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

thomas silverstein cropped.jpg
Silverstein.
Alan Prendergast's update on the story of murderer Thomas Silverstein, who's been held in solitary confinement for more than a quarter-century, examines the issue of whether conditions at Colorado's supermax facility are "extreme." A reader with expertise in the field responded with a look at balancing behavior issues with mental-health treatment.

Carl Toersbijns writes:

This is typical response from the judicial systems that create divisions or levels of acceptable treatment versus unacceptable treatment in solitary confinement. It is likely that if this prisoner was mentally ill, he would have been provided the required consideration for his complaint filed but since his placement inside this unit is based on behavioral issues and not mental issues the justice system has defined boundaries that apply and not apply. I think that that is most appropriate given the case that not all solitary confinement placements are unreasonable and inappropriate for validated gang members, terrorists and other disruptive group members.

After all, I worked inside a SMU for many years and can tell you that the assignment is most appropriate for behavioral managment but not for mental health treatment. There should however be criteria to allow steps to a reduced custody level or housing assignment based on the prisoner's ability to adhere to rules and regulations and other incentive based programming. The first and utmost important step is to be free from any gang activity for at least 4 years and pass a polygraph to be eliigble for step down with clear conduct history as well as mental health assessments of their individual personality traits and history. Of course, this is an anecdotal opinion with no facts to prove either right or wrong... in other words, just my opinion.

For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.

My Voice Nation Help
11 comments
Carl Toersbijns
Carl Toersbijns

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.

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

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 ideologicalconversion. That failing, the next objective is to reduce them to a state ofpsychological incompetence sufficient to neutralize them as efficient,self-directing antagonists. That failing, the only alternative is to destroythem, 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 andhopelessness, he decided-as simply asturning down the blanketon his bunk for the night-to take hisown life, so they could no longer inflict a pain that robbed him ofhis identity, stripped him of his dignity,destroyed his mind, and left himto 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 1mental heath specialist 1 deputy warden 1 case manager and 1 reviewer – the 4would do the actual review and their findings would be passed on to thereviewer

The reviewer should be independent which means he/she would not be paid bythe BOP or directly supervised by the warden.

The presence or creation of such an oversight committee with the power torequest and amend existing investigative packets and initiate an internalinvestigation into staff behaviors will reduce abuse, excessive force, torture,and other mistreatment by a significant percentage providing a betterenvironment for both staff and prisoners.

The process to place an inmate into the SHU should be reviewed before aninitial placement.

(The inmate needs to be aware of this “process” as it progresses asevidenced by his signature on the documentation.)

Follow up with a full committee review within 30 days to validateinformation in the inmates file.

At the same time the process for a prisoner to exit or transition out of theSHU should be reviewed.

(This info should be immediately shared with the inmate upon his entry so hethat knows what is required of him.)

There should be “evidence based” risk assessments points equaling theminimum required points for placement (as determined by national standards forsecurity 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 anymotel room.)A legitimate appeal should be offered through a three step process up to thedirector.

(Define this “Three Step Process” and if used make it available to theinmate at a level he can understand.)

Self studies and other evidence based programs can be used to fill an 18month program for step down.

(I think a program of study should be placed up stream at the point of entryinto the system. A new inmate should be schooled on the methodology ofrecruitment 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 theSHU.

(Why save a flawed system that encourages false testimony? If used at allinformation derived while debriefing should be received with a skeptical eye.)

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

In 1971 a nineteen year old Silverstein entered San Quentin in the middle ofwhat Edward Bunker called a “War Behind Walls” in his 1972 Harpers Magazinearticle.

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 forbeing white. One died, and one vaulted the railing to avoid the stabbing bladesbroke both his angles on the concrete below….

Menwithout friends, those trying to quietly serve a term and get out, were in theworst predicament. They had no allies. Warriors stayed together, knew many oftheir 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 armedrobbery 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 TenthCircuit said it was appalled by the quagmire of conflicting testimony andrecanted statements…The judges ordered federal prosecutors to either dismissthe murder charge against Silverstein or conduct a new trail.”

There was no retrial.

The environment at Marion whenSilverstein arrived there:

Between January 1980 and October 1983, there were more seriousdisturbances at Marionthan at any other prison, including fourteen escape attempts, ten groupuprisings, fifty-eight serious inmate-on-inmate assaults, thirty-three attackson staff, and nine murders.

Second murder trial, in which Silverstein also denied committing:

When called to the stand to testify Norman Matthews… was askedwhether 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 wascommitted only after Smith had failed in two documented attempts to kill him.

 

(Smithhad 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 institutionafter Chappelle's death in what appears to be a set up by the authoritiesinvolved.)

Excerpts from Pete Early’s, book “Hot House”.

“I tried to tell Cadillac that I didn’t kill Chappelle, but he didn’tbelieve me and bragged that he was going to kill me,”

Silverstein recalled. “Everyone knew what was going on and no one didanything 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, Silversteinexplains his motive:

16:25Silverstein: I think he was just selling me wolf tickets. But he didn't know Iwas 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'twant 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 Silversteinwrote:

 “There is no justification for what I did.”

 But there is logic behind his actions, even if it isonly understandable by other inmates that have also been trapped like tetheredanimals in a slaughter house!

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

@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?

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

In 1944 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote an existential play titled “NoExit” in which three deceased characters are punished by being locked intoa 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 asociety that would impose a solitary existence on a living person and if he hadhe might have wrote,

“Solitude is hell on earth!”

And if this is true then Thomas Edward Silverstein has been at the center ofhell for 28 very long years.

His ordeal began when on October 22, 1983 Silverstein brutally murdered Officer Merle Clutts in USPMarion, Illinois.

Within weeks he was whisked away to USP in Atlanta, Georgia where inAugust 1984 the director of the BOP issued a memorandum detailing the “specialsecurity procedures” for Silverstein ordering BOP staff to isolate Silversteinfrom any and all contact with fellow inmates and prison staff for an indefiniteperiod of time.

He remained there for years in complete solitude with noheating, air conditioning and for a period of time not even hot water toshower.

 

During the first year Silverstein was not allowed, socialvisits, to use the telephone, watch television, listen to the radio, have aclock or have any reading materials other than a bible. Not surprisingly even theguards refused to speak to him. 

Silverstein wrote:

“The cell was so small that I could stand in one place and touch both wallssimultaneously.

The ceiling was so low that I could reach up and touch the hot lightfixture.

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 groundand lay naked on the floor in an attempt to cool myself.

My bed took up the length of the cell, and there was noother furniture at all.

I was allowed one hour a week of outdoor recreation. I could not see anyother 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 expandand harden it.  

Silverstein wrote: “I was permitted to wear underwear, but I was given noother clothing.

In order not to be burned by sparks and embers while they welded more ironbars 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 thisconstruction process. As they built new walls around me it felt like Iwas 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 theprison 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 ifthe officers were doing this to me, or if I was starting to lose it and thesewere hallucinations.

I felt like I was in an episode of the twilight zone. I now know that I washoused there for about four years, but I would have believed it was a decade ifthat is what I was told. It seemed eternal and endless and immeasurable.”

In 1987, after a prison riot, the BOP relocated Silverstein to thebasement of USP Leavenworth.The conditions in the basement unit were substantially similar to those heexperienced at USP Atlanta.While in his rat infested basement cell, he could hear no sounds of humanactivity in the prison only the constant buzzing sound of fluorescent lights on24/7 without any access to fresh air or sunlight through recreation orotherwise.

After a year in the basement cell, the BOP transferred him to “thehole” separate from the rest of the facility, where he was the onlyprisoner housed there.

Here the conditions of his incarceration remained substantially the sameas those he experienced in the basement unit and at USP Atlanta: he wasisolated from other inmates and staff, was subjected to continuous lighting andcamera surveillance, and exercised and ate alone in an 144-square foot cellwith a bed, shower, desk, television, and toilet and a separate cell used as anindoor recreation area and a visitation booth.

His phone privileges grew from one call per month, when he first arrived, to300 minutes per month by the time he left USP Leavenworth. While held there hewas provided with one hour of outdoor recreation in a confined, secure spacefive days of each week. However the staff would sometimes leave him in thisoutdoor recreation area for extended periods of time in the snow and bittercold.

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 whichhe was again temporarily housed in the basement cell, he remained in thiscell for 18 years.

Then on July 12, 2005,the BOP transferred him to the USP Administrative Maximum facility, also knownas “ADX,” in Florence, Coloradothe most restrictive institution in the BOP.

There the BOP had replicated the isolation and other conditions ofconfinement Silverstein had continuously experienced since his 1983 transfer toUSP Atlanta. Hiscontact with fellow inmates and prison staff remained very limited.

Incredibly he actually lost some of the privileges at ADX that he had been previouslygiven at USP Leavenworth; his telephone usage and social visits were reducedand 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 andinfrequent haircuts and then he was subject to “invasive” strip searches bothupon exiting and returning to his cell. Silverstein has written about these “invasivestrip 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 heldin solitary confinement. D-Unit is configured to minimize contact betweeninmates and between inmates and staff. Inmates on D-Unit eat and are allowed twohours of, indoor or outdoor exercise each weekday alone. However, during histime on D-Unit, the BOP has often cancelled his scheduled recreation time.

Initially more restrictive conditions were placed on him than thoseplaced on other inmates in the unit. For example, for several monthsfollowing his transfer to D-Unit, he was housed and allowed recreation only inareas where no other inmates were nearby. Furthermore, he was escorted by threecorrectional officers including a lieutenant while other inmates wereaccompanied 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 toMondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and outside the presence of other inmates.

In an apparent move to influence the outcome of Silverstein’s suit againstthe BOP only the added visitation restrictions now remain in place. Sadly thissinister maneuver seems to have worked as planned for the bureau.

Judge Philip Brimmer ruled October 5, 2011: “Conditions at the U.S. Penitentiary AdministrativeMaximum, or ADX, aren’t “atypically extreme.”

Silverstein isn’t subject to the “special administrative measures” reservedfor convicted terrorists at ADX, which severely limit their ability tocommunicate with any outsider, even family or legal counsel. But as you justread his journey through the federal prison system has been anything buttypical.

Silverstein reports that he’s still being moved frequently from one cell toanother to prevent any kind of ongoing communication with other prisoners. “ALLthey care about (obviously) is maintaining my ISOLATION, by any convolutedmeans necessary,” he writes.”

So by allowing Silverstein ever so slightly more communication with peoplethan convicted terrorists, no matter how draconian the rest of his livingconditions may be, this allows this judge to claim Silverstein’s condition isnot “atypically extreme”.

And by shuffling their cells, and carefully selecting those within ear shotof each other, the guards keep even shouting between cells to a bare minimum.The BOP has placed rivals nearby to agitate and informants, with questionablecredibility, to report on the give and take between Silverstein and others. Theinformants have everything to gain by inventing or embellishing the goings onbetween such high profile prisoners. All of this, and well placed microphonesto record it all has turned up nothing to indicate Silverstein still remains athreat today.

Mail: Silverstein states his mail is still censored by SIS unlike some ofthe other inmates around him. This procedure leads to bureaucratic delays ofhis incoming and outgoing correspondence. In addition he claims that there arefrequent intentional or unintentional delays in his mails scheduled pickup anddelivery. These delays can lead to significant legal problems when his mandatedfiling deadlines are not met. He also claims that a legal document from hisdefense team which was marked to be opened only in front of Mr. Silverstein hadarrived to him already opened by the SIS staff. And if such legalcorrespondence does miss its deadline the judge is more often inclined tobelieve the CO’s denial of interference then his claim of wrong doing.

Visits: Silverstein says, “mail meddling is part of their desire to cutme off from the outside world—once they alienate you, they try to breakyour 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 anyonewe didn’t know prior to prison.”

After 35 years of incarceration at a location far from his prior home andfamily Silverstein receives very few visits from his ever shrinking pool ofrelatives and old friends. Referring to this dilemma Silverstein asks “How manyfolks still know people from that long ago?” Only once in the last 27 years hasSilverstein 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 tomaintain family and social ties, but it’s only a ploy to fool the public whenin reality they do just the opposite.”

He gives this example as evidence; “Once my baby sister came to see me allthe way from California, and thegate guards at first wouldn’t let her in.

Finally Silverstein’s ability to mount a robust legal defense to end hisisolation is hindered by, poor education, difficulty in accessing legalmaterials, and his unfamiliarity with computers. (He is only sporadically alloweda maximum of 2 hours at a time on the legal computer with no law booksavailable.)

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 theabsence of any meaningful change in his cognitive orientation….”

(In other words Silverstein’s resilience to the torture was evidence, inthis BOP employee’s mind, that Silverstein had not been broken and remained adanger.)

Page 56:

 “..the perceived need for thisextraordinary treatment of Silverstein was based primarily if notexclusively on something Mr. Silverstein could not of possibly ofchanged over the past 22 years: ‘his criminal history, his past.’”

Dr. Hanley rightly points out that Silverstein has had ample time and meansto cause the BOP problems and a very good reason to do so in the frustratingtask of dealing with all these custodial Catch 22’s.

In summery, how can Judge Brimmer explain the BOP director’s August 1984memorandum detailing the “special security procedures” for Mr. Silverstein,procedures which have been carried out at each of the three institutions thatSilverstein has been held in every since, and still claim these conditions arenot 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.

Carl Toersbijns
Carl Toersbijns

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..

Carl Toersbijns
Carl Toersbijns

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.

Carl Toersbijns
Carl Toersbijns

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

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

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/late...

 

I can tell you, from experience (20+ years working as acorrectional officer) that prison rape does occur in the Colorado Department ofCorrections…. most importantly, STAFF ARE DISCOURAGED FROM REPORTING it. Notofficially of course, but there is a certain amount of STIGMATIZATION PLACED UPONSTAFF WHO DO report it.

During my time with the CDOC I encountered more inmate on inmate andstaff on inmate rapes than I can even count.

I REPORTED SOME OF THE BAD THINGS I WITNESSED AND I WAS PUNISHED SO ISTOPPED

MY SENSE OF SELF-PRESERVATION OUTWEIGHED MY NEED TO PROTECT ANYONE ELSE.

Nil_Darps
Nil_Darps

You seem to be a good man.

I wish you well and read my other answer below.

Thanks for the honesty.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...