DOCSLIB.ORG

I..@ T.@ I"', STRATEGIES POLICIES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I..@ T.@ I ,ESOL,,,O, O, STRATEGIES -- ! AHD POLICIES I..@ t.@ BERT USEEM I"', CAMILLE GRAHAM CAMP %--- GEORGE M. CAMP Using close-up studies of eight prison riots, Resolution of Prison Riots gives readers an inside view of what these events are like. The riots examined include those that grabbed national attention--one in which over 100 hostages were taken and held for 11 days-- as well as lesser-known disturbances whose details are equally gripping. The book explores the conditions that precipitate disturbances, the course of events during the disturbances, and the aftermath and recovery on the part of the corrections agencies. At its heart, the book seeks to explain why and how these events occurred. Along the way, the authors explore issues related to conflict management, negotiations, the use of force, and strategies of administrative organization. The analysis offers practical and timely advice for those responsible for preventing and resolving large-scale disorders. The authors bring together broad theoretical insight concerning social conflict with a pen- etrating understanding of the operation of correctional institutions. Resolution of Prison Riots is a must not only for correc- tions professionals, but for everyone con- cerned about the difficult situation in which prison administrators and prisoners find themselves today. In addition, the book pro- vides an ideal introduction to sociological theories of collective action and conflict. Resolution of Prison Riots RESOLUTION OF PRISON RIOTS Strategies and Policies Bert Useem Camille Graham Camp George M. Camp PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NOJR8} Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 ~~- New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1996 Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dares Salaam Delhi Florence HongKong Istanbul Karachi KualaLumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Copyright © 1996 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Useem, Bert. Resolution of Prison Riots / Bert Useem, Camille Graham Camp, George M. Camp. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-19-509324-0 1. Prison riots--United States--Case studies. 2. Prison administration--United States--Case studies. 3. Prison riots-- Prevention. I. Camp, Camille Graham. II. Camp, George M. III. Title. HV9469.U84 1996 95-32607 365'.641--dc20 135798642 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Acknowledgments This project was made possible by the financial support of the National Institute of Justice (Project Number 90-IJ-CX-0026) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Voncile Gowdy of the National Institute of Jus- tice helpfully saw the project through. The project was also made possible by the on-site corrections practi- tioners who opened many doors, and security gates, for us. Their com- mentary was forthright, insightful, and generous. Our every request for assistance and information was fulfilled. We would like to thank each by name but can not. One group we do wish to thank by name is the directors of the agen- cies in which we conducted the research. They were unreservedly helpful in providing information, both written and from memory. We gratefully thank Former Director J. Michael Quinlan, Federal Bureau of Prisons Former Commissioner Thomas A. Coughlin, New York State Depart- ment of Correctional Services Former Director Gary Maynard, Oklahoma Department of Correc- tions Former Director Samuel Lewis, Arizona Department of Corrections Former Commissioner Parker Evatt, South Carolina Department of Corrections Former Commissioner Joseph Lehman, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Former Director Richard Vernon, Idaho Department of Corrections Also, a number of individuals at the interview sites went above and beyond the call of duty in their assistance. Special gratitude goes to War- vi Acknowledgments den Kenneth McKellar, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Superintendent Gary Filion and Crisis Intervention Unit Director Rich- ard Roy, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Mr. George Miller, Idaho Department of Corrections; Superintendent Jeffrey Beard, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Director Dave Miller, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Regional Director Sam Samples, Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta, Georgia; and Warden Roger Scott, Federal Corrections Institute, Talladega, Alabama. We also thank the directors of each correctional agency in the United States who answered a survey at the start of this study. Their responses provided a sample of disturbances from which to choose. Professor Mat- thew Silberman, Bucknell University, helped make available transcripts of testimony given to two state legislative committees inquiring into the Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, riot. We very much appreciate his effort. Mr. Jeffrey Dupont helped prepare the figures. The manuscript benefited greatly from comments by John DiIulio, Renie Dugan, Patrick O'Day, John Roberts, Patricia Useem, and especially Peter A. Kimball. David Gascon (LAPD) contributed indirectly but sig- nificantly to the final product. At Oxford University Press, editors David Roll and then Gioia Stevens helped see the project through. To all, a deep note of appreciation. Albuquerque, New Mexico B.U. South Salem, New York C.G.C. G.M.C. September 1995 Contents 1. Introduction 3 I. Protracted Riots 2. United States Penitentiary, Atlanta 11 3. Federal Correctional Institution, Talladega, Alabama 39 4. Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill 56 5. Mack Alford Correctional Center, Oklahoma 84 11. Contracted Riots 6. Coxsackie Correctional Facility, New York 107 7. Kirkland Correctional Institution, South Carolina 121 8. Arizona State Prison Complex, Cimarron Unit 131 9. Idaho State Correctional Institution 137 m. Conclusions 10. Before the Riot 149 11. During the Riot 162 12. After the Riot 185 Notes 193 Index 213 Authors' Note We wish to express our special appreciation to Renie Dugan, Research Associate at the Criminal Justice Institute, for her commitment to the publication of this book. Involved in the project from beginning to end, she contributed significantly to the quality of the final product and we are deeply indebted to her for her persistence and thoroughness. Resolution of Prison Riots 1 Introduction It would seem that a prison should be less subject to riots than any other sort of place. Elsewhere--on the public streets, in the city squares, in shop- ping centers, at sporting events--people are free to discuss, initiate, and (to an extent) organize riots. Masses of people not previously known to the authorities may congregate and move about as they please; the police are constitutionally barred from taking many actions that might impede riots from developing. In prison, the situation is different. The very purpose of the institu- tion is to restrict and regulate the behavior of its inhabitants. The courts respect the authorities' comparatively broad powers to restrain movement and restrict speech. Authorities are permitted to know and to regulate the inmates' locations, associates, and activities at all times. The inmates' personal histories are known to the authorities. They are free to classify inmates, disperse them, group them together--in short, place each in the setting in which his or her behavior can most easily and most certainly be controlled, whether it be a work camp in a remote forest or a fortress of stone and steel. The greater the inmate's inclination to defiance, the more intense the regulation can be. And yet prison riots are chronic. Two dozen or more times every year inmates seize and hold territory within prisons. In the course of the riot they may capture hostages, make demands, destroy property, or attack one another. Some of these disturbances last no more than an hour or two, some 10 days or more. These riots occur even, indeed especially, in those units where regulation is tightest and physical constraints are supposed to make riots impossible. 4 Introduction Prison riots are also costly to all involved. The tab for a single riot can exceed $100 million. The suffering imposed on the hostages can not be measured in money. Inmate perpetrators may have years of prison time added to their existing sentence. Inmate nonparticipants may lose work and program opportunities, or themselves be victimized during the riot. This book is about reducing those costs, by avoiding violent distur- bances; preparing to meet them; taking action to prevent the small inci- dent from expanding into a full scale riot; limiting the extent or damage of riots in progress; and terminating riot situations in the least costly fashion. Be]ore the Riot The importance of advance preparation in all its guises can not be over- stated. The superior force that the state can muster after the riot has begun is no substitute for effort made in advance to maintain the institution's physical setting and the morale of its staff. It is the preexisting situation within the prison that is likely to determine
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vi--•·R~N ,: Ugib ,1@ F'o-R· A~I Pt1 1Hiiotl ·Unl.Er YA ;I.-Egcli.:L, M.2Im
    T H E Uf\JI\/EF-~SITY' o~=- WI S CONSir--.J Television Channel 21 Madison 53706 262-2720 Area Code 608 ch, 165 9le ~• Gqlont Jfelaoa, ._.tor Vlllldltatea leaw ~J.C. Dear----~ lelRBt I • wrlUna to ,n la N1111f ot IQ' -'pllora .. b 1d.4ow4 wttll tov eldl4ra. In vi•t• Qe dtaU. ld.tla vlaia ,_ ldpt Ml,p ta u toll.Ona •• Ollnta ~ N w, veteran who toC>. e train ng MN at .. llalftlWl."1' ot Wi.,e.onai , -w,· s lle ,1re ft uoi._.. • AJdl 111a, 9;.-v. l e · ' :f'amily · ft) w:-an · d hia •, • ~ that .fl-e on, b s c · U d?'en ·al Ul ?:mv _..,. pe s Olll totallt . 80aa00 pe . nth under C'Ut'rent v; re !bl• 18 naJ.11' part of 1M ••• left ._ w •t.r •--• incom~ hes tJ-_:{/:'.'~ad~d $ 3,000 .. .00 p,e:::· y~fl.'J:' ,since· th~n, she il'lcJG not b \3evi--•·r~n ,: Ugib ,1@ f'o-r· a~i pt1 1Hiiotl ·unl.er YA ;i.-egcli.:l, M.2im,. lfJ11;?01!' 1;~.. iir.ia 'tie:lJr, !J.:i•g wid.011~;; b1I"'~~ - Dc:>.- 1 s;, }~. 1-7ti~~~1-.:e-r1 ~:16, l~t.' 'V :.: '}..'1 t n.:fttt,n,:,;.d t tlo.. t he ·," 1::hlli:'l.r-~n tic..cd VA b€nei'i'tr.:.l r,,ert.d.n~ e,.cs a r\;:)sul t of theii: .fe.tb.;g:' s vet,iran. status,. Thl, ,3 p••Jrt, l\ 1.tg"iltt (1964 J, }-kf.L, 'tL 1~r':.'i/1 "'N'3.E:, t1ise'.:t5Gj.ng h ~:;" '.'.'l n~n~i~ll si t ,:1 at:t:01~ vti th ID·!~·~ ~L}n-d I :t.~1qu·~1~t1 i~ O";J'LJ~ t!'rc; ¥1!_ b(~U~fitz q:1u~ 2::!€\ ~:} c'!1_ild..~ •1t::1?Ja T:t1itJ 't)l'"(Ii:,&:l!.t ~o'.';;~'i;, @! I:>t~ c,r..
    [Show full text]
  • Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report May 2007, NCJ 217199 Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004 By Margaret E. Noonan Percent of prisoners reporting prior military service BJS Statistician continues to decline and Christopher J. Mumola BJS Policy Analyst Percent of prisoners 25% The percentage of veterans among State and Federal Federal prisoners has steadily declined over the past three decades, 20% according to national surveys of prison inmates conducted State by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In 2004,10% of 15% State prisoners reported prior service in the U.S. Armed Forces, down from 12% in 1997 and 20% in 1986. Since 10% BJS began surveying Federal prisoners in 1991, they have 5% shown the same decline over a shorter period. Overall, an estimated 140,000 veterans were held in the Nation’s 0% prisons in 2004, down from 153,100 in 2000. 1986 1991 1997 2004 The majority of veterans in State (54%) and Federal (64%) prison served during a wartime period, but a much lower percentage reported seeing combat duty (20% of State Veterans had shorter criminal records than nonveterans in prisoners, 26% of Federal). Vietnam War-era veterans were State prison, but reported longer prison sentences and the most common wartime veterans in both State (36%) and expected to serve more time in prison than nonveterans. Federal (39%) prison. Veterans of the Iraq-Afghanistan eras Nearly a third of veterans and a quarter of nonveterans comprised 4% of veterans in both State and Federal prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 27 Issue 4 Volume 27, Winter 2015, Issue 4 Article 4 Emancipate the FLSA: Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates Patrice A. Fulcher Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMANCIPATE THE FLSA: TRANSFORM THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITY OF WORKING INMATES PATRICE A. FULCHER* ABSTRACT Prisoner labor is a booming American industry. The 2.3 million people in the United States of America ("U.S.") behind bars serve as human resources sustaining the Prison Industrial Complex. In a less economically depressed market, perhaps there would be national prison reform campaigns geared toward decreasing the prison population. But in today's economic climate, the increase of U.S. inhabitants sentenced to prison has helped to quench the thirst for cheap, and in many instances, free laborers. Proponents of the use of inmate labor in the U.S. have argued that inmates should not be paid minimum wages because working for free is a part of the punishment for their crime. However, critics maintain that forcing inmates to work for free is the rebirth of chattel slavery. In order to protect the rights of workers, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in 1938, which in part, established the national minimum wage requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Clemency Program - Ford Foundation Study” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 5, folder “Clemency Program - Ford Foundation Study” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 5 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library '~ - ... VIETNAM VETERANS, DESERTERS, AND DRAFT-EVADERS A Summer Study The Ford Foundation September 1974 INTRODUCTION No group of Americans was touched as deeply by the Vietnam conflict as the millions of young men who came to maturity in the decade between 1964 and 1973. On this group fell most of the burden of fighting the war. The bur- den was shared unequally because the nation lacked a system of universal military service. Nearly 60% of all draft-age men during these years did not serve in the armed forces. This report is a preliminary study of the effects of the war on the lives of a limited part of the Vietnam generation: those who entered military service and those who became lawbreakers out of opposition to participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Kastenmeier Dies; Achieved Signal Intellectual Property Legislation
    special edition•june 2015 Robert Kastenmeier Dies; Achieved Signal Intellectual Property Legislation JUDITH NIERMAN Representative Robert Kastenmeier died March 20, 2015, at the age of 91 at his home in Arlington, Virginia. Marybeth Peters, former Register of Copyrights, said that if Barbara Ringer was known as the mother of the 1976 Copyright Act, Kastenmeier was its father. Kastenmeier guided the 1976 Copyright Act through lengthy Congressional committee proceedings to enactment on October 19, 1976. He also presided over the legislative process that brought about U.S. adherence to the Berne Convention in 1989. During his tenure, he authored 48 pieces of intellectual property legislation, a number that included 21 laws amending the Copyright Act, according to the New York Times. Kastenmeier served for 32 years in the “Copyright law touches House of Representatives. First elected in 1958 a society’s moral, from Wisconsin, he was reelected 15 times but was defeated in the 1990 election. At that artistic, and cultural time, Ralph Oman, then Register of Copyrights, sensibilities. The said, “He has written a record of extraordinary achievement. He authored or shaped all the balance that is struck major and minor amendments to the copyright reflects the aspirations law over the past 30 years. We will feel his deft touch and balanced wisdom for decades to of any society, including come.” our own.” FILE PHOTO His signal legislative achievement, said —Robert Kastenmeier, Manges Lecture, 1989 Robert Kastenmeier Michael Remington, who for 12 years served as counsel of the House Judiciary Committee’s 1 Kastenmeier Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the the doctrine of fair use, and made other important Administration of Justice chaired by Kastenmeier, was the changes to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Balance of Robert Kastenmeier
    ADDRESS THE BALANCE OF ROBERT KASTENMEIER LAWRENCE LESSIG* The Fifteenth Annual Kastenmeier Lecture University of Wisconsin Law School October 24, 2003 Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science." ' Congress exercises this power by granting "authors" and "inventors" limited-term monopolies for their creativity. Monopolies were the nuclear weapons of eighteenth century government-rarely, if ever, to be used, and inherently, and unavoidably, dangerous. Thus, the Framers were quite explicit about the narrow purpose for which these monopolies might be granted-"Progress"-and explicit about the limits that would restrict their scope-they were to be granted only "to Authors and Inventors,"2 only for "Writings and Discoveries," and only for "limited Times." The Progress Clause is unique within the power granting clauses of Article I, Section 8.' It is the only clause that "describes both the objective which Congress may seek and the means to achieve it." 4 It was the first clause relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike a * Professor Lawrence Lessig, C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. I am grateful to Adam Goldman, Alina Ng, and Darien Shanske for their excellent research support. 1. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 2. Id. 3. See Lawrence B. Solum, Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred v. Ashcroft, 36 Loy. L.A. L. REV. 1, 20 (2002) ("[Tlhe Intellectual Property Clause grants the power to pursue a goal and then qualifies that power by specifying the permissible means.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenient in Theory, Dumb in Fact: Prison, Speech, and Scrutiny
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GWN\84-4\GWN403.txt unknown Seq: 1 19-JUL-16 10:28 Lenient in Theory, Dumb in Fact: Prison, Speech, and Scrutiny David M. Shapiro* ABSTRACT The Supreme Court declared thirty years ago in Turner v. Safley that prisoners are not without constitutional rights: any restriction on those rights must be justified by a reasonable relationship between the restriction at issue and a legitimate penological objective. In practice, however, the decision has given prisoners virtually no protection. Exercising their discretion under Tur- ner, correctional officials have saddled prisoners’ expressive rights with a host of arbitrary restrictions—including prohibiting President Obama’s book as a national security threat; using hobby knives to excise Bible passages from let- ters; forbidding all non-religious publications; banning Ulysses, John Updike, Maimonides, case law, and cat pictures. At the same time, the courts have had no difficulty administering the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Per- sons Act (RLUIPA), which gives prisons far less deference by extending strict scrutiny to free exercise claims by prisoners. Experience with the Turner stan- dard demonstrates that it licenses capricious invasions of constitutional rights, and RLUIPA demonstrates that a heightened standard of review can protect prisoners’ expressive freedoms without compromising prison security. It is time for the Court to revisit Turner. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 973 R I. TURNER IN THE SUPREME COURT ...................... 980 R II. TURNER IN THE LOWER COURTS ....................... 988 R A. Hatch v. Lappin (First Circuit) ...................... 989 R B. Munson v. Gaetz (Seventh Circuit) ................. 990 R C. Singer v. Raemisch (Seventh Circuit) ............... 991 R D.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Federation: Prison Transportation in Russia: Travelling
    PRISONER TRANSPORTATION IN RUSSIA: TRAVELLING INTO THE UNKNOWN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT OF MORE THAN 7 MILLION PEOPLE WHO CAMPAIGN FOR A WORLD WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS ARE ENJOYED BY ALL. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2017 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons Cover photo: View from a compartment on a prisoner transportation carriage. (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. © Photo taken by Ernest Mezak https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2017 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: EUR 46/6878/2017 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 7 DISTANCE FROM HOME AND FAMILY 7 TO COMBAT CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT 7 CONTACT WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD 7 METHODOLOGY 8 1. BACKGROUND: RUSSIAN PENAL SYSTEM 9 2. DISTANCE FROM HOME AND FAMILY 10 2.1 GENDER AND DISTANCE 14 2.2 LEGAL CHALLENGES ON DISTANCE 15 2.3 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 15 3. CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT 17 3.1 TRANSPORTATION BY TRAIN 18 3.2 TRANSPORTATION IN PRISON VANS 19 3.3 LEGAL CHALLENGES ON CONDITIONS 21 3.4 ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE 22 3.5 ACCESS TO TOILETS 22 3.6 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS 23 4.
    [Show full text]
  • BOP Legal Resource Guide
    U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons LEGAL RESOURCE GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS 2019 * Statutes, regulations, case law, and agency policies (Program Statements) referred to in this Guide are current as of February 2019. Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Bureau of Prisons Mission 2 B. This Publication 2 C. Websites 2 D. District of Columbia (D.C.) Code Felony Offenders 3 II. PRETRIAL ISSUES 3 A. Pretrial Detention 3 B. Pretrial Inmate Health Care 3 III. EVALUATION OF OFFENDER MENTAL CAPACITY 4 A. Pretrial: Mental Evaluation and Commitment: 18 U.S.C. § 4241 5 B. Pretrial: Determination of Insanity at Time of Offense and Commitment: 18 U.S.C. §§ 4242, 4243 6 C. Conviction and Pre-Sentencing Stage: Mental Condition Prior to Time of Sentencing: 18 U.S.C. §4244 6 D. Post-Sentencing Hospitalization: 18 U.S.C. § 4245 7 E. Hospitalization of Mentally Incompetent Person Due for Release: 18 U.S.C. § 4246 7 F. Civil Commitment of a Sexually Dangerous Person: 18 U.S.C. § 4248 8 G. Examination of an Inmate Eligible for Parole: 18 U.S.C. § 4205 9 H. Presentence Study and Psychological or Psychiatric Examination: 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b)-(c) 9 I. State Custody, Remedies in Federal Courts: 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Prisoners in State Custody Subject to Capital Sentence, Appointment of Counsel, Requirement of Rule of Court or Statute, Procedures for Appointment: 28 U.S.C. § 2261 9 IV. SENTENCING ISSUES 9 A. Probation and Conditions of Probation 10 1. Community Confinement 10 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-04-HR Haldeman Political File
    Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 19 4 Campaign Other Document From: Harry S. Dent RE: Profiles on each state regarding the primary results for elections. 71 pgs. Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 1 of 1 - Democratic Primary - May 5 111E Y~'ilIIE HUUSE GOP Convention - July 17 Primary Results -- --~ -~ ------- NAME party anncd fiJ cd bi.lc!<ground GOVERNORIS RACE George Wallace D 2/26 x beat inc Albert Brewer in runoff ­ former Gov.; 68 PRES cando A. C. Shelton IND 6/6 former St. Sen. Dr. Peter Ca:;;hin NDPA endorsed by the Negro Democratic party in Aiabama NO SENATE RACE CONGRESSIONAL 1st - Jack Edwards INC R x x B. H. Mathis D x x 2nd - B ill Dickenson INC R x x A Ibert Winfield D x x 3rd -G eorge Andrews INC D x x 4th - Bi11 Nichols INC D x x . G len Andrews R 5th -W alter Flowers INC D x x 6th - John Buchanan INC R x x Jack Schmarkey D x x defeated T ito Howard in primary 7th - To m Bevill INC D x x defeated M rs. Frank Stewart in prim 8th - Bob Jones INC D x x ALASKA Filing Date - June 1 Primary - August 25 Primary Re sults NAME party anned filed bacl,ground GOVERNOR1S RACE Keith Miller INC R 4/22 appt to fill Hickel term William Egan D former . Governor SENATE RACE Theodore Stevens INC R 3/21 appt to fill Bartlett term St.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Justice Federal Prison System
    United States Department of Justice Federal Prison System FY 2020 PERFORMANCE BUDGET Congressional Submission This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank iii Table of Contents Page No I. Overview............................................................................................................................ 1 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 B. Population – Past and Present ....................................................................................... 6 C. Inmate Programs ........................................................................................................... 8 D. Challenges ....................................................................................................................10 E. Best Practices ................................................................................................................14 F. Full Program Costs ........................................................................................................15 G. Environmental Accountability ......................................................................................16 II. Summary of Program Changes .....................................................................................19 III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language ....................20 IV. Program Activity Justification A. Inmate Care and Programs ..........................................................................................21
    [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]