Where Brett lives / OSP « Thread Started on Aug 17, 2007, 1:24pm »
Part of getting to know Brett is to understand where he is now. Brett is currently located at Ohio State Penitentiary, also known as OSP. This is a Super Max Facility, the following are a few issues that have come forward in the study of super max prisons;
"Prisoners confined in supermax facilities endure 24-hour isolation..."
"few opportunities for visits with family...
"incarceration at OSP is synonymous with extreme isolation..."
OSP inmates are deprived of almost any enviromental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact."
Prisoners housed in the high maximum-security unit are subject to extreme isolation in tiny cells that fail to meet national standards established by the American Correctional Association."
resulting in incarceration under conditions that, individually and in totality, constitute significant and atypical hardship as compared with the ordinary incidents of prison life..."
"the serious consequences of long term solitary confinement. Conditions are so stark at this institution that a significant percentage of the prisoners have attempted or commited suicide."
"that the conditions at the OSP violate the Constitution, and customary international human rights law."
The men fought against this move, yet it is no surprise that they lost.
If you visit the link below you will read the following; "The OSP facility mission is to protect Ohio’s citizens, employees, and inmates by confining those inmates who pose a threat to staff, other inmates, or institutional security in a controlled setting that is conducive to self-improvement." This is not the reason they were moved. They were not a threat to staff, other inmates, security, or the public, which I believe is shown by the fact that not all of the death row inmates were moved. Perhaps you might think some of the men were moved and others weren't because of the inmates particular conduct. This is not the case as I know, at least in Brett's case, he has never been a problem inmate.
Brett has not always been at OSP. When he first entered death row, all of the men were housed at the Mansfield prison. Some of the men are still there, although I am unsure of the reason. The move to OSP has not been a good one.
FACTS: Opened in 1998, the Ohio State Penitentiary, also known as the “Supermax” was built to house the “worst of the worst” of Ohio’s criminals, and instead has become a facility that houses inmates who are mentally ill, are there due to procedural snags, or to fill bed space. The inmates spend twenty-three hours a day in solitary cells, and there are no opportunities for outdoor recreation, communication with other inmates, or vocational programs such as those available to inmates at other facilities. Mental health problems often go unchecked, with over forty prisoners on suicide watch and three suicides since the prison opened.
LEGAL THEORY: The conditions at Supermax amount to Cruel and Unusual punishment and violate human rights standards recognized under customary international law. The procedures for sending inmates to the Supermax are so vague and capricious that many of the transfers are arbitrary.
STATUS: In January 2001, we filed our complaint in U.S. District Court. A class action was brought in the name of select class representatives, alleging a variety of claims, brought through the efforts of eight lawyers, all in cooperation with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Shortly before trial, we concluded a voluntary settlement with the ODRC that will (1) subject the Supermax to two years of medical and mental health oversight by outside expert physicians with the power to make binding changes to prison decisions (2) result in the construction of a four million dollar outside exercise area (3) limit the use of excessive restraints within the prison, and (4) the payment of attorney fees and costs.
A four day trial involving three experts and twenty-five lay witnesses was held beginning January 7, 2002. This trial focused solely on the unresolved issue of classification: how inmates get into, and are retained at, the Supermax. On February 25, 2002, we won. Judge Gwin declared that the ODRC system of sending inmates to and retaining them at the Supermax violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – the first time any court has ever declared an entire penal institution to do so. In March 2002, the Court ordered the state to adopt a new set of procedures modeled largely on what we had requested. The state has appealed. Our appellate brief was filed in November 2002. No oral argument has yet been set by the Court of Appeals.
In December 2002, we filed motions to enforce compliance with the Court’s order regarding the revision of the classification process, and the movement of maximum security prisoners into the OSP without the hearings mandated by the Court. A three day trial on that issue was held in March 2003. We prevailed, but were granted only partial relief, while the court strongly admonished the defendants to heed its order to the letter. Monitoring activity is meanwhile ongoing and constant. We continue active monitoring of classification decisions and conduct periodic oversight visits with the medical monitors appointed by the court. Three appeals from our various victories have been taken by the state and all are pending. Oral argument on the first appeal was held on October 30, 2003, and argued by Professor Jules Lobel of the University of Pittsburgh Law School.
On June 10, 2004, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the District Court the appeals of four 2002 appeals. Briefly, the Court 1) found that confinement at the Supermax prison is an atypical and significant hardship, 2) reverses certain substantive changes in prison regulations directed by the District Court, but 3) affirms all of the procedural changes made by the District Court. In October 2004, Defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. In November 2004, we filed a Motion in Opposition to their cert petition. On December 13, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Defendants Motion for Writ of Certiorari and oral argument proceeded on March 30, 2005. On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution requires a hearing for Supermax prisoners before being placed at the prison. At the same time, the Court found the Ohio DRC satisfied prisoners’ due process rights with the placement scheme it developed during this litigation.
In April 2005, we also filed a motion in U.S. District Court asking why the State should not be held in contempt of court, per an earlier court ruling, for its proposed move of Ohio’s “death row” to OSP. A trial on this issue took place from August 31 to September 2, 2005. On September 30, 2005, Judge Gwin issued an order denying our Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the move. However, Gwin deferred on ruling on our Motion for Permanent Injunction until the Court can better determine the restrictions placed on and privileges afforded to the Death Row inmates at Supermax.
On October 20, 2005, we filed a Motion for Order Extending the Jurisdiction of the Court Over Due Process Issues for One Year. On March 21, 2006, Judge Gwin granted that Motion and denied the Defendants' motion to terminate the prospective relief provided by the Court's February and March 2002 Orders. Gwin further ordered Ohio to modify its existing policy to include the procedural modifications described within this order for the placement and retention of inmates at OSP. Ohio shall fully implement these procedures within six months of this Order, or a final disposition of this matter. On May 18, 2006, we filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in order to address the issue of indefinitely confining “longtermers” who are not receiving meaningful periodic reviews of their status thereby violating their Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. That Motion was opposed via Motion filed by Defendants on June 19, 2006. On June 19, 2006 we filed a Motion for and Memorandum in Support of an Order Extending the Provisions of the Stipulation for Injunctive Relief Until 07/07/07. Defendants filed an Opposition to that Motion on July 28, 2006 and filed their own Motion for Order to Terminate those same provisions also on July 28, 2006. On August 3, 2006, our Motion was denied and Defendants’ Motion was granted. On February 16, 2007, a hearing was held regarding the Level 4 and 5 classifications of inmates after which a briefing schedule on the issue was set. On March 16, 2007, a Joint Motion for Order To Extend This Courts Jurisdiction Over Due Process Issues was filed by defendants.
On July 11, 2007, a Motion for Order to Re-Open Mental Health Claims was filed by all Plaintiffs. On September 4, 2007, a Motion for Order Extending the Jurisdiction of the Court was filed by Plaintiffs. On September 27, 2007, Judge Gwin issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for order directing defendants to modify their proposed prison administration policies. That Order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 26, 2007. On October 18, 2007 Judge Gwin issued an Order denying plaintiffs' motion for order to vacate previous judgment and reopen mental health claims. On January 11, 2008, oral argument was held in U.S. District Court on our motions to extend jurisdiction and to terminate prospective relief. On 3-12-08, Judge Gwin terminated jurisdiction of the District Court. Negotiations are under way regarding attorneys fees.
Re: Where Brett lives / OSP « Reply #2 on Sept 2, 2008, 12:58pm »
From Brett's letters we have learned that there is not only a new warden at OSP, but there is a new art program director. There have been some changes made to what art supplies the men can order and from where. Brett sees this as a change that will make the ability for the men to afford supplies even more challenging. I know for Brett this is the one way for him to contribute to his defense fund.
I've also just found out, via email that the men at OSP are no longer allowed to call or receive calls from the UK.
Of course, if I find out more on either of these two changes I'll post it.
What is up with no being allowed to call the UK??? That is kinda puzzling to me... I can understand why they have stopped the calls from the UK.
I checked back with her, and this is what she responded with;
"I think the stopping of the phone calls just applies to overseas calls . We were allowed to make arrangements through the case manager Mr Nowak , we could arrange a date and time we would call and then M***** was brought to a private room to take the call . I would pay for the phone call on my phone bill . Mr Nowak has now moved to another part of the prison , and someone else has his job . I think it is just overseas calls , but I'm not sure ."
Maybe you can give me the scoop so I can pass it on to her?
What is up with no being allowed to call the UK??? That is kinda puzzling to me... I can understand why they have stopped the calls from the UK.
I checked back with her, and this is what she responded with;
"I think the stopping of the phone calls just applies to overseas calls . We were allowed to make arrangements through the case manager Mr Nowak , we could arrange a date and time we would call and then M***** was brought to a private room to take the call . I would pay for the phone call on my phone bill . Mr Nowak has now moved to another part of the prison , and someone else has his job . I think it is just overseas calls , but I'm not sure ."
Maybe you can give me the scoop so I can pass it on to her?
Ok this is my 'scoop'! It was an absolute privilege to be able to make those calls... and personally I am surprised that did happen.. some of the guys took too much of an advantage from this being allowed so it has now stopped... it initially begun because at the time they were not able to make international calls.... GTL has a way in which this can happen.. it is prepaid.. so because calls can be made now they no longer allow calls to come into the prison. So she will need to set up a prepaid account to receive calls.. they will not be billed to her service.
I checked back with her, and this is what she responded with;
"I think the stopping of the phone calls just applies to overseas calls . We were allowed to make arrangements through the case manager Mr Nowak , we could arrange a date and time we would call and then M***** was brought to a private room to take the call . I would pay for the phone call on my phone bill . Mr Nowak has now moved to another part of the prison , and someone else has his job . I think it is just overseas calls , but I'm not sure ."
Maybe you can give me the scoop so I can pass it on to her?
Ok this is my 'scoop'! It was an absolute privilege to be able to make those calls... and personally I am surprised that did happen.. so of the guys took too much of an advantage from this being allowed so it has now stopped... it initially begun because at the time they were not able to make international calls.... GTL has a way in which this can happen.. it is prepaid.. so because calls can be made now they no longer allow calls to come into the prison. So she will need to set up a prepaid account to receive calls.. they will not be billed to her service.
Thanks Pebbles for helping with this subject, but just a few more questions... Does she have to set this up through the case worker or the inmate? How does one set up the pre paid account?
« Last Edit: Sept 4, 2008, 7:30pm by thinkinkmesa »
Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 135 Location: Australia
Re: Where Brett lives / OSP « Reply #7 on Sept 5, 2008, 1:09am »
No probs, happy to help out... ok the account doesn't need to go through a case manager or anything... she needs to get her 'friend' to send the info about international calls via western union... bascially she will need to put some funds via a western union form.. which by the way needs to be a blue one as that is for business accounts.. the general western union forms are yellow and green (from memory! haha) And once she has the blue forms she just fills it out as per the instruction that is written (happy to help with those specific details.. as I believe there maybe an phone number for those in the UK) and hand over her money... it is about 25 dollars to put money onto the account so it pays to put a large(ish) amount into it rather than small amounts where you pay constantly the fee! Have I confused anyone yet?? haha I will find the paper I have and see what info is on that specific to those in the UK!
Taken from website; http://www.globaltellink.com/?Pid=13 "Destination Prepay A Service for Family and Friends Family members and friends of inmates can set up an AdvancePay™ prepaid calling account for their respective telephone numbers using credit cards, money orders, checks or through Western Union. Calls that may otherwise be blocked can now be completed through GTL’s AdvancePay™ program.
How Does It Work? AdvancePay™ allows inmates to call your number without the restrictions of standard billing. When an inmate attempts to make a collect call to you and your number cannot accept collect call billing, the AdvancePay™ automated operator will provide you with the option of setting up a prepaid account with a Visa or MasterCard payment of either $25 or $50. If you do so at this time, you will be re-connected to the inmate and the cost of this call will be deducted from your newly established AdvancePay™ account. If you cannot establish an AdvancePay™ account at that time, the inmate will be disconnected and you can call 1-800-483-8314 to establish an AdvancePay™ account at a later time.
Benefits: Customers can rest assured that collect call charges will not reach an excessive amount.
When your AdvancePay™ account reaches the point where it cannot cover the cost of a one minute call, the system will automatically provide you the option to add more money to your account.
All transactions occur in real time. When an inmate places a call to a number set up with an AdvancePay™ account, funds are deducted from the account as soon as the call is completed. "
« Last Edit: Nov 16, 2008, 3:08pm by thinkinkmesa »
Are Prisons Driving Prisoners Mad? « Reply #9 on Jun 4, 2009, 9:25pm »
Are Prisons Driving Prisoners Mad? By Jeffery Kluger
There's no such thing as a good day for a prisoner at the highest level of security within the Ohio State Penitentiary, a 504-bed supermax prison in Youngstown, Ohio. Every inmate lives alone in a 7-ft. by 14-ft. cell that resembles nothing so much as a large, concrete closet, equipped with a sink, a toilet, a desk and a molded stool and sleep platform covered by a thin mattress. The solid metal door is outfitted with strips around the sides and bottom, muffling conversation with inmates in adjacent cells. Three times a day, a tray of food is delivered and is eaten alone. The prisoner may spend 23 hours a day in lockdown, emerging to exercise once a day. The lights in the cell never go off, although they may be dimmed a bit at night.
If there's not much to like about the conditions in Youngstown, there's not much to like about the people confined there either. These are the men corrections folks like to call "the worst of the worst," the kind of felons who dealt drugs or led gangs or killed on the outside and continued to do so in prison. For them, maximum security would not be enough--only supermax would do. And say what you will about the draconian environment, it keeps them under control.
But that level of control may be counterproductive. It's possible that the very steps we're taking to keep society safe and such prisoners in check are achieving just the opposite. The U.S. holds about 2 million people under lock and key, and 20,000 of them are confined in the 31 supermaxes operated by the states and the Federal Government. That may represent only 1% of the inmate population, but it's a volatile 1%. Push any punishment too far and mental breakdown--or at least a claim of mental breakdown--is sure to follow. When that happens, a constitutional challenge can't be far behind.
In December, officials in Texas and California conceded that the suicide rates in their prisons are on the rise, with the majority occurring among inmates in solitary. This prompted an outcry against both systems. Lawyers for accused terrorist facilitator Jose Padilla challenged his fitness last month to stand trial, arguing that his 3½ years in solitary lockdown at a South Carolina military brig have rendered him unable to assist in his own defense. Around the same time, convicted bomber Eric Rudolph began corresponding with a reporter for a Colorado newspaper, describing his days in his 7-ft. by 12-ft. cell as a form of confinement "designed to inflict as much misery and pain as constitutionally permissible."
But is it constitutionally permissible? And even if it is, is this the kind of open-ended mental-health experiment the government should be running? "We have to ask ourselves why we're doing this," says psychiatrist Stuart Grassian, a former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School and a consultant in criminal cases. "These aren't a bunch of cold, controlled James Cagneys. We're taking criminals who are already unstable and driving them crazy."
The origin of solitary confinement in the U.S. is actually benign. It was the Philadelphia Quakers of the 19th century who dreamed up the idea, establishing a program at the city's Walnut Street prison under which inmates were housed in isolation in the hope of providing them with an opportunity for quiet contemplation during which they would develop insight into their crimes. That's not what has happened.
By the 1830s, evidence began to accumulate that the extended solitude was leading to emotional disintegration, certainly in higher numbers than in communal prisons. In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, deploring solitary confinement for the "semi-fatuous condition" in which it left prisoners. The case was narrow enough that its effect was merely to overturn a single law in a single state, but the court's distaste for the idea of solitary was clear. "The justices saw it as a form of what some people now call no-touch torture," says Alfred W. McCoy, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and author of the book A Question of Torture. "It sends prisoners in one of two directions: catatonia or rage."
Modern science has confirmed this, with electroencephalograms showing that after a few days in solitary, prisoners' brain waves shift toward a pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. When sensory deprivation is added--as when Padilla was seen being led from his cell wearing a blindfold and sound-deadening earphones--the breakdown is even worse. As long ago as 1952, studies at Montreal's McGill University showed that when researchers eliminate sight, sound and, with the use of padded gloves, tactile stimulation, subjects can descend into a hallucinatory state in as little as 48 hours.
All of this is providing legal traction for constitutional lawyers. The most obvious point of attack is the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. One suit involving prisoners in a Wisconsin supermax has led to rulings requiring that mentally ill inmates be kept out of such facilities. The state is challenging the decisions, and arguments will be heard in February, but at least six other states have fought similar suits, and all of them have failed. "So far, the prisoners are batting a thousand on the issue of mentally ill inmates," says David Fathi, a senior staff counsel with the A.C.L.U.
Another approach--one that's a bit of a constitutional bank shot--is to rely on the 14th Amendment's requirement of a due-process hearing before the state denies an inmate a "liberty interest," something courts define as a reasonable expectation of a freedom or right. People confined to prison have few liberty interests left and thus have little ground to challenge assignment to a strict level of security. Confinement to supermax, however, may be so qualitatively different that it does require a hearing. That's the argument Ohio inmates made in 2005, and that's the argument a unanimous Supreme Court bought, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing that supermax isolation imposes such an "atypical and significant hardship" that prisoners must have a formal opportunity to make their case against the assignment before prison officials decide.
The eventual ruling on Padilla's fitness could liberalize things further, and similar suits are sure to follow. Even so, no one thinks the supermax system is going away soon. For all the debate the prisons generate, it may not take much to make them more palatable to civil libertarians. TVs or radios, reading material and clocks, as well as a bit of natural lighting--which provides critical time-of-day orientation--would help stabilize inmates. So would human contact with guards or other prisoners.
"Just how sterile do you have to make that cell?" asks retired prison expert Chase Riveland, who spent his career as an official in the Colorado, Wisconsin and Washington prison systems.
What's more, inmates aren't the only ones hurt by extreme incarceration. People like Padilla or the Guantánamo Bay detainees are, in theory, resources for information about the extremist groups with which they are putatively associated. "To an overwhelming degree, such people are not threats behind bars. They're opportunities," says Grassian. "We hurt ourselves by destroying their sanity." Closer to home, prisoners serving sentences for more mundane crimes do sometimes get released. Demolish their psyches while they're in prison, and nobody's safer when they get out.
Part of the reason we build prisons at all has always been the retributive urge. Those who do very bad things while they walk among us should lead very hard lives after they have been removed. That makes a lot of emotional sense. Whether it always makes practical sense is something else entirely.
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Live Chat]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/chat.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://images15.imikimi.com/image/images_full/28557315.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
Logged![[avatar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/avatars/iceskatekid.gif)
It was an absolute privilege to be able to make those calls... and personally I am surprised that did happen.. some of the guys took too much of an advantage from this being allowed so it has now stopped... it initially begun because at the time they were not able to make international calls.... GTL has a way in which this can happen.. it is prepaid.. so because calls can be made now they no longer allow calls to come into the prison.