DOCSLIB.ORG

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order 889 F.Supp. 1146 (1995) Alejandro MADRID, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. James GOMEZ, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. No. C90-3094-TEH. United States District Court, N.D. California. January 10, 1995. 1147*1147 1148*1148 1149*1149 1150*1150 1151*1151 1152*1152 1153*1153 1154*1154 Bruce G. Vanyo, David S. Steuer, Susan Abouchar Creighton, Bernard J. Cassidy, J. Peter Shearer, Robert Fabela, Sarah A. Good, Joanne Scully, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, Donald Specter, Steven Fama, Arnold Erickson, Heather McKay, Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, CA, for plaintiffs. Peter J. Siggins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Susan Duncan Lee, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, CA, for James Rowland, Charles D. Marshall. Paul D. Gifford, Peter J. Siggins, Susan Duncan Lee, Deputy Attys. Gen., Jennifer A. Moss, George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel E. Lungren, CA Atty. Gen., San Francisco, CA, for T.K. Boyll. Richard H. Caulfield, Michael M. McKone, Caulfield, Davies & Donahue, Sacramento, CA, for Mark Bray. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER THELTON E. HENDERSON, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ................................................... 1155 II. Findings of Fact A. Excessive Force ............................................. 1159 B. Medical Health Care ......................................... 1200 C. Mental Health Care .......................................... 1214 D. Conditions in the Security Housing Unit ..................... 1227 1155*1155 E. Cell Housing Practices ...................................... 1237 F. Segregation of Prison Gang Affiliates ....................... 1240 III. Conclusions of Law A. Eighth Amendment Overview ................................... 1244 B. Excessive Force ............................................. 1247 C. Medical and Mental Health Care .............................. 1255 D. Conditions in the Security Housing Unit ..................... 1260 E. Cell Housing Practices ...................................... 1267 F. Segregation of Prison Gang Affiliates ....................... 1270 IV. Summary ........................................................ 1279 V. Appropriate Relief and Further Proceedings ..................... 1280 Appendix A (Glossary of Terms) ...................................... 1283 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs represent a class of all prisoners who are, or will be, incarcerated by the State of California Department of Corrections at Pelican Bay State Prison, which is located in the remote northwest corner of California, seven miles northeast of Crescent City and 363 miles north of San Francisco. Pursuant to the civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983,[1] plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a broad range of conditions and practices that intimately affect almost every facet of their prison life. They seek redress from the Court in the form of injunctive and declaratory relief. Although referred to in the singular, Pelican Bay State Prison ("Pelican Bay") actually consists of three completely separate facilities. The first is a maximum security prison which houses approximately 2,000 "general population" maximum security inmates. The daily routine for these inmates is comparable to that in other maximum security prisons in California. The second is the Security Housing Unit, commonly referred to as the "SHU." Located in a completely separate complex inside the security perimeter, the SHU has gained a well-deserved reputation as a place which, by design, imposes conditions far harsher than those anywhere else in the California prison system. The roughly 1,000-1,500 inmates confined in the SHU remain isolated in windowless cells for 22 and ½ hours each day, and are denied access to prison work programs and group exercise yards. Assignment to the SHU is not based on the inmate's underlying offense; rather, SHU cells are reserved for those inmates in the California prison system who become affiliated with a prison gang or commit serious disciplinary infractions once in prison. They represent, according to a phrase coined by defendants, "the worst of the worst." Finally, there is a small minimum security facility that houses approximately 200 prisoners. All in all, there are between 3,500 and 3,900 prisoners confined at Pelican Bay on any given day. Just over five years old, Pelican Bay was activated on December 1, 1989. Considered a "prison of the future," the buildings are modern in design, and employ cutting-edge technology and security devices. This, then, is not a case about inadequate or deteriorating physical conditions. There are no ratinfested cells, antiquated buildings, or unsanitary supplies. Rather, plaintiffs contend that behind the newly-minted walls and shiny equipment lies a prison that is coldly indifferent to the limited, but basic and elemental, rights that incarcerated persons — including "the worst of the worst" — retain under the 1156*1156 First, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments of our United States Constitution. In particular, plaintiffs allege that defendants (1) condone a pattern and practice of using excessive force against inmates, (2) fail to provide inmates with adequate medical care, (3) fail to provide inmates with adequate mental health care, (4) impose inhumane conditions in the Security Housing Unit, (5) utilize cell-assignment procedures that expose inmates to an unreasonable risk of assault from other inmates, (6) fail to provide adequate procedural safeguards when segregating prison gang affiliates in the Security Housing Unit, and (7) fail to provide inmates with adequate access to the courts. Named in their official capacity as defendants are Pelican Bay Warden Charles Marshall, Chief Deputy Warden Terry Peetz, Chief Medical Officer A.M. Astorga, and James Gomez, Director of the California Department of Corrections ("CDC").[2] They deny that any of plaintiffs' allegations have merit, and assert that Pelican Bay operates well within constitutional limits in each of the areas outlined above. Moreover, they argue, Pelican Bay, and the SHU in particular, does exactly what it was designed to do: it isolates the most brutal and disruptive elements of the inmate population while reducing violence in California state prisons overall. The case was tried before the Court between September 14 and December 1, 1993. Immediately prior to the trial, the Court spent two days touring Pelican Bay, accompanied by counsel for both parties and prison officials. During the course of the trial, the Court heard testimony from 57 lay witnesses, including class members, defendants, and correctional employees at all levels. It also received into evidence over 6,000 exhibits, including documents, tape recordings, and photographs, as well as thousands of pages of deposition excerpts.[3] The Court recognizes that neither the inmates at Pelican Bay nor the Department of Corrections personnel can be considered neutral witnesses. For reasons that are self- evident, class members, as well as defendants and other prison staff, are interested in the outcome of the case. We also take into account the undeniable presence of a "code of silence" at Pelican Bay. As the evidence clearly shows, this unwritten but widely understood code is designed to encourage prison employees to remain silent regarding the improper behavior of their fellow employees, particularly where excessive force has been alleged. Those who defy the code risk retaliation and harassment.[4] We have considered 1157*1157 all of the above, as well as the manner and demeanor of the witnesses, in assessing witness credibility and making our factual findings. The Court was also aided by the testimony of ten experts in the areas of medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and prison management and operation.[5] With respect to the claims regarding excessive force and cell assignment practices, plaintiffs presented three experts: Charles Fenton, a former warden of two maximum security prisons,[6] Steve Martin, who spent more than 20 years working in varying capacities for the Texas Department of Corrections,[7] and Vince Nathan, who has worked for nearly 20 years as a court-appointed monitor and expert in prison cases.[8] 1158*1158 Defendants presented two experts: Daniel McCarthy, who worked for almost 40 years in varying capacities for the California Department of Corrections, most recently as its Director,[9] and Larry DuBois, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections.[10] With respect to the claims concerning medical care, mental health care, and conditions in the SHU, plaintiffs presented Dr. Armond Start, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Medical School and former director of health care services for the Oklahoma and Texas prison systems,[11] Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist and faculty member at Harvard Medical School and expert on the effects of solitary confinement,[12] and Dr. Craig Haney, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Cruz, who has specialized in the psychological effects of incarceration.[13] Defendants 1159*1159 presented Dr. Jay Harness, a professor of surgery at the University of California at Davis and former director of health care services for the Michigan prison system,[14] and Dr. Joel Dvoskin, a clinical psychologist and director of the Bureau of Forensic Services for the New York State Office of Mental Health.[15] We are mindful that the opinions of experts are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BEHIND the WALLS a Look at Conditions in Thailand's Prisons
    BEHIND THE WALLS A look at conditions in Thailand’s prisons after the coup February 2017 / N° 688a February Cover photo: A prison officer stands guard with a baton in the sleeping quarters of Bangkok’s Klong Prem Prison on 9 August 2002. © Stephen Shaver / AFP TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive summary 4 II. International and domestic legal framework 6 International legal framework 6 Domestic legal framework 7 III. UN human rights bodies censure Thailand over prison conditions 9 IV. Thailand’s unenviable prison record 10 System overview 10 1. Sixth highest prison population in the world, highest prison population in ASEAN 12 2. Occupancy levels show overpopulated prisons 12 3. Highest incarceration rate among ASEAN countries 13 4. High percentage of prisoners jailed for drug-related crimes 13 5. High percentage of prisoners under death sentence convicted of drug-related crimes 14 6. World’s highest incarceration rate of women 15 7. Sizeable pre-trial and remand prison population 16 V. Sub-standard prison conditions 17 Restrictions on access to prisons 17 Case studies: The Central Women’s Correctional Institution and the Bangkok Remand Prison 18 Overcrowded dormitories, cramped sleeping space 20 Insufficient water, sanitation 22 “Terrible” food, dirty drinking water 23 Medical care: “Two-minute doctors”, paracetamol 24 Exploitative prison labor 25 Visits to prisoners cut short, correspondence censored 27 Prisoners who complain face retaliation 27 Punishment could amount to torture 28 Post-coup conditions: Increased restrictions 29 VI. 11th Army Circle base: Prison junta-style 30 Dozens of civilians detained 31 Independent access denied 31 Two deaths within two weeks 33 Torture, ill-treatment of inmates feared 34 VII.
    [Show full text]
  • Slaves of the State: Black Incarceration from the Chain Gang
    • CHAPTER 2 • “Except as Punishment for a Crime” The Thirteenth Amendment and the Rebirth of Chattel Imprisonment Slavery was both the wet nurse and bastard offspring of liberty. — Saidiya Hartman, Scenes of Subjection It is true, that slavery cannot exist without law . — Joseph Bradley, The Civil Rights Cases nyone perusing the advertisements section of local newspapers such as the Annapolis Gazette in Maryland, during December 1866, wouldA have come across the following notices: Public Sale— The undersigned will sell at the Court House Door in the city of Annapolis at 12 o’clock M., on Saturday 8th December, 1866, A Negro man named Richard Harris, for six months, convicted at the October term, 1866, of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court for larceny and sentenced by the court to be sold as a slave. Terms of sale— cash. WM. Bryan, Sheriff Anne Arundel County. Dec. 8, 1866 Public Sale— The undersigned will offer for Sale, at the Court House Door, in the city of Annapolis, at eleven O’Clock A.M., on Saturday, 22d of December, a negro [sic] man named John Johnson, aged about Forty years. The said negro was convicted the October Term, 1866, of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county, for; • 57 • This content downloaded from 71.114.106.89 on Sun, 23 Aug 2020 20:24:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Childs.indd 57 17/12/2014 12:56:10 PM 58 “EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME” Larceny, and sentenced to be sold, in the State, for the term of one year, from the 12th of December, 1866.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Women at Work in Corrections in the Era of Mass Incarceration: Documenting Demographic Changes in the New York City Department of Correction
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2019 Black Women at Work in Corrections in the Era of Mass Incarceration: Documenting Demographic Changes in the New York City Department of Correction Carolyn Fisher The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3290 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] BLACK WOMEN AT WORK IN CORRECTIONS IN THE ERA OF MASS INCARCERATION: DOCUMENTING DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION by CAROLYN FISHER A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2019 © 2019 CAROLYN FISHER All Rights ReserveD ii Black Women at Work in Corrections in the Era of Mass Incarceration: Documenting Demographic Changes in the New York City Department of Correction by Carolyn Fisher This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. ___________________________ ___________________________ Date Michael Javen Fortner Thesis Advisor ___________________________ ___________________________ Date Alyson Cole Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Black Women at Work in Corrections in the Era of Mass Incarceration: Documenting Demographic Changes in the New York City Department of Correction by Carolyn Fisher Advisor: Michael Javen Fortner Recent work has popularized the idea that mass incarceration arose in the wake of the civil rights movement to maintain the social and economic subordination of African Americans previously enforced under Jim Crow.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Longest Held Prisoner of War: Lessons Learned from the Capture, Prosecution, and Extradition of General Manuel Noriega Geoffrey S
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 71 | Number 4 Summer 2011 America's Longest Held Prisoner of War: Lessons Learned from the Capture, Prosecution, and Extradition of General Manuel Noriega Geoffrey S. Corn Sharon G. Finegan Repository Citation Geoffrey S. Corn and Sharon G. Finegan, America's Longest Held Prisoner of War: Lessons Learned from the Capture, Prosecution, and Extradition of General Manuel Noriega, 71 La. L. Rev. (2011) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol71/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. America's Longest Held Prisoner of War: Lessons Learned from the Capture, Prosecution, and Extradition of General Manuel Noriega Geoffrey S. Corn* Sharon G. Finegan" INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1986, while serving his first tour as an Army officer in Panama, one of the authors, Professor Corn, participated in a large-scale field training exercise called Operation Kindle Liberty. For three weeks he worked alongside members of the Panamanian Defense Force (PDF) with the mission of enhancing the capability of the Panamanian military to work side-by-side with the U.S. military to defend the Panama Canal. At the end of their training, as is customary, the commanding generals of both armies came to the field to visit the troops. Then-First Lieutenant Corn stood in an impromptu formation outside of the combined U.S.-PDF tactical operations center as General John Galvin, Commander of United States Southern Command, and his Panamanian counterpart General Manuel Noriega walked down the row of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • (UNODC), Handbook for Prison Leaders: a Basic Training Tool
    Handbook for prison leaders A basic training tool and curriculum for prison managers based on international standards and norms CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES Cover images: Left and right: ©Photodisc.com, Centre: ©iStockphoto.com/theprint UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Handbook for prison leaders A basic training tool and curriculum for prison managers based on international standards and norms CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS New York, 2010 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.10.IV.4 ISBN 978-92-1-130292-9 © United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, March 2010 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: UNOV/DM/CMS/EPLS/Electronic Publishing Unit. ii Acknowledgements This Handbook for prison leaders was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Vivienne Chin, Associate, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Vancouver, Canada, with the assistance of Robert E. Brown, Yvon Dandurand and Eric McAskill. The Handbook was reviewed by a group of international experts. UNODC wishes to acknowledge the valuable contribution of experts who reviewed this tool and helped finalize it: Elias Carranza, Aggrey Nyapola, Michael Langelaar, and Richard Kuuire. UNODC also wishes to acknowledge the support provided by the Government of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ---- -------~~----~~~-----------------------., GEORGIA PRISONS A report prepared by the Georgia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights /-'V \l ~,~ ~ '", " ,< I ; , ,1t ATTRIBllrON: The findings and recommendations contained in this report are those of the Georgia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights and, as such, are not attributable to the Commission. This report has been prepared by the State Advisory Committee for submission to the Commission, and will be considered by the Commission in formulating its recommenda­ tions to the President and Congress. RIGHT OF RESPONSE: Prior to the publication of a report, the State Advisory Committee affords to all individuals or organizations that may be defamed, degraded, or incriminated by any material contained in the report an opportunity to respond in writing to such material. All responses have been incorporated, appended, or otherwise reflected in the publication. -.u~ X.i1lJJG&&WMW.. aZ:&iwa5zvL MEMBERSHIP GEORGIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Edward E. ElsOlLl, Chairman'>',,>,, Atlanta Mercedes Wright, Vice Chairwoman Savannah Kathleen Wood, Acting Secretary Atlanta Clarence A. Bacote * E. T. Kehrer * Atlanta Atlanta K. Z. Chavis * Carol R. King * Atlanta Albany Charles Clark ** S. Jarvin Levison * Atlanta Atlanta Charles S. Hamilton Arthur J. McClung * Augusta Columbus Joseph M. Hendricks Frances Pauley * Macon Atlanta Jolmnie Hilburn John H. Ruffin, Jr. Augusta Augusta Gary Holmes ** Clayton Sinclair ** Atlanta Atlanta James L. Hooten MOrgan Stanford * Savannah Atlanta Eugene C. Tillman Brunswick * No longer a member of the Committee ** Appointed to the Cummittee after the informal hearing ii -~ -~- ~-~-.~-------------------------; LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL GEORGIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Rules
    1 - Citation ............................................................................................................. 6 1A - Interpretation (inserted 1961 amendment) .................................................... 6 2 - Prison Staff ....................................................................................................... 6 PART I ................................................................................................................................ 7 INSPECTOR OF PRISONS ............................................................................................... 7 3 - Inspection of Prisons......................................................................................... 7 4 - Investigate Complaints ..................................................................................... 7 5 - Attention to special inmates ............................................................................. 7 6 - Adjudication ..................................................................................................... 7 * Note rr.7 and 8 revoked by 1961 amendment ..................................................... 7 9 - Annual Report ................................................................................................... 7 PART II ............................................................................................................................... 7 OFFICIAL VISITORS ........................................................................................................ 7 10- Appointment
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Prison Litigation Project Revised Handbook
    FEDERAL COURT PRISON LITIGATION PROJECT REVISED HANDBOOK April 2002 Prepared With a Grant from the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Illinois by James P.Chapman Eric Dorkin Sarah Geraghty PART I CHAPTER 1: FINDING YOUR CLIENT ...........................................2 SECTION 1: PRISON LOCATOR SERVICES ........................................2 CHAPTER 2: PREPARING YOUR CASE ...........................................3 SECTION 2: ASSESSING THE COMPLAINT. .......................................3 SECTION 3: THE DECISION TO SUE DEFENDANTS IN OFFICIAL/INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ......4 SECTION 4: REQUESTING STATE PRISON RECORDS ................................5 SECTION 5: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM .........................6 CHAPTER 3: VISITING YOUR CLIENT .......................................... 7 SECTION 6: PREPARING TO VISIT YOUR CLIENT ..................................7 SECTION 7: VISITING YOUR CLIENT ...........................................9 SECTION 8: TELEPHONE PROCEDURES .........................................11 SECTION 9: HOUSING CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS ............12 CHAPTER 4: INTERVIEWING YOUR CLIENT ....................................14 SECTION 10: CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ENTRANCE PROCEDURES ....................14 SECTION 11: THE CLIENT INTERVIEW .........................................14 SECTION 12: RELATIONSHIP WITH CLIENT DURING THE LITIGATION ..................15 CHAPTER 5: ATTACHMENT OF DAMAGE AWARDS ..............................17 SECTION 13: INTRODUCTION ...............................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia State Advisory Committee to the DS Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC *Corrective Irstitutions
    DOCUMEMT BIZASHE 178 671 OB OIS 960 TITLE Georgia Prisons. INSTITUTION Georgia State Advisory Committee to the D.S. Commission on Civil Rights. SPONS AGENCY Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Feb 76 NOTE 7Bp. FDRS PRICE MF01/pC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Corrective Irstitutions; Educational Opportunities; Employment Opportunities; Employment Practices; *Facility Requirements; Institutional Facilities; *Minority Groups; *Prisoners; *Racial Discrimination; *Rehabilitation Programs IDENTIFIERS *Georgia 0 ABSTRACT Findings from a study of Georgia's 16 adult penal institutions indicate that the State's prigon system is plagued by many problems. For example, inadequate funds are allocated to maintain facilities and services for its prisoners. As a result, many of the prisons are aktiquated, overcrowded and understaffed. In addition, minorities are not hired proportionate to tkeir numbers in the State's population. Discriminatoi:y racial patterns are also found with regard to minority prisoners in prison work assignments, educational and vocational opportunities, and in the overall treatment of inmates. In order to rectify some of these problems, it is suggested that the State legislature and the Board of Corrections take action to recruit more black employees' provide more opportunities for inmates to learn marketable skills, and to expand academic training for prisoners. (Author/EB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can De made from the original document. *********************************************************************** GEORGIA PRISONS A report prepared by the Georgia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights February 1976 ATTRIBUTION: The findings and recommendations contained in this report are those of the Georgia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights and, as such, are not attributable to theCommission.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Punishment: a Canadian Perspective
    ETHICS OF PUNISHMENT: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE Jennifer Hasan Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy, Saint Paul University, in partial fulfilment of the requirements For the degree of Masters of Arts in Public Ethics Ottawa, Canada March 15, 2012 © Jennifer Hasan, Ottawa, Canada, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 2 SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 1: IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................. 6 History of Punishment .................................................................................................... 6 Theories of Punishment ................................................................................................ 12 History of Corrections in Canada ................................................................................. 20 Overview of Modern Penology .................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 2: CLARIFICATION ............................................................................ 53 Influences on the Canadian Penal System .................................................................... 53 Punishment: Ethical Considerations ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Major Prison Incidents
    PREDICTINQ MAJOR PRISON Criminology Research Council Grant 12/87 SUMMARY OF REPORT This report reviews the nature and causes of major prison incidents, and also investigates the extent to which their occurrence can be predicted by monitoring indicators of the prison environment, especially minor incidents and disciplinary reports. Major prison incidents, such as fires, riots, mass escapes and hostage-taking, are important features of custodial systems. They can cause enormous material damage and extensive human suffering in a short space of time. Planning for their prevention and control is a significant pre-occupation amongst corrections administrators, and the management of a major incident may be the most rigorous test prison managers are likely to face. Major prison incidents have a number of features that distinguish them from other forms of violent or disruptive behaviour that occur in prisons. They are: collective events, involving large groups of prisoners; of relatively short duration; involve a loss of control over part or all of the facility; often have significant political or administrative consequences. Explaining the causes of major prison incidents A variety of theoretical models have been proposed to explain major incidents. One way to characterise theoretical models is as "internal" or "external" models. Internal models emphasise the characteristics or conditions of prisons that give rise to violence. On the other hand, external models give precedence to the characteristics that prisoners bring into the system that make them prone to violence. Integrated theories that combine these two approaches have also been proposed. Other theoretical approaches consider the breakdown of normal social structures that occurs in prisons, including disorganization in prison administration, that makes violent upheaval more likely.
    [Show full text]
  • Penology an Educational Problem1
    Penology an Educational Problem1 HASTINGS H. HART, LL.D. FOR nearly forty years I have been a member of the Ameri can Prison Congress and a student of penology. For fifteen years I was an inspector of prisons, and for more than twenty years since that time I have given special study to the treatment of the delinquent child, the juvenile court, the proba tion system, and institutions for delinquent children. In this address I shall offer some suggestions with reference to the edu cational phases of penology. In so doing I am not embarrassed, as these superintendents and wardens would be, by experience or responsibility, but can speak with the assurance of the outside observer, who is always able to tell the other fellow how the job should be done. A great deal of what I know about this subject has been learned from personal contact with wardens and superintendents like Z. R. Brockway, J. W. McClaughry, Albert Garvin, Henry Wolfer, F. L. Christian, Thomas M. Osborne, Calvin Derrick, Mrs. Jessie Hodder, and Mrs. Martha P. Falconer, and with such prison chaplains as Albert G. Byers of Ohio, George Hickox of Michigan, and Rev. William J. Batt of Massachusetts. I have learned also from personal association with such students of penology as Ex-President Rutherford B. Hayes, Ex-Governor George Hoadley, Frederick Howard Wines, Charles R. Hender son, General Roeliff Brinkerhoff, Amos W. Butler, Burdette G. Lewis, and George W. Kirchwey; and from the study of their writings and the reports of commissions, surveys, and the heads of institutions.
    [Show full text]