|
|
| A practice for the dogs |
| By Sarah Etter, News Reporter |
| Published: 11/13/2006 |
Images of snarling dogs intimidating prisoners have most recently become associated with the accusations of abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. But when Jamie Fellner received an anonymous call from a corrections official about the use of dogs against inmates, she realized scare-tactics like these are not just occurring overseas. 
“I received a phone call from someone who had been in corrections for quite some time,” Fellner recalls. “He had heard about dogs being used in Arizona, and asked if I knew anything about it. I was stunned. I found it absolutely unbelievable. But when I started making phone calls, I found out that, indeed, some states were using dogs.” Fellner's initial research led to her report, Cruel and Degrading: The Use of Dogs for Cell Extractions in U.S. Prisons, which was recently released by her organization, Human Rights Watch. The report lists six states that used trained dogs during cell extractions, and claims that some facilities were letting the animals off of their leashes to growl and bite inmates. Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah were all named for using trained canines to remove disobedient inmates from their cells. Delaware was initially on the report, but has since been removed since it claims to not use dogs for such matters. Since the release of the report, the listed DOCs retracted their policies on dog use, except for Connecticut, which, Fellner claims, said that the procedure worked and they had no plans to change their policies. The CTDOC did not return phone calls for this article. UTDOC PIO, Jack Ford says the report did bring an important issue to light, but that its facilities do not regularly rely on dogs. “The last time we used dogs was six years ago,” Ford says. “We have only used that practice during a riot or a situation where an offender has a weapon. Dogs are an important law enforcement tool. We use them to sniff out drugs and find missing people, but we realized that the dogs don't work that well in cells and confined spaces, and we no longer use them.” According to AZDOC PIO Katie Decker, the state abolished the canine tactic too. “We completely outlawed [the use of dogs] in March. Even before then, we only used the dogs three times during 2004 and 2005. We used them very rarely,” she says. According to a report update on the Human Rights Watch website, two days after the report's publication, “Iowa Corrections Director Gary Maynard announced the state's prisons will no longer use attack dogs to remove inmates from their cells.” It also states that “Scott Carver, the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Corrections , sent Human Rights Watch a letter on the same day, clarifying the department's policy with regard to the use of dogs for cell extractions. According to Mr. Carver, department policy does not contemplate the use of dogs for routine cell extractions, but does allow staff to use dogs for extractions in certain extreme situations.” Fellner says Massachusetts and South Dakota officials have agreed to stop allowing the practice. To compile the report, Fellner and her associates spoke with DOC officials, interviewed inmates who filed lawsuits about the use of the animals, and contacted Steve Martin, a corrections consultant for the Department of Justice and an expert on the use of force. “I've been in the corrections sector for about 35 years,” Martin says. “I've been involved in litigation about the use of canines and it comes down to common sense to me. I don't think the use of these dogs is pervading the national corrections community. Some agencies do provide for tactical use of these canines, but I don't think it is a trend in corrections. That being said, I object to the practice because there are alternatives.” He says using dogs in the manner the report suggests increases a DOC's liability and could lead to legal headaches. “I've been reviewing cell extraction practices for the better part of 20 years and I cannot figure out why a rational corrections administrator would use these animals when they have other techniques at their disposal,” Martin posits. Fellner agrees, adding that a well-trained corrections staff shouldn't need to rely on animals for cell extraction. “Communication is so important, and it is an underdeveloped skill,” she explains. “Talk to inmates or make them sit it out. If an inmate won't turn in his food tray or cuff up, let him sit there. There are lots of high tech equipment companies that will sell you anything, but we need to go back to basics. Why not talk it out?” Many DOCs are doing just that. Ford says Utah will increase officer training and armor for future cell extraction. Fellner says Massachusetts has decided to use therapists and negotiators more often. Despite this, she says the public must still grapple with a bigger issue. “The broader question is: How was this ever permitted? This really has to do with the insularity of corrections departments. There isn't enough oversight or transparency. The other point is that prisoners are human beings, and you cannot do whatever you want to them,” she says. Note: The Connecticut DOC has reportedly tightened the wording of their policies pertaining to dog use. It is now harder to use dogs during a cell extraction, unless lives are at risk. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think