Prison guards stand by watching while inmate beats another inmate into a coma - Polidicks

[quote]BOISE, Idaho – The surveillance video from the overhead cameras shows Hanni Elabed being beaten by a fellow inmate in an Idaho prison, managing to bang on a prison guard station window, pleading for help. Behind the glass, correctional officers look on, but no one intervenes when Elabed is knocked unconscious. No one steps into the cellblock when the attacker sits down to rest, and no one stops him when he resumes the beating. Videos of the attack obtained by The Associated Press show officers watching the beating for several minutes. The footage is a key piece of evidence for critics who claim the privately run Idaho Correctional Center uses inmate-on-inmate violence to force prisoners to snitch on their cellmates or risk being moved to extremely violent units. On Tuesday, hours after the AP published the video, the top federal prosecutor in Idaho told the AP that the FBI has been investigating whether guards violated the civil rights of inmates at the prison, which is run by the Corrections Corporation of America. The investigation concerns the prison's rate of violence and covers multiple assaults between inmates, including the attack on Elabed, U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson said. CCA spokesman Steve Owen said the company is cooperating with federal agents, as it has with other law enforcement overseeing the prisons. Lawsuits from inmates contend the company denies prisoners medical treatment as a way of covering up the assaults. They have dubbed the Idaho lockup "gladiator school" because it is so violent. The AP initially sought a copy of the videos from state court, but Idaho 4th District Judge Patrick Owen denied that request. The AP had already obtained a copy and decided to publish the videos after a person familiar with the case verified their authenticity. The videos show at least three guards watching as Elabed was stomped on a dozen times. At no time during the recorded sequence did anyone try to pull away James Haver, a short, slight man. About two minutes after Haver stopped the beating of his own accord, the metal cellblock door was unlocked. Haver was handcuffed and Elabed was examined for signs of life. He bled inside his skull and would spend three days in a coma. CCA, the nation's largest private prison company, said it was "highly disappointed and deeply concerned" over AP's decision to release the videos. "Public release of the video poses an unnecessary security risk to our staff, the inmates entrusted to our care, and ultimately to the public," the prison company said in a statement. Violence behind bars and misconduct by guards is common, regardless of whether prisons are run by the government or private companies. CCA, which oversees some 75,000 inmates in more than 60 facilities under contracts with the federal government, 19 states and the District of Columbia, is no exception. A year ago, CCA and another company, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit in which the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission claimed male officers at a prison in Colorado forced female workers to perform sex acts to keep their jobs. In January, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered some 400 female inmates transferred to a state-run prison after more than a dozen reports of sexual misconduct by male guards employed by CCA. Similar accusations were made in March at a CCA-run prison in Hawaii, and in May, agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed CCA on probation and launched an investigation of whether a guard at a central Texas detention facility sexually assaulted women on their way to being deported. Olson said the investigation is focused solely on the Idaho prison and not any of the other prisons operated by CCA. Before the Idaho attack, Elabed tried to get help from prison staffers, telling them that he had been threatened and giving them details about drug trafficking between inmates and staffers that he had witnessed, according to his lawsuit. He was put in solitary confinement for his protection but was later returned to the same unit with the inmates he snitched on, his lawsuit said. He was on the cellblock only six minutes before he was attacked. Steven Pevar, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 34 years of suing more than 100 prisons and jails, the Idaho lockup is the most violent he has seen. "This isn't even what we know of as a prison — this is a gulag," Pevar said. Pevar blames the violence on CCA and the former warden, Phillip Valdez, who was head of the prison when Elabed was attacked. Valdez was later transferred to another CCA prison in Kansas. The company refused to disclose its reason for moving him. CCA officials maintain the prison is safe and run according to state and federal standards. But at least some of those standards appear to be violated in the video — including a requirement that emergency care arrive within four minutes of a disturbance. It took medical workers nearly six minutes to get to Elabed — a delay that can be life-threatening in serious injuries, according to state prisons officials. "Nurses and medical professionals believe you need to get a heart beating and breathing started within four minutes or the person's going to die," Idaho Department of Correction spokesman Jeff Ray said. CCA spokesman Owen said employees receive training and supervision designed to protect both themselves and the inmates. "As Mr. Haver's wanton attack illustrates, correctional and medical personnel must often respond to render aid in dangerous situations, not knowing the extent of the risk they may face when they do," Owen said. Owen also condemned the attack and said the surveillance videos were key to Haver's guilty plea in the beating. CCA was unable to answer additional questions surrounding the circumstances of the attack due to pending litigation, he said. Elabed's family learned through medical records that CCA officials pulled him out of the hospital before he could get significant treatment and against his doctor's advice, in order to treat him at the cheaper in-prison facility, the family said. Elabed, who was originally sentenced to two to 12 years for robbery, was ultimately released on a medical parole because he was too badly injured to be cared for in prison. A slew of federal lawsuits detail beatings behind prison walls and long waits for medical care at CCA-run prisons in Idaho. Inmate Todd Butters said in his lawsuit he was denied X-rays after he was severely beaten by gang members on his cellblock for refusing to pay $5 a week in "rent." The Idaho Supreme Court threw out the case after finding Butters didn't take the necessary steps to try to solve the problem with prison officials before suing. In another attack, inmate Daniel Dixon said he was denied X-rays and a doctor's visit after he claimed other inmates beat him until he had broken ribs and facial bones and other injuries. State officials have long been aware of allegations of mistreatment and poor management at the Idaho Correctional Center, the state's largest prison. A review of hundreds of public records by AP found in 2008 that ICC had a violence rate three times as high as other Idaho prisons. The AP found in a follow-up investigation that ICC had only marginally improved its violence rate and that inspectors were still finding rampant gang violence and extortion. State auditors have also found widespread problems keeping medical charts updated, excessive wait times for medical care and other problems with treatment. Even though Idaho Department of Correction officials have increased oversight and top department leaders have spoken out about their concern over the medical issues, state lawmakers have renewed the company's multimillion-dollar contract with Nashville, Tenn.-based CCA and added 600 beds to the prison. Idaho Department of Correction Director Brent Reinke said in a statement that he couldn't talk about the video because of pending litigation, but said the eight state-run prisons his agency operates are among the safest and most efficient in the country. Reinke also said his department began beefing up oversight at the private prison three years ago. "The Board of Correction acknowledges that when you put a group of people who have a history of criminal behavior together in one place, it is likely you will have problems. But that doesn't mean we should tolerate them," Reinke wrote. Today, the 24-year-old Elabed isn't able to talk much about the assault. He has brain damage and persistent short-term memory loss. "It's almost like Hanni's autistic after this. I feel like I'm talking to someone who's 12 or 13 years old," said his brother, Zahe Elabed. Elabed's attorney, Ben Schwartzman, said the footage is tough to forget. "Guard intervention was appropriate and could have happened in a way that would not have put the guards in danger of their personal safety," Schwartzman said. "They were spectators ... and that seems to indicate a level of callousness that I find shocking. It's an embarrassment to the institution and to the individuals." [/quote] Source: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_re_us/us_prison_violence_video[/url] The prison system in the US is a disgusting joke, and this just further reinforces that. The fact that the company that runs these prisons (yay private prisons, what a great idea) chastised the [I]AP[/I] rather than firing the guards immediately is disturbing on an almost unbelievable level.

Is this really an indication of the entire US prison system, or merely this privately-run system? I'd imagine a private system would generally be more susceptible to abuse than a non-private one.

Whatever he did, he probably deserves worse. [img_thumb]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/074/3/2/Mass_Effect_2_Shepard_up_close_by_BlackSheep64.png[/img_thumb]

The fact that CCA is a legal public corporation sickens me. I mean, who goes out and thinks "Huh, I wonder how easy it'd be to make a profit running a prison"

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542363]Is this really an indication of the entire US prison system, or merely this privately-run system? I'd imagine a private system would generally be more susceptible to abuse than a non-private one.[/QUOTE] The entire system, private or federal, is incredibly fucked but yes private is far worse. The fact that private prisons even exist, though, is an indictment of the system itself.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542376]The entire system, private or federal, is incredibly fucked but yes private is far worse. The fact that private prisons even exist, though, is an indictment of the system itself.[/QUOTE] It does seem odd, the concept of private prisons. How lucrative would running a prison be anyway - surely the US hasn't degenerated so far that human imprisonment is a brilliant money-maker? E: Reminds me of a dystopian situation, for some reason.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542382]It does seem odd, the concept of private prisons. How lucrative would running a prison be anyway - surely the US hasn't degenerated so far that human imprisonment is a brilliant money-maker? E: Reminds me of a dystopian situation, for some reason.[/QUOTE] Why not? Wherever there is money to be made, there will always be a business to make money, regardless of the potential ethical implications.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542382]It does seem odd, the concept of private prisons. How lucrative would running a prison be anyway - surely the US hasn't degenerated so far that human imprisonment is a brilliant money-maker?[/QUOTE] Very lucrative, or so i've heard. The more prisoners they have, the more money they make, somewhat similar to schools, and it's viewed favorably by the state because it saves funds on managing a state run prison.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542394]Very lucrative, or so i've heard. The more prisoners they have, the more money they make, somewhat similar to schools, and it's viewed favorably by the state because it saves funds on managing a state run prison.[/QUOTE] win win situation!

[QUOTE=FHamster;26542415]win win situation![/QUOTE] Cept for the whole abuse of human rights and corruptness and lack of accountability :v:

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542420]Cept for the whole abuse of human rights and corruptness and lack of accountability :v:[/QUOTE] Pfft I stopped caring for those people when they decided to become criminals.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542394]Very lucrative, or so i've heard. The more prisoners they have, the more money they make, somewhat similar to schools, and it's viewed favorably by the state because it saves funds on managing a state run prison.[/QUOTE] Well yes, it would receive its funding from the government (probably not from the clients!). But, would it be enough to offset the costs of running a prison and STILL make a profit? I suppose more importantly, how crowded is the US public prison system, and how common are private prisons?

[QUOTE=FHamster;26542442]Pfft I stopped caring for those people when they decided to become criminals.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's funny, those silly little things called rights still exist. Well, ideally. [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542447]Well yes, it would receive its funding from the government (probably not from the clients!). But, would it be enough to offset the costs of running a prison and STILL make a profit? I suppose more importantly, [B]how crowded is the US public prison system[/B], and how common are private prisons?[/QUOTE] To an astonishing degree, with have exponentially more people in our prison system than any other in the world. And I'm not sure how common private prisons are, I could go look up some stats. [url]http://reidscones.com/prison/[/url] Here's some general information on the status of our prison systems, it's compiled from an SA megathread about it. Tons of interesting/disturbing info in there.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542450] To an astonishing degree, with have exponentially more people in our prison system than any other in the world. And I'm not sure how common private prisons are, I could go look up some stats. [url]http://reidscones.com/prison/[/url] Here's some general information on the status of our prison systems, it's compiled from an SA megathread about it. Tons of interesting/disturbing info in there.[/QUOTE] What do you suggest we do about it?

[QUOTE=FHamster;26542468]What do you suggest we do about it?[/QUOTE] Reform our drug laws, for one, petty drug crimes send a ton of people to prison. Pretty much try and reform to clear out as many non-serious/violent offenders as we can, then try and build up more oversight and accountability in the prison system to try and maintain some level of acceptable treatment, rather than the jungle we have now.

You still have human rights in prison, regardless of what institution it is. Privatized prisons work like this: The prison is run by a security company or other private firm, that spends the least amount of money making their facilities; meaning that the construction and materials used in the prison are the most basic of any, they also work as a way for states to fix overpopulation in their prisons. So for example: Prisoners in Colorado will be transferred to Alaska because it is cheaper to house them there, and I think Michigan prisoners get transferred to Nebraska also because it is cheaper. Privatized prisons are there to make money, nothing else.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542477]Reform our drug laws, for one, petty drug crimes send a ton of people to prison. Pretty much try and reform to clear out as many non-serious/violent offenders as we can, then try and build up more oversight and accountability in the prison system to try and maintain some level of acceptable treatment, rather than the jungle we have now.[/QUOTE] Won't work. If politicians push for prison reform and try to get less violent offenders out of prison. When shit goes down, and previously convicted people are involved, they'll lose popularity fast.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542477]Reform our drug laws, for one, petty drug crimes send a ton of people to prison. Pretty much try and reform to clear out as many non-serious/violent offenders as we can, then try and build up more oversight and accountability in the prison system to try and maintain some level of acceptable treatment, rather than the jungle we have now.[/QUOTE] This would ideally be done not just in regards to justice and incarceration departments, but social welfare as a whole. It would be better if there were more unskilled jobs available, for example, for those who have left prison in order to break through institutionalisation and become a productive member of society. However, these jobs would hopefully provide people with an alternative to committing crime in the first place! That's just an idea.

[QUOTE=FHamster;26542496]Won't work. If politicians push for prison reform and try to get less violent offenders out of prison. When shit goes down, and previously convicted people are involved, they'll lose popularity fast.[/QUOTE] I have no idea what you just said/meant. Shit going down with non-violent previous offenders? What shit?

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542508]I have no idea what you just said/meant. Shit going down with non-violent previous offenders? What shit?[/QUOTE] Violent crimes that will happen.

Wow, they sit by and let people get abused, to the point of this man going into a coma, forced women to perform sexual acts to keep their jobs, sexually assaulted women being deported. Off to the gallows with the fuckers.

[QUOTE=FHamster;26542525]Violent crimes that will happen.[/QUOTE] ...what? Why do you think so me random guy busted for smoking pot's gonna go onto commit a violent crime? Sure there are some people that commit petty crimes and commit bigger ones later, but we should arrest them when they stab a guy, not when they smoke a joint.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542508]I have no idea what you just said/meant. Shit going down with non-violent previous offenders? What shit?[/QUOTE] I think FHamster means that if you're going to be trying to get low-level offenders out of prison, the most stringent efforts must be applied to make sure they don't reoffend - otherwise, when a spate of crimes is committed by a number of previous offenders who've been expelled from prisons based on your ideal, shit'll go down.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542544]...what? Why do you think so me random guy busted for smoking pot's gonna go onto commit a violent crime? Sure there are some people that commit petty crimes and commit bigger ones later, but we should arrest them when they stab a guy, not when they smoke a joint.[/QUOTE] Because a certain percentage of the population will commit violent crimes, and its not too much to assume that of that group, some will be people previously convicted of lesser crimes. This will cause backlash against any prison reform advocates.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542557]I think FHamster means that if you're going to be trying to get low-level offenders out of prison, the most stringent efforts must be applied to make sure they don't reoffend - otherwise, when a spate of crimes is committed by a number of previous offenders who've been expelled from prisons based on your ideal, shit'll go down.[/QUOTE] Ah, ok then. Yes, a screening process would be good for existing petty crime prisoners, of course. Ideally a more overarching reform of the drug system would help prevent this as well, because if something like pot were legal, there would be less of an additional criminal aspect attached to it that would abet more serious crimes. [QUOTE=FHamster;26542565]Because a certain percentage of the population will commit violent crimes, and its not too much to assume that of that group, some will be people previously convicted of lesser crimes. This will cause backlash against any prison reform advocates.[/QUOTE] I get your point now, and it's valid, but would ideally be taken into accord as well. A certain portion would move onto bigger crimes, yes, and there should be effort to reform the structure of the prison system as well, lessen non-violent offender imprisonments and try and make it focus more on rehabilitation and prevention of future crimes than just a punishment system. I say ideally and should be because I know this is way pie in the sky thinking, but it's still worth thinking about

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542583]Ah, ok then. Yes, a screening process would be good for existing petty crime prisoners, of course. Ideally a more overarching reform of the drug system would help prevent this as well, because if something like pot were legal, there would be less of an additional criminal aspect attached to it that would abet more serious crimes.[/QUOTE] In regards to drugs becoming more legal, while I understand the point you're making, I don't think practically that it'll reduce crime rates. For one consideration, look at people who commit crimes under the influence of drugs. It's not the legality of the drugs that makes them commit crimes, it's the drugs themselves - or it's something else all together, which thus won't be impacted at all by the legalization of drugs. How do you think drug legalisation would help?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26542608]In regards to drugs becoming more legal, while I understand the point you're making, I don't think practically that it'll reduce crime rates. For one consideration, look at people who commit crimes under the influence of drugs. It's not the legality of the drugs that makes them commit crimes, it's the drugs themselves - or it's something else all together, which thus won't be impacted at all by the legalization of drugs. How do you think drug legalisation would help?[/QUOTE] I think that's not a significant portion of the drug offenses, and is actually a little tied into the illegality of drugs. If you're majorly hooked, and need the money to get another fix but don't have it, you're already doing illegal things so why not rob someone? It's a bit of a stretch yea, and it is a problem not helped a large amount by legalization, but it's not the main focus. If we take the control of drugs out of the cartel and street dealer's hands, we eliminate an entire enterprise focused on illegal activities. Because of the illegality, many other illegal actions usually go with the procurement and distribution of these drugs. If there aren't DEA agents seizing your shipment, then you won't have to fight off or avoid DEA agents, and work to get your product into the country in underhanded and harmful ways that victimize other people.

hey i have a bright idea let's pay these guys based on how many people they're keeping locked up this is guaranteed to ensure that crime rates go down and the few criminals are properly rehabilitated

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26542635]I think that's not a significant portion of the drug offenses, and is actually a little tied into the illegality of drugs. If you're majorly hooked, and need the money to get another fix but don't have it, you're already doing illegal things so why not rob someone? It's a bit of a stretch yea, and it is a problem not helped a large amount by legalization, but it's not the main focus. If we take the control of drugs out of the cartel and street dealer's hands, we eliminate an entire enterprise focused on illegal activities. Because of the illegality, many other illegal actions usually go with the procurement and distribution of these drugs. If there aren't DEA agents seizing your shipment, then you won't have to fight off or avoid DEA agents, and work to get your product into the country in underhanded and harmful ways that victimize other people.[/QUOTE] That thought on the causes of further crime did occur to me, but I don't think that's really a major factor - it seems unlikely that desperate junkies would be more inclined to turn to honest labor to fuel their habits rather than B and E if their drug was legalised. Rather, someone with a major habit will probably rob and steal simply because that's a quicker, easier way of sating their addiction - a concept which won't be affected by the legalisation of the drug itself. I also understand your logic behind the after-effects of legalising certain drugs, and thus their industries. While what you're proposing is a best-case scenario, and a possible scenario, I think that realistically, legalising drug industries won't put a major dent into curbing the crimes associated with it. For argument's sake, lets assume that at present, creation and supply of illegal drugs comes through criminal gangs. I take it that what you propose is that if the trade was legalised, the gangs would be forced out by more legitimate competitors, thus severing a huge financial supply, and ultimately breaking or severely weakening the gangs. This is a possible scenario. But, I don't think it is a likely one, given there are so many other factors. If the drugs were legalised, how would the gangs be forced out? They would already have the infrastructure (supply, etc.) needed to continue their business, and infrastructure which they could maintain through more criminal activity (threats, etc.). Thus, they'd, at the very least, remain in a position to continue selling and profiting from drugs. But, wouldn't they lose all their business to bigger, legitimate suppliers? I don't think so. Foremostly, if drug production and sale was legalised, you can assume that there would need to be very strict regulation - after all, poorly made drugs can be lethal, and such. Thus, legitimate manufacturers would need to take additional expenses and precautions to ensure their products meet government standard, and would have their price for drug A set at X dollars. But, criminal organisations, already heavily entrenched in the drug trade, would be able to sell their drugs for less than X, and thus continue to make a huge profit. Why? Because they can cut corners on user safety and quality control, because they're criminals. That's how it currently works. Would people buy these? They already do. Would the gangs get away with this? Once again, they already do. For these reasons, I don't think legalising drugs is the answer. I can see how it may lower crime, but I don't think it'll work as well as people think.