Human Rights
for

ALL
A Booklet About Prisoners’ Rights

Put on-line for:

International CURE
(Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants)
PO Box 2310
Washington DC 20013-2310
www.internationalcure.org

HUMAN RIGHTS
FOR
ALL
A Booklet About
Prisoners’ Rights
COMPILED BY

C.E.CYPSER

Who will speak if we don’t?
Who will speak so their voice will be heard?
Who will speak if we don’t?

HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL
A Booklet About Prisoners’ Rights
Contents:
Prisons and Prisoners --------------------------------------- 1
Laws and Documents ---------------------------------------- 4
The Declaration of Human Rights
Applied to Prisoners ---------------------------------7
Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1-30-------7-34
The Humane Principle ----------------------- -----------33
Changes in The Law Could Help--------------- --------34
Bill of Rights for The Offender ---------------- --------37

Addenda
Crime Victims Bill of Rights - New Jersey --------------41
Rights of The Child - United Nations ---------------------42
Kobutsu Malone - Punishment ---------------------------44
Kenneth Bazil - Offender Disenfranchisement ------------45
Jon Marc Taylor - The Forgotten Man ------------ ------48
The Twenty-eight Points - Inmates at Attica -------------52

Published by
KIM PATHWAYS
16 Young Road
Katonah NY 10536
July 2000
ISBN: 1-892063069

Human Rights for All:
A Booklet About Prisoners’ Rights
Prisons and Prisoners
There are approximately two million people incarcerated in the prisons and
jails of our country. Just visualize these people for a moment. It is hard to
think about two million people all at once. Most of them are men. Some are
women or teen age children. These people are human beings. They have
human rights. The majority of these human beings in our prisons are citizens
of the United States and are protected under The Bill of Rights of The
Constitution of the United States. How do we justify denial of some of these
rights to this body of prisoners, while we allow the implementation of other
of these rights as justly due to prisoners?
Our courts and culture usually agree that those who are citizens in a
country or a jurisdiction should have voting rights in that country or jurisdiction, but we logically deny this right to children. Perhaps we are considering prisoners in the same category as those who do not have the mental capacity or the judgment that would enable them to exercise the right to
vote. We would like to believe that persons can change their behavior, and
that those who have offended society can be responsible for their actions,
can think about moral and political issues, and can train themselves to be
thinking citizens. We also would like to believe that there is a possibility of
forgiveness for past irresponsible actions. All offenders are members of
our created human order, and assisted by their input, we should plan for
their release from prison and a positive relationship with society. We should
seriously consider their human rights to decent wages, voting, education,
health care, and their right to life.
Many laws are put in place because of our desire to have an orderly
and safe society. We declare rights and privileges, but these rights end when
we are guilty of destroying another’s rights. One person’s right to smoke
ends where the non-smoker’s nose begins. Sometimes it is necessary to
curtail rights when there is harm to others. Laws regulating cars and guns
are necessary to protect the greater society. However, some laws whose
presumed purpose is to make society safer may inadvertently cause harm.
Laws denying voting rights to a subset of people may harm the greater
1

society, as such laws may frustrate that subset into terrorist tactics, when
their grievances go unheard.
We have prisons because there are people who are a danger to themselves or others. We restrain such people by placing them under supervision. It has been assumed that putting a person in prison is a good way to
keep that person from getting “out of control.” Perhaps these assumptions
are incorrect, and the reality may be that prisons lead to greater disruptions
of personality in many instances. We have learned that punishing a child
by locking him in a closet can do psychological damage to that child. Why
should locking up an adult have positive effects? Our present mode of punishment for those who behave in an unsocial manner, may do more harm
than good. Wise parents do not subject children to arbitrary and capricious
punishment. Psychologists advise us to consult with children as to what
their punishment should be. Family group counseling invites participation
and discussion between parents and children or other related individuals.
Such supervised conversation allows the miscreant a comment or a vote in
the future possibilities of his life. It opens up the thought of transformative
actions in his life, and also what he might do, if anything, to heal the past.
Likewise, those accused of serious wrongdoing should have a say in how
they or others are treated in confinement or in regards to restitution.
The state has primary concern for the rights of and the restitution due
to the victim of a crime. (See Addendum I, New Jersey’s proposal for victims’ rights.) The state should also have concern for the offender. The state
is to give just and considered recommendations for the offender, as a wise
parent would for a child. It has the responsibility to rehabilitate and restore
to the community, as a wise parent would. The offender must acknowledge
his misdeeds, his rights and his responsibilities. Those who recognize both
their rights and their responsibilities towards others, and respect the rights
of others, are less likely to harm others. Governments may seriously violate the human rights of the offender in their haste to exercise their responsibility to protect the public. Is it possible to run our justice systems and
our prison complexes so that they respect the human rights of those who
have offended society? Only when we give those governed a voice in their
government, will we have a just society. Pope John Paul II, a man experienced in presiding over a large body of people, declared in 1997 that “democracy is only possible on the basis of a correct conception of the human
person, which involves the recognition of the right of each person to take
an active part in public life.”
Who is looking out for the human rights of those who have offended?
2

Some rights are respected, because, as human beings ourselves, we all
rise from certain cultural and ethical norms. We see something wrong with
murdering a person in cold blood. We are offended when someone spits on
us. Many rights that some of us assume as common to all humanity, are
treated rather haphazardly when people are confined behind bars. Who is
making the decisions about which rights are being respected and what
responsibilities are to be encouraged? What sub-culture within the greater
world culture is making the judgments? Are we, the ordinary people of the
world, making the judgments? Are the courts and the legal systems, which
often are highly political, respecting all people’s rights? Are the judgments
being left up to individuals in the departments of correction to use excessive
security measures against those who are stereotyped as “violent?” When we
call our children offensive names, they often take on that undesirable
quality. Grown-ups react likewise. A break-in at a house where there is no
one at home, and nothing is taken, has been legally defined as a “violent”
crime. Those possessing guns when they commit a minor crime such as
shoplifting are considered legally “violent.” However, we do not call the
many gun owners across the United States “violent” when they take their
gun in hand. To use the term “violent” to categorize and stigmatize is
psychologically unacceptable, as we are all fallible humans. We are all
violent at times, and we are all pleasant and sociable at times. We all have
violent tendencies, but with help we can make proper choices and take
responsibility for our actions. We can train ourselves to choose the less
harmful alternative, when confronted with a situation that has the potential
for disaster.
People and institutions are capable of change. However, it is difficult
for one person to change another person. Each person must want to change
himself or herself. It is likewise difficult for a person to change an institution. The people in that institution must want to change what it is, in that
institution that hampers the flow of good to the greater society. They must
listen to one another to see what attitudes and actions are causing friction.
With knowledge and insight, proper and inspired legislation could help to
change the unhealthy thrust to punishment in our prison systems.
There are many questions about how our prisons are being run. Often
it is the security arm of the departments of correction that makes the decisions as to what human rights and responsibilities of the human beings
under their control, are to be honored. Being a prisoner in one of the prisons in the United States is not a pleasant routine, and many folk justify this
unpleasantness as proper punishment for a wrong-doer. Being an officer in
a prison in the United States who is to keep such disrespected individuals
3

secure is a very tough job, which ranges from boredom to life-threatening.
There is much fear, anger, and frustration that can take place in the human
soul in the prison situation, both for those kept and for their keepers.
Correction officials tend to disallow human rights or responsibilities that
would have a negative affect on their sense of security.
When considering the cost of prisons, we find there is much unnecessary expense involved in building and operation. We taxpayers are paying
for a massive and fairly ineffective system, when our tax monies could be
going instead for building up communities and individuals, in order to ensure that our children do not become prison fodder. It is a mistake to put
our funds into prison confinement rather than education. Education is a
healing tool for a better society. It costs less to educate, than to incarcerate.
Job training and drug rehabilitation are better options for people than jailing.

Laws and Documents
Our prisons are run according to laws. Rules and regulations are made by
various people in various situations for various purposes. There are laws or
regulations put in place by many groups, such as churches, corporations,
political bodies, and departments of correction. Bodies of law vary in their
content and their purpose. Some laws are made by authoritarian bodies to
keep their group pure and to exclude others. Some laws are made to control
a subset of the population, such as slaves. Sometimes the laws are detrimental to the population affected by them. What are our laws doing to special
groups in our population? Some of our laws may be denying citizen and noncitizen prisoners their human rights. Laws, when put in place by selfinterested parties or politicians seeking to retain their office, can influence
those oppressed by such laws, into terrorist acts. Law, when it is done well,
can restore and rehabilitate, and is a builder of community.
Diverse groups have set down their beliefs as to how people should
treat each other. The Parliament of the World’s Religions suggests an ethical direction for the family of humankind. “We consider humankind our
family. We must strive to be kind and generous. We must not live for ourselves alone, but should also serve others, never forgetting the children, the
aged, the poor, the suffering, the disabled, the refugees, and the lonely. No
person should ever be considered or treated as a second-class citizen, or be
exploited in any way whatsoever.”1 This Declaration Toward A Global
Ethic does not mention the prisoner as such, but surely, the prisoner is
included in the phrase that insists no one is to be treated as second-class.
Surely, the prisoner is included among the lonely and the suffering. We
are being called to see the prisoner as a fellow humanbeing, worthy of
4

our concern, rather than as someone to be condemned and tortured, because
he has harmed himself or others. Our mindset must become one of restoration rather than of restitution and punishment.
The Catholic Bishops of New York State have compiled a pastoral statement on criminal justice entitled Restoring All to the Fullness of Life.2 This
document urges a theology of restoration of the individual as opposed to a
theology of retribution. This restorative belief is based on the concept of
the inherent dignity of every human being and the sacredness of all human
life. Another Christian viewpoint has been expressed in a pamphlet by the
New York State Community of Churches called Doing Justice by Virginia
Mackey which emphasizes the spirit of redemptive community.3 The Prison
Fellowship organized by Charles Colson, speaks for the philosophy of restorative justice in Beyond Crime and Punishment. Prison Fellowship believes that “victims, offenders, and communities–not just the government–
should be actively involved in the criminal justice process at the earliest
point and to the maximum extent possible.”4
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was formulated by a group
of people associated with the United Nations, one of whom was the American, Eleanor Roosevelt. This document proposes a worldwide set of ethical
values, which was agreed to by the majority of member nations. Abstaining
(at the signatory date 12/10/48) were Byelorusse, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Ukraine, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. The document rapidly became a guide for worldwide law. The United Nations Proclamation of Teheran provided that “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
states a common understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the
inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and
constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community.”5
Following the adoption of The Declaration, the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights drafted other covenants enlarging The Declaration into
legally binding treaty obligations which supply greater detail as to the rights
protected. The United Nations has a long supplementary list of treaties and
conventions which implement the rights proclaimed in The Declaration. These
include the punishment of the crime of genocide (1948), the status of refugees (1951), slavery (1956), forced labor (1957), racial discrimination

(1966), discrimination against women (1979), degrading punishment
(1984), and many others. Some of these documents have not been signed
by the United States; some the United States has signed but the Senate
has not ratified; some have been entered into force (being both signed
and ratified) such as The Political Rights of Women (1954) and The
Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and
5

Practices Similar to Slavery (1957). State and federal courts in the United
States frequently cite The Universal Declaration.6
The document on racism, which has the formal name of International
Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
was entered into force on January 4, 1969, and commits the United States
to the elimination of the evil of racism. Recent events point to some racism
present in our present electoral processes. Another related document, The
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights emphasizes in particular the right for all to participate in elections (both to vote and to stand
for election), on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the
government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level, and to
have equal access to public service. Article 25 of this ICCPR limits those
expansive rights slightly.7 Many rights in our criminal justice systems and
our various departments of corrections follow in the positive directions
given in these human rights documents. However, courts have varying perceptions of other rights, such as voting, that should be noted and challenged.
The third paragraph of the Preamble of The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights agreed upon by the United Nations General Assembly in
1948 in order to encourage a peaceful world order states, “Whereas it is
essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”8 If people are oppressed, they are more likely to
strike out with acts of terrorism and violence. Those who desire order and
justice for our society and our world, must show kindness and respect to
ALL people. The preamble refers to ALL persons; this document is called
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore we can conclude
that the Articles in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to
those human beings who are held in prisons.
Are our society and our criminal justice systems violating the innate
rights of human beings who have broken the law? Supposedly, those in the
prisons of the United States have had their crimes duly processed, but we
have seen in foreign countries such as the former Soviet Union, how innocent people were imprisoned and enslaved. In our country those found guilty
of an offense likewise may or may not be guilty of the crimes for which
they are convicted. It has been documented that even in matters as serious
as the death penalty, nine out of twenty of those on death row in the State of
Illinois had their convictions overturned.9 This is a horrendous miscarriage
of justice when a person is innocent. Yet even the truly guilty should have
their rights respected.
“When the laws hurt and harm, rather than help and heal, it is time to
6

change the laws.”10 Do laws such as the Rockefeller Laws and confinement
in prisons with degrading Special Housing Units help to heal the damage
done to our society by drugs, guns, and offenders? People in prison are
human beings and deserve the rights that go with their being human. In order
to make clearer judgments on rights of prisoners and violations of those
rights, we will conduct an article by article perusal of the 30 Articles of The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that we can think more concisely
about human rights and responsibilities regarding prisoners and the prison
system in the United States.

The Declaration of Human Rights Applied to Prisoners
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1 - All human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. This Article proclaims a spirit of brotherhood and equality. Some
prosecutors, in their hurry to get a conviction, are not treating the accused
as an equal. The accused is stripped of his dignity and self-respect. There is
no recognition of the brotherhood of all humanity.
The Constitution of the United States includes a Bill of Rights setting forth
additional rights and responsibilities for its citizens beyond the intentions in
the original Constitution. These amendments back up Human Rights Article 1
by establishing freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. They
support a well directed militia, and the right of people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and against unreasonable searches.They guarantee a
speedy and public trial by jury, the right to know the nature of an accusation,
the confrontation of witnesses, and the right to counsel. They prohibit cruel
and unusual punishment. One would think that these rights would encourage
the spirit of brotherhood, build individual dignity and worth, and be applicable to all citizens, including those in prison.
As prisoners are human beings, other human beings are obliged to
respect their human rights and to assist them in positive directions as participants of substantially the same genetic coding. Prisoners are to be encouraged to take responsible actions that aid in their fulfillment and the
building up of society.
Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the
7

country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. We
find many of the forbidden distinctions mentioned in Article 2 being
exercised in our prisons and in our justice system. Discriminations rampant
in the system are those of race, culture, religion, and language. Three
instances are given below:
(1) Racial disparity is found in all steps of the system, in arrest, arraignment,
pretrial release, adjudication and sentencing, probation and community supervision, incarceration and parole decisions. Some recent instances of the disparities
are easily seen from the following: A report released November 27, 2000 found
that 80 percent of automobile searches on the New Jersey Turnpike were of
vehicles driven by Black or Hispanic drivers. In 70 percent of the stops, no
contraband was found (The U.S. Supreme Court on November 28 struck down
random police roadblocks used to catch drug traffickers.)
(2) In Illinois, over the last year, 393 Cook County youths arrested for serious
crimes were automatically transferred from juvenile to adult court. Only three of
the youths were white. Two-thirds were charged with non-violent drug offenses;
61 percent had no juvenile record.
(3) Laws passed at all levels of government influence who gets criminalized. An
example is the disparate penalties for crack and powder cocaine. One solution
would consist of requiring impact analysis which would identify probable
disproportionate racial impacts and the fiscal costs of any law passed. This
should slow the rush to harsher and harsher punishments.”11

The United States agreed to the United Nations’ Convention on Racial
Discrimination, but it is often guilty of shutting its eyes to violations. “The
racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating
to Black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal
protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional
democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to
weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and
it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the
criminal justice system.”12
Article 3 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. How
is the prisoner’s right to life upheld? In California’s Corcoran Prison between
1988 and 1994 seven inmates were shot dead and others wounded at the whim
of officers. Clearly, the inmates’ right to life and security were violated.13
Those states that exercise the death penalty clearly violate the right to life of
those they have condemned to “death row.” From January 18, 1995 to July 15,
2000, those in control in the State of Texas using the guidance of Texas laws,
executed 135 men and 2 women. Some of those executed were very probably
innocent; some were mentally ill; some were underage when the crime was
8

committed; and some whose crime was the result of drug use, had transformed their life style. Often quoted for justification of the death penalty is
the biblical verse (Genesis 9:6), “He who sheds man’s blood, shall have his
blood shed by man.” Who is responsible for this state-sponsored murder?
Those who glibly quote this verse do not see that persons who carry out such
a sentence should logically also receive the death penalty, ad infinitum, until
all those who do state killings have killed each other off. Further along in the
Bible (John 8:8 ), certain qualifications are placed on all those who were
anxious to implement the death sentence by stoning. They were to be
“without sin.” To stop those who were about to self-righteously murder a
woman taken in adultery, Jesus announced, “Let he who is without sin
among you, cast the first stone.” To enforce the death penalty in Texas and
still follow this admonition, it would be necessary to find a politician or
hatchet-man without sin.
On the question of liberty, Article 3 does not ensure liberty when an
offender’s term has been served, and he is no longer considered a threat to
society. Legislation in Michigan almost ensures recidivism. An offender
returning home needs to pay a parole oversight fee of from $50 to $150 per
month. Then there is legislation that forbids ex-offenders to take jobs such
as those in health care, child care, or care of the aged. Paying for one’s
parole officer when one is ineligible for many jobs is a road back to recidivism. The Bureau of Justice statistics nationwide show that returned parolees often are drug abusers, have not completed highschool, are unemployed,
and often homeless. Others are mentally ill, infected with the AIDS virus,
or carriers of tuberculosis.14 What programs could be put in place during
their prison time, to assist persons with such drawbacks?
Article 3 also speaks of the right to security of person. Those placed in
our prisons are guaranteed very little of such security. They run the daily
risk of being abused or raped by fellow inmates or even by guarding officers. Those under the sentence of death, can expect to undergo that sentence. Recently, there has been the window of DNA testing that has freed
10 death row inmates and some 80 total convicts across the country. “26%
of all rape/homicide suspects are cleared through DNA testing.”15 It is sad
that our courts are so conviction-directed that those charged with rape can
only prove their innocence by chemical means.
Article 4 - No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave
trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. The prisons and laws of the
United States allow for and encourage both slavery and servitude in our
prisons. Chain gangs, once outlawed, have come back into acceptance in
9

some states. Pay far below the minimum wage allowed, is given for prison
labor, and freedom is unreasonably restricted in Special Housing Units (or
SHUs). Such solitary confinement in SHUs with their twenty three hour
imprisonment in small cages prompts thoughts of the Tiger Cages of MyLai
in the Vietnam War. A prisoner writes from Texas, “We,[who are] enslaved
prisoners, their families and supporters, demand equal protection of international law as set forth in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We,
slaves in a nation where no slavery should exist, seek only that which we
have been due – the end of all slavery and fair compensation for our diligent
labor.”16 When one segment of society makes the laws that control another
non-voting segment of society, that is a type of slavery!
Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Torture and degrading punishments
have not been shown to prevent further violence. Enlightened restoration of
both victims and offenders increases order and public safety. Prisoners in
United States’ prisons can be unnecessarily strip-searched, have body
orifices probed, or be assaulted by multiple guards while their hands are
chained behind their backs. Then there are the lesser insults of verbal putdowns, cancelled visits, denied health care, and deprivation of education
and job training. The mission of any Department of Correctional Services
is not to be seen as the incarceration of inmates; the Department is being
trusted with the incarceration of human beings. Their mission is not simply
warehousing, but should entail a certain dedication to aid in the transformation of offenders to becoming fulfilled individuals. If only DOCS could see
their mission to heal people rather than to keep them secured! To live
together profitably as human beings, we need more than law and order and
punishment. We need respect and empathy. We need to extend our vision to
include the quality of forgiveness.
Cruel and unusual punishment is shown in corrections’ latest fascination with control units or supermax confinement. Inmates are locked down
for 23 hours a day and are denied congregate dining, group exercise, work
opportunities, and corporate religious services. Access to programs, job
training, social services and visits is limited.17 Along with this heavily restricted celling, the use of stun-guns by members of our justice systems is
also on the increase. “Strapped around the inmate’s waist, the stun gun
delivers a shock that can cause involuntary defecation and urination. Electroshock devices are dangerous, because electrical impulses travel through
the nervous system, and go directly to the heart and brain.”18 These devices go against the standards of harm reduction and least-restrictive
10

environments that have been proposed by professionals in mental health
institutions. Both stun-guns and Special Housing Units (SHUs) are far from
the principle of using the least harmful treatment of human beings. Unfortunately, special housing facilities have been over built, so there is pressure to fill
the cells, and thus a trend to harsher penalties for disciplinary infractions.
There are 6000 New York State prisoners in some form of 23 hour
confinement, 1900 of them for more than 1 year, 200 for more than 5 years.
There is no time limit on 23 hour confinement in New York State!19 There
are 10,000 persons with mental illness in the New York State prisons. Those
inmates who degenerate or are problems in the SHUs may be placed in
observation cells where they are stripped naked, and put under suicide watch.
Outside experts in psychiatric medicine should be brought in to monitor
the mistreatment that takes place in these special housing units.20
Article 6 - Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law. Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (On The Condition of The
Workingman) believes that the state cannot take away rights that humans
have had since before the state existed. If the state cannot take away one’s
human rights, then one individual may not take away another’s rights either,
including human dignity and the respect such dignity commands. Even
though one is a condemned offender behind bars, one should be given the
rights of other humans. People behind bars are still people. We often treat
caged animals with more sympathy. The Declaration calls for human rights
for ALL.
Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination. This Article 7 again utilizes
the word ALL. We know that money makes for inequalities. A rich White
man can be convicted of drug or alcohol violations in his youth and have no
problem running 15 years later for political office. A poor Black man can be
put into prison for 15 years to life for a similar action. The Black man may
never get the opportunity to vote, let alone run for public office. Laws that
encourage this sort of discrimination, such as the Rockefeller Laws, should
be repealed, and the repeal should be retroactive. Our legal system does not
give equal protection in plea bargaining and in choice of lawyers. Stiff
penalties are given out more often to Black men than to White men, who have
a similar offense. “... the death penalty is imposed not upon those who commit
the worst crimes, but upon those ... who have the misfortune to be assigned the
worst lawyers.”21 When plea bargaining is used, and one offender accuses
11

another in order to get a lesser sentence, how can we be sure that the truth
is being told? “When this plea bargaining takes place in a capital offense
with the end result being that one life is taken and the other is spared, true
justice is not being served.”22
An example of the unequal justice doled out to Black people is seen in
racial profiling. This is not limited to driving on the highway. Police often
concentrate their drug details in the poorer Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, while ignoring the drug deals that take place in White suburban
homes and in high rise office buildings. This, in spite of the fact that there
are more White drug users and dealers, than people of color. This police
selectivity fills our prisons with Blacks and Hispanics.
Article 8 - Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by
the constitution or by law. At the New York State Correctional Facility in
Attica back in 1971 prisoners asked for remedies when they felt their rights
were being violated. Their requests were stated in Twenty-eight Points that
former State Correction Commissioner Russell G. Oswald said he would
accept. To date, inmates have not received effective remedies for most of the
items on the list. The Twenty-eight Points are given in Addendum VI of this
booklet. They contains recommendations for adequate health care, the
ending of censorship of literature, and the establishment of an inmate
grievance commission. Instead of remedies, the unarmed inmates were
attacked by the guns of the State Police and the National Guard, even though
they had treated their hostages with concern.
Article 9 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
There have been several instances where those with mental disabilities were
arrested without proper investigation. A Californian, Kerry Sanders, spent
several years of “exile” in New York State’s Greenhaven Prison because he
was thought to be the escapee, Robert Sanders, to whom he bore no
resemblance and was no relation. The New York State Department of
Correctional Services apologized to Kerry for the inconvenience. He
suffered many indignities including rape.
Article 10 - Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing
by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. There may be many
fair trials in many of the Court Houses in our country, but there are also
inconsistencies that have gradually worked their way into our culture in
many of our pre-trial and court proceedings. Jury selection has degenerated
12

from having a jury of your peers, to having a jury selected by lawyers who
choose to exclude anyone who may have a positive opinion about either the
offender or the victim. The victim is not given a chance to relate to the
offender, but may be forced to give testimony which may be misinterpreted
or misunderstood. The jury is charged with honoring the judge’s decision,
and is seldom instructed in the privileges of jury nullification which gives
jurors the right to protest laws they feel are non-productive or that give
severe sentences. Clay Conrad questions,“Should juries nullify laws they
consider unjust or excessively punitive?” His answer is, “Yes: Juries can
and should correct the overly broad use of criminal sanctions. A just society
has to have just rules. Juries, by refusing to enforce unjust rules, can help
improve the law and the society that it governs. ... If a particular law
frequently is nullified, the legislature should bring the law into conformity
with the judgment of the community.”23 If juries were informed about jury
nullification, and jurors were made up of the peers of the defendant, the New York
State Rockefeller Drug Laws might have been discarded twenty years ago.
Occasionally, in our court system, when there is a likelihood of difficulty in getting a conviction, prosecutors convince the accused to plead to
a lesser charge. The accused will agree out of fear of huge punishments.
Thus the accused may unwittingly convict themselves. At other times prosecutors use another offender to incriminate the accused, giving the incriminator a lower sentence as a reward. It is in the informant’s self-interest to
lie. Prosecutors are committing bribery when they use witnesses who have
been paid money or given reduced prison sentences in return for testifying
in criminal trials. A Denver Appeals Court has ruled that it is illegal for
paid informants to testify during a trial. More than 86% of 300 federal
criminal cases in Texas between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants and co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return
for testimony. Federal bribery laws prohibit the offering or promising anything of value to a witness in exchange for testimony. Those so prosecuted
are undergoing a violation of their human rights. These violations work
their way insidiously into our culture and must be exposed for what they are.
Victims who have suffered at the hands of offenders frequently are
ignored by our legal system. Law courts are often tilted in the direction of
handing out time in prison as punishment for harm done and requiring
compensation paid to the state rather than to the victim. Such punitive justice asks, “What law has been broken; who broke the law; and what should
be the punishment?” Does excessive time in prison for the act of drug possession, serve as compensation for a possible victim (who may be the addict himself or his family)? A more innovative form of justice, practiced by
13

indigenous tribes, and often referred to as Restorative Justice, asks, “What
harm has been done, to whom; what can be done to repair the harm, by
whom; and how can we prevent the harm from re-occurring?” There are
alternative forms of coming to just community decisions being developed, such as Family Conferencing, Drug Courts, Circle Sentencing,
and Mediation. These means of justice encourage compensation for the
victim, and accountability by the offender, with emphasis on the
offender’s rehabilitation and return to the community as a useful citizen.
Many improvements could be made in our jury and justice systems that
would help in restoration of both the victim and the offender, thus
making more peaceful communities possibile.
Article 11 - (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at
which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one
shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international
law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be
imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was
committed. Public trials have frequently turned into private prosecutions
with the District Attorney’s office deciding what portion of drug law is
applicable. Before any trial, and behind closed doors, a prosecutor can
confront the drug law offender, and through bargaining or condemning, be
the decision maker on that particular case.
Other misguided regulations have come into being in New York State
and other states as a result of federal sentencing guidelines. A person sentenced to a minimum/maximum prison term expecting to be released at the
minimum because of a good inmate record while in prison, is now held
further into the maximum range because of federal “Truth in Sentencing”
laws. His expectations of what his sentence would be, at the time of his
sentencing, has been changed drastically. The majority of offenders are suddenly expected to serve the longest part of their sentence. When the high end
of the sentence is life, many addicted drug law offenders are now confronted
with the possibility of spending life in prison because they have a drug related offense. There is a noticeable lack of impartiality and empathy in the
parole board hearings for the release of such offenders. Supposedly, those
parole officers sitting in judgment are to make decisions about the offender’s
release, based on what the offender has accomplished in his confinement;
they are not to solely look back to the reason for his original conviction.
They are not to suddenly make him serve the high end of his sentence. How14

ever, the members of New York State parole boards are political appointees
of the governor, and receive a good salary for their services. Naturally, they
comply with the governor’s wishes to deny parole for the offenders who are
steryotyped as those deserving life sentences and legally labeled as violent.
The governor has his reasons for going along with the federal regulations.
“The Federal Truth in Sentencing guidelines require inmates to do 85% of
their sentence. States are forced to adopt this guideline in order to receive
prison construction aid. These new sentencing laws and guidelines are the
reason why more prisons are being built.”24 Thus, obedience to these federal
laws persuades the states to comply by giving them money for new prison
construction. With this money, New York State builds more prisons, and
fills these prisons with the inmates that it is detaining for longer periods. This
is economically unsound, when such inmates could be given positive
programs and released to their communities as useful citizens. Some states
resisted this temptation and did not accept the federal government’s money,
realizing that it was better financially and socially to rehabilitate offenders
than to incarcerate them.
These federal sentencing laws came into effect a long time after the
original sentence, and reverse the assumptions that were in place at the
time of the original sentence. This type of additional sentence is applying a
heavier penalty than was assumed at the offender’s original sentencing, so
contradicts Article 11. The state is being influenced by the federal government at inmate expense. The unfeeling attitude on the part of the parole
board promoted by the promise of federal funds, is also against Article 1
which asks for brotherhood and respect of those incarcerated. Such denial
of their hope-filled expectations of release leads to despondency on the
part of those incarcerated. New York State Department of Corrections personnel encountered much inmate unrest from the incarcerated who had
hoped to be paroled, and sent many inmates to Special Housing Units to
quell possible riots, further violating their human rights. Rebellions and
suspicions of possible rebellion occur when laws are tyrannical and human
hopes and expectations are disregarded. The United States might benefit
from the recent experience of South Africa in their treatment of those incarcerated, where a set of “Truth” and Reconciliation techniques quite different from the techniques imbedded in the United States “Truth” in Sentencing were employed in justice proceedings.
Article 12 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
15

such interference or attacks. Besides daily assaults on their honour and
reputation reminding them of the thoughtless actions in their past, prisoners
suffer daily putdowns as the hands of guarding officers. There are instances
when inmates have had their correspondence curtailed. They are allowed to
have only a certain number of people on their phone list. Outside family
members can have difficulty making contact with their loved ones in prison.
Those who volunteer as program assistants in the New York State prisons
cannot write to inmates that they see in their programs. The language used
by guarding officers can radically lower the self-esteem of an inmate.
Further destroying the reputation of the incarcerated, the Department of
Correctional Services in New York State publishes an inmate list publicized
on internet describing the crime and confinement information of all state
inmates. It neglects to describe what any inmate has done to improve himself
and his situation while in confinement. It seems that an inmate is frozen in
time with the crime he committed. This freezing by DOCS officials appears
as a denial that people can change for the better. There is the attitude that people
are forever locked into their worst moment. We would find it highly objectionable and against human rights, if we were frozen at the moment we did a wrong
deed, and remembered ever afterwards for only that instant of imperfection.
Article 13 - (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each state. (2)Everyone has the right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his country. It may be difficult
to fully implement all rights for all persons. If someone is a danger to himself
or others, they may need constant monitoring and guidance. Sometimes it is
necessary to curtail rights, but as we seek to use the least harmful alternatives, we try not to curtail unless there is the possibility of harm to self or
others. Persons should have the right to freedom of movement, as long as
their movements do not harm other persons. For the prisoner, there should
be a certain amount of freedom of movement in the confines of his
correctional situation, so that he can learn to exercise proper judgment and
responsibility. Some offenders may have mental or physical problems that
need constant observation and overseeing. For those in confinement, there
should be programs that challenge and activities that make an individual feel
useful. Inmates can be given choices to teach other inmates, to have
educational programs, or to learn new trades. The rights described in this
Article 13 may have to be reasonably curtailed or reserved for the future. The
use of electronic monitoring could increase secure mobility. In the period of
correction when confinement is the mode of operation, people in the prison
situation could be informed and educated by modern technology, as also
16

should be possible for people in the disadvantaged countries of the world.
“People living in Central Asia, Latin America, or Africa need not be cut off
from the ideas that are changing the rest of the world... The capacity of the
Internet––yet to be fully imagined––to eliminate the knowledge gap between rich and poor countries may be the single most important determinant
of what our world will look like in 50 years.”25 Education possibilities which
can be imagined for the people in third world countries are likewise possible
for inmates in U.S. prisons. There should be choices available with mentors
to assist, so that curtailed individuals can lead fulfilled lives.
Article 14 - (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of
prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary
to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. If oppressed citizens from
other countries seek political asylum in our country, they should not be
subjected to further persecution in our prison system or internment camps.
Those prisoners who are imprisoned in the United States under immigration
law suffer a further unjust curtailing of their rights when secret evidence is used
against them. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the use of
secret evidence against both citizens and non-citizens. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) forbids the use of information that cannot be used
by both parties in a dispute. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)
permits the use of secret evidence without disclosing it to the accused.
Americans complain about this method when used against our citizens who are
accused in foreign countries. Amnesty International considers several of the
victims of this type of trial in the United States to be political prisoners as they
are being denied their human rights. Supreme Court Justice Jackson in Knauff
v. Shaughnessy writes, “The plea that evidence of guilt must be secret is
abhorrent to free men, because it provides a cloak for the malevolent, the
misinformed, the meddlesome, and the corrupt to play the role of informer
undetected and uncorrected.”26
If there is political persecution of American indigenous people or racial profiling, those so persecuted should not be imprisoned for opposing
unjust governmental structures or laws. They also can be considered as
political prisoners. In South Africa, political persecution with race as its
basis, led to the imprisonment of many people. The solution in the case of
South Africa was “non-violent opposition, persuasion rather than coercion,
respect of the opponent rather than the force of weaponry.”27
Article 15 - (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
17

nationality. Former political prisoners from foreign countries may be
endangered if forced to return to their home country. Such persons should
be able to refuse extradition from a nation where they have fled for
protection, and to be enabled to become citizens of a state that will protect
their rights. Some practices of our immigrant detention centers do not reflect
the positive message of Article 15.
Article 16 - (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitations due to
race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full
consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the
State. Marriages undergo much stress when one or both of the spouses is
incarcerated. Prisoners are subjected to sexual abuse by other prisoners, and
sometimes by guarding officers. While the performance of a marriage is
possible in the prison context, being incarcerated is a drawback to a
successful venture. Prisoners are often placed in far away states where
family visits are difficult because of travel time and expense. 1.5 million
U.S. children have a parent in prison. Many children of prisoners are put in
foster care, and do not get to develop good relationships with incarcerated
parents. Parenting courses and family visits should be encouraged, so that
inmates can develop responsible family ties. The experienced prisoner
Nelson Mandella said, “Communication with one’s family is a human right;
it should not be restricted by the artificial gradations of a prison system.”
When mothers get put in prison, their children often face a crisis situation. Of the 3500 women in the New York State prison system, 77% are
mothers. Some of their children live with relatives; others are in foster care.
One of the duties of law is to protect the best interests of these children.
There should be a thorough assessment of needs of such bereaved children,
supervision of child placement, guardian monitoring, planned visitation with
the incarcerated parent, intensive juvenile supervision when needed, and
reporting from schools to concerned agencies. Parenting programs should
be available for those inmates in the transition from prison to home.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York State dole out such long sentences that they affect another law pertaining to foster care of children. Children are put into permanent foster care if they have no one who is able to
care for them for a long period of time. Children of a woman prisoner who
has a short sentence are put into temporary foster care, and she can usually
get her children back when she is released. Those children placed in perma18

nent foster care due to the overlong sentence of their parent, are legally
required to stay with their foster parents.
When the children of the incarcerated are not a daily presence to us, we
find it easy to dismiss them as leading relatively peaceful lives. Suddenly,
they become teenagers, and may get involved with drugs or guns. They do
not have the stability of a healthy family to help them through these crisis
years. A child whose parent is incarcerated is 5 times more likely than other
children to serve time in prison. It is mandatory to assure all children and
teens access to after-school, weekend, and summer youth development programs to shut down the “prime time for juvenile crime.” We need progressive communities with just laws to show love and concern for children in
order to overcome the negative effects of the low morals portrayed by video
and the fear induced by a gun-toting, drug infested society.
Article 17 - (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property. Observing property rights of prisoners should be a high priority
with departments of correction. In a confined situation, the mishandling of
someone’s property or privileges can be inflamatory. One instance of
deprivation is the non-payment of Social Security funds to prisoners while
they are incarcerated, when those people worked for this entitlement and
deserve to receive this compensation. These checks could be directed to
needy family members or payments to victims. They could be put in a nestegg account for the inmate, which might help to prevent his future recidivism. Another instance of deprivation is the unnecessarily high phone rates
charged to inmates’ families by telephone companies.
Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Prison is a place where one may experience religious renewal, and
this change in attitude should be encouraged whenever possible. However,
some religious observances are hampered by the enforcement of overzealous security regulations. The needed privacy for Catholic confession is
difficult to produce in the Supermax housing situation. In less restrictive
prison settings, special times and diets for religious observances such as
Ramadan are sometimes ignored. Chapel services may be interrupted by
guarding officers who feel that inmates may be taking the worship opportunity to deal in drugs.
19

Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers. Prisons are notorious for withholding newspapers
and other literature, and for obstructing free dissemination of information.
If untoward incidents such as shooting of inmates by guards takes place, this
information does not readily get out to the general public.With the proliferation of internet information, it is of serious concern that New York State
Department of Corrections does not allow any internet material or papers
with internet headings to enter its prisons. Special investigations are needed
to pry out the truth of scenes like the revolt of inmates at the New York State
Correctional Facility at Attica in 1971. Often prison families are afraid that
their loved one in prison will suffer further punishment if they register
complaints about his treatment. The Long Termers Committee, a group of
men imprisoned at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, in New York State,
produced The Politics of Parole to educate the public about the negative
impact the recent parole release policy is having on the rehabilitated, their
families, and communities. The document was declared contraband, and the
editor was punished with confinement in the Special Housing Unit unable to
express his thoughts, ideas, or grievances. This violation of one of the few
remaining First Amendment rights of prisoners is further evidence that many
prisons are rapidly becoming closed institutions operating without public
scrutiny. Furthermore, a growing number of prisoner rights advocates are
being barred from the prisons without explanation. Fear of officer retaliation
against an inmate is a very real issue. It stands in the way of reform for inmates
and inmate well being, as family members do not report these human rights
violations, for worrying that something worse will happen to their loved one.28
Article 20 - (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. In the
prison situation, judgments made by officers on inmates, inmates’ visitors,
or volunteers running programs in the prisons, are often not subject to open
review. An inmate or a visitor can have a visit cancelled without anyone
giving them a reason for cancellation. Those given such a reprimand or
punishment deserve an explanation and a chance to argue for their innocence
or their rights. Restrictions on inmates to have visits should be no greater
than necessary. An inmate may rightly be expected to serve a reasonable
time to which he is sentenced by a court, but he should not be deprived of
his human rights to see his loved ones who come from outside the prison.
Prisoners are compelled to participate in the prison community, to per20

form tasks in that community, to undergo searches in that community, and
if guarding officers feel that inmates are a threat, inmates can be sent to
Special Housing Units, and deprived of further rights. If groups of inmates
are wrongfully determined to be a threat to the general prison population,
they are disbanded. Petitions are forbidden as threatening to the prison
administration. If participants in inmate organizations are unjustly accused
of being gang leaders, they can be sent to Special Housing Units in distant
prisons. Those exiled are not given an explanation for their transfer. In New
York State one inmate subjected unjustly to such a transfer, protested by
undergoing a 40 day fast. Due to publicity given to this in outside newspapers, the Department of Correctional Services changed his sentence and
transfered him to a less harsh prison environment. Inmate organizations can
invite only persons approved by the prison administration to speak at inmate
meetings, and if approval is not given, the administration is under no
obligation to give a hearing to the person thus excluded or to explain their
actions. Such harsh and dehumanizing regulations and punishments are
often described as necessary to ensure security in the prison situation. As
participants in the prison community, inmates should be consulted about
these regulations and given opportunity to express themselves as to the
justice of them. A more reliable system for handling grievances should be
in place, and retaliation should not be taken against the inmate or his family
when he or they report a grievance or injustice.
Article 21 - (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has
the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the
people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and
equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting
procedures. Denial of the right to vote to inmates arises out of a punishment
mode of justice. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a
supplementary document to The Declaration) provides that prisoners should
be able to vote. This occurs in most first world countries. The United States has
signed this ICCPR, but only two states out of 50 allow their prisoners the right
to vote. In many states prisoner voting by inmates is not allowed, but prisoner
registration may be allowed, which then prompts the voting registrar to make
a decision as to whether or not the applicant is legally eligible to vote. Emphasis
on registration of prisoners to vote might call attention to the fact that perhaps
all citizen prisoners should be allowed to vote. Certainly, it might be a
prisoner’s duty as a responsible citizen to register, particularly if there is no
21

law against registering. A campaign for voter registration of all prisoners
might assist us in our thinking about the possibilities of prisoner registration
and the human rights of all prisoners. It becomes our duty as responsible
citizens to assist at the registration of all those incarcerated until those with
legal authority (or those appointed by the voters of the state to serve as
decision makers) decide whether or not those so incarcerated are being
illegally deprived of their right and responsibility to vote. Florida is one of
thirteen states that denies the vote to ex-offenders who have fully served
their sentence. Just think of the year 2000 election in Florida where 436,900
potential voters who had fully served their time (1998 figures), were
excluded from the polls. Add to this the 210,100 presently incarcerated, on
parole, and on probation, and there were approximately 647,000 Floridians
denied their rights because of a connection to the justice system.29
Calvin Robinson-Bey, incarcerated in the State of Maryland, wants his
state to set up an absentee ballot system for inmates awaiting trial and for
jailed misdemeanor offenders, as well as for incarcerated felons. “With an
estimated ... one in seven Black men of voting age -- disenfranchised nationally, the loss of a large number of potential Black voters is a very significant issue,” said Malcolm Young, executive director of the Sentencing
Project, a Washington nonprofit think tank that promotes alternatives to
incarceration. The organization estimated that 4.2 million people of all races
are barred from voting because of convictions. While Blacks make up about
14 percent of the national population, they represent about a third of those
ineligible to vote because of convictions.30 This is a racial calamity as well
as a problem of disenfranchisement.
Case law and interpretations of the Constitution have built up a questionable set of voting procedures and exclusions. As citizens of the United
States, we uphold The Constitution of the United States. More research is
needed as to the intent and consequences of Amendments to the Constitution. We are very dependent on our courts and justice system for wise and
appropriate interpretations. Congresswoman Sue Kelly gives an up-todate interpretation regarding the rights of convicted felons: “While our
Constitution provides every American citizen over the age of 18 the right
to vote and forbids any jurisdiction from impeding upon this right, it does
not forbid the deprivation of liberty after the accused has received due
process of law.” Does temporary deprivation of liberty necessitate deprivation of the right to vote? Three sections of The Constitution of The United
States are relevant to voting by prisoners:
Amendment XIII, Section 1 - Neither slavery or involuntary servitude,
22

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 - All persons born or naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment XV, Section 1 - The right of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The first issue to be investigated in regards to voting by inmates, is the intent
of Amendments XIII through XV. Post Civil War amendments caused voting
rights to be put under Federal oversight. Amendment XIII-1 of the Constitution allows slavery to exist as a punishment for a crime. It does not mandate
slavery, but allows it in certain circumstances. Slavery is not necessary or
officially acceptable, but may be useful in desperate situations to ensure the
safety of general society. Pre-Civil War slaves were the property of their
owners. They were denied their freedom and required to do forced labor.
Some slave owners were benevolent, and taught their slaves to read and
write. Other slave owners had the right to cut off ears or hang their slaves
if they got unruly. Are prisoners property of the state, and thus slaves of the
state? Does Amendment XIII-1 give permission to the correction officials to
do as they will with inmates? Amendment XIII-1 does not give specific
directions as to how these “slaves” of the state who are being legally
punished for their crimes, should be treated. It does not say that slaves shall
be denied the right to vote. Note the inconsistency that prisons are places
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus those in prison as
citizens of the United States, should vote in this, their country, and no state
jurisdiction should abridge this right.
Amendment XIV-1 requires all states to uniformly respect voting rights of
citizens, which in theory may include citizen prisoners and should include
ex-cons who have completed sentences (including parole and probation time).
Amendment XV-1 seems to allow no exceptions to the privilege of voting, if
one omitted the word “previous.” One can play with words and conclude
that a “present” condition of servitude means inmates cannot vote. If inmates are considered to be slaves or in a present condition of servitude, then
inmates may be restricted from voting. One conclusion from combining these

three sections of The Constitution might be that convicts cannot vote,
23

even when on parole. Another conclusion might arise from asking the
question, “Which crimes are heinous enough to deny a person the right to
vote?” Another conclusion might be that the phrase, “previous condition of
servitude,” refers to those held in slavery before the Civil War, and is not
intended to refer to those in prison in the present (who are citizens, and thus
eligible to vote).
While appearing to frown upon slavery, Amendment XIII also appears
to give free rein to slavery under certain conditions. As we all have done
wrong, and have consciences that duly convict us, a strict reading of The
Constitution might lead us finally to conclude that we all deserve enslavement. Amendment XIII causes us to ask whether this questionable affirmation of slavery gives prison authorities or state officials the right to abuse
or kill those committed to their care. Rather a gentler and more positive
interpretation of Amendments XIII through XV could assume that such slavery or servitude would be for the purpose of encouraging rehabilitation
and responsibility in those so committed. These amendments should be
thoroughly researched, for the purpose of discovering their least restrictive
applications.
A second issue concerning voting by inmates is that the implementation of many of the drug laws that imprison, displays a racial bias. In New
York State the Rockefeller Laws are keeping many Afro-American and
Hispanic people from their right and responsibility to vote. White offenders are more likely to be sent to drug treatment, and not lose their voting
privilege. Implementation of the Rockefeller Laws by placing heavy police
surveillance in urban areas, while allowing unsupervised sale and distribution of drugs in suburban homes and offices, means that a disproportionate
number of citizens of color are imprisoned, thus causing an imbalance in
the electoral process. As Afro-Americans and Hispanics are often held prisoner in rural areas, their vote in those rural areas would certainly change
the outcome of local political contests.31
A third issue about inmate voting has to do with the relationship between the 2000 census count and voting rights. Early census counts in the
United States allowed every 5 slaves to be counted as 3 persons. If those
legally held in servitude in our prisons are counted as 3/5 of a person, then
their status as slaves is confirmed. If they are counted as full persons, then
they are not slaves, and should be allowed to vote. As Amendment XIV
requires all states to respect voting rights of citizens, when the federal government then counts inmates as full citizens in the Census of 2000, it is
telling the states that inmates are citizens; as citizens, inmates have voting
rights that are to be respected. The location where inmates are counted as
24

people in the census, should be the location where those citizen inmates are
eligible to vote.
A fourth issue has to do with funds that are apportioned according to
the census count. Certain poorer communities are being deprived of funding benefits for their populations. “Any benefit that a rural community
may gain from the census count comes at the expense of urban neighborhoods whose residents represent a substantial proportion of the prisoners
housed in rural prisons. As rural communities gain prisoner populations,
the localities are eligible for state and federal funds, and political clout is
raised through formulas tied to population. Prisoners from urban areas may
be disproportionately composed of low-income minorities. Thus, the urban communities hit hardest by both crime and criminal justice policies
may have the additional disadvantage of losing funding and political influence through the reapportionment process.”32 There is a grave inconsistency in counting prisoners as persons in a census and not allowing them to
vote as persons in that community where they have been counted.
If inmates had the right to vote, then perhaps they would be able to
obtain the other human rights. They could vote for legislators who were
“smart on crime” instead of those who were “tough on crime” whose laws
lead to distress for the offender and his family. If inmates had a say in the
programs that affect them, higher education would not have been removed
from our correctional systems. One of the building blocks of a peaceful
world is education. Depriving the incarcerated of positive programs lessens public safety.
Article 21 also advocates equal access to public service. It is obvious
that some forms of community service are possible for prisoners. With
electronic monitoring, trustee prisoners could be given increasingly responsible community service assignments. This graduated responsibility
would contribute to a fuller re-integration back into society.
Article 22 - Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security
and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each
State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality. All people should have
the possibilities for fulfillment, including those who are disabled or disadvantaged. Prisoners are one category of disadvantaged people. Many of those in
prison are disabled with reading handicaps such as Attention Deficit Disorder
or Dyslexia. Many are disabled through difficult childhoods and sub-standard
schools. Many inmates commit their crimes or turn to drugs because
25

of low self-esteem due to their inability to be competitive in the job market.
Prisoners should be allowed to participate in higher education, through
correspondence courses, internet, TV, or college-in-prison programs. If
they or their families cannot afford such expense, the inmates could either
pay for their education through fair-wage prison work or through student
loans or scholarships. Such tuition reimbursement could also apply to job
training programs, as long as inmates were given fair wages for prison labor.
Thus, they would be better able to compete in society upon their release and
become fulfilled and responsible individuals.
Article 23 - (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,
to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal
pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and
favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence
worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means
of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests. If one works, as many inmates most
certainly do, one should receive a just and favorable wage. Inmates do not
receive equal pay for equal work. They are excluded from trade unions.
There is often no one to take their side in an unfair work situation. As a result
of forced prison labor on asbestos where inmates were given no protective
clothing to wear, many became sick from asbestos poisoning. Inmates are
not allowed to organize, because those in authority fear insurrection. Thus
even reasonable needs go unheard, and frustration mounts. The prison
situation does little to encourage responsibility or growth in human dignity.
Our justice system often seems intent on implementing the slavery that is
questionably allowed in Constitutional Amendment XIII-1 as a punishment
for a crime.
Inmates are further degraded by being given an insultingly low hourly
wage, which in many instances averages out to about $3 a week. Workrelease which raises self-esteem and helps in the reintegration back into
society, is denied to those who are stereotyped as “violent” offenders. “Mass
incarceration is not a solution to unemployment, nor is it a solution to the
vast array of social problems that are hidden away in a rapidly growing
network of prisons and jails. ... Although prison labor - which ultimately is
compensated at a rate far below minimum wage - is hugely profitable for the
private companies that use it, the penal system as a whole does not produce
wealth. It devours the social wealth that could be used to subsidize housing
for the homeless, to ameliorate public education for poor and racially
marginalized communities, to open free drug rehabilitation programs for
26

people who wish to kick their habits, to create a national health care system,
to expand programs to combat HIV, to eradicate domestic abuse - and in the
process, to create well-paying jobs for the unemployed.”33
Article 24 - Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable
limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. It is hard to see
how Article 24 could be applied to prisons. Proper rest is hard to come by
in the prison situation. There is always noise and light. The principle of
vacation pay is foreign to the prison situation. This right might possibly be
fulfilled in the trailer visit which allows the inmate private time with family
members. For those who have no supportive family, the institution might
arrange an “Inmate of The Day” event. They might even design birthday
celebrations. This is not such a far out idea. When New York State
Correctional Facility at Fishkill had an Elderly Unit, the staff purchased a
cake for a long termer’s birthday. Prisons could be friendlier places. They
do not have to be places of fear and distrust.
Article 25 - (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the
right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the
same social protection. So often, imprisonment for drug violations destroys
families and family resources. When inmates leave prison, they need special
assistance from social services. Some may need immediate HIV medicine.
Some need housing. To not supply these needs for released prisoners
returning to their communities, is to assure that they recidivate.
The state has been using urban housing money to build prisons, thus
by-passing the need to have voters approve prison construction through the
referendum process. Constructing prisons by dipping into housing funding
cuts down on the amount of money available for decent urban housing,
which further contributes to slums, which increases the likelihood of criminality. When Martin Luther King, Jr. marched for proper housing, he surely
didn’t have prison housing in mind.
It seems a bit over-reactive to protest about the medical care of inmates,
when the whole health care system in the United States is in such disarray,
but it should be emphasized that general health care in most prisons is very
frustrating for inmates. The gravest health care problem is that associated
27

with mental health. The whole prison system would be much safer for both
inmates and officers if greater focus were put on the mental health of
inmates. Specially trained counselors could help greatly in this situation,
acting as mentors and recommending worthwhile programs and activities.
However, counselors are seriously overburdened. Recommended case
loads for counselors allow up to 80 inmates. Many counselors are attempting
to handle more than twice that amount. Clinical record keeping of so many
clients is therefore quite deficient. If more worthwhile programs were in the
budget, then there would be less need for a high budget for security. If there
were better transitional planning for all inmates from the moment of
incarceration through the moment of release from parole, there would be
less expense connected with court costs, recidivism and future crime. Frank
Headly, Deputy Commissioner of Programs for New York State Department of Corrections recommends, “From the day in, to the day out, we ought
to be giving transitional services.”34
When we consider the mentally ill, we have the benefit of a Texas class
action law suit, Ruiz vs. Estelle, that defines what is minimally acceptable
for an in-prison mental health treatment system. There should be:
1. A systematic screening procedure.
2. Treatment that entails more than segregation
and supervision.
3. Treatment that involves a sufficient number of
mental health professionals to adequately provide
services to all prisoners suffering from serious
mental disorders.
4. Maintenance of adequate and confidential clinical records.
5. A program for identifying and treating suicidal
inmates.
6. A ban on prescribing potentially dangerous
medications with-out adequate monitoring.35
In order to come to consensus on how to improve the mental health of
prisoners, the following three recommendations for improving prisons
given by Dr. Terry Kupers should be seriously considered:
I. Correctional mental health services and psychiatric rehabilitation
programs must be upgraded. Ten essentials of an upgraded program
include: (1)comprehensive levels of care, such as inpatient psychiatric
wards, outpatient clinics, emergency services, day treatment programs,
case management, halfway houses, supported living in the community,
28

vocational training programs, etc.; (2)staff trained in suicide prevention;
(3)group therapy and counseling focused on special problems; (4)psychiatric rehabilitation programs focusing on goals; (5)mental health
programs for disturbed disruptive prisoners; (6)peer review and monitoring of the professional workers; (7)continuity of care; (8)confidentiality
and access to outside professionals; (9)separation of mental health and
disciplinary issues; (10)cross-training including cultural sensitivities for
correctional officers.36
II. There is a need to change the prisons as institutions, including
revitalizing general rehabilitation programs and ending the use of
supermaximum security units (SHUs). (1)All prison staff need to undergo extensive training in diversity issues and cultural sensitivity.
Correctional officers need a firm foundation in the principles of psychiatry. (2)Bolster rehabilitation and educational programs in the entire
prison system. (3)Improve visitation possibilities, and keep inmates near
their homes. (4)Attend to prisoners rights. (5)End Supermax security!
(6)Create smaller facilities.37
III. Finally, changes are needed at a societal level. We have to put an end
to racial disparities in sentencing and imprisonment. We need to create
alternatives to sending nonviolent drug offenders and mentally disordered felons into prison. We need to upgrade the public mental health
system substantially, and to use model programs to help rehabilitate
young offenders.38

With so much good advice from psychiatrists, why are politicians and
corrections personnel allowing procedures that cause increased violence,
psychiatric breakdown and suicide? Dr. Kupers concludes, “We know that
well-designed rehabilitation programs help prisoners prepare for going
straight, whereas idleness leads to violence and emotional disability.”39
In all this planning for the health of mentally ill offenders, we are not
to forget sex offenders and their particular mental health problems. The
New York State Department of Corrections should be commended for the
programs that are in place, but sex offenders face particularly difficult problems upon release, and need specialized support organizations, to ensure
the safety of society and their own personal fulfillment.
Preventive health care for control of epidemics such as Hepatitus C
should be a part of good health care management. Food supplements that
can build up the immune system would be an assist to overall inmate health.
This is particularly important for those in overcrowded prisons where diseases spread more rapidly. In a recent Assembly briefing, it was revealed
that of New York State’s 70,000 prisoners, 20% have the potentially liver29

killing Hepatitus C. Another 6,000 to 7,000 New York prisoners suffer from
HIV, the virus that can lead to AIDS.
Article 26 - (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free,
at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education
shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all
on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development
of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3)
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given
to their children. Knowledge increases mercy and tolerance which makes
for a better world. ALL people have the right to an education that helps to
promote friendship among peoples and nations. Educational courses in
peace keeping and alternatives to violence would help make prisons safer for
both those kept and their keepers.
The mission of the New York State Department of Education is to increase the knowledge, skill and opportunity of ALL the people in New
York. This includes the people in prison. The intersection of the right to
education and the prison system in New York State again raises the question of racial bias. Judge Leland DeGrasse of State Supreme Court in Manhattan found New York State’s method of financing public schools to be
illegal, as it deprives New York City students of the sound basic education
guaranteed by the State Constitution. The financing system also violates
federal civil rights laws because it disproportionately hurts minority students.40 Those minority students coming from this deficient city educational system who find themselves incarcerated, certainly are due to receive that education of which they have been deprived.
Many of those incarcerated in New York State suffered disabilities during their educational years, and this is a primary cause for them not learning, having low self-esteem, and ending up in prison. Those under 21 are
mandated to education through the federal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act and Sections 200 and 201 of the New York State Commissioner
of Education. Consideration of human rights articles and disability directives suggests that all those so disabled and neglected over age 21, be given
similar education and support to those under 21 in order to give them a
chance to catch up and become whole persons. These disabilities include
autism, deafness, Downs Syndrome, emotional instability, social disability,
30

expressing inappropriate feelings, depression, alcohol or drug abuse, hearing impairment, dyslexia, Attention Deficit Disorder, mental retardation,
orthopedic impairment, environmental or allergic reactions, and traumatic
brain injury. A recently named eye condition affecting reading called
scotopic sensitivity syndrome (SSS) is also included.41 The Department of
Corrections has the same obligation as the ordinary New York State school
district to provide all those under 21 with a certain level of education, in the
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). In the community this placement
should be preceded by friendly observation and non-threatening testing. The
student is then issued an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) which
will need to be approved by a parent, guardian, or advocate. Ideally, if they
do not approve, a hearing or a mediation is to be held where concerned
parties try by the consensus process to come up with a program that will
enable the student to live an optimally fulfilled life for his capabilities. The
same rights and respect should be given to those under 21 entering the
correctional system, and also to those over 21 who are the products of poor
schooling. When these who were uneducated in their youth are finally
released from prison, society will still be in danger from their low selfesteem and lack of job skills, unless they have been given rehabilitative
programs while incarcerated. Special services and programs could include
computer learning and correspondence courses, and salaries and transportation money for tutors to travel to the offender’s place of incarceration.
Many offenders are disabled by alcohol or drug abuse. A high percentage have physical, mental, hearing, seeing, learning, or social disabilities.
As we become more familiar with the disabilities that hinder a child from
becoming an optimum student, we look back over time and see that there are
many persons who had these disabilities that went undiagnosed. Many of
these as children may have been told that they were stupid, worthless, and
violent. What happens to the student whose teacher has not been trained to
recognize Attention Deficit Disorder, and whose parents don’t know about
Special Education possibilities. He is labeled as a trouble-maker, falls behind in school, gets low grades, gets left back, has low social skills, becomes bored, and drops out of school. He may go on drugs, and find his way
into a youth detention center or prison. Why can’t we reach these children
before they are wasted? Disability laws and regulations should be universally applied and considered from the viewpoint of childhood deprivations.
All persons in the prison system should be given specialized testing to discover the extent of their educational deficits, and then be able to have counselors help them formulate an appropriate Individualized Educational Program, which might include courses via internet. As a side issue, counselors
31

should be available who are not overburdened with heavy case loads and
who are trained in distinguishing educational disabilities.
Our education of prisoners (and also of students in our public schools)
would be improved by a course in ethics. Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is
dangerous for society to educate a person in mind, but not in morals.” Perhaps that is why we have our present society. In our haste to keep religion
out of our political and governmental spheres, we have also excluded ethics and morals. Consequently, our youth have learned that materialism is
what counts. We are prisoners of our materialistic beliefs. Our gods and
religions are power and money. When we misuse our freedom, and it becomes our license to choose greed, we become prisoners of our greed.
It is poor planning psychologically to use punishment instead of restoration as a tool to improve society. Some states and their correctional facilities see the value of educating their citizens who are imprisoned. The
Maryland State Department of Education’s Correctional Education Program
has been awarded a grant of almost $1 million over a three-year period to
provide post secondary education online to their incarcerated students.42
Article 27 - (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural
life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author. The dignity of the individual
is further enhanced by inmate participation in social and cultural activities,
such as the arts, writing programs, music, and religious training. These are
very important aspects of every day life, and should not be denied to prison
populations. Displays of inmate art work show great talent and increase
inmate self-esteem. Prisoners who participate in drama or poetry programs
deserve to be commended for their perseverence and their talent.
Article 28 - Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
No program is perfect, and no individual is irredeemable. In this imperfect
world, societies and organizations search for ways and means to keep order
by proper use of authorities and laws, but unless respect is given to the needs
of all people, those governing or maintaining order will continue to be
opposed by terrorism and disruptions. The social order of a prison system is
often built on fear, oppression, and punishment. ALL people deserve a social
and international order which is built on the principles of restorative justice and
community empowerment, and which encourages the fulfillment of every
32

individual. Prisons should be models of restoration and transformation.
There will never be the perfect government or the perfect prison system, but
our aspirations should aim in the direction of fulfillment for every individual.
Article 29 - (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free
and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his
rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just
requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society. (3)These rights and freedoms may in no case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. A
person may be confined within a prison if he is a serious threat to others, to
himself, or to public order. His confinement within the walls of an institution
should contribute to his ability to perform in an acceptable manner outside
those walls. While incarcerated, his rights as a human being should be
respected, so that he will learn to respect others’ rights. He should become
aware of his responsibilities to others. For every right that he is afforded, he
should acknowledge the comparable right possessed by others, and his
responsibility to perform so that others’ rights are upheld.
What rights does a person relinquish when he is convicted of a criminal offense? Article 29 (2) says that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined
by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for
the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
This idea of using the least harmful alternative is well stated in The Humane Principle which says:

The infliction of suffering is wrong and must be avoided
unless it is an inseparable and unpreventable consequence
of an action that is honestly meant as the most humane
alternative that the situation presents, giving due regard
to the interests of everyone affected.43
The convicted offender as a person deserving of having his human rights
respected, should be treated in the most humane manner. He can be
subjected to confinement when his actions infringe upon the rights and
freedoms of others. The right for prisoners to vote does not infringe on
the rights and freedoms of others. Therefore, prisoners should have the
right and responsibility to vote.
33

Article 30 - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for
any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform
any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth
herein. The prison systems in the United States are empowered to uphold the
rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of the individuals within their jurisdictions. As voting is upheld by Article 21 of this Declaration, our prisons and
departments of correction should find ways to implement this right for their
clients. The prison systems in the United States are not just holding-pens, but
are places that have possibilities for healing and transformation of those in
their custody.

Changes in The Law Could Help
As stated earlier:– When the laws hurt and harm, rather than help and heal,
it is time to change the laws.44 Now that we have considered drug laws,
supermax prison cells, correctional education, and transitional services
against the backdrop of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I
would like to suggest how we might change the laws so that they help and
heal. We like to think that the year 2001 signifies the first year of a new era.
How would we want to have offenders and victims treated in a new era? The
reader is invited to participate in this search for a transformed justice system.
Like Martin Luther King, Jr., we should have a dream. In an imperfect
world full of imperfect people, we will not achieve a perfect justice system. We need a mission statement that leads us in positive and ethical directions. When a crime is committed, such a mission statement should inspire us to legislate or pronounce a sentence that would be of the greatest
possible fulfillment for the victim, the offender, and the community. If some
punishment or restraint is in order for wrongful deeds committed, the least
harmful sanctions should be imposed.
For New York State besides repealing the New York Rockefeller Drug
Law and the Second Felony Law and making them retroactive, there are
three areas where we could institute sweeping change. These three areas
are the criminal justice sentencing system, the prison industrial complex,
and the individual.
* The first area: We should change our justice system so that it is more
restorative and less punitive. The Constitution guarantees each offender a
trial by a jury of his peers. It does not say a “trial by judge” or a “trial by
District Attorney.” Our present juries seem to be hand-picked to exclude
“peers.” Community Mediation Centers, Drug Courts run by peers, Family
Conferencing, and Sentencing Circles offer a kinder, gentler form of justice
34

to lesser offenders that can simultaneously uphold the human rights of the
victim, the offender, and the community.
* The second area of change: Change the prisons. The prisons themselves
can have other uses. Special Housing Units encourage mental illness. We
must not fall into the trap of thinking, “Once a SHU, always a SHU.” We
need only change the way we think about SHUs. Instead of two in such small
space, restrict such cells to one inmate to minimize possible violence.
Instead of 23 hour encagement, let the inmate be secure in his cell for eight
hours at night, and then encourage his participation in positive programs
during the day, so that he has no time to build up resentment and depression.
A former inmate suggested another change in the prison buildings. Using just-wage prison labor, transform out-dated prisons into unique condos
or places of abode for handicapped citizens. If the trend to less incarceration
and more alternatives continues, we can change newer prisons into drugtreatment, health-care, or educational facilities. To staff these facilities, statefunded professional education could be given to present correctional personnel so that they would be equipped to hold these advanced positions.
* The third area of change: Change the offender. It is difficult to change
another human being. To transform inmates, it really must be THEIR
decision to change. We cannot force them to change. However, there is
something we can do. We can treat all parties concerned, with respect. When
an offense has been committed, the offender is often as distressed at what he
has done, as his victim. In an alcoholic daze, he may not be fully aware of his
crime. In the case of a drug addict, the victim may be himself and also his
children who may react to a parent in prison by themselves becoming addicts
and misfits. Are we treating our offenders like caged animals? To make them
into human beings, treat them like human beings. Give them their human
rights, as suggested in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Give
them the right to vote, to be responsible citizens. Give them a reasonable
ability to move around in their prison situation. Use modern methods of
keeping track of their whereabouts such as satellite positioning and electronic
monitoring, rather than the cruelty of Supermax confinement and stun guns.
A lack of belief in the individual’s ability to change, and perhaps illegal
decisions on the part of the parole board are shown when “violent” felons
who have changed their ways continue to be sentenced to more time for the
same crime they committed 10 or 20 years back. This sorry state of affairs
has come to pass because the federal government rewarded the states with
money to build prisons if they followed questionable “Truth in Sentencing”
guidelines. If we believe that persons are capable of change, the law shows
35

a certain disrespect when it permanently labels a person as violent. We are
all violent at one time or another in our lives. We are also non-violent, gentle,
capable of great and kind deeds. Call people friends, and they will be
friendly. Call people enemies, and they will fight you. Parole boards should
encourage their clients and not label them. Much harm has resulted from
stereotyping inmates as if they were incapable of change using the “Once an
inmate, always an inmate” philosophy.
To further discourage recidivism, when an offender has served his time,
and thus paid for his crime, he should be led through a transitional program
such as Father Peter Young’s.45 In New York State the Peter Young Program
takes people both as an alternative to prison sentencing and also as a glidepath to recovery when they are discharged. Unfortunately, due to denial of
fiscal responsibility in New York State counties, funding is often not available to those who would like to be participants in such programs. It is less
expensive to fund offenders in places of rehabilitation such as Peter Young’s
Housing/Industry/Treatment (Albany, NY), Delancy Street in California, and
the Fortune Society and Community Justice Center (both in New York City),
than it is to place them in prison for over $30,000 per year.
If an offender or those who sentence him, decide a prison term is the best
way to pay back society for his errors, he should undergo a thorough classification procedure upon his entry into the prison system. Personality disabilities
should be noted. The programs available should be made known to him, and
he should be responsible for how he chooses to spend his time. A counselor
should be available, to consult with him monthly as to his progress. There
should be coordinated counseling and appropriate treatments for all those who
pass through the justice system, as they go from prison or alternative sentencing, to the completion of their time of service, or through parole. Those who
believe themselves to be innocent should be listened to, and given the necessary legal support. No one should be allowed to slip through the cracks. Offenders must be exposed to transitional services and effective mentoring that
will help them to become good citizens and family members. Those who are
released successfully can be useful in themselves becoming effective mentors
and service providers for still other prisoners coming out.
A vision for a balanced justice system that will promote safety in our
communities, includes preventive measures such as: education on non-violent
techniques for children and their parents, wise police practices, and recognition of those suffering from mental health problems and other disabilities. If a
crime is committed, we can envision a restorative justice system in which
community members participate, that will encourage the best possible quality
of life for surviving victims of crime, and the implementation of support
36

systems and mentoring for the hoped-for rehabilitation of the perpetrator of
the crime. If it becomes necessary to imprison an offender because he is a
danger to himself or others, he should be imprisoned in the least restrictive
environment, which would necessitate the transformation of Special Housing Units and Supermax prisons into places of healing and understanding.
The world needs laws that help and heal, if we are to become an ethical
society. The laws we provide should fit in with our dream for true justice for
all in a new era. Our legislators should construct laws that educate and train,
and should fund programs that build and restore. If you or those you loved
should make a serious error, would you like a trial based on the laws put in
place by some religious body, or by the United States Constitutional Law,
or by The Declaration of Human Rights? Which type of law speaks most
loudly for the development of the individual?
Our present prison system leans heavily on punishment rather than
restoration of the individual, and with this mindset, often overrides restorative practice that would rehabilitate offenders. Punishment and retribution are not good for the soul (as described in Addendum III). To further
express what we have been discussing about human rights for the offender,
a quasi statement entitled Bill of Rights for The Offender46 might help to
clarify what would be good psychological practice for department of corrections personnel that would help to make our prisons and our society
safer.

Bill of Rights for The Offender
Whereas, many psychiatrists and psychologists have surmised that the
overwhelming majority of offenders would be capable of leading full and
productive lives were they afforded appropriate treatment combined
with the right to enjoy the precious opportunities and freedoms that
others take for granted; and
Whereas, it has become the stated belief of all the civilized nations of the
world that all men and women, without distinction or unreasonable
exception, are naturally possessed of equal rights and privileges; and
Whereas, the 2 million Americans behind bars and another 4 million on
probation or parole, representing as they do about one in every hundred
citizens, form a significant portion of our population; and
Whereas, archaic or misguided customs, laws, and practices have denied
to this mighty body certain rights and privileges which, taken together,
contribute immeasurably to the individual dignity and worth of every
person; and
37

Whereas, the offender neither seeks or wishes from government or from
the people any privilege or exceptional right which may be denied to
others, but only those rights which are, or should be granted to all;
Whereas, every person and every community benefits proportionally to
the opportunities afforded ALL persons to fulfill their own maximum
potential;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved that those customs, laws, and practices
which hinder the ability of the offender to live and work in dignity ought
now to be ended, and that those customs, laws, and practices which, if
established, would enhance the ability of the offender to fulfill to the
maximum his own human potential, thereby benefitting himself, his
family, his community, and his nation, ought therefore to be established;
and
Be It Further Resolved that every offender has certain fundamental
rights, derived not from the physical, situational, medical, or societal, but
from the Human Condition; and that these rights include:
I. The right to enjoy certain freedoms and privileges afforded other
citizens, which do not cause or allow endangerment to himself or others;
II. The right to work at employment for which he may be trained or for
which he is physically or mentally qualified; for those who have achieved
sobriety or control sufficient to permit full time employment, the right to
compete equally for such employment without discrimination based on
previous history; for those who have not yet obtained full control, the
right to work at employment in a protected situation which will permit
them to fulfill their individual potential;
III. The right to enjoy the respect of his neighbors, limited only by the
extent to which his character may merit such respect, but not limited by
his previous lack of judgment, which affliction has either been overcome,
or is being treated;
IV. The right to seek and obtain in his own home community or within a
reasonable distance therefrom, psychological help and job assistance at
a cost that is commensurate with his unburdened ability to pay, and
welfare and health assistance if necessary;
V. The right to an education or training to the full extent of his ability to
learn, and financial assistance with cost of such education or training if
necessary;
VI. The right of an incarcerated offender or ex-offender not to be
subjected to treatment or legislation which automatically categorizes
38

him as criminal or violent;
VII. Protection against legal discrimination or abuse in any form because
of his previous history.

This Bill of Rights was modeled on The Bill of Rights for The Epileptic,
published by the Epilepsy Society of America in their support for those
persons disabled by epilepsy. Many offenders are suffering from drug
addiction which is a disease, or poor mental health, also a disease. Such
affliction should be considered as a disablement. Thus their rights can be
written up in a similar manner as those rights of the epileptic. Drug
addiction, sex addiction, mental disorders, and chemical toxicities such as
lead concentrations as found in cities, are public health problems; they are
diseases that require treatment. You treat a disease; you do not punish the
sick person by putting him in a warehouse and withholding treatment.
Criminal sanctions often create further problems that the drugs do not create.
Legislators can help their communities by making creative and understanding laws about drug use. The time has passed when politicians excited their constituencies by exposing a notorious criminal who was let out
on early parole without adequate mentoring. We know that there is a small
percentage of people who have serious problems, and that these people
need help from concerned professionals. They may need to have their rights
curtailed, but in a manner that carefully considers the possible harm that
may be done to society and is also least harmful to the person himself.
When thinking of the rights of the helpless, we should consider The
Rights of The Child in A Situation of Armed Conflict, produced by the Commission on Human Rights (see Addendum II). Legislators and others who
create positive laws keeping the children in mind, will be known as those
who protected and enhanced the well-being of our society. Those who succumb to the “tough on crime” philosophy and advocate practices which
deprive young people of a fulfilling education may find themselves guilty
of crimes against humanity and the environment. One of the greatest environmental wastes of our time is the devastation of our youth. Those who
would support children, should also apply the same standard to all helpless
people, both victims and offenders. They are all human beings. If we wish
to live in a peaceful world, we must take care of each other. Instead of
punishment, we are to use encouragement and respect.

39

Footnotes
1 Declaration Toward A Global Ethic, Parliament of World’s Religions, Chicago,
Sept. 1993, page 3.
2 Catholic Conference, 465 State Street, Albany, NY, 12203.
3 NY State Community of Churches, 362 State Street, Albany, NY 12210.
4 Prison Fellowship, PO Box 17500, Washington DC, 20041-0500, p.19.
5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Amnesty International USA Legal Support
Network, Fall, 1988, p.5.
6 Ibid., p.10.
7 The University of Minnesota Website,
http://wwwl.umn.edu.humanrts/instree/ainstsl.htm.
8 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, copies available from the United Nations
Department of Public Information, United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017.
9 J.P.Shapiro, “Wrong Men on Death Row,” US News&World Report, 11/9/98.
10 Expression by author.
11 Clare Regan, “Review of A Sentencing Project Report,” Justicia, Nov.-Dec. 2000.
12 Jamie Fellner, Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs.
13 United States of America, Rights for All, Amnesty International, p.61.
14 MI-CURE, Feb. 2001, Citizens United for Rehabilitation, Michigan, p.6.
15 Jeff Glasser, “Death Penalty Reforms,” US News & World Report,
Feb. 5, 2001, p.28.
16 Prisoners’ Rights Newsletter, Prison Project of Santa Fe, PO Box 1911,
Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1911.
17 Claire Schaeffer-Duffy, “Long-term Lockdowns,” National Catholic Reporter,
Dec. 8, 2000, p.3.
18 Claire Schaeffer-Duffy, “Use of Electro-Shock Devices,” National Catholic
Reporter, Dec. 8, 2000, p.3.
19 Sarah Kerr, Brooklyn Public Hearing for the NY State Senate Democratic Task
Force on Criminal Justice Reform, Dec. 2000.
20 Heather Barr, Brooklyn Public Hearing for the NY State Senate Democratic Task
Force on Criminal Justice Reform, Dec. 2000.
21 Frontiers of Justice, Volume 1, The Death Penalty, Ed. Whitman&Zimmerman,
Biddle Publishers, 1997, p.61.
22 Ibid., p.64.
23 Clay Conrad, Criminal Justice Annual, Selection 21, Dushkin/McGraw Hill, 2000,
pp.128,129.
24 Steven Singh, UJIMA, Fall, 1998.
25 James Wolfensohn, “A Call to Global Action,” America Magazine, Jan. 8-15,
2001, p.12.
26 ARABICA, July/Aug. 2000, “Secret Evidence in America,” pp. 32-34.
27 Michael Nagler, “The Steps of Nonviolence,” Fellowship of Reconciliation,
1999, p.7.
28 OK CURE, Winter 2001, “Retaliation Is Very Real,” Oklahoma Citizens United
for Rehabilitation, p.4.
29 J. Fellner & M. Maurer, Losing The Vote, Sentencing Project&Human Rights
Watch, Washington-NY, 1998, p.10.

40

30
31
32
33
34

Justice Net Prison Issues (prisonadmin@igc.org).
See Addendum IV and V, Kenneth Bazil, Jon Marc Taylor.
Insideout, Vol. 10 #2, Virginia CURE, p.2.
Clare Regan, Justicia, Nov. 1998.
Frank Headly, DOCS Deputy Commissioner of Programs in a speech before
CEANY (Correctional Education Association of New York) on Nov. 20, 2000.
35 Dr. Terry Kupers, Prison Madness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA,
1999, p.68.
36 Ibid., p.234.
37 Ibid., pp.234-240.
38 Dr. Terry Kupers, Prison Madness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA,
1999, pp.219-264.
39 Ibid., p.264.
40 New York Times, 1/11/2001.
41 Journal of Correctional Education, Sept. 2000, pp.294-297.
42 News and Notes, Correctional Education Association, Volume 23, #1, Jan. 2001.
43 John Humbach, Pace University, White Plains, NY, 10603.
44 Expression by author.
45 PYHIT, Schuyler Inn, 575 Broadway, Menands, NY, 12204.
46 Adapted by author from Bill of Rights for The Epileptic, Epilepsy Society of
America.

*

*

*

*

*

Addendum I: State Office of Victim Witness Advocacy
Trenton, New Jersey.
In considering the prisoners’ human rights, it also becomes necessary to
mention the victim. If we are to inflict as little harm as possible on the
offender, and seek to repair the harm that has been done by his damage to
the victim and the community, the first person to be helped should be the
victim.
The State of New Jersey has provided its people with a Crime Victim’s Bill
of Rights.
a. To be treated with dignity and compassion by the criminal justice
system;
b. To be informed about the criminal justice process;
c. To be free from intimidation;
d. To have inconveniences associated with participation in the criminal
justice process minimized to the fullest extent possible;
e. To make at least one telephone call provided the call is reasonable in
both length and location called;
41

f. To medical assistance if, in the judgement of the law enforcement
agency, medical assistance appears necessary;
g. To be notified if presence in court is not needed;
h. To be informed about available remedies, financial assistance and
social services;
i. To be compensated for their loss whenever possible;
j. To be provided a secure, but not necessarily separate, waiting area
during court proceedings;
k. To be advised of case progress and final disposition;
l. To the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence;
m.To submit a written statement about the impact of the crime to a
representative of the county prosecutor’s office which shall be considered prior to the prosecutor’s final decision concerning whether formal
criminal charges will be filed; and
n. To make, prior to sentencing, an in-person statement directly to the
sentencing court concerning the impact of the crime.
*****

Editorial Comment: Although the New Jersey State Constitution provides
that a victim of crime is to be treated with fairness, compassion, and respect,
this Bill of Rights sounds very cold and heartless. To allow one phone call,
for a victim to acquire psychological help and support, does not sound like
the victim is being treated with fairness. Picture an automobile accident
where a Black victim who has been sideswiped by a White driver is
surrounded by White policemen. How could restorative justice be brought
into this situation? Are the police equipped to hear both sides of the story?
An accident victim may be unable to present his side of the story.
*

*

*

*

*

Addendum II: Rights of The Child, Commission on
Human Rights, 56th Session, Agenda Item 13, January 2000.
The Rights of The Child in A Situation of Armed Conflict
(a) The rights and protection of children must be explicitly incorporated into
the mandates of relevant United Nations field operations that promote
peace and resolve conflict and implement peace agreements (“peace
operations”).
(b) Child protection advisors should be appointed to such missions to ensure
the implementation of the child protection dimension of peace operation
mandates.
42

(c) Training should be provided on the rights and protection of children to
all peacekeeping personnel.
The international community should redirect its energies from the juridical
task of development of norms to the political project of ensuring their
application. Recommendations for action that will further the concern for all
helpless peoples include:
1 - We must mobilize all our resources and social networks to promote
and strengthen local value systems that have traditionally provided for
the protection of children within societies.
2 - The international business community must assume its social and
corporate responsibility in the context of the systematic brutalization of
children amidst armed conflict, by refraining from engaging in business
that fuels war machines in such situations and by developing voluntary
codes of conduct within their own industries to address this serious issue.
3 - The time has come for the international community to develop a more
systematic response and framework for providing protection and practical support to internally displaced persons in countries affected by
conflict, the vast majority of whom are women and children.
4 - Much more needs to be done by the donor community, multilateral
agencies and international non-governmental organizations to provide
support to strengthen the capacities of national institutions, local nongovernmental organizations, and civil society organizations for protection and advocacy for children affected by armed conflict.
5 - In order to maintain credibility and solidarity, it is critical for the
international community to be seen to be responding with similar levels
of concern wherever children are in need of protection and support.
6 - Ultimately, the best way to protect children is to prevent conflicts
before they occur or to resolve them before they assume destructive
proportions. Both national and international actors have a responsibility
to take political, economic and social measures to address fundamental
issues of structural imbalance and exclusion, poverty, and despair,
manipulation of diversity and prolonged denial of democratic governance, all of which contribute significantly to generating conflicts.

*

*

*

43

*

*

Addendum III: Kobutsu Malone

Zenji - Rinzai Zen Buddhist Priest
The following view on punishment is from internet communication
(kobutsu@engaged-zen.org)
Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of physical or emotional pain or injury, on a being, by another person or persons who
exercise a ‘power-over’ dynamic toward that being. ... The net
result of any kind of punishment is internalized oppression,
humiliation and degradation for both the giver and the receiver of
the punishment. It is difficult indeed to really see the profound
depth of this truth because we as individuals and collectively as a
society live within an oppressive and coercive environment. Our
vision is completely blocked to the truth by materialism in the
physical, psychological and spiritual aspects of our lives. Arrogance and aggression permeate our society, our history, our
religious traditions, our so-called “judicial system” to the point
that we cannot dare to even question the premise of punishment
without drawing shocked response from our fellow citizens. We
live in a nation surrounded by violence, we worship violence and
the infliction of pain in our entertainment, in our day-to-day
interrelationships with each other. We forget that this is a legacy
of hatred and oppression that we have inherited from our parents
and they from theirs. We forget that our country was founded on
the violent conquest of indigenous peoples. We forget that our
religious traditions have been used to justify the perpetuation of
genocide and slaughter on indigenous people in the name of
‘civilization.’
*****

Editorial Comment: If punishment is the wrong psychology for children, it
is also the wrong psychology for adults.
*

*

*

44

*

*

Addendum IV: The Relationship Between Offender

Disenfranchisement and Black and Latino Political
Aspirations - Kenneth Bazil, 1997.
America’s jails and prisons are filled with 1.5 million individuals (1997
figure). One-half of those persons are of African ancestry. However, Blacks
account for only 12 percent of the American population. Similarly, Latinos
are 6 percent of the American population but account for 14 percent of the
prison population. Justice Department figures for 1995 show that 5.1 million
persons were under the control of the criminal justice system. Seventy-five
percent (3.8million) of those persons are on probation and parole.
Forty-seven of the 50 United States deny offenders the right to vote.
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont are the only states which allow imprisoned offenders to vote. Some states, like Virginia, disenfranchise offenders for life, unless the privilege is restored by an act of the governor;
the result being that parolees and probationers are unable to vote, although
no longer imprisoned.
What does this mean for the Black and Latino Population? On a voting
day there are millions of votes lost as a result of persons being incarcerated, on parole, or on probation. This is not considering those who are no
longer under criminal justice supervision but are, nevertheless, disenfranchised as a result of having once been in such a position. That would be the
result for someone in Virginia, for example.
Given the apathetic nature of the Black and Latino electorate, the automatic and sometimes irrevocable loss of potential ballots undermines the
ability of Blacks and Latinos to elect officials who share their concerns.
A good case in point is the 1993 Mayoral Election in New York City.
Voting in the election was polarized along racial lines. The Black incumbent (David Dinkins), lost to the white challenger (Rudolph Guiliani) by
44,243 votes.
In 1993, New York had 64,569 prisoners. About 75 percent of those
prisoners were from New York City. Blacks and Latinos--those most likely
to have supported Dinkins--accounted for 85 percent of the state’s prison
population. If the demographics hold true, then New York’s prison population could have provided Dinkins with approximately 41,000 votes. Moreover, Dinkins could have received thousands of votes from disenfranchised
Black and Latino parolees and probationers, which would have been enough
to defeat Rudolph Guiliani.
Thus it is evident that the common practice of disenfranchising offenders has an adverse effect on Black and Latino voting strength.
45

In June 1993, several prisoners from New York’s Green Haven Prison
filed civil rights complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The prisoners asserted that the enforcement of New
York’s Law disenfranchising offenders (N.Y. Election Law § 5-106) resulted
in a dilution of Black and Latino Voting Strength; a violation of § 2 of the
Voting Rights Act and its amendments (42 USC § 1973 et seq.), as well as
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The prisoners’ claims were based on these essential facts:
1. New York disenfranchises felons sentenced to prison, while
allowing felons receiving non-prison sentences, e.g., probation, to
vote.
2. New York’s 1988 Commission on the Judiciary found that
when Blacks and Whites are guilty of similar offenses, Blacks are
more likely to receive sentences of imprisonment.
3. Although Blacks and Latinos combined are 25% of the state’s
population, they account for 85% of the state’s 70,000 prisoners.
4. About 75% of the state’s prisoners come from New York City.
The Voting Rights Act and its amendments prohibit the enforcement of any
voting law or prerequisite that has the effect of diluting minority voting
strength. The Prisoners’ Voting Rights claim was premised on the fact that
the disenfranchisement of offenders results in a significant loss of votes in
New York’s Black and Latino Communities.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all persons the equal protection and application of the laws, and prohibits discrimination based on
race. The prisoners’ Fourteenth Amendment claim was premised on the
absence of any “rational basis,” for New York’s practice of allowing offenders not sentenced to prison to vote, while disenfranchising offenders
unfortunate enough to have received prison sentences.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the abridgement of the right to
vote for reasons based upon race.
The prisoners’ Fifteenth Amendment claim was premised on that
amendment’s prohibition against vote denial. In order to succeed on the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claims, the prisoners would have had
to prove an intent to discriminate in denying them the right to vote.
However, the prisoners would have succeeded on the Voting Rights
claim by simply proving that the practice of disenfranchising prisoners,
diluted Black and Latino voting strength.
In response to the prisoners’ law suit, the District Court issued a memorandum and order requiring the prisoners to articulate grounds for relief, or
risk dismissal of their claims. In response, the prisoners filed an amended
46

complaint and memorandum of law. Nevertheless, in an order of February
1994, the District Court dismissed the prisoners’ complaints, without
requiring the state to file an answer. See Baker v. Cuomo, 842 F. Supp. 781
(S.D.N.Y. 1994).
The prisoners appealed the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s
decision and ordered the District Court to hear the prisoners’ claims. Baker
v. Cuomo, 58 F.3d 814 (1995).
The Court of Appeals noted that the prisoners, as persons already disenfranchised, may not have standing to claim vote dilution. However, persons from Black and Latino communities may claim vote dilution based
upon the disenfranchisement of offenders. The court’s final analysis was
that, given the factors involved, the prisoners’ claims may be valid or in the
least, required consideration.
New York’s Attorney General requested a rehearing before the Circuit’s
original panel, and also a rehearing before the full Second Circuit (Rehearing En Banc). The request for rehearing was denied (58 F.3D 824-825).
The Attorney General than filed a Petition for Certiorari, requesting
that the Supreme Court review the Second Circuit’s decision. The Supreme
Court denied the petition (116 S.Ct. 488).
However, in the interim the Second Circuit granted a Rehearing En
Banc (67 F.3d 39). The En Banc hearing was held on December 20, 1995.
Brett Dignam of Yale University’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization represented the prisoners. Students from Yale University, The
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and
Professor Pam Karlan of the University of Virginia Law School aided with
the prisoners’ arguments.
The central issue at the En Banc hearing was whether the Voting Rights
Act’s prohibition against vote dilution was applicable to felon disenfranchisement, since such a law would tend to usurp the state’s power under
the Fourteenth Amendment to disenfranchise felons.
In a decision issued May 30, 1996, the En Banc panel split; with five
(5) judges concluding that the Voting Rights Act applied to prisoner disenfranchisement, and five (5) judges holding that it did not. The consequence
of the split was that the order of the original Second Circuit Panel (58 F.3d
814) was vacated, and the part of the District Court’s decision (842 F. Supp
781) dismissing the prisoners’ Voting Rights claims was affirmed. The En
Banc decision left the prisoners the option of pursuing their XIVth and XVth
Amendment claims in the District Court. (Baker v. Pataki, 85 F.3d 919).
Faced with the prospect of appealing their case to a conservative Su47

preme Court, or pursuing their Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claims
in the District Court--where they would have to prove intentional discrimination--the prisoners decided to abandon the lawsuit.
It is the prisoners’ belief that a similar claim can be made by members
of the Black and Latino Community, and that such a group of plaintiffs
may find more favor with the courts.
The poll tax and literacy test were former techniques used to deny
minorities the vote. After decades of struggle, such practices were outlawed by the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, and its amendments. However, the disenfranchisement of offenders is a more insidious means by
which Black and Latino voting strength is diluted.
The disenfranchisement of offenders as a tool of political suppression,
is nothing new. In 1901, the Alabama Legislature tailored the state constitution to disenfranchise persons convicted of crimes the legislatures considered most likely to be committed by Blacks. Alabama’s law remained on the
books until 1985, when the United States Supreme Court determined that it
was enacted with the purpose of disenfranchising Blacks and diluting the
Black vote. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 105 S.Ct. 1916 (1985).
Given the historical opposition waged against minority voting rights,
Blacks and Latinos must question the validity of laws that disenfranchise
offenders. If Blacks and Latinos fail to question the practice of offender
disenfranchisement their attempts at empowerment will remain futile.
Editorial comment: Are white upstate voting districts approving of laws that are
tailored to prevent minorities from voting where they are census counted?

*

*

*

*

*

Addendum V: The Forgotten Man - Jon Marc Taylor
(#503273) Crossroads Correctional Ctr., Cameron, MO 64429, Oct. '00.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Twenty years ago, I cast my first and only vote. What a ruckus that caused!
The local prosecutor idiotically twitting for the cameras, alluding to dastardly skullduggery, accused others and myself of voter fraud. By casting
our absentee ballots––which the jailers had handed us through the bars––
after our convictions, we had been inducted into the final group of mentally
competent (at least the court had so declared us!) Americans excluded from
the ballot box.
In this coming election over four million citizens are barred from sub48

mitting their votes for the presidency to governships, and yes, even local
prosecutors.1 These individuals are convicted felons serving prison time,
those released on parole, others supervised on probation, and over one
million souls having paid their full “debt to society” disenfranchised for life
by the happenstance of geography.2
Where one lives in America dictates the most basic constitutive act of
citizenship in a democracy: The right to vote. Forty-six states deny the
right to vote to all imprisoned offenders. Thirty-two states also disenfranchise those on parole. Twenty-nine disenfranchise those on probation as
well. And enforcing laws unique in the world, fourteen states permanently
exclude from the polling booth anyone ever convicted of anything.3
A despicable vestige of medieval times, re-enacted as a new form of
Poll Tax in post-Civil War southern constitutions,4 such voting restrictions
serve no discernible, defensible legitimate purpose. As Jamie Fellner of
Human Rights Watch and Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project comment,
“No other democratic country in the world denies as many people (in absolute or proportional terms) the right to vote because of felony convictions.”5
Countries as diverse as Romania, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Peru to France
and Zimbabwe permit prisoners to vote.6 In Denmark politicians conduct
debates in prisons to solicit votes, as opposed to in America where candidates tour death rows “demonstrating their support for executions.7 Moreover, in Germany––a country haunted by the recent legacy of disenfranchisement––the law requires wardens to encourage and assist prisoners in
the casting of their ballots.8
In yet another land experienced in the legacy of denied political franchise, the New South African Constitution guarantees the nation’s 146,000
prisoners the right to vote. Upon lingering apartheid challenge, the Constitutional Court ruled: “Universal adult suffrage is one of the foundational
values of our constitutional order. The vote of each and every citizen is a
badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, everybody counts.”9
*****

So, too, there are illuminating exceptions in the United States. Until
recently, five states permitted universal suffrage in their commonwealths.
Perhaps not surprisingly, they all were founded by politically excluded
settlers seeking freedom from repression. In New England, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont allowed their prisoners to vote.10 As
a constituency, Maine presented the highest voter turnout of all fifty states
in the '96 elections; a coincidence?11
The enlightenment of Mormon Utah, created from desert by the perse49

cuted Saints chased for two thousand miles by the intolerant Protestant
majority, waved the comprehension of their own history and rescinded their
prisoners’ right to vote two years ago. Massachusetts, meanwhile, as the
cradle of the revolution against political disenfranchisement, in this 2000
election has voted to strip their prisoners of this essential right, because the
incarcerated had the temerity to form a political action committee to
advocate for their interests.12 Thus at the birth of the 21st century, fewer
Americans will have the basic right of suffrage, than had the quintessential
American franchise at the beginning of the 20th.13
Today in our nation two-percent of the eligible voting population is
currently or permanently disenfranchised, and in six states it’s more than
four-percent. Florida and Texas each disenfranchised more than 600,000
people. Three-quarters of the disenfranchised are not even in prison, with
one million excluded voters never having seen the inside of a cell.14
Racially close to half of the disenfranchised are people of color.15 In
Alabama and Florida, nearly one-third of all black men are permanently
banned from voting. And in Virginia more black men are forever barred
from the voting booth than are registered to vote!16 At present rates, largely
fueled by the discriminatorily executed War-On-Drugs,17 forty percent of
the next generation of minorities will likely lose their right to vote. Overall, one in twenty of today’s children (white, black, red, brown, and yellow) will be convicted of an offense, thus disenfranchised for at least a
period of their lifetime.18
*****

Voter turnout this election was low as usual. Pundits far and wide have lamented
this apparent electorate apathy. The greatest proportional voter participation in
our history was in the decades after the Civil War,19 before economic and racial
constrictions were once again “legislatively” reapplied after Reconstruction.20
Presently, columnist Janice Ellis wonders, “How will our democratic process
survive if this downward spiral of nonvoting continues?”21
In a country that constructed as many prison cells last year as built
public housing units the entire previous decade,22 the structural exclusion
of a group of citizens from the polling booth is a hypocritical act betraying
the spirit of our system of government. The elimination of procedurally
needless and politically disgraceful prisoner disenfranchisement would be
a major step in moving the United States closer to the evolving national
ideal, the aim of our ancestors who founded this country, in their escape
from the tyranny of oppression. To our shame, the majority of the world is
now surpassing us.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the
50

United States is a signatory, declares everyone has the right to participate in
the government of their country, this right specifically expressed as “universal suffrage.” The Supreme Court of our northern neighbor has determined
that voting is not an earned privilege, but the right of all Canadians. Justice
Strayer, in rejecting the Solicitor General’s objections to honoring the
nation’s Charter of Rights, emphatically declared: “The electorate chooses
the government; the government does not choose the electorate.”23
In America is it different.
Jon Marc Taylor, a “non-voting” Missouri prisoner, is a past recipient of The Nation and
Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards.

Footnotes for Addendum V
1 F. Green, “CURE Advised to Unite to Win Back Vote for Felons,” Richmond
Times-Dispatch, 6/9/97.
2 J. Fellner & M. Maurer, Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws
in the United States, The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch,
Washington DC and New York, 10/1998.
3 Ibid.
4 D. Oshinsky, Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and The Ordeal of Jim Crow Laws,
Free Press, 1996.
5 Fellner & Maurer, Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 C. Sullivan, “Universal Suffrage Concept Paper,” Citizens United for The Rehabilitation
of Errants, Washington DC, 1997.
8 Fellner & Maurer, Ibid.
9 LOS ANGELES TIMES, “South African Court Gives Prisoners The Right to Vote,”
4/10/99.
10 D. Cole, “Denying Felons Hurts Them, Society,” USA TODAY, 2/3/00.
11 A. Carey & W. Bryant, “USA Snapshots: States Where Voters Voted,” USA TODAY,
11/14/96.
12 A.P., “Criminal Past Keeps More Black Men from Polls,” 9/22/00.
13 R. Willing, “Ex-convicts Hope to Regain Right to Vote,” USA TODAY, 3/6/00.
14 Fellner & Maurer, Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 D. Cole, “Denying Felons Hurts Them, Society,” USA TODAY, 2/3/00.
18 Ibid.
19 D. Oshinsky, Ibid.
20 A. Keyessar, “Class-skewed Voters: Illness in The Body Politic,” USA TODAY,
10/26/00.
21 J. Ellis, “Democracy Requires Participation,” KANSAS CITY STAR, 10/17/00.
22 D. Wickham, “Homeless Receive Little Attention from Candidates,” USA TODAY,
10/24/00.
23 R. Rowbothan, “Canadian Prisoners Win Right to Vote,” PRISON LIFE, 5/95.

51

Addendum VI: The Twenty-eight Points - Attica Inmates
The Inmates at Attica Correctional Facility, 1971, listed the following items
in their request for settlement of the correctional facility takeover by
prisoners. Further information is in A Bill of No Rights: Attica and The
American Prison System by Herman Badillo, Outerbridge and Lazard, 1972.
Following are the proposals that State Correction Commissioner Russell
G. Oswald has said he will accept:
1. Provide adequate food, water and shelter for all inmates.
2. Inmates shall be permitted to return to their cells or to other suitable
accommodations or shelter under their power. The observer committee shall
monitor the implementation of this operation.
3. Grant complete administrative amnesty to all persons associated with this
matter. By administrative amnesty the state agrees:
A. Not to take any adverse parole actions, administrative proceedings, physical punishment or other type of harassment, such as
holding inmates incommunicado, segregating inmates, or keeping
them in isolation or in 24-hour lockup.
B. The state will grant legal amnesty in regard to all civil actions that
could arise from this matter.
C. It is agreed that the State of New York and all its departments,
divisions, and subdivisions, including the State Department of
Corrections and the Attica Correctional Facility and its employes
and agents, shall not file or initiate any criminal complaint or act as
complainant in any criminal action of any kind or nature relating to
property damage or property-related crimes arising out of the
incidents at the Attica Correctional Facility during Sept. 9, 10 and
11, 1971.
4. Recommend the application of the New York State Minimum Wage Law
standards to all work done by inmates. Every effort will be made to make the
records of payments available to inmates.
5. Establish by Oct. 1 a permanent ombudsman service for the facility,
staffed by appropriate persons from the neighboring communities.
6. Allow all New York State prisoners to be politically active without
intimidation or reprisal.
7. Allow true religious freedom.
8. End all censorship of newspapers, magazines and other publications from
publishers, unless it is determined by qualified authority which includes the
ombudsman, that the literature in question presents a clear and present danger
52

to the safety and security of the institution. Institution spot-censoring only
of letters.
9. Allow all inmates at their own expense to communicate with anyone they
please.
10. Institute realistic, effective rehabilitation programs for all inmates
according to their offense and personal needs.
11. Modernize the inmate education system, including the establishment of
a [Spanish-language] library.
12. Provide an effective narcotics treatment program for all prisoners
requesting such treatment.
13. Provide or allow adequate legal assistance to all inmates requesting it,
or permit them to use inmate legal assistance of their choice in any
proceeding whatsoever. In all such proceedings inmates shall be entitled to
appropriate due process of law.
14. Reduce cell time, increase recreation time and provide better recreation
facilities and equipment, hopefully by Nov. 1, 1971.
15. Provide a healthy diet, reduce the number of pork dishes, increase fresh
fruit daily.
16. Provide adequate medical treatment for every inmate. Engage either a
Spanish-speaking doctor or interpreters who will accompany Spanishspeaking inmates to medical interviews.
17. Institute a program for the recruitment and employment of a significant
number of Black and Spanish-speaking officers.
18. Establish an inmate grievance commission, comprised of one elected
inmate from each company, which is authorized to speak to the administration concerning grievances and develop other procedures for inmate participation in the operation and decision-making processes of the institution.
19. Investigate the alleged expropriation of inmate funds and the use of
profits from the metal and other shops.
20. The State Commissioner of Correctional Services will recommend that
the penal law be changed to cease administrative resentencing of inmates
returned for parole violation.
21. Recommend that Menenchino hearings be held promptly and fairly.
[This concerns the right of prisoners to be represented legally on paroleviolation charges.]
22. Recommend necessary legislation and more adequate funds to expand
work relief programs.
23. End approved lists for correspondents and visitors.
24. Remove visitation screens as soon as possible.
25. Institute a 30-day maximum for segregation arising out of any one
53

offense. Every effort should be geared towards restoring the individual to
regular housing as soon as possible, consistent with safety regulations.
26. Paroled inmates shall not be charged with parole violations, for moving
traffic violations or driving without a license unconnected with any other
crimes.
27. Permit access to outside dentists and doctors at the inmates’ own expense
within the institution where possible and consistent with scheduling problems, medical diagnosis and health needs.
28. It is expressly understood that members of the observer committee will
be permitted into the institution on a reasonable basis to determine whether
all of the above provisions are being effectively carried out. If questions of
adequacy are raised, the matter will be brought to the attention of the
Commissioner of Correctional Services for clearance.
*

*

*

54

*

*

Everyone
is to be treated with RESPECT.
Even if you have made a serious mistake
you are to be treated with RESPECT.
Prisoners are to be treated with RESPECT.
They are human beings
similar to all other people in the world.
All of us have made mistakes,
have made errors in judgment,
have made errors under the influence of passion.
Some of us have done crazy things while intoxicated.
Others of us have mental aberrations.
But we all deserve to be treated with RESPECT
because we are human beings.
The converse is also true:
Because we are human beings
it is our RESPONSIBILITY
to treat others with RESPECT and KINDNESS.
All prisoners are to treat those who imprison them
with RESPECT.
We are to treat those who govern us
and those who run for public office with RESPECT.
We are all fellow human beings,
offspring of the same

Creative Process.
C.E.C.