also quoted and I want to read from this passage here which says, “David Schultz, 45, a criminal reform and social justice advocate in the district did not vote for many years, but after his incarceration, he realized how local services in his community could be impacted by funding cuts.

Now, Dave, I wanted to bring you in here and ask if you could talk a little bit about that transition for yourself as well. How you went from very justifiably feeling the same way that Mansa described so many people feeling to also then seeing how the system was still directly impacting folks like you and how elections were still making a difference even if it was a worse one.

David Schultz:

Yes. So thank you very much for having me. For starters, I had come from working healthcare administration and so I really didn’t pay attention to really a lot of the nonprofits and how they were affected by local and state budgets. And so getting out and really relying on a lot of these organizations that rely on government funding, such as the organizations that we both work for, Voices for Second Chance and Changing Perceptions.

If it wasn’t for those really helping us to guide us on a reentry journey, I know that it would’ve been a bigger struggle than it already was. Coming out and really seeing now the effect of local budget cuts and how they directly impact these nonprofits, A, I work for a number of them now, and so I can really see a coming year, fiscal year 2025, how the cuts are really going to affect a lot of organizations and a lot of support that is needed for individuals getting out, especially individuals getting out that have done 20 plus years that really are starting from scratch and now they’re not even given a fair chance to have a successful reentry journey.

They’re starting from a negative end of things. So it makes it that much harder. When these cuts are made and organizations can’t be able to support individuals such as ourselves, then it really increases recidivism to be honest with you. People get frustrated. And then community safety. As you can see, we have a big problem with gun violence here in the city as of late. And a lot of that is I think because the support has slowly started weaning off from the COVID kind of era, and budget cuts are now affecting these organizations and it’s trickling down.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Let’s talk about that for a second, how the electoral system and the process of elections looks to you both as formerly incarcerated people, but also like to other families and communities impacted by the prison industrial complex. I mean because for folks who haven’t been impacted by that, obviously, like discourse, right? It’s just like, “Oh, both parties have contributed to the mass incarceration and the new Jim Crow,” which is true as we know, as Mansa covers every week on the show.

But there’s also a lot more to that story. There’s a lot more specifics about depending on who the sheriff is in your town, depending on what state you live in. I mean, your circumstances may change dramatically depending on who is in government at that time. So I wanted to just ask you both as people who have been directly impacted by the prison industrial complex and as two men who are fighting for justice, for those who are also impacted by that, how does that change the way that you think about and approach elections as a citizen?

Mansa Musa:

And for me, I look at it from the perspective that who the candidates are or can we find a candidate that’s going to represent our issue? I give you a case in point. In Louisiana, they got a group down there called Voices of the Enlightened Vote. And they come out, “I ain’t go to Louisiana prison.” So what they did, and I like this model, what they did is it was assured if they wanted to remove from detention center that everybody go to get locked up in Louisiana.

And so what they did was when they got out, they built this coalition around the electoral process. More importantly what they did was they identified issues that directly affected them and organized around finding a candidate that was going to sign onto an agenda that represented them. So they found this one woman they wanted, they ran for sure, and they was able to mobilize the community because everybody that was in that region was impacted by this jail.

They went to the jail, their family was subjected to going visit somebody in jail. Their family was even in the jail. So they was able to get everybody to vote and get the sheriff out. And the guy was saying, when I interviewed him on the reel on The Rattling The Bars, the guy said he was going around telling one of the guys that was advocating to remove the sheriff. He said when he was going around, people say, “Man, well the sheriff is a good dude.” He said, “Yeah, he is a good person, but he a bad sheriff and because he a bad sheriff, it’s impacting your family.”

So they got rid of the person. The new sheriff came in and did some things but didn’t do hold fast to all their problem. So from my perspective is, to answer your question, I look at it from that context that I’m more concerned with educating the returning citizen population, people that’s coming out of prison and get them to understand how we can impact the electoral process to the extent where our candidate is running or that we’re in a position where we know enough about what’s going on with the budget, where the monies are at, then we can say, “Well, we can advocate for the monies to be put into places where Dave was talking about, be put towards nonprofits doing the work to help disenfranchising them.”

So I look at it from that perspective of I don’t have no trust or no confidence in electoral system. I got confidence trust in people educating people to make informed decisions about who they want and who they going to put that vote behind.

David Schultz:

I would say for me, I’ve really paid attention now much more to… I like to see the candidates actions. I’ve learned politicians really like to say what we want to hear during election time, but when it comes down to after the election, they do what they want and we are the ones that have to suffer in the long run, meaning organizations and low income individuals. So it’s important for me that candidates make themselves available to all different groups of individuals.

I think that it’s important for candidates to have listening sessions and conversations with various partners in the community from all walks of life, not just bougie cocktail hours and law offices and things like that. But I think it’s important that they go to the cookout at the church or go to the rec center and see what the youth are talking about. They’re having problems with… Hear directly from them because I think they’re the best ones to be able to solve the issue of youth gun violence to be honest with you.

And I think it’s important for candidates to make sure that everybody has a seat at the table. I think that’s very important that I see returning citizens in some capacity in their office some way or another as long as other groups representation as well. So that’s important for me when I look at candidates kind of going forward.

Maximillian Alvarez:

I want to follow up on that and kind of bring this down to the grassroots level. As two organizers, I want to talk more about the kind of conversations that you get into with folks, the kind of issues that really matter to people that you’re talking to and especially when we’re talking about elections and if we’re trying to mobilize our community, our family, our neighborhood around issues that directly impact us, what are those issues and what does it take for folks to feel like they should go and vote and they should go out canvas for others to vote?

Again, the media is talking about this in one way. They’re like, “Oh, you got to go knock on doors and scare people about Trump or get people really excited about Kamala Harris and the Democrats.” But I think we know as folks who don’t come from that world that most people are worried about how they’re going to pay their grocery bill, how they’re going to get someone to watch their kids, how they’re going to keep a roof over their head.

So I wanted to ask just as two guys on the front lines of that struggle, what do you think the pundit class covering the elections in mainstream media should learn about the conversations that y’all are having and that folks in these communities are having about the election right now?

David Schultz:

Okay, yeah. So I’ll start with that one. So I would say it’s important for individuals. I think being in Washington DC obviously puts us in a unique position because we’re obviously a very political city. I guess it’s different when I go to different areas, different cities. I was just traveling. Recently, I was in Chicago, and of course it was very political there because we’re getting ready to have the Democratic and national convention. But usually it’s not.

So that puts us in a unique perspective to see how politics really affect our everyday lives. I think you’re a hundred percent correct. I think that individuals that are from smaller, more rural areas really want to see and are more concerned with that direct impact. And so elections for them kind of seem like this far away thing. It’s like they kind of drop something in a box and if they’re the person they like personality wise really, or who agrees with them on more things than the other, then that’s how they go for.

But they don’t really do their research on the candidates as well as they should to see really are they living up to what they’re saying? Are they voting this way even though they’re saying they might be voting this way? And so I think that it’s important for the pundits, so to speak, to really listen to grassroots individuals because we are the ones that matter. We are the people that they say in the constitution. We are the ones that are the make everything one. We’re the working class. So at the end of the day, our vote matters and they want our vote. So I think it’s imperative that they listen to what our needs and specific asks are.

Mansa Musa:

I think on the grassroots, when you’re dealing with a grassroots level, it’s imperative that we educate the people that’s affected because like you say, people want jobs. People want quality education. People want safe living environment. People want food quality, cheap food. As far as food prices being so high. People want rent control. They don’t want to be living in squalor and then paying astronomical fees to live there.

So it’s important that we educate… When you’re dealing with the grassroots, it’s important that you educate the population to understand that you have to find a candidate that’s going to represent your interest. When the Black Panther Party bring Bobby Seale for mayor. They wasn’t running Bobby Seale for mayor, to try to get Bobby Seale to be the mayor, they was educating people about how, like Dave said earlier, where the monies come from, how the monies are allocated, and how you can have a voice in monies being allocated to your neighborhood, to clean up your neighborhood, to have the trash collected.

How monies could be allocated towards medical or universal healthcare for everyone. So when I look at it from the grassroots level, I’m always in my mind… My mind is always in this area, educating the people about the electoral process, educating the people about, “Okay, if you get involved with this process, then make sure you had a candidate that’s going to represent your interest because the candidate is going to come and say what they think you want to hear.”

They’re going to put on all kinds of activities to motivate your interest. But when it does settle and they leave, trash hasn’t been collected. It’s high unemployment rate in your neighborhood, housing, you live in a squalor. You’re not safe and your children being targeted because you’re not safe. So when I look at it from the perspective, I look at it from a perspective that it is incoming from me and people that’s in that space to educate the people on the budget, educate the people on electoral process, educate the people on how to go about vetting account. Like you say, candidates have listening sessions.

So when a candidate have a listening session, then it’s coming from people like myself and Dave to get people to come down there and educate in electorate like ask questions about, “Okay.” Because if you don’t do what we say you supposed to do, same way we elected you in, we can get the recall and get you out.

David Schultz:

Can I just add one quick thing? Can I just say from a grassroots level to answer your other question is what the individuals are saying is the basic needs is what they’re struggling with when it comes to housing and especially affordable housing, it doesn’t matter if you’re a returning citizen, if you’re just a working class individual, that basic need is a struggle that basically grassroots individuals are really looking to have fixed this election cycle.

And just the basic necessity of being able to keep food on their table and be able to feed their kids. So I know it sounds basic, but that’s what I’ve been hearing a lot of in the community and what they are really focusing on this election cycle.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Well, and honestly I think that’s very much in line with where a lot of our own viewers and listeners are. I mean, at least from the folks who have reached out and told us as much, the real news does have a… Contrary to a lot of other media networks, a lot of our audiences told us that they identify as low income. And because shows like Rattling The Bars working people, like everything that we do here at the Real News, police accountability report, we try to speak to the needs and concerns of foreign working class and oppressed people around the country and around the world.

I wanted to just use that as a springboard to a final question here. Because again, we’re in the middle of an election season right now, and so many of the conversations just boil down to which party are you voting for, which presidential candidate are you voting for? And that’s kind of it, right? The nuance of the discussion that we’ve been having here is just lost. But again, I want to address the people watching and listening to this right now, poor and working class people who are trying to find their own way in this election season.

People who do care about the fate of this world and if things are going to get worse for them and their family, but who have very good reason to feel a lot of animosity towards both presidential or both parties. So I guess when you’re talking to folks who are sort of in that mode who are feeling like neither party has anything to offer them, I guess where do you start the conversation about proceeding as a class, proceeding as citizens who are fighting for our needs, our interests, and our community, and holding elected officials accountable to that rather than feeling like we are just permanent team players on one side or another, but we are a class pushing for our needs and our interest.

Mansa Musa:

I think the way in that regard, one, you educate people to understand that this system is not a panacea for correcting their problems. It’s not. You look at elected officials and elected officials represent a more corporate than they represent the people. That’s why they come in and leave. But the main thing is to educate the population, to understand this system and where they can be effective at in terms of getting their needs met through this system.

Because at the end of the process, a budget going to come out. And if the people that’s in them spaces that’s impacted, stay engaged with understanding where the money is at like in the District of Columbia, all the money is being invested in downtown DC. Okay, all the money is being invested in corporate, what they call east of the river. And no money is going to east of the river. So it’s coming upon people like myself to go east of the river where I live at and educate the people about the budgetary process because, okay, the budget came out.

They say, “Well, all the money that was cut out of the budget was cut for certain reasons, and the money that’s been given to organizations or city agencies is being given for certain reasons.” So the reasons already etched in Stone. City government is being effective. People that’s not city government is not being effective. So we track that and say, “Okay, you gave 2.9 million to this city agency saying they was doing XYZ. But during the course of that year, they didn’t do nothing.”

So that money right there should go to the agencies that you took the money from. So it’s not a matter of just looking at who you’re trying to get in there, it’s a matter of staying on top of that system and making your presence known on that system because if you don’t, then the person getting in there, then we’d be saying, “Oh man, they ain’t do what they supposed to.”

No. If we stay on top of them after they get in there, then they won’t have to do what they supposed to do because they’re aware that we know. And then the next time it come around, your track record is what’s going to be used to get you out the same way you was claiming the track record to get you in. Your track record is going to be used to get you out and it’s going to be well documented.

Maximillian Alvarez:

Dave, what do you think? Final thoughts.

David Schultz:

So I think people really understand that this election really, I think people understand that democracy as a whole could be at stake, and so it’s just much bigger than the smaller issues. I think people really realize that different freedoms are at stake. And so I think with this one, it is a much… I think at the end of the day, I think the candidate that is going to stand for what’s right and fair and equitable and just, and believe in all the freedoms that America stands for is going to be the best candidate. And I think that’s what communities of low income and other marginalized communities are going to think about when they go to the ballot box.

Mansa Musa:

We encourage you to support Rattling The Bars and the Real News Network. And the reason why we encourage you to support it, because it’s only on this platform that you going to get a diverse conversation about electoral process and an educational process about understanding the system. We don’t tell nobody who to vote for. We don’t tell nobody how they should believe or not believe. What we do, we educate people or understand so they can make an informed decision. And making an informed decision, we ask that you make a decision to support the Real News and Rattling The Bars.

The number of homeless people in the United States, either without shelter or in temporary housing, is steadily rising towards a million people. Faced with this crisis, municipalities, counties, and states across the country are responding by criminalizing those experiencing homelessness. Advocate and activist Jeff Singer joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling, and what it means for America’s poor.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host Mansa Musa. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development report, 653,140 people are homeless. Bottom line, sleeping on the streets. Nearly 327,000 people in the United States live in transition housing. They live in situations where at any given moment, they’ll join the 653,140 without having a place to stay. What do this say about the United States of America? What do this say about the world when we have a situation where people don’t have a place to stay for no other reason then they can’t afford to live in certain environments because of the cost of living? Here joining me to talk about a recent Supreme Court decision, but more importantly, his work in trying to eradicate homelessness and trying to elevate people’s consciousness about the sense of humanity we should have about people that don’t have a place to stay. Joining me today is Jeff Singer. Welcome, Jeff.

Jeff Singer:

Thank you so much, Mansa.

Mansa Musa:

Hey, Jeff, tell our audience a little bit about yourself.

Jeff Singer:

I’ve been working on homelessness, poverty, racism for a very long time, since about 1965, and a lot of that time in Baltimore and some of that time in Washington DC and there’s a lot of work to do. I especially liked what you said about changing people’s consciousness because we certainly need to do that.

Mansa Musa:

Right. And we was talking off camera, I was talking about Ms. Schneider and for the benefit of our audience that don’t know, Ms. Schneider was also probably one of your compadres in this fight in terms of combating homelessness, but more importantly, raising people’s awareness and educating people on the need to have a sense of humanity about people that don’t have a place to stay. And I was telling, I was in a meeting where one is a guy that he mentored told a story and say that, “Well Ms. Schneider, because the population became so bad, people didn’t have a place to stay, that he was involved with all the homeless encampments.” And he just one day said, “Look, we got to find a place to stay.” And they went down there and took former Federal City College, which is UDC now, and took it and made that a place, what they call it 2nd & D now, and the Army is we talking about something that happened almost 40 years ago and 2nd & D hasn’t gotten better.

2nd D is just a transition place where people who don’t have no place to stay come. And that wasn’t the intent of Mitch or that’s never been your intent is the intent has, from my understanding, has always been to get people in permanent housing, to try and get people to get up and have that dignity to have their own. Okay. So let’s talk about the Supreme Court recently came out with a case that said, and I think it started in Oregon, and said basically that homeless organization or advocacy organization filed a suit saying it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which is cruel and unusual punishment for the benefit of our audience, there’s cruel and unusual punishment to have people living in the streets, to have people living in the streets during the winter, to have people living in the streets during 110 climate, to have people living in the street through all the elements.

It was a cruel and unusual punishment to have people not have food, not have adequate clothing as a result of living in the street. Walk us through this case and what this case means in terms of how this country has criminalized, started to criminalize, poverty.

Jeff Singer:

Well we hardly have time for a full exploration of that, but to be relatively brief, in 2018, there was a court case in the northwest, the Martin versus Boise case, which ruled that if people couldn’t find a place to sleep that wasn’t outside that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment to criminalize them, to put them in jail and/or to fine them. And that case changed a lot of the policies that cities were using to punish people who had nowhere to live. Well the cities didn’t like that so they found other means to get people experiencing homelessness out of sight to hide them. And in this small place called Grants Pass, Oregon, the city was arresting people for sleeping outside and using a blanket or a pillow.

They made that illegal, for people who had nowhere to live and nowhere else to sleep. Well some of the folks who were arrested decided, they got some lawyers and they appealed that. It didn’t make sense to punish people who had nowhere to live for sleeping outside.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Jeff Singer:

Right? Well the federal district court agreed, oddly enough, with the folks who thought it was wrong for them to be arrested because they had nowhere to live. And the city of Grants Pass then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court on April 22nd of 2024, this year. The Supreme Court heard the arguments about whether or not it is cruel and unusual punishment to jail or fine people who have nowhere to go because they’re sleeping on the street. And just a couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that arresting people who have nowhere to go is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Our common sense and even logical understanding surpasses that. It seems impossible, but the decision says that the Eighth Amendment, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, does not apply to what jurisdiction, city, state, the federal government, doesn’t apply to what they do. It just applies to the way that they do it. I don’t really understand that. I’ve read the decision. Twisting logic that way just eludes me, but the result of this is that now jurisdictions, cities in particular, have the right to put people in jail if those people have nowhere to live.

Mansa Musa:

And I won’t flush this out a little bit, right, because the lunacy in this whole thing with the Supreme Court. Sotomayor said that, “If you don’t have a place to sleep and you get caught sleeping on the street, you’re going to jail,” and she was saying this as a dissenting opinion saying that the court has to reduced itself to this type of lunacy where you criminalize a person. Now you criminalize a person for having a blanket and a pillow and sleeping on the street. Now you saying that to me in the United States of America, the land of plenty where we have unlimited, we have unlimited monies to send to countries to bomb people, we have unlimited money for people in countries where we don’t like the country that’s sending them, we have unlimited money to house them, clothe them, and give them tax breaks, but for the people that’s United States citizens, we don’t have no sympathy or money to house them.

Talk about the impact of this decision on, and I said 600,000, but we know the population is much larger than that and then I said that in regard to what HUD’s site, but when we look at city by city, I was in Las Vegas and I seen pockets of homeless people, people that didn’t have no place to stay, but I was seeing randomly and one day we turned around the corner and this overpass where, like large overpass, multiple highways coming and going. So it created a large shelter and it looked like a city of nothing but people that was unhoused. And we know, we see this in California and the District of Columbia, they had, we talk about 2nd D, but they had places where they just can’t have a canvas and you might look and see 10 tents, a week later you see 30 tents, a month later you see 150 tents.

And I think the District of Columbia got a number and when it reach that number, they come and round them up, take their property and destroy their property, and try to force them to go in a shelter or just flush them out, but talk about the impact that this going to have on that kind of, because that’s the reality. The reality is that no matter what, you don’t have enough prison cells because you got 2.5 million people right now or more in prison. So you don’t have enough prison cells for the 600 or 800,000 people that don’t have a place to stay and that’s their crime, “I don’t have a place to stay. My crime is I just fell asleep from exhaustion on the street and where you found me at, it was a matter of whether the car was going to run over me or you was going to pick me up and take me to jail or I was going to be dead. So that was my option. Somebody running over me, you taking me to jail, or I die right there.”

So talk about that. Talk about the impact that’s going to have on that because we need our audience to understand that this decision is not talking about rounding up wild animals or deer hunting season. This decision is saying that people, human beings, don’t have a right to fall asleep.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah. It’s really disturbing to think about it that way and that’s a correct way to think about it. I suppose if people want to invest money in the US, it might be wise to invest money in the people who build and operate prisons, the Corrections Corporation of America. That might be a good place to invest money. The fundamental problem of course is capitalism.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Jeff Singer:

And until we start to have an economy that meets people’s needs rather than creates profits, we won’t be solving the homelessness problem, but it’s not new. People have been thinking about, talking about it, writing and acting on this problem for thousands of years in the United States, which isn’t thousands of years old of course. We’ve had waves of homelessness after every war. After the Civil War there were thousands and thousands of people who wandered around the country looking for a place to live because they couldn’t find one, thousands. After World War I, most people remember hearing about hobos.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Jeff Singer:

Hobos were just people who had been displaced by the war and had nowhere to go. They rode railroad trains looking for a place to stay. They created encampments, hobo jungles they were called at the time. And then during the Great Depression, of course, millions of people were homeless, again because capitalism couldn’t work well at that point, and there was homelessness everywhere. In Baltimore, 20,000 people gathered in front of City Hall in 1933 during the Great Depression demanding a place to live. And there’s pictures of this. There’s good historical exploration of it. In fact at that time, two encampments were created in South Baltimore toward Glen Burnie.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Jeff Singer:

And why were there two? Well there was one for white people and one for African-American people. They were segregated.

Mansa Musa:

Segregated homeless camp.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah. And the white one, the people there were given places to live. In the African American one, they weren’t. They had to build their own shelter. They even built a little golf course. So that’s the Great Depression. That housing problem was solved, by the way, by the creation of public housing. Public housing began to be built in 1937 to give people a place to live because there were so many tens of thousands of people without a place to live. And of course, public housing was segregated in Baltimore and in many places. Well there’s more to the story of course, but today, public housing is in the process of being destroyed-

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Jeff Singer:

By both parties, Republicans and Democrats, and Baltimore had 18,000 public housing units 20 years ago and today Baltimore has about 5,000 public housing units. They’ve given them away to corporations and to some nonprofits. They’ve taken away the rights of the people who lived in public housing and until we restore public housing, Nixon administration created something called the Section 8 program.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Jeff Singer:

People have heard of that. Well it was the privatization of public housing and the creation of profits for the people who owned the buildings. Right?

Mansa Musa:

Right because in DC it called the voucher system.

Jeff Singer:

Yes. Yeah.

Mansa Musa:

Right. What your analysis is correct is to who profit from the voucher system.

Jeff Singer:

Right. Right. And then of course racism, which some have called the original sin of America, is so intertwined in housing policy, not just public housing and housing vouchers and Section 8, but also racism is deeply embedded in the larger, the market for housing so that we have had redlining, which was a denial of loans and mortgages to people of color and also to Jews and Syrians by the way who we were not permitted to get mortgages. We had restrictive covenants and I’ve seen some of these documents like I’ve seen the one from Northwood, which is part of Northeast Baltimore. And when you buy a house there, and it may still be in the mortgage, you have to agree not to sell that house to a person of color. This is true all around the country. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that that was illegal in the Kramer case, but in any event.

Mansa Musa:

We’re talking about, after every war, we’re talking about veterans, we’re talking about people that fought in the war. So we’re talking about, like right now, right today, a lot of the people that’s homeless, a lot of them are veterans and return to citizen, people that’s formerly incarcerated. But more importantly, I worked for an organization called Veterans on the Rise in DC and it was an organization primarily for a veteran, but it got created by a veteran that was homeless and start advocating that, “This ain’t right. We fought for this country. Why shouldn’t we have a place to stay when we come back to this country? We’re being treated like refugees when we return to this country.” So that’s not a farfetched analysis in that regard, but I want you to talk about going forward because now we have a situation where being poor get you locked up if you steal loaf of bread.

You stole the bread because you were hungry. That’s a crime because that’s theft. But now the crime that you’re guilty of now is you don’t have a place to stay and from exhaustion, if I walked around all day long I don’t care who you are, people, I don’t care who, this is only in the movies when somebody walk across the desert and fall out when they get to the town. No. This is real life where people be on their feet all day long and from exhaustion and 90 degree heat, 115 degree heat, fall out, that because you fell out, you’re considered a criminal.

So I want you to talk about going forward, where are we at now in terms of trying to reverse or trying to raise people’s awareness that your tax dollars should be being invested in housing people or holding the creed, the constitution. All men are created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is not my life worthy enough for me to have a place to stay? Is not my happiness worthy enough for me to pursue having a place to stay? Talk about that, Jeff.

Jeff Singer:

Well American law and jurisprudence doesn’t really provide solutions to these problems. As long as capitalism is the fundamental principle of American society and political economy, as long as that’s the case, we’re not going to solve these problems, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. It means we should try and we should understand how all of these issues are interrelated. There’s so much to do. Lately the Supreme Court has been an important force of making things worse and they use torture logic like, cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t mean getting sent to jail because you have nowhere to live. No. It just would mean that if they sent you to jail and purposefully embarrassed you while they did that, then that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

So this makes no sense. It also, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President can do anything that he wants to do. And if he’s the President, then it’s legal. There have been many sorts of rulings that are laughable from a logical perspective, but that’s not what all this is about. What it’s about is there’s a small group of people, we call them the ruling class, who make the rules and the laws are designed to uphold the rules that they make. So the Constitution be damned I suppose.

Mansa Musa:

And I like to echo this point. I think we speaking off camera and I was saying the crisis is not the lack of home. Unemployment is not the crisis. Poverty is not the crisis. The crisis is that we let 1% of the people control the country. The crisis is in the thinking of them, that it is a crisis in morality. It’s a crisis in humanity. That’s what the crisis. You got more than enough money, more than enough wealth. I remember I heard someone where they said like, “The $48 billion they gave to fund the wars abroad could end homelessness in the country.”

Jeff Singer:

Right.

Mansa Musa:

And we are in a political climate right now as we speak. The Republicans are having their convention today. Only their platform is not going to be make America great by giving people a place to live or something to eat, some shelter. Making America great is making corporate more wealthy. And the more wealthy corporation get, the more money they’re going to want to want. But at the end of the day, Jeff, what are you doing right now? What are some of the works that you’re doing right now in terms of working around with this population and helping people understand the needs to look at them with some dignity?

Jeff Singer:

Well that’s a wonderful question and the most important work that all of us can do now is to study and learn and teach and teach. My profession I guess, I’m a teacher. I’m a professor at the University of Maryland in the Graduate School of Social Work. So some of the work I do is trying to raise up new social workers to understand that social work isn’t just about helping individuals. It’s about a dialectic between service and advocacy. And all social workers should not only be provided services to people who are experiencing homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, these are all important issues, but they don’t get solved one person at a time. They only get solved by people acting together, mobilizing and organizing.

So in fact, I’m teaching a class right now called Communities and Organizations. So that’s part of what I do. And then I do help a lot of people individually. I mean, it’s just something I’ve done for the last 50 years or so. And it’s important, but it doesn’t solve the problems in a structural way. So helping people gain a structural analysis of how capitalism actually works and how we can change it, that’s as important as anything we can do.

Mansa Musa:

Right because I think as it stand now at the rate that we’re going, you spoke on this, the Supreme Court has constantly coming out with rulings that solidify capitalist control, that solidify fascism, that solidifies the imperialist thinking. The courts is coming out on all levels, the lower courts and the high court is one bookend, locking it in. So when we’re confronted with that, we’re confronted with a situation where our only redress is to organize around the idea that we have a right to be treated human, we have a right. This is not something that’s given to us by a corporation. This is our human right to be treated as human beings. And with that, Jeff, you got the last word. What you want to tell our audience about and how they can get in touch with you?

Jeff Singer:

Oh, well, I will answer that, but after I answer that, I want to say something else.

Mansa Musa:

No, you can always say that and then answer that.

Jeff Singer:

Okay. Well just this morning I learned that one of the few heroes of the homelessness struggle in Baltimore died this morning because he was homeless. He’d had a place to live off and on.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, no, that’s neither here nor there because conditions create the situation. It’s not, I told you earlier, people don’t wake up. People don’t wake up and say, “I want to live an impoverished life.”

Jeff Singer:

Right.

Mansa Musa:

It’s a certain social construction, certain things that go into that that create that situation and conditions that find a person, find themselves at the crossroad between not having a place to live and blowing their brains out or doing something more, committing a crime.

Jeff Singer:

Yeah.

Mansa Musa:

It’s this country. Yeah. And we want to send out our prayers and speak his name so we know who we’re talking about.

Jeff Singer:

I will. Damien Haussling was his name. And Damien was one of the founders of our street newspaper called Word on the Street. It’s not around anymore unfortunately. Damien was one of the founders of Housing Our Neighbors, which is an advocacy organization of people experiencing homelessness and their supporters. And Damien was also the founder of the Baltimore Furniture Bank, which provides free furniture to impoverished people who get a place to live. And he died in the Furniture Bank. He was working there last night and there was no air conditioning and I think he died from heat stroke.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Jeff Singer:

But he’s sort of a martyr to the notion that this country, in its documents, says, as you said earlier, that, “All men are created equal and that they have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And those are just words because they’re not concretized-

Mansa Musa:

Now come on. That’s right.

Jeff Singer:

In the actual life of people. There are hundreds of thousands of people just in Baltimore who don’t have enough food to eat.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Jeff Singer:

And yet there’s food. There’s food everywhere. It rots off the farms and in warehouses. It rots, but people don’t have enough food to eat because of the distribution and the profits that are being made.

Mansa Musa:

It’s more important than feeding people. And I think that, on that note, I think that this is what this conversation should end on. This is about humanity and this is not about nothing other than that. This is about, if you say that you believe in humanity, if you say you believe in anything that has any semblance to a God, if you say you believe in anything to have any type of morality, then when you walk past a person that is sleeping on the street, you should at least stop and look at them, even if you’re not going to do nothing for them you should at least stop and act like they don’t exist because then you’re taking, to yourself, you’re taking in your mind suppressing a reality of this country.

You’re not suppressing the reality of this individual. You’re suppressing the reality of this country, this country that you hold up to be so great that has an attitude that, “No, it’s not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s money, money, money, and more money. With that being said, there you have it, the real news, Rattling the Bar. We wanted to remind all our listeners, as Jeff said earlier, that one of our heroes passed away doing this work around people that don’t have a place to stay. We want to remind our listeners that don’t change the term from unhoused to because it’s more a sanitized term than homelessness. The term is not indicated of the conditions that the people find themselves in. These are human beings that are in dire need and help and we as a nation should be thinking about where we stand at when it comes to our morality. Thank you, Jeff, for educating us today. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to educate our audience about the state of America as it relate to people that don’t have a place to stay. Bottom line, just homeless. Okay.

A 42-year-old Black woman, Adrienne Boulware, has died in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. On July 4, prison guards exposed Boulware to extreme temperatures outdoors during a heatwave for 15 minutes, leaving her with just a small glass of water in the over 110 F heat. Boulware began to exhibit symptoms of heat exhaustion almost immediately after returning indoors. Two days later, she passed away while receiving medical care. Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura of the California Coalition for Women’s Prisoners joins Rattling the Bars to discuss Boulware’s tragic death, and what it reveals about the dangers prisons place incarcerated people in as the climate crisis intensifies. 

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rallying the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. It’d be unimaginable to think that if I left a dog in the car with the windows rolled up under these heating conditions that I would not be held accountable by the animal and Humane Society. But the same thing is taking place right now in California with the women in Central California Women’s Facility. The same thing is taking place right now where women are being held in environments where the heat has reached a temperature of 110. As a result, a woman has died, and not to say how many more will die or what the state of these women are at this current time. Joining me today is Elizabeth Nomura. Welcome, Nomura. Tell us a little bit about yourself and what organization you’re representing at this juncture.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Again, my name is Leesa Nomura. I am the statewide membership organizer for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. We are a organization that’s been around for almost just shy of 30 years, and I have been a statewide organizer for close to three years, but have been connected with CCWP since I was incarcerated. And I’ve been home in January, it will be five years I have been released from prison. I am of Pacific Islander descent and I am very grateful to be here calling from Tonga Land, or commonly known as Los Angeles. Thank you for having me.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. Yeah. And thank you for that. Okay, so let’s get right into it. According to a report that just came out on July 6th, a woman died from heat exhaustion in Central California Women’s Facility. Talk about what’s going on with them conditions right now as we walk back through what happened with this system.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Yeah. Tragically, a 42-year-old black woman, a very good friend of mine, of our sisterhood inside, Adrienne Boulware, just shy of coming home next year. It was 4th of July and she was being released for her meds and the institution was locked down because of course, on the holidays, there’s a lack of staff. And so because of that, on those days, the institution will be locked down because of lack of staff. And so it was med time. She was popped out for her meds. And in the configuration of the institution, the meds are not distributed to the cells like in some of the men’s joints. They have to leave their room, walk out of the unit and walk across the yard to the medical unit, stand in line with all of the other folks from the yard, and then wait in line for their turn to go up to the med window and then get their meds and then walk back to the door and then wait for whenever the housing staff in their air-conditioned cop shop is to walk to the door and unlock it and let them in.

And so apparently what the story is from our folks inside who we have direct communication with and tell us that Adrienne was out there in addition to the time it took for her to stand out there, wait out there and be exposed to above 111 degrees, I believe it was that day. What the temperature is and what the feels like temperature is always different, right, especially in the armpit of California, which is central California. And so Adrienne is standing out there and they said about 15 minutes. She’s waiting, she’s looking at the CO, he’s seeing her, she’s seeing him, and he is leaving her out there. And the whole time, there’s no water, there’s nothing out there for her to drink. And the only water she’s had the whole entire time is a little cup.

Mansa Musa:

Right, they give you water with your meds.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

They give you water, and that’s all she’s had that whole entire time. And so by the time she went inside, she was let in, went inside, she was suffering from heat exhaustion, she was sweating, her roommates were concerned for her, helped her into the room. She was shaking. In the configuration of these units, the rooms hold up to eight people and there’s a shower, a toilet, and two sinks in there so they have access to shower anytime in those cells. Her roommates helped her into the shower. She went in and once she went in there to try to cool off, she collapsed. And she collapsed and she became incoherent.

They said that her legs were shaking uncontrollably and they then called out for medical help, in which case the call-out for medical emergency is 222. So if you can imagine that scene, all of the roommates pounding on the door screaming [inaudible 00:06:37]. So it was very frantic, and they’re just trying to do the best they could because of course they’re the first responders.

Mansa Musa:

Right. You’re exactly right.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

They’re doing the best they can to keep her coherent, to keep her there and to monitor her health at that time and see how she’s doing. And so finally, medical comes and takes her away and they don’t hear anything until they receive the word Saturday morning that she had passed.

Mansa Musa:

How long did it take? Okay, because like I said, I’ve been in this space. I did 48 years prior to being released. I got five years coming up. I’ll be out five years December the 5th, but I did 48 years. When I first went in the ’70s, you had fans on the wall. It was these steel cells. It’d be so hot that the paint would literally be peeling off the wall and we ain’t get no ice. Back then, you ain’t get no ice.

But talk about how long, first of all, how long did it take for them to respond before we go into unpacking the conditions? Because it’s my understanding this is not new to this environment. How long did it take for them to respond to her, to get to her before they was able to get her to a unit where she would get treated properly to your knowledge?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

They said the total amount of time, it was about 12 minutes. So it took about three minutes for the CO to get down the hallway, unlock the door, assist the situation, hit the button, and then go to the door, let wait for the medical staff, bring the gurney, walk to them, and-

Mansa Musa:

Take another 15 minutes to get across to y’all.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Yeah, to get across the yard.

Mansa Musa:

So all together is a total of 35 to 40 minutes.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

No, no, actually it wasn’t that long because remember, each yard has their own medical unit, has their own medical thing, so the nurses there came with a gurney. It was about 13 minutes.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, it’s 13 minutes too long.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

It’s 13 minutes too long. She’s already suffering.

Mansa Musa:

And the reality is, the reality is that, okay, we recognized and this is in the United States of America, this is not isolated to this California prison, we recognized that the heat wave was going across this country. We recognized… I was in Vegas and it was 115 and I went outside and I did something every three minutes and came back in. That’s how burned the heat was. But it wasn’t so much the heat, it was just like the lack of air. It was just like not told. So I know from experience, but more importantly, I know from experience from being in that space.

Talk about now… My understanding is that this is not the first time that this institution or the California prisons has been cited for not being prepared to deal with the heat or elements, period. Talk about, to your knowledge, has it changed? How long did you do before you was released?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

I did 10 years.

Mansa Musa:

All right, so you can walk us back. So has the conditions staying there, have they gotten any better during the course of your incarceration?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

No, they’ve only progressively gotten worse because of course the equipment is becoming more and more dilapidated and over time and it hasn’t been replaced. And I worked on those maintenance crews that did the preventative maintenance that’s supposed to happen every winter in preparation for the summer. So I know what those preventative maintenance procedures look like. They’re just walkthroughs and just procedural and just checkoffs as opposed to actually things being really done to actually prepare. And so those cooling units or those swamp coolers actually are not doing the jobs that they’re doing.

Mansa Musa:

So what exactly are they for our audience? Because I know they got… I told you, the women at the correction at the county, the detention center in Baltimore City, they had got an injunction. They brought coolers, what you see on the football fields. They grown a cooling station. They grown and ran these pipes and ran these conduits all through the prison was popping in air the whole entire time because it got so hot that they didn’t have the amenities that modern prison have in terms of fans or air or be able to cool down the [inaudible 00:12:08], So they was able to get that done. So talk about what they got compared to what they should have.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

So they have swamp cooler systems that sit at the top of the roofs of every unit. However, those units, those units are connected to piping systems that pump water because of course swamp coolers need a flow of water in order for them to work. So what’s happened is that each of those units, when you run them, now the water leaks into the ceilings and now they leak into the buildings when they run them and cause more problems. And now you have leaking into the day rooms, leaking into the rooms, and so they’re causing more issues where the ceilings are falling in.

So what they end up doing is they end up not running them because of the fact that they know they’re going to cause more problems in the end and then they don’t have the people to come in or they don’t want to repair them and so they just don’t run it. And so they refuse to run or they run the air but not the water or the cut off the water line and just run the air but what ends up happening is the air will run, but after a while because the water’s not running, the engine will run hot and then it’ll pump out hot air.

Mansa Musa:

Hot air.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

And so that’s what happened on Friday.

Mansa Musa:

Right. I see. Yeah.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

That’s what ended up happening on Friday afternoon when we started Friday morning to get desperate pleas and cries for help. In the early morning hours of a lockdown status, we were getting… No, it was Saturday morning. Everyone had found out that Adrienne had passed away and they were all distraught about the passing, but then they were also all locked down and they were calling out to us and they were just getting ahold of all of us advocates saying, “We are locked down and the vents are pumping out hot air and we can’t breathe,” and they were saying, “We can’t breathe,” and then women were throwing up, they were having headaches, leg pain.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Heat exhaustion.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

And already it’s 113 that day, so the pipes were all running hot. They had no ice water because all of the ice machines in the institution except for one were all broke down. So they had no access to ice water, lack of staff, so nobody was out there trying to-

Mansa Musa:

Get ice.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

… solve the problem or get ice or make any phone calls outside to get any ice shipped in. And so nobody cared. And so everyone’s locked in their cells, up to eight people in a room, and then to add insult to injury, they’re pumping in hot air-

Mansa Musa:

Hot air.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

… from these things and they’re not even popping the doors open so that people can breathe. And half of the staff there that doesn’t give a crap is ignoring the women asking and begging to at least be let out a hallway by hallway to breathe in the day room. They’re not going to stab them. This is not the men’s joint. This is the women’s institution. All they want to do is just come out hallway by hallway.

Mansa Musa:

Breathe, so they can breathe.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Let them get some reprieve out of these ovens, I mean, these practical death chambers that are… I mean, it’s just crazy because not only… I mean, it would be better to be outside in 113 degree weather where you can actually breathe air and to be confined in a space that has no windows, no ventilation and then you’re pumping in hot air on top of that on top of breathing the air from your friend that’s-

Mansa Musa:

Everybody, all air being sucked up.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

… pressed up against you.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. Let me ask you this, Elizabeth. Okay, you just outlined that this been going on for a minute, right? Why haven’t they fixed this? Because we’re talking about at least it’s been in existence for at least five years, this system of cooling, air, water, cold air. Hot summer, California, always going to be hot. The environment ain’t going to change. You ain’t going to put no windows in it, you ain’t going to knock no windows off. You ain’t going to do none of that. You ain’t going to bring no air conditioning. Why haven’t this changed? What is the reason why the state of California has not invested money into changing this situation?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

They don’t care. They don’t care.

Mansa Musa:

All right. What’s the status of the environment now? Since now we got death and potential deaths on the way or potential irreversible injuries because of heat exhaustion, what is being done now by the California State Prison system, the Department of Correction in California? Because this ain’t only… If they got this attitude towards women prison, and this is a general attitude towards prisoners in general, women prisoners, men prisoners, juvenile prisoners, kid prisoners, prisoners in general, you going to die, well, so be it.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Right? I mean, so in terms of California Department of Corrections, or specifically for what has happened following our advocacy at CCWF, we had immediately after these cries for help, we immediately put out a press release in response to Adrienne’s passing or Adrienne’s death, and also too, putting out specifically the cries for help, and we did it quoting folks and quoting the emails and text messages we were receiving with their permission. And we put it out to every news agency that would listen to us and all of our social media, all of our social media platforms so that folks could see and we could get as much support that we could in the general public.

And the response was overwhelming. We went viral within the hour of placing that out. And so I spent the good part of the rest of that day and the following next day doing interviews and talking with people and sharing just the stories of my folks on the inside, what they were going through and how it consistently continues to be this way year after year, summer after summer, and they’re burning them up in the summer and freezing them out in the winter.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, freezing them out in the winter.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

That’s how it is. And it never changes. And so in response to our advocacy, our ongoing pressure that we were putting on CDCR and the administration there at the institution, they had immediately went to work on getting those ice machines back online. They immediately went to work on purchasing additional igloos so that each unit could have two igloos at all times. And then they immediately started to open up each of the trailers that have a AC units in those trailers that they usually have like NA, AA classes.

Mansa Musa:

I got you, I got you.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

So they open those up as cooling stations when the temperatures go up, when they go up to above 90 degrees. So these things have aggressively gotten better. However, in order for those igloos to be filled with ice and filled with water, to get those in there, you have to have staff that want to do it. So then we’re getting those staff members that are petty, and so then we’re finding out, oh, we’re getting staff that will fill the ice chest with 80% water and only a small scoop of ice and then by the time you get the igloo from the kitchen to the unit, that thing is already melted, so that’s the kind of attitude you get from inside from people from those, I’m sorry, from those pigs, that don’t give a crap-

Mansa Musa:

Yes, yes, they are.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

… that don’t give a crap and they’re retaliating against for what? For people, all they’re trying to do is stay alive and they don’t want to give people that right to advocate for their own lives. They’re not asking for much, they’re just asking [inaudible 00:22:26]-

Mansa Musa:

Let me ask you this, what’s the security status of that particular concentration camp?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Well, women’s prisons… Well, this particular women’s prison is the highest security women’s prison.

Mansa Musa:

So it’s max? It’s max medium?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Yeah, because actually, CCWF was the only institution in the state that housed death row.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, so it’s max medium.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

So you had everyone from death row to level ones.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right. Let me offer this though, for clarity, right? The sister that passed away, her name was Adrienne?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Adrienne Boulware.

Mansa Musa:

Well, Adrienne was murdered. That wasn’t-

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Yes, yes.

Mansa Musa:

That’s murder. There’s no way you can describe that but when you take [inaudible 00:23:15]-

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Let me be clear that the institution and CDCRs went on the record to state that she had passed away from a preexisting health condition.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. The preexisting health condition was neglect of taking care of me and providing me with the adequate medical attention that I need. That’s neglect, neglect turned into murder. But okay, going forward.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

In any heat advisory in the free world that comes up on every billboard, on every [inaudible 00:23:48], when they tell you to be aware or be careful, they tell you to be careful in this heat of your family members and your elderly who have what? Preexisting health conditions.

Mansa Musa:

Right, and-

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

They’re at risk.

Mansa Musa:

And then we not confused by this because we recognize that if she was in society and left in a car by anybody under the same conditions and died, they would lock them up for a homicide or involuntary manslaughter. So the fact that she was held on a plantation, under the new form of plantation, prison industrial complex, the fact that she was in that environment, they tend to minimize her existence and her being a human being, but we here to tell them right now that this is murder.

And I’m imploring y’all to at some point in time come to that place where y’all try to get some redress around that, around why did she have to die, because as you said earlier, okay, they’re putting these things into place, which is good, but the fact of the matter is if you don’t change the attitude of the pigs, if you don’t change the attitude of the institution, then somebody else is waiting in the wings to die and they justify it by saying, “Oh, they died because they had preexisting conditions and it wasn’t the fact that we was neglectful in getting them treatment or putting them in an environment that did not exasperate these preexisting conditions. That ain’t had nothing to do with it. It was just the fact that they wasn’t healthy and their health contributed to them dying.” But going forward, what do you want our audience to know?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

So basically what I would like your audience to know is that California Coalition for Women Prisoners is not done with this fight. We are going to take this fight to the legislative level and we are going to take specific asks to the legislation and these asks are going to look like short-term asks, but also some long-term asks. At the short-term level, we want every person inside every institution in California to be given state-issued cooling rags. Such an easy thing. Just cooling rags, just something that could provide immediate relief that you and I and the free world no big deal could get at the 99 Cent Store.

Also, too, is that we want also state-issued fans issued to every person that’s incarcerated. That is not a hard ask because a fan that’s issued is cheap. They are not expensive compared to the medical expense to deal with heat-related issues that come up because of the heat, extreme heat. Issuing a fan upon a person’s intake or person being booked into the prison is actually a cheap ask. If any legislator wants to push back on that because of budget, that is one of our asks.

The other thing is we want cold water dispensers accessible in every unit and not cheaply. We want it always to stay cold. So we want that to be accessible and we don’t want it held back from anyone in any lockdown situation. If someone needs that water, there needs to be a protocol in a way that that person, whether they’re in their cell or outside, be able to access that water or get that-

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, water. We talking about water, cold water.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

[inaudible 00:27:38] at any time they need.

Mansa Musa:

That’s all. Yeah. Cold water. That’s all. Cold water.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Cold water and not tepid water. They can get that from the [inaudible 00:27:46]-

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, we asking them for cold water. Cold water, that’s all.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Cold ice water.

Mansa Musa:

We didn’t ask for you to go melt the ice glacier to bring it in there and import it from Alaska. We just asking you to make the water cold and give us access to it as we need it. Come on.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

So long-term asks, we would like AC, not swamp coolers.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, we want the same thing they getting cool with. Same thing they getting cool with. We want the same thing.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

We want two units installed because the inclement weather is not getting any better. Climate change is causing it to get worse. And so it’s unavoidable. AC units must be installed in every unit in every prison, and I’m just saying starting with the Central Valley, because the weather there is more clocked 100 degree weather, simultaneous 100 degree weather in the Central Valley than any area of California statistically. So that’s a great place to start.

And I will say this. I received Intel that a year ago the institution had purchased brand new chillers and signed a contract to have those installed and installed one in one unit in the institution and somehow ran out of the funds to install any chillers.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, what happened to the money? What happened to the money? Yeah.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

All of those chillers are sitting in the warehouse.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. What happened to that money? Yeah. What happened to that money?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

What happened to that money? Who misappropriated those funds to complete the installation project and why did Adrienne have to die because of it?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. And also, I think that y’all need to ask that they do an internal investigation on that right there because this been going on far too long.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Don’t you worry about the thing, brother. I got that.

Mansa Musa:

See, one thing, I just recently became aware of it but this been going on for a while and then Adrienne was murdered. Her murder should be the reason why they should feel like they should be hard-pressed to resolve it. But how can our audience get in touch with you and support what y’all are doing?

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Well, right now, the Adrienne Boulware family is asking for support to help them not only with funeral expenses, but they would like to fund their own independent autopsy. And so we are assisting them in supporting their GoFundMe fundraiser. And so I do have a link for that. I will forward that to you if you don’t already have it already, and also to an ongoing support of the work that CCWP has. CCWP, California Coalition for Women Prisoners dot org, is our webpage and you can connect with us or you can also connect with us on our Instagram @ccwp and that’s our Instagram handle.

Mansa Musa:

Thank you, Liz. And there you have it, real news rattling the bars. This is not a big ask. Just imagine somebody asking you say, “Listen, just give me a wet rag, cool wet rag to put on my head to lower my temperature.” That’s not a big ask. Just imagine somebody ask, you say, “Can I just get a cold drink of water?” That’s not a big ask. All the women in California ask to be treated like human beings. And as a result of being treated inhuman, someone has been murdered, not died from preexisting conditions, but died from the fact that they was neglected. We ask that you look into this. We ask that you evaluate this report and support the women in the California prison system, but more importantly, we ask that you write your congressmen or get involved with this because this is a problem. There you have it. Rattling the bars, the real news. Thank you.

Elizabeth “Leesa” Nomura:

Thank you.

The modern prison system’s origins in slavery can be seen in telltale signs throughout the system. The system of chattel slavery had no incentive to keep Black families together—in fact, separation was deliberately used to punish the enslaved. Today, the prison system mirrors this in its treatment of families of the incarcerated. Prisoners are denied the opportunity to be fully present parents by the nature of their condition, and further separation from family through visitation denial, relocation, and other means are used as a way to punish and torture inmates. Ernest Boykin, a father of seven, speaks on his personal experience as a formerly incarcerated parent—and everything he did to ensure that he would remain in his children’s lives despite the system’s efforts to deny him that right.

Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

Today, we’ll be doing a series on Father’s Day. And more importantly, we’ll be doing a series on the impact the criminal injustice system has on incarcerated parents, or more importantly, on the family overall.

Joining me today is an extraordinary individual to talk about being a parent, being a Justice Impact parent. More importantly, being a upright, standup Black man. Ernest, welcome to Rattling the Bars.

Ernest Boykin:

Hey, I’m sorry I do call you Mr. Hopkins. But yeah, Mansa, thank you. You made me feel like I was on a Shannon Sharpe Show, man, with that introduction.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, we a little better than Shannon Sharpe. Plus, we not trying to get the ratings.

Ernest Boykin:

Exactly.

Mansa Musa:

We trying to get the story out, The Real News. But let’s talk about Father’s Day.

Now, in full disclosure, me and Ernest was in a program called Georgetown Pivot. That’s where I first met Ernest at.

We was either doing something about telling something about ourselves. We was going around; this was our first introduction to everybody coming on in that space together. We had seen each other when we was registered up at the school. But this was during the time of COVID, so we was on Zoom.

And when they got to you, this is what impressed me the most about everything that you said. But then once I got to know you, I really realized that you are an extraordinary individual.

Ernest Boykin:

Well, thank you.

Mansa Musa:

You might not present yourself like that all the time, but in terms of who you are as a person, I recognize that.

But this is what stuck out with me on something you said, when you talked about your children. I’m going to let you tell our audience, first of all, a little bit about yourself and some of the things that you’re doing. Then, we’ll get into that.

Ernest Boykin:

Okay. Well thanks, Mansa. Yeah. My name’s Ernest Boykin. I’m a father of seven. I have probably every age child that you could think of. No, I’m sorry. I have two in college. I have two under two years old right now, I have a couple in the middle, and I’m proud of them. They’re all the lights of my life.

When I was away, that’s what kept me grounded. Looking at their pictures or talking to them on the phone and things like that.

Currently I’m the part owner of a Straight Route Trucking. We’re a trucking company out of Washington, DC. We move cargo from point to point all across the United States of America. I started that with my life partner, Brisa, and we’ve been in business since 2022.

Mansa Musa:

Okay. Now let’s talk about your children. How much time did you serve prior to being released?

Ernest Boykin:

I served approximately six-and-a-half years.

Mansa Musa:

Okay, in the six-and-a-half years you had, how many children did you have when you left the street?

Ernest Boykin:

I had five children. And I’m not just talking about biological.

Mansa Musa:

I know, yeah. We talking about children.

Ernest Boykin:

Children, yeah, people that I was responsible for. Five individuals.

Mansa Musa:

All right. And in terms of when you got arrested and ultimately sentenced, who was responsible for taking care of your children?

Ernest Boykin:

Well, their mom; it fell all on their mom. It fell on my parents too, because my kids’ mom and I really weren’t getting along.

So during the school year, the court had awarded me custody and guardianship over the children, because I was sending my kids to private school. When the kids were living with their mom, she tried to put them in public school. But the court felt like they were getting a better education in private school. So they sided with me and let me control that.

Mansa Musa:

While you was incarcerated?

Ernest Boykin:

No, no, before I was in prison.

Mansa Musa:

Before you got in. Okay, go ahead.

Ernest Boykin:

Before I went to prison. So it was a situation where my parents kept them until school let out, and then they went with their mom. So my parents shared in some of the responsibility, and my kid’s mom. It was pretty much her responsibility to deal with all the children herself.

Mansa Musa:

Because this is important for our audience to understand that when a parent is incarcerated, the impact that incarceration has on the family. But more importantly, when the parent has children, men or women.

How did you maintain your relationship with your children, and then maintain that relationship? What type of impact can you say you had on them that you can look at today and say, “Because of this, they’re like this”?

Ernest Boykin:

Yes, it was very difficult to maintain that relationship. But the reason why I was able to do it was because I wanted to do it.

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

Anytime I tell myself I want to do something, I do it. And it didn’t matter that I was in prison versus being free.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Ernest Boykin:

I felt like I was still going to be a parent to my children. I didn’t feel like the walls could stop me from being a parent to my children. So where there was opportunities for me to talk to them on the phone multiple times a day, I would do that.

If I had to write them multiple times a day, or multiple times a week or once a day, whatever I felt was necessary at that time for me to keep a connection and bond with them, I did it.

Mansa Musa:

In that regard, because that’s the thing I’m going to flesh out. Because that’s the thing that I think that society in general don’t recognize how impactful that is.

I’ve been in spaces where I’ve seen men, biological children, or not biological children, would raise them from behind the door, behind the wall, behind the fence. And they come to them for all the advice. They come to them for guidance, they come to them from a direction.

How did that play out in your relationship with your children? How did your children respond to you in terms of, 1), being incarcerated, and 2), respond to you in terms of recognizing that regardless of your location, that is my father and I’m going to listen to what my father say? Or was they defying, like, “Well, you ain’t here, man. Why you going to tell me what to do?”

Ernest Boykin:

It is funny you say that because it does happen. If your kids’ mom shows you respect to the kids-

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

… then it makes it easy for the kids to show respect to you. But if they see conflict between the kids’ mom and yourself, then the kids are forced to choose a side between parents.

And that’s where the difficulty comes in to parent your children: especially if you have girls and you’re a man, they’re going to naturally side with their mom.

And then also if you have boys, boys are going to feel protective of their mother, so they’re going to side with their mom. So you’re kind of in a lose-lose situation a lot of times. And you can’t get aggressive with them because if you get aggressive with your children while you’re away, it doesn’t hit home the same way you might think it would.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Ernest Boykin:

When you’re face-to-face with your child, you may have to discipline them by talking to them more stern or whatever you have to do to discipline your children. It does not hit the same over the phone, because they definitely know that you’re not there.

But it’s up to Mom or Grandma or Grandpa or uncles to reinforce things that you say. And say, “Hey, don’t forget your dad said that, or your dad said this. I’m going to tell your dad when your report card gets here.”

Or, “Yeah, your dad said that if you do good in school, he’s going to send you some money.” Things like that, it helps out a lot.

Mansa Musa:

And you know what? That right there, how much of a strain was that on you in terms of maintaining your mentality? Because we looking at prison and then okay, you trying to be a parent. This is the foremost thing on your mind: getting out so you can take care of your children.

But at the same time, you in the gladiator school. You in a joint where at any given day, like on lockdown: something that happen lockdown. How was you able to stay focused, and not get caught up in the environment because of frustration from not being able to hug, hold, or console your children in time of need?

Ernest Boykin:

I think I was, I mean, for lack of a better word, lucky. I just think that I was blessed, fortunate to get through that because I’ve seen people get hurt for less, for nothing.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

People just get beat up or abused by the staff or the officers for nothing.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Ernest Boykin:

So fortunately enough, the way that I maneuvered my way through it was just to mind my business, focus on me, and invest every minute of the day and to try to better myself. So that when I got another shot, because I knew I was going to get another shot.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

It was all about when I would get another shot.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Ernest Boykin:

It was like, “Just be ready so that when I get my next shot, I can do everything that I need to do to win.”

Mansa Musa:

Right. Let’s unpack some of what you spoke about about the prison environment.

Why you think the system, the prison industrial complex, the new plantation, why you think they don’t encourage or they don’t promote or they don’t support building a family unit? Or aid and assisting the parents in maintaining some type of connection with their children? Why you think that’s not on the radar?

Because I know for a fact, and you know this yourself, every program that exists in the prison system, if it deal with anything relative to family, if it deal with anything relative to counseling, if it deal with anything relative to networking with society, prisoners came up with ideas in them laboratories, in them thinking tanks, and put them things into effect.

Why do you think this is not something that the Bureau of Prisons or any institution doesn’t try to perpetuate?

Ernest Boykin:

Yeah, it’s funny you asked that question. Because I remember these guys in the law library said that in the prison handbook, it says it’s the responsibility of the prison to maintain family ties.

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

It says that in the handbook. And we would use that line right there when they try to justify sending you far away from your family, or when they try to justify leaving you in the hole without phone calls or without visits and things like that.

Just like you said, man, the prison industrial complex is a direct reflection of slavery. If you’ve ever watched Roots or did any research about slavery, you’ve seen how families were split up and divided. That was a way that they used to discipline people, and they continue to do that through the BOP.

They split up families and send you far away to make it hard for your family to come visit you as a way to discipline you if they don’t like you. And that’s not right.

Also, anything that you can see on a slavery movie or documentary or anything, when you think about it, it’s kind of the same thing.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

You got people working for nothing.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

If you in prison, you got people working for nothing.

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

You got people for years and years and years. They can’t leave this one little-

Mansa Musa:

Plot of land.

Ernest Boykin:

… spot of land.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

And you got people in prison doing the same thing, walking around in a circle.

Mansa Musa:

That’s right.

Ernest Boykin:

All day long.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

You know?

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, come on.

Ernest Boykin:

And then when you get mad for people for sticking up for themselves, you beat them. You give them diesel therapy.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

Or you [inaudible 00:14:17]

Mansa Musa:

Tell them about diesel, because our audience don’t know know diesel therapy.

Ernest Boykin:

Diesel therapy; I’ve been through it; is when they put you on that bus for weeks and weeks at a time. And you’re just eating out of a bag; you’re only eating bag lunches. You’re not getting a hot meal ever. Your mail doesn’t catch up with you.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that’s torture.

Ernest Boykin:

You can’t get a visit, you can’t use the phone. You waking up in a different city every day, and you’re sleeping in the hole of every jail every time you stop. It’s a lot.

Mansa Musa:

Let’s talk about this here. Okay, because we recognize that the prison industrial complex is the new form of slavery. 13th Amendment justifies that.

We recognize also that when it comes to family unification, and that’s not even on the radar when it comes to the prison industrial complex. Why why do you think this system right here as it exists now continue to stay in this space?

Like you say, 1), like in the District of Columbia, if you’re under federal jurisdiction, you might wind up in wherever United States territory. Wherever it’s United States territory, that’s where you could wind up at.

Ernest Boykin:

Mm-hmm.

Mansa Musa:

2), in terms of allow you to have access to your family.

Ernest Boykin:

[inaudible 00:15:55] Excuse me.

Mansa Musa:

They don’t. And lastly, what impact does that have, from your perspective, on the general population? How did you see that plan out in the general population?

‘Cause we know when they had Lorton, and Lorton was the prison that was in under the District of Columbia’s government. We know when they had Lorton, that it was a correlation between the community and Lorton.

When people got out, came out of Lorton, they went back to the District of Columbia. And they did progressive things in the community, because that was their town. That’s where they was from.

But now you have a situation where you in Walla Walla, Washington. Next time you look up, you in Florida. Next time you look up, you in South Carolina. Next time you look up, you on your way out. Now you in Ohio.

From your experience and your insight, how did that play on the mentality of the prison population?

Ernest Boykin:

Well, most people don’t have to experience going outside of their boundaries. But the people who usually have to experience that are the Washington DC inmates.

Mansa Musa:

Come on.

Ernest Boykin:

And if you’re a 007 inmate or 016 inmate or 000 or something like that, then nine times out of 10, the BOP will send you out of boundaries because they had a label on guys from Washington DC.

They tried to take it out on the DC guys by sending us far away from home, so that we couldn’t get visits. Because they felt like if we got visits, then that would just empower us more. Or it just would be too much like right.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

So just because guys from Washington probably were a little more aggressive or more joking about doing the time because of the culture; people coming from Lorton, they was doing time. And they wasn’t doing time like that in every other prison across the country.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

So the people’s attitude was totally different.

Mansa Musa:

Let me ask you this here. All right, so now you get out.

Ernest Boykin:

Yes sir.

Mansa Musa:

Right? Now you get out of prison and you got the opportunity to be with your children.

What was that like? When you got out, and now not only do you got the opportunity to be with them, but now in your mind, what?

Ernest Boykin:

When I got home and saw my kids for the first time without having a CO or a window, a partition or some chains on or something, that was a magical feeling. It was great.

They all hugged me and they didn’t want to let go, every last one of them. I mean, when I got home, my kids was grown, most of them. Well, not most of them, they were older teenagers.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

I had one that was 20. And he hugged me probably for 10 minutes before letting go, crying like a baby.

Then I had my baby boy at the time, he tried to slide $30 in my pocket. He said, “Hey Dad, I was cutting grass because I wanted you to have some money in your pocket when you came home.”

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

And that really touched me. Then my other son, he fired up the grill. And he was cooking some hot dogs and burgers on the grill for me. So I really felt great in that moment.

My daughter, I was just shocked to see how mature she had gotten. I felt like she didn’t have enough clothes on, and I tried to say something to her about it. I just wasn’t ready.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah. Right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

She was not the little girl that I left.

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Ernest Boykin:

And just to let you know, my first day was magical. But every day after that was very hard, because I had expected the kids to be one way and feel one way about me coming home. And the kids that had expected me to be another way, and they thought that I owed them something.

I was like, “Hey man, you guys, don’t you remember everything I’ve done for y’all? And don’t you remember when Dad was home, we had good times? And there are going to be good times again.”

And it had been so long that they really had forgotten the stability that a father brings to their family and their household. So they were really not trusting. They were really damaged.

Mansa Musa:

That’s the part that this prison industrial complex plays on. Like you say, it’s designed to create an atmosphere in the families that there’s no trust. It’s designed to create a thing where there’s no unity. It’s designed to create a situation where there’s no respect.

So if I’m getting visits, I’m taking care of my children and I’m trying to do things with my child over the phone and in the Visitors Room. But once I get out, because I didn’t have the opportunity to do that, or they didn’t create a mechanism within the prison industrial complex for me to have that kind of opportunity and access. Now, like you say, when you get out, it’s an expectation on everybody’s part.

But looking forward, because you said that it’s a struggle. And I think all parents coming out of the system are confronted with the [inaudible 00:22:16].

A friend of mine, he talking about he’d be struggling with his eldest son. They respect him, but at the same token, he had to be stern with him sometimes to try to get their attention. Like, “Look, I’m your father, no matter what. And I will put hands on you if that’s what it come to.” Right?

Ernest Boykin:

Right.

Mansa Musa:

But that’s the reality. But that don’t change. It’s no love, it’s lots of love there.

But looking now as we get ready to close out, looking ahead and looking where you at right now, what would your children say?

First off, what would your children say if I say, “Your father Ernest, how is your father? What’s your father like? What do you think they would say?

Ernest Boykin:

Oh, they imitate me all the time. They probably think I’m burnt out for real. Honestly, that time would burn you out a little bit, because it’s like I have so many stories from there. I always reference that period of my life when I’m trying to teach them a lesson.

Mansa Musa:

Right, right, right, right.

Ernest Boykin:

It could be anything. It could be like, “Yeah, don’t cut the line. Because if you cut the line in some places, man, some people might go upside the head.”

Mansa Musa:

You feel some kind of way about it, right?

Ernest Boykin:

“They’re not going to like it, and they might try to put the knife in you for that.”

And they be like, “For real dude, for cutting the line?”

And I’m like, “Yeah, it’s that serious.”

Mansa Musa:

Yeah.

Ernest Boykin:

So they probably might say that they definitely respect me. They’ve seen me start over from nothing, and actually build our family back up to better than it was before I went away.

Mansa Musa:

And what would somebody say like, “Man, what’s up with your kids, man?” What would you say about your kids? How would you identify?

Ernest Boykin:

I have great children. They’re very intelligent. They are all handsome and beautiful in my eyes. They’re generous people. They’re stand-up individuals. They don’t condone none of the things that society is making okay.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, that’s right.

Ernest Boykin:

They’re not on none of that. Right?

Mansa Musa:

Right.

Ernest Boykin:

They definitely understand that people who tell on people ruin people’s lives a lot of times. So they’re living in that culture where now they having to see, “Okay, what’s the difference between people snitching and what’s the difference between people trying to have a nice community?” You know what I’m saying?

Mansa Musa:

Right. I got you. I got you.

Ernest Boykin:

My kids are growing up now, and I don’t try to influence them to do anything other than to be good people and to be financially responsible.

Mansa Musa:

Let me ask you this here as we close out. How can people get in touch with you? And what are some of the things you’re doing now that you think people should be made aware of?

Ernest Boykin:

Yes. Oh, thank you. Well, you can always reach me at straightroutetrucking@gmail.com in reference to trucking, and in reference to just if you wanted to talk to me about justice reform or have me come out and speak or write, because I am an author. I should be publishing a book about re-entry in the end of this summer.

Also, I write for FAMM. I write articles about people who are over-sentenced or wrongfully accused and things like that.

But yeah, you can reach me at ernestboykiniii@gmail.com. That’s E-R-N-E-S-T B-O-Y-K-I-N I-I-I @gmail.com. You can even call me at 202-285-1153.

I really appreciate this opportunity, Mansa Musa. I really love what you guys are doing here. And I love this platform that you’ve built up, because you’re really, really giving a voice to the voiceless. And I’m big on that.

Mansa Musa:

You heard it, there you have it. Real dude Rattling the Bars. This is Ernest Boykin. You would never believe that after hearing this conversation, that this man was one time justice-involved, raised his children to be what he, by his own definition, responsible children, responsible members in society.

In the face of all the problems that our children are being confronted with, his children has risen above. And it’s because of his influence. And we can’t take this lightly.

We implore you to think about this. You can listen to what Ernest say. And it’s millions of other people like Ernest in the criminal injustice system: fathers, mothers that are raising their children from behind the walls and behind the fence.

Whereas you continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News. Because guess what? We really are the news.