Slashing

[Jimd]

For those concerned about the inmates' rights, fret not - we're not even allowed to use foul language toward them.

Chemical restraints? Oh my heavens, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not allowed!

Physical restraints? Well, grudgingly it's permitted in some cases, but not for long.

You see, the inmate, no matter what his history or what he's done, has far more rights than we do. It doesn't matter how many people he's slashed, thrown urine/feces on, spit on, stabbed, bitten, kicked, punched...he still must be treated with complete respect and all his rights observed.

You see, these people who rampantly try to kill us, and who often seriously injure us have the right to do so whenever they feel the need to.
So please, fret not...their rights to harm us are being preserved.

Several years ago, when I was working the RHU, one of our inmates got loose and attacked several of us. I was quick enough and managed to duck several of his punches. But another CO was not so fortunate - he lost two teeth and it took 56 stitches to close the laceration in his mouth. He still has a large scar to this day.

What did the inmate get as a result? Well, he was permitted to plea bargain the charges down and so he got six months probation. We sure showed him, didn't we! Bet he won't assault another corrections worker again - not with tough sanctions like that!

Then there was the day my buddy and fellow CO, Danny, walked through the door on the cell block that I was guarding. He was going back to help supervise the afternoon meal for the inmates. On the way, a few minutes after I saw him, an inmate ambushed him, stabbing him several times in the head and neck, then running him headfirst into a steel door jamb. When they brought Danny back through my door, he was missing several teeth and had blood pouring from his mouth, eyes, nose, and ears. We didn't think he'd live. The medevacked him to the trauma center by helicopter. He lived, but has migraines to this day and is unable to work even after these years. It took a couple hundred stitches to close his wounds.

I've been assaulted a few dozen times. My arm has been broken once. I have a spinal injury in my neck that pains me to this day. A few back injuries. My knees are screwed up and it's painful to walk up and down stairs. What happened to the inmates who did all of this to me? Just about nothing. Very little in the way of legal ramifications.

So do not worry; the rights of the inmates are always observed. Our administration sees to that. If they feel one of us needs to be injured or killed, there's not much stopping them and they're free to do so. We're still here for them to beat on when they see fit.

Hell. If it takes me dying to keep one of them happy at having someone around to kill, then I guess it was all worth it. After all, we are public servants.

I must have missed the part, though, in the job description where it says part of our job is to be stabbed, slashed, beaten, kicked, punched, bitten, splashed with bodily fluids, etc.. Yep. Must have missed that.

[2edgesword]

JimD

After reading your story there seems to me to be VERY SERIOUS management issues at a facility that would allow these types of situations to continue unchecked. I realize a career in corrections has some inherent dangers (three of my family members are retired NYCDOC officers) but giving a violent offender repeated opportunities to commit other attacks against staff is reckless irresponsibility. Where is the union in all of this?

[MCM]

I look at it as a free work force.
Make factories out of prisons.
Then we could compete with China and their products.

Food for thought.

[Donut]

JimD, I hope you are fortunate enough to stay safe.

[2cha]

Originally Posted by 2edgesword

JimD

After reading your story there seems to me to be VERY SERIOUS management issues at a facility that would allow these types of situations to continue unchecked. I realize a career in corrections has some inherent dangers (three of my family members are retired NYCDOC officers) but giving a violent offender repeated opportunities to commit other attacks against staff is reckless irresponsibility. Where is the union in all of this?

There are incredibly enormous problems at every single detention facility in the US. All prisons are unsafely overcrowded and understaffed. Roughly half of the overall prison population in the US at any given moment are in for
"violent" offenses including burglary or robbery, even if no weapon were used. So long as people continue to clamor for harsh sentencing, but aren't willing to pay for it, officers like Jimd, and the half prison population that are not violent, will continue to be at risk from the people that are violent.

[dsmegst]

Normal prisoners are bad enough but the crazies are the ones I worry about. My wife has to visit the mental wards as part of her work and I worry about those days the most. I know the security staff looks over her but you can't predict anything with these people.

[The Deacon]

Originally Posted by 2cha

First, easy to say "those individuals," but what if that "them" is someone close to you?

The way I read tac's post "those individuals" he was referring to were not the everyone who is mentally ill, but rather the relatively small percentage of mentally ill people who commit serious violent crimes, or else they became mentally ill after committing a violent crime.

Originally Posted by 2cha

I have two sons who have a greatly increased genetic risk of mental illness, so "those individuals" you refer to could be my kids someday. Plus, about 1% of the population in general has schizophrenia--so chances are that someone you know has a family member who is seriously ill. Flippantly suggesting chemical restraint when you have little or no experience with the disease is pretty insensitive to put it as mildly as I can.

Chemical restraint (medication), like any other tool available for behavioral control in an institutional setting, can be used correctly or incorrectly, humanely. incompetently, or sadistically. From what I've been told, when used correctly it's the most humane form of restraint.

Sorry if this seems harsh but suppose one of the children you chose to have, despite the risks, becomes part of the small percentage of schizophrenics who cross that line. That he comes to believe he has been instructed by God, speaking through his neighbor's canary, to kill letter carriers and successfully follows those instructions several times before being caught. That, since being hospitalized, "Son of Tweety" has made repeated attempts at self mutilation with varying degrees of success, assaulted staff, and attacked fellow patients who happened to say certain "trigger" words. Given that scenario, which would you find preferable, having him chemically restrained, or getting a phone call saying he'd scooped out one of his eyes with a spoon or permanently disabled a recreation therapist?

Originally Posted by 2cha

Second, the people in the MH units, unlike many people in prison, quite simply don't have the same capacity for choice as the rest of us. While I'm truly sorry the officer was injured, it's simply not the same thing as an assault in the general population.

How can you be so sure they all lack that choice? Are you 100% certain, for example, that a sociopath lacks the capacity for choice, or is it that he simply does not care if other people get hurt as long as hurting them advances his agenda. There are also those inmates who are only feigning mental illness. Yes, that happens in prison, for a number of reasons. The most common reason being to be able to bully the relatively low functioning inmates in the MHU or SNU, but some do it as just another way of "getting over".

Even assuming the inmate belongs there, how would you deal with someone who lacks the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong when he is in possession of a weapon which makes him an immediate danger to himself and others? Allowing him to keep the weapon, once staff is aware of its existence, is not an option.

How would you deal, on a day to day basis, with someone who cannot be reasoned with? Bear in mind that employing a minimum of five well trained people to provide one on one around the clock coverage for each inmate is probably not going to be an acceptable answer. Also bear in mind that, if an inmate successfully commits suicide, the same do-gooder organizations that protected his "rights" so well that one could say they facilitated his demise will jump in, demanding investigations and claiming negligence or worse.

And how is being assaulted by a maniac "not the same thing"? The officer is no less injured than if he'd been attacked by an inmate who was considered to be sane.

Originally Posted by 2cha

Third, while it may be true that the people in the MH unit were found fit for trial, that doesn't mean they weren't sick before their conviction--in all likelihood, they were sick and either hadn't yet manifested their symptoms, weren't so sick that they couldn't stand trial or be convicted, or had poor representation.

At least here in NY, the criteria for trial is the ability to understand the charges against them. People who cannot, and whose behaviors were unacceptable to the point of being criminal, but not dangerous, wind up in civil hospitals. Those who cannot and seriously harmed others wind up in forensic hospitals. As for those who wind up in prison MHU's, that doesn't always mean they are really mentally ill. As I said before, inmates feign illnesses of all kinds, including mental illnesses, for various reasons. Can't comment on the "poor representation" argument, other than to say that even guys who are sane and were caught red handed have been known to claim that was the reason they were incarcerated. I recall one who was upset that he didn't get off on a rape charge because "the little slut had lead him on". His victim was 7 years old, but he was only in jail "because my lawyer screwed up".

Originally Posted by 2cha

The rate of major psychosis among the prison population is about 3x that of psychosis in the general population.

I have no way of confirming or debunking that but let's say that it's true. It would only prove that people with major psychoses are more likely to commit a crime than those without one, which would seem both reasonable and natural, but it's hard to tell. Unlike cancer or a broken leg, there are no objective criteria for determining if a person is psychotic. Given that, the general desire of inmates to "get over", and the fact that prisons and state hospitals don't tend to attract the best and the brightest of doctors, the chances of correct diagnosis are not all that high.

Originally Posted by 2cha

Fourth, imagine having your mind tell you that the world is out to get you, and then finding yourself locked in a cell. Sounds like hell on earth. Try having some compassion.

Yet you would apparently deny them the one thing, medication, which might offer them some relief from that. So, what's the alternative? Do you want them in your home? In your community? Unrestrained? Humanely euthanized? How much is it reasonable to expect society to pay to care for those who are, and always will be, lethally dangerous?

Originally Posted by 2cha

To me, assuming Jimd wasn't be facetious, it sounds like the COs acted appropriately and compassionately even after injury to one of their own. That takes balls and heart. Kudos.

No argument there, that's one point we agree on.

Originally Posted by 2cha

As an aside, I spent 5 years of my life at about 60 hrs. a week working with chronically mentally ill adults and another 6 months with dually diagnosed and/or multi-handicapped youth (I couldn't take it, we did lots of physical restraints) in unlocked facilities. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.

So, you "couldn't take" the use of physical restraints and are offended by the idea of chemical restraint. What does that leave? Harsh language? Kind words? Prayer? What's the cure rate for mental illness these days? Compassion sounds great, but compassion for people who lack the capacity to appreciate it is wasted. I will save mine for their victims.

FWIW, if you worked in a prison and the inmates knew you felt compassion for them, and they were in a position to do so, they'd play you. They've done it to clergy, they'd do it to you, it's who they are and what they do.

[The Deacon]

Originally Posted by *Cho*

I can't speak for New York, or any state for that matter, but in Canada if someone is clinically mentally ill and on a mental health ward/unit they are usually pink slipped. Pink slipped means they have been committed by physicians because two or more doctors have decided this person is no longer able to appreciate reality and have become a danger to oneself or others.

Once a person has been pinked (short hand term) they are no longer competant enough to make their own decisions. That means they no longer have the right to refuse medication or treatments. I would imagine the prisoners in this section of the unit would be under similar conditions.

That being said it is one thing to say they do not have the right to refuse medication and it is another to try make a person take medication they do not want to take, one of the many reasons a lot of antipsychotics come in injectable form.

In Canada, again I would think it is similar in the US, we also have a policy of least restraint. That means people can't jump straight to physical restraints without first exhausting other avenues of treatments, such as chemical restraints. You also can't keep a person constantly restrained as it can cause physical damage to that person. If a person is in full restrains they need to be assessed every two hours for signs of physical trauma.

System here is a bit different. IIRC, what you describe would take, at the least, both physicians certification and a court order. And, as you noted, there would still be the issue of actually medicating them without creating additional opportunities for assault.

Originally Posted by 2cha

There are incredibly enormous problems at every single detention facility in the US. All prisons are unsafely overcrowded and understaffed.

That's a rather broad generalization which, I suspect comes from one of the many "inmate rights" groups. While I'm sure many facilities are overcrowded, I'd offer this memo, written by the head on NYSDOCS just a few months ago, as evidence your claim that they all are overcrowded is incorrect.

Originally Posted by 2cha

Roughly half of the overall prison population in the US at any given moment are in for "violent" offenses including burglary or robbery, even if no weapon were used. So long as people continue to clamor for harsh sentencing, but aren't willing to pay for it, officers like Jimd, and the half prison population that are not violent, will continue to be at risk from the people that are violent.

The fact is, violent attacks on staff occur even in well staffed, facilities with populations below their capacity, simply because the nature of violent people is to be violent. The only choice is whether to put staff's lives at risk by keeping the animals confined, or let them loose which, while putting the public at large's lives at risk, does offer the possibility that some police officer or private citizen will solve the problem once and for all. If, on the other hand, legislation were passed to allow assaults on staff to be dealt with quickly and harshly, then perhaps the number of assaults would decrease dramatically.

[2cha]

Originally Posted by The Deacon

That's a rather broad generalization which, I suspect comes from one of the many "inmate rights" groups.

If, on the other hand, legislation were passed to allow assaults on staff to be dealt with quickly and harshly, then perhaps the number of assaults would decrease dramatically.

I'm willing to admit that I overgeneralized when I said that every single prison is overcrowded, but the point actually comes from documentaries, not slanted toward inmate rights, and my own reading which I'd say comes more from a libertarian or legal economics perspective than anything else. I admit that I do have a soft spot for non-violent people in prison, especially for people convicted for marijuana (no, I don't smoke it, I don't even drink alcohol), who, after all, are serving their debt to society while the people who cause the most harm in the world pay their fines with other peoples' money.

As for legislation--it's on the books, in PA for example, throwing bodily fluids at a CO can be felonious assault. When speaking of violent felons, we're not talking about people who do cost--benefit math the same way a "normal" person might. Gaining status by hurting a CO may be of greater benefit to someone who is going to spend their whole life in prison, than any harm the government could visit on them. Furthermore, the legislation you propose costs money. Since we've decided as a society that even bad people can't be strung to a post and whipped, punishment is restricted to loss of privilege, longer sentence, transfer to a "worse" facility or "wing", or more restrictive confinement. I've already addressed the privilege argument. More restrictive confinement means more jail cells and more COs. The costs for space and supervision are quite literally staggering--one of the many reasons that California is bankrupt is that people today are paying for the stupid decision of yesterday when the voters enacted three strikes. The CA prison employees union is now larger than the teachers union.

I guess the point I really wanted to make is that the more the government gets involved in our day to day lives by trying to hem in and restrict our behavior, the more resources we have to spend on prisons, so that we have less to spend on minimizing risks to the people like Jimd and the other COs here on the forum who watch the people we really don't want on the streets.

[Jimd]

Since we're talking about the kind of people who are in prison, let me share a few nuggets of golden knowledge regarding what "these people" do to get into prison....

Just today, I read an inmate's case summary. The dude and his wife had marital difficulties and seperated. She got a Protection From Abuse (PFA) against him to keep him away.

She took their two children, ages eighteen months and four years old to a motel. He followed. Waited until they were all sleeping. Then entered the room and shot each one of them in the head a couple of times. Killed the wife and both of his sons.

Later he said he didn't regret it at all. Said killing the children was a "Mercy Killing".

I read that shit today and it's now bouncing around inside my head. Tell me, what in the hell do I do with it now? I sure as hell can't tell my wife or kids about it. If there's one thing I cannot handle is the killing of children.

Here's another:
A guy (mentally ill) had differences with his mother. So he killed her. Chopped her body into pieces, threw said pieces into a 55 gallong drum, poured gasoline in and set it ablaze.

As he stood by, watching his mother barbeque, his brother walked up and asked, "Is that Mom in there?!"

Dude replied, "I don't know! I didn't do it!"

Here's another one: A guy killed his teenage son, kep the boy's body in his car trunk, and raped the corpse for two weeks at his leisure until he was caught.

Another one: Dude blew his father's head apart with a shotgun. When the police arrived at the scene, he was eating dad's brains with a spoon.

Another one: An inmate in our MHU ripped his own eye out of the socket(!) and commenced to squishing it between his fingers.

Some more: On no less than two occasions, I have witnessed inmates slice off their own testicles. One guy ran past me on the cell block right after cutting them off, pursued by a herd of officers. I'd been in the prison less than a week. Yeah, welcome aboard, new guy.

I was in the prison less than a month when I was involved in my first major stabbing. The inmate next to me was stabbed by a huge inmate. The knife went past my head into the other inmate's back. About two feet away. Stabbed him four times, the blade length was about ten inches in length. Then he came at me with the knife. I was faster and lived. Had some wonderful flashbacks about that one for years. Pretty much ruined a couple years of my life.

Almost been stabbed/sliced on a couple more occasions over the years. None of those episodes was any fun, as I don't appreciate it when folks try to revoke my birth certificate.

I've seen several people murdered, in person, with knives. It's not like it is in the movies, where people die quickly and quietly, when stabbed. In real life, blood flies everywhere, they're noisy, it stinks, and they're really quite animated.

When you suited up and reported to work starting in 1990 for the first several years I worked there, you were gearing up for war. There was no guarantee you'd be coming out intact or even alive. Every day was a combat situation.

As a result, I'm kind of thrown off a bit these days, so bear with me if I tend to have strong responses on some of these posts.

Guess what - there's NO DAMN DIFFERENCE when you're being attacked in regular population or in the MHU, by a sane person or an insane one. All you know is that you want to live and you'll do anything you need to in order to survive. Period. Crazy or sane, an attack is an attack.

Now I ask: What do you do with people like these? Huh? Make a circle and sing Kum Ba Yah? Pet them? Rub their feet? What?

Sure, they might be nuttier than squirrel shit, but what do you do with them when they try to kill you?

[MountainManJim]

No, no ... Those stories must be plots from b-rated horror flicks. Yikes.

I'm not sure how you can deal with those "people".

Jim

[Jordan]

Unlike cancer or a broken leg, there are no objective criteria for determining if a person is psychotic.

Just to interject, there is a fairly large volume of diagnostic material available to determine whether or not a person is psychotic. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, for one... and an even larger number of tests that can determine various subtypes of pathological psychosis... including but not limited to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I'm certain that there are more... I'm only aware of those because of a brief period during which I was majoring in Psychology in college. I was subjected to both of them as part of an Abnormal Psychology seminar. I concede that they are arguably subjective rather than objective diagnostic tools (they both involve an interview portion with a clinician), but they also apply objective criteria such as background and physiological disorders.

For the record, I showed no sign of any abnormal psychiatric conditions .

Jim, I hope the CO is recovering... you do a job that is unimaginably difficult on so many levels. Without people willing to do what you do the world would be a terrible place... The way I see it, sacrificing what you sacrifice, seeing what you see, and doing what you do without losing your mind makes you a hero. My hat is off to you, stay safe bud!

[VictorLouis]

Originally Posted by Jimd

Chemical restraints? Oh my heavens, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not allowed!

Physical restraints? Well, grudgingly it's permitted in some cases, but not for long.
.

So, I suppose Taser's excellent products are out of the question?! JEEZ!

[Agent Starling]

Originally Posted by Jordan

The way I see it, sacrificing what you sacrifice, seeing what you see, and doing what you do without losing your mind makes you a hero. My hat is off to you, stay safe bud!

Truly...as a result of various experiences I have interacting with youth in a juvenile prison, where you have the violent criminals, the drug abusers, and the child molesters...a stint in the state hospital on one of my rotations, including dealing with the criminally insane population, some of whom had murdered their own parents...and some real-life experiences with schizophrenics and other mentally ill folks...sorry, i am no bleeding heart for any sort of criminal or nutcase on the attack, it is the CO's and medical personnel that I side with. Just the few case histories I had to read in the state hospital violent criminal unit was sickening...I would not ever choose to do this sort of work...I am in an allied health field, and when I was told I was supposed to, as part of my training, sit in a room alone with some of these violent criminals and educate them about various medical matters, with no benefit of training on how to deal with a dangerous situation if it should arise...I was like, I'm the hell outta here...and I got myself a new assignment far, far away from any of this...in a more civilized environment.

...Oh, and in the past, students on rotation also had to interact with the violent sexual offenders...until one day when there was an incident involving a male offender and the female student who had to be alone with him...and so now students aren't assigned there any more...just to the garden-variety violent offenders, as I had been.

And as Deacon says, yes, some violent criminals are known to be faking insanity, in fact in the state hospital they had a name for them, 'malingerers'...

And then there are those who don't take their meds, both the regular crazies and the crazy crazies...they 'cheek' their meds...sneaky...and then spit them out when the coast is clear.

Oh, and those poor, normal schizophrenics and such? The ones who hit their nurses, throw things, or try to jump over the counter into the nurses station while you're trying to do your work, etc...they're often quite bright...and I've seen that intelligence being used to (try to) manipulate their relatives and psychiatrists...very interesting...

I could go on, but I've already said more than enuf.

Agent Starling

P.S. ~ OK, this is not an apology, but I have nothing against schizophrenics per se, ok? My cousin is married to one and she can function pretty well as long as she's on her meds and she is a wonderful person. A good friend's dad is schizophrenic and I have many happy growing-up years memories of all the concerts and things he took us to. So I'm not anti anybody...I'm just pro safety and the people that have to work in these environments.

[Jimd]

Agent Starling, I wish there were people like you in charge of places like the one where I work.