DOCSLIB.ORG

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES to the STUDY and UNDERSTANDING of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 45 Methodological Challenges to the Study and Understanding of Solitary Confinement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES to the STUDY and UNDERSTANDING of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 45 Methodological Challenges to the Study and Understanding of Solitary Confinement December 2015 METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES TO THE STUDY AND UNDERSTANDING OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 45 Methodological Challenges to the Study and Understanding of Solitary Confinement Michael P. Harrington Northern Michigan University ON ANY GIVEN DAY as many as 80,000 points to an important need for an empirical order of the institution, or information that, inmates are in isolated confinement in state and examination of the more day-to-day use of if true, would threaten the safety and security federal prisons. This figure does not include isolation as a strategy for managing inmates. of the institution. Temporary Segregation those isolated in local jails and detention cen- One explanation for the absence of such can be used during the investigation of rule ters or juvenile facilities (Shames, Wilcox, & research may be the methodological chal- infractions or verification of information Subramanian, 2015). The frequency and length lenges inherent in attempting to examine the of potential threats to order by individual of the isolation experienced by inmates has use of isolation in prisons. This article defines inmates. Temporary Segregation generally been criticized by many (Lovett, 2013; Baker some of the methodological challenges that precedes the other forms of segregation and & Goode, 2015; Goode, 2015) and has been may contribute to the research void. By iden- is usually for a brief time (72 hours or less). the topic of special interest groups (Baker & tifying such challenges, researchers and prison Extensions often occur following administra- Goode, 2015). In the summer of 2013, inmates administrators may have a mutual under- tive review and approval. Such extensions in the California prison system embarked on standing of these challenges and collaborate are generally tied to pending classification a hunger strike in hopes of drawing attention in the future. Collaborative research outcomes decisions or due process hearings. Because to and potentially reforming the state’s use of may influence correctional policy and offer Temporary Segregation is not punitive in solitary confinement. At its peak, over 33,000 guidance to “best practices” and evidence- nature, limitations on inmate privileges should inmates throughout the California system were based inmate management strategies. be based on a “least restrictive” approach. The refusing meals (Lovett, 2013). Such action has Defining solitary confinement, on its restrictive nature of Temporary Segregation drawn national and international attention to face, appears rather basic. Adult correctional often excludes these inmates from participa- the use of solitary confinement as a strategy facilities rely primarily on three different tion in prison programs and work details. for prison management in the United States. types of solitary confinement. These types Despite the widespread use of isolation, empir- are commonly called temporary segregation, Disciplinary Segregation ical examinations about its use are limited. disciplinary segregation, and administrative Disciplinary Segregation is the punitive isola- Those studies that have examined the practice segregation. Each of these carries with it vary- tion of an inmate for the violation of prison have focused primarily on supermax units ing restrictions on inmate movement and rules. Disciplinary Segregation follows a due (Haney, 2003; Haney & Lynch, 1997; King, inmate privileges. Browne, Cambier, and Agah process hearing consistent with conditions 2005; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Mears & Watson, (2011) and Shalev (2008) describe the types prescribed in Wolff v. McDonnell (1974). 2006; Toch, 2001). of solitary confinement used by adult correc- Disciplinary Segregation is determinate in Despite this increased awareness and criti- tional facilities. I summarize them below. nature and does not require further admin- cism of the use of solitary confinement, little istrative review for release from Disciplinary research has been done examining the phe- Temporary Segregation Segregation to the general prison population. nomenon. What research has been conducted Temporary Segregation is the immediate iso- Disciplinary Segregation generally carries with has generally focused on the effects of extreme lation of an inmate from the general prison it a broad set of restrictions on inmate move- isolation on individuals (Haney, 2003; Haney, population. Most often the decision to do so is ment and privileges that are applied to all 2008; Haney & Lynch, 1997; King, 2005). made by supervisory personnel using limited inmates in that status regardless of the severity Despite this research there remains a void information. Often these decisions are made of the rule violation, length of disciplinary term, in the quantitative examination of inmate as a result of a crisis (Browne, Cambier, & or the threat to institutional order. Moreover, isolation. Shames, Wilcox, and Subramanian Agah, 2011; Shalev, 2008), such as a physical these restrictions are not necessarily related to (2015) note that less than one-third of inmates altercation, possession of major contraband, the rule violation(s) that resulted in the punish- that are isolated are in a supermax setting. This behavior that is thought to disrupt the general ment. The limits on the length of disciplinary 46 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 79 Number 3 segregation vary with the jurisdiction and the prison population (Browne, Cambier, & Agah, Supermax prisons generally come in two severity of the rule infraction. 2011; Shalev, 2008). Additionally, Protective forms. The first is what has been termed a Custody can come in two forms: voluntary stand-alone facility. Stand-alone Supermax Administrative Segregation and involuntary. prisons operate solely for the purpose of Administrative Segregation is for the purpose Voluntary Protective Custody occurs when isolating inmates for long periods of time. of isolating individual inmates who present a an inmate self-initiates or requests protective Stand-alone operations do not have a general continued threat to the safety and security of placement. The response by prison officials prison population, have limited programming the prison staff and visitors, as well as other varies upon the jurisdiction but traditionally opportunities, highly restricted privileges, and inmates (Browne, Cambier, & Agah, 2011), or involves placement in temporary segregation a higher staff to inmate ratio. The second form the orderly operation of the prison (Toch, 2001; while the threat is investigated to verify its of Supermax segregation is co-located facili- Irwin, 2005). The justification for the isolation legitimacy. In these cases inmates are more ties. Co-located facilities are segregation units of these inmates is based on staff perceptions, likely to challenge a denial of Protective within a prison. Depending on the size of the anonymous tips from other inmates, or prior Custody rather than the placement in protec- prison and its operational mission, co-located activities outside of prison, including past tive custody. On the other hand, involuntary Supermax prisons may be separate from seg- gang affiliation. Inmates have a limited ability Protective Custody is a classification deci- regation units that isolate inmates for shorter to challenge these decisions and are generally sion that is similar in practice to decisions periods of time. unable to confront the accusations directly. for placement in Administrative Segregation. Administrative segregation decisions generally Inmates who are involuntarily placed in Challenges to the Empirical follow a period of Temporary Segregation or Protective Segregation may challenge such Study of Isolation Disciplinary Segregation. Decisions to employ placement for a variety of reasons. Chief The methodological examination of solitary Administrative Segregation most often come among such challenges would be an avoidance confinement poses several issues. The first from classification committees or a review and of the “snitch” label that is placed on protective challenge is the nature of prison records. In order from higher administration. Inmates custody inmates irrespective of the accuracy this case, prison records refers to an individual in Administrative Segregation have severely of such a label. record of an inmate that contains pertinent restricted movement and limited access to Protective Custody is a non-punitive form information about the reason and length of prison programs and services. Additional of isolation and is indeterminate in length. the inmate’s confinement, classification infor- privileges, including property possession, are The conditions of protective custody are often mation, incident reports, and various other made based on individual criteria and the based on the institution’s or correctional sys- documents necessary both legally and opera- threat the inmate presents. Administrative tem’s ability to house these inmates safely tionally when managing inmates. Prisons Segregation is an indefinite term of isolation from the general prison population. Those traditionally operate out of the public eye and and the criteria for release are often vague, operations able to operate separate units of tend to avoid publicity. In keeping with this, general in nature, and often unknown to the protective custody inmates can manage these prison officials are traditionally protective of inmate (Toch, 2001; Irwin, 2005). The lack inmates with less reliance on total isolation. records and often reluctant to permit outsid- of clearly articulated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner Testimonies of Torture in United States Prisons and Jails
    Survivors Speak Prisoner Testimonies of Torture in United States Prisons and Jails A Shadow Report Submitted for the November 2014 Review of the United States by the Committee Against Torture I. Reporting organization The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker faith based organization that promotes lasting peace with justice, as a practical expression of faith in action. AFSC’s interest in prison reform is strongly influenced by Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) activism addressing prison conditions as informed by the imprisonment of Friends for their beliefs and actions in the 17th and 18th centuries. For over three decades AFSC has spoken out on behalf of prisoners, whose voices are all too frequently silenced. We have received thousands of calls and letters of testimony of an increasingly disturbing nature from prisoners and their families about conditions in prison that fail to honor the Light in each of us. Drawing on continuing spiritual insights and working with people of many backgrounds, we nurture the seeds of change and respect for human life that transform social relations and systems. AFSC works to end mass incarceration, improve conditions for people who are in prison, stop prison privatization, and promote a reconciliation and healing approach to criminal justice issues. Contact Person: Lia Lindsey, Esq. 1822 R St NW; Washington, DC 20009; USA Email: [email protected] +1-202-483-3341 x108 Website: www.afsc.org Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible but for the courageous individuals held in U.S. prisons and jails who rise above the specter of reprisal for sharing testimonies of the abuses they endure.
    [Show full text]
  • Phasing out Our Use of Private Prisons | OPA | Department of Justice
    10/7/2016 Phasing Out Our Use of Private Prisons | OPA | Department of Justice PHASING OUT OUR USE OF PRIVATE PRISONS August 18, 2016 Courtesy of Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates When most people think of the Justice Department, they are likely to imagine the most visible parts of our job – the law enforcement agents who investigate crimes or the lawyers who prosecute them. But the department’s core responsibilities go beyond investigation and prosecution. Unlike most states, the federal government puts its law enforcement agents, criminal prosecutors, and correctional officers all in a single department. We handle every step from the start of an investigation to the end of a prison sentence. Our work to house and rehabilitate individuals incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an important part of our responsibility and operations, accounting for 25 percent of the department’s budget every year. The federal prison population increased by almost 800 percent between 1980 and 2013, often at a far faster rate than the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate in their own facilities. In an effort to manage the rising prison population, about a decade ago, the bureau began contracting with privately operated correctional institutions to confine some federal inmates. By 2013, as both the federal prison population and the proportion of federal prisoners in private facilities reached their peak, the bureau was housing approximately 15 percent of its population, or nearly 30,000 inmates, in privately operated prisons. 2013 was also the year that the Department of Justice launched its Smart on Crime Initiative after identifying reforms that would ensure more proportional sentences and effective use of federal resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery by Another Name History Background
    Slavery by Another Name History Background By Nancy O’Brien Wagner, Bluestem Heritage Group Introduction For more than seventy-five years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, thousands of blacks were systematically forced to work against their will. While the methods of forced labor took on many forms over those eight decades — peonage, sharecropping, convict leasing, and chain gangs — the end result was a system that deprived thousands of citizens of their happiness, health, and liberty, and sometimes even their lives. Though forced labor occurred across the nation, its greatest concentration was in the South, and its victims were disproportionately black and poor. Ostensibly developed in response to penal, economic, or labor problems, forced labor was tightly bound to political, cultural, and social systems of racial oppression. Setting the Stage: The South after the Civil War After the Civil War, the South’s economy, infrastructure, politics, and society were left completely destroyed. Years of warfare had crippled the South’s economy, and the abolishment of slavery completely destroyed what was left. The South’s currency was worthless and its financial system was in ruins. For employers, workers, and merchants, this created many complex problems. With the abolishment of slavery, much of Southern planters’ wealth had disappeared. Accustomed to the unpaid labor of slaves, they were now faced with the need to pay their workers — but there was little cash available. In this environment, intricate systems of forced labor, which guaranteed cheap labor and ensured white control of that labor, flourished. For a brief period after the conclusion of fighting in the spring of 1865, Southern whites maintained control of the political system.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Prison Privatization in Arizona
    Prison Privatization in Arizona A briefing paper prepared by the American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area Program American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area 103 N. Park Ave., Ste. 111 Tucson, AZ 85719 (520)623-9141 (520)623-5901 fax [email protected] October 2010 Introduction The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that works for peace and justice worldwide. Our work is based on a commitment to nonviolence and the belief that all people have value and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The AFSC‟s programs promote social justice by focusing on a diverse set of social concerns. The organization‟s criminal justice work has always focused on the need for an effective and humane criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Here in Arizona, our criminal justice program advocates for a reduction in the state‟s prison population through rational sentencing reform and a moratorium on new prison construction. A key focus of that effort is our work to educate the public on the risks inherent in prison privatization through for-profit prison corporations. This document is an attempt to paint a picture of the current efforts at privatization of prisons in the state of Arizona and raise questions about the potential pitfalls of this practice. Arizona Overview Arizona‟s experiment with for-profit incarceration began in the early 90‟s when the state faced the first of many prison overcrowding crises. Arizona‟s first privately operated prison was the Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility, a minimum-security prison for people with substance abuse issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Coming out of Concrete Closets
    COMING OUT OF CONCRETE CLOSETS A REPORT ON BLACK & PINK’S NATIONAL LGBTQ PRISONER SURVEY To increase the power of prisoners we need greater access to the Jason Lydon political process. We need real! access to real people in real power with who will actively hear us and help us, not just give us lip service, come Kamaria Carrington sit and talk with me, help me take my dreams and present them to Hana Low the people who can turn them into a reality, I am not persona non Reed Miller grata, hear me, don't patronize me just to keep me quiet, understand that I'm very capable of helping in this fight. ‐Survey respondent Mahsa Yazdy 1 Black & Pink October 2015 www.blackandpink.org This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Version 2, 10.21.2015 Cover image: “Alcatraz” by Mike Shelby / CC BY 2.0 , 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Policing and Criminalization of LGBTQ People ....................................................................................................... 6 Courts / Bail Reform /
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO the Penitentiary at Richmond
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Penitentiary at Richmond: Slavery, State Building, and Labor in the South’s First State Prison A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Hilary Louise Coulson Committee in charge: Professor Rebecca Jo Plant, Chair Professor Stephen D. Cox Professor Mark Hanna Professor Mark Hendrickson Professor Rachel Klein 2016 Copyright Hilary Louise Coulson, 2016 All Rights Reserved The Dissertation of Hilary Louise Coulson is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION For my parents, Richard and Laura Coulson who always believed I could, and for my husband, Frank Fernandez, who helped me prove it. iv EPIGRAPH “You know we don’t have our prisons like yours of the North, like grand palaces with flower-yards.” –Keeper of the Virginia Penitentiary, c. 1866 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ............................................................................................... iii Dedication ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Educator Pedagogical Approach Shedding Light on Solitary Confinement Moya Atkinson, MSW May 2020
    Q&A: Educator Pedagogical Approach Shedding Light on Solitary Confinement Moya Atkinson, MSW May 2020 What approach to teaching about solitary confinement, and incarceration more broadly, do you recommend? The most powerful teaching approach is experiential, namely involvement in relevant activities coupled with reflection. Following are some learning opportunities for students that we recommend. Involvement and Observation 1. Witness the prison environment. Take part in a correctional facility tour: visit a prison, jail, or detention center. Some jails offer educational tours to college and university classes at the request of the professor. See, for example, information from the Orange County Corrections Department in Florida, and the Strafford County Department of Correction in New Hampshire. 2. Write letters to incarcerated people. See Letters from Solitary by Solitary Watch. Another excellent resource is the Prison and Justice Writing Program, which is part of PEN America, an organization that promotes the intersection of literature and human rights. Set up opportunities to interview returning citizens who were formerly incarcerated. 3. Experience solitary confinement virtually. The Guardian offers 6x9: A virtual experience of solitary confinement, which places you inside a U.S. solitary confinement prison cell. 4. Get involved in efforts by organizations that advocate for issues of solitary confinement and for the improvement of the justice system: Q&A: Educator Pedagogical Approach 2 American Civil Liberties Union The Vera Institute of Justice The Center for Constitutional Rights The Marshall Project (Abolition Resources) Prison Policy Initiative Center for Prison Reform (Explore their extensive list of organizations, including those for currently and formerly incarcerated people and for their families.) 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia 1961-1973 by John N. Powers
    Treatment of American Prisoners of War In Southeast Asia 1961-1973 By John N. Powers The years 1961 to 1973 are commonly used when studying American POWs during the Vietnam War, even though history books generally refer to the years 1964 to 1973 in defining that war. Americans were captured as early as 1954 and as late as 1975. In these pages the years 1961 to 1973 will be used. Americans were held prisoner by the North Vietnamese in North Vietnam, the Viet Cong (and their political arm the National Liberation Front) in South Vietnam, and the Pathet Lao in Laos. This article will not discuss those Americans held in Cambodia and China. The Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) lists 687 American Prisoners of War who were returned alive by the Vietnamese from 1961 through 1976. Of this number, 72 were returned prior to the release of the bulk of the POWs in Operation Homecoming in 1973. Twelve of these early releases came from North Vietnam. DPMO figures list thirty-six successful escapes, thirty-four of them in South Vietnam and two in Laos. There were more than those thirty-six escapes, including some from prison camps in Hanoi itself. Some escapes ended in recapture within hours, some individuals were not recaptured for days, and some were simply never seen again. There were individuals who escaped multiple times, in both North and South Vietnam. However, only thirty- six American prisoners of war escaped and reached American forces. Of those thirty- six successful attempts, twenty-eight of them escaped within their first month of captivity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Use of Solitary Confinement Within the Context of International Human Rights, 47 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 47 Issue 4 Article 14 Summer 2014 ICE's New Policy on Segregation and the Continuing Use of Solitary Confinement within the Context of International Human Rights, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1433 (2014) Sarah Dávila-Ruhaak [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the International Humanitarian Law Commons Recommended Citation Sarah Dávila-Ruhaak, ICE's New Policy on Segregation and the Continuing Use of Solitary Confinement within the Context of International Human Rights, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1433 (2014) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ICE’S NEW POLICY ON SEGREGATION AND THE CONTINUING USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SARAH DÁVILA-RUHAAK I. Real Solitary ....................................................................... 14341432 II. Introduction........................................................................ 14321434 III. Solitary Confinem ent ......................................................... 14341436 A. Physical and psychological effects of solitary confinem ent............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Prisoner of War For?
    19 WHAT IS A PRISONER OF WAR FOR? Professor John Hickman Associate Professor of Government, Berry College Abstract This article presents a conceptual map of the purposes served by continuing custody of prisoners of war and captured non-combatants. Morally legitimate and non-controversial purposes include preventing prisoners of war from rejoining their comrades-in-arms, preventing both prisoners of war and captured non-combatants from giving material support to combatants still in the field, facilitating orderly release and repatriation at the end of hostilities, and the prosecution for war crimes. Morally illegitimate purposes include punishment, exploitation as conscript labour, recruitment or conscription as combatants, exploitation for intelligence, display as proof of victory, and ideological indoctrination. Analysis of historical cases illustrating each purpose reveal that continuing custody is often motivated by multiple purposes, both legitimate and illegitimate. What explains adoption of multiple and illegitimate purposes for continuing custody? Prisoners are available for legitimate and illegitimate purposes because neither elites nor masses within the captor state typically view prisoners as members of the moral community.1 Continuing custody does not alter the perceived status of the captured as aliens who cannot be intuitively invested with expectations of reciprocity. This suggests both ending custody as soon as legitimate purposes are served and bringing the captured within the moral community while in continuing captivity. Introduction Throughout human history, those captured in war have presented their captors with the basic choice between immediate execution, immediate release, or continuing custody – holding them in custody pending their release or other 1 The moral community comprises those persons to whom moral obligations are owed because moral values are shared.
    [Show full text]
  • From Slave Ship to Supermax
    Introduction Antipanoptic Expressivity and the New Neo-Slave Novel As a slave, the social phenomenon that engages my whole con- sciousness is, of course, revolution. Anyone who passed the civil service examination yesterday can kill me today with complete immunity. I’ve lived with repression every moment of my life, a re- pression so formidable that any movement on my part can only bring relief, the respite of a small victory or the release of death.1 xactly 140 years after Nat Turner led a slave rebellion in southeastern Virginia, the U.S. carceral state attempted to silence another influential EBlack captive revolutionary: the imprisoned intellectual George Jackson. When guards at California’s San Quentin Prison shot Jackson to death on August 21, 1971, allegedly for attempting an escape, the acclaimed novelist James Baldwin responded with a prescience that would linger in the African American literary imagination: “No Black person will ever believe that George Jackson died the way they tell us he did.”2 Baldwin had long been an advocate for Jackson, and Jackson—as evident from his identification with the slave in the block quotation above—had long been a critic of social control practices in the criminal justice system reminiscent of slavery. Jackson was a well-read Black freedom fighter, political prisoner, Black Panther Party field marshal, and radical social theorist who organized a prisoners’ liberation movement while serving an indeterminate sentence of one year to life for his presumed complicity in a seventy-dollar gas station robbery. He first exposed slavery’s vestiges in the penal system in Soledad Brother, the collection of prison letters 2 Introduction he published in 1970.
    [Show full text]