ISOLATION AND REINTEGRATION: PUNISHMENT CIRCA 2014 SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL LIMAN COLLOQUIUM Yale Law School, 2014 Editors: Hope Metcalf, Judith Resnik, & Megan Quattlebaum Arthur Liman Public Interest Program W.C. Zimmerman, F House, Stateville Correctional Center, Crest Hill, IL (1925), courtesy of Joe Day, CORRECTIONS AND COLLECTIONS: ARCHITECTURES FOR ART AND CRIME (Routledge 2013). Liman Colloquium Isolation and Reintegration, Punishment Circa 2014 Jan. 6 2015 ISOLATION AND REINTEGRATION: PUNISHMENT CIRCA 2014 THE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL LIMAN COLLOQUIUM Yale Law School April, 2014 as revised January 2015 Liman Colloquium Isolation and Reintegration, Punishment Circa 2014 Jan. 6, 2015 Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014 Editors Judith Resnik Hope Metcalf Arthur Liman Professor of Law Director of the Liman Program Megan Quattlebaum Senior Liman Fellow in Residence Yale Law School Student Editors Anna Arons Josh Levin Jessica Asrat Emma Kaufman Marcy Coburn Megan Wachspress Katherine Lawton Senior Administrative Assistant Katarina Krasulova Liman Research Associate About the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program and Fund The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program was endowed to honor Arthur Liman, Yale Law School Class of 1957. Throughout his career, Liman demonstrated how dedicated lawyers, in both private practice and public life, can serve the needs of people and causes that might otherwise go unrepresented. He was chief counsel to the New York State Special Commission on Attica Prison; President of the Legal Aid Society of New York and of the Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem; Chair of the Legal Action Center in New York City; Chair of the New York State Capital Defender’s Office; and Special Counsel to the United States Senate Committee Investigating Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition. The Liman Program was created in 1997 to forward the commitments of Arthur Liman as an exemplary lawyer dedicated to public service in the furtherance of justice. The Program supports the work of law students, law school graduates, and students from six universities, all of whom work to respond to problems of inequality and to improve access to justice for those without resources. The Program also engages in research and other projects to address pressing societal issues, such as those reflected in this book. Acknowledgements We thank the participants at the 17th Annual Liman Colloquium for contributing suggestions for materials to this volume and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, which supported this volume’s publication. Liman Colloquium 2014 Isolation and Reintegration Punishment Circa 2014 Jan. 6, 2015 Liman Colloquium 2014 PREFACE “As punishments become more cruel, so the minds of men, like fluids that always adjust their level according to the objects around them. This is because one punishment obtains sufficient effect when its severity just exceeds the benefit the offender receives from the crime, and the degree of excess must be calculated precisely according to the damage to public good caused by the crime. Any additional punishment is superfluous and therefore a tyranny.” Cesare Beccaria, ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS 69-70 (XXVII, The Mildness of Punishment) (5th ed. Trans. Graeme R. Newman & Pietro Marongui, 2009, republishing 1754 edition). “The general object which all laws have, or ought to have, in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community; and therefore, in the first place, to exclude, as far as may be, every thing that tends to subtract from that happiness: in other words, to exclude mischief. But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil. Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought only to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil.” Jeremy Bentham, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION, paras.1-2 (VII, Cases Unmeet for Punishment) (1822). In centuries past, reformers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham offered what were then radical visions of alternative conceptions of punishment. These materials invite comparably ambitious aspirations to reframe the practices of punishment in the twenty-first century. The specter of Bentham’s proposed Panopticon stands as a reminder that one generation’s efforts at improvements may come to be understood as misguided by the next generation of reformers. Liman Colloquium 2014 Isolation and Reintegration Punishment Circa 2014 Jan. 7, 2015 Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014 CHAPTER I: ISOLATION BY PLACE AND BY RULE: MAPPING PRISON PLACEMENTS, THE IMPACT OF GENDER, AND THE CHALLENGES OF DISTANCE THE POWER OF PLACEMENT Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement 5100.08: Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification ....................................................................................................... 3 The ABA Adopts a Standard on Prisoner Classification .................................................................... 4 Anna Arons, Katherine Culver, Sinead Hunt, & Emma Kaufman, Mapping Placements in the Federal Prison System (2013) ......................................................................................... 5 LAW AND PLACEMENT Olim v. Wakinekona (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1983) ........................................................................................ 7 Sandin v. Conner (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1995) ............................................................................................ 10 Laube v. Haley (M.D. Ala. 2002) .................................................................................................... 14 Parole as a Means of Reducing Prison Overcrowding? .................................................................... 15 Plata v. Brown (E.D. Cal. and N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................... 17 LOCATING AND RELOCATING PRISONS Donald Braman, A Public Debate (2007) ........................................................................................ 20 Philip Fornaci, Housing DC Felons Far Away from Home (2010) ................................................. 24 Litigation About Conditions at the Baltimore City Detention Center .........................................26 Eric Tucker, Baltimore Jail Scandal Involving Black Guerilla Family Sparks Response From State Lawmakers (June 5, 2014) ....................................................... 27 Evelyn Nieves, San Quentin Prison Sale? Inmates Say They Want to Stay (June 8 , 2009) ........... 28 Plans to Close Prisons Meet with Opposition .................................................................................. 30 Judith Resnik, Harder Time (July 25, 2013) ................................................................................... 30 Johnna Christian, Riding the Bus: Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Strategies (2005) ................................................................................... 33 ATTENDING TO DIFFERENCE Prison Security Classification System in Need of Revision ............................................................ 37 Rowlanda Cawthon, The Women’s Village: A Source of Change for Incarcerated Women (2011) ................................................................................................... 39 BRIDGING DISTANCES: THE COST OF CONTACT Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz, and Aaron Littman, Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey (2013) ..................................................................................................... 41 Ashbel T. Wall, II, Why Do They Do It That Way?: A Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey (2013) .................................................................................................... 48 Overton v. Bazetta (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2003) ......................................................................................... 51 United Kingdom Ministry of Justice, Assisted Prison Visits Scheme: Customer Guide (2013) ..... 55 Prison Legal News, Prisoners and Families Connect with Video Visitation, for a Price (Sep. 25, 2012)..... ................................................................................................................................... 57 Federal Communications Commission, Report & Order & Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services (Aug. 9, 2013) ......................... 59 John E. Dannenberg and Alex Friedmann, FCC Order Heralds Hope for Reform of Prison Phone Industry (2013) .................................................................................................. 61 Developing a Market in Delivering Packages to Prisoners ................................................66 Liman Colloquium 2014 Isolation and Reintegration Punishment Circa 2014 Jan. 6, 2015 Liman Colloquium 2014 CHAPTER II: LIVING TOGETHER OR APART: ISOLATION IN PLACE, OVERSIGHT, AND ALTERNATIVES POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR PLACEMENT AND PROGRAMS Wilkinson v. Austin (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2005) ...................................................................................... 69 Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction, Policy on Level Five Classification (2012)............ 74 Rezaq v. Nalley (10th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 79 Surveying Policies on Segregation Hope Metcalf and Judith Resnik, The Policies Governing Placement in Isolation in U.S. Prisons (2014) .....................................................................................................