How Maximum Security Jails Make the Baddest of Men Even Worse

Internet article

By: Bernie Mathews

Date: November 05, 2003

Source: ON LINE opinion: Australia's e-journal of social and political debate. "How maximum-security jails make the baddest of men even worse." 〈http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=842〉 (March 02, 2006).

About the Author: Prior to his current work as a journalist, Bernie Mathews served time in correctional facilities in Australia, for the crimes of burglary and absconding from a jail.

INTRODUCTION

The correctional classification system, by which prisoners are placed into security and housing levels, is based on a number of factors such as nature and severity of offense, assessed level of dangerousness, length of sentence to be served, number and status of previous convictions, substance abuse and treatment history, mental health history, security threat group status (gang membership), ability to co-exist with other inmates in a particular housing unit, protective custody status, nature of crime as perceived by other inmates (persons convicted of certain types of crimes, such as child abuse, rape, and domestic violence are often subjected to harsh treatment in general population settings), gender issues such as obvious femininity in a man or transgender issues for either sex, and other individual considerations. Each inmate, in most settings, is assigned a specific number of points based on their offender status, which determines their basic security classification status. This, coupled with the other listed issues, will determine placement within the security level system of the facility.

Although each state and federal facility has its own particular classification scheme, most fall between four and six levels. In a four-level classification system, inmates can be placed according to security risk: minimum security (Level I), medium security (Level III), close security (Level IV), or maximum security (Level V). A six level system adds minimum restrict (Level II) between minimum and medium, and super maximum (Level VI) or administrative segregation beyond maximum security.

Minimum security inmates can exist in a general population setting. They are considered low risk for violence or for absconding (escape). They often are taken in groups to work sites, and have the ability to walk about the facility freely during the day. There is generally a fairly high inmate to staff ratio. Level II conditions are similar, and the primary distinction is that these inmates typically do not leave the facility for school or work assignments as individuals. They move in groups, with a low inmate to security staff ratio, and are employed in settings such as road crews, highway maintenance, etc. where they wear brightly colored uniforms and work with armed guards nearby. Medium security inmates do not leave the facility for work assignments. These three security levels all exist in general population settings, with dormitory style housing, and communal showers, toilets, and sinks. They are allowed to participate in communal activities for work, education, meals, and socialization. The facility is contained and locked, with armed patrols at the perimeter, as well as central and local security stations. Dormitories are locked at night. They have access to the telephone and to visits. Visits may be contact or non-contact type visits.

Close security inmates have individual cells, in which they are locked at night. They may participate in congregate education, work, and some activities. Meals may be taken in their cells, or in small groups. They have individual sinks and toilets in their cells. They use individual showers on their cell blocks. They generally do not engage in communal activities, and do not have contact with the general prison population. They are likely to spend most of their time in the cell block, and to recreate in very small groups, segregated from other prisoners.

Maximum and super-maximum security inmates are confined to their individual cells for twenty-three hours per day. They may engage in group activities through the use of individual locked cages placed in close proximity, or by being shackled to stationary rings in the floor. They eat their meals within their cells, and food is given to them by means of a tray passed through a food port. Educational programming is accomplished by means of individual study. Visits and telephone calls are restricted, no contact is allowed. They are taken individually to recreation cages. When moved from their cells, they are manacled and shackled, and wear wrist and ankle cuffs, as well as chains around their abdomen. They are strip-searched and put through a scanning procedure similar to full-body X ray each time they exit their cells, in order to make certain that they do not pose a security threat. Maximum security inmates may earn privileges concerning work outside their cells, small group meals, and small group educational programming, depending on the regulations of the particular facility

PRIMARY SOURCE

I heard voices from the Gatehouse. The clicking of handcuff ratchets. The noise heralded the arrival of the transfer escort. I looked around my cell for the last time. Two coir mats stood at attention against the back wall. My bed since the summer of '71 after I was transferred to Grafton as an intractable prisoner.

Plastic containers for jam and salt nestled in their allocated positions on the timber log I used for a table. Spartan conditions made every item special. Each had their very own place in the regimented confines of the cell. Even the toilet paper and library books had significant places. I tried to remember how many times I copped a serve for having one item out of the designated place before I learned the routine—countless times. Grafton floggings were routine and didn't require a reason. Everything at Grafton was routine. A mindless never-ending routine of isolation and solitary confinement that was punctuated by a screw's baton, boot or a fist. The prison system called it "rehabilitation."

My thoughts drifted back to '72 when Apps forgot about the two cigarette butts he left in his shirt pocket. Contraband. The Breed, Footballer and Brown "rehabilitated" him by baton-whipping him unconscious before dragging his bloodied body into the solitary-confinement cell to recuperate. Not to be left out, The White Alsatian "rehabilitated" Mitchell for having a button undone.

It seemed strange that on the eve of my departure from Grafton the memory of previous floggings were rekindled. The two things synonymous with HM Grafton Jail were solitary confinement and institutionalised brutality. If any benefit can be derived from solitary confinement it is the fact that memories never fade.

Memories of solitary confinement inside a brutalising prison system never faded for James Richard Finch or John Andrew Stuart. Both men endured the rehabilitation concept that was Grafton Jail during the 1960s. Queensland suffered the consequences of that incarceration concept when Brisbane's Whisky Au-Go-Go nightclub was firebombed in March 1973. Stuart and Finch were convicted of the firebombing and the subsequent deaths of 15 people. It is simplistic to suggest that Grafton propelled Stuart and Finch into a life of crime that culminated with the deaths of 15 people but an incarceration process that moulds destinies steeped in violence and solitary confinement must share proportionate blame if the following case histories are indicative of what isolation and solitary confinement does produce.

Stan Taylor was a product of H Division inside Pentridge during the 1970s where solitary confinement was a blissful respite from the mindless and institutionalised brutality meted out by prison guards. Taylor was eventually released from prison only to end his criminal career with the 1986 car-bomb attack on Russell Street Police Headquarters in Melbourne where a young police constable was blown to pieces. Taylor was convicted with two other men for the Russell Street bombing and is currently serving a life sentence.

While Taylor was incarcerated in H Division another young prisoner was introduced to the rehabilitative qualities of isolation by solitary confinement. After ten years, Christopher Dale Flannery was released from prison to earn a reputation as Australia's first contract killer with over a dozen murders to his credit. Flannery disappeared during the 1985 Sydney underworld gang wars. He is presumed dead.

Solitary confinement and the Grafton rehabilitation concept were significant factors in the life of Kevin Crump who teamed up with Alan Baker after his release from prison in 1973. The pair kidnapped a pregnant Colarenabri grazier's wife and took her into Queensland where they raped and butchered her at Goondiwindi. After they were captured at Maitland the pair were charged with conspiracy to murder under NSW law. Details of the atrocities committed on the victim before her death, although never made public, prompted Mr. Justice Taylor to recommend the pair never be released from prison after he sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Archie McCafferty was a non-violent offender who traveled the well-worn paths of the NSW juvenile/justice system during the 1960s before he was sent to Grafton for "rehabilitation" during 1970. McCafferty was released from prison in 1971 and barely one year later he became Australia's answer to Charlie Manson with a spate of thrill killings throughout NSW. McCafferty was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment and served twenty-three years before he was deported to Scotland in May 1997.

Peter Schneidas was another non-violent offender prior to the Grafton rehabilitation process. Originally imprisoned for fraud, Schneidas was transferred to Grafton in 1975. Four years later he attacked Long Bay prison guard, John Mewburn, and pulverised his head with hammer. Mewburn died from his injuries and Schneidas was sentenced to life imprisonment. Schneidas was isolated in solitary confinement within the NSW prison system for the next ten years and died eight months after his 1997 release from a heroin overdose after becoming addicted in prison.

Although the incarceration concepts of H Division and Grafton have been dismantled and roundly condemned during Royal Commissions and public inquiries the products of those places are still being convicted for what some consider to be the worst violent crimes ever committed in this country.

The NSW and Victorian prison systems have already travelled the retributive road to the community's detriment. Will history continue to repeat itself in Queensland? If the October 27, 2003 edition of Australian Story on ABC television is any gauge then Queensland is already destined to suffer the consequences of an incarceration process that makes bad men badder and mad men madder.

Australian Story depicted the isolation, solitary confinement and sensory deprivation of Postcard Bandit, Brenden James Abbott, inside Queensland's Maximum Security Units. The incarceration process of solitary confinement in a jail within a jail is indicative of the hate factories created by places like Grafton, H Division, Katingal Special Security Unit and Jika Jika. Punishment blocks that became counter productive to the society they were supposed to serve until they were dismantled by the NSW and Victorian governments.

Queensland legislators have ignored those failings and opted to adopt hard-line incarceration policies similar to the ones imposed upon Brenden Abbott after he escaped the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre in November 1997 but are those policies beneficial to the general community and future generations of Queenslanders?

The observations of a 20th century troglodyte who lived life as a successful failure on the prison yards of NSW and Queensland would suggest not. I idly ponder who will be the Stuart, Finch, Taylor, Flannery, Crump, McCafferty or Schneidas of Queensland's tomorrow if the current Queensland incarceration process of solitary confinement by sensory deprivation persists.

SIGNIFICANCE

The realities of solitary confinement vary according to the circumstances under which it occurs, as well as the location of the correctional facility (there are considerable differences from state to state, as well as between security levels). When it is used as a disciplinary measure, the inmate who committed some sort of major infraction is generally searched, and either put into a single confinement cell, or returned to his cell. Inmates who are on disciplinary segregation generally have no television privileges, are allowed no reading materials, do not go to recreation outside their cells, and are not given a mattress and bedding except for a specified period during the night. The period of disciplinary segregation is determined by the nature and severity of the offense or infraction, but is designed to be time-limited.

Inmates who are in administrative segregation housing (Levels V and VI) can sometimes work their way back to lower security levels, depending on their behavior and progress through educational and institutional programming. Some inmates, particularly those who are in protective custody, will serve their entire sentences within the same level (usually maximum or super-maximum). Prisoners in administrative segregation housing live in cells that are typically from seven to ten feet by ten to twelve feet in size. The bed is a bunk welded to the floor. The table and chair are similarly fastened. The toilet is usually steel, as is the sink. The mirror is usually polished metal. The lights in the room are typically covered by fine wire mesh. The inmate generally cannot operate the lights from within the room. The cell is closed and locked electronically. There may be a narrow window in the door and the wall, with mesh-covered glass. The window will be narrow enough that the slenderest human could not get through it.

In some facilities, the inmates are allowed a specific number of certain types of books, minimal amounts of writing paper, envelopes, and safety pens (pens that are not easily turned into weapons), and controlled access to television (generally located within the cell), with restricted hours of viewing, and access to limited stations. Many facilities use television as a means of delivering educational programming. Inmates are allotted toilet paper in limited quantities, and safety razors are kept outside of the cells (to be utilized only in the shower). Sometimes inmates can purchase other writing or drawing materials. They are generally allowed to purchase some personal hygiene items (lotions, shampoo, etc.) and a small range of snacks from the commissary. They have a restricted number of clothing items that can be purchased and kept in the cell (sweats, different types of socks or additional underwear, sometimes they may be permitted to purchase watch caps, and they may be able to purchase specific types of sneakers, depending upon the rules of the facility). They see other inmates only when they are outside in recreation cages. They generally have access to mental health professionals, and can be brought from their cells for individual therapy sessions (with a guard posted outside the office door).

There is considerable social isolation inherent in this type of confinement; inmates readily admit that it is difficult for them to function in society after spending significant time without human contact. Reports of increased mental health issues as well as lasting effects from prolonged periods of social isolation and limited sensory stimulation have led to several class action lawsuits, some of which have been settled or adjudicated in favor of the inmates. Inmates who develop psychiatric or psychological difficulties, or those with pre-existing conditions that have worsened, and are unable to function within the conditions of confinement are generally moved to special housing units and given wider access to a therapeutic environment.

Although there are rules and laws protecting against abuse of prisoners, the conditions are unequivocally harsh in maximum and super-maximum facilities. Inmates are subjected to unexpected cell searches, their mail is read and censored before it is given to them (with the exception of legal mail), they are searched every time they exit and enter their cells, they move about in heavy shackles and chains that are said to be both uncomfortable and highly restrictive, they have extremely limited contact with the outside world, and minimal sensory or intellectual stimulation. Some sociologists argue that this level of confinement is far more punitive than rehabilitative in intent, although it is widely regarded within the judicial system and the correctional community as a strong incentive for inmates to improve and control their behavior, leading them to work their way to a less restrictive setting. It is also considered a relatively cost-effective way to house multiple high-risk (for violence, for flight, for gang activity, and the like) offenders within the same facility.

There is ongoing research concerned with the short- and long-term effects of solitary confinement. Because there is an institutional culture among prisoners that discourages interaction with mental health staff, it is not always easy to determine the extent to which inmates are actually experiencing symptoms as a result of the conditions of their confinement. There is data suggesting that high security inmates are more likely to report symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression, agitation, and other mood disorders than are lower security inmates. It is difficult, however, to determine whether the inmates who exhibit conduct that leads to high security placements might already have had behavioral health issues (perhaps contributing to the negative behaviors), or whether the symptoms are elicited by the environment and an innate predisposition to develop them. To a significant extent, the ability of an individual inmate to tolerate long term administrative segregation depends upon personal characteristics, coping style, social support system, beliefs about the nature and intent of the individual's level of confinement, previous exposure to similar conditions, mental health status, and physical condition/physical health, as well as length of confinement.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Kupers, Terry. Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must Do About It. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Lozoff, Bo. We're All Doing Time. Durham, North Carolina: Human Kindness Foundation, 1998.

Rhodes, Lorna. Total Confinement: Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2004.

Web sites

CNN.com. "Trend toward solitary confinement worries experts." 〈http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/〉 (accessed March 12, 2006).

Third World Traveler. "Supermax prisons: high-tech dungeons and modern-day torture." 〈http://www.third-worldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Supermax_Prisons.html〉 (accessed March 12, 2006).