DOCSLIB.ORG

Torture in United States Prisons Evidence of Human Rights Violations 2Nd Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Torture in United States Prisons Evidence of Human Rights Violations 2Nd Edition Torture in United States Prisons Evidence of Human Rights Violations 2nd Edition American Friends Service Committee Northeast Region Healing Justice Program Edited by: Bonnie Kerness Coordinator, Prison Watch Editorial Assistant: Beth Breslaw Intern, Prison Watch Torture in United States Prisons Evidence of Human Rights Violations 2nd Edition American Friends Service Committee Northeast Region Healing Justice Program Edited by: Bonnie Kerness Coordinator, Prison Watch Editorial Assistant: Beth Breslaw Intern, Prison Watch © 2011 American Friends Service Committee Northeast Region Prison Watch Project 89 Market Street, 6th floor Newark, NJ 07102 www.afsc.org (973) 643-3192 Cover art by Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli CONTENTS Introduction 2 Isolation 5 Communications Management Units 27 Health and Medical Services and Conditions 32 Mental Illness 39 Use of Force and Devices of Torture 45 Contraband Surveillance Watch 59 Racism 65 Women in Prison 72 How you can get involved 79 Appendix 83 Glossary 90 Special thanks to King Downing, on whose work “How You Can Get Involved” (pages 79-82) is based. Torture in United States Prisons | Evidence of Human Rights Violations Introduction When prison doors close behind men and women they become our prisoners. If we are their family and friends, we may visit, write, call, and advocate on their behalf. If they are anonymous, we will likely dismiss them with the thought, “they broke the law—that was their choice— and now they must pay the penalty.” And we proceed about our daily lives without looking over the prison wall. It is time we did just that; prisons reflect the societies that create them. International treaties, conventions, and declarations provide basic guidelines for the treatment of prisoners. These guidelines are often ig- nored by the U.S. criminal justice system. Meanwhile, the United States continues to criticize other countries for violations of prisoners’ human rights. “Torture in United States Prisons” (Second Edition) provides primary evidence of such human rights violations. Its goal is to cast light on the torture and abuse of prisoners. For over three decades, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has spoken out on behalf of prisoners. Since 1975 AFSC has operated a Criminal Justice Program in Newark, New Jersey. During that time AFSC has received thousands of calls and letters of testimony of an increasingly disturbing nature from prisoners and their families about conditions in prison. The list of abuses is long and horrifying: use of stun guns and restraint devices, rape, prison chain gangs, inadequate medical care, isolation, “no touch torture” (lights on 24/7, deliberately startling sounds, menacing dogs), use of force, and other egregious violations of international human rights standards, including the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994. The concepts of human rights law must be upheld by the United States police, court, and prison justice systems. One way to foster this change is for prisoners, their families and loved ones, and prisoner rights 1 Torture in United States Prisons | Evidence of Human Rights Violations advocates to weave the language of international standards and treaties into their arguments for humane prison conditions and treatment of prisoners. To that end, this document presents prisoners’ testimonies in five sections—Isolation, Health and Medical Services and Conditions, Use of Force and Devices of Torture, Racism, and Women in Prison—and intro- duces each section with a relevant international standard as stipulated in international human rights agreements. For example, Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture prohibits “physical or mental pain and suffering, inflicted to punish, coerce or discriminate for any reason.” Yet practices such as the indefinite use of shackles and other mechanical restraints, the administration of dangerous chemical treat- ments, and the practice of extended isolation continue in the United States. The practice of extended isolation in particular is of growing concern to many prison activists, both inside and outside the walls. The reports that come to AFSC about prisoners subjected to devices of torture have largely been from isolation cells—often called management control units or special management units—in which there are few witnesses. Ojore Lutalo is one such prisoner, and you can find his full story in the Appendix. There are thousands of similar stories as well, some of which are included here. In these pages you will read the words—verbatim—of prisoners whose lives are irrevocably changed by the conditions under which they are held. The details are hard to read; some of the language is crude and the accounts graphic. All are compelling. Read on. Tell us your story. And, above all, we urge you to use the language of international standards and treaties in your argument for humane prison conditions and treatment of prisoners. Bonnie Kerness and Beth Breslaw 2 Torture in United States Prisons | Evidence of Human Rights Violations Acknowledgments This document would not have been possible without the courage of those people in prison who were determined that their witness and testimonies reach the outside world. In many cases, they were afraid of retaliation, and in many cases they were beyond fear. We especially thank those who wrote on behalf of and about people who could not write on their own. Very special thanks to Beth Breslaw, an extraordinary intern student from Rutgers University, New Jersey, who drew excerpts from the hun- dreds of letters, drawings, and photographs we received. She catego- rized the testimonies to fit logically within the human rights framework. Beth took care to respond to each person who wrote, while struggling with her own emotions as her work progressed. We want to thank Terry Kaye, who walked into the office one day with her devotion and determination to help. It is with gratitude to Terry that this document flows with wonderful editing. Her guidance, comments, and suggestions throughout the entire process were full of wisdom. Her willingness to put hours of energy into creating a document worthy of accuracy and pride is appreciated by everyone who had the privilege of working with her. Beth, Terry, and I formed a team who worked with consensus and a loving sense of purpose that never waivered. We want to thank King Downing for his excellent section on practical ways to help, Elizabeth Enloe for her constant support of the work of Prison Watch. Bonnie Kerness 3 Torture in United States Prisons | Evidence of Human Rights Violations Isolation Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) Article 1 …the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suf- fering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or ac- quiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or de- grading treatment or punishment. Article 10 1) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with hu- manity and with respect for the dignity of the human person. 3) The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prison- ers the essential of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Article 16 1) Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory un- der its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treat- ment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitu- tion for references to torture or references to other forms of 4 Torture in United States Prisons | Evidence of Human Rights Violations cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 2) The Provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punish- ment or which relate to extradition or expulsion “….at 9:30 am, they gave me back my clothing! The telephone is ringing with calls coming in from other prison security guards wanting to know Lutalo’s status, if I had lost a sense of myself, meaning if Lutalo went crazy. I grow weary of pacing the floor and sitting atop of the sink, so I cover the dirty foam mattress with a paper sheet and lay down fully dressed and doze off. I wake up to the sound of splashing water, to see water leaking from the ceiling and running down the wall and seeping under the mattress. I call the guard who comes to the cage door. I ask if he could move me to another age. Now the water is running underneath the cage door. Two hours later they move me into cage #2 which doesn’t have the 24 hour camera watch. Cage #2 has another dirty foam mat- tress with two paper sheets atop it and is just as cold as Cage #1. I start pacing to generate some body heat. The stool and the cage shelves were removed, the light switch has a steel plate over it and the wall sockets have steel plates over them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Chalk and Cheese: Australian Vs. Norwegian Prisons
    Chalk and Cheese Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons by Irina Dunn 1Published by Community Justice Coalition 2017 © Community Justice Coalition / Irina Dunn 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted by any person or entity, including internet such as engines or retailers, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying (except under the statutory exceptions provisions of the Australian Copyright Act 1968), recording, scanning or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. The fact that this book is published online does not mean that any part of it can be reproduced without frst obtaining written permission: copyright laws do still apply. Inquiries should be directed to the author. First published by Community Justice Coalition in 2017 PO Box 386 Broadway Sydney NSW 2007 Australia Phone (02) 9283 0123 www.communityjusticecoalition.org National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Creator: Irina Dunn, author Title: Chalk & Cheese: Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons ISBN: 9780648140405 (ebook) Subjects: Criminal justice, Administrator of --Australia Criminal justice, Administration of --Great Britain Criminal justice, Administration of --Norway Criminal justice, Administration of --Netherlands Criminal justice, Administration of --Cross-Cultural-Studies Cover designed by Nick Freeman Breakout Media Communications Edited by Irina Dunn 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 05-09-06 TAGP Complete
    Task Force Meeting of ASSEMBLY PRISON GANG VIOLENCE TASK FORCE "The Task Force will meet to discuss safety issues at State correctional facilities" LOCATION: University of Medicine and Dentistry of DATE: May 9, 2006 New Jersey 11:00 a.m. Newark, New Jersey MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE PRESENT: Assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, Chair Kerry Riebe, Vice Chair Bob Balicki Joseph Butler Michael DeBellis Mike Makara Lieutenant Bill Paglione ALSO PRESENT: Mellany Alio Office of Legislative Services Task Force Aide Meeting Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Cecile A. Feldman, D.M.D. Dean New Jersey Dental School University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 1 Michael Smith Private Citizen 5 Richard Szollar Private Citizen 38 William Davis Private Citizen 60 William Toolen Private Citizen 60 Sly Brown Private Citizen 85 George Adams Private Citizen 93 rs: 1-111 ASSEMBLYMAN JEFF VAN DREW (Chair): I’d like to call this meeting of the Assembly Prison Gang Violence Task Force meeting to order. Before we would begin-- We’ve been very fortunate to have these beautiful new facilities here. And we do have the Dean of the school here, Dean Feldman, who would just like to say a few words of welcome and hello. C E C I L E A. F E L D M A N, D.M.D.: Thank you. Let me just take a moment to welcome everyone to the New Jersey Dental School. For those of you that are not aware of the school, we’re the largest provider for oral health care services to the underserved throughout the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Iii-A Seven-Year Capital Improvement
    Section III-A Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan SECTION III-A SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FISCAL 2011 – 2017 Department of Agriculture Department of Children and Families Department of Corrections Department of Education Section III-A, Page 1 Section III-A Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan Section III-A, Page 2 Section III-A Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Year 2011 7 Year Agency Summary of Capital Requests and Recommendations General Fund * Amounts Expressed in Thousands (000's) FY 2011 Total 7 Yr Request Request Request Request Commission DEPARTMENT Program FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 - 2017 Recommendation Department of Agriculture $5,022 $5,022 $0 $0 $0 $0 Department of Children and Families $2,535 $895 $300 $330 $1,010 $0 Department of Corrections $1,146,786 $301,555 $145,697 $501,278 $198,256 $5,312 Department of Education $11,873 $1,350 $2,026 $4,322 $4,175 $400 Department of Environmental Protection $1,498,021 $386,965 $418,109 $393,422 $299,525 $93,371 Department of Human Services $300,061 $160,862 $48,265 $29,778 $61,156 $4,000 Department of Law and Public Safety $11,059 $11,059 $0 $0 $0 $0 Juvenile Justice Commission $73,805 $18,404 $17,064 $21,787 $16,550 $1,000 Department of Military and Veterans Affairs $27,911 $8,048 $4,660 $5,728 $9,475 $0 Department of State $197 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rutgers, The State University $1,341,728 $243,379 $236,109 $278,749 $583,491 $0 University of Medicine and Dentistry $1,867,803 $659,770 $363,340 $237,288 $607,405 $0 New Jersey Institute of Technology $544,264 $117,368
    [Show full text]
  • The Palgrave Handbook of Incarceration in Popular Culture
    The Palgrave Handbook of Incarceration in Popular Culture Edited by Marcus Harmes · Meredith Harmes Barbara Harmes The Palgrave Handbook of Incarceration in Popular Culture “This fascinating and wide-ranging collection provides new insights into representa- tions of, and our understanding of, carcerality. The chapters here force us to address cultural beliefs about the purposes and morality of different modes of incarceration, as well as illuminating the ways in which fantasies of imprisonment fuel innumerable depictions in flm and TV. Impressive in both its breadth and depth it is an important contribution to the scholarly debate in this feld.” —Dr. Mark Readman, Principal Academic in Media Education, Bournemouth University Marcus Harmes · Meredith Harmes · Barbara Harmes Editors The Palgrave Handbook of Incarceration in Popular Culture Editors Marcus Harmes Meredith Harmes Open Access College Open Access College University of Southern Queensland University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Toowoomba, QLD, Australia Barbara Harmes Open Access College University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD, Australia ISBN 978-3-030-36058-0 ISBN 978-3-030-36059-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36059-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance REPORT TO CONGRESS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program February 2012 Submitted by: Table of Contents Introduction 1 Funding History 1 Eligibility Requirements 2 Appendixes A. Fiscal Years 1996–2001 VOI/TIS Funding 4 B. VOI/TIS Program Activities by State 6 Introduction Title II, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“Crime Act”) (Pub. L. 103-322), established the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program. The program assisted states in their efforts to remove violent offenders from the community and encouraged states to implement TIS laws. Originally administered by the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Corrections Program Office (CPO), the program was transferred to OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in November 2002 after an OJP-wide reorganization merged CPO with BJA. The VOI/TIS Program provided formula grants to states to build or expand correctional facilities and jails to increase secure confinement space for violent offenders. From fiscal years (FYs) 1996 to 2001, half of the funds were made available for VOI grants and half were available as incentive awards to states that implemented TIS laws. VOI/TIS grant funds allowed states to build or expand correctional facilities to increase bed capacity for the confinement of persons convicted of Part 1 violent crimes or adjudicated delinquents who had committed equivalent acts. Funds were also used to build or expand temporary or permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on military bases, prison barges, and boot camps; to confine convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens; or to free suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons convicted of Part 1 violent crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Nevada Department of Administration Division of Internal Audits
    State of Nevada Department of Administration Division of Internal Audits Audit Report Department of Corrections Report No. 13-03 December 2012 INTRODUCTION At the direction of the Executive Branch Audit Committee, we conducted an audit of the Nevada Department of Corrections (Department). Our audit addressed the following four questions: ./ What is the Department's role? ./ What services must the Department provide? ./ Is the State the proper level of government to provide these services? ./ If State government is the appropriate level of government, is the Department carrying out its duties efficiently and effectively? Our audit focused on whether the Department can enhance oversight of doctors, expedite hiring processes and enhance the prison industries program. Department's Role and Public Purpose The Nevada State Prison was established in 1864; the name was changed to Department of Corrections in 2001. The Department is overseen by the Board of Prison Commissioners (Board) which consists of the Governor, Secretary of State, and the Attorney General. The Governor serves as the President of the Board, and the Secretary of State serves as the Secretary. The Department has seven correctional facilities, ten conservation camps, one restitution center and one transitional housing facility. In addition, the Department administers the Prison Medical Division and Silver State Industries (Prison Industries). The Director of the Department is appointed by the Governor and reports to the Board. The Director is responsible for the administration and supervision of all institutions and facilities. The Director is also responsible for employing individuals to facilitate the supervision, custody, treatment, care, security and discipline of all offenders under the jurisdiction of the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Supermax Isolation
    one Supermax Isolation Solitary confinement has been part of American correctional practice since the birth of the nation. Th e idea of isolating prisoners for their own good was supported in the fi nal years of the eighteenth century by such prominent fi gures as Benjamin Franklin and his friend Benjamin Rush, the pioneering psychiatrist. During that era, many Quakers viewed crime as a moral lapse and jail as a place where prisoners would be left by themselves in a cell and would be expected to search their souls about their errant ways and be “penitent” (thus the origin of the word penitentiary). But over the years, prison funding could not keep pace with a growing prison population, so this kind of solitary confi nement for the general population of prisoners was abandoned as too expensive to construct for or to maintain. Where solitary was retained, its original rehabilitative rationale was stripped away; it was now openly used merely as a dreaded punishment and deterrent within the prison and as a convenient means of separating out, for months, years, even decades, individuals whose inclusion in the general prison population might pose problems for prison management. the long history of solitary confinement in the united states Th e fi rst correctional facility in the nation to consign prisoners to single cells was the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia. It was originally built in 1773 to handle the overfl ow of prisoners from the nearby, massively overcrowded High Street Jail. Th ere were simply too many debtors, paupers, prostitutes, thieves, and ex- slaves going to jail for the jailers to fi nd the space to house them.
    [Show full text]
  • April 29, 2020 Public Comment with Responses
    Steve Sisolak James W. Hardesty Governor Chair, Nevada Sentencing Commission Victoria Gonzalez Chuck Callaway Executive Director Vice Chair, Nevada Sentencing Commission STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENTOF SENTENCINGPOLICY 625 Fairview Drive , Suite 121 / Carson City , NV 89701-5430 Phone: (775) 684-7390 http ://sentencing . nv .gov NEVADA SENTENCING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC COMMENT April 29, 2020 Personal identifying information has been redacted Public Comment #1: (with 1 attachment) From: Jocelyn Lee Subject: Sentencing Commission Date: Thu 4/16/2020 12:19 PM Judge Hardesty or To Whom it May Concern, Please see the letter attached regarding Compassionate Release of my uncle, Greg Wolf, from Lovelock Correctional Facility. Thank you, PC #1-Attachment 1 of 1) Thursday, April 16, 2020 To: Judge Hardesty Subject: Compassionate Release COVID 19 Dear Judge Hardesty; My uncle, Gregory Wolf, has been imprisoned in Nevada since about Christmas, 1997 for ludeness charges. I am advocating for his compassionate release. He is 74 years old and has been suffering recently with great vision loss in both eyes due to cataracts and has been unable to get the proper surgery. I believe my uncle is no longer a threat to society. He has some funds and a brother and sister, Karen Wolf of Las Vegas and Alyn Wolf of Colorado, who will help Greg with housing and adjusting to civilian life. Greg has shown good behavior and he will make sure to register with the Sheriff’s office as a sex offender as required by law. Great thanks for your support in this matter! Sincerely, Jocelyn Lee Public Comment #2 From: Karen Wolf Subject: COMPASSIONATE RELEASE COMMISSION FOR INMATE GREG WOLF Date: Thu 4/16/2020 7:44 PM APRIL 16, 2020 DEAR GOVERNOR SISOLAK; I am putting in a plea for consideration for my brother for GREGORY WOLF, AGED 74 , IN LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER SINCE 1997 For ludeness, sex offender status .He needs compassionate release as soon as possible for he is legally blind and tells us he’s never gotten his cataracts surgery he was promised in Carson City.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Privatization in the United States: a New Strategy for Racial Control
    PRISON PRIVATIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES: A NEW STRATEGY FOR RACIAL CONTROL by Gertrudis Mercadal A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida August 2014 Copyright by Gertrudis Mercadal 2014 ii PRISON PRIVATIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES: A NEW STRATEGY FOR RACIAL CONTROL by Gertrudis Mercadal This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s dissertation advisor, Dr. Farshad Araghi, Department of Sociology, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ Farshad Araghi, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor ______________________________ Susan Love Brown, Ph.D. _____________________________ Simon Glynn, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Michael J. Horswell, Ph.D. Director, Comparative Studies Program ___________________________________ Heather Coltman, DMA Dean, Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts & Letters ___________________________________ __________________ Deborah L. Floyd, Ed.D. Date Interim Dean, Graduate College iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express her sincere love and gratitude to her husband, André Sabbagh, and her mother, Lucy Cottone Palencia, for their encouragement and patience during the writing of this manuscript. The author also wishes to thank the members of her advisory committee for their valuable time and advice during the development of this work, most especially Dr. Farshad Araghi for his insightful guidance and thoughtful mentorship during the years of research and writing of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ely State Prison Facility Condition Analysis
    State of Nevada Department of Corrections Ely State Prison Facility Condition Analysis ELY STATE PRISON 4569 North State Route 490 Ely, Nevada 89301 Site Number: 9941 STATE OF NEVADA PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION FACILITY CONDITION ANALYSIS Report Printed in February 2016 State of Nevada Department of Corrections Ely State Prison Facility Condition Analysis The Facility Condition Analysis Program was created under the authority found in NRS 341.128. The State Public Works Division develops this report using cost estimates based on contractor pricing which includes materials, labor, location factors and profit and overhead. The costs of project design, management, special testing and inspections, inflation and permitting fees are not included. Cost estimates are derived from the R.S. Means Cost Estimating Guide and from comparable construction costs of projects completed by SPWD project managers. The deficiencies outlined in this report were noted from a visual survey. This report does not address routine maintenance needs. Recommended projects do not include telecommunications, furniture, window treatments, space change, program issues, or costs that could not be identified or determined from the survey and available building information. If there are buildings without projects listed, this indicates that only routine maintenance needs were found. This report considers probable facility needs for a 10 year planning cycle. This report is not a guarantee of funding and should not be used for budgeting purposes. This report is a planning level document for agencies and State Public Works Division to assess the needs of the Building and/or Site and to help support future requests for ADA upgrades / renovations, Capital Improvement Projects and maintenance.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Reform and Alternatives to Incarceration
    Background Paper 87-6 SENTENCING REFORM AND ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I . I ntrod u ct i on. 1 II. Recommendations From Legislative Studies........ 2 A. Nevada Prison System Study.................. 3 B. Prison Master Plan Study.................... 5 C. Study Of Parole Function.................... 6 1. Senten c i n g Gu i de 1 in es . 6 2. Paro 1 e Gu i de 1 i ne s . 7 3. Revisions in Good Time Credits.......... 7 4. Expansion of Honor Camp Program......... 8 5. Expansion of Parole Board............... 8 D. Felony Sentencing Commission's Report....... 8 1. Pro bat i on Rev oc at i on s . 9 2. Con s ec uti ve Sen ten ces . 9 3. Mandatory Sentences..................... 9 4. Pre -Sen ten ce Report s . 9 5. Monetary Distinction Between Misdemeanor and Felony in Property Crimes........... 10 6. Further Study........................... 10 I I 1. Alternatives For Alcohol And Drug Offenders ..... 10 A. Alternatives To Incarceration For Convicted DU I Offe nder s . 10 B. Treatment Programs For Drunk Drivers........ 10 1. Arizona's Separate Facilities Approach.. 11 2. Nevada's Approach to DUI Convictions.... 12 ~ I V. Alter nat i ve s For Se x Off en der s . 13 A. Se x Offen der St at i s tic s . 13 B. Punishment Of Sex Offenders In Nevada....... 14 C. Methods Of Treatment For Sex Offenders...... 15 D. The Sex Offender Unit Correctional Treatment Program At The Oregon State Hospital........ 15 V. IIBoot Campll Incarceration....................... 17 A. State Programs.............................. 17 B. Program Results............................. 18 VI.
    [Show full text]