|
|
| Some more thoughts on the Security Classification Process [Part II] |
| By Tony Owen |
| Published: 12/14/2009 |
Editors Note: Corrections.com author Tony Owen continues his multi part series on Security Classification Part I.
In continuing our thoughts on the Security Classification Committee we need to look at what types of segregation there are and how a prisoner gets into them. Many jurisdictions use some form of Administrative Segregation (Ad seg) in their day to day handling of prisoners. Each jurisdiction has some type of policy, and procedures, governing placement of a prisoner in Ad seg. The reason why a prisoner gets into Ad seg is fairly simple. The prisoner is causing an” issue” and it needs to be dealt with. The reasons or “issues” that may require a prisoner to be placed in Ad seg runs the gamut from medical issues, to protection, to fighting, to being a predator, attempting to escape, and felonious behavior while in prison up to and including murder of a staff member or another prisoner. Many terms are used in reference to the level of Ad seg placement of a prisoner. The basic standard levels to be used here are what this author has found many jurisdictions use when placing a prisoner in Ad seg. “Throw him in the hole until we decide what to do with him” was the common phrase one use to hear from the Captain. How many times have there been incidents in the past where a prisoner gets placed in the hole and then is forgotten because the officer goes on vacation without writing the reports. The holidays come and no one in administration is around to decide what to do with the prisoner. There was a time in which only the officer who put a prisoner in the hole for punishment was the only one who could release him. There are numerous stories of officers going on vacations, being drafted, or even being out of work because of being injured in which the prisoner had to wait for the officer to come back to get out. There needs to be a clear chain of responsibility and processes to ensure the segregation unit provides the best support for the Department and does not release prisoners more angry and dangerous than when they came in. Administrative Segregation Administrative segregation for purposes of this article will include temporary segregation, protective custody, general segregation, and punitive segregation. Each of these has specific roles to play in the overall heading of Administrative segregation. Proposed below are some definitions and processes to follow which help make the decision making process objective and fair Prisoners are sent to prison as punishment not for punishment. Prisoners are not placed in Administrative Segregation for punishment. They are held in segregation as a security custody status. As a security custody status, the prisoners past behavior may itself preclude release to a less restrictive custody level, despite good adjustment. A prisoner's ability to remain misconduct free is only one of the various criteria used by SCC to evaluate the prisoner’s potential for release/transfer. Once the S.C.C. committee has interviewed a prisoner and reviewed his record a decision is made whether that prisoner should be recommended for release/transfer. This review should include a through review of the prisoner's previous institutional history, concentrating on his overall general adjustment pattern. Prior assault history, escape attempts, number of times in segregation, and program involvement should all be considered before a decision is reached. The case is should then be referred to the institutional S.C.C. chairperson. The Warden, Deputy Warden, or Superintendant should usually hold this position as Institutional SCC chairperson. Segregation prisoners should have the opportunity to present any information they wish to the members of the S.C.C. team that interview them. This gives the prisoner a meaningful way of presenting his behavior in what he thinks is the best light. This also gives the SCC team a better chance to evaluate the prisoner and learn more about what may be going on inside him. The opportunity, or lack thereof, of the prisoner to speak directly to the Institutional Chairperson should be considered to have no impact on the decision that will be made. The Chairperson’s decisions should be based upon the prisoner’s historical adjustment pattern and the recommendation of the SCC team. The institutional Chairperson should then issue a written decision for the S.C.C. team notifying the prisoner of the committee’s decision. If possible this decision should include a goal for the prisoner to work towards. Attainment of this goal does not necessarily mean release but should usually reflect in positive report by the committee. Ultimately the controlling question behind all the interviews and file reviews and decision making is:
One area of concern is if the decision-making process is fair and objective. If these decisions are not then the Civil Rights of the prisoners may be violated. The reputation of the facility and the department along with the trust the public has in them could be severely damaged. . Without the fair and impartial decision making process prisoners can become a major management problem in administrative segregation which can spill over into the lower levels of custody. Lawsuits will eat up staff time and resources. Grievances will mount and may be overturned on appeal by outside facility or department intervention. Eventually the whole SCC program could be crushed and may be subject to be taken over by the courts because of an unfair, and totally subjective, decision process. With the tremendous increase in the prison population nation-wide, and the rise in violence, this decision becomes extremely important. Every prison system has some type of administrative segregation. This is where the most violent are normally held. If changes are to be made in a prisoner's behavior, the most crucial decision made about his release, must be fair and as objective as possible. If it is not, then any behavior changes made while in segregation could and very well may, be lost. Temporary Segregation Temporary Segregation: (Temp Seg) is defined here as normally where a prisoner is initially placed pending further actions. This should be a short term holding area (7 to 10 days) where the circumstances which led up to the prisoners placement in Temp Seg are reviewed, reports written, and investigations conducted. These reports should be assigned to and reviewed by an institutional Security Classification Committee member for completeness and appropriateness. After this review a decision should then be made to release the prisoner to their previous status or to process the prisoner further. This decision may well be the most important one in the process as everything which follows is based on it. It is recommended this Security Classification Committee member be the person who insures proper handling of this prisoner until released from segregation. This would divide the workload between administrators of the Institutional Security Classification Committee this would also allow them to more closely monitor the processes involving this prisoner to ensure compliance with applicable policies and procedures. If there is made a decision to place the prisoner in segregation there should be some objective process, such as an administrative hearing, which makes a decision verifying the factors are met for placement in segregation. This process would also verify Ad Seg placement would be in compliance with applicable policies. This report with all considered information should then go to the Institutional Security Classification Chairperson for approval of placement in the appropriate level of segregation. If the evaluation process shows factors are not met, or shows placement would be in violation of applicable policies prisoner should be released. Next article we will look at the other types of Segregation and look at some ways of objectively deciding to release a prisoner from each level. "These are the opinions of the author only and are not sponsored or reflective of any department. The author has retired from corrections after 28 years with the last 15 being in administrative segregation/detention as a manager and SCC committee member. Author is currently a facilitator in the Criminal Justice program at the University of Phoenix" Other articles by Owen: |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think