Will Alabama ever learn?

The year was 1972 when the prisoners being confined by the Alabama Department of Corrections filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Alabama alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteen Amendments.  The Eighth Amendment protects against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment includes the requirements for due process to be followed in legal actions taken against citizens of the United States.  There were three significant cases filed in the Federal Middle District; Newman v. Alabama, Pugh v. Locke: and James v. Wallace.  Each of these suits focused on conditions in the prisons that violated the U.S. Constitution.  Included in the cases were issues such as overcrowding, classification and placement, assault and abuse of inmate on inmate, sanitation problems, staffing (number, training, qualifications, pay), suicide prevention, medical and mental care. Each of these cases was granted class action status and included all inmates, female and male, incarcerated in the state’s prison system.  It is interesting to note that in open court the attorneys for the state agreed that they were in violation of the Constitution by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment within the prisons.  Each of these cases was closed in the 1980’s with the Pugh v. Locke case having a closing date of 1988.  The Chief Judge of the Middle District of Alabama was Frank M. Johnson, Jr., and his rulings in these cases were upheld by the Fifth and Eleventh Court of Appeals as well as by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Let me point out that one of the hallmarks of the rulings made by Judge Johnson were the thoroughness in providing specific remedies to be followed by the defendants.  His decisions in the prison cases followed this pattern and the state was specifically mandated to address each of the issues identified in the suits.

The above background is provided as a backdrop for fast-forwarding to the present time.  There has been a great deal of attention given to the inadequacies of the prison system in Alabama in recent years.  Once again, the Federal Court is making specific rulings about what must be done to comply with the court’s directives.  Judge Myron Thompson is the current Chief Judge of the Middle District of Alabama and he is following the trail laid down by Judge Johnson.  The state, as was true back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, is being forced to make changes or the Federal Government will, once again, take the necessary steps to effect change.  The most significant action could be the Federal Government taking control of the state’s prisons.   

There is a myriad of issues that mirror the earlier cases.  One of the most telling statistic is the number of suicides that have occurred within the prisons.  As of this writing there have been 15 since December 2017, and 13 in the last 14 months.  The spike in suicides in Alabama is four times the national average.  Judge Thompson has mandated that the Department of Corrections make improvements and called the prisons’ mental health systems “horrendously inadequate”.   The abuse of the use of solitary confinement has been a major contributing factor in the number of suicides.  The absence of significant mental health professionals providing treatment has been an additional factor.  

A report of the U. S. Department of Justice alleged that the men’s prisons were in violation of the Constitution because of the level of violence, rape, weapons, extortion, and other problems.  An article in the Alabama Political Reporter, written by one of their reporters, Josh Moon, described a man he met, a white, middle-aged businessman, who was to serve a two-year sentence for some illegal business deals.  In his first year he lost 80 pounds, was held for ransom, had his back broken, was stabbed and would have been murdered if not for the aid of another inmate.  He was also repeatedly denied prescribed necessary medication by guards and prison officials.  No mystery as to why prisoners are killing themselves.  The incidents of abuse by inmates and guards are legion and story after story could be told. 

The issues, included in the Department of Justice’s report, fall into five main categories: hiring more correctional staff (guards); pardons and paroles reforms; internal problems such as sexual abuse, suicides, and violence; prison construction; and, sentencing reform.  Indeed, much needs to be done.  A danger is that those in control of the decisions will look to building more prisons as the answer.  The previous Governor, Robert Bentley, laid out a very ambitious plan for the construction of new prisons.  He proclaimed this as the primary answer to the problems with the prison system.  However, building newer, more humane, prisons as replacements for the existing “hell-holes” housing both male and female inmates is much-needed.  

There is a need for more, better trained and qualified staff in all the prisons in the state.  Coupled with the need for more is the need to adjust wages to a level that attracts those who are committed to making a difference.  Keeping wages at a paltry level will lead to “getting what you paid for”. The sentencing practices in the state are abysmal.  The habitual offender law needs to be modified to deal with the most serious of offenders and not the addicted person who got caught three times, thereby being sentenced for life.  Yes, there are approaches to sentencing that have and do work such as treating addiction as a disease, not a crime, and allowing individuals to enter rehabilitation programs, rather than being sent to prisons.  Alternative sentencing does work.  Home detention, electronic monitoring, and community-based corrections are examples of alternatives that have been successful. 

The housing of inmates also requires significant modification.  Inappropriate classification and placement can be a detriment to an individual’s motivation to improve and work on issues that led to his/her incarceration.  More humane and credible supervision of inmates always must be a priority.  Such supervision pertains to monitoring inmates in the yard, in work assignments, movement from one place to another, and making sure that a limited number of inmates are showering at one time.  Many of the rapes occur in the shower.  The managerial and supervisory staff must be held accountable and questionable practices must stop.  An example of a questionable practice is the shackling of inmates to buckets in the Limestone Correctional Facility.  Those who are shackled must defecate six times in the bucket to have their restraints removed.  This is an unbelievable, inhumane, and unacceptable practice and the warden of that facility should be removed.  A practice of this nature cannot be tolerated.    

During his visit to American, in the 1830’s, Alexis de Tocqueville, and a colleague, conducted a study of the American penal system and Tocqueville is reported to have stated that American prisons were schools of crime.  He also stated that the level of a society’s morality can be determined by how they treat their prisoners.  In Alabama, we have not come very far from those days when the animals in the field were treated better than those put into the state’s prisons.

What has been put forth should not be construed as an attempt to suggest we coddle those who have been convicted of violating a law of society.  What I have attempted to do was to provide a brief historical context for what the state is currently experiencing.  Action must and will be taken, one way or the other.  If the state continues to delay in responding to the court, then they will come under the control of the Federal Government.  Literally, the clock is ticking and those in positions of leadership and power in the state will be required to do more than talk.  There is a reason the Founding Fathers included the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  We cannot engage in or support ongoing cruel and unusual punishment of those in the state’s custody.

Privacy in a hospital setting--does it exist?

Every day of the year, individuals are admitted to a medical care facility whether it be a hospital, infirmary, or some variation of an entity designed to provide medical help.  Within the confines of these facilities, the patients are placed in situations where their privacy is compromised.  The Google Dictionary defines privacy as: “the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.”  The legal definition included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “Freedom from unauthorized intrusion: state of being let alone and able to keep certain especially personal matters to oneself.”  These definitions are included to provide a backdrop to what goes on day-in and day-out in medical facilities throughout the country.  Recently, my wife was admitted to the hospital and was placed, against her requests, in a semi-private room.  The patient’s privacy is violated throughout the patients’ stay in a semi-private room.  To argue that a flimsy curtain separating the two beds assures privacy is farcical.  During times that I was visiting my wife, I became aware of the various ailments of the patient in the other bed.  I know that she was diabetic, had gout, was incontinent, and unable to walk without assistance.  My wife described the bathroom, which they had to share, as a disaster, including dirty diapers lying on the floor.  While we were cognizant of the women’s condition, she and her husband were, no doubt, aware of my wife’s condition.  A curtain does little to muffle conversation and provide any modicum of privacy.  We continued to request a private room but did not get one until the third day of her hospitalization.    

Indeed, privacy has become an important concept in the age of the Internet.  How do you protect the privacy of another person?  In 1974 the Federal Government passed the Privacy Act and in 1996 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) became law and included a Privacy Rule section.  In a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) document, the Privacy Rule is discussed.  It is noted that the ‘Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information—called ‘protected health information’ by organizations subject to the Privacy Rule –called ‘covered entities,’ as well as standards for individuals’ privacy rights to understand and control how their health information is used.”  Although these laws deal with privacy from a broader perspective, it can be argued that the protection of an individual’s health-specific information fits with the spirit of the laws, if not the letter of the laws.  While there is this emphasis on protecting the patients’ health information, it should be noted that there is a concept known as “Incidental Disclosure” which tends to undermine the intent of the protections included in the HIPPA Privacy Rule.  It allows for the sharing of medical information in a manner that creates a risk of such information not being protected, i.e., a physician talking to a patient in a semi-private room.  Regardless, the patient’s right to privacy should not be compromised for the sake of convenience.  This protection must be adhered to in all communications where health-specific information is being discussed.  

Protecting a patient’s privacy is impossible in a semi-private room.  In Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s article, No Space for HIPAA in My Semi-Private Room, he concluded by stating: “As it stands now, HIPAA in a semi-private room is a bad joke.”  For a medical facility to have all private rooms, does create a bit of a financial issue, yet privacy should not be reduced to a matter of dollars.  The hospital industry includes some of the primary defenders for having the option of semi-private rooms, yet in the American Hospital Association’s, A Patient’s Bill of Rights, the fifth Right is: “The patient has the right to every consideration of privacy. Case discussion, consultation, examination, and treatment should be conducted so as to protect each patient’s privacy.”  The Patients’ Bill of Rights in New York State includes the right to: “Privacy while in the hospital and confidentiality of all information and records regarding your care.”  There is a recognition that the privacy of each patient is a right that must be protected.

As noted, there is an inherent principle of privacy that permeates the health care industry and protections must be in place to protect the privacy of the patient.  When a person is hospitalized, they are at the mercy of the health care providers.  Patients do not loose their right to privacy once they are admitted to a medical facility.  It is incumbent on hospital administrators, physicians, nurses and anyone who encounters the patient to recognize their rights and adhere to them, particularly, the right to privacy.  Further, regardless of the financial implications, semi-private rooms must become a vestige of the past.  Each person has the right to their space and their privacy.

A changed environment

What has happened to the freedom of expression?  Whether we are talking about speaking to another person in the context of personal interaction, in a classroom on a college campus, in the political arena, or wherever humans are involved.  Indeed, such freedom should not adversely affect another person, but how do you know what is or might be offensive.  The recent uproar over Joe Biden touching the shoulders of a young woman and kissing the back of her head has garnered much more attention than might be expected in “normal” times. Obviously, what was once normal is no longer normal.  As Biden has stated, throughout his political career, he has been a person who shows affection without any hidden meaning attached to such displays.  The intent of focusing on the Biden situation is not to make light of how our actions and words are perceived by others.  It is interesting that the incident involving Biden occurred in 2014, and over four years later, it became an intrusive issue for the young woman. 

My developmental years and the years of my young adulthood occurred in the northern sections of the country.  Illinois, Indiana, New York, and Colorado are the states of my earlier years, and I moved to the “Deep South” in the mid 70’s to join the faculty of the University of Alabama.  One thing I learned in the early days of living in the South was that many women would refer to me as “darling”, “sugar”, and “sweetheart” or as I would leave the convenience store, the clerk would holler, “sugar, you come back, now.”  I also learned that some women in the South were prone to touching as they talked with you.  In these situations, nothing was meant by it, but as a young man from the North, I was confused.  Such language and actions were not customary in the Chicago area where I was raised.  What occurred was simply a function of the cultural norms of the South.  Now, let’s fast-forward to the current time.  If such words or actions were expressed today, one would run the risk of offending someone.  There are two terms that have become common-place on college campuses—Microaggressions and Trigger Warnings.  This new language which has emerged throughout society cause individuals to be leery of alluding to something that might “trigger” a reaction or be viewed as microaggressive.  Let me refer to some examples that put this in perspective.

Universities throughout the country have held faculty accountable for creating situations that have triggered adverse reactions by students.  In an article in The Atlantic, titled, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, the authors raised a critical  question; “What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and in many other ways conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence that require strict control by campus authorities, who are expected to act as both protectors and prosecutors?”  The authors go on to identify examples of the policing by university administrators.  In 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania, an Israeli-born student yelled “Shut up, you water buffalo” to a group of African American sorority women who were making noise outside his dorm.  The phrase “water buffalo”, roughly translated is a Hebrew insult for thoughtless or rowdy individuals.  The university determined that it was a racial slur against the African American students.  In 2008 at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, a white student was found guilty of racial harassment for reading a book title Notre Dame vs. the Klan.  A picture of a Klan rally on the cover offended a co-worker of the student and the student was found guilty.  Students were emotionally offended by chalk writings on sidewalks at Emory University in support of Trump during the 2016 elections.  Students at the University of St. Francis in Minnesota cancelled an event called Hump Day because it offended some students.  There would was to be a live camel for people to pet, and this was tabbed as animal cruelty and being insensitive to Middle Eastern people.  At the University of Colorado in Denver, a required course for Political Science majors, American Political Thought, removed from the course any reference to every single white male and their contributions.  Thus, there would be nothing on Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton nor any mention of Locke or Rousseau.  This decision is a blatant example of political correctness.  Decisions which are reflected in the examples have led to an environment of uncertainty and, potentially, fosters unnatural human interaction—everyone second guesses their words and actions.  Several comedians will no longer perform on college campuses because of environmental restrictions on their material and the oversensitivity of college students.  The phrase, “I’m offended” has become an unbeatable trump card.

Returning to the Biden matter.  He has adamantly stated that he did not engage in his personal touch approach with any intentions beyond being friendly.  In the “Me Too” era, women continue to come forward with accusations that go back many years.  Indeed, there have been egregious incidents, including those alleged to have been committed by the President, and they should be addressed.  Yet, to broaden the field of accusations to include harmless actions or words does little to bring reason to a situation that seems to have gone a bit off the tracks.  Additionally, it can lead to undermining and trivializing the “real” concerns. 

The price of admission?

Many of us were shocked with the multitude of headlines that focused on the admissions scandal involving some of the country’s most elite universities.  As many of us are aware, the rich and influential in our society have often used their resources to “purchase a place for their children” at universities.  A scholarship in the name of a beloved uncle or grandmother, a building with the name of the family etched on a plaque or into the façade of the building, the use of the family’s company plane to travel about the country in search of high-profile athletes, and on and on.  We have accepted the reality that the “haves” are much more equipped to influence the decisions for admission than the “have-nots”.  The recent scandal took all of this “influence peddling” to a different and more egregious level.   Paying an individual to either take the standardized test or change the answers of the test; transposing the head of their child on the body of an athlete; paying an intermediary thousand and in some cases millions of dollars to assure admission through a “side door process”-- these are some of the methods employed to gain entrance to Stanford, Yale, the University of Southern California, UCLA, or the University of Texas in Austin.  As noted, those with financial means and notoriety have always been able to use their riches and fame to access institutions, protected venues, and “areas” that are “off limits” to the common person.  Many gloat as they circumvent the conventional methods of access.  In a recent article in The Tuscaloosa News, a father was describing an experience with his daughter.  They were visiting the Harvard Yard and in the course of their conversation, his eleven-year old daughter stated that Harvard would have to offer her admission.  Exploring her assurance of such action, the father inquired as to why this would be the case.  She answered because, I am part of you.  It was her belief because her father had attended Harvard that she would be accepted as an alumnus’ child.  The father made it clear that she would have to gain access on her own merits, regardless of her lineage.

Whether by position, wealth, or family heritage, privilege is an abused phenomenon in our society.  I recall trying to get on a hotel elevator in New Orleans when the University of Alabama was playing the University of Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl.  It was quite crowded and not everyone was going to be able to get on.  The play-by-play announcer for Alabama was one of the people trying to get on and he blurted out to those around him as he pushed his way on, “don’t you know who I am.”  His privileged position had to give him access, regardless of the others who were waiting.  At Alabama, a sense of royalty has evolved amongst the administration and this is particularly evident on the day of a home football game.  With sirens blaring and emergency lights ablaze, the “president’s entourage” comprised of several vans is escorted to the stadium.  The “peons” making up the score of people trying to enter the stadium are blocked from doing so until the entourage is safely on the elevator taking them to the “president’s box”.  The examples of privilege dictating behavior are endless.  Whether it is the car one drives, the neighborhood they live in, the house where they were raised, the school they attended or the job they have, believing that you are “one of the chosen” is apparent throughout the fabric of society.  Those who are of this mindset need to recall the Biblical admonition that, “many are called, but few are chosen”.

Being a retired university professor after twenty-five years on the faculty, I have witnessed a growing focus on appealing to the “haves”.  The cost of attending college has increased exponentiality, the “perks” built into the life in the dorm approximates what would be found in a five-star hotel, and the academic expectations have been watered down to the extent that very few students fail.  The inflation of grades is a reality that is pervasive in every institution of higher education, including the Yale’s, Harvard’s and Princeton’s.  The scandal that has been exposed is the manifestation of a society that allows for influence and privilege to prevail.  The trappings that go with wealth and influence have created an environment that places the rich and famous on a pedestal.  Whether it leads to having to get on the elevator because of who one is, or being a member of the entourage being escorted to a football game, or driving the right kind of car, or attending the right university, privilege fosters the belief that “I am better than the next person”.  As young people witness such behavior and believe that they are better than others, it raises serious questions as to the future for these kids.  If mommy and daddy are willing to spend $500,000 to get their daughters admitted to USC, what is the message that is being sent to these young women?

Lights and lines

As I have driven the highways and byways of this great country, I have often been impressed with the control that lines and lights have on the driving experience.  As you drive, there are well-recognized and well-accepted controls.  If the light is red, you stop; if green, you go; and if yellow, you should slow down.  If the line is an unbroken yellow line on your side of the road, you are not to pass; however, if the line is a broken yellow or white line, you can pass.  If the line is a solid white line, you are to stay in your lane and not pass.  In addition to the controls of the lights and the lines on our driving, there are also rules of the road, that each of us is to be familiar with so that they can be followed by all who drive, thus the driving experience is without confusion.  You are not to pass a school bus that is stopped to load or unload children, you are to yield to any emergency vehicle, either by stopping, getting out of the way or slowing down.  Ostensibly, all drivers are to obey the speed limit that is posted in a given area, yet many of us “cheat” on how much over the speed limit we drive.  Tailgating, riding too close to the rear of the car in front of you, is, generally frowned upon and in some jurisdictions will lead to being pulled over by the police.  During times when it is raining, you are to have your headlights on, yet many a driver does not follow this specific rule of the road and it is rarely enforced.  All cars are to have two functioning headlights and taillights, or you might be subject to being stopped by the local representative of law enforcement.  Indeed, there is more to add to this array of rules and controls, but let’s assume the point has been made.  To have an orderly progression of vehicles using the highways and streets, we must all accept and abide by these rules and controls.

In life there are also “rules of the road” for living and being a participant in the interaction with others.  There are lights and lines that we are to abide by if there is going to be some semblance of order amongst the populace.  It is commonly accepted that if one is married it is to one other person, and to have more than one spouse or partner is going beyond the line that has been established.  To engage in any sexual activity with one’s child is also a forbidden action that crosses the line.  Falsifying personal information on official documents is not acceptable and crosses the line of honesty and integrity.  The Internet has created the opportunity to cross lines and run lights with anonymity and impunity.  The epidemic of bullying by young people towards other young people is, just but one example of this practice.  The abuse and neglect of children occurs all too often in what we want to believe is a caring, fair, and just society, yet parents are found guilty of this every day.  In a civilized society the light is red for such behavior and one is held accountable if they cross this line.  Myriad of examples can be given to illustrate how the society in which we live sets the rules and if we are to have some modicum of harmony, the rules must be followed.  When one violates the rules, there are repercussions that flow from those who are given the authority to enforce the rules.  When the light is red, one should stop what they are doing and wait and see if it turns green

As each person reflects on their respective lives, they can identify the rules and controls that have impacted them.  What are your “rules of the road of life”?  Knowing what they are is only the first step. The next step is, how well do you follow these rules?  There is a reference in the Bible which states that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” and it led to chaos.  There must be rules and controls just as there are in the driving experience. In the journey of life, we see daily examples of individuals running the societal red lights and passing when the rules forbid them to do so.  If we all drove in this manner, it would lead to nothing more than a huge pile of metal, rubber, and glass and destroyed lives.  With all that is going on in our society, are we living with those in control breaking the rules over and over?  Think about it!