Category: Prison Conditions (Page 5 of 5)

Starving prisoners to cut costs

In news related to this post from last month, the New York Times now reports that prisons in states around the country are cutting costs in this strapped economy by depriving prisoners of basic meals. Prisons have exploited the gray areas in the law about requirements for feeding prisoners three times a day, applying it only according to the letter of the law (in Texas, to county inmates, not to state prisoners) and cutting meals in cases of legal ambiguity. These meal reductions have class implications (prisoners whose families cannot send them money to supplement their meals with snacks from the commissary must just go hungry). They also show the lack of bounds to the truth of this statement from the executive director of the Texas Inmate Families Association: “it’s really easy to take things away from inmates.”

This statement from Senator John Whitmire, Democrat and chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, is one indication of how inured to human rights issues in prisons policy and lawmakers have become: “If they don’t like the menu,” he said, “don’t come there in the first place.”

Now, blanket visual cavity strip searches for minor offenses

This article reports on how courts have begun to chip away at one of the last remaining, narrow bulwarks of Fourth Amendment protection for prisoners– constraints on the anything-prison-authorities-say-goes attitude toward strip searches in the case of minor offenders.

While the Supreme Court likes to pay some lip service to the idea of bodily privacy and other Fourth Amendment protections for prisoners, it has established such deferential standards for judicial review of prisoners’ constitutional claims that those protections have long since become effectively meaningless for adults. In the process, the difference between strip searches and cavity searches has been obscured and transformed over the years, so that though visual cavity searches were once understood as cavity searches, they are now conducted under the moniker of strip searches– which appears to make judges much more comfortable with authorizing them. As a result, notwithstanding the high rates of sexual assault in prisons and prisoners who are survivors of sexual assault, the routine visual inspection of genitalia without cause has become a part of acceptable prison strip search policies (following, as the article describes, the Court’s 1979 decision in Bell v. Wolfish). Prisoners frequently report that this practice constituted one of or the most humiliating, dehumanizing aspects of their experience of incarceration; while such correlations are difficult to measure, it is likely that it contributes to the rising rates of mental illness, substance abuse as self-medication, and suicide in prisons. Indeed, this government publication from Australia characterizes the practice as sexual assault by the state.  While the Supreme Court has yet to rule explicitly on this practice, it has tacitly approved its upholding in the lower courts.

As the article recounts, up until recently, minor offenders (along with juveniles) remained a somewhat protected category. As I learned about the history of this caselaw, I was outraged by the shift in U.S. policy regarding prison strip searches over the last three decades; I wondered if it was not a case in which the lack of awareness of what was happening to one of society’s most vulnerable populations had, by sheltering the courts from public outrage, led to an obscene grant of power to carceral institutions and a removal of nearly all constraints upon them. The fact that blanket strip searches of minor offenders are now before the court attests to both the extreme place where the law has arrived, and the possibility that the routine subjection of people to visual cavity searches for parking violations or riding a bike without a bell might finally draw some attention to prisoners’ daily experience and raise the kind of protest that might help turn back this tide.

Study demonstrates the counterproductive effects of incarcerating youth

This study  confirms that incarcerating youth is toxic for both those youth and for society, by demonstrating that youth prisons do not reduce future offenses, waste taxpayer dollars, and expose youth to dangerous and abusive conditions.

This commentary includes more useful observations for those who need convincing, like the fact that 336 of every 100,000 of the world’s incarcerated youth is locked away in a U.S. prison facility– nearly five times the rate of South Africa, the next country on list– and that juvenile crime fell when Texas authorities began to decrease the jailed youth population.

California prison hunger strike resumes

Pelican Bay State prisoners who led the month-long hunger strike of over 6,000 prisoners this summer are back on strike.

The prisoners, as this summer, are protesting inhumane prison conditions, including a policy that allows prisoners to be held in solitary confinement for more than ten years. They resume their strike now to protest the absence of good-faith negotiations.

Read more here.

The Justice Show

This audio story produced for the Third Coast International Audio Festival blew my mind. It’s advertised as a tale of “justice, injustice, redemption and pralines” and focuses on the real, full lives of those behind bars. Incredibly well-edited and enlightening.

Resources on Brown v Plata

On May 23, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of California’s 140,000 prison inmates. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority,

For years the medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result….

As a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are fundamental to liberty. Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man….

The decision is significant, if overdue (the initial briefs were filed in 2006). Here are a few resources to understand the case and its meaning:

    California’s Prison Law Office provides links to resources explaining the history and context of the ruling, as well as what to expect from the CA state government moving forward.
    Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy offers up a plethora of commentary.
    And The Onion chimes in as well, snarkily as always.
Newer posts »