~~~Caged ~~~

~~~Caged ~~~
Gorillas Fighting 4 Change

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Grand Canyon Institute speaks about prison alternatives

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Re-Entry for Veteran Identified Inmates @ NIC Jail Exchange

National Jail Exchange 2012
Re-Entry for Veteran Identified Inmates
By Donald Coffey, Chief, and Joel F. Botner, Administrative Officer, Re-Entry Unit, Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Miami, Florida
The Situation

A large Veteran’s Administration (VA) Medical Center is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and U.S. military veterans have a significant presence in our community. Veterans also make up a notable segment of the jail population—about 10% of our inmates have served in the U.S. armed forces. This proportion is considered fairly typical for large urban jails.

Miami-Dade jail managers have been aware for some time of the significant numbers of veterans in the jail, many of whom have needs that are different from other inmates. We began putting new systems in place about the same time this issue began to gain traction nationally. We used our existing re-entry process to identify veteran offenders, and we have built a strong partnership with the Veterans Administration to help them plan for release. At the front end of the jail stay, a question asking if an arrestee is a military veteran has been added to the intake screening form. Asking this question has started producing results.
The Challenge

Creating effective offender reentry is an enormously complex challenge for local jails, as we seek to harness the efforts of many agencies at all levels within the criminal justice and human services community. People say that all politics is local; this is certainly true about re-entry, which has an important local impact both fiscally and in public safety.

In addition, jail practitioners are being faced with an increasing number of offenders, both men and women, who are veterans. In many cases their behaviors and lifestyles demonstrate a need for intensive services, both in jail and in the community after release. Thus, effective re-entry for veteran offenders in a jail setting is arguably one of the most challenging issues today faced by jail practitioners.

It is clear that South Florida communities need to deal effectively with justice-involved veterans who are released from custody. Our large local populations and high numbers of offenders in custody translate into significant numbers of veterans who need and deserve assistance.
• The Miami-Dade jail system is regularly identified as being in the top 10 nationally in jail population.
• The Florida Department of Corrections has consistently been one of the largest five state prison systems in the U.S. in recent years, coming in at third at the last check.
• Broward County, our neighboring county to the north, has about the same number of jail inmates as we have. Both jail systems are situated in a very large metropolitan area of about 4.1 million people.
The re-entry needs of veterans are the same as for other offenders (e.g., medical and mental health care, legal services, housing, employment, and family issues), but substance abuse treatment and mental health services are perhaps more acutely needed in this population.

Identification and Referral

If veteran offenders were easily identifiable, a major hurdle in serving them would be eliminated as soon as they are booked into jail. That is unfortunately not the case. Identifying arrestees as veterans is possible only if they are asked the question and they choose to answer truthfully.
Miami-Dade County relies on the arrestee’s self-disclosure. A lack of resources and the challenge of booking 200 to 300 inmates daily make it impossible for our staff to reliably determine each arrestee’s veteran status at intake.

When an arrestee is brought to the jail, booking staff ask him/her an extensive series of questions. Among them are questions about past military service and veteran status. Some arrestees choose not to disclose their veteran status at booking. One reason may be to avoid having their benefit checks stopped, and arrestees also may have other reasons for non-disclosure.

When an arrestee does disclose his/her veteran status, the booking staff notify the jail’s program staff so they can alert the local Veterans’ Justice Outreach (VJO) Coordinator. The VJO Coordinator will research the individual’s background to determine eligibility for assistance and will provide an assessment for the provision of services when the offender is released. The jail regularly sends the VJO Coordinator a list of veterans known to be in the jail population, and the VJO Coordinator comes into the jail to meet with them as time permits. The Miami-Dade County jail system has a good relationship with our local VJO Coordinator. Regrettably, she is assigned to manage services in two additional large counties and is not able to visit our facilities as often as we would like.

Generally, if an arrestee does not disclose his/her veteran status at booking, the next opportunity for disclosure comes as they approach the end of their incarceration. Veteran offenders who have been in jail for some time likely have lost the benefits they had been receiving. They typically will disclose their veteran status when screened for re-entry services. In other words, they now need and want the help and have nothing to lose by sharing the information.

To further develop its re-entry services for offenders, including those who are veterans, the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department has created a unique opportunity for volunteers to make a difference. The jail offers the position of “Volunteer Re-entry Coordinator,” which is usually filled by college students who seek careers in the criminal justice field. Volunteering in this role has proven to be an excellent
training, the volunteers are able to provide a needs screening to offenders who ask for re-entry assistance. Each offender receives a written transition plan that identifies community-based resources that can assist them. Specific target populations, including veteran offenders, receive more intensive services while in jail or are referred to local providers who can begin the process of re-entry planning before release.
Possible Problems and Suggested Solutions

In Miami-Dade County’s experience, there are four areas where extra effort has made a big difference in enabling the jail to reach out to and assist veteran offenders:
• Informing veteran offenders about available services;
• Training jail staff on recognizing veterans, behavioral warning signs, and appropriate interventions;
• Confirming the release date to ensure support is provided at release;
• Establishing reliable first contact with the offender after release.
1. Informing veteran offenders about available services
Communicating that offenders who served in the military may qualify for additional services is a challenge in the jail. We are working against the backdrop of a transient jail population, and to spread the word effectively we need to reach a large number of people in both verbal and written formats. We even need to provide the information in several different languages, because people are often better able to understand the message in their primary language.

Solutions

• We have created a Re-Entry Resource Guide with a dedicated section on services for veterans. This guide will eventually be printed in three languages.
• We invite veteran services organizations to participate in Jail Transition Fairs, where they can provide information to and establish direct contact with offenders who are nearing release.
• We post written notices in the visitation areas so that family and friends of veteran offenders are aware of available services and are brought into the process of supporting positive change and linkage with post-release service providers.
• We have placed information about services for veteran offenders on a dedicated television channel in the jail’s housing areas—Re-Entry TV. Offenders who are unlikely to engage staff or read a pamphlet may be more inclined to learn about services by watching television.
• We have also established Re-Entry Hotlines, providing toll-free telephone access to agencies that can assist offenders with their reentry needs. The National Center for Homeless Veterans is one of the organizations that offenders can call for information and assistance.
Training jail staff on recognizing veterans, behavioral warning signs, and appropriate interventions
Both male and female veteran offenders may fit a profile that is different from other inmates in terms of their criminal charges, how they handle conflict, and how they interact with other inmates and correctional staff. Recognizing these characteristics can be the first step in connecting veterans with the services they need and deserve.
Solutions
• We have begun training program staff to help identify offenders who may be veterans. From an institutional and operational perspective, they tend to fit the following profile:
. Likely to have shorter but more serious criminal records;
. More likely to be serving a sentence for violent offenses;
. Likely to be serving longer sentences;
. More likely to have high levels of mental health needs and to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);
. Likely to be older than their non-veteran counterparts.1
On an individual level, they often exhibit recognizable behavioral patterns.
. Veterans may experience hyper-arousal symptoms, such as irritability, sleeplessness, hyper-alertness, or exaggerated startle responses.
. Veterans may become hyper-vigilant and habitually sit with their back to the wall.
. Veterans may express their PTSD in a multitude of emotions, ranging from self-blame to survivor guilt, grief, and anger.
. Veterans with PTSD may also experience health problems, depression, and substance abuse.
. Veterans may tend to be loners and isolate themselves. They may appear to be cold and aloof and may become anxious when another person walks close or behind them. They may not trust other people.
• Once we identify them, we guide veteran offenders toward the services they need.
• We have requested assistance for delivering appropriate staff training from the local VJO Coordinator and non-profit organizations that work with veterans in the community.
• We have taken advantage of information available online, including online webinars that can be used for staff training.
1 Philippe Bensimon and Rick Ruddell, Correctional Service of Canada, “Research Brief: Veterans in Canadian Correctional Systems,” November 2010, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/briefs/b46/b46-eng.shtml.
Two sources of online material and training are:
• Military Health System, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, monthly and recorded webinars listed at http://www.dcoe.health.mil/Training/MonthlyWebinars.aspx and http://www.dcoe.health.mil/Training/OtherWebinars.aspx
• Make The Connection, a resource hub provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with information and first-person stories about homelessness and other difficulties faced by some veterans, online at http://maketheconnection.net/
3. Confirming an Accurate Jail Release Date and Time
Knowing in advance the day an offender will be released from jail is critical to reentry planning and the provision of services. Services upon release often start with an initial appointment at an agency that acts as a “gatekeeper” to the plethora of service providers that a veteran offender may need. Making and keeping that first appointment is crucial.
Offenders have many possible release points from jail as their criminal case moves forward after arrest. Many variables can alter the release date and time, making it difficult even for jail staff to reliably know when an offender will be released. If jail staff cannot alert the local VJO Coordinator or other community-based provider of a veteran offender’s pending release, what hope is there of connecting them with services immediately on release?

Solutions

• We initially focus on working with veteran offenders who are serving a jail sentence and have a firmly established release date.
• We have a process in place for monitoring factors that may affect release dates, such as incentive gain time earned by the veteran offender while incarcerated.
• We provide our re-entry partner organizations with a time frame for each offender’s release. If possible, we finalize that date as early in their incarceration as possible.
4. Establishing reliable first contact with the offender after release
The first few hours after release are critical to linking the offender to the primary provider of services. It is essential to create a climate where the veteran offender knows the answers to the following questions:
• Which agency will serve me the day I am released?
• How will I travel from the jail to that agency?
• Who will I see at that agency?
• What can I expect to happen when I arrive at that agency?
• What requirements do I need to satisfy in order to receive services, and have I met those requirements already?

Solutions

• Our agency assigns a jail staff member to track veteran offenders from booking to release. This staff member helps the veteran offender prepare for release and get the answers to these questions.
• Our agency and Veterans Link-Up plan to coordinate on determining the best method to get veterans into stable housing and mental health/substance abuse treatment services upon release. The process will begin with an in-jail assessment by staff from Veterans Link-Up, followed by continued case management by our agency up to the offender’s release. At that point, case management will transfer to the provider agency.
• We have created a process whereby the local VJO Coordinator and key non-profits that provide services to veteran offenders are notified daily regarding inmates who are incarcerated and their potential release dates.

Conclusion

Whether local jail agencies have, or do not have, sufficient resources to create an in-jail reentry program for veteran offenders, at the very least they should have strong ties to any local organization that works with veterans. It is a safe bet that those local providers would gladly come into the jail to assist if invited to do so.
In Miami-Dade County, we are doing our best to connect veterans with services they need and deserve. We hope that these efforts are helping them readjust to life in our communities, but given the large jail population, we do not have data that prove they are staying out of the criminal justice system after encountering it with us.
What matters in life usually comes at the cost of great effort and concern. Our veteran offenders were veterans first, and it is likely that the situation they find themselves in came as a result of their decision to pursue what mattered to them despite the cost to themselves. If effective re-entry for veteran offenders matters, then it is worth great concern and effort on the part of jail practitioners.
Resources
Veteran Justice Outreach Initiative (VJO) — http://www.va.gov/homeless/vjo.asp
National Center for Homeless Veterans — http://www.va.gov/homeless/ or 1-877-4AID VET (1-877-424-3838)
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans — http://www.nchv.org/
Make the Connection — http://maketheconnection.net/
National Jail Exchange 2012
http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Page 7 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange
Military Health System, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury — http://www.dcoe.health.mil/
“Veterans in Prison or Jail.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, January 2000. http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj.pdf
Document available at: http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2012/02/02/re-entry-for-veteran-identified-inmates.aspx
The National Jail Exchange is an ongoing electronic journal focusing on providing information to jails practitioners and is sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The contents of the articles, the points of view expressed by the authors, and comments posted in reaction to the articles do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the National Institute of Corrections.
To write an article or to learn more about the National Jail Exchange, visit the homepage for this journal at: http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

‘They got the better end of the deal’ Abu Ghraib guard says

Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England says of Iraqi prisoners she was convicted of abusing: Lynndie England, former Army reservist and the face of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, in Keyser, W.Va. …Lynndie England, the 29-year-old former U.S. Army Reserve prison guard who was convicted of abusing detainees in the 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal, said in an interview Monday she doesn't feel sorry for the Iraqi prisoners she was accused of abusing. But, the former Army Reservist who served almost two years in a military prison said she has lost sleep over whether the uproar concerning the released Abu Ghraib abuse photos cost the lives of fellow American troops.

"I think about it all the time—indirect deaths that were my fault," England told the Daily's M.L. Nestel in an interview Monday from her hometown of Fort Ashby, West Virginia. "Losing people on our side because of me coming out on a picture."
England makes no apologies, however, to the Iraqis she and ten other U.S. soldiers were accused of abusing at the prison.

Photographs of England smiling with a "thumbs up" gesture in front of a pyramid of naked Iraqi detainees and pulling an Iraqi man by a leash caused international outrage and came to symbolize the ill-fated 2003 U.S. invasion as Iraq plunged into bloody insurgency in 2004. "They weren't innocent," England told Nestel of the Iraqi prisoners. "They're trying to kill us, and you want me to apologize to them? It's like saying sorry to the enemy."

"They got the better end of the deal," she said.

Three years ago, in an interview with the Guardian, England stressed how well she related to the Iraqis when she was first overseas. "We'd go to the ice-cream shop, we'd hang out there with the locals, learn about their customs, and they were interested in ours," she said to Emma Brooks of the Guardian. "A lot of the stuff was really cool."

Related: Should Lynndie England be forgiven?]

At Abu Ghraib, she wasn't supposed to be hanging around the cellblocks given the administrative nature of her job, but once she started paling around with Graner she did just that. "When we first got there, we were like, what's going on?" she said, according to the Guardian. "Then you see staff sergeants walking around not saying anything [about the abuse]. You think, OK, obviously it's normal."
Convicted in 2005 of "conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act," England served "521 days in a military prison," the Daily reported.  She was dishonorably discharged from the military last year.

Now 29, England is "virtually unemployable" and living in her parents rural West Virginia home where she is raising her 7-year-old son on her own, the Daily report said. The child's father, accused Abu Ghraib ringleader Charles Graner, "didn't want anything to do with the baby," England told Nestel, despite, she said, a 2009 paternity test proving the child is his. Noting her applications to McDonalds and Burger King have been rejected, England surmised: "It's the felony they can't get past." She also, unsurprisingly, is finding it hard to date, telling Nestel: "It's gone on eight years now since I left Iraq, since I've really been out with a guy."

Cop killer video

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Calif. prison guard's firing over suicide upheld

A state appeals court has upheld the firing of a prison guard who, according to a co-worker, told a suicidal inmate that she should go ahead and hang herself.
After the November 2006 encounter with guard Thomas Norton, the inmate was found hanging from a bedsheet tied to a bar in her cell at the California Institution for Women in Chino (San Bernardino County). Another guard untied the sheet and removed her, and she recovered without injury, the court said.
Norton, a correctional officer at the prison since 1997, denied telling the woman to hang herself, and also denied calling his fellow guard a "rat" and a "snitch" for reporting the incident.
In Tuesday's ruling, however, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside said the accusations were supported by credible evidence, and justified the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's decision to fire Norton.
"Peace officers may be held to higher standards of conduct than civilian employees," said Justice Thomas Hollenhorst in the 3-0 ruling.
Norton's lawyer was unavailable for comment. The guard could appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
Norton worked in a unit for mentally ill prisoners. The court said his co-worker testified that he heard a woman screaming in her cell late one night, saying she had been hearing voices and was scared of the dark. He said the woman asked Norton to turn on the light in her cell, but he refused.
When the woman said she was going to kill herself, Norton replied, "Go kill yourself, hang yourself," the co-worker testified, according to the court.
Another officer testified that Norton had told him the woman said she was going to hang herself, and that Norton had "jokingly said, 'Go ahead.' "

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. begelko@sfchronicle.com
This article appeared on page C - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/14/BAO91NKS1K.DTL#ixzz1pD4G8cof

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Open Letter on Arizona Prisons to governor Brewer

USA: California’s prison isolation units

Document - USA: California’s prison isolation units remain inhumane despite department’s proposals to amend pohttp://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/021/2012/en/3ace8247-6624-4dbe-ac51-81493ffa9f9e/amr510212012en.htmllicies

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: AMR 51/21/2012
12 March 2012

California’s prison isolation units remain inhumane despite proposals to amend policies

Amnesty International welcomes proposals by the California prison authorities to provide a route out of isolation for validated gang members through a step-down process.

However, Amnesty International remains deeply concerned by conditions in the state’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) units, which fall short of international standards for humane treatment.

Prisoners are confined for 22 hours a day in single or double cells, which in Pelican Bay have no windows to the outside or direct access to natural light and cell doors which significantly impede vision and look onto a bare wall. Such conditions are contrary to international standards which provide that prisoners should have access to natural light and should not be held in conditions of reduced sensory stimulation.

Prisoners in Pelican Bay are allowed solitary exercise for 10 hours a week, in small high-walled concrete yards with no view to the outside. In other SHU units the yards have given way to bare, single, cages.

The proposed step-down program – announced by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation last week – takes place in four stages, each lasting a minimum of 12 months. The plan does not appear to include physical changes to the SHU units nor does it allow any group interaction for at least the first two years, Amnesty International said. The organization is concerned by both the conditions and the long periods in which prisoners will remain confined to cells while completing the process.

In a report to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly last year the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture noted evidence that solitary confinement, even for a limited period, could cause serious psychological harm. He called on states to isolate prisoners only in exceptional circumstances, for as short a time as possible. He defined solitary confinement as the “physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day”.

Amnesty International, which visited California’s SHU units in November last year, said that conditions inside the cells, and the poverty of the exercise facilities were of great concern, as was the length of time prisoners were confined to cells.

The organization is calling on the California authorities to ensure that its proposals will include changes to conditions in the unit, with more out of cell time and better exercise facilities for all prisoners.

The organization is also urging the authorities to allow SHU prisoners to have telephone contact with their families. At present SHU prisoners are denied all phone calls except in emergencies, exacerbating their isolation from the outside world. The new proposals would allow no change during the first year and only one phone call to family members after completion of the first year and two the following year.

In November 2011 an Amnesty International delegation toured the SHU units in three California prisons at Pelican Bay, Corcoran and Valley State Prison for Women. Following its visit the organization sought more information from the department about its SHU policies and populations; it is currently preparing a detailed report.

Friday, March 9, 2012

California Announces Reform

California Announces Reform of Controversial Policies That Led to Prison Hunger Strike

March 9, 2012
The Associated Press has reported that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is reforming its policies regarding the controversial Security Housing Units (SHUs), where thousands of inmates are held in solitary confinement for an average of 6.8 years. According to the AP:
Gang members would no longer have to renounce their gang membership. Instead, they could earn more privileges and get out of the isolation units in four years instead of six if they stop engaging in gang activities and participate in anger management and drug rehabilitation programs.
Further,
The old system focused on separating and suppressing gangs. The new system tries to change gang members’ behavior through rewards and punishment, she said.
Under the old policy, gang associates are automatically sent to the Security Housing Units to live alongside gang leaders. Under the proposed policy, many could continue living in the general prison population.
The reforms include the implementation of step down programs defined as follows:
Step Down Program (SDP), Step 1 and 2 Security Housing Unit (SHU): First two of five steps in the step down process with a minimum of 12 months in each step, dependent upon successful completion.  SHU housing unit/program specifically designated for housing of criminal gang affiliates determined to pose a threat to the safety of staff/offenders and security of the  prison based upon intelligence and/or confirmed behaviors. This housing designation is intended to isolate the most dangerous STG affiliates with a high degree of monitoring placed on all avenues of communications.
Step Down Program (SDP), Step 3 and 4 Security Housing Unit (SHU):  Two of five steps in the step down process with a minimum of 12 months in each step dependent upon successful completion.  ASHU housing unit/program specifically designated for housing of criminal affiliates who have completed step 1 and 2 but  have been  determined  based upon intelligence and/or confirmed criminal gang behaviors still to pose a threat to the safety of staff and security of the prisons. This housing designation is intended to begin reintegration of the STG affiliates by offering program and privilege incentives within a controlled setting and monitoring of program progress.
Step Down Program (SDP), Step 5 General Population Housing:  Upon successful completion of all four steps, as determined by  Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) and based on individual offender behavior, the offender will be referred to the Classification Staff Representative (CSR) for endorsement to a Level IV, 180 design facility (male offenders only) for a 12 month observation period, regardless of the offender’s placement score unless otherwise directed by a Department Review Board (DRB) action.  After completion of the 12 month observation period with no evidence of continued gang involvement, the offender may be placed in a facility consistent with their placement score and case factors.http://solitarywatch.com/2012/03/09/5016/

Quiet Power


I know that in Arizona, there are many people who can offer a lot to the present political state of affairs in the area of prison abuse and medical / mental health neglect.

I know that even though you are the quiet citizen you are watching and hesitating to “leap” into the discussion so close to your heart but fear to break your introvert cycle of shyness and speak out loud.

You don’t like publicity and you don’t act spontaneous for it has been shown you act and speak better once you have the time to think and ponder about the matter at hand before you enter the controversy or challenge before you.

However, time is not on your side and many people will die before you make up your minds.

Good decision making is expected from our governor and legislature. Good decision making required input from citizens and constituents that have a stake at the problem at hand. Good decision making comes with confidence and knowledge. It is likely you have both but are hesitant to jump into the discussion for reasons only known to yourself.

You don’t have to be an expert to express your opinion. You don’t have to know anything about what you talk about except for the passion and love of taking care of mankind and those with disabilities.

Your quiet power is most impressive when you come to the point where you realize you can do more for change than clamming up or keeping your mouth shut. Your opinions, feelings, thoughts and passion are just as important as the others and something to brag about when the time allows you to do so in public.


Stand tall and take your quiet power to the limit. Realize that your input matters and that if you had spoken out things might have been different that they are now or have been in the past. The future is yours if you choose to ride along with others and help make decisions that matters. Your thoughtfulness and passion is appreciated and welcomed even though it may be met with stillness.

So don’t let yourself down. Say what you want to say and do what you need to do in efforts to improve your state down and speak out what troubles your heart or your mind.



Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Private Prison RFP Violate State Law?

---------from the Tucson Citizen's CELL OUT ARIZONA blog --------

AFSC Files Protest with State Procurement Office: Says Private Prison RFP Violates State Law, Procurement Code

March 6, 2012

In an unprecedented move, the American Friends Service Committee has filed a protest with the State Procurement Office over the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of Corrections for 2,000 private, for-profit prison beds.

The AFSC was joined by the NAACP of Maricopa County in filing the protest.

The protest letter, sent to the Department of Corrections’ Chief Procurement Officer as well as the head of the Arizona State Procurement Office, argues that the state of Arizona does not need and cannot afford more prison beds, and that the existing prison contracts violate state statutes requiring  private prisons to cost less and provide the same or better quality of service as state prisons.

The groups cite Arizona Department of Corrections cost studies that show that some private prisons are more expensive than equivalent state units.  They also point to a host of security inspections, Auditor General Investigations, and other published data that reveal that private prisons have inferior safety standards, including faulty alarms.

The group also argues that the private, for-profit prison corporations are in violation of their contracts with Arizona.  They specifically cite Uniform Contract Terms and Conditions that require the private prisons have adequate staffing levels.

The state has fined both Management and Training Corporation (which operates prisons in Kingman and Marana) and GEO Group (which runs Florence West, Phoenix West, and the Central Arizona Correctional Facility) for failing to fill staff vacancies quickly enough.  The state’s Biennial Comparison Review, completed in December of 2011, also showed that all the state-contracted private prisons have high staff vacancy and turnover rates.

The current prison contract terms also specifically cite recidivism rates as an “outcome measure,” yet none of the private, for-profit prison corporations even measure recidivism.

Caroline Isaacs, the Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Arizona office, says that the group’s research clearly shows that private prisons are not making good on the promises they made to state taxpayers.  “They do not save money, they are not safe, and they are not rehabilitating prisoners.  If those were the justifications for privatization, it’s clear this experiment has been a failure.”  She cites a 100-page report on private prisons in Arizona the group released in February.

The groups are asking the State Procurement Office to immediately halt the prison RFP process while the SPO Administrator reviews the protest.  They then have requested that the state formally and permanently cancel the RFP and award no contracts for new private prisons.

Governor Brewer?? remember Tony Lester??


Lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections


The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Arizona Department of Corrections.
The results of a yearlong 12 News investigation are cited in the huge class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit specifically names department of corrections director Charles Ryan and the D-O-C's health services director Richard Pratt of violating the constitutional rights of prisoners. The two men are accused of failing to provide adequate mental, medical and dental care for prisoners-in some cases it led to tragic consequences.
Attorneys for the ACLU say sick prisoners begged for care. And were told "it's all in your head" and "pray" to be cured.
The ACLU of Arizona says our 12 News investigation played a pivotal role in exposing violations of the 8th amendment dealing with cruel and unusual punishment.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2012/03/06/20120306DOC-ACLU-lawsuit.html#ixzz1oRpIB1TO

Denial and Unaware of prison issue? You decide

Monday, March 5, 2012

YouTube video Intro

According to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections' website, the mission of the DOC is to “protect the public through the constructive management of offenders placed in its charge.” Listed methods to achieve this include: Developing individualized correctional strategies based on the uniqueness of each offender; providing opportunities for the development of constructive offender skills and the modification of thought processes related to criminal behavior and victimization; and providing and managing resources to promote successful offender integration within the community.
The vision statement on the same page leads the DOC to also: Hold offenders accountable by requiring them to contribute to the recovery of victims and the community; work with the community to engage offenders and prevent them from becoming anonymous; and promote the integration of offenders into the community so that they become valued and contributing members.

These all seem like positive and worthwhile goals. Individualized treatment, counseling to avoid future criminal acts, and vocational training with the community integration necessary to put it to work are all strategies that can reduce the number of re-offenders and keep Wisconsin growing stronger while reducing crime rates. The successful implementation of these plans adds value to communities in our state and our nation.

But there is a group that sees no value in reducing recidivism. There is a group that desires greater incarceration rates, not lesser. There is a group that sees individual plans and rehabilitation training as wastes of precious money. There is a group who has no desire to make communities safer or more stable.
Who is it whose interests are so counter to our own? The corporations that run for-profit prisons.

One of the largest operators of private prison is Corrections Corporation of America. On their website they say, “CCA designs, builds, manages and operates correctional facilities and detention centers on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Marshals Service, nearly half of all states and nearly a dozen counties across the country.” And they are looking to expand. An article in the Capital Times on Feb. 23 reported that CCA had sent letters to 48 states, offering to buy and run their existing public prisons.
Private prison corporations like CCA (a for-profit, publicly traded corporation) cite the benefits to state budgets that this would provide. In addition to the one-time infusion of cash this would bring, private prisons typically cost less per prisoner than publicly-operated ones. The prisons would also pay property and sales taxes. States looking to plug budget holes and save money on future corrections expenses see this as a win-win opportunity.
The problem is that money isn't everything, and counting on per-inmate savings may not be the panacea it seems. CCA recently bought the Lake Erie Correctional Facility from the state of Ohio. While the $72.7 million purchase price helped eliminate red ink in the budget, Ohio is obligated to keep the prison filled to at least 90 percent capacity for the duration of the 20-year contract. What happens if Ohio loses a large amount of its population? What happens if the crime rate drops precipitously?

CCA profits most when its prisons are full. What keeps prisons full? Harsh penalties and habitual offenders. CCA has the penalties portion covered by its constant lobbying efforts. The Capital Times noted that as “a prominent member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, aka ALEC, Corrections Corporation of America crafted Arizona's immigration law into a model bill, parts of which showed up last summer in a Wisconsin Assembly proposal...” They've spent millions of dollars convincing legislators to get tougher on crime and criminals.

And what increases recidivism rates? Many things, including a lack of family contact while in prison, a lack of vocational training, poor medical and psychiatric care, and inhumane conditions within the prisons themselves. A BBC article from December 2010 reported on a video of CCA guards watching one inmate beat another, doing nothing to intervene. It turns out the FBI already “had been investigating whether guards at the Idaho Correctional Center violated the civil rights of inmates.” Additionally, “prisoners have filed a number of lawsuits against the prison in the past, saying the facility covers up [similar] attacks by denying the prisoners medical treatment.” Prisoners unused to civil treatment will have a much harder time readjusting to society when they are released. This increases the odds that they will soon return to the tender mercies of the Corrections Corporation of America.

Wisconsin already has a burgeoning prison population. It has more than doubled since the year 2000, from about 10,000 to about 22,000. This explosion has led to the 11x15 Campaign for Justice, an effort to reduce our state's prison population to 11,000 inmates by 2015. The project was begun by WISDOM, “a grassroots organization, comprised mostly of religious congregations of many denominations, which works to have a common voice on issues of social justice.” Citing systemic problems with the criminal justice system itself, 11x15 hopes to install more effective and less expensive options for dealing with offenders.
If Wisconsin sells its prisons to CCA, that could never happen. Keeping our prisons full would be a contractual obligation. The good of communities and individuals wouldn't matter.
For-profit prisons should have no place in Wisconsin's criminal justice system. They should have no place in America, at all.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

New law petitition ~~ exercise your rights

Hello,

Mary Lou Brncik would like you to visit the following online campaign, by iPetitions: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/unshacklehb2373/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend

Message:
If Arizona passes this bill, we will become only the seventh (7) state in the U.S., in addition to the federal system, to mandate that the only sentence for first-degree murder is Death or Natural Life. This bill allows no exceptions whatsoever to a Death or Natural Life sentence, and for those defendants who are not the "worst of the worse" as defined by state prosecutors, the ONLY available sentence will be natural life. This is not what a civilized society does when it recognizes that there are sometimes mitigating factors, even for the most serious crimes. Judges should have the options that are available under current Arizona law: 25 to Life, Natural Life, or Death (when the case has met the criteria to be "death qualified." .Comments posted by Donna Hamm of Middle Ground Prison Reform

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Another story from Solitary Watch impacting prisons & Solitary Confinement

Decision of Federal Judge Frees Prisoner from Solitary Confinement

March 2, 2012
“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution,” wrote Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, when she ruled last week that a federal prisoner should be released from solitary confinement. On February 24, Scheindlin, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, ordered the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to remove inmate Viktor Bout from fifteen months of solitary in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federal jail in lower Manhattan, and placed in the general population.
The story made the mainstream press, presumably because Russian-born Viktor Bout is a notorious international arms dealer known as the “merchant of death.” It is also noteworthy, however, for the judge’s refusal to defer to the BOP in determining whether there was justification for holding Bout in indefinite isolation.
Arrested in Thailand in 2008 and extradited to New York in November of 2010, Bout was immediately placed in solitary at MCC while awaiting trial. A year later, he was convicted of participating in conspiracies to acquire and sell weapons, provide material support to foreign terrorists, and kill American nationals. But the nature of his offenses, as Judge Scheindlin pointed out, does not exempt him from Constitutional protections. So when his lawyers challenged his solitary confinement, she weighed the facts–and the law–carefully, and decided in his favor.
In her opinon, which can be read in full here, Scheindlin begins by describing Bout’s prison conditions at MCC:
Essentially, Bout is in solitary confinement residing in a one-man cell in which he eats, sleeps, and washes. He spends 23 hours a day in this cell and is taken out for one hour of exercise per day in a room only slightly larger than his cell. He is alone for his exercise period. The cell has two small frosted glass windows that allow very little natural light or fresh air. Other than visits with counsel, trips to court, a family visit once a week, or trips upstairs to access to electronic evidence (during trial preparation), he does not leave his cell. While he has some limited access to commissary, it is far more restrictive than the commissary privileges available to general population prisoners. He is only allowed one telephone call a month, which is an SHU limitation. He has no interaction with other prisoners. When transported off the SHU, he is placed in full restraints.
In making her decision, the judge references the 1987 Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley, which ”outlined a four-factor test for evaluating whether a prison regulation that allegedly violates a constitutional right is reasonably related to a valid correctional objective”:
The court must consider first whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it; second, whether there are alternative means for the prisoner to exercise the right at issue; third, the impact that the desired accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources; and fourth, the absence of “ready alternatives.”
Judge Scheindlin proceeded to apply these standards to Bout’s case. Even showing “judicial restraint” and giving due deference to prison authorities, she concluded, there was “no legitimate justification for holding Bout in such harsh conditions indefinitely.”
In conducting this rational basis review, deference is accorded to the BOP’s determination. The Supreme Court has noted that courts are “‘ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform’” and that “separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.”
However, as previously noted, “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution” and “‘[w]hen a prison . . . practice offends a fundamental constitutional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights.’”
I conclude that there is no “valid, rational connection” between the BOP’s decision to keep Bout in the SHU for more than fourteen months and any “legitimate governmental interests put forward to justify it.” Solitary confinement is generally intended “as short term housing,” yet the Government here seeks to hold Bout indefinitely with hardly any human contact or mobility. “[I]t is well documented that long periods of solitary confinement can have devastating effects on the mental well-being of a detainee.”
The Government has put forward no legitimate justification for holding Bout in such harsh conditions indefinitely, and there is no rational basis for concluding that Bout presents a greater danger in general population than that posed by many other inmates at the MCC. Considering the Turner factors together, I find that Bout’s placement in the SHU is not “ ‘reasonably related’ to legitimate penological objectives” but rather is an “ ‘exaggerated response’ to [the BOP’s] concerns.”
Although I recognize that courts are loathe to interfere with questions of prison administration, an area in which the BOP is best suited to make decisions, I cannot shirk my duty under the Constitution and Turner to ensure that Bout’s confinement is not arbitrarily and excessively harsh.
If all judges were similarly unwilling to “shirk their duty under the Constitution,” and if all inmates in prolonged isolation had good lawyers with the resources to represent them, there would be a lot fewer prisoners in solitary confinement.