|
Wright v. McCann58
dealt with the practice in the New York State prison system that permitted
indefinite detention in conditions of solitary confinement. The court
concluded that this allowed
the Sword of Damocles to hang for considerable periods
of time and unquestionably must cause mental aggravation and unrest in
a prisoner's mind solely because of indefiniteness ...Deputy Warden Delong,
who has apparently peremptorily imposed a great number of segregation
confinement sentences, mostly indefinite, testified in his deposition
...if the prisoner in segregation did not come around to the unwritten
criteria he wanted, such criteria being subjective and derived from custom,
he had the discretion under certain circumstances to keep a prisoner in
segregation during his whole term.59
Although Spain v. Procunier60 was
decided after judgment was rendered in the McCann
case, the decision of District Judge Zirpoli is of special interest because
the prisoners in that case had criminal and penitentiary records similar
to those of some of the McCann plaintiffs;
in addition, they were confined under a similar regime and for reasons
that corresponded with the rationales for confinement of several of the
McCann plaintiffs.61 The prisoners in Spain
v. Procunier had been jointly indicted on three counts of murder
of correctional officers and two counts of murder of other prisoners.
They had been also indicted on several separate counts of aggravated assault
on three other officers. The prisoners had been confined in maximum-security
segregation on the first and most restricted tier of San Quentin's Adjustment
Center since August 1971.62 At the time of trial, they had spent in excess
of four years in segregation. The prison authorities cited the prisoners'
pending trial on murder and assault indictments as the primary justification
for their continuous confinement in segregation.
Like SCU, the Adjustment Center 'is the newest ...of San Quentin's antiquated
housing facilities'; but according to Judge Zirpoli, 'it nevertheless
has become a "hole" for isolated segregation because of the
prolonged and restrictive housing conditions and dehumanizing restraints
placed upon those who are housed there.'63
The court described cell conditions in the Adjustment Center at San Quentin.
Like those in SCU, the concrete cells contained no furnishings other than
a sleeping platform, a sink, and a toilet. Unlike the SCU cell, the San
Quentin cell had a barred rather than a solid door, was equipped with
a light that could be controlled by the prisoner and with a sink that
provided both hot and cold water. The regimes in both institutions were
similar. Prisoners were not permitted to work or to engage in recreational
activities, and all visits took place behind screens. During visits, prisoners
were at all times required to wear special white coveralls and were restrained
by hand manacles, waist belts, leg- irons, and neck chains. They were
strip-searched before and after such visits. With the exception of the
neck chains, these were the prevailing practices for visits in SCU. Prisoners
in the Adjustment Center were confined to their cells twenty-four hours
a day, except for periods of tier exercise (in the corridor), one prisoner
at a time, one hour per day, five days a week. However, the court found
that in practice the exercise time actually worked out to less than five
days a week and often to less than one hour per period. Prisoners were
never permitted yard or outdoor privileges or exercise. In addition to
the regular cells, the Adjustment Center had a series of 'management cells,'
each of which had a small anteroom with a solid steel door. These cells
were used for disciplinary purposes.64
Judge Zirpoli, on the basis of the extensive evidence heard from the
prisoners, former guards, and expert witnesses, held:
The continued segregated confinement of plaintiffs
to the first tier of the Adjustment Center not only militates against
reform and rehabilitation of plaintiffs, but is so counterproductive that
it instills in them a deeper hatred for and alienation from the society
that initially justly put them there. Plaintiffs live in an atmosphere
of fear and apprehension and are confined under degrading conditions without
affirmative programs of training or rehabilitation and without possible
rewards or incentives from the State which will give them a semblance
of hope for their transfer out of the Adjustment Center. The Court comes
to the conclusion that the continuous segregation of plaintiffs 24 hours
a day, except for meager out-of-cell movements and tier exercise; the
denial to plaintiffs of fresh air and regular outdoor exercise and recreation;
the unwarranted and cruel use of tear gas to remove plaintiffs from their
cells with its consequent dangers of injuries to plaintiffs or occupants
of nearby cells; and the abhorrent and shocking use of excessive restraints,
the combined form of hand manacles, waist belt, leg chains and neck chains
for all of plaintiffs' out-of-prison movements, constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment.65
Judge Zirpoli also found that the prison authorities' 'vague assertions
that plaintiffs are revolutionary, disruptive, destructive, militant,
aggressive or violent and their specifically asserted primary claim that
plaintiffs must be held in the Adjustment Center until the termination
of the ...trial (on charges as to which they are presumed to be innocent)
fail to constitute a rational security related justification for the continued
confinement of the plaintiffs in the Adjustment Center.'66
Page 6 of 6
|
