The Lessonsof MarionThe Failure of a MaximumSecurity Prison: A History andAnalysis, with Voices of Prisoners

•

Contents Page

INTRODUCTION

he American Friends Service Com-mittee is a Quaker organization de-voted to building a just and peacefulworld. The AFSC's work reflects thebeliefs of the Religious Society ofFriends (Quakers). Men and womenof many races, nationalities andreligious backgrounds participate inAFSC as staff and committee mem-bers. All are united in their belief inthe infinite worth and equality ofeach human being. This belief leadsthe AFSC to search for creative waysto challenge injustice and war. Incommunities throughout the country,AFSC works with people to bring anend to poverty, exclusion and denialof recognition and rights.

The Lessons of Marion1 - 9 copies, $2.0010 - 50 copies, $1.5050 or more copies, $1.25

POSTPAID

Order from: Criminal Justice ProgramCRD/American Friends Service Committee1501 Cherry Street, Philadelphia PA 19102

FREE TO PRISONERS

Cover Photo: Courtesy The Southern Winoisan

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

BACKGROUNDThe killings and their aftermath.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR INCREASEDPRISON REPRESSION

The rise and fall of the prisoners rightsmovement. The growth of a law andorder climate in a context of economicdecline and acceptance of racism.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMRESPONDSReliance on increased incarceration,prison construction and longer senten-ces. The concept of the dangerousoffender.

THE REFORM COMMUNITY ADAPTSCompromises and concessions in theface of a hostile political climate.

MARION AS THE 'END OF THE LINE'A brief history of Marion and itsstated goals.

VII. EPILOG

NOTES

11

15

19

THE LESSONS OF MARION AND THEIR 23IMPLICATIONS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS

What we have learned from examiningMarion. Excerpts from prisoners' let-ters.

35

36

Introduction

The way a society treats people convicted of crimesis an indicator of the human values of that society.For this reason, and because of our belief in theintrinsic worth of all human beings, Quakers havebeen concerned about the criminal justice system ofthe United States for more than two centuries.

The American Friends Service Committee, an organ-ized expression of the values of Quakers, hascarried on programs on criminal justice issues since1947. Over these years, we have seen a frighteningand counterproductive increase in reliance onrepression against human beings who are lockedaway out of the sight and mind of the public, themedia and even those officials whose decisions putthem in prison.

In this report, we examine the current situation atMarion Federal Penitentiary, which opened in 1962to replace Alcatraz as the highest level maximumsecurity prison in the federal system. We also lookat the history of the prison reform and prisonerrights movements as they relate to prison conditions.

This report has gone through a noteworthy processof development. It was written by AFSC criminaljustice program staff member Marc Mauer, in con-sultation with other AFSC criminal justice staffaround the country, and with our Criminal JusticePanel.* Copies were sent to seventeen Marionprisoners, to the head of the guards union atMarion, and to the present warden at Marion, askingfor comments and reactions. We received letters inresponse from sixteen prisoners, including several wehad not written to, showing that the document hadbeen passed from hand to hand inside the prison.We had a cordial call from the warden.

The present document reflects the suggestions andcomments we received through this process. Thefinal section, "The Lessons of Marion and TheirImplications for New Directions," contains excerptsfrom a number of the letters from prisoners.

Marion, we want to stress, is not unique. Similarpatterns of ever-heightening repression exist in manystate prisons around the country. If current

* Members of the Panel are: Fay Honey Knopp,Prison Research Education Action Project; WalterCollins, National Moratorium on Prison Construction,a project of the Unitarian Universalist ServiceCommittee; Kay Harris, Department of CriminalJustice, Temple University; Margaret Woods, Tri-CityPeoples Corporation; and Nancie Zane, NationalPrison Overcrowding Project. In addition, RussImmarigeon provided many useful ideas.

proposals are accepted, the Marion pattern will bereplicated within other federal prisons as well.

Despite repeated evidence that lockdowns don'tassure safety, the authorities at Marion continue torespond to every new proof of the failure of theirpolicy with an escalation of brutality. AkinshijuOla, a former prisoner at Marion, comments:

The present situation in Marion is the result ofan ongoing effort by prison authorities to per-fect their ideal of absolute control. It isimperative that those of us who are concernedabout the repression inside the prisons findways to effectively confront the situation.*

We agree. We hope that this paper may stimulateaction to confront the situation represented byMarion.

Marc MauerJustice Communications Coordinator

Jane MotzCriminal Justice ProgramNational Community Relations Division

IV

I. Background

In October 1983, two prison guards at the FederalPenitentiary at Marion, Illinois were killed while onduty at the prison. Ironically, the murders occurredin the Control Unit, the most secure unit of theentire federal prison system. Shortly thereafter,three prisoners were charged with the murders andbrought to trial. The three were convicted of thekilling of the guards and also of the prior murder ofanother prisoner. Two received life sentences inaddition to the multiple life sentences they werealready serving, and all three received an additionalsentence of 50-150 years.

Tragic as these killings are, they represent neitherthe first instances of extreme violence at the prisonnor, likely, the last. Although the identity of themen responsible for the murders was establishedimmediately, the months following the murders wit-nessed an emerging pattern of brutal repressionagainst the prison population of 350 men. Attorneysrepresenting prisoners at Marion charged that 60additional guards were brought in from other partsof the federal prison system and that they systema-tically beat and brutalized scores of prisoners.Immediately after the killings of the guards, theentire prison was placed on "lockdown" status, underwhich (1) prisoners were confined to their cells for23i hours a day, (2) all visits were suspended, and,(3) until a court order was enforced, even attorneyswere denied access to the prison. Currently underthe direction of a new warden the lockdown hasbeen eased in some areas, but stringent andrestrictive policies are still largely in effect.

The events at Marion have had larger repercussionsbeyond the prison. In a change of long-standingpolicy, Norman Carlson, Director of the Bureau ofPrisons, testified in Congress in favor of a federaldeath penalty for prisoners serving life sentenceswho are convicted of murdering guards. He hasbeen joined in this position by the union repre-senting federal prison guards (the AmericanFederation of Government Employees).

The killings and their aftermath continue to have amajor impact on the lives of all those connectedwith the prison. For guards at the prison and theirfamilies, a difficult job has become filled with evenmore tension and danger. Prison administratorsappear to have chosen a course that favors the con-tinual escalation of repression as a means ofcontrol, even though it has never been demonstratedthat repression brings its desired results. And pri-soners are caught in an ever-increasing spiral ofviolence and fear with no clear alternatives.

Several types of interrelated issues need to beaddressed concerning Marion Prison. The first isthe need to examine the social context that fostersgreater repression in prison and creates maximumsecurity institutions. The second concerns the pres-ent situation at Marion itself and the question ofwhether such institutions can ever become more"normal" environments, with reduced tensions andgreater guarantees of safety and security for allinvolved. Finally, we address the lessons to belearned from Marion and explore possible directionsfor positive change.

II. History: The Social Context forIncreased Prison Repression

Prisons do not exist in isolation from society.Political, social, and economic factors all play amajor role in the determination of a society's use ofprisons as a part of overall social policy. Contraryto popular opinion, there is little relationship be-tween crime rates and rates of incarceration.2Rather, the use of imprisonment is a function ofsocial policy and of the interests and perceptions ofthose who make that policy. The history of impris-onment in the United States demonstrates that pris-ons have been used as a means of punishing boththe poor and racial minorities. An examination ofcomparative rates of incarceration and the use ofthe death penalty clearly demonstrates the dispro-portionate impact the criminal justice system hashad on Blacks, in particular, and, in growing num-bers, on Hispanics.3

The prevailing social climate influences both thepowers that those who operate prisons can assertand the means by which prisoners can resist theirconditions of incarceration. The interplay of legalprecedent, the presence or lack of an outside sup-port community, and the interest displayed bysociety creates the context in which a societyimprisons some of its members.

What we have witnessed during the past decade, inparticular, is a growing acceptance of the conceptthat there exists an underclass of "expendable"people in our society. These "expendable" peopleare often categorized as the "hard-core unemployed"or "alienated urban youth." Increasingly, they

Photo: The Southern lllinoisan

include members of immigrant groups and lower-income women who are heads of households.Whatever the terminology employed, these peoplerepresent the cost to society of social and economicpolicies that result in large-scale unemployment,inadequate levels of social services, poor education,and increasing competition for basic survival.

A significant part of this group, primarily youngmales who are Black or another minority, receivesdisproportionate processing by the criminal justicesystem. To the extent that they commit crimes,their crimes' are generally different from those com-mitted by the middle class. Wealthier individualshave the opportunity to commit crimes of theftinvolving embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion, andprice fixing. Poor people who commit theftsgenerally do so through means known as "streetcrime." The resources of the criminal justice systemare disproportionately geared toward the apprehen-sion and conviction of these "street criminals," eventhough the crimes of the middle and upper classesoften carry a greater financial cost to society.Thus, this group of lower-class young males findsitself being arrested, convicted, and imprisoned innumbers far greater than its proportion of thegeneral population. Upon entering the criminaljustice system, the members of this group are sub-ject to labels such as "habitual offender" and"high-security risk." It is this group of people whoare increasingly populating our nation's prisons andcreating the context for both resistance andrepression.

The Rise and Fall of the Prisoner's RightsMovement.

In order to understand the current situation, weneed to look back about twenty years to thebeginning of the modern prisoners' rights movement.Starting in the early 1960s, a series of very signif-icant changes took place in the American prisonsystem. Prior to that time, the notion of "prisoners'rights" was a foreign concept to most people.Prisoners were "criminals" who deserved the punish-ment they were receiving and had no reason toexpect any of the societal benefits to which othercitizens were entitled. Federal and state constitu-tions were not generally thought of as documentswith any relevance for the incarcerated.

Several factors coalesced during that period to bringabout the new movement for prisoners' rights. Theywere:

The Civil Rights and Anti- War Movements.Although jail and prison reform was not a majoragenda item for these movements, the presence oflarge numbers of people acting on their consciencesby challenging unjust laws and the Vietnam War ledto a new way of viewing penal institutions. Ratherthan being seen as warehouses for "criminals," theseinstitutions came to be seen as having a symbolicpolitical function in an inegalitarian society. Formany whites, in particular, the jail experience wastheir most dramatic exposure to the injusticesinflicted upon Blacks and poor people in our society.

The Rise of the Black Muslims, - Though theBlack Muslim movement had been prominent in somecommunities for many years, not until the 1960s did

it gain both large-scale support and media attention.The nation's prisons and jails became a primerecruiting ground for the Muslim message. Muslimideology and organization provided both the indivi-dual support necessary to withstand the prisonexperience as well as an overall analysis of the roleof prisons in an oppressive society. This com-bination of group cohesiveness with an analyticalframework laid the basis for a prison movement thatcould challenge the basic indignities and lack ofConstitutional protections so prevalent in the prisonsystem.

Community Support. - While the various socialmovements of the 1960s produced an analysis of therole of prisons in society, they also generated agroup of activists who viewed the prison struggle asan important source of inspiration and support. Themany political trials of the period — the Chicago 7,Panther 21, and San Quentin 6, to name a few —attracted widespread support and sympathy withinthe civil rights and anti-war movements. They alsoled to the growth of significant numbers of attor-neys and legal workers who were able to providethe necessary defenses and the challenges to thecriminal justice system. Public consciousness andattitudes further led to a judiciary that wasincreasingly more receptive to the concept that theConstitution did indeed apply to incarcerated per-sons.

To some observers, the dramatic rise of the prison-ers' rights movement seemed almost matched by itsrapid decline a decade later. Beginning in the1970s, public support for prisoners dropped off,court decisions began to erode previously hard-won

gains, and prisons and jails increasingly came to beused as warehouses for the poor and for minorities.The reasons behind the decline of the movement,rapid as it seemed, were actually more substantialand longer in preparation than they may haveappeared at the time. They were most significantlythe result of the following:

The Rise of the "Law and Order" Climate.The Presidential election of 1968 was an importantevent for a variety of reasons. For subsequentdevelopments in criminal justice issues, the Nixoncampaign represents the first modern large-scaleappeal to "law and order" - the belief that crime isrampant and that the only possible response is heavydoses of incarceration. For a country divided by awar abroad and social dislocation at home, and inthe absence of any alternative proposals, the Nixoncampaign's crime and justice themes proved popularwith large numbers of people. The not so subtleracial overtones of these themes only added to theirappeal to some and their general divisiveness. Upontaking office, the Nixon administration immediatelymoved to implement its ideology. Under the guiseof Federal Criminal Code reform, the Administrationtook a draft bill prepared under the JohnsonAdministration and developed the notorious S.I, acompilation of some of the most repressive legisla-tion in the areas of civil rights and civil libertiesseen in many years. The use of the newly-createdLaw Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)for the funding of new police technology and sur-veillance techniques accentuated this trend.

Economic Decline. - The leading role of theAmerican economy in the industrialized world afterWorld War II came to an end in the early 1970s.

The combination of outmoded production techniques,the loss of cheap energy and raw materials, andincreasing competition from other capitalist nationsled to a situation where prosperity for many was nolonger taken for granted, and a period of economicand social uncertainty overcame the nation. Underthese circumstances, it was not surprising that pris-oners came to be viewed as scapegoats and thatrepressive criminal justice policies became moreacceptable. As occurred during the Depression, sup-port for and use of the death penalty climbedsubstantially, and rates of incarceration increasedwithout any significant relationship to rates ofcrime. The theory that prisons and jails served aswarehouses for the increasingly large numbers of theunemployed received substantial backing.

Racism. - Related to the economic decline wasa noticeable increase in the public acceptance ofracism and the prevalence of racism in the criminaljustice system. The scarcity of jobs, cutbacks insocial support systems, and the rise of the NewRight all triggered a response that manifested itselfin a dramatically enlarged pool of Black and otherminority prisoners. In the past several years, theempirical evidence that our prisons and jails aredisproportionately incarcerating Black males has beenclearly documented in a series of studies. Followingthe Supreme Court's 1976 ruling allowing theresumption of executions, "Death Rows" across thecountry began to swell with minorities as well.

Decline of the Prisoner Support Movement.Prisoners have always been in a precarious positionin terms of their ability to organize for change and,hence, have had to depend on the support of out-siders to create both a climate of support and a

legal and financial basis for support. A variety offactors contributed to the lessening of that supportin the early 1970s. This decline was largely relatedto the decline of the civil rights and related move-ments, which had displayed a strong concern forprisoners. For those actively involved in the pris-oner support movement, "burnout" was a prominentfactor. Attempting to challenge a bureaucracy asentrenched and oppressive as the prison systemproved to be too overwhelming for many. For theprisoners who gained release, the difficulties of life"on the streets" were so challenging that they hadlittle time to continue the prison struggle. And formany of the prisoner supporters who were motivatedinitially by the anti-war movement, the release ofthe final groups of conscientious objectors fromprison lessened the urgency and immediacy of theissue.

10

ffl. The Criminal Justice SystemResponds

Given the strong emotional and political climate forissues of crime and justice, a wide range of respon-ses by the criminal justice system was possible. Thegeneral punitive attitudes, scapegoating, and lack ofany political context for community-based responsesopened the way for the harsh and repressive crimi-nal justice policies in the mid- to late-1970s.Ironically, many of these new policies developedeither with the quiet acquiescence of reformers orthrough the distortion of their ideology. Twoexamples will serve to illustrate:

(1) Struggle for Justice, published by theAmerican Friends Service Committee in 1971, pre-sented a strong critique of the treatment model ofprisons and argued against the arbitrary nature ofthe system. Citing prison rehabilitation programs aslittle more than a means of controlling prisoners anddefining the conditions of parole, it advocated amore voluntary model of access to services. Yet itscriticisms of rehabilitation have since been used tojustify prison systems where programs of any sortare vastly reduced and tighter mechanisms of controlhave taken their place. Further, the book's call fordeterminate sentencing as a means of reducingdiscretion has been used as a rationale for the eli-mination of parole and for establishing longer sen-tences.

(2) Similarly, Robert Martinson's mid-1970sstudy, "What Works?", attempted to assess the stateof rehabilitation programs then existent. His origi-nal conclusion that "nothing works," though sub-sequently modified, was cited by liberals and

11

conservatives alike in abandoning any efforts toachieve progressive reforms.

While both progressives and conservatives haveeither abandoned the prisoners' rights movement orapplauded its decline, several important trends havemanifested themselves in the criminal justice systemas a whole and their legacy is still very much withus today. The most significant trends are thefollowing:

Increase in Incarceration. - What is now well-known to both the criminal justice community andthe public at large is the vast increase in the sizeof the prison and jail population across the country.Since 1973, we have witnessed a virtual doubling ofthe numbers of people locked up in our federal,state, and local jails and prisons.4 The increase hasbeen a result of changed policies at all "entrypoints" to the criminal justice system — increasednumbers of arrests, greater numbers of people beingsentenced to incarceration, greater numbers ofpeople being incarcerated for longer periods of time,and more restrictive parole policies. Obvious as itappears today, few researchers or advocates foresawthis trend in its early years. The passage of the1984 federal crime package is certain both toincrease the federal prison population and toestablish a model that will likely be adopted by anumber of state legislatures.

Prison Construction. - Along with, or leadingto, the rise in prison and jail populations, there hasbeen a massive increase in capital spending for newinstitutions. Even during the current period ofsevere recession, governmental bodies at all levelshave been committing great sums of declining tax

12

dollars to prison and jail construction.^ Given thatthese institutions can be expected to be used for aminimum of fifty to seventy-five years, the implica-tion of potentially high rates of incarceration forseveral generations is ominous.

Increased Length of Confinement. - Along withthe growing numbers of people being sentenced toincarceration, there has been a growing trend oflengthening the term of confinement, thus creating alarge and often unrecognized pool of long-termprisoners. The implications of this have generallynot been explored much by either correctionaladministrators or reformers.

Isolating the "Dangerous Offender". - Not onlyare greater numbers of people being held in prisonsand jails today; they are increasingly being labeledas "high risk," "dangerous," or in some way pre-senting a serious threat to the community. In itscurrent phase, this trend leads to the concept of"selective incapacitation," whereby it is presumedthat a certain group of offenders can be scien-tifically identified as being highly likely to commit alarge number of crimes. It is therefore proposedthat they should be incarcerated for periods longerthan normal. While clear evidence exists that thisapproach presents serious problems of both researchmethodology and ethics, its proponents are pursuingthis policy with great vigor.

13

14

IV. The Reform Community AdaptsAlthough the prisoners' rights movement suffered a.serious decline in support during the 1970s, remnantsof it lived on into the 1980s. In large part itbecame a movement centered in the religious com-munity, with its long tradition of concern for theconditions of incarceration. The new reform move-ment, though, has been forced to confront thedevelopments that have taken place in the criminaljustice system. In doing so, it has in some wayscreated a set of new issues that future reformerswill have to confront.

In attempting to respond to the new punitive cli-mate, the reform community has, with few excep-tions, adopted positions that represent significantcompromises in terms of its stated goals. Thus, inorder to gain credibility for its proposed alternativesto incarceration, the new reformers most oftenadvocated these alternatives for the "non-violent" or"non-dangerous" offender. Using both the ter-minology and labeling categories of the criminaljustice system, these advocates essentially end upproviding legitimacy for the imprisonment of largenumbers of people based solely on the types ofcrimes they have committed. The problem deepensas various researchers develop criteria whereby theycan "prove" that a certain percentage of pre-trialdetainees or sentenced offenders are "high-risk,"and, therefore, not appropriate candidates foralternatives to incarceration.

In a further effort to gain credibility, the"alternatives movement" often takes on the identicalgoals and language used by the system, even as it

15

claims to be organizing projects that arequalitatively different. Thus, the thrust of alter-native programs changes from shifting the center ofpower and the resolution of conflict away from thecriminal justice system to providing alternative"punishment experiences." The net result is that thepunishment orientation of the justice system is notchallenged and tacit approval is given to advocatesof selective incapacitation.

The reform community has not been helped in itsmission by the response of potential funding sourcesto the political climate. For a ten-year period inthe 1970s, the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration provided the major source of fundingfor alternative programs. While its major thrust wasdirected toward bolstering the criminal justicesystem itself, nevertheless it assisted somecommunity-based projects. With the demise of theLEA A in the early 1980s, the private sector waslooked toward as a more significant funding base.Unfortunately, the private sector has not generallyproved to be an important means of bringing directchallenges to the criminal justice system. Theabsence of any leading national voice that speaks onbehalf of the reform community has contributed tothe isolation of the movement.

Foundations in general have not been particularlyinterested in funding criminal justice programs.When they have shown interest, funding has tendedto be for those types of projects that hold the mostpromise of "success" and are least threatening toestablished interests. Thus, it becomes much easierto sponsor projects designed to provide alternatives

16

for the "non-dangerous" offender than to attempt topenetrate deeper into the criminal justice system inorder to work with the "difficult" cases.

Photo: The Southern lllinoisan

17

Thus we see an interesting interaction among thecriminal justice system, the media, political leaders,and reformers - all acknowledge that there exists agroup of "high-risk" offenders who can be relegatedto the bowels of the system. The worst fears ofthe public become confirmed as visions of hardenedmen who were born criminals and have no redeemingfeatures become the justification for any type ofpunishment. In this context, the concept of aMarion Prison seems almost reasonable.

18

V. Marion as the ''End of the Line"For many years, the Federal Prison at Alcatrazserved as the Bureau of Prisons most secure insti-tution and the prison to which those prisonersdeemed to be most dangerous were incarcerated.When Alcatraz closed, a replacement was sought.Marion, Illinois became the new "end of the line."

Since its opening in 1962, Marion has had a troubledhistory. Its prisoner population of about 350 hasincluded federal prisoners from all over the countryas well as a significant number of state prisonersconsidered to be "institutional problems" or "toodangerous" to be housed in their own state's insti-tutions. About one-fourth of the current prisonerpopulation consists of such state prisoners.

Within the Prison itself is an institution within aninstitution, the notorious Control Unit. This specialunit serves as the ultimate place of punishment andsensory deprivation for prisoners throughout thecountry. Within the confines of the Unit, 60prisoners are kept in a unique type of solitary con-finement. They are kept within their closed-frontcells 232 hours a day, have virtually no access torecreation or cultural activities, and generally livein the most primitive conditions. Prisoners havespent months, and sometimes years, in this isolation.The Control Unit itself has been the subject of agreat deal of litigation over the years, with prison-ers' rights attorneys assisting prisoners inchallenging the conditions of their confinement.

The means by which prisoners come to be consideredas so dangerous or threatening that they require

19

incarceration at Marion is not altogether clear.Classification is one of those issues in the penali-zation process that lends itself to a broad range ofinterpretation. Prisoners can be considereddangerous based upon the crime for which they wereconvicted, their behavior in a prison setting, theirpolitical beliefs, or their response to authority.Few penal authorities claim to have any objectivecriteria by which to make this determination. Thediversity of opinion was illustrated by a well-knowncourt decision regarding the Alabama prison system.Faced with serious overcrowding in the system, afederal court ordered a reclassification by outsidemonitors to assess the security requirements of theinmate population. Whereas prison officials hadconsidered that 34 percent of the total populationrequired maximum security, the outside group recom-mended this for only 3 percent of the population.6

In many ways, Marion Prison is merely an extensionof the system of maximum security institutions inplace in all states and of the classification processthat designates prisoners for these institutions. It isuseful to examine the functions of those institutions,particularly in terms of the criminal justice system'sown professed goals for them.

Rehabilitation - While rehabilitation is notcurrently considered a prominent penal goal, it isalmost non-existent as an issue for maximum securityinstitutions. Security is virtually the sole concernof those charged with operating these prisons.

Isolation - The public is led to believe thatprisons serve the function of isolating the dangerousoffender from the population at large. While this isgenerally true, it ignores the prevalence of

20

prisoner-on-prisoner crime and the physical and ver-bal assaults between guards and prisoners. The tra-gic deaths of the guards at Marion provide ampleevidence that increased security and repressivecontrol measures do not guarantee safety.

Punishment - Prisons do punish, and maximumsecurity prisons punish most severely. Yet whetherwe approach this issue as cost-conscious taxpayersor as humanitarians, we can clearly see the enor-mous price that punishment exacts on all involved.This can be measured in terms of lost human poten-tial, the failure to impact on crime rates, and theinefficient use of public resources.

Deterrence - As the "end of the line," Marionis supposed to serve as a deterrent. That is, it is aboth a symbol and a threat to prisoners who rebelin one way or another. The existence of Marionimplies that a prisoner's current form of punishmentcan always be made even worse. In this, Marion issymbolic of the entire justice system, whereby aseries of escalating punishments is provided in avain attempt to coerce people to behave in certainpatterns. The fact that the punishments do notincorporate a sense of the history behind the crimi-nal action or a means of reconciliation is notgenerally of concern to the system as a whole.

Perhaps the greatest indication of the failure of theMarion model is that even this severe and restric-tive an environment has not proved to be successfulin its attempted goals. Thus, the call for a returnof the federal death penalty becomes the only hopeleft for a system based on repression. Yet, as weknow only too well from decades of study, theresumption of executions will not make us or theenvironment at Marion any safer.

21

Drawing by Thomas E. Silverstein

22

VI. The Lessons of Marion and TheirImplications for New Directions

If we are to avoid seeing further tragedies such asthe 1983 killings at Marion, it is urgent that weexamine the patterns that have developed at Marionand other maximum security institutions and begin toplan for the development of alternative models. Inthis instance, it is well to heed both the voices ofthe receivers of the Marion experience - prisonerswho are or have been incarcerated there - and theadvice of others on the inside and outside of thewalls who are concerned about safer and more justenvironments for all people.

In designing alternatives to the failed Marion model,it is clear that serious, long-range planning involvinga broad cross-section of affected persons mustoccur. The Lessons of Marion provide a focus forsuch a needed examination. A few of the mostpotent Lessons are cited here, buttressed by theperspectives of men who are or have been incar-cerated at Marion. We urge that these authentic,though rarely-heard, prisoner voices be listened toseriously. Their insights should be incorporated intoany alternatives planning process, not only becausethey are borne of authentic personal experiences,but for what they tell us about the futility of arepressive institutional policy. In the long run, ourability to incorporate their ideas and experienceswill affect not only their lives, but the lives ofprisoners and staff in all maximum security institu-tions.

Lesson #1 — Repression Doesn't Work

In any prison in the world, or in any situation ofinvoluntary confinement, there exists an inevitable

tension between the keepers and the kept. Whilethis tension will never disappear, it can be exacer-bated or alleviated depending on the structure anddynamics of the particular institution. The model ofthe^jnaximum security prison has been a repressiveone. When a given amount of repression does notseem to work, the dosage is increased. Marion nowrepresents the "highest stage" of that model, andyet killings of guards and prisoners still occur evenin this most "secure" of environments. The validityof this model must be questioned.

In the words of Tom Silverstein, one of the federalprisoners responsible for the 1983 murder of one ofthe guards at Marion, and presently held in totalsolitary confinement in another federal penitentiary:

True I killed a guard, but no one has everbothered to ask why. They only slammed mein my own prison, go out of their way to makeit as tough as possible in the name of securityand justice and now what? I never thought ofkilling anything before I came to prison orH-Unit [Control Unit at Marion]. Altho I wassent to H-Unit behind a murder inLeavenworth, it has been reversed because the"rat" who said it was me later confessed helied to get a transfer to a sweeter joint so hecould escape, which he succeeded in doing. SoI entered H-Unit with a life sentence I didn'tdeserve and I am mad about it. It has been anightmare ever since.

I'd like to see a better way for all, becausemurder isn't pretty in any language or moralsense.

24

I am also an example of how prisons avoiddealing with their own backyards. Not onlyhasn't anyone ever bothered to rap with me,they don't want to deal with it so they havelocked me up indefinitely. They have turnedMarion into a concentration camp, hurtinginnocent men and their families with their so-called "get tough" policies. Which is what gotme where I am today. Not all dogs put theirtail between their legs when their masters beatthem constantly. Some eventually bite back.Men, especially innocent men going throughhell for no other reason than being subjectedto others overpowering vindictiveness andparanoia will also bite back. So how manymore bodies will fall and how many more indi-vidual "special housing units" like mine, beforethey face up to the jobs they get payed wellfor? More bars and guards are hardly theanswer, because I am a living example whatthe cage and that way of thinking causesJ

A prisoner presently incarcerated at Marion decriesthe dehumanization he has experienced at Marionand suggests a more remedial agenda for maximumsecurity settings:

What is happening here should not be allowedto exist, or be portrayed as the panacea tosociety's ills. Shorter sentences, and theincentives inherent in a program aimed at selfimprovement and rehabilitation, should be thetrend, and not the exception; with education,and not dehumanization, as the rule.

The debilitating effects of this Orwellianprogram can only result in a further departure

25

from society of those already alienated byvirtue of their incarceration and economicbackgrounds. The consequences of theseeffects would be the likes of nothing yet seenin American society.^

Another prisoner sees Marion as a "gross penological.t!error:

The Warden has overlooked the logic that untilprisons are first supervised in fairness,everyone — prisoners, activists, and prisonadministrators — sense a feeling of hope-lessness and despair as far as accomplishingany of their goals. However, the Bureau ofPrisons fails to acknowledge that the situationthat presently exists in this prison is a sign ormark left by a gross penological error andshould act as a warning to the decision makersof prisons that they must rely on soundjudgment and not their emotional feelings inmaking decisions that eventually affect manylives including their own.

The public must begin to examine whether ornot alternatives are being utilized to thefullest extent possible to bring about morehumane conditions inside the nation's prisons.One thing is for sure, the repression that isconstantly being invoked inside prisons cannotbe contained just to the inside of these walls,and will eventually overflow into the outsidesociety, and should be of concern to thepublic .̂

And finally, another prisoner points to some of thesimilarities between the keepers and the kept thatrepressive conditions appear to breed:

I am sure that most of us will agree thatsociety as a whole is largely caught up in itsown struggle to survive, with the world as itis today. But society must never lose track ofthe thought that prisons are today's ther-mometer that measures its repression tomorrow.Marion can and will only spill back out intosociety. As the slain guard's wife crys out inanguish, so does the wife and loved ones ofthe tormented convict weep their tears as theyexperience his psychological and physical tor-ture. Death and cruelty are no strangers tothose who live and work within these cages, asevery, every action delivers a reaction.

When one finds himself chained and beaten upagainst the wall, his actions and thoughtsmanifest into total madness. This is thesituation Marion finds itself in and this view isshared by both the kept and the keeper. Nodeed is too vile, as all reason and humanityceases to exist. 10

Lesson #2 — Re-examine the Concept of Max-imum Security and Explore the Possibility ofAlternative Responses.

If repressive incarceration has not proven to providesafety or a positive environment for either prisonersor staff, it is time to examine the criteria by whichindividuals are selected and designated for moresecure settings, and the principles which undergirdthe structure and oversight of such settings.

In general, we advocate utilizing the least restric-tive environment necessary to provide protection tothe public and to allow for the maximum personal

26 27

freedom and access to remedies for those incar-cerated.

Society has become conditioned to believe that forcertain groups of people who violate the law,incarceration is the natural and only properresponse. Rarely do we look behind the mediadepiction of the crime to analyze the social andpersonal events that contributed to the antisocialand illegal behavior. Rarely are the relevantquestions asked: What were the social and economicimpediments to the individual's ability to lead acrime-free life? What were the conditions of his orher early life history? Family structure? Lack ofpositive role models? Feelings of powerlessness orrejection? What is the history of this person'sexposure to the criminal justice system?

Even for those offenses considered most serious -murder, armed robbery, rape -we now know thatthere are means by which society can respond in aless repressive and more remedial manner, and in amanner which insists that the offender take respon-sibility for his or her behavior. The general outlineof these responses includes restitution by theoffender to the victim or family, providing the leastrestrictive environment necessary to insure safety tothe community, a program of assistance to theoffender that relates to his or her specific lifehistory and problems, and, where appropriate, recon-ciliation between victim and offender or the com-munity and the offender.

We hold to these principles for all persons who havecommitted crimes, no matter how serious orreprehensible. Nevertheless, it is important to pointout that not all persons incarcerated at Marion and

28

labeled "the most dangerous prisoners in the UnitedStates" have earned that title. The crimes forwhich many persons enter maximum security prisonsare not always reflective of the most serious orheinous behaviors. However, the nature of themaximum security prison system itself, with itsunsafe and dangerous environment, where the strongand powerful rule by any means necessary, paves thepath to Marion for many prisoners. In many cases,prisoners have compounded their assault records as a_result of their involvement in the "survival of thefittest" environment of the maximum securitysetting. Others have been designated as"Marion-bound" because they challenged repressivemaximum security conditions.

Within the federal prison system, all institutions arerated by security levels, ranging from a low of"one" to the most secure, Marion, at "six."Similarly, prisoners are given a security rating whichis supposed to govern the type of institution inwhich they are incarcerated. Yet, due to thenature of the classification process and the use ofinformants to informally upgrade a prisoner'ssecurity level, fully 80 percent of the prisoners atMarion have a security rating less than "six," thelevel for which the prison was designed.

Testimonies regarding the classification processappear over and over again in correspondence withMarion prisoners. One prisoner states it succinctlywhen he says: "We are not all choir boys, neitherare we gladiators or killers:"

I have been transferred from the U.S.Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania becauseof my religious beliefs and a work strike that

29

occurred when the entire inmate populationparticipated. I am serving a 10-year federalsentence. I have no history of violence whilein prisons and my security level is a"four ."...There is no reason to confine asecurity level "four" inmate in a security level"six" institution. About 40 percent of theinmate population here is a security level fouror lower. We are not all choir boys, neitherare we gladiators or killers.

In any event, the inmates that are confinedhere in Marion, are not as notorious asdescribed. They are no more notorious thanyour average maximum security prisoner, and ifthe staff would stop violating individualconstitutional rights and show the same respectas they would expect in return, that wouldsolve 99 percent of the problems. After all,we are human

Another prisoner expresses similar feelings when hewrites:

Briefly, I'd like to share with you my personalcircumstances which landed me here in Marion.I feel this will contribute to the fact that notall convicts here at Marion are, as they havebeen labeled, "The Most Dangerous" convicts.

In December 1983, I was transferred from USPLeavenworth, to here, USP Marion. Thetransfer was not a disciplinary one, but ratheran "administrative" one. Prior to being trans-ferred I was conducting myself in accordanceto all rules and regulations set at USPLeavenworth. I was also attending the com-

30

munity college program and participating inother constructive programs as well. Thereason given for the transfer was coded as a(323) close supervision. To make a long storyshort, an informant told the administration Iwas going to do him harm and on his wordalone, I was transferred here. I tried tofight the transfer through administrativeremedies but obviously, it did no good.

I am only one of many who are here for simi-lar reasons, reasons which do not justify suchcruel and inhumane treatment. 12

Other prisoners contend that the number of "themost dangerous prisoners" in the United States is notdetermined by their actual histories, but rather byhow many beds are available at Marion at any singletime — beds that must be filled up to maintainMarion's population level:

The warden is misleading the public when hestates that convicts are sent here because theycaused trouble at other prisons. That isunfounded. There are convicts here that weretransferred to Marion for the sole purpose ofincreasing the prison population. If someonewould check the files here, it would provethat. Even Michael Lane, the director of theIllinois Department of Corrections said recentlythat there is "no difference between the con-victs at Marion and those found in maximumstate institutions," yet such a prolonged lock-down of a state prison would not betolerated.1 •*

31

-

32

Lesson #3 — Prisons Cannot Be IsolatedInstitutionsWhile some correctional administrators may wish tohave the freedom to operate their institutionswithout any outside scrutiny, they do a disservice tothemselves and the community in doing so. As tax-payers, we all have the right to know how ourpublic funds are being spent. Further, when citizensare incarcerated in the name of all of us, we havea moral obligation to examine the conditions of thatconfinement and to become involved in alleviatingthe problems resulting from it.

One prisoner at Marion stresses the effects of out-side scrutiny on the conditions inside prison:

It appears that it is only public and legalscrutiny that has and is staying the hand ofgovernment abuse of prisoners. And as isinherent in legal proceedings, they will even-tually run their course and it will be solelypublic attention and action that will protectprisoners from needless state brutality - bothphysical and psychological - and protect thesociety to which they will ultimately bereleased from the negative effects of thatbrutality. Even litigation requires supportwhile it is possible; lawyers, judges, and pro-secutors are human and respond to theexpressions of their communities. And it isthey who interpret the law and decide if andhow it will be enforced.14

Though prisoners at Marion have been convicted ofviolating the laws of society and may even haveengaged in the most reprehensible of behaviors, in ademocratic society they are still entitled to humane

33

treatment and their constitutional rights. We cannotpermit any incarcerated person to experience whatMarion prisoners have endured.

34

VH. EpilogThe purpose of this paper has not been to castblame, but rather to ask questions. All too often,governments and bureaucracies are forced to takeaction only when a tragic event occurs. The historyof the prison system is replete with examples ofsuch reactions, ranging from Attica to Santa Fe andnow to Marion. Nothing that can be done now willtruly comfort the families of the guards and theprisoners who have suffered through these events.Yet if we are to prevent future tragedies fromtaking place, now is the time for action.

We are not here attempting to design either a modelprison or a model society. This is because we haveserious questions about the concept of any type of"model" prison, and because we realize that a designfor a model society does not speak to the immediateissues at Marion and other institutions. Instead, itis our hope that by raising these issues, we canstimulate a dialogue and action on the part of allthose who have a concern for the resolution ofthese difficult issues.

The approaches we are proposing need to occur on abroad scale. The criminal justice system thatoperates Marion needs to examine its ability to con-tinue to function as it has been functioning.Congress needs to exercise its oversight authorityover the Bureau of Prisons to determine if Marionand other institutions are being operated in the mosthumane way possible and to require that alternativeapproaches be employed. Above all, the publicitself needs to recognize that we are all "wardens"in some sense and that we have a responsibility togain the facts and act on this knowledge.

Notes1. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Akinshiju Ola, March 15, 1985.

2. William G. Nagel, "On Behalf of a Moratoriumon Prison Construction," Crime and Delinquency,April 1977.

3. See Scott Christiansen, "Our Black Prisons,"Crime and Delinquency, July 1981, and NationalMoratorium on Prison Construction, What Color AreAmerica's Prisons?, 1983.

4. See U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics, "Prisoners in 1983," April 1984,and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, "The 1983 Jail Census," November 1984.

5. Bruce Cory and Stephen Gettinger, Time toBuild? The Realities of Prison Construction, EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation, 1984, p. 7.

6. Stephen Gettinger, "'Objective' Classification:Catalyst for Change," Corrections Magazine, June1982, p. 34.

7. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Thomas Silverstein.

8. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Manuel Maldonado, January 15, 1985.

9. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Beaumont Gereau-Bey, January 5, 1985.

10. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Barry Mills, December 28, 1984.

36

Notes11. Letter to American Friends Service Committee,name withheld upon request, January 4, 1985.

12. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom Al Ferris, January 6, 1985.

13. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom George Bustamante, Jr., January 15, 1985.

14. Letter to American Friends Service Committeefrom William Dunne, March 4, 1985.

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEECRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMNATIONAL COMMUNITYRELATIONS DIVISION1501 Cherry StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

JUSTICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER1414 Hill StreetAnn Arbor, Michigan 48104

AFSC Regional Offices:

Southeastern RegionAtlanta, GA 3030392 Piedmont Ave. NE

Middle Atlantic RegionBaltimore, MD 21218317 E. 25th St.

New England RegionCambridge, MA 021402161 Massachusetts Ave.

Great Lakes RegionChicago, IL 60605407 S. Dearborn St.

North Central RegionDes Moines, IA 503124211 Grand Ave.

New York Metropolitan RegionNew York, NY 1000315 Rutherford Place

Pacific Southwest RegionPasadena, CA 91103980 N. Fair Oaks Ave.

Northern California RegionSan Francisco, CA 941212160 Lake St.

Pacific Northwest RegionSeattle, WA 98105814 N.E. 40th St.