Sequestering Gang Members,Burning Witches,and Subverting Due Process

Abstract

There are striking parallels between the procedures relied on by medieval inquisitors in persecuting witches and those used by American prison administrators in “classification” proceedings through which gang members are indefinitely sequestered based on evidence of gang affiliation. In both cases, due process is nominal and minimal, there is considerable reliance on information obtained from confidential informants, personal stigmata are summated and submitted as incriminating evidence, and defendants are encouraged to confess and debrief. In both cases, the advertised goal of the process involves concern for safety and survival of the system. In the case of prisons, this goal gains credence from the fact that most efforts to monitor and control gang behavior have had limited success. The experience of failure has been understandably frustrating for prison officials, and recourse to the punitive segregation of gang members (under the guise of preempting gang violence) represents a measure of this frustration.

Keywords

segregation supermax gangs violence inquisition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appellee’s Answering Brief, Koch v. Stewart, 2002 WL 32136389 (9th Cir., June l2, 2002).

Archibold, R. C. (2006, February 10). More injuries as race riots disrupt jails in Los Angeles. New York Times, p. A20-A20.

Broder, J. M. (2006, March 15). Trial begins for members of Aryan prison gang. New York Times, p. A18-A18.

Cockburn, A. (2001, July 15). Going insane in the SHU box. Los Angeles Times, p. M5-M5.

Cohen, F. (2005). Wilkinson v. Austin: Through a glass darkly. Correctional Law Reporter, 17, 27-30.

Defendants-Appellants’ Reply Brief, Koch v. Stewart, 2002 WL 32136388 (9th Cir., Feb. 4, 2002).

DiIulio, J. (1987). Governing prisons. New York: Free Press.

Gaes, G. G. , Wallace, S. , Gilman, E. , Klein-Saffran, J. , & Suppa, S. (2002). The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 82, 359-385.

Griffin, M. L. , & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 419-448.

10.

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124-156.

11.

Judicial Administration, 28 C.F.R. 43 (2005).

12.

Kassel, P. (1998). The gang crackdown in Massachusetts prisons: Arbitrary and harsh treatment can only make matters worse. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 24, 37-63.

13.

Knox, G. W. (2005). The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STGs) in American prisons today. Peotone, IL: National Gang Research Center.

14.

Koch v. Lewis, 216 F. Supp.2d 994 (2001).

15.

Kramer, H. , & Sprenger, J. (1996). Malleus Maleficarum (M. Summers, Trans.). London: Bracken Books.

16.

Kupers, T , (1999). Prison madness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Nagin, D. , & Paternoster, R. (1991). On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29, 163-189.

18.

National Institute of Corrections . (1991). Management strategies in disturbances and with gangs/disruptive groups. Washington, DC: Author.

19.

Palumbo, D. , Hepburn, J. , Griffin, M. , Fischer, D. , & Janisch, R. (2000, November). Taking back the yards: Controlling and managing prison gangs. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco.

20.

Riley, W. (2006). Interpreting, gang tattoos. Corrections Today Magazine, 68, 46-53.

21.

Riveland, C. (1999) Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

22.

Summers, M. (Trans.). (1996). Introduction. In H. Kramer & J. Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum (pp. xi-xvii). London: Bracken Books. (Original work published 1928)

23.

Sumner, G. W. (1976). Dealing with prison violence. In A. K. Cohen , G. F. Cole , & R. G. Bailey (Eds.), Prison violence (pp. 169-175). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

24.

Tachiki, S. N. (1995). Indeterminate sentences in supermax prisons based upon alleged gang affiliations: A reexamination of procedural protection and a proposal for greater procedural requirements. California Law Review, 83, 1115-1149.

25.

Toch, H. (2001). The future of supermax confinement. The Prison Journal, 81, 376-388.

26.

Toch, H. , & Adams, K. (2002). Acting out: Maladaptive behavior in confinement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

27.

Vigil, D. A. (2006). Classification and security threat group management. Corrections Today Magazine, 68, 32-34.

28.

Ward, D. D. , & Werlich, T. G. (2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating supermax custody. Punishment and Society, 5, 53-75.

29.

Wilkinson v. Austin, WL 1383625 (June 13, 2005)

30.

Wolff v. McDonnell, 318 U.S. 539 (1974).