Solitary Confinement on Rikers Island: An Interview with the Prisoners Rights Project
by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella
We do agree that there is currently an increase of violence in the City jails. Our contacts with the jail population show an increase in injurious violence by staff against prisoners, which is confirmed by data on the DOC web site indicating an increase in uses of force with injury: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doc/html/stats/doc_stats.shtml.
It is three years since adolescent prisoner Christopher Robinson was killed by other prisoners with uniformed DOC staff complicity as part of a sadistic society referred to as “The Program.” Three DOC staff members were criminally indicted for their participation in the violent group. Two Correction Officers pled guilty last month and another Correction Officer and seven inmates are still awaiting trial.
The Legal Aid Society continues to receive complaints from prisoners of assaults and threats under circumstances suggesting continued staff complicity or acquiescence. We have brought several cases for inmates beaten by gang members at the solicitation of, or with the facilitation of DOC staff. We have litigated a number of class action injunctive cases, and damage cases on behalf of City inmates severely injured in staff beatings and these cases have settled for sums totaling millions of dollars.
SW: What are your thoughts on the relationship between the high number of inmates with mental illness at Rikers and the high rate of solitary confinement?
PWP: We are extremely concerned that a significant number of detainees and prisoners with serious mental illness are confined in harmful solitary confinement in the NYC jails. The mental health treatment program in the City jails is not effective. Individuals with inadequately treated mental illness who cannot conform their behavior to jail rules due to untreated symptoms or who are punished for symptomatic behavior, end up in solitary confinement where their condition worsens and they may accumulate additional disciplinary infractions and sentences to isolated punitive segregation.
SW: We understand that a number of the new punitive segregation cells are for adolescents. What do you think about this? Are there alternative ways to deal with violence among the teenagers at Rikers?
PWP: Christopher Robinson, the murdered inmate discussed above, was only 18 at the time of his death. “The Program,” in which DOC staff was complicit and which beat him to death, was in the juvenile facility on Rikers. Clearly DOC has a lot to do to train its staff and learn to manage the adolescent population in a humane manner. However, the idea that the solution is to utilize punitive segregation cells as a first resort is ill founded.
The adolescent population requires adequate supervision by staff who are trained to deal with the adolescent population and are trained in recognizing mental health issues in adolescents. Adding and utilizing punitive segregation cells for adolescents is a terrible threat to young people’s mental health and a grossly inadequate response to young prisoners with mental health issues. The correct response would include increased mental health services and to provide adequate close supervision of the adolescent population to control the level of violence in it.
SW: Why are you among the organizations convening the December 1 meeting now, and what do you hope it might accomplish?
PWP: The Legal Aid Society is hosting the development of a new coalition of organizations and individuals – advocacy, mental health, prison family members, ex-offenders – to work together on issues of concern in the City jails. This came out of our work with the Mental Health Alternatives to Solitary Confinement coalition (MHASC). The work of MHASC resulted in the passage of the SHU Exclusion Law limiting the use of solitary confinement of prisoners with mental illness in the New York state prisons. We hope to duplicate reforms won in the state prisons and to provide the community with a voice in the current discussion about the prevalence of individuals with mental illness in the City jails and other issues of concern. We believe that other issues will include over-use of solitary confinement (regardless of mental health), lack of needed mental health treatment and housing options in general, and problems with brutality and other forms of mistreatment.
You asked above whether increasing punitive segregation cells is the correct way to deal with the increase in violence at the City jails. We do not believe that an increase in punitive segregation cells is an appropriate response to the myriad problems in the City jails. The culture of brutality by DOC staff has not been sufficiently redressed through oversight and training. There is a failure to provide the population of detainees with mental health needs with sufficient treatment that would accommodate their disability and permit them to participate in the jail program without running afoul of disciplinary rules. Training, oversight and improved mental health care should be the first response to reducing the level of violence in the jails.
Contrary to the COBA presentation of this issue, punitive segregation is not solely utilized for those who have committed violent infractions. DOC should do a utilization analysis of its segregation population to identify prisoners in segregation who do not merit such isolating and punitive confinement. Although this has been recommended, DOC has declined to do this analysis in the past, and we do not know if the present administration has remedied that omission.
We do agree that there is currently an increase of violence in the City jails. Our contacts with the jail population show an increase in injurious violence by staff against prisoners, which is confirmed by data on the DOC web site indicating an increase in uses of force with injury: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doc/html/stats/doc_stats.shtml.
Last week we wrote about the dramatic increase in the use of solitary confinement currently underway on Rikers Island. By the end of this year, Rikers will have close to 1,000 "punitive segregation" units for a population of 12,700 inmates--giving the island prison one of the highest rates of solitary confinement in the country (and thus, the industrialized world). The majority of the prisoners on Rikers are awaiting trial, while the rest are serving short prison terms of up to one year. Approximately one-third of them suffer from mental illness, and more than 800 are juveniles.
The New York City Department of Corrections (DOC) and Corrections Officers Benevolent Association (COBA) say that the increase in solitary confinement is a necessary response to increased violence at Rikers. A number of groups that advocate for prisoners disagree. Among these is the Legal Aid Society's Prisoners Rights Project (PRP), which, "protects and enforces the legal rights of New York City and New York State prisoners through litigation, advice, and assistance to individual prisoners," according to its mission statement. PRP is the host and co-sponsor of a meeting to take place on December 1 to discuss issues of concern in New York City jails, including the rising use of solitary. In response to a set of questions emailed by Solitary Watch, the PRP's Sarah Kerr, John Boston, and Jonathan Chasan provided the following analysis.
=====
SW: The DOC is clearly presenting what they call a "chronic shortage" of punitive segregation beds as a primary reason for the recent rise in violent incidents at Rikers. They are also presenting the increase in isolation beds as the best--perhaps the only--way to deal with this problem. What would you say in response to this?
PWP: We do not believe that there is a genuine shortage of segregation beds. In fact, the jail population is several thousand prisoners lower than it was in the late 1990s, when there were fewer segregation beds than there are today. To the contrary we are finding that there are problems with Department of Correction policies and practices which are artificially inflating the need for segregation beds without dealing with problems in jail management.
For example, the disciplinary process is often a sham in which due process requirements are not observed. The Legal Aid Society has received numerous complaints from prisoners who report being falsely marked as refusing their disciplinary hearings, and who were then sentenced to punitive segregation without having a hearing. Punitive segregation sentences are artificially inflated by bringing multiple charges for the same actions if they affected more than one person.
We believe a substantial number of people are wrongly held in punitive segregation. Some of these prisoners were assaulted by correction staff, sometimes as a result of minor rules violations or purely verbal misconduct, and then charged with assault on staff—a very common complaint, and one we find credible based on lengthy experience litigating cases of misuse of force by DOC staff.
http://solitarywatch.com/2011/11/28/solitary-confinement-on-rikers-island-an-interview-with-the-prisoners-rights-project/#more-4378
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
WARNING! This video may be deeply disturbing to some viewers.
Shocking video shows a child being screamed at while wearing a tire around his neck.
WARNING! This video may be deeply disturbing to some viewers. Do not play it if children are within viewing or listening range.
Click to view VIDEO
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) Police will investigate whether a crime occurred at a youth boot camp after videos surfaced showing instructors shouting at a boy wearing a tire around his neck and children being told to drink water until some vomited.
Investigators will question boot camp operator Kelvin "Sgt. Mac" McFarland, police Cmdr. Darryl Qualls told the Pasadena Star-News (http://bit.ly/vtQb7Q ) on Thursday.
"Looking at the video we can only see McFarland, so we will start the investigation with McFarland," Qualls said.
McFarland earlier denied to the newspaper that he appeared in the videos. A call left for him Friday was not immediately returned.
McFarland was charged earlier this year with child abuse, extortion and other crimes.
Prosecutors contend that he handcuffed a truant 14-year-old girl in May and told her family that she would be sent to juvenile detention unless she was enrolled in his camp. She was never enrolled.
The Star-News this week released short video clips it said were made in 2009.
On one, several instructors in military-style fatigues surround and shout at a boy who is wearing a heavy auto tire. At one point, the boy falls down crying but is ordered to stand again.
In the other, several girls and boys are repeatedly ordered to drink water from colored plastic bottles. Several youngsters vomit.
"I would certainly not subject my son or daughter or any child I know to this type of activity," City Council member Victor Gordo told the newspaper.
"The short clips that I reviewed appeared to be more of a situation of intimidation and humiliation appearing to be employed under the guise of physical activity and discipline," Gordo said.
The Star-News said the videos appear to have been made in Pasadena but did not indicate how it obtained them.
McFarland runs Family First Growth Camp in Pasadena, which like other boot camps uses military-style discipline and exercises with a goal of instilling character and keeping at-risk youngsters away from drugs, alcohol and crime.
The camp "doesn't believe in corporal punishment, nor will it be tolerated," according to a camp website.
"The young men/women who come to us are good kids who have begun to make some poor choices with friends, school, drugs, alcohol, attitude with peers and family members," the website said, adding that through the camp, "these kids seek out, find, then learn to love themselves so they can love their families and start to move in a positive direction."
The camp is funded through a combination of fees and charitable donations. Enrollment is through parents, although in some states juvenile justice systems send some offenders to boot camps.
However, some studies have shown that juvenile offenders sent to boot camps were no less likely to commit new crimes than those who were placed in juvenile detention or given probation.
The Star-News did not specify whether the videos were taken at a Family First training session and noted that some children seemed to be wearing T-shirts from another camp.
Keith "Sarge" Gibbs, who runs Sarge's Community Base/Commit II Achieve Boot Camp, said that some of the children appear to be wearing his camp T-shirts.
McFarland worked for him in 2009 but left to form his own camp after Gibbs learned that he had lied about taking a required background check, Gibbs said.
"He left and took 28 families and kids with him, with my shirts and some paperwork," Gibbs told The Associated Press on Friday.
http://nospank.net/n-u89.htm
WARNING! This video may be deeply disturbing to some viewers. Do not play it if children are within viewing or listening range.
Click to view VIDEO
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) Police will investigate whether a crime occurred at a youth boot camp after videos surfaced showing instructors shouting at a boy wearing a tire around his neck and children being told to drink water until some vomited.
Investigators will question boot camp operator Kelvin "Sgt. Mac" McFarland, police Cmdr. Darryl Qualls told the Pasadena Star-News (http://bit.ly/vtQb7Q ) on Thursday.
"Looking at the video we can only see McFarland, so we will start the investigation with McFarland," Qualls said.
McFarland earlier denied to the newspaper that he appeared in the videos. A call left for him Friday was not immediately returned.
McFarland was charged earlier this year with child abuse, extortion and other crimes.
Prosecutors contend that he handcuffed a truant 14-year-old girl in May and told her family that she would be sent to juvenile detention unless she was enrolled in his camp. She was never enrolled.
The Star-News this week released short video clips it said were made in 2009.
On one, several instructors in military-style fatigues surround and shout at a boy who is wearing a heavy auto tire. At one point, the boy falls down crying but is ordered to stand again.
In the other, several girls and boys are repeatedly ordered to drink water from colored plastic bottles. Several youngsters vomit.
"I would certainly not subject my son or daughter or any child I know to this type of activity," City Council member Victor Gordo told the newspaper.
"The short clips that I reviewed appeared to be more of a situation of intimidation and humiliation appearing to be employed under the guise of physical activity and discipline," Gordo said.
The Star-News said the videos appear to have been made in Pasadena but did not indicate how it obtained them.
McFarland runs Family First Growth Camp in Pasadena, which like other boot camps uses military-style discipline and exercises with a goal of instilling character and keeping at-risk youngsters away from drugs, alcohol and crime.
The camp "doesn't believe in corporal punishment, nor will it be tolerated," according to a camp website.
"The young men/women who come to us are good kids who have begun to make some poor choices with friends, school, drugs, alcohol, attitude with peers and family members," the website said, adding that through the camp, "these kids seek out, find, then learn to love themselves so they can love their families and start to move in a positive direction."
The camp is funded through a combination of fees and charitable donations. Enrollment is through parents, although in some states juvenile justice systems send some offenders to boot camps.
However, some studies have shown that juvenile offenders sent to boot camps were no less likely to commit new crimes than those who were placed in juvenile detention or given probation.
The Star-News did not specify whether the videos were taken at a Family First training session and noted that some children seemed to be wearing T-shirts from another camp.
Keith "Sarge" Gibbs, who runs Sarge's Community Base/Commit II Achieve Boot Camp, said that some of the children appear to be wearing his camp T-shirts.
McFarland worked for him in 2009 but left to form his own camp after Gibbs learned that he had lied about taking a required background check, Gibbs said.
"He left and took 28 families and kids with him, with my shirts and some paperwork," Gibbs told The Associated Press on Friday.
http://nospank.net/n-u89.htm
Monday, October 17, 2011
Pennsylvania Prisoners Charged with Rioting After Protesting Conditions in Solitary
Pennsylvania Prisoners Charged with Rioting After Protesting Conditions in Solitary
by Sal Rodriguez
A group of inmates held in solitary confinement in a Pennsylvania prison have been charged with various felony offenses, including rioting and aggravated harassment, stemming from their participation in an April 2010 protest against prison abuses. The group, which has come to be known as the Dallas 6, covered the windows of their cell doors with bedding in protest of alleged harassment by correctional officers at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Dallas. Their protest was met with violent "cell extractions" against all six inmates. Officially, the covering of the cell windows constituted an act which coerced correctional officials to perform cell extractions, therefore making their actions rioting.
According to Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! investigator Bret Grote, there will be a hearing before Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Nina Gartley on October 21st regarding a defense motion to consolidate the cases of four of the Dallas 6's cases into a single case. The hearing involves Andre Jacobs, Carrington Keys, Derrick Stanley, and Duane Peters-El, four of the five members of the Dallas 6 who have yet to have their cases resolved. (Anthony Kelly accepted a plea bargain last year, and Anthony Locke will be tried separately). The four are currently held at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility. Carrington Keys was set to go to trial on October 17th, but the trial has been postponed to a later, undetermined date.
The alleged abuses against inmates that inspired the protest are, according to some, reflective of a widespread problem in the Pennsylvania prison system. The most dramatic allegations surfaced last month, when a suspended prison guard from SCI Pittsburgh was arrested on charges that he sexually or physically assaulted more than 20 inmates. Earlier reports suggest less extreme, but nonetheless serious abuses at other prisons.
As of August 31, 2011 there were 51,393 inmates under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in a system with a designed capacity of 44,190. Among them are over 1,500 inmates in isolation units—referred to as Restricted Housing Units. Restricted Housing Units are solitary confinement units where inmates are kept in their cells 23 hours a day during the week and 24 hours on the weekends.
For ten months between 2009 and 2010, the Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! worked on a report documenting abuses across Pennsylvania prisons, but most specifically at SCI Dallas. A medium security prison in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, SCI Dallas houses over 2,100 inmates, including over a hundred inmates in Disciplinary and Administrative Restricted Housing Units.
According to the 2010 report by the Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! “Institutionalized Cruelty: Torture at SCI Dallas and in Prisons Throughout Pennsylvania”, written with extensive cooperation of inmates, SCI Dallas was particularly rife with abuses. Among them, the “frequent usage of racist slurs, threats of violence, verbal and physical abuse by guards,” “ retaliation against prisoners exercising their constitutional rights to file grievances,” and “failure to provide adequate or at times any, physical or mental health care.”
One prisoner who corresponded with the HRC described his experience in the RHU at SCI Dallas:
"The conditions were very inhumane...hot, no working vents at all... stuffy and humid... My first cell bugs were biting me all over my body, when I said something about it they (medical staff) played like I was crazy then finally after constant complaining they gave me benadryl then moved me and still didn't clean the cell. They had a light on all day that felt like a rotisserie lamp. It was hard to sleep because of the hot humid cells and constant bugs biting me all day and night... We had no cups to drink the brown colored water that came o ut of the sinks and toilets. There was constant screaming yelling kicking and banging..."
The 93 page report includes extensive case studies and descriptions by inmates of the psychological torment of solitary confinement, racism, violence, and various other abuses at SCI Dallas. One detailed description of the psychologically detrimental effects of solitary confinement in the RHUs cited in the report can be read here.
The report was released in April 2010. RHU Inmate Andre Jacobs, who had corresponded with HRC and whose testimonial appeared in the report, was sent a copy of the report. On April 25th, RHU inmate Derrick Stanley reported hearing a member of the security staff tell Jacobs that he "just got something really interesting from Fed Up."
At some point on the 25th, inmate Anthony Kelly, who had contributed to the HRC report, had food withheld from him. Fellow inmate Isaac Sanchez spoke out against the withholding of food, and subsequently Sanchez's dinner was withheld. On May 2nd, Anthony Kelly wrote that "as of 4/25/10 I haven't had a sip of water and only 2 baloney sandwiches... They cut off your water and see how long you go before they can break you. They starve you." He also wrote that the report was being circulated among correctional officers, and that they had since "been on a very vicious roll."
On April 28th, three days after the withholding of meals from Kelly and Sanchez, Sanchez was the target of a cell extraction. As the HRC report describes it:
A cell-extraction is when guards equipped in riot gear and armed with pepper spray and electro-shock weapons forcibly enter a cell in order to overwhelm a prisoner, place them in hand and leg restraints, and move them to another cell by force.
Sanchez was, in his own words, "violently beaten and shocked for sometime, then I was placed on the restraint chair for sixteen hours."
The following day, six prisoners, many of whom had contributed to the HRC report, covered the windows of their cells in protest.
"We covered our windows to obstruct count, refused to answer them, barricaded our doors closed... and forced cell-extractions," according to a letter from Andre Jacobs cited in the August 2010 HRC report.
Andre Jacobs, Anthony Kelly, Carrington Keys, Anthony Locke, Derrick Stanley, and Duane Peters-El were all subjected to violent cell extractions the same day. All were tasered, many more than a dozen times, as well as pepper sprayed and beaten. Pages 10-16 of HRC's August 2010 report on the six provide background on the inmates as well as descriptions of their injuries.
According to the criminal complaints, filed July 7th, 2010, all six inmates were charged with rioting. The complaints read:
Riot-A Person is guilty is he participates with two or more others in a course of disorderly conduct with the intent to coerce official action. To wit; the defendant, along with five other inmates, covered their cell door windows and tied their doors shut in order to cause Corrections Officers to perform cell extractions.
In the Affidavit of Probable Cause (against Duane Peters):
On April 29, 2010, the defendant and other inmates lead by I/M Keys, I/M Locke, I/M Kelly and I/M Jacobs covered their cell door windows in order to require them to be extracted from the cells. The defendant, while housed in the RHU, also barricaded his cell door, along with five other inmates, and refused several orders to remove the items. This caused the use of the cell extraction team. When the extraction team attempted to remove the defendant he resisted and attempted to assault the officers after they entered.
According to a September 2010 news story from Luzerne County regarding a preliminary hearing for Carrington Keys:
On April 29, the men hung bedsheets to keep guards from peering into their cells and used the cloth to secure their doors shut, said Trooper Christopher Wilson. When an extraction team entered the cells, he said six guards were pelted with feces and urine.
In testimony, Lt. David Mosier, who heads the extraction team, said he gave "numerous warnings" to Keys and said guards would raid the cells if the bedding wasn't taken down.
"He refused all orders," Mosier said. "At that point I ordered the extraction team to enter."
The section referring to the guards "pelted with feces and urine" is a reference to additional charges against Carrington Keys, who denies those charges.
The charge of Aggravated Harassment by Prisoner against Keys, in the July 7th criminal complaint, reads:
A person is guilty if while confined in or committed to any local or county detention facility, jail or prison or any State penal or correctional institution or other State penal or correctional facility located in this Commonwealth, he intentionally or knowingly causes or attempts to cause another to come into contact with saliva or feces my throwing, tossing, spitting or expelling such fluid or material. To wit; the defendant threw feces at and on the extraction team; the victims are employees of the State Correctional Institution in Dallas.
One inconsistency in the charges against Keys is that, had there been an incident in which excrement had been thrown at the officers, there would have been a decontamination process (which there is no evidence of), rather than the continuation of cell extractions immediately after Keys' extraction.
In a hearing on November 12th, 2010:
State police Cpl. Christopher Wilson called the three corrections officers to testify. They said the six inmates were given several orders to remove the coverings from their cell doors – a violation of the prisons code – and didn’t comply.
The officers testified they then removed the six men from their cells to search them.
“Something serious was going on,” said Sgt. Donald Buck, an officer at SCI-Dallas. “It was a security and safety issue.”
Originally charged as a group, the six were eventually split up into six individual cases. Their actions were deemed a safety issue which, as the complaints read, served to "coerce official action", with the cell extractions being the official action coerced by the inmates.
As of October 4th, 2011, Anthony Kelly accepted a plea bargain (the details of which are unknown) in November 2010 and has since been released. All of the remaining inmates have remained in solitary confinement units. Anthony Locke has not been in contact with HRC-Fed Up! nor any Dallas 6 support groups.
Duane Peters and Carrington Keys are currently representing themselves. Keys, in July 2010, filed a suit against the district attorney for ignoring complaints. In September 2010 the suit was moved from state to federal court, where Keys was asked to amend his complaint against the District Attorney. He added complaints of being retaliated against and asked the federal government to issue a restraining against the District Attorney, a move which was subsequently denied.
Since the incident in April 2010, Andre Jacobs has been transferred to three facilities. The first facility where he was transfered immediately after the cell extraction was SCI Coal Township where, on August 2nd according to over a dozen reports from inmates, food was withheld from him because "he liked to file paperwork." After protesting the withholding of meals, he was subsequently removed from the cell while guards removed the mattress and personal belongings and was returned to an empty cell and was reportedly denied meals for an extended period of time afterwards. He was later sent to SCI Huntington and then SCI Rockview. Jacobs is currently in the Luzerne County prison for pretrial hearings represented by a public attorney who Jacobs has attempted to fire so that he may represent himself, but so far this move has not been allowed by the court.
Sal Rodriguez | October 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Categories: civil liberties/civil rights, Pennsylvania, retaliation, solitary confinement | URL: http://wp.me/pKbGK-14e
by Sal Rodriguez
A group of inmates held in solitary confinement in a Pennsylvania prison have been charged with various felony offenses, including rioting and aggravated harassment, stemming from their participation in an April 2010 protest against prison abuses. The group, which has come to be known as the Dallas 6, covered the windows of their cell doors with bedding in protest of alleged harassment by correctional officers at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Dallas. Their protest was met with violent "cell extractions" against all six inmates. Officially, the covering of the cell windows constituted an act which coerced correctional officials to perform cell extractions, therefore making their actions rioting.
According to Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! investigator Bret Grote, there will be a hearing before Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Nina Gartley on October 21st regarding a defense motion to consolidate the cases of four of the Dallas 6's cases into a single case. The hearing involves Andre Jacobs, Carrington Keys, Derrick Stanley, and Duane Peters-El, four of the five members of the Dallas 6 who have yet to have their cases resolved. (Anthony Kelly accepted a plea bargain last year, and Anthony Locke will be tried separately). The four are currently held at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility. Carrington Keys was set to go to trial on October 17th, but the trial has been postponed to a later, undetermined date.
The alleged abuses against inmates that inspired the protest are, according to some, reflective of a widespread problem in the Pennsylvania prison system. The most dramatic allegations surfaced last month, when a suspended prison guard from SCI Pittsburgh was arrested on charges that he sexually or physically assaulted more than 20 inmates. Earlier reports suggest less extreme, but nonetheless serious abuses at other prisons.
As of August 31, 2011 there were 51,393 inmates under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in a system with a designed capacity of 44,190. Among them are over 1,500 inmates in isolation units—referred to as Restricted Housing Units. Restricted Housing Units are solitary confinement units where inmates are kept in their cells 23 hours a day during the week and 24 hours on the weekends.
For ten months between 2009 and 2010, the Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! worked on a report documenting abuses across Pennsylvania prisons, but most specifically at SCI Dallas. A medium security prison in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, SCI Dallas houses over 2,100 inmates, including over a hundred inmates in Disciplinary and Administrative Restricted Housing Units.
According to the 2010 report by the Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! “Institutionalized Cruelty: Torture at SCI Dallas and in Prisons Throughout Pennsylvania”, written with extensive cooperation of inmates, SCI Dallas was particularly rife with abuses. Among them, the “frequent usage of racist slurs, threats of violence, verbal and physical abuse by guards,” “ retaliation against prisoners exercising their constitutional rights to file grievances,” and “failure to provide adequate or at times any, physical or mental health care.”
One prisoner who corresponded with the HRC described his experience in the RHU at SCI Dallas:
"The conditions were very inhumane...hot, no working vents at all... stuffy and humid... My first cell bugs were biting me all over my body, when I said something about it they (medical staff) played like I was crazy then finally after constant complaining they gave me benadryl then moved me and still didn't clean the cell. They had a light on all day that felt like a rotisserie lamp. It was hard to sleep because of the hot humid cells and constant bugs biting me all day and night... We had no cups to drink the brown colored water that came o ut of the sinks and toilets. There was constant screaming yelling kicking and banging..."
The 93 page report includes extensive case studies and descriptions by inmates of the psychological torment of solitary confinement, racism, violence, and various other abuses at SCI Dallas. One detailed description of the psychologically detrimental effects of solitary confinement in the RHUs cited in the report can be read here.
The report was released in April 2010. RHU Inmate Andre Jacobs, who had corresponded with HRC and whose testimonial appeared in the report, was sent a copy of the report. On April 25th, RHU inmate Derrick Stanley reported hearing a member of the security staff tell Jacobs that he "just got something really interesting from Fed Up."
At some point on the 25th, inmate Anthony Kelly, who had contributed to the HRC report, had food withheld from him. Fellow inmate Isaac Sanchez spoke out against the withholding of food, and subsequently Sanchez's dinner was withheld. On May 2nd, Anthony Kelly wrote that "as of 4/25/10 I haven't had a sip of water and only 2 baloney sandwiches... They cut off your water and see how long you go before they can break you. They starve you." He also wrote that the report was being circulated among correctional officers, and that they had since "been on a very vicious roll."
On April 28th, three days after the withholding of meals from Kelly and Sanchez, Sanchez was the target of a cell extraction. As the HRC report describes it:
A cell-extraction is when guards equipped in riot gear and armed with pepper spray and electro-shock weapons forcibly enter a cell in order to overwhelm a prisoner, place them in hand and leg restraints, and move them to another cell by force.
Sanchez was, in his own words, "violently beaten and shocked for sometime, then I was placed on the restraint chair for sixteen hours."
The following day, six prisoners, many of whom had contributed to the HRC report, covered the windows of their cells in protest.
"We covered our windows to obstruct count, refused to answer them, barricaded our doors closed... and forced cell-extractions," according to a letter from Andre Jacobs cited in the August 2010 HRC report.
Andre Jacobs, Anthony Kelly, Carrington Keys, Anthony Locke, Derrick Stanley, and Duane Peters-El were all subjected to violent cell extractions the same day. All were tasered, many more than a dozen times, as well as pepper sprayed and beaten. Pages 10-16 of HRC's August 2010 report on the six provide background on the inmates as well as descriptions of their injuries.
According to the criminal complaints, filed July 7th, 2010, all six inmates were charged with rioting. The complaints read:
Riot-A Person is guilty is he participates with two or more others in a course of disorderly conduct with the intent to coerce official action. To wit; the defendant, along with five other inmates, covered their cell door windows and tied their doors shut in order to cause Corrections Officers to perform cell extractions.
In the Affidavit of Probable Cause (against Duane Peters):
On April 29, 2010, the defendant and other inmates lead by I/M Keys, I/M Locke, I/M Kelly and I/M Jacobs covered their cell door windows in order to require them to be extracted from the cells. The defendant, while housed in the RHU, also barricaded his cell door, along with five other inmates, and refused several orders to remove the items. This caused the use of the cell extraction team. When the extraction team attempted to remove the defendant he resisted and attempted to assault the officers after they entered.
According to a September 2010 news story from Luzerne County regarding a preliminary hearing for Carrington Keys:
On April 29, the men hung bedsheets to keep guards from peering into their cells and used the cloth to secure their doors shut, said Trooper Christopher Wilson. When an extraction team entered the cells, he said six guards were pelted with feces and urine.
In testimony, Lt. David Mosier, who heads the extraction team, said he gave "numerous warnings" to Keys and said guards would raid the cells if the bedding wasn't taken down.
"He refused all orders," Mosier said. "At that point I ordered the extraction team to enter."
The section referring to the guards "pelted with feces and urine" is a reference to additional charges against Carrington Keys, who denies those charges.
The charge of Aggravated Harassment by Prisoner against Keys, in the July 7th criminal complaint, reads:
A person is guilty if while confined in or committed to any local or county detention facility, jail or prison or any State penal or correctional institution or other State penal or correctional facility located in this Commonwealth, he intentionally or knowingly causes or attempts to cause another to come into contact with saliva or feces my throwing, tossing, spitting or expelling such fluid or material. To wit; the defendant threw feces at and on the extraction team; the victims are employees of the State Correctional Institution in Dallas.
One inconsistency in the charges against Keys is that, had there been an incident in which excrement had been thrown at the officers, there would have been a decontamination process (which there is no evidence of), rather than the continuation of cell extractions immediately after Keys' extraction.
In a hearing on November 12th, 2010:
State police Cpl. Christopher Wilson called the three corrections officers to testify. They said the six inmates were given several orders to remove the coverings from their cell doors – a violation of the prisons code – and didn’t comply.
The officers testified they then removed the six men from their cells to search them.
“Something serious was going on,” said Sgt. Donald Buck, an officer at SCI-Dallas. “It was a security and safety issue.”
Originally charged as a group, the six were eventually split up into six individual cases. Their actions were deemed a safety issue which, as the complaints read, served to "coerce official action", with the cell extractions being the official action coerced by the inmates.
As of October 4th, 2011, Anthony Kelly accepted a plea bargain (the details of which are unknown) in November 2010 and has since been released. All of the remaining inmates have remained in solitary confinement units. Anthony Locke has not been in contact with HRC-Fed Up! nor any Dallas 6 support groups.
Duane Peters and Carrington Keys are currently representing themselves. Keys, in July 2010, filed a suit against the district attorney for ignoring complaints. In September 2010 the suit was moved from state to federal court, where Keys was asked to amend his complaint against the District Attorney. He added complaints of being retaliated against and asked the federal government to issue a restraining against the District Attorney, a move which was subsequently denied.
Since the incident in April 2010, Andre Jacobs has been transferred to three facilities. The first facility where he was transfered immediately after the cell extraction was SCI Coal Township where, on August 2nd according to over a dozen reports from inmates, food was withheld from him because "he liked to file paperwork." After protesting the withholding of meals, he was subsequently removed from the cell while guards removed the mattress and personal belongings and was returned to an empty cell and was reportedly denied meals for an extended period of time afterwards. He was later sent to SCI Huntington and then SCI Rockview. Jacobs is currently in the Luzerne County prison for pretrial hearings represented by a public attorney who Jacobs has attempted to fire so that he may represent himself, but so far this move has not been allowed by the court.
Sal Rodriguez | October 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Categories: civil liberties/civil rights, Pennsylvania, retaliation, solitary confinement | URL: http://wp.me/pKbGK-14e
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
A small teen in prison: Belli was thrown to wolves
A small teen in prison: Belli was thrown to wolves in Lieber's toughest dorm
Inmates at Lieber state prison marked James Belli as prey as soon as he landed in a maximum- security cell block meant for murderers, rapists and other violent criminals. Slight, slim and pale, the Summerville teen was fresh meat in a den of predators.
What happened to him at Lieber reveals a dark and dangerous world behind the brick walls and barbed wire at one of South Carolina's toughest prisons.
PROVIDED BY BELLI FAMILY
James Belli's inmate identification card from the S.C. Department of Corrections.
It unveils a place where the most violent prisoners ruled the roost, guards suspected one another of corruption and corrections officials turned a blind eye to cancers in their midst, court documents show.
Belli's family knew none of this when they turned the wayward teen in to police in late 2005 to face burglary and larceny charges, hoping it would straighten him out. Instead, he became a target for extortion at Lieber, and was roughed up and shaken down by other inmates.
Belli, 19, had served just a few months of his eight-year sentence when prisoners attacked him on Aug. 23, 2006. One man plunged a homemade shank into Belli's neck — again and again. Belli died the next day.
His family's quest for answers, along with a civil lawsuit, has yielded a bounty of documents and testimony that raise fresh questions about prison officials' handling of events leading up to Belli's death, and their failure to protect him from harm.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jul/25/small-teen-prison-belli-was-thrown-wolves-liebers-/
Inmates at Lieber state prison marked James Belli as prey as soon as he landed in a maximum- security cell block meant for murderers, rapists and other violent criminals. Slight, slim and pale, the Summerville teen was fresh meat in a den of predators.
What happened to him at Lieber reveals a dark and dangerous world behind the brick walls and barbed wire at one of South Carolina's toughest prisons.
PROVIDED BY BELLI FAMILY
James Belli's inmate identification card from the S.C. Department of Corrections.
It unveils a place where the most violent prisoners ruled the roost, guards suspected one another of corruption and corrections officials turned a blind eye to cancers in their midst, court documents show.
Belli's family knew none of this when they turned the wayward teen in to police in late 2005 to face burglary and larceny charges, hoping it would straighten him out. Instead, he became a target for extortion at Lieber, and was roughed up and shaken down by other inmates.
Belli, 19, had served just a few months of his eight-year sentence when prisoners attacked him on Aug. 23, 2006. One man plunged a homemade shank into Belli's neck — again and again. Belli died the next day.
His family's quest for answers, along with a civil lawsuit, has yielded a bounty of documents and testimony that raise fresh questions about prison officials' handling of events leading up to Belli's death, and their failure to protect him from harm.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jul/25/small-teen-prison-belli-was-thrown-wolves-liebers-/
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Youth detention worker arrested on sex charges
Youth detention worker arrested on sex charges
Richard Bradberry, 54, is suspected of abusing inmates
By Patrick Lohmann
Albuquerque Journal
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A supervisor at an Albuquerque youth detention facility was arrested Friday afternoon on charges of sexually abusing several female juvenile inmates.
Richard Bradberry, 54, is charged with three counts each of criminal sexual contact, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, false imprisonment and voyeurism. Authorities said he groped three underage female inmates, including one instance of pulling down the pants and underwear of a girl.
Two of the alleged victims are 16 years old and one is 17, police said. All three are inmates at the Camino Nuevo Youth Center, where Bradberry worked as a youth care specialist.
Police first heard allegations of abuse a year ago, said State Police spokesman Sgt. Tim Johnson, but they didn't have enough evidence.
In April, however, police said one of the alleged victims told police she had been touched inappropriately, and investigators were able to corroborate several witness interviews with the facility's surveillance footage, Johnson said.
"He touched them inappropriately," Johnson said. "... We're hoping that there aren't any more victims, but if there are, they can definitely contact State Police."
Bradberry was arrested shortly before 6 p.m. on Friday at his home.
According to the arrest warrant, the girls told police that Bradberry often made them feel uncomfortable by telling them he needed a girlfriend and inviting them to dance upon their release at a club he claimed to own. The girls' testimonies also claimed that Bradberry would try to get girls alone during cleaning times at the youth jail and try and kiss them, and one of the girls said she always cleaned with a fellow inmate to avoid unwanted contact from the supervisor.
One of the alleged victims told police Bradberry groped her more than a dozen times, according to the warrant.
A second alleged victim said Bradberry groped her as he placed a piece of gum in her back pocket, according to the arrest warrant, and another claimed the supervisor often told her that he was "horny" and needed a girlfriend.
New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department spokesman Enrique Knell said the allegations against Bradberry counteract the good work of "99 percent" of CYFD employees.
"It's really devastating to the mission here," he said. "When this kind of thing happens, it tends to tarnish the reputation of everyone here."
Bradberry was a CYFD employee for between eight and 10 years, Knell said, and he is now on administrative leave.
http://www.correctionsone.com/staff-misconduct/articles/4189763-Youth-detention-worker-arrested-on-sex-charges/
Richard Bradberry, 54, is suspected of abusing inmates
By Patrick Lohmann
Albuquerque Journal
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A supervisor at an Albuquerque youth detention facility was arrested Friday afternoon on charges of sexually abusing several female juvenile inmates.
Richard Bradberry, 54, is charged with three counts each of criminal sexual contact, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, false imprisonment and voyeurism. Authorities said he groped three underage female inmates, including one instance of pulling down the pants and underwear of a girl.
Two of the alleged victims are 16 years old and one is 17, police said. All three are inmates at the Camino Nuevo Youth Center, where Bradberry worked as a youth care specialist.
Police first heard allegations of abuse a year ago, said State Police spokesman Sgt. Tim Johnson, but they didn't have enough evidence.
In April, however, police said one of the alleged victims told police she had been touched inappropriately, and investigators were able to corroborate several witness interviews with the facility's surveillance footage, Johnson said.
"He touched them inappropriately," Johnson said. "... We're hoping that there aren't any more victims, but if there are, they can definitely contact State Police."
Bradberry was arrested shortly before 6 p.m. on Friday at his home.
According to the arrest warrant, the girls told police that Bradberry often made them feel uncomfortable by telling them he needed a girlfriend and inviting them to dance upon their release at a club he claimed to own. The girls' testimonies also claimed that Bradberry would try to get girls alone during cleaning times at the youth jail and try and kiss them, and one of the girls said she always cleaned with a fellow inmate to avoid unwanted contact from the supervisor.
One of the alleged victims told police Bradberry groped her more than a dozen times, according to the warrant.
A second alleged victim said Bradberry groped her as he placed a piece of gum in her back pocket, according to the arrest warrant, and another claimed the supervisor often told her that he was "horny" and needed a girlfriend.
New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department spokesman Enrique Knell said the allegations against Bradberry counteract the good work of "99 percent" of CYFD employees.
"It's really devastating to the mission here," he said. "When this kind of thing happens, it tends to tarnish the reputation of everyone here."
Bradberry was a CYFD employee for between eight and 10 years, Knell said, and he is now on administrative leave.
http://www.correctionsone.com/staff-misconduct/articles/4189763-Youth-detention-worker-arrested-on-sex-charges/
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Class Action Lawsuits: Mississippi Kids Abused
Agenda Area(s): Children at Risk
J.H., et al. v. Hinds County, Miss.
Date Filed: 06/01/2011
Hinds County, which operates Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center in Jackson, violated the constitutional rights of children by subjecting them to prolonged periods of isolation and sensory deprivation, denying them mental health services, and subjecting them to verbal abuse and threats of physical harm. The SPLC and Disability Rights Mississippi filed the class action lawsuit after numerous attempts to resolve the issues with county officials failed.
----------------------------------------------------Disability Rights Mississippi v. Forrest County, Miss.
Date Filed: 03/07/2011
The Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center in Mississippi was the site of numerous abuse allegations. Video footage from the facility showed youths being slammed into walls and beaten by staffers. When Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) attempted to provide the youths with services to protect them from further abuse, Forrest County officials prevented DRMS from having access to the youths. The Southern Poverty Law Center and DRMS sued the county to force it to comply with federal law and allow DRMS access to the children.
-----------------------------------------------------J.A., et al. v. Barbour, et al.
Date Filed: 07/11/2007
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit on behalf of mentally ill girls living at the Columbia Training School who were shackled, physically and sexually abused, and provided with inadequate mental health treatment.
---------------------------------------------------
>> UPDATE
SPLC Wins Access to Youths at Abusive Mississippi Detention Facility
07/26/2011
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) have won access to youths held at the abusive Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center in Jackson, Miss. A federal judge ruled Monday that facility officials can no longer block lawyers and advocates from meeting with detained children and teens.
----------------------------------------------------
Federal Lawsuit Reveals Inhumane Conditions at For-Profit Youth Prison
11/16/2010
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Jackson, MS civil rights attorney Robert B. McDuff today filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the for-profit operators of Mississippi's Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (WGYCF), charging that the children there are forced to live in barbaric and unconstitutional conditions and are subjected to excessive uses of force by prison staff.
----------------------------------------------------Abuses outlined in the report included pole-shackling, hog-tying with chains and physical assault by guards. During military exercises, children were sprayed with chemicals to make it more difficult for them to breathe and forced to eat their own vomit if they became sick after hours of exertion and heat exposure.
( http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-works-to-improve-mississippi-juvenile-justice )
J.H., et al. v. Hinds County, Miss.
Date Filed: 06/01/2011
Hinds County, which operates Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center in Jackson, violated the constitutional rights of children by subjecting them to prolonged periods of isolation and sensory deprivation, denying them mental health services, and subjecting them to verbal abuse and threats of physical harm. The SPLC and Disability Rights Mississippi filed the class action lawsuit after numerous attempts to resolve the issues with county officials failed.
----------------------------------------------------Disability Rights Mississippi v. Forrest County, Miss.
Date Filed: 03/07/2011
The Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center in Mississippi was the site of numerous abuse allegations. Video footage from the facility showed youths being slammed into walls and beaten by staffers. When Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) attempted to provide the youths with services to protect them from further abuse, Forrest County officials prevented DRMS from having access to the youths. The Southern Poverty Law Center and DRMS sued the county to force it to comply with federal law and allow DRMS access to the children.
-----------------------------------------------------J.A., et al. v. Barbour, et al.
Date Filed: 07/11/2007
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit on behalf of mentally ill girls living at the Columbia Training School who were shackled, physically and sexually abused, and provided with inadequate mental health treatment.
---------------------------------------------------
>> UPDATE
SPLC Wins Access to Youths at Abusive Mississippi Detention Facility
07/26/2011
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) have won access to youths held at the abusive Henley-Young Juvenile Justice Center in Jackson, Miss. A federal judge ruled Monday that facility officials can no longer block lawyers and advocates from meeting with detained children and teens.
----------------------------------------------------
Federal Lawsuit Reveals Inhumane Conditions at For-Profit Youth Prison
11/16/2010
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Jackson, MS civil rights attorney Robert B. McDuff today filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the for-profit operators of Mississippi's Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (WGYCF), charging that the children there are forced to live in barbaric and unconstitutional conditions and are subjected to excessive uses of force by prison staff.
----------------------------------------------------Abuses outlined in the report included pole-shackling, hog-tying with chains and physical assault by guards. During military exercises, children were sprayed with chemicals to make it more difficult for them to breathe and forced to eat their own vomit if they became sick after hours of exertion and heat exposure.
( http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-works-to-improve-mississippi-juvenile-justice )
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
New York Times Heeds a Cry from the Depths of Pelican Bay Prison
New York Times Heeds a Cry from the Depths of Pelican Bay Prison
As we have written before, the three-week-long hunger strike in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay--which was joined by inmates at a dozen other California prisons--may have wrung few tangible concessions from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. But it achieved something less measurable, but in some senses far more important: For a few weeks, the men of the Pelican Bay SHU ceased to be invisible. They forced the media and the public to bear witness to their torment, and see long-term solitary confinement for what it is: one of the most pressing domestic human rights issues of our time.
The media's responses varied, as did the public's (as any reader of online comment will know). One of the publications that refused to turn its face away from the reality of prison torture was arguably the most important one of all--the New York Times. The Times not only covered the strike as news, but also addressed it directly on its editorial pages. First came a powerful op-ed by Colin Dayan, author of The Story of Cruel and Unusual, which pointed out: "Solitary confinement has been transmuted from an occasional tool of discipline into a widespread form of preventive detention. The Supreme Court, over the last two decades, has whittled steadily away at the rights of inmates, surrendering to prison administrators virtually all control over what is done to those held in 'administrative segregation.'” In this context, Dayan wrote, "Hunger strikes are the only weapons prisoners have left." He suggested: "Maybe one way to react to prisoners whose only reaction to bestial treatment is to starve themselves to death might be to do the unthinkable — to treat them like human beings."
Today, the New York Times's lead editorial is "Cruel Isolation." Appearing with the tag line "A California prison protest spotlighted widespread use of torturous solitary confinement," it was clearly inspired by the hunger strike. It states that "the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, 'supermax' prisons all around the country." By publishing the editorial, the Times ensures that this awareness will be further raised, and brings a desperate cry out of the depths of the Pelican Bay SHU to millions of readers worldwide. The full text of the editorial follows.
For many decades, the civilized world has recognized prolonged isolation of prisoners in cruel conditions to be inhumane, even torture. The Geneva Conventions forbid it. Even at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and physically abused systematically and with official sanction, the jailers had to get permission of their commanding general to keep someone in isolation for more than 30 days.
So Americans should be disgusted and outraged that prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes for months or even years, has become a routine form of prison management. It is inflicting unnecessary, indecent and inhumane suffering on tens of thousands of prisoners.
The issue came to the fore most recently because of a three-week hunger strike by inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California near the Oregon border that began on July 1 in the Orwellian Security Housing Unit, where inmates are held in wretched isolation in small windowless cells for more than 22 hours a day, some for many years.
Possessions, reading material, exercise and exposure to natural light and the outside are severely restricted. Meals are served through slots in steel cell doors. There is little in the way of human interaction. Returning to the general prison population is often conditioned on inmates divulging information on other gang members, putting themselves in jeopardy.
How inmates in these circumstances communicated to organize the protest is unclear, but it quickly spread to other California prisons. About 6,600 inmates participated at its peak. California’s huge prison system is dysfunctional in so many ways. In May, the Supreme Court found conditions at the overcrowded prisons so egregious that they violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. The case did not address the issue of long-term solitary confinement.
With their health deteriorating, those inmates continuing to fast resumed eating after state prison officials met a few modest demands. Inmates in Pelican Bay’s isolation unit will get wool caps for cold weather, wall calendars to mark the passing time and some educational programming. Prison officials said current isolation and gang management policies are under review. But the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, “supermax” prisons all around the country.
Once used occasionally as a short-term punishment for violating prison rules, solitary confinement’s prevalent use as a long-term prison management strategy is a fairly recent development, Colin Dayan, a professor at Vanderbilt University, said in a recent Op-Ed article in The Times. Nationally, more than 20,000 inmates are confined in “supermax” facilities in horrid conditions.
Prison officials claim the treatment is necessary for combating gang activity and other threats to prison order. It is possible to maintain physical separation of prisoners without ultraharsh levels of deprivation and isolation. Mississippi, which once set the low bar for terrible prison practices, saw a steep reduction of prison violence and ample monetary savings when it dramatically cut back on long-term solitary several years ago.
Holding prisoners in solitary also is very expensive, and several other states have begun to make reductions. In any case, decency requires limits. Resorting to a dehumanizing form of punishment well known to induce suffering and drive people into mental illness is beyond them.
Wordpress.com
As we have written before, the three-week-long hunger strike in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay--which was joined by inmates at a dozen other California prisons--may have wrung few tangible concessions from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. But it achieved something less measurable, but in some senses far more important: For a few weeks, the men of the Pelican Bay SHU ceased to be invisible. They forced the media and the public to bear witness to their torment, and see long-term solitary confinement for what it is: one of the most pressing domestic human rights issues of our time.
The media's responses varied, as did the public's (as any reader of online comment will know). One of the publications that refused to turn its face away from the reality of prison torture was arguably the most important one of all--the New York Times. The Times not only covered the strike as news, but also addressed it directly on its editorial pages. First came a powerful op-ed by Colin Dayan, author of The Story of Cruel and Unusual, which pointed out: "Solitary confinement has been transmuted from an occasional tool of discipline into a widespread form of preventive detention. The Supreme Court, over the last two decades, has whittled steadily away at the rights of inmates, surrendering to prison administrators virtually all control over what is done to those held in 'administrative segregation.'” In this context, Dayan wrote, "Hunger strikes are the only weapons prisoners have left." He suggested: "Maybe one way to react to prisoners whose only reaction to bestial treatment is to starve themselves to death might be to do the unthinkable — to treat them like human beings."
Today, the New York Times's lead editorial is "Cruel Isolation." Appearing with the tag line "A California prison protest spotlighted widespread use of torturous solitary confinement," it was clearly inspired by the hunger strike. It states that "the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, 'supermax' prisons all around the country." By publishing the editorial, the Times ensures that this awareness will be further raised, and brings a desperate cry out of the depths of the Pelican Bay SHU to millions of readers worldwide. The full text of the editorial follows.
For many decades, the civilized world has recognized prolonged isolation of prisoners in cruel conditions to be inhumane, even torture. The Geneva Conventions forbid it. Even at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and physically abused systematically and with official sanction, the jailers had to get permission of their commanding general to keep someone in isolation for more than 30 days.
So Americans should be disgusted and outraged that prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes for months or even years, has become a routine form of prison management. It is inflicting unnecessary, indecent and inhumane suffering on tens of thousands of prisoners.
The issue came to the fore most recently because of a three-week hunger strike by inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California near the Oregon border that began on July 1 in the Orwellian Security Housing Unit, where inmates are held in wretched isolation in small windowless cells for more than 22 hours a day, some for many years.
Possessions, reading material, exercise and exposure to natural light and the outside are severely restricted. Meals are served through slots in steel cell doors. There is little in the way of human interaction. Returning to the general prison population is often conditioned on inmates divulging information on other gang members, putting themselves in jeopardy.
How inmates in these circumstances communicated to organize the protest is unclear, but it quickly spread to other California prisons. About 6,600 inmates participated at its peak. California’s huge prison system is dysfunctional in so many ways. In May, the Supreme Court found conditions at the overcrowded prisons so egregious that they violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to cut its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. The case did not address the issue of long-term solitary confinement.
With their health deteriorating, those inmates continuing to fast resumed eating after state prison officials met a few modest demands. Inmates in Pelican Bay’s isolation unit will get wool caps for cold weather, wall calendars to mark the passing time and some educational programming. Prison officials said current isolation and gang management policies are under review. But the protest has raised awareness about the national shame of extended solitary confinement at Pelican Bay and at high-security, “supermax” prisons all around the country.
Once used occasionally as a short-term punishment for violating prison rules, solitary confinement’s prevalent use as a long-term prison management strategy is a fairly recent development, Colin Dayan, a professor at Vanderbilt University, said in a recent Op-Ed article in The Times. Nationally, more than 20,000 inmates are confined in “supermax” facilities in horrid conditions.
Prison officials claim the treatment is necessary for combating gang activity and other threats to prison order. It is possible to maintain physical separation of prisoners without ultraharsh levels of deprivation and isolation. Mississippi, which once set the low bar for terrible prison practices, saw a steep reduction of prison violence and ample monetary savings when it dramatically cut back on long-term solitary several years ago.
Holding prisoners in solitary also is very expensive, and several other states have begun to make reductions. In any case, decency requires limits. Resorting to a dehumanizing form of punishment well known to induce suffering and drive people into mental illness is beyond them.
Wordpress.com
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Cops probe death of Rikers Island inmate after being punched
Cops probe death of Rikers Island inmate after being punched by
correction officer
New York Daily News
BY Reuven Blau Rikers Island inmate Angel Ramirez, who had liver
disease, was rushed to Elmhurst Hospital Center where it was determined
he died of "blunt trauma to the torso." Police are investigating the
death of an inmate after a clash with a ...
See all stories on this topic »
probe_death_ of_rikers_ inmate.html% 253Fr%253Dnews% 26hl%3Den% 26geo%3Dus& ct\
correction officer
New York Daily News
BY Reuven Blau Rikers Island inmate Angel Ramirez, who had liver
disease, was rushed to Elmhurst Hospital Center where it was determined
he died of "blunt trauma to the torso." Police are investigating the
death of an inmate after a clash with a ...
See all stories on this topic »
probe_death_ of_rikers_ inmate.html% 253Fr%253Dnews% 26hl%3Den% 26geo%3Dus& ct\
Monday, August 1, 2011
Guard suspended in teen’s death was fired from last job
Guard suspended in teen’s death was fired from last job
By Carol Marbin Miller
cmarbin@MiamiHerald.com
Eric Perez When Laryell King was forced to leave her job at the Department of Juvenile Justice lockup in Orlando for “negligently” leaving a youth alone in a room, juvenile justice administrators left a clear warning in her personnel file: “NO rehire in any position.”
But rehire her they did.
King ended up on the payroll at the DJJ lockup in West Palm Beach. Now, she is one of five guards suspended after staffers ignored the suffering of 18-year-old Eric Perez, who died at the West Palm Beach juvenile detention center following seven hours of vomiting, hallucinating and complaining of severe headaches.
The person who hired King despite the admonition, lockup superintendent Anthony C. Flowers, has a work history that raises other questions.
When Flowers was hired by the state, he was the assistant program director for the Florida Institute for Girls, a 100-bed prison for hard-to-manage girls that was being closed down amid a Palm Beach County grand jury report that found it rife with violence, sexual abuse by guards, and endless lockdowns due to chronic short-staffing.
“The culture of some staff was to protect each other, fostering cover-ups and unprofessional conduct,” the grand jury wrote in February 2004.
The employment records for Flowers and King were provided to The Miami Herald in response to a public records request. Samadhi Jones, an agency spokeswoman in Tallahassee, declined to comment about the two employees. “While the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is committed to being open and transparent to the greatest degree possible, due to ongoing investigations by the DJJ Inspector General’s Office and the West Palm Beach Police Department we cannot comment further on the death of the young man at the Palm Beach Regional Juvenile Detention Center,” Jones said Tuesday.
Eric, who turned 18 on July 2 while detained at the West Palm Beach center, was locked up after officers found marijuana in his possession when they stopped his bicycle for a broken light. The arrest violated his probation years earlier on a robbery charge.
Beginning around 1:30 a.m. on July 10, the teen began to complain of a severe headache, and vomited the rest of the night. He also appeared to be hallucinating, waving his arms and screaming at officers to extricate him from an imaginary assailant. Records and interviews suggest guards moved Eric by dragging his mat from room to room, but did nothing to help him until just before 8 a.m., when they called for an ambulance. By the time paramedics arrived, a heart monitor showed only a “flat line,” records show.
King, who had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Army, was first hired by DJJ to work in the Orange County detention center in late 2001. She had been working for a security company at the time. Her evaluations from the early 2000s were generally positive, though unremarkable. “Officer King is dedicated to her work and the department,” a supervisor wrote in March 2005, for example. “She’s respectful, cooperative and committed to excellence.”
But in March 2008, Jeffrey Lonton, the then-superintendent of the Orlando lockup, moved to fire King.
King had “negligently” left a youth alone and unsupervised for 45 minutes, until another staff member heard the child “banging on the door” to get out. “Ms. King also placed three youths in the laundry room the same day unsupervised; they let themselves out after several minutes,” a memo states. “Additionally, after reviewing video surveillance, the same events had occurred over several days in the month of February.”
The memo noted that King would be allowed to resign “in lieu of termination.” The subject line of the memo stated: “NO rehire in any position for Laryell King.”
But in September 2010, King applied at DJJ for a job as a probation officer and correctional treatment specialist. When asked on the employment application why she left the Orlando lockup, King gave a one-word answer: “advancement.”
On Sept. 28, 2010, Flowers informed King of her job offer. “In accordance with the provisions of the state of Florida’s personnel rules, you have been selected for position of juvenile justice detention officer,” he wrote.
Less than a year later, when administrators suspended King, personnel managers in Orlando were asked in writing by DJJ whether King had ever been counseled or disciplined. “No disciplinary actions in the personnel file,” was the response.
King could not be reached for comment.
Flowers was hired by DJJ in October 2003 as a senior detention officer. At the time, he was working as the assistant program director at the Florida Institute for Girls, or FIG. His application said he was “responsible for the day-to-day operation of the intensive mental health wing’’ of the prison, where he supervised staff, monitored compliance with state regulations and standards, and evaluated employee performance. He had been an assistant superintendent at the West Palm Beach lockup before his employment at FIG.
Though FIG was being paid $5 million per year by DJJ to operate the treatment center, a company personnel manager refused to answer a single question about his performance when asked by juvenile justice administrators doing a background check.
“What were the major duties performed?,” a reference check asked. “Per company policy cannot give out information,” was the reply. “How effectively did he perform these functions?,” the questionnaire asked. “Same as above,” FIG answered.
Roy Miller, who heads the Florida Children’s Campaign, questioned why administrators would have hired a guard from a program that was rife was abuse — and why they would have allowed a contract agency to refuse to provide personnel information that is covered under the state’s public records law.
“It’s a matter of public record that girls were abused sexually and physically at the Florida Institute for Girls,” Miller said. “Why they would hire employees from FIG without knowing explicitly their employment record is beyond comprehension,” said Miller, whose group has long been a DJJ watchdog.
DJJ records obtained at the time by The Herald showed one girl complained that she had been taken to the facility’s “boom boom room,” where officers “slammed her head into the wall and struck her in the mouth.” The girl suffered bruises and welts, said a report that verified the girl’s claims.
After his return to DJJ, Flowers rose quickly through the ranks: senior detention officer, assistant detention center superintendent, superintendent. His work was described as “outstanding’’ and “exceptional” in yearly evaluations. His personnel file shows he has never been disciplined.
FIG was shuttered about the same time a Palm Beach County grand jury blasted it, but not because DJJ administrators took the action. Lawmakers sliced the program’s funding from their spending plan, at the urging of children’s advocates.
“It was a hellhole for girls,” Miller said.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/26/v-print/2332308/guard-suspended-in-teens-death.html#ixzz1TohOQWRZ
By Carol Marbin Miller
cmarbin@MiamiHerald.com
Eric Perez When Laryell King was forced to leave her job at the Department of Juvenile Justice lockup in Orlando for “negligently” leaving a youth alone in a room, juvenile justice administrators left a clear warning in her personnel file: “NO rehire in any position.”
But rehire her they did.
King ended up on the payroll at the DJJ lockup in West Palm Beach. Now, she is one of five guards suspended after staffers ignored the suffering of 18-year-old Eric Perez, who died at the West Palm Beach juvenile detention center following seven hours of vomiting, hallucinating and complaining of severe headaches.
The person who hired King despite the admonition, lockup superintendent Anthony C. Flowers, has a work history that raises other questions.
When Flowers was hired by the state, he was the assistant program director for the Florida Institute for Girls, a 100-bed prison for hard-to-manage girls that was being closed down amid a Palm Beach County grand jury report that found it rife with violence, sexual abuse by guards, and endless lockdowns due to chronic short-staffing.
“The culture of some staff was to protect each other, fostering cover-ups and unprofessional conduct,” the grand jury wrote in February 2004.
The employment records for Flowers and King were provided to The Miami Herald in response to a public records request. Samadhi Jones, an agency spokeswoman in Tallahassee, declined to comment about the two employees. “While the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is committed to being open and transparent to the greatest degree possible, due to ongoing investigations by the DJJ Inspector General’s Office and the West Palm Beach Police Department we cannot comment further on the death of the young man at the Palm Beach Regional Juvenile Detention Center,” Jones said Tuesday.
Eric, who turned 18 on July 2 while detained at the West Palm Beach center, was locked up after officers found marijuana in his possession when they stopped his bicycle for a broken light. The arrest violated his probation years earlier on a robbery charge.
Beginning around 1:30 a.m. on July 10, the teen began to complain of a severe headache, and vomited the rest of the night. He also appeared to be hallucinating, waving his arms and screaming at officers to extricate him from an imaginary assailant. Records and interviews suggest guards moved Eric by dragging his mat from room to room, but did nothing to help him until just before 8 a.m., when they called for an ambulance. By the time paramedics arrived, a heart monitor showed only a “flat line,” records show.
King, who had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Army, was first hired by DJJ to work in the Orange County detention center in late 2001. She had been working for a security company at the time. Her evaluations from the early 2000s were generally positive, though unremarkable. “Officer King is dedicated to her work and the department,” a supervisor wrote in March 2005, for example. “She’s respectful, cooperative and committed to excellence.”
But in March 2008, Jeffrey Lonton, the then-superintendent of the Orlando lockup, moved to fire King.
King had “negligently” left a youth alone and unsupervised for 45 minutes, until another staff member heard the child “banging on the door” to get out. “Ms. King also placed three youths in the laundry room the same day unsupervised; they let themselves out after several minutes,” a memo states. “Additionally, after reviewing video surveillance, the same events had occurred over several days in the month of February.”
The memo noted that King would be allowed to resign “in lieu of termination.” The subject line of the memo stated: “NO rehire in any position for Laryell King.”
But in September 2010, King applied at DJJ for a job as a probation officer and correctional treatment specialist. When asked on the employment application why she left the Orlando lockup, King gave a one-word answer: “advancement.”
On Sept. 28, 2010, Flowers informed King of her job offer. “In accordance with the provisions of the state of Florida’s personnel rules, you have been selected for position of juvenile justice detention officer,” he wrote.
Less than a year later, when administrators suspended King, personnel managers in Orlando were asked in writing by DJJ whether King had ever been counseled or disciplined. “No disciplinary actions in the personnel file,” was the response.
King could not be reached for comment.
Flowers was hired by DJJ in October 2003 as a senior detention officer. At the time, he was working as the assistant program director at the Florida Institute for Girls, or FIG. His application said he was “responsible for the day-to-day operation of the intensive mental health wing’’ of the prison, where he supervised staff, monitored compliance with state regulations and standards, and evaluated employee performance. He had been an assistant superintendent at the West Palm Beach lockup before his employment at FIG.
Though FIG was being paid $5 million per year by DJJ to operate the treatment center, a company personnel manager refused to answer a single question about his performance when asked by juvenile justice administrators doing a background check.
“What were the major duties performed?,” a reference check asked. “Per company policy cannot give out information,” was the reply. “How effectively did he perform these functions?,” the questionnaire asked. “Same as above,” FIG answered.
Roy Miller, who heads the Florida Children’s Campaign, questioned why administrators would have hired a guard from a program that was rife was abuse — and why they would have allowed a contract agency to refuse to provide personnel information that is covered under the state’s public records law.
“It’s a matter of public record that girls were abused sexually and physically at the Florida Institute for Girls,” Miller said. “Why they would hire employees from FIG without knowing explicitly their employment record is beyond comprehension,” said Miller, whose group has long been a DJJ watchdog.
DJJ records obtained at the time by The Herald showed one girl complained that she had been taken to the facility’s “boom boom room,” where officers “slammed her head into the wall and struck her in the mouth.” The girl suffered bruises and welts, said a report that verified the girl’s claims.
After his return to DJJ, Flowers rose quickly through the ranks: senior detention officer, assistant detention center superintendent, superintendent. His work was described as “outstanding’’ and “exceptional” in yearly evaluations. His personnel file shows he has never been disciplined.
FIG was shuttered about the same time a Palm Beach County grand jury blasted it, but not because DJJ administrators took the action. Lawmakers sliced the program’s funding from their spending plan, at the urging of children’s advocates.
“It was a hellhole for girls,” Miller said.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/26/v-print/2332308/guard-suspended-in-teens-death.html#ixzz1TohOQWRZ
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Daniels: Reports Of Juvenile Prison Abuse
Feds Investigate Conditions At Indianapolis Facility
POSTED: 4:08 pm EDT May 20, 2010
INDIANAPOLIS -- The governor on Thursday downplayed a scathing federal report calling on Indiana to address widespread abuses within its juvenile correction facilities.
A Jan. 29 letter and report from U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Gov. Mitch Daniels details troublesINDIANAPOLIS within the former Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility, including a (Mentally Ill Inmate left Dirty and Pulling Out Her Hair) and (Male Guards Having Sex With and Performing Strip Searches on Young Female Inmates),
6News' Joanna Massee reported.
The letter follows a civil rights investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2008 that documented( Inadequate Abuse Investigations), ( Excessive use of Force and Isolation, )inadequate mental health care and inadequate special education services. The investigation into allegations of abuse began in 2004.
Daniels initially declined to comment on the report, but when asked about the issue at a jobs announcement on Thursday, he told Massee the report was "hopelessly out of date."
" The problems there (the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility) -- which were very severe and obviously needed attention -- are many years old," Daniels said. "They're doing their job and tidying up what is really a six- or eight-year-old inquiry."
When the report was originally released, Daniels volunteered to make improvements at all the facilities and to provide reports resulting from a partnership with the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, an agency charged with monitoring the expected improvements.
A statement from the Indiana Department of Correction called it "a much different facility than its predecessor in Indianapolis," but a former employee told 6News that conditions for inmates worsened after the move.
("I do not think any child inside Madison Juvenile is safe," the former employee, who did not want to be identified, told Massee.")
6News was not allowed inside the Madison facility.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23623424/detail.
htm )
Feds Investigate Conditions At Indianapolis Facility
POSTED: 4:08 pm EDT May 20, 2010
INDIANAPOLIS -- The governor on Thursday downplayed a scathing federal report calling on Indiana to address widespread abuses within its juvenile correction facilities.
A Jan. 29 letter and report from U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Gov. Mitch Daniels details troublesINDIANAPOLIS within the former Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility, including a (Mentally Ill Inmate left Dirty and Pulling Out Her Hair) and (Male Guards Having Sex With and Performing Strip Searches on Young Female Inmates),
6News' Joanna Massee reported.
The letter follows a civil rights investigation launched by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2008 that documented( Inadequate Abuse Investigations), ( Excessive use of Force and Isolation, )inadequate mental health care and inadequate special education services. The investigation into allegations of abuse began in 2004.
Daniels initially declined to comment on the report, but when asked about the issue at a jobs announcement on Thursday, he told Massee the report was "hopelessly out of date."
" The problems there (the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility) -- which were very severe and obviously needed attention -- are many years old," Daniels said. "They're doing their job and tidying up what is really a six- or eight-year-old inquiry."
When the report was originally released, Daniels volunteered to make improvements at all the facilities and to provide reports resulting from a partnership with the Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, an agency charged with monitoring the expected improvements.
A statement from the Indiana Department of Correction called it "a much different facility than its predecessor in Indianapolis," but a former employee told 6News that conditions for inmates worsened after the move.
("I do not think any child inside Madison Juvenile is safe," the former employee, who did not want to be identified, told Massee.")
6News was not allowed inside the Madison facility.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23623424/detail.
htm )
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Strip Search Unreasonable: Byrd v. Maricopa Co. Sheriff's Dept
Case Name: Byrd v. Maricopa Co. Sheriff's Dept. , District: 9 Cir , Case #: 07-16640
Opinion Date: 1/5/2011 , DAR #: 300
Case Holding:
The pat down of a male inmate's genitals by a female officer where there was no showing of the unavailability of a male officer to do the search or with no exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. Jail officials ordered a search of an entire housing unit of inmates because they suspected contraband was being hidden. The inmates were ordered to remove all clothing except for underwear. A female cadet searched petitioner. The search included moving and applying pressure to appellant's genitals and buttocks. Petitioner filed a civil rights action complaining, inter alia, that the search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The factors that bear on a determination of reasonableness include: the scope of the intrusion, the place and manner in which it is conducted, and the justification for its initiation. (Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520.) The majority held the search was unreasonable. The court noted strip searches of inmates by officers of the opposite sex are frowned upon, except under exigent circumstances because they are extraordinarily intrusive. Here there was no emergency. Approximately 25 to 30 cadets and 10 to 15 officers were present. Only the cadets conducted the searches and someone else could have conducted it. Also, its scope was very intrusive. Thus, despite a valid justification for the search, and the fact it was conducted in a room with many others present, under the circumstances, it was unreasonable.
Opinion Date: 1/5/2011 , DAR #: 300
Case Holding:
The pat down of a male inmate's genitals by a female officer where there was no showing of the unavailability of a male officer to do the search or with no exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. Jail officials ordered a search of an entire housing unit of inmates because they suspected contraband was being hidden. The inmates were ordered to remove all clothing except for underwear. A female cadet searched petitioner. The search included moving and applying pressure to appellant's genitals and buttocks. Petitioner filed a civil rights action complaining, inter alia, that the search violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The factors that bear on a determination of reasonableness include: the scope of the intrusion, the place and manner in which it is conducted, and the justification for its initiation. (Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520.) The majority held the search was unreasonable. The court noted strip searches of inmates by officers of the opposite sex are frowned upon, except under exigent circumstances because they are extraordinarily intrusive. Here there was no emergency. Approximately 25 to 30 cadets and 10 to 15 officers were present. Only the cadets conducted the searches and someone else could have conducted it. Also, its scope was very intrusive. Thus, despite a valid justification for the search, and the fact it was conducted in a room with many others present, under the circumstances, it was unreasonable.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Inmate Says Doctor Sexually Molested Her
Subject: [PRUP] FL - 3rd jail inmate says doctor sexually molested her
3rd jail inmate says doctor sexually molested her
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BROOKSVILLE, Fla. -- Another female jail inmate has filed suit against a Gainesville psychiatrist, alleging sexual molestation.
On Tuesday, a woman identified as "Jane Doe III" added her name to a lawsuit filed in Hernando in May.
The women allege that James Yelton Rossello sexually fondled and molested them while they were inmates in the Hernando County Jail.
In March, the Florida Surgeon General restricted Rossello from providing medical, mental health or psychiatric treatment to any female patients.
The Corrections Corporation of America is also named in the suit. It was contracted to run the jail for 22 years until the county took back control of it in August.
An attorney who represented Rossello in the Department of Health Case has said his client denies the conduct. No criminal charges have been filed.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/07/2255094/3rd-jail-inmate-says-doctor-sexually.html#ixzz1Oc1x77Va
3rd jail inmate says doctor sexually molested her
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BROOKSVILLE, Fla. -- Another female jail inmate has filed suit against a Gainesville psychiatrist, alleging sexual molestation.
On Tuesday, a woman identified as "Jane Doe III" added her name to a lawsuit filed in Hernando in May.
The women allege that James Yelton Rossello sexually fondled and molested them while they were inmates in the Hernando County Jail.
In March, the Florida Surgeon General restricted Rossello from providing medical, mental health or psychiatric treatment to any female patients.
The Corrections Corporation of America is also named in the suit. It was contracted to run the jail for 22 years until the county took back control of it in August.
An attorney who represented Rossello in the Department of Health Case has said his client denies the conduct. No criminal charges have been filed.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/07/2255094/3rd-jail-inmate-says-doctor-sexually.html#ixzz1Oc1x77Va
Thursday, June 9, 2011
24-hour lockup: California Youth
"When you leave 24-hour lockup you feel like an alien, like you just came out of your mother's womb and don't know how to use your limbs."
-Joaquin Diazdeleon, formerly incarcerated in the Division of Juvenile Justice
Dear Hayes,
Over the last several months, members of Families for Books Not Bars have shared horror stories of violence and extreme isolation within California's youth prison system. Now, a state audit1 has confirmed what we've been hearing - young people are routinely locked in their cells for 23 or more hours per day. This is unacceptable.
In 2004, the court required that the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) stop isolating youth in their cells. The DJJ's "improvement" was to require that youth receive 3 hours out of their cells per day.
Yet, years later, they can't even follow their own, insufficient policies. We have documents showing hundreds of cases where youth were isolated in their cells for up to 23 and even 24 hours a day, for weeks at a time. In one case, a youth was let out of his cell for only one hour over a period of 10 days.
Solitary confinement amounts to torture. It is has been shown to cause deep, long-term psychological problems in adults2, and makes it even harder to reintegrate into society. This is even more true for youth and the DJJ knows this. In fact, in 2005, Joseph Maldonado3 took his own life within the walls of Stark youth prison after spending months in solitary confinement.
These abusive practices must end. Send an email to Matthew Cate, the head of the California prison system, demanding that he immediately require DJJ to allow all youth out of their cells for a minimum of 8 hours per day.
The DJJ is charged with educating and rehabilitating the young people in its care, not inflicting additional damage on them. Act now with Books Not Bars -- our youth and their families cannot wait!
Books not bars, schools not jails.
Sumayyah Waheed
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
1. "Young Prisoners Faced 24-Hour Confinement, Classes in Closets," Bay Citizen, 6/6/2011
http://www.baycitizen.org/youth/story/young-prisoners-faced-24-hour-classes/
-Joaquin Diazdeleon, formerly incarcerated in the Division of Juvenile Justice
Dear Hayes,
Over the last several months, members of Families for Books Not Bars have shared horror stories of violence and extreme isolation within California's youth prison system. Now, a state audit1 has confirmed what we've been hearing - young people are routinely locked in their cells for 23 or more hours per day. This is unacceptable.
In 2004, the court required that the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) stop isolating youth in their cells. The DJJ's "improvement" was to require that youth receive 3 hours out of their cells per day.
Yet, years later, they can't even follow their own, insufficient policies. We have documents showing hundreds of cases where youth were isolated in their cells for up to 23 and even 24 hours a day, for weeks at a time. In one case, a youth was let out of his cell for only one hour over a period of 10 days.
Solitary confinement amounts to torture. It is has been shown to cause deep, long-term psychological problems in adults2, and makes it even harder to reintegrate into society. This is even more true for youth and the DJJ knows this. In fact, in 2005, Joseph Maldonado3 took his own life within the walls of Stark youth prison after spending months in solitary confinement.
These abusive practices must end. Send an email to Matthew Cate, the head of the California prison system, demanding that he immediately require DJJ to allow all youth out of their cells for a minimum of 8 hours per day.
The DJJ is charged with educating and rehabilitating the young people in its care, not inflicting additional damage on them. Act now with Books Not Bars -- our youth and their families cannot wait!
Books not bars, schools not jails.
Sumayyah Waheed
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
1. "Young Prisoners Faced 24-Hour Confinement, Classes in Closets," Bay Citizen, 6/6/2011
http://www.baycitizen.org/youth/story/young-prisoners-faced-24-hour-classes/
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Worst Sort of Bullying In Prison
Swift Justice for Private Prisons
Nick Gillespie |
The video footage is disturbing in the extreme, an apparent tableau of the worst sort of bullying prison-guard violence: guards kicking seemingly compliant prisoners in the head and groin, swearing at them, beating them with riot sticks and electric prods, forcing them to crawl on their bellies, some with their pants down around their ankles; a German Shepherd biting the legs of at least one inmate.
The tape--reportedly filmed by prison officials for use as a training video, of all things--records a September 1996 disturbance at a privately operated wing of a Brazoria County, Texas, jail that houses out-of-state inmates. The incident only came to light in late summer as part of a lawsuit filed by Missouri inmates and has set off a firestorm regarding the privatization of prison facilities.
For a number of years, Texas has "rented" excess prison space to other states seeking to alleviate overcrowding, generating about $40 per bed per day. Currently, Texas incarcerates about 5,500 prisoners from 11 other states; many of the operations are sub-contracted out to private companies.
Critics have been quick to fix the blame on privatization per se. In a house editorial, for instance, The Buffalo News concluded the video "casts doubt on private jails," and "raises questions about the contracting out of public-safety services and the degree of accountability--or lack of accountability--in such arrangements." Noting that several of the private prison guards involved in the video had documented histories of abusing inmates, the St. Louis-Dispatch suggests that "Missouri should never turn over its prisoners to the care of...private firms run by people who wouldn't know brutality if it stomped them in the back."
Such concerns, while understandable in light of the raw footage, are misplaced for two reasons: They fail to account fully for the circumstances in Brazoria County and to recognize that it is precisely privatization that allows for more-accountable public services.
Although Capital Correction Resources Inc., a Mississippi-based contractor, operated the wing in which the video was shot, the larger setting was a public jail. Nor were private guards the only ones implicated in the incident: Sheriff's department personnel, decked out in full riot gear, participated in the action; similarly, the sheriff's department is charged with covering up the incident. And, while at least one CCRI guard involved in the incident had been fired from the Texas Department of Corrections for beating a prisoner, the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department actually had "final approval" on all hires. Clearly, whatever happened in the Brazoria County jail implicates public as well as private prison operators.
Perhaps more important is what has happened since the revelations--actions that speak directly to issues of accountability and reform. After viewing a copy of the videotape, Missouri corrections officials immediately canceled the state's $1.8 million contract with Brazoria County and two other sites in Texas, and began bringing its inmates home. Earlier this year, Oklahoma officials started removing their prisoners from a Limestone County, Texas, facility--also operated by CCRI--reportedly due to excessive use of pepper spray by guards. (Interestingly, Oklahoma is waiting for space to open up in a private facility in Oklahoma before it can remove all its prisoners.)
As the St. Louis-Dispatch noted sarcastically, "Now that Missouri and Oklahoma have pulled their prisoners out of CCRI-run jails in Texas, the company is about to go broke. Maybe this is the way the marketplace purges itself of private prison companies that condone and foster abuse." Indeed, it is--and it represents a course of action not likely to be pursued against a public prison.
As University of Connecticut sociologist Charles Logan noted in Private Prisons: Cons and Pros (1990), "Economic controls [on private prisons] do not displace political controls, but they can operate more quickly and allow finer adjustments" through contract renegotiations or outright termination. For private prisons, wrote Logan, "market mechanisms of supervision, discipline, and accountability add to those of the political and legal systems. Economic accountability supplements, more than it conflicts with, political and legal accountability."
Of course, privatization doesn't guarantee perfect prisons, or perfect government. But Logan's argument that it increases accountability drives home why privatization can help deliver better government. Capital Correctional Resources Inc. may well go out of business after such a high-profile scandal. The same can rarely be said about public agencies that find themselves in similar circumstances.
http://reason.com/archives/1997/09/01/swift-justice-for-private-pris
http://kevincraig.us/prison.htm > Main Page
Nick Gillespie |
The video footage is disturbing in the extreme, an apparent tableau of the worst sort of bullying prison-guard violence: guards kicking seemingly compliant prisoners in the head and groin, swearing at them, beating them with riot sticks and electric prods, forcing them to crawl on their bellies, some with their pants down around their ankles; a German Shepherd biting the legs of at least one inmate.
The tape--reportedly filmed by prison officials for use as a training video, of all things--records a September 1996 disturbance at a privately operated wing of a Brazoria County, Texas, jail that houses out-of-state inmates. The incident only came to light in late summer as part of a lawsuit filed by Missouri inmates and has set off a firestorm regarding the privatization of prison facilities.
For a number of years, Texas has "rented" excess prison space to other states seeking to alleviate overcrowding, generating about $40 per bed per day. Currently, Texas incarcerates about 5,500 prisoners from 11 other states; many of the operations are sub-contracted out to private companies.
Critics have been quick to fix the blame on privatization per se. In a house editorial, for instance, The Buffalo News concluded the video "casts doubt on private jails," and "raises questions about the contracting out of public-safety services and the degree of accountability--or lack of accountability--in such arrangements." Noting that several of the private prison guards involved in the video had documented histories of abusing inmates, the St. Louis-Dispatch suggests that "Missouri should never turn over its prisoners to the care of...private firms run by people who wouldn't know brutality if it stomped them in the back."
Such concerns, while understandable in light of the raw footage, are misplaced for two reasons: They fail to account fully for the circumstances in Brazoria County and to recognize that it is precisely privatization that allows for more-accountable public services.
Although Capital Correction Resources Inc., a Mississippi-based contractor, operated the wing in which the video was shot, the larger setting was a public jail. Nor were private guards the only ones implicated in the incident: Sheriff's department personnel, decked out in full riot gear, participated in the action; similarly, the sheriff's department is charged with covering up the incident. And, while at least one CCRI guard involved in the incident had been fired from the Texas Department of Corrections for beating a prisoner, the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department actually had "final approval" on all hires. Clearly, whatever happened in the Brazoria County jail implicates public as well as private prison operators.
Perhaps more important is what has happened since the revelations--actions that speak directly to issues of accountability and reform. After viewing a copy of the videotape, Missouri corrections officials immediately canceled the state's $1.8 million contract with Brazoria County and two other sites in Texas, and began bringing its inmates home. Earlier this year, Oklahoma officials started removing their prisoners from a Limestone County, Texas, facility--also operated by CCRI--reportedly due to excessive use of pepper spray by guards. (Interestingly, Oklahoma is waiting for space to open up in a private facility in Oklahoma before it can remove all its prisoners.)
As the St. Louis-Dispatch noted sarcastically, "Now that Missouri and Oklahoma have pulled their prisoners out of CCRI-run jails in Texas, the company is about to go broke. Maybe this is the way the marketplace purges itself of private prison companies that condone and foster abuse." Indeed, it is--and it represents a course of action not likely to be pursued against a public prison.
As University of Connecticut sociologist Charles Logan noted in Private Prisons: Cons and Pros (1990), "Economic controls [on private prisons] do not displace political controls, but they can operate more quickly and allow finer adjustments" through contract renegotiations or outright termination. For private prisons, wrote Logan, "market mechanisms of supervision, discipline, and accountability add to those of the political and legal systems. Economic accountability supplements, more than it conflicts with, political and legal accountability."
Of course, privatization doesn't guarantee perfect prisons, or perfect government. But Logan's argument that it increases accountability drives home why privatization can help deliver better government. Capital Correctional Resources Inc. may well go out of business after such a high-profile scandal. The same can rarely be said about public agencies that find themselves in similar circumstances.
http://reason.com/archives/1997/09/01/swift-justice-for-private-pris
http://kevincraig.us/prison.htm > Main Page
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Inmate Beaten By Guards:
Dunn chose McPeak to lead the movement team because of his stature, agility and ability to quickly regain control of inmates. Dunn arrived at Davis' cell at approximately 1:25 p.m. Davis attempted to explain his response to the order to "cuff up." Before he had finished, Dunn ordered him to lie face down on the floor with his head opposite the cell door. Davis immediately complied and the movement team entered his cell in a single file. The trial court found that McPeak lunged onto Davis as he lay unmoving on the cell floor. The court also found that McPeak then repeatedly struck Davis about the head and face, and smashed Davis' chin against the cell's concrete floor. Although appellants Davis, Conaway, Wade and Underwood were in a position to have seen or heard the assault, as they were securing Davis' limbs, each testified that they did not see McPeak strike him. The trial court specifically found that this testimony was not credible.
14 After Davis was restrained, he was carried from his cell, the cell was searched, and he was carried back into the cell. The LPN wiped blood from his head, face, and chest and off the floor. Davis requested further medical treatment, but refused to be treated while lying on the floor in his cell in restraints. The LPN construed Davis' statements as a refusal of medical care. Davis was instructed to remain on the floor and his leg restraints were removed. The movement team left his cell. The door to the cell was locked and Davis' hand restraints were removed.
15 The movement team disbanded at approximately 1:34 p.m. Davis continued to complain to corrections officers that he needed medical treatment for a cut on his chin. He was transported to a medical center some time after 4:00 p.m. The cut on Davis' chin required internal and external sutures. The treating physician also ordered x-rays of Davis' head, torso and extremities due to the existence of numerous other contusions and lacerations.
B. The Institution's Response
16 Each member of the movement team submitted the required written account of the movement team's activities to the appropriate supervisor. None of these reports mentioned any injury to plaintiff. Superintendent Delo reviewed the use-of-force packet, and observed from the videotape that Davis was bleeding immediately after the use of force, but he did not immediately order an investigation. The videotape of the incident was lost after it was forwarded to the Missouri Department of Corrections and had not been located as of the date of trial.
17 The day after the incident, Davis saw defendant McPeak. As Davis passed by, McPeak pointed at him, laughed, and said, "Keep your chin up. Next time it will be your teeth." Plaintiff saw McPeak again the next day. McPeak pointed at him and laughed.
18 On October 9, 1992, six days after the incident, James Bush, district assistant for the fourth senatorial district of Missouri, visited Davis at PCC. Bush is responsible for investigating and responding to inmate complaints of mistreatment by corrections officers. At that time, Bush observed that Davis' eyes and the right side of his face were bruised and swollen and saw the sutures in his chin. Davis told Bush that McPeak had beaten him.
19 Defendant Delo, as superintendent of PCC, was responsible for investigating all inmate claims of excessive force. Delo testified that he could not recall any prior report of abuse or excessive force by an inmate against McPeak. PCC does not track inmate complaints against individual corrections officers; thus, there is no official record of the frequency of complaints of abuse against a particular corrections officer.
20 The trial court found, however, that Delo had received several complaints about McPeak in the past. Davis had drafted letters to Delo on behalf of other inmates on a number of occasions complaining that McPeak had used excessive force. Delo had not ordered any internal investigations, but had nevertheless concluded that these claims lacked merit. James Bush had also expressed concern to Delo about corrections officers' treatment of inmates at PCC on a number of occasions prior to this incident. Bush had specifically recommended to Delo on one or two occasions that certain corrections officers, including McPeak, be discharged or reassigned due to persistent complaints that the officers used excessive force against inmates. Delo never ordered any investigations into these complaints or any interview with Bush.
21 Defendant McPeak served as a corrections officer at PCC from May 1989 to December 1993. During that time, he participated in a number of use-of-force exercises. Defendant Dunn supervised at least 10 of these exercises. In May 1991, a corrections officer reported that McPeak used excessive force against an inmate and conspired with other corrections officers not to report the incident. An investigation into the incident resulted in McPeak's 20-day suspension for failing to report a use of force.3 In August 1993, after the incident at issue in this appeal, McPeak was charged again with failing to report injuries an inmate sustained during a use of force. In December 1993, McPeak was discharged for using unnecessary force against an inmate and failing to report the incident.
22 On October 7, 1992, Davis filed an internal resolution request charging the movement team with using excessive force. Delo then began an investigation into the incident. Delo testified that he that did not initiate an investigation sooner because it could not "definitely be determined" that Davis was injured during the use of force because he had refused to be treated by the LPN immediately after the incident. Delo, however, admitted that, based on the LPN's written statement that plaintiff was bleeding from an unknown source following the movement team's exercise, he was "fairly certain" and did not "think there was any doubt" that Davis was injured during the use of force.
C. The Trial Court's Order
23 Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for plaintiff and against defendants Delo, Dunn, McPeak, Conaway, Davis, Underwood and Wade, jointly and severally, for $10,000.00 compensatory damages. The court concluded that McPeak maliciously and sadistically used force against plaintiff for the purpose of causing him harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The court also found that the other four members of the movement team, Conaway, Davis, Underwood and Wade, failed to intervene or protect plaintiff from McPeak's use of excessive force. The court found that they observed McPeak strike plaintiff, but failed to take any affirmative action to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm.
24 The court found that Dunn, the lieutenant responsible for the movement team's actions, had knowledge of the substantial risk of harm to plaintiff and tacitly authorized the use of excessive force by selecting McPeak to serve on the movement team despite his knowledge of McPeak's propensity to use excessive force against inmates. The court further found that Superintendent Delo had knowledge of and was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm posed by McPeak's propensity to use excessive force.
25 Based on its conclusion that McPeak's use of force and Delo's failure to protect appellee each demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment, the court awarded punitive damages of $5,000.00 each against McPeak and Delo.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
26 In reviewing a district court's order entering judgment after a bench trial, we review the district court's findings for clear error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Under this standard, we will overturn a finding of fact only if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, if the finding is based on an erroneous view of the law, or if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that an error has been made. Sawheny v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 93 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (8th Cir.1996). A district court's choice between two permissible views of evidence cannot be clearly erroneous. Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239, 241 (8th Cir.1993). We also must give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
27 Whether the trial court erred in concluding that defendants' actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment is a legal issue we review de novo. Moody, 986 F.2d at 241. The denial of qualified immunity is also a legal issue we review de novo. Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1390 (8th Cir.1995).
B. McPeak
28 Appellant McPeak assets that the trial court's conclusion that he acted maliciously and sadistically in order to cause Davis harm is not supported by the evidence and constitutes reversible error. In excessive force cases, the district court must determine whether the force was applied "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously or sadistically to cause harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). The Court must consider the need for the application of physical force; the relationship between the need for physical force and the amount of force applied; and the extent of injury suffered by the inmate. Id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999.
29 Our review of the record reveals ample evidence to support the district court's conclusion as to defendant McPeak. It is an uncontroverted fact that Davis complied with the order to lie face down on the floor and did not at any time resist the movement team's effort to restrain him. Defendant McPeak acknowledged that he threw himself on top of Davis' head and torso. McPeak denied striking Davis, but Davis testified that McPeak struck him in the head and face 20 to 25 times. The record substantiates the trial court's finding that Davis suffered serious injuries as a result of the incident, including both internal and external sutures of a cut on his chin, and swelling and bruising to his face which was visible almost a week later.
30 The trial court found Davis' testimony regarding the beating more credible, and therefore found that McPeak repeatedly struck Davis. Credibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Given that the court found Davis' testimony to be credible, the court's finding that the physical force expended to control Davis vastly exceeded the amount of force required supports its conclusion that McPeak used force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing Davis harm. The court's conclusion is also supported by evidence that McPeak taunted and threatened Davis on the day after the incident.
-------------------------------
TheCase>> Estate of Davis Ostenfeld v. K Delo
http://openjurist.org/115/f3d/1388/estate-of-davis-ostenfeld-v-k-delo
14 After Davis was restrained, he was carried from his cell, the cell was searched, and he was carried back into the cell. The LPN wiped blood from his head, face, and chest and off the floor. Davis requested further medical treatment, but refused to be treated while lying on the floor in his cell in restraints. The LPN construed Davis' statements as a refusal of medical care. Davis was instructed to remain on the floor and his leg restraints were removed. The movement team left his cell. The door to the cell was locked and Davis' hand restraints were removed.
15 The movement team disbanded at approximately 1:34 p.m. Davis continued to complain to corrections officers that he needed medical treatment for a cut on his chin. He was transported to a medical center some time after 4:00 p.m. The cut on Davis' chin required internal and external sutures. The treating physician also ordered x-rays of Davis' head, torso and extremities due to the existence of numerous other contusions and lacerations.
B. The Institution's Response
16 Each member of the movement team submitted the required written account of the movement team's activities to the appropriate supervisor. None of these reports mentioned any injury to plaintiff. Superintendent Delo reviewed the use-of-force packet, and observed from the videotape that Davis was bleeding immediately after the use of force, but he did not immediately order an investigation. The videotape of the incident was lost after it was forwarded to the Missouri Department of Corrections and had not been located as of the date of trial.
17 The day after the incident, Davis saw defendant McPeak. As Davis passed by, McPeak pointed at him, laughed, and said, "Keep your chin up. Next time it will be your teeth." Plaintiff saw McPeak again the next day. McPeak pointed at him and laughed.
18 On October 9, 1992, six days after the incident, James Bush, district assistant for the fourth senatorial district of Missouri, visited Davis at PCC. Bush is responsible for investigating and responding to inmate complaints of mistreatment by corrections officers. At that time, Bush observed that Davis' eyes and the right side of his face were bruised and swollen and saw the sutures in his chin. Davis told Bush that McPeak had beaten him.
19 Defendant Delo, as superintendent of PCC, was responsible for investigating all inmate claims of excessive force. Delo testified that he could not recall any prior report of abuse or excessive force by an inmate against McPeak. PCC does not track inmate complaints against individual corrections officers; thus, there is no official record of the frequency of complaints of abuse against a particular corrections officer.
20 The trial court found, however, that Delo had received several complaints about McPeak in the past. Davis had drafted letters to Delo on behalf of other inmates on a number of occasions complaining that McPeak had used excessive force. Delo had not ordered any internal investigations, but had nevertheless concluded that these claims lacked merit. James Bush had also expressed concern to Delo about corrections officers' treatment of inmates at PCC on a number of occasions prior to this incident. Bush had specifically recommended to Delo on one or two occasions that certain corrections officers, including McPeak, be discharged or reassigned due to persistent complaints that the officers used excessive force against inmates. Delo never ordered any investigations into these complaints or any interview with Bush.
21 Defendant McPeak served as a corrections officer at PCC from May 1989 to December 1993. During that time, he participated in a number of use-of-force exercises. Defendant Dunn supervised at least 10 of these exercises. In May 1991, a corrections officer reported that McPeak used excessive force against an inmate and conspired with other corrections officers not to report the incident. An investigation into the incident resulted in McPeak's 20-day suspension for failing to report a use of force.3 In August 1993, after the incident at issue in this appeal, McPeak was charged again with failing to report injuries an inmate sustained during a use of force. In December 1993, McPeak was discharged for using unnecessary force against an inmate and failing to report the incident.
22 On October 7, 1992, Davis filed an internal resolution request charging the movement team with using excessive force. Delo then began an investigation into the incident. Delo testified that he that did not initiate an investigation sooner because it could not "definitely be determined" that Davis was injured during the use of force because he had refused to be treated by the LPN immediately after the incident. Delo, however, admitted that, based on the LPN's written statement that plaintiff was bleeding from an unknown source following the movement team's exercise, he was "fairly certain" and did not "think there was any doubt" that Davis was injured during the use of force.
C. The Trial Court's Order
23 Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for plaintiff and against defendants Delo, Dunn, McPeak, Conaway, Davis, Underwood and Wade, jointly and severally, for $10,000.00 compensatory damages. The court concluded that McPeak maliciously and sadistically used force against plaintiff for the purpose of causing him harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The court also found that the other four members of the movement team, Conaway, Davis, Underwood and Wade, failed to intervene or protect plaintiff from McPeak's use of excessive force. The court found that they observed McPeak strike plaintiff, but failed to take any affirmative action to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm.
24 The court found that Dunn, the lieutenant responsible for the movement team's actions, had knowledge of the substantial risk of harm to plaintiff and tacitly authorized the use of excessive force by selecting McPeak to serve on the movement team despite his knowledge of McPeak's propensity to use excessive force against inmates. The court further found that Superintendent Delo had knowledge of and was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm posed by McPeak's propensity to use excessive force.
25 Based on its conclusion that McPeak's use of force and Delo's failure to protect appellee each demonstrated a willful and wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment, the court awarded punitive damages of $5,000.00 each against McPeak and Delo.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
26 In reviewing a district court's order entering judgment after a bench trial, we review the district court's findings for clear error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Under this standard, we will overturn a finding of fact only if it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, if the finding is based on an erroneous view of the law, or if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that an error has been made. Sawheny v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 93 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (8th Cir.1996). A district court's choice between two permissible views of evidence cannot be clearly erroneous. Moody v. Proctor, 986 F.2d 239, 241 (8th Cir.1993). We also must give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
27 Whether the trial court erred in concluding that defendants' actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment is a legal issue we review de novo. Moody, 986 F.2d at 241. The denial of qualified immunity is also a legal issue we review de novo. Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1390 (8th Cir.1995).
B. McPeak
28 Appellant McPeak assets that the trial court's conclusion that he acted maliciously and sadistically in order to cause Davis harm is not supported by the evidence and constitutes reversible error. In excessive force cases, the district court must determine whether the force was applied "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously or sadistically to cause harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). The Court must consider the need for the application of physical force; the relationship between the need for physical force and the amount of force applied; and the extent of injury suffered by the inmate. Id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999.
29 Our review of the record reveals ample evidence to support the district court's conclusion as to defendant McPeak. It is an uncontroverted fact that Davis complied with the order to lie face down on the floor and did not at any time resist the movement team's effort to restrain him. Defendant McPeak acknowledged that he threw himself on top of Davis' head and torso. McPeak denied striking Davis, but Davis testified that McPeak struck him in the head and face 20 to 25 times. The record substantiates the trial court's finding that Davis suffered serious injuries as a result of the incident, including both internal and external sutures of a cut on his chin, and swelling and bruising to his face which was visible almost a week later.
30 The trial court found Davis' testimony regarding the beating more credible, and therefore found that McPeak repeatedly struck Davis. Credibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Given that the court found Davis' testimony to be credible, the court's finding that the physical force expended to control Davis vastly exceeded the amount of force required supports its conclusion that McPeak used force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing Davis harm. The court's conclusion is also supported by evidence that McPeak taunted and threatened Davis on the day after the incident.
-------------------------------
TheCase>> Estate of Davis Ostenfeld v. K Delo
http://openjurist.org/115/f3d/1388/estate-of-davis-ostenfeld-v-k-delo
An Epidemic of Abuse Inside Juvenile Institutions
http://www.cjcj.org/post/juvenile/justice/epidemic/abuse/continues
An Epidemic of Abuse Inside Juvenile Institutions
by Randall G. Shelden
At the close of my last blog (“More Abuse in Youth Prisons”) I suggested doing a simple search on the Internet and type in words like “abuse in juvenile institutions” and select some states at random. I said at the time that I would continue my search. And so I did. And what I found was way beyond what I expected. I don’t often like to use the word “epidemic” since it is so value-loaded and defies precise definition. One definition from Webster’s includes “widespread growth” and so I think I can safely say that abuse within juvenile institutions can be described as an “epidemic.”
I started my search with South Dakota, since I recall the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice being consulted for a scandal that was occurring there within some of their juvenile prisons. I first found a story called “Cape Fear,” which appeared in Mother Jones back in December, 2000. The link brought me to a story about the death of a 14-year-old girl in a boot camp. I read the story and as I scrolled down to the bottom I saw two links and the first one was called “BOOT CAMP FOR KIDS: Torturing Teens for Fun and Profit.” So I clicked on this and what I found was a list of 207 news reports on abuse inside not only boot camps but other institutions where kids are locked up. Not only this, but there were other links to more stories, such as one that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times called “For their own good: a St. Petersburg Times special report on child abuse at the Florida School for Boys.” The story, which made quite a splash when it came out in April, 2009, is about a group of men in their 50s who have come forward to tell of the abuse they suffered at this prison. They testified that bodies were buried on the premises. (It reminded me of the bodies buried at an Arkansas prison about 50 years ago.) A time-line shows that investigations of abuse began in 1903 when a Florida senate committee said that “We have no hesitancy in saying, under its present management it is nothing more nor less than a prison, where juvenile prisoners are confined." A 1968 report called this institution "Hell's 1,400 Acres.”
There are several articles concerning scandals within the State of Texas. One story noted that “Thousands of juvenile inmates could be back out on the streets within a few months -- many who committed crimes in East Texas. That's the latest in a scandal within the Texas Youth Commission, where there have been allegations of improper conduct and sexual abuse at TYC facilities.” Within one institution a youth said "When they slammed my head against the concrete, they tried to move the camera so it wouldn't see."
Then there is the story of one facility described as follows: “The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Canton, MA, uses cruel "aversive therapy" on children with autism, depression, and mental retardation. It's the only school in the US that allows painful shocks of children, sometimes tying them down for long sessions of shocks. ‘Hot-saucing’, extreme food deprivation, and other corporal punishments are routine and frequent.”
Finally, there is the story of 14-year-old black youth named Martin Lee Anderson who died at the hands of several guards in a boot camp in Florida. There is a video showing the incident. An all-white jury acquitted the guards.
How many deaths will it take to get the attention of those with the power and influence to do something about this? It is possible that the problem is ignored because most of these kids are minorities and/or from poor families?
An Epidemic of Abuse Inside Juvenile Institutions
by Randall G. Shelden
At the close of my last blog (“More Abuse in Youth Prisons”) I suggested doing a simple search on the Internet and type in words like “abuse in juvenile institutions” and select some states at random. I said at the time that I would continue my search. And so I did. And what I found was way beyond what I expected. I don’t often like to use the word “epidemic” since it is so value-loaded and defies precise definition. One definition from Webster’s includes “widespread growth” and so I think I can safely say that abuse within juvenile institutions can be described as an “epidemic.”
I started my search with South Dakota, since I recall the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice being consulted for a scandal that was occurring there within some of their juvenile prisons. I first found a story called “Cape Fear,” which appeared in Mother Jones back in December, 2000. The link brought me to a story about the death of a 14-year-old girl in a boot camp. I read the story and as I scrolled down to the bottom I saw two links and the first one was called “BOOT CAMP FOR KIDS: Torturing Teens for Fun and Profit.” So I clicked on this and what I found was a list of 207 news reports on abuse inside not only boot camps but other institutions where kids are locked up. Not only this, but there were other links to more stories, such as one that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times called “For their own good: a St. Petersburg Times special report on child abuse at the Florida School for Boys.” The story, which made quite a splash when it came out in April, 2009, is about a group of men in their 50s who have come forward to tell of the abuse they suffered at this prison. They testified that bodies were buried on the premises. (It reminded me of the bodies buried at an Arkansas prison about 50 years ago.) A time-line shows that investigations of abuse began in 1903 when a Florida senate committee said that “We have no hesitancy in saying, under its present management it is nothing more nor less than a prison, where juvenile prisoners are confined." A 1968 report called this institution "Hell's 1,400 Acres.”
There are several articles concerning scandals within the State of Texas. One story noted that “Thousands of juvenile inmates could be back out on the streets within a few months -- many who committed crimes in East Texas. That's the latest in a scandal within the Texas Youth Commission, where there have been allegations of improper conduct and sexual abuse at TYC facilities.” Within one institution a youth said "When they slammed my head against the concrete, they tried to move the camera so it wouldn't see."
Then there is the story of one facility described as follows: “The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Canton, MA, uses cruel "aversive therapy" on children with autism, depression, and mental retardation. It's the only school in the US that allows painful shocks of children, sometimes tying them down for long sessions of shocks. ‘Hot-saucing’, extreme food deprivation, and other corporal punishments are routine and frequent.”
Finally, there is the story of 14-year-old black youth named Martin Lee Anderson who died at the hands of several guards in a boot camp in Florida. There is a video showing the incident. An all-white jury acquitted the guards.
How many deaths will it take to get the attention of those with the power and influence to do something about this? It is possible that the problem is ignored because most of these kids are minorities and/or from poor families?
The epidemic of abuse continues
The epidemic of abuse continues
submitted on Fri, 04/09/2010 - 05:38 by Randall G. Shelden
In my most recent post I said that I would continue my investigation of what I termed an "epidemic" of abuse inside juvenile institutions. This led me first to the state of Mississippi.
In Mississippi the situation has become so bad that a special web site has been set up devoted to following the issue. It is called “A Mississippi Gulag.” Back in 2002 the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) began an investigation of the conditions inside the Oakley Training School in Raymond, Mississippi and the Columbia Training School in Columbia, Mississippi. In June, 2003 they issued a report submitted to the Governor of the state. Among other things, the report concluded: “We find that conditions at Oakley and Columbia violate the constitutional and statutory rights of juveniles. Youth confined at Oakley and Columbia suffer harm or the risk of harm from deficiencies in the facilities’ provision of mental health and medical care, protection of juveniles from harm, and juvenile justice management. There are also sanitation deficiencies at Oakley. In addition, both facilities fail to provide required general education services as well as education to eligible youth…” Space does not permit a complete review of this report, but one thing caught my eye immediately and it was the following description of the training school for boys at Oakley: "Oakley Training School, also known as the Mississippi Youth Correctional Complex, sits on approximately 1,068 acres of land surrounded by agricultural fields in Raymond, Mississippi, which is approximately 30 minutes outside of Jackson, Mississippi. Oakley is designed to function as a paramilitary program for delinquent boys.” This program [the program] imposes a military style discipline on youth and is purported to promote a “vigorous physical fitness training program.” The state settled the suit and promised to make changes, but in 2006 a federal court monitor noted that “few if any changes have actually been made.” It was revealed that: “In addition to being hog-tied and left for days in pitch-black cells, children ages 10 to 17 were sometimes sprayed with chemicals during mandatory exercises and forced to eat their own vomit. Other youth were forced to run with automobile tires around their necks or mattresses on their backs.” Mississippi Youth Justice Project (MYJP) co-director Ellen Reddy stated that: "At best, the training schools do nothing but warehouse children. At worst, our children experience gross abuse and neglect when sent away from their home communities," In a separate story posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site Rhonda Brownstein, the Legal Director of the Center, stated that: "What the investigation reported is nothing short of torture. These abuses are the kind of things you would hear about in some torture chamber in a Third World country. This is not how we treat our children in the United States." In a related story it was reported that the SPLC has filed a lawsuit against Mississippi concerning the lack of mental health treatment available for youth charging that the state “fails to invest in community-based services and instead pumps the bulk of its resources into ineffective, expensive institutions.” In October of 2009 the SPLC filed yet another suit concerning conditions at the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Center charging, among other things, that: Youths endured physical and mental abuse as they were crammed into small, filthy cells and tormented with pepper spray for even minor infractions. Many of the youths had mental illnesses or learning disabilities. They were either awaiting court hearings or serving sentences for mostly non-violent offenses. During one three-week stretch, a 17-year-old girl, identified in the suit as J.A., languished in her small cell for 23 hours a day. Most of the children were allowed to leave their cells for only one to two hours a day." Then there is the story of 14-year-old black youth named Martin Lee Anderson who died at the hands of several guards in a boot camp in Florida. There is a video showing the incident. An all-white jury acquitted the guards.
Most recently a series of reports in the New York Times revealed rampant abuse within several detention centers in New York State. One story, dated August 25, 2009, noted that “Children at four juvenile detention centers in New York were so severely abused by workers that it constituted a violation of their constitutional rights, according to a report by the United States Department of Justice made public on Monday.”
My search will continue. I wonder where it will end.
Category: Juvenile JusticeAuthor: Randall G. Shelden
http://www.cjcj.org/post/juvenile/justice/epidemic/abuse/continues
submitted on Fri, 04/09/2010 - 05:38 by Randall G. Shelden
In my most recent post I said that I would continue my investigation of what I termed an "epidemic" of abuse inside juvenile institutions. This led me first to the state of Mississippi.
In Mississippi the situation has become so bad that a special web site has been set up devoted to following the issue. It is called “A Mississippi Gulag.” Back in 2002 the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) began an investigation of the conditions inside the Oakley Training School in Raymond, Mississippi and the Columbia Training School in Columbia, Mississippi. In June, 2003 they issued a report submitted to the Governor of the state. Among other things, the report concluded: “We find that conditions at Oakley and Columbia violate the constitutional and statutory rights of juveniles. Youth confined at Oakley and Columbia suffer harm or the risk of harm from deficiencies in the facilities’ provision of mental health and medical care, protection of juveniles from harm, and juvenile justice management. There are also sanitation deficiencies at Oakley. In addition, both facilities fail to provide required general education services as well as education to eligible youth…” Space does not permit a complete review of this report, but one thing caught my eye immediately and it was the following description of the training school for boys at Oakley: "Oakley Training School, also known as the Mississippi Youth Correctional Complex, sits on approximately 1,068 acres of land surrounded by agricultural fields in Raymond, Mississippi, which is approximately 30 minutes outside of Jackson, Mississippi. Oakley is designed to function as a paramilitary program for delinquent boys.” This program [the program] imposes a military style discipline on youth and is purported to promote a “vigorous physical fitness training program.” The state settled the suit and promised to make changes, but in 2006 a federal court monitor noted that “few if any changes have actually been made.” It was revealed that: “In addition to being hog-tied and left for days in pitch-black cells, children ages 10 to 17 were sometimes sprayed with chemicals during mandatory exercises and forced to eat their own vomit. Other youth were forced to run with automobile tires around their necks or mattresses on their backs.” Mississippi Youth Justice Project (MYJP) co-director Ellen Reddy stated that: "At best, the training schools do nothing but warehouse children. At worst, our children experience gross abuse and neglect when sent away from their home communities," In a separate story posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site Rhonda Brownstein, the Legal Director of the Center, stated that: "What the investigation reported is nothing short of torture. These abuses are the kind of things you would hear about in some torture chamber in a Third World country. This is not how we treat our children in the United States." In a related story it was reported that the SPLC has filed a lawsuit against Mississippi concerning the lack of mental health treatment available for youth charging that the state “fails to invest in community-based services and instead pumps the bulk of its resources into ineffective, expensive institutions.” In October of 2009 the SPLC filed yet another suit concerning conditions at the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Center charging, among other things, that: Youths endured physical and mental abuse as they were crammed into small, filthy cells and tormented with pepper spray for even minor infractions. Many of the youths had mental illnesses or learning disabilities. They were either awaiting court hearings or serving sentences for mostly non-violent offenses. During one three-week stretch, a 17-year-old girl, identified in the suit as J.A., languished in her small cell for 23 hours a day. Most of the children were allowed to leave their cells for only one to two hours a day." Then there is the story of 14-year-old black youth named Martin Lee Anderson who died at the hands of several guards in a boot camp in Florida. There is a video showing the incident. An all-white jury acquitted the guards.
Most recently a series of reports in the New York Times revealed rampant abuse within several detention centers in New York State. One story, dated August 25, 2009, noted that “Children at four juvenile detention centers in New York were so severely abused by workers that it constituted a violation of their constitutional rights, according to a report by the United States Department of Justice made public on Monday.”
My search will continue. I wonder where it will end.
Category: Juvenile JusticeAuthor: Randall G. Shelden
http://www.cjcj.org/post/juvenile/justice/epidemic/abuse/continues
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Beaten While In Custody
Jackie Wilson - Smothered, threatened with gun, beaten, and electrically shocked by Area 2 officers; convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for both murders described above; reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury regarding the defendant's right to testify, Wilson v. Williams, 139 Ill. App. 3d (1985); convicted of the murder of Officer Richard O'Brien (but not William Fahey) and sentenced to natural life; conviction and sentence affirmed, People v. Wilson, 257 Ill. App. 3d 670 (1993); federal writ of habeas corpus denied, Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562 (1999).
------------------------Andrew Wilson
- Punched, kicked, smothered with plastic bag, electrically shocked, and forced against hot radiator by Area 2 officers; convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of on-duty Chicago Police Officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien on February 9, 1982, in the 8100 block of South Morgan Avenue; reversed and remanded on ground that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his confession as involuntary, People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29 (1987);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick E. King - Beaten with baseball bat and telephone book by Area 2 officers;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Hobley - Handcuffed to a wall ring and beaten by Area 2 Detectives Robert Dwyer and James Lotito, taken to central police headquarters, handcuffed to a chair, kicked by Sergeant Patrick Garrity, and smothered with a typewriter cover by Detective Daniel McWeeny;
-----------------http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/causesandremedies/policemisconduct/Illinoiscases.html
------------------------Andrew Wilson
- Punched, kicked, smothered with plastic bag, electrically shocked, and forced against hot radiator by Area 2 officers; convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of on-duty Chicago Police Officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien on February 9, 1982, in the 8100 block of South Morgan Avenue; reversed and remanded on ground that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his confession as involuntary, People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29 (1987);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick E. King - Beaten with baseball bat and telephone book by Area 2 officers;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Hobley - Handcuffed to a wall ring and beaten by Area 2 Detectives Robert Dwyer and James Lotito, taken to central police headquarters, handcuffed to a chair, kicked by Sergeant Patrick Garrity, and smothered with a typewriter cover by Detective Daniel McWeeny;
-----------------http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/causesandremedies/policemisconduct/Illinoiscases.html
Friday, April 29, 2011
Prison Rape
All inmates are powerless, women most of all, making them especially vulnerable to abuse, including rape and other forms of sexual assault, despite federal and state laws criminalizing forced or nonconsensual acts. Yet they repeatedly happen, many unreported for fear of recrimination or inability to provide proof. Other times out of shame or expectation that charges will be scoffed at.
In addition, women at times reporting them are isolated, ostensibly for safety, but the effect takes a physical and emotional toll. According to Deborah Golden, staff attorney for the DC Prisoners’ Project of the Washington Lawyer’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, many women don’t view sex as an abuse. Most experienced sexual and other physical mistreatment before prison, reports Sarah From, Women’s Prison Association public policy director.
In 2004, AI reported nearly 2,300 sexual abuse cases against men and women, the true totals far higher according to experts believing the problem is systemic and growing.
According to a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled, “Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by (male and female) Inmates,” 4.5% of prisoners (108,000) reported being abused in the past year – also grossly understated because most incidents aren’t reported. In addition, they’re equally common against men and women, Human Right Watch saying at least 140,000 males are raped during incarceration.
In her 2006 paper titled, “Sexual abuse of women in United States prisons: a modern corollary of slavery,” Brenda Smith compared the similarities, explaining that custody is the common thread even though, unlike slaves, prisoners ostensibly have rights under Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude, and US law.
Abuse, however, remains unchecked, Angela Davis calling prison rape “an institutionalized component of punishment behind prison walls,” men, women, and children victimized. Further, they’re almost never provided mental health services to handle trauma, nor are guards given proper training or mandates to prevent sex crimes in the first place. This issue was addressed by the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the first federal law regarding sexual assault on prisoners, aiming to curb it through a “zero-tolerance” policy, as well as research and information gathering.
It calls for developing national standards to prevent, detect, reduce and punish sexual assault, making data on them more available to administrators, and holding officials and guards more accountable for their actions. But laws without enforcement are hollow, prisoner rights historically America’s lowest priority. Those incarcerated are society’s most abused and mistreated, especially vulnerable women out of sight behind bars.
Male Rape in Prison
Against women or men, rape inflicts pain and suffering. As a result, human rights and humanitarian groups as well as international courts now recognize it as torture. Most US states define it as forced, nonconsensual sex. California’s law mirrors others saying:
It’s sexual intercourse carried out “against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.” It’s also when “the perpetrator threatens to use public authority to imprison, arrest, (otherwise punish), or deport the victim or another, and the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator is a public official.”
This article focuses on torture against men and women, inflicted by prison guards and officials. Male rape is generally inmate-on-inmate. As a result, the topic is covered briefly, very much deserving detailed discussion in a separate article.
In April 2001, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report titled, “No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons,” citing studies showing about one in five men raped at least once during confinement. Documenting it with dozens of first-and accounts, HRW explained its long-lasting effects, including depression, PTSD, and HIV-AIDS, one victim saying:
“I remained in shock and paralyzed in thought for two days until I was able to muster the courage to report it. This is the most dreadful and horrifying experience of my life.”
According to HRW, “Rape is not an inevitable consequence of prison life, but it certainly is a predictable one if little is done to prevent it and punish it.” Indifference to prisoner rights perpetuates it against vulnerable men, women and children.
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/torture-other-forms-of-abuse-widely-used-in-us-prisons/
In addition, women at times reporting them are isolated, ostensibly for safety, but the effect takes a physical and emotional toll. According to Deborah Golden, staff attorney for the DC Prisoners’ Project of the Washington Lawyer’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, many women don’t view sex as an abuse. Most experienced sexual and other physical mistreatment before prison, reports Sarah From, Women’s Prison Association public policy director.
In 2004, AI reported nearly 2,300 sexual abuse cases against men and women, the true totals far higher according to experts believing the problem is systemic and growing.
According to a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled, “Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by (male and female) Inmates,” 4.5% of prisoners (108,000) reported being abused in the past year – also grossly understated because most incidents aren’t reported. In addition, they’re equally common against men and women, Human Right Watch saying at least 140,000 males are raped during incarceration.
In her 2006 paper titled, “Sexual abuse of women in United States prisons: a modern corollary of slavery,” Brenda Smith compared the similarities, explaining that custody is the common thread even though, unlike slaves, prisoners ostensibly have rights under Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude, and US law.
Abuse, however, remains unchecked, Angela Davis calling prison rape “an institutionalized component of punishment behind prison walls,” men, women, and children victimized. Further, they’re almost never provided mental health services to handle trauma, nor are guards given proper training or mandates to prevent sex crimes in the first place. This issue was addressed by the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the first federal law regarding sexual assault on prisoners, aiming to curb it through a “zero-tolerance” policy, as well as research and information gathering.
It calls for developing national standards to prevent, detect, reduce and punish sexual assault, making data on them more available to administrators, and holding officials and guards more accountable for their actions. But laws without enforcement are hollow, prisoner rights historically America’s lowest priority. Those incarcerated are society’s most abused and mistreated, especially vulnerable women out of sight behind bars.
Male Rape in Prison
Against women or men, rape inflicts pain and suffering. As a result, human rights and humanitarian groups as well as international courts now recognize it as torture. Most US states define it as forced, nonconsensual sex. California’s law mirrors others saying:
It’s sexual intercourse carried out “against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.” It’s also when “the perpetrator threatens to use public authority to imprison, arrest, (otherwise punish), or deport the victim or another, and the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator is a public official.”
This article focuses on torture against men and women, inflicted by prison guards and officials. Male rape is generally inmate-on-inmate. As a result, the topic is covered briefly, very much deserving detailed discussion in a separate article.
In April 2001, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report titled, “No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons,” citing studies showing about one in five men raped at least once during confinement. Documenting it with dozens of first-and accounts, HRW explained its long-lasting effects, including depression, PTSD, and HIV-AIDS, one victim saying:
“I remained in shock and paralyzed in thought for two days until I was able to muster the courage to report it. This is the most dreadful and horrifying experience of my life.”
According to HRW, “Rape is not an inevitable consequence of prison life, but it certainly is a predictable one if little is done to prevent it and punish it.” Indifference to prisoner rights perpetuates it against vulnerable men, women and children.
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/torture-other-forms-of-abuse-widely-used-in-us-prisons/
Tolerating-Torture
Tolerating Torture
March 29, 2011
tags: Bradley Manning, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, NRCAT, Torture in U.S. Prisonsby James Ridgeway and Jean CasellaA noteworthy piece on solitary confinement appeared yesterday as a guest column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger. The column is by George Hunsinger, who teaches at Princeton Theological Seminary and is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT). It is noteworthy, too, that NRCAT, which previously focused its work largely on U.S.-sanctioned torture abroad in the post-9/11 world, has now taken up the issue of torture in U.S. prisons. Its 2011 agenda includes, as one of seven major initiatives, a call on religious leaders and people of faith to “advocate for the end of long-term solitary confinement in prisons.”
Under the title “Torture Here at Home Cannot Be Tolerated,” Hunsinger begins with the case of accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning, now in his tenth month of soltiary confinement in a military brig, and then writes of the tens of thousands of other Americans who live in similar conditions.
The conditions under which Manning is being held are deplorable. No individual, whatever crime he may have committed, should be held in prolonged isolation or be routinely shamed through the use of unnecessary forced nakedness. And that’s the key point — no prisoners should suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — no matter who they are or what crime they may have committed.
I’m not qualified to speak for Bradley Manning. What I do know, however, is that there are thousands of prisoners throughout the country who face conditions that are similar to, or worse than, those Manning may be enduring. Unfortunately, however, those poor souls are almost completely ignored.
Many prisons contain units in which prisoners are held in isolation for prolonged periods of time (months or even years). The lack of human interaction is profoundly damaging to many of these prisoners — some suffer sufficiently to cause actual physical changes in the makeup of their brains.
Long-term solitary confinement is torture. It has been known to cause prisoners to go insane. And it is unnecessary. In many cases, prisoners are held in solitary confinement to punish them for minor infractions, because of the severe overcrowding of our prisons or other administrative reasons, or because they are mentally ill.
We need to think about what sort of people we want to be. Do we want to be a people who ignore torture that occurs here? Do we want to sit comfortably at home, knowing that somewhere not far away someone is being broken, his mind shattered, by a severe loneliness that has lasted for years?
It is one thing to punish a criminal. It is another to abuse him or her — to strip away his very humanity by denying him contact with all other humans. Solitary confinement can cause permanent damage. And let us remember that under the law, Manning, an American citizen, is still innocent until proved guilty.
It is our urgent responsibility to create a prison system where there is no place for such enforced suffering and where the rights of all citizens are upheld.
http://solitarywatch.com/2011/03/29/tolerating-torture/
March 29, 2011
tags: Bradley Manning, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, NRCAT, Torture in U.S. Prisonsby James Ridgeway and Jean CasellaA noteworthy piece on solitary confinement appeared yesterday as a guest column in the New Jersey Star-Ledger. The column is by George Hunsinger, who teaches at Princeton Theological Seminary and is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT). It is noteworthy, too, that NRCAT, which previously focused its work largely on U.S.-sanctioned torture abroad in the post-9/11 world, has now taken up the issue of torture in U.S. prisons. Its 2011 agenda includes, as one of seven major initiatives, a call on religious leaders and people of faith to “advocate for the end of long-term solitary confinement in prisons.”
Under the title “Torture Here at Home Cannot Be Tolerated,” Hunsinger begins with the case of accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning, now in his tenth month of soltiary confinement in a military brig, and then writes of the tens of thousands of other Americans who live in similar conditions.
The conditions under which Manning is being held are deplorable. No individual, whatever crime he may have committed, should be held in prolonged isolation or be routinely shamed through the use of unnecessary forced nakedness. And that’s the key point — no prisoners should suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — no matter who they are or what crime they may have committed.
I’m not qualified to speak for Bradley Manning. What I do know, however, is that there are thousands of prisoners throughout the country who face conditions that are similar to, or worse than, those Manning may be enduring. Unfortunately, however, those poor souls are almost completely ignored.
Many prisons contain units in which prisoners are held in isolation for prolonged periods of time (months or even years). The lack of human interaction is profoundly damaging to many of these prisoners — some suffer sufficiently to cause actual physical changes in the makeup of their brains.
Long-term solitary confinement is torture. It has been known to cause prisoners to go insane. And it is unnecessary. In many cases, prisoners are held in solitary confinement to punish them for minor infractions, because of the severe overcrowding of our prisons or other administrative reasons, or because they are mentally ill.
We need to think about what sort of people we want to be. Do we want to be a people who ignore torture that occurs here? Do we want to sit comfortably at home, knowing that somewhere not far away someone is being broken, his mind shattered, by a severe loneliness that has lasted for years?
It is one thing to punish a criminal. It is another to abuse him or her — to strip away his very humanity by denying him contact with all other humans. Solitary confinement can cause permanent damage. And let us remember that under the law, Manning, an American citizen, is still innocent until proved guilty.
It is our urgent responsibility to create a prison system where there is no place for such enforced suffering and where the rights of all citizens are upheld.
http://solitarywatch.com/2011/03/29/tolerating-torture/
Report Documents Abuse in Pennsylvania Prison's Lockdown Unit
Report Documents Abuse in Pennsylvania Prison's Lockdown Unit
Jean Casella and James Ridgeway | April 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Tags: Human Rights Coalition | Categories: civil liberties / civil rights, due process, human rights, Pennsylvania, physical effects, politics of punishment, psychological effects, race, retaliation, solitary confinement, suicide, torture | URL: http://wp.me/pKbGK-OV
A report released yesterday by the Human Rights Coalition, a nonprofit organization concerned with prisoners' rights, provides a vivid and grim picture of life inside the solitary confinement unit of the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon in south-central Pennsylvania. The report describes what it calls a "culture of terror" in the prison's Restricted Housing Unit (RHU).
For purposes of this report, a culture of terror is defined as a set of assumptions and practices that divide a community into those with absolute power and those who are absolutely powerless. This dynamic is inherent within the logic of prisons, and is at its most intense in the solitary confinement units...Those with power in this culture reinforce their rule through a strict code of silence whereby they refuse to inform on one another to those higher up or outside of the prison hierarchy. Prison guards enforce their rule through threats and use of force, along with deprivations of basic necessities such as food, water, hygienic items, cleaning supplies, clothing, and bedding. Prison administrators and top officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) adopt an informal though strictly enforced policy of turning a blind eye to reports of torture and abuse.
Those without power—prisoners—are more often than not divided against one another, enticed to assault and inform on one another in exchange for more favorable treatment. Those individuals who strive to cultivate an ethic of solidarity amongst the oppressed are viewed as the system’s greatest threat and consequently made an example of via relentless abuse and indefinite, potentially permanent placement in solitary confinement.
The core elements of this culture of terror include:
arbitrary, biased process for establishing who is placed in solitary;
utilization of fabricated misconducts as a tool of retaliation;
systematic denial of prisoner grievances regardless of their merit;
the use of violence as a standard technique for enforcing obedience;
refusal to engage in constructive dialogue on the part of prison authorities;
targeting witnesses of abuse for purposes of intimidation;
displays of overt racism as a tool of dehumanization.
The report is valuable for explaining and documenting the mechanics of the process by which prisoners are placed and held--sometimes indefinitely--in solitary. Inmates end up in solitary largely on the say-so of guards, against which they have virtually no recourse. "The threat of solitary confinement and the ability to impose it upon a prisoner arbitrarily creates a predictable and intentional stifling of grievances," the report argues. "Intimidating prisoners into not pursuing grievances discourages them from filing lawsuits as well, since federal law mandates that prisoners must 'exhaust administrative remedies' prior to filing a lawsuit" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. When an inmate does go ahead and file a grievance, it is likely to go nowhere. According to the report, "97.89 percent of the 43,853 grievances filed by prisoners [in 2008] were rejected for various reasons," based on the Department of Corrections' own records.
Prisoners who file grievances or otherwise protest their conditions are also subject to retaliation. The HRC report provides several examples, including withholding food, water, showers, and mattresses as well as forced cell extractions and the use of pepper spray and restraint chairs. It calls retaliation "the lynchpin holding together the culture of terror in the solitary units at Huntingdon, as it involves the targeted application of violence and the deprivation of basic necessities with the deliberate intent of silencing protest, public exposure, and legal action." One prisoner who says he was punished for trying to report abuse in the RHU asks in a letter, "Are we worthy of the same rights as a civilian witness who is being intimidated not to testify or are we unworthy of protection due to the fact that we are convicts?"
What makes the depth and detail of this report remarkable is the extreme difficulty of obtaining information about what goes on in solitary confinement. It is generally close to impossible for journalists, researchers, and advocates to gain access to these units. HRC based its report largely on what it describes as a "review of more than a thousand pages of letters, affidavits, grievances, misconducts, other prison documents, legal paperwork, and conversations with family members" over the past year. Critics of the report will no doubt raise questions about the veracity of the prisoners' accounts, but they have the ring of truth and echo what we have heard from and about prisoners in other facilities. More importantly, they represent the public's only window into a deeply hidden world about which we know virtually nothing--but for which we are, ultimately, responsible.
If nothing else, this report should lead to other investigations and eventually some form of meaningful action and oversight by the state legislature, Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, and Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. HRC ends the report with a series of recommendations that include such investigations.
Jean Casella and James Ridgeway | April 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Tags: Human Rights Coalition | Categories: civil liberties / civil rights, due process, human rights, Pennsylvania, physical effects, politics of punishment, psychological effects, race, retaliation, solitary confinement, suicide, torture | URL: http://wp.me/pKbGK-OV
A report released yesterday by the Human Rights Coalition, a nonprofit organization concerned with prisoners' rights, provides a vivid and grim picture of life inside the solitary confinement unit of the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon in south-central Pennsylvania. The report describes what it calls a "culture of terror" in the prison's Restricted Housing Unit (RHU).
For purposes of this report, a culture of terror is defined as a set of assumptions and practices that divide a community into those with absolute power and those who are absolutely powerless. This dynamic is inherent within the logic of prisons, and is at its most intense in the solitary confinement units...Those with power in this culture reinforce their rule through a strict code of silence whereby they refuse to inform on one another to those higher up or outside of the prison hierarchy. Prison guards enforce their rule through threats and use of force, along with deprivations of basic necessities such as food, water, hygienic items, cleaning supplies, clothing, and bedding. Prison administrators and top officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) adopt an informal though strictly enforced policy of turning a blind eye to reports of torture and abuse.
Those without power—prisoners—are more often than not divided against one another, enticed to assault and inform on one another in exchange for more favorable treatment. Those individuals who strive to cultivate an ethic of solidarity amongst the oppressed are viewed as the system’s greatest threat and consequently made an example of via relentless abuse and indefinite, potentially permanent placement in solitary confinement.
The core elements of this culture of terror include:
arbitrary, biased process for establishing who is placed in solitary;
utilization of fabricated misconducts as a tool of retaliation;
systematic denial of prisoner grievances regardless of their merit;
the use of violence as a standard technique for enforcing obedience;
refusal to engage in constructive dialogue on the part of prison authorities;
targeting witnesses of abuse for purposes of intimidation;
displays of overt racism as a tool of dehumanization.
The report is valuable for explaining and documenting the mechanics of the process by which prisoners are placed and held--sometimes indefinitely--in solitary. Inmates end up in solitary largely on the say-so of guards, against which they have virtually no recourse. "The threat of solitary confinement and the ability to impose it upon a prisoner arbitrarily creates a predictable and intentional stifling of grievances," the report argues. "Intimidating prisoners into not pursuing grievances discourages them from filing lawsuits as well, since federal law mandates that prisoners must 'exhaust administrative remedies' prior to filing a lawsuit" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. When an inmate does go ahead and file a grievance, it is likely to go nowhere. According to the report, "97.89 percent of the 43,853 grievances filed by prisoners [in 2008] were rejected for various reasons," based on the Department of Corrections' own records.
Prisoners who file grievances or otherwise protest their conditions are also subject to retaliation. The HRC report provides several examples, including withholding food, water, showers, and mattresses as well as forced cell extractions and the use of pepper spray and restraint chairs. It calls retaliation "the lynchpin holding together the culture of terror in the solitary units at Huntingdon, as it involves the targeted application of violence and the deprivation of basic necessities with the deliberate intent of silencing protest, public exposure, and legal action." One prisoner who says he was punished for trying to report abuse in the RHU asks in a letter, "Are we worthy of the same rights as a civilian witness who is being intimidated not to testify or are we unworthy of protection due to the fact that we are convicts?"
What makes the depth and detail of this report remarkable is the extreme difficulty of obtaining information about what goes on in solitary confinement. It is generally close to impossible for journalists, researchers, and advocates to gain access to these units. HRC based its report largely on what it describes as a "review of more than a thousand pages of letters, affidavits, grievances, misconducts, other prison documents, legal paperwork, and conversations with family members" over the past year. Critics of the report will no doubt raise questions about the veracity of the prisoners' accounts, but they have the ring of truth and echo what we have heard from and about prisoners in other facilities. More importantly, they represent the public's only window into a deeply hidden world about which we know virtually nothing--but for which we are, ultimately, responsible.
If nothing else, this report should lead to other investigations and eventually some form of meaningful action and oversight by the state legislature, Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, and Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. HRC ends the report with a series of recommendations that include such investigations.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Kids Sexually Abused In Arizona's Juvenile Corrections
The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Is a Bloody Mess
It's not typically a headline-making department. The state's most violent juvenile offenders go to the adult system; most kids wind up at the ADJC after committing a series of petty crimes. In October 2008, only 126 of the 625 kids in custody were there for violent crimes.
The agency's mandate is to rehabilitate, not punish. These are, after all, children. Their records are kept secret and expunged once they turn 18.
You may not have known of it, but the U.S. Department of Justice is well aware of the ADJC. Twice now, the state agency has fallen under scrutiny and federal orders to improve services and ensure safety.
The 1987 civil rights lawsuit Johnson v. Upchurch ultimately led to federally mandated changes at the agency, which had famously kept one boy in solitary confinement for several weeks.
Conditions for kids behind bars in Arizona got better — for a while. Then they got worse.
In 2001, the Department of Justice began making inquiries into conditions at the ADJC, after a series of stories in New Times revealed concerns about the safety of both staff and kids, as well as potential civil rights violations. In 2002 and 2003, three boys in ADJC custody committed suicide. The DOJ ultimately investigated under CRIPA, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, confirming much of what New Times had originally reported.
Again, things got better, though internal critics have always wondered just how much. The Department of Justice was satisfied, however, and closed its case in 2007.
No one from the outside has paid much attention since. And even when they have, it's tough to figure out just how closely anyone's looking. This fall, the Arizona Auditor General released a report on suicide prevention at the ADJC. The report was largely glowing, leading the Arizona Republic, the state's newspaper of record, to hand out high-fives in a story headlined, "Arizona's Juvenile Jails Free of Suicides Since '03."
The story and the audit didn't mention how close some of the calls were, even though the report acknowledged reviewing agency documents from March to May 2009; presumably, those would have included several of the incidents mentioned above.
The audit also praised the department for improving staff/youth relations, while ignoring three recent criminal cases in which ADJC staff were sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to having sexual relationships with kids.
And perhaps auditors failed to interview the staff members New Times spoke with, all of whom presented grave concerns about conditions at the ADJC — while insisting they like their jobs and want to continue working with kids who desperately need them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employees' concerns vary from person to person, with an overriding theme: This agency — charged with taking care of sometimes violent and mentally disturbed kids — is not very professional.
The ADJC employees warn that a public-records request will reveal only some of what's going on at the agency.
"All someone has to do is write an IR [incident report] and put 'confidential' on it," and it's kept secret, one guard says. (To the agency's credit, many of the records provided by the ADJC for this story are, in fact, quite damning.)
A tour of the facilities is pointless, too, another guard says — even for the federal investigators, who were treated to a whitewash, several of the employees say.
"Anytime anybody comes to do an inspection, we know months in advance," one comments. It's easy to make things look good.
Another, who has worked for the ADJC since the Upchurch case, sees a real change in the kids coming into the system today.
"The kids we have now are nothing like the kids we had in those days," he says. "The kids we had then were real criminals."
He adds, "I wish we had counselors for every single one of them, and then I wouldn't have a job . . . We have psych associates that are overly taxed. Usually at any given point and time we'll have three psych associates to deal with 100 kids."
As for the community-based care that the agency is pushing for, which results in early release, the employee says, "Those kids come right back."
Norman Davis, chief presiding judge for the juvenile division of the Maricopa County Superior Court, echoes this.
"The first year I thought I was saving everybody. The second year, all the kids came back," he says, laughing ruefully and adding that obviously this is an exaggeration.
As for the extent to which mental illness affects the behaviors of the kids he sentences, Davis says he's really not sure.
"The longer I go — mental illness, what does that mean, exactly?" he asks, rhetorically. "Things of the mind are very difficult to get ahold of.
One shared concern among those interviewed for this story is staffing numbers. The CRIPA investigators strongly suggested that in many cases, each housing unit needs to have two staff members on hand at all times — including at night. And yet that tends to be a time, staff say, when corners are cut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kids Are Not Alright
The Department of Juvenile Corrections is supposed to watch -- and rehabilitate -- troubled teens. But no one's watching the department.?
Editor's note: The names of juveniles throughout these stories have been changed to protect their privacy. Although their criminal case files are public record, their corrections files are not.
Suicide at the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
From Brewer to Arpaio, No One's Listening to the Experts About How to Save Money or Protect Civil Rights and Public Safety When It Comes to Juvenile Corrections
Suicidal Tendencies: The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Is a Bloody Mess
December 17, 2009
Terri CapozziDavid GasparArizona Department of Juvenile CorrectionsPrisonsCriminal Sentencing and Punishment The boys in the Nova cottage at Adobe Mountain School had been locked in their cells for six days. They had not been allowed to go to school or to the cafeteria or to chapel. No weekly phone calls. They had not showered, or washed their clothes. Some had been without a mattress on their metal bed frames for weeks. Leftover food and garbage sat on the floors of their cells; some boys banged on the doors, demanding to use the bathroom. A streak of dried urine ran under the door of one cell. Inside there was more urine and feces on the floor.
Terri Capozzi followed a trail of blood, seeping into the hallway, to the door of the cell belonging to a boy named Roberto. She looked through the window.
"The room was in complete disarray," Capozzi, the youth rights ombudsman for the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, would later write in a memo obtained by New Times. "Looking down on the floor, I saw the bottom half of a pint milk container set carefully in the middle of the blood-spattered floor. It appeared that the container was filled to the brim with blood.
" . . . As I stepped into the empty room, I noticed on the floor not far from the milk carton a wad of white gauze bound together. It was blood-soaked on one end. When I looked up at the walls, I realized that the container was a bucket, the gauze a rudimentary paintbrush and that [Roberto's] blood was the paint. The walls were filled with carefully drawn ornate designs, carefully rendered. I was awestruck by what occurred in this room."
Capozzi was told the mess had been made in the past 30 minutes, but her associate, Adobe Mountain youth rights specialist Brenda Lewis, confirmed it had been there for at least several hours. Roberto, a 15-year-old serving time for burglary, had been in and out of the infirmary for days, treated for self-inflicted cuts.
The Nova boys were locked down because they'd been misbehaving, and were supposed to be participating in a marathon group-counseling session. But just one brief session had been held the previous night, they told Lewis, when she visited them early on the afternoon of Day Six.
As Capozzi and Lewis left the cottage, the boys were allowed to go to dinner in the cafeteria for the first time in almost a week. Capozzi was speaking with Roberto -- he had never cut himself before coming to Adobe, she would write, but now was "clearly mentally compromised" and suicidal -- when Joe Taylor, the school's superintendent, approached. He called her into his office and ordered her off school property, angry that she'd crossed him by speaking with kids without his permission, undermining him and his staff.
The response: Taylor has since been promoted to ADJC assistant director, in charge of the agency's Safe Schools program.
As for Roberto, he was released from Adobe but returned in November, after he ran away from a residential treatment center. And he's still cutting himself .
The story of Roberto and what happened in the Nova cottage may be particularly chilling, but it is not the only example of abuse of children in the custody of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Contrary to the agency's name, policymakers long ago gave ADJC the mandate to rehabilitate troubled kids, not punish them -- and certainly not abuse them.
And yet reports of mistreatment -- including verbal and sexual abuse, inappropriate use of restraints and solitary confinement, and violence against both juveniles and staff -- are common at the state's facilities, which typically house just under 1,000 Arizona youths at a time.
New Times has spent more than nine months investigating conditions within ADJC. Among the findings:
ADJC no longer follows the practices put into place by a federal court order in 1993 that were designed to ensure that proper conditions are maintained for youth in detention. ADJC violates the intent of the now-expired court order by:
• Routinely putting children in solitary confinement in specialized "separation units" for days or weeks, sometimes even months, without adequate education or other services.
• Locking children in their cells for days at a time, also in violation of a department policy that prohibits lock downs lasting longer than two hours at a time.
• Providing substandard mental health services. Undertrained staff counsel children, and there are waiting lists for beds in mental health cottages.
• Failing to provide enough staff. The staff-to-youth ratio should be at least one staff member for every eight youths.
In addition, ADJC violates its own internal policies and goes against acceptable national practices in the following areas:
• Staff members often use violence to control kids when it is not necessary. Sometimes staffers are disciplined, sometimes not.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-07-05/news/the-kids-are-not-alright/
It's not typically a headline-making department. The state's most violent juvenile offenders go to the adult system; most kids wind up at the ADJC after committing a series of petty crimes. In October 2008, only 126 of the 625 kids in custody were there for violent crimes.
The agency's mandate is to rehabilitate, not punish. These are, after all, children. Their records are kept secret and expunged once they turn 18.
You may not have known of it, but the U.S. Department of Justice is well aware of the ADJC. Twice now, the state agency has fallen under scrutiny and federal orders to improve services and ensure safety.
The 1987 civil rights lawsuit Johnson v. Upchurch ultimately led to federally mandated changes at the agency, which had famously kept one boy in solitary confinement for several weeks.
Conditions for kids behind bars in Arizona got better — for a while. Then they got worse.
In 2001, the Department of Justice began making inquiries into conditions at the ADJC, after a series of stories in New Times revealed concerns about the safety of both staff and kids, as well as potential civil rights violations. In 2002 and 2003, three boys in ADJC custody committed suicide. The DOJ ultimately investigated under CRIPA, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, confirming much of what New Times had originally reported.
Again, things got better, though internal critics have always wondered just how much. The Department of Justice was satisfied, however, and closed its case in 2007.
No one from the outside has paid much attention since. And even when they have, it's tough to figure out just how closely anyone's looking. This fall, the Arizona Auditor General released a report on suicide prevention at the ADJC. The report was largely glowing, leading the Arizona Republic, the state's newspaper of record, to hand out high-fives in a story headlined, "Arizona's Juvenile Jails Free of Suicides Since '03."
The story and the audit didn't mention how close some of the calls were, even though the report acknowledged reviewing agency documents from March to May 2009; presumably, those would have included several of the incidents mentioned above.
The audit also praised the department for improving staff/youth relations, while ignoring three recent criminal cases in which ADJC staff were sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to having sexual relationships with kids.
And perhaps auditors failed to interview the staff members New Times spoke with, all of whom presented grave concerns about conditions at the ADJC — while insisting they like their jobs and want to continue working with kids who desperately need them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The employees' concerns vary from person to person, with an overriding theme: This agency — charged with taking care of sometimes violent and mentally disturbed kids — is not very professional.
The ADJC employees warn that a public-records request will reveal only some of what's going on at the agency.
"All someone has to do is write an IR [incident report] and put 'confidential' on it," and it's kept secret, one guard says. (To the agency's credit, many of the records provided by the ADJC for this story are, in fact, quite damning.)
A tour of the facilities is pointless, too, another guard says — even for the federal investigators, who were treated to a whitewash, several of the employees say.
"Anytime anybody comes to do an inspection, we know months in advance," one comments. It's easy to make things look good.
Another, who has worked for the ADJC since the Upchurch case, sees a real change in the kids coming into the system today.
"The kids we have now are nothing like the kids we had in those days," he says. "The kids we had then were real criminals."
He adds, "I wish we had counselors for every single one of them, and then I wouldn't have a job . . . We have psych associates that are overly taxed. Usually at any given point and time we'll have three psych associates to deal with 100 kids."
As for the community-based care that the agency is pushing for, which results in early release, the employee says, "Those kids come right back."
Norman Davis, chief presiding judge for the juvenile division of the Maricopa County Superior Court, echoes this.
"The first year I thought I was saving everybody. The second year, all the kids came back," he says, laughing ruefully and adding that obviously this is an exaggeration.
As for the extent to which mental illness affects the behaviors of the kids he sentences, Davis says he's really not sure.
"The longer I go — mental illness, what does that mean, exactly?" he asks, rhetorically. "Things of the mind are very difficult to get ahold of.
One shared concern among those interviewed for this story is staffing numbers. The CRIPA investigators strongly suggested that in many cases, each housing unit needs to have two staff members on hand at all times — including at night. And yet that tends to be a time, staff say, when corners are cut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kids Are Not Alright
The Department of Juvenile Corrections is supposed to watch -- and rehabilitate -- troubled teens. But no one's watching the department.?
Editor's note: The names of juveniles throughout these stories have been changed to protect their privacy. Although their criminal case files are public record, their corrections files are not.
Suicide at the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
From Brewer to Arpaio, No One's Listening to the Experts About How to Save Money or Protect Civil Rights and Public Safety When It Comes to Juvenile Corrections
Suicidal Tendencies: The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Is a Bloody Mess
December 17, 2009
Terri CapozziDavid GasparArizona Department of Juvenile CorrectionsPrisonsCriminal Sentencing and Punishment The boys in the Nova cottage at Adobe Mountain School had been locked in their cells for six days. They had not been allowed to go to school or to the cafeteria or to chapel. No weekly phone calls. They had not showered, or washed their clothes. Some had been without a mattress on their metal bed frames for weeks. Leftover food and garbage sat on the floors of their cells; some boys banged on the doors, demanding to use the bathroom. A streak of dried urine ran under the door of one cell. Inside there was more urine and feces on the floor.
Terri Capozzi followed a trail of blood, seeping into the hallway, to the door of the cell belonging to a boy named Roberto. She looked through the window.
"The room was in complete disarray," Capozzi, the youth rights ombudsman for the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, would later write in a memo obtained by New Times. "Looking down on the floor, I saw the bottom half of a pint milk container set carefully in the middle of the blood-spattered floor. It appeared that the container was filled to the brim with blood.
" . . . As I stepped into the empty room, I noticed on the floor not far from the milk carton a wad of white gauze bound together. It was blood-soaked on one end. When I looked up at the walls, I realized that the container was a bucket, the gauze a rudimentary paintbrush and that [Roberto's] blood was the paint. The walls were filled with carefully drawn ornate designs, carefully rendered. I was awestruck by what occurred in this room."
Capozzi was told the mess had been made in the past 30 minutes, but her associate, Adobe Mountain youth rights specialist Brenda Lewis, confirmed it had been there for at least several hours. Roberto, a 15-year-old serving time for burglary, had been in and out of the infirmary for days, treated for self-inflicted cuts.
The Nova boys were locked down because they'd been misbehaving, and were supposed to be participating in a marathon group-counseling session. But just one brief session had been held the previous night, they told Lewis, when she visited them early on the afternoon of Day Six.
As Capozzi and Lewis left the cottage, the boys were allowed to go to dinner in the cafeteria for the first time in almost a week. Capozzi was speaking with Roberto -- he had never cut himself before coming to Adobe, she would write, but now was "clearly mentally compromised" and suicidal -- when Joe Taylor, the school's superintendent, approached. He called her into his office and ordered her off school property, angry that she'd crossed him by speaking with kids without his permission, undermining him and his staff.
The response: Taylor has since been promoted to ADJC assistant director, in charge of the agency's Safe Schools program.
As for Roberto, he was released from Adobe but returned in November, after he ran away from a residential treatment center. And he's still cutting himself .
The story of Roberto and what happened in the Nova cottage may be particularly chilling, but it is not the only example of abuse of children in the custody of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Contrary to the agency's name, policymakers long ago gave ADJC the mandate to rehabilitate troubled kids, not punish them -- and certainly not abuse them.
And yet reports of mistreatment -- including verbal and sexual abuse, inappropriate use of restraints and solitary confinement, and violence against both juveniles and staff -- are common at the state's facilities, which typically house just under 1,000 Arizona youths at a time.
New Times has spent more than nine months investigating conditions within ADJC. Among the findings:
ADJC no longer follows the practices put into place by a federal court order in 1993 that were designed to ensure that proper conditions are maintained for youth in detention. ADJC violates the intent of the now-expired court order by:
• Routinely putting children in solitary confinement in specialized "separation units" for days or weeks, sometimes even months, without adequate education or other services.
• Locking children in their cells for days at a time, also in violation of a department policy that prohibits lock downs lasting longer than two hours at a time.
• Providing substandard mental health services. Undertrained staff counsel children, and there are waiting lists for beds in mental health cottages.
• Failing to provide enough staff. The staff-to-youth ratio should be at least one staff member for every eight youths.
In addition, ADJC violates its own internal policies and goes against acceptable national practices in the following areas:
• Staff members often use violence to control kids when it is not necessary. Sometimes staffers are disciplined, sometimes not.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-07-05/news/the-kids-are-not-alright/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)