DOCSLIB.ORG

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 State and Federal Prisoners Reporting Sexual by Allen J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 State and Federal Prisoners Reporting Sexual by Allen J U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report December 2007, NCJ 219414 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 State and Federal prisoners reporting sexual By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., victimization, 2007 and Paige M. Harrison, National estimate BJS Statisticians Type* Number Percent The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) Total 60,500 4.5% requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out, Inmate-on-inmate 27,500 2.1% for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review Nonconsensual sexual acts 16,800 1.3 and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape. Abusive sexual contacts only 10,600 0.8 This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a listing of State and Federal prisons Staff sexual misconduct 38,600 2.9% Unwilling activity 22,600 1.7% ranked according to the incidence of prison rape. Excluding touching 16,900 1.3 Between April and August 2007, BJS completed the first Touching only 5,700 0.4 National Inmate Survey (NIS) of 146 State and Federal Willing activity 22,700 1.7% prisons. The survey, conducted by RTI International Excluding touching 20,600 1.5 (Research Triangle Park, NC), was restricted to adult con- Touching only 2,100 0.2 finement facilities, including prisons, penitentiaries, prison Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more than one type of victimization. They may also report victimization by hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for recep- both other inmates and staff. tion, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS *See Methodology for definition of terms. excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. The sam- Inmate self-reports provide a basis for comparing and ple was designed in accordance with the requirement that ranking facilities BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropri- Past surveys of administrative records could not provide ate sample, of not less than 10% of prison facilities. (See reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence because Methodology for sample description.) they were limited to incidents reported to correctional Unlike previous BJS surveys of sexual violence that were authorities. Some victims may be reluctant to report inci- based on administrative records, the NIS collected reports dents to correctional authorities due to lack of trust in staff, of sexual violence directly from inmates. The NIS survey fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among consisted of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interview inmates, or personal embarrassment. Moreover, adminis- (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted trative records may vary in the way incidents and allega- with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio tions are defined, reported, and recorded, which further instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of complicate facility-level comparisons. inmates (2% of all participants in the survey) completed a The NIS is a self-administered survey which provides ano- short paper form. These were inmates housed primarily in nymity to respondents and encourages fuller reporting of administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too victimization. The survey employs computer-assisted tech- violent to be interviewed. nology to provide more uniform conditions under which inmates complete the survey. Facility-level comparisons in the NIS are further enhanced through the application of sta- specific body parts in a sexual way. (See Methodology for tistical methods that ensure that the estimates reflect the specific survey questions and definitions.) entire population of each facility, rather than only the Among inmates reporting experiences of sexual miscon- inmates who participated in the survey. (See Methodology duct by staff, the number that reported they had sex or sex- for sample description and non-response adjustments.) ual contact willingly (22,700) was nearly identical to those For purposes of calculating comparative rates, the NIS lim- who reported contact as a result of physical force, pres- ited the reports of sexual victimization to incidents that sure, or offers of special favors or privileges (22,600). A occurred at the sampled facilities during the 12 months majority of victims of staff misconduct reported activity prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served beyond simple touching in a sexual way. less than 12 months were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. 10 facilities had prevalence rates of 9.3% or greater; 6 facilities had no reported incidents Despite efforts of survey staff to reassure inmates that their survey responses about sexual violence would be kept Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no confidential, some inmates may not have felt confident to reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; report experiences of sexual victimization since admission 10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3% (table or in the past 12 months. At the same time, some inmates 1). Though other measures may be considered when com- may have made false allegations. In 2006, about a quarter paring facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure of the allegations brought to the attention of State and Fed- of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of eral correctional authorities, upon completion of an official the level of coercion and type of sexual activity. investigation, were determined to have been unfounded (not to have occurred).1 Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting Table 1. Prison facilities with highest and lowest prevalence and false reporting in the NIS is unknown. of sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007 Percent of inmates reporting sexual vic- An estimated 60,500 inmates experienced one timizationa or more incidents of sexual victimization Number of Response Weighted Standard Facility name respondentsb rate percentc errord Among the 23,398 inmates who participated in the 2007 survey, 1,109 reported one or more incidents U.S. total 23,398 72% 4.5% 0.3% of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sam- 10 highest ple survey, weights were applied for sampled facil- Estelle Unit, TX 197 84 15.7 2.6 ities and inmates within facilities to produce Clements Unit, TX 142 59 13.9 2.9 national-level and facility-level estimates of sexual Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 85 39 13.4 4.0 Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 163 73 12.1 2.7 violence. The estimated number of State and Fed- Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 144 62 11.3 2.7 eral inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled Rockville Corr. Fac., INe 169 79 10.8 2.4 60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation’s prisoners). Valley State Prison for Women, CAe 181 78 10.3 2.3 Allred Unit, TX 186 71 9.9 2.2 Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates (27,500) Mountain View Unit, TXe 154 80 9.5 1.9 reported an incident involving another inmate, and Coffield Unit, TX 194 76 9.3 2.1 2.9% (38,600) reported an incident involving staff. 6 lowestf Some inmates (0.5%) said they had been sexually Ironwood State Prison, CA 141 60% 0.0% ~ victimized by both other inmates and staff. Penitentiary of New Mexico, NM 83 38 0.0 ~ Gates Corr. Ctr., NC 52 74 0.0 ~ The NIS screened for specific sexual activities. Bennettsville-Camp, BOP 77 69 0.0 ~ Using uniform definitions of sexual violence devel- Big Spring Corr. Inst., BOPe 155 66 0.0 ~ oped by BJS in 2004, reports of inmate-on-inmate Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst., BOP 174 70 0.0 ~ sexual violence were classified as either noncon- Note: BOP refers to the Bureau of Prisons. sensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts ~Not applicable. a only. Approximately 1.3% of all inmates (16,800, Percent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if nationwide) said they had nonconsensual sex with shorter. another inmate, including giving or receiving sex- bNumber of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization. ual gratification and oral, anal or vaginal sex. An cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire additional 0.8% of all inmates (10,600) said they population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, had only experienced an abusive sexual contact, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for details.) d that is, unwanted touching by another inmate of Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence intervals around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%). _______ eFemale facility. 1See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, f 2006, at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcra06.htm>. Facilities in which no incidents of sexual victimization were reported by inmates. 2 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with Table 2. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence the highest prevalence rate. Since the estimates are of sexual victimization, by another inmate or staff, National based on a sample of inmates, rather than a complete Inmate Survey, 2007 enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. The pre- Percent of inmates reporting sexual cision of each facility-level estimate can be calculated victimizationa based on the estimated standard error.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Administrative Segregation & Death Row Plan-1
    Texas Department of Criminal Justice ------------------- Brad Livingston Executive Director () ?1)13 August 14,2013 VIA REGULAR MAIL Todd Hettenbach I WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 RE: Texas Civil Rights Project Dear Mr. Hettenback: In response to your open records request dated August 2, 2013 we have the "Death Row Plan (October 2004)" and "Administrative Segregation Plan (March 2012)", responsive to your request. If have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. rY· .. !f};;JJ= tattenburg, A ministrator · Plans and Operations Texas Department of Criminal Justice Con-ectional Institutions Division /klj P.O. Box99 Huntsville, Texas 77342-0099 www.tdcj.state.tx.us TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Administrative Segregation Plan FOREWORD There are occasions within a conectional setting when it becomes necessary to administratively segregate offenders in order to preserve the safety and security of both offenders and staff. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) policy, Administrative Directive (AD)-03.50, "Administrative Segregation" directs the TDCJ to develop an Administrative Segregation Plan which establishes uniform mles and regulations to guide staff in both the conditions and procedures relating to offenders housed in administrative segregation. The TDCJ is fully committed to abide by and enforce the provisions outlined herein, and all employees are expected to comply with its requirements. ACA References: 4-4140,4-4235,4-4250,4-4251-1,4-4253,4-254,4-4257,4-4258,4-4260,4-4261,4- 4262, 4-4263, 4-4265, 4-4266, 4-4268, 4-4269, 4-4270, and 4-4273 Supersedes: Administrative Segregation Plan, August 2005 3-o6 ·!20/1.
    [Show full text]
  • California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
    California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Institution abbreviation, City, State and zip code. Prison Name Abbreviation City State Zip Avenal State Prison ASP Avenal CA 93204 California City Correctional Center CAC California City CA 93505 California State Prison, Calipatria CAL Calipatria CA 92233 California Correctional Center CCC Susanville CA 96130 California Correctional Institution CCI Tehachapi CA 93561 Centinela State Prison CEN Imperial CA 92251 Central California Women’s Facility CCWF Chowchilla CA 93610 California Health Care Facility CHCF Stockton CA 95215 California Institution for Men CIM Chino CA 91710 California Institution for Women CIW Corona CA 92878 California Men's Colony CMC San Luis Obispo CA 93409 California Medical Facility CMF Vacaville CA 95696 California State Prison, Corcoran COR Corcoran CA 93212 California Rehabilitation Center CRC Norco CA 92860 Correctional Training Facility CTF Soledad CA 93960 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison CVSP Blythe CA 92225 Deuel Vocational Institute DVI Tracy CA 95376 Folsom State Prison FSP Represa CA 95671 High Desert State Prison HDSP Susanville CA 96127 Ironwood State Prison ISP Blythe CA 92225 Kern Valley State Prison KVSP Delano CA 93216 California State Prison, Lancaster LAC Lancaster CA 93536 Mule Creek State Prison MCSP Ione CA 95640 North Kern State Prison NKSP Delano CA 93215 Pelican Bay State Prison PBSP Crescent City CA 95531 Pleasant Valley State Prison PVSP Coalinga CA 93210 RJ Donovan Correctional Facility RJD San Diego CA 92179 California State Prison, Sacramento SAC Represa CA 95671 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility SATF Corcoran CA 93212 Sierra Conservation Center SCC Jamestown CA 95327 California State Prison, Solano SOL Vacaville CA 95696 San Quentin SQ San Quentin CA 94964 Salinas Valley State Prison SVSP Soledad CA 93960 Valley State Prison VSP Chowchilla CA 93610 Wasco State Prison WSP Wasco CA 93280 N.A.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Adult Programs
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ADULT PROGRAMS Annual Report Division of Addiction and Recovery Services June 2009 MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) is to provide evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services to California’s inmates and parolees. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ADULT PROGRAMS DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES MATTHEW L. CATE SECRETARY KATHRYN P. JETT UNDERSECRETARY, ADULT PROGRAMS C. ELIZABETH SIGGINS CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY (Acting), ADULT PROGRAMS THOMAS F. POWERS DIRECTOR DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES SHERRI L. GAUGER DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIVISION OF ADDICTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was prepared by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’ (CDCR) Division of Addiction and Recovery Services’ (DARS) Data Analysis and Evaluation Unit (DAEU) with assistance from Steven Chapman, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Office of Research. It provides an initial summary of performance indicators, demographics and background information on the DARS Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. The information presented in this report is designed to assist the treatment programs and institutional staff in assessing progress, identifying barriers and weaknesses to effective programming, and analyzing trends, while establishing baseline points to measure outcomes. Under the direction of Bill Whitney, Staff Services Manager II; Gerald Martin, Staff Services Manager I; Sheeva Sabati, Research Analyst II; Ruben Mejia, Research Program Specialist; Krista Christian, Research Program Specialist, conducted extensive research and analysis for this report. Peggy Bengs, Information Officer II and Norma Pate, Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, DARS provided editorial contributions. NOTE: In 2007, DARS designed the Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Database to monitor and evaluate programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders National Institute of Corrections
    U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections 11/03 Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders National Institute of Corrections Morris L. Thigpen, Director George M. Keiser, Chief Community Corrections Division Kenneth S. Carpenter, Project Manager Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders James W. Mustin Editor Stephanie Halfacre Associate Editor August 1998 This project was supported by the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ii Introduction This directory was prepared by the Family and Corrections Network to update the Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders dated October 1995. This revised directory lists programs in the United States and Canada offering services specifically for families of adult offenders. Entries were identified by sending survey forms to directors of departments of corrections in the United States and Canada, to programs listed in the 1995 directory, and to other programs known to the Family and Corrections Network. Questions about this Directory should be addressed to Jim Mustin, 32 Oak Grove Road, Palmyra, VA 22963. Reproduction and distribution of this document are permitted and encouraged. The document can be downloaded from the Internet at the NIC Information Center website—www.nicic.org. For a single printed copy of the document, contact the NIC Information Center at 800-877-1461 or via the Internet at [email protected]. iii Contents Programs in the United States Alabama ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Accountability Audit Review of Audits of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2000–2006
    ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT REVIEW OF AUDITS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 2000–2006 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MATTHEW L. CATE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APRIL 2008 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT REVIEW OF AUDITS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 2000–2006 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MATTHEW L. CATE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APRIL 2008 P.O. Box 348780, Sacramento, CA 95834-8780 (916) 830-3600 fax: (916) 928-5974 [email protected] Copies of this publication may be downloaded from the Office of the Inspector General’s Web site: www.oig.ca.gov Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8 Background ......................................................................................................................... 8 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................................................... 10 Chapter 1: Initial Follow-up Results for Four Reports Issued in 2005 and 2006 ............................................. 14 Special Review into the Shooting of Inmate Daniel Provencio......................................... 18 Improper Housing of Maximum Custody Inmates at California State Prison Reception Centers..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April 6, 2017
    Celebrating 125 years as Davis County’s news source SheTech event prepares students The for the future Davis Clipper ON A4 VOL. 125 NO. 36 THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017 THE BOUNTIFUL CITY COUNCIL recently approved a six-month moratorium on new development in the community’s historic district. The moratorium is in response to resident concerns that the historic character of the neighborhoods be preserved if new businesses or multi-family housing projects are proposed for Thrive the area. Photos by Tom Haraldsen | Davis Clipper Explore more about vision with the latest word on cataracts, Moratorium for Bountiful historic area stem therapy for eye disease, and more. By TOM HARALDSEN “It’s a three-prong approach,” height, setbacks, parking and [email protected] he said. “We’ll first talk to those in other standards. THRIVE, B1 the neighborhoods and find out There have also been calls for their concerns. Then we’ll take preserving existing homes and BOUNTIFUL—After hearing concerns voiced by that information to the planning possibly changing the zoning commission, who can make in the area from multi-family some residents and business owners in a section of recommendations. Once we have residential to single-family. the community near historic downtown, Bountiful’s something ready to present to Councilmember Kendalyn the council, we’ll bring a proposal Harris stated the six-month time City Council approved adoption of a six-month mora- back before you for adoption. The frame could be punitive for anyone torium on new development in that area. key thing is making sure that we hoping to start new developments can maintain the identity of this this year, as it would push the The section in question is between 400 North and area and that development going approval date of any proposed 500 South, from 400 East to 200 West.
    [Show full text]
  • Commissioners
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARy www.nprec.us JUNE 2009 Commissioners Reggie B. Walton, Chair John A. Kaneb, Vice -Chair James E. Aiken Jamie Fellner Pat Nolan Gustavus A. Puryear IV Brenda V. Smith Cindy Struckman -Johnson References for quotations and other source materials mentioned in this executive summary are provided in the Commission’s full report. Executive Summary ape is violent, destructive, and a crime—no less so when the vic- tim is incarcerated. Until recently, however, the public viewed sexual abuse as an inevitable feature of confinement. Even as courts and human rights standards increasingly confirmed that Rprisoners have the same fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and justice as individuals living at liberty in the community, vulnerable men, women, Sexual abuse is “not part of and children continued to be sexually victimized by other prisoners and the penalty that criminal corrections staff. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the govern- ment’s custody is totally incompatible with American values. offenders pay for their Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from offenses against society.” sexual abuse by unanimously enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The Act called for the creation of a national Commission to study the —U.S. Supreme Court causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement and to develop standards for correctional facilities nationwide that would set in motion a process once considered impossible: the elimination of prison rape. This executive summary briefly discusses the Commission’s nine findings on the problems of sexual abuse in confinement and select poli- cies and practices that must be mandatory everywhere to remedy these problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Department of Corrections: 30 Years of Progress
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ____~____ ~:-:'----;-- - ~-- ----;--;:-'l~. - Texas Department of Corrections: 30 Years of Progress ,. In 1967, the Department published a report, Texas Department of Corrections: 20 Years of Progress. That report was largely the work of Mr. Richard C. Jones, former Assistant Director for Treatment. The report that follows borrowed hea-vily and in many cases directly from Mr. Jones' efforts. This is but another example of how we continue to profit from, and, hopefully, build upon the excellent wC';-h of those preceding us. Texas Department of Corrections: 30 Years of Progress NCJRS dAN 061978 ACQUISIT10i~:.j OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DOLPH BRISCOE STATE CAPITOL GOVERNOR AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 My Fellow Texans: All Texans owe a debt of gratitude to the Honorable H. H. Coffield. former Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections, who recently retired after many years of dedicated service on the Board; to the present members of the Board; to Mr. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director of the Texas Department of Corrections; and to the many people who work with him in the management of the Department. Continuing progress has been the benchmark of the Texas Department of Corrections over the past thirty years. Proposed reforms have come to fruition through the careful and diligent management p~ovided by successive administ~ations. The indust~ial and educational p~ograms that have been initiated have resulted in a substantial tax savings for the citizens of this state and one of the lowest recidivism rates in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2012 a Publication of the CPO Foundation Vol
    CPO FAMILY Spring 2012 A Publication of The CPO Foundation Vol. 22, No. 1 The Correctional Peace Officers Foundation CPO Family The Correctional Peace Officers’ Foundation was founded in the early 1980s at Folsom State Prison in California. If this is the first time you are reading one of our semi-annual publications, the magazine, welcome! And to all those that became Supporting Members in the middle to late 1980s and all the years that have followed, THANKS for making the Correctional Peace Officers’ (CPO) Foundation the organization it is today. The CPO Foundationbe there immediatelywas created with two goals Correctional Officer Buddy Herron in mind: first, to Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in the event of EOW: November 29, 2011 a line-of-duty death; and second, to promote a posi- tive image of the Correc- tions profession. Correctional Officer Tracy Hardin We ended 2011 tragi- High Desert State Prison, Nevada cally with the murder of C/O Buddy Herron of East- EOW: January 20, 2012 ern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Oregon. Upon hearing of his death I immediately Correctional Corporal Barbara Ester flew to Portland, Oregon, East Arkansas Unit along with Kim Blakley, EOW: January 20, 2012 and met up with Oregon CPOF Field Representative Dan Weber. Through the Internet the death of one of our own spreads quickly. Correctional Sergeant Ruben Thomas III As mentioned in the Com- Columbia Correctional Institution, Florida mander’s article (inside, EOW: March 18, 2012 starting on page 10), Honor Guards from across the na- tion snapped to attention. Corrections Officer Britney Muex Thus, Kim and I were met in Pendleton by hundreds and Lake County Sheriff’s Department, Indiana hundreds of uniform staff.
    [Show full text]
  • 13-0429What to Do with Texas' Undercrowded Prisons-Schulman
    Published By eMail: [email protected] Web Page: www.texindbar.org Texas Independent Bar Association Austin, Texas 78767 Copyright © 2013 Texas Independent Bar Association and the following Commentators Alan Curry John G. Jasuta Doug O’Brien Helena Faulkner Charles Mallin Greg Sherwood Jeffrey S. Garon Gail Kikawa McConnell David A. Schulman Lee Haidusek Angela J. Moore Kevin P. Yeary Editor-in-Chief: John G. Jasuta Clicking a hyperlink (such as a judge’s name) will load the linked opinion It is TIBA’s policy that commentators do not summarize or comment on or document in your web browser. cases in which they were involved. Volume 21, Number 17 ~ Monday, April 29, 2013 (No. 958) Featured Article What to Do with Texas’ Undercrowded Prisons? © 2013 - David A. Schulman and John G. Jasuta RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS According to figures gleaned from the official website site of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), Texas currently has 114 facilities, some operated by private contractors, but the majority operated by the State (see Table “A” attached hereto), which are capable of housing approximately 164,000 inmates. As the current Texas legislative session winds down, “inquisitive minds” wonder if there will be an effort by the Legislature to cut some long terms costs by closing some of the current units. In an article in the Fort-Worth Star Telegram (“Lawmakers Look to Close Private Prison in Mineral Wells”), writer Dave Montgomery detailed discussions in the Senate Finance Committee on the question of whether the State should close the privately run prison in Mineral Wells.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Utah Have a Death Penalty
    Does Utah Have A Death Penalty regencies!Septicemic Seligand calligraphicalis benedictional Purcell and mast:plenishes which tidily Arturo while is boskiestuntended Spencer enough? man Diplomatical and sprains. and Arkansan Esau never raced his Automation and services, he reasoned that utah have a death does not Hundreds of writing for money will not extending its firing squad? The penalty that utah have death does a penalty, or try again, virginia colony commonly granted a separate filing, assistant attorney stephen howard practices as a race. Stacey Plaskett reacts to Sen. The gust of death does it deter deer be murders. Interested in the firing squad, a life sentence must have rarely sought the death does a penalty? Please check back later. Wilkerson and iran engenders negative publicity stunt or that penalty does utah have a death penalty immoral for swearingen to human dignity of his mouth. Methods of execution by state Electric chair firing squad. United states in arizona have mercy and suffering from. Method of execution in three states Mississippi Oklahoma and Utah Source death Penalty Information Center deathpenaltyinfoorg. Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington to build bipartisan support in legislatures where rancor between parties has stymied scores of other bills. Many opponents of capital punishment feel whether it is morally wrong. Utah death-row inmate featured in health-selling book dies. This content represents the views and opinions of the advertiser, who is responsible or all ridicule the material contained therein. Many benefit that wield death penalty is yellow and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Execution any historical memory.
    [Show full text]
  • When Prison Gets Old: Examining New Challenges Facing Elderly Prisoners in America
    When Prison Gets Old: Examining New Challenges Facing Elderly Prisoners In America by Benjamin Pomerance ―The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” -- Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky John H. Bunz will celebrate his ninety-second birthday in November.1 Described by observers as ―feeble-looking‖ after the death of his wife in 2010, he requires a walker to take even a couple of steps, and needs a wheelchair to travel any distance of significant length.2 Yet he still is in better health than George Sanges, age 73, who suffers from cerebral palsy, has sagging skin that is listed as ―sallow,‖ takes multiple medications twice a day, and has recently been rushed to the emergency room for heart problems.3 And both of them are far more alert than Leon Baham, a 71-year-old man who has dementia and goes into delusional bouts of yearning for the company of his now-dead wife.4 On the surface, all of these elderly, ailing men have extremely sympathetic profiles. All three need intensive medical care.5 All three have unique physical and emotional needs that are inherent to growing older.6 All three appear to be the type of ―grandfatherly‖ figures to whom our society is historically taught to show the utmost compassion and concern. Yet all three of these individuals also have a huge component of their lives which would naturally tend to turn all thoughts of sympathy and care upside-down. They are all prisoners.7 Not low-level criminals, either, but violent felony offenders with significant sentences.
    [Show full text]