Tyreem Henry - 34,5 years torture (solitary) for social networking |
Cell phones in prisons.
Guess what? It’s a thing! Lots of incarcerated have them. Lots of incarcerated use them to communicate
with each other. To post on
Facebook. To keep up with the
outside. To participate in internet
radio programs and broadcast websites.
To urge their brethren and sistern to organize. Or just to try to maintain some human
connection. Get over it.
And yes, some use them to pursue criminal activities as
well. But you know . . . if they are
using their phones for that purpose – and since all cell communications are
already monitored by federal agencies – it is the perfect way for agencies to
monitor any such criminal activities. So
the existence of the cell phone should make controlling any said crimes by the incarcerated
easier – not harder.
So we do not need boogey man stories about how cell phones
among the incarcerated is some sort of dangerous scourge. It is part of the incarcerated life. It is one of those things that makes many of
those incarcerated beholden to the authorities since there is always the
potential for a thorough search that could put a substantial percentage of the
incarcerated in deep trouble including years of solitary.
The presumption of the carceral state is that the public
naturally would go along with the ideology that it is a horrible thing for
incarcerated to possess and use cell phones and to participate in social
media. While there could be a strong
tendency – as decarcerators we need to SHOUT THAT DOWN! HELL NO!
“Tough on crime” rhetoric being used to pander to political base (and the base-ist of politics) has run its day. The current rhetoric is for reform, reduction to incarceration rates. (Most such rhetoric honestly – including both political parties – is more form – little substance – as the ranks of incarcerated continues to grow, the local enforcement priorities of minimalist offenses continues to proliferate, and the conjuring of new excuses to incarcerate – like establishment democrat Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to jail those who sell “loosey” cigarettes in Chicago for example – continue to proliferate. But among at least sectors of the public, there is no longer a knee jerk reaction of support for tough on crime political pandering.
“Tough on crime” rhetoric being used to pander to political base (and the base-ist of politics) has run its day. The current rhetoric is for reform, reduction to incarceration rates. (Most such rhetoric honestly – including both political parties – is more form – little substance – as the ranks of incarcerated continues to grow, the local enforcement priorities of minimalist offenses continues to proliferate, and the conjuring of new excuses to incarcerate – like establishment democrat Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to jail those who sell “loosey” cigarettes in Chicago for example – continue to proliferate. But among at least sectors of the public, there is no longer a knee jerk reaction of support for tough on crime political pandering.
We need to apply this rejection to the idea that cell phones
in prison are to be severely punished.
And the punishment can be quite severe.
I refer to the case of
http://thesource.com/2015/02/15/sc-inmate-receives-37-years-in-solitary-confinement-for-posting-facebook-status-update
From the linked article:
“Tyheem Henry received the harshest penalty to date. Henry was handed down 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 27,360 days (74 years) worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 69 days of good time for 38 posts on Facebook. Others such as Walter Brown, who received 34.5 years in solitary and lost 69 years of phone, visits, and commissary privileges, were handed down these sentences that have been termed “cruel and unusual punishment” by human rights organizations.”
From the linked article:
“Tyheem Henry received the harshest penalty to date. Henry was handed down 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 27,360 days (74 years) worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 69 days of good time for 38 posts on Facebook. Others such as Walter Brown, who received 34.5 years in solitary and lost 69 years of phone, visits, and commissary privileges, were handed down these sentences that have been termed “cruel and unusual punishment” by human rights organizations.”
Read that a
couple of times and let that sink in.
37.5 years of solitary!
This is no
isolated incident either:
“A report from
the SCDC that was released earlier this month reveals that 432 similar cases
were placed against 397 inmates since the“Creating and/or Assisting With A Social Networking Site” Level
1 offense was implemented in 2013..”
First off –
solitary is torture and must end immediately.
While decarcerators should continue to press for abolition (in my case)
or reform (if that is your view) – we need to be steadfastly united toward the
immediate cessation of solitary – recognized as a form of torture
internationally.
But we also need to
reject the knee jerk reaction to cell phone use and social networking among the
incarcerated.
The Decarceration effort
that will be successful *must be led* by the incarcerated as they are most
directly impacted by this form of modern day of enslavement. It is the incarcerated that understand the
issues better than any and are in the belly of the beast. When incarcerated organize, cell phones are
in play. They are used to capture abuse
by the corrections officials, to photograph inhumane conditions on the
inside. They are used by the
incarcerated to organize, to communicate, to converse – with each other and
with their families and supporters on the outside. So as decarcerators we must reject these
administrative and arbitrary rules that severely punish for cell phones and
social networking.
In NJ we need a
means to communicate with the incarcerated – to let them know about Decarceration
efforts going on outside but also to find out about their organizing efforts on
the inside and to let us know about the abuses going on inside so that we can
demand an end to such abuses. The means
that the incarcerated use to communicate is for their choosing – not for us to
decide. We need to stand ready to oppose
any such severe penalties as they are meted.
No comments:
Post a Comment