|
Cold and Ugly posted:I don't think i've ever abused the rights of an inmate. And i'd have to know what you mean by "the humanity" of an inmate. Every day I order inmates to get back into their cell because they're running around too much on the tier. If that was me that would probably offend my dignity... but I haven't had the year or so experience in jail then reception before arriving at a maximum security prison. You never gave anybody an extra little shove or twist? Never took advantage of your power?
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I think that's kind of the problem. The experts on torture generally agree that it is. That link is hardly the only one out there on the topic. See, because... this is what I was saying earlier, i'm not sure what's meant by "solitary". The picture I posted, Christ... it may even be two pages ago now, shows that the SHU units in Pelican Bay consist of eight cells to a pod. In my experience, inmates have no trouble speaking to each other through doors constructed like that. And... I guess I feel that if they can talk to each other then it isn't really "solitary". When I think of "Solitary", I think of those scenes in OZ with the thick metal door in which only a small slot opens twice a day for the meal tray to pass through and the inmate spends his whole time just pacing or sitting in a corner contemplating his sins. As I said earlier, the hunger strike in California was orchestrated by a group of inmates in the SHU. If they were able to talk to each other often enough to come up with a collective manifesto, how can that be considered solitary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Re: This thread. Politically speaking, knocking your head against prison abuses will go nowhere fast (except maybe, maybe for female offenders). State jails and prisons are full of people whose sentences have been massively inflated (not only for drug offenses but also property AND violent crimes), or who should never have been sentenced/convicted in the first place. Overcrowding and directly funding prison industrial activities will naturally lead to all the insane poo poo that goes on, and nobody is going to come in and McManus the system and make everything cool again. The only sensible approach is through the legal system and other related non-prison institutions: 1. Rollback of punitive drug offence sentencing. 2. Legislation/Policy changes to dramatically curtail plea bargaining. 3. Rollback of mandatory minimums for most offenses (even violent ones). 4. Dramatic increase in resource allocation to parole system and anti-recidivism measures. 5. Mental Health system reform. 6. Greater support from private institutions for formerly incarcerated individuals. 7. Ponies. Lots of them. If you think that this is pie in the sky hippie kumbaya nonsense, you are probably right. But it's way better than trying to crack the Prison Industrial Complex directly. If you take people, cover them in poo poo, and starve them, it is really hard to make healthy non-poo poo covered people want to help them out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You never gave anybody an extra little shove or twist? Never took advantage of your power? It turns out that I never have, man. Although, I've worked in a gun post for the majority of my career, so it's mostly just been pushing buttons and yelling at people for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Re: This thread. I found this needlessly pessimistic, but accurate. I really think that the major changes need to happen in the courthouse. I've read a lot of files in my career and man it seems like everybody pleads out no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:See, because... this is what I was saying earlier, i'm not sure what's meant by "solitary". The picture I posted, Christ... it may even be two pages ago now, shows that the SHU units in Pelican Bay consist of eight cells to a pod. In my experience, inmates have no trouble speaking to each other through doors constructed like that. And... I guess I feel that if they can talk to each other then it isn't really "solitary". When I think of "Solitary", I think of those scenes in OZ with the thick metal door in which only a small slot opens twice a day for the meal tray to pass through and the inmate spends his whole time just pacing or sitting in a corner contemplating his sins. As I said earlier, the hunger strike in California was orchestrated by a group of inmates in the SHU. If they were able to talk to each other often enough to come up with a collective manifesto, how can that be considered solitary? So your argument about why SHU's aren't torture, against people who are experts on torture, is that it's not harsh enough and that apparently these folks were watching "OZ" rather than examining real prisons? For reference, I'm pretty sure literally nobody in this thread, nobody at all, thought that SHUs meant you couldn't communicate with others. But then, most of the people in this thread have read this and other prison threads..
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:So your argument about why SHU's aren't torture, against people who are experts on torture, is that it's not harsh enough and that apparently these folks were watching "OZ" rather than examining real prisons? Dude, nobody in the article you quoted claimed that inmates in California were being tortured. The closest it came was: "Méndez was particularly concerned about California's Pelican Bay maximum security prison, which has more than 400 prisoners who have been in isolation for over a decade, with an average time in solitary of 7.5 years." And the only way you could come out with "Cold and Ugly loves torture!" is by a deliberate misreading of my posts. The point I was making is that I don't understand how the SHU unit at Pelican Bay, ostensibly the center of California's torture program, can be considered solitary confinement, given that the inmates held within are able to communicate with each other. If you are able to talk to your neighbors, how can it be considered solitary?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:It turns out that I never have, man. Although, I've worked in a gun post for the majority of my career, so it's mostly just been pushing buttons and yelling at people for me. I don't believe you. You think that being locked in a room by yourself isn't isolation because you can shout through the wall. So I'm inclined to think that you wouldn't know abuse if you saw it (or perpetrated it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Dude, nobody in the article you quoted claimed that inmates in California were being tortured. The closest it came was: "Méndez was particularly concerned about California's Pelican Bay maximum security prison, which has more than 400 prisoners who have been in isolation for over a decade, with an average time in solitary of 7.5 years." That's the closest it came? quote:"Even if solitary confinement is applied for short periods of time, it often causes mental and physical suffering or humiliation, amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and if the resulting pain or sufferings are severe, solitary confinement even amounts to torture," Méndez said in a statement. Really? quote:And the only way you could come out with "Cold and Ugly loves torture!" is by a deliberate misreading of my posts. I actually didn't say anything of the sort. quote:The point I was making is that I don't understand how the SHU unit at Pelican Bay, ostensibly the center of California's torture program, can be considered solitary confinement, given that the inmates held within are able to communicate with each other. If you are able to talk to your neighbors, how can it be considered solitary? So again, your argument is that it's not torture because it's not harsh enough? I don't think anyone believes that SHU's are complete 100% isolation, as you are still fed and can yell at people, and even send messages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't believe you. You think that being locked in a room by yourself isn't isolation because you can shout through the wall. So I'm inclined to think that you wouldn't know abuse if you saw it (or perpetrated it). Come on, Sedanchair. What kind of idiot wouldn't know abuse if he saw it? If I saw the Rodney King beating i'd know it was abuse. If someone punched a wheelchair guy in my building i'd know it was abuse. Seriously, man, I know you're super disposed to disbelieve everything I say but the post I work in is almost all windows. I see everything that happens in my building and I honestly haven't seen poo poo happen. This should be a point D&D can agree upon. Pay your public servants well and they'll do a good job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Come on, Sedanchair. What kind of idiot wouldn't know abuse if he saw it? If I saw the Rodney King beating i'd know it was abuse. If someone punched a wheelchair guy in my building i'd know it was abuse. Seriously, man, I know you're super disposed to disbelieve everything I say but the post I work in is almost all windows. I see everything that happens in my building and I honestly haven't seen poo poo happen. This should be a point D&D can agree upon. Pay your public servants well and they'll do a good job. Many things short of "Rodney King" are abuse. That's kind of telling that you think a beating that causes brain damage is the only thing that counts, just like solitary isn't solitary unless they are in a dry well or something. And I work professionally with abusers sometimes (physical, sexual, otherwise) and no, they don't know abuse when they see it or do it. I agree with your sentiment about paying public servants well but I don't believe that your job as it is is a public service. Most prisons should be closed, most guards should be fired. Given the culture of abuse and conflict of interest (example: your tacit support, through inaction, of union leadership supporting three strikes) I think the system needs a clean sweep. We need Scandinavian-style prisons for a very small portion of criminals currently incarcerated. The rest should be freed and given subsidized housing, treatment and work programs. I'd suggest that you could get a new job in one of these programs, but given your cruelty and indifference I'd have to rule you out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:So again, your argument is that it's not torture because it's not harsh enough? I don't think anyone believes that SHU's are complete 100% isolation, as you are still fed and can yell at people, and even send messages. Yes, man. It's not torture because it's not harsh enough. It's not isolation because they can talk to each other. It's not a punch it's a slap. It's not a dog it's a puppy. The argument that the SHU is torture is dependent upon the fantastical conception that you are in true "solitary", in that you cannot communicate with other people, which is not the case. What I mean is that when a writer says a person is in "isolation", and then quotes a bunch of links about the negative effects of being in "isolation", is that relevant to what we were originally talking about, which is the state of the inmates held in California's SHU program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Many things short of "Rodney King" are abuse. That's kind of telling that you think a beating that causes brain damage is the only thing that counts, just like solitary isn't solitary unless they are in a dry well or something. And I work professionally with abusers sometimes (physical, sexual, otherwise) and no, they don't know abuse when they see it or do it. Well, go gently caress yourself i'm neither cruel nor indifferent. I'd gladly take a post as a social worker or whatever in your Scandinavian utopia. Oh, if only such a world were possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Well, go gently caress yourself i'm neither cruel nor indifferent. I'd gladly take a post as a social worker or whatever in your Scandinavian utopia. Oh, if only such a world were possible. It'd be more possible if you did anything, anything at all to try to reform your union other than voting for the least worst option when it came down to it. Have you even communicated your feelings to union leadership at all? That you think that their push to get more prisoners is hosed up and wrong? Edit: You do seem kind of indifferent, in that you don't really make any attempt to make a difference beyond doing your own little bailiwick ethically. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It'd be more possible if you did anything, anything at all to try to reform your union other than voting for the least worst option when it came down to it. I've had conversations with a job steward that I felt comfortable talking to, yeah. Honestly, I get the sense that we all know that the incarceration of minor drug offenders is wrong. And that's the wonder of the secret ballot. I don't know what the gently caress you guys expect of me, I am but a man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:I've had conversations with a job steward that I felt comfortable talking to, yeah. Honestly, I get the sense that we all know that the incarceration of minor drug offenders is wrong. And that's the wonder of the secret ballot. I don't know what the gently caress you guys expect of me, I am but a man. I want you to work to try to reform your union. It's not really a big, surprising deal. Call and/or write to every union official, talk about your views with the other COs, try to get them to write/call and do likewise. Make the case for it. I don't know how the hell you expect the union you're a part of to reform except by the collective action of the union members, because that is literally the only way it can actually happen. Or the union can eventually get busted once it gets too absolutely mired, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:The argument that the SHU is torture is dependent upon the fantastical conception that you are in true "solitary", in that you cannot communicate with other people, which is not the case. No, that is not the argument for it being torture. That's you're argument for it not being torture. quote:What I mean is that when a writer says a person is in "isolation", and then quotes a bunch of links about the negative effects of being in "isolation", is that relevant to what we were originally talking about, which is the state of the inmates held in California's SHU program. No, this is bizarre and naive. Nobody, nobody but you that I can see, thinks that SHU's should or ever were some sort of Demolition Man isolation pod where no human contact is possible. Prisoners in SHU are allowed visitation, including with their lawyer, though in practice few ever get it. The argument against SHU's is that the sensory deprivation and greatly reduced human contact are mentally cruel and damaging over prolonged periods of time, and this qualifies as torture. It's somewhat sad that you're trying to inject a dose of "real" into the thread yet are not aware of this. Further reading: http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/edgeofendurancecaliforniareport.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No, that is not the argument for it being torture. That's you're argument for it not being torture. Alright, man. I'm reading through this link you posted, and it's interesting. Despite what i've said about the SHU i'm not a huge fan and I think sometimes we go overboard in handing out indeterminate terms. But just to get a baseline, is there any sort of behavior that you'd find worthy of a SHU term?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Alright, man. I'm reading through this link you posted, and it's interesting. Despite what i've said about the SHU i'm not a huge fan and I think sometimes we go overboard in handing out indeterminate terms. But just to get a baseline, is there any sort of behavior that you'd find worthy of a SHU term? SHU terms might be justified, for limited amounts of time, when prisoners are a danger to themselves and others. That's the original intent. In practice they're the Forever, where prisoners are left and forgotten about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:SHU terms might be justified, for limited amounts of time, when prisoners are a danger to themselves and others. That's the original intent. The original intent was actually to break the leadership structures of the prison gangs and the links between prison gang leadership and the gangs on the outside. Unless there's been some huge turnaround since I was last at an institution it's still a spectacular failure at that. It doesn't work and, as long as COs can be bought (no offense, Cold and Ugly, I don't think you're bent but we both know there are enough bent COs) it can't work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Alright, man. I'm reading through this link you posted, and it's interesting. Despite what i've said about the SHU i'm not a huge fan and I think sometimes we go overboard in handing out indeterminate terms. But just to get a baseline, is there any sort of behavior that you'd find worthy of a SHU term? No, nobody deserves to be tortured. There's no point trying to game out a scenario like that. It's like you're asking "is there any sort of behavior that you'd find worthy of castration." Civilized people shouldn't consider treating anyone that way. Treat them like human beings, make it so that segregation is legitimately for safety and not psychological torment, then we'll talk. Amazingly, you might find that the cycle of destructive behavior is modified if you take those steps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The original intent was actually to break the leadership structures of the prison gangs and the links between prison gang leadership and the gangs on the outside. Oh I mean putting prisoners in isolation. In the California prison system, in the modern era, you are exactly correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, nobody deserves to be tortured. So, man... please give me an example of your best idea of a safe and humane way to isolate a person who is a danger to either himself or others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The original intent was actually to break the leadership structures of the prison gangs and the links between prison gang leadership and the gangs on the outside. It's true that it doesn't work if the goal is to completely sever the communication between the gang leaders and the rank and file, but don't you at least think that keeping the heavies locked up and under constant surveillance at least mitigates the damage they're able to do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, nobody deserves to be tortured. Man... we have some terms we might have to work out, because it sounds like you consider even normal non SHU prison to be torture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you guys work at Teletubby State Correctional Facility or something? It's always interesting to me how no prison worker ever sees abuse, it's always some other prison that you heard about. Your talking about a topic your not familiar with. So I will try to educate you. Have I seen abuse? Nope. Why is that? For two reasons. First, prisons in my state have their populations segregated by risk level. There are prisons where the horror stories don't happen because gang members get their asses kicked out and sent to a prison where they keep all the gang members. There are prisons where they keep the sexually violent people together. There are prisons where they keep the crazy people together (I worked at this one). It turns out that guys who get out in 2 years tend to be more compliant than 19 year olds with life sentences. Minimum security prisons tend to be pretty chill overall. On the other hand I know a guy who worked at a max camp who got his rear end stabbed at the prison where they keep the 19 year old gang bangers. People who work in prisons with "lower risk" offenders tend to see less crazy poo poo. And those prisons tend to have low tolerance for stupidity or abuse from their officers. Max security prisons on the other hand tend to see fucktons of abuse, and its so hard to get people to work there that they let the people who do work there get away with more. Plus the general public is far more forgiving of abuse towards murderers and rapists (in fact they seem to encourage it) than guys who get 2 years for forgery or some other crap. The 2nd reason. CERT. Correctional Enforcement Response Team. These guys basically do all the dirty horrible things you read about. They wear all black, are the only ones allowed to have stab vets (and they unofficially all have knives on them), carry CS (which normal officers cant), have literal jackboots and are given free reign to gently caress with not only the inmates but the officers under the justification that they keep dirty officers in check. Those are the guys I hear rumors about locking inmates in a cell for 20 hours just cause, or giving out drugs to get information or administering beating to inmates. But they don't do that poo poo in front of the rank and file. Pretty much every prison has a black ops team that exists to do nothing but give plausible deniability for the administration. The day to day officers were flat out told to be respectful and polite to inmates, and the inmates understood that if their relationships with the day to day officers broke down then they get to handle CERT officers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Man... we have some terms we might have to work out, because it sounds like you consider even normal non SHU prison to be torture. Given the rape and violence levels(from both inmates and CO's), this is definitely an argument that's less than absurd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
anglachel posted:Your talking about a topic your not familiar with. So I will try to educate you. Have I seen abuse? Nope. Why is that? From your post it sounds like you are the one who is not familiar, since you work with low-risk offenders. Despite this you seem to know of a clear case of abuse (CERT carrying knives). There is no reason for CERT to carry knives. That is hugely alarming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I feel it's kind of sad to see this thread gain so much activity over the last twelve hours or so and all of it radiates from feeding a troll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:From your post it sounds like you are the one who is not familiar, since you work with low-risk offenders. Despite this you seem to know of a clear case of abuse (CERT carrying knives). There is no reason for CERT to carry knives. That is hugely alarming. Once again speaking about things you don't know about. I didnt work at a low risk offender camp. I worked at a high security camp for mental health offenders. People with schizophrenia who talk about murdering their wives when they get out aren't low risk offender. In my particular case (when discussing abuses I saw) it's likely because mental health offenders get different treatment and the prison I worked at had a situation where the counseling side had vastly more power than what was normal throughout the state due to the way the grants were distributed. Camera's were everywhere. We actually did follow the policy and got the video camera and all that jazz when we had to use force (CERT didnt, but CERT also made all of us leave when they did their thing). Your absolutely right CERT shouldn't carry knives. (they were shivs confiscated from inmates, they kept the more impressive specimens, and would claim that they rcently confiscated it if anyone higher up confronted them about it, but no one ever did) Considering the Warden never said anything when he saw it and I never heard of a situation where they actually used them, I consider that pretty low on the list of abuses remarked upon in this thread. So what is your opinion on what we should do with severally mentally ill people who have committed violent crimes and are at high risk to commit new violent crimes? A.S.H. posted:I feel it's kind of sad to see this thread gain so much activity over the last twelve hours or so and all of it radiates from feeding a troll. Gotta do something while at work and not oppressing people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
anglachel posted:So what is your opinion on what we should do with severally mentally ill people who have committed violent crimes and are at high risk to commit new violent crimes? I'd imagine there's an answer to this that doesn't involve "mental torture of already mentally ill people".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'd imagine there's an answer to this that doesn't involve "mental torture of already mentally ill people". Naw, then we'd have to admit we've been doing it wrong and look at other countries for solutions they've found to work well. That's just not American!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
anglachel posted:Your absolutely right CERT shouldn't carry knives. (they were shivs confiscated from inmates, they kept the more impressive specimens, and would claim that they rcently confiscated it if anyone higher up confronted them about it, but no one ever did) Considering the Warden never said anything when he saw it and I never heard of a situation where they actually used them, I consider that pretty low on the list of abuses remarked upon in this thread. Sounds like the warden is in on it. I'll really be suspicious now every time I hear about an inmate stabbed to death in prison. Was it CERT? A bent CO taking advantage of a chaotic situation? There's no way to know, because the warden looks the other way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
anglachel posted:Once again speaking about things you don't know about. I didnt work at a low risk offender camp. I worked at a high security camp for mental health offenders. If the warden ignored it, that doesn't mean it wasn't abuse - it means that he was complicit in the abuse. At best, he was looking the other way and ignoring clear abuses. At worst, he was encouraging it. Agencies that make sure to get rid of the video cameras and any credible witnesses before a use of force aren't known for complying with use-of-force policies, especially when they already know they can openly break rules right in front of bosses and supervisors without any consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
The idea of someone saying solitary isn't so bad because you can scream through the walls to someone you can never see or contact just makes me so loving mad I can't even finish reading the thread. Solitary is torture and if you disagree you are a piece of poo poo. gently caress you.Cold and Ugly posted:Man... we have some terms we might have to work out, because it sounds like you consider even normal non SHU prison to be torture. Yes, much of it is. I guess it seems easy and comfortable to one of the awful subhuman filth that profits from it though. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Given the rape and violence levels(from both inmates and CO's), this is definitely an argument that's less than absurd. You're probably right. At the bottom I can only argue that the one prison I work at is a decent place for criminals to be held where nothing really bad happens. But I am open the idea that my experience may be unusual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
A.S.H. posted:I feel it's kind of sad to see this thread gain so much activity over the last twelve hours or so and all of it radiates from feeding a troll. I'm more of a puckish rogue. Come on, dude. The fact that I disagree with the tone of the thread doesn't make me a troll. I'm trying to contribute to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:You're probably right. At the bottom I can only argue that the one prison I work at is a decent place for criminals to be held where nothing really bad happens. But I am open the idea that my experience may be unusual. Statistically, your experience would be highly unusual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:I'm more of a puckish rogue. Come on, dude. The fact that I disagree with the tone of the thread doesn't make me a troll. I'm trying to contribute to the conversation. Again, why aren't you trying to reform your union, if you disagree with their policies so much? You said you talked about it with someone you felt comfortable with; why not advocate this more strongly, even if it makes you uncomfortable? Is you being 'comfortable' more important to you than solving the systemic problems in the union?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:I'm more of a puckish rogue. Come on, dude. The fact that I disagree with the tone of the thread doesn't make me a troll. I'm trying to contribute to the conversation. What's the "tone" of the thread? Remembering that a tone argument is, by definition, an argument that doesn't address substance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:15
|
|