I would like to have some feedback on this email message.

 

Several years ago, at a major’s meeting, I was stressing the importance of ensuring that inmates are in proper uniform, properly groomed and wearing ID’s anytime they are out of the unit. At the time, we were focused on the meal evolution, but the rule is true for any evolution: meals, medical, work, etc.

 

I pointed that prisons that do well in this regard simply do not allow an inmate to leave the unit for chow (or any other evolution) until they are in compliance. One major objected and stated that it was a violation of our policy and the U.S. Constitution to ‘with-hold food.’ I was surprised, as were many of those present.

 

However, since then, I have come to realize that years of practice and inaccurate information have indeed created much confusion about such issues. The major’s mistaken understanding was merely a reflection of that reality.

 

For a moment, we will just ignore our duty to attempt to rehabilitate incorrigible men and women who have spent years thumbing their noses at every rule of civilized society. Forget for just a moment that the public actually expects that we will teach these men and women to comply with rules and show some respect for themselves and for others.

 

 

Instead, let’s just consider two of our most basic and absolute duties: safety and the provision of food, clothing and shelter.

 

It is our duty to make certain provisions for inmates. For example, we must make available food, clothing, shelter and health care. We do a great job in that regard. However, with the exception of rare medical/mental health related circumstances we are not obliged to force inmates to eat. In fact, we occasionally have hunger strikes, demonstrating very clearly that eating is optional. Eating is a voluntary activity and any inmate may refuse to eat.

 

We are also required to provide safe, secure prisons for the public, staff and inmates. For these reasons we must set reasonable health and safely requirements such as appropriate attire, identification, grooming and quiet orderly behavior in all circumstances. These rules are necessary and rationally related to our primary mission.

 

We must simultaneously fulfill both of these duties. So, in fulfilling our duty to provide an opportunity to eat, exercise, visit, shower, etc, we must always maintain safe and secure settings. When we allow inmates to ignore those rules, we jeopardize that safety and security for everyone. Therefore, our rule is simple: All of these opportunities are available to inmates. But, any inmate is allowed to decline the opportunity by failure to comply with our reasonable requirements. Our uniform and grooming requirements are examples of such reasonable requirements.

 

I recently dropped in on a prison and observed at least 20 inmates returning from a meal without an ID. If something had happened to any of those inmates, medically or otherwise, the outcome could have been awful: Much worse than merely allowing those 20 inmates to voluntarily miss a meal.

 

This is unacceptable.

 

When an inmate fails to comply with our policies, he/she is expressing a voluntary decision to miss that particular evolution: visitation, canteen, religious activity, recreation, etc. While appropriate disciplinary action may be warranted, preventing participation by such inmates is not a disciplinary action nor is it punishment. It is simply the practical, administrative execution of our duty to provide safe, secure prisons.

 

I have instructed Vicki Sheedy to review all of our policies and orientation materials to ensure that this fundamental principle is clear. If you know of any policy that contradicts this rule or needs attention, please inform Bob Ward or Vicki.

 

Have a great week.