#maximum security institution

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"....the bodily life that the prison regulates inevitably provides opportunities for prisoners—and, he might have added, staff to interrupt the fusion of abstract order and material practice on which the operation depends. Some of the early prisons turned out to be “defective” because prisoners could hear one another through the walls. In control units—staying for the moment with mealtime—prisoners describe having their food spat on or their meals withheld, being falsely accused of sharpening spoons into weapons, and being unable to eat on some days because stinging gas saturates the air. Officers describe prisoners who decline their food, refuse to return their trays, make shanks out of the dull plastic, or throw urine out the port as the tray is handed through. Because prison rules do not allow trays to be kept in cells for fear they will be fashioned into weapons, the tray itself, one of the few items exchanged at the cell door, becomes an opportunity. How is a desperate or lethargic prisoner to respond to the demand to return it? If he acquiesces, he shrinks into a debilitating visible anonymity, a tacit acknowledgment that he has been tamed or broken. If he refuses, a team of officers organized into the prison version of a SWAT team and encased in protective gear will forcibly extract him from his cell.

... [These are] struggles in which both sides are compelled to respond to the symbolic as well as the overt content of the gestures of antagonism that gather around their points of contact. The apparently trivial tray—the only thing the prisoner can get his hands on—takes on a charge of defiance. This is a “power struggle,” as prison workers often say. But in what sense? The control prison is already structured around an intense form of power. These struggles indicate a certain “extra,” a surplus generated at the point where the full force of institutional domination meets the oblique resistance of the prisoner. Both prisoners and officers can be seized by the possibility of engaging one another’s attention in this way, as though this surplus power exerts a kind of uncanny hold on them. Each side, obeying its respective “code,” moves forward with a sense of inevitability to “make the statement” that affirms the boundary between them.

A control unit does produce a “tame” prisoner, in the sense that it is difficult for him to affect the world beyond his cell no matter what he does inside it. The plan put forth by Bentham and the architects of the silent prisons was intended to make this taming effect reach all the way into the prisoner’s mind and soul—to change him—though the strategy did not necessarily work. The question of whether this is still the prison’s purpose—and whether, if it happens, it constitutes rehabilitation or what prisoners call being “institutionalized”—haunts the contemporary prison and will come up repeatedly in this account."

- Lorna Rhodes, Total confinement: madness and reason in the maximum security prison. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. p. 40, 43.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Psychiatry and custody, for example, are mutually dependent and at the same time speak irreconcilable languages. At their points of intersection people are necessarily forced to articulate and reflect on what they do, and it is at these moments that possibilities for change emerge. ...

“Corrections”—the governmental system that operates prisons—is a bureaucracy centered on the management of large numbers of people. It is a world of policies, documents, meetings, acronyms, and all the other governmental practices that make up such management. As in other organizations, one can spend a good deal of time in administrative meetings without getting much flavor of what it is, exactly, that is being managed. This “paper” side of the prison system has grown in size and impact as the result of an increasingly professional and managerial focus within corrections. Centralized management overlays a second organizational hierarchy, the older paramilitary structure—called “custody”—composed of officers and the sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who make up their “chain of command” in each prison.

....

Hundreds of works document the development of the modern prison and the histories of specific prisons. After a long tussle with this material I have realized, with the help of Avery Gordon’s wonderful Ghostly Matters, that what I want to convey is less the comprehensive historical detail—impossible in any case—than a sense of echo. What assailed me in that first control unit visit was the sort of echo that Gordon calls a haunting—a moment when history offers itself to us as a presence rather than a collection of facts. Contemporary prisons are indeed haunted in this sense, holding as they do a history of disappearances. And they are pervaded by past efforts and failures, often taking up where some long-forgotten plan left off. I have incorporated history into this book in small bits that point to its effects and in notes pointing to additional sources. I want these occasional digressions to show the temporal depth and resonance of certain practices and to suggest a contact with the past “in which [we] touch the . . . shadows of ourselves and our society.”"

- Lorna Rhodes, Total confinement: madness and reason in the maximum security prison. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. p. 6-7, 9-10, 14

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Guards to listen in on inmates," Winnipeg Sun. December 22, 1982. Page 5. ---- By Steven Edwards Sun Staff Writer Guards at Stony Mountain penitentiary will soon be able to listen to all conversations between inmates and their visitors.

Bugs are to be planted underneath ashtrays and tables in the visitors' lounge to enable guards to listen to any conversation they desire even intimate ones between husband and wife.

But spokesmen for agencies that work to help prisoners have hit out at the planned bugging system, which is expected to be in place by March.

Dave Kennedy, executive director of the John Howard Society in Manitoba, said: "This is an absolutely atrocious invasion of the privacy of the prisoners. Their personal visits will become anybody's business."

He added: "It would also be a short step for the police to misuse the system by asking staff to monitor certain inmates that they feel may know something of a particular crime."

Said Don Newmans, director of the Dorchester Avenue halfway house for ex-inmates: "Prisoners will be reluctant to speak freely to their visitors. They won't be able to let off steam which could cause increased tension."

Corrections service spokesman Linda Lee said similar bugging systems are being installed at medium and high security penitentiaries across the country.

She explained that inmates suspected of being involved in "illegal activities" such as drug smuggling have always been monitored when receiving visitors.

At Stony such inmates are ordered to receive visitors in two special rooms which have signs posted saying they are bugged.

But contraband continues to be smuggled into Stony and other peniten-tiaries. And often the initial planning is made at visiting times, she said.

"The expansion of the monitoring system is preventive security to detect problems before they arise," she said.

Only visits with prisoners under suspicion will be monitored, she said.

"We're not interested in personal talk between husband and wife or mother and son."

A guard told The Sun that "two or three" visits per week are monitored at the moment. And guards also listen in to between 80-100 phone calls a week.

He said no prisoners are monitored in their cells.

///

"Cons weren't tickled pink," ," Winnipeg Sun. December 22, 1982. Page 5. ---- By Howard Burshtein For The Sun Corrections officials have admitted they've failed in a bold experiment to quell inmates' violent tempers by painting their cells pink. Apparently, they used the wrong shade.

The department of corrections painted isolation cells at the Winnipeg Remand Centre after a California psychologist reported that the color pink has tranquilizing properties.

The cells are mainly used for temporarily holding drunks and violent inmates.

"It worked for about 45 minutes," says Harold St. Lawrence of the corrections department. "Then they would become aggressive again.'

The department ended its experiment last month when corrections officials realized they had used a darker shade of pink than the California psychologist recommended.

"We thought we'd give it a try but we never really embraced the idea," said Manitoba Commissioner of Corrections H.J. Schneider.

The cells have been repainted the standard green

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"First inmates arrive at Kent institution," Chilliwack Progress. August 22, 1979. Page 32. --- Maximum security Kent Institution near Agassiz accepted its first inmates last week, 18 months after the arrival of the initial five staff members.

The prison has opened on schedule, though a few minor contracts are not quite complete. Total capital cost for the installation is likely to be just under the $17.8 million budget.

A total of 195 of the eventual 218 staff are now on strength with 30 per cent now living in Agassiz-Harrison, 56 per cent in Chilliwack district (including 16 per cent in Sardis-Vedder Crossing) and 14 per cent in other areas. They bring with them a total of 200 children under 18 years of age.

Inmates will be transferred largely from the British Columbia Penitentiary in New Westminster during the next few months. The first groups will be mainly inmates to be employed in kitchen, cleaning and housekeeping duties.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Kent stresses security over luxury," Chilliwack Progress. August 8, 1979. Page 37.

"'Luxurious' Kent Institution officially opens," Chilliwack Progress. August 8, 1979. Page 12. --- Kent Institution opened its doors to several hundred people last Wednesday for the official dedication ceremonies. Those it was actually intended for will arrive later.

The maximum security prison complex, which cost $17.2 million to construct and about $1.8 million to equip, was described as "luxurious" by Solicitor General Allan Lawrence.

The federal minister in charge of the prison system stated the complex near Agassiz is one of a kind, that another like it will likely not ever be built. He denied it has become obsolete during the planning and construction phases of the past five years but said some of the concepts which have been included have changed.

Despite suggestions of luxury, the overriding need that has been built into the design of Kent Institution is tight security. It will house a maximum of 192 inmates and is considered the first basic step in closing out the British Columbia Penitentiary in New Westminster.

They will live in self-contained units with six cells per unit and four units per block. A total of eight 24-inmate living blocks make up the full live-in capacity.

Kent Institution will require about 217 staff. The annual operating budget will be $5.7 million, or $30,000 per inmate. Staff will include those in ad ministration and other daytime staff plus around the clock seven days per week security officers.

Six industrial shops are equipped to manufacture products from wood or metal. They can accommodate up to 70 inmates each work shift or 120 per day in two shifts.

There is also a large gymnasium, outdoor tennis courts and an outside courtyard which is surrounded on all sides by buildings. It includes evergreen trees and broad sidewalks, a big change from the traditional, dusty prison recreational yard.

Two 16 feet high chain-link fences surround the entire perimeter, topped by coiled barbed wire with small stainless steel

knives that are said to cut a prospective escapee to the bone if he makes contact.

Four towers sit on each corner of the institution site, manned by officers who will watch the perimeter at all times.

Inside a system of security tunnels will take correctional staff to particular parts of the prison without their having to associate always with inmates. Staff and inmates have their own dining halls, separated by a single door.

Time away from the shops and dining hall for inmates is spent in their living unit, watching one of two televisions provided per 24 inmates or participating in card or board games. Individual cells include a bed, desk, sink and flush toilet. Security is maintained with the use of closed circuit television sets.

Kent Institution will begin receiving its first inmates in mid-August and will reach its full complement by early next year.

Caption: PRESS CONFERENCE Opening of Kent Institution was followed with a press conference. Attending were, from left, federal commissioner of corrections Donald Yeomans, Solicitor-General Allan Lawrence and Public Works minister Erik Nielsen.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Millhaven prison: MPs told more trouble is expected because of harassment by guards," Kingston Whig-Standard. February 2, 1977. Page 19. --- By LINDA FLORENCE Staff Reporter Predictions of more violence at Millhaven Institution peppered the testimony of numerous witnesses before the parliamentary subcommittee touring local prisons this week.

Inmates said they are worried "there'll be more trouble" because of continuing harassment by security staff. Public Service Alliance of Canada local president Warren Richardson reported there were rumors of future "smash ups".

For almost 12 hours, subcommittee members grappled with contradictory evidence which underscored the confusion, frustration, bitterness and anger which seems to have plagued Millhaven since its premature and turbulent opening after the 1971 riots at Kingston Penitentiary.

Despite denials of the existence of a "goon squad" at Millhaven, most subcommittee members felt there was enough evidence to indicate that a small number of officers used "bully tactics" against other staff and against inmates to control the prison.

Describing incidents, including a beating of a prisoner with a crowbar, inmate witnesses accused staff of continual harassment in the form of both physical and verbal abuse.

Inmates in protective custody said officers sometimes "forgot" to escort them back from the visiting room. They said some inmates refused to go to the prison hospital because escorting officers have been known to leave them among as many as 10 men from the normal population who are waiting to see the doctor.

"The inmate grievance procedure is a farce," a witness said. Because officers don't wear identification, and some officers refuse to identify themselves for inmates when asked, the prisoners often are unable to submit names in support of their grievances.

"Guys become so frustrated because nothing is done," an inmate committee member said. "Name-calling may not seem extremely important to people on the street, but in here a guy has nothing except his dignity, if he has that."

Millhaven inmates are not credited for work or examinations while they train for a trade, another witness said. He described an upholstery course taken by eight inmates, and said the situation reflected "a general trend" in the prison's trade training.

Those taking the nine-month upholstery course were told they would receive a certificate "recognized by the Ontario department of labor".

At the end of the course, only one inmate received a certificate, even though "many had over a 90 percent average" in their examinations. The man who did receive a certificate was being released "and we had to fight to get them to give him his certificate so he could look for work," he said.

"Mr. Fox (solicitor general Francis Fox) just stated recently that inmates will have to earn their way out of these places," the witness continued. "In this institution, inmates are denied recognition for the work they do."

Inmates from A unit, which houses the men who have been charged with causing most of the damage during October's cell-smashing incident, filed numerous complaints.

John Dowset, as Millhaven director, said inmate testimony he'd heard during the day contained some truth and some exaggeration. "Unfortunately, they tend to overstate their case and this tends to reduce the effect of what they say."

He said occasional violence can be expected in a prison like Millhaven because "65 per cent of the inmates" enter the prison on transfer from a lesser security setting where they had been considered a danger to security or to other inmates.

"I think it's a tragedy anyone is released to the street from Millhaven," Mr. Dowsett said. "I think of the danger to society every time I release an inmate to the street from here."

However, he stressed that because of their behavior, some inmates "totally disqualify themselves for transfer to lesser security" where they could benefit from pre-release programs.

Dr. George Scott, psychiatrist at Millhaven, agreed, "We have an urgent need for an adaptation unit for these people."

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"More "Maximum Security"," Kingston Whig-Standard. August 23, 1972. Page 6. ---- The wild improbabilities of our prison system, such as the recent epidemic of comically easy escapes and the rickety leave system are causing people to wonder why convicts bother breaking out. Why, instead, don't they just wait for the inevitable special leaves and ultimate parole?

But the prisoners are impatient. Not long ago 14 of them escaped from Millhaven maximum security prison. More recently six convicts of St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary broke out of that fortress without even having been seen by the guards. The prisoners escaped from Millhaven through a chain-link fence. The St. Vincent de Paul defectors cut their way through a 10-foot barbed-wire fence during a recreation period.

Poor Jean-Pierre Goyer, the Solicitor-General, was quite annoyed over this last insult to his prison system. So annoyed, in fact, that he actually went so far as to say the guards should have used their guns to stop the men -although, since the guards didn't see the men escaping the question of the use of firearms seems a bit academic.

The men who escaped from St. Vincent de Paul were being held in a "maximum-security detention" unit, yet all they had to do was cut through a barbed-wire fence and take off in two stolen cars. They were not seen by guards in observation towers. One guard did see several men outside the prison wall but he was not sure whether they were prisoners. It can be presumed from this that they weren't even dressed like prisoners.

The "maximum-security detention quarters" from which they escaped have been described as intended "for extremely dangerous men. All have either been involved in other jail breaks or have been in fights with other prisoners and guards."

What kind of a prison system lets men such as that mingle freely with other prisoners in a recreation area and at the same time fails to make sure that they are under the eyes of guards all the time? And what kind of a prison system fails to provide its guards with specific instructions concerning the methods to be used when prisoners try to escape?

Of course, these questions become academic too, when a prison is so lax that it provides conditions under which inmates can cut their way out through a barbed-wire fence in broad daylight without being seen by guards.

It will be instructive and fascinating to see how Jean-Paul gyrates through this one.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Don't blame guards," Kingston Whig-Standard. July 14, 1972. Page 17 & 30. --- By BARRY THORNE Every social institution needs a periodic shaking up to remind it of the reason for its existence. And prisons are no different from any civil service department in this respect. Basically prisons exist to contain the furies of humanity. Secondarily, they exist to reform, rehabilitate, or eliminate these furies.

In recent years, the fuzzy thinking of high-placed correctional administrators. and uninformed public sentimentality have caused us to forget that dangerous criminals are a menace to society and must be in some way re-moved so that society is protested.

Liberal reform tendencies during the past decade have stressed the abused "сарtive," prisoner of society, de-humanized, deprived of his rights, and isolated. With this image in mind, we have sentimentally reclassified ALL not SOME prisoners and opened pandora's box to release a great number of ills through the correctional system.

During the time of the infamous Kingston Penitentiary riot in April 1971, a woman reporter asked me if I agreed with having human beings in cages. I replied without qualms "Yes, some of them." And subsequent events give me no cause to change this view.

What is wrong with the correctional system today is not the desire to change, rehabilitate, and reform, or to give latitude and opportunity to inmates. It is the failure to make reasonable distinctions. to adequately classify, that indicts the top administration of this system. Faced by a climate of public opinion largely sympathetic to rehabilitation and the plight of the inmate, the decision makers have abdicated their responsibility of choosing those who make the BEST candidates for rehabilitation.

Anyone involved in the correctional system realizes that the hard core of criminals are vicious, evil, animals. NOTHING can be done with them short of killing or locking them up for the rest of their lives. And it is criminal of the solicitor-general's office to ignore or conceal this brutal fact of life..

Failure to admit this fact, and inadequate classification of men and institutions have led on the one hand to incredible permissiveness with respect to unreliable inmates, and on the other to ridiculous penalization of all inmates because of the actions of some.

It seems clear that the correctional system desperately needs to redefine the nature of a maximum security institution. To decide what it really is and what its job should be! Many present inmates of maximum security institutions clearly should not be there. They are more suited to medium or minimum security institutions and to adequately planned and supervised rehabilitational programs.

But their very presence in a maximum institution automatically attracts much need-ed reform measures and liberalization of their treatment. Unfortunately, this also means a confusion of methods, so that the truly dangerous offender is often treated by the same yardstick. One need cite only the temporary release of Yves Geoffroy and the sex offender in British Columbia to illustrate the incredible sloppiness in current decision-making.

Clearly, however, correctional methods applied to the dangerous criminal must be categorically different from those used for the educable or the rehabilitational. Mixing apples and oranges in the inmate population inevitably leads to incidents like this week's ludicrous escape of 14 prisoners from the Millhaven Institution.

There are many in Kingston and Canada itself who blame the guards for this break-out. But I don't! I blame the confused thinking, planning, and organization at the top of the correctional administration. When situations are created in which security becomes almost impossible to maintain at a maximum level, trouble is sure to break out, and it will involve the most dangerous offenders.

Unfortunately, those who blame the guards for outbreaks usually have a distorted image of guards as lax, brutal pigs and inmates as suffering Christs ringed round by persecutors. This substitution of bleeding hearts for brains on the part of the public only adds to the basic problem. For one can remain humane and still recognize the weaknesses and problems of in-mates. Not that I'm uncritical of guards. Comparison be-tween them and the Ontario Provincial Police during this week's man hunt has not helped their image.

Tragically, sloppy public sentimentality continues even during internal disturbances like the infamous KP riot. While they're killing only themselves, the public doesn't want to get involved. But when 14 desperate and dangerous offenders are loosed into the community en masse, then look out! For public apathy soon becomes fear and anger and blame.

As I have said above, don't blame the guards! They're as much victim of the system as the inmates. And there are good ones and bad ones. Personally I'm pleased with the splendid co-operation between the solicitor-general's men and the OPP during the manhunt this week. I don't see how the job could have been better done. What disturbs me is the inevitable fact that either this sort of thing will happen over and over again, or the attorney general will clamp down on all the reforms and new programs that were the cleansing agents in this diseased institution.

The others should be reclassified according to an "investment" factor. And the "reward city" concept of regional prison psychiatrist, Dr. George Scott should be formalized in the construction and organization of the majority of the remaining institutions.

Inmates should then be moved through positions of in-creasing responsibility and freedom as they demonstrate their ability to accept change. The system must continue to take chances on the less dangerous offenders. And a clear system of incentives should be returned to the pattern. Not only bonus time for good behavior but equal pay for equal work, sexual benefits, educational and occupational training, psychiatric care, and all the reforms now talked about but little acted upon!

Apparently however, we would rather spend thousands of dollars on expensive manhunts than pour a little more money constructively into our feudal system of correctional service.