Civil Disobedience in Support of Hunger Strikers

A few important issues that have fallen between the cracks while I was away at conferences: Citizens engaged in civil disobedience actions in support of the Pelican Bay hunger strikers at the CDCR headquartersin Sacramento and at the State Building in Los Angeles. Larry Everest kindly emailed and reported:

*******

A little past 8:00 am, on Friday morning, October 14, three of us – all supporters of the courageous hunger strike by California prisoners – walked up to the main entrance of the headquarters of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the Sacramento, California – the state capitol. Then we chained ourselves to the front doors, sat down, and began a non-violent action of civil disobedience;We did so to support the just struggle and demands of the hunger strikers and to condemn the assaults of the CDCR and Gov. Jerry Brown on the prisoners.

With me was Gregory “Joey” Johnson, a revolutionary communist activist, whose bold action in the 1980s of burning an American flag led to a rare Supreme Court victory for the people (Texas v. Johnson), and Maryann, a relative of a California prisoner and a World Can’t Wait activist.

We felt it was imperative to take bold to underscore the urgency of the situation faced by prisoners and to make clear our support for all the prisoners who have been on hunger strike – or who are continuing their hunger strike.   And we felt that everyone has a moral obligation to step up their support for the hunger strikers and their just demands in whatever ways they possibly can.  Anything less is unconscionable.

We made clear to the activists and bloggers who joined us at CDCR headquarters that we were demanding:

* Gov. Jerry Brown and CDCR fully meet all the prisoners demands!

* No mistreatment, punishment, disciplinary retaliation, or denial of medical care, to prisoners who have been on, or are continuing their hunger strike!

* Prisoners are Human Beings – They Must Treated As Such!

Outrageously, we were all arrested and each slapped with 5 different misdemeanor charges. As we were being dragged off, we all shouted our support for the prisoners, the demands of the hunger strikers, and our opposition to retaliation and ongoing torture.  And we denounced the fact that we were arrested and dragged off to jail in order to ensure that the CDCR and the State of California could continue carrying on “torture as usual.”

The charges against us are outrageous and we’ll be mounting a legal and political battle for all of them to be dropped.  And, these charges are certainly not going to stop us from doing everything in our power to continue fighting for the rights – and humanity – of the prisoners!

Hunger Strikers’ Condition Worsens

The solidarity website reports:

“Men are collapsing in their cells because they haven’t eaten in two weeks,” says a family member of a striker at Calipatria state prison, “I have been told that guards refuse to respond when called. This is clearly a medical emergency.” In an effort to isolate prisoners perceived by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to be leaders, some prisoners at Pelican Bay have been removed from the Security Housing Unit (SHU) to Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg). The Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity coalition has received reports that prison officials have been attempting to freeze out strikers held in the Ad-Seg Unit at Pelican Bay, using the air conditioning system in conjunction with cold weather conditions where the prison is located. Last week a hunger striker in Pelican Bay was taken to a hospital in Oregon after he suffered a heart attack. Prisoners have also been denied medications, including prescriptions for high blood pressure.

Prison of Peace

Today at Hastings we had the pleasure of hosting Laurel Kaufer, founder of Prison of Peace, a unique program at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, CA. At the initiative of Susan Russo, one of the inmates, who sought to alleviate the violence in her immediate environment, fifteen women were trained in mediation skills and received mediation certification. Some of these women proceeded to become trainers, and now a hundred and fifty women in prison have skills that enable them to help others process conflict in healthy, empathetic ways. Prison authorities report a calmer, less violent prison. What a wonderful thing it is to provide people in a stressful, violent environment the skills they need to resolve conflicts, conduct peace circles, and listen attentively to others.

Hunger Strike Protest Wednesday

Families of hunger strikers were denied visits this past weekend, as the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) continues to crackdown on the hunger strike.

Before the strike resumed Under-Secretary of CDCR Operations, Scott Kernan, threatened an escalation of violence on hunger strikers. Since lawyers from the prisoner’s legal & mediation team have been banned from communicating with hunger strikers last week pose a threat to CDCR’s security, denied visits are an added punishment that increase family members of hunger strikers have also been denied visits. While the CDCR claims families and lawyers pose a threat to CDCR’s security, denied visits are an added punishment that increase isolation for hunger strikers in an attempt to break the strike and conceal retaliation.

Families & community members are gearing up for another convergence to Sacramento Wednesday, October 5th, to protest the CDCR’s torturous conditions & practices.

Sacramento

Wednesday, October 5th, 12 noon-2pm: Protest outside CDCR Headquarters. 1515 S St, downtown Sacramento. For carpooling and transportation needs from the Bay Area, please contact: 415.238.1801 or prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity [at] gmail.com

CDCR Medical Policy Regarding Hunger Strikers

More on the health concerns regarding the strike: Policy 4.22.2 of Prison Health Care Services, updated on September 29, 2011, details how inmates are to be treated during a hunger strike. Upon the beginning of a strike, participants’ baseline weight and height are to be established, and a follow-up spreadsheet is created. Prison authorities are to follow up on participants’ health and weight. The regulations emphasize respect for participants’ autonomy regarding their health (feeding plans are to be offered, not coerced), and allow force-feeding in two cases only: An emergency situation or an inability to provide informed consent.

According to prison visitors, clinicians are monitoring inmates to keep an eye for any who may begin to show signs of starvation, but so far there have been no concerns. As of Sept. 30, 3,376 inmates in six prisons are on a hunger strike. They have missed nine or more consecutive meals since Monday, Sept. 26.

Institutions with hunger strike participants are:

  • Calipatria State Prison
  • Centinela State Prison
  • California State Prison-Corcoran
  • Ironwood State Prison
  • Pelican Bay State Prison
  • Salinas Valley State Prison

May the State Force Feed Hunger Strikers?

The CDCR memos did not provide a clear answer as to whether the authorities will seek a court order to force-feed striking inmates should the strike last long enough to jeopardize their health. During the July strike

I got to think about this a bit this week when I got a phone call from a reporter from the Examiner, resulting in this story. The man in question is not taking part in the Pelican Bay solidarity hunger strike, and apparently this is the last in a long series of hunger strikes he has undetaken individually. I am unclear on the extent to which hospital personnel felt comfortable force-feeding him, but apparently the sheriff is seeking a court order to do so.

Apparently, there is no clear answer as to whether, legally, hospital personnel may force-feed a hunger-striking inmate, and under which conditions. This has come up in the context of a large-scale hunger strike in Ireland in 1981, and later in the context of Guantanamo in 2005. A 2007 note by Tracey Ohm provides a concise summary of the law in the matter. In the early 1980s, the courts had ruled that the state had no right to intervene with a hunger-striking inmate, and it could allow him/her to starve him/herself to death; however, just a few years later the court tried to draw a distinction between a strike aimed at death and a strike aimed at a manipulation of the correctional system, with a right to intervene in the latter. Ohm suggests that correctional institutions adopt a four-part standardized test, based on the principles in Turner v. Safley (1987):

  1. A “valid, rational connection” between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it;
  2. the existence of “alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates”;
  3. the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally; and
  4. the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation. 

Cases decided after the publication of Ohm’s note, such as this Connecticut decision, this Illinois decision, and this Pennsylvania decision (also see this summary) have tended to allow prison authorities to force-feed inmates when there was imminent danger to their health or life. All decisions emphasize the need to grant a court order on a case-by-case basis. There doesn’t seem to be any California case law on the matter. This case may be the first time such an issue is tackled by California courts, and it’s worth following up not only because of the fate of the individual defendant, but because of the possible implications for Pelican Bay strikers and their supporters in other institutions.

Pelican Bay Strike, Day 6: CDCR Bans Lawyers and Mediators from Contacting Hunger Strikers

Press release from Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity:

With the hunger strike continuing to spread from Pelican Bay and Calipatria State Prisons to at least 6 other prisons, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has threatened to crack down on the at least 6,000 participants, including sending prisoners to solitary confinement. The CDCR also faxed expulsion orders to two mediation team lawyers, notifying them that they had been banned from all prisons pending an investigation into whether or not they had “jeopardized the safety and security of CDCR” institutions. Meanwhile, the prisoner-selected mediation team that has been trying to negotiate with the CDCR since the strike was initiated in July sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, demanding a meeting and lodging their vehement objections to the actions of CDCR officials.

New Study: Decline in Support for the Death Penalty Among Californians

Souce: Gallup. Graph depicts national trends.

A new study conducted by Craig Haney of UC Santa Cruz finds that, while a majority of Californians still support the death penalty, there is a marked decline in the percentage of supporters compared with the previous extensive survey, conducted in 1989: Support has declined from 79% in 1989 to 66% in 2011. This trend is in step with the national trend (see Gallup graphic to the left). From the UC Santa Cruz website:

The proportion of adult Californians who view themselves as “strong” supporters of the death penalty has dropped from 50 percent in 1989 to 38 percent today. Conversely, fewer than 9 percent were “strongly opposed” to capital punishment 20 years ago, compared to 21 percent today.


“These changes appear to be related to changes in the way Californians view the system of death sentencing, rather than just the punishment itself,” said Haney.


For example, the poll revealed much greater concern about the possibility of executing innocent people: 44 percent expressed concern this year, compared to only 23 percent in 1989. In addition, the number of respondents who believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder dropped from 74 percent in 1989 to only 44 percent today. Similarly, the number of people who did not believe that prisoners sentenced to life without parole would actually stay in prison until they died dropped to about 40 percent, compared to 66 percent who held that belief in 1989.

These findings suggest a series of political implications for the supporters of SB490, a voter initiative to abolish the death penalty in California expected to be placed on the ballot in 2012.

First, it appears that, as we have said before, criminal justice reform is often incremental. It is difficult to get a broad coalition of death penalty opponents on a platform of human rights, and the support of several parties, including, possibly, victim families and law enforcement personnel, depends on maintaining a strong option of life without parole. Doug Berman has recently made a strong argument that the strong push against the death penalty has the unsavory effect of bolstering life without parole. Berman’s 2008 paper on the topic masterfully argues that the Supreme Court devotes a disproportionate percentage of its energy to the minutes of the “machinery of death” rather than dealing with more other important criminal justice issues on its docket.

Second, Haney’s study confirms our observations about the change in persuasive anti-death-penalty rhetoric over time. Concerns about innocence and deterrence, rather than humanitarian concerns, drive much of the trend.

And third, humonetarianism has the potential of converting even more Californians to the opponents’ cause. Haney found, disturbingly, that

nearly half the respondents in the 2009 survey, compared to 54 percent in 1989, thought the death penalty is cheaper to implement than life without parole, although the reverse is true.

This misconception can be easily corrected by a well-designed campaign. If costs are, indeed, a springboard to reform in California, a solid argument comparing the costs of the death penalty to life without parole would go a long way toward broadening public support for SB490.