Waiver - the Open letter is posted on www.thunderrolls.net - This group is not endorsing or approving this letter or any comments related to this link or letter.
Selective enforcement of those cases that the ADOC "feels" or "requires" referral to prosecutors.
FY # Inmates # Staff Total Assaults
2009 - 624 - 355 - 979
2010 - 744 - 342 - 1086
2011 - 276 - 141 - 417
Total - 1644 - 838 - 2482
Interesting Points to look at:
Director Ryan said “The outside criticism ignored or downplays the fact that the raw numbers of cases submitted for possible prosecution are higher since 2009 –
Response – Ryan ignores or downplays the fact that the conviction rate or % has dropped significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Director Ryan said “Consider that the previous administration did not count or consider an assault against staff if the employee was not injured. I changed that definition, so that an assault against staff is considered an assault whether the employee was injured or not. We consider the law and the truth, not how low our statistics are interpreted”
Response – Ryan change in definition of the charge “assault” created higher numbers for justification for overtime and other political means, not to protect staff as these assault rates are higher than the previous administration but the pursuit to convict is weaker making his proclamation to be a “paper tiger” statement to please staff inferences.
How long would a Chief of Police last at this job if the conviction rate drops because of shoddy investigative means and lack of pursuit to protect all that are inside a prison community... One can speculate the police chief to be fired.
Not an analytical expert, I will allow the reader to figure out how those assaults are determined to be sufficient and justified to be considered for prosecution as the numbers of cases referred versus the number of assaults are divided by a wide margin that implies not all assaults are worthy of prosecution thus the director's commitment to staff safety is politically indifferent to all staff and just those he chooses to care for or provide attention to in his own ways that separate these victims into two groups, those who are valued and those not so valued. You decide which group these officers fall in but I can see the majority are not valued...
The director addressed this wide margin with the statement that “In addition to criminal prosecution procedures, ADC is served by the administrative disciplinary policy.” Ironically, he stated “Virtually all sustainable incidents of assault, assaultive behavior, or any other misconduct by inmates result in administrative sanctions being placed on the inmate.” The irony here is that these extra sanctions are meaningless to these types of inmates as he illustrated in his case with inmate Daniel Eason by giving him “a pass” by not prosecuting him.” His placement in the Enhanced Security unit is still not sufficient to manage him and thanks to the director, Eason now enjoys the label of “one of the most dangerous inmates in the ADOC.” Nothing like ranking and empowering this inmate more glory and making him public enemy number one and the most notable punk in the system.
I spoke to CO II Illingsworth throughout that entire episode and between him and his father, they wanted to press charges against him [Eason] but COII Illingsworth told me that the cost to prosecute was too high and not worth the efforts to bring additional time to this inmate. I spoke with him in the emergency room in Osborne Trauma Center, I spoke with him when he was released from the hospital and he was still dazed and in shock, I spoke with him while he was home recuperating, I spoke with him when he wasn’t ready to come back to work, I spoke with him when he came back and offered him a slot at Complex to re-integrate into the work place, I spoke to him when he was at work I admire this officer’s return to work as he endured a pure hell that should have never happened but that’s not part of the story. The only part told was how the inmate was not prosecuted for attempted murder. During those hours at the ER I saw only one lieutenant [Hawkins] his family and oh no, no Mr. Ryan, No warden, No deputy warden, just the two of us and his family.
Half truths are sometimes the same as lies but we will leave this lying dog lay on that front porch as those who actually work for a living [line staff] and those who risk it all [again line staff] listen to the director’s spiel of misconceptions and deflections of the facts to suit his own needs.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
The prosecution of criminal cases in Arizona prisons 2005-2011
Fiscal Year # of cases # cases insufficient evidence for prosecution
2005 85 54
2006 109 95
2007 72 51
2008 96 66
2009 110 68
2010 120 60
2011 95 55
Total 687 449
Yr #Cases submitted # cases declined # cases resulting # cases pending by pros in conviction
05 31 6 24/77% 1
06 14 0 14/100% 0
07 21 4 17/81% 0
08 30 7 21/70% 2
09 42 13 25/60% 4
10 60 14 29/48% 17
11 40 2 5 33
238 46 135/57% 57
Fiscal Year #Assaults on Inmates #Assaults on Staff Total Assaults
2009 624 355 979
2010 744 342 1086
2011 276 141 417
Total 1644 838 2482
Interesting Points to look at
Director Ryan said “The outside criticism ignored or downplays the fact that the raw numbers of cases submitted for possible prosecution are higher since 2009 –
Response – Ryan ignores or downplays the fact that the conviction rate or % has dropped significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Director Ryan said “Consider that the previous administration did not count or consider an assault against staff if the employee was not injured. I changed that definition, so that an assault against staff is considered an assault whether the employee was injured or not. We consider the law and the truth, not how low our statistics are interpreted”
Response – Ryan change in definition of the charge “assault” created higher numbers for justification for overtime and other political means, not to protect staff as these assault rates are higher than the previous administration but the pursuit to convict is weaker making his proclamation to be a “paper tiger” statement to please staff inferences.
How long would a Chief of Police last at this job if the conviction rate drops because of shoddy investigative means and lack of pursuit to protect all that are inside a prison community.. One can speculate the Chief would be fired.
2005 85 54
2006 109 95
2007 72 51
2008 96 66
2009 110 68
2010 120 60
2011 95 55
Total 687 449
Yr #Cases submitted # cases declined # cases resulting # cases pending by pros in conviction
05 31 6 24/77% 1
06 14 0 14/100% 0
07 21 4 17/81% 0
08 30 7 21/70% 2
09 42 13 25/60% 4
10 60 14 29/48% 17
11 40 2 5 33
238 46 135/57% 57
Fiscal Year #Assaults on Inmates #Assaults on Staff Total Assaults
2009 624 355 979
2010 744 342 1086
2011 276 141 417
Total 1644 838 2482
Interesting Points to look at
Director Ryan said “The outside criticism ignored or downplays the fact that the raw numbers of cases submitted for possible prosecution are higher since 2009 –
Response – Ryan ignores or downplays the fact that the conviction rate or % has dropped significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Director Ryan said “Consider that the previous administration did not count or consider an assault against staff if the employee was not injured. I changed that definition, so that an assault against staff is considered an assault whether the employee was injured or not. We consider the law and the truth, not how low our statistics are interpreted”
Response – Ryan change in definition of the charge “assault” created higher numbers for justification for overtime and other political means, not to protect staff as these assault rates are higher than the previous administration but the pursuit to convict is weaker making his proclamation to be a “paper tiger” statement to please staff inferences.
How long would a Chief of Police last at this job if the conviction rate drops because of shoddy investigative means and lack of pursuit to protect all that are inside a prison community.. One can speculate the Chief would be fired.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Open Letters – What purpose do they serve?
Reading one ‘open letter’ in particular, it prompted me to seek the answer as to why someone in a most powerful position would write an open letter to the masses that are under his command. Seeking to find his motive or his issue with those matters listed within this letter, it is important to look beyond the words and thoughts printed inside these letters that are circulated to an unlimited number of people and sometimes a nationwide effort to express their thoughts on paper.
The main reason for writing such a letter would be to put the ink to the paper and state or express the author’s position on a particular matter or a range of different subjects listed in the order of preference to the writer. In this case, the order is a significant indicator how the author perceives his interest versus those of his readers and makes it clear that his priority on these matters are clearly written and expressed. Unconsciously, this writer might have opened up a Pandora’s box situation that allows the readers to infer that although he is expressing his thoughts in an open letter format, he is attempting to get his message out there beyond those addressed and interested in his position or take of those matters listed.
Thus an open letter is an attempt to begin or initiate a mass communiqué with others outside the title of the heading on the letter. This is purely for political reasoning and is a passive attempt to attract the support or ideology of others not intended as the target group but rather a support group. This could of course backfire if the message is received by a opposing group that can use these contents of the letters as ammunition to fire back with a message that contradicts or conflicts with those words written in the open letter. Secondary reason for this attempt to begin a wider stroke of the pen to others is to diffuse thoughts of those ready to initiate harmful action against the man or the matter at hand. Thus this conscious awareness of the opposition’s stand on those issues written are more or less a way to express their credibility is valid and he is doing something about it with those steps outlined in his letter.
The open letter can and often used to criticize others points of view or their actions. This is a another way to avoid a slander or libel position and express those views as being false and untruthful comparing his own data versus those he seems as adversary to his position or management style. This opposition of ideology is intended to implant confusion and deflection to these matters put to ink and causes either a sense of dissatisfaction or a level of apathy creating a barrier or hesitation to participate in the controversy giving the author the psychological “high road” to establishing credibility and truth. Regardless of what is printed, the reader must be led away from other points of view in a sense of controlling the message and elevating the messenger to a more convincing level.
Reading many open letters, it may be pure conjecture that their attempt is to implant humor or some sort of simple attempt to announce a publicly endorsed message. For the most part, it is my understanding that an open letter is a high profile attempt to focus a broader sense of attention to the recipient(s) and asking them to follow the message contained within the letter, prompting these readers to take some kind of action. In many cases, this action would consort to some sort of collusion between the author and the readers stabilizing and solidifying his stand on those matters expressed.
My only recommendation to reading open letters is to consider the source and its credibility and purpose for writing such a message to begin with. At times, open letters are often a result of frustration, anger and disruption to the normal manner business is taken care of and those actions requested by the reader are mere attempts to stop these interruptions of conflicting ideas and conform to the one message written to all concerned.
This letter is posted on the website of the Thunder Rolls - it does not reflect the opinion or position of this group. The link is merely an attempt to access the letter referred to in this blog:
Link to letter -
http://www.thunderrolls.net/Directors_Open_Letter_to_ADC_Staff_2011-05-09.pdf
The main reason for writing such a letter would be to put the ink to the paper and state or express the author’s position on a particular matter or a range of different subjects listed in the order of preference to the writer. In this case, the order is a significant indicator how the author perceives his interest versus those of his readers and makes it clear that his priority on these matters are clearly written and expressed. Unconsciously, this writer might have opened up a Pandora’s box situation that allows the readers to infer that although he is expressing his thoughts in an open letter format, he is attempting to get his message out there beyond those addressed and interested in his position or take of those matters listed.
Thus an open letter is an attempt to begin or initiate a mass communiqué with others outside the title of the heading on the letter. This is purely for political reasoning and is a passive attempt to attract the support or ideology of others not intended as the target group but rather a support group. This could of course backfire if the message is received by a opposing group that can use these contents of the letters as ammunition to fire back with a message that contradicts or conflicts with those words written in the open letter. Secondary reason for this attempt to begin a wider stroke of the pen to others is to diffuse thoughts of those ready to initiate harmful action against the man or the matter at hand. Thus this conscious awareness of the opposition’s stand on those issues written are more or less a way to express their credibility is valid and he is doing something about it with those steps outlined in his letter.
The open letter can and often used to criticize others points of view or their actions. This is a another way to avoid a slander or libel position and express those views as being false and untruthful comparing his own data versus those he seems as adversary to his position or management style. This opposition of ideology is intended to implant confusion and deflection to these matters put to ink and causes either a sense of dissatisfaction or a level of apathy creating a barrier or hesitation to participate in the controversy giving the author the psychological “high road” to establishing credibility and truth. Regardless of what is printed, the reader must be led away from other points of view in a sense of controlling the message and elevating the messenger to a more convincing level.
Reading many open letters, it may be pure conjecture that their attempt is to implant humor or some sort of simple attempt to announce a publicly endorsed message. For the most part, it is my understanding that an open letter is a high profile attempt to focus a broader sense of attention to the recipient(s) and asking them to follow the message contained within the letter, prompting these readers to take some kind of action. In many cases, this action would consort to some sort of collusion between the author and the readers stabilizing and solidifying his stand on those matters expressed.
My only recommendation to reading open letters is to consider the source and its credibility and purpose for writing such a message to begin with. At times, open letters are often a result of frustration, anger and disruption to the normal manner business is taken care of and those actions requested by the reader are mere attempts to stop these interruptions of conflicting ideas and conform to the one message written to all concerned.
This letter is posted on the website of the Thunder Rolls - it does not reflect the opinion or position of this group. The link is merely an attempt to access the letter referred to in this blog:
Link to letter -
http://www.thunderrolls.ne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)