Prison Group Opposes Classification Rules

California Prison Focus
2940 16th Street #307
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-252-9211
FAX 415-252-9311
http://www.prisons.org

10/23/2002


California Department of Corrections
Regulation and Policy Management Branch
PO box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
FAX 916-322-3842
RPMB [at] executive.corr.ca.gov

To Whom It May Concern:

California Prison Focus objects to the CDoC proposed regulations governing the classification process (3375). CPF is a community based nonprofit organization that has been visiting and working with prisoners in California since 1991.

1. 3375(f)(3)(B)

The rule that a prisoner’s classification hearing be held in absentia if “the inmate is physically incapable of appearing before the committee” is in direct contradiction to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prisoners with disabilities must be accommodated and be able to attend all routine hearings.

2. 3375(g)(4)(B)

An actively decompensating prisoner recommended for transfer to a mental health program must be transferred, and should never be retained in segregation. It is an outrage that CDoC proposes a plan for custody staff to override a medical decision in such an acute situation of mental health crisis, especially since all the years of the Coleman decision and monitoring.

Given the recent Court decision that scuttled the ill-conceived “experimental AdSeg unit” at CSATF, it should be the policy of the Department to house no prisoner with serious mental health problems in any SHU or in any segregated housing except for a very brief period.

Also concerning prisoners with a mental health diagnosis, we object to adding points solely because a prisoner is in a mental health program (3375.3(a)(5). Prisoners who receive adequate treatment are no more prone to misbehavior or violence that anyone else. This provision is wrong and sadly out of date with current knowledge in the field, and expresses CDoC’s prejudice against the mentally ill.

3. 3375.3(a)(43)(A) & (B)

These sections concerning who will get labeled as belonging to street gang or disruptive groups are hopelessly flawed. Further it demonstrates the Departments lack of good faith in its negotiations with community groups over the past year concerning gang labeling of prisoners.

While there exists a defective process to classify prisoners into prison gangs, there is no formal process for labeling prisoners as street gang members. CDoC has various departments that are responsible for gang labeling (IGI, SSU, LEIU). Theses offices often mislabel prisoners despite the need for three independent pieces of data required to label a prisoner.

Under this proposed rule change Correctional Counselors would be assigned to classify prisoners as street gang members. Counselors are not required to have any training or expertise in these matters, and are unfamiliar with this material.

There is no clear definition of what constitutes membership or activity in a street gang. There is no definition of what constitutes a gang, or what an “other” gang might be. CDoC has admitted it has no expertise in identifying street gang members. Further, it is well known that police and sheriff departments classify people as gang members based on petty information that is often overly broad and unsubstantiated.
Also to put entering prisoners into Hispanic groupings based on where they live is overly broad and unfair with clear overtones of racism.

These proposals require no proof that there has been any actual criminal behavior in furtherance of gang activity in order to label someone. This is in conflict with emerging law of which the Department is well aware, and again demonstrates the bad faith of CDoC in the promulgation of these rules.

These rules should be thrown away for these and other reasons. The Department should open up the development process to a broad community of penal experts, prison administrators, community stakeholders and prisoners. There are clear areas of bad faith, illegality and muddled thinking in these proposed regulations. Such confused and criminal thinking is characteristic of CDoC and demands that the process be opened to the outside for fairness and decency to be achieved.

Finally, it must be stated that CDoC’s strategy of using only physical containment to control prison violence and misbehavior can be expected to continue to be a miserable failure. With fewer and fewer opportunities for meaningful education, training, recreation, work and spiritual development, prisoners can be expected to develop alternate economies, self defense groupings and also misbehave.

In many cases the best predictors of violence, acting out or criminal enterprises can be found in information on how any particular prison or prison yard is run. For example, mere placement into a CSP-Corcoran housing unit exposes a prisoner to guard abuse, changing rules, medical neglect and the deprivation of frequent lockdowns. Certainly prisoners need to find a way to protect themselves, and to organize for improvement of conditions. The Corcoran staff undermines legitimate organization (MAC), punishes men for bringing forth group grievances and manipulates gangs and groupings to fight one another on the yards.

Fair administration, an end to guard abuse and meaningful programming will do more to reduce violence in California prisons than any classification scheme, and certainly much more that the proposed one that is poorly conceived and flaunts the law.

Sincerely yours,


Corey Weinstein, MD for the Board and members of CPF