Although correctional facilities and practices in the United States may not be as bad as those which exist in lessor developed countries, American prison systems have routinely been criticized for having a substantial amount of correctional officer deviance, corruption, poor living conditions, including overcrowding, substandard food, medical and psychiatric care, among other challenges. Some experts have even suggested that these elements are examples of human rights violations.
More recently, in February 2022, Senators John Ossoff (Dem-Georgia) and Mike Braun (Rep- Indiana), spearheaded a 10-month investigation into corruption, abuse, and misconduct at United States Penitentiary Atlanta (USPA) and within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP).
In order to put things in context, it’s important to understand that several correctional systems operate in the United States. We find them at the local, state, and federal level. But the FBOP, is the prison system that is responsible for managing 122 correctional facilities and according to most recent statistics (June 1, 2023) incarcerates about 159,116 people. Among the numerous correctional facilities in the FBOP there are both prisons specifically designed for men and those for women.
Ossoff and Braun’s investigation was formed under the auspices of “The Senate Bipartisan Prison Policy Working Group” that was established to “identify and advance solutions.”
On September 28, 2022, in the middle of the process, Ossoff, Braun, along with Dick Durbin (Dem-Illinois) introduced the Federal Prison Oversight Act (FPOA) in the Senate.
Representatives Lucy McBath (Dem-GA) and Kelly Armstrong (Rep-ND) introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.
The FPOA would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a prisons ombudsman to respond to complaints about prison conditions and require the Department’s Inspector General (IG) to evaluate risks and abuses at all BOP facilities. Under the FPOA, the IG would conduct risk-based inspections of all federal prison institutions, provide recommendations to address deficiencies and assign each facility a risk score. Higher-risk facilities would then receive more frequent inspections.
Although it kind of boggles the mind, why something like this does not exist already, the measure was not passed and died at the end of the 117th Congress.
On April 25, 2023, Ossoff, Braun, and Durbin re-introduced the Federal Prison Oversight Act in the senate. McBath and Armstrong followed suit in the House. The bill requires DOJ Inspector General to conduct vigorous oversight and creates a new independent Ombudsman to investigate health & safety of staff and inmates.
Just to give you a sense of how popular the bill is, “It is supported by civil rights, prison union, and public safety organizations, including the Council of Prison Locals (CPL), Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for Prosperity, Justice Action Network, Due Process Institute, Right on Crime, and Niskanen Center.”
Although a step in the right direction, the Federal Prison Oversight Act has five principle shortcomings:
Limited coverage of facilities: Although it’s important for the federal government to focus on correctional institutions that they are directly responsible for managing (i.e., the FBOP), it would also be helpful if a bill like this would be more comprehensive, and extend to other correctional systems operating in the United States, like those in the states, local governments, tribal and territorial areas.
Lack of clarity on the scope and authority of the inspections regime: The FPOA does not provide specific details on the frequency, manner, or criteria for inspections. It mentions some areas to be assessed, but the lack of exact guidelines may lead to inconsistencies or subjective interpretations in conducting inspections.
Insufficient involvement of stakeholders: Although the bill encourages consultation with formerly incarcerated individuals, family members, and community advocates during the development of the inspections regime, it does not outline a clear process for their participation, nor how their input will be used.
Lack of enforcement mechanisms: The FPOA does not outline specific consequences or enforcement measures if deficiencies are found during inspections. Without clear mechanisms for addressing and rectifying these issues, the inspections may have limited impact on improving prison conditions and ensuring accountability.
Potential resource limitations: The bill does not specify how much money that the committee will request for the proper implementation of the provisions of the bill. Although failing to put a dollar amount that initiatives outlined in the bill gives its framers more flexibility, it may be helpful to get a better idea how much the federal government will be out of pocket. More specifically, conducting regular inspections across the BOP’ facilities would require adequate staffing, training, and logistical support, which might pose challenges without sufficient resources.
In sum, although the proposed FPOA is important, unless these issues are dealt with this new legislation may simply be politics as symbolic action. When this happens politics and politicians appear to simply be going through the motions and unnecessarily contributes to public distrust and a loss of faith in our political institutions. It’s a situation that we can least afford in our current political climate.
Photo: United States Penitentiary Atlanta
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2023-06-09-at-10.32.53-AM.png470959Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2023-06-09 16:54:272023-06-09 16:54:27Analyzing legislators’ recent attempts to address the FBOP Crisis
This collection of thirteen chapters, four of which I sole-authored, and another I co-authored, was published in 2013 by Rutgers University Press.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons included a foreword by Loïc Wacquant, a highly regarded and respected Sociologist, along with insightful contributions from eleven other prominent academics. Together these researchers assembled and reviewed existing scholarship at the time on the emergence, growth, complexity, and proliferation of supermax prisons, a relatively new form of incarceration – an institution where inmates are typically locked up for a minimum of 23 hours a day, and afforded minimal rights and privileges, that frequently results in a deteriorating effect on prisoners’ mental and physical well-being.
The content of the book sits at the intersections of scholarship not only on corrections and criminal justice, but crimes of the powerful, and focused on the numerous factors that contribute to the growth and spread of supermax prisons, including political ideologies, economic incentives, and the securitization of penal policies.
With the exception of the introduction and conclusion, each chapter examined the experience of supermax prisons in countries where supermax prisons have proliferated, including not just the United States, but Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and South Africa.
These chapters also highlighted the unique ways in which supermaxes have been implemented and integrated within their respective criminal justice systems, emphasizing that supermax prisons are not just an American export, but a global phenomenon with distinctive local characteristics and implications.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons, demonstrated how this process is part of a larger trend influenced by neoliberal policies and free market ideology, which have contributed to the growth of the prison-industrial complex and the expansion of supermax institutions worldwide.
The chapters and the book itself also examine numerous connections within the relationships among globalization, capitalism, and the prison industry.
It’s important to note that many states and countries may not have a standalone supermax prisons, but rather a tier, wing, or annex where convicts who would normally be sent to a supermax facility are detained.
Thus, it is crucial to consider these variations in facility designations and terminology when researching these types of institutions globally.
By exploring the ethical implications of supermax prisons, the book challenged readers to critically evaluate the trade-off between public safety and individual-human rights.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons received the 2013 “Choice Outstanding Academic Title” award and garnered nine mostly highly positive reviews in scholarly journals ranging from the Corrections Compendium to the Law and Politics Book Review. Reviewers were emphasized how the book was an important contribution to the discussion of the field of corrections.
In addition to its positive reception, the book made significant contributions to our understanding of the dissemination of American-style criminal justice initiatives, policies, and practices. It shed light on the persisting existence of supermax prisons and solitary confinement in many so-called civilized countries and underscored the need for empirical examination of whether these institutions and practices have increased over time.
Moreover, in the context of the ongoing rise in the global prison population, the book highlighted the lack of thoughtful mechanisms in place by most governments to deal with the incarceration of the most dangerous individuals in their correctional facilities. The books’ critical examination of the ethical implications of the prison-industrial complex and the pervasive influence of neoliberalism served as a valuable resource for readers grappling with the complex issues surrounding mass incarceration.
As we continue to navigate the challenges presented by supermax prisons, The Globalization of Supermax Prisons should serve as a compass guiding us toward the development of more just and humane prison and criminal justice systems.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1361.jpg12501201Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2023-06-02 15:46:062023-06-02 15:46:06Thinking about the ten year anniversary of THE GLOBALIZATION OF SUPERMAX PRISONS
Ocean going ships, are occasionally in danger of hitting an iceberg. If the vessel hits an iceberg, not only can the ship’s vital components like its propeller or rudders be impaired, thus negatively effecting the ship’s maneuverability, navigation systems, and propulsion, but the vessel’s structure may be damaged, leading to flooding and potentially sinking the ship.
That is why over the past century a variety of protocols and technology (e.g., radar, sonar, and satellite imagery) have increasingly been used to prevent these kinds of incidents.
The challenge of not being able to see the entire picture is not endemic to ocean faring vessels and processes.
In the field of criminal justice, for example, police violence/excessive force is similar to an iceberg, where only a portion is visible to the public eye. The hidden portion beneath the surface represents the concealed instances of excessive force, which can be particularly dangerous.
The Nature of Police Violence/Police Use of Excessive Force
Few actions exist in a vacuum, and police violence, also known as excessive force, is no different.
More specifically, although reliable data is necessary to support claims about the frequency and types of such incidents, police violence/excessive force exists in a variety of contexts.
One of the most significant aspects to consider in addressing police violence is recognizing that it can occur both in public and private settings.
When police use of excessive force occurs in a public setting, there is a greater chance that it will be witnessed, including the possibility that it will be recorded via smartphone, and possibly shared on one or more social media platforms.
If the incident/s is particularly egregious, it may be the basis of a news media story. This information, in turn may lead to an investigation, the sanctioning of the officer/s, a change of policy, practice, etc.
The latter type of police violence (the one that is private), however, takes place away from the public eye, in areas where surveillance measures like CCTV, body-worn cameras, or dashboard cameras are less likely to capture the events. These secluded settings, such as back alleys, the back seat of police cruisers, or holding cells, can create an environment where abuse of power can go unnoticed.
Solutions used to address public police violence
Consequently, in recent years, along with demands to defund or abolish the police, we have witnessed a proliferation of recording technologies in law enforcement, such as dashboard and body-worn cameras. These tools provide a means to document police-citizen interactions and potentially expose instances of excessive force, and protect police officers from accusations of unnecessary force.
Nevertheless, it serves as a starting point, as visible evidence can create pressure for change and prompt further examination of policies and practices.
To effectively address the issue of police violence, it’s crucial to rely not only on witness testimony or video evidence but also on comprehensive data collection, thorough investigations, and a commitment to accountability.
This requires systemic changes within law enforcement agencies, the support of external bodies for impartial investigations, and the willingness of policymakers to enact meaningful reforms.
By taking these steps, we can work towards reducing police use of excessive force and ensuring a more just and equitable society.
Photo Credit
Photographer: David Stanley
Title: Titanic Iceberg
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2023-05-26-at-12.20.46-PM.png342621Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2023-05-26 16:49:442024-09-22 12:21:29The iceberg explanation of police use of excessive force
Analyzing legislators’ recent attempts to address the FBOP Crisis
/by Jeffrey Ian RossAlthough correctional facilities and practices in the United States may not be as bad as those which exist in lessor developed countries, American prison systems have routinely been criticized for having a substantial amount of correctional officer deviance, corruption, poor living conditions, including overcrowding, substandard food, medical and psychiatric care, among other challenges. Some experts have even suggested that these elements are examples of human rights violations.
More recently, in February 2022, Senators John Ossoff (Dem-Georgia) and Mike Braun (Rep- Indiana), spearheaded a 10-month investigation into corruption, abuse, and misconduct at United States Penitentiary Atlanta (USPA) and within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP).
In order to put things in context, it’s important to understand that several correctional systems operate in the United States. We find them at the local, state, and federal level. But the FBOP, is the prison system that is responsible for managing 122 correctional facilities and according to most recent statistics (June 1, 2023) incarcerates about 159,116 people. Among the numerous correctional facilities in the FBOP there are both prisons specifically designed for men and those for women.
Ossoff and Braun’s investigation was formed under the auspices of “The Senate Bipartisan Prison Policy Working Group” that was established to “identify and advance solutions.”
The working group included four hearings:
• The July 2022 hearing on corruption, abuse and misconduct at the BOP’s Atlanta prison revealed “a facility where inmates, including presumptively innocent pretrial detainees, were denied proper nutrition, access to clean drinking water, and hygiene products; lacked access to medical care; endured months of lockdowns with limited or no access to the outdoors or basic services; and had rats and roaches in their food and cells.”
• The September 2022 hearing examined uncounted deaths in America’s prison facilities “included release of a Government Accountability Office report criticizing Justice Department lapses that contributed to states not reporting nearly 1,000 in-custody deaths as federal law requires.”
• The November 2022 hearing examined “Medical Mistreatment of Women in ICE Detention.
• The December 2022 hearing reviewed the “Sexual Abuse of Female Inmates in Federal Prisons.” The findings, Ossoff said, demonstrate “that the BOP is failing systemically to prevent, detect, and address sexual abuse of prisoners by its own employees,” including top officials.
On September 28, 2022, in the middle of the process, Ossoff, Braun, along with Dick Durbin (Dem-Illinois) introduced the Federal Prison Oversight Act (FPOA) in the Senate.
Representatives Lucy McBath (Dem-GA) and Kelly Armstrong (Rep-ND) introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.
The FPOA would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a prisons ombudsman to respond to complaints about prison conditions and require the Department’s Inspector General (IG) to evaluate risks and abuses at all BOP facilities. Under the FPOA, the IG would conduct risk-based inspections of all federal prison institutions, provide recommendations to address deficiencies and assign each facility a risk score. Higher-risk facilities would then receive more frequent inspections.
Although it kind of boggles the mind, why something like this does not exist already, the measure was not passed and died at the end of the 117th Congress.
On April 25, 2023, Ossoff, Braun, and Durbin re-introduced the Federal Prison Oversight Act in the senate. McBath and Armstrong followed suit in the House. The bill requires DOJ Inspector General to conduct vigorous oversight and creates a new independent Ombudsman to investigate health & safety of staff and inmates.
Just to give you a sense of how popular the bill is, “It is supported by civil rights, prison union, and public safety organizations, including the Council of Prison Locals (CPL), Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for Prosperity, Justice Action Network, Due Process Institute, Right on Crime, and Niskanen Center.”
What’s different between the previous version of the bill and the new one? The legislation was revised “to be more inclusive of different types of sexual harm, following revelations brought to light during a Senate investigation last year, according to Ossoff’s office. The new language states that the Inspector General may use incidences of sexual abuse to assess a prison’s risk score, whereas the previous version had mentioned only “sexual violence” or “assault”.
Shortcomings of the Existing Bill
Although a step in the right direction, the Federal Prison Oversight Act has five principle shortcomings:
Limited coverage of facilities: Although it’s important for the federal government to focus on correctional institutions that they are directly responsible for managing (i.e., the FBOP), it would also be helpful if a bill like this would be more comprehensive, and extend to other correctional systems operating in the United States, like those in the states, local governments, tribal and territorial areas.
Lack of clarity on the scope and authority of the inspections regime: The FPOA does not provide specific details on the frequency, manner, or criteria for inspections. It mentions some areas to be assessed, but the lack of exact guidelines may lead to inconsistencies or subjective interpretations in conducting inspections.
Insufficient involvement of stakeholders: Although the bill encourages consultation with formerly incarcerated individuals, family members, and community advocates during the development of the inspections regime, it does not outline a clear process for their participation, nor how their input will be used.
Lack of enforcement mechanisms: The FPOA does not outline specific consequences or enforcement measures if deficiencies are found during inspections. Without clear mechanisms for addressing and rectifying these issues, the inspections may have limited impact on improving prison conditions and ensuring accountability.
Potential resource limitations: The bill does not specify how much money that the committee will request for the proper implementation of the provisions of the bill. Although failing to put a dollar amount that initiatives outlined in the bill gives its framers more flexibility, it may be helpful to get a better idea how much the federal government will be out of pocket. More specifically, conducting regular inspections across the BOP’ facilities would require adequate staffing, training, and logistical support, which might pose challenges without sufficient resources.
In sum, although the proposed FPOA is important, unless these issues are dealt with this new legislation may simply be politics as symbolic action. When this happens politics and politicians appear to simply be going through the motions and unnecessarily contributes to public distrust and a loss of faith in our political institutions. It’s a situation that we can least afford in our current political climate.
Photo: United States Penitentiary Atlanta
Thinking about the ten year anniversary of THE GLOBALIZATION OF SUPERMAX PRISONS
/by Jeffrey Ian RossA decade has passed since the publication of my edited book, The Globalization of Supermax Prisons.
This collection of thirteen chapters, four of which I sole-authored, and another I co-authored, was published in 2013 by Rutgers University Press.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons included a foreword by Loïc Wacquant, a highly regarded and respected Sociologist, along with insightful contributions from eleven other prominent academics. Together these researchers assembled and reviewed existing scholarship at the time on the emergence, growth, complexity, and proliferation of supermax prisons, a relatively new form of incarceration – an institution where inmates are typically locked up for a minimum of 23 hours a day, and afforded minimal rights and privileges, that frequently results in a deteriorating effect on prisoners’ mental and physical well-being.
The content of the book sits at the intersections of scholarship not only on corrections and criminal justice, but crimes of the powerful, and focused on the numerous factors that contribute to the growth and spread of supermax prisons, including political ideologies, economic incentives, and the securitization of penal policies.
With the exception of the introduction and conclusion, each chapter examined the experience of supermax prisons in countries where supermax prisons have proliferated, including not just the United States, but Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and South Africa.
These chapters also highlighted the unique ways in which supermaxes have been implemented and integrated within their respective criminal justice systems, emphasizing that supermax prisons are not just an American export, but a global phenomenon with distinctive local characteristics and implications.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons, demonstrated how this process is part of a larger trend influenced by neoliberal policies and free market ideology, which have contributed to the growth of the prison-industrial complex and the expansion of supermax institutions worldwide.
The chapters and the book itself also examine numerous connections within the relationships among globalization, capitalism, and the prison industry.
It’s important to note that many states and countries may not have a standalone supermax prisons, but rather a tier, wing, or annex where convicts who would normally be sent to a supermax facility are detained.
Thus, it is crucial to consider these variations in facility designations and terminology when researching these types of institutions globally.
By exploring the ethical implications of supermax prisons, the book challenged readers to critically evaluate the trade-off between public safety and individual-human rights.
The Globalization of Supermax Prisons received the 2013 “Choice Outstanding Academic Title” award and garnered nine mostly highly positive reviews in scholarly journals ranging from the Corrections Compendium to the Law and Politics Book Review. Reviewers were emphasized how the book was an important contribution to the discussion of the field of corrections.
In addition to its positive reception, the book made significant contributions to our understanding of the dissemination of American-style criminal justice initiatives, policies, and practices. It shed light on the persisting existence of supermax prisons and solitary confinement in many so-called civilized countries and underscored the need for empirical examination of whether these institutions and practices have increased over time.
Moreover, in the context of the ongoing rise in the global prison population, the book highlighted the lack of thoughtful mechanisms in place by most governments to deal with the incarceration of the most dangerous individuals in their correctional facilities. The books’ critical examination of the ethical implications of the prison-industrial complex and the pervasive influence of neoliberalism served as a valuable resource for readers grappling with the complex issues surrounding mass incarceration.
As we continue to navigate the challenges presented by supermax prisons, The Globalization of Supermax Prisons should serve as a compass guiding us toward the development of more just and humane prison and criminal justice systems.
The iceberg explanation of police use of excessive force
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOcean going ships, are occasionally in danger of hitting an iceberg. If the vessel hits an iceberg, not only can the ship’s vital components like its propeller or rudders be impaired, thus negatively effecting the ship’s maneuverability, navigation systems, and propulsion, but the vessel’s structure may be damaged, leading to flooding and potentially sinking the ship.
That is why over the past century a variety of protocols and technology (e.g., radar, sonar, and satellite imagery) have increasingly been used to prevent these kinds of incidents.
The challenge of not being able to see the entire picture is not endemic to ocean faring vessels and processes.
In the field of criminal justice, for example, police violence/excessive force is similar to an iceberg, where only a portion is visible to the public eye. The hidden portion beneath the surface represents the concealed instances of excessive force, which can be particularly dangerous.
The Nature of Police Violence/Police Use of Excessive Force
Few actions exist in a vacuum, and police violence, also known as excessive force, is no different.
More specifically, although reliable data is necessary to support claims about the frequency and types of such incidents, police violence/excessive force exists in a variety of contexts.
One of the most significant aspects to consider in addressing police violence is recognizing that it can occur both in public and private settings.
When police use of excessive force occurs in a public setting, there is a greater chance that it will be witnessed, including the possibility that it will be recorded via smartphone, and possibly shared on one or more social media platforms.
If the incident/s is particularly egregious, it may be the basis of a news media story. This information, in turn may lead to an investigation, the sanctioning of the officer/s, a change of policy, practice, etc.
The latter type of police violence (the one that is private), however, takes place away from the public eye, in areas where surveillance measures like CCTV, body-worn cameras, or dashboard cameras are less likely to capture the events. These secluded settings, such as back alleys, the back seat of police cruisers, or holding cells, can create an environment where abuse of power can go unnoticed.
Solutions used to address public police violence
Consequently, in recent years, along with demands to defund or abolish the police, we have witnessed a proliferation of recording technologies in law enforcement, such as dashboard and body-worn cameras. These tools provide a means to document police-citizen interactions and potentially expose instances of excessive force, and protect police officers from accusations of unnecessary force.
That being said, although collecting and analyzing video evidence is important, it doesn’t guarantee that an investigation, accountability (e.g., sanctions against involved officers, units or departments), or policy change will occur, nor does it insure that these actions will be done well.
Nevertheless, it serves as a starting point, as visible evidence can create pressure for change and prompt further examination of policies and practices.
To effectively address the issue of police violence, it’s crucial to rely not only on witness testimony or video evidence but also on comprehensive data collection, thorough investigations, and a commitment to accountability.
This requires systemic changes within law enforcement agencies, the support of external bodies for impartial investigations, and the willingness of policymakers to enact meaningful reforms.
By taking these steps, we can work towards reducing police use of excessive force and ensuring a more just and equitable society.
Photo Credit
Photographer: David Stanley
Title: Titanic Iceberg