Matthew T. Mangino
The Crime ReportJanuary 10, 2012
They say justice is blind. It must be to ignore the plight of the mentally ill in America’s prisons.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s recent two-part series on serious mental illness highlights the shortcoming inherent in a failed system. Wisconsin is far from the only state to push the mentally ill off on the criminal justice system.
An internal review of conditions inside a North Carolina prison, recently obtained by the Associated Press, found that inmates held in solitary confinement were often locked in cells for extended periods without being let out for meals, recreation time or even showers.
This past February, a North Carolina inmate being secured in solitary confinement had a doctor’s order requiring one hour of exercise per day in the prison’s day room. A review of prison records found that the inmate had not left his cell for 78 days consecutive days.
This is not an isolated case.
According to research published in the Harvard University Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the mentally ill typically account for as much as one-half of the population in solitary confinement. In Wisconsin, a 2010 audit of three state prisons reported that “between 55 percent and 76 percent of inmates in segregation [solitary confinement] are mentally ill,” according to a report published in The Crime Report.
Last year, a Utah prisoner suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder died of starvation and dehydration after spending four months in the Salt Lake County Jail. A significant period of his incarceration was spent in solitary confinement. Twenty-year-old Carlos Umana weighed approximately 180 pounds when he entered the jail; when he died, he weighed just 77 pounds.
Why would a young man suffering from mental illness, to the point that he would starve himself to death, be in prison?
According to National Public Radio, the answer is simple; the three largest inpatient psychiatric facilities in the country are the Los Angeles County Jail, Rikers Island in New York City and Cook County Jail in Illinois.
Jails and prisons are America's de facto psychiatric hospitals.
As a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, my number-one priority is public safety. There are, at times, inmates with severe mental illness who might not be suited for prison. Nonetheless, many are also too dangerous to be released directly to the street.
During the 1960s, policymakers across the country decided to close mental health institutions in favor of community treatment. In 1955, there was one psychiatric hospital bed for every 300 Americans.
Today, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, a Virginia-based non-profit dedicated to the treatment of severe mental illness, there is one psychiatric hospital bed for every 3,000 Americans. As the Journal Sentinel reported, there are 20 times as many people with mental illness in jails and prisons as there are in psychiatric hospitals.
As it became obvious that the community treatment experiment was not working, some policymakers found it easier and less expensive to stigmatize mentally ill persons as criminals and send them to prison, rather than to treat them with the attention and compassion that is required for those suffering from a debilitating disease.
Once in prison, mentally ill inmates have a difficult time getting out. Prison rules are often violated by offenders who believe cellmates, guards and even family at home are out to harm them.
The mentally ill are often targeted by fellow inmates who are aggravated by the strange manifestations brought on by their illness. Mentally diseased inmates may have a problem concentrating in programming and therefore fail to complete required treatment programs.
Prisons are not completely to blame.
Prison medical systems were not designed nor equipped to provide quality mental health services to prisoners in need. Seriously mentally ill inmates often face overworked or undermanned staff overwhelmed with the need to evaluate and implement treatment plans for an ever growing population of ill inmates.
Our board and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections work extremely hard to assist inmates with mental illness transition back into the community. Some of my colleagues have committed considerable time and energy to this process.
Such efforts do not eliminate the fact that an absence of available psychiatric hospital bed space makes it extremely difficult to place those inmates with violent criminal histories and intensive treatment needs.
Until we are willing to acknowledge that our prisons have become de facto mental hospitals— and unless we are willing to make the hard and costly decisions that both protect the public and humanely treat those inflicted with disease— I believe the American mental health gulag will continue to indelibly blur the line between justice and expediency.
Showing posts with label prison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prison. Show all posts
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Will private prisons work?
The Youngstown VindicatorDecember 11, 2011
Ohio was facing an $8 billion budget shortfall in 2010 when Gov. John Kasich took office. He proposed an ambitious and unprecedented plan to balance the corrections portion of the budget — sell five prisons to private companies.
Lake Erie Corrections Institution, located in Ashtabula County, was the only prison sold. It’s the first state prison in the nation to be sold to a private company.
Correction Corporation of America (CCA) bought the facility for $72.7 million. The state will pay CCA $44.25 per inmate per day in addition to an annual $3.8 million ownership fee.
CCA may be familiar to many because the company operates the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown. The state’s ability to sell only one of five prisons slated for sale was not a concern for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. “It’s not a disappointment at all,” Annette Chambers-Smith, deputy director of administration told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, “... we thought we would need to sell all five of them to net $50 million.”
Major player
CCA operates 60 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Those facilities have more than 80,000 beds and currently house about 75,000 offenders. CCA owns 44 of the facilities it operates, representing more than half of all the private prison beds nationwide. According to the company website, CCA with its 17,000 employees is the fifth-largest corrections system in the nation, behind only the federal government and three states.
Privatization may seem like a promising way to generate revenue and cut costs in difficult economic times. Ohio’s prisons are over capacity. As of October, Ohio’s 30 prisons had the capacity to house 38,196 inmates, but actually confined 50,334.
There is an incarceration bubble in America. That bubble may burst as budget woes force states to reduce prison populations andthe federal government look for alternatives to an immigration policy that has been a boon to private prisons.
Prison reduction efforts are obviously not part of the package offered by corporate-run prisons. They have no incentive to explore alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, half-way houses or other diversionary efforts to reduce the number of non-violent offenders behind bars.
Ohio, like many states, is trying to reduce its prison population. Nonviolent offenders often serve the shortest sentences. There are about 12,000 inmates in Ohio serving state sentences of less than one year. Some estimate that reducing short term sentences in state prison could trim inmate population by about 4,000 within four years.
The Texas-based criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast recently reprinted portions of CCA’s latest annaul 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CCA acknowledged that the company is “dependent upon the governmental agencies with which we have contracts to provide inmates for our managed facilities. We cannot control occupancy levels at our managed facilities ... a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenues and profitability.”
The report continues, “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by…leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices.”
Federal threat
CCA is not ignoring the threat of leniency or a reduction in occupancy. According the Chattanoogan, citing a report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, CCA hired 199 lobbyists in 32 states between 2003 and 2010. On the federal level, CCA spent more than $18 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2009.
CCA’s Ohio lobbyist, Don Thibaut, served as Gov. Kasich’s chief of staff when he was in Congress, says The Associated Press. The connections go beyond a lobbyist. Kasich’s corrections director Gary C. Mohr spent five years as a consultant for CCA.
The incarceration bubble, like the real estate bubble before it, will burst, which could mean trouble for Ohio taxpayers.
Visit the Vindicator
Ohio was facing an $8 billion budget shortfall in 2010 when Gov. John Kasich took office. He proposed an ambitious and unprecedented plan to balance the corrections portion of the budget — sell five prisons to private companies.
Lake Erie Corrections Institution, located in Ashtabula County, was the only prison sold. It’s the first state prison in the nation to be sold to a private company.
Correction Corporation of America (CCA) bought the facility for $72.7 million. The state will pay CCA $44.25 per inmate per day in addition to an annual $3.8 million ownership fee.
CCA may be familiar to many because the company operates the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown. The state’s ability to sell only one of five prisons slated for sale was not a concern for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. “It’s not a disappointment at all,” Annette Chambers-Smith, deputy director of administration told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, “... we thought we would need to sell all five of them to net $50 million.”
Major player
CCA operates 60 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Those facilities have more than 80,000 beds and currently house about 75,000 offenders. CCA owns 44 of the facilities it operates, representing more than half of all the private prison beds nationwide. According to the company website, CCA with its 17,000 employees is the fifth-largest corrections system in the nation, behind only the federal government and three states.
Privatization may seem like a promising way to generate revenue and cut costs in difficult economic times. Ohio’s prisons are over capacity. As of October, Ohio’s 30 prisons had the capacity to house 38,196 inmates, but actually confined 50,334.
There is an incarceration bubble in America. That bubble may burst as budget woes force states to reduce prison populations andthe federal government look for alternatives to an immigration policy that has been a boon to private prisons.
Prison reduction efforts are obviously not part of the package offered by corporate-run prisons. They have no incentive to explore alternatives to incarceration, such as electronic monitoring, half-way houses or other diversionary efforts to reduce the number of non-violent offenders behind bars.
Ohio, like many states, is trying to reduce its prison population. Nonviolent offenders often serve the shortest sentences. There are about 12,000 inmates in Ohio serving state sentences of less than one year. Some estimate that reducing short term sentences in state prison could trim inmate population by about 4,000 within four years.
The Texas-based criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast recently reprinted portions of CCA’s latest annaul 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CCA acknowledged that the company is “dependent upon the governmental agencies with which we have contracts to provide inmates for our managed facilities. We cannot control occupancy levels at our managed facilities ... a decrease in our occupancy rates could cause a decrease in revenues and profitability.”
The report continues, “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by…leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices.”
Federal threat
CCA is not ignoring the threat of leniency or a reduction in occupancy. According the Chattanoogan, citing a report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, CCA hired 199 lobbyists in 32 states between 2003 and 2010. On the federal level, CCA spent more than $18 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2009.
CCA’s Ohio lobbyist, Don Thibaut, served as Gov. Kasich’s chief of staff when he was in Congress, says The Associated Press. The connections go beyond a lobbyist. Kasich’s corrections director Gary C. Mohr spent five years as a consultant for CCA.
The incarceration bubble, like the real estate bubble before it, will burst, which could mean trouble for Ohio taxpayers.
Visit the Vindicator
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Cautionary Instruction: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in case with local twist
Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
October 21, 2011
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments in the case of Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Albert Florence was picked up in New Jersey on a warrant for an unpaid fine and lodged in two different county jails where, in each, he was strip-searched as part of routine jail policy.
After it was determined that the warrant had been issued in error, Florence was released. He filed suit claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated. A federal district court judge sided with Florence, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying routine strip-searches during intake are justified based on the prison’s concern that weapons and other contraband might be smuggled into the prison.
There is a local parallel to this case. In 2006, Allegheny County was sued for blanket strip-searches of all detainees that were “intermingled” with other county jail inmates. According to depositions taken during the suit, the searches largely included a visual examination of the genitals, as well as requesting detainees to bend at the waist and manipulate the buttocks, breasts and genitals to allow for a visual inspection of their body cavities and skin folds. Female detainees were required to “squat and cough” to see if any contraband dislodged from the vagina.
The class action law suit was settled for $3 million. However, Judge Terrence F. McVerry made reference, in his Settlement Opinion, to the lower court decision in Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Judge McVerry wrote that the Third Circuit in Florence held that conducting strip-searches did not require a showing of attempted smuggling or discovered contraband as a justification for the policy.
Allegheny County settled six days before Florence was decided. Florence ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was the subject of last week’s argument.
Assistant Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky argued last week before the Supreme Court that corrections officials should be able to set search policies for their jails. "You cannot say that there are some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk.” Saharsky added that guards who screen arrestees are, “Individuals who are making (a) very quick determination. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly."
Florence’s attorney, Thomas C. Goldstein, argued that such a “significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity” requires a reason to believe that the arrested person poses a danger.
During the 12 months ending June 30, 2010, local jails admitted an estimated 12.9 million prisoners. While not every jail has a blanket strip-search policy -- the High Court would do well to debunk the near universally accepted idea that the U.S Constitution is of limited application behind the jail house walls.
Visit Matt Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
October 21, 2011
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to arguments in the case of Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Albert Florence was picked up in New Jersey on a warrant for an unpaid fine and lodged in two different county jails where, in each, he was strip-searched as part of routine jail policy.
After it was determined that the warrant had been issued in error, Florence was released. He filed suit claiming his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated. A federal district court judge sided with Florence, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying routine strip-searches during intake are justified based on the prison’s concern that weapons and other contraband might be smuggled into the prison.
There is a local parallel to this case. In 2006, Allegheny County was sued for blanket strip-searches of all detainees that were “intermingled” with other county jail inmates. According to depositions taken during the suit, the searches largely included a visual examination of the genitals, as well as requesting detainees to bend at the waist and manipulate the buttocks, breasts and genitals to allow for a visual inspection of their body cavities and skin folds. Female detainees were required to “squat and cough” to see if any contraband dislodged from the vagina.
The class action law suit was settled for $3 million. However, Judge Terrence F. McVerry made reference, in his Settlement Opinion, to the lower court decision in Florence v. Board of Freeholders. Judge McVerry wrote that the Third Circuit in Florence held that conducting strip-searches did not require a showing of attempted smuggling or discovered contraband as a justification for the policy.
Allegheny County settled six days before Florence was decided. Florence ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was the subject of last week’s argument.
Assistant Solicitor General Nicole Saharsky argued last week before the Supreme Court that corrections officials should be able to set search policies for their jails. "You cannot say that there are some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk.” Saharsky added that guards who screen arrestees are, “Individuals who are making (a) very quick determination. They have very little time, and if they guess wrong, those mistakes can be deadly."
Florence’s attorney, Thomas C. Goldstein, argued that such a “significant intrusion on individual privacy and individual dignity” requires a reason to believe that the arrested person poses a danger.
During the 12 months ending June 30, 2010, local jails admitted an estimated 12.9 million prisoners. While not every jail has a blanket strip-search policy -- the High Court would do well to debunk the near universally accepted idea that the U.S Constitution is of limited application behind the jail house walls.
Visit Matt Mangino
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)