Episode 4. A Second Look: Pathways from Prison to Freeom

Episode 4. A Second Look: Pathways to Freedom from Prison

It’s 2025 and the Washington state legislature is in session! Incarcerated organizers know better than most people that the state isn’t always here to help us. In this episode, we explain what abolitionist reforms are and how some folks use them to realize the promise of liberation. We focus on the Judicial Discretion Act (HB1125), a bill that began with incarcerated leadership and seeks to build solidarity across different incarcerated communities, victims/survivors, judges, lawyers, and outside community members.

This episode includes Charles Longshore, Azias Ross, WA House Representative Tarra Simmons, Amanda Knight, and WA Senator Noel Frame; hosted by Ralph Dunuan, produced by Megan Ybarra, and edited and mixed by Anvar Hassanpour. This podcast was supported in part by a Scholar-Activist Project Award from the Antipode Foundation and the UCSD Communication Department.

Transcript

Elizabeth [00:00:17] Welcome to CHOICES, the podcast that dives deep into real issues surrounding the currently incarcerated and survivors of mass incarceration. We're here to help share the stories of those navigating the challenges of life inside the Washington prison system, focusing on struggles, transformations, and rehabilitation. Join us on CHOICES to hear voices for a liberated purpose, presenting and archiving issues that impact Indigenous peoples and communities of color on both sides of the wall. 

Ralph [00:01:03] Hello everyone and welcome back to CHOICES, this is your host, Ralph. 

Megan [00:01:06] And this is Megan. 

Ralph [00:01:07] So in Episode 3, we talked about what higher ed looks like for those on the inside, and how the inside organizing can feel the need for equitable higher education for all. With Lois and Marco giving us a look at how TEACH not only provides a degree pathway, but also opens doors to change of a far -seeing segregated prison culture. We also heard from Charles and Travis, Indigenous advocates who created solutions instead of just looking for an institutional wall, creating what we currently understand as the judicial discretion act, or House Bill 1125. And we heard about the two different sections of change that ultimately work hand in hand to get us on a path towards the community we want. I think that absolutely falls within the idea of abolitionist reform. work in force, community building, and harm reduction through equitable education and disdainfully systems in harm through civic engagement. Does that sound about right, Megan?

Megan [00:02:06] I often think about abolition as being these three things, right? Against the state, beyond the state, and within the state, particularly when we're talking about the settler state, in this case, Washington. You know, so working against the state is calling out the harms of state -sanctioned violence. Working beyond the state is often where we're going to think about forming mutual aid and healing without relying on the welfare state as though it is supporting us rather than trying to kill us if we are indigenous peoples or people of color. But sometimes, especially when we're trying to get people out of cages and bring them home, we got to work within the state. And that's why I think the bills that we're going to talk about in this episode and the next episode are so important. 

Ralph [00:02:48] As we move into this next episode, I think everyone will be interested in this testimony from Azias Ross. He testified before the House of Representatives Community Safety Committee with an abbreviated version of that speech. I think he hits the spot on why this next episode topic, the Judicial Discretion Act is a necessity, why there's a need for real change. 

Azias [00:03:28] As we are speaking about this upcoming legislative session and the work to be continued, as well as the upcoming community events and forums that are being organized to continue to educate and inform legislators, community organizers, members, system impacted folks and the like, there's something I'd like to share. When 6164 was initially passed, the primary objective, or at least the meetings I attended around it, was the enforcement of RCW 36 .27 .020 at 11, which reads: "A prosecuting attorney shall seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice and stimulate efforts to remedy inadequacies or injustice and substantive or procedural laws." Substantive laws are derived from the constitution, whereas procedural laws are those derived by a statute to protect and afford those of the former. The problem with 6164 is that it puts all of the remedial discretion and power in the hands of the people who created the very inadequacy or injustice. This is why we see very little being accomplished under this piece of legislation. 

Azias [00:04:29] Who determines when there have been an inadequacy or injustice in substantive or procedural law? Our judicial body, the courts, our judges. Prosecutors, scarcely if ever, complain that a ruling where a court has found substantial and compelling reasons justifying an upward departure to be an abuse of discretion. Yet when these same courts identify mitigating factors that find substantial and compelling reasons departing downward, they are "too liberal," "distrusting," "too soft on crime," et cetera. The answer thus became mandatory minimums, three strikes, enhanced penalties, all of which the prosecutor enjoys the full discretion to impose at will. What I would argue is the key driver behind mass incarceration. This is what happened with the SRA, the data of which is overwhelming as it pertains to disproportionate sentencing. Once the Court has made a judicial determination that a sentence is grossly disproportionate and does not fit, wouldn't that classify as an injustice or an inadequacy in substantive or procedural law? What happens after a court has made such a determination? What mechanism currently exists to enforce RCW 36. 27. 020? There is not one. That is why we need the Judicial Discretion Act. 

Azias [00:05:42] I'm currently on appeal for no other reason than my court lacking any mechanism he believes to fix an appropriate sentence. He said in his ruling and on the record, after finding mitigated factors of youth and prodigious rehabilitation, that my sentence doesn't fit the crime or the value of anything as I am today and is grossly disproportionate. My current sentence consists of 378 months flat of firearms sentencing enhancements. My court did all he felt he could, and that would give me zero points on the underlying count. The prosecuting attorney who has now retired stated on the record, the only way my judge could remove the enhancement portion of my sentence was if he, the state, moved to vacate them, which he said, we are not going to do. However, this is exactly what he did just a few months prior for my co -defendant, vacating six of her firearm sentencing enhancements. My case is a primary example, not the example, I might add, of exactly why sentencing courts must have the discretion, after weighing all of the facts of a given case, to impose an appropriate sentence. 

Azias [00:06:43] Without the sentencing courts having this discretion, money is spent on useless appeals. Lives are spent in a carceral setting as opposed to in the community and with family, as well as state resources being spent to incarcerate someone who no longer needs incarceration. Without a mechanism in place to balance the charging discretion that prosecuting attorneys have with the judicial discretion our sentencing courts so rightfully deserve, the system as it exists in Washington state is a lose -lose. It serves not the improvement of lives and community safety, but rather mass incarceration driven by personal animus and bias. This will not do, cannot be sustained, and must give way to a better, more humane approach. Thank you. 

Ralph [00:07:38] We learned about the judicial second look coalition in Episode Three. Next, we'll hear from Charles about how the Native Circle at Airway Heights wrote the first draft of the Judicial Discretion Act. 

Charles [00:08:03] Who I am today is far from who I was when I first was incarcerated. Today, I believe I am a natural born leader. I have worked collaboratively and collectively at advancing numerous different types of legislation ranging from the right to vote while incarcerated, eliminating youth debt for young people who can't afford their LFOs to now the Judicial Discretion Act House Bill 1125, which is before the legislature today. I'm an activist for Native American rights. I advocate for our people and try to instill services and support so that Indian people have a better chance upon release and come out better mean than they were when they first were incarcerated. 

Megan [00:09:03] If you're thinking about folks who don't really know as much about how a bill becomes a law or want to be supportive but don't understand the advocacy process, how would you recommend they get started? 

Charles [00:09:18] I was talking to somebody a couple of weeks ago, and I told them if you identify a problem, you can identify a solution. So if you identify the problem, now think on how you can fix it. So I'll give you an example of my own story. So it started with reading the law, studying the law, understanding the law. It started with me representing all these legal cases through the law library. facing barrier after barrier after barrier whether it's a time bar issue, whatever all the legal nuances that occur that deny people relief and be struggling to find.. Thereality is we're only trying to get a second look. So, we begin to look back at old efforts like parole, begin to look back at new efforts in the nation is, what are other states up to? And we came up with this concept of the Judicial Discretion Act. We looked up the statutes, like for example, 6164, we looked at how that was written and we asked for a study to be done to kind of get information to see like, okay, what can we do, what can we learn from this process, where it failed, where it could grow, and that's how the concept of the DDU was created so that it's in the line. It's on the record, it's accountable, you have counsel, and we can just make that process more equitable. And so we crafted a bill to address this. 

Megan [00:10:51] It's 2024, roll it back. Explain to me what this looks like. You're at a typewriter. How does this work on the typewriter? How many takes did you have to do? And why did you make that choice to work on a typewriter rather than copy paste on your Securious tablet? 

Charles [00:11:10] We got to remember, back then we had JPay. 

Megan [00:11:13] Oh, man. 

Charles [00:11:14] Securus things are different, not only that but this is grassroots organizing. So I didn't have contacts I didn't have the people that we have today What we were doing was just an idea and the question was how do we make this idea a reality? so The first thought we had was we need to draft this up on a typewriter and write a bill like that so it's hard copy. That way groups at our facility can also review it and provide input and keep it live. We can find tools and products, we can write a cover letter, and we can begin hard mailing it to organizations, right? We can start making phone calls and start asking them to support, and their numbers of contacts, they might know, and network, network, network until we get to a place where we have a good team whose values are aligned with their mission that will support incarcerated people, will respect their want to lead from the inside, will be accountable to us and not just, I guess, exploit us. So there was a whole lot of process into bringing that idea to life. 

Megan [00:12:36] Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, it was just some tireless work. And one of the things I've learned is we don't all mean the same thing when we say grassroots. Folks like you and Ralph have done a lot of work to convince people that something that doesn't seem likely is actually possible and necessary. And just really upended the idea of what grassroots looks like when we think about state advocacy that could really become a bill that will be law. 

Charles [00:13:05] Yeah. Interesting point of view. Um, you know, nowadays, right? I have a Rolodex of a thousand people, thousand contacts, but I'll tell you, tell you years ago, I had zero and, um, it started with making phone calls, started with cold calling people, going to phone books and trying to find resources and to do it. I'm talking about like rags to riches, man. The real grassroots with nothing but you, your body, your friends trying to bring something to life without any idea against all pushback. And here we are today, you know, like something amazing. And I'm quite proud of where we're at and I'm really proud of the team we got. and the direction we're going. 

Megan [00:14:06] Yeah, it's been, you know, difficult and inspiring to just see the kinds of ways that people are making choices that will get the people who are the most vulnerable, who need to get out the most to really prioritize them and to try to push the bill forward, even when that means you might essentially be writing yourself and your own opportunity out of the bill or having to wait many years, or some combination thereof. It's... It's really inspiring and I absolutely agree that the people who should make those decisions are the people who have the direct experience and have done the work to think about how to apply that in making our laws better. 

Charles [00:14:58] Definitely. Nothing about us without us. Thank you guys for the time and recording, I appreciate this day and opportunity and I hope I came clear and we can get these episodes out, look forward to listening to them and seeing them all. 

Megan [00:15:13] Yeah. All right. Take care, friend. 

Ralph [00:15:27] In 2025, the Judiciary Secondary Coalition has representation across Washington state prisons and is pushing for the JDA to pass. Next, we'll hear from the Bill's prime sponsor, Tarra Simmons. 

Megan [00:15:51] OK, so this is Megan Ybarra. With me today is Representative Tarra Simmons, a lawyer, civil rights activist, and leader in the fight for reforming criminal punishment. Representative Simmons, thank you so much for making the time to speak with us today. 

Tarra Simmons [00:16:06] Of course. Thank you for having me. 

Megan [00:16:08] So could you tell us just a little bit about your path to becoming a state representative and how your personal experiences have shaped your work? 

Tarra Simmons [00:16:16] Yeah, absolutely. So being a state representative was not anything I ever imagined up until I announced I was running, honestly. And, you know, it just was really based on my lived experiences growing up in the hood in Stockton, California. My father is Latino, but I grew up in a predominantly Black community. And it was, you know, in the early 90s and a lot of, you know, gang interactions and I was looking for peer acceptance because my father was a crack addict and I was exposed to a lot of violence and participated in harm as well at a very young age. I ended up, you know, I was 13 and homeless, moved up here where my mother lived and got pregnant at 14 and was in and out of, you know, foster care, jail, juvenile detention, prison. Um, for, you know, most of my life, I didn't pick this job. It picked me because I thought for sure when I graduated magna cum laude with a Dean's medal and the graduating student award, and I founded a nonprofit while I was in law school and had been appointed to these boards and commissions by the governor... I thought for sure they were going to let me in to be an attorney. And that's all I wanted to do, was help other people reentering with their collateral consequences, or helping them get jobs in housing and reunify with their kids and things like that. And since they didn't allow me to become a lawyer, I had to fight to the Supreme Court and take up a case that made national headlines and really kind of got my story out there. And then other people asked me to run for office. 

Megan [00:17:54] I think for me, it's really inspiring to think about you as someone who is breaking those barriers in terms of becoming the first formerly incarcerated person to successfully be admitted to the Washington State Bar, becoming the first formerly incarcerated person to be a state legislator. And I also appreciate the way that you move, the way that, for example, when you get invited to events at prisons, first of all, you go. And second of all, you always make sure to bring another legislator with you. It's that kind of informal organizing that I think helps us understand what prisons really are and break down that binary you named of assuming that survivors and perpetrators can't be the same people with long life histories. So one of the things that we value in your advocacy is the way you bring this principle of "nothing about us without us" to your work. And as I mentioned, I think it's great that you do so much work in collaborating with currently incarcerated people and their families. And I'm wondering if you can speak to the challenges and opportunities in that kind of inside-outside dynamic, bringing the voices of prisoners into the legislature. 

Tarra Simmons [00:19:04] Yeah, I mean, I think I'll start with the challenges is sometimes just getting the cooperation of the Department of Corrections to allow them to participate. And then just the challenges of communication in general. You know, I can't bring them into the caucus room so I have to, you know, and I get to sit and listen and try to relay as many messages as I can and... But you know, there's challenges with communication and just access to these spaces. But I would say the greatest opportunity though is I have seen, since I've been here for four sessions, we have gotten a lot done that would never have been done if I wasn't here, but it also wouldn't have been done if I didn't have a community outside of this space to also organize with. 

Megan [00:20:00] I also wanted to pivot and get specifically into your collaboration with this group that is called the Judicial Second Look Coalition. Tell me a little bit about how you connected with the coalition and what that work has been like since its inception. 

Tarra Simmons [00:20:15] Yeah so it's so funny because there was a group of judges who were wanting to meet with me to talk about you know allowing them to look at old sentences and like potentially do resentencing. And so I'm working with this group of judges and then my friend a couple of different people told me about, Charles Longshore, and that he was separately like convening people and talking about this proposal. And so what I did is, I didn't agree to sponsor the bill or anything right away. I just sent the judges to go talk to Charles Longshore and that coalition. I said, you know, it sounds like I'm hearing about this other coalition and then you guys are doing, it's like, why don't you go work with Charles and like figure something out there. So I connected them and they got there and then they started working on the judicial discretion act. So it's just been very organic how we've all come together and now we have really deep friendships, I would say. And we also just have like community agreements about how we're gonna treat each other. Because in this work, it can be so harmful and I see the horizontal lateral violence all the time of people not feeling that they're seen or they're good enough or they're not getting the recognition or one of their needs is unmet. And so I will continue, because even when we pass JDA, there's going to be other work we have to do. The issue of mass incarceration is so huge and so complex and so intersectional. The criminal legal system is just an utter failure from arrest through reentry, and there's so many issues we have to work on in between. Now through this Judicial Second Look Coalition, we are working on other bills too, and we've invited other people into our space where we have made authentic relationships. 

Megan [00:22:13] Do we have a sense of, you know, how many people might potentially be eligible over the course of a number of years as the JDA would roll out, how many people might be eligible to apply for re -sentencing? 

Tarra Simmons [00:22:25] I mean, based on the criteria established, there could be 2 ,000 or 3 ,000 people that may qualify. However, not all of those people have done the work of actually being accountable and healing and transformation, and so there won't be that many. But I would say we created a triage plan so we won't overload the court. Because that's the thing that we hear over and over again, and it's legitimate, the capacity of the prosecutors, the defenders, the judges, the system. And so, you know, we have this triage plan so that way, like the first year, I think it's around a hundred to three people who will be immediately potentially eligible. doesn't mean they're gonna get re -sentenced. It just means based on the length of their sentence and the time or the age that they were when they were convicted, that they could potentially apply. And so every year, we have a certain amount of people that will be potentially eligible until, I think it’s 2032. That way everyone we've gotten through the caseload of people that could be eligible. So it's going to take time and I'm really proud of the guys inside and the women and non binary people, incarcerated folks that are in different prisons that came together to create this plan. I know it was hard because it was necessary in order to sell it, you know, and to get support. They made hard decisions and some of them were like, I'll wait five years, you know, because I think that kids who were convicted before they were 18 years old should go first. Or I think people who are on their last couple years of life and have severe medical problems should go first. So I really am proud of them for making those hard decisions. 

Megan [00:24:25] To me, it feels so much more meaningful that the people who are directly impacted are the ones who actually get to talk through what a potential compromise is, what it means, and what they are trading off. And, you know, compromises are always happening in the legislative process. And what I value about this Judicial Second Look Coalition is that they proactively had those conversations and made the choices themselves. I think that demonstrates already a capacity to rejoin and contribute to the outside community in a way that I think many people could stand to appreciate more and I hope that this bill will give them an opportunity to do so. 

Tarra Simmons [00:25:04] Yeah, yeah. And I think it's great too. And I'm really proud of the leaders on the JDA steering committee and in the coalition because it is hard when you are a person that's directly impacted and traumatized from your situation to engage in incremental change. 

Megan [00:25:30] Well, on behalf of Ralph Dunuan, thank you so much for the interview. 

Tarra Simmons [00:25:35] Thank you. Take care. 

Ralph [00:25:50] The community sentencing process in Washington fails to reckon with the complexity of people's lives. And the fact that some people have both been harmed and have caused harm. Next we'll listen to Amanda Knight's testimony in the House Safety Committee. 

Amanda Knight [00:26:18] My name is Amanda Knight. I have the honor of speaking to you from Washington Correction Center for Women, where I've been incarcerated for the last 15 years. I am testifying in support of House Bill 1125. My worst choice has defined my life. I made a call and subsequently drove my co -defendants to commit a robbery, ultimately resulting in a man's life being taken. To truly grapple with the harm I caused others, I had to recognize that I was the product of harm. For the first several years of my 71 year sentence, I could not accept my responsibility for actions that weren't my own. I was only able to learn and own true accountability through healing. My life experiences shaped my perception of the world and my interactions within it. I began as someone who was victimized and became later a perpetrator. My story is not unique, nor is it the darkest. According to the ACLU, between 1980 and 2016, the number of women imprisoned in Washington has grown more than eightfold, a 764 percent increase. A study by the National Institutes of Health found that up to 75 percent of incarcerated women experienced some form of abuse. No reason negates the fact that those of us who have committed crime have hurt people. Cycles of violence don't break, and healing from trauma doesn't happen through incarceration. Rather, healing occurs through support for victims and perpetrators, including those of us who have been both. The Judicial Discretion Act defines a pathway for discretionary sentencing. It allows judges to look at a woman's whole life's context, breaking down harmful victim perpetrator narratives, and rewarding women who do the work of healing. 

Ralph [00:28:01] Amanda's testimony is really powerful in disrupting the victim-perpetrator  binary. Let's hear from the prime squad of the bill on the Senate side, Noel Frame. 

Megan [00:28:20] Thank you so much for being here. With me today is Senator Frame. And this is Megan Ybarra for Ralph Dunuan with CHOICES Media Podcast. Senator Frame, I really, really appreciate you making the time to talk to us during the busy session. I'm wondering, to just get us started, if you could give me a sense of how your trajectory moved from working predominantly with youth and families into thinking more carefully about changing. what justice looks like in the criminal punishment system in Washington state. 

Noel Frame [00:28:52] Thanks for the question, Megan, and your interest in the topic. You are right, I spent much of my years in the legislature working on youth and family issues, and particularly our juvenile rehabilitation system. And I think through that work, I really came to learn and realize that we have a lot of research and science now that tells us about adolescent brain development. And we've made changes to our laws to reflect that and really treat young people as the young people that they are. We've changed our juvenile rehabilitation jurisdiction up to the age of 25 so we can keep young people in those settings as they mature. What I also realize is there are folks sitting in prison today that were convicted under an old regime where we didn't have that science, we didn't have that evidence to inform good public policy. And they are sitting, you know, in prison frankly, for many of them long past when they actually need to be there, and many of them have been there since they were teenagers or in their early 20s. And to me, the work that we're doing together here is sort of the other side of the equation. We've  done the work for people who are young now, but we also need to do a look back and reevaluate those who are serving their time under the old policy reflects and change that. 

Megan [00:30:16]  I really appreciate that attitude because I know it's much easier to make changes moving forward prospectively than it is to go back retrospectively in some cases, because it feels like we're admitting that we didn't know as much as we should have, or perhaps that mistakes were made. I'm wondering if you could say a little bit about the Judicial Discretion Act specifically, because certainly youthfulness is one of the factors that the Judicial Discretion Act will address. But as a prime sponsor, you know that the Judicial Discretion Act offers a broader set of opportunities. So can you speak to this specific bill and why it matters for Washingtonians?

Noel Frame [00:30:54] I think the bill really takes a full look at folks that are sitting in prison today, do they really need to be there any longer? Frankly, many folks have done a lot of work to improve the lives of others around them, to try to contribute back to their community as part of their accountability. And it's no longer in the interest of justice for them to stay incarcerated. And as a public policymaker,  we have to make hard choices all the time about how we run our state government and our institutions. And it's a massive waste of public resources to have somebody sit inside of an institution when it is no longer in the interest of justice. So it is really a merit -based look at our justice system and asking the question, is this person ready to go home? Are they safe to be in community? And if they are, providing a pathway and an opportunity for them to make their case and have an opportunity to go home that is broader than our fairly narrow pathway to do that. today which is largely through the clemency and pardons board and through the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. And that ISRB, you know, it only applies to a subsection of the folks who are incarcerated in our current system so most folks are really reliant on the clemency and pardons board which is something that goes up to the governor --  no judgment on any particular governor -- but it's a deeply political decision at the end of the day and it really limits who has an opportunity at relief. And this would open it up to judges to really say based on what we know today and this person's behavior, are they ready to go home? So that seems like a good opportunity for us to take a second look at our system. 

Megan [00:32:29] You know, Ralph and I have been talking over the course of this podcast about why it's so important for directly impacted families and communities to bring folks home so they can contribute. And the public policy question that you raise speaks to why people who aren't directly impacted should also care. And one of the things that is the hot question, I think for every single bill this year is how much will it cost? And can you speak a little bit to sort of the short term costs of something like the Judicial Discretion Act, as opposed to sort the long term outlook for Washington state budget. 

Noel Frame [00:33:00] Yeah, so I'll answer that question in a couple of parts. I mean, one, there is some costs to our courts, and I don't want to ignore that. There are some costs to go through a resentencing process. And I think the advocates who have worked on this legislation, I wouldn't call it my bill, by the way, this is the bill of the advocates and I'm merely a conduit of good ideas. So I want to give credit where credit is due. I think they've done a really good job sort of phasing this in and tiering it out so that we have sort of a good approach from financial standpoint. But I think the impact for folks, you say folks that are not directly impacted is much broader and it's worth the money in my opinion. 

Noel Frame [00:33:39] And one of the things that I want to speak to is specifically victims of crime and sort of this overall conversation that we have about victims and survivors. And there is, I think, there has been for many years a very monolithic take on what survivors want and what victims of crime want. And it is false. to assume that every victim wants somebody locked up and the key thrown away and for them never to get out. Many victims want to see people do better. They want them to apologize. They want them to take accountability. That's part of their own healing journey. And we don't really afford that opportunity to survivors today because we don't have a system that provides pathways for people who are incarcerated to really have a motivation to be accountable, get out and contribute to their communities in a way that might actually feel healing. So this has a much broader impact than just the families of the incarcerated. I think it's something that we need for broader reconciliation in our communities and broader impacts on public safety and doing justice by survivors to see folks that have hurt them get better. 

Megan [00:34:49] Yeah, I appreciate that. And it's the last year or so thinking about the ways that discourses of victims play out in the state legislature has been actually really confusing for me because we know particularly with certain kinds of crimes such as family violence, sexual assault, the vast majority of those don't even get reported to the police or prosecuted. So when we're talking about this victims as a monolith, we're really talking about the set of people who are already opting into the system as it is, as opposed to many of us who, you know, we're not going to call the police because we would not want to subject our loved ones to that system. And those survivors are sort of, in my mind, erased by the discussions I've been hearing in some of the public discussions. 

Noel Frame [00:35:32] Yeah, I join you in that point of view, Megan. I'm also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I really elevated the conversation about, you know, a different perspective here. So I share the frustration that you have, and I, you know, as somebody, again, who was a victim of intra -family violence and knowing so many people that have experienced that, and similarly, as hard as the situation is, don't want to subject the broader family to the criminal legal system. Those survivors don't get the help that they need. And they don't get the opportunity for healing and accountability. And in some cases don't even get to get separated from the abuser in the case where nobody knows about it and hides behind the protection of religious freedom. So yeah, I've shared your opinion about frustration. I believe in reconciliation. I believe in restorative justice. I also believe in separating victims from harm and getting them the supports that they need to heal. 

Megan [00:36:28] One of the things that I've been thinking about is, you know, my own experience was, when I went to the police and asked for safety and support, they were like, well, if we document everything, then if he kills you, we'll be able to give him a longer sentence later. And I was like, that doesn't do anything for me now. So I never filed a report. I never did the temporary restraining order. I never, you know, the idea of when I asked for safety, what I was told was that vengeance could be documented for later. What I wanted and what was on offer were two completely different things. And I think it's important that we acknowledge that that is part of the circumstances of who gets represented as a victim in this post-conviction moment, particularly when we think about how for many communities of color, mixed status and immigrant communities, we don't see the police as our friends and as our protectors. And I think that's something that I'm seeing get lost in ways that allow for punitive policies to continue to impact the same communities that are doing our best to protect ourselves and our families. 

Noel Frame [00:37:36] Yeah, I would add to the mix of your comments there, and thank you for sharing your own story. And you know,  the work I've done over the years working with young people in particular, and so I think again, this is true for people that are now my peers in their 40s that have been sitting in prison since they were young people... So many of our young people who commit crimes are in really complex traumatic situations. We have a very sadly strong foster care to juvenile rehabilitation or foster care to prison pipeline. And these are families who have experienced disruption and harm, even if intended to be in their best interest, like through child protective services, it's still disruption in their families and a lot of families who lack trust with government institutions. And so I share your opinion that just going to the police and reporting it and filing a report doesn't necessarily feel like safety for a lot of folks. And again, those victims go unserved. And so, you know, I've also been very supportive over the years of evidence-based programs, but also innovative programs coming from community that haven't necessarily had the benefit of the evidence -based research treatment that costs money to get that kind of validation that is proactive, that is focused on prevention, that's focused on intervention. We have things like family reconciliation services and children in need of services. These are things that we try to do interventions further upstream to help prevent if we can, but at least intervene when we see early signs of harm or potential harm to try to get those families the support they need before those young people and others in their family go down a very dangerous path. So lots of work can be done. 

Megan [00:39:18] I really appreciate the holistic outlook. 

Megan [00:39:20] I also wanted to loop back. I really appreciate the way you described yourself as a conduit for this and other bills and thinking about how to reform our system. And I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit to how you, as a state legislator, seek to work with community members who may not always find the capitol to be a comfortable place for them to advocate. 

Noel Frame [00:39:42] Yeah, I really appreciate the question.  I know that it is such a privilege to serve in this position. And I know from my own lived experience, being inside these halls, the difference in perspective that even I bring, given my own lived experience with living in a family with multi -generational trauma, everything that you just said, Megan, like I think any of us that have grown up in families with intergenerational trauma, It's not like...  You don't have to look back that far to see the connections from one generation to the next and the impact that it has. And knowing just my own distinctly different lens that I bring and recognizing that I don't have the experience that everybody has. And that frankly, as a white woman, now a middle -class white woman, like I don't have all the experiences in the world that need to be heard here, right? So I really seek out, kind of with the operating mantra of those closest to the harm are often closest to the solutions and trying to bring people in to say, you know, What are you experiencing? What would have been helpful to you? What do you need right now? Rather than some top -down approach that maybe passes a bill and pats myself on the back and pretends like we're actually doing something. But  if it's not actually something that's adopted out in community, it's absolutely meaningless and sadly places like this... So, you know, oftentimes people are just fine with passing a bill and patting themselves on the back. I'm like, I think we should probably go talk to the people who it's impacting and making sure that it's actually working. So it's been a real privilege to be able to stand side by side with community to bring these types of solutions forward. 

Megan [00:41:23] For listeners who may not be as close to the system and who imagine someone who doesn't even know what a WAC is, how do we explain to them what happens in the difference between the House side and the Senate side with where these rehabilitative laws are emerging? And what's something that you think that your everyday Washingtonian who's interested in criminal justice reform, but doesn't really know the system that much, what would you want them to know about the Senate and to be thinking about in this moment as we're coming up on our first policy deadline? 

Noel Frame [00:41:58] Yeah, I mean, I will say that we have processes that on the House and the Senate side that mostly mirror each other, although there are some differences along the way, different committee structures, not different deadlines, because we tend to share those, but different structures, different approaches, different rules that dictate how bills move through the process, particularly on the floor. And then no matter where a bill starts, we have to rinse and repeat and go through the whole other process on the other side of the house. And, you know, how bills move, we often have to make hard decisions about time. And we maybe don't hear a bill in one chamber because we have decided that we're gonna move the House bill when it gets over to us and that's how we're gonna kind of allocate our time because, you know, we're a part -time legislature. We are only here for a certain amount of time. It's 105 days this year. Next year, in the even number of years, it's only 60 days. And so we were always making hard choices. So sometimes there's a lot happening behind the scenes that folks can't see. Now that doesn't mean that folks should not push us. Like, even if you think we agree with you, push us. I love it. I'm like, give me all the support that I need to go in there and fight like hell. Because at the end of the day, it really comes down to, who's willing to fight, who's willing to prioritize different bills, spend their political capital, do the work. And, you know, I can tell you there's a very big difference for me as a legislator when I feel like I've got a team of people standing alongside me fighting versus being out there on my own and not sure anybody cares. So it is a big difference to have people show up and they should continue to push us to be the best version of ourselves even if I can't see all the details behind. 

Megan [00:43:45] That's wonderful. Thank you so much. And I know we're doing our best to try to get folks to sign in pro, sign on, and think about the most effective ways to engage legislators. I know that we are running short of time and I know that you are very busy in your 115 days. 

Noel Frame [00:44:01] 105!

Megan [00:44:02] 105 days. The long session is still very short to me. Is there anything else that you want to leave us with as we're as we're thinking about all of these different opportunities for judicial reforms and other kinds of criminal punishment, rehabilitation opportunities. 

Noel Frame [00:44:22] You know, I will just say that over the years of doing this work, the more that we can tell our personal stories, our own lived experience, and I say, we, like the collective, we, you know, I have watched colleagues who you would never think would vote yes on something around criminal legal system reform, give us yes votes when they connect with people at a human level and understand their heart and they can see that there is change is possible. And that's important because, you know, other people have different lived experiences than I do, and some of them are still really hurting from the experiences that they've had and sometimes really hard to see a different perspective. And so I do think just understanding the real world impacts of what these policies are doing and why they're worth a second look and why they're worth changing happens in many cases at a very human level. Always match it with the data and the research, yes, but sometimes people just need to connect with a human being and understand, yes, people make mistakes, in some cases really grave. But they are humans at the end of the day and they can change and they can be countable and also can come back into community and contribute. And we should aim for a system of rehabilitation that does exactly that. So people should continue to tell their stories. 

Megan [00:45:39] Thank you so much for that. And I really appreciate the centering of, honoring in the same way that we don't want our stories erased, we certainly don't want to erase anybody else's. We want to honor everyone's experience so that we can come to an understanding about what's going to get us to a place where we are safer and happier and healthier. So with that, I will leave you. Hopefully you get a lunch break today. The shrug was a maybe not, but I appreciate that. And again, on behalf of CHOICES Media and Ralph Dunuan in Washington Corrections Center, we really appreciate the time. 

Noel Frame [00:46:13] Thank you for your interest. 

Megan [00:46:14] Okay, we hope to see you over on the Senate side with the JDA. 

Noel Frame [00:46:18] Thanks, Megan. Have a good day. 

Ralph [00:46:31] So in our next episode, we'll talk with Anthony Blankenship and Derek Collier about the impact of solitary confinement, how it's weaponized and not a deterrent for negative behavior. So I hope you all will stay tuned in and learn with us how groups of people are finding identity and self -liberation. This episode was produced by Megan Ybarra and edited and mixed by Anvar Hassanpour. Also, thanks to Senator Frame and Representative Simmons for sponsoring bills that impact us. And special thanks to all our inside folks that are keeping the fight alive for our freedoms and rights. From The Inside Out, this is Ralph Dunuan, sending out my best to all and in solidarity for liberation and the communities we want.