#3 - SCI-Dallas - 2010 Sections III-IV-Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC and Recommendations

8/3/2019 #3 - SCI-Dallas - 2010 Sections III-IV-Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC and Recommendations

1/30

Human Rights Violations throughout the PA DOC

During the last two years HRC/FedUp! has reviewed thousands upon

thousands of pages of prisonerletters/reports, civil actions,institutional paperwork, affidavits,criminal complaints, and additionaldocumentation detailing patterns ofwidespread, systemic, deliberatehuman rights violations throughoutthe PA DOC. The thrust of thisdocumentation has beencorroborated via countless hours ofconversation and interviews withcurrent and former prisoners andtheir families conducted by HRCmembers, allies, supporters, andothers working directly andindirectly with HRC, in both theirpersonal and professional capacity.

In this context, the reports from SCIDallas summarized in section IIrepresent a minor, albeit illustrative,

fraction of the human rightsviolations perpetrated by the PADOC on a daily basis.

The patterns of violations gravitatearound the solitary confinementunits, which are the core of controlthroughout the state just as in SCIDallas. According to PA DOC officialstatistics for the month of October2009, there were 2,846 prisoners in

some form of solitary confinement.1

1These numbers do not identify prisoners in the

Special Management Unit (SMU) or Death Row

prisoners, and appear to be incomplete in

identifying those confined in a series of Secure

Special Needs Units (SSNU) around the state

such as those at SCI Pittsburgh, SCI Retreat, and

others. Whether these prisoners are included in

Unlike many other states, wherehigh-security prisoners are confinedin one or two supermaximum-

security prisons, the PA DOC has adecentralized system of high-security solitary confinement/controlunits (known as Restricted HousingUnits, or RHUs) in each of the 26prisons it operates.2 Fifteen of thesecontrol units confine over 100prisoners, with SCIs Graterford(250), Greene (241), Camp Hill(218), Fayette (197), Huntingdon(141), Forest (134), and Dallas (119)possessing the largest. The twowomens prisons, SCIs CambridgeSprings (13) and Muncy (117)accounted for 130 of the solitaryconfinement population at the endof October.3

While many of those in the RHUserve a 30-60 day sentence insolitary for an alleged disciplinary

infraction, a number of others havebeen subjected to long-termisolation with no means forimproving their confinement status.Several of these prisoners have beenconfined for 5 years and longer,even more than 25 years in a fewinstances. As at SCI Dallas, thosemost heavily targeted for indefinitelockdown are jailhouse lawyers,

the total for RHU classifications or elsewhere, ornot included, is not clear.2

The PA DOC actually operates 27 facilities

when the Quehanna Boot Camp is included.

The boot camp does not have a RHU.3

Figures taken from the PA DOC Monthly

Population Report for October 2009,

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/portal/lib/portal/mont

hly_population.pdf.


2/30

political activists, the mentally ill,and blacks and Latinos.

The effect of the regime of solitaryconfinement on the rest of the

prisoner population is predictableand undoubtedly intentional: toterrorize prisoners into totalsubmission to the arbitrary power ofprison staff and officials regardless

of whether that power is beingexercised in accordance with policyand law.

The subsequent capsule

descriptions of major human rightsviolations in the PA DOC situates theconditions at SCI Dallas in a broadercontext and hence renders themmore comprehensible.

Summary Report on Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC

Assault/physical abuse

PA DOC policy stipulates that Whenforce is used, the least amount offorce, reasonably necessary toachieve the authorized purpose is tobe used and the use of force willstop once control is achieved.There is also a prohibition on theuse of force as a means ofpunishment or revenge.4 Thesepolicy mandates are routinelysubordinated when prison personnel

find it in their interest to terrorizespecific individuals and the rest ofthe prisoner population by makingan example of someone.

Assaults, physical abuse, and threatsof violence from guards occur withsystematic frequency, establishing abaseline of terror throughout theprisoner population. Those who filegrievances or pursue other avenues

for redress such as civil litigation orreporting to outside authorities areregularly targeted for verbal and

4PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 201-1, Use of

Force, section V(B)(D),

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/standards/lib/standard

s/DC-ADM_201_Use_of_Force.pdf.

physical harassment. Generalpopulation prisoners who aresubject to provocation and assaultby staff are virtually always issuedfabricated misconduct charges forassaulting staff and sentenced to aterm in solitary confinement. Oncein solitary these prisoners are oftendeprived food, personal property,writing materials and grievanceforms, access to medical treatment,and otherwise subjected todeprivations and punitive measures

designed to reinforce the totalhelplessness of prisoners and theirabsolute dependency on staff fortheir very survival. Prisoners held insolitary confinement who insist onexercising their rights to filegrievances and lawsuits, or whootherwise develop an antagonisticrelationship with staff are even morevulnerable to physical abuse sincethey are not permitted to leave their

cells without being handcuffed andoften shackled. Reports of guardsthrowing handcuffed prisonersagainst walls, yanking theirhandcuffed arms through the trayslot in the door, and punching andkicking defenseless victims are notuncommon. The threat and reality


3/30

of arbitrary and excessive bodilyviolence is both the psychologicaland physical lynchpin of control.Such acts violate, inter alia5, articleV of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (UDHR) prohibitingtorture and other ill-treatment, andthe UN Convention against Tortureand Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment orPunishment.6

Mental Health and thePsychological Impact of SolitaryConfinement

A vastly higher prevalence ofpsychological instability anddisorder exists amongst theprisoner population than within thepopulation at large.7 The rate ofmental illness becomes higher yetamongst those confined in controlunits. Responses to questionnairessent to large numbers of prisonersled the U.S. Bureau of JusticeStatistics to claim in a September

2006 report that as many as 56% ofstate prisoners likely suffer from amental health problem,8 based onthe presence of a recent history or

5a legal term meaning amongst other things.

6Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds.,Basic

Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.

25 and 405-416 respectively.7

Terry Kupers,Prison Madness: The Mental

Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We MustDo About It. Dr. Kupers writes that The

prevalence of mental disorders among prisoners

is quite high, at least five times the prevalence

rates in the general population, p. 11.8

Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail

Inmates, Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze,

Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report,

September 2006.

symptoms of mental healthproblems.

The Vienna, Virginia-basedcorporation MHM Correctional

Services, Inc. (MHM) signed a newcontract with the PA DOC towardsthe end of 2008 for the provision ofmental health care services betweenJanuary 1, 2009 and August 31,2013. The contract is worth$91,000,000.9

While MHM claims that it issuccessful in meeting the uniquechallenge posed by prisoners with

mental illness10, reports of severepsychological deterioration andinadequate, often non-existent, andsometimes abusive treatment arecommonplace. Those held in solitaryconfinement are treated to cursoryvisits from psych staff and forced tospeak with them at their cell door,which has an inhibiting effect onones willingness to discuss hissymptoms for fear of being

overheard by guards and otherprisoners. Prisoners prescribedmedication to counter suicidaldepression have had theseprescriptions discontinued withdevastating consequences, nonemore so than the case of MatthewBullock. In other instancesexcessive medication is substitutedfor mental health care.

9Service Purchase Contract between

Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections and

MHM Correctional Services, Inc.,

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/MHM_C

orrectional_Services_Inc._SP_1181000376.pdf.10

http://www.mhm-

services.com/services/correctional-mental-

health.html


4/30

The regime of solitary confinementboth exacerbates and generatespsychological instability,abnormality, and disorder, therefore

perpetuating an escalating cycle ofmental illness and suffering insideand outside the prisons. Thescientific consensus deduced fromcopious research on thepsychological impact of solitaryconfinement is that the experiencegenerates considerable andsometimes permanent mentalsuffering. One of the foremostexperts on the subject, Dr. Stuart

Grassian, reveals that even a fewdays of solitary confinement willpredictably shift theelectroencephalogram (EEG) patterntoward an abnormal patterncharacteristic of stupor anddelirium, and outlines the followingseven symptoms as beingcharacteristic of an organic braindelirium associated with solitaryconfinement:

a) hyperresponsivity to externalstimuli;b) perceptual distortions, illusions,hallucinations;c) panic attacks;d) difficulties with thinking,concentration, and memory;e) intrusive obsessional thoughts:emergence of primitive aggressiveruminations;f) overt paranoia;g) problems with impulse control.11

Questionnaires submitted byHRC/Fed Up! to over 75 prisoners in

11Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of

Solitary Confinement,

SCI Dallas and throughout the stateconfirm the presence of these samesymptomatic patterns amongst adisturbingly large number of thesolitary confinement population.

Incidents of self-harm, includingsuicide attempts, occur regularlyand are certainly under-reported.Prisoners have reported setting theircells on fire, self-mutilation, andattempts to hang themselves. Thecommon response from prison staffin these circumstances is to sendguards in riot gear into the cell toextract the prisoner, oftenattacking him with pepper spray

first, and then forcibly transportingthe cuffed and shackled inmate to apsychiatric observation cell where heis subjected to even more intensiveisolation. Several prisoners havereported being kept in such cellswithout bedding, a mattress,running water, or clothes for days ata time. This brutality exacerbatesand multiplies the incidence ofmental health problems inside

prisons where a large subgroupdevelop[] the disturbances thatmake their lives more miserable onlyafter being incarcerated.12

Other rights to adequate mentalhealth care are violated by structuraland procedural deficiencies,including lack of funding, staffing,privacy, inpatient treatmentprograms, and negligent andabusive practices.

HRC/Fed Up! finds the predictablepsychological consequences of these

12Terry Kupers,Prison Madness: The Mental

Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must

Do About It, p. 38.


5/30

conditions is of such an egregiousand apparent nature that it cannotbe credibly understood as anythingother than the deliberate intentionof the PA DOC to inflict severe

mental pain on prisoners targetedfor prolonged solitary confinement.While the utilization of solitaryconfinement as a retaliatorymeasure represents an obvioushuman rights violation, theapplication of these techniques ofcontrol is invalidand illegalifthere is no identifiable rehabilitativeor penological consequence as well.

Simply put, there is no legitimaterehabilitative pretext that can justifysubjecting those found guilty ofviolating prison rules andregulations to conditions of isolationso extreme as to constitute torture.

The proliferation of solitaryconfinement units represents theascendance of a purely punitiveapproach to incarceration. While the

dominant discourse on questions ofcrime and incarceration validate thedebate between a punitive orrehabilitative approach toincarceration, black-letterinternational law is unambiguous onthis matter. The role of solitaryconfinement in perpetuating anever-escalating cycle of incarcerationin PA and throughout the U.S.subverts article 10(3) of theInternational Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, which mandates thatThe penitentiary system shallcomprise treatment of prisoners theessential aim of which shall be theirreformation and social

rehabilitation.13 Tough on crimepunitive approaches that fail toaddress root social causes of crimeand neglect to provide adequateeducational, vocational, therapeutic,

and counseling services to peoplesentenced to prison are not onlyresponsible for propagating thecycle of violence and socialdeteriorationand thereforedecidedly not tough on crimebutare also in violation of internationallaw.

These conditions also violate, interalia, article V of the UDHR and the

Convention against Torture14. Byexacerbating and generating agreater incidence of mental illnessand denying adequate treatment thePA DOC is also violating the UnitedNations Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Treatment of Prisoners rule22(1), which states that: Themedical services should beorganized in close relationship tothe general health administration of

the community or nation. They shallinclude a psychiatric service for thediagnosis and, in proper cases, thetreatment of states of mentalabnormality.

Malign Neglect: Profit overPrisoners

In 1988 the United Nations GeneralAssembly passed Resolution43/173, the Body of Principles forthe Protection of All Persons Under

13Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds.,Basic

Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition,p.

36214

Brownlie, p. 25 and 405-416 respectively.


6/30

Any Form of Detention orImprisonment. Principle 24 states:

A proper medical examinationshall be offered to a detained or

imprisoned person as promptlyas possible after his admission tothe place of detention orimprisonment, and thereaftermedical care and treatment shallbe provided whenever necessary.This care and treatment shall beprovided free of charge.15

This provision affirming a right tomedical care corresponds with the1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in

Estelle v. Gamble, which found thatdeliberate indifferences to seriousmedical needs of prisonersconstitutes a violation of 8thamendment rights to be free fromcruel and unusual punishment.16

Summarizing data on infectiousdiseases in prison populations, a2007 report found that rates ofHIV/AIDS and other sexuallytransmitted diseases (STDs),tuberculosis (TB), and Hepatitis A, B,and C amongst the incarcerated farexceed occurrences amongst thegeneral public. The rate of HIV/AIDSin prisons has been estimated at fiveto seven times greater than in thegeneral population. The proportionof prisoners with hepatitis fallswithin the approximate range of 15and 30 percent. TB cases in prisonsare five times the national average.The report continues:

An analysis conducted for theU.S. Congress, by the National

15Brownlie, p. 93.

16Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

Commission on CorrectionalHealth Care, found that 20 to 26percent of the U.S. populationliving with HIV/AIDS, 29 to 32percent of persons with HepatitisC, and 38 percent of those with

TB were releasedfrom acorrectional facility. Transmittedthrough unprotected sex,tattooing, sharing syringes, andclose living quarters, andfostered by inadequate prisonhealth care, these diseases areravaging the prison population.Public health experts arebeginning to ponder theconsequences of this healthcrisis, as the large majority ofthese prisoners will one day bereleased back to society.17[emphasis in original]

Another threat to public health isthe rapid spread throughout thenations prisons and jails of thesuperbug, methicillin resistantstaphylococcus aureus, or MRSA.Determined to be the cockroach ofbacteria by the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, MRSA(pronounced mer-sa) has the powerto disable, disfigure and kill thepeople who come into contact withit. 19,000 out of the estimated94,000 U.S. Americans with MRSAdied as a result of the superbug in2005 alone. Pennsylvania isamongst a handful of states with

17Violations of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the

International Convention on the Elimination of

all forms of Racial Discrimination in U.S.

Prisons: A Response to the Periodic Report of

the United States of America, Prison Working

Group, p. 20, October 2007.


7/30

particularly virulent outbreaks ofMRSA in detention facilities.18

Given that prisons are incubators ofdisease and that over 90% of

prisoners will be released into ourcommunities someday, theimperative for providing adequatehealth care to the incarceratedpopulation is not only a legally-mandated but pragmatic andcommonsense public health policyas well. For this reason it is nothingshort of scandalous that the PA DOChas privatized the provision ofmedical services and contracted this

responsibility to Prison HealthServices, Inc. (PHS), a Tennessee-based for-profit corporation that hasleft a trail of corpses and lawsuits inits wake around the country.

In 2005 Paul von Zielbauerpublished an expose of PHS in thepages of the New York Times basedon extensive investigations of PHSpractices around the U.S.,

documenting widespread instancesof wrongful death, malpractice,skeletal staffing, denial ofmedications, and other neglectfuland abusive practices. Summarizinghis findings Zielbauer wrote, Ayearlong examination of PrisonHealth by The New York Timesreveals repeated instances ofmedical care that has been flawedand sometimes lethal. Thecompanys performance around thenation has provoked criticism fromjudges and sheriffs, lawsuits frominmates families and whistle-

18

Deadly Staph Infection Superbug Has a

Dangerous Foothold in U.S. Jails, Silja J.A.

Talvi,Prison Legal News, May 2008.

blowers, and condemnation byfederal, state and local authorities.The company has paid millions ofdollars in fines and settlements.19

The PA DOC signed a five-yearcontract with PHS for the provisionof medical care, excluding mentalhealth and pharmacy services, to allfacilities under their control thatinitially went into effect onSeptember 1, 2003.20 The contractwas worth $308,254,642. InFebruary 2007 the contract wasextended from its initial expirationdate of August 31, 2008 to August,

31 2013.21

Incentives for denying care areembedded in the contract, inparticular the section on the annualaggregate cap, which reads in part:

PHS has budgeted an annualaggregate cap oftwenty millionfive hundred thousand dollars($20,5000,000) to cover outside

medical services in contract YearOne. Additionally, PHS proposesa 50/50 sharing between PHS

19Paul von Zielbauer, Harsh Medicine: As

Health Care in Jails Goes Private, 10 Days Can

Be a Death Sentence,New York Times ,

February 27, 2005.20

Medical Services Agreement Between

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of

Corrections and Prison Health Services, Inc.,

signed August 6, 2003,

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/phsSignedContract.pdf.21

Contract Modification Agreement No. 3 to

Medical Services Agreement Between



signed February 4, 2007,

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/PHSAttac

hment3.pdf.


8/30

and the DOC of any costsincurred between $20,500,000and $22,500,000. Costs thatexceed$22,500,00 in Year Oneshall be the responsibility of theDOC.22

Outside medical services includemedical and psychiatrichospitalization, off-site physiciansand specialists fees, emergencyroom fees, ambulancetransportation expenses, off-site andmobile surgery services, and thecost of any dialysis treatmentprovided off-site as well as on-sitedialysis services at SCI Graterfordand SCI Muncy.23

By entrusting the health and lives ofPA prisoners to the likes of PHS it isno surprise that reports of medicalneglect and abuse are rampant.Examples of poor practices andinadequate treatment includewithholding of medications; refusalof outpatient services and necessary

surgeries; denial of prisonerrequests to view their medicalrecords; failure to follow policy anddocument injuries when these mightindicate staff liability for injuries (i.e.after guards beat or abuse aprisoner); the absence of anymechanisms other than civillitigation for prisoners to seekremedy, whichin the rare caseswhere claims are upheldprovide

redress for wrongs virtually alwaysafter the damage has been done.

22Medical Services Agreement Between



http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/phsSigne

dContract.pdf.23

ibid.

Skin conditions, hernias, andcataracts have been ignored or givencursory attention. Prisonersconcerned about their exposure toinfectious diseases, especially those

in solitary units who have beenplaced in cells with blood and bodilywaste, have been denied diagnostictests or had the documented resultswithheld.

HRC/Fed Up! has accumulatedample testimony to conclude thatthe business practices detailed inthe 2005 New York Times expose ofPHS have not been amended in any

substantive manner and persist tothis day.

White Supremacist Racism

The U.S. criminal legal system issaturated with white supremacistracism at every level, from policingpriorities to arrests, convictions tosentencing.

In April 2007, a group of humanrights workers concerned with theU.S. prison system issued a shadowreport to the United States periodicreport to the United Nationsregarding compliance with theInternational Convention on theElimination of all forms of RacialDiscrimination. The shadow report,in which the normalized racism ofthe prison system is summarized,states the matter with blunt clarity:Conditions in prisons and jails inthe US are horrific. The notion ofrehabilitation in most facilities hasbeen forgotten and prisons/jailshave become warehouses for many


9/30

of the marginalized segments ofAmerican society.24

In reviewing the U.S. report the UNCommittee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination (CERD) notedthat the stark racial disparities inthe administration and functioningof the criminal justice system,including the disproportionatenumber of persons belonging toracial, ethnic and national minoritiesin the prison population, may beregarded as factual indicators ofracial discrimination, andsubsequently recommended that all

necessary steps to guarantee theright of everyone to equal treatmentbefore tribunals and all other organsof administering justice be takenand advocated the implementationof national strategies or plans ofaction aimed at the elimination ofstructural racial discrimination.25

The concerns articulated by theCERD acknowledge, however

modestly, that the criminal legalsystem operates according to thelogic of white supremacy. While thisstructure of domination functionswithin a complex variety of social

24Violations of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the

International Convention on the Elimination of

all forms of Racial Discrimination in U.S.

Prisons: A Response to the Periodic Report of

the United States of America, Prison Working

Group, October 2007.25

Committee on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination (CERD), Consideration of

Reports Submitted by State Parties Under

Article 9 of the Convention, Concluding

observations of the Committee on the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United

States of America, CERD/C/USA/CO/6, May

8, 2008.

institutions and at varying degreesof psychological awareness, whitesupremacy is and always has been areality of life in the United States.

Illustrating some markers of thisreality, the Pew Center on the Statesissued a report in 2009 revealingthat Black adults are four times aslikely as whites and nearly 2.5 timesas likely as Hispanics to be undercorrectional control. One in 11 blackadults9.2 percentwas undercorrectional supervision at year end2007. 26

Perhaps even more illuminating isthe fact that black males areincarcerated at a rate of 4,919 per100,000 in the U.S. today, whileapartheid South Africa, bycomparison, incarcerated blackmales at a rate of 851 per 100,000in 1993.27

These same patterns are apparent inPennsylvania as well, where blacks

account for 48.8% of the total stateprison population despite onlyrepresenting 10.8% of the statepopulation. Similarly, while personsof Hispanic or Latino originrepresent but 4.8% of the statepopulation they account for 10.8% ofthe state prison total.28 That all but

26One in 31: The Long Reach of American

Corrections, The Pew Center on the States,

2006.27

Figures on incarceration rates taken from

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/articles/not_equal_

opportunity.pdf.28

State prison population figures taken from the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Monthly Institutional Profile, October 31, 2009,

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/portal/lib/portal/mont

hly_profile.pdf. State population percentages


10/30

one of Pennsylvanias state prisonsare situated in locales with apredominantoften over 90%--white/euro-American population hashelped fuel the racial discrimination

and brutality that are definingcharacteristics of the state prisonsystem. Of the 24 locales in whichthe PA DOCs 27 institutions arefoundincluding the two womensprisons, the boot camp, and afacility for juvenile offenders15 ofthese possess a white population inexcess of 95%. 17 out of 24 havean over 90% white population, whilea full 22 of 24 have white

populations above 80%.29

These patterns correspond tonational trends to push prisonexpansion on economicallydepressed white rural communitiesas a means of job creation, whichgenerates an incentive for workingclass whites and politicalrepresentatives from thosecommunities to develop a vested

interest in the warehousing of vastnumbers of poor people fromcommunities of color.

While such statistical indicators ofracial discrimination can bemultiplied at considerable length30

can be found at the U.S. Census Bureau website,

State and County QuickFacts,

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.ht

ml.29

Figures taken from the U.S. Census Bureau

website,

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html

?_lang=en30

SeeRace to Incarcerate, Marc Mauer, for

information and analysis on racial disparities in

policing practices, arrest rates, sentencing

practices, and drug enforcement; for evidence on

numbers can never begin toadequately depict the human impactof structural racism. The reportsreceived by HRC/Fed Up! testify tothe reality of widespread racism on

the part of prison personnel. Wehave received a number of reportsabout flagrantly racist guards, someeven boasting of their membershipin white nationalist organizationssuch as the Ku Klux Klan. The useof racist slurs to intimidate,humiliate, and terrorize prisonersare commonplace in the controlunits, which have a higherproportion of people of color than

the general population. While therehave been reports of guardsthreatening to lynch prisoners andracist pictures and graffiti being leftfor intended targets, much of theracism occurs in the context of dailyoperations. For example, theissuance of fabricated misconductsand placement in solitaryconfinement, or verbal abuse of aracist type directed at those who file

grievances. Other examples ofracism include reports from severalLatino prisoners that they are beingheld in solitary confinement on thebasis of confidential evidencealleging gang affiliation, and blackMuslims being denied Nation ofIslam and other related literature.

Structural racism and themanifestations thereof detailed inthis report violate Article 2 of the

racial disparities in life sentences see The

Sentencing Projects July 2009 reportNo Exit:

The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in

America; and seePunishment and Prejudice:

Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, Human

Rights Watch, May 2000.


11/30

UDHR31 and, articles II and V of theInternational Convention on theElimination of all forms of RacialDiscrimination. The severeobstacles for prisoners who seek

protection and remedy in instancesof racial discrimination (see thesection on the Denial of DueProcess) violate Article VI of theICERD, which stipulates that StateParties shall assure to everyonewithin their jurisdiction effectiveprotection and remedies, throughthe competent national tribunalsand other State institutions, againstany acts of racial discrimination . .

.32

Conditions in PA prisons and SCIDallas in particular also fit thedefinition of the crime of apartheidas defined in Article II(a)(ii) of theInternational Convention On theSuppression and Punishment of theCrime of Apartheid. The relevantsections stipulate that apartheid ispresent when there is a Denial to a

member or members of a racialgroup or groups of the right to lifeand liberty of person via theinfliction upon the members of aracial group or groups of seriousbodily or mental harm, by theinfringement of their freedom ordignity, or by subjecting them totorture or to cruel, inhuman or

31 Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds.,BasicDocuments on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.

24. Article II of the UDHR states Everyone is

entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in

this Declaration without distinction of any kind,

such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,

political or other opinion, national or social

origin, property, birth or other status.32

Ibid.p. 340

degrading treatment orpunishment.33

Denial of Due Process: Grievances,Misconducts, and Access to the

Courts

Any analysis of the factors thatgenerate, enable, and sustainhuman rights violations in U.S.prisons has to take into account therole of the courts in monitoringconditions, adjudicating disputes,and enforcing rulings in particularinstances. Prisoners rights in thisrespect are enshrined in articles VI

and VII of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights, which respectivelyproclaim that All are equal beforethe law and are entitled without anydiscrimination to equal protection ofthe law, and that Everyone has theright to an effective remedy by thecompetent national tribunals foracts violating the fundamental rightsgranted him by the constitution orby law.34 Affirming the same

principles of due process and equalprotection, Amendment XIV of theU.S. Constitution, proclaims that nostate shall deprive any person oflife, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nor deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction theequal protection of the laws.

Prison Litigation Reform Act

The rights of prisoners to access thecourts have been severely restrictedas a consequence of the PrisonLitigation Reform Act (PLRA), passedinto law by the U.S. Congress in

33Ibid. p. 383

34Ibid. p. 25


12/30

1996. Barriers to the exercise ofthis fundamental constitutional andhuman right erected by the PLRArelevant to this report include:

1) the exhaustion of remediesrequirement: Prior to filing alawsuit prisoners are requiredto exhaust the prisonsadministrative grievanceprocedure;

2) the physical injuryrequirement: mental oremotional injury is insufficientto substantiate a claim thatones right were violated

unless it can be demonstratedthat there was a prior physicalinjury;

3) restrictions on court oversightof prison conditions: thepower of federal courts toenforce orders that providecorrectives to unlawfulconditions has been hindered;

4) limitations on attorney fees:the amount of money

attorneys are able to collectfrom successful cases broughton behalf of prisoners whoserights have been violated hasbeen limited by the PLRA.35

Proponents of the legislation allegedthat prisoners were prone to filingexcessive and frivolous lawsuits, andthat the PLRA would eliminate abuseof the courts and weed out unworthyclaims. Contrary to theseassertions, prisoner lawsuits wereabout as common as lawsuitsbrought by non-prisoners, and these

35No Equal Justice: The Prison Litigation

Reform Act in the United States, Human Rights

Watch, May 2009; p. 2

often involved non-frivolous claimssimilar to the violations detailed inthis report.36 Furthermore, if theactual intent of the legislation wereto discourage and hinder the filing

of unworthy lawsuits then it followsthat prisoners should have begun towin a higher percentage of casessubsequent to the passage of thePLRA. But the PLRA has hadprecisely the opposite effect asprisoners have filed less lawsuitsand won an even smaller proportionof these cases.37

In May 2009, Human Rights Watch

(HRW) released a report on theeffects and constitutionality of thePLRA, finding that The effect . . . onprisoners access to the courts wasswift. Between 1995 and 1997,federal civil rights filings byprisoners fell by 33 percent, despitethe fact that the number ofincarcerated persons had grown by10 percent in the same period. By2001 prisoner filings were down 43

percent from their 1995 level,despite a 23 percent increase in theincarcerated population. By 2006the number of prisoner lawsuits filedper thousand prisoners had fallen60 percent since 1995.38 The reportalso found that the number ofstates with less than 10 percent oftheir prison populations under courtsupervision more than doubled,from 12 to 28.39

As a consequence of the PLRAsrestrictions on prisoners rights to

36ibid. p. 9

37ibid.p. 3

38ibid.p. 3

39ibid.p. 35


13/30

access the courts and its erosion ofjudicial power to regulate conditionsby court order HRW concluded thatthe PLRA is fundamentally at oddswith the requirements of

international law, specifically article14 of the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, whichstipulates that All persons shall beequal before the courts andtribunals.40 The UN CommitteeAgainst Torture also found that thePLRA violated fundamental humanrights, noting that the physicalinjury requirement is acontravention of article 14 of the

Convention Against Torture, whichrequires redress for victims. TheCommittee accordinglyrecommended that The State partyshould not limit the right of victimsto bring civil actions and amend thePrison Litigation Reform Actaccordingly.41

It is in this context of an expandingprison population that possesses

increasingly diminished access tothe courts that the routine reports ofanti-prisoner bias in theadministration of grievance andmisconduct processes are to beunderstood.

Misconducts

4040 Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds.,BasicDocuments on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.

36241

Committee Against Torture (CAT),

Consideration of Reports Submitted by State

Parties under Article 19 of the Convention,

Conclusions and Recommendations of the

Committee against Torture, United States of

America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, May 18, 2006.

Prisoners alleged to have violatedprison rules and regulations are tobe issued a misconduct reportstating the facts upon which thecharges are based as written by the

staff member making the charges, acontractor employee with personalknowledge of the violation, or byanother staff member who has beeninstructed to do so at the request ofa person with personal knowledge ofthe incident in question.42 Asidefrom lesser offenses, which mightbe subject to informal resolution, inwhich no hearing takes place,prisoners charged with a misconduct

are granted an appearance beforethe institutions hearing examiner.While policy stipulates that prisonersare permitted to call witnesses totestify to their knowledge of theevents in question, this aspect ofdue process is frequently subvertedon the grounds that such witnessesare not needed to determine guilt orinnocence. Prisoner requests for thepresentation of security camera

footage regarding the incident athand are virtually always denied aswell.

Such a rationale does make for aconsistent kind of logic, as theprimary factor in determining guiltor innocence in misconduct cases isapparently not evidence, but ratherthe fact that one is a prisonertypically determines that he or she isguilty as well. Once found guilty astint in solitary confinement follows.These can last from 30 days to

42PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 801, Inmate

Discipline, Section 1(B),


s/801_Inmate_Discipline.pdf.


14/30

longer, and can of course beextended without restraint given therubber-stamp quality of misconductprocedures.

Reports of guards abusing themisconduct system to burysomebody in solitary are receivedfrom all over the state each week.Most reports of this kind usuallybegin with a description of how aprisoner felt compelled to file agrievance against an abusive staffmember and was subsequentlyissued a misconduct for aninfraction that they did not commit.

If the prisoner still feels aggrievedand unwilling to acquiesce silently tothe arbitrary machinations of prisonstaff misconducts can be issuedendlessly with little concern thatsupervisory staff will disapprove letalone discipline staff who abusetheir authority in such a manner.Along with SCI Dallas, the prisons atCamp Hill, Fayette, Greene, andother control units have made this a

normalized tactic in silencinggrievances and intimidating thosewho file lawsuits.

Grievances

Prisoners in the PA DOC have theoption of filing grievances regardingstaff misconduct and/or inadequateconditions of confinement. Theinitial grievance is handled by aninstitutional grievance officer,appeals go to the Superintendent,and the third and final level ofappeal is DOC Central Office inCamp Hill.43 While the formal

43PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 804, Inmate

Grievance System,

purpose of the grievance system isto provide an avenue for prisonersto resolve problems within theinstitutional framework of the PADOC, the operative reality of the

grievance system is that it functionsto repress claims of abuse andsubstandard conditions and obstructaccess to the courts.

Official PA DOC grievance statisticsfor the period between January 1,2008 and April 29, 2009 obtainedthrough a Right-To-Know requestreveal the systematic anti-prisonerbias in the system with stark clarity.

During this sixteen-month periodless than 2% of prisoner grievanceswere decided in favor of the inmate.For the years 2008 and the first fourmonths of 2009 respectively,approximately 20% and 18% ofgrievances were unilaterally resolvedby the prison administration, whichdoes not mean the inmate issatisfied. The remainder are deniedor dismissed on their merits or

because of failure on the part of theprisoner to adhere to proceduralrequirements. To put it anotherway, over 98% of prisoner grievancesare not resolved in a manner that issatisfactory to the inmate.44

The systematic refusal to addressprisoner grievances in an honest andconstructive way discourages manyfrom using the system at all. Thosewho do learn quickly not to expectfairness. Several prisoners havereported being told explicitly that


s/DC-ADM_804_Inmate_Grievances.pdf.44

PA DOC Inmate Grievance Tracking System

Summary Totals, on file.


15/30

the testimony of guards will bebelieved no matter the truth of thematter. Refusal to permit prisonersto call witnesses or present securitycamera footage in support of their

claims is as prevalent in thegrievance system as it is in themisconduct process. Thefrustration, demoralization, andanger engendered by these practicesis predictable and of no apparentconcern to DOC administrators andpersonnel.

As evidenced in the precedingpages, prisoners who file grievances

almost invariably arouse the ire ofstaff and consequently findthemselves targeted by retaliatoryactions. HRC/Fed Up! has receivedcountless reports from peoplesubjected to long-term solitaryconfinement on the basis offraudulent misconducts that wereissued after the inmate attempted toutilize the grievance system.

Given the conditions of solitaryconfinement outlined above and thebrutality, filth, racism, andpsychological disorientationaccompanying such conditions, theissuance of fabricated misconductsfor retaliatory purposes should beunderstood as a violation of theConvention Against Torture. The UNCommittee Against Torture, in itsconsideration of a U.S. reportregarding its compliance with theconvention, noted in regard toconditions in U.S. prisons that TheCommittee is concerned about theprolonged isolation periodsdetainees are subjected to, theeffect such treatment has on their

mental health and that its purposemay be retribution, in which case itwould constitute cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment(art. 16).45

Prisoners in solitary confinement arehindered from utilizing thegrievance system in other ways aswell, including the confiscation anddestruction of necessary paperworkfor filing grievances and appeals in atimely manner, denial of grievanceforms and writing tools, andadministrative refusal to respond toclaims in a timely manner. These

actions not only deter the possibilityof prisoners obtaining a fair andsatisfactory resolution of theirgrievances within the prison system,which is not a serious possibility inany event, but serve to frustratepotential legal action as well.Failure to conform to the proceduralrequirements of the grievancesystem means that any lawsuitbrought regarding the grievance in

question has a higher probability ofbeing thrown out on the technicalgrounds that the inmate did notexhaust administrative remedies asrequired by the PLRA.

For those who seek justice the PLRAand its requirement thatadministrative remedies beexhausted prior to bringing alawsuit necessitate that prisonerscontinue to file grievances. Despite

45Committee Against Torture (CAT),

Consideration of Reports Submitted by State

Parties under Article 19 of the Convention,

Conclusions and Recommendations of the

Committee against Torture, United States of

America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, May 18, 2006.


16/30

the all but total improbability of agrievance being resolved and thethreat and reality of being subjectedto control unit torture, perhapsindefinitely, countless members of

PAs incarcerated populationcontinue to file grievances so thattheir claims will not be dismissed ontechnical/procedural grounds.

Survivors of torture and othersstruggling against the dehumanizingviolations of their rights inside thePA DOC need dedicated andorganized support from those of uson the outside if their grievances are

to be addressed, their rights andlives respected, and those guilty ofperpetrating criminal acts againstthem held accountable. Theconcluding section of this reportsummarizes a series ofrecommendations to be pursued bya broad coalition of current andformer prisoners, their families andsupport people, human rightsdefenders, and civil society

organizations.


17/30

RecommendationsHuman Rights andAccountability: Organizing to Enforce the Law

The contents of this report describe

an unsustainable and appallingculture of criminal conduct withinthe PA DOC. To date, no effectiveaction has been taken by those inpositions of power to address thehuman rights crisis inside the prisonsystem. The inaction andindifference from DOC and stateofficials when presented withsubstantial documentation of crimesof the state can only be understood

as tacit approval at worst or adecision of political expedience atbest.

Rather than address our concludingremarks to agents and institutionsof a criminal state we offer thefollowing recommendations to ourallies in civil society as a frameworkfor sustained, principled, committedpolitical struggle. These

recommendations are in no waycomprehensive and demand furtherelaboration and integration into abroader movement for theenforcement of human rights lawand a corresponding restructuring ofthe political, economic, and socialrelationships and institutions thatgovern our communities and shapeour collective future.

Legislators, law enforcementpersonnel, state employees, andother government officials andemployees are encouraged to reviewand adopt this framework as well.HRC/Fed Up! believes that it iscorrect to give those in positions of

power the opportunity to do the

right thing, but imperative toprepare for the possibility that theywill not. For this task we need amass movement.

As an organization comprised ofprisoners, their families and supportpeople, and human rightsdefenders, we expect theseconstituents to be most receptive tothe following recommendations.

From this basis of understanding itis necessary to build a movementthroughout communities targeted bytwin policies of massimpoverishment and massincarceration, reaching out to buildprincipled alliances with othersectors of society concerned withthe rule of law, human rights, andsocial justice.


18/30

Recommendations


19/30

1. Investigate and prosecute crimes of torture and other cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On the basis of the elements and guidelines of international lawdiscussed below, prisoners, support people, and individual and

organizational human rights defenders must make the investigation andprosecution of the crime of torture a non-negotiable demand.

The filing of criminal complaints at every jurisdictional level, especiallywith the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, will assistin compiling and preserving evidence, exposing torture and relatedhuman rights violations, and building public and institutional momentumfor accountability. State or federal investigative commissions created bylegislative acts expressly for the purpose of investigating and prosecutingtorture and human rights violations in PA prisons are other potentialavenues.

Even if the political realities that dictate how the law is or is not enforcedare not significantly altered soon and our efforts to seek justice andaccountability are denied for the time being, the preservation of evidenceand exposure of conditions inside PA prisons will assist in creatingawareness of human rights law, crimes of the state, and the question ofpower, thus helping generate the necessary preconditions for widespreadsocial transformation.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment (CAT) defines the crime of torture as follows:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term torture means any act bywhich severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, isintentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining fromhim or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for anact he or a third person has committed or is suspected of havingcommitted, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for anyreason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or sufferingis inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescenceof a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It doesnot include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidentalto lawful sanctions.46

State officials and employees who organize, sanction, enable, participatein, or otherwise fail to act when presented with evidence of control unittorture and human rights violations not amounting to torture but ratherconstituting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment bear primary

46Ibid. p. 406.


20/30

criminal responsibility for the operation of the prison system in the stateof Pennsylvania and demand to be investigated and prosecuted.

Article 12 of the CAT mandates that Each State Party shall ensure that itscompetent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation,

wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture hasbeen committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. Article 13enshrines the right of those allegedly subjected to torture to a promptand impartial examination of their claims and protection againstretaliation.47

The UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation ofTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment provides further instruction for individuals and organizationsadvocating for investigations and prosecutions of torture and other ill-treatment. Principle 1 articulates the objective of the resolution:

1. The purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture andother cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . . . include thefollowing:

(a) Clarification of the facts and establishment and acknowledgement ofindividual and State responsibility for victims and their families;(b)Identification of measures needed to prevent recurrence;(c) Facilitation of prosecution and/or, as appropriate, disciplinary

sanctions for those indicated by the investigation as being responsibleand demonstration of the need for full reparation and redress from theState, including fair and adequate financial compensation and

provision of the means for medical care and rehabilitation.48

Aspects of legitimate investigations identified in the document includeimpartiality, promptness, competence, authority to compel witnesstestimony and obtain all available evidence, necessary budgetary andtechnical resources, physical and psychological medical examinations ofalleged victims of torture and other ill-treatment, and the production of apublic, written report.49

Investigations conducted in accordance with internationally acceptedstandards serve to further the principles articulated in the UN BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation forVictims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and

47Ibid. 409.

48UN Resolution 55/89, seeAnnex: Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation

of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. http://daccess-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/564/73/PDF/N0056473.pdf?OpenElement 49

ibid.


21/30

Serious Violations of International Law.50 These guidelines specify threecore components of accountability constituting the victims right toremedies:

(1)Justice: Equal and effective access to justice;(2)Reparations: Adequate, effective and prompt reparation forharm suffered; and(3)Truth: Access to relevant information concerning violations and

reparation mechanisms.51

The guidelines provide further insight into appropriate mechanisms foractualizing the above three components. From this framework humanrights defenders can create and implement strategies to hold the PA DOCaccountable to the rule of law and seek justice for victims of severehuman rights violations.

2. Restructure the criminal legal system according to internationallaw.In order to effectively prevent torture and other human rights violationsinside PA prisons it is necessary to restructure the entire criminal legalsystem so as to ensure that it conforms to international law. While it isbeyond the scope of this report to engage in an extended analysis of theissues involved, it is sufficient to note that race and class based policiesand practices of policing, prosecution, and sentencing need to beabolished. Toward that end community oriented strategies involving theexpansion and proliferation of educational and vocational programs,

along with access to comprehensive and effective substance abusetreatment, counseling, and mental health services need to be at theforefront in the struggle to ensure safe communities and public welfare(see recommendation 6).

Further advocacy efforts relating to conditions of confinement can befound in the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners(discussed below). Practical measures that can be integrated into thedemands and development of a mass movement for implementinghuman rights standards throughout the criminal legal and broader social,political, and economic systems include the following:

removal of arbitrary visitation restrictions, especially the limits innumber of visits and the policy of non-contact visitation for thosein solitary confinement and on Death Row;

50Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 275-282.

51Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 279.


22/30

all visits should permit contact and prisoners should never behandcuffed or shackled during a visit; in exceptional circumstancesappropriate alternative practices can be adopted to ensure thehealth and security of prisoners, visitors, and prison personnelwhile simultaneously permitting contact and prohibiting the use of

handcuffs and shackles; permission for visitors to be on more than one prisoners list per

institutions so as to remove undue obstruction to prisoners rightsto maintain contact with family and support people and services;

expansion of the PA official visitor status program, currentlymediated through the PA Prison Society, so as to permit all citizens,especially human rights defenders, the opportunity to visit anyprisoner willing to receive them with full and un-mediated legalauthorization and recognition of such status as a basic humanright;

geographic re-organization of the prisoner population so as toenable more frequent visitation and continuing interaction with aprisoners family and community;

immediate moratorium on prison construction and diversion offunds to vocational, educational, counseling, substance abusetreatment, and mental health services and programs;

creation of associations of human rights defenders inside (seerecommendation 4) and outside the prison to monitor, document,and publish reports of alleged human rights violations andprocedures being advocated or enacted by prisoners, PA DOC andstate officials, and citizens, acting on their own or in coordination,to remedy grievances and ensure the realization of human rights

law in the operation of the prison system; establishment of an independent monitoring agency whose

personnel, methods of operation, tactics and strategies forimplementing human rights standards, and spokespeople shall beaccountable to prisoners, their families, and the populations mostimpacted by mass incarceration; such an agency must have accessto constitutional and human rights lawyers and be granted legalauthority to subpoena witnesses and evidence and file criminalcomplaints requiring a mandatory investigation and prosecutionwhen dictated by available evidence.

Taken individually each of these proposals serves to strengthen theothers. Taken collectively these suggestions provide the basis for arestructuring of the prison system along rehabilitative lines and humanrights principles.

As noted in section 3 of this report, article 10(3) of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) mandates that [t]he


23/30

penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essentialaim of which shall be their reformation.52 The UN Standard MinimumRules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRTP) provides the supportingframework for realization of article 10(3) of the ICCPR.

Articles 58 and 59 of the SMRTP articulate the common sense underlyingarticle 10(3) of the ICCPR:

58.The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment ora similar measure deprivative of liberty is ultimately to protectsociety against crime. This end can only be achieved if theperiod of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible,that upon his return to society the offender is not only willingbut able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.

59.To this end, the institution should utilize all the remedial,educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of

assistance which are appropriate and available, and should seekto apply them according to the individual treatment needs ofthe prisoners.

Some of the minimal standards enumerated in the SMRTP include thoserelating to:

clean living conditions; adequate access to natural light and recreation; healthy and filling food portions; medical services organized in close relationship to the general

health administration of the community; impartial and fair disciplinary and grievance procedures; prohibitions on use of handcuffs, chains, irons or other

instruments of restraint as punishment; prohibition on excessive force or violence for the sake of

punishment; access to educational and religious materials; respect, encouragement, and facilitation of contact with family and

social service agencies; access to work and vocational training and opportunities that

develop skills and qualities of self-sufficiency vital to socialreintegration;

observation and treatment of prisoners suffering from mentalhealth needs in specialized institutions under medicalmanagement.53

52Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 362.

53Ibid. 29-44.


24/30

Rule 55 stipulates that [T]here shall be a regular inspection of penalinstitutions and services by qualified and experienced inspectorsappointed by a competent authority. Their task shall be in particular toensure that these institutions are administered in accordance withexisting laws and regulations and with a view to bringing about the

objectives of penal and correctional services.

3. Encourage prisoners to form associations for the defense ofhuman rights.

The PA DOC currently recognizes prisoners associating in any form andfor any reason as a disciplinary infraction of sufficient cause to justifyindefinite/permanent placement in solitary confinement.54 Such a policyprohibits prisoners from exercising core rights and needs of humanpersonality, which include the right and need to interact and makecollective decisions in any given social setting. By depriving prisoners of

the ability to adequately associate, rather than say prohibitingorganization for harmful or illegal ends, the PA DOC is sabotaging themost elemental features of self-supportive, self-empowered, and sociallyresponsible behavior necessary for social reintegration.

Building on the recommendations above, another element that willenhance these efforts is the creation of associations for the defense ofhuman rights inside the prisons. Based on the rights articulated in theUN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (see Recommendation 5),prisoners in correspondence with human rights organizations andadvocates need to be provided a mechanism whereby they can pledge to

adhere to the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and other relevantaspects of human rights principles, practices, and law. Human rightsdefenders inside the prison can further state their intention to work forhuman rights by exercising their constitutional prerogative to filegrievances and/or lawsuits, document and communicate violations tooutside agencies, or other peaceful means of seeking resolution.

Such a declaration of intentions and principles by prisoners supportive ofand adherent to the protection of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms contains many positive attributes. Perhaps foremost amongthese is that in working with prisoners to collectively formulate anddevelop human rights literature and curricula those incarcerated and non-incarcerated men and women engaged in this process will be encouragedto nurture recognition of and respect for the human rights of all.Prisoners who in the past have engaged in acts of violence and deceitagainst family and community, prisoners and prison personnel, will have

54PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 802, Administrative Custody Procedures, section 1(B)(2)(e).


25/30

a much greater likelihood of avoiding such personal and socially harmfulbehaviors in the future.

The potential impact on recidivism is significant and human rightsoriented educational and vocational programs should become mandatory

aspects of a genuine rehabilitative and preventive approach to crime.These programs will not be effective, or will be severely diminished inpotential, if prisoners are not given a central role in shaping the curriculaand practices so as to address their own individual and collective needsand problems.

Prisoners rights to exercise all necessary rehabilitative ends needs tobecome another non-negotiable demand that we can initiate immediately.This requires building mass social support for the protection of humanrights defenders inside the prison so as to prohibit retaliation andintimidation. There is no need to wait for permission from the state to

exercise our basic right to create and implement educational programsand strategies for the defense of human rights in partnership withprisoners.

4. Abolish solitary confinement.Solitary confinement as currently instituted by the PA DOC constitutestorture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and is strictly prohibitedby international law.55 Ongoing investigations and monitoring ofconditions of confinement by HRC/Fed Up! provide an unassailable basisfor the conclusion that the solitary confinement units in the PA DOC are

never operated in accordance with policy and law. Rather, solitaryconfinement units by design or default generate severe human rightsviolations against prisoners and criminal conduct on the part of PA DOCpersonnel. Physical abuse and assault, sexual harassment and violence,overt and malicious racism, psychological torment, medical deprivation,starvation, exposure to dangerously un-hygienic conditions, constantintimidation and retaliation, and the subversion of prisoners due processrights are normative features of the regime of solitary confinementoperated by the PA DOC.

If the PA DOC wants to honestly address institutional security then they

are required not to implement and enable policies and practices ofdehumanization that guarantee future antagonisms and violence betweenprisoners and prisoners, prisoners and prison personnel, and formerprisoners and the public once the former are released into the

55see Rodley and Pollard, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law, Third Edition,

(2009) chapter 2, for discussion of the prohibition of torture as constituting a peremptory norm

of international law binding on all states in all circumstances.


26/30

community. Prisoners who engage in disruptive and/or violent behaviorcan be separated from the general population while still being permittedample opportunity everyday to engage in supervised congregate activitiesand provided access to educational and creative stimulation. If analtercation ensues that requires physical intervention on the part of

prison staff and the isolation of an individual, the period of segregationneeds to be as limited as possible and counseling staff and access tomental stimulation need to be provided to the disturbed person as soonas possible. Psychotically violent prisoners need greater attention, notsevere isolation, primarily in the form of intensive mental healthtreatment conducted in a secure mental-health institution.

There is no legitimate basis for the state of Pennsylvania to be operatinga regime of control unit torture under the color of law. Those inpositions of executive authority in the state of Pennsylvania and itsDepartment of Corrections are guilty of perpetrating crimes against

humanity.

The abolition of solitary confinement is a necessary prerequisite if thestate of Pennsylvania and the U.S. are to adhere to the Conventionagainst Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment orPunishment.

5. Create a culture of human rights defenders.Human rights are not and never have been the gift of benevolentauthorities, but have been won through decades and centuries of human

struggle against cruelty, exploitation, and oppression. For this reasonthose of us concerned with the rights and lives of prisoners need todeepen our understanding of and participation in movements for socialjustice.

Any human rights movement has to address the fundamental question ofpower: who holds it, how it is defined, to what ends it is used, how aredecisions made, who suffers the consequences and who reaps thebenefits. Given the controlling power of concentrated wealth and thehuman rights violations that alwaysoccur when too few people hold toomuch power, we must realize that the protection and expansion of

human rights depends upon the power of the movement to redistributeand redefine social, economic, and political power.

Providing a basic framework for the protection and expansion of a humanrights culture is the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility ofIndividuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect


27/30

Universally Recognized Human Rights and Freedoms.56 Also known asthe Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, this document outlines therights and responsibilities of people in their personal, vocational, andcommunal roles toward the observance and realization of human rights.

This document proclaims [e]veryone has the right, individually and inassociation with others to promote and to strive for the protection andrealization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the nationaland international levels. Also enshrined are the rights to peacefulassembly, formation and participation in non-governmental organizationsdedicated to the defense of human rights, and the right to obtain anddisseminate information relating to the rights and freedoms of people.57

Outlining responsibilities of States, article 15 declares:

The State has the responsibility to promote and facilitate the teaching of

human rights and fundamental freedoms at all levels of education and toensure that all those responsible for training lawyers, law enforcementofficers, the personnel of the armed forces and public officials includeappropriate elements of human rights teaching in their programs.

Complementing these responsibilities are those accorded to non-stateactors in article 16:

Individuals, non-governmental organizations and relevant institutionshave an important role to play in contributing to making the public moreaware of questions relating to all human rights and fundamentalfreedoms through activities such as education, training and research inthese areas to strengthen further, inter alia, understanding, tolerance,peace and friendly relations among nations and among racial andreligious groups, bearing in mind the various backgrounds of thesocieties and communities in which they carry out their activities.58

One practical application of this document is for civil societyorganizations, including human and civil rights groups, communities offaith, educational associations, legal service providers, and others, to actin accord with the role described in article 16 in order to compel theobservance of article 15 by the State at every level of jurisdiction.

Toward this end the formation and strengthening of human rightsalliances, development of curricula and training programs on humanrights, and the articulation and implementation of organizationalmethods for enforcing international human rights law must become our

56Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, p. 230-236.

57Ibid. Articles 1,5, and 6.

58Ibid. p. 235.


28/30

highest priority on individual, community, social, national, andinternational levels. Our success in this endeavor depends wholly on thedegree to which popular political education and organization strengthensand expands a culture based on the recognition and defense of universalhuman rights for all peoples.

6. Enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and MakePrisons Obsolete

Any set of policies and institutions that generate greater and not lessincarceration are clear failures. Existing economic structures exacerbateinequality and force ever larger numbers of the population to engage inoccupationssuch as prostitution, drug-dealing, burglarythat havebeen criminalized for their very survival.

The solution to addressing profound and deliberate inequalities in socio-

economic power relationships is to organize mass political movements toredistribute and redefine wealth and power.

More extensive discussion and analysis of the necessity of such amovement is beyond the scope of this document, though it is sufficientto note that the basis for education, organizing, and action in this respectcan be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) andrelated conventions and documents of international human rights law.59

The basis of human rights conventions, customs, practices, and ideologyare embodied in articles 1-3 of the UDHR:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towardsone another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth inthis Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race colour, sex,language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property, birth or other status.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person

before the law.

The remainder of the UDHR and subsequent international treaties and UNresolutions and declarations articulate a body of principles that constitutean international order of legally binding rights and responsibilities and

59Ibid. 23-28. See this source for other resolutions, declarations, conventions, and other

documents that guide and structure basic international human rights law.


29/30


30/30

When interdependent communities have won the power to organize theirown economic and political institutions and activities in harmony with theearth so that basic rights to life, health care, education, food, housing,sexual orientation and practice, due process and equal access to andequality before the law, and an ecologically sustainable environment are

universally recognized and realized by and for everybody, prisons will beunnecessary.

Immediate steps toward this end involve the development andimplementation of de-carceration strategies geared at localizing theeconomy along ecological and democratic bases. Alliances withcommunity organizations, small-scale producers, organic and sustainablefarmers, teachers, health care workers, communities of faith and otherindividuals and groups supportive of basic human rights suggest a way tolink diverse movements, social institutions and agencies, and people.

Ultimately, and not too far in the future, the question of power must beeffectively confronted by human rights alliances at every jurisdictionallevel, from community to municipal to county to state to national tointernational. The human rights movement needs to redefine power andshape the structures that govern social and economic activity so that theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights can be fully realized by freepeoples in liberated communities inhabiting a livable planet.

thank you to Sister Song: Women of Color for Reproductive Justice for producing the 8

Categories of Human Rights worksheet that provided some of the basis for the breakdown of

human rights in this section.

#3 - SCI-Dallas - 2010 Sections III-IV-Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC and Recommendations

Documents

Transcript of #3 - SCI-Dallas - 2010 Sections III-IV-Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC and Recommendations