Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Jan 25 - But… You’re Filing for Appeal, Right?

But… You’re Filing for Appeal, Right?

Clayton Allison was wrongfully convicted on February 13, 2015.  That means that in exactly three weeks, Clayton will have served two full years of a wrongful sentence.  More people than we could possibly count over the last two years, who have learned of our story, have led with the question, “But… you’re filing for appeal, right?”

There is nothing wrong with this question.  In fact, it is completely logical.  This is the only “solution” our system of government affords us in situations like these.  However, that solution falls woefully short of justice; as the wrongfully convicted waste away for years, waiting to prove their trials were a farce with evidence they could have presented immediately.  

Initial Automatic Delays of the Appeals Process

After Clayton’s conviction, he was not allowed to notify the court of his intent to appeal until after his sentencing hearing five months later.  That notice is basically a glorified memo with a bullet list of items you intend to appeal on at that point in time; which only serves to preserve your right to do so.  

Then, in Alaska you are assigned to a set of public defenders who specialize in appeals and are grossly overworked; unless of course you are independently wealthy and can afford private appeal representation.  These professionals handle cases on a first-noticed-first-served basis, the only way they have decided they can make it fair for their clients.  This means that their first order of business in Clayton’s case was to file for an automatic 460+ day extension before being required to file the appeal itself.  The court grants this extension without blinking because they know how desperately backlogged the appeals system is.  You are not even officially assigned to an attorney until closer to the time that your appeal will actually be filed.  In Clayton’s case, an extension was granted until this Friday, January 27, 2017, and his attorney was assigned in the fourth quarter of last year.  

This is what happens when you ARE in the ACTIVE process of appeal in Alaska.  Years and years go by.

Current Status

At this point in time, Clayton has had an opportunity to speak with his attorney on two occasions.  He feels very confident in their knowledge, experience, and strategy.  The attorney feels very positive about the chances of successful appeal due to the severity of issues that presented at trial.  However, this is where the law and justice diverge once again.  

In learning about the appeals process itself, we have learned that the way the courts operate - not necessarily the law itself - hinder the opportunity for true justice to be served simply by the expectations of the players involved.  To put forth your best effort to win an appeal, actually requires you to sacrifice some of your rights.  This is similar to how you must waive your right to a speedy trial immediately if you do not want to go to prison simply because your lawyer doesn’t even know who you are, much less the details of your case.

In the appeals example, it boils down to how much judges want to, or expect to, read.  An appeal is a one-shot process.  You cannot submit appeals over and over on separate subjects, trying to find the right one to convince the court to overturn the conviction.  Everything that you want to preserve your right to appeal on, must be included in the original appeal brief.  If any appeal-worthy subject has not been included, and sufficiently argued, in the original document, it is considered waived indefinitely at all levels - even in moving to higher courts.  Yes, you read that right.  Waived.  Indefinitely.  Permanently.  

Also, an appeal cannot include all subject matter related to the case.  Things like new exculpatory evidence, misbehavior that can be proven through further investigation, and errors discovered after trial, cannot be addressed except through a process called Post-Conviction Relief (PCR).  An appeal can only address issues in the official appeals record from your trial.  

The complete hundreds or thousands of pages of discovery evidence in your case are NOT automatically part of the appeals record.  Instead, the specific document highlighting the problem would have to be formally submitted in trial as an evidence exhibit.  This means that in Clayton’s case, examples of the prosecutors involved lying about case evidence and the contents of police transcripts cannot be included, because the actual physical evidence they were lying about was never logged in the “official record.”  Transcripts especially, are not submitted unless challenged on a specific issue during the process.  Other misconduct or mistakes like these from your trial can only be addressed through the PCR, which normally comes after appeal because it is also a one-shot process.

This is why, during your trial - the literal battle for your life - your will find your attorneys obsessed with “preserving” issues.  They not only have to battle the arguments in front of them.  They have to catch and remember each screw-up, and try to find a way to preserve the fact that it occurred within the official record.  In Clayton’s case, this was even more difficult than it should have been due to interference from Judge Vanessa White.  

White was supposed to be the unbiased guardian of the process, but instead served to block attempts to preserve multiple issues on the record through inappropriate rulings.  For example, disallowing Clayton’s wife from “testifying about the demeanor of the police interrogating her” without allowing her to provide her honest responses on record, outside the presence of the jury, prevents the appeals court from considering the clearly false inferences within the unfair questioning she was being subjected to.  The questioning was implying to jurors that she was being asked questions and had not been providing information, as if she was now fabricating facts, when in fact, she was being tortured by police and they were not accepting any information she attempted to provide.  Judges are not supposed to manipulate the appeals record, but unfortunately have the seemingly unchecked power to do so.  

So, now we know there are numerous issues of misconduct or flat-out provably incorrect facts that simply cannot be considered part of the appeal.  We also know that there are still numerous elements that are appeal eligible within Clayton’s case.  However, the nature of the process means he will not be able to appeal them all.  

An appeal brief is limited by the courts in Alaska to 50 pages.  These pages must contain not only the appeal subjects, but the legal arguments and case law which show them to be valid to overturn the conviction.  It is expected by the professionals in the field that if you have a very good, very solid case for winning an appeal, there will be 3-4 appeal items included.  That’s it!  It was explained to us that in cases which did not have good grounds for appeal, and were essentially grasping at straws, you would see 10+ items listed.  However, this tradition biases the appeals court itself.  

Let’s say you had seven extreme violations of your rights occur in your trial which were all on record and eligible for appeal, and which all were worthy of reversing your conviction.  You would have to waive your right to 3-4 of them to prevent the lawyer from running out of room to argue them sufficiently, and the judges from assuming you don’t have a legal leg to stand on at first glance.  In cases like Clayton’s, where there were many, many violations of his rights and due process, things literally have to be left out and given up if you want to win.    

This is what will be happening in Clayton’s case.  

Due to the seriousness of the issues that have been chosen, the attorney is currently working on cutting back to fit within the page limitation, and still have strong legal argument included for each chosen item.  The brief is due this Friday, January 27th, and will be submitted on time.  However, Clayton will not have the opportunity to read the brief before it is filed.  I wish I could say this is unusual, but it is actually very common at all levels for things to be filed on your legal behalf without ever actually being read by you.  He will receive a copy from the court after it has been filed, and the general contents and intentions of the arguments have been discussed with him.  

What to Expect - 3 Years of More Delays

There are three typical phases to motions and briefs filed within our courts: the initial motion/brief is filed; the opposing party is given an opportunity to file a written response; and then the original author files a response to the oppositions reply.  When asking what to expect in this process, it was explained to Clayton that the State is given an automatic six month extension for filing their response to the brief, and they always use the full amount of time.  (Which of course guarantees that people remain prisoners at least a little longer, even if unjustly put there.)  By our approximation, this means the State’s reply will not be due until around July 27, 2017.  

Then Clayton’s appeals attorney will be given 1-2 weeks to respond to the State’s reply.  Therefore, their reply would be due around mid-August 2017.  

Then the oral argument takes place if requested.  Strangely, in Alaska this process involves the attorneys from both sides providing argument before the panel of three appeals judges WITHOUT the defendant present.  We were informed that Clayton could request to be connected telephonically, but is likely to be denied.  So a bunch of people are standing around in a closed courtroom, arguing about your life and future and you’re not even allowed to be there.  We have no idea when the court would decide to schedule such a closed meeting, but we could guesstimate to September 2017, and likely not be more than a year off.  

The panel of judges do not issue a ruling during this closed session, and oral arguments effectively end the active appeal process.  Then you wait around for the court to issue its decision.  Currently, the Alaska Court of Appeals is taking roughly 2.5 years to issue a ruling after the entire process described above.  Meaning we could be waiting until March 2020 or later to even hear their decision.  

When Clayton was originally convicted, we were told it was taking them as long as 2 years.  Their timeliness seems to be slipping further and further as time progresses.  They’re not taking that time to make their decision.  They’re literally stacking it on top of a pile and waiting to get around to it after they’ve finished the other cases they’re behind on; which have nothing to do with you.  The arguments will not even be fresh in their minds by the time they actually work on your case.  

What a strange perversion of the American Dream.  

What Happens When We Win?

Let’s assume we’ve made it three years down the line, and we win the appeal (again, chances VERY good).  What happens to Clayton?

First, he is not automatically released.  He would revert back to a pre-trial status, even while the district attorney is working to get a new indictment in place.  This means he will be reassigned to the local public defender’s office, and to specific attorneys.  Who you get assigned to largely has to do with whether your original trial lawyers are even still working in that office by then.  The same goes for the District Attorney’s office; so yes, Clayton could theoretically end up battling the same corrupt prosecutors.  

After being assigned representation, he would have to request a new bail hearing.  The family will have to pay whatever new bail the judge assigns (and not get it back, AGAIN), and Clayton will be placed on whatever new pre-trial restrictions they choose - up to the third party requirements he was on for years before.  However, SB 91 made many positive changes to pre-trial in Alaska, and those changes should be implemented statewide by that time.  If unable to make bail, or disallowed from release of custody, Clayton would remain in prison until the new trial takes place.  

Most shocking and disappointing of all, the trial will be reassigned to the original trial judge - Judge White; the same woman who sat by before and allowed blatant misconduct, and manipulated the original appeals record.  We can request that she recuse herself from the case, but she has to agree in order to be removed.  Otherwise, it just becomes an appeal point for the second time around.  

The new trial is not as likely to take the 6+ years it did before, however, that’s not saying much for specifics.  We will essentially be starting over at phase 1.  

In Response

Free Clayton Allison supporters have no intention of sitting by and watching this farce continue without fighting the system in any and every legal way we can find.  We have multiple avenues right now that we are pursuing to demand justice and request investigations of the officials involved.  If you want to learn more about how you can provide assistance to these efforts, please contact  

If we assume the current standard appeals process timeline will be played out to completion, Clayton will have spent 5+ years wrongfully convicted.  Before resuming a brand new trial process, this case will have already consumed 11 of his less than 40 years of life.  This is why wrongful conviction literally destroys lives, even when you win the battle.  It is also why the average exoneree spends 15 or more years wrongfully convicted before finding release.  Please educate everyone you meet about the dangers of the U.S. justice system, and the Clayton Allison case.  

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

January 18 - Prejudice Inside and Out

Wednesday, January 18, 2016

Prejudice is something difficult to escape in daily life.  Most of us are prejudiced in one way or another, often without realizing it ourselves.  We see our own prejudice as truth or reality.  When that reality is challenged, we have a tendency to fight tooth-and-nail to prevent a perspective change that could be frightening and even painful.
Many prejudices in our daily lives are either accepted or shamed.  For example, much of our society has progressed to recognize that prejudice against people due to race, color, national origin, sex, and other factors is inappropriate.  However, demonstrated prejudices against people due to things like personal wealth/poverty, level of education, and criminal history are often justified in the minds of not only the prejudiced person, but many around them.  This raises the critical question – why would these categories be considered prejudice?  It is the very fact that they are categories at all. 

As human beings, we have a love of categorization.  It is one of the ways we study, and work to understand the world around us.  However, despite its usefulness in developing understanding, the second that we define the entirety of a human being by the limited boundaries of any particular category, we have the potential to demonstrate prejudice. 

When judging someone based on the fact that they are wealthy, do we naturally assume that they have no experience with poverty and therefore no perspective?  When judging someone for poverty, do we assume that they have chosen not to seize opportunity, or have simply not tried hard enough to escape its terrible grip?  When judging someone for their lack of education, do we assume they are less intelligent or less driven to succeed?  In reality, an unfathomable number of events could have occurred in that person’s life to put them in that category, no matter what their level of intelligence, wisdom, or desire to succeed may be. 

Prejudice Against Inmates and Family/Friends

Inmates and their families endure a shocking level of prejudice from much of society, which is often cheered and celebrated more often than challenged or shamed. 

For example, in the comments after a news article on the suspect of a burglary, it is not uncommon for someone to start posting things like, “It’s about time we start lining these people up and shooting them!” or “Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!” 

When family members of the innocently accused/convicted attempt to show support and expose the reality of their situation, they often become targets of the same hatred.  I myself have had individuals, in the safe anonymity of the internet, literally state that I should be raped and killed for standing in support of my innocent husband.  The irony is, that the very people who seem to be outraged that our daughter died and who believe him to be at fault simply because they read an accusation on a computer screen, have called for not only murder but grotesque sexual violation of another human being and somehow feel justified. 

These threats and dangers are not limited to the online world either; although the internet seems to heighten the level of boldness and depravity.  Indeed, my vehicle has been tampered with and I have family members who have even had guns pulled on them out in the general public; simply because we we’re recognized as a family in support.  Even official businesses regularly demonstrate prejudice with no apparent fear of accountability, or even basic understanding that their actions are inappropriate.  When I was being evaluated for insurance by a company I have used for many years, and had to explain the situation of my husband’s incarceration due to other life changes, the company called me back three separate times to ask the same singular question.  “I’m sorry mam, but I need to clarify… do you intend to divorce your husband?”  What relevance does divorce have on my insurance when my husband’s sentence is 40 years?

Prejudice against inmates, and formerly incarcerated individuals, is nothing new.  It is rarely thought of as prejudice and simply labeled as common sense.  But this form of categorization is one of the most flawed in our society today. 

As a basic example, any individual being held in our prison system in Alaska is assigned an identifying number called an Offender Number.  This basic terminology assumes that all incarcerated individuals are offenders.  In truth, at least a quarter of Alaska’s prison population is held for days, months, or often years in a pretrial status; therefore, their guilt has not even been determined. They are supposed to be presumed innocent.  In a recent case, a 19 year old man was acquitted of rape in Palmer after spending nearly two years in prison awaiting trial.  In some felony cases, it is not uncommon for someone to wait five years or more for their day in court.  For my husband, Clayton Allison, the wait was more than six years. 

Then you have the other complication of wrongful conviction; which by definition labels an innocent as an offender.  The National Registry of Exonerations has already gathered data on more than 1,900 proven cases of exoneration since 1989.  They have only been gathering this information for a couple of years, and their scope is limited to official court actions.  Clayton’s wrongful conviction will not appear on this list until he is officially exonerated by the courts.  An unknown number of individuals across the country are wrongfully convicted, sometimes without hope of exoneration because they can gather no evidence that the crime they are accused of may not have even occurred, or have actually been a crime.

More and more people across our country are waking up to the fact that just because someone is accused of a crime does not make them guilty.  Just because they are convicted does not mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Most importantly, just because someone is being confined within the walls of a prison, does not mean they have actually done anything wrong.  Even professionals in the field acknowledge this simple truth.  U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski, in his article Criminal Law 2.0, reflected that, “much of the so-called wisdom that has been handed down to us about the workings of the legal system, and the criminal process in particular, has been undermined by experience, legal scholarship and common sense (2015).” 

Spreading the word of this important truth is a daunting task, but challenging the resulting prejudice will be much harder. 

Prejudice Against Specific Types of Inmates

Now, you might be tempted to think that society is prejudiced towards all inmates in the same way, but you would be sorely mistaken.  Even among those experiencing the prejudice, there are further levels to our drive for categorization.  I have an African-American friend who was once told by another African-American friend that she was “not really black” because one of her parents was white; therefore, she couldn’t truly understand the suffering of black people.  Obviously this was an inaccurate and laughable accusation.  Similarly, however, individuals have a tendency to categorize inmates based on the crime they are accused or convicted of.  This includes policy makers, lawyers, corrections staff, other inmates, and the general public. 

For example, it is not uncommon for policies to be written for justice reform with a seemingly automatic rubber stamp for the exclusion of sex offenders and/or violent crimes.  There is a tendency to speak about both “sex offenses” and “violent crimes” as if they are simplified classifications which we would all consider equivalent in their level of offense.  However, these broad generalizations fall woefully short of providing real context in our decision-making processes.
Imagine you have four men standing in front of you, and I told you they were all sex offenders.  Most people would have the tendency to treat them all similarly.  Then imagine that I clarified that: one man was convicted of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old when he was 19; one man was convicted of forcibly raping and beating six women as a serial rapist; one man was convicted at 17 of sexual exploitation of a minor because he sexted naked photos of himself to a girl at his high school; and the fourth is a 70-year-old mentally ill man who experiences delusions and was convicted of exposing himself in public.  The facts have not changed, but do you still see all four men in exactly the same light?  Would you make the same opportunities available to them, and place them under identical restrictions? 

Even inmates exercise these prejudices as a way to justify causing harm to others within their limited reach.  Racial tensions and gangs affiliations already provide excuses for violence and the creation of a pecking order.  However, there is usually a complicated set of rules or a specific person for granting permission to inflict harm without fear of retaliation.  Categorizations and assumptions about someone’s offense can make them an easy, unprotected target for this aggression.  Therefore, many inmates are forced to enter what the Department of Corrections calls Protective Custody (PC), or an Ad Seg status, to keep themselves safe. 

Prejudice From Correctional Staff Against PC

What has been most shocking to me in recent months, is the blatant prejudice demonstrated by the corrections staff assigned to watching over these individuals.  In fact, corrections staff frequently use their Ad Seg status as an excuse to declare that they can house the individuals in any conditions they wish – even unconstitutional ones. 

In one example, my husband had an unpleasant encounter with a correctional officer who was lashing out at him, and failing at his duties in the process, for being in protective custody.  The man worked in property at the time (they rotate assignments often), and was supposed to be assisting my husband in reclaiming his property when returning from court.  Instead, the man was shouting vicious things at him, swearing, and flat out refusing to help him locate the property in question.  The man, who likely didn’t know who Clayton was or any of the details of his case, was screaming that he was a “Chester” (prison slang for child molester) simply because he was in protective custody.  Chester seems to be the default accusation against this population by both inmates and some staff; when it often clearly has no bearing on their actual cases.  Ultimately, another corrections officer intervened in removing Clayton from the verbal assault, and brought him the property personally later; apologizing for his co-workers behavior. 

In another example, Goose Creek Correctional Center administrators have demonstrated incredible levels of prejudice against this population in their decision-making for the entire facility.  On September 16, 2015, all men in PC status were moved from a housing unit, previously called K Mod, which allowed them the same general lifestyle afforded to general population (GP) inmates.  They were transferred into an area of the prison called the Special Management Unit (SMU) and forced into solitary-confinement-like conditions with no hope of being released into a less mentally traumatizing environment.  We have written extensively about the events that transpired on this blog, and encourage you to read the accounts from September 16, 17, 18, and 28, of 2015, if you have not done so already.
Since that time, these men have suffered under unconstitutional housing conditions for well over a year.  They are being permanently denied access to outdoor recreation, through the excuse of an indoor gym.  The inmates have attempted to fight this cruelty through official DOC paperwork, but have received no relief.  Unbelievably, Alaska DOC is maintaining the argument that the grate in the side of the wall of the indoor gym, which points at nothing but the sky, qualifies as outdoor recreation.  What is the problem with that argument?  Other than basic logic, it has already been found invalid by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It's literally an argument they have already lost before, and are just ignoring.
In one 9th Circuit case it states that, "Exercise comprising a room with a roof and one wall of perforated steel, admitting sunlight only, during the top 1/3 did not meet the courts requirement for outdoor recreation." [Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996)]  

Further, the court has clarified that, "Long-term deprivation of outdoor exercise is unconstitutional" in Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Lastly, DOC is maintaining their authority to do this to the inmates because they are classified as protective custody status.  However, the third case - Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) - discusses two important issues. It clarifies that specific demonstrated harm is not necessary to cite in long-term cases which it measures in days, not weeks, months or years; because in long-term cases the harm is assumed.  It also clarifies that, "The courts held that it was not enough for officials to say that they kept a prisoner from the yard for his own protection.  They must justify why they did not provide some other opportunity for outdoor recreation."
It is also important to note that these men were forced into these conditions after the disbandment of their protective-custody-dedicated general-population-like housing unit; formerly known as K Mod.  In a recent California case, their courts determined that confining someone to indefinite solitary-like housing with an indoor gym like the current Goose Creek SMU was inappropriate, and a settlement was reached.  You can find the settlement documentation through the Huffington Post article.  I would note that section III.D. of the settlement outlines the requirement for the facility to establish the very form of housing unit Goose Creek recently abolished. 

Life Without the Outdoors

Since this issue was covered in more detail in a recent Alaska Public Media story, some have asked the question, “What is so cruel and unusual about the conditions?” 

First, I encourage you to read through some of the inmate letters on this blog and additional entries about life in the SMU.  Secondly, I encourage you to watch the video on the experience of solitary confinement from the perspective of Supermax inmates in the lower 48.  Most importantly, I ask you to consider the facts at play.

The gym available to the Goose Creek SMU inmates is completely enclosed except for the grate on the wall.  This grate points at the sky, so the inmates have not seen grass, trees, weather, accumulated snow, or any aspect of the outdoors for more than a year; an environment well-documented around the world to cause mental illness and distress.  Clayton commented to Alaska Public Media about attending his mother’s funeral last summer, and said, “I unashamedly admit that I was weeping on the ride there, not because of my mom’s death, but because of the car ride and being able to be outside,” he recalled. “I was able to see the many colors of the green on the trees and the flowers. It had been so long it was overwhelming for me.”

Additionally, this type of gym is inappropriate for use in arctic conditions.  The grate lets in not only the outdoor air, but sometimes the precipitation like rain or snow.  It’s not enough to really touch, but to affect the floors inside and make its way to the drain.  It also means that the gym temperature is a match to the temperature outside without the benefits of a view.  On days like today, when it is 20 below zero, their gym is also well below zero.  They are not afforded coats or other winter gear to use for exercise.  On days like today, GP inmates are given the option to use an indoor heated gym for exercise, because outdoor recreation would be a risk to health.  SMU inmates are not afforded this option because they “have their own gym.”  Which means, during periods of extreme cold (much of the winter here in Alaska) they have no options for recreation at all without inviting illness.  They are not allowed to exercise in the mod itself. 

Most shocking of all, Superintendent John Conant from Goose Creek freely admitted his own prejudice on the subject to the press. 

“There’s other units these guys can be in if they just have a little more courage, I guess you’d say, and just try it,” he said in the article, referring to other specialized GP mods.

This statement is not only prejudiced, but inaccurate.  First of all, his claim that there are other specialized mods they can transfer into is far from universally true.  Recent changes within the religious mod Clayton once considered have rendered him ineligible for transfer there.  The new program requires them to admit guilt for their crimes, which Clayton and anyone who is innocent and in active appeal cannot do.  There are also mods being designed for things like mental health support, but you have to need that support in the first place to qualify.  The only other option we are currently aware of, is the standard GP mods.
Secondly, he claims that their confinement to the SMU is related to their level of courage.  This implies that they have not “tried it” to begin with.  Most of the inmates in the SMU are there because they already have tried it, and found the conditions impossible to manage.  In GP, these inmates face not only extortion, but the constant risk of physical violence and potential death.  The risk does not only affect the inmate.  When Clayton was first placed in GP at Goose Creek, desperate to avoid PC status and potential solitary confinement, he had three groups of men threaten to knife him to death in the first 20 minutes he was placed there.  Eventually, the entire mod started to break out in riotous behavior – shouting threats, screaming, and banging their cups and other objects – and multiple guards were forced to put themselves at abnormal risk to surround him and remove him from the environment into safety.
Also, let’s say an inmate does “try it out” and meets with failure.  Sure, they could have a period of success, but as soon as another inmate decides they are an easy target they face injury, potential permanent disability, and even death for the sake of giving it a try.  At the least, they would end up with write-ups and potential punishment for being involved in an altercation they had no means of controlling.  Surely, the Superintendent of our largest institution realizes this.  Yet, he still allows his own prejudice about their courage to taint his decision-making. 

Extreme Prejudice From the Public

The Alaska Public Media article, while exposing the ongoing cruelty and potentially illegal nature of it, has also shed some light on the prejudice among the public against this population.  Some have stated that the SMU is full of “rapists and murderers” who have no right to humane treatment anyway. 

“Rapists and murderers” is an interesting colloquialism with no real relevance to the facts.  On one hand, yes many of the individuals that end up in PC status are there because they are sex offenders and GP inmates consider those crimes more heinous than whatever crime they have committed personally.  However, the murderers half of that flippant statement is blatantly untrue.  Yes, some of the men in the SMU, like Clayton, are convicted on murder charges.  However, many more convicted murderers walk around in GP without any need of protective custody.  It is not a crime that automatically causes the need for a PC status.
Secondly, use of this colloquialism is completely ignorant to the numerous other reasons an inmate might need a PC status.  Men may be in a PC status for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to:

  • Being elderly, which makes an easy target for aggression and exploitation;
  • Recovering from severe injury, illness, or medical treatment;
  • Being mentally ill, and unsafe to themselves or others, or at risk from others; 
  • Being homosexual, bisexual, or transgender and at risk for sexual and non-sexual violence; 
  • Being considered a “rat” or a “snitch” for cooperating with authorities in the investigation and prosecution of their case, and winding up at risk from their co-defendants and everyone else for the simple title; 
  • Attempting to leave a gang within the prison, which can result in a ‘contract’ going out to promise a reward to anyone who injures or kills that specific person; and 
  • Being accused or convicted of a crime that is sexual in nature, or against women and children.       
This begs the most basic of questions to the general public.  Do we believe that someone should risk their life and health because they are homosexual?  Do we believe that they should be left unprotected because they cooperated with investigators and prosecutors?  Do we believe that we should leave the elderly and mentally ill defenseless?  Some of these people are literally in PC status for other reasons, after being convicted of things like check forgery.  Yet, the administrators at Goose Creek seem to believe that these are valid reasons to confine men within unconstitutional, cruel, and unusual living conditions indefinitely, with no hope for relief. 

Please Take Action

If you believe this to be unacceptable, please spread the word and demand justice from your state.  Contact your legislators and congressmen to demand corrective actions.  Contact the Lieutenant Governor and Governor’s offices to file a complaint.  Spread the word about these conditions, and educate members of the public on this form of prejudice, in your own communities.  Stand Up and Speak Out for those who cannot speak out for themselves.  We thank you all for your support.