I am an “Adult in Custody” (AIC) in the State of Oregon and wish to call your attention to the need for reforms to the Justice System, particularly to the long sentences being given to women convicted at trial for crimes committed under questionable circumstances or by circumstantial evidence by judges and juries in the State.
By way of example, I will describe the experiences of three ladies at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Wilsonville, Oregon, who have gone through the Justice System and received the maximum sentences required by Statute based on the charges, in cases involving self-defense, circumstantial evidence, or simply suspicion of guilt based on factors other than the crime itself.
The first woman is a Vietnam War veteran, and therefore can be considered “elderly” as well. Oregon has laws protecting the elderly, but apparently they do not apply to this case. She was severely beaten during the incident that led to her conviction, so badly in fact that she feared for her life and later developed PTSD. Her PTSD has gone untreated and no psychologist was called to testify to this medical diagnosis during trial or subsequently. She has now been incarcerated for seven years and has not received any help in appealing her conviction. It is appalling that no one has assisted this Vietnam War veteran to appeal her conviction or sentence.
The second woman spent two years in the Washington County Jail with severe medical problems, with no medical treatment, while awaiting trial. She was in extreme pain during this pre-trial period and exhausted her limited funds seeking proper representation. Her case involved an abusive husband and the DA made fun of her during trial. She was slandered with unsubstantiated hearsay evidence at trial. Her abuse was discounted even though there was evidence that her husband, after divorce, continued to stalk and harass her.
The third woman, also convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, asserts that she was not even at the scene of the crime and had no motive to commit it. At trial the DA impugned her character generally to the jury during trial and the jury spent just a few hours before returning a guilty verdict on a Friday leading into a holiday weekend. At trial the officer who made the arrest admitted that he thought she was someone else and that he searched and confiscated her vehicle without a warrant. She was held in jail without bail for almost two years before trial. There were other potential suspects in the case who were not investigated by the prosecution. She was providing support for her elderly parents who are not in good health, but this was not considered at trial.
When looking at these and other cases, one might conclude that the Justice System in Washington County and elsewhere in Oregon is gender-biased. A broader investigation is needed to review this issue. There are no doubt many other cases of wrongful conviction that need to be reconsidered and sentences either commuted or reversed, or clemency granted.
Turning now to the problems of how the elderly are being treated in the Oregon Justice System. By example, I will discuss two specific cases: Crysta McNair and Susan Monica. Crysta was charged with a financial crime; her victim was an elderly man. The State prosecuted Crysta even though her victim chose not to press charges. Susan Monica is elderly, but she was prosecuted even though she was the victim of violence, had been beaten badly (with over $9000 in medical bills) and claimed self-defense. These two cases suggest that the Justice System goes to greater lengths to protect men than they do to protect women.
Another issue is that of the difficulty of getting proper defense representation. Private attorneys are prohibitively expensive, and State-appointed defense attorneys pressure defendants to take plea deals rather than go to trial. While awaiting trial, sometimes for well over a year, defendants are kept in County jails, often in isolation with limited, if any, access to intellectual stimuli (like books, magazines, etc.). They are not treated as being innocent until proven guilty as the U. S. Constitution “guarantees” or in accordance with the Geneva Convention that considers many of the tactics used on these pre-trial defendants as a form of mental torture. This often leads to severe pre-trial depression and affects the ability of defendants to prepare for trial. In the case of the third woman above, she stopped eating for three months but her court-appointed Counsel did nothing to help, and even suggest a “mental evaluation” even though she had no indications of mental problems.
According to the U. S. Constitution, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but from these and other accounts it seems more often they are considered guilty until proven innocent, and doomed from the start. Many incarcerated women feel that they have been victimized by the legal system. Some say they tried to raise objections with their court-appointed lawyers and were either ignored altogether or told to be quiet. They are told by their lawyers to sit quiet at trial while the prosecution slanders them. Shouldn’t it be a conflict of interest if the State is both trying a case against a person and assigning their defense counsel?
Following the Boston Tea Party, our Nation was founded on the principle that “taxation without representation is tyranny”. Currently, many incarcerated women in Oregon feel what they have received is misrepresentation, not representation. They also note that the prison system is even inflicting a form of “slave labor” to keep itself running. Adults in Custody (AICs) are working at various jobs for far less than minimum wage, which will result in no or minimum Social Security benefits when or if they are released from custody. Even while in custody, Susan does not receive her Veteran’s benefits. When some women are finally, if ever, released, at an elderly age, it is likely they will have to live at or below below the poverty level, with no hope of a secure future. Women with shorter sentences will still have their futures impaired, since their criminal record will affect their ability to get jobs. Citizens have to earn a minimum of $1500 per quarter to earn a single Social Security credit. An AIC can earn a maximum of $82 per month according to the inmate manual. There is no possibility for contributing to a retirement or IRA plan.
The State of Oregon needs to keep in mind that one of the main purposes of incarceration is rehabilitation. Upon release, an AIC is expected to become an upright and responsible citizen, but it is more likely that, upon release an AIC’s financial situation will lead to such poverty as to make that a new punishment all of its own. That sounds like the opposite of rehabilitation.
Sincerely yours,
An Adult in Custody at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility
