Prisoners in White County, Tennessee can now receive a credit for 30 days off their sentences if they voluntarily undergo a birth control procedure.

General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed the standing order instituting the program on May 15. Since then, at least 32 women and 38 men have volunteered for the procedure. Female prisoners receive a Nexplanon arm implant, which works for up to three years. Male prisoners receive a vasectomy. The Tennessee Department of Health conducts both procedures free of charge for the inmates.

Judge Benningfield decided to sign the order after speaking with the Department of Health. He says his hope is that the program will end the vicious cycle of drug-addicted ex-cons giving birth to children they cannot support and who might one day become drug users and criminals themselves. “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children,” he said in an interview with Nashville’s News Channel 5. “I understand it won’t be entirely successful, but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win-win.”

Not everyone agrees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement on Wednesday calling the program “unconstitutional:”

Offering a so-called ‘choice’ between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

There is also dissent closer to home. Tennessee’s District Attorney Bryant Dunaway has instructed his staff not to make arrangements regarding the program. “Those decisions are personal in nature and I think that’s just something the court system should not encourage or mandate,” he told local news station WTKR.

So far, 32 female volunteers have received their implants. The male volunteers are still waiting for their procedures to begin.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tennessee Inmates Trading Time in Prison for Birth Control and Vasectomies appeared first on Law Street.

Given the amount of security guards and surveillance cameras located in prisons there shouldn’t be inmates doing drugs or dying from drug-related causes. But in California prisons, that’s exactly what’s happening. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is spending $8 million this year on drug-detecting scanners and new drug-sniffing dogs. Officers have also conducted strip searches on visitors suspected of carrying drugs. These new procedures were born out of the shocking revelation that inmates in California prisons are dying from drug overdoses at three times the national rate. But is increased scrutiny of visitors really the best course of action?

Officials have hopes that these new methods will lead to a decrease in the death rate. But despite officers’ opinions that the efforts are discouraging drug smuggling, reports show that might not be the case, and that instead these policies just create problems for visitors. There have been more than 6,000 scans on visitors and employees at eleven different prisons and no drugs were found. Mohamed Shehk, an Oakland-based spokesman for Critical Resistance, stated, “The statistics — $8 million, 6,000 scans and nothing to show for it — show that these are intended to intimidate and criminalize people who are going to see their loved ones inside.”

More than 150 California inmates have died due to drug overdoses since 2006, with a high of 24 deaths in 2013. Sharing needles, which often leads to the spread of Hepatitis C infections, killed 69 inmates in 2013 alone. Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard is determined to change this high rate and is modeling California’s new procedures after those that were successful in the Pennsylvania Corrections Department, which he led for a decade. Pennsylvania’s annual rate of drug or alcohol deaths per 100,000 inmates is one, while California’s is eight per 100,000 inmates.

But while officers may feel like these new methods are helping, many visitors disagree and have begun to criticize them, especially the strip searches. “It’s a humiliating process, that can be easily used to humiliate and demean people, and was only for visitors, often women,” said Democratic Senator Loni Hancock. Tania Gamboa, a visitor at Kern Valley State Prison in California, was visiting her brother when an ion scan machine tested her positive for exposure to heroin. She felt humiliated after she was required to strip naked in front of two female correctional officers and squat to demonstrate that she was not concealing drugs. “It doesn’t make sense for me, knowing that I don’t do all that and I got detected for it,” Gamboa said. The big problem is that these procedures are beginning to make visitors feel like suspects.

Along with the strip search complaints, there have also been complaints about the dog searches. Wayne Conrad, the department’s statewide canine program coordinator, resigned last fall after the correctional facility decided to use dogs to search humans. Conrad explained his problem with the procedures, saying that there’s potential for false positives that could lead to lawsuits.

In order to mitigate those concerns, there are changes being made to the breeds of dogs used to search visitors. German shepherds in California prisons have been effective at finding hidden drugs. But as a result of these complaints, the department is now turning to less intimidating and more approachable dogs such as Labrador Retrievers–“fluffy, friendly dogs,” Northern California canine program coordinator Sgt. Brian Pyle called them. While this is an understandable move, it doesn’t change the fact that the dogs are searching these visitors can be read as upsetting or demeaning in some cases.

Concerned lawmakers that oversee state prisons included language in the California budget plan passed this week that would put an end to the searches and require an evaluation of the department’s other efforts. Correctional facilities do not want drugs brought into prisons that could lead to inmates deaths, but visitors do not want to feel embarrassed or humiliated as they are being searched. Officials are going to have to find an effective way to lower the death rates of the inmates and stop drug smuggling with procedures that do not leave the visitors feeling violated.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do We Solve the Drug Overdose Problem in California Prisons? appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

With barbed wire fences, armed-guard towers, extensive searching by guards, and locked rooms, prisons seem to be a place almost completely cut off from the world. Few would think marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and OxyContin are commonplace behind prison walls. The War on Drugs has led to nearly half of federal inmates being sentenced for drug crimes. If illegal drugs can easily be found behind bars in the most controlled of environments, what can be done to prevent substance abuse by inmates?

What are the statistics on drug use inside prisons?

Prisons seem to be the last place one would think to find drugs, yet prevalent gang activity and dependency on drugs has created a thriving black market. Drug use in prisons has become more relevant due to increasing calls for improved substance abuse treatment for inmates. According to CASA Columbia, 65 percent of inmates in 2010 met the criteria for substance abuse or addiction. Those who suffer from addiction and committed crimes relating to drugs or alcohol make up 85 percent of the nation’s prison population. A large segment of the prison population has been affected by drugs and alcohol prior to incarceration, but prison walls have not been a barrier to these substances.

Reliable statistics on drug use in prisons are difficult to attain. The frequency of drug testing is not standardized across facilities and can be random or can be issued with reasonable suspicion to specific inmates. Furthermore, prisoners have no reason to confess to using, and officials in prisons do not want to report unfavorable statistics. Technology has helped those behind bars to coordinate their drug trade while locked up. Cell phones allow inmates to track drugs via satellite and can even allow access to mobile banking. The prevalence of cell phones in prisons indicates the ease of obtaining contraband and the method for obtaining drugs.

The case of California

• Roughly 1,000 seizures of drugs are reported in California prisons each year.
• From 2006-2008, 44 of California’s inmates died from drug overdoses.
• From 2008-2009, California officers seized the highest amount of drugs in decades: 2,832 grams of marijuana and 92 grams of cocaine.
• In June 2013, 23 percent of California’s inmates tested positive for illegal substances and another 30 percent refused to be tested.
• In 2013, California alone confiscated over 12,000 cell phones from their prisons.
• More than 4,000 drug-related incidents were reported in California prisons in 2013.

These are far from the rates of drug usage outside of prison, but they still have strong implications. It is important to note that drug testing is often conducted by urine analysis, which will only detect drug use from the past several days. In contrast, testing hair can detect drug use from the past 90 days. In response to testing, drug use in prison often involves drugs that are harder to detect, such as heroin or prescription drugs.

How are drugs smuggled inside the prison?

From the Outside

Reports from the Washington Times and The Economist showed the limitless creativity exhibited by inmates to get contraband through extensive security. In some cases, drugs are thrown over prison walls in a ball or package. Some prisons do not scan all mail, so drugs can be delivered through mail and even on the backs of stamps. Oftentimes visitors may bring in drugs by “plugging” their body cavities or hiding drugs in a baby’s diaper. The drugs are then given to an inmate by way of a kiss, dropped in a shared can of soda, or food. Some inmates’ work detail, such as receiving deliveries, allow them greater privileges and more opportunities to bring in drugs.

From Staff

By the admission of those who work inside prisons, the most likely smuggling culprits are staff members themselves. Staff are searched before entering the facility but sometimes they are not as thoroughly searched as visitors. Staff have brought in drugs on their person or even hidden in their food. Some staff members do it for money to supplement their modest salary. Others are young and easily manipulated by seemingly friendly inmates. In April 2013, 13 correctional officers in Maryland were indicted for aiding the Black Guerrilla Family, a national prison gang thriving in Baltimore. The guards allegedly smuggled in cell phones, drugs, and other contraband on their person and in food. One indicted guard was reported to have made $3000-$5000 dollars a week for smuggling contraband to one inmate. Once guards are involved, drug use by inmates often goes overlooked.  ­­

The Market

Numerous inmates have verified drugs are as available in prisons as they are on the street, but not in the form of a cash market. Prisoners typically trade by using tobacco or items bought from commissary. Prisoners claim drugs inside a prison sell for more than 4 times the legal price outside prison walls. In an interview with The Fix, one anonymous prisoner claimed, “You can get whatever you want in here. Marijuana, heroin, whatever. They had oxy-80s on the pound for $160 each. It’s way more expensive than on the street, but if you got the money you can buy them… The sad thing about it all is, they lock you up for drugs and they can’t even keep the drugs out of the prison.” The shocking video below, made by inmates in Orleans Parish Prison, shows drugs, alcohol, guns, and gambling – all within prison walls:

What are the consequences of drug smuggling?

Consequences of drug smuggling vary. Drug use in prisons can pose security problems, escalate violence, lead to disputes regarding debts owed, and increase health and overdose concerns. Anyone bringing drugs into prison can be prosecuted, and inmates face write-ups and revoked privileges.

New York

In New York, if an inmate is caught with drugs or has tested positive, he is sent to solitary confinement for up to 3 months for his first offense. Prisoners in solitary are prohibited from any treatment programs they may have been in and those on the waiting list for treatment are removed from the list. Between 2005 and 2007, New York sentenced inmates to a collective 2,561 years in solitary from drug-related charges. Time in solitary confinement has negative emotional and physical consequences on inmates, who are potentially more vulnerable to using once they are released in the general population. These inmates are often sentenced to longer prison time with probation revoked or delayed and visiting privileges suspended.

California

Recently the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation proposed a plan where those who test positive for drug use will lose 90 days of pay from their work assignments, though inmates make only 8 to 32 cents per hour of work.

What do prisons do to treat drug addiction?

Access to Programs

Some inmates may not want substance abuse treatment. But for those who do, a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office showed that while 31,803 inmates were enrolled in basic drug education programs, more than 51,000 inmates were on waiting lists for periods up to 3 months. Prison overcrowding, with federal prisons operating at 40 percent above capacity, has meant limited access to these programs. A 2010 CASA Columbia report showed only 11 percent of inmates with substance abuse and addiction disorders receive any treatment during their incarcerations.

Programs

Different facilities offer different programs to treat drug abuse. Federal inmates have access to residential programs, transitional programs, nonresidential programs, and drug education programs. Other treatment programs vary by state. Tight budgets have forced states such as Kansas and Pennsylvania to cut treatment programs inside prisons and instead divert offenders to less expensive treatment programs outside of prison. Some claim that prisons should be focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Others argue that prison is the best chance to treat those with substance abuse problems to help prevent future crimes, but oftentimes this opportunity goes unused.

Medical Treatment in Prison

Treating an addiction like heroin or opioids can require Methadone or Buprenorphine to help with withdrawal symptoms. However, a drug like Methadone requires strict regulation and is expensive for correctional facilities in the short run. Allowing Methadone in prisons means it may be  sold on the black market and could even lead to inmates robbing the dispensary. Only half of states provide these treatment drugs even though both are listed by the World Health Organization as drugs that should be available to prisoners at all times.

Cost Effectiveness

Human Rights Watch has reported that for every $1 spent on substance abuse programs, states save $2-$6 dollars in the long run from reduced recidivism rates. One study found that for each inmate who remained sober, employed, and crime-free, the United States would save $91,000 per year. There is a great demand for substance abuse rehabilitation programs which can lead to early release and save government money. Watch this video for more information on the benefit of substance abuse programs in prison:

What else can be done to prevent drug use in prisons?

Many consider the Pennsylvania plan to limit inmate access to illicit drugs among the most successful. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections instituted a zero-tolerance policy after facing increasing drug usage in its prisons. The plan called for:

• Criminal prosecution of inmates caught with drugs
• Increased surveillance of inmates and visitors
• Increased visits by drug-detecting dogs
• Greater number of cell searches
• Improved technology in detection and scanning systems
• Random monitoring of phone calls
• Drug testing by hair rather than solely by urine analysis
• Revoked visiting privileges for offenders

In 1996, 7.8 percent of Pennsylvania inmates whose hair was tested showed illicit drug usage in the past 90 days. With the addition of the measures above, only 1.4 percent of inmates tested positive two years later. Along with the falling rates of drug use, assaults on inmates decreased 70 percent and assaults on staff decreased 57 percent.

Many states have looked to follow Pennsylvania’s example. However, many of the strategies in prisons are not replicated in more lax county jails. Furthermore, once inmates leave prisons, they enter less strict programs or probation where drugs are easy to obtain. Limiting drug use in prisons makes little sense if inmates do not have treatment and are overwhelmed by the availability of illegal drugs once they are no longer behind bars.

Critics have taken issue with the level of strictness required to eradicate drug use in prisons. Prisons could always be made worse. States could require inmates to spend more time locked in their rooms, have less free time in the yard, and have very closely-monitored visits. The question becomes at what cost should prisons seek to be drug-free. Many facilities simply do not have the staff to better supervise the amount of visits they receive. Accommodative visiting policies are aimed at making family visits easier since contact with family is integral to an inmate’s success after prison.

Balancing what prisons can actually achieve with their limited staff, funding, and how they can best keep contraband outside without completely dehumanizing inmates remains a complicated act. Stronger substance abuse programs may be necessary to prevent drug use, but completely eliminating the supply of drugs could be a game of hide and seek that will never end.

Resources

Primary

US Code 1791: Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison

US Code 14052: Enhanced Penalties for Illegal Drug Use in Federal Prisons

NCJRS: Reducing Drug Use in Prisons: Pennsylvania’s Approach

Additional

Nation’s Health: Report Finds Most U.S. Inmates Suffer From Substance Abuse

CASA: Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population

Economist: Drugs in Prisons: Supply and Remand

Washington Times: Drugs Inside Prison Walls

Newsweek: The Case for Treating Drug Addicts in Prison

Daily Beast: With Cigarettes Banned in Most Prisons, Gangs Shift

Hills Treatment Center: Drug Rehab Programs in Jail and Prison

Syracuse: Prison and Drugs: State Often Denies Help

USA Today: Prisoners Face Long Wait for Drug-Rehab Services

The Fix: Drug Treatment in Prison

Columbus Dispatch: Drug Use in Ohio’s Prisons Spiked

CBS: California Prisons Find 1 in 4 Inmates Used Drugs

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the War on Drugs Takes on a New Form Behind Bars appeared first on Law Street.

After a botched execution in Oklahoma rose questions about the cruelty of the death penalty last month, capital punishment is in the news again this week. The Supreme Court has ruled a Florida law unconstitutional that barred the execution of any prisoner with an IQ less than 70, after the case was heard in March. The law was intended to prevent inhumane treatment of those prisoners, but the Justices who voted to strike down the law stated that a strict IQ cut off did not take into account inherent issues with IQ tests. The ruling was 5-4, with the more liberal side of the court voting to overturn Florida’s law. The perennial swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy swung to their side.

The problem with such an inflexible law is that it allowed some prisoners, who fell just above the 70 point threshold, to be executed. IQ tests are not even close to absolute–there is a margin of error that needs to be taken into account. Someone with an IQ of 71 could have the same mental capacities as someone who receives an IQ test of 69. Florida’s law doesn’t recognize that. There is also the fact that IQ can vary over time. When you reach your 50s or 60s, your score will usually go down by a point or two. There’s also the problem that our IQ scores, as a society, have changed over time. Every decade, our average IQ scores go up by about 3 points. Finally, there’s the matter of education–people who had more access to education may score higher on an IQ test, even if their mental abilities are the same as another with less education. The benchmark of “70” means little to nothing, other than an arbitrary number used to decide the future of some prisoners.

Many US states that still allow capital punishment have some sort of IQ or capability requirement in order to sentence a prisoner to death. However, most of those states take a holistic look at prisoners, incorporating psychological assessments and recognizing the margin of error that is present in an IQ test. Florida was one of the few with a purely numerical cutoff, but the others with similar laws will also be forced to reevaluate their policies. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. Although Kansas’s death penalty hasn’t actually been used in half a century, and Washington may be moving towards abolishing theirs.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court involved a man named Freddie L. Hall. He has been in prison since 1978, when he was convicted of murdering a 21-year-old woman who was pregnant. His execution has been hanging in the balance due to his borderline IQ scores. He has taken nine IQ tests over roughly the last 50 years. On those tests, he has scored anywhere from low 60s to 80. His most recent tests have hovered right around that 70 benchmark–a few over and a few under. However, not all of his tests have been deemed admissible in court and the one that was used in his most recent hearing had a score of 71. That means that Hall was just one point about the 70 cutoff, even though there’s no evidence to suggest that he consistently could score above 70. Throughout Hall’s entire life, his doctors had classified him as mentally disabled based not just on IQ scores but on other tests and on their analysis.

As a result of the rule regarding Hall, and the changes that the nine aforementioned states will have to make, there are a few prisoners who may get another chance at appealing the ruling that put them on death row.

This is a great step towards a recognition that IQ tests have not, for a long time, been conclusive, and that something as serious as the death penalty needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever possible.

[New Republic]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Biologycorner via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post IQ Requirements for Death Penalty to Change Due to SCOTUS Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study concluded that private prisons are more likely to hold African American prisoners when compared to public correction facilities. The study argues that contractual provisions, specifically health care related exemptions, have a measurable effect on the racial makeup of private correctional populations and are the primary contributors to this trend.

This report was the second part of a research study conducted by Christopher Petrella, a UC-Berkeley graduate student, and sought to explain the existence of the disparities found in his initial research. Petrella argues that the existence of unique medical exemptions in private prison contracts has caused their populations to include more black Americans than public prison populations.

We have covered private prisons before, but this study marks another example of why private prisons have become controversial recently. Private for-profit prison companies hold over 12 percent of the total prison population. The total number of inmates in these facilities totals over 130,000, and has continued to rise in recent years. These prisons have grown dramatically in size over the years and continue to develop political influence.

According to Petrella’s research, the presence of health exemptions for private prisons, allow such companies to avoid holding prisoners with chronic medical conditions or who may have above average medical costs. Statistics further indicate that younger inmates are much more likely to be black, and older inmates are relatively more likely to be white. The study attributes this disparity to the recent “war on drugs” campaign, which has had a disproportionate effect on young black Americans.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Prisoners in 2010 report, the estimated sentenced prisoner rate per 100,000 people was significantly larger for blacks in every age group, particularly those under the age of 50. Consequently, age becomes what Petrella calls “a proxy” for race, as grouping inmates by age also tends to separate them by skin color. Petrella cites a study done by the ACLU to explain how age affects health care costs. The ACLU found that the annual cost of holding the average prisoner is $34,135, but the cost of holding a prisoner over the age of 50 years old is $68,270.

It is also important to note that Petrella decided not to use statistics from federal detention centers that are operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or local ones controlled by the U.S. Marshall’s Service in order to avoid inflating the statistics even further.

Steve Owens, the senior director of public affairs for Corrections Corporation of America, told NPR that he found the study to be “deeply flawed.” He cited the fact that the government agrees to the contracts and typically has a lot of control over what prisoners are held in private facilities.

Although, it does not appear that race was the motive for these exemptions and policies, it does point to another example of discrimination and racial injustice within the prison system. Profit is clearly the overriding rationale behind the actions of private prison companies, but this problem is simply a part of a much larger issue of racial injustice.

Racial Injustice in Prisons

Here is an infographic created by ArrestRecords.com, which outlines many prominent examples of racism in the criminal justice system. According to the infographic, African Americans represent 37.1 percent of the American prison population, yet makeup only 12.6 percent of the country’s citizens. Racism is arguably even more noticeable among prisoners on death row, as blacks represent 43 percent of that population. Furthermore, African Americans who have killed white people were sentenced to death 22 times more often than a white person convicted of killing a black person.

Statistics also show a growing trend in the proportion of blacks in the overall prison population. This holds true for men, women, adults and children, as prisoner totals have gone up dramatically since 1960. Not only are blacks more likely to be incarcerated during their lifetime, they are also more likely to receive higher bail totals, longer prison sentences, get stopped by law enforcement officers in public, and get convicted by all-white juries.

The infographic also indicates how the “War on Drugs” has adversely affected the black community in America. Although blacks represent just over 12 percent of the population, they constitute 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses, and as many as 58 percent of the people in state prisons for such crimes. According to The Sentencing Project the average drug related sentence for African Americans is almost the same as the average violent crime sentence for a whites. This indicates that not only are black people more likely to be convicted of a crime, but are also more likely to serve more jail time than a white person would be for the same crime.

Finally, some statistics indicate that there is hope for the future, as the incarceration rate for both black male and females has started to decrease in recent years. These rates remain well above those of white males and females, but these trends may indicate that the gap is starting to close. However, there is a long way to go before the American prison system is equitable, and much needs to be done to combat the extensive history of injustice within the United States. Creating awareness and making reforms in the criminal justice system are an important part of addressing many of the existing issues.

[NPR] [The Color of Corporate Corrections]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Private Prisons Much More Likely to Hold Minorities appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders announced Monday a deal to seek an extension on the compliance order to cut California’s prison population by expanding rehabilitation programs.  This approach is aimed at reducing the number of former inmates committing new crimes through health and informational programs. If the request for an extension is rejected by the panel of judges then the state is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to house inmates in private prisons.

The federal judges, who deemed California prisons unconstitutionally crowded, gave the state officials until December 31 to reduce the prison population by thousands. There has been a lot of controversy in the Capitol over how to handle the court order.  The Governor’s original plan was to spend $1.1 billion over three years to house inmates in private prisons, county jails and other facilities. Meanwhile, California Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg wanted to extend the court order for three years, allowing the state more time to expand mental-health and drug rehabilitation programs. Both proposals did not adequately provide a working solution within the time frame allotted.

[LA Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Luis Argerich via Wikipedia]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Time Please: Deal Seeking an Extension on California’s Prison Compliance Order appeared first on Law Street.