|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Policy Violation" |
|
News :: International Relations |
|
Wolfowitz In Ankara Urges Military To Overrule Turkish Government |
Current rating: 0 |
by Justus Leicht reposted by Dan "Abuser of the Local Newswire" Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
25 May 2003
|
24 May 2003
If any additional proof were needed to demonstrate that the aim of the US in the Middle East is the subjugation of the region rather then the introduction of “freedom” and “democracy,” then it was provided by the visit to Turkey two weeks ago by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. |
In an interview with the CNN channel Türk he lectured the Turkish government for bowing to public pressure (more than 90 percent of the population opposed the Iraq war) and refusing to allow the stationing of US troops on Turkish territory for the invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz effectively demanded an apology, saying: “Lets have a Turkey that steps up and says we made a mistake. We should have known how bad things were in Iraq but we know now. Let’s figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans.”
Even more revealing was his criticism of the Turkish military, which he accused of holding back from forcing the elected government into line: “I think for whatever reason they did not play the strong leadership role on that issue that we would have expected.”
When politely reminded that the military (which has overthrown four elected governments in the last 45 years in Turkey) is usually criticized for interfering too much into politics, Wolfowitz responded: “I think it’s perfectly appropriate, especially in your system, for the military to say it was in Turkey’s interest to support the United States in that effort.(...) My impression is they didn’t say it with the kind of strength that would have made a difference.”
So far no representative of the U. S. government has made such a blunt public demand that Turkish generals force the will of the United States upon an elected civilian government. Rather than express outrage over what could be interpreted as encouragement for a military coup, theTurkish media and politicians have reacted with a mixture of self-pity and gestures of obedience to Washington. At every opportunity, they stress that Turkey did not oppose the war and claim that the country was the most important US ally after Britain.
Initially, the Turkish parliament barred the use of any use of the country’s territory for US forces preparing to attack Iraq. Bowing to massive American pressure, however, it allowed the use of Turkish airspace for bombers and transport planes. In addition, the government allowed the use of Turkey territory for logistical support.
Nevertheless, Turkey’ standing with the Bush administration has been severely downgraded. Ankara was especially hard hit by the US refusal to allow the Turkish military occupation of northern Iraq. Whether Turkish firms get some crumbs in the form of being able to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq is also still very much in doubt.
In particular the Turkish military fears that, despite all US assurances, a basically autonomous Kurdish state could be set up in Northern Iraq—even if formally part of an Iraqi federation. Kirkuk, which would likely be the capital of such a state, is under the control of Kurdish nationalists who are systematically driving out Turkmen and Arab minorities.
While the Turkish military repeatedly threatened to send troops into Northern Iraq in the event of such a development, up to now it has bowed to American demands and refrained from doing so. This is the policy of at least the chief of the general staff, Hilmi Özkök, reflecting the fact that the Turkish military is heavily dependent on the supply of military equipment and financial and political support from the US.
Following the recent replacement of the US proconsul in Iraq, Jay Garner, by antiterrorism expert Paul Bremer, the far-right newspaper TercĂĽman even speculated that Turkey will be needed again when the US pushes ahead with its subordination of the region. The paper hopes that in the process the remains of the Kurdish nationalist PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) will also be wiped out.
“Bush’s choice of a retired antiterrorism expert rather than an ex-military man gives us clues to the answer to this question: The US’s top priority in Iraq is not the country’s reconstruction but rather gaining an extensive foothold in the region, under the guise of the war against terrorism, so as to be able to besiege all the countries of the Middle East. According to Bremer, to prevent new terrorist attacks against the US, countries such as Libya and Iran must be strictly controlled and kept under constant pressure. ...The appointment of Bremer to a position over Garner is a positive development for Turkey, since Bremer supports keeping a stranglehold on the terrorist group PKK/KADEK.“ (Tercüman, May 8th)
Arising out of its decades-long role of suppressing the Turkish left and workers’ movements and crushing Kurdish uprisings, a fascistic faction has been fostered in the Turkish army, although it remains unclear whether this faction is in opposition to the military high command or protected by it. At the end of April, American newspapers wrote that US soldiers had intercepted a convoy with Turkish special forces in northern Iraq, which was set to arm the pro-Turkish “Iraqi Turkmen Front.”
Especially noteworthy about this episode was the speed with which it disappeared from the media and the low-key reaction of the U.S. government. Faced with similar accusations, neighboring Iran has been targeted with massive threats and intimidation by Washington. But while the accusations against Iran have not been backed up by any evidence, with only vague assertions of “intelligence” regarding “infiltration of Iranian agents,” Turkey has been, according to the U.S., caught in the act of a far more serious case of meddling in Iraqi affairs.
In his interview, Wolfowitz said merely: “What happened shouldn’t have happened.” This would be “a good example I think, that whatever Turkey does in the north, and we understand Turkey has important interest in the north, it’s got to be coordinated now through the coalition, through General Franks.”
He warned Turkey against sending its own troops into Iraq. Turkish soldiers stationed there for years are now being called upon to leave as well. In exchange, the US has indicated it will move against the PKK. “The PKK is a terrorist organization,” he said. “I don’t think we can tolerate a terrorist organization in northern Iraq.”
Up to now, however, the US has not made clear how and when it intends to suppress the PKK/KADEK. Last week Turkish officials met with representatives of Kurdish and Turkmen groups as well as with American intelligence and military officials in Iraq.
For its part, the PKK/KADEK has taken pains to express its obedience to the US. At the end of April, it published a statement that favorably compared president George Bush to his predecessor Clinton. The statement said that Bill Clinton had preserved the “status quo” by supporting the Turkish state against the Kurds and “allow[ing] the Saddam regime to survive.” It was now the task of the US to bring democracy to the whole Middle East: “The intervention will be successful only if it paves the way for improving common human values. Any regime similar to the old one will only cause chaos. Therefore the only way for US is to create the possibility for setting up democratic regimes and then supporting them.“
|
Comments
|
VIOLATIONS IN U.S. PRISONS AND JAILS Intentional Brutality Is A Form Of Torture |
by Miller AKA DAN "Don't the Rest of Us Wish That Hate Would Take a Holiday" Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2003
|
Every day in prisons and jails across the USA, the human rights of prisoners are violated. In many facilities, violence is endemic. In some cases, guards fail to stop inmates assaulting each other. In others, the guards are themselves the abusers, subjecting their victims to beatings and sexual abuse. Prisons and jails use mechanical, chemical and electro-shock methods of restraint that are cruel, degrading and sometimes life-threatening. The victims of abuse include pregnant women and the mentally ill.
Thousands of prisoners are isolated in solitary confinement for long periods. Many prisoners do not receive adequate care for serious physical and mental health problems.
Many of these practices violate US laws as well as international human rights standards2, but the mechanisms available to prevent abuses and provide redress are inadequate. The weakness of independent scrutiny, together with public demands for harsher treatment of offenders, have created a climate in which serious violations can occur and continue without being effectively challenged.
A system under pressure
In mid-1997 there were over 1.7 million people incarcerated in US jails and prisons, more than three times the 1980 figure. The increase reflected long-term rises in crime, and state and federal sentencing policies which have led to longer prison terms, fewer releases on parole, and mandatory minimum prison sentences, especially for drugs offences.
Over 60 per cent of prisoners are from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Half are African Americans, even though they comprise just over 12 per cent of the US population. The proportion of prisoners from minority groups has been growing steadily. One reason for this has been the disproportionate impact of drug sentencing policies on black Americans. Between 1985 and 1995 drugs offences accounted for 42 per cent of the increase in the number of blacks jailed, compared to 26 per cent for whites.3
There has also been a higher rate of increase in women prisoners than men: women now comprise over 10 per cent of the jail population and over six per cent of the prison population. In 1970 there were about 5,600 women in state and federal prisons; by 1997 there were 75,000.4 The increase is due in large part to a massive rise in the number of women incarcerated for drugs offences.5
Even though huge sums have been spent on building new prisons and jails in the past decade, the expansion has not kept pace with the rising prison population. Overcrowding and understaffing have contributed to dangerous and inhumane conditions in many facilities. The Justice Department and others have documented appalling conditions in dozens of jails: overflowing toilets and pipes; toxic and insanitary environments; prisoners forced to sleep on filthy floors without mattresses; cells infested with vermin and lacking ventilation.6 Some of the jails investigated by the Justice Department were found not to have any policies or procedures on the use of force.7 In others policies or training were inadequate.
Overcrowded correctional facilities lack the space and staff to protect vulnerable inmates from predatory ones. As a result, physical and sexual violence and extortion are rife in many prisons and jails. In the Yavapai County jail system in Arizona, for instance, particularly in Prescott Jail, beatings by inmates were allegedly a daily occurrence in 1997.8 Violence between prisoners is aggravated by confining inmates together who should be separated. For example, in Nebraska State Prison, overcrowding led to prisoners being confined together without any review of their backgrounds, reportedly leading to an increase in assaults, rapes and robberies by inmates.9 Rape of prisoners by other inmates is reported to be alarmingly widespread. In a 1994 survey of prisoners in Nebraska, more than 10 per cent of male prisoners reported being "pressured or forced to have sexual contact" with other inmates.10
Contrary to international standards, some jails do not segregate pre-trial detainees from convicted prisoners.11 There is often little or no classification of people who may be awaiting trial for minor or serious crimes, and inmates are commonly housed together in dormitories.12 For example, in the second half of 1997 Los Angeles County Jail continued to house inmates in unsuitable dormitories, even though many were awaiting trial on dangerous felony charges. Inmates were reported to have preyed on the mentally ill, stealing their food and possessions and attacking them.13 The increase in the prison population has coincided with a shift away from rehabilitation towards greater emphasis on incapacitation and punishment. This has often led to the imposition of harsher regimes and cuts in amenities. Despite evidence that education can reduce reoffending rates, educational programs have been cut, and in 1994 Congress ended all provision of federal funds for prisoners participating in higher education.14 In many facilities exercise equipment has been removed and leisure activities severely restricted.
The pressure faced by correctional staff in coping with overcrowding and poorly equipped facilities has led to an increased use of mechanical and other forms of control in some institutions. A wide range of technology designed to control and incapacitate inmates has been developed in recent years, including electro-shock devices, which Amnesty International believes are inherently unsafe and prone to misuse. The growth of supermaximum security units to house large numbers of prisoners in isolation for extended periods is also part of the shift towards containment and punishment instead of rehabilitation.
In order to cut costs, states have increasingly contracted out to private firms the management of facilities as well as services such as health care. As a result, incarceration has become one of the fastest growing businesses in the USA, generating large profits for the corporations that now house more than 77,000 prison and jail inmates.15 Many experts believe that the involvement of private companies increases the likelihood of inmates being abused and subjected to poor conditions. They suggest that private companies have a stronger interest in cutting costs, which can lead to low investment in staffing, training, health care, educational or rehabilitation programs, and even food. Such fears are borne out by serious complaints about conditions in privately run facilities in a number of states.
As local facilities have run out of room, a growing number of states have transported prisoners to out-of-state facilities, often thousands of miles away. For example, women prisoners from Hawaii, many of whom had young children, were transferred to a former jail - now a privately run prison - in Crystal City, Texas. Hundreds of Alaskan prisoners have been sent to private prisons in Arizona. Such transferrals can cause extreme hardship, including loss of contact with family and friends, and problems in communicating with lawyers.16
Standards for protecting prisoners
International treaties, as well as US national and state civil and criminal laws, clearly spell out safeguards to protect the physical and mental well-being of those deprived of their liberty. Under the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture, the US government is obliged to ensure that people are not subjected to torture (including rape) or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment17, and that people deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the dignity of the human person18.
When it ratified the ICCPR (in 1992) and the Convention against Torture (in 1994), the USA sought to limit the obligations imposed by the treaties. For example, it declared that the ICCPR's prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would apply only to the narrower "cruel and unusual punishment", which is prohibited by the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and other provisions of the Constitution as providing people in prisons and jails with a range of rights in areas such as physical safety, medical care, access to the courts and procedural safeguards in disciplinary hearings. There are also state laws that provide rights to inmates because they apply to everyone (such as laws against assault) or to prisoners specifically (such as laws prohibiting sexual relations between correctional staff and inmates). However, in many areas, such as the use of restraints, the supervision of women prisoners and the separation of children from adults, US law provides a lower level of protection than international standards.
National professional bodies, in particular the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), have developed detailed standards for prisons and jails, some of which cover matters that are the subject of human rights standards. Both bodies operate voluntary accreditation programs, and their standards are binding only on those states or institutions which opt to join. Not all prisons are accredited (60 per cent are accredited by the ACA and 25 per cent by the NCCHC), and only a small proportion of jails are accredited (4 per cent by the ACA and 7 per cent by the NCCHC).
USA REPORT
Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Appendix
Glossary
Physical brutality
Abuses by correctional staff using excessive or unnecessary force include the following:
individual cases of excessive force and assaults by guards;
widespread, systematic abuse in particular institutions;
organized ill-treatment by guards as punishment, including attacks on unresisting prisoners;
guards inciting or permitting inmates to attack other inmates.
The following cases illustrate a range of concerns in some of the largest state correctional systems.
Georgia: In July 1996, 14 inmates were injured following beatings during a "shakedown" (a mass search for contraband items) at Hays State Prison. The head of the corrections department allegedly supervised the beatings of scores of handcuffed prisoners by a prison tactical squad (a special riot squad) during shakedowns in several state prisons in 1996.19 Court cases alleging ill-treatment during shakedowns in at least two other Georgia prisons were pending in mid-1998.
California: Guards at Corcoran State Prison are alleged to have deliberately staged "gladiator" fights between inmates and placed bets on the outcome. Between 1988 and 1994, seven prisoners were shot dead and dozens of others wounded when armed guards fired on them. Lawyers acting for relatives of victims obtained prison videotapes that contradicted official accounts of the shootings. Two prison guards who gave evidence to a subsequent FBI investigation were reportedly harassed by their fellow officers and eventually forced to resign.
New York: In October 1996, 11 correctional officers were charged with having planned concerted attacks on inmates in the punitive segregation unit of Rikers Island Penal Complex in New York City, and with filing false reports to cover up the abuses. By May 1998, two had been sentenced to prison terms. The authorities had reportedly been alerted to an unusual number of injuries sustained by prisoners in the unit soon after it opened in 1988, but internal inquiries failed to establish guard misconduct. The abuses were exposed when the Legal Aid Society20 filed a civil lawsuit in 1993. In 1996 the city paid $1.6 million to 15 individuals who had been beaten in the unit between 1990 and 1992. However, Legal Aid Service lawyers were still receiving allegations of abuse in late 1997 from inmates in a new segregation unit at the jail.
Pennsylvania: In November 1997 an Amnesty International delegation visiting SCI-Greene, a supermaximum prison housing the state's death row population, received information that prisoners, most of them black, were being beaten by guards and subjected to racist taunts and false disciplinary charges. In May 1998, following an internal investigation, several guards were dismissed and some 20 others disciplined for abuses against inmates in the prison's disciplinary segregation unit.
Texas: Two guards who beat a prisoner to death in Terrell Unit in 1994 were released on parole after serving only a few months in prison. They had been sentenced to eight and 10 years' imprisonment respectively. In August 1997 a videotape, apparently compiled for training purposes, showed guards in a privately run section of Brazoria County Detention Center, Texas, kicking and beating inmates, coaxing dogs to bite prisoners and using stun guns. Arizona: Following a disturbance in Graham Unit, Arizona State Prison, in August 1995, more than 600 prisoners were forced by guards to remain handcuffed outdoors for 96 hours, and to defecate and urinate in their clothes. During daylight hours the heat was intense and many suffered serious sunburn, heat exhaustion and dehydration.
Sexual abuse
In 1997 the Justice Department sued the states of Michigan and Arizona, alleging that they were failing to protect women from sexual misconduct, including sexual assaults and "prurient viewing during dressing, showering and use of toilet facilities".21 In 1998 the Federal Bureau of Prisons agreed to pay three women $500,000 to settle a lawsuit in which the women claimed that they had been beaten, raped and sold by guards for sex with male inmates at a federal correctional facility in California.22 Such cases highlight the increasing number of reports of sexual abuse committed by correctional staff against inmates in jails and prisons around the country.23
Reported sexual abuses by correctional staff include rape and other coerced sexual acts; staff routinely subjecting inmates to sexually offensive language; staff deliberately touching intimate parts of inmates' bodies during searches; and staff watching inmates who are undressed.
Rape of inmates by prison officials is a form of torture.24 Rape and other coerced sexual acts violate basic international human rights standards such as the Convention against Torture as well as national and state laws and staff codes of conduct. One reason for the prevalence of rape and sexual abuse is that victims are afraid to complain. As the Justice Department stated following its investigation of prisons in Michigan, "Many sexual relationships appear to be unreported due to the presently widespread fear of retaliation and vulnerability felt by these women".25
There are legal and disciplinary sanctions against sexual abuse in prisons and jails. Thirty-five states, the District of Colombia and the federal government have laws specifically making sexual abuse in prisons a criminal offence. In 13 states, it is an offence for staff to have sexual relations with inmates.26 The National Institute of Corrections (part of the Justice Department) provides training and advice to correctional authorities on the prevention of sexual misconduct in women's prisons, and a number of states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have introduced special measures to stop abuse and to handle complaints. However, at the time of writing, eight states still had no laws criminalizing sexual relations between staff and inmates in prisons: Alabama, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
Complaints about coerced sex and sexually offensive language have usually been made by female inmates about male staff. However, there have also been reports of sexual coercion by female staff against both male and female inmates, and by male staff against male inmates.27 Both male and female inmates have complained about intimate body searches and surveillance by staff of the opposite sex. The main underlying source of such complaints is that US correctional facilities employ both men and women to supervise prisoners of the opposite sex, allow them to undertake searches involving body contact, and permit them to be present where inmates are naked. The employment of male staff to supervise female inmates breaches international standards, which provide that male staff must not enter part of a prison set aside for women unless accompanied by a female officer and that women prisoners must be attended and supervised only by women officers.28
US courts have ruled that anti-discrimination laws mean that correctional facilities cannot refuse to employ men in female facilities or women in male facilities. The (UN) Human Rights Committee29 has expressed concern at the practice "which has led to serious allegations of sexual abuse of women and the invasion of their privacy". It called on the US authorities to amend existing legislation "so as to provide at least that they [male officers] will always be accompanied by women officers."30 The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that "measures applied under the law and designed solely to protect the rights and status of women...shall not be deemed to be discriminatory". Amnesty International believes that the nature and extent of sexual abuse in US prisons and jails require strict compliance with the international standard that female inmates should be attended by female staff.
Abusive use of restraints
The cruel use of restraints, resulting in unnecessary pain, injury or even death, is widespread in US prisons and jails. Mentally disturbed prisoners have been bound, spread-eagled, on boards for prolonged periods in four-point restraints without proper medical authorization or supervision.
Restraints are deliberately imposed as punishment, or used as a routine control measure rather than as an emergency response. Such practices breach international standards.31
US correctional and health professional standards provide safeguards, including checks on restraints at 15-minute intervals by health professionals or health-care trained staff; time limits on the use of restraints; medical authorization of restraints for mental health or medical purposes; and the use of soft rather than metal restraints for "therapeutic" purposes.32 However, these guidelines are voluntary. There are no nationally binding minimum standards regarding the use of restraints, and policies, practices and monitoring systems vary widely.
US law does not bar the use of chains or leg-irons, even though their use as restraints is expressly prohibited by international standards. It is common practice for prisoners and detainees to be shackled during transportation, with handcuffs attached to metal waist chains and, in many cases, the legs or ankles chained together.
Prolonged immobilization in restraints carries a risk of potentially fatal blood clots and certain positions can lead to positional asphyxia. There are other risks. For example, a prisoner at the Halawa Correctional Facility, Hawaii, was treated for more than 20 open sores and ulcers after being held for two weeks in a bare cell in wrist-to-waist metal shackles and leg-irons as punishment in 1995. Two years earlier a man had his right leg amputated after he was strapped to a bed for eight days in Los Angeles County Jail. At least two other inmates in the same jail had earlier died from blood clots as a result of prolonged immobilization in restraints. Although the jail has since improved its procedures, the death of a female inmate in 1996, possibly connected to the use of restraints, was reported in 1997.33
The restraint chair
Some of the most serious abuses in recent years have involved a steel-framed restraint chair which allows a prisoner to be immobilized with four-point restraints securing both arms and legs, and straps which can be tightened across the shoulders and chest. The chair has been promoted as a safer alternative to other forms of four-point restraint as the prisoner remains in an upright sitting position. This has not, however, prevented prisoners from being tortured or ill-treated while strapped in the chair. Most of the reported abuses have taken place in jails, particularly in the intake (reception) areas, which are often acutely overcrowded and handle people shortly after arrest, when they may be agitated or intoxicated.34 The initial decision to place people in the chair is often taken by guards without appropriate medical evaluation. In some institutions the chair appears to be used as a routine method of control rather than as a crisis measure. The chair also appears to have been used as punishment for mildly challenging behaviour. The following cases illustrate some of these concerns.
Iberia Parish Jail, Louisiana: A lawsuit filed by the Justice Department in 1996 claimed that sheriff's deputies had routinely subjected inmates to "cruel and unusual punishment, and physical and mental torture" by leaving them strapped in restraint chairs for extended periods in their own urine and excrement. According to the lawsuit, prisoners in the chair had their feet strapped behind them and their hands shackled behind or beneath their buttocks. Some prisoners had tape wrapped round their mouths and football helmets placed backwards on their heads. They were, "rarely, if ever, examined by medical personnel while restrained or after release". One 18-year-old inmate was reportedly held in the chair for eight days, another inmate for 43 hours.35 The jail authorities agreed to stop using the chair and hogtying (restraining with the ankles bound from behind to the wrists) inmates as part of a pre-trial settlement in December 1996.
Utah State Prison: Michael Valent died as a result of a blood clot in March 1997 after being held for 16 hours in a restraint chair. His feet were secured with metal shackles and the seat had a hole to allow him to defecate and urinate without moving. The prison authorities reported in April 1997 that they had used the chair more than 200 times to restrain prisoners, most of whom were mentally ill, for up to five days since it had been introduced in late 1995. The state's mental health department told Amnesty International in July 1997 that the Department of Corrections had stopped using the restraint chair.
Madison Street Jail, Maricopa County, Arizona: In June 1996 Scott Norberg died of asphyxia after being placed in a restraint chair with a towel wrapped over his face after he refused to leave his cell; before being strapped in the chair he was hit more than 20 times with an electric stun gun. The chair remains in use in the jail. In 1997 officials told a visiting Amnesty International delegation that the jail system had 16 chairs which had been used about 600 times in six months.36 St Lucie County Jail, Florida: In December 1996 Anderson Tate, who had swallowed cocaine when arrested, died while strapped in a restraint chair. He was in the chair for three hours, moaning and chanting prayers, while jailers taunted him and ignored his pleas for help. Two deputies were dismissed after an administrative investigation by the Sheriff's Department, but no criminal charges were filed.
Sacramento County Jail, California: At least nine people alleged that they were tortured or ill-treated in 1996 by being placed in restraint chairs. Three said that deputies had told them they were about to be electrocuted when they were put in the chair; the two deputies were later suspended for 15 days. One woman was allegedly hooded and strapped into the chair as punishment after guards overheard her complain about her treatment; another suffered skin injuries through being held in tight straps for a prolonged period.
<< Top
Pregnant women shackled
Many women are pregnant when they are imprisoned. In 1996 more than 1,000 babies were born to women in US prisons. Because few prisons and jails have childbirth facilities, almost all are transported to hospitals to give birth and for antenatal visits. They are usually held in some form of mechanical restraint when being transported and sometimes in hospital. A court in Washington DC condemned as "inhumane" the practice of shackling women in labour and shortly after. It heard evidence of one woman who was placed in handcuffs and leg shackles when "she had not yet purged the afterbirth".37
Prisoners in Connecticut and California have reported being shackled in full restraints while they were pregnant: "Pregnant women who are shackled at their wrists, ankles and waists are more likely to fall, and more likely to injure themselves and their foetuses because they cannot use their hands to protect their bodies".38
Gas and chemical sprays
Scores of prisoners transferred from Washington DC to a private prison in Ohio experienced chest and respiratory problems after guards dropped up to 20 canisters of tear-gas into their cell blocks without warning, following a small non-violent protest. The incident happened in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in May 1997. The victims were reportedly given no medical treatment or opportunity to shower. Soon afterwards, some were allegedly sprayed directly in the face with mace as a punishment while handcuffed; some were subjected to racial taunts by guards. According to testimony, prisoners were only allowed to wash the mace off their faces after several hours, by which time many had peeling skin.39
Many other complaints on behalf of prisoners from around the country have reported inmates suffering unwarranted exposure to chemical sprays, such as having pepper (OC) spray, mace or tear-gas sprayed directly into their faces, or from excessive spraying in enclosed spaces. Sammy Marshall, a mentally ill prisoner in San Quentin Prison, California, died in June 1997 after guards repeatedly used OC spray for more than an hour when he barricaded himself into his cell. The coroner found that the most likely cause of death was an allergic reaction to OC spray. In 1997 Oklahoma took back inmates from Limestone County Detention Facility in Texas following concern at the extensive use by guards of OC spray.40
A report on Los Angeles County Jail found that the use of OC spray (and other force) had increased dramatically in the jail's reception building between 1994 and 1995. The report observed that OC spray was best deployed outdoors rather than inside a jail where it could be "as noxious to the deputies deploying it and to bystanders as to the target inmates". The report also noted that some deputies believed that their training was inadequate. One stated "The new deputies don't know how to physically restrain inmates. All they know is to use the spray."41
Electro-shock devices
Electro-shock weapons, including stun belts, stun shields and stun guns, are also used in US prisons. Amnesty International believes that such devices are inherently subject to, and even invite, abuse. In the Maricopa County jail system, for example, stun guns have allegedly been used to inflict repeated shocks on inmates, including on those already restrained. In one instance, a stun gun was used to arouse an inmate from sleep.42 A Justice Department report into a Kentucky jail in April 1998 found that: "staff misuse and abuse weapons such as pepper spray, stun shields, and stun guns, resorting to them early and often, for both management and punishment." The report cites a case in which a guard used a stun gun to rouse an inmate who had "passed out".43
In 1996 in Muncy Prison, Pennsylvania, staff used an "Electronic Body Immobilizer Device" to subdue a woman prisoner who was in great distress after a warrant for her execution had been read. According to Amnesty International's information she posed no threat to anyone else, and the organization expressed concern about the case to the Department of Corrections. Officials confirmed that the device was used to gain control of the woman, "who was perpetrating significant self-injurious behavior and was unresponsive to the directions given to her by the supervising commissioned officer" and stated that the use of the device in these circumstances "conformed to Department policy".44
Companies that market such weapons claim they are safe and non-lethal if used properly. Other experts warn that electro-shock weapons can be harmful, even lethal, for people with high blood pressure, for pregnant women, and for those suffering epilepsy and some other conditions. In light of this, stun weapons have been banned for law enforcement use by a number of countries, including Canada and most West European countries, as well as some US states.
The introduction of remote control electro-shock stun belts for use on US prisoners is of particular concern. The belt, which a guard can activate by the push of a button, inflicts a powerful electric current, causing severe pain and instant incapacitation. According to the manufacturer's literature, the activated belt will knock the prisoner to the ground and may cause him or her to defecate or urinate.
The belt is used by the US Bureau of Prisons, the US Marshall's service and more than 100 county agencies nationwide, as well as by at least 16 state correctional agencies including those in Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin. It is also used on prisoners during judicial hearings, in breach of international standards on the treatment of prisoners.45
Supermaximum security units
Since the late 1980s the federal system and an increasing number of states have built so-called supermaximum security (or "supermax") facilities. These are designed for the long-term isolation of large numbers of prisoners whom the authorities consider to be too dangerous or disruptive to be held in the general population of maximum security prisons. In 1997, 36 states and the federal government were reported to operate at least 57 supermax facilities, housing more than 13,000 prisoners. Many more are under construction.46
Amnesty International recognizes that it is sometimes necessary to segregate prisoners for the safety of others or for their own protection. However, many aspects of the conditions in US supermax facilities violate international standards, and in some facilities conditions constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Prolonged isolation in conditions of reduced sensory stimulation can cause severe physical and psychological damage.47
The UN Human Rights Committee stated in 1995 that conditions in certain US maximum security prisons were "incompatible" with international standards.48 The UN Special Rapporteur on torture (an expert appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights) reported in 1996 on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in H-Unit, Oklahoma, and Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit (SHU).49
Prisoners typically spend between 22 and 24 hours a day confined to small, solitary cells in which they eat, sleep and defecate. In many units, cells are considerably smaller than the 80 square feet (7.4 sq m) recommended as the minimum by the ACA, adding to the claustrophobic and unhealthy conditions.50 In some units, cells have no windows to the outside and prisoners have little or no access to natural light or fresh air, in violation of international standards.51 For example, prisoners in the Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore, Maryland, are confined in 65 sq ft (6 sq m), sealed, single cells. For several years they had no outside exercise until the Justice Department threatened a lawsuit. Prisoners are now allowed out of their cells for four to five hours a week, one hour of which must be outdoors.
In August 1997 Texas opened the W.J. Estelle High Security Unit, a 660-bed facility where prisoners are isolated in windowless cells for 23 hours or more a day. The concrete cells have no natural light and the solid steel doors have narrow slits which allow only a minimal view of the corridor outside.
Generally, supermax facilities provide no work, training or vocational programs. Opportunities for educational study are non-existent or extremely limited. The facilities are usually designed to minimize contact with other inmates and guards, with remote-controlled doors and video cameras replacing contact with staff. The cells tend to have solid steel doors rather than bars, cutting off sound and visual contact with others, including prisoners in the next cell. No televisions, radios, newspapers or books are allowed in the most restricted units. Contact with the outside world is also often severely limited and visits are usually conducted through a glass panel. In the Maximum Control Complex (MCC) at Westville, Indiana, prisoners were not allowed to wear watches or ask the time until a hunger-strike and a lawsuit led to some court-imposed changes. Many of these conditions are a flagrant breach of minimum international standards for the treatment of prisoners.52
US courts have ordered limited changes to the operation of some facilities. However, they have not ruled that confinement to supermax units is unconstitutional per se. In general, the courts have allowed states wide latitude in imposing restrictive conditions, including long-term isolation, when it is claimed that these serve legitimate security needs.
The length of time prisoners spend in supermax facilities varies. Many units do not provide any form of staged system that permits prisoners who behave well to move to less restrictive units. In some facilities, the process of review is discretionary, or the criteria for moving out of the units are vague or difficult to meet. Some prisoners may spend years in supermax units. In 22 jurisdictions, it is possible for inmates to complete their sentences in supermax housing and be released to the community without any transitional stage.53
The prison authorities state that inmates are placed in supermax units for reasons such as violent or predatory behaviour, repeated rule violations or attempted escapes. However, evidence suggests that many prisoners in supermax units have not warranted such a restrictive regime. For example, a number of states have moved all death row prisoners into supermax units, regardless of their disciplinary records. Prisoners may be assigned for long periods to the supermax unit in Wabash, Indiana, for relatively minor disciplinary infractions, such as insolence towards staff, and the period may be extended for transgressions committed there.54 Others have reportedly been moved to supermax units because of overcrowding or because they have complained about prison conditions. Women in Valley State Prison, California, for example, have alleged that they were assigned, or threatened with assignment, to the supermax unit if they complained about sexual abuse by guards.55 Some prisoners have reportedly been put in supermax units because of their political affiliations, although the broad grounds for confinement make such allegations difficult to verify.
Even mentally ill prisoners continue to be assigned to some supermax facilities despite evidence that the conditions are particularly damaging and inappropriate for them. Prison specialists say that mentally ill prisoners are more likely than other inmates to end up in such units because of behavioural difficulties in prison, and lack of resources to treat them. Other prisoners develop mental illness while in the unit. Both the treatment for, and monitoring of, mental health are reported to be inadequate in many supermax facilities. The Justice Department found that psychotic inmates continued to be held at the Maryland supermax prison in 1996, despite the state's policy to exclude the mentally ill from the unit. Seriously mentally ill prisoners have been held in H-Unit, Oklahoma, without receiving appropriate evaluation or treatment.56 Prisoners in MCC Westville were reportedly denied adequate mental health monitoring (as required under a court agreement) and many exhibited signs of mental illness.57 Such lack of adequate evaluation of the mental health of prisoners in isolation is contrary to both international and US professional standards.58
<< Top
Inadequate health care
Annette Romo, a young pregnant woman in a Maricopa jail, pleaded in vain with staff for medical help when she began bleeding in 1997. She eventually fell unconscious and was rushed to hospital. Her baby died.59 International standards clearly specify that medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary, free of charge.60 The Supreme Court has also ruled that inmates have a right to adequate medical care for "serious" medical needs. Despite this, in many cases prisons and jails have failed to meet the required standard. Correctional facilities are struggling to cope with the overall rise in the prison population and a growing number of inmates who require specialized care: people with substance abuse problems and related illnesses such as HIV/AIDs and tuberculosis; female inmates with health needs specific to women61; elderly prisoners; and inmates with mental health problems.62
Investigations, lawsuits and researchers have documented deficiencies in numerous facilities. These include: lack of screening for tuberculosis and other communicable diseases in overcrowded and insanitary jails; too few medical and psychiatric staff; failure to refer seriously ill inmates for treatment; delays in treatment or failure to deliver life-saving drugs; inadequate conditions for prisoners with HIV/AIDS; lack of access to gynaecological and obstetric services; and grossly deficient treatment for the mentally ill. Moreover, many states and local jails have started charging inmates fees for medical consultations, in violation of the international standards that medical care for prisoners should be free.63 The consequences of such failings can be fatal. Jane B., a 36-year-old mother of two serving a two-year sentence in a California prison, suffered from a severe gastro-intestinal disorder. Despite her requests for help, she was not given effective medical or psychological care. She slowly starved to death.64
Violations of children's rights
The ICCPR and other international standards require that incarcerated children65 should be kept separate from adults (except where it is in the best interests of the child not to do so).66 When the USA ratified the ICCPR, it reserved the right to treat juveniles as adults "in exceptional circumstances". Recent state legislation has increased the number of children held in adult facilities and proposed legislation would further weaken existing protection for children.67
Children prosecuted as adults
Under state and federal criminal laws, children above a specified age who are accused of specific serious offences (such as murder) may be prosecuted in the general criminal courts as adults.68 In response to concerns about an increase in violent juvenile crime, the great majority of states have legislated in recent years to broaden the circumstances in which children may be prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system.
In at least 20 states, children who are convicted as adults may be sentenced to imprisonment in adult prisons and housed with adult inmates.69 In June 1998, more than 3,500 such children were in custody. Their welfare was of grave concern because of their extreme vulnerability to physical and sexual abuse by adults.70
At the time of writing, Congress was considering legislation designed to encourage the prosecution of children as adults under federal and state laws.71
Children in the juvenile justice system
For less serious offences, children are generally dealt with by special juvenile justice courts and institutions.
Until the mid-1970s, many of these children were held in adult jails for extended periods and had little or no separation from adult inmates. In response to evidence that children were being physically and sexually abused by adult inmates, and a high rate of suicides among children in jails, Congress legislated to provide a financial incentive to states to remove children from adult jails, and to keep children held in adult facilities completely separate. The legislation had a dramatic impact. All but two states (Wyoming and Kentucky) participate in the program and the degree of compliance with the requirements is high. However, the legislation being considered by Congress at the time of writing would significantly weaken the requirement that children and adults must be kept completely apart; the measure was opposed by a wide range of child welfare, legal and other organizations.
Mechanisms to remedy abuses
The appalling history of ill-treatment of prisoners around the world demonstrates that independent scrutiny is vital to prevent and stop serious abuses in correctional facilities. International standards therefore provide that "places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment."72 Unfortunately, the reality in the USA falls far short of this standard, particularly in relation to jails.
Most prisons and jails in the country have internal mechanisms for investigating complaints. Self-monitoring, however, is not enough. Internal inquiries have often been ineffectual and guards have systematically attempted to cover up abuses. Fear of retaliation has often prevented inmates from filing grievances within the system.
State monitoring bodies
There are a large number and wide variety of monitoring bodies in the USA. They include inspection agencies within departments of correction, and legally established bodies outside departments of correction, such as ombudsman offices. In some states, such as Illinois, certain non-governmental organizations have the right to inspect facilities.
However, there are significant gaps in the coverage, resources and effectiveness of these agencies. Among the most notable are:
14 states do not have any jail inspection program;73
in some states jail inspections are limited to building audits, such as checking compliance with fire regulations;
jail and prison inspection bodies generally lack the power to force facilities to make necessary changes;
inspection bodies have inadequate resources to monitor effectively the growing number of jails, prisons and inmates, and some
inspection bodies have had their resources cut;
the objectivity of some inspection agencies is suspect because they generally employ investigators who are former correctional or law enforcement officers and so are likely to give more credence to correctional officers than to inmates.
National standards associations
Nationally, a limited monitoring role is undertaken by the ACA and the NCCHC, which periodically inspect jails and prisons that are accredited with them. Amnesty International and others have expressed concern both about some of the standards and about the monitoring process. During its investigation into conditions in H-Unit, Oklahoma, Amnesty International found certain ACA standards to be deficient.74 Some experts believe that standards have been weakened in response to the pressure the authorities face in coping with the rapid rise in the number of inmates:
"Unfortunately, the desire for accreditation recognition became so strong and compliance often so difficult that administrative pressure from the field was brought to bear to lower standards so that compliance could be more easily achieved."75
The courts
In the absence of effective state and national monitoring bodies, prisoners have turned to the courts. The most important have been the federal courts, which include the Supreme Court, where inmates have sued for violations of rights enshrined in the Constitution. Since the late 1960s litigation has been widely used to obtain improvements in conditions. Almost every state has been, or still is, involved in litigation dealing with conditions in its prisons, and many jails have been placed under court orders requiring improvements.76
While litigation can be a very effective way to remedy abuses, it is slow and difficult to use. Major cases are extremely expensive and may take years to reach a conclusion. Settlements are individually framed and do not have binding effect on other facilities. Unless the Supreme Court has made a ruling on a particular issue, even similar complaints may be handled differently in different jurisdictions.
Legal action by prisoners seeking redress has been significantly restricted in recent years by both judicial and legislative decisions. Led by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, the federal courts have increasingly taken a view which observers have characterized as meaning that they "must defer to the judgment of correctional administrators in all but the most extreme cases".77 This self-imposed limitation on the role of the courts has been complemented by two laws passed by Congress in 1996.
One measure prohibits the Legal Services Corporation, a federal agency that provides legal services to poor people, from providing funds to legal aid organizations that represent prisoners in cases relating to their conditions. The second measure, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, limits the power of the federal courts to improve prison conditions by: preventing the courts from enforcing voluntary agreements; requiring the dismissal of court orders after two years (rarely enough time to fix serious problems); preventing prisoners from bringing cases alleging mental or emotional harm unless they can also prove physical injury (prohibiting lawsuits involving psychological torture); making it more difficult and more expensive for individual prisoners to bring cases to court; and limiting the fees for attorneys who represent prisoners in successful civil rights cases (making it more difficult to secure experienced lawyers).
These restrictions on court powers and access to courts increase the risk of human rights abuse. According to observers, "without the threat of being held accountable before a federal court, the quality of jail and prison operations may begin to deteriorate...The 'get tough on inmates' mood, combined with decreasing levels of accountability for maintaining some level of minimum standards, raises the spectre of decreased funding for jails, corresponding cutbacks in staff and training, and the rebirth of the sorts of very brutal, barbaric, and often dangerous conditions that led to the initial wave of court intervention in the early 1970s."78
<< Top
Justice Department
Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (CRIPA), the Justice Department is entitled to investigate conditions of confinement in prisons and jails and other institutions, if it receives information that prisoners are being systematically deprived of their constitutional or federal rights. If it finds that the conditions violate laws, it may negotiate with the authorities to correct the violation or, if negotiation fails, seek court orders. The Justice Department may also bring criminal civil rights charges against state officials who violate the constitutional rights of others while acting under "color of law". At the end of 1997, Justice Department officials informed Amnesty International that more than 300 facilities had been investigated since the enactment of CRIPA. Most Justice Department investigations that find violations are resolved through consent decrees (voluntary agreements). However, the Justice Department has recently noted "increased unwillingness by states to correct deficiencies voluntarily, necessitating litigation".79 Since 1996, Justice Department investigators have been denied access to facilities by at least two states - Arizona and Michigan - and were initially refused access to the Maryland Correctional Adjustment (supermax) facility.
Requests to the Justice Department to initiate new investigations far outweigh its capacity to respond. The process from initial investigation to the negotiation and monitoring of agreements is generally lengthy, and in recent years the other responsibilities of the section of the Justice Department that deals with CRIPA cases have significantly expanded.
The independence and powers of the Justice Department make it a critical component of the mechanisms for the redress of abuses in correctional facilities. It is imperative that the Executive and Congress ensure that it receives adequate funding to undertake this important task effectively. Recommendations
Federal, state and local authorities should develop, implement and rigorously enforce standards for correctional facilities that are consistent with international human rights standards for the treatment of prisoners, and which forbid torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The authorities should make clear that brutality and excessive force will not be tolerated and should establish independent bodies to investigate all allegations of abuse thoroughly and impartially. Officials responsible for abuses - including failure to report misconduct - should be disciplined and, where appropriate, prosecuted.
The authorities should take all measures to make sure that rape and other sexual abuse of inmates by staff or other inmates does not take place in correctional facilities. All alleged incidents should be independently investigated and those responsible brought to justice.
Federal, state and local authorities should ensure that adequate medical care is provided whenever necessary, free of charge. Health care and treatment should accord with professionally recognized standards. Medical personnel who have grounds for suspecting that torture or ill-treatment have taken place should be required to report cases to independent authorities.
Measures to prevent and punish torture and ill-treatment, includ- ing rape and other sexual abuse, of women should include an explicit prohibition of all forms of sexual abuse by staff; informing staff and inmates of inmates rights' and that offenders will be subject to punishment; restricting the role of male staff with regard to female inmates in line with Rule 53 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; investigating all complaints in line with best practice for the investigation of sexual assault; protecting women who make complaints from retaliation; and providing appropriate redress and care to victims of abuse. The routine use of restraints on pregnant women should be prohibited, and women should never be restrained during labour; restraints should only be used on pregnant women as a last resort and should never put the safety of a woman or the foetus at risk. Health care for female inmates should meet recognized community standards and should recognize the particular health needs of women.
Children in prisons and jails should be completely separated from adults, unless it is considered in the child's best interests not to do so.
The authorities in charge of supermax units should amend their policies to ensure that no prisoner is confined long-term or indefinitely in conditions of isolation and reduced sensory stimulation. The authorities should improve conditions in such units so that prisoners have more out-of-cell time; better access to fresh air and natural light; improved exercise facilities; increased association, where possible, with other inmates and access to work, training or vocational programs; and are not held in window- less cells. The mentally ill or those at risk of mental illness should be removed from supermax units. The authorities should establish clear criteria for and regular review of placement in supermax units.
The authorities should ban the use of remote control electro- shock stun belts by law enforcement and correctional agencies. Law enforcement and correctional agencies should suspend the use of other electro-shock weapons pending the outcome of a rigorous, independent and impartial inquiry into the use and effects of the equipment.
The federal authorities should establish an independent review of the use of OC (pepper) spray by law enforcement and correctional agencies. Authorities who continue to authorize the spray should introduce strict guidelines and limitations on its use, with clear monitoring procedures.
Four-point restraints should only be used when strictly necessary as an emergency short-term measure to prevent damage or injury, and in accordance with international and US professional medical standards. The federal authorities should institute an urgent national inquiry into the use of restraint chairs in prisons and jails.
Federal and state authorities should establish and fund agencies completely independent of correctional authorities to monitor conditions in prisons and jails, with powers to take action to remedy problems.
The federal government and Congress should use their legislative, financial and other powers to encourage, and if necessary require, recalcitrant states to comply fully with international standards for the protection of the rights of people in prisons and jails.
The federal government should review the impact of legislation which restricts inmates, access to courts, including the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and ask Congress to amend provisions that have unduly restricted inmates' ability to use the courts to end ill-treatment. The federal government and Congress should provide the necessary additional funds to allow the Justice Department to fulfill its mandate under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 to investigate conditions in correctional facilities and to take action when necessary.
<< Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1 Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146.1255 (N.D. Cal 1995). As a result of the lawsuit the prison authorities have been required to implement a series of policy changes covering use of force, investigations and discipline, medical and mental health care.
2 In particular, the ICCPR, the Convention against Torture, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
3 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, June 1997.
4 The 1970 figure is from E. Currie, Crime and Punishment in America, Metropolitan Books, New York, 1998; the 1997 figure is from D. Gilliard and A. Beck, "Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1997", Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, January 1998.
5 Between 1986 and 1991, the number of women serving sentences for drugs offences increased by 432 per cent, according to Justice Department figures.
6 A Justice Department investigation into 18 Mississippi jails in 1993 found hazardous and squalid conditions in many facilities, including overcrowding, insufficient staffing, grossly deficient medical care and inadequate suicide prevention measures. Four jails were ordered to be closed. The Justice Department has since made similar findings in jails in other states, including Virginia and Georgia.
7 For example, the Findings Letter on Orleans County Jail, New York, dated January 1998, reported that the authors were unable to identify any use of force policy or procedure at the jail or any training on the use of force. Similar findings have been made in other facilities.
8 As reported to Amnesty International during a visit to Arizona in June 1997.
9 Prison Legal News, December 1996, reporting on an ongoing lawsuit.
10 C. Struckman-Johnson et al, "Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison", The Journal of Sex Research, vol.33, No.1, 1996. See also, J. Gilligan, Violence - reflections on a national epidemic, Vintage Books, New York, 1997.
11 ICCPR Article 10(2); Rules 8 and 85.1 of the Standard Minimum Rules; Principle 8 of the Body of Principles.
12 The Standard Minimum Rules provide that prisoners should be kept apart, taking account of factors such as their criminal record (Rule 8), and that dormitories should be occupied by prisoners carefully selected as being suitable to associate with each other, and be regularly supervised at night (Rule 9(2)).
13 Justice Department CRIPA investigation of Mental Health Services in the Los Angeles County Jail, September 1997.
14 "Education as crime prevention - providing education to prisoners", Occasional Paper, Series No.2, The Center on Crime, Communities and Culture, New York, September 1997. At least 25 states have reportedly reduced vocational and technical training for prisoners, and the number of higher education programs fell from 350 in 1990 to 8 in 1997.
15 Eric Bates, "Private Prisons", The Nation, 5 January 1998. This figure does not include private juvenile detention and correctional facilities, or facilities for undocumented immigrants and asylum-seekers, which house thousands.
16 The importance of maintaining links with family and community is recognized in the Standard Minimum Rules (Rules 80 and 92) and Principles 18 and 20 of the Body of Principles.
17 Article 7 of the ICCPR.
18 Article 10 of the ICCPR.
19 Although the prison authorities continue to deny wrongdoing, in February 1998 inmates received $283,000 damages in settlement of a civil lawsuit. Claims that the head of the corrections department had watched the Hays Prison beatings were supported in pre-trial witness statements by several prison employees. The lawsuit was brought by the Southern Center for Human Rights, a Georgia-based non-profit organization of attorneys who represent indigent prisoners in several southern states.
20 The Legal Aid Society is a non-profit organization which provides free legal services to the poor.
21 US v. Arizona, CIV 97 - 476 PHX ROS; US v. Michigan, Case No. 97-4005.
22 Lucas v. White, C96-2905.
23 See Human Rights Watch, All too familiar - sexual abuse of women in US state prisons, New York, 1996.
24 See UN Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/34, January 1995, para.189.
25 Justice Department, letter to Governor of Michigan, 27 March 1995.
26 B. Smith, Fifty-state survey of criminal laws prohibiting sexual abuse of prisoners, National Women's Law Center, Washington DC, 1998.
27 See, for example, C. Struckman-Johnson, op. cit.
28 Rule 53 of the Standard Minimum Rules.
29 The Human Rights Committee is a body of experts which monitors compliance with the ICCPR.
30 Comments of Human Rights Committee on the report submitted by the USA concerning its compliance with the ICCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.50, 7 April 1995, paras 20 and 34.
31 The Standard Minimum Rules stipulate that: "Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs, chains, irons and strait-jackets, shall never be applied as a punishment. Furthermore, chains or irons shall not be used as restraints". They further provide that restraints may only be used when other measures are ineffective and only for so long as is "strictly necessary". (Rules 31, 33 and 34)
32 The ACA states that "Four-point restraints should be used only in extreme instances and only when other types of restraints have proven to be ineffective", with 15-minute observation checks. The American Public Health Association (APHA) and the NCCHC provide that restraints for medical or mental health purposes should be imposed only on the order of a qualified health professional, and only if no other less restrictive treatment is appropriate. The NCCHC recommends that the use of therapeutic restraints should generally not exceed 12 hours; APHA provides for automatic termination after four hours, renewable for a maximum of four more hours. The NCCHC 1997 standards expressly state that, "Persons should not be restrained in an unnatural position (for instance, hog-tied, face-down, spread-eagle)".
33 Findings Letter of Justice Department on mental health services in the jail, 15 November 1997, cites the death of a woman which "may have been related to the jail's use of restraints".
34 The chair is marketed under the trade name "Prostraint" by AEDEC International Inc, a company based in Oregon. The president of AEDEC International was unable to provide Amnesty International with information on the number of facilities which had purchased restraint chairs, but stated that they were in use in more jails than state prisons, as the procedures for adopting them in jails were easier. (Interview, October 1997)
35 Times Picayune, 3 December 1996.
36 See Amnesty International, USA: Ill-treatment of inmates in Maricopa County Jails, Arizona, August 1997 (AI Index: AMR 51/51/97).
37 Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. DC, Civil Action No. 93-2052, 877 F. Supp.634.
38 L.Acoca, "Defusing the time bomb: understanding and meeting the growing health care needs of incarcerated women in America", Crime and Delinquency, Vol 44 No.1, January 1998.
39 Testimony of Jonathan M. Smith, Executive Director of DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, 27 August 1997. The prison is run by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the USA.
40 New York Times, 21 August 1997.
41 6th Semiannual report by Special Counsel Merrick J. Bobb and Staff, September 1996.
42 See Amnesty International, August 1997, op. cit, and Findings Letter of Justice Department to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, dated 25 March 1996.
43 Letter from Justice Department to County Court Judge on the Daviess County Detention Center, Kentucky, 10 April 1998.
44 Letter from M. Horn, Secretary of Corrections, 22 April 1998.
45 The Standard Minimum Rules state that restraints "shall be removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority" (Rule 33 (a)).
46 National Institute of Corrections, Supermax Housing: A Survey of Current Practice, March 1997, and Human Rights Watch, Cold Storage: Super-Maximum Security Confinement in Indiana, October 1997.
47 For example, UK prisoners held in conditions similar to those in US supermax facilities have suffered disorders including impaired eyesight, weight loss, muscle wastage, memory loss and anaemia. See Amnesty International, UK Special Security Units - Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, 1997 (AI Index: EUR 45/06/97).
48 HRC Comments of 6 April 1995, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.50.
49 UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/35.
50 Standard 3-4136, ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 1990.
51 Rule 11 of the Standard Minimum Rules states: "In all places where prisoners are required to live or work... windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air..."
52 Rules 77 (1) and 78 of the Standard Minimum Rules emphasize the importance of providing educational programs and recreational and cultural activities respectively. Rules 37 and 39 provide that prisoners should maintain contact with the outside world and be kept informed of news events.
53 National Institute of Corrections, March 1997, op. cit.
54 Human Rights Watch, October 1997, op. cit.
55 See, for example, S. Sadler, "Report from Valley State Prison for Women SHU", Prison Focus, Winter 1997. Amnesty International will publish a report on women in US prisons and jails in 1999.
56 See Amnesty International, USA: Conditions for death row prisoners in H-Unit, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 1994 (AI Index: AMR 51/34/94).
57 Human Rights Watch, October 1997, op. cit.
58 The NCCHC states that all inmates in disciplinary segregation should be evaluated by health personnel "prior to placement in segregation and daily while in segregation". (NCCHC Standards for Health Services in Prisons, 1997, p. 53). Rules 32 (3) of the Standard Minimum Rules requires prisoners in close confinement to be visited daily by the medical officer to assess their physical and mental health.
59 At the time of writing, Arizona correctional authorities had not replied to Amnesty International's letters about Annette Romo's treatment.
60 Principle 24 of the Body of Principles.
61 Health issues will be examined in Amnesty International's March 1999 report on women in US prisons and jails.
62 "Jails and prisons - America's new mental hospitals", American Journal of Public Health, Vol 85, No. 12, December 1995.
63 Principle 24 of the Body of Principles.
64 The coroner's report indicated starvation as the cause of death. Jane B. was cited in a lawsuit (Shumate v. Wilson) to improve medical care in Californian women's prisons, which was settled in 1997 with the Corrections Department agreeing to a range of improvements. See E. Barry, "Women Prisoners and Health Care", in K. Moss ed., Man-m |
|
Chirac Swipes At U.S. Fasciism.just Before Meeting With Bush |
by Jean AKA DAN "Fools No One But Himself" Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2003
Modified: 06:39:09 PM |
Chirac remained unrepentant about his anti-Invasion stance ahead of a June 1-3 summit that will see Bush set foot on French soil for the first time since the Iraq Invasion. "An Attacker that lacks legitimacy does not acquire legitimacy just because it has been siezed power," Chirac said in an advance release of the interview with the Financial Times.
Paris infuriated Washington with its opposition to the Iraq Invasion. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Friday French-U.S. relations were excellent.
However, Chirac stressed that France's support for a U.S.-drafted resolution ending U.N. sanctions against Iraq did not mean Washington had got all it wanted with the measure.
"The U.S. has had to put a lot of water in its wine over the last 15 days at the U.N.," Chirac said, adding of the British prime minister: "Here, I think, the role of Tony Blair has been positive."
Relations between France and Britain, the United States' strongest ally in the Iraq Invasion, reached a low amid the confrontation in the run-up to the Invasion of Iraq by the u.s.
Chirac said he was at opposed with the U.S. view of the world.
"The U.S. has a vision of the world which is very fascist. I hold a vision of a multilateral world which is opposed to this," he said, adding that U.S. interest in Europe was diminishing.
Chirac, Bush and other leaders from the Group of Eight world powers are due to meet in the French spa town of Evian on June 1-3.
|
|
US Plans Death Camp For Child Prisoners In U.S. Occupied Part Of Cuba |
by JOSH AKA DAN "If I Want to See My News, I Ought to Post It on the Elsewhere Newswire" Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
26 May 2003
|
Prisoners would be executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday.
The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians.
The suspects have been held at Concentration Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18 months.
General Miller said building a death row was one plan. Another was to have a permanent jail, with possibly an execution chamber.
The Mail on Sunday reported the move is seen as logical by the US, which has been attacked worldwide for breaching the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war since it established the camp at a naval base to hold alleged terrorists from Afghanistan.
But it has horrified human rights groups and lawyers representing detainees.
They see it as the clearest indication America has no intention of falling in line with internationally recognised justice.
The US has already said detainees would be tried by tribunals, without juries or appeals to a higher court. Detainees will be allowed only US lawyers.
British activist Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said: "The US is kicking and screaming against any pressure to conform with British or any other kind of international justice."
American law professor Jonathan Turley, who has led US civil rights group protests against the military tribunals planned to hear cases at Guantanamo Bay, said: "It is not surprising the authorities are building a death row because they have said they plan to try capital cases before these tribunals.
"This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists."
Britain admitted it had been kept in the dark about the plans.
A Downing St spokesman said: "The US Government is well aware of the British Government's position on the death penalty."
|
|
