Solitary Confinement, Review Panels

In a report written by the Reuters News agency regarding Solitary Confinement Juan Mendez, a United Nations torture investigator was quoted as saying "can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or for a prolonged period, for persons with mental disabilities or juveniles." This is a most accurate statement and should set the parameters for such treatment or mistreatment as it is prone to become in longer time periods. He also said that "short-term solitary confinement was admissible under certain circumstances, such as the protection of lesbian, gay or bisexual detainees or people who had fallen foul of prison gangs". But he said there was 'no justification for "using it as a penalty, because that's an inhumane penalty." 'Mr. Mendez is also correct on this principle of locking down people who fit into this category as many who are weak and have special needs regarding their lifestyles or other differences, need protection from others who prey on such individuals. Hence his statement that it should not be used as a penalty is where the systemic flaws are occurring as management styles have been adapted to use this isolation methods as a tool to control behaviors and in some cases, extract information for intelligence purposes in reference to gangs and gang activities.

Herein this use of solitary confinement to be used as a penalty comes the variances that are imposed inside such parameters that may or can constitute unusual punishment or cruelty to the persons incarcerated and confined inside such special housing units for reasons deemed to be rational and practical under correctional guidelines. Because of its mere location and isolation from the rest of the world's eyes, solitary confinement is most often misunderstood. It has been described as a place where there are individuals who are labeled "worse of the worst" creating stereotyping that is both inaccurate and most harmful to their needs of protection and civil right considerations by the system and the courts. Internal controls established by the unit's management imposes additional alleged "unintentional punitive measures" to manage the individual's behaviors creating a conflict in established methods of managing the prisoner's needs while housed inside this special unit. This fever to play the role of the "punisher" creates informal corrective or preventive measures that are not outlined within any written document or policy leaving its interpretation up to the "punisher." without going into depth of these draconian methods of "punishing" a prisoner's negative behaviors, it can easily lead to abuse, neglect and eventual torturous conditions. It is these unofficial sanctions imposed by these "punishers" that escapes the eyes of the top administrators and the attention of our courts. Through tacit approval and the code of silence, these sanctions are imposed and permitted to occur randomly to "adjust attitudes" or modify behaviors with or without incentives.

Solitary confinement should be a rigid procedure that is constantly maintained under the scrutiny of an independent panel not influenced by the unit's correctional hierarchy or command systems. It should be composed of five (5) individuals who are skilled and trained with extensive backgrounds in the areas of due process, medical care, mental health standards , operational security and internal affairs experience. The final review for approval or disapproval would rest with the director of operational concerns in a centralized position. The process this oversight panel would implement would be two-folded. The first purpose is to review the justification for placement process documented of the prisoner to review the case and facts. This should be done no later than 60 days after initial placement to allow a time period of adjustment to consider behavioral adjustment recorded or misconduct reported. The second purpose of this five (5) member panel would be to review those "use of force" reports identified to be questionable and possible "excessive force" situations based on the considerations of physical evidence of injuries, hospitalization of prisoner, statements by the participants in the action, a psychological assessment of the prisoner and a review of the disciplinary history to establish patterns of behaviors that need housing adjustments. Even if these independent placement and activity reviews are random and taken at a percentage of events as they occurred, the mater of fact remains that employees and unit management are aware there are formal regulation oversight procedures in place to verify the reasons for placement, the justification for actions taken and the possible repercussions of behaviors contrary to policies and procedures giving the system legitimate tools to provide sound guidance for solitary confinement and its associated problems. It is highly likely that the number of placements inside these special units would be adjusted as more avenues are provided for prisoners to air their concerns creating a more balanced environment within such a restrictive concept and due process intact.

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-un-torture-solitary-idUSTRE79H7HF20111018

http://solitarywatch.com /

Approach and Response, Correctional Officers

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

Anarchy qualities & attitudes within Law Enforcement

Anarchy in America is on the rise as television shows and recent fast action movies are making the concept even more popular but without deliberate intent, making the behavior more socially acceptable within law enforcement circles. Recent events such as the Fast and Furious weapons scandal Department of Justice investigation is a prime example of we are dealing with today. Looking at some of this kind of philosophy in role models, you will find assimilation everywhere from organized labor groups to Facebook followers to the type of clothes they wear and the motorcycles or vehicles they ride or own illustrates their anti-social behaviors and attitudes in public forum. In fact, this anarchist movement seems to be alive and well among those who have sworn to uphold the law and maintain order within our own societies while wearing a badge. Looking at the definition of the word one must take into considerations various forms out there that mimic or resemble whatever they may believe their own ideology represents through their own actions, words or behaviors. Reading “a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society,” you can put a face on individuals who endorse such behavior or ideology contrary to the sacred oath they have sworn to uphold and to “serve and protect” others from lawlessness and disruption.

The resemblance of dictatorial or authoritarian management styles confirms elements of such ideology is present with all its associated prejudices and biases. Justice is perceived to be about restitution and not retribution. It has also grown into a sense of entitlement that clouds their judgment in cases that covers the good of all rather than the desires of a few. Their personal beliefs vary from using the government as a protective device to embellishing the use of private contracts to deliver personal gain or wealth as they exhort their rights to collect compensation in most cases. Hence we see examples of private property anarchism versus government property and associated governmental laws. They replace their opinion and argue that private contractors or individuals have the right to provide services such as law, security and other governmental services now in the process of being privatized by many government agencies to save costs etc. The facts are that today, there are many governmental roles being converted into privatized roles to suit the needs of the individuals involved in these transactions. In addition, there are attitudes that are making it clear about who is in a position of power and who are subordinates to that order of power.

Going further or deeper into these arguments, they want society to function without a state owned court or police illustrating the recent events where police take matters into their own hands and use excessive force and even lethal force more common today than ever before making such decisions on their own personal values rather than training received. . This further translates into the oversight of prisons and jails as they propose competition for such services as the prime reason for the change creating legitimate avenues for injecting these anarchist feelings into the environment. Regarding law enforcement how would public safety be handled under a non state legal system and what would privatized entities do to reduce street crime and operate prisons. It is with much certainty that the enforcement of non-state laws would be unpredictable in nature and difficult to create a blueprint of how both misdemeanor and felony crimes would be resolved under such conditions “would be futile and counterproductive.”

It is more likely that these personalities reflecting anarchy and noncompliance to rules and regulations is the main factor that has created mass incarceration efforts to fill the prisons where these individuals can wield their power and control over those imprisoned without any recourse or relief from the outside as their “torture” is not documented but rather denied vehemently to the public or the courts.
Therefore, it is the transition of a state owned government to a privatized government that is being created today by those in power and seeking to absolve all ties with government to further enhance their own wealth and power while creating future financial possibilities after their government service is completed to undergo such a transition from state to private in a new endeavor enriched by state taxes and obligations to give it full term benefits for a very long time.

Source:
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=67

Misconduct & Background Checks, Correctional Officers

In a most recent report released by the department of Justice in September,2011, it has been determined that there is a rapid increase of misconduct among correctional officers for the past year as recorded. It is likely that there are many factors associated with these findings and that human resource administrators and training personnel should take the time to read this report to glean some very important information relevant to the application process, the screening procedures and the enhanced selection of potential correctional officers for their agencies. The report issued by the DOJ is very revealing and has substantiated a trend that has been observed through empirical evidence gathering and observations on the job when these issues came to light due to disciplinary action taken or the critical incident review process indicated issues with mistreatment, poor judgment making and unreliable reporting techniques that brought suspicion on the writer's accuracy to report and document these events as they actually occurred.

While it should be stressed that most correctional officers either on duty or off duty never engage in committing crimes or misconduct, there are those in the minority that do thus jeopardizing the reputation of others. Their job already entails an active role in providing safety and security within correctional settings that impact the safety and security of the public, other staff and inmates under their supervision. The mere fact is that this small group has committed enough crime and misconduct where the public's confidence in this profession has been severely jeopardized resulting in poor feedback of the profession in the manner of apathy of working conditions and non consideration for pay raises or increased benefits on the taxpayer's dime. The fact is, misconduct allegations, disciplinary issued and arrests have increased in the past ten years and has shaken the public's trust in correctional officers and the associated services provided understood or conveyed through the media, family friends or word of mouth as this makes the news often and is a matter of discussion at the watercooler. Associated with such perceptions are the facts that misconduct investigations are on the rise and the number of correctional officers sentenced to do time has increased as well.

Using an excerpt from the DOJ report it states “The number of misconduct investigations of BOP Correctional Officers doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2010, rising from 2,299 to 4,603. Correctional Officers were investigated disproportionately to their representation in the BOP workforce throughout the decade, in that while they accounted for approximately 40 percent of BOP staff, they were the subject of 53 percent of the misconduct allegations in FY 2001 and 63 percent of the allegations in FY 2010. Of the 32,455 misconduct allegations made against Correctional Officers between FY 2001 and FY 2009 for which there were final resolutions, 16,717 (52 percent) were substantiated.” Unable to gather similar data from state agencies to gather similar data to compare state versus federal statistics, it is reasonable to conclude that most states are statistically similar to the federal prison system. Looking at criminal behaviors or actual arrests of correctional officers the data is quite shocking. Again the DOJ report states “Arrests of Correctional Officers as a result of substantiated allegations of criminal conduct have also increased. From FY 2001 through FY 2010, a total of 272 Correctional Officers were arrested, rising 89 percent from 18 in FY 2001 to 34 in FY 2010. Correctional Officer staffing levels at the BOP during the same time period rose only 24 percent.”

Having written on the pitfalls of the early years on the job and subjected to an entire new culture with severe politics in the interpretation of policies and procedures the DOJ has gleaned that misconduct and criminal arrests are most common [58 %] in the officer's early first two years of development. Types of behaviors included “ arrests were made included introduction of an illegal substance into a prison and having a sexual relationship with an inmate.” much of these crimes and misconduct are hidden from the administrator because of the code of silence or the fear to report this type of activity for fear of retaliation or repercussions for reporting a fellow officer.

Because of these events and the severity of the numbers showing a growing trend within the federal prison system they are recommending a new tool labeled to be a “Tool for Composite Scoring” that will enhance the hiring and selection process for new hire correctional officers. It is highly likely that states as well as county and municipal entities may seek to use this tool to enhance their hiring practices and reduce costs on training and other investments of individuals who are deemed to be unfit for correctional work and screened out of the process before actually hired on a permanent basis.

It stands to reason that the most common denominator in hiring new employees is the background check. In the DOJ report it states “The BOP official in charge of background investigation adjudication attributed the decrease to three primary reasons. First, OPM decreased the amount of time it took to conduct background investigations. Second, the BOP decreased the amount of time it took to adjudicate the completed investigations by adding 6 positions to the SBIS staff in January 2009, bringing the total number of employees to 32. Third, SBIS developed a system that identifies employees who have been employed at least 10 months and whose background investigations have not been adjudicated. SBIS then assigns a specially designated team in an effort to complete the adjudications before the employees’ 12-month probationary periods end.”The BOP’s improvement in the timely adjudication of background investigations puts it in a stronger position to remove unsuitable Correctional Officers before they become permanent employees. It is highly recommended that state, county and municipal agencies pick up this tool and do the same to balance their work force needs and capture this enhancement methodology to screen for successful candidates and save their employers a lot of grief and work on those employees who fail to perform and violate agency policies and procedures as well as federal and state statutes.

Source:

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2011/e1102.pdf