Much has been said about the "unintentional punishment" theories inside special management units (SMU) or special housing units (SHU). Not much is discussed related to the relationship between staff and prisoner upon their arrival inside such a unit or how their [prisoner's]disruptions create the need to establish firm control from the beginning of the arrival and the duration of the prisoner's stay. This often results in mass outcries of torture and neglect.
The facts reveal that the living conditions inside a SHU or SMU are often perpetrated acts by the prisoner's own actions that led up to this perceived "extremely harsh" environment. These special housing units were created over the years as institutions adapted to the need to isolate violent and problematic prisoners from general population prisoners into a separate classification [and culture] much estranged from mainstream prison management principles. The reasons for such estrangement can be argued but the main reason for isolation or segregation is the need to keep the predators such as gang members away from those who are compliant doing their time and serving their sentences without disciplinary disruptions or situations. In addition, those who have committed felonies or murder while inside the institution or escaped or attempted to escape, have been selected to be isolated from the rest of the population in a more restrictive housing environment based on risk assessment that are evidence based and sound correctional practices.
An assignment into a SHU or SMU usually depends on two main factors - simplified for the purpose of making it brief, the first is the reason to separate the prisoner from others in a general population setting. The second factor used is the degree or severity of the need to house the prisoner at a higher custody level or more restrictive housing environment. Together this placement becomes a general justification to move the prisoner to a more restrictive confinement milieu administratively considered maximum custody in most systems. In the beginning, this placement was a short term concept, designed to give the prisoner a chance to return back to general population or a lesser custody level based on his own behavior and doing his disciplinary time without incidents or additional charges. However, today, these units are now also utilized for long term placements due to the high rate of assaults on staff / other prisoners and the associated misconduct directly committed by these high risk offenders. Herein lies an interesting fact; the theorizing of "unintentional punishment" based on their placement inside one of these units.
Placement inside one of these SMU or SHU units is aggravated by the prisoner's approach and response to the placements. Most often, almost immediately upon receiving such an individual from the lower custodial levels due to reasons such as: return from escape status or the commission of a crime inside the institution, the prisoner is combative and resisting any movement or transport to the SHU or SMU with physical force needed to maintain control of the situation. This establishes the relationship between prisoner and staff as one that is identified to be "hostile" and treated accordingly to avoid injuries to staff. This hostility is further induced by the refusal to provide essential information to assess sound housing assignments and locations for special needs such as the suicide ward, the enhanced security unit, or special group identified needs such as gang associations and memberships.
Secondly, the prisoner's refusal to follow the correctional officer's directions or demands to adhere to behavioral expectations and institutional rules results in a most controversial and confrontational environment not existing anywhere else in lower custody units. Rebellion of such placements are often accompanied by acts of aggression [such as darting or spearing with sharp objects] and vile misconduct that results in urine, feces or other foreign object to be thrown at staff making their rounds or conducting their official duties while maintaining an accountability of the wellness of every prisoner under their supervision. Common tactics used are flooding of the cells and burning of personal property to protest their placements and disagreement with the administrative decision to hold them accountable for their own actions. In fact, based on their own misconduct, they create the situational conditions imposed by correctional employees to handle the situations.
Officers are taught quickly that approach and response determines action or reaction. Whether intentional or intuitive in nature, the action or reaction is based on two contributing factors. The first is the training and understanding of the job the officer possesses with the appropriate execution of skills and knowledge adjusting with compliance or noncompliance. Unfortunately, at the beginning, it is the prisoner that repetitively makes a demand or ignores the commands given establishing a confrontational relationship from the beginning. The second factor is the inferences gleaned from such an encounter that determines a potentially violent or non violent skirmish. Part of that inference is based on intuitions and gut feelings of experiences of the past and how they were handled at that time. This gives the officer a baseline of active / reactive tools allowed by the culture or ethical foundation of the workplace. Reacting to a prisoner's overreaction, demands or non compliance does not necessarily result in punishment. Punishment is not the first tool applied by the correctional officer. The first tool applied is deescalation and communication for compliance.
The perception of punishment is often mistaken for the need to control or regain control of a potentially dangerous situation. Punishment is often taken to be intentional rather than situational. Officers are taught the continuum of force but understand that the scale allows escalation or deescalation at any time of the incident to manage it properly and safely. The claims of punishment is are the words spoken by the prisoner whenever there is a use of force situation or loss of privileges incurred due to misconduct by the prisoner's attitude, behavior or poor impulse to the communication or commands given at the time of the situations. Most of the time, if force is used more than once, it can be interpreted to be "excessive" by the prisoner's standards that he or she didn't deserve to be punished again.
Those inferences of punishment by the prisoner's state of mind are aggravated or exaggerated by the numerous times such encounter occurs. In other words, in repeated situations where the prisoner acts out or displays disruptive behaviors, the perception of "intentional punishment" is reinforced by the officer's will to punish him or her more with every repeated incident. The more incidents occur, the more punishment is inflicted by the prisoner's own account or statements that he or she is being treated with "deliberate indifference" and ultimately abused by staff. These statements, anecdotal in nature and based on empirical facts acquired during a long term assignment inside these SMU units are subject to be challenged but describe a situational confrontation between prisoner and employee that has become somewhat personal in nature and now established as a means to handle the incidents as they present themselves on an almost daily basis. It's a clash best described as "us versus them" that includes a ritual subject to employees and prisoners taking the conflict to extreme levels thus requiring extreme solutions.
Herein is the danger of deliberate indifference and deliberate punishment methods imposed by individuals who work outside those parameters established by policies and procedures designed to maintain lawful control and avoid controversial conditions such as excessive use of force cases and other punishment alleged by prisoners inside these units. This danger is often escalated by the lack of oversight by the administrative branch and supervisory levels inside these units.
The prisoner ignores the justification for such action or reactions based on his or her disruptions and refusals to comply with institutional policies and commands from staff. In the majority of times the use of force is applied, there are exhaustive efforts to talk the person down into compliance without the use of force. These moments of resolution or efforts to deescalation are not calculated in the prisoner's justification for his hardships or his loss of privileges.
The prisoner's perception is even more warped or delusional when this use of force occurs in the presence of other prisoners and pride and ego get in the way of resolving this matter without violence. Peer pressure is often the main cause for violent resistance to directions given to follow the officer's commands.
The bottom line is the wrongful perception the officer's actions are considered abusive in nature and constitutes [in the minds of the prisoners] torture when the fact reveal that the prisoner's actions or misconduct triggered the justification for such reaction. This action or reaction is viewed to be punishment by the prisoner and those he corresponds his concerns with, whether in a letter home to his family, a grievance form filed against staff or a lawsuit filed to gain litigation in his favor to collect damages against the state, the officers and society that has lawfully placed him is a prison setting to protect the public from harm.
Ignoring the fact that once in prison, his attitude, his behavioral disruptions and his total disregard for the appropriate consequences of his misconduct resulted in isolation, deprivation and even desolation because of his own actions and failing to take responsibility for such conduct. It is highly likely that until the prisoner accepts responsibility for his or her own actions this cycle of alleged vindictiveness or retribution will be repeated. It might never end or escalate to the level where other behavioral tools are required to include medication for such disruptive behaviors. The prisoner creates their own destinies as it will be more likely he or she will be released from a SHU or SMU unit when their time is served
