Recent test data released by the Michigan Deparment of Corrections (MDOC) reveal that roughly 10% of the state's prison population have tested positive for the coronavirus. At one facility, voluntary antibody testing revealed roughly 40% of those tested were positive for the coronavirus antibody. This result likely means more than 10% of the state's prisoners have been infected with the virus at some point.
In total, at least 68 state prisoners have died from the coronavirus. Current positive infection numbers are quite low (around 10 prisoners), but the risk for a resurgence among prisoners is very high. As a result, the department continues to restrict transportation between prisons, currently forbidding prison-to-prison transfers. Some recently incarcerated prisoners have transferred to select prisons from the state's prison entry point (ironically called "Quarantine") in Jackson, Michigan after testing negative to the virus and experiencing a period of isolation.
Because of the heightened risk of viral infection in a prison environment, the MDOC is unlikely to resume prison-to-prison transfers or in-person visitation for prisoners and their loved ones until prisoners have received a vaccine against the virus. The department expects this will be no sooner than after the first of the year, if not later.
In the meantime, the MDOC recently announced its intention to roll out video visitation on a trial basis at seven facilities within three months. These facilities include: Women's Huron Valley, G. Robert Cotton, Chippewa, Richard A. Handlon, Newberry, and Ionia Correctional Facilities, as well as the department's hospital, Duane Waters Health Center. The reported cost for video visitation will be the same as phone calls at 16 cents per minute, still on the high side due to MDOC "kickbacks." Although kickbacks were outlawed by the Michigan legislature, the MDOC has used a workaround to pocket the difference between the state's contracted telephone rate of 4.5 cents per minute and the cost prisoners or their loved ones pay of 16 cents per minute. Technical details of how video visitation will work, and whether any additional fees will be charged (very likely), are not yet known. After the initial roll-out, if all goes well the department expects video visitation will be made available statewide.
With in-person visits currently unavailable in Michigan's prisons, phone usage has been way up. It is unclear exactly how much telephone usage has increased, but anecdotal evidence suggests close to a doubling in call volumes. As a result, many prisoners are finding it difficult to get time on the phone with their loved ones. Average wait times for phone availability at MTU are currently around 45 minutes. It is unclear whether or not the state will add additional phones and if video visitation phones will be numerous enough to meet the anticipated demand.
Many prisoners are anxious to resume in-person visits with their loved ones; nevertheless, while video visitation is better than phone calls, a general concern among prisoners is that after the quarantine is lifted that the department will find a way to use video visitation as an excuse to further limit in-person visits going forward. Nevertheless, Chris Gautz, the department's spokesman, told the Detroit Free Press that the department has no such plans (7/24/20 13AA).
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Sharing is Caring, Even in Prison
The Michigan Department of Corrections has a policy against its prisoners borrowing and lending. The purpose of this policy is to prevent people from going into debt to other prisoners. When a borrower fails to pay his debt, violence may result. It's a reasonable policy, although it is only selectively enforced because most borrowing and lending in prison is harmless.
One of the most common occasions of borrowing in prison is through prison stores. Also against policy, but rarely enforced, some prisoners run what a friend of mine calls "sucker stores." If a prisoner wants to borrow a bag of chips because he's hungry one night, he can go to the store man and get a bag. Of course, come the following store day (when commissary orders are passed out), he must pay that bag of chips back with interest. Most store men in prison charge a 50% tax on borrowed items, or double if it takes two store periods to pay back the debt. It's a foolish waste of money for the borrower--hence the term "sucker store."
Unfortunately, a lot of men in prison have very little economic sense and use the store man on a regular basis. The ones who routinely run up large store debts usually have regular money coming in from family and friends and don't manage what they have well. Others are simply moving debt around by borrowing until they have money come in to clear their debts. It can be a vicious cycle for some people.
A lot of guys borrow soap, deodorant, and other necessities when they first arrive in prison simply because they need these items until they are able to order their own. That single act of borrowing necessities can set some people back months as they try to dig their way out of debt. Recognizing this dilemma and that many of these prisoners have very little financial support outside of prison, the Protestant Christian community in many prisons establish "love boxes" in each unit. Some prisoners who have steady incomes through outside sources or their prison jobs want to give back in some way. The love box makes it possible for them to "tithe" to their own communities.
Of course, love boxes are ripe for abuse for people who claim a need and then use what they get at the gambling table or for some other unintended use. But, most love boxes are well managed by prisoners who have a sense of when someone is really in need. Love boxes avoid violating policies against loaning and borrowing by simply gifting items to those who need them. In turn, many of those who benefit from the love box end up giving back when they can to pay it forward to the next guy in need. However, returning gifted items is never required.
Other religious groups in prison also often help those in need within their communities, so it's not exclusive to the Christian community. It's heartwarming, though, to see the love box in action. MTU, the prison where I am housed, has a particularly large population of especially vulnerable prisoners. These prisoners have mental health or physical issues, and many are unable to work prison jobs. Many also have no outside support. When our community is able to meet a need by sharing from our own resources, it really feels good.
Even within a prison community, people with good hearts look out for each other. It's a small way of giving back and making amends for the wrongs we've done.
One of the most common occasions of borrowing in prison is through prison stores. Also against policy, but rarely enforced, some prisoners run what a friend of mine calls "sucker stores." If a prisoner wants to borrow a bag of chips because he's hungry one night, he can go to the store man and get a bag. Of course, come the following store day (when commissary orders are passed out), he must pay that bag of chips back with interest. Most store men in prison charge a 50% tax on borrowed items, or double if it takes two store periods to pay back the debt. It's a foolish waste of money for the borrower--hence the term "sucker store."
Unfortunately, a lot of men in prison have very little economic sense and use the store man on a regular basis. The ones who routinely run up large store debts usually have regular money coming in from family and friends and don't manage what they have well. Others are simply moving debt around by borrowing until they have money come in to clear their debts. It can be a vicious cycle for some people.
A lot of guys borrow soap, deodorant, and other necessities when they first arrive in prison simply because they need these items until they are able to order their own. That single act of borrowing necessities can set some people back months as they try to dig their way out of debt. Recognizing this dilemma and that many of these prisoners have very little financial support outside of prison, the Protestant Christian community in many prisons establish "love boxes" in each unit. Some prisoners who have steady incomes through outside sources or their prison jobs want to give back in some way. The love box makes it possible for them to "tithe" to their own communities.
Of course, love boxes are ripe for abuse for people who claim a need and then use what they get at the gambling table or for some other unintended use. But, most love boxes are well managed by prisoners who have a sense of when someone is really in need. Love boxes avoid violating policies against loaning and borrowing by simply gifting items to those who need them. In turn, many of those who benefit from the love box end up giving back when they can to pay it forward to the next guy in need. However, returning gifted items is never required.
Other religious groups in prison also often help those in need within their communities, so it's not exclusive to the Christian community. It's heartwarming, though, to see the love box in action. MTU, the prison where I am housed, has a particularly large population of especially vulnerable prisoners. These prisoners have mental health or physical issues, and many are unable to work prison jobs. Many also have no outside support. When our community is able to meet a need by sharing from our own resources, it really feels good.
Even within a prison community, people with good hearts look out for each other. It's a small way of giving back and making amends for the wrongs we've done.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Be the Exception, Not the Rule
Rules are necessary in prison. Of course, some rules are pointless and serve no comprehensible purpose. But as a rule, rules help keep order and peace. For people who have been convicted of breaking laws, the structure of rules can feel constraining at times, but that structure can also provide a framework within which one can grow. Rules not only set boundaries, though. They also provide measurements. They measure how well one obeys authorities, and they define acceptable standards to live by for a particular culture or community.
Rules can also be thought of as standards. For example, the term "as a general rule" refers to something that is a norm. Case in point, as a general rule, prison wardens are out of touch with their prison populations, are rarely seen by prisoners, and their only concern seems to be security. So, the warden at MTU who retired Friday was an exception, not the rule. He was a staunch advocate for prisoner rehabilitation, particularly through vocational training and education. He believed in the redemptive value of those he was charged with overseeing. He'll be greatly missed at this prison.
Another general rule is that corrections officers are to remain detached from prisoners. In other words, a clear distinction must exist between prisoners and staff. Good reasons exist for this rule, staff over-familiarity and all, but it can lead to some staff treating prisoners as numbers and not as people. So, this past week when a prisoner injured himself on the basketball court and an officer put his arm around the prisoner and helped him up the stairs to his cell, it caught the attention of other prisoners. His act of kindness was so exceptional that even the next day other prisoners were talking about it on the yard. Without sacrificing his distinction as an authority figure, this officer demonstrated a simple kindness that will be remembered for quite some time.
Of course, general rules exist for prisoners, too. Television and movies would have you believe that as a general rule, prisoners are violent, manipulative people bent on destruction. This is true for some prisoners, but not all. As a general rule, kindness is seen as weakness in prison, so prisoners are socialized into looking out for number one and ignoring the needs of others. Yet, I frequently see small acts of kindness--prisoners giving a soap or a shot of coffee to someone in need. I've seen extra TVs donated to prisoners who have no means to buy one, slightly used shoes passed on to someone who needs them, cook-ups shared, and debts paid to prevent violence.
In a country deeply divided by ideological differences, we need more exceptions. When the rule is to post hateful comments online, we need people who choose kindness instead. When the rule is to stoop to demeaning labels to define someone with whom you disagree, we need courageous people to refuse the low road and choose kindness instead. Author Neil Postman (Conscientious Objections) says that the words we use are simply tools we use to achieve our purposes. Exceptional people, then, ensure their words are healing and unifying, not damaging and dividing.
One can be ordinary and still exceptional. It only takes demonstrating small acts of kindness. But kindness should not be exceptional. It should be the norm. So, go out and be rule breakers. Choose kindness, one small act at a time. Be the exception, not the rule.
Rules can also be thought of as standards. For example, the term "as a general rule" refers to something that is a norm. Case in point, as a general rule, prison wardens are out of touch with their prison populations, are rarely seen by prisoners, and their only concern seems to be security. So, the warden at MTU who retired Friday was an exception, not the rule. He was a staunch advocate for prisoner rehabilitation, particularly through vocational training and education. He believed in the redemptive value of those he was charged with overseeing. He'll be greatly missed at this prison.
Another general rule is that corrections officers are to remain detached from prisoners. In other words, a clear distinction must exist between prisoners and staff. Good reasons exist for this rule, staff over-familiarity and all, but it can lead to some staff treating prisoners as numbers and not as people. So, this past week when a prisoner injured himself on the basketball court and an officer put his arm around the prisoner and helped him up the stairs to his cell, it caught the attention of other prisoners. His act of kindness was so exceptional that even the next day other prisoners were talking about it on the yard. Without sacrificing his distinction as an authority figure, this officer demonstrated a simple kindness that will be remembered for quite some time.
Of course, general rules exist for prisoners, too. Television and movies would have you believe that as a general rule, prisoners are violent, manipulative people bent on destruction. This is true for some prisoners, but not all. As a general rule, kindness is seen as weakness in prison, so prisoners are socialized into looking out for number one and ignoring the needs of others. Yet, I frequently see small acts of kindness--prisoners giving a soap or a shot of coffee to someone in need. I've seen extra TVs donated to prisoners who have no means to buy one, slightly used shoes passed on to someone who needs them, cook-ups shared, and debts paid to prevent violence.
In a country deeply divided by ideological differences, we need more exceptions. When the rule is to post hateful comments online, we need people who choose kindness instead. When the rule is to stoop to demeaning labels to define someone with whom you disagree, we need courageous people to refuse the low road and choose kindness instead. Author Neil Postman (Conscientious Objections) says that the words we use are simply tools we use to achieve our purposes. Exceptional people, then, ensure their words are healing and unifying, not damaging and dividing.
One can be ordinary and still exceptional. It only takes demonstrating small acts of kindness. But kindness should not be exceptional. It should be the norm. So, go out and be rule breakers. Choose kindness, one small act at a time. Be the exception, not the rule.
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Independence from Bitterness--Let's Celebrate Some Healing
The recent push by some in this country to remove many monuments from the past has gotten me thinking. There is a difference between remembering and celebrating, and it would be helpful if as a country we could remember the distinction. You might be familiar with the saying, "Those who fail to remember the past are bound to repeat it." Well, there are some ugly parts of our country's past that we must remember in order to ensure we do not repeat them.
As I write this, it is Independence Day. It's the day we remember and celebrate our independence from England, fought for with the blood of patriots. That's two hundred forty-four years of freedom and independence--for some. Yet, the glory of our hard-fought independence is marred by ugly scars of prejudice and discrimination. Our founders fought for freedom from religious and economic oppression, yet many of them oppressed others. They imported slavery from England, and oppressed and killed Native Americans, robbing them of land. The history of every nation is marred by contradictions to the ideals it claims. America is no exception.
So, what do we do with an imperfect history? Should we wipe the ugly parts from our memory? Should we re-write history so those who were tragically excluded from "liberty and justice for all" can avoid uncomfortable reminders? No, we should not. But, we must make a distinction between celebrating and remembering. When monuments celebrate tragedy, we ought to remember differently. However, when monuments remind us of our history, even with its ugly parts, we are prompted to avoid the mistakes our founders made.
Some of us know a little something of ugly pasts. We certainly don't build monuments to remember them. No, we'd like to forget our wrongs. But we can't forget them. As ugly as they are, they serve to remind us of where we once were. They also serve to remind us to never repeat the same wrongs. We are a people with short memories, when it comes to our own wrongs. Oh, we'll remember others' wrongs, like our brains are steel traps. But when it comes to our own, we so easily forget.
So, how do we remember our past in healthy ways? Theologian Miroslav Volf gives us three ways to remember the past in redemptive ways:
1. Remember truthfully.
2. Remember so as to heal.
3. Learn from the past.
Those who defend monuments to oppression ought to remember the past more truthfully. Healing begins with honesty. Those who would wipe even the ugly parts of our history from remembrance would do well to remember the past so as to heal. Bitter remembrance keeps wounds open and festering. Both sides would do well to remember the past so as to learn from it. We can avoid repeating the past if we let history instruct us.
We with ugly pasts can heal from the worst parts of our pasts, too, if we remember them truthfully. It starts with honesty, but until we're prepared to deal only with the truth, we'll perpetuate illusions and delusions that refuse to let wounds heal. I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some healing to take place. That would be worth celebrating.
As I write this, it is Independence Day. It's the day we remember and celebrate our independence from England, fought for with the blood of patriots. That's two hundred forty-four years of freedom and independence--for some. Yet, the glory of our hard-fought independence is marred by ugly scars of prejudice and discrimination. Our founders fought for freedom from religious and economic oppression, yet many of them oppressed others. They imported slavery from England, and oppressed and killed Native Americans, robbing them of land. The history of every nation is marred by contradictions to the ideals it claims. America is no exception.
So, what do we do with an imperfect history? Should we wipe the ugly parts from our memory? Should we re-write history so those who were tragically excluded from "liberty and justice for all" can avoid uncomfortable reminders? No, we should not. But, we must make a distinction between celebrating and remembering. When monuments celebrate tragedy, we ought to remember differently. However, when monuments remind us of our history, even with its ugly parts, we are prompted to avoid the mistakes our founders made.
Some of us know a little something of ugly pasts. We certainly don't build monuments to remember them. No, we'd like to forget our wrongs. But we can't forget them. As ugly as they are, they serve to remind us of where we once were. They also serve to remind us to never repeat the same wrongs. We are a people with short memories, when it comes to our own wrongs. Oh, we'll remember others' wrongs, like our brains are steel traps. But when it comes to our own, we so easily forget.
So, how do we remember our past in healthy ways? Theologian Miroslav Volf gives us three ways to remember the past in redemptive ways:
1. Remember truthfully.
2. Remember so as to heal.
3. Learn from the past.
Those who defend monuments to oppression ought to remember the past more truthfully. Healing begins with honesty. Those who would wipe even the ugly parts of our history from remembrance would do well to remember the past so as to heal. Bitter remembrance keeps wounds open and festering. Both sides would do well to remember the past so as to learn from it. We can avoid repeating the past if we let history instruct us.
We with ugly pasts can heal from the worst parts of our pasts, too, if we remember them truthfully. It starts with honesty, but until we're prepared to deal only with the truth, we'll perpetuate illusions and delusions that refuse to let wounds heal. I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some healing to take place. That would be worth celebrating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)