Sleep deprivation intensifies torture conditions for prisoners in advance of hunger strikes and work actions

by Isaac Ontiveros, Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

Oakland— Less than a month before statewide hunger strikes are set to resume, the California Department of Corrections has instituted a new policy at Pelican Bay State Prison which has resulted in chronic sleep deprivation for prisoners in solitary confinement.

Both guards and prisoners complained to lawyers conducting legal visits last week about a new policy requiring prison guards to conduct “welfare checks” every 30 minutes on prisoners isolated in the prison’s Security Housing Units (SHU). Normally, prisoners in the SHU are counted every three to four hours by guards who patrol each unit, ensuring prisoners are in their cells. Each prisoner must be observed physically moving or showing skin. The frequency and method of these counts have already been challenged in a federal lawsuit, Ashker v. Brown. Experts claim the sleep deprivation caused by the counts violates prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights.
“Sleep deprivation has many significant psychological consequences, including irritability and impairment of the ability to make rational decisions,” says Dr. Terry Kupers, a clinical psychiatrist and an expert on forensic mental health. “Because of the harm it causes, sleep deprivation has been described as torture by organizations such as Amnesty International.”

The new policy has been ordered by Jeffrey Beard, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) newly appointed secretary whose Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for June 19, 2013. The directive applies to over 1,100 prisoners who are in solitary confinement in Pelican Bay.

“Tensions were very high at Pelican Bay last week,” says Anne Weills, an attorney who is representing SHU prisoners at Pelican Bay. “The guards are on edge and upset about this new policy. Obviously the prisoners are on edge and suffering because of the sleep deprivation. But they remain resilient and deeply committed to peaceful actions to make necessary changes.”

In January, prisoners at Pelican Bay announced in an open letter to Gov. Brown that they would resume hunger strikes and include work actions to protest the conditions of their confinement. In 2011 over 12,000 prisoners in over a third of California’s 33 prisons participated in two waves of hunger strikes. The 2011 strike was called off when the CDCR promised new policies and other improvements that addressed five demands outlined by prisoners. Almost two years later, prisoners and advocates claim the CDCR’s promises have been empty, and prison conditions have worsened.

Less than a month before statewide hunger strikes are set to resume, the California Department of Corrections has instituted a new policy at Pelican Bay State Prison which has resulted in chronic sleep deprivation for prisoners in solitary confinement.

“This is torture,” says Azadeh Zohrabi of the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition. “This intensified sleep deprivation adds to the long list of human rights violations endured by thousands of prisoners held in solitary for prolonged and indefinite terms, some for decades.”

Lawyers and advocates have also received demands from prisoners who plan to go on strike in San Quentin, High Desert and Corcoran State Prisons. Prisoners have been clear that the strike could be called off if Gov. Brown engaged in good faith negotiations. Brown’s office has not responded to their request.

Isaac Ontiveros of Critical Resistance, a national grassroots organization working to abolish the prison industrial complex, is a spokesperson for the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition. He can be reached at (510) 444-0484 or isaac@criticalresistance.org.

via SFBayview.com

California voted ‘yes’ on Prop 35; experts, police and sex workers disagree on impact

On November 6, Californians passed Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, which will increase the penalties for convicted human traffickers, mandate law enforcement training in identifying and handling trafficking victims, and require convicted traffickers to disclose their Internet service providers, screen names and email addresses to law enforcement. Proposition 35 also changed California’s evidence code, which regulates evidence that can be used in court, to prevent a trafficking victim’s sexual history from being discussed in a courtroom when he or she sues their traffickers.

Backers argued that Proposition 35 would protect women and children who are being forced into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation and allow victims—especially children—to confront their abusers in court. “When I drafted this, I wanted to do two things: I wanted to recognize the severity of the crime and I also wanted to recognize the victims as victims, not as criminals,” said Daphne Phung, the initiative’s author and the founder of California Against Slavery, a nonprofit group that was a major proponent of the Yes on 35 campaign.

But now that voters have passed Proposition 35 by a whopping 81 percent, there is little agreement among law enforcement agencies, legal experts and sex workers about how the initiative will affect adults who voluntarily choose to work in the sex industry, especially with regard to the owners of indoor places of work, like brothels, escort services and massage parlors.

During the campaign, sex workers, as well as some anti-trafficking organizations and civil rights groups, opposed Proposition 35, citing concerns like the mandatory disclosure of Internet habits and identities for convicted traffickers. The day after it passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the Internet disclosure provision.

Read the rest of the story from Titania Kumeh and Samantha Masunaga at Oakland North.Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

via SFGATE