Pelican Bay Inmates Reach Agreement to End Racial Hostilities in CA Institutions

Yeah – you read it right. What follows is the press release:

*****

The statement calls for the cessation of all hostilities between groups to commence October 10, 2012, in all California prisons and county jails.   “This means that from this date on, all racial group hostilities need to be at an end,” the statement says. It also calls on prisoners throughout the state to set aside their differences and use diplomatic means to settle their disputes.   The Short Corridor Collective  states, “If personal issues arise between individuals, people need to do all they can to exhaust all diplomatic means to settle such disputes; do not allow personal, individual issues to escalate into racial group issues.”  In the past, California prisoners have attempted to collaborate with the Department of Corrections to bring an end to the hostilities, but CDCR has been largely unresponsive to prisoners’ requests. The statement warns prisoners that  they expect prison officials to attempt to undermine this agreement.

“My long-time experience in urban peace issues, gang truces, prevention and intervention, is that when gang leaders and prisoners take full stock of the violence, and how they can contribute to the peace, such peace will be strong, lasting, and deep. I honor this effort as expressed in this statement,” says Luis J. Rodriguez, renowned violence intervention worker and award-winning author of Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in L.A.  Rodriguez has helped broker gang truces throughout the US as well as in other parts of the world. This spring, Rodriguez was involved in a historic truce between gangs in El Salvador leading to a 70% drop in violence in that country.  According to Rodriguez, “What is needed now—and where most peace efforts fail—is the meaningful and long-lasting support of society and government, in the form of  prison reform, training, education, drug and mental health treatment and proper health care. We need an end to repressive measures that only feed into the violence and traumas.”

Azadeh Zohrabi of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition sees the agreement as a positive development that stems from last year’s hunger strikes.  “While living through some of the worst conditions imaginable, the authors of this statement continue to work for change,” states Zohrabi. “While the prison administration drags its feet on even the most basic reforms, these guys are trying to build peace throughout the system.  That says a lot their humanity and hope.”

Advocates and the Short Corridor Collective are eager to spread the word as far and wide as possible and implement peace plans throughout California’s prisons and jails.  “We must all hold strong to our mutual agreement from this point on and focus our time, attention, and energy on mutual causes beneficial to all of us [i.e., prisoners], and our best interests,” says the Collective. “The reality is that collectively, we are an empowered, mighty force, that can positively change this entire corrupt system into a system that actually benefits prisoners, and thereby, the public as a whole.” The PBSP-SHU Short Corridor Collective has strongly requested that its statement be read and referred to in whole.  It can be found here.

*****

If this agreement will be respected by inmates in all CA institutions, it’s a major, major breakthrough. Interracial violence is often seen as a ubiquitous fact of life within walls. It also speaks volumes about the impact that the Pelican Bay hunger strike has had on organizing inmates, who are realizing that in order to end solitary confinement and debriefing they need to fight a common enemy, rather than each other. This is huge, and might hopefully bring CDCR to discard extreme incarceration practices if they cannot be justified as gang violence prevention measures.

———-
cross-published to PrawfsBlawg

Should Inmates’ First Amendment Speech Allow for Media Interviews?

An interesting bill lies on Governor Brown’s desk, awaiting his signature: AB 1270 would allow, and set procedures for, media interviews with prisoners.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, would dramatically change the parameters of free speech in prison.

Under the new bill, CDCR would be required to allow interviews with inmates on a pre-arranged and on a random basis, unless the warden determines that the interview “poses an immediate threat to public safety or the security of the institution.” The interview request should be presented within a reasonable time, and the interview itself requires the inmate’s consent, as well as a notification to the victim or his/her family ahead of time. The inmate is not to receive any form of remuneration for participating in the interview, and CDCR is not to change an inmate’s status or punish him or her for giving an interview.

Currently, media interviews in CDCR prisons with specific inmates are not allowed (visiting prison and speaking to inmates at random is allowed under certain conditions.). The Supreme Court’s decision in Pell v. Procunier (1974) upheld this regime, arguing that the existing provisions for media contact meant that there was no First Amendment violation.

Let’s think about a few potential applications of this. One of the concern folks might have is about sensational interviews providing wanton publicity for perpetrators of heinous crimes. Notifying the victim’s family is not, of course, procuring the victim’s family’s consent. And yes, it would mean more air time for tasteless, heinous and sensationalist media coverage. But how would that be different from the tasteless, heinous, sensational television we already watch?

Think about how much good it could do an innocent inmate if reporters would pick up the cause and pursue it, and how helpful it would be if, in addition to other footage, they could speak to the inmate him/herself. It’s enough to be reminded of the stunning impact that Paradise Lost, Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, and Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory have had on the West Memphis Three case (here’s a great interview with the filmmakers).

And think of how much more attention the Pelican Bay hunger strike would have received if the public got its news not just from CDCR officials, and some crumbs from what families got through letters. But under the new proposition, it’s likely that CDCR would still have the prerogative to decline the interviews based on institutional safety reasons.

If you support the bill, you can let the Governor know your position.

——-
cross-posted to PrawfsBlawg.



    
Cuddling or Coddling?









Photo courtesy Rick Bowmer for the Associated Press.






An interesting little story in yesterday’s Chron describes a jail in Washington State in which inmates are entrusted with the care of cats.  


Contreras and his cellmate, after passing the screening process, are two of the four inmates in the “Cuddly Catz” program at Larch Correctional Facility in Yacolt.  “


Nobody was wanting to adopt her,” Contreras said. “We got her and it’s been awesome ever since.” 


It wasn’t awesome at the outset. She came as advertised, Contreras said — moody, dysfunctional and prone to violence. But the changes in his newest cellmate are evident. 


 She can now be petted, brushed and even held for a few minutes. She still growls but rarely hisses. She has a scratching post and perch that takes up a healthy chunk of the 12 foot-by-10 foot cell. Contreras and his cellmate care for her in shifts. 


The debate about evidence-based programming in prison is heated because programs require resources, but this seems to be a fairly cheap program to administer. All it takes is cat food, litter boxes, and the occasional vet visit; not an insurmountable expense. This could be something to think about in California, too, post-realignment.


The comments on the article seem fairly benign so far, but I can imagine some readers thinking that allowing inmates to keep pets is unnecessary coddling. What do you think?


  
New Bill Proposal to CIrcumvent Wholesale Strip Seaches in CA
This recent post discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, in which strip searches were allowed for all those entering general population in jail. A new proposed California bill would bypass this process by creating more hurdles in the path of placing people in general population in the first place.


SB 1536, proposed by Senator Mark Leno –


would prohibit a person arrested and held in custody on a misdemeanor or infraction offense not involving weapons, controlled substances, or violence, from being confined in the general jail population unless a judge or magistrate has determined that the person does not qualify to be released on his or her own recognizance and that, after being given a chance to post bail, the person is not able to do so within a reasonable time. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.


This strikes me as eminently sensible. I was not one of the commentators who were shocked by the Supreme Court decision. I think security reasons when entering general population require everyone to be searched. I also think that arbitrarily searching only some inmates would give rise to ugly profiling practices and accusations. This proposal is excellent in that it makes sure that non-dangerous folks don’t get committed to general population in the first place, if it can be avoided, thus bypassing the problem entirely. Good job, Senator Leno!


  
The Religious Life of Inmates


A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life surveyed prison chaplains in all 50 states.


Most of the chaplains surveyed  (71%) are Protestant Christians, so it is perhaps not surprising that Muslims top their list of concerns about religious extremism among inmates. But there are some other interesting things going on there. For example, look at the graphic to the left. Not only is there frequent change in inmates’ faith, but some religions are less stable than others in terms of their membership.


Also interesting is their assessment of inmates’ religious requests; requests for religious books and texts are usually approved, whereas requests for a religiously-related hairstyle are usually denied.


For a non-Christian take on the results of the survey, read Jason Pitzl-Waters’ lucid commentary in his blog, or some remarks from Pagan chaplain Patrick McCollum, whom we discussed here before.


 
Sending the Incarceration Bill to Inmates









Image courtesy http://inmade.deviantart.com. 






The most marked feature of the fiscal crisis on the correctional landscape has been a decline in the overall punitive discourse, policies, and technologies. States are giving up the death penalty; California is realigning justice with a focus on the community; and issues that were not considered viable, such as drug legalization, are now on the public agenda.


But the fiscal crisis didn’t only bring punitivism reversals and silver linings. With the good, we got some bad and ugly. And the ugly is the topic of tonight’s post.


Three recent bills on the Assembly and Senate Public Safety Committee agendas are all about rolling the costs of incarceration on… you guessed it… the inmates themselves. Here are some of the particulars.

SB 1124 (Canella) Cost of Incarceration

Remember the little theatre of the absurd from Riverside County, expecting inmates to pay $140 per night for their incarceration? Well, this beauty is in the same vein. Penal Code section 1203.1m currently authorizes the court to order reimbursement for the cost of incarceration if it finds the defendant has the ability to pay. This new bill would require the court hold a hearing for each and every defendant sentenced to state prison to determine his or her ability to pay all or some of the costs of incarceration.

Keep in mind that defendants make very little money, if any, during incarceration, have very little by way of financial support from friends and family members, and most if not all lose their jobs as a consequence of incarceration. It is exceedingly difficult for a formerly incarcerated person to find a job after release. It’s therefore likely that many of these hearings would result in the unsurprising determination that a defendant would not be able to pay for his or her incarceration. This process then would result in an unnecessary expenditure of funds.

AB 2261 (Valadao) Cost of Medical Visits

Remember Brown v. Plata? Why didn’t all these wise judges think of the simple solution for the medical crisis in California prisons–charging the inmates themselves for their care? This bill removes the cap of the $3 fee a sheriff is allowed to charge for an inmate-initiated medical visit and would authorize a sheriff to establish an unlimited standardized fee. As opposed to the other travesties, this bill would require the defendants to pay while they’re in prison, where they make the princely sum of between 8 cents and 95 cents an hour. It’s rather likely, therefore, that this bill would discourage inmates from reporting illness, which has a number of costly and dangerous ramifications.
First, this bill is likely to provoke a lawsuit, and I’ll be first in line to volunteer my help. Readers from Prison Law Office or from Rosen, Bien and Galvan: If this becomes reality I’m happy to put together an amicus brief. This, of course, means that additional resources will be spent on a costly, lengthy lawsuit, which will undoubtedly end in a federal court finding this travesty unconstitutional. Why not save us all the cost and hassle?

Second, this bill poses an immediate public health danger to inmates, correctional staff, and the communities that will receive formerly incarcerated people upon their release. There is currently an epidemic (WC) of AIDS and Hepatitis C infections in state prisons and in poor communities to which formerly incarcerated people often return. California prisons have a Hepatitis C Virus infection rate of 40%.

Third, this bill may disproportionally impact people with chronic health conditions or mentally challenged inmates.


incidentally, if you’re wondering why you have to pay for health care and have your health care questioned by the Supreme Court while inmates enjoy free health services, you might want to read this. 

AB 2357 (Galgiani) Cost of Assisting Law Enforcement Investigation

Finally, this bill would authorize CDCR to require an inmate be temporarily removed from a facility to assist with the gathering of evidence and impose a fee for the removal. Current law allows for inmates to be temporarily removed from their cells to attend college classes, but this bill would replace that opportunity for mandatory assistance with an investigation.

The scenario in which an inmate may be assisting law enforcement with the unveiling of potential suspects could put an inmate at risk of retaliation. This is a significant burden to place on inmates, who will likely not be willing to participate, let alone contribute their own meager funds to the investigation.


Incidentally, the CCPOA is all over this already. 


These are all exceedingly disturbing scenarios. There can be a debate about which aspects of incarceration constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but asking you to pay for punishment, even if it’s kind and usual, is absurd.


    
Gruel and Unusual Punishment









Photo courtesy Andy Duback for the Associated Press






The curious item in the picture to the left is Nutraloaf, a meal served in prisons and jails around the nation. Time Ideas has a piece today about a recent 7th Circuit case, in which Judge Posner thought that a Milwaukee inmate might have an 8th Amendment claim based on this meal.


A culinary review in Chicago Magazine reads as follows:


The mushy, disturbingly uniform innards recalled the thick, pulpy aftermath of something you dissected in biology class: so intrinsically disagreeable that my throat nearly closed up reflexively. But the funny thing about Nutraloaf is the taste. It’s not awful, nor is it especially good. I kept trying to detect any individual element—carrot? egg?—and failing. Nutraloaf tastes blank, as though someone physically removed all hints of flavor. “That’s the goal,” says Mike Anderson, Aramark’s district manager. “Not to make it taste bad but to make it taste neutral.” By those standards, Nutraloaf is a culinary triumph; any recipe that renders all 13 of its ingredients completely mute is some kind of miracle.


I ate two-thirds and gave up, longing for any hint of flavor, even a bad one. That night, my stomach’s rebellion against the loaf was anything but neutral. I felt so full and lethargic that I skipped dinner and the following breakfast. And let’s just say I finally had a lot of time alone to catch up on my New Yorker reading.


In the fall, we hosted a day about food deserts, and our panel included a CDCR nutritionist. The meals we were shown on the slide show looked a lot better than Nutraloaf, albeit our guest admitted they might not be representative meals. We also had a chance to talk about the importance of food for pleasure and comfort, not just a requisite for health. Have incarcerated Californians experienced Nutraloaf or anything like it? Tell us.


  
Arrested? Your Naked Glory is Fair Game









Comic courtesy http://www.nwclu.org. 






Today’s Supreme Court decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington authorizes correctional personnel to strip-search each and every detainee, regardless of any actual suspicion that he or she might have contraband on his or her person. It was, unsurprisingly, a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy as the author of the Opinion of the Court and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in the dissent. Classifying such searches as “special needs” searches, Justice Kennedy relies on prior decisions that allow constitutional violations of inmates when these are “reasonably related to legitimate penological reasons.” The risks for safety, staff, and inmates who might need medical treatment, requires allowing such strip searches; also, at the booking stage it might be difficult to tell what the inmate had been arrested for.


This decision comes as no dramatic surprise to anyone who’s read Samson v. California (2006), which allows suspicionless searches of parolees. In keeping with the general crime control rationales, to treat the presumably guilty harshly and set innocent people free, people who are already in the claws of the correctional apparatus may be searched and seized with no suspicion.


As an aside, the facts in the cases are a great example of judicial storytelling. To justify the penological interests behind such searches, Justice Kennedy paints a picture of jail as a dangerous, gang-infested place, where according inmates their privacy is a luxury we can scarcely afford. Justice Breyer, in his turn, paints an invasive and unpleasant picture of the strip search. You can easily predict which way an opinion is going to go by carefully reading the words Justices use to frame the facts.


  
Private Prison Management Offers to Buy Prisons in Exchange for Occupancy Rates
Our four-year foray into the changes in correctional policies since the fiscal crisis has taught us that various states are scaling back their correctional apparatus to respond to money difficulties. California is no different. But as is the case with every regime, there are always folks who would benefit and make a quick buck from a broad social and economic problem.


This astonishing recent story in USA Today is a case in point. Many states are working on closing down their prisons for fiscal considerations. So, Corrections Corporation of America, of which we’ve written here before, is angling to purchase said prisons and operate them. But therein lies the rub:


The $250 million proposal, circulated by the Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America to prison officials in 48 states, has been blasted by some state officials who suggest such a program could pressure criminal justice officials to seek harsher sentences to maintain the contractually required occupancy rates.


“You don’t want a prison system operating with the goal of maximizing profits,” says Texas state Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat and advocate for reducing prison populations through less costly diversion programs. “The only thing worse is that this seeks to take advantage of some states’ troubled financial position.”


Corrections Corporation spokesman Steve Owen defended the company’s “investment initiative,” describing it as “an additional option” for cash-strapped states to consider.


The proposal seeks to build upon a deal reached last fall in which the company purchased the 1,798-bed Lake Erie Correctional Institution from the state of Ohio for $72.7 million. Ohio officials lauded the September transaction, saying that private management of the facility would save a projected $3 million annually.


Linda Janes, chief of staff for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, said the purchase came at time when the state was facing a $8 billion shortfall. The $72.7 million prison purchase was aimed at helping to fill a $188 million deficit within the corrections agency.
Ohio’s deal requires the state to maintain a 90% occupancy rate, but Janes said that provision remains in effect for 18 months — not 20 years — before it can be renegotiated. As part of the deal, Ohio pays the company a monthly fee, totaling $3.8 million per year.


This is not new. CCA had AB 1070 passed in Arizona to guarantee prison occupancy, and built a prison on speculation in California. But it’s astonishing to see the machinations presented so matter-of-factly out in the open.


In these days of dire straits and realignment from state prisons to county jails, is it conceivable that California could cut a similar deal? I very much doubt it. CCPOA, the prison guards’ union, would object it with all their might, and might win the battle again, as they have before. But it’s a somber reminder that prisons are, above all, an industry, and subject to cynical manipulation by profiteers.


———————–
Props to David Greenberg for bringing this to my attention.


     
Should CA Learn from Mississippi and Rethink Solitary Confinement?









Mississippi State Penitentiary isolation cell.
Credit Josh Anderson for the New York Times.		






A recent New York Times story, titled Rethinking Solitary Confinement, tells of Mississippi’s surprising reaction to violent incidents in the solitary confinement unit:


They allowed most inmates out of their cells for hours each day. They built a basketball court and a group dining area. They put rehabilitation programs in place and let prisoners work their way to greater privileges.


In response, the inmates became better behaved. Violence went down. The number of prisoners in isolation dropped to about 300 from more than 1,000. So many inmates were moved into the general population of other prisons that Unit 32 was closed in 2010, saving the state more than $5 million.


The transformation of the Mississippi prison has become a focal point for a growing number of states that are rethinking the use of long-term isolation and re-evaluating how many inmates really require it, how long they should be kept there and how best to move them out. Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Ohio and Washington State have been taking steps to reduce the number of prisoners in long-term isolation; others have plans to do so. On Friday, officials in California announced a plan for policy changes that could result in fewer prisoners being sent to the state’s three super-maximum-security units.


The article goes in depth into the creation of solitary regimes, beginning with the days of Eastern State Penitentiary (an institution we visited and reviewed a while ago) and chronicling the correctional authorities’ constant concern about gang warfare. And, as always these days, there’s a financial angle.


Segregation units can be two to three times as costly to build and, because of their extensive staffing requirements, to operate as conventional prisons are. They are an expense that manyrecession-plagued states can ill afford; Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois announced plans late last month to close the state’s supermax prison for budgetary reasons.