Texas: Ruiz vs Estelle

[elam]

wow

I think you're going to see what you want to see, Elam.

If you're genuinely interested in this, you might want to read Texas Monthly's How They Ruined our Prisons.

Cow Poke, I'm the person who submitted that lengthy article to you. I read it thoroughly and in full. Did you?

I work entirely from documented facts. I've provided some of the documentation, even a summary of the lengthy proceedings in the case (a significant amount of time was spent in litigating the payment of attorney fees). You haven't provided anything other than platitudes and wishful thinking. If you can substantiate your ascertains please do. I'm happy to spend the time verifying them from either court records or newspaper articles...

So far you have evidenced that it is you who sees what you want to see...

[Cow Poke]

So far you have evidenced that it is you who sees what you want to see...

I think you're far too eager to "win an argument" than to have a discussion. I only cited the Texas Prison Rodeo as part of the over all "Ruiz changed far more than the prisons".

I don't live there anymore, I don't deal with that anymore, I don't really have a dog in this fight -- you're free to think what you want to think.

But, for some strange reason, I like you more than when I first encountered you, and I'm not just trying to give you a hard time.

[elam]

I've just discovered that your Ruiz vs Estelle argument might be somewhat out of date and redundant. Several facts for you to consider that I extracted from an article by Texas Execution Information Center...

* "In 2002, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Ruiz lawsuit".

* "[In 1996 Congress passed] the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)...This law was enacted in response to a wave of lawsuits brought by prisoners and was designed to stop what lawmakers saw as abuse of the federal prison litigation process".

* "[March 1, 1999 Judge Justice]...ruled that the PLRA violated the separation of powers clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"
* "[March 20, 1999] the Fifth Circuit reversed Justice's 1999 opinion, finding the PLRA to be Constitutional..."

______________


* "In 1992, [Judge Justice] entered a "Final Judgment" that vacated all of his previous orders concerning the prison system and lifted many of the restrictions placed on it, including the previous population caps".

* "In 1996, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) filed a motion urging Justice to end his oversight, claiming that it had solved all Ruiz-related problems and the state had "transformed its prison system into one of the best-administered, most modern systems in the United States." The state argued that the requirements of the 1992 Final Judgment had been met in full, and thus there was no reason for its continued existence. Attorneys for Ruiz and the other plaintiffs responded that the Final Judgment must remain in force, not because the required reforms had not been met or that further reforms were necessary, but as a guarantee that the prisons would not "backslide" to their former conditions".

* "[In March 1999] Acknowledging [Texa's] progress in improving conditions for inmates, Justice terminated federal oversight of several areas of Texas prisons, including overcrowding, staffing, and health services, but he declined to vacate the Final Judgment, listing three issues not yet resolved: the use of administrative segregation, the use of excessive force by correctional officers, and the lack of inmate safety against assault by other prisoners."

* "On 20 March 2001, the Fifth Circuit reversed Justice's 1999 opinion...declaring his reasons for refusing to vacate his Final Judgment to be inadequate.

* "Justice issued his ruling exactly ninety days later. He reiterated the three areas in which he found that the TDCJ was still deficient and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 'So long as these conditions persist', Justice wrote, 'this civil action will remain alive'.

* "In 2002, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Ruiz lawsuit, finally ending Justice's oversight over Texas prisons."

[elam]

But, for some strange reason, I like you more than when I first encountered you, and I'm not just trying to give you a hard time.

Believe it or not, I haven't got a dog in the fight. I'm in Australia, so apart from academic curiosity I have no interest.

I know I can seem a pain, please overlook this defect in me. Put it down to 31 years occupied as an analysis of one type or another.

I admit, if something doesn't ring true to me I can be a bit like a dog with a rag. Often I won't let go until an issue is resolved by the facts - one way or another. For me, there is no who is right, who is wrong. I just want to know what is truth (or as close to it as we can get).

[Cow Poke]

Believe it or not, I haven't got a dog in the fight. I'm in Australia, so apart from academic curiosity I have no interest.

I know I can seem a pain, please overlook this defect in me. Put it down to 31 years occupied as an analysis of one type or another.

I admit, if something doesn't ring true to me I can be a bit like a dog with a rag. Often I won't let go until an issue is resolved by the facts - one way or another. For me, there is no who is right, who is wrong. I just want to know what is truth (or as close to it as we can get).

I guess I was just going from having lived in that very town, and the Ruiz case wasn't just a "court decision" - it was a long drawn out affair from the initial law suit, to the ruling, to the implementation, and lots of followup litigation. DURING that time, many persons I know were called to testify, and there were unfounded allegations of wrong doing against good people. There were 11 (if I'm remembering correctly) TDC facilities (prison units) around us at the time, and Huntsville was basically a "prison town" -- TDC was one of the biggest employers, not just of the prison guards, but the "management" and support staff of the prison, as well.

And, like so many attempts by liberals to "fix something", it just seemed to me like it made it even worse.

[Cow Poke]

I've just discovered that your Ruiz vs Estelle argument might be somewhat out of date and redundant. Several facts for you to consider that I extracted from an article by Texas Execution Information Center...

* "In 2002, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Ruiz lawsuit".

* "[In 1996 Congress passed] the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)...This law was enacted in response to a wave of lawsuits brought by prisoners and was designed to stop what lawmakers saw as abuse of the federal prison litigation process".

* "[March 1, 1999 Judge Justice]...ruled that the PLRA violated the separation of powers clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"
* "[March 20, 1999] the Fifth Circuit reversed Justice's 1999 opinion, finding the PLRA to be Constitutional..."

______________


* "In 1992, [Judge Justice] entered a "Final Judgment" that vacated all of his previous orders concerning the prison system and lifted many of the restrictions placed on it, including the previous population caps".

* "In 1996, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) filed a motion urging Justice to end his oversight, claiming that it had solved all Ruiz-related problems and the state had "transformed its prison system into one of the best-administered, most modern systems in the United States." The state argued that the requirements of the 1992 Final Judgment had been met in full, and thus there was no reason for its continued existence. Attorneys for Ruiz and the other plaintiffs responded that the Final Judgment must remain in force, not because the required reforms had not been met or that further reforms were necessary, but as a guarantee that the prisons would not "backslide" to their former conditions".

* "[In March 1999] Acknowledging [Texa's] progress in improving conditions for inmates, Justice terminated federal oversight of several areas of Texas prisons, including overcrowding, staffing, and health services, but he declined to vacate the Final Judgment, listing three issues not yet resolved: the use of administrative segregation, the use of excessive force by correctional officers, and the lack of inmate safety against assault by other prisoners."

* "On 20 March 2001, the Fifth Circuit reversed Justice's 1999 opinion...declaring his reasons for refusing to vacate his Final Judgment to be inadequate.

* "Justice issued his ruling exactly ninety days later. He reiterated the three areas in which he found that the TDCJ was still deficient and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 'So long as these conditions persist', Justice wrote, 'this civil action will remain alive'.

* "In 2002, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Ruiz lawsuit, finally ending Justice's oversight over Texas prisons."

That's interesting, yes.

Like I said - I lived there long ago, when all this was going on, and haven't kept up with it. I just know the impact at the time was pretty horrific, in my opinion, and was a classic case of a federal judge way out of line.

[Cow Poke]

This part is actually pretty interesting... (we're just talking, eh?)

listing three issues not yet resolved: the use of administrative segregation, the use of excessive force by correctional officers, and the lack of inmate safety against assault by other prisoners."

"Administrative segregation" was the unit that, upon "intake" of a prisoner, or subsequent knowledge of gang affiliations, or whatever, evaluated to which unit that prisoner should be assigned.

I do remember that a lot of the complaints at the time (I also served in a ministerial capacity to families of offenders) was that "segregation" (as the unit was called) sometimes assigned prisoners to units furthest from their families to make visitation more difficult and costly just out of spite. I have reason to believe, in some cases, that was true - somebody in segregation had a beef with a prisoner, and used that to punish him/her and his/her family.

But a major factor was gang affiliation and - the elephant in the room - the impact on the "nation of Islam" in recruiting and militarizing inmates.

As for the "excessive use of force by correctional officers", one of the guys in my church was the leader of the "Alpha Crash Unit". (I don't think it exists anymore) Their job was to enter a cell quickly and forcefully when there was a violent inmate, wearing protective clothing and using shields, and "squash him against the wall" until they could subdue and restrain him. A lot of prisoners use their "yard time" to do body building -- partially because of the next part of what you cited - the "personal protection" thing... If they were "beefed up", they were less likely to be abused by fellow inmates.

So you have "regular joe" guards up against these "hulk hogan" inmates, and it would often take "overwhelming force" to contain and restrain. Just approaching their cell and asking politely for their cooperation didn't cut it. The whole prison culture included "I can't be seen cooperating with the guards".

And the "lack of inmate safety" - well, when you severely limit the ability of guards to discipline, control, contain, restrain.... people are going to get hurt.

[elam]

I guess I was just going from having lived in that very town, and the Ruiz case wasn't just a "court decision" - it was a long drawn out affair from the initial law suit, to the ruling, to the implementation, and lots of followup litigation. DURING that time, many persons I know were called to testify, and there were unfounded allegations of wrong doing against good people. There were 11 (if I'm remembering correctly) TDC facilities (prison units) around us at the time, and Huntsville was basically a "prison town" -- TDC was one of the biggest employers, not just of the prison guards, but the "management" and support staff of the prison, as well.

And, like so many attempts by liberals to "fix something", it just seemed to me like it made it even worse.

In some respects I can relate to what you seem to be saying, though not at a personal level.

Here in Oz over the decades we have had one Royal Commission after another trying to solve the incarceration problem with our indigenous population. As I mentioned earlier they, Australia wide, make up only 2% of the population, but seemingly make up the bulk of the prison population throughout Australia.

Currently there is controversy in the Northern Territory, which has a significant indigenous population. One big problem is the guys from the townships in the NT going into the regional centers. Aborigines never had the concept of a village (except for maybe in the high country in Victoria), but through white insistence for the delivery of services, overtime, townships have formed - usually just a collection of a few houses. Some towns consist of maybe one or more extended families. Apparently, the more unrelated families there are, the more trouble.

Anyway most townships in the NT are alcohol & porn free and closed to outsiders at the residents insistence (you have to get a special permit from the government to visit some townships). Well the kids get bored living in remote communities, catch a bus up to Darwin or down to Alice Springs, end up with no funds so do break and enters, so thy can get money to get drunk or stoned, and end up causing trouble.

The result, drunk and/or stoned they get belligerent, and when the police come to break up fights or intervene in riots. Someone ends up assaulting a policeman or causing property damage. So they get arrested, and currently the only solution to preventing re-offending is to keep them in jail.

From what I understand, there is lots of trouble in the jails. The guards have difficulty controlling violent prisoners, and often end up giving them a bashing. The current controversy in the national news revolves around the guards tying up a prisoner and putting a bag over his head - apparently the later is to stop the prisoner from spitting at the officers - though it also calms them down. As far as I can tell, it is the bagging that has upset the bleeding hearts ie: you do that to animals not humans.

Ah well. Nothing I can do to fix the problem. Consensus amoungst aboriginal leaders is the government has to let the aborigine community fix the problem their way (which might be illegal under white law). They argue the white way hasn't and isn't working.

Victoria (one of our south-eastern states) has trialed a special court system run by aborigines and is seeing some success.

Disclaimer: I've over-simplified the problem, but I think you'll get the gist...

[elam]

This part is actually pretty interesting... (we're just talking, eh?)

yep!

listing three issues not yet resolved: the use of administrative segregation, the use of excessive force by correctional officers, and the lack of inmate safety against assault by other prisoners."

"Administrative segregation" was the unit that, upon "intake" of a prisoner, or subsequent knowledge of gang affiliations, or whatever, evaluated to which unit that prisoner should be assigned.

Imu, "Administrative segregation" Is legalese for solitary confinement. I vaguely recall it was accused that use of solitary was abused by the authorities. Judge Justice limited it to a max of 15days and insisted that prisoners in solitary had sufficient room to move about and got three nutritious meals a day instead of just bread & water once a day.

I do remember that a lot of the complaints at the time (I also served in a ministerial capacity to families of offenders) was that "segregation" (as the unit was called) sometimes assigned prisoners to units furthest from their families to make visitation more difficult and costly just out of spite. I have reason to believe, in some cases, that was true - somebody in segregation had a beef with a prisoner, and used that to punish him/her and his/her family.

That would seem typical. I've heard of such happening here in NSW in some of our regional prisons. Though the authorities always have what seems a reasonable excuse.

It has just dawned on me that I don't actually know the political structure of the NSW prison system. I do know that we have a totally different admin structure to you guys (For instance: we aren't hampered by a bill of rights. Our rights are protected via common law). Ultimately, here in NSW, there is a minister in the legislature where the buck stops. And, imu, wardens here are just administrators. Imu, wardens here have no control over funding, construction etc - they just submit budgets, requests and reports to HO - all else is controlled by bureaucrats in Sydney, the judiciary & State parliament. I'll have to do some research on how the NSW prison system works and whether the structure is the same in each state here in Oz.

Your use of the word "segregation" isn't totally familiar to me. I presume from what you relate that some prisons had a particular status, whilst others were complex with various buildings & yards categorised according to arbitrary risk levels (?).

But a major factor was gang affiliation and - the elephant in the room - the impact on the "nation of Islam" in recruiting and militarizing inmates.

Some months ago I read a transcript of an ISIS deserter, who had been one of the originators of the movement. He claimed that during the USA's invasion of Iraq under Bush he was captured and sent to prison. He claimed that prison is where ISIS originated. By the time they were released they had their structure already organised and their strategy fully planned. Guess its a Catch-22 situation. We need prisons but...

As for the "excessive use of force by correctional officers", one of the guys in my church was the leader of the "Alpha Crash Unit". (I don't think it exists anymore) Their job was to enter a cell quickly and forcefully when there was a violent inmate, wearing protective clothing and using shields, and "squash him against the wall" until they could subdue and restrain him. A lot of prisoners use their "yard time" to do body building -- partially because of the next part of what you cited - the "personal protection" thing... If they were "beefed up", they were less likely to be abused by fellow inmates.

I've never understood why they allow body building in prison. Seems counter-intuitive to me. Give them a set of parallel bars & roman rings - let them teach each other gymnastics and/or streetdance to keep fit - at least then they would experience some discipline.

So you have "regular joe" guards up against these "hulk hogan" inmates, and it would often take "overwhelming force" to contain and restrain. Just approaching their cell and asking politely for their cooperation didn't cut it. The whole prison culture included "I can't be seen cooperating with the guards".

Another of those Catch-22 things. From what I've see on TV, the common procedure in USA prisons is when a prisoner is going beserk, they just ignore him, or if he is threatening self-harm or threatening a cell mate the guards either get out the pepper spray or zap him/her, then restrain the prisoner. Still extreme in the public's eyes but That seems to be seen as preferable to beating the prisoner senseless - imu, it was evidenced that such was previously common practice.

Not sure about the "I can't be seen cooperating with the guards". Imu, there is a set of procedures a prisoner has to follow if a guard is about to enter a cell, failure to follow the rules, I'm guessing they get a beating or solitary or both. Its not co-operation, its simple survival in the prison pecking order.

And the "lack of inmate safety" - well, when you severely limit the ability of guards to discipline, control, contain, restrain.... people are going to get hurt.

Imu, the issue was in respect of containment. Something along the lines you suggested earlier, where prisoner are separated and housed into risk groups. Trouble is that requires a revamp of a lot of prisons, construction of new buildings etc and that requires a lot of money.

To be fair, I read the authorities in Texas wanted to do just that, they even wanted to (needed to) build new prisons to avoid the problems of overcrowding, but they just didn't have the money to do it and it took a while to extract finance from the Feds. Then the authorities had another problem: the "not in my backyard" syndrome.Apparently the public was against prison expansion and new prisons. Another catch-22 I guess.

I presume that most issues have by now been sorted (?) 1999 when Judge Justine made his final decision was a very long time ago...

[Cow Poke]

yep!

Imu, "Administrative segregation" Is legalese for solitary confinement. I vaguely recall it was accused that use of solitary was abused by the authorities. Judge Justice limited it to a max of 15days and insisted that prisoners in solitary had sufficient room to move about and got three nutritious meals a day instead of just bread & water once a day.

Hmmmm... got something to back that up? Solitary can be PART of administrative segregation, but I think it's only a small part.

That would seem typical. I've heard of such happening here in NSW in some of our regional prisons. Though the authorities always have what seems a reasonable excuse.

I don't really think it's typical -- especially with the oversight these days.

Your use of the word "segregation" isn't totally familiar to me. I presume from what you relate that some prisons had a particular status, whilst others were complex with various buildings & yards categorised according to arbitrary risk levels (?).

Prisons in the US are generally categorized by the degree of criminal they house -- "maximum security" vs facilities for "white collar crime" to "camp cupcake" type facilities for the likes of Martha Stewart.

I've never understood why they allow body building in prison. Seems counter-intuitive to me. Give them a set of parallel bars & roman rings - let them teach each other gymnastics and/or streetdance to keep fit - at least then they would experience some discipline.

I guess they figure it would be cruel and unusual not to allow them to exercise.

Another of those Catch-22 things. From what I've see on TV, the common procedure in USA prisons is when a prisoner is going beserk, they just ignore him, or if he is threatening self-harm or threatening a cell mate the guards either get out the pepper spray or zap him/her, then restrain the prisoner. Still extreme in the public's eyes but That seems to be seen as preferable to beating the prisoner senseless - imu, it was evidenced that such was previously common practice.

There's a huge focus on "deaths in custody", so a prisoner "going berserk" is a danger to himself, and if he dies or is seriously injured, he or his surviving family can sue.

Not sure about the "I can't be seen cooperating with the guards". Imu, there is a set of procedures a prisoner has to follow if a guard is about to enter a cell, failure to follow the rules, I'm guessing they get a beating or solitary or both. Its not co-operation, its simple survival in the prison pecking order.

Without the "tenders", the prisoners take it upon themselves to establish their own "pecking order" -- it's quite natural in the animal kingdom. There really is quite a "us vs them" attitude, and anybody cooperating with the authorities is "them".

Imu, the issue was in respect of containment. Something along the lines you suggested earlier, where prisoner are separated and housed into risk groups. Trouble is that requires a revamp of a lot of prisons, construction of new buildings etc and that requires a lot of money.

To be fair, I read the authorities in Texas wanted to do just that, they even wanted to (needed to) build new prisons to avoid the problems of overcrowding, but they just didn't have the money to do it and it took a while to extract finance from the Feds. Then the authorities had another problem: the "not in my backyard" syndrome.Apparently the public was against prison expansion and new prisons. Another catch-22 I guess.

Actually, when you have a town like Huntsville, Texas, where the economy pretty much depends on the prisons, there's not much resistance at all to building new facilities. The other major employer in town is the Sam Houston University where a lot of the perspective guards get their training in the criminal justice programs at that university.

I presume that most issues have by now been sorted (?) 1999 when Judge Justine made his final decision was a very long time ago...

I hadn't looked at this in decades!

[elam]

Imu, "Administrative segregation" Is legalese for solitary confinement.

Hmmmm... got something to back that up? Solitary can be PART of administrative segregation, but I think it's only a small part.

National Institute of Justice

"What Is Administrative Segregation?

Prisoners are placed in solitary confinement, or administrative segregation, for violent or disruptive behavior. AS typically involves single-cell confinement for 23 hours daily; inmates are allowed one hour out of the cell for exercise and showers."

Texas Tribune

"Solitary confinement has been referred to by many names, including "special housing units," "lockdown" and "the hole." In Texas, it's called "administrative segregation," and prison administrators reserve it for inmates considered particularly dangerous, including those affiliated with a prison gang. "

[Cow Poke]

National Institute of Justice

"What Is Administrative Segregation?

Prisoners are placed in solitary confinement, or administrative segregation, for violent or disruptive behavior. AS typically involves single-cell confinement for 23 hours daily; inmates are allowed one hour out of the cell for exercise and showers."

Texas Tribune

"Solitary confinement has been referred to by many names, including "special housing units," "lockdown" and "the hole." In Texas, it's called "administrative segregation," and prison administrators reserve it for inmates considered particularly dangerous, including those affiliated with a prison gang. "

OK, buster, I searched diligently to prove you WRONG! (but, alas, maybe my memory isn't what it use to be)

However, from TDC's own website...

Administrative segregation, often referred to as "Ad Seg," refers to the non-punitive separation of an offender from general population in order to maintain safety and security. Typically, offenders are placed in Ad Seg if they pose a threat to others, are confirmed members of the most dangerous and organized gangs, or have exhibited repeated behaviors that create a continued security risk. Ad Seg offenders are housed in individual cells where they have limited contact with other offenders.

That's not "solitary confinement" in the "movie sense", but... yeah, sure sounds like it. I'm about 93.7% ready to admit I was wrong.

[elam]

OK, buster, I searched diligently to prove you WRONG! (but, alas, maybe my memory isn't what it use to be)

However, from TDC's own website...

Administrative segregation, often referred to as "Ad Seg," refers to the non-punitive separation of an offender from general population in order to maintain safety and security. Typically, offenders are placed in Ad Seg if they pose a threat to others, are confirmed members of the most dangerous and organized gangs, or have exhibited repeated behaviors that create a continued security risk. Ad Seg offenders are housed in individual cells where they have limited contact with other offenders.

That's not "solitary confinement" in the "movie sense", but... yeah, sure sounds like it. I'm about 93.7% ready to admit I was wrong.

I subscribe to the theory that nobody is ever "wrong". The best that can be said is that a person has/had an "erroneous thought". I draw my conclusion from the idea of the "statistical error". For instance in the 19th century, Oz followed the penal practices of Britain. At one time the "silent prison" was in vogue - prisoners were not allowed to talk to each other. I'd call that "solitary confinement" at the psychological level. So I'm more than happy to concede a 6.3% margin of error on my part...