Transcript
Letter of Rectification To those with authority, obligation, alliance, and/or the will invested in them by either the media, the Governor of Missouri, the Director of Adult Institutions and any other officials that hold office of any significance not mentioned herein... “We, the prisoner’s of the State of Missouri, who resides at the address of the South Central Correctional Center,' voice our concerns to those with the authority to rectify problems and/or laws that are being consistently and persistently broken, rights that are being unjustly violated and treatment that is tediously unbearable and inhumane that is being inflicted upon us seriatim through the misconduct, ignorance and unprofessionalism of the employees and officials of this institution.” As prisoners in the State of Missouri and of the United States of America, we are still protected by and through the liberty and justice of the United States Constitution. Therefore, certain rights shall be granted and guaranteed to us under such doctrine and law. Heretofore, the following will provide explanation in reason for the birth of this letter and blatant cry for assistance. To limit the space; This letter will deal solely with the totality of conditions of our confinement. 1). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states; “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; II abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a address of grievance.” The right to contact our family is protected under this clause and Amendment. The right to intimate association involves an individuals right to enter into and maintain intimate or private relationships free of state intrusions. Phi Lamanda Phi Frat v. University of Pittsburgh, 229, F, 3d435, 41 (3rd Cir 2000) The Court has ruled that certain restrictions may be placed on the access to telephones and telephone useage i.e. amount of calls, time limits, etc., but “must” be applied in a reasonable manner. Being housed in Housing Units #1 and #2 the Administrative Segregation Units, although we are allowed these limited accessible restrictions to the telephones uses the prisoner’s here feel that the criteria to utilize this access is partial and unfair, considering the guidelines in which they place us under. For example: inorder to utilize our phone privileges, one has to be free of conduct violations for the duration of 90 days and not a day less to be eligible to use the phone and then may use the telephone every 30 days thereafter, if he is violation free. This rule constitutes as partial, bias, and unfair due to the fact that every offender that’s resigned to the Ad-seg units may not be assigned for the duration for 90 days or longer. A mass majority of the offenders that visits this unit may only be assigned for 30 or 60 (violation free), therefore III making them ineligible to utilize the phone privileges. Furthermore, if an offender was to be brought to H.U#2 say; under investigation or protective custody needs, they would become priority over the offender(s) that has been 30 or 60 days violation free and become eligible to utilize their phone privileges. Housing Unit #1 is “supposedly” designed to be more of a restrictive unit in comparison to H.U#2 for “out of control” offenders (staff assaults, rapes etc.,) thus, if H.U#1 is based to be more restrictive toward offenders based on the criteria of certain types of [adv's?] and behavorial modifications then why are offenders in H.U#2 with less severe conduct violations are subjected under the same telephone restrictions? This restriction is inflicted upon us without any penological legitimacy and constitutes as unreasonable. A more reasonable solution to this problem would be give offenders who have been conduct violation free for the duration for 30 days or more should receive for a phone call for that month and every month thereafter. 2). Violation of Due Process; a) The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states; “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws”. IV For protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Due Process Clause is being excessively violated by the way that we are being sanctioned on the infractions of the institutional rules in Administrative Segregation. For example; We are being given sanctions before we are teamed, heared and a findings is deemed on our alleged infractions. [illegible]g limited property (property impoundment), alternative meal (meal portions) etc, which results in violation of our “procedural due process”. Now, the classification and custody staff will argue that these sanctions are not sanctions at all nor are the disciplinary imposed but yet, the Offender Rulebook Section D-6 defines “property impoundment” as; “the loss of use of unauthorized property for a period of time”, hereof classifying this action as a disciplinary sanction that can be carried out by the classification staff. In addition to these facts, Chapter 217.040 V.A.MS clearly states; “All offenders confined in Correctional Centers shall be supplied with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food. Deprivation of food shall not be used as a disciplinary action”. The fact that classification (the Disciplinary Hearing Officer) is not imposing these sanctions upon us themselves does not justify it as not being a sanction, it furthermore sustain the fact that our procedural due process is being violated. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to protect the individual from arbitrary and erroneous state action by requiring some kind of hearing prior to the deprivation of “life, liberty or property”. When state law mandated that no prisoner “may be punished except after a finding V of guilt by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer.” Yet, Offenders are being placed on Removal of Property status, Alternate meal status, before a hearing is held. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, b44 (5th Cir. 1986) and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1985). Whereas, our right to procedural due process means that the prison must provide us with some category of protection (like a hearing) before the prison does something that harms our life, liberty, or interest. Hence, receiving an sanction before we can properly or adequately prepare a defense, are heared, teamed, and deemed a findings on the pending infraction deprives us of such rights. According to IS19-1.1, Informal sanctions are sanctions which are verbal or written that maybe used as outlined for informal resolutions of a minor rule violations. Informal Sanctions are as follows: a) warning/reprimand b) activity restrictions c) living area restriction d) extra duty, and e) *property impoundment* So, if such are considered as informal “resolutions” of a minor rule violations, Why are we being subjected to these sanctions before guilty findings of our violations are deemed? Moreover, our due process is being infringed upon by prisoners being found guilty solely upon an Reporting Officer’s statement and conduct violation report, where VI conduct violations are concerned b) IS19-1.3 supports this theory by stating; “When documenting the evidence used to support the decisions, specific evidence is to be indicated. a)Making the statement “based on conduct violation report” is not sufficient.” But trick/catch 22 language within this policy gives the correctional staff a scapegoat to manipulate policy in section (b) of this same policy by stating: (b) “Specific statements of evidence, which may be obtained from the body of the conduct violation report must be made”, Hereby, D.H.D’s are basing their guilty findings soley by reciting the specifics of the allegations in the pending cdv(s) against us. “Several Courts have decided that inorder to satisfy this constitutional mandate, prison officials must do more than give boilerplate statements that they accept the officer’s misconduct report. Rather they must engage inspecific fact finding”. But this theory is heavily disregarded as nonexistent dealing with the disciplinary officials of this institution. We are denied our due process and institutional policy procedural right to present “documentary evidence” in some cases and use institutional camera footage as a witness in most cases. c) In addition to these issues; Officials at this institution are coinciding administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation in their entirety instead of practicing them in their individual capacities as state law, Standard Operating Procedure and Institutional VII policy requires. Chapter 217.370 V.AM.S states; The director shall establish rules and regulations pertaining to Offender disciplinary procedure. The Chief administrative officer of each Correctional Center shall observe these rules and procedures at all times” Obviously the CAO of this institution has either overlooked this statute deliberately or is blatantly sidestepping the issue(s) of this establishment. Disciplinary segregation is used solely for punitive purpose and administrative segregation is not. Here at SCCC there isn’t anything distinguishing the two entities from one another besides recreation privileges. Even still, there are offenders with this so much dis seg time stockpiled on top of one another that the mandatory 3 hours of outside recreation/exercise weekly, is practically non-existstents. 217.380 states; “An offender who has violated any published rule or regulation of the division or correctional facility relating to the conduct of offenders may, after proper hearing and upon order of the Chief administrative officer or his designee of the correctional facility, be confined thirty days. Disciplinary segregation of more than ten days may only be given for a serious conduct violation as defined by rule or regulation of the division. Violation of this mandate is constant. Every offender that is assigned to the segregation unit is automaticly assigned to and referred to the Administrative Segregation committee, no matter if we are only serving dis seg time. We are given 30 days administrative segregation time. Classification and the administration is using Ad-Seg as a form of punishment and disciplinary sanction, when VIII policy and law prohibits. For those offenders who are on administrative segregation status they aren’t awarded any incentives, i.e. personal property, walkmans, canteen privileges beyond the norm, as one would think. Ad-seg status offenders receives the same exact privileges are dis-seg status offenders does. Nothing more or nothing less. 3) Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states; “Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted”. The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishment” and is the most significant Amendment for us as prisoner’s, and that is outlined in this letter. It has been interpreted to prohibit excessive force and guard brutality, as well as unsanitary dangerous, inhumane and overly restrictive conditions. This Amendment is repetively being violated due to the wanton asperitive oppression that the Administrative Segregation, Classification and Administrative staff are inflicting upon us as an body. We are being subjected to outrageously extensive administrative and disciplinary segregation time for minor conduct violations. According to 17.370, 217.380 BSM. and IS21-1.4; offenders are not to receive disciplinary segregation time exceeding [30?] days” for minor violations, but yet, we are sentenced continuously to serve more than what is mandated. We are not being given projected time line/frames on IX when we can feasibly entertain the thought, or notion of being released from segregation. We are literally just sitting in segregation waiting on the whims and mercy of the Administrative Heads to let us go. According to IS21-1.2, the Offender Rulebook and Authority 217.375 BSM.: “Administrative segregation is imposed upon offender’s for the safety, security and good order of the institution. When an offender is an immediate security risk, or an offender is violent, struggling and creating a sufficient disturbance to indicate he is not in control of himself, or an offender is physically violent, or an offender is an urgent need to be separated from others.” So the question is; seeing that our current/present behavior does not constitute/define nor meet such criterias why are we being held past our stipulated time of punishment? Excessive Use of Force: We are being subjected to excessive uses of force by prison guards repetively. We are maced, bombed with mace generated grenades, electricuted with shock sheilds and physically restrained and subdued by the institutions assembled “F-Team”, as well as placed on property impoundment status for the duration of seven (7) to nine (9) days, for a simple minor conduct violation as such as “creating a disturbance” or “disobeying an order”. The tactics aren’t implemented to to restore order or discipline to obtain control of the offender(s). The tactics are instead utilized to instill fear and to “maliciously and sadistically cause harm”. X Guards such as; COII Michael C. Wendts, COII Christopher Wesley, CO III Bee, COI Dustin Calhoun, COI Cohn et cetera, are so vindictive with malice that they use our right of protective custody against us, by utilizing the protective custody benches as a form of punishment. These officers violate policy SDP 21-1.2 and leave offenders on the bench for countless hours without feeding them or even offering them a cell. Or they may offer us the same exact cell that one just P.C’ed from multiple times inorder to keep us on the bench for an additional 2-5 hours. Furthermore, Administrative Heads are using the right to declare protective custody from our cell mates as a form of punishment by giving us additional days in ad-seg for doing so. Functioning Unit Manager; Troy Warle; COIII Patton; CCM Trista Kinder; Assistant Warden Michelle Buckner; Major John Motel; Super Intendent Terrima Ballinger; and DWDM Conrade Suddon are all in cahoots/agreement and are signing off on classification hearing forms approving offenders being sentenced to additional days for declaring our cellmates as enemies. It is under our right under IS21-13 to call anyone we are in fear of being physically harmed by, fear of physically harming or simply someone we are not getting along with as an enemy. Staff does not have the authority to say whether or not an offender is or is not another offenders enemy or not. Nor do they have the authority to dictate or call judgement on the tension that an offender may or may not be having in the cell with his cellmate. XI This tactic that the administrative heads are practicing is an unmandated rule and is being implemented inorder to deter prisoners from checking out of their cells. This isnt implemented for the safety, security and good order of the institution. This is practice in an arbitrary and malice manner to make it hard on the prisoners since they (the administrative heads & custody staff) feel like we are making it hard on them by utilizing our right to p.c. Lack of Access to Proper Hygeine Products/Sanitation Issues: Our right to decent and sanitary condition in prison also fall under “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoners are entitled to sanitary toilet facilities, Dispain v. Uploff, 264, E.3d 965 (10th Cir 2001), proper trash procedures, no roach or rat infestations, and basic supplies such as toothpaste, soap, cleaning products etc. Offenders at this institution are only allowed one (1) bar of MVE soap every other week (as do all of the offender’s in Ad-seg), but the distinguishing difference between segregated offenders and general population offenders (as to be expected) we are not allowed to purchase and utilize the variety of canteen options where hygeine (soap) products are concerned. We are allowed to purchase one (1) 15oz bottle of Suave body wash but, the administrative segregation units are so filthy and unsanitary and infested with vermin and mice that we have to sacrifice the single bar of soap XII that we are issued bi-weekly and the bodywash that we order monthly, inorder to sanitize and clean our cells. The housing units are so infested with mice and vermin that we are forced use our bedlinen and state issued clothing to block the bottom of our cell doors to keep the pest from invading our living quarters. A weekly cell clean solution is offered, but the procedure in which the cell clean routine is conducted is so unsanitary, it serves no resolution. We are issued a piece of a towel, and toilet brush soaked in disinfected diluted water that a numerous amount of other offenders have used on their sinks, walls, floors and toilets, inwhich exposing us to germs not protecting us from them. The MNE soap that we are issued and the body wash that we are allowed to order is not anti-bacterial soap. The bodywash/shampoo combination soap that we order does not possess anti-bacterial agents in it. Whereas, given the unsanitary and indecent conditions and the time spent inbetween showers we shall be given the privilege to purchase soap from canteen, such as; Coast, Dial, Irish Spring, Dove, [illegible]. Other level 5 prisons or medium/maximum prisons have adopted this privilege, e.g., EBDCC, JCCC, PCC, so there should be no reason we are not allowed to do the same. We are all equally protected under the Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” clause and the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment. XIII Phase Program/Incentives: As prisoner’s in administrative segregation, we are often looked at/viewed, as worse than other offenders. As stated earlier in this letter, we are severely punished and sanctioned for our conduct violations and mistakes, but are never rewarded with incentives or even acknowleged for modifying our behavior for the good and safety of the institution. The Administrative staff and personnel insist and/or encourage offenders in Housing Units #1 and #2 to participate and/or enroll in Administrative Segregation classes, such as “Anger Management”, “Eagle Program”, etc. (although they are optional) but with no benefits and unfulfilled promises. We have gone months on end free of conduct violations without recognition, but, the moment we are infringed upon a conduct is issued, we are set back to an additional (30) thirty, sixty (60) or ninety (90) days in segregation. When disciplining offenders, there shall be no double standards. If we are severely, harshly, or exceptionally sanctioned, punished, or disciplined for violating institutional rules, we shall be graciously rewarded for doing good and modifying our behavior. Here in H.U.’s #1 and #2, we have offenders that have been free of conduct violations for four (4), five (5), ten (10) and twelve (12) months, but yet, have failed to receive any relief, be released from Ad-Seg or transitions as simplistic as being transferred to H.U #2. At other Level 5 Maximum/Medium security prisons such as J.C.C.C. and P.C.C. offenders who are forced to endure XIV long term solitary confinement are given incentives and reasonable privileges for modifying their behavior and going a certain amount of time conduct violation free. For example; at the Jefferson City Correctional Center, their institution have a program by the name of “The Step Up Program”. Where every month or two, one goes without a conduct violation incentives and privileges are gradually given back to them. Walkman’s/C.D. players, T.V’s and appliances are issued; $10, $15 even $87.50 the maximum spend allowance is allowed for purchase every week or bi-weekly etc. These methods are issued in order to give offenders something to look forward to. Now, this idea was adopted by the Administrative Heads of this institution (SCCC), however, their ideology of the “Step Up Program” falls flat and bears no penological substance of why or even how it is ran. SCCC has implemented two (2) Administrative Segregation programs. One by the name of TIG (Transitional Integrational Group and the other I.P.H (Intermediate Population Housing). The T.I.G program is: “An intermediate transitional unit designed to optimize an offender’s transition from administrative segregation to general population, by providing a less restrictive and more beneficially structured environment. This program is considered an administrative segregation assignment, with modified privileges,” according to Standard Operating Procedure 21-1.2. The T.I.G. program, which is located in H.U#1 (the administrative segregation unit) is only available for those offenders with major conduct violation and long term ad-seg assignment. The modified privileges that XV this SOP speaks of is, one (1) $10 canteen spend on perishable food items every week and one (1) weekly phone call for the duration of the offender’s participation in the program. The S.O.P. further states; “An offender who is released from administrative segregation by the administrative segregation committee will be released to an Intermediate Population Housing (IPH) on the following day of his hearing. If there are no available beds, the offender’s name will be placed on the waiting list for release. This list is maintained on the Daily Administrative Segregation Status Report. Offender’s will be released from administrative segregation to “general population” alphabetically by date and by AIBA score after all disciplinary segregation releases from the same date. Those offenders who are released from segregation for investigation who did not receive a conduct violation while assigned will go to the top of the waiting list by the date after their hearing”. Now, I first want to focus on the fact that nowhere in this SOP does it clarify, defines nor constitutes IPH as an Administrative segregation program or a program ingeneral, as it does the TIG. But yet, the administrative heads has every offender at this institution under the impression that it is. Not only are the administrative heads posing this Intermediate Population Housing unit as a program that one must go to, the Administration Segregation Committee are forcing us (offenders) to sign an illegetimate contract through this “program” inorder to get out of XVI the segregation units. The Ad-Seg committee chair members will present offenders with an classification hearing form that will state we are being released to IPH under a 90 day Ad-seg review; Meaning that once we are release to IPH we are assigned for thirty days. If, for some reason we are to return back to the segregation unit pending any type of violation we are to do ninety (90) days in Ad-seg. If we were not to sign the Classification Hearing Form stating this, we will not get out of the hole and will be returned to our assigned cell in segregation. Not only does this “contract” prove to be illegitimate because it’s a deliberate implemented unwritten rule, it also constitute as double jeopardy and violates the Cruel and Unusual Clause of the Eighth Amendments. True enough Chapter 217.175 gives the division director authority to make rules, regulations and orders governing the management of the correctional centers and programs under their control. However, this “contract that we are being forced to sign, is not a rule implemented by the division director. It is a “blanket rule” being enforced by the administrative heads of this institution. Not anywhere is this rule written in black and white. It is not documented in the Offender Rulebook, Standard Operating Procedure nor any Institutional policy. Thus given this course of truth; if IPH is doctrinated under the Administrative Segregation Committee, how is it that this is not stated in the Administrative Segregation Standard Operating Procedure 21-1.2 that was just quoted above?” Furthermore, if this was to be true, why is it that every offender who is locked up from XVII the IPH unit is placed on TASG (temporary administrative segregation) assignment and not immediately assigned back to Ad-Seg? The Ad-seg committee chair members has even taken the double double jeopardy infringement a step further. Within the last few weeks, and todays date is 3-19-18, if any offender has a rule #15 (#15.1; engaging in sexual acts with another; #15.2; openly masturbating or touching ones sexual parts; #15.3; exposing ones self to staff) within the last 12 months and comes to the segregation unit for any other type of rune infraction, we have to be sent back to the TPH unit. For example; lets say I came to the hole in August of 2017 for a rule #15.2 and returned to the hole in April of 2018, I am forced to go back to the IPH unit although I did not come back to the hole for a rule #15. In addition to such, they are also victimizing us through the double jeopardy violation by resanctioning us from an conduct violations that we have already executed our sanction on. Offenders are assigned to the IPH unit if we have seven (7) or more violations in a year, no matter how long in between we have been violation free. But yet, offenders with six (6) or less violation in a year doesnt have to endure this treatment and gets released directly to general population. No IPH assignment. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the administration to punish us after we have served our disciplinary segregation time, completed our ad-seg assignment on violations that we have already executed days, weeks, or months prior to our current assignment to administration segregation constitutes as unjust double jeopardy and cruel and unusual XVIII punishment. What differentiates offenders with seven (7) or more violations than offenders with six (6) or less. We are similarly situated and both have caught violation in our past. So, for the administration to give favor to either side bears no penological significance. T.P.H v.s. T.I.G. As stated earlier on, offenders assigned to the T.I.G program receives the privilege(s) of being able to purchase perishable food items weekly as well as use the phone and receive outdoor recreation. Whereas, offenders assigned to IPH are only allowed some of these privileges after a stipulated frame of time being assigned to the IPH units. For example, offenders in IPH are only allowed to utilized telephone privileges when we are two (2) weeks violations free in the program, and can only purchase $10 worth of perishable food items after our thirty (30) days are complete and we are pending bedspace (waiting to be released); and bedspace can take anywhere from an additional ten (10), twenty (20) to thirty (30) days. Therefore I ask; how are the offenders assigned to Ad-seg status that’s participating in the T.I.G program allowed more access to incentives and privileges than offenders in (baseline general population) IPH status? The stipulations doesn’t equate and I’m going to tell you why. IXX Just like T.I.G; when offenders are assigned to IPH we are a certain amount of time conduct violation free. Whether it is two or three weeks, one, two, or three months everyone assigned to IPH is violation free upon their assignment or otherwise we would still be assigned to disciplinary segregation. So, if we have to be cdv free to be assigned to either “program”, then, why is it that we cannot utilize the phones weekly and purchase perishable canteen items in IPH like those offenders assign to T.I.G.? What differentiates us from them? Obviously, the administrative segregation committee feels that our behavior has been modified enough to justify our placement in IPH, so why not allow us the same incentives in the same mannerism as T.I.G? For example: T.I.G allow purchase of cd player/walkman’s. I.P.H. does’nt. Although we can have all of our appliances in I.P.H. if, you already own them, we cannot purchase them. We are allowed to purchase thermals but no other clothing items, i.e., sweat pants, pajamas, personal shirts etc.. We are allowed to buy razors, shaving cream but, no after shave. An variety of hygiene items but only certain types of shampoo and conditioner. We can purchase alarm clock radios but no other appliances like, beard trimmers which falls under a hygiene item. The privileges that we are allowed and are’nt allowed does’nt even parallel to one another nor does it coincide with the good order and safety of the institution. XX Offenders assigned to IPH have no access to the law library. We have no law library clerks that do daily rounds nor that possess enough obtainable knowledge about law, procedure and policy to adequately assist us during our time of dire need. As stated earlier on, IPH is not an “ad-seg program” or program ingeneral. IPH is a “baseline general population” housing unit that is being utilized as a tool to control the bedspace issues here at SCCC. IPH offenders are placed under so much scrutiny that the success rate of making it out of the 30 day housing assignment is maybe at a ten percent (10%) success rate. I DeAuntee Poe Sr., the author of this letter has been in and out of this program (IPH) since Nov. 24, 2016, with no relief to general population. Every violation that one receives restarts your 30 day assignment. Three violations and you are sent back to the hole for another 90 days. And we are being issues cdvs for being one or two mins late getting out of the shower. (Which I received 2 of). Literally, the same offenders are being victimized by the implementation of IPH. The same offenders have been in IPH for 7, 8, 10 months to a year. If this is supposed to be a thirty day program and you have multiple no, numerous people that has been in it over six months, it’s obvious that its not the offenders but the IPH unit itself. A conclusion to these problems will be as simplistic as to give offenders assigned to IPH one weekly XXI phone call and perishable canteen item spend like T.I.G. Grant prisoners the option of utilizing law library time or recreation three times a week (Monday, Wensday & Friday) on the days of our appointed gym recreation. We should only be assigned to IPH as a means to complete our dis-seg or placed in it when it is the "imposed sanction for our pending violation(s). If one receives a, cdv while assigned to IPH then we shall have the option of getting our spend allowance suspended, restriction of phone calls, property impoundments, living area restriction, activity restriction, like offenders in general population as oppose to starting our entire 30 days over. And last but not least, the 90 day review contract must be abolish as it falls under the double jeopardy clause and violates our Eighth Amendment right. As stated earlier on, the institutions IPH program bears no significance to the prisoners nor the safety and security of the institution when offenders are not allowed to attend schooling, Hi-Set education, anger management, I.C.V.C, restorative justice, AN/AA, substance abuse and other rehabilitating courses for the betterment of offenders available to offenders in general population. SOP 21-1.2 states that “Offenders that has accumulated 6 or more violations are to be released to IPH under a “Program Plan”. But yet, there is no programming under this program plan. All that we do is sit in a cell 24 hours a day with the exception of one hour gym recreation three times a week. XXII In this “program” you have prisoners that are striving to obtain their GED, or that was the Hi-Set program (education) but yet, are forced to be placed back on the waiting list for school or be placed on the back burner do the hinderance and lack thereof of any programming in IPH. If we assigned to IPH were allowed to actually attend the programs available to us then the redundance and recidivism of obtaining conduct violations will be greatly reduced because our 30 something odd days in IPH will be spent more productively rather destructively. I want offenders to do better but failing to provide the opportune resources for us to do better holds no legitimate logic.
