Big Daddy comes to town: ACLU National Prison Project

ACLU-Arizona: "Demolish the Prisons"

Ringed by the names of those who have died in AZ State custody

of neglect, suicide, and violence since Jan 2009.

Phoenix, AZ (April 25, 2011)

The National ACLU's David Fathi and the Prison Law Office's Don Specter are in Phoenix this week, finally. As I write, they should be wrapping up interviews of prisoners at the AZ state supermax facility in Florence, ASPC-Eyman.


The National ACLU had already made the misuse of isolation and detention for managing symptoms of mentally ill prisoners a national priority, so this shouldn't be a surprise for the ADC...nor should the fact that they're interviewing some of my correspondents. Apparently their arrival is causing quite a stir, though - the guards are the ones who called Fathi "Big Daddy". They had a bit of cleaning up to do for their arrival, I imagine.




No deal is done yet - they're still just exploring the evidence and talking to possible litigants and witnesses, as far as I know. They need to see that there's a social movement here that will support their intervention, so step up with the actions and agitation. Remember to come to the following events:

Today, April 26, 2011

5:30-7:30

MI in the CJ System Roundtable:

Punitive or Restorative Justice?

ASU Art Museum
1th St/Mill Ave
Tempe

Sunday, May 1: May Day Rally.

REALLY, REALLY FREE Store 11:30

Speakers 1:30

Margaret T. Hance Park

south of the Phoenix Public Library, Central St, Phoenix

PRISONER RIGHTS ARE WORKERS RIGHTS!!!

Thursday, May 5, 2011

5:00 pm

ANGELA DAVIS

Neeb Hall, ASU-Tempe

Those of you in prison but not at Eyman, take heart - we've got a whole lot going on both out here and behind bars now, and you won't be left behind. Be persistent keeping me posted about how things are in there - but by all means, direct your eyewitness correspondence about conditions of confinement to the ACLU-AZ (PO Box 17148, Phoenix, AZ 85011), not me, right now. I have the ACLU's assurances that they won't lose any letters, and they'll no doubt try to help me find solutions to the things they can't address, to the extent that such a role is appropriate for them.



Learn to grieve things properly, and keep the frustration and violence down. Help each other out more than usual; you need to not only get through this, but you need to be vocal and visible, now that there's a light shining in there, and responsible with your complaints.




Thanks go out to the prisoners willing to put themselves out there for the rest of the folks right now, as well as to Dan Pochoda and Darrell Hill at the ACLU-AZ, and Mary Lou Brncik, Carl Toersbijns, Patti Jones, and Ken Jacuzzi, especially, for being such aggressive advocates for prisoners with serious mental illness.

Toersbijns: COs and prisoners with psychiatric disabilities.

From the blog of a man I've respected from the first time we corresponded for his integrity and commitment to professional standards and humane, effective treatment of those who have been criminalized and have a mental illness - particularly those being warehoused without proper care in Arizona's Special Management Units. This is Carl Toersbijns' essay on an issue I don't know much about myself - security staff stressors and expectations working with the seriously mentally ill in prison. He's a retired AZ Department of Corrections Deputy Warden (from Eyman Prison). Hit his site for more on this topic than I could possibly keep up with and steal...

Carl won't call himself an abolitionist (yet), but like most sincere people engaged in trying to make this world a kinder place for all, I think he'd celebrate the day we can abolish our prison system with the same enthusiasm that I will. We need to tear down this machinery that's so deeply invested in perpetuating crime and exploiting punishment instead of directing our collective resources towards ending victimization and empowering communities to hold their transgressors more directly - and effectively - accountable.

-------------

Prisons Versus State Hospitals

----------

Are Correctional Officers Expected to Do the Job of Mental Health Providers?

By Carl ToersBijns

Reading several reports that illustrates the most recent trends in society related to incarceration and the closures of state hospitals back about a decade ago, it has become very evident this new tread of putting thousands of inmates in prisons in lieu of placing them in state hospitals has created a most critical mass for those who work and live inside prisons. The stress and anxiety of prisons can most certainly be identified as one of the highest reasons for morbidity for these individuals as they are exposed to more extreme or severe symptoms and disruptive behaviors among those they are housed with identified as being not mentally ill.

Many states have formulated teams that can offer reasonable treatment options to these mentally ill and many find it beneficial for correctional officers to participate in this process. In fact, such collaboration is encouraged by many mental health providers as it creates a seamless program and contents that can help every team member to recognize and observe specific behaviors that would have otherwise been missed or omitted in a report. It should be noted that when working in the New Mexico Mental Health Treatment Center, there were many occasions where these same methods of sharing and reporting behaviors contributed to the preservation of life and reduced psychosis for the inmate patients.

The need to share the information and improve the communication has never been more urgent than today. A report released by the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) revealed that many states are becoming substitutes for prisons as their mentally ill patients are no longer being accepted in state hospitals as there is no bed space. Instead, with a national ratio of 1 person in a hospital to 3 being incarcerated into prison. In Arizona and Nevada, these figures are 1 to 9.3. and 9.8 respectively demonstrating an extreme need to change cultures in prisons.[1]

Thus it becomes very clear where the urgency has shifted to as prisons are not the ideal places for such persons. A trend gathered by the U.S. Department of Justice reveals that in their own surveys relying on self-report methods to determine whether an inmate had a mental illness, most studies have found that 10 to 15 percent of state prisoners have serious mental disorders. It is speculated that these figures would be higher in Arizona and Nevada as their incarceration rate of the mentally ill are almost 10 times the national average.

This is supported by the report delivered by the TAC group. There is no doubt these prisoners are experiencing functional problems and difficulty with their coping skills within such an unsettled and often volatile environment. Impaired to a degree enough to create confusion and agitation, they are often misunderstood and treated as aggressive behavioral inmates rather than a person having a learning disorder.

Learning how to cope and function within a general population setting creates a difficult task for the mentally ill. It has been documented that persons "who have schizophrenia or mental retardation commit more rule infractions, spend more time in lockup, and are less likely to obtain parole. Acts of self-mutilation and attempted or completed suicides disrupt the operation of the prison and divert staff time and resources. Dysfunctional behavior by inmates who have mental disorders not only impairs the ability of officers and administrators to operate safe and orderly facilities but also results in stress for correctional employees at all levels. [2]

Today, correctional officers face constant stress while working the prison environment. This exponentiates stress as their responsibilities to provide sound custodial care increases and these added pressures to multitask and do more work with the economic and budget restraints are taking a toll in their ability to handle mentally ill inmates as well as their general population inmates as this stress level is with the different custody levels they work at. Variables beyond their control e.g. overtime, short staffing, lack of resources, low pay and furloughs impact their ability to perform and to manage their environment. It is fair to guess that the strain to deal and manage mentally ill inmates adds more stress to their jobs.

The conflicts inside prisons are obvious to those who work there or have worked there. There are two dominating cultures at "war" with each other since the day prisons were built. Inmates versus the cops exist with many complicated rules of engagement in place between the two factions. These two cultures are divided on many issues and are certainly not linked in any way to work with each other except by mandated rules and regulations.

Regarding the supervision of the mentally ill, a third culture comes into the picture and this is recognized to be unlike anything the other cultures possess. This third culture, the medical / mental health people hired to treat and medicate the mentally ill is often rejected by both cultures related to inmates and officers. The mistrust by the inmates compounds their workloads and their "soft" and "easy to manipulate" approach with inmates creates misunderstandings among officers. This gap is too wide to assume it doesn't exist and takes a complete shift in all cultures to be successful.

The balance to bring these three cultures together is a most difficult task. The prison system has to be careful not to compromise the role of the correctional officer in this balance. Traditionally, the correctional officers are the prison's police force. They observe and report, intervene, detain inmates and hold them accountable for their actions. The mere fact that these actions are ongoing all the time, 24/7; this could give mental health a powerful insight of the behaviors of inmates under their treatment. The officers could in fact contribute to mental health's role to monitor, diagnose and treat prisoners.

Because of the heavy influx of mentally ill prisoners into the prison systems, it has been proposed and resisted that correctional officers conduct certain responsibilities and duties that would enhance treatment of those deemed to be more severe than others. This could never take place at an optimum level if the cultures don't agree on some basic rules and stick to them to preserve trust and confidentiality of both the inmate and the officer. In the past, these unilateral conversations have resulted in many successful interventions and never compromised the officer's role with the inmate treated.

The bottom line is the ultimate role of the officer, to enforce institutional rules and regulations must never be compromised. They must be able to apply their authority related to disciplinary matters and apply sanctions that are important to control inmate behaviors. Here is where there is a fine line to consider. Sanctions of behavioral inmates versus mentally ill inmates should be considered to allow the disparity of levels of "understanding the rules" to apply. Untrained officers will not understand such a concept and resist any variances in their disciplinary procedures unless directed to do so by their respective administrators.

Basically, it all falls back on sound training and reasonable accommodations provided by the administration and training specialists to identify the rationale behind these actions. In such training, there will be no additional incentives by the officers to change their approach with the mentally ill unless they understand the concept and the role of the mental health providers so they can communicate and speak with one message. In order to breach the cultures, they must mix and mingle to understand the dynamics involved in each and every task performed so they mutually understand and respect each other's role in treatment.

Risking creating levels of trust in a most untrusting environment is s major challenge and it often fails to develop unless given the time and dedication to evolve. The administration must embrace such an approach, foster growth and trust and then support these newly developed cultures to work together and treat the inmate population accordingly.

Regardless of what roles the correctional officer plays, they are not the therapists. They are not the treatment providers and they are not there to hug or care about feelings or emotions. They are there to control the environment, to communicate the needs, to observe behaviors and report accordingly and to support the mental health providers to gain access to the inmates so they can be treated and medicated accordingly. Assignments of correctional officers on such teams e.g. a multidisciplinary team, is beneficial but must be presented from a non-clinical point of view and consistent with their training and purpose for being on that team.

Sources: [1] www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org

[2] http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/10/1343

Solitary: Buried Alive in Colorado - and AZ.

This comes from our friends at Solitary Watch, the best blog to follow on the subject. Another excellent source of information on supermax prisons is the Tucson American Friends Service Committee (AFSC-Tucson) report "Buried Alive: Supermaxed." Additionally, the National ACLU has announced taking on the abuse of these types of custody arrangements to manage or punish the symptoms of serious mental illness.

Please contact me if you are concerned for a loved one with a serious mental illness who is imprisoned in Eyman or one of other the special management or detention units. My number is 480-580-6807.

-----------------------

Fortresses of Solitude (Part 1)

February 28, 2011

Solitary Watch Blog

by James Ridgeway and Jean Casella

Cañon City, Colorado, is the Solitary Confinement Capital of the Western World. Now, a Small Group Lawyers, Legislators, and Activists Is Challenging This All-American Form of Torture.

Part 1: The Alcatraz of the Rockies

"Control Unit" by Thomas Silverstein

On the wall opposite Laura Rovner’s desk at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is a large framed drawing depicting her as the Angel of Justice. The artist is Thomas Silverstein, a onetime armed robber who is serving multiple life sentences for the murders of two fellow prison inmates and a guard. Silverstein made his meticulously detailed ink drawing–which shows a winged Rovner holding a sword, surrounded by slain bodies–in his 7 x 12-foot cell at the notorious United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum, or ADX, in rural Florence, Colorado. A talented self-taught artist, he has had plenty of time to hone his craft. For the last 27 years, Tommy Silverstein has been literally buried alive—held in an extreme form of solitary confinement in the depths of the federal prison system, under a “no human contact” order. The man who was at one time known as “America’s Most Dangerous Prisoner” is now described, on a web site maintained by his supporters, as “America’s Most Isolated Man.”

He is also Laura Rovner’s client. Rovner, teaching fellow Brittany Glidden, and a group of student attorneys from DU’s Civil Rights Clinic have filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Denver, arguing that Silverstein’s 84 square feet of utter and permanent isolation violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, as well as its guarantee of due process. The suit is just one of several brought by the clinic on behalf of various inmates at ADX and at the nearby state supermax prison. Along with a small handful of other cases in Colorado and around the country, the work of DU’s Civil Rights Clinic represents the leading edge of a legal challenge to solitary confinement. As such, it has the potential to affect the lives of the 100,000 or more prisoners who are held in some form of solitary on any given day in prisons across the United States.

In person, the Angel of Justice is a petite, brown-haired woman who chain-swigs Diet Pepsis and pauses to glance at her computer, which incessantly pings for her attention. Rovner has spent most of her career teaching in civil rights clinics at Georgetown, Syracuse, and North Dakota Law Schools, defending the rights of the deaf and other people with disabilities who had been victimized by discrimination, as well as the rights of prisoners. As she talks about her work at DU, she buzzes with energy, yet chooses her words carefully, measuring them against her clients’ best interests.

After pointing out Silverstein’s drawing, Rovner displays some samples from a pile of hand-knit afghans, scarves, and mittens, also made by Silverstein (and notable for the absence of red, blue, and black, which are banned at ADX as “gang colors”). She shows us a recent photograph, in which Silverstein sports long gray hair and an even longer white beard, his eyes squinting out above weathered cheeks and a friendly smile. Dressed in loose white clothing, he looks like an angelic hipster, maybe an aging yoga teacher, or at worst an over-the-hill biker—certainly not a man more dangerous than the host of convicted terrorists, spies, mobsters, and drug kingpins housed with him at ADX.

Silverstein never killed anyone before he got to prison, and he contends that he did so then only when he felt his own life was threatened. He also says that, nearly three decades later, he is a changed man (he does, in fact, meditate and do yoga in his cell). This transformation is something his attorneys seem to accept, and they make a point of it in their suit. But ultimately, Rovner believes, if the Constitution is to mean anything, then it must apply not just to people and causes that engender sympathy, but to men like Tommy Silverstein, who have been written off as “the worst of the worst.” It must prevail not only in the light of day, but in the fluorescent-lit dungeons of ADX.

[READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]

---------

Solitary Watch:

Part 2: Showdown at the Colorado State Penitentiary

All eyes on Eyman: Human Rights and the SMU.

Following are two posts about Supermax prisons / Special Management Units (like ASPC-Eyman), and solitary's harmful effects from David Fathi in the ACLU Blog of Rights. If you have a loved one in AZ prisons with a mental illness being managed by moving them into more restrictive/non-therapeutic settings (like detention or SMU) instead of providing them with adequate psychiatric treatment services, please contact me. We need to work together on this.

----------------------------------

Turning the Corner on Solitary Confinement?

February 24, 2011

This week, Colorado state Sen. Morgan Carroll and Rep. Claire Levy introduced a bill that would substantially limit the use of solitary confinement in the state's prisons. S.B. 176 would restrict solitary confinement of prisoners with mental illness or developmental disabilities, who currently make up more than one-third of the state's solitary confinement population. It would require regular mental health evaluations for prisoners in solitary, and prompt removal of those who develop mental illness. And it would significantly restrict the practice of releasing prisoners directly from solitary confinement into the community, where they are more likely to re-offend than prisoners who transition from solitary to the general prison population before release.

The shattering psychological effects of solitary confinement, even for relatively short periods, are well known. "It's an awful thing, solitary," John McCain wrote of his time in isolation as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment." The American journalist Roxana Saberi, imprisoned by the Iranian government, said that she was "going crazy" after two weeks in solitary. Imagine, then, that 54 prisoners in Illinois have been in continuous solitary confinement for more than 10 years.

These reforms are long overdue for Colorado and for the nation as a whole. Solitary confinement is an expensive boondoggle – in Colorado, it costs an additional $21,485 per year for each prisoner. And all we get for that investment is an undermining of our public safety. The vast majority of prisoners who are forced to endure long-term isolation are eventually released back into the community, where the devastating impact of solitary confinement leaves them more damaged and less capable of living a law-abiding life.

The United States uses long-term solitary confinement to a degree unparalleled in other democracies, with an estimated 20,000 prisoners in solitary at any one time, and it's attracting increasing criticism from international human rights bodies. The U.N. Human Rights Committee and Committee Against Torture have both expressed concern about the use of prolonged isolation in U.S. prisons and recommended scrutinizing this practice with a view to bringing prison conditions and treatment of prisoners in line with international human rights norms. And the European Court of Human Rights has temporarily blocked the extradition of four terrorism suspects to the United States on the ground that their possible incarceration in a Supermax prison, where solitary confinement is the norm, could violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last week the ACLU urged the U.N. Human Rights Council to address the widespread violations of the human rights of prisoners in the United States associated with solitary confinement. Many of the measures we call for, such as prohibiting solitary confinement of the mentally ill and careful monitoring of prisoners in solitary for mental illness, are also part of Colorado's S.B. 176. Colorado may be only one state, but the bill's introduction is a hopeful sign that the United States may, at last, be turning the corner on solitary confinement.

-----------------------------

Supermax Prisons: Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading

Jul 9th, 2010

This week the European Court of Human Rights temporarily halted the extradition of four terrorism suspects from the United Kingdom to the United States. The court concluded that the applicants had raised a serious question whether their possible long-term incarceration in a U.S. “supermax” prison would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits “torture or … inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The court noted that “complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason,” and called for additional submissions from the parties before finally deciding the applicants’ claim.

The court’s decision was not a surprise. International human rights bodies have repeatedly expressed the view that supermax prisons — in which prisoners are held in near-total social isolation, sometimes for years on end — may violate international human rights law. In 2006, the U.N. Committee Against Torture expressed concern about “the extremely harsh regime” in US supermax prisons, which it said could violate the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a human rights treaty ratified by the United States in 1994.

Despite these warnings, supermax prisons are common in the United States. In the 1990s they were a raging fad, yet another round in the perpetual “tough on crime” political bidding war. Suddenly every state had to build one — Virginia was so tough it built two. By the end of the decade, more than 30 states, as well as the federal government, were operating a supermax facility or unit.

The devastating effects of isolated confinement on the human psyche have long been well known. In 1890, the Supreme Court described the results of solitary confinement as it had been practiced in the early days of the United States:

A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.

Conditions in modern supermax prisons are, if anything, even more damaging, as technological advances like video surveillance have made possible a greater degree of social isolation than in earlier times.

The ACLU has been bringing challenges to supermax prisons for over a decade, and what we’ve found is troubling. The official line is that these prisons are reserved for the “worst of the worst” — the most dangerous and incorrigibly violent — but most states have only a few such prisoners. In overcrowded prison systems, the typical response has been to fill the remaining supermax cells with "nuisance prisoners" — those who file lawsuits, violate minor prison rules, or otherwise annoy staff, but by no stretch of the imagination require the extremely high security of a supermax facility. Thus in Wisconsin's supermax, one of the "worst of the worst" was a 16-year-old car thief. Twenty-year-old David Tracy hanged himself in a Virginia supermax; he had been sent there at age 19, with a 2 ½ year sentence for selling drugs.

The mentally ill are vastly overrepresented in supermax prisons, and once subjected to the stress of isolated confinement, many of them deteriorate dramatically. Some engage in bizarre and extreme acts of self-injury and even suicide. In an Indiana supermax, a 21-year-old mentally ill prisoner set himself on fire in his cell and died from his burns; another man in the same unit choked himself to death with a washcloth. It’s not unusual to find supermax prisoners who swallow razors and other objects, smash their heads into the wall, compulsively cut their flesh, try to hang themselves, and otherwise attempt to harm or kill themselves.

Lawsuits by the ACLU and others have mitigated some of the worst features of supermax confinement, but thousands of prisoners remain entombed in these facilities throughout the United States. Fortunately, with states facing record budget deficits, supermax facilities, which are far more expensive to build and operate than conventional prisons, have lost much of their appeal. Bills have been introduced in the Illinois and Maine legislatures to substantially restrict supermax confinement in those states. There’s a long way to go, but these are important first steps toward bringing U.S. prison conditions into line with human rights norms, and with basic human decency.

(Originally posted on Huffington Post.)

Learn more about prisoners' rights: Subscribe to our newsletter, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

ToersBijns: Burying us alive - Mentally Ill in Supermax

photo credit: The Daily Censored

Another excellent post from former ASPC-Eyman (SMU) Deputy Warden Carl ToersBijns painfully detailing the experience of prisoners in solitary confinement and supermax settings, too many of whom are there because of the symptoms of their mental illnesses, not their criminality. His analysis of the dysfunctional management techniques used by corrections officers and administrators validates my own suspicions and observations; Carl knows of what he speaks.

Here is also the troubling 2007 report on solitary confinement in Arizona done by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), "Buried Alive". We have yet to make any headway in ending the practice here.

-------------------------------------------

The Truth About Solitaire, Isolation, Deprivation, (SID) Prisoners
Mentally Ill Inside Max Custody

By Carl ToersBijns

Prisons designed for maximum security are instant isolation units merely by their design. The fact that maximum custody is designated to hold the "Worst of the Worst" is most misleading if anyone who worked in such an environment will testify to under oath. Following the road to this endless road to nowhere, you must first understand the dynamics involved to create this horde of thousands of human beings that are confined inside these cracker boxes designed for no human being to escape from.

Excluding those on death row, and crimes that are hideous and forever unforgivable, there are many locked up for the sake of being locked up. For the matter of providing the ultimate safety for its citizens or staff, such places as the special management units are designed, staffed and operated in such a manner every tiny little element of the environment is controlled. Much more restricted than any other place inside a prison, one would tremble with pure fear is ever left alone inside one of these boxes of concrete and steel designed to drive someone crazy through the use of the SID methods readily available to anyone who chooses to use them.

None of the pods are soundproof thus every whimper, every cry and every shout can be heard by all those that live inside. Every sound triggers a response from someone down the tier and whether friend or foe, the result is a mixture of shouts and chants that compete to be heard by its intended receiver. The officers, charged with the duty to maintain order, ignore these chants as they conduct their walks and exit the pods as quickly as they entered thus unable to distinguish a cry for help from a cry of disgust. None, even the best of the best, choose to remain inside one of these boxes any longer than they have to because of the steady pandemonium that exists within cell to cell and inmate to inmate.

The heat in the summer is unbearable as the swamp coolers are insufficient and barely is the air flow is noticable or felt. The lack of direct sunlight creates a shadow on every wall and with no hope to see the sun unless fortunate enough to be allowed to exit the cell for the designated recreation time outside the cell but to another concrete box. Many have electricity but often, if the inmate is problematic in sorts, the breaker is turned off for a designated amount of time undocumented anywhere. The water is controlled and can be turned off anytime staff chose to do so as well as adjusting the timers on the showers to shorten their use of water. The grey walls are scratched with graffiti and the front of the cell where the food port is situated is filthy with residue of spoiled food or in some cases, fecal material smeared by someone to get the attention needed to have someone talk to them.

The staff, all wearing protective gloves and in some cases, shields to protect them from foreign objects hurled at them from both the top and the bottom of the tiers work hard just to keep up with the most elementary chores to keep it going. Day in and day out, working short handed and against time to complete their required duties, the attitude that prevails is "us versus them" as many inmates choose to duel or engage in combat with the officers just to prove to others he is not a "bitch" for someone.

The presence of SID is abundant and it impacts the quality of life for the inmates to the extent of creating a deep abyss of hopelessness and an alien form of prison reality. Filthy, brutal, ignored and often perceived to be a form of "torture" for many, these inmates are kept away from the eyes of the public and anyone requesting to visit these dungeons. Whenever a legislator, the attorney general, a lawyer or foreign consulate comes to visit the place sufficient warning is given to "clean the place up" and design the approved route for the tour or visit.

Never seen in its real condition, not even by the agency director, it is repugnant that such a place exists in the first place. Toilets that are back up are left that way for weeks forcing some to crap on the floor. Lights stay on day and night and are eventually covered with paper to give them darkness to sleep in. Difficulties in sleeping at night as the screaming never ends, many choose to sleep during the day. The problem with covering up the lights during the night is it makes it impossible for the officer to see inside the cell without a flashlight and when maximum custody inmates are double bunked, there are dangers that an assault might have taken place but the officer's view is obstructed by the darkness and the willingness to have the inmate remove the cover is reluctantly and rarely done as it interrupts their hasty exit out of the box.

Mentally ill inmates are especially susceptible to the SID treatment. In fact, it is fair to say that because of their individual disorders, many suffer needlessly from sanctions imposed by those who may be unaware of their disabilities or dysfunctional capacities. This is the main reason mentally ill inmates should not be housed with behavioral problematic inmates. This influences administrative decisions when it should rather be a mental health decision to make with those parameters that are clinically sound and treatment effective. These inmates, often responding without malice, are given disciplinary for such conduct as covering their lights as they copy what others do or say while not understanding what they did wrong to get the punishment.

Many support staff, contract, medical and maintenance personnel refuse to enter cell areas because of the potential dangers in dealing with the mentally ill. This is largely due to misunderstandings of managing a mentally ill inmate and lack of training of such behaviors and because the cellie next door may be a sociopath and destructive or assaultive in nature. As a result, the response time to a work order or a medical need is sufficiently delayed. Sometimes it is due to fear but other times it is impose a behavioral modification that if you are going to bother them, they will come and see you on their time and not theirs.

The same applies to delayed letter deliveries, torn books, food thrown on the floor as a message that the inmate "needs to clean up his act" and other SID methods of satisfying the boundaries of control and who is actually in control of the box. There are cases where those inmates who have thrown their food tray back at the officer were provided sack meals for years to avoid the clean up of such waste on the cement floors. Never getting a hot meal or balanced diet, they live like that forever until someone questions why this inmate is not getting a regular meal.

Often called administrative segregation or lockup by many, the road to such a place is well designed and intentionally vague. Any inmate, whether serving life or serving two years of time can be directed to follow the course to solitary confinement through careful design of a set of management tools that can effectively erase someone's existence off the face of this earth for years. This toolbox of lockup tools consists of instruments that have for decades facilitated the route to lockup in a most legitimate manner but with the wrong spirit or design for use of such places. Let us examine these tools up close and decide whether or not they are legitimately or appropriately used to serve the purpose of administrative segregation for those who need such management controls.

Designated SID inmates are the focus of management efforts to remove them from the open yards or general population and cast them out of sight and out of mind through various means.

Tools designed to accommodate such a purpose are:

1. misconduct reports
2. Alleged threats to security or security staff
3. Alleged threat of harming themselves
4. Suicide ideations or expression of such
5. Attempted suicide
5. Assaultive behaviors
6. Gang activity or validation
7. Possession of weapons
8. Predatory conduct or behaviors.

Paying attention to these tools in the hands of a sound and ethical practicing corrections administrator creates no harm in the process. However, this would be the exception to the rule as each and every one of these tools provided, allows an administrator to remove an inmate to the most restrictive custody level without absolute proof of such conduct or behavior as it may only be inferred, speculated, documented as a possibility or with thin evidence that these tools can and do provide the catalyst to clear the administrator of any legal burdens for moving a inmate to a higher custody level without just cause. Even an inmate who repetitively writes grievances can end up in max custody.

Sometimes, when a high ranking administrator wants to issue retribution or retaliation to a SID designated inmate for doing something negative on their "domain" they will enter a comment into the computerized management system that will override any custody score or any other trigger than would have allowed that person to be reduced when eligible to do so upon review.

Thus an abuse of such a administrative '˜flag" could result in an extended stay in the higher custody level until such time the inmate is considered "taught a lesson" and reviewed for consideration to be lowered. Herein lays the biggest problem as mentally ill inmates are included in these behavioral difficult inmates as no distinction is being made at the time of placement. Nobody speaks up and nobody challenges the move and when the inmate grieves the process, the system has already been updated to show just cause for the placement or that the person is a systems abuser. The tricks of the trade allows that to be done since anyone can enter into the computerized management file and insert whatever critical comment needs to be made to justify the need. This is regardless whether disciplinary was upheld or not. It has no bearing.

Once the inmate is housed inside a maximum custody unit he or she is subject to a review and medical / mental health assessment. These screens are pencil whipped by many [not all] and reveal only two things for sure. Cooperative or uncooperative attitudes towards those who interviewed them which rarely results in any productive dialogue. There is no value in these screening processes as the inmate rarely talks about anything in fear of being targeted for more retribution or retaliation by staff through the administration. The routine inside is both mundane and often out of compliance with mandated living conditions.

The frequency and the amount of time allotted for each inmate to have recreation and showers are often curtailed or in many cases skipped due to lack of staffing to facilitate such a task. This builds animosity between staff and inmates and often results in frequent force being used during those periods where the inmate is escorted out of his or her cell to go to the recreation pen.

Visitation is only as good as the inmate's ability to recognize what day of the week it is and the ability to schedule such an activity with the case manager or visitation officer. Mentally ill inmates do not participate as they are either drugged through chemical restraints or unaware of their visitation privileges or they show no interest in seeing family as solitary confinement breeds hopelessness and depression. Calls are good for those functional but not a means to talk to family by the mentally ill. Competing with behavioral inmates for the telephone means somebody has to lose his or her turn and therefore gives up the opportunity to call home. Personal property is limited especially if designed a suicide problem or behavioral troublemaker. Kick starters are those who ramp up others into creating chaos inside the concrete boxes and as a result, the entire day is spent on lockdown status with no showers and recreation.

Mentally ill inmates are often intimidated, manipulated or otherwise convinced to hand over their personal property e.g. television, walkman, or anything else that can serve someone else in an entertainment mode or item for barter with others as officers rarely search the cells for contraband and items switched, traded or stolen. One can only imagine that mentally ill inmates are often stripped of anything worth value by those who do it because they can.

A review of suicides, self mutilations and other bizarre conduct within these isolated grey walls are horrendously revealing of a bigger problem. Being forced to live in isolation for years at a time creates intense feelings that can break a person's will to live or maintain a level of remaining rational under so much distress. It is not unusual for behavioral inmates to cut themselves just to get the attention from staff so they can socialize for just a few minutes with the nurse or staff member. Unfortunately, for the mentally ill, this could result in death as they have no idea where the boundaries are when they self harm themselves and may incur a more severe or serious wound that could be fatal due to emotional and mental deterioration inside this box.

SID can be used by staff, employees or even other inmates. This method of controlling behaviors inside a maximum custody unit have been effective for years and is often not questioned and rather, approved through tacit approval of those who choose to look the other way or not make changes in the routine of the unit affected. SID is destructive and responsible for homicides, suicides, serious assaults on both staff and inmates and is rarely identified as the cause or catalyst for such disruptive conduct. The inmate has to tow the line and accept responsibility for all he or she does without any reprieve or relief through grievances that are totally ignored or processed unless the right person gets a hold of such a document. Staff is rarely punished for excessive force or unprofessional conduct unless such conduct was viewed on a surveillance camera, a taped recording of the incident or word of mouth by other participants who are willing to speak out loud and tell the truth. Such conduct is considered to be a blatant violation of the code of silence and offers repercussions that could result in future disciplinary by designation (ironically the same method used to elevate the inmate's existence into max custody through paperwork) , banished or removed from the work setting, passed over for promotions. It can be accurately said that for both staff and inmate, only the strong survive.

The early warning signs for SID inmates are normally well structured and very transparent if someone is looking for them. The reason they are so transparent is because nobody has ever bothered to conduct an audit of these placements in maximum custody thus giving the administration free will and room to maneuver. If assigned to a human rights fact finding team it would be most expeditious for any member to pull out their records on all maximum custody inmates and glean their housing record, their mental health, medical scores, their disciplinary for frequency, severity and locations and most of all their use of force records, activity pod sheets showing participation in those mandated living conditions considered constitutional issues and comments by staff.

The disciplinary report, frequent and stacked by offenses indicates the severity of consideration provided. The signature of a lieutenant and above indicates ownership in the problem and the review by the deputy warden or designees shows the will to get rid of this SID inmate. A finding for a positive drug test when there are no other indicators of previous drug use may be a clue but not for certain. The finding of a shank or prison made knife can be planted and accomplish the goal to get rid of the SID inmate. Then when the inmate gets to the destination you must see if the person picks up more reports and gleans whether they were written by one person all the time or multiple persons including medical staff and administrative staff. This is important as it may indicate a targeted effort to keep this inmate at this most restrictive level. Statements supporting bizarre or unusual behavior can often support the placement into a temporary security watch or suicide watch depending on the space availability inside the max custody unit.

Follow up indicators should reveal the existence of a long term threat as the short term threat has now been assessed as needing more time in max custody. Max custody overrides are common tools to keep a SID inmate in max custody. Scoring lower levels but being overridden to remain in isolation and in a high secure setting is a powerful tool to break the spirit. One should read their classification forms and see what rationale was given to keep them in max custody. The filing of grievances is a poor indicator of staff abuse or harassment as it is taught in "max custody 101" to file a grievance whenever you arrive. The key to such instruments are the topics of concerns e.g. medical care, food, property and staff harassment and then follow the trail to names, frequency and history of prior institutional placements to see if the problem was pre-existing.

The most obvious means for family to be concerned with is the sudden interruption of regular phone calls or letter since both are controlled by the staff or administrations. Any inquiries by family members may prompt further SID treatment and create additional stress between the administration and the inmate. This elevation to a "high profile" inmate is not a popular event inside the box as it draws more heat on the living area with more cops being present to interrupt the inmate's games and schemes. This SID inmate will soon have to be moved due to threats made on his safety by other inmates. Attempted suicides when there is no history of previous suicides is a cry for a "come look at me please' for I have problems. It could also be an indicator they have reached the end of their ability to manage their behaviors where they are assigned and asking for a "room change" not otherwise considered. Excessive uses of forces are indicators of agitation and confrontation by staff who like to abuse their authority on others. SID inmates are often exposed to such an individual and are regularly abused by being played one against the other being blamed for things that happen inside the box when in fact, the officer created the problem.

Thankfully, there are only a few staff members that engage in such abusive practices of "kick starting" a SID inmate but as others may look the other way, the abuse continues. This blind eye is driving those who are mentally ill beyond the parameters of coping with their lives. It is with deep regret that I feel so compelled to write such a document when in fact, there are many great and dedicated staff that work inside these units who perform with diligence and energy unmatched by many who chose to be a correctional officer or administrator.

The truth, revealed only shows our weaknesses in management prisons designed for solitary confinement, isolation from the world and other human beings and deprivation of those basic rights to live under the most reasonable correctional practices allowed by law and policies. Human rights are valuable possessions no matter where they are located and should be respected as the rules are clear and compliance is an expectation. Unless the culture inside these prisons change, there will always be abused inmates and abusive staff.

Mental health inmates have no business being housed in isolation or solitary confinement as it only adds harm to the condition(s). The personality disorders, the psychopathic killers, the death row maniacs and the incorrigible gangsters who have no regard for human life or decency should be locked down per correctional best practices. The rules for mentally ill inmates must be different. Their disabilities and disorders, legitimately covered under the American Disabilities Act must be preserved and paid attention to by all who are responsible for the operation of such units. The rules are vague and it's easier "to do as I say rather than what is written." The oversight is nonexistent and the care or interest in such a place is apathetic and lackadaisical to say the least.

Suicide/homicide rates skyrocket at AZ Department of Corrections

I obtained prisoner death records last week from the AZ Department of Corrections, and the stats on suicides and homicides since Brewer took office are mind-boggling: they're twice the rate as they were when Janet was governor; this fiscal year (beginning July 2010) the suicides are on track for being three times the annual rate.

In no instance of the recent suicides has there been documentation that ADC staff had any culpability - though I've had more than one family member tell me that their mentally ill loved one had been taken off of their psychiatric medications in prisons before their suicide or homicide. That sounds to me like a pattern of institutional neglect.

Anthony Lester's death remains a mystery to me, by the way - the ADC record detailing his death lists his injuries as self-inflicted (his jugular, his right wrist, and his leg were all cut with a razor) , but a document compiling the deaths for the year calls it a homicide. Tony's family was told it was a suicide - a "highly preventable" one, which they tried to warn the ADC he was at risk for. They have other information suggesting that he believed he was in imminent danger from a gang, though. Until I get confirmation to the contrary, I'm leaving him in the suicide category.

Tony suffered from schizophrenia, and was sentenced to more than a decade in prison due to two women being slightly injured trying to prevent him from cutting his throat (both required band-aids at the scene) during a psychotic episode. He had to be restored to sanity before he could go on trial, of course.

That's par for Maricopa County's treatment of people with mental illness who needed psychiatric hospitalization before or at the time of their "crime". If I could sick the DOJ on every responsible judge and prosecuting attorney, I would, because that's a violation of the Olmstead Decision, as far as I'm concerned. The Olmstead Decision was a Supreme Court verdict that determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires states to deinstitutionalize and place people with disabilities in the least restrictive setting possible.

Arizona, after 20 years of Arnold v. Sarn litigation, is still underserving the seriously mentally ill in the community. Here they're just criminally prosecuted for the symptoms of their illness and thrown into the most restrictive setting possible - state prison (often maximum security) - largely because the state lacks adequate outpatient and inpatient alternatives for individuals at risk of harming themselves or others (we spend it all on corrections instead. If ADC Director Ryan had any courage, he'd call that what it is and tell the state where to put their money and the courts where to stuff their convictions).

Why else would a judge give a man with schizophrenia three years for climbing a utility tower in a thunderstorm to be closer to God? Why would he even be prosecuted for that in the first place? I think they actually believed they were protecting him from himself. Sadly, Shannon Palmer ended up being murdered by his cellmate two years in.

The deaths by "natural causes" are also extremely young - go to the ADC's website, under ADC in the News, for death notices. There's an archive on that page, too. I suspect that it's complications from the effects of the Hep C virus that's killing people so young inside. I'll be analyzing the documents I obtained further to confirm that, and post it when I compile it all.

Here are the links for the APW posts about the more recent suicides:

Special Management Unit: Prisoner suicide at ASPC Eyman (11/4) - James Galloway

Prison suicide and gangs at Florence Central (10/01) - Duron Cunningham, Rosario Rodriguez-Bojorquez


Additionally, I missed a couple of suicides in my compilation that I didn't have info on until now:

Douglas Nunn 33 (8/29/09) - ASPC-Florence/Central

Patricia Velez 25 (4/28/10) - ASPC-Perryville/Lumley

All 3 of the women who have killed themselves in the past year and a half hung themselves and were housed in Lumley, where the maximum security yard is. All three were in their 20s. I don't know if Patricia had a mental illness or not: a psychological report was sealed by the court when she was sentenced to 7.5 years for aggravated assault and fleeing a law enforcement vehicle. Geshell and Sasha, the other two women from Lumley who killed themselves, did have evidence of a serious mental illness when sentenced.

Two of the men who killed themselves recently were both from ASPC-Florence/Central. The largest number of male suicides in any one prison have occurred at ASPC-Eyman, however.

Sometime in the next couple of days I'll break down the suicides and homicides by race and age, and tell you how they compare to stats for the overall prison population, as well as to rates in the general population. It seems to me that if all the violence boiled down to a gang war, the Aryan Brotherhood is winning.