NK 00:00

I want to start by explaining how we plan to use the conversation we are about to have. Our conversation is not legally privileged, and we will not keep what you say confidential. We plan to make transcripts and recordings of our interviews available for use by future researchers and the general public. And portions may be posted online or discussed in posts on our website or other published writing. I want our conversation to flow freely. And I realized that you may discuss a sensitive topic or mention a piece of information that you later realize you would like withheld, if you request now or at the end of the interview, or later on after further reflection, we are happy for you to review the transcript of our conversation before it is made public and to redact any portions you deem necessary from the transcript and the recording.

MB 00:54

Yeah, I'd like to record the request. Okay.

NK 01:02

And then I will just introduce myself, I'm a 3L at, I do have construction going on, so apologies for that. I'm a 3L at UCLA and I'm working with Professor Dolovich on the Behind Bars COVID Data Project and my name is Natalie Kaufman. And I would love to have you introduce yourself and and hear about your story.

MB 01:32

Okay, my name is Michael Brodheim. I'm a litigation assistant at the Prison Law Office in Berkeley.

We handle class action litigation on behalf of conditions of confinement issues. And for prisoners in California and Arizona. And in California, it's both jails and it's all prisons and certain county jails and also some federal prisons. My background is um, the following. In perhaps, act one of my life, I graduated with a degree in physics from MIT. This was followed by a less high trajectory to act two, which saw me in prison for close to 35 years. I was paroled in 2015, July of 2015, July 23, to be exact, um, and was on parole for five years. So until the latter part of July of 2020. I've been employed at the Prison Law Office for about a year and a half since August of 2019. And I'm very excited. I was very excited. I am very excited to, to be here. Um, for a couple of reasons. One, it was the first time I felt like I was a legitimate member of society. Um, and two because I still feel connected with the many people that I left behind. I refer to them as my brothers and sisters. And I'm happy to do work that I hope makes a little bit of a difference in some people's lives there.

NK 03:51

Well, I really appreciate you speaking with me today, I was lucky enough to be one of the earlier people on the signup spreadsheet and I saw your bio, and I was really excited to hear about your experience. Professor Dolovich, I had her in my first year and she had Ken Hartman come speak to us about his experience. I think he was in Lancaster for about 38 years. I just similarly, I think it's amazing that you're here and I'm really excited to hear your perspective. And I, you know, it's, it's an extraordinary story, but to end your parole in the middle of a global pandemic is a very unique thing I think. Um and uh… it's very cool that you now work at the Prison Policy Center..

MB 04:49

Prison Law Office.

NK 04:50

Prison law office, excuse me, um, this I mean, it's kind of set up like a conversation so I'm you know, if you have somewhere you want to start or I also have some questions just generally, um really this was to hear about lawyers and litigation assistants, they're experience during the pandemic, but of course, all centered on experience of people incarcerated. So would you be willing to just talk about your work during the pandemic first?

MB 05:27

Sure, um–

NK 05:31

We, we could start if you want sort of a starting question, I guess, has the experience of working on this side of things with the pandemic or not, changed your perspective on prison law and prisons in general?

MB 05:58

Not an easy question to answer. Um, I will say that as, as a prisoner, I was not a big fan of the Prison Law Office because they handled class actions. And for the most part, that didn't, it didn't affect me, because the class action suits were about, still are, about people's medical care, mental health care, reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or people with developmental disabilities. None of which particularly affected me. Um, I’ve… I have a slightly different perspective on things now. And I'm probably going to go off into tangents. So you may want to bring me back to the original question. But I was, I am very impressed with the level of empathy that exists among my fellow litigation assistants here at the Prison Law Office. I thought I was a very empathetic person because not naturally, but because I learned empathy, through a prison program. Going to give a shout out to now called Alternatives to Violence Project, which totally changed my life. And I think I owe my life to it in terms of knowing that once a month, because I was, I was intimately involved with the programs, liked to be involved with it once a month in workshops. And during those, these are workshops, that took two, two and a half days. So they just occupied the whole, the whole time, while the workshop was there, uh, pretty much the whole time. But um I felt like I was being treated like a human being. So and, and I learned empathy, basically, during those workshops, among many, many other things. I don't have a great social media presence. But if you Google my name, and YouTube, you'll find a little graduation speech I gave at Stanford University, where I talk. This was obviously after I paroled. Um I think it was in 2017, if I'm not mistaken, and this was part of a re-entry program, which no longer exists at Stanford. And that was with Professor Mukamal. Who I imagine your professor Dolovich, may be familiar with. But I talk in, in that graduation speech, about the significance of AVP in my life, the Alternatives to Violence Project. Anyway, I'm trying to not lose my thread. But, um, so I learned a great deal about empathy. And I thought I was empathetic and then I came here working with very young people. Very idealistic, and I get emotional. And I may get repeatedly emotional. They've taught me a thing or two about being empathetic. So I'm, I think I'm more empathetic now than before. Um, and um (.) I mean, the level of empathy that they feel towards people they don't know, is what moves me. But it's also made me more empathetic and, um, towards people I do know. The people that I refer to earlier as people I left, the brothers and sisters are left behind. And um so I do get emotional. Because even though it didn't affect me, I know that the work we do does affect at least some people in prison. Because the work we do, largely that I do and the other litigation assistants do, consists largely of responding to correspondence, or mail or phone calls, um from people in prison. And so on, while we don't satisfy all customers, there are many people who, for whom we do make a great difference in their lives. So I get to see that, and that's a perspective that I didn't have before. Because while I was in prison, I was absorbed in my own world and my own troubles and trying to get out. And that's not totally fair. Um, I was a jailhouse lawyer, I worked for many, many, many years, in the prison libraries. And so even as I (suggested) just a second ago, my, my level of empathy for the people I did, um, I was a go to guy for legal matters. But it wasn't, it wasn't. It wasn't done with the same level of empathy that I have. Now. I tried to do, I was very, “I just want to hear the facts.” And if I can help you, I will. If I can't, I won't, I'm sorry. Or maybe I wasn't sorry. Um, but it wasn't, there wasn't the level, I mean, I certainly was not emotional about it. I was very effective. But not emotional. Here, I do, I, I help within the framework of the Prison Law Office. And I don't get, I'm not always emotional, but when I do have the opportunity to open up about it, even though I don't want to be emotional, I get emotional. So…

NK 12:37

Thank you for sharing that. And, if you don't mind me saying I think it's perfectly understandable that in different conditions, why maybe being emotional all the time in that way wouldn't have allowed you to, you know, protect yourself and be here the way you need to be. Um I think it's pretty amazing that you were doing this from within prison when there's so, so much restricted access. Um, so, now, you talked about the empathy aspect. Are there other ways, even if it may seem obvious, that you're practicing inside versus now. How it differs, or things that it's made you think about?

MB 13:28

Um, well, again, I'm not sure if I'm gonna answer your question directly. But again, referring back to that program, AVP, Alternative to Violence Program, great influence on my life. And when I came out, I had a mantra which was I'm grateful just to be breathing fresh air, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the air or level of pollution. Um, and you know, I live that I mean, that is true now. And I didn't I mean, I was, I was, AVP helped prepare me for that. But I certainly wasn't nearly as grateful if at all grateful I was just hanging on toward the toward towards the end there. Um, didn't have the, wasn't grateful for breathing the air, which I didn't think of as fresh air at that time. Again, nothing to do with the quality of air. So, um, not sure if this is answering your question or not, but you know, out here, I'm particularly working at the prison law office, where like I said earlier, I felt like for the first time I was a legitimate member of society. Um, you know, I'm grateful just to be breathing the fresh air, um, things don't bother me as much as I get the sense they bother other people, co-workers and other other people. Not to say I don't have issues and problems. But they seem relatively small compared to the life threatening, not the right word, but life altering experiences I had for 35 years. Where I literally did not know if I would ever get out, which really colors your perspective about a lot of things. So I was fortunate enough to get out. I will put another plug here, for someone who just passed away very recently, and Michael Satras, who happened. I don't, I'm not sure I knew this at the time I applied for this job at the Prison Law Office. Happened to have been the founder of the prison law office, back in 1975, or so after graduating from law school at UC Davis. And then within maybe nine years later, he, he ventured out into his own practice, and was very successful, very good. And played, was the knight in shining armor for many, many, many people both in prison and not in prison. But I'm particularly familiar with his work in prison. And I just was reflecting on his, his importance of him to me yesterday, and I ranked him right behind my sister who was, you know, one of the other main reasons aside from AVP, that I was able to survive those 35 years in prison. And he is the reason I was able to get out. So I got, again, I'm getting lost in my stories.

NK 17:15

You know, Dolovich did want this to be an opportunity for people to process their feelings about working in a pandemic, in prison litigation. So there really is no structure or requirements. And um it, you know, I got to look a little bit at certain, like compassionate release requests through other parts of the project, but hearing your experience, it's, that's where the value is. So, you know, it's wonderful to hear what you're saying. And I wondered if you could talk a little bit more about, um, you said one of the main things that you do in the office is direct correspondence. How? I mean, I imagine that would be emotionally taxing, but also must be pretty inspiring for the people you're speaking to, to hear about your story. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, give me one second.

MB 18:23

For me, okay. Thank you. Oh, okay. Sorry about that.

NK 18:35

No worries. So just to, um, if you could talk a little bit about how your direct correspondence with the people via phone and letters, with the pandemic specifically or just in general, if you could talk about your experience communicating with people still imprisoned?

MB 19:02

Got the last part. What was the first part?

NK 19:05

Oh, just if you could talk about your experience with direct communication with clients.

MB 19:17

Okay. Um,

NK 19:18

Do you feel the pandemic has changed either how you're able to communicate or have you noticed how, a change in them from what you're communicating during this time?

MB 19:36

Okay, so yes, um, so we've seen a market increase in… So we respond, and this was true before I got here, to hundreds of letters a week from prisoners. Litigation assistants, we triage them, we summarize them, enter them into a database and then forward them on to attorneys. And, well, we make recommendations for response. And as the attorneys, you know, go back and forth, prepare the response. And then, and then letters go out with handouts typically, and sometimes substantive responses if it, if it falls within the cases that we handle. And um we've seen a market increase, as you can imagine, since COVID, arrived a year ago. Not only not only direct correspondence, but now we get far greater traffic in email correspondence from um the loved ones essentially. Because, although they do have, they do have limited email ability now, in some prisons, I don't believe that they have the ability to email. I have not gotten emails directly from any prisoners, but only from, our office gets emails from family members and friends. Um, um, so there's been a large increase, which entails logistical challenges for us. Um, and, but also, for me, personally, I've experienced two sorts of feelings related to this increase, and in particular, about, about COVID. Um, and I'm not particularly happy that I have two, as opposed to one of these feelings, but I'm going to share it anyway. One is a sense of irritation, with the just the sheer volume, which is sometimes overwhelming. There's a word for that, I think it's called burnout sometimes. I was also, when I was in, when I was in prison, I volunteered for over 10 years as a prison hospice worker. Um, so I'm familiar with that, you know, that experience. Um, I'm here to and that's the part I'm not proud of, that I felt that your level of irritation with, with the sheer volume of this. But to give myself a little bit of credit, I also was very aware of that, and always, invariably catch myself and say, I get it, and now I'm gonna get emotional again. They’re afraid for their lives. And I've seen, I've, some of the people that have written to me have died. And some of them I knew before I left prison. And I can recall, or I can, because I was there, I know exactly what it would be, like, if I were still there. I have a very good idea. Um, and I would probably be reaching out every other day too. I mean, I mean, I'm normally very, you know, I like to think of myself as graduate students and other people, like, you know, often do, you know, I like to control my environment, and not be controlled by it. And so, you know, you know, I, I learned how to, relatively speaking, control my environment when I was in prison. So I like to think that I wouldn't have written a letter every day. But I have, I'm not sure that's true. Because this is a, you know, level of lack of control like nothing I experienced out there. So, um, you know, in the beginning, I remember when I heard of this notion called cohorting, um, that the federal receiver had come up with this plan to cohort people in prison as a way to mitigate what what was predicted to be in what did become you know, ravaging of prisoners in prison. I thought, wow, that's brilliant. I said, you know. But I said to me, to, to one of my co-workers who also happened to have been in prison, not for the same length of time, but you know, they kind of have to lock arms and just walk everywhere together. And we were correct. And that's why it wasn't possible. And it didn't work. But I never, but you know, they put it out. And I said, Okay, can we all walk together and do everything together and be guarded by the same people every day, I said, Wow, this guy will get the Nobel Prize. It didn't work, because it's not possible. People aren't gonna lock arms, they're not going to be wearing masks when they're sleeping, and they're in dorms. And there aren't enough cells, to house everybody. So all these logistical problems that I was aware of, but, you know, I suspended my disbelief, it wasn't Wow, that's a fantastic idea. You know, I was able to do that. And then slowly, but surely, everything that, you know, my friend and I, all the problems or challenges that we anticipated happen and people died. And I got, so– I was irritated. I connected. I understood. And I also got very angry at other other groups, that, um… There's one group in particular, which perhaps I should not name. Um, but they put themselves out, still put themselves out, as representing prisoners’ interests. They, at the end have never to my knowledge revealed what I'm about to say, which was that they wrote an amicus brief to the federal court at the same time that we were lobbying the federal courts to, for more prisoner releases, they lobbied they, they filed an amicus brief or Amicus, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, saying, No, don't do that. And we are, we the Prison Law Office, are misguided in our attempts to do so. I was angry then about them doing it, I'm angry now that they did it and, um, you know, there is some consolation that I'm confident they had played little role in what happened, but that they, that they continue to put themselves out as representing prisoner interests. Um, you know, I, at the time, I was still on parole. I said, I was afraid if I spoke to them directly, I did speak to them, which was very, you know, roundabout in what I said, but to a third party who I knew was in touch with him more directly, I said, they've betrayed the trust of the people in prison. And um because I felt that even out here, and I know, I would have felt that in there. And they still have not, to my knowledge, revealed to people inside that while they hold themselves out as people who are representing their interests, or who are on their side, they also lobbied against this idea of prisoner releases, which is the only thing that would have saved people. Um, so those are the kinds of feelings I felt, still feel. I mean, I’m still extremely angry that they did that, even though the… I'm sure their role was minimal, but they won, you know, and it would have been, you know, this is an uphill battle. And it's nicer when, if people who want to be seen or I think, want to be seen, as, you know, working on this side of the fence, if they had been working on this side of the fence actually would have been much more helpful. Um, but I feel betrayed. They are betraying people's trust. And I think they're betraying my trust. They're willing to, to tell people openly what they did, and what, what their position was. And I'm, you know, going in all different directions in responding to your question. Hope it's…

NK 29:10

It’s very useful. I mean, I, especially as a, you know, don't over assume my knowledge. So it's, it's things that I'm learning and um I, through this project, I'm learning a lot. I spoke to a really wonderful lawyer in Louisiana. And she similarly said, the only way to protect is to depopulate. And that was the only chance to really try and protect COVID or prevent COVID from ravaging these prisons, and governments had the opportunity and they didn't, and I think everyone should be held accountable for that. And it's, it must feel, you know, at least with this documentation that you get to read all these letters, at least their letters are being read, you know, and I guess one sort of more uplifting question, is there something that you have been, really you talked about the empathy, but is there anything you've been really impressed? Or inspired by? During this difficult period?

MB 30:31

Oh, um yes. Oh. So, on this side, I mean, aside from the work that I and other litigation assistants do, where I particularly talked about the level of empathy that was, that is inspiring to me. You know, we got other letters that… We get other letters we've got during this period of time, letters that weren't directly related to our cases. So we call these non-case related letters, for obvious reasons. And yet, so I'm thinking of a couple in particular. And these were, these would be lifers. Um and as a former lifer for myself, this always tugs at my heart in particular. And um so we were we were able, informally, to get involved. In both one formally, one, I lobbied successfully for formal involvement well. And, but, not within the rubric of our medical, mental health, you know, disability cases. I mean, we need our lawyers. And so, you know, we were able to intervene in two cases. Um and one, just by exchanging emails with the powers that be, and the other by intervening in a pending habeas case. Um, both of them got out. Now, uh not, you cannot draw a direct line with our intervention between our intervention and the result. So we were back and forth on the one guy with emails, and you know, you know, tell us why, blah, blah, blah. And then if any answer was, oh, he paroled and so you know, so your questions irrelevant type thing. Um, but, you know, our question was, why is he still in prison? You know, why haven't you put this go, you know, we'd like to see the paperwork that rejected him from the early release programs, when, you know, he's just been found suitable, and now he's doing another, you know, five years consecutive to, to the life sentence with a life sentence just by the nature of the way the parole process works. The Parole Board has just said, he is not a danger, no longer a danger to society. So given the circumstances, given the latitude you have, why aren't you releasing him now? We didn't have to say all that but that was implicit in our question answers. And then finally, after two or three emails, you know, he paroled and he paroled because he met the criteria for that program, which wasn't the case when we started. In the other case, we intervened in a habeas um, petition. And then it was mooted by his release after the governor. So we were involved because the governor had reversed a parole board finding of suitability. He had then become, been found suitable again, because these things take their way to wind through the courts. He had been found suitable again about a year and a half later. And this time, coincidentally, I cannot draw a direct line after we were intervening. And we were at the level of the Supreme Court. So we had lost but we were intervening at the level of the California Supreme Court. Governor decided not to reverse the latest finding and suitability. Now he's out, and now they're arguing that it's moot. And we're arguing it, no, it's not moot, because, you know, it's an issue of public importance. So I'm very impressed with that, you know, the willingness of the attorneys in this case in you know, in, certain cases to get involved outside the rubric of medical mental health disabilities cases and that, and really are, what we do. The other side of the coin is I'm impressed by the resilience and I'm gonna, I'm gonna get emotional. But the resilience of these people, these people, that's not a good phrase. I apologize for Um, you know, my brothers and sisters that I left behind. You know, I know, I can imagine how frantic and uh, I would be, and some of them are, which is understandable, and, but they all are hanging on somehow. Um, you know. So that's inspirational to me also.

NK 35:26

Yeah, I mean, you have quite, you have quite an experience under your belt. And it's, uh I mean, I'm very impressed by your journey and very thankful to be talking to you. Um, it's really, it's amazing what you have done within and without of these, these confining walls. And that's really, you know, it's, it's hard to hear the government's responses in general to COVID. But then, to hear, I've noticed that prisons aren't even mentioned in these COVID headlines, and a lot of Dolovich’s projects, was documenting and giving a voice these people and the government was happy to just overlook these real humans. And as you know, I have friends with siblings, in prisons in California. And the, the stress of COVID is certainly magnified. And I, I'm also very impressed with the people who find a way to survive.

MB 36:41

If I can, I wanted to say a couple of things. And I apologize for interrupting. One is, the statistics are that roughly one in three adults in California and nationwide, is, and I'm not sure, the exact word, but I'll say system involved or have been system involved? That's a huge number of closeted people in this country. Um and it's, it's almost ironic. I mean, if we are all system impacted, what are we hiding? And yet, you know, I'm fully aware, that's why I feel grateful to be at The Prison Law office. I mean, I certainly have faced repeated instances of, um you know, discrimination, because of my background, you know, my MIT is no longer relevant, my MIT background. You know, it's now I'm just an older white guy who came out of prison. So it's like, but yeah, and yet much. Nothing, nothing I say should be interpreted as I'm feeling sorry for myself. Um, I'm not. I remain grateful. But I'm also aware of the tremendous roadblocks which is, which exist in the problem of reentry.

NK 38:00

Uh, fun number, not a fun, of course, number. But I think a number I learned in Dolovich’s class is combining all the various barriers to reentry and limitations, I think it's actually 40,000 various barriers through the law.

MB 38:18

There's an organization which I don't know think he's just under this name. But I think if you Google 70 million jobs, you'll find that, this, at the time, I had just done research, which actually brings me to the second point I wanted to make to you. I had just done research uh, when I found out, when I got that figure one out of three, and the other figure was 65 million people. And yet they call themselves 70 million jobs. And I said, why? And he said, Well, that's the number of people. So apparently, it's a moot, you know, obviously, it's an increasing number. But I had done that research and connection. So I mentioned earlier, my YouTube social media presence. Um, I have one other one, which is there's an online journal called the Elephant Journal. And if you type my name in the Elephant Journal, you'll find an article, which is called something like it's time to reconsider the practice of decades long incarceration. That may be the subtitle, I don't know. Um, but you'll find that and I, my, my gut, and I did this in conjunction with the American Friends Service Committee that they, that was the first group that hired me, that was a part time job that's, you know, friends, the Quakers. They hired me on a part time basis. So I was very grateful for that. And so I asked them if I could do this project, they said, sure. And I continued after this product, after, it was a limited fellowship, nine months. I was I think, I actually I had the idea while I was there, but I didn't begin to complete it until afterwards. So they funded the fees associated with the uh Public Records Act request we made to the Department of Corrections to get a list of all the people that were incarcerated. And we got this list eventually, after they, they slow played us. Um, people that had been incarcerated for 25 years or longer. Um, so they gave us this list, I believe it was a list of people 25 years or longer as of the end of the calendar year 2016, I believe. And the article was published in January of 2018 in the Elephant Journal. My goal was, I had thought of this as, this was obviously pre COVID, but the same, you know, the new layer, new layers, we could add with COVID. My thinking at the time, and again, this translates, could be translated into this COVID time now, you know, these are people. And I want, I was thinking of the Vietnam Memorial, the wall with names, I wanted to put out names to say, these are people, it's not just, now we got close to 4000 names. And this was wasn't everybody said, we're not giving you everybody, because some, you know, for safe– security reasons, we don't want to tell you. I said its fine. But I got over 3,950 names, and I put them out there. Um, and the Friends of the FSC said, let's put the first initial and last name, to give them some level of privacy. And they also can't talk to other people in formerly incarcerated, which they call returning citizens. Um, and so that was, what they did. So that's what I did. Um, but I also because I had, you know, I wanted to make an article of not just names. So I said, let's reconsider the practice of decades long incarceration. And essentially, it was a lot of statistics, including the now, the now ubiquitous one that you know, we have 25% of the world's incarcerated population, and yet only 5% of the world. Um, and a lot of other statistics, um, and so but, but that was a cover for this my main point, which, which I also said, these are people notwithstanding, um the maybe horrific things that they did, these are people flesh and blood human beings. I gotta move for a second to get the light back on, there we go. So anyway, and the same thing is true now. Um, you know, almost maybe should do it again. Um, although I think you're only allowed one freebie and Elephant Journal. So I don't know if I could do it again. But, you know, there are 200+ names now that have died needlessly. From for COVID, in prison, because we didn't, as a society, we weren't willing to release more people. Um, I'm not saying nobody would have died. But this number of people didn't have to die.

NK 43:28

Speaking again, with that lawyer in Louisiana, that I mentioned earlier, she spoke about how prisons are really congregate care facilities, and in the same way that we failed our nursing homes, um and didn't protect people there in the same sense. The prison is a congregate care facility. And it's, I think, people don't in the popular culture, think of them the same because we are so socialized to not think of people in prison as people and um, it's, I, I am young, so I'm hopeful that things will be different in future because I know a lot of people my age willing to fight for that. But um I think it's really important to honor these people as people so I have your article open and I thank you for sharing that. And I think that–

MB 44:32

I was so in such a rush to publish it that I only later sorted the names alphabetically. So they're randomly there, not, not alphabetically, not in alphabetical order. Um, I was gonna say something else in response to what you said, but I forgot what it was.

NK 44:53

That is alright. I think–

MB 44:56

I do, I do know what I wanted to say. So you know, you know, when I was in prison, I would not have called everybody my brothers and sisters. Um again, different places call for different ways of surviving. My attitude now, you know, having been on both sides, um, is I understand that people do behave differently in that environment than they do out here. Which is, you know, but you made the point, and I made the point through my article, these are flesh and blood human beings, you know, they're not just statistics, they're not just numbers, and what my point was to remove them from the obscurity of statistics, from statistical obscurity. Essentially, um, even as I can tell you, that um, even if I were there, I wouldn't like a lot of people just like out here I don't like a lot of people. But in there, people always say, but they did this. And they did that. And I can tell you, they do even more in there to survive. And I did things in there that I'm not necessarily willing to share with everybody out here. You do. It is an unnatural environment. Um not because of the people that you share space with, but because from my perspective of your keepers, and because of the unnatural–

NK 46:32

Deprivation–

MB 46:34

Deprivations, so we're talking about, I did 35 years. Now, when I started out, the same types of crime did literally, because you can, you were able to, because it's in the article that I put, although it's not online anymore, so my link won't work for some reason anymore. Um the same kinds did, oh, they used median, but average of 12 years. Now, I didn't do three times as much time because I was three times as worse as anybody, and no one to my knowledge had done 20 years when I entered the system. So this is totally unnatural level of deprivation. Um the level of overcrowding that still exists, not withstanding the Supreme Court, or that affirmed requirement for the Department of Corrections to reduce this population. Um and then the policies and practices that are in place within the system, in terms of what you can do, what you can't do, and, you know, I said it, and I believe it's true, if I ever felt like I was a cockroach, that would have been an improvement from what I felt like and what I was told I was worth, when I was in there, you know, I wasn't fit to be on the, on the bottom of your shoe. Um, that, which is why talking again, good friend, earlier, I referred earlier to this group AVP, I felt for those two, two and a half days, like a human being. Which is, again, very different than what I felt when I walked out of the workshop, or, you know, when the, when the after effects of the workshop wore off. Again, I was not fit to be a cockroach, basically. Um and you're told that day in and day out, non stop, you know, for as long as you're there, and I'm lucky I got out, and most people get out. Um, but you know, we're treating, which we treat the senses, like they're nothing. And now I'm going to get, I'm going to use a little bit of, I'm back in school studying something different now. And I'm in a public administration, Master's of Public Administration program. And I'm also taking some criminal justice courses. And I took, you know, I always said before I took any courses there, you know, I had been radicalized by my experience in prison, and I always would couch it by saying, not in the sense of throwing bombs or anything like that, but in terms of just how left leaning I am now. And I took this course, construction of crime and justice, or something along those lines. And um, a very good professor. But the book we were reading, said, you know, it was about critical analysis, I think, or something along those lines. But the book was titled, it had the word radical and inside it was saying, you know, we could have called ourselves critical instead of radical in the, in the title of the book, but we think that, you know, anyone who advocates for you know, the kinds of systemic changes that, that critical you know, sociologists or criminologists are trying to, are advocating for, should be proud of saying that they're radical. So I'm gonna get emotional again and say, so I try not to put the disclaimer in there anymore about, you know, when I say I'm radical, I try not to put a disclaimer in there, but I'm radical, um, you know, we do, we dehumanize the people in prison, we have dehumanized them. And for brief moments, it looked like we were going to consider the some of these judges that were involved with, we're going to consider um their humanity, but in the end, that did not win out. You know, and their, their lack of humanity, from my perspective, won out. And now I'm going to go into another digression. Which is to say, this is very much connected to our racist history and slavery. Um, and I had thought of this when I was in prison, but, you know, I was proud to have come up with this on my own. And, you know, my, my thoughts were incubating. And then Michelle Alexander comes out with, with what's now a shorthand for many of my ideas, which is the new Jim Crow. Um, and, um you know, now it's, it's, you know, by referring to her and her book, it's much easier. And then, because I'm now out here and doing some actual study, it's easier to connect the dots, and not think I'm so crazy. You know, in connecting those dots, you know, this to me, and now, it's, it's obvious, you know, and how I couldn't have connected the dots before, although I acknowledge, had I not been through this experience, I would not have, I would not be able to connect the dots, I would, you know, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and I was mostly influenced by my father, in this respect, I probably would have been, you know, a very conservative kind of guy. And also much more prosperous than I am now, having lost, lost out on 35 years of, of wage earning in my life. Um but I can't imagine being that person not being this person. So, you know, I don't want to go too far off into that. But, you know, you know, that's where I'm coming from that this is a racist system that dehumanizes the people in it. And this is a vestige of our, to use as Michelle Alexander's word, this is the latest manifestation of Jim Crow. And it's, it's now race neutral. You know, they don't lock up people because they're black. But, so they had people like me to prove it. But I'm going to tell you, they're not they're not locking people up for opiate or opioid um abuse. And that's because it's affecting the white population. And if it were, if were affecting communities of color, we would criminalize that just like we criminalized crack, and we had the whole war on drugs. Anyway, I'm, you know, spinning out of control, perhaps I apologize–

NK 53:21

I think, I mean, I, I'm predisposed to be agreeing with everything you said.

MB 53:30

Um, you know, you have an assignment and I'm, maybe I’m veering from this.

NK 53:35

I mean, I have to say, this has been really cool. That part of this is the first semester where a part of my assignment is just talking and hearing stories. I'm also in a formal prison law policy class, was Dolovich, and that one's much more reading and sort of traditional learning. But um, what's amazing about her teaching is that she's always wanted to include the full span of the criminal justice systems, and it's failing. And I, I think, for me, I, I don't know, I guess I was sort of left, but I've also have gone just radically left in law school understanding that the entire law is built on racism, and it's something that people use, you know, legality and criminality, as if it's a true indication of morality, but our laws are based on the social systems and powers you know, it's not based on what's right and wrong. And um, I think you know, and you and you can just look at not just crack versus opioids, but also how marijuana is alternately enforced. So I very much appreciate your perspective. And um, you know, we kind of loosely hold the talk to be an hour. But we, I have a little more time. And it's what you feel like sharing. So um, I could have a couple ending questions. But I don't know if this talk is just made you think of some things. You just feel like sharing?

MB 55:19

Uh, no, I've basically been spinning out of control of it. And I also have, unfortunately, I have to work also. So let's, let's see how we can wrap this up. You know, as best we can.

NK 55:33

Yeah, well, um, thank you for sharing all of this, I guess maybe an ending question that's also quite open ended is– What do you think? Do you think that COVID has provided any opportunities for us to kind of rethink, and hopefully go forward with a different slate? Because all the COVID problems were already problems, like you said, overcrowding and all of these things?

MB 56:06

Well, it's created just, again, I don't know how I'm gonna answer your question. But as I understand it, I'll try to answer, you know, it's created a space, an opening for us to consider other possibilities. Um, it would be and, and, you know, there have been small windows, both within California and elsewhere, other states, where people have been released from jails and prisons, um because of the, because of the pandemic, because of, because we were actually looking out for, you know, we're trying to protect lives, even of the people in our jails and prison systems, and we slow down. We modified our jail practices in terms of, or that, the police practices to very, very small extent. Um you know, in terms of what we some localities, you know, what, when they were trying to enforce or not enforce. So there were, there were little glimpses of possibilities, you know, things are possible. And I remember, my girlfriend, and I say, I thought these things were possible, you know, not just about criminal justice, but you know, all you know, all the various other social areas where things were, you know, or, you know, for example, remote working is suddenly possible, as a trivial example, um, in greater investment, greater government investment, direct spending, stimulus checks, all these things, of course, we push back from health or some some segment of the government and population. So, there's this opening, and I'm disappointed that it didn't open more, just as soon as it opened, it seemed like pushback was very intense. And so I'm not hopeful that, sadly, that in the immediate, in the immediate aftermath of COVID, we will see any significant change, change of the sort that I would like, which is, um you know, reversing the carceral instincts of this country. Um, but I, I, you know, I, one of my phrases is cautiously optimistic, maybe that's too optimistic, but, you know, I'm approaching cautious optimism in terms of, you know–caut–

NK 58:53

Cautiously–

MB 58:54

Approaching cautious optimism in terms of the long, the long term prospects for, um you know, the kinds of goals that I would like to see. Um, you know, the carceral state, I'm becoming increasingly involved with organizations that are focusing on what I thought I was the only one aware of in the, in the article, which is, you know, what I call decade's long incarceration. You know, other terms I've learned now are virtual life sentences. Um, but decades long incarceration really captures the problem. You know, these, these very, very lengthy sentences, which are unheard of prior to 1980s. Now, I was fortunate or unfortunate enough to get caught in the system in early 81. So, I mean, I saw the rise of this whole mass incarceration, what's now called mass incarceration. Yeah, but I have you know, I'm hopeful because I'm aware now, and I wasn't what he even is, you know, as recently as when I, you know, wrote and published this article in the Elephant Journal, I was not aware of organizations working on it. Maybe they weren't back then, but now they are. And so I'm hopeful because I see organizations working on this thing, which to me is so important. Because, um, you know, contrary to what I think is popular perception, you know, people like me who committed violent crimes, and the people that we have, these labels didn't exist when I started up the people that now are labeled violent, serious offenders. And even, you know, dare I say it, the sex offenders, you know, all those people. But let me just say, what I know, for a fact, the violent and serious offenders, let me even be more specific, violent offenders are the least dangerous cohort among people in prison. They don't, the kinds of crimes that that court commits, in particular murder, are not the sorts of things that happen again. So, again I'm going down a road that I'm losing track of where I started, but I did want to make the point that, um, you know, contrary to popular perception, violent offenders, are, you know, um who, as I said, in my article, you know, they sustain the infrastructure of mass incarceration, even as politicians talk very timidly about the need to roll back mass incarceration. They do so only with respect to non-violent, non-serious offenders, and certainly people who have not committed sex offenses. So there's only this half hearted commitment to rolling back mass incarceration. Um because as I said, it's sustained, the infrastructure is sustained by people doing decades long sentences, mainly life sentences. And yet, these are the least dangerous in terms of reoffending and reoffending either seriously or not seriously. Again, but yet isn't there's seems to be limitless, limitless appetite for retribution. There's no, there's no adequate comeback. And again, and I being completely aware of that, I always want to say, do not, please do not interpret what I'm saying, as, as me feeling sorry for myself, or me saying I should not have done the amount of time I did. You know, I want to say as I always say, it's not possible to balance the scales, regardless of what the law requires, you know, that you should be released. Um, after you've done it, when you're no longer a threat to society, which both parole boards and the courts determined the case was true, in my case, that does not balance the moral scales, you know, I took a life, I can never balance that skill. So I'm not making that argument. And certainly not for myself. And so I don't want to, you know, leave that impression. Which is why one of the many reasons I'm grateful to be out here breathing this fresh air. Because I know that I can never balance the scales, all I can do is try to do the next right thing, you know, the next step needs to be a\the right thing. And I'm keenly aware of not hurting anyone again. And I know I fail in that, you know, that's, that's a tall order. I don't know, I don't know that anyone can do that. Um but I, I can succeed, have succeeded and will continue to succeed and not visiting the kind of devastation upon another person that I did back in 1981. And I do want to also say this, and again, I'm going to get emotional, that it shouldn't be the case that I become, became a healthier person. The way I did, you know, by taking a life, um and yet, it would be far worse if I didn't become if I hadn't become a healthier person. So, you know, I am a healthier person. Now, the tragedy is that it had to happen or that it did happen the way it happened. So, and I'm gonna get emotional. So I don't want to become emotional again, but I'm mostly gonna wrap it up because I have work to do and I've taken a lot of your time and I appreciate that have this opportunity to share my, some of my experiences with you.

NK 1:05:08

All right, I really appreciate you sharing with me and being so open and vulnerable. I learned so much from such a short time speaking with you and I, if it's okay for me to say, I think you are too hard on yourself and your language, and and I personally have a belief that we are all better than the worst thing that we've ever done. And I believe that no one, 35 years helps no one. And that we want rehabilitation, certainly not the carceral state, to do that. And I just thank you for sharing your story. And I hope someday I get to talk to you again, because it was, it was really, it was really meaningful. So, so thank you for this talk. And we, it'll probably be a little while before things have transcripts and things are uploaded. So it might be a little while logistically, but I certainly have your note that you want to review everything before it goes.

MB 1:06:15

Thank you. I appreciate that. And um well, you know, we have to get past COVID. And if we do, then, you know, then I'm free to travel. I can, if I have the wherewithal to do so. Or if you happen to be up in the Bay Area. I'd be happy to see you under you know, under better circumstances.

NK 1:06:35

Yeah, I’d love that. I actually, funnily enough, my best friend lives in Oakland. So I'm up there quite often.

MB 1:06:43

Yeah. And hop, skip and jump from, from Oakland. I mean, I'm in Berkeley right now. So, I live in Fairfield, can't afford can't afford to live in Berkeley. It's you know, I'm going to give another shout out, the rent is too damn high.

NK 1:06:59

Absolutely, LA rents are pretty cruel as well. But thank you so much for your time. I'm gonna stop recording.