Depo-Provera:
Blessing or Curse?
Urvashi Vaid

I regard the death penalty as a savage and immoral institution.
A state . . . takes upon itself the right to the most terrible and
irreversible act . . . the deprivation of life. Such a state cannot
expect an improvement of the moral atmosphere in its country.
Andrei Sakharov

NUMBER 4, SUMMER, 1985

ISSN 0748·2655

Super-Max Prisons Have
Potential for "Unnecessary
Pain and Suffering"
Alvin J. Bronstein

The question of the "super-max"
prison has plagued both corrections officials and prisoners' rights advocates for
the last decade. It is assumed that in
every jurisdiction's prisoner population
there exists a small percentage of offenders whose criminal conduct is so
violent or persistent, whose institutional
behavior so inappropriate, that no acceptable alternative exists beyond incapacitation through long-term confinement in a secure prison. Many challenge
the wisdom of concentrating all deepend offenders in one institution or one

unit within a larger prison. We will put
that question aside for the moment as
we consider the various approaches to
super-maximum security or "last
resort" prisons. *
Long-term high security imprisonment serves no rehabilitative purpose,
but is intended to punish and incapacitate. It is used to control those who
-continued on page 5.

---------

'Some of the ideas in this article were first
expressed in Confinement In Maximum Security,
edited by David Ward and Kenneth Schoen
(Lexington Books 1981).

Prisoners at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, being escorted down the hall by correctional
officers.
Photo courtesy of the Southern Illinoisan

ECENT INTEREST in the use
of depo-provera to control the
behavior of male "sex offenders" presents an immediate
dilemma for prisoners' rights
activists. On the one hand,
the id~ of providing treatment
along with or even instead of
incarceration is laudable. On the other
hand, the specter of coerced prisoner
participation in what is arguably medical
experimentation is troubling. Beyond
this dilemma there is an even greater
ethical, legal and political quandary:
should behavior be forcibly modified
through chemicals to fit a clinically or
even legally defined "norm"?
Generically known as medroxy-progesterone acetate, the drug depo-provera is no stranger to controversy. The
drug was developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company as a long-lasting,
injectible contraceptive for women. It
has conSistently been rejected by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "
for commercial distribution in the United
States because of scientific controversy
over its serious side effects. For women
these include "heavy bleeding, possible
permanent sterility, serious ovarian
changes, and diabetes." I The side effects
in men will be discussed in the text
below. The drug has also produced cancer in laboratory animals such as beagles
and monkeys. In 1984, the FDA advisory committee on depo-provera again"
recommended that the drug not be marketed in the United States because of
potential health risks. Nevertheless, it is
widely distributed in Third World
countries.
-continued on page 7.
I

See Public Citizen Health Research Group's Response to Questions of the Public Board of Inquiry
(of the Food and Drug Administration) on DepoProvera, January 13. 1983. For further
information on depo-provera's use as a contraceptive, contact The National Women's Health
Network, 224 7th Street, S.E.. Washington,
D.C. 20003.

INSIDE

• • •

• u.s. Death Penalty

The View from Abroad .. , 9

• Highlights
Prison Litigation .. . I2
• Oak Park Heights
An Enlightened Effort . .. 3

A PRGJE€:lT OF lTHE AMERI€:AN €:I¥IL LIBERlTlES UNION FOUNDAlTION, IN€:.

Jail Coalition Forced to Close; Work Continues
"I refuse to accept the notion that . . . those of you who have spilled your energies and your guts on it for 7 years,
will now forget about it . . ."
Profoundly affected by the shrinkage of funding available to non-profit
organizations, the National Coalition for
jail Reform, aptly described in its materials as the •'first broad-based coalition in
the criminal justice field," has had to
close its offices and restructure its
activities.
Composed of over forty different
groups including the National Prison
Project, the National Sheriffs' Association and the National Moratorium on
Prison Construction, the jail Coalition
was formed in 1978 to "develop policies, action models, strategies and constituencies to bring about change in two
basic areas: inappropriate confinement of
many persons and inappropriate conditions in many jails." The diversity of the
member-groups of the Coalition did not
The following organizations will
provide Coalition services. For general jail information and referral to
experts on specific issues, as well as
copies of "Covering the jail: Resources for the Media," write:
National Coalition for jail Reform
c/o Program Resources Center
School of Criminal justice
Rutgers University
I5 Washington Street
Newark, Nj 07102
To obtain copies of the following
Coalition publications, "Look at Your
jail: First Steps Toward jail Reform",
"The Public Inebriate: jail is Not the
Answer", "jail: The New Mental
Institution", "Women in jail: Special
Problems, Different Needs",
"Removing the Chronically Mentally
III from jail: Case Studies", call or
write:
...
NIC Information Center
1790 30th Street, Suite I30
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 444-1101
To obtain copies of the brochure and
resource packet, "juveniles in jail:
The Wrong Combination", call or
write:
jim Brown
Community Research Center
505 E. Green Street, Suite 210
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 333-0443

2 SUMMER 1985

inhibit the Coalition from taking strong
and definite stands on a number of issues
crucial to jail conditions and operations.
The Coalition adopted policies opposing
the inappropriate confinement of public
inebriates, of juveniles in adult jails, and
of mentally ill and retarded people. It
urged the expanded use of pretrial release, and, in perhaps its most hotly
debated policy, called upon communities
to conform jail conditions to the constitutionally required minimum •'to ensure
conditions appropriate to the protection
of the physical and mental health and
welfare of those held."
The extraordinary task of coordinating the work of the Coalition, as well
as negotiating agreement on policies
from groups representing such seemingly
divergent constituencies, fell mainly upon
the Coalition staff. Executive Director
judith johnson, in her 7-year leadership
was the principal architect of all the
Coalition's accomplishments. johnson has
gone on to become executive director
of the Green Door, a mental health
rehabilitation program. Other staffers
like Assistant Director Keith McKeown
(and former Assistant Director Deborah
Kahn), Roberta james and jeanette Richardson brought great energy and insight
into the process of organizing the Coalition. With the closing of the Coalition's
doors, the members themselves will

carry the work of urging adoption of
Coalition policies and disseminating the
brochures and information packets the
Coalition prepared over the years.
The Coalition's advocacy on jail
issues, the need for its excellent materials, and the po*ive results of the 43 national organizations working together
for jail reform will continue under the
new structure.
In her remarks to the final meeting
of the jail Coalition, Federal Court of
Appeals judge Patricia Wald said, " ... I,
for one, refuse to accept the notion
that the Coalition itself - the coming together, if you will, of over 40 organizations on a problem as big as the •jail
problem', is over. Or that those of you
who have spilled your energies and your
guts on it for 7 years - will now forget
about it ... a group like the Coalition
that has worked so hard, agreed on so
much - means as well as end - achieved
important tangible victories, learned
some acid lessons, doesn't just die - it
lives on in the agendas, actions, and
aspirations of its members. The problem
has not gone away - you must not
either. Court reform, its architect judge
Arthur Vanderbilt once said, is not for
the shortwinded. jail reform, I say, is
not for the sprinters - it needs long distance runners." •

The National Prison Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
JAN ELVIN
Editor, NPP JOURNAL

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-0500

ALVIN j. BRONSTEIN
Executive Director

STEVEN NEY
Chief Staff Counsel

EDWARD I. KOREN
MARY E. McCLYMONT
NKECHI TAIFA

URVASHI VAID
CLAUDIA WRIGHT

STAFF ATTORNEYS
ADjOA A. AIYETORO
ELIZABETH R. ALEXANDER

SUPPORT STAFF
BETSY BERNAT
Editorial Assistant
MELVIN GIBBONS

SHARON R. GORETSKY
Administrative Director and
Research Associate
BERYL JONES

DAN MANVILLE
Research Associate
LYNTHIA SIMONETTE

The National Prison Project is a tax-exempt foundation-funded project of the ACLU Foundation which
seeks to strengthen and protect the rights of adult and juvenile offenders; to improve overall conditions in
correctional facilities by using existing administrative, legislative and judicial channels; and to develop alternatives to incarceration.
The reprinting of JOURNAL material is encouraged with the stipulation that the National Prison Project
JOURNAL be credited with the reprint, and that a copy of the reprint be sent to the editor.
The JOURNAL is scheduled for publication quarterly by the National Prison Project. Materials and
suggestions are welcome.
The National Prison Project JOURNAL is designed by james True.

The Minnesota Correctional Facility-Oak Park Heights represents an
enlightened effort to deal with difficult offenders. Warden Frank Wood
and his staff are proud of the fact that Oak Park Heights was the first
institution of its kind to receive American Correctional Association
accreditation within the first two years of operation, and that it received
the highest ranking of any institution in the country on a first-time audit.

Oak Park Heights Sets High
Super-Max Standards
Frank Wood

On March 23, 1982, the Minnesota
Correctional Facility-Oak Park Heights
became operational and began to house
the first group of inmates.
A UNIQUE DESIGN
The design of the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Oak Park Heights
incorporates advanced technology and
architecture into its security, correctional liVing environment and energy
conservation. The $31.8 million facility
is located on a 160-acre site which
includes a 60-acre secured area within its
double-fenced perimeter. The institution's housing units are staggered along
the building's exposed wall, which encircles both the main yard and smaller, separate athletic courts adjacent to each
unit. This earth-sheltered facility consists
of attached complexes, with housing on
the lower two levels and an industry/
program space above each unit. Arranged in a u-shape, built into a hillside,
the complexes are connected by two
traffic corridors on separate levels - one
for staff only, the other for routine
inmate and staff traffic. There is also a
core administration building, a gymnasium, a security/control center and
multi-use areas for other activities such
as religious services and staff training.
The facility has self-contained complexes, which allow the separation of
inmates into si'hall, manageable and more
compatible groups. The design provides
improved security, safety and control,
and permits an environment for good
staff-inmate communication. Each
complex is a self-contained unit which
can be operated independently from the
other units. It can easily be isolated if
the security needs of the unit or institution so dictate. Each work area and living area has a secure control station in it
affording a full view of the complex.
Each station is manned in addition to
those staff working in direct contact
with the inmates. Staff rotate frequently
during the shift from the control station
to the direct contact assignment.
Within the separate complexes of

the institution is a complex with I0
medical beds and 32 mental health beds.
The other seven housing complexes, including a control (segregation) unit, have
capacities of 52 inmates each. These
housing complexes have two levels of
cells or rooms which open into day
spaces containing facilities for food services, indoor recreation and other activities. Each complex also adjoins its own
outdoor recreation area. The cells are
all designed for one inmate and contain a
sink, toilet, bed, concrete desk and
shelves. Each room also has a narrow
security window facing outside (within
the walls) and a window within the door
that faces the complex commons area.
The general population cells are 70
sq.ft.; segregation cells are 80 sq.ft.; and
medical/mental health cells are 150 sq. ft.
Warden Frank Wood talks with an inmate
working in the Oak Park Heights kitchen.

Photo courtesy

A REALISTIC MISSION
The primary mission of the institution is to operate Minnesota's maximum
security correctional facility, placing the
highest priority on public safety, while
providing a secure, safe, clean, responsive, just and humane environment for
inmates and staff. We are responsible
for maintaining an environment which is
conducive to' and encourages the rehabilitation of those inclined to change,
through emphasis on control, accountability, sensitivity and responsiveness to
the real and imagined concerns of inmates and staff. Essential to that environment is a wide range of educational,
vocational, treatment and work opportunities tailored to the needs of the
inmate population, which provide full
time, constructive assignments and structured leisure time activities. Those
inmates who decide not to participate in
constructive programming are provided
with the necessary surveillance, supervision and control to ensure that they do
not interfere with those who want to
fully participate.
Our mission is to accept from the
other adult male facilities, all inmates
classified as maximum custody, or categorized as risks to the public. This
includes those convicted of serious person offenses, high escape risks, and dangerous or serious management cases.
Our program is designed to control,
evaluate and facilitate the transfer of
inmates to less secure facilities in the
system after they have demonstrated a
satisfactory adjustment over an estab~
lished time period at Oak Park Heights.
In those cases where the inmate does
not make the desired adjustment, we
maintain the necessary custody, control
and program consistent with his identified needs until he meets our adjustment
expectations or is released by proper
authority.
In order to fulfill our mission, we
must maintain a working climate where
staff members at all levels are provided
with training, supervision, encouragement, support and opportunities for
varying assignments to help them reach
their full personal and professional
potential.
To be consistent with this goal and
to follow through on the •'sensitivity
and responsiveness" that is part of that
goal, we continually strive to ensure that
inmates will be treated the way we
would like to see a close relative or
friend treated if he were incarcerated
here.
There are some calculated risks in
the operation of a humane facility with a
dangerous population. We take those
risks because we believe in what we are
doing. We believe that the record docu-continued on next page.

of MCI-OPH

SUMMER 1985 3

-continued from previous page.
ments a significant decrease in violence
with a very violent population. We have
met our realistic expectations of reducing the frequency and seriousness of violence, and have experienced record
intervals between the incidents we have
had. We should all avoid creating unrealistic expectations for the public and the
politicians. This in turn fuels the rhetoric
and the political dialogue that is hurting
so many states and systems. The only
way to absolutely assure no escapes and
no homicides is to keep the inmates
locked up and prevent them from having
direct contact with other inmates and
staff. When the suicide rate becomes an
issue, you could chain them to a wall or
place them in four point restraints in
their beds. You probably wouldn't have
any homicides or suicides, but you would
return to society some very real
threats.

FULL PROGRAMMING
The institution's population has generally ranged between 360 to 370 inmates. By maintaining this population,
we have found a number conducive to
acceptable programming within the
facility.
Inmates are involved in a structured,
full day of program, including industry
(which includes 3 of the complexes),
education and institutional maintenance.
Programming is also scheduled through
structured recreation and a leisure time
activity program, which involves individual and group activities. Recreational
activities include inmates in each complex, as well as limited intramural recreation, involving no more than two complexes at one time in the gymnasium or
the main yard.
The education program is delivered
by contract through continuing education and extension with the University
of Minnesota. This provides the administrative coordination of the six school
consortium, offering classes on site at
the institution. The schools, all of which
have a long history of service at the
Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, have provided the expertise and
educational training that has led to the
success of this program. By working
closely together, this consortium puts
on two major programs for the inmates
at Oak Park Heights - one full time day
program for the 52-man Education Unit,
and one voluntary evening program for
the men in the rest of the institution
complexes. The day program includes a
skills center/qualified instructor providing
basic skills training on an individual tutorial basis, covering all skill levels from
very remedial to college credit skill
courses in math, spelling, writing, grammar, reading and vocabulary. G.E.D.
4 SUMMER 1985

preparation in the skills center takes
place with the aid of six Apple II's and
two Control Data Corporation Plato
terminals. In addition, a full time college
program of 14 to 15 credits a quarter,
is offered by regular or adjunct faculty
members from the member schools.
Through the education program, vocational programs are offered with instructors from vocational schools in technical
areas such as electronics and drafting.
Computer courses are offered on a regular basis and an art program is taught
and supervised by an instructor from the
University of Minnesota. Lastly, various
short courses are held in job seeking and
life coping skills. The evening program
provides similar but less comprehensive
educational opportunities for the remainder of the inmates.
The Treatment (Chemical Dependency and Sex Offender) Unit is a full
time treatment environment. Complex
# I inmates participate in all routines of
the institution. It is not a "mental
health" or "medical unit." It is governed by all the policies and procedures
that are afforded to the other institution residents. The program is designed
to be very flexible. Our current program supports inmates as they evaluate
themselves and set new behavioral goals.
The program focuses on developing personal behavioral controls, changing addictive/abusive chemical use patterns,
changing sexually addictive/abusive behavior patterns, educational achievement, vocational skill development, and
development of a personal philosophy
which can guide daily behavior. The program is designed to be completed very
early in a man's stay in the Department
of Corrections. There are other programs available for the transition to an
inmate's home community. The Treatment Unit emphasizes daily living and
personal responsibility. It is planned that
all inmates will develop close, supportive
relationships with each other as they
participate in the group programs.
The Oak Park Heights Industry Program is operated with the latest equipment in order to provide up-to-date
employment experiences for inmates.
Working in a realistic industrial setting
such as office products and garment
manufacturing, inmates become acquainted with a variety of production and programs. Minnesota Micrographics is a full
service microfilm shop, and includes a
full line of vinyl and canvas notebooks,
envelope imprinting, garment manufacturing, bookbinding and the manufacture
of tab cards and file folders. In addition
to providing work experience, the program gives inmates an opportunity to
earn money based on their production
and quality of workmanship. The industry's goal is to become self-sufficient,

thereby providing each inmate with a
marketable skill at no cost to the
taxpayer.
The Mental Health Unit at Oak
Park Heights was created by Minnesota
Statutes to provide in-patient psychiatric
services to all Department of Corrections adult males. The only Department
of Corrections cases that presently go
to the State 'Security Hospital are those
individuals who have reached the end of
their present sentence but continue to
need treatment. The Mental Health Unit
staff offers suc~ treatment programming
as individual psychotherapy, chemotherapy, and group therapies which include:
a) traditional group therapy; b) problem
solving group; c) anger control group; d)
rational thinking group; e) interpersonal
skills group; f) goal directed group; g)
daily community meeting; h) arts and
crafts group. In addition, biofeedback
and A.A. are part of this programming
within the Mental Health Unit.
There is also daily recreation and
educational programming within this
complex. The Mental Health Unit staff
has developed a sophisticated point system within the complex, whereby residents are given points for personal
hygiene, room care and attendance at
treatment activities for motivational purposes. They may use these points to
rent radios and televisions, or buy candy
and cigarettes. Disruptive behavior may
also result in a resident being fined a
specific number of points. Another
important aspect of the health services
unit is the close working relationship
developed between correctional and clinical staff. This relationship has not only
been highly effective within the unit, but
has had a positive influence on the institutional environment.
WELL-TRAINED,
QUALIFIED STAFF
As we fulfill our mission and commitment to the Department of Corrections by accepting high risk inmates from
the other adult male facilities, we recognize the problems in managing that type
of population. Incidents and problems
are inevitable when approximately 85 %
of the inmates at this facility have been
convicted of person offenses and over
V3 of our inmate population has been
convicted of a homicide-related offense.
Because of the documented propensity
that our inmate population has demonstrated toward solving problems with
violence, staff has been well-trained and
has demonstrated an unusually high
level of professional control and
restraint in the most provocative
situations. Even under the most extreme
provocation, staff has not resorted to
violence, but uses only the force necessary
to restrain an individual or group.

In Minnesota we choose to do what
we're doing because 98% of those sent
to our state facilities return to the community, and because what we are doing
appears to be working for us. We are
not perfect; we have incidents and we
will have them in the future. We have,
however, experienced extended periods
between the incidents. We interpret this
as success, given the tasks and challenges
that our excellent staff faces every day.
The combination of the executive, legislative and departmental support, along
with the fiscal and personnel resources
to do the job, are essential. The physical
plant is an excellent tool, but the staff is
really the primary ingredient in our "success." Without it you could have all the
other ingredients, but in my judgment,
you could not manage this population

without the intelligent, competent,
restrained, and professional correctional
officer.
Our approach to management of
this very challenging inmate population
over the last three years has been
successful. This success is directly attributable to the excellent quality and the
commitment and competence of the
staff, the support and confidence of
experienced and competent departmental leadership, and at this point, the
cooperation of the majority of the
inmate population. •

Super Max

Who are these violent, dangerous,
or habitual offenders who should spend
long periods of time in very secure facilities? Much has been written about the
difficulty of predicting dangerousness,
the desire to be "safe" through overprediction, and the false-positive problem that results. I One federal court,
commenting on a general catch-all criterion for placing prisoners in the Con-

-continued from front page.

continue to violate the law in a serious
manner or who have consistently broken
the rules of more open correctional settings. Maximum security prisons or units
are often troubled by serious management problems, by violence directed
against prisoners and staff, and by inhumane conditions. We will see, however,
that there are some high security prisons
unaffected by these problems.

Frank Wood, former warden of the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater, is a
long-time employee of the Minnesota
Department of Corrections.

We have also learned that the
psychological and physiological
effects of long-term close
confinement can be serious.
trol Unit of the Federal Bureau of
Prison's maximum security prison at
Marion, Illinois, said, "In several instances, this criterion has been used to
silence prison critics. It has been used to
silence religious leaders. It has been used
to silence economical and philosophical
dissidents. And i\ has been used when no
other rationale was available to justify
incarceration in the control unit. "2
Men and women are committed to
maximum security prisons for different
reasons-seriousness of the crime, prior
criminal record, an escape attempt, or
prison misconduct. What happens with
staffing, programming, and management
when such different types of offenders
are confined? Too often, in the past, the
answer has been no programming, repression, and living conditions equal to
solitary confinement. In the Marion case,
the court found that prisoners "were
locked up in a closed-front cell 23 V2
hours per day. Little, if no, activity was
offered to relieve this boredom ...
-continued on next page..
---------

'See. e.g. Norval Morris. The Future of Imprisonment (University of Chicago Press. 1974).

The bleak landscape of the Arkansas Maximum Security Unit, Tucker, Arkansas

2Bono v. Saxbe, 450 F.Supp. 934. 943 (E.D.III.
1978).
Photo by Joel Richardson

~

The

Post

SUMMER 1985 5

-continued from previous page.
Meaningful contact with other persons
was virtually nonexistent. "3 In a case involving a similar "problem prisoner" unit
in Georgia, a federal court said: "The
most restrictive aspect of H2 is that the
inmates are kept in their small individual
cells almost all the time. "4
We have also learned that the psychological and physiological effects of
long-term close confinement can be serious. s Again, in the Marion Control Unit
case, the court recalled that " ... Plaintiffs' uncontroverted evidence showed
the debilitating mental effect on those
inmates confined to the control unit ...
•'The sensory deprivations occasioned by
use of the box cars [closed front cells],
along with the lack of any idea of what
could be done to be released from the
control unit, resulted in both mental and
physical deterioration. Simultaneously,
unnecessary pain and suffering was the
result. "6 In the Georgia case, the court
found that " ... Long periods of lock up
in a confined space, limited contact with
others, continued and unexpected surveillance and limited exercise take a serious
toll on the mental health of the inmates. "7
In each of these cases, the very
repressive confinement came hand in
hand with a "behavior modification"
program, formal or otherwise. Prison
officials thought the programs would
motivate prisoners to more acceptable
behavior. However, in these cases, as in
others, the programs were poorly designed, and based on increased punishment. They were destined to fail. A
Federal Bureau of Prisons Professional
Program Consultant, who helped design
and operate the early 1970's controversial START (Special Treatment and Rehabilitative Training) program at Springfield, Missouri, described the program:
"Project START has been developed for
prisoners who have failed to adjust in
normal institutional environments. While
in this program, they will be confined to
an isolated area until they have demonstrated consistently a potential to
respond appro'f)riately in a regular institution. Some inmates may never leave the
program.''8 (Emphasis added.)
Labeled as the worst or most dangerous offender and given the physical
'Id. at 946.

The prisoner may then
demonstrate even more of the very
behavior that the administration is
trying to change.
and psychological impact of harsh longterm imprisonment, the prisoner often
becomes even more difficult to manage:
it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Some prisoners withdraw, become passive, refusing to do anything; others act
out. One or the other kind of objectionable behavior may emerge, causing
the imposition of greater restraints. The
prisoner may then demonstrate even
more of the very behavior that the administration is trying to change. The
vicious cycle goes round and round.
The legal implications are quite
serious. The courts have pierced the
"treatment" label which prison officials
use to cover what is essentially punishment, and punishment of a kind that
goes beyond deprivation of liberty.
Thus, in each case mentioned earlierMarion, Georgia and Springfield-the
courts found serious violations of the
Constitution's prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment, and/or the Due
Process Clause. They have enjoined certain practices. More recently, a legal
challenge to Virginia's "super-max" at
Mecklenburg, the scene of major and
predictable disturbances in the summer
of 1984, resulted in a consent decree
ordering sweeping changes. (See "Judge

Violations in South Dakota
Prison Lead to Lawsuit
Elizabeth Alexander
In April of 1983, inmate Roger Flittie of the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, wrote
a desperate letter to attorneys at the
National Prison Project. The inmate
class of plaintiffs was within a month of
going to trial on a totality of conditions
lawsuit, but they had no money for
expert witnesses or other necessary trial
preparation.

'Hardwick v. Ault, 447 F.Supp. 116, 121 (M.D.Ga.
1978).
sE.g., David A. d'Atri, "Measuring Stress in
Prison," from Confinement in Maximum Security,
edited by David Ward and Kenneth Schoen
(Lexington Books 1981); Carl Clements, Crowded
Prisons: A Review of Psychological and Environmental
Effects, 3 Law and Human Behavior 217 (1979).
680no v. Saxbe, supra at 946-7.
'Hardwick v. Ault, supra at 125.
8Clonce v. Richardson, 379 F.Supp. 338 (W.D.Mo.
1974).

6 SUMMER 1985

Halts Meddling With Access To Clients," Vol. I, No.3, Spring 1985.) A
special large unit at the Arizona State
Prison was the subject of a massive legal
challenge which went to trial this spring.
(The settlement negotiations in this case
described in the Fall 1984 JOURNAL
were broken off at the last minute by
prison officials.)
The picture is not totally grim,
however. There are some brighter
spots; we begin this series with an article
describing one of the more interesting
and enlightened ~fforts to deal with difficult offenders in this country. Frank
Wood, warden of the new maximum
security prison in Oak Park Heights,
Minnesota, describes the prison and its
programs for "deep-end" offenders. In
the Fall issue, the Governor of a new
and innovative maximum security prison
in Denmark will be sharing his views
with us. Some skeptics may dismiss the
European prisons as representative of
countries too different from the United
States and may argue that Minnesota is
unusual among American states. Our
view is that while differences among
countries or states exist, they need not
be complete barriers to change.
National and even international standard
setting is reducing those differences as
well. The skills and policies required to
operate a decent maximum security
prison are essentially the same in all
penal systems. If we never try to
change, we never will change. •

Inmate workers took all the
X-rays. On an evening or
weekend, they would not only take
the X-ray, they would also read it.
The Project put together a team of
experts to investigate. A corrections
expert, a specialist in environmental
health, safety and sanitation, and a spe-

cialist in internal medicine all reviewed
operations at the Penitentiary. Their
findings convinced us to enter the case.
Attempts to settle the case failed,
and Judge Donald Porter rescheduled
trial for June 1983. During the trial, the
plaintiffs showed that the Penitentiary
was overcrowded and poorly ventilated.
Among the fire safety violations documented was the use of an antiquated
locking system. Parts of the Penitentiary
were over a century old. More than V3
of the inmates were double-celled,
including inmates in the intake unit and
those assigned to protective custody.
The institutional kitchen flunked a
standard health and sanitation inspection.
Records kept by the Penitentiary
showed that random tests of pasteurization operations in some cases found
some of the milk produced unfit for

John McOonneil - The Washington Post

Female inmates . . . were even
more isolated from the courts,
since they had neither law books
nor law clerks.
human consumption. The basement food
storage area was pest and rodentinfested.
Inmate "nurses" at the Penitentiary
provided a variety of medical services.
On evenings and weekends, in the absence of civilian medical staff, inmates
conducted medical examinations to
determine whether staff should be called
for a sick or injured inmate. Prisoners
operated the medical and dental equipment, including oxygen tanks, asthmatic
equipment and dental drills.
Inmate workers took all the X-rays.
On an evening or weekend, they would
not only take the X-ray, they would
also read it. If the prisoner worker read
the X-ray to show a "minor" break, he
would wrap the break in an ace bandage
and tell the patient to report to the
infirmary when civilian staff were on
duty. None of the inmate workers had
any formal training for their duties.

. . . random tests of pasteurization
operations in some cases found
some of the milk produced [in the
institutional kitchen1 unfit for
human consumption.
Indigent prisoners who needed dentures or partial plates had to pay for
them themselves. One inmate with a
severely deformed foot, which apparently could have been helped by surgery,
was told that he would have to pay for
his own shoes when he found that he
could not wear the state-issued shoes.
When an outside specialist ordered a
relatively expensive medication for
another prisoner, the prescription was
not allowed in by an Assistant Warden.
Psychiatric care at the Penitentiary
was woefully inalequate. The staff psychologist testified that in some cases,
problems of physical deterioration
related to psychological disorders were
not followed up on, either by referral
or treatment. The prisoner's health
would thus continue to decline.
The Penitentiary had failed to carry
out an earlier consent judgment requiring that inmate law clerks be trained for
the law library. The staff also discouraged the clerks from helping other inmates prepare any action which challenged the Penitentiary or its staff.
Female inmates at the Yankton Facility
for Women were even more isolated
from the courts, since they had neither
law books nor law clerks.

Depo-Provera
-continued from front page.

Presently, there are only two FDA
approved uses of the drug in the U.S.:
first, for the treatment of certain metastatic cancers of the endometrium and
kidneys; and second, under a provision
of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
which exempts the individualized practice
of medicine from regulatory scrutiny.
The Hopkins Clinic recently obtained an
Investigational Exemption for a New
Drug (IND) from the FDA for a research study designed by Dr. Fred Berlin, a leading advocate for depo-provera
use. The IND procedure provides for
more stringent reporting and controls,
and its absence has been a longstanding
bone of contention between the FDA
and the Public Citizen Litigation Group
(a nonprofit consumer advocacy group).
The Public Citizen group has also urged
the FDA to take stronger protective
action, such as requiring labeling or
package inserts pointing out the drug's
experimental nature and known side
effects. The FDA has adopted a case-bycase review policy for depo-provera
programs which treat sex offenders.
Proponents of depo-provera believe
that the drug can help men with sexual
deviation syndromes, called paraphilias,
control their behavior. 2 The drug has
-continued on next page.
-------2The term paraphilia means attraction to deViance. The major subcategories of paraphilia as
identified by the American Psychiatric Association are: pedophilia. exhibitionism. transvestism,
voyeurism, zoophilia, fetishism, exotic sadism,

On May 31, 1984, judge Porter
issued his decision, which is reported
under the name Cody v. Hillard, 599
F.Supp. 1025 (D.S.D. 1984). He found
that the totality of conditions at the
Penitentiary violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and that the rights of male and
female inmates to have reasonable
access to the courts had been violated.
judge Porter gave the defendants 120
days to develop a suitable plan to cure
the numerous constitutional violations he
had found.

Prisoners operated the medical and
dental equipment, including oxygen
tanks, asthmatic equipment and
dental drills.
The defendants failed in their attempts to persuade judge Porter, or the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, to stay
the order.
Although there is some dispute as
to whether the defendants' remedial

Depo-provera being prepared for injection into
the arm of an offender in order to control sexual
behavior.

plan fully satisfies judge Porter's order,
the defendants are making most of the
necessary corrections. Fire safety improvements in the cellhouses are proceeding, and food services operations
are much improved. All double ceiling
should end by june 1985. Prisoners no
longer provide health services. Medical
and dental care which meets community
standards will be provided to prisoners.
A new psychiatric facility will open
shortly to provide acute and intermediate level psychiatric care. Psychiatric and
psychological staffing at the Penitentiary
has been increased, even though the
inmates with the most serious needs will
be moved to the new facility.
The South Dakota case demonstrates the continuing importance of litigation to redress intolerable conditions
in our nation's prisons. Because prisoners and their loved ones have no political
clout, prison conditions are too often
allowed to deteriorate below the level
of human decency. It is more critical
than ever that courts continue their role
as the defenders of the Constitution for
all. •
SUMMER 1985 7

-continued from previous page.
been described by Dr. Berlin as a "sexual appetite suppressant"3 and termed
chemical castration by others. 4 Depoprovera lowers the level of testosterone
in the blood by inhibiting the rele~e of
luteinizing hormone (LH), a chemical
messenger secreted by the pit~itary
gland which stimulates the testicles to
produce androgen. The effects reported
by men on depo-pr.overa inc~ude: a
decrease in aggressive fantasl~s, decrease
in the ability to have an erection, ~e­
crease in ejaculation, and some shrinkage
of sex organs. Men on depo-provera.
report that it helps them control their
urge to act out sexual desires.
Men receiving depo-provera treatment receive weekly injections ranging
from 100 mg to 800 mg (by comparison the recommended dosage in depopro~era's use as a contraceptive is 150
mg every 3 months). Under the .Johns
Hopkins program,. the !'"en ~ecelve psychotherapy in conjunction with the
injections, a practice strongly encouraged by researchers.
.
According to data collected In the
National Disease and Therapeutic Index
(NDTI), approximately 3,000 pr.escriptions for depo-provera were written
between October I 982 and September
1983 to treat "sexual deviation."s
In the United States, leading the use
of depo-provera in treatment of sex offenders have been researchers at the
Biosexual Psychohormonal Clinic at
johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,.
Maryland. The Clinic has been e~perl­
mentally using the drug on both incarcerated and free world men since 1966.
Other places which have used, or are
using, depo-provera to treat sex ?ffenders include: the Sex Offender Unit,
Oregon State Hospital (Sale!,", Oregon);
New Hampshire State Hospital (Concord New Hampshire); Isaac Ray Center (Chicago, Illinois); G:nder Clinic,
University of Texas M-=dlcal Branch (Galveston, Texas); Northwest Treatment
Associates (Seattle, Washington); Rosenberg Paraphilia,Jreatment Clinic (Galveston, Texas); Ka Cor Associates (San
Diego, California). In 1984, 192 men
were treated with depo-provera by the
johns Hopkins Clinic; 20%. of these men
were incarcerated at the time of treaterotic masochism, and paraphilic or compulsive
rape. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 3rd ed. (DSM-III). Task Force on
Nomenclature and Statistics of the American
Psychiatric Association, L1-L33, 1978.
]"Drug Helping Sex Offenders" by Kenneth
Weiss, p.l, Montgomery Journal, 3/28/84.
'See, e.g., People v. Gaunt/ett, No. 76435, Mich.
Ct. App. (5/17/84), released 812/84, reported in
35 Cr.L 2403 (9/5/84).
'Letter from Eric Glitzenstein, William Schultz
and Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation
Group, to Mark Novitch, FDA, June 22, 1984.

ment; 80% were on probation or
parole. 6
.~ TEMMING PERHAPS from a
frustration with the criminal justice system's inability to prevent crimes involving sexual
aggression, the idea of using
depo-provera to control behavior has generated enormous
interest. The definition of what offenses
should be treated, however, varies. For
instance, the Oregon Legislature.
recently passed a bill initiating a pilot
program in which drugs are to be us~d
to "inhibit the psychological or phySical
inclination toward forcible sexual compulsion."7 The bill restricts dep?-pro~~ra
use to rapists. Yet in the..Hopk,l~s CliniC,
depo-provera is used to t!"eat
behaviors such as transvestism, sadomasochism and peeping-toms, along with
"compulsive rape" and pedophilia.
The dangerous irony underlying the
interest in depo-provera is that th~ drug
has simply not been proven ~~fectlv~:
the fundamental question of does It
work?" remains unanswered. There
have been no controlled double-blind
studies of the drug (studies in which a
control group receives ano~her drug
which produces the same Side effects
but not the therapeutic effect being
studied, thus allowing behavioral changes
reported by subjects to be evaluated
more objectively). 8 There have been
only a handful of studies dealing with .
long-term therapeutic ef~ects, a~d their
results have not been as Impressive as
researchers claim. 9 There have been no
studies of long-term side effects, even
though potentially serious side e~fects
are quite numerous. As Dr. Berlin candidly noted, there is question as to .
the ·"optimal dosage ... long-term. Side
effects compliance rates, and precise
long-term recidivism percentages. "10
Even the question of which syndromes depo-provera can control
.
remains unanswered. As the Connecticut
Department of Corrections Depo-Provera Study Group concluded in its
report, "there is very little research to
t

"Information obtained from Dr. Gregory Lehne,
at Johns Hopkins Clinic on March 5, 1985.
7Senate Bill 284, 62nd Oregon Legislative Assembly, 1983 Regular Session. The Bill authorizes
the sentencing court and the State Parole Board
to make participation in the program a condition
of parole.
8This has been acknowledged by Fred Berlin, the
leading depo-provera proponent. Berlin et 01.,
"Sexual Deviation Syndromes," 149 Johns Hopkins Medical Journal I 19, 123 (1981).
'See e.g., analysis of results reported b! D~ ..Fred
Berlin in his studies. in a letter by Pubhc Citizen
Litigation Group to Robert Brooks, Johns Hopkins, dated 10/17/83.
IOBerlin. F.S., "Pedophilia," manscript to be published in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (N.Y.
1984), pp. 8-9.

support the claim that aggressive rapists
can be controlled by this therapy." II
Relying in part on their concern for the
drug's safety, the difficulty of.informed
consent in an institutional setting and on
the lack of community resources to
handle post-incarceration treatment, the
Study Group recommended that the
department not use the drug. Researchers themselves acknowledge that without a strong willingness to change on
the part of the man being treated, the
drug and therapy are ineffective.
Another question raised by the use
of depo-provera 'on prisoners is that of
informed consent. Informed consent to
medical procedures is generally acknowledged to have three elements: I) the
legal capacity to consent; 2) an understanding of the procedure to be e~­
ployed, risks involved, and altern~tlves;
and 3) voluntary assent.J2 There IS an
inherent lack of voluntarinessinside the
coercive environment of a prison. Prisons are entirely controlled environments, in which the variables among
which a prisoner can choose ar: ~hem­
selves established by prison administrators. Since a major motive for prisoners
is the pOSSibility of early releas:, a program which is perceived as leading to
release is likely to be undertaken regardless of the consequences. When a program such as depo-provera "treatment"
is presented as a therapy ra~her t~an as
experimental research, the Inc~ntl~e to
embrace it despite attendant rISks IS
even greater. Indeed, judging from johns
Hopkins treatment statistics the most
frequent use of depo-provera, as a 70ndition of probation, involves no chOice
on the part of the man.
The seriousness of this coerced consent is evident when the side effects to
depo-provera are considered. Animal
studies have shown that the drug causes
cancer in dogs and monkeys at dosage
levels far lower than those given to male
sex offenders. i3 Other reported side
effects include the following: hypertention, phlebitis, weight gain, hypoglycemia, insomnia, nausea, cold sweats,
change in weight, nightmares, hair loss,
and fatigue. When these effects are.
coupled with the fact that the behaVior
of a person on depo-provera can only
be affected as long as he remains on the
drug, the long-term consequences for
men receiving this treatment become
apparent.
IIReport of the Depo-Provera Study Group, Co.n.
necticut Department of Corrections, 340 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 (October 4,
1983), p. 5.
. , .. 5
I2Rada, R., "Legal Aspects in Treating RapiSts,
Criminal Justice and Behavior 369 (1978). See also,
Bailey v. Lalley, 481 F.Supp. 203, 220 (D.Md.
1979).
"National Women's Health Network, Depo-Provera Information Packet.

8 SUMMER 1985

ii

~~-------

,","_B

__

r

1
.In Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental
Health of the State of Michigan, 14 the
court was faced with the issue of whether an involuntarily confined mental
patient could consent to psychosurgery
designed to cure his aggressive behavior.
The court held that the consent was invalid given the experimental status of
the surgery, the substantial danger it
posed and the "particularly vulnerable"
position of the inmate. IS In Kaimowitz
the court also held that mental processes are constitutionally protected.
Therapy such as psychosurgery, which
intrusively alters or interferes with a
person's mental process, violates the
right to privacy of mind which is implicitly protected by the First Amendment
guarantees of free speech and expression. Arguably, depo-provera effects a
similar intrusion.
A recent case in which the defendant was sentenced to receive depo-provera points out a number of other problems with the drug. The case ironically
involved one of the heirs to the Upjohn
pharmaceutical fortune, Roger Gauntlett, who pled guilty to charges of sexually molesting his step-daughter and stepson. The sentence called for five years
of probation, with the first year to be
served in the county jail, payment of the
county's expenses, and "castration by
chemical means patterned after the
research and treatment of the Johns
Hopkin[s] Hospital ... [and] continue[d]
... for the five years of your probation ... " 16
The Michigan Court of Appeals
struck down the sentence as "an unlawful condition of probation"17 based upon
state law. The court further held that
"the Depo-Provera treatment prescribed by the trial judge also fails as a
lawful condition of probation because it
has not gained acceptance in the medical
community as a safe and reliable medical
procedure." 18 The court cited a host of
other problems with the sentence including practical "impossibility of performance," and "the problem of informed consent. "19 Although the court
in Gauntlett refUsed to reach the Eighth
Amendment issue raised by the defendant, it held, in an interesting twist, that
the leniency of the probation sentence
"Civil Action No. 73-19434-AW. Circuit Court
for Wayne County, 42 U.S. Law Week 101
(1973).
"But see, Bailey v. Lalley, 481 F.Supp. 203 (D.Md.
1979) (holding that consent of prisoners to medical research program was voluntarily given).
I·Peop/e v. Gauntlett, Nos. 76435, 76564, 76568
(Michigan Court of Appeals, 5/17/84), p.5. The
sentencing judge also suggested that defendant
contribute money for research and treatment of
sex offenders.
"Id., p.6.
IS/d., p.9.
"Id., p. 12.

Swedes See U.S. Death Penalty
As Premeditated Killing
Gunnar Marnell
"Do you really mean we were that
uncivilized as late as I880?" That question was asked last summer by an elderly
lady who had come to see an exhibition
in a local museum, originally used as a
courthouse. My wife and I happened to
witness her indignant reaction, when the
guide told the visitors that offenders had
been executed on the hill behind the
courthouse until 1880. I couldn't withhold the truth from the group: the last
execution in Sweden took place as late
as 191 0 and not until 1920 was the
death penalty abolished. I could also have

added that nowadays a life sentence
after commutation, as a rule, means on
an average about seven years of imprisonment.
Of course you may, for instance, as
a first reaction to a violent crime, hear
people advocate~the introduction of the
death penalty. But it isn't likely that anybody in a responsible position would
raise the question today. When some
conservative members of our Parliament
about 30 years ago brought up a bill on
reintroduction of the death penalty, it
-continued on next page.
Gunnar Marnell recently retired after a long career with the National Prison and Probation
Administration in Sweden. He was Superintendent of the Hall Prison, and at the time of
his retirement was Director of the Stockholm Correctional Region of the National Administration. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Criminal justice at Harvard University,

contributes regularly journal articles about Swedish penal policy and now works actively
for the Swedish Section of Amnesty International.
itself "shocks our conscience because it
is so significantly disproportionate to the
sentence generally imposed upon similarly situated defendants. "20 A state
appeals court in South Carolina recently
invalidated a sentence of surgical castration against three convicted rapists,
holding that it was cruel and unusual
punishment. The court held that "castration, a form of mutilation, is prohibited by Article I § I5" of the state
constitution. 21
.;)11 HE EFFICACY of depo-provera
as a tool to control sexual
behavior is at best questionable.
It is an experimental drug, gaining a credence far greater than
its scientific foundation merits
at this time.
The premise that sexual
behavior can be controlled chemically
begs the question of whether or not it
should be controlled. To answer yes to
this question vastly increases the state's
power to intrude upon and dictate the
lives of prisoners, and opens the door
for even more coercive experimentation. The horrifying reality of crimes
against women, like rape and battery,
and of forcible assaults against children
will, sadly, not disappear with the
injection of depo-provera into a few
2°ld., p.13. The judges remanded the case to the
trial court, holding that the defendant opened
himself up to the imposition of a greater sentence by challenging the severity of the initial
one.
21 State of South Carolina v. Brown, Braxton and
Vaughn, opinion No. 22235 (Supreme Court
2/13/85).

dozen men, whose behavior mayor may
not change. Deeper cultural solutions to
violence against women and sexual dys- .
function must be pursued.
The suggestion that depo-provera
can help society control rapists (although
it is euphemistically phrased in terms of
helping rapists control themselves) rests
on two key assumptions: that rape is in
essence a sexual act, and that rapists are
abnormal, even oversexed men. Both assumptions are contrary to feminist analysis which sees rape as primarily an act of
domination and aggression against
women. The frequency of the occurrence of rape (one out of three women
are raped during their lives) explodes the
myth that rapists are a handful of abnormal men. To forcibly lower a man's sex
drive is not synonymous with control of
his aggressive impulses. Long-term recidivism studies which track freed rapists
who receive depo-provera to see if they
in fact rape again are needed. The
results of such studies would not, however, be entirely accurate since most
rapes are not reported and most reported rapes do not lead to arrest, much
less- conviction. Since studies indicate
that depo-provera is effective only as
long as it is taken, there is no surety
that behavior will remain changed if injections are discontinued.
If men choose freely, without the
inducement of benefits like probation or
parole, to undergo drug treatment to
change their behavior, that is their
choice. But the state and the courts
cannot be allowed to force such a
course upon them. •
SUMMER 1985 9

Photo by AI Bronstein

-continued from previous page.

caused a rather painful attention. The
leading conservative newspaper was
among the most unmerciful critics.
So I dare say that in Sweden we have
a firmly rooted resistance to the death
penalty. The explanation is simple: the
death penalty contrasts in such an obvious way with the basic values of free
democracies, first and foremost the
right to life. Isn't it significant that Turkey, the only not true democratic state
in Western Europe, is also the only one
that still practices the death penalty?
"Free democracies," that's exactly
it.
Ever since the old days when the
first Scandinavian immigrants arrived in
the big Western country, we in our
countries have had a great interest in
the U.S. For generations we have
looked upon and expected the U.S. to
be the leading free democracy of the
Western world. The development of
your country has therefore always
seemed very important to us and we
have been anxious to get information of
what is going on there even when the
development has been disappointing.
There cannot, of course, be any balance
at all between our interest in your big
and important country and yours in little
Sweden with a population less than 4%
of that of the U.S. In fact, we sometimes feel that in the eyes of the ordinary American, Sweden is hardly "on
the map." It is mixed up with the other
Scandinavian countries or often with
Switzerland, thanks to the sound
similarity.
So while your mass media very seldom bring any news from Sweden, we
daily receive a flow of information of
American life, supplied by correspondents but also by the Swedish News
Agency, TT. Naturally the information
cannot cover everything. A choice is
necessary, especially for the Swedish
News Agency. But, interestingly, they
have so far chosen to distribute news
about each execution in the U.S. In so
doing, I think tolley act in accordance
with the basic values of a free democracy. They continually report not only
the name and age of the offender concerned, but as a rule also his crime, the
date of the planned execution, the town
and the prison where it is going to take
place. This is mostly published in our
140 daily newspapers. Information about
executions that have provoked special
attention is often also broadcast. When
information about executions in other
countries is available that is also forwarded. But as we all know, open information is mostly just Utopian in countries outside the Western world.
Thanks to this coverage by the
Swedish news media the Swedish general
10 SUMMER 1985

Gunnar Marnell, a leading Swedish spokesman
against the death penalty.

public is well aware of the sad fact that,
after a long period of no executions,
the U.S. a couple of years ago resumed
the gruesome practice. And we now
face the fact that the number of executions is increasing. To our astonishment
this happens in spite of the classical
workings of the Eighth Amendment of
the American Constitution, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" and
contradictory to the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights that says
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of person," (Art. 3.) and
"No one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Art. 5.)
Of course it is true that United
Nations declarations are followed differently in different countries according to
political, financial and cultural differences. It is also well known that the
constitutions of politically unstable states
may be drastically changed due to a sudden "coup d' etat."
But the U.S.? To us it seemed inhuman enough that American judges in
spite of the Eighth Amendment did sentence people to death, and that those
sentenced could be kept in uncertainty
in the death rows for years. If anything,
that is a cruel punishment! Anyhow, as
long as there is life there is hope. The
decision, however, by a conservative
majority of the Supreme Court to
declare the death penalty as not being
"cruel or unusual punishment" was incredible and shocking to us. We know
that this decision and the change of
practice that has followed have made
many people in the U.S. very upset and

unhappy. All the same it did not seem to
arouse that enormous attention in your
country that we in Sweden had expected. And it still does not seem to be a
question of very great importance. I
may be wrong, but as far as I could follow the Presidential campaign last fall
-and it was very well covered by the
Swedish mass media - none of the candidates had to answer a single question
about the death penalty. In my opinion
the attitude of a future president on this
question must be of utmost importance.
Not that he, according to your Constitution, is allowed to intervene into the
judicial power, but he has the prerogative to nominate the members of the
Supreme Court with their right to interpret the Constitution and to remain in
office for life. The result of the composition of the Supreme Court has become
obvious by the interpretation that, in
plain language, society has the right of
premeditated killing of fellow human
beings.
From a moral and human point of
view that is a terrible right and very
frustrating for all those in our country
who still would like to look upon the
U.S. as a free democracy. The greatest
frustration, however, I think you can
find among the considerable number of
people dedicated to human rights.
Among those is the Swedish Section of
Amnesty International, which is in the
lead in combating the death penalty.
In the year 1977 Amnesty International
held a conference on •'The Abolition of
the Death Penalty" in Stockholm. The
over 200 delegates came from Africa,
Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North
and South America and the Caribbean
region. The conference finished by
adopting the "Declaration of Stockholm," from which I quote:
The death penalty is the ultimate
cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to life.
Execution is an act of violence, and
violence tends to provoke violence.
The imposition and infliction of the
death penalty is brutalizing to all
who are involved in the process.
The death penalty has never been
shown to have a special deterrent
effect.
Execution is irrevocable and can be
inflicted on the innocent.
It is the duty of the state to protect the life of all persons within its
jurisdiction without exception.
That the Amnesty message has gotten a strong response from people in our
country is mirrored by the ever-growing
number of members from all kinds of
trades and professions. Right now the

Swedish Section has about 30,000 paying
members. To a large extent those also
voluntarily take on different tasks, like
participating in the 300 working groups,
each engaged in individual prisoners'
cases in different countries. There is also
a special Action Group against the death
penalty. Amnesty enjoys a very wide
press coverage in Sweden. Its name is
well-known and respected all over the
country.
To summarize, why do people in
Sweden care about the death penalty in
the U.S.?:

• because we live in a welfare state
with concern for all people and with
adherence to the basic values of free
democracies, first and foremost the
right to life;
• because since long ago we have special bonds to the U.S., the country that
once received so many of our people
and gave them a home and a future, and
where most of us still have relatives and
friends;
• because for a long time we have
appreciated the U.S. as a free democracy with basic values similar to ours;

• because we are continually wellinformed of what happens in the U.S.
and cannot help feeling concerned and
sorry to notice the development
towards less respect for life;
• because in this time we badly need
the U.S. in the struggle for human
rights, threatened all over the world;
• because we hope and believe that
one day our vpices will be heard in the
U.S. and the respect for life restored.
Didn't little David once upon a time,
against all odds, conquer the giant
Goliath? •

•

QTY. COST

The National Prison Project
Status Report lists each state

The National Prison
Project JOURNAL,
$IS/yr. $2/yr. to prisoners.
Back issues, $1 ea.
The Prisoners' Assistance
Directory, the result of a national survey, identifies and
describes various organizations
and agencies that provide assistance to prisoners. Lists national, state, and local organizations and sources of assistance
including legal, library, medical,
educational, employment and
financial aid. 6th edition, published January 1985. Paperback,
$15 prepaid from NPP.

Offender Rights Litigation:
Historical and Future Developments. A"book chapter
by Alvin J. Bronstein published
in the Prisoners' Rights
Sourcebook (1980). Traces
the history of the prisoners'
rights movement and surveys
the state of the law on various
prison issues (many case citations). 24 pages, $2.50 prepaid
from NPP.
Fill out and send with check payable to

The National Prison Project
1346 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

presently under court order, or
dealing with pending litigation in
the entire state prison system
or major institutions in the state
which deal with overcrowding
and/or the total conditions of
confinement. (No jails except
District of Columbia). Periodically updated. $3 prepaid from
NPP.

Bibliography of Women in
Prison Issues. A bibliography
of all the information on this
subject contained in our files.
Includes information on abortion, behavior modification programs, lists of other bibliographies, Bureau of Prison
policies affecting women in
prison, juvenile girls, women in
jail, the problem of incarcerated mothers, health care, and
general articles and books. $5
prepaid from NPP.

A Primer For Jail Litigators
is a detailed manual with practical suggestions for jail litigation.
It includes chapters on legal
analysis, the use of expert witnesses, class actions, attorneys'
fees, enforcement, discovery,
defenses' proof, remedies, and
many practical suggestions.
Relevant case citations and correctional standards. Ist edition,
February 1984. 180 pages,
paperback, $15 prepaid from
NPP.
NAME

Prisoners'

Rights

1979.

Course handbooks prepared
for the Prisoners' Rights National Training Programs held
January-March 1979. Includes
articles, legal analyses, and litigation forms. Prepared by the
staff of the National Prison
Project. Available in paperback.
$35 per set, from the Practising
Law Institute, 81 0 Seventh
Ave., New York, N.Y. 10019.
2 Vols., I 163 pages. This set,
plus Representing Prisoners
(below), can be purchased for
$40.

Representing Prisoners. The
course handbook prepared for
the Prisoners' Rights National
Training Programs held in June
and July 1981. Includes articles,
legal analyses, and litigation
forms. Prepared by the staff of
the National Prison Project.
Available in paperback from the
Practising Law Institute, 810
Seventh Ave., New York, N.Y.
10019. I Vol., 980 pages. $35.
ACLU Handbook, The
Rights of Prisoners. A guide
to the legal rights of prisoners,
pre-trial detainees, in questionand-answer format with case
citations. Bantam Books, April
1983. Paperback, $3.95 from
ACLU, 132 West 43rd St.,
New York, N.Y. 10036. Free
to prisoners.
_

ADDRESS
CITY. STATE, ZIP

_

SUMMER 1985 II

,

III1IIIIII

The following are major developments in the Prison Project's litigation
program since january IS, 1985. Further
details of any of the listed cases may be
obtained by writing or calling the
Project.

dants appealed the favorable recommendations we had received from the Magistrate on the state's motion to dismiss
and we argued the appeal before the district court in February. We are still
awaiting a decision.

Abbott v. Richardson - This is the

Canterino v. Wilson - This case chal-

national class action which challenges the
mail and literature policies of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. On February 6 we
filed our appellate brief and our case will
be argued in the September term of the
court of appeals.

lenges conditions at the Kentucky Correctionallnstitution for Women. We
received an order from the judge awarding attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have moved for reconsideration.

Arias v. Wainwright - This is the
statewide jail suit challenging conditions
in Florida's jails. A court order was
entered awarding plaintiffs attorneys'
fees for compliance monitoring.

Black v. Ricketts - This case challenges
conditions at the Administrative Segregation Unit of the Arizona State Penitentiary. Settlement was reached on May 9,
and is pending approval by the court.

Brown v. Sielaff - This case challenges
conditions and practices at the supermaximum security prison, Mecklenburg
Correctional Center, in Virginia. A settlement agreement was entered into
which abolishes their behavior modification program and affects a wide range of
conditions and practices.
Bush v. Viterna - This is a state-wide
class action challenging certain actions of
the Texas Commission on jail Standards
in regulating the conditions and practices
in all of Texas county jails. The defen-

..

National Prison Project
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 402
Washington, DC 20036

12 SUMMER 1985

Delgado v. Cady - After challenging
overcrowding and double ceiling at the
Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, plaintiffs were awarded attorneys' fees in March.
Duran v. Anaya - Due to continuing
findings of non-compliance in this New
Mexico state-wide conditions case, we
filed a motion seeking contempt and
appropriate sanctions.
Flittie v. Solem (reported as Cody v.
Hillard) - This case challenges a variety
of conditions at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary. On February I 5 the parties
presented a proposed comprehensive
remedial order to the judge which commits the defendants to keep the prison
population at 95% of its capacity and to
provide legal access. We are awaiting a
decision.

Garza v. Heckler - Challenges the
1983 Amendments to the Social Security
Act which denies retirement benefits to
incarcerated felons. We filed our dis-

positive motion for summary judgment
in january.

Harry P. and Gerald M. v. DupuisChallenges conditions at the New Hampshire training school for juveniles. The
New Hampshire. Supreme Court ruled
that the state must adhere to the
107-person population capacity recommended by the Fire Marshal.

Spear v. Aryoshi - This case challenges
conditions at the Oahu Community Correctional Center for men and the Hawaii
Women's Correctional Facility. The defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment and we filed our response.
The motion was heard on April I I and
defendants' motion was denied.

Terry D. v. Rader - Challenges conditions at six juvenile institutions in Oklahoma. The judge ordered defendants to
pay certain costs owed plaintiffs.
Witke v. Crowl - After challenging
conditions at the North Idaho Correctional Institute for women, a stipulated
settlement agreement was signed by all
parties. The attorneys' fees and costs
were settled as well.
During this period the National Prison
Project received $48,966 in attorneys' fees
and costs, in the following cases: Arias v.
Wainwright, Delgado v. Cady, and
Palmigiano v. Garrahy. These fees and
costs help make up part of the Prison
Project budget and enable us to continue
our work. •

Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage

PAID
Washington, D.C.
Permit No. SH8