“The simple presence of an outside observer changes what happens inside a prison environment. It also can show us who we really are.”
Michele Dietch
From 2001 to 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice compiled the records of every inmate death in federal and state prisons (Carson, 2021a, 2021b). The results painted a grim picture of what happens beyond prison and jail walls. Federal prisons saw 200 to 300 inmate deaths per 100,000 inmates every year (Carson, 2021a). State prisons saw about 250 inmate deaths per 100,000 inmates from 2001 to 2010. In that year, there was a spike in prisoner deaths to a high of 350 deaths per 100,000 inmates in 2018. As of 2019, state incarcerated death rates have still not gone to pre-2010 levels (Carson, 2021a). Most of these deaths were due not to accidents, fights, or murders, but to illness, though suicide rates have also been on the rise (Carson, 2021a). Despite these rising rates, the number of people in state and federal prisons has been going down since 2010 (Carson, 2021b). That is, while fewer and fewer people are being incarcerated, the death rates are going up.
It is clear from these statistics that our corrections system is not keeping their incarcerated persons alive. While correctional expert witness services can assist litigation in keeping individual officials and companies accountable, it alone will not improve care or prevent future deaths, especially with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1997. How, then, do we ensure our corrections system learns and improves from the errors made?
As of this year, 18 states and Washington, D.C. have prison oversight entities, and 28 states had jail oversight bodies (Deitch, 2020; Hobbs, 2023). According to Deitch (2020), a corrections oversight body must have three traits:
- Independence: The body must be organizationally and administratively separate from the corrections department it oversees. That is,
- it does not report only to the DOC;
- it does not get funding directly from the DOC;
- its staff not made up of DOC employees;
- it is not an appointed board that makes decisions on prison agency operations and appointments of correctional administrators; and
- it is not in the DOC’s organizational structure.
- A primary focus on oversight of prison and jail conditions: The body must monitor prison conditions, quality of prison services, and the conduct of prison employees and leaders.
- A formal right to enter correctional facilities.
However, this may still allow for undue political influence. Even though the correctional oversight bodies are independent from the correctional agency they oversee, they are almost all bureaucratic bodies directly under the control of a chief executive, usually a governor’s office. For instance, the Washington State Office of Corrections Ombuds (OCO) is headed by a director, who is appointed by the Governor. Each OCO Director has a three-year term until they are reappointed or replaced. In Arizona, the Independent Prison Oversight Commission, the entity overseeing Arizona’s state prisons, is entirely appointed by the governor. Political pressure to hide or spin information, then, might not come from the correctional agency but rather the governor.
How, then, do we have a truly independent correctional oversight body?
The answer may lie outside the bureaucracy. If making an independent oversight body dependent on the executive branch introduces pressure, then why make the body an executive office? The oversight body could be established by a legislature and enshrined in statute. The body may not even constitute a tax burden—there are correctional oversight boards that are completely unpaid. Paid or not, though, making a correctional oversight body a legal requirement would protect it from any undue influence on the part of executives who want to cover up correctional abuses. The inspectors would then be freer to report correctional abuses without fear of reprisals.
In the end, though, not even this body would be perfect. A democratic government was never meant to be stable; it was meant to change with culture. Anything created by the government, then, will also change and disappear if not sustained. In addition to policy changes, there needs to be a sustained political culture centered around keeping corrections accountable and always reminding those in power that the people in prison are still people.
Maybe, then, some good can come out of the horrors of correctional abuse. With every death revealed, with every abuse brought to light by correctional oversight boards, that culture of compassion grows a little stronger. A truly independent correctional oversight body would ensure that we see as many abuses as there are and—hopefully—prevent future ones.
References
Michele Deitch (2021). Independent Oversight Is Essential for a Safe and Healthy Prison System | Brennan Center for Justice
Carson, E. A. (2021b). Mortality in State and Federal Prisons, 2001–2019 – Statistical Tables (ojp.gov)
Carson, E. A. (2021b). Prisoners in 2020 – Statistical Tables (ojp.gov)
Hobbs, K. (2023, January 25). Establishing the Independent Prison Oversight Commission. Executive Order 6 | Office of the Arizona Governor (azgovernor.gov)
Michele Deitch (2020). But Who Oversees the Overseers?: The Status of Prison and Jail Oversight in the United States | Faculty Publications | Texas Law (utexas.edu)
Wash. Rev. Code § 43.06C.030 (2022). Revised Code of Washington (RCW)