Reader: Solitary confinement not always wrong despite murderer Thomas Silverstein's story

• In 1944 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote an existential play titled “No Exit” in which three deceased characters are punished by being locked into a room together for eternity. The most quoted line from this play is:  “Hell is other people.” But Sartre may never have envisioned a Supermax prison or a society that would impose a solitary existence on a living person and if he had he might have wrote, “Solitude is hell on earth!” And if this is true then Thomas Edward Silverstein has been at the center of hell for 28 very long years. His ordeal began when on October 22, 1983 Silverstein brutally murdered Officer Merle Clutts in USP Marion, Illinois. Within weeks he was whisked away to USP in Atlanta, Georgia where in August 1984 the director of the BOP issued a memorandum detailing the “special security procedures” for Silverstein ordering BOP staff to isolate Silverstein from any and all contact with fellow inmates and prison staff for an indefinite period of time. He remained there for years in complete solitude with no heating, air conditioning and for a period of time not even hot water to shower.   During the first year Silverstein was not allowed, social visits, to use the telephone, watch television, listen to the radio, have a clock or have any reading materials other than a bible. Not surprisingly even the guards refused to speak to him.  Silverstein wrote: “The cell was so small that I could stand in one place and touch both walls simultaneously. The ceiling was so low that I could reach up and touch the hot light fixture. I became sensitive to light, which burned my eyes and gave me headaches. The buzzing noise was maddening, as there often were no other sounds at all. During the summer, the heat was unbearable. I would pour water on the ground and lay naked on the floor in an attempt to cool myself. My bed took up the length of the cell, and there was no other furniture at all. I was allowed one hour a week of outdoor recreation. I could not see any other inmates or any of the surrounding landscape during outdoor recreation. There was no exercise equipment and nothing to do.” Because of the cell’s size construction soon began to expand and harden it.   Silverstein wrote: “I was permitted to wear underwear, but I was given no other clothing. In order not to be burned by sparks and embers while they welded more iron bars across the cell, I had to lie on my bed and cover myself with a sheet. It is hard to describe the horror I experienced during this construction process. As they built new walls around me it felt like I was being buried alive. It was terrifying.” When construction was finished Silverstein had three, linked 42-square-foot, windowless cells set apart from the rest of the prison population and designed to minimize his contact with prison staff. I lost some ability to distinguish what was real. I heard people who I believed to be officers whispering into my vents, telling me they hated me and calling me names. To this day, I am not sure if the officers were doing this to me, or if I was starting to lose it and these were hallucinations. I felt like I was in an episode of the twilight zone. I now know that I was housed there for about four years, but I would have believed it was a decade if that is what I was told. It seemed eternal and endless and immeasurable.” In 1987, after a prison riot, the BOP relocated Silverstein to the basement of USP Leavenworth. The conditions in the basement unit were substantially similar to those he experienced at USP Atlanta. While in his rat infested basement cell, he could hear no sounds of human activity in the prison only the constant buzzing sound of fluorescent lights on 24/7 without any access to fresh air or sunlight through recreation or otherwise. After a year in the basement cell, the BOP transferred him to “the hole” separate from the rest of the facility, where he was the only prisoner housed there. Here the conditions of his incarceration remained substantially the same as those he experienced in the basement unit and at USP Atlanta: he was isolated from other inmates and staff, was subjected to continuous lighting and camera surveillance, and exercised and ate alone in an 144-square foot cell with a bed, shower, desk, television, and toilet and a separate cell used as an indoor recreation area and a visitation booth. His phone privileges grew from one call per month, when he first arrived, to 300 minutes per month by the time he left USP Leavenworth. While held there he was provided with one hour of outdoor recreation in a confined, secure space five days of each week. However the staff would sometimes leave him in this outdoor recreation area for extended periods of time in the snow and bitter cold. During his time in isolation, he used art as a way to ameliorate the “extreme sensory deprivation and social isolation.” Except for a period of time during December 2002 and January 2003, in which he was again temporarily housed in the basement cell, he remained in this cell for 18 years. Then on July 12, 2005, the BOP transferred him to the USP Administrative Maximum facility, also known as “ADX,” in Florence, Colorado the most restrictive institution in the BOP. There the BOP had replicated the isolation and other conditions of confinement Silverstein had continuously experienced since his 1983 transfer to USP Atlanta. His contact with fellow inmates and prison staff remained very limited. Incredibly he actually lost some of the privileges at ADX that he had been previously given at USP Leavenworth; his telephone usage and social visits were reduced and he was given less access to the art supplies he used as a coping mechanism. While housed on Range 13, he left his cell only for semi-annual reviews and infrequent haircuts and then he was subject to “invasive” strip searches both upon exiting and returning to his cell. Silverstein has written about these “invasive strip searches”, “The forced rectal exams are rape to us!”   He remained on Range 13 until April 7, 2008, when he was moved to ADX’s “general population” unit, known as “D-Unit.” Although D-Unit is a “general population” unit, its inmates are still held in solitary confinement. D-Unit is configured to minimize contact between inmates and between inmates and staff. Inmates on D-Unit eat and are allowed two hours of, indoor or outdoor exercise each weekday alone. However, during his time on D-Unit, the BOP has often cancelled his scheduled recreation time. Initially more restrictive conditions were placed on him than those placed on other inmates in the unit. For example, for several months following his transfer to D-Unit, he was housed and allowed recreation only in areas where no other inmates were nearby. Furthermore, he was escorted by three correctional officers including a lieutenant while other inmates were accompanied by only two CO’s.  Finally, while other inmates receive social and legal visits on Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays in the presence of other inmates, he was restricted to Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and outside the presence of other inmates. In an apparent move to influence the outcome of Silverstein’s suit against the BOP only the added visitation restrictions now remain in place. Sadly this sinister maneuver seems to have worked as planned for the bureau. Judge Philip Brimmer ruled October 5, 2011: “Conditions at the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum, or ADX, aren’t “atypically extreme.” Silverstein isn’t subject to the “special administrative measures” reserved for convicted terrorists at ADX, which severely limit their ability to communicate with any outsider, even family or legal counsel. But as you just read his journey through the federal prison system has been anything but typical. Silverstein reports that he’s still being moved frequently from one cell to another to prevent any kind of ongoing communication with other prisoners. “ALL they care about (obviously) is maintaining my ISOLATION, by any convoluted means necessary,” he writes.” So by allowing Silverstein ever so slightly more communication with people than convicted terrorists, no matter how draconian the rest of his living conditions may be, this allows this judge to claim Silverstein’s condition is not “atypically extreme”. And by shuffling their cells, and carefully selecting those within ear shot of each other, the guards keep even shouting between cells to a bare minimum. The BOP has placed rivals nearby to agitate and informants, with questionable credibility, to report on the give and take between Silverstein and others. The informants have everything to gain by inventing or embellishing the goings on between such high profile prisoners. All of this, and well placed microphones to record it all has turned up nothing to indicate Silverstein still remains a threat today. Mail: Silverstein states his mail is still censored by SIS unlike some of the other inmates around him. This procedure leads to bureaucratic delays of his incoming and outgoing correspondence. In addition he claims that there are frequent intentional or unintentional delays in his mails scheduled pickup and delivery. These delays can lead to significant legal problems when his mandated filing deadlines are not met. He also claims that a legal document from his defense team which was marked to be opened only in front of Mr. Silverstein had arrived to him already opened by the SIS staff. And if such legal correspondence does miss its deadline the judge is more often inclined to believe the CO’s denial of interference then his claim of wrong doing. Visits: Silverstein says, “mail meddling is part of their desire to cut me off from the outside world—once they alienate you, they try to break your hopes, then your resistance. I didn’t get any visits for about 10 years, because of the draconian policy that says we’re not allowed visits from anyone we didn’t know prior to prison.” After 35 years of incarceration at a location far from his prior home and family Silverstein receives very few visits from his ever shrinking pool of relatives and old friends. Referring to this dilemma Silverstein asks “How many folks still know people from that long ago?” Only once in the last 27 years has Silverstein ever been allowed to add one “very special person” to this list. He goes on to state “The BOP policy statement claims to encourage visits to maintain family and social ties, but it’s only a ploy to fool the public when in reality they do just the opposite.” He gives this example as evidence; “Once my baby sister came to see me all the way from California, and the gate guards at first wouldn’t let her in. Finally Silverstein’s ability to mount a robust legal defense to end his isolation is hindered by, poor education, difficulty in accessing legal materials, and his unfamiliarity with computers. (He is only sporadically allowed a maximum of 2 hours at a time on the legal computer with no law books available.) In Dr. Hanley’s declaration he writes: Part 2 “Silverstein is caught up in several custodial Catch 22’s.” Page 41: “Assessment of his level of threat is based on his past conduct and the absence of any meaningful change in his cognitive orientation….” (In other words Silverstein’s resilience to the torture was evidence, in this BOP employee’s mind, that Silverstein had not been broken and remained a danger.) Page 56:  “..the perceived need for this extraordinary treatment of Silverstein was based primarily if not exclusively on something Mr. Silverstein could not of possibly of changed over the past 22 years: ‘his criminal history, his past.’” Dr. Hanley rightly points out that Silverstein has had ample time and means to cause the BOP problems and a very good reason to do so in the frustrating task of dealing with all these custodial Catch 22’s. In summery, how can Judge Brimmer explain the BOP director’s August 1984 memorandum detailing the “special security procedures” for Mr. Silverstein, procedures which have been carried out at each of the three institutions that Silverstein has been held in every since, and still claim these conditions are not atypically extreme? It is clear to me that the BOP planned the easing of Silverstein’s prior atypical “no human contact status” to side step the law suit.

• You confirm what is already assumed. No one is getting the truth about the abuse taking place and without any outside access to these tombs the abuse will continue unabated. In my mind that is a condemnation. Your not alone. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/prison_rape_colorado.php#more   I can tell you, from experience (20+ years working as a correctional officer) that prison rape does occur in the Colorado Department of Corrections…. most importantly, STAFF ARE DISCOURAGED FROM REPORTING it. Not officially of course, but there is a certain amount of STIGMATIZATION PLACED UPON STAFF WHO DO report it. During my time with the CDOC I encountered more inmate on inmate and staff on inmate rapes than I can even count. I REPORTED SOME OF THE BAD THINGS I WITNESSED AND I WAS PUNISHED SO I STOPPED MY SENSE OF SELF-PRESERVATION OUTWEIGHED MY NEED TO PROTECT ANYONE ELSE.

• You seem to be a good man. I wish you well and read my other answer below. Thanks for the honesty.

• and my focus has always been the mentally ill if you remember our first conversations.. The SMI don’t belong in a SHU…. that is what I said that is what I meant – the difference between the severely mentally ill and behavioral offenders are day and night.. Please keep that in mind..

• When it comes to killing a correctional officer or any cop, there is no room to wiggle a step down into the process - that's my opinion  - he will never leave the SHU - administratively, his risk assessment is beyond normal boundaries and won't be adjusted by any administrator or sitting agency Director while we are in this culture and current practices; and that's not old loyalties but a gut feeling.. remember i said this from the beginning  - its my own opinion.

• Solitary Confinement is a hot subject nationwide - the practice is under fire and there are recorded abuses under such practices. The problems are almost always related to non-compliance to "written" policies and procedures, deviations from policies that include behavioral modification methods not sanctioned and tacit approval for variances not documented  making it hard for the courts to accurately track operational issues not in writing and protected by the code of silence. Short term placements are effective up to a point - once a prisoner knows he is going to be there long term, his behavior is no longer in check and he becomes rebellious in behavior seeking no resolve and personal satisfaction of being a trouble maker which in turn results in him being treated in an "extreme" manner to commensurate his noncompliance issues. This is where there are dangers of abuse, neglect and torture as the oversight is limited, not documented and random in nature. The culture is "us versus them"  with both sides pulling no punches [no pun intended] and escalation of mistreatment occurs first in passive aggression elevating to physical contact and unnecessary cell extractions, strip searches etc.   The reasons the courts can't determine the "extreme" part is that it doesn't exist just like "torture" doesn't exist. This underground culture won't reveal their flaws in a public forum or courtroom. Affidavits and incident reports are coached,. These incident reports are "cleaned up" after numerous drafts and disciplinary is swift to avoid others from thinking about talking about it at all. Special focus is on the FOIA regulations that allow public discovery of public documents and items thus certain documents become classified, videos are lost or tampered with statements are perfected to play off any signs of condoned unlawful behaviors. This is why the correctional officer is so empowered as they feel they are invincible and protected by the top to avoid embarrassment of their administration in central office. Have you ever noticed when an investigation goes south, the warden is fired? This is the nail in the coffin for anyone else that talks. Normally the hits are at the bottom but in cases where an outside agency finds flaws, the warden gets the ax to save face. Administrators are taught from the beginning two things: internal controls and external controls – internal controls (institutional culture and practices) are how the incident is handled, documented, released and revealed before it leaves the facility. This information is cleaned up before the press release to the media which represents the external control element of the event.  Other external control (politics) is collected of external audits, investigations, media, legislature and executive branch revelations and findings. If the justification is properly made and timely in response, the top echelon remains unscathed and the bottom gets the heavy handed hammer of discipline. The air of intimidation is on both sides. Officers and prisoners been pressured to remain quiet and it works. Credibility is slurred as good officers are discredited if they speak out against the system. The only way you will discover the "truth" is through a "mole" in the system that keeps a log of the events as they occurred.  NOTE: the code of silence protects both the guilty and the innocent... the "team" remains intact and the brotherhood remains intact protected by select upper management who endorse such "extreme" practices but defend them in a public forum.  Administrators get promoted for following the program and the practice continues to exist as the morality suffers and new rules are imposed with every successive administrator and supervisor that works the SHU or SMU

• @Carl-Just how did this system came into being. Unlike you I have no personal experience in a SHU so I read and quote those that have direct knowledge. By the way I agree short term isolation (not decades) is useful. But even then with independent oversight. Eric Cummings “The Rise and Fall of California’s Radical Prison Movement”:             “In 1970 Warden Nelson had served on the Committee on Riots and Disturbances of the American Correction Association. The first firm decision the group came to was that convict ringleaders must be “removed and isolated from the general population before an opportunity to carry out their plans presents itself.”   In other words, ‘troublemakers were to be identified and punished before they committed any offenses.’” Now that might give you an attitude if you’re falsely accused huh? And it is not covered under your definition when it is to be used. Since Silverstein was in Marion when he killed Clutts I researched it. Resisting Living Death, at Marion Penitentiary, 1972 Alan Eladio Gomez Page 78-79: “Beginning in 1972, with the institutionalization of the CU against politicized prisoners, the contradictory relationship between mid-century rehabilitation models and incarceration finally ruptured….Once inmates could be legally defined as lacking political rights under emergency conditions, the possibility for rehabilitation had no reference from which to define or measure change, a dehumanizing situation that ruptured the link between existence and rights, life and dignity, and a direct response to the political action, collective educational projects, and extramural support of the prison rebellion years…. In 1972, the CU was used for overtly political purposes to control the organized dissent that targeted the behavior-modification programs at Marion, and to cut off communication with supporters outside the walls…in the 1973 Adams v. Carlson ruling that the administrative use of isolation did not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment… marked an important moment in the social acceptance, even expectation, of the use of cruel and unusual punishment and permanent isolation units as central logics of terror within the prison regime.” So we don't attempt to rehabilitate inmates and then turn them loose directly from these SHU's. The late Howard Zinn warned in his book “Peoples History of America”: Page 635: “the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going….These people---the employed, the somewhat privileged—are drawn into an alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls.     That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that…we are expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us.     The new conditions…make it less and less possible for the guards of the system…to remain immune from the violence (physical and psychic) inflicted on the black, the poor, the criminal, the enemy overseas…. There is evidence of growing dissatisfaction among the guards.” Carl I like your suggestions above but one minute you seem to denouncing the system as it is practiced and the next your siding with it. I guess old loyalties are pulling at you but you need to commit one way or the other. Is 28 years enough time for Silverstein to enter a step down program?

• Lots of interesting information here. Thanks, Carl.

• I still maintain the importance of following policies and procedures based on best correctional practices such as the American Corrections Association or ACA. Training [as well as remedial training for some] and cultural understanding can break down some of these barriers but with decades of mission creep and eroded principles or values, it would take a very strong leader to accomplish reforms inside a SHU or SMU with the help of good officers who are willing to work hard to change the environment to a more accountable and transparent setting that sends the message that abuse or neglect is not tolerated and consequences are real. This shod not be done in a big numbered setting but through smaller types of unit management concepts and micro lines of authority by responsible and selected staff. I re-state my first concern – break it down to a smaller unit and begin with the fundamentals of good security  practices– they can run side by side with good managers supervising the daily events... The concept has been fruitful in many other states and allowed STG prisoners to step down to a lower custody level after being in a SHU or SMU for over 10 -15 years. Bring in a sound process of “due process” and allow eligibility criteria to be fair and open to those who meet the risk assessment for lower custody placements and program them to begin the process under the scrutiny of the director, the warden and the unit deputy warden. Bottom line – SHU or SMU are control units based on pre-determined criteria – when a prisoner acts out because he is disruptive, unwilling to follow rules and creates a threat on others whether staff or other prisoners, they need to be locked up and provided closer supervision. There are behavioral treatment units in place to address such conduct and this should be a voluntary participatory program that draws those who are interested in reducing their custody levels, comply with all regulations, provide a stable history of positive behaviors and pass a screening process to be eligible for such considerations.. Eligibility does not guarantee their enrollment as there are other risk factors to be considered before a selection of decision is made. No need to reinvent the wheel... its already being done in many places with therapeutic overtones but serious consequences for non -compliance.

• Of course this distinction between the mentally ill and gang members is at odds with the founders of this system. In Dr. Richard Kom’s estimation, the purpose of an SHU-style facility is to: … reduce prisoners to a state of submission essential for their ideological conversion. That failing, the next objective is to reduce them to a state of psychological incompetence sufficient to neutralize them as efficient, self-directing antagonists. That failing, the only alternative is to destroy them, preferably by making them desperate enough to destroy themselves. The following is a poem from one such inmate. Fatalistic Suicide After years of isolation, depression and hopelessness, he decided-as simply as turning down the blanket on his bunk for the night-to take his own life, so they could no longer inflict a pain that robbed him of his identity, stripped him of his dignity, destroyed his mind, and left him to hang. Carl’s own ideas on another forum: My own are in ( ). A five member oversight committee would be made up of 1 medical doctor 1 mental heath specialist 1 deputy warden 1 case manager and 1 reviewer – the 4 would do the actual review and their findings would be passed on to the reviewer The reviewer should be independent which means he/she would not be paid by the BOP or directly supervised by the warden. The presence or creation of such an oversight committee with the power to request and amend existing investigative packets and initiate an internal investigation into staff behaviors will reduce abuse, excessive force, torture, and other mistreatment by a significant percentage providing a better environment for both staff and prisoners. The process to place an inmate into the SHU should be reviewed before an initial placement. (The inmate needs to be aware of this “process” as it progresses as evidenced by his signature on the documentation.) Follow up with a full committee review within 30 days to validate information in the inmates file. At the same time the process for a prisoner to exit or transition out of the SHU should be reviewed. (This info should be immediately shared with the inmate upon his entry so he that knows what is required of him.) There should be “evidence based” risk assessments points equaling the minimum required points for placement (as determined by national standards for security threat group scoring.) (A hand book of these “National Standards for Security Threat Group Scoring” and the minimum required points should be made as available as a Bible in any motel room.) A legitimate appeal should be offered through a three step process up to the director. (Define this “Three Step Process” and if used make it available to the inmate at a level he can understand.) Self studies and other evidence based programs can be used to fill an 18 month program for step down. (I think a program of study should be placed up stream at the point of entry into the system. A new inmate should be schooled on the methodology of recruitment of prison gangs and what validation as a gang member means.) Debriefing can be an option but should not be the sole option to exit the SHU. (Why save a flawed system that encourages false testimony? If used at all information derived while debriefing should be received with a skeptical eye.)

• In 1971 a nineteen year old Silverstein entered San Quentin in the middle of what Edward Bunker called a “War Behind Walls” in his 1972 Harpers Magazine article. Here are two excerpts: “...they stabbed every white on the tier, all of whom wore white jumpsuits, for they had just gotten off bus and had no idea they would be attacked for being white. One died, and one vaulted the railing to avoid the stabbing blades broke both his angles on the concrete below…. Men without friends, those trying to quietly serve a term and get out, were in the worst predicament. They had no allies. Warriors stayed together, knew many of their opposition, suspected others from hairstyle, mannerism, and association.” So maybe this atmosphere contributed to Silverstein joining the AB? Released four years later he is rearrested shortly thereafter for armed robbery along with his two crime partners, one of the two was his own father. The first murder Silverstein was accused of in prison was denied by him: On appeal a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said it was appalled by the quagmire of conflicting testimony and recanted statements…The judges ordered federal prosecutors to either dismiss the murder charge against Silverstein or conduct a new trail.” There was no retrial. The environment at Marion when Silverstein arrived there: Between January 1980 and October 1983, there were more serious disturbances at Marion than at any other prison, including fourteen escape attempts, ten group uprisings, fifty-eight serious inmate-on-inmate assaults, thirty-three attacks on staff, and nine murders. Second murder trial, in which Silverstein also denied committing: When called to the stand to testify Norman Matthews… was asked whether he could remember November 22, 1981, he replied, "It was the day I killed Chappelle." Did the judge improperly exclude this testimony? The third murder is not denied by Silverstein but it was committed only after Smith had failed in two documented attempts to kill him.   (Smith had been a close friend of Chappelle’s and the leader of their prison gang. “Cadillac” Smith had been moved to a cell next to Silverstein from another institution after Chappelle's death in what appears to be a set up by the authorities involved.) Excerpts from Pete Early’s, book “Hot House”. “I tried to tell Cadillac that I didn’t kill Chappelle, but he didn’t believe me and bragged that he was going to kill me,” Silverstein recalled. “Everyone knew what was going on and no one did anything to keep us apart. The guards wanted one of us to kill the other.” Enter guard Clutts the fourth victim. In an audio recording of an interview conducted by Earley, Silverstein explains his motive: 16:25 Silverstein: I think he was just selling me wolf tickets. But he didn't know I was taking him serious. AS MANY KILLINGS THAT I HAVE SEEN WHEN SOMEONE SAYS HE IS GOING TO KILL YOU, YOU CAN’T SIT BACK AND SAY AWE IT AIN’T NOTHING AND DO NOTHING. When somebody has gone that far especially when you’re telling him you don't want no trouble why don't you get off my case. You know, I PLEADED WITH THAT GUY… On Saturday morning October 22, 1983, Silverstein eliminated this perceived threat.  In his recent apology to the world Silverstein wrote:  “There is no justification for what I did.”  But there is logic behind his actions, even if it is only understandable by other inmates that have also been trapped like tethered animals in a slaughter house!

TotalComments: 11