Tag: carceral state

Prison Phone Companies Involved in Scheme to Ban In-Person Jail Visits, Lawsuit Says

Two lawsuits filed by an activist organization allege a conspiracy between county governments in Michigan and prison phone companies. This conspiracy has involved a “quid pro quo kickback scheme” that eliminated in-person visits at prisons to boost profits for the companies, the litigation claims. As part of the scheme, a portion of those profits were allegedly then shared with the county governments.

The Civil Rights Corps, a non-profit that describes itself as “dedicated to challenging systemic injustice in the United States’ legal system,” recently filed the two lawsuits, which allege a similar scheme in both St. Clair and Genesee counties in Michigan. These arrangements involved business relationships with the county sheriffs of St. Clair and Genesee that were predicated on the elimination of in-person prison visits. Under the new systems, visitors to the jails had to pay for phone calls with the incarcerated, and the money from those calls was then shared between the providers and the counties, the lawsuit alleges.

Keep reading

J6 Political Prisoner, Dominic Pezzola, Confronts Myth of Rehabilitation in Federal Prison and the Reality of Prison Abuse

January 6TH, Prisoner Dominic Pezzola’s life within the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been anything but ‘rehabilitative.’ Each passing day of his ten-year sentence reveals a system marred by injustice and riddled with apparent apathy from those tasked with his care while in custody. Lisa, his wife, remains resolute in her role on the outside, relaying the brutal realities of Dominic’s ordeal to those willing to listen.

Earlier this year, Dominic was thrust into the cruel isolation of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for an inexplicable 45 days. Dom told Lisa that prison authorities offered no explanation, leaving him in the dark about his alleged transgressions. After his release from the SHU, it was just two weeks later that the entire prison was placed under lockdown for more than two weeks due to a stabbing incident in a separate unit, no amount of explanation in the aftermath could undo the damage of what amounts to collective punishment. The prison walls seem impervious to reason, punishing every inmate indiscriminately, regardless of their involvement in the incident.

Dom’s confusion over the sudden confinement was compounded by the fact that he never received a formal write-up, a violation notice that typically accompanies punitive measures. For all he knew, the authorities had deemed him guilty without affording him the right to understand his supposed crimes.

Dominic’s release from the SHU was as abrupt as his initial confinement. No explanation was immediately given, and the slate was wiped clean as if the ordeal had never occurred. Through the proverbial grapevine, he learned that the prison authorities swiftly concluded the investigation of the stabbing within 48 hours. Without further explanation from BOP officials, to either Dom or his wife Lisa, motives behind the extended lockdown and solitary confinement remain unclear.

Many inmates believe that what happens with frequent and extended periods of lockdown are more than just arbitrary measures. In fact, many allege they are but one component of a systemic strategy rooted in corruption.

Keep reading

No, Imprisoning a School Shooter’s Parents Isn’t Justice

A jury on Thursday convicted a Michigan man of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop his son from killing four of his peers in November 2021, putting an end to a closely watched prosecution that broke new ground in its attempt to punish the parents of a child who committed a school shooting.

James Crumbley faces up to 60 years in prison, as does his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was found guilty of the same charges last month. Prosecutors posited the two bore responsibility for allegedly ignoring signs that their son, Ethan Crumbley, was depressed, and for gifting him the gun he ultimately used to execute Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School.

It may be hard to find sympathy for the Crumbleys, who have, unsurprisingly, been a magnet for backlash. It’s plausible they were negligent parents. But it can simultaneously be true that punishing them criminally for that sets a very troubling precedent, no matter how much you dislike them.

The prosecution’s argument hinged on a few key points: Ethan Crumbley had mental health issues, which the government said his parents did not do enough to address—a point they emphasized more during Jennifer Crumbley’s proceeding. During James Crumbley’s trial, the government zeroed in on the gun he purchased for his son as an early Christmas present: He was allegedly careless, prosecutors said, with how he stored the weapon, creating a perfect storm that cleared the way for Ethan to carry out that shooting about two and a half years ago.

But, no matter how ruinous their parenting, the case against the Crumbleys in some sense hinged on what the government wanted the law to say—not on what it actually said. As I wrote last month:

Despite the fraught subject matter, and the absolute tragedy of those deaths, Michigan law still appeared inept to apply to the Crumbley parents. Michigan lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass “child access prevention” legislation authorizing criminal charges against adults “who intentionally or carelessly give minors unsupervised access to guns,” noted Reason‘s Jacob Sullum in 2021, but they have on multiple occasions rejected the idea. And while the state has since enacted a “secure storage” law pertaining to safely securing firearms, it was not on the books at the time of the murders.

It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it’s not my idea of a good time, either. But how someone feels about guns generally or politically shouldn’t factor into whether or not a parent is criminally responsible for their child’s actions.

Keep reading

Kentucky prison officers accused of forcing inmates to drink urine or be tased upon failed drug test

A lawsuit filed on behalf of seven inmates at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex claims they were forced to either drink their own urine or be tased after failing a drug test while in custody.

And Department of Corrections spokeswoman Lisa Lamb acknowledged in a statement that some employees have been fired and disciplined in other ways.

“This incident was thoroughly investigated and multiple disciplinary actions were taken including employee terminations,” she said. “As of now, the Department of Corrections has not been served with the lawsuit and cannot provide further comment.”

She would not discuss details of the disciplinary action or terminations, including the results of the investigation. 

WDRB News has requested the investigation and disciplinary action taken through the Kentucky open records law. 

In a June 6th memo to Randy White, deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, an investigator said the findings substantiated that staffers were tasing inmates who failed drug test. 

“This determination is based on the preponderance of evidence,” according to an investigative memo obtained by WDRB. “This evidence includes video footage, staff and inmate witness statements , electronic Taser evidence log … and inconsistencies in suspect interviews.” 

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court’s Eastern District in Ashland, claims four correctional officers told the inmates who failed drug tests “they would be able to ‘throw away’ their urine sample if they chose to be subjected to electrocution by taser or to drink their own urine.”

However, the suit also claims the seven inmates were “forced” to either be tased or drink their urine.

Keep reading

Warden is ousted as FBI raids California women’s prison known as the ‘rape club’

FBI agents raided a federal women’s prison in California this week so plagued by sexual abuse that it was known among inmates and workers as the “rape club.”

The action coincided with the ouster of the new warden from the federal correctional institution in Dublin. Warden Art Dulgov — just a few months into his tenure — and three other top managers were removed from their positions Monday by the federal Bureau of Prisons. Dulgov was the third new leader of the low-security prison since Warden Ray T. Garcia, who, along with more than half a dozen employees, was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple women serving time there.

Dulgov and staff are accused of retaliating against an inmate who testified in January in a class-action lawsuit that alleges “horrific abuse and exploitation” at the prison, with rampant sexual assault of incarcerated persons, according to a court filing.

The developments are the latest twist in a years-long scandal surrounding the facility. Since an FBI investigation was launched and resulted in arrests in 2021, eight FCI Dublin employees have been charged with sexually abusing inmates. Five have pleaded guilty, and two have been convicted by juries. Another employee is slated to go on trial this year.

Last year, Garcia was sentenced to 70 months in prison for sexually abusing incarcerated women and lying to the FBI as part of a cover-up.

Keep reading

As White House Hosts Marijuana Pardon Recipients, It’s Time For Bolder Action From Biden

As President Biden listed off his first-term accomplishments during his State of the Union address, Richeda Ashmeade sat studying for midterms in her last year of law school. Listening to the president tout his executive actions on cannabis, she was acutely aware of those whom his reforms have left behind. Despite all the rhetoric and applause breaks, her father, Ricardo Ashmeade, is still serving a 22-year sentence and is one of the thousands of people still in federal prison for cannabis.

The specific actions Biden highlighted during his address were related to his October 2022 proclamation, in which he pardoned all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession, a move that was expanded on late last year to bring relief to an estimated 13,000 Americans. His executive action also initiated a review process that could result in cannabis being reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act at the federal level and moved out of Schedule I, the most dangerous drug classification. Yet neither of these actions would affect those who have suffered the most devastating consequences of prohibition, families like the Ashmeades.

Biden’s actions are being hailed as historic, but in reality, they represent peripheral changes that signal the reevaluation of cannabis but not the release of cannabis prisoners or relief for those who continue to be burdened by the lasting consequences of the carceral system. In short, these announcements represent progress but not justice. But that hasn’t stopped the administration from leveraging these actions with voters.

On Friday, Vice President Harris gathered several of the cannabis pardon recipients, along with rapper Fat Joe, for a public discussion about criminal justice reform at the White House. Clearly, the administration sees the political power of undoing the harms caused by the criminalization of cannabis—a sentiment that is backed up by polling data that shows the vast majority of Americans feel cannabis should no longer be criminalized.

Of course, the timing and context here matter, with these moves coming as the highly contentious presidential race ramps up. When he made his remarks, Biden became the first president in over 35 years to mention marijuana during a State of the Union address. The last president to mention cannabis during the address was Reagan, who listed marijuana among the prime enemies of the people and as a reason for the necessity of the war on drugs.

Keep reading

Trudeau Demands Life In Prison For Speech Crimes

To protect children from sexual exploitation, Canada must pass the Online Harms Act, says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. “I am the parent of two young boys,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani. “I will do whatever I can to ensure their digital world is as safe as the neighborhood we live in. Children are vulnerable online. They need to be protected from online sexual exploitation, hate, and cyberbullying.”

But Virani’s bill is totally unnecessary to protect children. Its real goal is to allow judges to sentence adults to prison for life for things they’ve said and for up to a year for crimes they haven’t committed but that the government fears they might commit in the future.

As such, Trudeau and Virani’s Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) is the most shocking of all the totalitarian, illiberal, and anti-Enlightenment pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the Western world in decades.

The Liberal government’s censorship legislation, when considered in the context of Trudeau’s sweeping abuse of governmental powers during and after the Covid pandemic and new subsidies for government propaganda, sets a new watermark in rising totalitarianism in Western societies.

In an unusually long statement in response to a series of questions asked by Public, the Trudeau government’s “Canadian Heritage” department, which regulates the media, tried to ease our concerns.  “Bill C-63 is meant to bolster the rights of Canadians to express their thoughts and opinions,” said the anonymous official, “by creating a safer and more inclusive online space.”

But the government spokesperson went on to confirm the shocking truth about the legislation, which is that it would put people in prison for life for things they’ve said, specifically, “advocating genocide.”

“Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalty specifically for advocating genocide from 5 years to life imprisonment,” said an unnamed spokesperson for the Canadian government, “and from 2 years to 5 years, on indictment, for the willful promotion of hatred (section 319 of the Criminal Code)” [emphasis added]

This means someone who writes something that a government official decides is “advocating genocide” will face a longer maximum sentence than someone who rapes a child.

And what might count as “advocating genocide”? Today, there are prominent politicians around the world who say that supporters of Israel are advocating the genocide of the Palestinian people and that supporters of Hamas are advocating genocide against Jewish people. Imagine if they were in power. Under Trudeau’s legislation, would they not be able to send their political enemies to prison for life?

Keep reading

Ear-Piercing Noise Blares Through DC Gulag Torturing Sleep Deprived J6 Political Prisoners For Weeks

An ear-shattering, harrowing sharp noise has been blaring throughout the Washington DC  Correctional Treatment Facility for weeks where January 6 political prisoners are detained.

J6 defendants housed in C3A, the cell block known as the Patriot Pod in the DC gulag where J6ers are segregated from the general population, called The Gateway Pundit urging the American people to demand oversight of the jail from US Marshals and members of Congress.

As TGP has reported, J6ers have been brutalized and tortured for exposing the corruption within the Bureau of Prisons System and the Department of Justice to the media. In February, two political prisoners were ripped from their cells, abducted and transferred to the country’s most hostile anti-Trump correctional facilities and barred from communication for regularly speaking out.

J6 political prisoner Matthew Krol has been living on a pacemaker for nearly two years in the DC jail and has described dying from a heart attack while incarcerated and “coming back” while waiting years for heart surgery. Krol is one of several J6 defendants in the correctional facility in a legal battle with DC jail for medical deprivation.

After enduring more than two weeks of unbearable loud noise, Krol is calling on everyone on the outside for help.

“We have another situation here in C3A. For weeks, now throughout the day and many nights, there [are] sounds of construction going on,” the political prisoner, who is living on a pacemaker, told TGP after 14 days of the madness. “The supervisors say there is no construction at night, yet the noise continues.

“And there have been C/Os that have said there [is] no construction going on in the pod above us. It is 10:23 PM and our current C/O has been in my cell listening twice tonight to the noise. Inmates in the USA are supposed to get 8 1/2 hours of interrupted sleep a day, that does not happen here.”

Keep reading

Judges improperly enhanced sentences of more than 100 Jan 6 rioters, appeals court rules

Judges may have improperly applied federal sentencing guidelines to more than 100 people convicted of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, a federal court ruled Friday. 

A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s argument that convicted rioters merited lengthier prison sentences for interfering in the “administration of justice” when they stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win. 

“[T]he phrase ‘administration of justice’ does not encompass Congress’s role in the electoral certification process,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling. 

“[T]ext, context, and commentary show that ‘administration of justice’ refers to judicial, quasi-judicial, and adjunct investigative proceedings, but does not extend to the unique congressional function of certifying electoral college votes,” she added. 

Keep reading

Unregulated, Exploitative, and on the Rise: Vera Institute’s Report on Electronic Monitoring

Incarceration rates in the United States have long been among the highest in the world, and in response to the systemic flaws and biases unveiled by the renewed scrutiny of the criminal legal system, many advocates have championed new policies aimed at reducing sentences and improving conditions in prisons. Some have touted the use of electronic monitoring (EM) as an alternative fix to ensure that people whose cases have yet to be adjudicated are not physically detained. Unsurprisingly, those most often making these claims are the for-profit firms offering EM technology and the governmental agencies they contract with, and there is little data to back them up. In a new report, the Vera Institute of Justice provides the most detailed data yet showing that these claims don’t match reality, and outlines a number of issues with how EM is administered across the country.

Another Private Sector Wild West

According to interviews and an analysis of policies across hundreds of jurisdictions, the Vera Institute found that the use of EM was an unregulated patchwork across counties, states, and the federal government. As private firms market new products, the level of testing and quality assurance has failed to keep up with the drive to get contracts with local and state law enforcement agencies. Relying on technology produced by such a disordered industry can lead to reincarceration due to faulty equipment, significantly increased surveillance on those being monitored and their household, and onerous requirements for people under EM than when dealing with probation or parole officers.

Even the question of jurisdictional authority is a mess. The Vera Institute explains that agencies frequently rely on private firms that further subcontract out the hardware or software, and individuals in rural areas can create profitable businesses for themselves that only serve as a middleman between the criminal justice system and the hardware and software vendors. The Vera Institute suggests that this can lead to corruption, including the extortion by these small subcontractors of people held on EM, often with no oversight or public sector transparency. That presents a problem to the data collection, public records requests, and other investigative work that policymakers, advocates, and journalists rely on to find the truth and inform policy.

Further, the costs of EM are frequently passed on to the people forced to use it, sometimes regardless of if they have the means to pay, whether the EM is an obstacle to their employment, or whether they are under monitoring pre-trial (where presumption of innocence should apply) or post-sentencing (after a guilty verdict). And these costs don’t necessarily buy them greater “liberty,” as many forms of hardware or app-based software increased around-the-clock surveillance at the hands of private firms, once again with little to no oversight or ability to access data through public records requests.

Keep reading