Bureau of Prisons Gets a New Director

Lappin is Out

Nearly simultaneously, the current director of the federal Bureau of Prison Harley Lappin was arrested for DUI and announced his resignation from his position at the bureau. All this occurred in late march, 2011.

Now that his retirement is looming, the embattled U.S. Attorney General has announced the appointment of Lappin’s replacement: Charles E. Samuels Jr. Below is an excerpt from the original DOJ piece from justice.gov.

“Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the appointment of Charles E. Samuels Jr. as the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

“I am pleased that Charles will continue to build upon 23 years of distinguished service at the department,” said Attorney General Holder. “I am confident that Charles will provide the kind of effective and innovative leadership that will increase efficiency, further expand prisoner development and reentry programs, and allow for transparency and accountability at the Federal Bureau of Prisons – while remaining true to the BOP’s core mission of protecting public safety.”

“I am very honored to be appointed by Attorney General Holder to serve as the director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and will continue to work with the great staff at every level of the BOP to meet our mission to protect society and provide meaningful life skills and reentry programs for our inmate population,” said Samuels. “I also look forward to working with the leadership and others in the Department of Justice, throughout the federal government and in states and local communities to further the department’s goals and objectives.”

Samuels began his career with the BOP as a correctional officer in 1988. He was promoted to a number of positions within the BOP including correctional programs administrator and executive assistant for the Northeast Regional Office. Samuels has served as associate warden at the Federal Correctional Institutions at Otisville, N.Y. and Beckley, W.Va.; ombudsman in the BOP’s Central Office; warden at the Federal Correctional Institutions at Manchester, Ky. and Fort Dix, N.J.; and senior deputy assistant director of the Correctional Programs Division.”

The Rumor Mill

This news will no doubt set the inmates of the Bureau of Prisons ablaze with rumor about how this new director will be great or terrible. The reality is that there is no indication that the BOP will do anything except the same old stuff under the direction of Samuels.

Little Known Factors for Ending Federal Probation Early

Approval for Ending Federal Probation EarlyThere’s No “Sure Thing”

There is no silver bullet to getting ending federal probation early, no guarantees that any applicant for early release from supervision will have his or her request granted. That decision, in all cases, is ultimately up to the judge. There are, however, some little known facts that can help those on supervision get an edge that other applicants don’t have.

The Good News

Secret #1: There are different levels of supervision, and Judges care!
The United States Probation Office is the supervising authority over all federal cases and defendants sentenced to probation or supervised release. Within that office are policies that govern how intensely clients are supervised.

“How long has it been since you’ve see your PO?”

 

Secret #2: The Sentencing Commission is now ENCOURAGING judges to terminate supervision terms!

 

On November 1, 2011, this year’s amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines Manual became active. One major amendment concerned Supervised Release. It did lots of things like reduce the term of supervision on different felony classes and discuss supervision of deportable aliens. Stuff like that. More importantly, though, was the Commission’s new stance on Early Terminations.

 

Read More About Ending Federal Probation Early

There are 17 other factors in statute and policy that guide judges to their decisions in ending federal probation early. Read more about these statutory factors and policy factors on the probation termination section of our blog**

You can read, free of charge, our comprehensive e-book on terminating federal supervised release and probation by clicking here.

Conrad Black’s Indictment of the American Criminal Justice System

Conrad Black

This famous American prisoner is a Canadian-born member of the British House of Lords. His noble title is Baron Black of Crossharbour. He is a historian, columnist and publisher, and has much to say about the American criminal justice system.

Lord Black controlled Hollinger International, Inc. Through affiliates, the company published major newspapers including The Daily Telegraph (UK), Chicago Sun Times (U.S.), Jerusalem Post (Israel), National Post (Canada), and hundreds of community newspapers in North America.

Black was convicted of fraud in a US court in 2007 and sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. On July 19, 2010 Black was granted bail. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned two of the three remaining mail fraud counts in October of that year. On June 24, 2011 he was resentenced on one remaining count of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice to a prison term of 42 months and a fine of $125,000.

The original article was published December 1, 2011 on the National Review Online.
Here is how it begins:

Justice Denied

The U.S. Legal System is a Disgrace

In the current issue of Commentary, there is a symposium of 43 knowledgeable people who discuss whether they are optimistic or pessimistic about America. In the current edition of The New Criterion, the eminent British historian Andrew Roberts, now a U.S. resident, assesses similar points in a lead essay about how benign America has been as the superpower, and how keenly it will be missed if superseded in that role by China.

Nowhere in either interesting section of either magazine is the appalling state of the U.S. justice system mentioned as symbolic or indicative of the country’s problems. Very adequate attention is given to the uncompetitive deterioration of American public education, to fiscal irresponsibility, and certainly to the shortcomings of popular culture and the media.

I try to rise above the fact, known to most readers, that I write from a federal prison where I have been sent for a total of 37 months, for crimes I did not commit, and after all 17 counts against me were abandoned, rejected by jurors, or vacated by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. I have amply described my legal travails elsewhere and refer to them here only as disclosure.

The United States has six to twelve times as many incarcerated people per capita as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, all prosperous democracies. The U.S. has a much higher percentage of successful prosecutions, a lower hurdle to clear to prosecute (with rubber-stamp grand juries), a greater range of offenses, heavier sentences, and a higher recidivism rate than any of those other countries.

As Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia wrote in his essay “Criminal Injustice” two years ago, either those other countries are less concerned with crime than the U.S., or Americans are more addicted to criminal behavior — both preposterous suggestions — or the U.S. justice system is not working well.

There are 48 million people in the United States with a “record,” many of them based on ancient DUIs or disorderly behavior decades ago at a fraternity party and other unstigmatizing offenses, but still a severe inconvenience to them when they travel abroad or their names are fed to almost any information system; and millions have had their lives effectively ruined. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population, 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated people, and 50 percent of the world’s lawyers, who invoice almost 10 percent of U.S. GDP (around $1.4 trillion annually). In the mid-1970s, the U.S. had about 650,000 people in mental institutions; today, it has only 50,000. Prisoners cost $40,000 per year to detain, and some states can no longer afford it. The conditions of hundreds of thousands of prisoners are grossly and shamefully inhumane. (My own are not.)

The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights of assurance against capricious prosecution, due process, no seizure of property without due compensation, an impartial jury, access to counsel, prompt justice, and reasonable bail, don’t exist. The ubiquitous plea bargain is just the wholesale subornation or extortion of inculpatory perjury in exchange for immunities or reduced sentences (often with people who are threatened, although there is no evidence against them). Assets are routinely frozen on the basis of false affidavits in ex parte proceedings to deny defendants the ability to defend themselves. Those who do exercise their constitutional right to a defense receive three times as severe a sentence as those who plead guilty; 95 percent of cases are won by prosecutors, 90 percent of those without trial. The public defenders have no resources to conduct a serious defense and are usually just Judas goats of the prosecutors conducting the defendants to legal destruction.