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
Sunday, May 15, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)