Prisoner's Rights After Death Row

The article, “Giving Life After Death Row,” written by an Oregon death row inmate by the name of Christian Longo raises questions about a prisoner’s right to donate their organs after being executed on death row. Longo is a convicted murderer who took the lives of his wife and children and now remains in his 6 foot by 8 foot cell on death row in an Oregon state prison for 22 hours a day. He requested to donate his organs after he is executed, but prison officials denied his request. Longo points to concerns of the health of the inmates as well as potential abuse of the prisoners’ organs by the state in reference to unwarranted medical testing. It is well known that there are many people in the United States on waiting lists for organ transplants. With such a high prison population, the denial of requests to donate organs of prisoners leaves out a lot of people who are potential donors. The article points out that the organs of one inmate could potentially save up to eight lives if given the chance to donate their organs once they are deceased.

The method of execution in most states is carried out with a series of three drugs that ultimately damage the vital organs leading to the death of the prisoner. However, there are other ways in which to carry out an execution that does not damage the vital organs of the inmate. Such methods are used in Washington State and Ohio. Public concerns about the health of the organs of a prisoner come into question as well. As with any other person who opts to be an organ donor a series of tests can be administered in order to determine the health of the organs, so this really isn’t an issue that prison administrators should be concerned with. What is at stake here is a prisoner’s right to his or her own body once the state has carried out its punishment for the crime they have been convicted of. When a person is executed, they have completed their sentence in the prison system and should therefore have the right to dispose of their organs in the way they see fit.

If a person is sentenced to death for a crime they have committed, does that sentence end with their execution? It would seem so, but prison administrators don’t seem to agree given that they denied Longo’s request to donate his organs after he is executed. Once a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced they are property of the state. In any other case, a person is no longer property of the state once they have served their sentence, so why should it be any different for a person who is sentenced to death row? The concern about the health of the prisoners’ organs brings up the issue of the health within prisons. If prisons weren’t such an unhealthy environment for a person to be held this would not be an issue. The prevalence of disease in prisons is something that can be diminished if prison officials and policy makers cared enough about the people who are incarcerated, but that would make them seem human instead of criminal. The denial of Longo’s request to donate his organs after his execution is a violation of his rights to his own body. There is something wrong with prison administrators who do not consider the request of an inmate to donate his or her organs in order to save the lives of people who are awaiting an organ transplant. The question we really have to ask ourselves is when does a prisoner’s sentence really end if they are unable to have rights to their own organs once they have been executed? Many issues are raised by this article; a person's rights to their body when they are incarcerated and after they have been executed, the prominence of disease within prisons that are attributing to deteriorating health of inmates, as well as the methods used to carry out executions in most state in the U.S.

Amplifying Injustices; Criminalization of Human Behaviors

Recently, a young man was arrested in the Eugene Springfield area for "urinating in public." He committed suicide while in jail, by hanging himself. He had recently served a few months in jail for an unrelated "weapons" offense.

He ran from the police--who were attempting to arrest him--and they tackled him to the ground one they caught up with him. He was found unconscious in his cell by a guard making the rounds. Despite the design of his cell--configured to have no places to suspend or hang things--he was, unfortunately, successful . . . . He attained the final say; he was the only one who could control his body, mind and ultimately, his destiny. Despite attempts by the managers and designers of the modern punitive careral system to achieve mastery and hegemony over minds and bodies, they have failed.

Declining crime rates that do not correspond with increasing incarceration rates tell a disturbing tale about Oregon--which has the dubious distinction of having the fastest growing prison population in the nation. We must change policies that create increased criminalization of normal human behaviors. Urinating in public? I've often wondered where all the public bathrooms are when I've been in a similarly desperate and painful situation. Most of us have been in this situation, and can sympathize . . . . I have a confession to make--I'm guilty of relieving myself in the bushes a few times; it's either that or develop a urinary tract infection. Humans have needs, which are often difficult to fulfill in public areas without running afoul of dehumanizing, draconian laws that are selectively enforced via de facto racial profiling practices. In order to fill new prisons, society is widening it's "criminal justice" dragnet. The metaphor of the dragnet is appropriate because it produces "by-catch"--it snares species that were not specifically or consciously targeted. One these unfortunate prey are entangled, their fate is usually sealed; they either die underwater, unable to move, of else are killed on the boat. Hopefully this tangent helps to illuminate the dire consequences of those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was the unfortunate young man being rehabilitated for his transgression--public urination--or was he being treated unfairly, punished severely for such a minor offense? Either way, he is gone forever. Congratulations "criminal justice" system. Perhaps we should begin intensifying pre-hire screening procedures within police departments; studies show that they test nearly as socio-pathologically as the criminals they wish to contain. We must make it easier for good police to operate, remain and succeed within their departments.

I have friends (they shall remain anonymous) who are good people, who attempted to pursue careers as police; they were essentially chased off the force, because they were too honest and good natured for the tastes of the other, established, officers. This is just anecdotal evidence. As is the story of the young man who killed himself, in his cell, after relieving himself. Shame on us.

San Quentin Prison: an illustration of multiple issues engendered by the ‘Prison Industrial Complex’

According to Angela Davis, the ‘Prison Industrial Complex’ corresponds to massive investment of the state to build more prisons. This concept finds its roots in Reagan’s 1980 project to incarcerate massively and systematically in the context of the war on drugs. In addition, the Prison Industrial Complex reflects the shift from the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ that perpetuated culture of violence and suspicion in the 1950-60’s. The PIC’s main result was to normalize incarceration and make prisons natural but also invisible.

In California, 9 prisons were built in 100 years but their number doubled in one decade (1980-1990). San Quentin was built in 1852. It was the first Californian state prison and its original purpose was to correct and rehabilitate. According to Ruth Gilmore, the purpose of this prison was to make inmates ‘self-reliant’.
Alyssa Block visited San Quentin in 2008 and shows how the prison as well as prisoner’s living conditions have changed in the context of the Prison Industrial Complex. Today, San Quentin holds twice as much inmates as its building capacities, and the vast gym hall has been transformed into a single large cell. Prison overcrowding leads to several issues such as racial tensions, filth, or stress, which are all intertwined. Alyssa Block argues that San Quentin creates a ‘circular logic’ that perpetuates massive incarceration and overpopulation: because the prison is overcrowded, racial tensions appear, which is an obstacle to rehabilitation work, therefore more inmates will come back into prison shortly after their release (70% of inmates return to prison within 3 years), leading to overcrowding.

One main consequence of overcrowding that A. Block mentions is the increase in racial conflicts. At San Quentin, life is regulated by the tension between the two main gangs: ‘Southern’ and ‘Northern Latinos’ that has led to intense confrontations, inmates injured and sometimes killed. Both inmates and wardens are aware of this conflict and express to A. Block that there is no safe place to escape if a conflict arises. More specifically, the Dining Hall appears to be the least safe place, implying that shared spaces are the most dangerous. As a result of gang tensions, inmates of same race gather and create their own space, which evokes the situation under the apartheid and the eradication of shared spaces between Blacks and Whites.

Consequences of prison overcrowding are numerous and prove the need to reform the massive incarceration system. The role of the Prison Industrial Complex in prison’s overcrowding is crucial. The economic burden of prison overcrowding has had, however, an impact on recent incarceration politics. According to the New York Times of March 13, 2010, the financial crisis in California has led the state to release inmates considered as less ‘threatening’. Is releasing an efficient alternative to overcrowding? It seems as lack of rehabilitation leads, in both cases, to recidivism and re-incarceration. In the specific case of California, a solution could be to rearrange parole in order to decrease the number of individuals incarcerated for violation of parole. Above all, what seems to be a solution to reduce prison overcrowding is the opportunity for inmates to attend rehabilitation programs that are necessary to their reintegration.

Brazen Big Business Initiatives Give No Apology

Those of us who keep up with current events have already heard about the racist immigration bill, Arizona State Senate Bill 1070, set into motion by Republican governor Jan Brewer in April of last year. At first glance it makes a previously illegal act of racial profiling…legal. As many African Americans can attest, racial profiling is illegal but doesn’t mean many police don’t commit this crime against them. Simply ask anyone who was ever pulled over for a DWB (Driving While Black). However the racist immigration law in Arizona is even more deceitful than racial profiling. What isn’t clear in the news reports on the local television station about Brewer’s immigration law is who wrote it. The answer is chilling.

Exposed from corporate records, campaign finance reports, lobbying documents, and hours of research, NPR found the authors of the racist Arizona bill. “What they show is a quiet, behind the scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.”

The racist bill is unbridled capitalism at its finest. AZ State Senate Bill 1070 will fill prisons at a rate never before subjugated in the United States. Obviously, there are shareholders and CEOs and management who find this huge climb in prison populations quite profitable. Perhaps that’s why ALEC, or American Legislative Exchange Council came up with the scheme in the first place.

ALEC sounds like a pretty legitimate “council” until we uncover who comprises the “council”. NPR reports its members include the National Rifle Association, the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the largest private prison company in the country, Corrections Corporations of America. Michael Hough, a staff director for ALEC and admits unabashedly that ALEC routinely writes bills for various legislators. “Yeah, that’s the way it’s set up. It’s a public-private partnership. We believe both sides business and lawmakers should be at the table, together.” Notice he makes no mention of the people of a democratic society at the “table” with the businesses and lawmakers. He doesn’t have to. In fact, ALEC is quite brazen. It makes one wonder what else they have masterminded with their plots and schemes, under the noses of ignorant Americans whose votes are skewed with well planted fear. Somehow, this news story NPR so carefully studied and presented didn’t make it onto Fox News.

ALEC clutches 6 million a year from the high powered companies like Pfizer Inc. it calls its members, while state legislators only have to pay $50.00 annually to be a member. With such an affordable price, legislators with grubby hands can write bills alongside big business and take it to their own states for their own agendas. Brewer hardly needed the input though. Her top two advisors Paul Senseman and Chuck Coughlin are both former lobbyists for private prison companies.

As Angela Davis has already warned, “As prisons proliferate in U.S. society, private capital has become enmeshed in the punishment industry. And precisely because of their profit potential, prisons are becoming increasingly important to the U.S. economy. If the notion of punishment as a source of potentially stupendous profits is disturbing by itself, then the strategic dependence on racist structures and ideologies to render mass punishment palatable and profitable is even more troubling.”

The fact that big businesses author bills that become America’s reality is terrifying, especially when they target yet another group of people with brown skin. Contained within the legacy of racist U.S. history that includes genocide and enslavement, Mexicans in Arizona join the millions before them whose rights, lives, and freedoms are at risk in this “Land of the Free” that only some of us can call home.

reddit: IamA former inmate pAMA

I was browsing reddit, an internet forum the other day. Under the “ask me anything” subsection, I found this gem:

Key: IAMA= I am A; AMA: ask me anything; also, in this context respondent= the person responding the questions aka the former inmate

IAMA Former Inmate at a Supermax facility. AMA
Served 18 months of five years in at CMAX, in Tamms Illinois.
I was released from a medium security facility in 2010.
I'm 35, white, male. Convicted of Armed Robbery and Attempted Murder, sentenced to 10 years, released after 5.
Ask me anything.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fypjj/by_request_iama_former_inmate_at_a_supermax/?limit=500

There were about 2137 comments submitted. I picked some that I thought were most relevant to our course. I think Reddit is absolutely amazing for this. The majority of people who don’t know a someone in prison would never be able to ask a current or former inmate about their experience in prison. Even better, the former inmate posts this thread on his own, and answers questions he wants and on his own terms. This makes people comfortable enough to ask questions, knowing that the former inmate is willing to do this, that he’s opening up to questions. Some of the questions and comments are a little disturbing but overall this open forum has made an excellent medium for the exchange of information. And the former inmate (the respondent) gives really great insights about the conditions he faced in prison.

Some interesting themes I came across:
- the purpose of prison
- Rehabilitation v. punishment
- The panopticon
- Effects of solitary confinement
- Rape (the readers were really curious, more than the respondent was willing to respond)


Q: What is the biggest misconception most people have about prison?

That there is anything even near rehabilitation. It's about warehousing people society hates. Period.

Q: I thought this was what most people knew. There should be more rehab part to it, but would you agree punishment for a violent crime is necessary?

Punishment is about revenge. If you're going to punish someone, kill them. You want them out on the streets again? Rehabilitate them.

Related comment: I don't think people delude themselves with the term 'rehabilitation.' They think of prison as a humbling dehumanization that 'breaks' the individual.
I think that most people imagine that prison is so terrible that it makes people want to never go back, so they roll their eyes at mistreatment and poor/unsafe conditions and even root for them.
The misconception is that prison improves people and prevents recidivism.

Related comment: Yes, it breaks people, and we then have this misconstrued idea that they have hit bottom and will rebuild themselves into better people.
What's the goal with boot camp? To break certain habits of an individual so that the military can then rebuild them into an effective member of a unit.
What's the goal with drug rehab? To break certain habits of an individual so that he or she can rebuild themselves with peer support and counseling.
Who is there to rebuild a felon when he breaks in prison? A whole lot of conflicting forces.

Related comment: I find it hard to believe that the prison system, drug laws, etc., were designed to get cheap labor to make goods such as license plates. Even considering whatever economic gain is derived from their cheap labor, incarceration is an overall economic loss for the state.

Q: If you had no conception of any end point, how do you think you would you have handled the experience in CMAX?

I'd have killed myself. Simple as that.

Q: What was it like adjusting to the real world after getting out? Anything like Red from the Shawshank Redemption?

It was harder going from CMAX to gen pop. Being around people again, the noise, the smell, it was crazy-making.
By the time of my release I felt mostly human again. I still sleep with my bedroom door locked. I don't like open spaces at all anymore.

Q: Do you feel the facility aided in rehabilitation? That you were previously an unfit member of society and due to your experience inside you are now a better person?
Fuck no. It's about punishment. I got sent to CMAX because I got into it with a black gang at my first prison. I'm not a racist, but the blacks in that place liked to fuck with the white guys all the time. I fought back, I was a target.
What is rehabilitating about locking a guy in a box for 23 hours a day? I nearly lost my mind many times and I'm still fucking damaged from it. If anything it made me regret not killing the guy, if I was going to face that kind of shit anyway.
Rehabilittion is a joke.

Q: What, in your opinion, would rehabilitate violent offenders?
Fuck, I dunno. Maybe a society where the poor aren't so desperate and fucked over at every turn. I did a six year hitch in the Navy (SEABEE) and came out to find no jobs without a college degree that could pay my bills. All the construction jobs go to Mexicans who do it for nothing.
Give a man a decent job at a good wage and treat him like a fucking person.

Related comment:There are really no questions about how to go about rehabilitating violent offenders (it's sexual offenders that are problematic). It's a question of cost and humility on the part of the federal government and the American people. We, as a country, are not prepared to forgive, to look forward, and to invest in criminal rehab.
We want to shut them out of our minds in an imaginary hell, where they are punished endlessly until they're old men, and then are released and die quietly. Preferably, they'll be put to death regardless of the severity of their crime. If they aren't "sorry" enough, they should never be released, either. Let's not forget that we don't want to coexist with them in open society, ever, and will do everything in our power to push them into destitution and low-skill, low-pay deadend manual labor.
We're living in the dark ages of criminal justice. If you want to learn about how a responsible, modern state deals with crime, visit a prison in Northern or Western Europe.

Related comment: My brother was sent to state prison at SIXTEEN. He went in as a punk kid, came out as a hardened, tattooed sociopath with a boatload of new criminal skills.

Are you familiar with the term "panopticon"? Is that what the CMAX was like? What did you do for your hour a day outside your cell? How did your perception of time change? Were you able to even keep track of time? What did you do during your 23 hours on your own during the day?

You were always under camera or guard watch.
Time gets very fucked up. I'd think it was noon when it was really 4pm. Afternoons were the worst. They seemed to just go on for ages.


The respondent has a very strong opinion about the purpose of rehabilitation versus punishment. After spending 5 years in prison, and part of it in a supermax facility, his answers are very intruding. A participant explains that prison is seen as a humbling dehumanization that 'breaks' the individual. And because this dehumanization serves a specific and important purpose (“breaking the individual”), it becomes a justification for ignoring subhuman prison conditions. “Punishment,” he says, “is about revenge.” It’s interesting then to see how the punishment mentality affects prisoners after their release. If punishment doesn’t rehabilitate prisoners, what does? The respondent suggests that better economic opportunities would be effective,” Give a man a decent job at a good wage and treat him like a fucking person.” Another reader added that his brother was sent to prison when he was 16 and came out with new criminal skills. Paradox.

The respondent says that the readers seems to be almost obsessive about prison rape, and another readers suggests that rape is a deterrent of crime, at least for him. I don’t if this is really measurable, but it would be interesting to find out about how much of a deterrent the idea of rape is. Another interesting theme from all the questions and responses is how racialized the discourse is. “I’m not racist but…” comes up a few times. The respondent doesn’t consider himself a racist, but he does reflect back on race relations in prison. He was eventually sent to a supermax prison from a medium security prison for getting into a fight with a gang of Black prisoners and while he doesn’t blame Mexicans for not being able to get a job, he does say that any work will be done by Mexicans for much less. He seems aware of economic inconsistencies among working class people (how they are pit against each other) and how those have worked to his disadvantage.

There are other interesting questions and comments (this is an open and ongoing forum) that I didn’t include. I suggest following the link to see what else has been added. I assume the thread will be open until the person who opened it decides he doesn’t want to answer more questions.

Life After Prison

Finding a job these days is pretty difficult. If you are an ex-inmate, however, it is much more difficult and sometimes impossible. There are many employers who will not hire convicted felons in any case while others, according to Ginnie Graham and Curtis Killman, two World Staff Writers, will not hire felons for at least five to ten years after they have been released from prison. Because of these issues, for former inmates, the possibility of finding any well-paying job can look bleak. Moreover, former inmates are not allowed to pursue a career that requires any type of state licensing. This cuts back a lot on what opportunities are available to ex-inmates and makes it tougher for them to find work.

In addition to job discrimination against former inmates, there are many other issues that can prevent ex-inmates from being able to obtain legitimate work after their release. Many feel that because there are not many good job options open to them, their best bet is to start selling drugs because it is much more profitable, in some regards, than obtaining a menial- labor job. A lot of the time, many ex-felons find themselves back in prison for selling drugs, and the cycle starts over again.

Without a job, relevant job experience, or something to fall back on, many former felons turn to recommitting crimes and end up back in prison. However, there are some programs that help to provide former inmates jobs, housing, and a new start outside of prison. One such program is called the Prisoner Reentry Initiative in Tulsa. This program works with local companies to employ former inmates when they are released from prison. Not only do these companies employ these former inmates, but they sometimes will also provide job training programs, which help to train inmates and allow them to gain more relevant and useful job experience.

Along with helping provide former inmates the basics for living a life free of crime, these companies also benefit from employing these ex-felons. Goodwill Industries in Tulsa is one of the main participants in the Prisoner Reentry Initiative Program, and Goodwill Industries of Tulsa is one of the biggest providers of job training for former inmates, as well. Incentives are given to the companies that are willing to hire former inmates.

Something that would be beneficial for this issue would be for the government to ease the restrictions on former inmates for getting licensed in certain fields, such as nursing, other health care jobs, or working with children, just to name a few. Also, for inmates who were convicted of non-violent crimes or who were put in prison for self defense in domestic violence cases, it would be beneficial for them to not be barred from so many career paths, especially when so many inmates are in prison for non-violent offenses. There should be more done in order to insure that ex-inmates are able to support themselves after release from prison and are not at risk for recommitting crimes and ending up back in prison.

Inner-City Beauty; Neighborhoods, Trust and Life

"When psychologist Frances Kuo finds in her research that adding trees and lawns to housing projects in Chicago leads local residents to feel greater calm, focus, and well-being, and crime rates drop, she is testing hypotheses that trace back to Muir's transformative experiences of awe" ( 252, Dacher Keltner, Born to Be Good; The Science of a Meaningful Life).

Inner-city neighborhoods are aesthetically-disfunctional zones, in need of assistance, attention and progressive programs that cultivate, nurture and produce healthy, productive people. The broken infrastructures and lack of access to areas of natural beauty directly lead to a sense of loss, disenfranchisement and marginalization. Racialised populations disproportionately face trauma and distressful situations, many of which must be negotiated with a (faked) smile; there has always been a lack of social capital in the American inner-city. A lack of inspirational vistas and access to experiences that produce feelings of awe and humility lead a diminished sense of "cultural citizenship." Further, high-stress environments such as "projects" and "ghettos" or other sociooeconomically-marginalized neighborhoods do not offer practical, convenient or effective-enough tools or opportunities to increase personal--and socio-cultural--agency, or to reduce levels of chronic distress. Criminalized populations are not born, they are created by a society who has forsaken them, too busy consuming popular media to think about issue of social justice, or think about shadowy hidden mental schema that may be operating unintentionally.

Dr. Gabor Mate asserts that all addiction is caused by early childhood distress. There is now evidence that elevated levels of prenatal stress harm developing babies. Researcher Claude M. Steele relates how, in a stressful situation "though Blacks reported no more anxiety than Whites during the diagnostic test, their blood pressure in that condition increased dramatically from it's baseline levels and was higher than that of al participants in all of the other conditions, all of whom experienced blood pressure drops from baseline. These findings have implications for understanding racial differences in hypertension" (400, Steele, Contending with Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype and Social Identity Threat, from Advances in Experimental Social Psychology). Often the physiological and psychological effects of meta-stereotypes--archetypes operating within the collective social unconscious--remain mysterious and hidden because they operate on sub-unconscious levels, and are extremely difficult to measure scientifically. Keltner has found that anonymous naive participants are able to "thin-slice"--make instantaneous and accurate judgements--of individuals' Socio-Economic-Status (SES) simply by observing body language, and other "off-the-record" markers of social engagement or disengagement; he further noted that non-European participants tended to display more clues of inter-personal engagement, which was then reflected by their partners in the study. More specific studies are needed to investigate the implications of these findings on a meta-social level. We are starting to uncover the testable ugly socio-economic and inner psychological realities that minority populations face; it is time for individuals to join and take (inter)personal responsibility for their contributions to social justice. The meta-social collective unconscious must undergo a paradigm shift, so that at risk populations are no longer seen as archetypal criminals; one's expectations may have a more drastic effect than previously realized. Experiments in quantum physics demonstrate the inherent affect-ability of scientific research, and subjectivity of observation. It is likely that subtle--sub-unconscious--off-the-record indicators such as micro-facial expressions (largely-uncontrollable flashes of emotion showing on the face, that reflect true inner states-of-being) send messages that operate below levels of conscious cognition, but are clearly interpreted on deep levels of the human psyche. The solution is to foster and promote environments and situations that cultivate elevated levels of social trust. In the words of Steele, "underperformance appears to be less rooted in self-doubt than in social mistrust" (52, Steele, Thin Ice; "Stereotype Threat" and Black College Students, from The Atlantic Monthly, August, 1999). Trust can not be realistically or convincingly faked by those who are not professional actors or politicians, so we'll have to all have to invest heavily in activities that encourage meaningful, connected lives, and manifest pro-sociality.

How to improve the situation for incarcerated pregnant women?

While giving birth is considered, in developed countries at least, as one of the most important and beautiful events of a woman's life, it seems as public opinion pays little attention to numerous incarcerated women who are shackled during delivery and separated from their new born a few minutes or a few hours later.

Many cases throughout the country have shown how shackling during delivery is cruel and dangerous for the mother and the baby's health. The consequences can be dramatic for the mother as well as for the new born: Shawanna Nelson, incarcerated in Arkansas for a non violent crime, was shackled during labor and immediatly after delivery. She suffered later from severe physical injuries and sued the Arkansas Department of Correction for violating the Eight Amendment's protecting against 'cruel and unsual punishment'. Women can be shackled in wheelchairs, while breastfeeding and giving neonatal care. Apart from Illinois, California, Vermont and New Mexico, where shackling pregnant women is prohibited, other states have no legal restriction to this practice, leaving this authority to incarceration facilities.

According to Human Rights Watch, several women in detention are pregnant due to sexual abuse that occured in their home country or while crossing the border. In that case, shackling appears even more cruel since pregnant women are considered and treated as criminals while they are actually victims. Overtly many female inmates pregnant state to have had a hard childhood that led them to drug abuse, lack of economic resources and incarceration. Looking at the socio-economic background of pregnant incarcerated women, who committed for the majority non-violent crimes, it appears that they have to live their pregnancy as another burden and often without the support of their family. Where society praises motherhood and familial support of pregnant women, why then are incarcerated women consequently isolated?

Although it is debated that all women have natural attachment to their new born, in the case of incarcerated women, it seems as their desire to be with their baby is remarkably strong, which explains their profound sadness that follows the delivery when the new born is taken away. Incarcerated mothers are allowed to hold their babies for a minutes to a few hours before their are taken to fostercare. This brutal separation causes tremendous amount of pain for the mothers who quickly have to return to the prison and confront other inmates as if nothing had happened. Several incarcerated women argue that they strived during pregnancy to fight their feeling of attachment to their babies, however, when confronting the reality they were overwhelmingly humiliated by lack of privacy and depressed to be separated to the life they carried for months. The strengh of these women is stunning. Above their attachment to their babies, they are conscious about the limited possibilities to have parental rights and are very concerned about the future of their babies.

Besides the post partum consequences for incarcerated women, we know little about the consequences for children to the abrupt separation from their mother. In New York, a nursery has been created to allow incarcerated women to be with their new-born who sleep in the cell with their mother, next to their bed. If this experience gives satisfactory results, we should hope that many more correctional facilities develop nurseries and possibilities for incarcerated mothers to stay in contact with their children. Therapy sould as well be increased for female inmates who wish to talk about their difficulty to be separated from their children, especially when we consider that 70% of female inmates in the US are parents.

The goal to achieve here is to humanize pregnant incarcerated women because their deserve better care and more attention. As well as other detainees, but maybe more, pregnant incarcerated women should have the right to claim more privacy and control over their own body, especially during delivery, and receive psychological support post partum.

Respecting Inmate Culture

When convicts enter into a prison they are expected to all conform to the same standards. Issues arise, however, when inmates have cultural or religious beliefs that hinder them from conforming in the way that the facilities demands they do. Religious and cultural practices often keep individuals from eating certain foods or altering their appearance in specific ways. When a convict arrives in prison, they are required to shave their head regardless of their religious or cultural beliefs, unless they have prior legal arrangements made. The more public cases regarding the forced cutting of inmates' hair typically involved the Native American population. The Washington Post discusses the issue that Rastafarian inmates face regarding policies on length and style of the hair of inmates.
In Virginia, over 30 inmates were moved to a maximum security facility for "non-compliance." All of these men were moved for not complying with standards that require hair to be above one's shirt collar and beards to be completely shaven. A number of these inmates were Rastafarians whose religious views include growing their hair. Several of these inmates spent more than a decade in solitary confinement for their unwillingness to comply. Just recently, these isolated inmates were moved to a different facility in southwestern Virginia and put in a program that rewards inmates with privileges with the hopes of getting them to cut their hair or beards. Several inmates have left this program and instead have chosen to return to segregation.
Many studies in prisons have shown the destruction that solitary confinement can do to an inmate, causing them to actually go crazy with hallucinations and the like. While it must be difficult to monitor who actually has religious or cultural reasoning for their behavior, demanding that one go against their religion is crossing a serious line. One comment on the article proposes that all of these men be grouped together in a specific wing or building rather than being subject to isolation. This is a much better option as it would not cause the self-destruction that solitary confinement does, and the religious or cultural values of the individuals are not violated. Ensuring that the religious and cultural needs of prisoners probably doesn't seem necessary to a lot of individuals who believe that prison should be a place of punishment and the individual needs of inmates should not be catered to. However violating something that is so central to who a person is can break them to the point of severe self-destruction, as well as should be considered a violation of basic human rights which still need to be preserved whether incarcerated or not.
Articles:
Rastafarian inmates moved in Va.
48 Va. inmates isolated because of hair

Shifting inmates from state to county facilities is not saving taxpayers money

Oregon lawmakers are being confronted by a growing number of county sheriffs who are opposing the change in the way our state incarcerates inmates in county and state facilities. This change would allow county jails to house inmates for up to 2 years instead of the 1 year maximum. The sheriff’s concerns are due to the state’s struggle to meet budget concerns with voter concerns. In June 2010 Governor Kulongoski proposed a package that included “incentives for counties to manage offenders and reduce their rate of committing new crimes”. This package, which is fueled by Senate Bill 726, which “requires counties to assume responsibility for criminal offenders sentenced to term of incarceration of 24 months or less” as lawmakers are trying to find cheaper solutions in the way we incarcerate.

This news article mentions that there are an “estimated 1000 unused beds in county jails” and that by shifting certain state inmates back to counties that this would allow the state to meet the demands of Senate Bill 726. In this case, the benefits I could see is a cost saving from not having to transport inmates from the county to state facilities and the ability to keep offenders in connection with their families as they would stay in the county (possibly) where they reside but this may not be the case if the offender committed a crime in an different county than where they and their family resides.

Yet I find it troubling that we do not eliminate these excess beds in county jails as a way of scaling back our budget as it is mentioned in the article that a county jail can cost our state $110 a day to house an inmate versus the $84.43 it costs to house them in a state facility. What I find equally confusing about this savings is that programming usually happens in state facilities, like treatment programs, GED, vocational rehab as well as more access to resources such as better health care and yet it costs less than the facility that does not offer these options. How could our state be charged more for fewer services? And how does this save money?

My concern is that this change will not do what the governor intended in reducing the rate of recidivism as one of the sheriff’s interviewed in the article states that “many of these inmates have problems with alcohol and drug abuse and stay in county jails…some are arrested for new crimes”. This statement demonstrates that county jail does not have the programming necessary to address the issues that cause recidivism. The shift of inmates from state to county beds that cost more is not a cost savings and further more can put burden on counties that may have fewer resources than others. The shifting in numbers is not a reduction of those incarcerated, which is what our state should be focused on. In order to do this though, it will take investment as well as a commitment to rehabilitation and prevention work.