During the
mid 1990’s President Bill Clinton, embroiled in his own sordid sexcapades that
become known as the “Lewinsky scandal” signed into law the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. The PLRA was an attempt by the majority House Republicans to reign
in what they perceived as activist judges from coddling inmates and their complaints.
Before enactment of the PLRA an aggrieved inmate could file for habeas relief (habeas
corpus protection goes all the way back to the English common law and ensures
that “the state” cannot arbitrarily hold a person in confinement without “due
process of law” which in effect means an accused is entitled to be treated
“fairly”).
If an
inmate’s rights were being violated, the inmate could hand write a petition to
the Federal court and spell out the constitutional abridgement. Cases involving
beatings by officers, torture, lengthy terms “in the hole” all routinely found
their way to Federal Court. Each year tens of thousands of these petitions were
filed in U.S. District Courts. And, there were frivolous cases filed. Inmates,
with nothing but time on their hands, would file suit because bread wasn’t soft
enough, or conjugal visits were not permitted.
The PLRA
was enacted to curb those alleged excesses (more significantly, the act also
attempted to deprive death row inmates of appellate rights to review their
capitol convictions). Under the PLRA, state were permitted to set up
“administrative processes.” Inmates were required to comply with those
processes before being able to file suit. Every state and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons did such. And, an inmate’s ability to challenge unfair prison treatment
immediately began to wither.
Due process
in prison is just a couple of words. The grievance process in effect at this
facility is neither fair, nor objective. It fails the “smell” test.
The
facility has a grievance “ombudsman,” a person responsible for handling and
investigating inmate complaints. The term “ombudsman” has a specific meaning.
It means “a public official appointed to investigate citizen complaints.” By
its very definition it implies objectivity and fairness. Nothing can be further
from the truth with this facility’s grievance ombudsman.
Most egregious
of the defects is the fact that the staff person in charge of grievances isn’t
objective. Her comments about grievances filed by inmates reflects her belief
that inmates “don’t know as much” as she does. Case in point – I recently filed
a grievance detailing an improper withholding of pay. I specifically “grieved”
the housing/program director who attempted to (1) issue a backdated memo about “pay
during lockdowns and holidays” and (2) prohibited the education unit from
paying for tutoring work in the buildings during those periods while he
continued to give full pay to his own workers.
The
grievance ombudsman sent my grievances go to my work supervisor (who wanted to
pay me) because “inmates don’t dictate where grievances go, I do.” Here’s the
funny thing. Without sounding too arrogant, I have more education, more legal
knowledge, and more administrative experience than the facility Ombudsman. Contrary
to her view, I know exactly who is responsible for my pay shortage and who
created the policy. If the ombudsman was interested in the merits of the
complaint, she would have read it and forwarded it to the housing/programs
manager and asked (1) why did you “backdate” your policy and (2) why are
education workers arbitrarily being denied pay when your workers aren’t? But
she didn’t do that because what matters is that the facility wins.
Daily I am
confronted by fellow inmates who just don’t give a damn. The system is rigged,
they will tell you. There is no such thing as justice in here. Officers write
petty, bullshit charges, rules are arbitrarily enforced, legitimate grievances
ignored. “You can’t fight them Larry; you can’t win. They’re in charge.” And I
shake my head and try not to agree even though all I see every day is the sham
process of discipline and grievances.
I think of
Atticus Finch and his impassioned defense of black share cropper Tom Robinson
before an all-white Alabama jury in “To Kill A Mockingbird,”
“We know
all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe.
Some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because
they’re born with it … But there is one way in this country in which all men
are created equal – there is one human institution that makes a pauper equal to
a Rockefeller, the stupid man equal to an Einstein … that institution,
gentlemen, is the law…”
Perhaps
it’s time for those in charge to remember those profound words. Even the
incarcerated deserve fairness.
No comments:
Post a Comment