This is a excerpt out of an article on Solitary Watch, a publication I don't always agree with but often containing interesting points of view on prison talk and issues.
I a previous article Carl ToersBijns had posted a few suggestions to which I commented on. The following is a condensed read of this exchange.
“The process to place an inmate into the SHU should be reviewed before an initial placement.
(The inmate needs to be aware of this “process” as it progresses.)
Follow up with a full committee review within 30 days to validate information in the inmates file.
(The committee needs to be independent like the Internal Affairs section of police departments to prevent abuse.)
At the same time the process for a prisoner to exit or transition out of the SHU should be reviewed.
(This info should be immediately shared with the inmate upon his entry so he that knows what is required of him.)
There should be evidence based risk assessments to the matrix to add up to points equalling the minimum required points for placement (as determined by national standards for security threat group scoring.)
(A hand book of these “National Standards For Security Threat Group Scoring” and the minimum required points should be made as available as a Bible in any motel room.)
A legitimate appeal should be offered through a three step process up to the director.
(Define this “Three Step Process” and if used make it available to the inmate at a level he can understand.)
Self studies and other evidence based programs can be used to fill an 18 month program for step down.
(I think a program of study should be placed up stream at the point of entry into the system. A new inmate should be schooled on all the false propaganda that he will hear from and the methodology of recruitment of all these prison gangs.)
Debriefing can be an option but should not be the solo option to exit the SHU.
(Why save a flawed system that encourages false testimony? If used at all information derived while debriefing should be received with a skeptical eye.)
The culture within must accept these changes.
(I say the “Culture Within” needs at least an 18 month education program of their own.)
Start small – handpick the first group of eligible participants – know their habits and backgrounds – invite mental health and form a multidisciplinary committee for flexibility –
(I say make it available to all inmates or the other inmates will reject it believing it to be biased.)
Glad someone on the other side is at least thinking about solutions.
Carl Toersbijns wrote these condensed quotes:
I have worked as a deputy warden since 1998. I have worked for good wardens and bad wardens.
The problem isn’t the staff is corrupt. The problem is the administration, with their endorsement of the minority behaving in such a manner to keep things stirred up and “kickstarting” the place to justify their means.
Realize this, there are still many within who want to do it right but fear retaliation from their own and their administrators.
Their culture has barriers, code of silence, selective discipline and tacit approvals of those in charge able to make things happen to create or fuel the hate mentality and justify the use of force e.g. chemical agents sprayed unauthorized into a cell when passing, withholding mail, property or others to show control and power.
That’s why I endorse rotation of staff to avoid groups, cliques and “gang like” activities for those in brown as I am very well aware of their presence… Corruptions and power plays exist when you allow it to happen.
One rogue administrator can do more harm than a dozen rogue correctional officers.
When you multiply this by the number of administrators there are you can see the impact they have made on the environment.
Their lack of ethics motive others to do the same thus you create a mob mentality by tacit approval of “looking the other way.”
Correctional officers, like inmates clique up by race, that is true but overall, they all act the same [but have different targets] because the administrators have empowered them to act the way they do.
Example, if the administrator explains a death in his or her facility by saying “another empty bed” then the officers will condone death without attempts to preserve and copy their attitude by saying to others “the boss said another empty bed” leaving nothing left of any human insignificance regarding the death. This multiplies as the events occurred through lack of medical treatment, the high suicide rates and other factors condoned by many administrators as “facts of life inside the penitentiary.”
I think that…the leadership does not want change; they like business as usual and take a pay check home doing nothing except incite disorder, abusiveness and negligence contrary to their custodial practices.
It is the good ones that suffer the most as they have no support mechanism inside the system today. To answer your question, “who’ll stop the rein” it should be the governor and he or she must have the courage, the intelligence and the fairness to look at change as a positive thing and not going backwards.
Although I agree that prisons are failing, it starts at the top and works its way down.
Transparency, accountability, oversight and audits (yes I agree external auditors) to verify program objectives achieved or maintained are mandatory requirements for a good prison system.
We are close to going to hell as it stands today unless we change the way we do business.”
And I agree with this courageous assistant warden!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment