COMMENTS POLICY

Bars-N-Stripes is not responsible for any comments made by contributors in the Comments pages. However Bars-N-Stripes will exercise its right to moderate and edit comments which are deemed to be offensive or unsuited to the subject matter of this site.

Comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam will be deleted. Including a link to relevant content is permitted, but comments should be relevant to the post topic.
Comments including profanity will be deleted.
Comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive will be deleted.
The owner of this blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice. This comment policy is subject to change at any time.

Search This Blog

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Grievance Process – or lack thereof

THIS BLOG WAS WRITTEN IN FEBRUARY, 2015.




            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