 |
NEW 62" Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Pet Furniture List Price: $239.00 Sale Price: $82.95 Average Rating:   |
|
Armarkat cat tree was born in Staten Island, NY in Nov. 1994. Since Armarkat designs and produces nothing but cat furniture. This is one of the reasons Armarkat is a leader in the production of feline lifestyle products... |
The Bureau Of Prisons' Failure To Properly Implement The Second Chance Act Of 2007
Have They Become Too Autonomous?
A Position Paper from The MPM Group, Inc.
As of this writing, there are approximately 200,000 people being confined by the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), a component of the Department of Justice (DoJ). Their offenses span the spectrum from high treason, terrorism, or murder - to the more mundane like poaching deer on federal land. Interestingly, official government records will confirm that a majority of federal inmates are non-violent and non-weapon offenders that are incarcerated for comparatively low security violations, minor drug offenses, or white-collar related offenses. Nonetheless, the debate rages on how to reduce the federal prison population and, in turn, reduce the $5.53 billion (yes, that's a "B") BOP budget that was approved for fiscal year (FY) 2009.
In an effort to facilitate a federal inmate's return to society, reduce inmate recidivism, and bring the federal prison population to manageable levels, U.S. Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced House Resolution 1593 (H.R. 1593) in 2007. It was signed by President Bush, became Public Law 110-199 on April 9, 2008, and it became known as The 2nd Chance Act of 2007. In addition to its many Sections offering funding mechanisms for inmate re-entry programs, The 2nd Chance Act also increased a federal inmate's previous 6-month maximum allowed in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC), commonly referred to as a Halfway House, to a maximum of 12-months. The thought of course being, it would immediately reduce federal prison levels by allowing worthy non-violent offenders an opportunity to return to society, become gainfully employed, start paying income taxes, begin paying restitution to any victims, and most importantly, start supporting their own families. However, despite the intent of The 2nd Chance Act of 2007, and the logic that accompanied it, the BOP has again apparently decided to "implement" this very worthwhile Congressional mandate in the same cavalier manner that they handle most of the other ineffectual political or judicial attempts to "dictate policy" to BOP upper management - they simply ignore it. Consequently, prison populations are still increasing and American taxpayers continue to fund the $25,000 to $35,000 annual fee it reportedly requires to house each federal inmate.
How did we get to where we are today? Arguably, it was precipitated by the knee-jerk reaction of a few elected officials in their politically motivated, albeit failed, attempt to address the rise in violent drug related crimes that were proliferating our city streets during an election year. (Why does the rush to pass The Patriot Act come to mind?) As a direct result, The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (the Acts) overhauled the federal sentencing system and revised bail and forfeiture procedures along with other federal practices. They also abolished federal parole and mandated minimum-mandatory sentences for any federal offense. Consequently, this political faux pas took all sentencing discretion away from federal judges and began filling our federal prison system with a majority of non-violent offenders with no possible way for them to be prematurely released. Indeed, federal defendants could (and still can) be assured that they would serve at least 85% of any sentence they received - no matter how innocuous their offense might have been. Furthermore, should one consider that more than 94% of all infrastructure labor support (repair, landscaping, maintenance, kitchen, etc.) at BOP facilities is conducted by federal inmates, why would the BOP be in any hurry to release their 12-cents an hour labor force or tamper with their revenue generating UNICOR business interests? It might also explain why they refuse to honor the Congressionally mandated "good-time" provision for federal inmates and continue to drag that issue through the federal courts. We would suggest that you don't have to be a Wharton School graduate to conclude that the BOP currently enjoys the luxury of having a very large number of " not-so-bad" bad guys doing the lion's share of the work required to incarcerate a much smaller number of "truly-bad" bad guys.
From 1984 until today, the BOP has been demonstrating what can only be described as a consistent and conscious attempt to move farther and farther away from any accountability to Congress, federal judges, or anyone else for that matter. Initially supported by elected officials (who always seem to be working on their re-election), coupled with the oft-times well-deserved national hysteria of crime victims, the BOP has been allowed to create their own little fiefdom within the DoJ and now appear to be enjoying unprecedented powers and an autonomy or an "institutional arrogance," if you will, that has heretofore been reserved for the likes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who coincidentally, also happen to be a component of the DoJ.
Although pretty much "neutered" in sentencing matters by the Acts of 1984, some federal judges mistakenly believed that they remained sacrosanct in their own courtrooms. In fact, some even had the temerity to suggest that judicial recommendations to the BOP on defendant designations, rehabilitation treatments, and other issues delineated within the court's Judgment & Commitment Orders should be honored. Several subsequent cases to include the First Circuit case, United States v. Dennis Guerette (District of Maine Docket CR-03-95-B-W) nipped that presumptuous thought in the bud,
".....[d]ecisions to place a convicted defendant within a particular treatment program or a particular facility are decisions within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons. United States v. Melendez, 279 F.3d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (per curiam), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 (2002) (quoting Thye v. United States, 109 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir. 1997)). A sentencing court's recommendation to the BOP is both "non-binding" and "non-reviewable and its failure to recommend is similarly 'non-appealable.' Id"
In these days of economic uncertainty and Congressional oversight into anything with a financial pulse, one can only imagine how far "below-the-radar" the BOP must be operating - or are they? Notwithstanding various credible and well-publicized allegations, multiple state/federal investigations, and subsequent contracting fraud indictments targeting various business associates, Keefe Group of St. Louis has consistently been awarded the extremely lucrative contract within the BOP to supply food stuffs to all the BOP prison commissaries throughout the United States. Contracts that stand to earn several million dollars in annual profits, yet when questioned about these well-documented contracting improprieties or, at the minimum, the appearance of an egregious conflict-of-interest, the consistently unflappable BOP continues business as usual. Interestingly, the same reaction they have when asked to explain why they charge indigent federal inmates and/or their families more than seven times the average cost of a telephone call from a federal penal facility. A long distance telephone service contract that is being awarded with about the same transparency as the Keefe Group contract. Little wonder why BOP Correctional Officers can find more cell phones in a minimum-security federal prison camp than a college sorority house.
Speaking of bidding on contracts, how about the even more lucrative BOP medications contracts that have been consistently awarded to McKesson Corporation. A company that has been investigated by both the Department of Justice (various U.S. Attorneys Offices) as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, eventually leading to some high-ranking executives being federally indicted. In fact, one May 2008, incident in the District of Maryland required McKesson to pay the government a $13-million dollar fine for among other things, "...allegations that it violated federal reporting provisions relating to the sale of certain prescription medications." Sounds suspiciously like an articulate way of saying they were "selling dope." In any event, such minor indiscretions never dissuaded the BOP contracting officers from continuing to award extremely lucrative contracts for McKesson to provide "generic" medications for federal inmates and do so even while these various federal investigations were still being conducted. Due to limited space here, we won't even open the "Pandora's Box" of BOP Government Purchase Orders (GPO) - Duraskin Gloves from Indonesia, T-shirts from Pakistan, Hypard products from China, Gildan merchandise from Honduras, cloth and other products from Vietnam and Mexico. Are we, as American taxpayers, to understand that our American factory workers are incapable of manufacturing a single item that the BOP can use or does the BOP simply not have any credible government contract oversight? Indeed, any oversight at all?
In addition to these head-scratchers, should the opportunity ever present itself, we would certainly make ourselves available to discuss the mass removal of heretofore well-qualified contract medical officers from the BOP, many of whom were replaced by much lower paid graduates from "lesser known" medical schools and, in some cases, even replaced by Physician's Assistants (PA) and/or Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). The recent and arbitrary discontinuation of any kind of medically acceptable and/or effective pain medication from the BOP Formulary - replacing them exclusively with Gabapentin (Neurotin). The infamous and well-traveled BOP "spider" that has apparently bit every BOP inmate that has ever contracted MRSA inside a BOP facility, the recent unexplained deaths of incarcerated inmates in West Virginia and Texas from something other than prison violence, the recent riots in Texas BOP facilities. Lastly, of specific interest to us would be a detailed BOP senior management accountability of revenues generated by the BOP from reduced/unpaid inmate salaries, inmate TRULINC and copier fees, re-cycling contracts, UNICOR profits, inmate commissary and long distance telephone profits, monies saved from "low-bid" food purchases - all the while failing to backfill several vacant positions causing the understaffing of the more violent BOP facilities thus, exposing the remaining overworked and underpaid Correctional Officers to more than usual violence that is usually encountered in those specific facilities. The list of "Talking Points" could go on and on, but we have limited time/space and we digress. Therefore, back to The 2nd Chance Act of 2007.
In order to comply with implementation requirements set forth in The 2nd Chance Act language, Federal Register, Volume 73, No. 204, pp. 62440-62443, the BOP set forth their policy to implement The 2nd Chance Act of 2007. Of specific interest was Section 570.21, wherein the BOP delineated the maximum of 12-months of RRC time a federal inmate was permitted under the Act. However, even a cursory review of the policy will confirm the BOP's usual practice of leaving enough policy "wiggle room" that the benefits afforded by the Act can neither be implemented uniformly throughout the BOP nor can the BOP ever be held legally accountable for their failure to do so. Indeed, as one Washington insider once opined about a similar situation, "It was one of those Washington assertions that is simultaneously accurate and deceptive and just confusing enough to defy opposition." Resultantly, every Warden and/or every Regional Director within the BOP would now appear to have the unilateral authority to dictate how much Halfway House time an inmate in their facility should receive. Consequently, you have inmates receiving 10-months in one facility and another more deserving candidate receiving less than 3-months in another. We would respectfully suggest that this type of "selective" policy implementation was not what Congressman Davis intended when he drafted the Act in 2007.
That said, nobody can argue that the BOP rank and file do an outstanding job in a dangerous and thankless job. Indeed, given the nature of the mission and the type of dangerous individuals involved, the federal penal system is unquestionably one of the best in the world. Best selling author John Grisham confirmed as much when he suggested in his best selling novel The Brethren, "If you have to do time - do federal time." However, notwithstanding our admiration for the work of the BOP correctional cadre, we will continue to encourage debate about the wisdom of our elected officials passing laws or policies and then delegating the authority to implement (and adhere to) that policy to the very agency management officials that the policies are designed to govern. Indeed, after The Patriot Act was passed, FBI agents, as well as other government entities, were admittedly monitoring privileged electronic communications and throwing around National Security Letters and Administrative Subpoenas with little (actually, none whatsoever) regard for the "spirit-of-the-Act" or individual civil rights. Today, with the BOP and The Second Chance Act of 2007, "It's Déjà Vu all over again." Even last ditch Congressional inquiries from family members, friends, or lawyers are usually being handled by the lowest ranking aide in the Congressman's office and done so usually as a vexatious collateral duty. This 20-something intern will no doubt get a response back from a well-versed and politically savvy BOP Congressional liaison who appeases them (and their inexperience) with a some type of in-the-can generic form letter or email response marked "High Priority," "Sensitive," or some other impressive heading, yet lacks any semblance of a meaningful response to the initial question.
Should we point fingers, the BOP's ability to develop such unprecedented (and apparently unchecked) power can partially fall directly on the shoulders of certain federal inmates who were "amused to abuse" the legal process by filing repeated and frivolous complaints and/or torts claims. Conduct that eventually facilitated the strict implementation of both the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA). As a result, every inmate is now relegated to filing everything through the labor intensive and intentionally time consuming BOP Administrative Remedy Process. Unfortunately, despite the purpose of this Process, it would appear that BOP management has now, yet not surprisingly, developed the Administrative Remedy Process into their own self-managed and personally supervised shell game to hide and delay formal responses to inmates - or any other outside inquiries for that matter. In fact, they have turned it into an art form and, wait for it, there is no appeal, other than filing another tort claim. We know, George Orwell couldn't make this stuff up.
In conclusion, how do we properly and uniformly implement The 2nd Chance Act of 2007, and do so in the spirit for which it was developed? Actually, it's relatively simple, we need to develop an outside oversight committee for the BOP. A group of individuals that are tasked and empowered with the authority to ensure that BOP senior management properly runs this massive government "cash cow" and does so in full and transparent compliance with Congressional and judicial mandates. Has anyone on Capitol Hill ever read Lord Acton?
However, as comedian Dennis Miller would say, "This is just our opinion, we may be wrong."
About the Author
The MPM Group, Inc. are nationally recognized and court adjudicated experts in complex litigation support, sentence mitigation issues, and federal prison advocacy isues. They can be reached at www.TheMPMGroup.com
 |
 37 Cat Tree House Condo 98 Scratcher Post Furniture  US $.99
|
 33 Cat Tree House Condo 506 Scratcher Post Furniture US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F2041 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F72 Black US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F20 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree Bed House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F35 US $9.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F2029 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F04 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Toy Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F21 US $.99
|
 48 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F43 US $.99
|
 72 CAT TREE HOUSE SCRATCHER PET POST BED FURNITURE TOY US $139.90
|
 Cat Tree House Toy Condo Scratcher Post Furniture FC04 US $9.99
|
 Cat Tree House Toy Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F2038 US $.99
|
 72 Cat Tree House Condo 003 4 Scratcher Post Furniture US $.99
|
 72 Cat Tree House Condo 008 Scratcher Post Furniture US $.99
|
 64 Cat Tree House Toy Bed Scratcher Post Furniture F11 US $.99
|
 38 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F38 US $.99
|
 78 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F2029 US $.99
|
 HUGE Cat Tree Toy House Scratcher Post Furniture FC01 US $9.99
|
 72 Cat Tree House Scratcher Post Furniture F2041 Beige US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F72 Blue US $.99
|
 CARPET Cat Tree House Bed Scratcher Post Furniture SF06 US $9.99
|
 49 Cat Tree House Toy Bed Scratcher Post Furniture F41 US $.99
|
 70 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F72 US $.99
|
 80 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F2030 US $.99
|
 64 CAT TREE HOUSE SCRATCHER POST BED PET FURNITURE TOY US $62.95
|
 68 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed310 US $69.99
|
 55 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 03 US $34.99
|
 53 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 38 US $54.99
|
 72 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 13 US $69.99
|
 50 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 37 US $29.99
|
 65 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 14 US $49.99
|
 57 Cat Tree Condo House Scratcher Pet Furniture bed 04 US $34.99
|
 New Pet Cat Tree Furniture Scratcher House CT1258 US $29.99
|
 Cat Tree Toy House Condo Scratcher Pet Furniture F25 US $59.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 72B US $154.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 64C US $135.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 62C US $129.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 80B US $193.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 78C US $189.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 64B US $135.99
|
 Cat Tree House Furniture Condo Scratcher Bed Toys 62B US $129.99
|
 Catnip Cat Scratcher Cat House Cat Playhouse US $17.99
|
 Chicago Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture US $89.99
|
 Cat Scratcher Toy House Cave US $25.00
|
 PET CAT TREE CONDO HOUSE TOWER SCRATCHER FURNITURE BED US $24.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F05 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F19 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree Bed House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F37 US $.99
|
 Cat Tree Bed House Condo Scratcher Post Furniture F29 US $.99
|
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
|
NEW 62" Cat Tree House Condo Scratcher Pet Furniture List Price: $239.00 Sale Price: $82.95 Average Rating: |
|
Armarkat cat tree was born in Staten Island, NY in Nov. 1994. Since Armarkat designs and produces nothing but cat furniture. This is one of the reasons Armarkat is a leader in the production of feline lifestyle products... |
 |
SmartCat Perch for the Ultimate Scratching Post List Price: $23.99 Sale Price: $14.88 Average Rating:  |
|
Ultimate Post Perch fits securely on top of the Ultimate Scratching Post. Provides an elevated sleeping area that gives your cat a sense of security. Comes with a reversible, claw-safe quilted pad. |
 |
74" Jungle Gym Cat Tree Condo Scratcher Post Pet Bed Furniture -Beige List Price: $299.00 Sale Price: $112.00 Average Rating:  |
|
* Color: Beige * Overall Size: 50"(L)X26"(W)X74"(H) * Covering Material: Faux Fur * Board Material: Plywood * Base Board Size: 28" X 24" * Size of Condo: 20"(L)X14"(W)X12"(H); 14"(L)X14"(W)X12"(H) * Size of Perch: 14" X 14" * Number of Perches: Three * Number of Posts: Ten * Number of Levels: Fifteen * Easy to assemble with step by step instruction and tools * Max Holding Weight: 60 lbs * Suggested Retail Price: $299 |
 |
Telescopic Back Scratcher with Pocket Clip Sale Price: $6.95 |
|
Compact stainess steel back scratcher! This telescoping back scratcher easily fits into your purse or pocket and even has a pocket clip! The scratching hand has rounded ends for a nice, enjoyable back scratch... |
 |
Back Scratcher, Set of 2 #SC5 Sale Price: $4.95 |
|
Back scratcher so you can scratch your own back with ease! These approx. 19 inch long heavy laquered bamboo back scratchers even has roller muscle massagers on the other end! How convenient! Very nice heavy duty quality! You will receive 2 back scratchers with this purchase. |