This morning, the CNN website features a piece by psychiatrist Terry Kupers from the Wright Institute regarding Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning’s imprisonment conditions. Terry, author of Prison Madness (reviewed here by Psychiatric Services), argues that keeping Manning in solitary confinement is cruel and counterproductive to the goal of preserving Manning’s safety and sanity.
I haven’t read Prison Madness, but this excellent 2009 New Yorker article by Atul Gawande is helpful in explaining why solitary confinement is one of the cruelest forms of imprisonment. My two cents: Manning’s headline case should not be seen as exceptional. It should draw our attention to the fact that non-Wikileaking inmates are, as a matter of routine, held in solitary confinement — even if, as our pal Sara from the Prison Law Blog remarks, CDCR insist on calling it something else. In addition to the maddening conditions, I frequently receive letters from inmates complaining about the strict control over reading materials at SHU units.
When reading about the imprisonment conditions of some particular inmate or other whose issue has made the news, I find it useful to think how many unnamed, invisible folk are subjected to the same, or worse, incarceration regimes. I encourage my readers to do the same.
I was so moved to receive emails from blog readers inquiring after my safety in Hawai’i. Thank you so much for your concern. I am safe and on high ground. We’re waiting for sunrise to see the damage.
The debate over privatized correctional institutions is, for the most part, a non-debate. Institutions owned, funded, and directed by such entities as the Corrections Corporation of America are a fact of life, and Californian inmates hare subjected to privatized out-of-state institutions as well as to privatized operations within state prisons. The jury is still out on whether private institutions produce higher or lower recidivism rates (this Florida study suggests no significant differences between private and public institutions; here’s a good lit review from the study of previous projects in the same vein). But beyond the issue of long term gains, privatized institutions provide problematic opportunities for profit making that end up in corruption. And corruption comes in many forms.
taking millions of dollars in kickbacks from the owner of for-profit juvenile detention facilities. Mark Ciavarella was convicted on 12 of 39 counts, including racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and filing false tax returns. The jury also found that he must forfeit the $997,600 “finder’s fee” he received from the developers of private juvenile detention centers. Another former judge charged in the case, Michael T. Conahan, pleaded guilty to a single racketeering charge last year and is awaiting sentence.
The author, Janice Brickley, informs us of the California Commission on Judicial Performance; lawyers can submit complaints about judges, and in situations such as the Pennsylvania travesty, they should. But much as it is shocking to see a judicial officer whose neutrality is the cornerstone of justice sell off to correctional profiteers, let’s keep in mind that judges are human beings. And the absolute power provided to people – whether it’s over prison management or people’s lives – corrupts absolutely.
The first report assesses the potential impact of DJJ institutional closures on adult charges. This, you may recall, was a cause for concern in some quarters. Nonetheless, the report finds that, while “California counties drastically vary in arrest and incarceration policies. . . even radical variations in reliance on State incarceration have no effect on juvenile crime rates or trends.” Here are the main findings:
In 2009, 24 counties employed locally self-reliant juvenile justice practices. Those counties were Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Trinity, and Tulare.
In 2009, 13 counties employed State-dependent juvenile justice practices that would significantly obstruct juvenile justice reform. Those counties were Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.
The thirteen State-dependent counties accounted for 37% of juvenile felony arrests but 61% of all direct adult criminal court filings and 46% of all DJF commitments, in 2009.
Kings County is the most State-dependent county, direct filing in adult criminal court 50 times more than Los Angeles, 39 times more than San Diego, and 36 times more than San Francisco in 2009.
Twelve California counties did not utilize the state system during 2009; either for a DJF commitment or an adult criminal court filing despite experiencing juvenile felony arrests during that year (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Trinity).
Despite having the highest juvenile felony arrest rate in the State, San Francisco County utilized direct adult criminal court filing one-eighth as much as the county with the lowest rate of juvenile felony arrests (El Dorado).
It would appear from the report that adult criminal court filings are a matter of organizational and prosecutorial culture, and the policies are not sensitive to the adult/juvenile divide. It is important to say that these findings make sense in the aggregate. I’m sure that, in single cases that raise true dilemmas, juvenile justice practices might be taken into account by individual prosecutors when making the call whether to charge someone as a juvenile or an adult. But the big picture does not seem to support a structural connection between the two.
The second report examined the capacity of county facilities to house juveniles. As the table shows, California counties currently have the space and infrastructure to house all juveniles who are now held in state prisons.
What does all this mean now that the governor has changed his plans? Perhaps it means that law enforcement officials making charging decisions can, and should, be more amenable to the possibility of charging juveniles with misdemeanors rather than felonies when possible. If the change does not occur as a grand top-down policy, it may have to occur as a bottom-up aggregate set of decisionmaking on the part of prosecutors.
Almost once a week I receive mail from inmates or family members concerning the solitary confinement conditions at the SHU unit in Pelican Bay. We have previously blogged about the discontents of solitary confinement and behavioral modification here and here. Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights is organizing an upcoming panel about the conditions in isolation units.
Where: The Women’s Building, Audre Lorde Room, 3543 18th Street #8, San Francisco, CA
When: Tuesday, April 5, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Who:
Dr. Terry Kupers, M.D.
Alexis Agathocleous, Staff Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights
Zahra Baloo, Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-San Francisco Bay Area
