As I write this, I sit at a TRULINCS computer in a federal prison’s housing unit. A set of in-ear JVC earbuds pump out Bush’s “Reasons” hit. This is accomplished through the SanDisk MP3 player that the headphones are connected to. This was not the case when I arrived at the Federal Bureau of Prisons
By Derek Gilna
When a powerful U.S. Senator takes interest in an issue, even a bureaucratic government agency like the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pays attention.
Kurt Wilson, an executive with American Apparel, Inc., an Alabama company that makes military uniforms, and Michael Marsh of Kentucky-based Ashland Sales and Service Co., found that out after they learned that UNICOR, which runs prison industry programs for the BOP, was considering bidding on contracts for business that their companies already had. A public statement from U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, led UNICOR to change its mind.
Like many other initiatives of the federal government, UNICOR, formally known as Federal Prison Industries, Inc., started off as well-intentioned. Prisoners earning from $.23 to $1.15 an hour are trained to work in factories supervised by BOP staff, where in theory they learn job skills that will help them find employment following their release. However, UNICOR has become not only a job training program but a manufacturing behemoth that employs some 12,300 prisoners and made approximately $606 million in gross revenue in fiscal year 2012 – yet still reported a net loss of $28 million. [See: PLN, Nov. 2013, p.52].
With that kind of size, purchasing power and cheap prisoner labor, it is almost impossible for small businesses to compete. Indeed, several companies have lost federal contracts due to competition from UNICOR, resulting in job losses among freeworld workers. [See: PLN, Feb. 2013, p.42]. This has made some business owners nervous – and angry.
I’d like to take a quick moment to thank all of you loyal Prison Law Blog readers who have taken the time to buy a copy of my latest text, the Directory of Federal Prisons. And thank everyone doubly so who has gone the extra mile by posting a review to Amazon. Every review counts,
I’d like to take a quick moment to thank all of you loyal Prison Education News readers who have taken the time to buy a copy of my latest text, the Directory of Federal Prisons. And my double thanks to those who have gone the extra mile by posting a review on Amazon. Every review counts,
American prisons are currently experiencing a shortage of space and an abundance of prisoners; in a word, overcrowding. The United States incarcerates 25 percent of the world’s prisoners despite accounting for only 5 percent of the world’s population. The Federal Bureau of Prisons alone is experiencing overcrowding at a rate of 40 percent in its
By Christopher Zoukis / BlogCritics.org
In the world outside of prison, everyone wants to know what others do, where they work, how much they make, where and in what type of house they live, what they drive, and the answers to many other personal identity questions which help us to quantify and categorize others. These are social signals to those around all of us. They help us to understand how to treat others, how they compare to us, and a plethora of other interpersonal protocols. Not very surprisingly, prison is no different.
The Prison Pecking Order
In prison, unlike life “on the street,” social status is not based upon what a fellow prisoner makes or what they do for a living, but what their crime of conviction is, if the fellow prisoner is an informant or not, the group (or “car”) they associate with, and how they carry themselves. Also unlike the world outside of prison walls, this social status can mean the difference between a life of torment and assault, and a relatively peaceful life, where due respect is proffered by perceived social equals and lesser-thans. As such, it is vital for new arrivals — and others who want to understand the prison experience — to understand how stratification works in a correctional context. Doing so will ensure that they maximize their chances of surviving relatively unscathed.
Crime of Conviction: Social Stigmatization at its Best
The convict stratification equation starts, much like many other components of prison life, in a seemingly backward fashion. When judging a fellow prisoner’s social status, one doesn’t start by thinking of who they are today, but what they did to be locked up in the first place. This is a common starting point for any evaluation because it helps to quickly — and relatively accurately — quantify complete strangers. After all, if a fellow prisoner is, for example, doing time for bank robbery, then it can be assumed that he is a traditional convict, schooled in the criminal lifestyle. On the other hand, if someone is in for wire fraud or embezzlement, then they are probably not considered “good people” — according to the social construction of prison society — and will be categorized as a “citizen,” not a true convict.
The same form of judging occurs with other, less savory crimes, too. Having an unpopular crime of conviction is a quick path to the lower realms of the prison stratification system. Those with a criminal history of sexual assault, possession, distribution, or production of child pornography, rape, molestation, and such are deemed in prison to be the lowest of the low. Those with these types of crimes are almost automatically shunned from Day One, though they can often find a place amongst fellow unsavory types (those many regular prisoners disparagingly call “weirdos”).
The Rat Factor
After this initial evaluation has been figured, the next question — regardless of crime of conviction — concerns if the prisoner in question has testified against anyone else. This could be in terms of testifying in court (they would be deemed an “informant” in this case) or snitching on their fellow prisoners (they would be deemed a “rat” in this context). Regardless of crime of conviction, if a prisoner is known to assist law enforcement or the prison authorities, they are deemed to be the lowest of the low. Add a conviction for an unsavory crime, and any “good con” wouldn’t be seen dead speaking with them, or worse, many might make a point to openly assault such individuals based upon principle. Whereas in regular American society, those who are a bit odd or disagreeable are avoided, those in prison face a much harder fate: ostracism, shunning, and possible assault (depending on the prison security level in question).
Courtesy of Senator Chris Murphy
WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announced that in response to concerns that they raised over the last two months, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has now indicated that it has altered its plan to turn the only secure facility for women in the Northeast, the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Danbury, Connecticut, into a facility for men. BOP now intends to construct a new facility for female inmates that will be located near the FCI and maintain a satellite camp for women close by as well. Image courtesy cbsnews.com
“This is excellent news for the children and families of inmates in the Northeast, and we applaud the Bureau of Prisons for hearing our concerns and making this decision,” the senators said. “The original plan put forward by BOP to transfer female inmates out of Connecticut would have nearly eliminated federal prison beds for women in the Northeastern United States, dramatically disrupting the lives of these female inmates and the young children they often leave behind. We are pleased that will no longer be the case.”
Previously, BOP had announced that it would convert the FCI from a secure facility for women into a men’s facility. This conversion would have left one of the most populated regions of the country without a secure facility for women. While BOP still intends to turn the existing secure facility into a men’s facility, it now intends to turn the existing minimum security Satellite Camp for women located near the FCI into a low security facility for women. It will also maintain a minimum security camp facility for women near the new FCI by constructing a new building next to the FCI.
Recently a Prison Law Blog reader whose father is preparing to serve time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons inquired about what type of work assignments his father would have to engage in. In an effort to better disseminate this type of information, we’ve decided to answer his question in article format. This way, the
The other day a Prison Law Blog reader presented a question. “My father is preparing to serve a sentence in a federal prison camp. He doesn’t have a lot of money or other resources. What will the Federal Bureau of Prisons provide him for his basic needs?” Obviously, a good question. In fact, it’s sad
I’m angry; I can admit it. Today I received a copy of my list of approved visitors in the FCI Petersburg institutional mail. This is commonplace when new additions are made to a federal prisoner’s visitation list.*1 After all, several weeks ago, my aunt and uncle submitted visitation applications so that they could visit me