By Joel Goodman, C1 Contributor
Having worked in the Missouri Department of Corrections, St. Louis County Jail and the Bureau of Prisons, I remain continually astounded at stories of negligence in jail and prison operations. Two recent federal court verdicts in Colorado send a powerful message on the exorbitant price of negligence and serve as mandatory wake-up calls.
For the excessive-force lawsuit involving five Denver Sheriff Department deputies in the Marvin Booker jail death case, the federal court jury awarded $4.65M to Mr. Booker’s family. In November, 2014, the City of Denver coughed-up an additional $1.35M to cover the family’s attorney fees. Total cost to taxpayers - $6M.
The incident involving Mr. Booker was videotaped on the jail’s cameras. Had this story made it to the Dr. Phil Show, I envision him asking those jail deputies, “What were you thinking?” I would like to know their answer.
In December, 2014, there was another bell-ringing federal court verdict in Colorado of $11M to Kenneth McGill in his case against Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. (CHC), et.al. Mr. McGill suffered a stroke while serving a short sentence for Driving under the Influence in Jefferson County Detention Facility in Golden, Colorado. Instead of providing immediate treatment, it was delayed, resulting in Mr. McGill sustaining permanent impairments. These excerpts from the Verdict Form are instructive:
Did Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs…?
YES
Did Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his claim that CHC maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom by proving inadequate training?
YES
Did Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his claim of negligence against CHC?
YES
What amount, if any, does the jury award as punitive damages against CHC?
$7,694,951.30
The McGill case illustrates a problematic incentive – the county detention facility paid a contractor to provide for the medical care of their inmates, with the corporation ultimately deciding which inmates get it. This results in a financial incentive for the contractor to minimize outside medical care, which adds to their corporate profit.
With institution closed-circuit audio-visual recording equipment, recorded phone calls and the trail of electronic messages, many of these cases are low-hanging fruit for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Complicating the pursuit of justice are some defendants who play ‘hide-the-ball’ during the discovery process.
That lying-by-omission tactic, when presented to a judge or jury, enflames. We expect integrity from public agencies and are outraged when the truth is ultimately revealed. That deceptive defense tactic contributes to over-the-top verdicts and tarnishes the reputation of all of us in this profession. As Thomas Paine reminds, “Character is much easier kept than recovered.”
There are unsavory people incarcerated in our jails and prisons – that is the nature of the business. But our Constitution does not apply a separate standard of care for inmates. Consider the words of James D. Miles, “You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”
Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark asked the question, “Who will protect the public when the police violate the law?” The answer is all of us.
We in this profession have an obligation to provide a standard of care to inmates that meets Constitutional minimums. Our work is done largely outside of public scrutiny and that entails an added responsibility of keeping watch on those who are responsible for incarcerating prisoners.
Sara Lunsford, in her superb 2012 book, Sweet Hell on Fire: A Memoir of the Prison I worked in and the prison I lived in, writes that a prison officer:
does his job and gives them [prisoners] what they have coming and nothing else. Officers are fair, firm, and consistent. Officers are professionals who do their jobs and put their lives on the line every day.
A prison guard:
is sloppy, lazy, inconsistent, illiterate, easily bought—a finger-up-the-nose-to-the-first-knuckle waste of space.
In our profession we have the choice to learn lessons of normative and legal boundaries the easy way, or the hard way. My recommendation is pursuing the easy route by staying informed and doing the right thing.
When a jail or prison officer abuses a prisoner, that prisoner may not have opportunity to retaliate against that officer. Instead, he may lash-out against the next uniform that he encounters, even though the next officer did nothing to deserve the attack.
Jail and prison training coordinators should weave these lessons and verdicts into their training curriculum. Albert Einstein said, “Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.
Einstein also said, “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.” The recent federal court verdicts in Colorado are poignant illustrations.
These verdicts also serve as teachable moments. As philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Inmates often say, “What goes around comes around.” Professionals in our business should ensure that what goes around meets Constitutional requirements and will stand up to public and judicial scrutiny.
After 31 years with the Bureau of Prisons, Joel Goodman retired in 2008. He served as advisor for the 1996 feature film, Killer: A Journal of Murder. He was advisor, contributor and appeared in the 2012 film, Carl Panzram: The Spirit of Hatred and Vengeance. He lives in Colorado where he does litigation and corporate consulting and can be reached at prison_expert@yahoo.com