Part II -Stanford Prison Experiment - are people evil?

Stanford Prison Experiment – Fake or Real?

– A purely conjectural perception

Part II

 

Changes –

 

The stage was set and the plot was established without any basis for setting it up the way they did it except for their own findings and without empirical evidence injected into the equation to set a stage properly equipped in all aspect of the desired environment. A stage that was meant to last longer than the fourteen (14) days of engagement and actually completed after only six (6) days of performing or acting out those roles designated to provide findings for the study and pass them on as being real and behaviorally factual in content. It is true, the study reached a critical point where termination was mandated. The study had spiraled out of control.

 

The tryouts was doomed to fail when the stage was left empty and the actors had blank scripts which were based on empty findings of prison conditions fabricated from theory and other means. No auditions, no real scripts and no authentic technical advisors prompted failure from the start. Even had the study run its full course, the defective materials captured or capsulated by these actors were going to be tainted as the well was poisoned to begin with by the lack of preparation and studies involved in the diversity of the environment.

 

Changes that would impact activities, behaviors, thought patterns, abuses and neglects. A domino effect that could hardly be captured in a mere two (2) weeks, when in fact, the average length of time an inmate serves is closer to one (1) in jail and at least a minimum of two and a half (2 ½) years under various penal confinement levels and custody circumstances.

 

No stage would be sufficiently produced, created or impact the environment without first taking into consideration how the stage is set and who is in control of the environment as well as the political will of groups that vary in color, age, race and ethnicities. Aggravated circumstances that would have included race, overcrowding, social injustices, staff abuses, organizational stigmas and disproportional administrative punishments, nature of offense conflicts with other inmates and of course the propensity of violence either on themselves or the guards portrayed by ill prepared actors / students.

 

How the stage is set, the mindsets of the actors or participants changes with each different level of energy infused, rejected or forced into a conflicting situation where tempers, emotions and other discerning forces can change the direction or flow or energy anticipated or desired by the professor or his cast. Mindsets which under real prison conditions can be altered by the possession or use of mind altering substances such as heroin, meth, marijuana, prescription drugs and other illicit controlled substances banned and considered contraband under most rules of voluminous prison settings considered to be a standard in the prison industry.

 

This study was about change. It was intended to document human behavioral changes created or evolved under different circumstances. This was a focal point on human beings having the ability to adapt or cope with adversity. In addition to those forces, it also brought to light the world of compliance and non-compliance, otherwise listed as obedience psychology.

 

Divided among two groups, prisoner and guard, the world was made essentially into a black and white situation that is unreal in any setting. How anyone can accept this as a legitimate study is beyond my personal comprehension levels thus I chose to write about this study for such reasons.

These inadequate obedience studies were created to show how people, ordinary people, prompted, provoked or stimulated by a trigger by an authority figure, were willing to exhibit defiance or compliance when told what to do and either chose to comply or suffer the “painful and potentially” lethal and non-lethal capabilities of a system designed to shock you into compliance.

 

Lethal being those guards who are armed with guns and other lethal weapons and non-lethal for those carrying mace or chemical agents, batons, or other impact weapons to gain compliance including their hands and feet. Changes which can underscore human responses that may fluctuate when a different approach is used.  Approach is defined to be verbal or physical in nature with the invested authority or power by such a person to impose their will on others. Approach may be singular or plural depending on the situational assessment of the event or activity.

 

The logic or rationale is the enforcement of institutional rules and regulations but by all means, this could include many other directives or motives given for such a direct order to comply even with unlawful directives. Approach also means whether the presence of force is lethal or non-lethal or in other terms, intimidating or non-intimidating to the prisoners who are subject to these orders.

 

So far, based on changing the stage settings, the Stanford experiment did not underscore or take into consideration these extreme but common environmental triggers. If seemed to focus more in a theatrical aspect of how people, “regular’ people would act if “given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors.” A fact that is based more on a desired predetermined outcome than a reality of most situations where the interactions have more variables or possibilities than a “yes” or “no” in the conflict or confrontation. In fact, since it is the guard’s first prerogative to avoid conflict, such escalations rarely occur on a routine basis.

 

There appears to be some connection between this study and the documentation of the extremely aggravated circumstances of Abu Ghraib. One cannot and should not connect the two as a “norm” since there were behaviors on both sides that are questionable and documented in an already sterile and yet, on the side of a different world and culture, a more volatile and brutal environment which was not the case on the Stanford experiment, which had no such dynamic working inside its cultural settings or expectations.

 

Comparing the two would be speculative that they are both the same setting and therefore, the behaviors are consistent with the study and research provided forty-five years earlier. Such a fallacy is easy to find and should be taken into consideration when comparing apples with oranges. However, focusing on the behaviors of the guards at Abu Ghraib, it was indeed, a travesty of justice; the epitome of American penal abuse and punishment towards a prison population which numbered thousands and that was involved in a war of terror and internal political strife in a civil war. Hardly nine (9) individuals arrested for armed robbery and burglary if you see the differences here.

 

Focusing on the Stanford experiment, the professor, the director and the cast attempt to cite it as evidence of “atavistic impulses.” They chose to use primitive as a means to impose punishment because the study lacked the ability to provide the most recent and best practices used inside jails and prisons at that time. Another gap that impacts credibility but needless to say, the focus was on these negative impulses that created regular people into “r.”

 

The fact is, we can all become tyrants if the conditions permit themselves to nurture such an environment. It isn’t that hard to attain if you know how to be a bully or otherwise inconsiderate person to the other persons’ dignity, respect and rights. This is what puzzles me so often as to why the Stanford experiment was done in such a fashion.

What did it accomplish and did it just confirm what we already knew. People can be brutal and cruel if allowed to be or given the authority to act that way? Certainly, we can read the history books and have a sufficient lesson learned there to avoid spending our time role playing prisoner –guard relationships for six (6) days.

 

So I agree with the writer, Maria Konnikova, who wrote, “The study has been haunted by ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions?”

 

An interesting question as it may be universally applied to several recent prison disturbances where such brutalities were disclosed and demonstrated how “broken institutions” can impact public safety or incite riotous behaviors because of environmental conditions unaddressed and out of control.

 

Applying the findings of the Stanford experiment would not solve one problem inside today’s jails or prisons because it lacks credibility and evidence that such results were documented under legitimate research condition and controlled provocations. There is too much room for error in judgements and conclusions to nail it down to a certainty we could rely on as a reference material and evidentiary in nature.

 

The appeal of the study conforms to the appeal for a reality show on television. Turning a show like this into a reality episode likened to the “Orange is the New Black” series might peak the interest of the audience chosen for such reality shows, but not likely those who work in the profession.

 

I disagree the Stanford Experiment was conducted in a “heavy manipulated environment.” It does not even get close or resemble the realities of the level of manipulation present in a real jail or prison and should not be presented that way. The appeal was the setup, the stage and the actions of the players. However, there was no real value here because the environment was so out of control (the opposite of manipulated) and the research was so impulsive that the theories could not be applied in a credible or evidence-based presentation.

 

Whether these players were actors, students, prisoners or guards is totally irrelevant. They all acted outside the normal scopes of people trained to do this job. Role playing is far from real. Even if the script was real, the actions, mindset, emotional and psychological aspects of such staged events differ from the real thing. One can see how the study spiraled out of control so quickly as in a real setting, there are cultural and administrative parameters that are followed either by political means or peer pressure.

 

If their goal was to provoke thought, to deliver a message of brutality or oppression under the duress of being a prisoner under the supervision of a guard, they failed miserably because the authority, the setting and the entire plot was bogus from the beginning and adds nothing but a theatrical atmosphere to a brutal reality of real-life jails and prisons.

 

 

References:

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment

 

 

 

The Stanford Prison Experiment - Fact or Myth? Fake or Real?

Stanford Prison Experiment – Fake or Real?

– A purely conjectural perception

Part I

 

There is a lot of excitement going around on this movie inspired by what I believe to be a grossly misaligned or misconstrued research study when comparing its contents with today’s facts as they have evolved since the experiment was conducted. Certainly not an expert in the field of psychology, my main objection to this perception it is real is based on my twenty five (25) years of experience inside our jails and systems in the Southwest, specifically New Mexico and Arizona, who are culturally different from those east of the Mississippi River and similar to the California penal system with qualified exceptions in some areas.

 

Certainly, in my opinion, if the research team had taken the time to organize their facts a little bit better, the study would have acquired or attained a higher level of credibility rather than the mediocre level of attention it is receiving now because of the current media craze on our prison systems and its flaws. From my own personal expectations, it is with regret that this study fell short or authenticity as it would have and could have been a valuable tool in training and psychological awareness of our penal world as it existed then and now.

 

The entire lesson plan or script, whichever applies best, was based on the team participants or the professor’s own vision, cultural and political awareness or educational guesses, how prisoners are treated or mistreated by what he refers to as prison guards in charge of the supervision and management of a real prison setting.  One must be cautious in translating such roles without the validity or evidence based procedures or conditions and thus any embossment of such dynamics, are either invalidated or false in actions and reactions.

 

In other words, it lacked the core values based on evidence gathered by various psychological profiles that impact the manner prisoners are evaluated and perceived by real guards or prison / jail administrators. You can’t pretend to engage in a role model behavioral unless you receive the same pre-existing conditions real trained guards receive during their tour of duty.  This is based on the theory of approach determines response in human behaviors.

 

The Genesis –

 

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment nine (9) individuals who were staged to be arrested, booked, processed and imprisoned in a most orchestrated manner that rarely resembles reality in the manner it is done by those trained to do so. It lacked innovative and creativity from the start.

First, to begin with, this study is encapsulated with nine volunteers willing to subject themselves to the rigors of the mindgames played under the pretense of incarceration.  This is the first key to the reality, nobody volunteers to go to jail or prison. At least no one in their right state of mind. Since the mind was at the core of this study, these actors should have been casted on the more “unwilling” side of the spectrum than volunteering for these roles. Making it mandatory would have imposed more anxiety and stress into the relationships and occurrences as they were planned or scripted to happen.

 

Second, the stage is bare and sterile. These players had no concept of the reality involved in running or managing a prison environment and did so on notions produced and projected for the sake of the outcome of the study, not reality or other variable that could have altered the outcome it the stage had been set right. Missing are the physical elements that makes jails and prisons despairing and filthy places to live or do time. These conditions play an important role on behaviors as it produces side effects of frustration, contaminated and communicable threats such as Hepatitis and often produces the negative subtleties that trigger negative responses to negative demands by those guards.

 

All nine actors were “arrested” on armed robbery and burglary charges. This taints the project from the beginning as these similar charges draw analogous inferences or cultural biases that do not cover the entire continuum of partialities if they had been charged with variable offenses such as murder, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual molestations etc. these offenses all carry with them institutional prejudices that impact supervision and management levels for those in charge to manage them. If one is to conduct a real study, then the participants should also cover the continuum of offenders incarcerated.

 

Prison is a melting pot of criminals. They are all incarcerated, all dressed the same and all taken care of in a similar manner but they all carry special needs towards effective supervision and communication skills to maintain a safe and orderly environment. In other words, compliance has to be attained using various effective forms of managing behaviors but has to take into consideration their willingness to comply or refuse verbal orders given by authority figures.

 

Conducting this experiment is an honorable and worthy event. I can’t deny the fact, it does serve a legitimate purpose in our study of human behaviors and our prison world cultural phenomena as they really exist.  However, conducting this on a stage that is sterile in the usual biases, the usual influences and the grossly horrific negativities that such a dismal and ghastly place projects, does little justice to the reality of the study.

 

Had the professor, Philip George Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University, done a little bit more of mental and physical preparation to set the stage accordingly, it could have reached epic proportions of credibility for others to benefit from. However, he overlooked the basic principles of the core values implemented in any correctional setting and failed to impose them at the right moments or places of this study to maximize the impact of how this treatment process could have been evolved and how revolution could have been created if it had done it with non-submissive actors.

 

It is a fact, all were prepared for the roles they were assigned to participate in this study. Quoting the words of a well versed writer, Maria Konnikova, a contributor to the New Yorker, the study consisted of “middle-class college students” who had previously answered a “questionnaire about their family backgrounds, physical- and mental-health histories, and social behavior, and had been deemed “normal.” Such a bold statement of finding nine (9) willing students who were normal defeats the psychological benefits of evaluating those who are either normal, below normal or exceeding mentally impaired.

 

There is no such class of inmates who are “normal” as they all carry with them their own psychological profiles which in turn develops into established cultural expectation of behaviors by the guards who stereotype, draw personal biases and impose discipline accordingly to their own profiles or perceptions of each offender. All these undercurrents work towards the compliance issues and is filled with pre-requisites on training and screening for being hired for such roles as prison guards.

 

Giving them no training voids their stereotyping based on cultural realities as they exist and draws on the imagination or pretention of motive rather than real-life situations inside our jails or prisons.

 

Artistic influences on hired prison guards differ from cultural influences of prison guards. This perception ranges from their own psychological profiles which is diverse and often include the educated and not so educated group of people selected for the job. Since this study was done back in the 1970’s with a remake in the millennium, these people projected to be guards, now evolved into correctional officers today, due to the evolution of their roles, training, experience prior to working as an officer e.g. college, military, blue collar or white collar occupations. This makes a major impact on treatment and supervisory methods used and performed for compliance of the rules. In other words, this changes the stage immensely and changes the outcome of respective behaviors or actions.

 

In this study, the selection between being a prisoner or a guard was based on a mere flip of the coin. A coin determined the roles played between what were perceived to be good guys versus bad guys. A real phenomena but rarely imitated or assimilated truthfully without some kind of preparation and study of real world dynamics. Facts play an important role here for the outcome – whether desired or not – it fabricates the dynamics of the stage.

 

Since the guards (actors) received no training, they began their ordeal of mistreatment and abuse based on their own myths and perceptions of what a prison guard does. A lore that has often been mislabeled and mischaracterized as Neanderthal in nature and accordingly, projected as guards with little training, education, instruction and how they imposed their personal will on those prisoners (actors) who were then humiliated and psychologically abused voluntarily and within a swift twenty four hours into the study’s start.

 

Putting this into perspective on today’s terms and realities, the evolution of corrections has rectified, satisfied and declared much of these earlier versions of brutalities and mindset changes to rest due to better judicial decisions since the 1970’s on constitutional rights, and prison living conditions of confinement that have been regulated and inserted into federal receiverships or consent decrees by the courts in various jurisdictions and authority bodies which regulate prison management.

 

 

 

 

References:

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment

Changing Policies in a one billion dollar agency

Changing Policies

 

The headlines about the Kingman riots stumbled to bring any sense of urgency to the front page. After the media cooled down their coverage of the event, the captions disappeared, the interest unwearyingly dissipated and the agency is back to a business as usual approach managing our prisons. Even without the full disclosure of the Doug Ducey imposed “full probe investigation” into the Kingman riots, the narratives are gone.

 

This is not the first time nor will it be the last time, these kind of episodes appear and disappear within a short week or two. There is no fear out there, thus there is no wear in such stories. Damage control is always essential in minimizing collateral political damage and that is usually done within a day or two of the event and done well. Solutions to our prison disturbances have remained unsolved.

 

Solutions are there but the action it takes to make it happen are not. Will there be a string of riots this summer or it the crisis over? The answer lies in the prison population and how they react to minor superficial changes imposed to take the heat off the administration who failed to control the situation that began these riots by sputtering with lack of oversight and non-existent leadership.

 

Governor Ducey toured the Central Office area on Monday August 3, 2015, and was re-assured by the director that everything is under control. He reviewed compiled data shaped to sooth the soul and reassure him the damage done is nominal and the harm or fears were exaggerated. I for one can relate to such compiled data as I have been part of such hurried policy fixings in the past.

 

Fixing policies is like changing lanes without signaling. It’s based on lessons learned approaches that reveal not much other than the superficial on the surface causes and leave out the root causes of such disturbances. In practical terms, it’s a band aid instead of surgery for the problem and treats the symptoms, not the disease. There are no cultural advantages to such strategies, staff will not conform to changes without resistance or lack of interest in doing so. Tacit directions will continue to exist.

 

Is the agency more responsive and efficient today than it was pre-Kingman riots? Not hardly, it’s still the same mold, ideology and methodology to run the mission with preferred housing for private prisons such as Kingman. Patience is a virtue and Governor Ducey appears to have patience at this time. If this were to happen again, I venture to say his patience would be tested extremely hard and not easy for the agency to smooth over again.

 

By default, running prisons is brutal; it has no splendor or finesse of any kind that we know of. There are plenty of examples that show rapes, sexual assaults, physical assaults, homicides and suicides makes up most of the critical events on a daily or weekly basis. If one was to conduct interviews of such events, one could find the root causes but that’s not being done. There are better ways of policing our policies and protect our employees form harm but yet again, it is not being done. It is neither cost effective nor convenient to do so. This creates chaos, confusion, low morale and less understanding of the job and its expectations.

 

The theory is that employees, if given a slight margin or praise, will be more understanding and less fearful and fearful if they feel the policies are there to protect them. The same goes for inmates as they fear assaults from other inmates as well as alleged attacks by correctional staff. Either way, all sides are claiming victimization in today’s world and standards.

 

Business is good for Governor Ducey and his fellow private prison cronies. A great deal of money is yet to be made with future lucrative offers to expand the bed space. What appears to be an evenhanded situation on the surface is really an underhanded deal that will blow up in someone’s face when it blows. Although the state is littered with wrongful death lawsuits, they expect to either win them in court or allow risk management to pay them off in secret settlements. Either way, the taxpayers foot the bill; nothing comes back to any individual or entity that may be the gateway to this mess created due to political will to make doing time hard time. This might work in Arizona, as society’s culture is permissive and generous with civil rights and human right issues.

 

The bottom line is race-based policies might not work with violent crimes and criminals. The thought that we can treat every inmate the same is ridiculous and unreal. There needs to be core value established for the issuance of basic human rights and preservation of life through due diligence in the course to protecting civil rights. It is fair to wonder if Arizona can meet the challenge.

 

Prison management is a multi-functional concept and is a diverse culture. Inside prisons, culture rules everything including race and numbers. Diversity is the key to solutions. Equality is also a key element of social problems inside prisons. Relationships are strained and tempers are short. Living conditions are minimal and accommodations are few. Drug use and abuse is more rampant today than yesterday.  More training, better retention of experience and interpersonal communication skills need to be achieved.

 

Changing policies does not make good practice when our solution is deeper than that. Consistency by the agency is warranted. One prison should be run alike the others and management and staffing should be allocated to keep it safe. We can dream can’t we, I mean, it might get worse before it gets better but it will get better, one way or another. History always has a way of repeating itself.

 

 

The guiding force of Mother Nature

The Guiding Force of Mother Nature

Staring at the sky, I see a blue moon dancing spritely among the clouds gathering fast and furious

The wind speaks with force and tells me to find a place to seek shelter

My instinct told me to run inside and find shelter from the lightening and helter skelter

But in my mind, I wanted to stand outside, as I felt the raindrop fall and refused to hide

The tree branches are bouncing in rhythm to the whistling wind so fiercely blown

The world commands the gathering darkened clouds to rain, as it began to storm

 

This land is thirsty, it has not seen water for such a long long time

As I watched the sun go down earlier and dissolve its light on the horizon

The rains have finally come and for a while, the rain shall rule over all living things

The sun dried up the grass, the wildlands are bare and brown and prime for fire

The world needs action to wet this land with a thirst and appetite and make it right

So when the rain comes down, everything will be done with a guiding force and make all thing all right

 

I never challenge Mother Nature, she always wins as she throws every element into the wind

I have witnessed the power of nature, and what a stormy night can bring

The beauty of creation is only matched by the beauty of the morning after rain

At must, I glance at the soaking wet grass as water is flowing freely, trolling for a place to stand

A waterfall made from a pile of rocks, the water rushes into a cascading foamy wave of freedom

The water dances to the shimmering reflections of the morning sunlight

As the sunrise brings another glory, and stretches the sky wide open with heavenly arms extended

And with open arms, you can feel the warmth, my face is smiling as I can feel the grace

Of heavenly love, and purest thoughts, as the sunlight hits my face

 

So I am ready to face the world, I am willing to take a stand

I may not be as forceful as nature, but I know somewhere along the way, I will find a hand

It rained on me last night, and it soaked me up with a heavenly spirit

Standing there, in the darkness, I saw my mirrored face in the rushing waters

I heard the thunder, I watched the lightening with awe as it showed its power

It rained on me a gentle and heavenly shower.  I know up above, there is a power

               

An Open Letter to Governor Ducey, Arizona

An Open Letter - Dear Governor Ducey,

Dear Governor Ducey, ever since the recent Kingman riots, you, as our governor, have asked for full disclosure of the root causes of this disturbance. In a comment made when you toured the prison, you indicated an interest in the cause of the riot and how it happened on your watch.

At the same time, you indicated you would not change direction in your quest to fund private prisons to help the state systems with its current overcapacity. I can accept that as an option but not as a final option.

Right now, today, you, Governor Ducey, have the key opportunity to reshape the future of the entire state prison system, affecting tens of thousands of prisoners and their families. You could in fact, change the number of people who die, get assaulted or released properly with a chance to not return to prison.

The first thing you should do is ask for the resignation of the current director. He is due for retirement and his successor could be the positive catalyst this state needs to move ahead with prison changes whether in policies, best practices or reforms. Depending on your own agenda, change is still the best option.

The decision to change our state prison system is significant and means a lot to the public, as well as families and friends of those incarcerated. It also means safer workplace practices for employees in both the private and public sector. Leadership with focus on core values is a must. Change is a must. Arizona has never met any national benchmarks when it comes to prison management. Now is the time to implement change, positive change.

Under Charles Ryan’s era, the prison leadership has eroded. The state is has a dismal record of performance and public safety. The state has imposed unduly harsh conditions on prisoners, failed to prevent sexual abuse, and refused to exercise good judgment in workplace safety for their employees. 

Both in supermax and in other prisons, policies continue to expose far too many prisoners, including many who suffer from serious mental illness, to solitary confinement. Even if we deny solitary confinement, governor, we have too many inmates in maximum custody.

The state has also failed to mount a serious fight against sexual violence and abuse in its prisons. Not just against inmates but staff as well. The rape of a teacher and correctional officer, comes to mind. Arizona needs to implement better policies which include a comprehensive set of operational concerns in the areas of rules, training requirements and audit / public disclosure mandates to improve safety.

Arizona is no different from other states. It has many available tools and a good deal of discretion to better deal with its prison population, but it has used those opportunities far too sparingly. The state’s prison population is growing steadily, it is suffering from severe overcrowding and reasonable options are not being put on the table to ease suffering and unnecessary pain. Better programs result in keeping staff and prisoners safer and it reduces litigations by the inmate populations. I am not advocating the release of inmates; I am advocating better management of inmates and their preparation to return to society.

With congestion comes risks of violence, and less access to services such as jobs and programs. And as prison populations’ age, the costs of medical care go up. The list is endless.

We know Arizona can do better because many state correctional systems are making a variety of improvements in their approaches. Other state prison systems have reduced the population of those in isolation, created better inmate programming to suit the histories and challenges of those incarcerated and offered new work programs and improved mental health services like Arizona was on track to do and almost accomplished, prior to this director’s appointment in 2009.

Arizona and Muslims in Prison

A preemptive story on an upcoming dilemma if not managed right - some can relate to this immediately and find common ground of concerns.

Since post 9/11, Muslim prisoners have been closely looked at for ties to extremist or radical groups on the outside of prisons. This is no secret as the Department of Justice (DOJ) often reports on such findings through their annual reports on prison populations and radicalization trends. Since the Kingman riots in the first week of July, the Arizona prisons have been on the verge of imploding due to misunderstandings and misconceptions on Muslim needs or practices. Muslims celebrate Ramadan which in most cases, is a peaceful demonstration of their faith.

When there are cultural misunderstandings, disrespect or ignorance issues, there are always chances of conflict and that’s a management issue in teaching religious sanctities as well as cultural diversity training.
It is a foregone conclusion that the Muslim prison population will be looking for the courts to find relief and protection under the law. It will seek to expand their right to worship and practice their worship exercises in a more lenient manner than it is today.
Ramadan, a month long celebration is tolerated but often ridiculed or subject to bad jokes and offensive inconclusive misunderstandings. We should expect more lawsuits coming from the Muslim population within the next few months or at the very least, some legal backlash for the inconsistent manner Muslims are being treated today.
The writing is on the wall on that matter and many more. How does this impact the elected and appointed state officials who traditionally and politically been a proven interference or barrier to acquiring better living conditions inside prisons. Prisons cost money and special accommodations are just not on the negotiations table for Muslims to receive any more than the other groups inside prisons.
However, in general terms, even after the Kingman riots, none are being reported to be “threats” or “dangerous” at the moment and that’s a relief we can all live by today.  As the DOJ reports no significant evidence of such influences throughout our prison systems, it is fair to say Arizona is safe from any imminent threats today.
However, this does not mean the future is safe from radicalization or influences of Muslim propaganda and other messages designed to stimulate evolution and revolution in various means. One could venture to say, approach determines response thus if the prison systems approach these Muslims with aggression or biased perceptions, the according response would be fear, and resistive posturing accordingly to the approach intensity, cultural understandings and tone.
From here on, legislators need to begin to inform themselves of the Muslim religion and focus on facts, rather than myths or other misunderstood biases. There will be various and contradictory religious related type of competing events, which may shape looming disruptive elements if this matter is ignored.
The biggest inaccuracy of the Muslim world is fear – since post 9/11 the “fear of radicalization” has dominated the newspaper and television headlines and it will be hard to ignore such worries. This will result in political fear mongering by elected and appointed officials in charge of public safety. There won’t be any fact checking and policies will be based on biased perceptions rather than a qualified and quantize research effort to develop sound best practices related to the Muslim world inside prisons.
In other words, there will be a “lessons learned” approach rather than a qualitative and quantitive study. This would be comparing facts to propaganda and will insult those informed of the religious standards and create conflict. The prison system needs to heed cautious approaches to this topic and sensitive matter. It must avoid fueling a confrontation by not preparing staff in their responsibilities to be sufficiently trained to understand and communicate Muslim needs.
Moreover, they need to set aside the myths related to extremism and focus on the behaviors of the groups they are supervising and managing and not add any fuel to this matter by imposing predisposition or pre-determined biases to the environment. This may be interpreted as suppressive in nature and create a backlash which may cause violence.
The influence of poor policy writings and interpretation will be used essentially as oppressive and wrongful barriers towards the religion and given the opportunity to magnify any such ill written policies, prisoners may use this as a tool to organize and spread their individual religious ideology to others by showing a deliberate attempt to block or restrict Muslim religious leaders from practicing their faith.
The solution is better education and training for administrators and staff working the prison populations. Secondly, there must be a better organized effort to focus on religious pluralism inside prisons and connect those needs to the communities for pre-release considerations into the community once released from prison. This applies to all religions, not just the Muslim faction and groups.
Legislators must direct, through either a statutory resolve or a legislative order, direct Arizona prison administrators to recognize these strategies as being essential to the life cycle with broader correctional goals, including reducing recidivism and ensuring that healthy religious communities remain a source of support for prisoners and prison officials alike inside the institutions, private or public.

Death Investigations inside a jail or prisons - a Mickey Mouse investigation?

Death investigation inside a jail or prison - Mickey Mouse Investigations? -

A prison death related investigation is a complicated process, which involves a number of different members of the assigned investigative unit or department as well as other forensic disciplines working together towards the goal of solving the case and determine whether or not it was a suicide, homicide or a death of natural causes.

Unfortunately, crime scene inside a prison is not as meticulously performed as it is on the outside as there are many minor violations performed that tramples on the evidence gathered. The most common mistake is “communications” – the moment a body is found, the detention or correctional officer or first responder does not take into consideration it is a crime scene and results in serious errors made that may affect the outcome of determining whether or not a crime had been committed.

On the outside, the outcome of a case is determined by the active participation of first responders trained in crime scenes and how to handle evidence or other specific responsibilities. Inside jails or prisons, there is no such quality control or emphasis placed on such urgent needs to abide by specific protocols. Many don’t know how to preserve a crime scene according to the protocol established for best practices and or training of officers.

Compared to the participation of officers, detectives, medical examiners and forensic experts, a death investigation is hardly ever an elongated process and is rather short in all actuality. In reality, a homicide is almost treated the same as a suicide as there are simple investigative mistakes made that leads to the wrongful conclusions of such findings. Culturally speaking, due to the frequencies, the tone is mundane, and urgency is often lacking to commit in details.(Mind you, there are exceptions to this rule, as there are some good investigators out there who want to find the truth but are politically hampered to do so.)

One must wonder why the culture is so permissive in the manner deaths are handled inside jails or prisons and it really comes down to the ideology, the political will and the need to find the truth in order to summarize how a carefully a death case is completed. This is the vital key to any core value of the investigations conducted. The deliberate attempt to design a desirable outcome.

Mistake – Assuming the Case is A Suicide Based on the Initial Report – inside prisons, this approach carries a very heavy responsibility to ignore such initial reports. The truth is, there is a traditional bias established with all involved that causes a direct apathetic approach to the means to find the facts or truth related to the death.

Once the call is made it is a “suicide” the whole approach is changed and critical errors begin. An assumption begins a chain reaction that is rarely stopped long enough to reconsider the cause of death. In most cases, the criminal investigator called makes an assumption by the intimal report of an unqualified first responder or individual that the cause of death was a suicide.

This preconceived notion changes theories and hamper effective investigative tools. Any preconceived theories or notions are dangerous in professional death investigation. In addition to errors of assuming a “suicide” or natural death other preconceived notions may include deaths, which appear to be drug related and/or domestic violence. Inside prisons, there are no detectives available to handle the call – there are criminal investigators called who rarely have the special skills of a detective to determine a suicide, homicide, drug overdose or natural death has occurred.

With a 90 per cent chance of the crime scene being disturbed, this poorly-skilled investigator is already having to deal with a condition that markedly restricts one's ability to function physically, mentally, or socially as there are many barriers in place that would not be present in a similar situation on the outside of prisons.

First of all, there are usually more witness found or contacted in the free world than the imprisoned world and if there are witnesses in the prison world, culturally speaking, the art of snitching is unacceptable as a social cultural norm.

Secondly, the tampering with evidence, although in most cases, not deliberately, hamper genuine efforts to the fact-finding process.

Thirdly, the initial responders, including administrative personnel are quick to declare a death as a suicide to lessen vicarious liabilities involved and prepare to make reports of such in writing and gather the statement in the spirit of a suicide rather than the possibility it was a homicide or anything else other than a natural death.

Suicides are non-amenable offenses that are not recorded in same matter homicides are, therefore are considered less important than other events. Without a doubt investigators take “short-cuts” when they hear the word suicide. I have reviewed many suicide cases where it was apparent that the investigators did not take each point to its ultimate conclusion. Sufficient photographs were not taken and certain tests were not conducted. In some instances the deaths were suicides, but the incomplete and insufficient preliminary investigation raised legitimate concerns.

Mistake – Failure to Conduct Victimology as it pertains to both suicide and homicide investigations is significant in ascertaining motives, suspects and risk factors. In suicide cases, this becomes paramount in determining Motive and Intent.

Does the victim fit a “Suicide Profile?” Was there any evidence of marked depression or suicide ideations? Did the victim have both short and long term plans? However, the major element of a ‘suicide profile” is whether or not there is a mental health history documenting prior attempts or suicide ideations documented in the file.

“Victimology” is the collection and assessment of all significant information as it relates to the victim and his or her lifestyle. Personality, employment, education, friends, habits, hobbies, marital status, relationships, dating history, sexuality, reputation, criminal record, history of alcohol or drugs, physical condition and neighborhood of residence are all pieces of the mosaic that comprise victimology.

The bottom line is “Who the victim was and what was going on in his or her life at the time of the event.” The best sources of information will be friends, family, associates and neighbors and that will be the initial focus of the investigation. In this case, this step is frequently or deliberately omitted and rarely actively pursued as other inmates interviewed related to his behaviors prior to his time of death, will not talk about it and spend their time watching television, sleeping, working out or listening to headphone and not paying attention to what is happening around them.

When such information appears, the case becomes streamlined and the “assumption” of suicide speeds up to the delivery of the report and unless the coroner or medical examiner concludes differently, the case is closed. The failure to consider other options become automatically moot and causes an apathetic mood to continue this case. This often results in a lack of effort to find a weapon, re-examine the injuries or wounds, or the existence of a motive or intent on the part of the victim’s cellmates to take a life.

Since a suicide is often a prefixed conclusion on mental health history or recent reports of being desponded or depressed, the emphasis to look for evidence contradictory to a suicide is almost never done. Injuries and wounds in suicides may be very similar to those observed in homicides. However, certain observations that the wounds found on the body are consistent with homicide or suicide should be made.

Remember: It’s not the number of wounds that are self-inflicted, but the lethality of these wounds and what particular organs have been impacted. In a logical deduction, there are several things that need to be done in order to avoid wrongful assumptions in deaths.

This includes the failure to properly document any suicide notes, or obtain samples or the victim’s writings to make sure the note was really written by the victim and then determine if it was written voluntarily and with suicidal intent. Since the entire investigation is based on a below par investigator in most cases, the concentration of cause is often misplaced or misunderstood.

The major hindrance of the application of a “Psychological Autopsy” might be useful in drawing conclusions but only if the information obtained for this instrument is taken concurrent with the event and not after people have formulated an opinion. This is what separates adequate death investigations from mediocre or shoddy ones.

Special notation –

“It should be noted that the final determination of suicide is made by the medical examiner/coroner after all the facts are evaluated. However, the investigation at the scene and an inquiry into the background of the deceased may indicate the presence of life threatening behavior or activities that suggest suicidal intent. Of course, the medical examiner/coroner is supposed to avail him or her of the input of the investigators, who were present at the scene and conducted the death investigation.” Thus the possibility of a predetermined cause of death is contagious to the official report of the medical examiner finalizing the case forever.

Reference materials:

Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. Homicide and Forensic Consultant
©2013 Vernon J. Geberth, Practical Homicide Investigation
Originally published by Law & Order Magazine, Vol. 61 No. 1 January, 2013 pp 54-567