Taking notice of what is happening inside the security housing units (SHU) at Pelican Bay, California prisons is what appear to be a protest over living conditions and the terms of their imprisonment. The ongoing hunger strike by SHU prisoners and many other prisoners supporting this movement is being observed nationwide. As a former corrections administrator or the special management units (SMU’s) in Arizona, I can give emphasis to the foundation of this strike as it is a practice that is also present in every major state prison in the United States. Their terms appear to be reasonable and rational but to say so with any firm assessment to the degree of truth or accuracy delivered is another question that must be made on site and without prejudices and biases.
It is obvious that their five conditions which consist of group punishment, the STG gang debrief process, ending solitary confinement per the US Commission of Safety and Abuse in Prisons (2006) report, adequate food portions and expansion of programs / privileges are all logical requests and are based on individual behaviors, compliance with rules and regulations and disciplinary histories.
The first condition [group punishment] should not be imposed as the actions of individuals rather than race should be the key to any disciplinary warranted. This is a basic element of fair and consistent treatment of all prisoners on an international level. The problem with individuality is the fact that many prisoners housed inside a SHU won’t or refuse to stay out of each other’s business and often participate either through coercion or some type of intimidation to set off an individual who may be chosen to carry the message of the majority inside that living area. Only after thorough reviews of the incident can this be determined and should not [group discipline] be the first step by the administration. They have to break the culture of group intervention [gang influence] inside the living areas before this can occur as until that culture is changed, there are those who are victimized by others who pressure them to speak out or act out to protest some type of staff action or inaction.
The second condition of the abolishment of the debriefing policy and modification of active or inactive gang status criteria is a tricky situation as the wrong person making down to a lesser restrictive environment could disrupt the operation of the unit assigned and cause more harm than solitary confinement itself if allowed to regain influence over the populations. I propose reasonable time limits for administrative reviews that allow two things to happen. The first would be a background review of gang activity [going back to day one of incarceration (and violations) and pre-sentence report] that includes the review of telephone conversations, mail correspondence, tattoos, associations and evidence of “shot calling” or “direct or indirect involvement” in gang related activities. The second step would be to identify those who are clean of the first step [background check] for the last five years and eligible for an administrative review to either debrief [which should be a yearly condition] and enroll in a step down program such as Arizona’s STG step down that would allow them entry into general population after completion of such an evidence based program. It would be crucial to gather all evidence based data to develop such a program and implement it in steps for complete control of attendance, participation, evaluation and progress made by each individual enrolled.
This program could be as short as eighteen months to two years to be effective and demonstrates the prisoner’s ability to accept responsibility for his own actions, the consequences, the management of anger or violence and the management of co-existing with other prisoners of a different race and gang affiliations as their renouncement of their own gang membership should be neutralized at this point and time.
Compliance with the recommendation of the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons (2006) regarding an end to long-term solitary confinement is self explanatory and workable with new rules regarding their placement and annual reviews for alternative housing assignments.
Providing adequate food and portions is something that is already being regulated by the American Corrections Association (ACA) standards that are used nationwide as the standard for preparation, storage, serving and diet nutritional values. The accountability would be an external audit of the food service department and all its functions on a three year basis.
In order to expand and provide constructive “programs and privileges” for SHU inmates is a reasonable consideration that could in fact be accomplished through CCTV and in cell self studies of evidence based programs used in many various state prisons throughout the USA.
The limit to educational benefits should be based on the participant’s ability to pay for the costs of such programs as the state is only required to provide them the basic educational needs through the mandatory literacy act for prisoners that allows them to get a GED for personal achievement and release. Privileges are extended from their own person conduct or behaviors. One phone call per week is reasonable; sweatsuits and caps are unnecessary as an extra blanket can provide them comfort inside their cells. Comparing their privileges with other “SuperMax” prisons in state and federal prison systems can be considered if those “incentives” to acquire such privileges e.g. store commissary etc are earned [through clear conduct] and not provided as a requirement upon entry of such a SHU unit.
Source:
http://www.change.org/petitions/support-prisoners-on-hunger-strike-at-pelican-bay-state-prison
No comments:
Post a Comment