U.S.: Red Onion State Prison: Super-Maximum Security Confinement in Virginia

The day I arrived I was...told that I was at Red Onion now and if I act up they would kill me and there was nothing anyone could or would do about it.

Inmate Statement to Human Rights Watch

I.          SUMMARY

The treatment of inmates at Red Onion State Prison, Virginia's first super-maximum security facility, raises serious human rights concerns.[1][1] The Virginia Department of Corrections is responsible for safely and humanely confining all its inmates, even those deemed to be violent, disruptive or to pose other security risks. Like many corrections departments across the country, Virginia's has endorsed the confinement of purportedly dangerous inmates in extremely restrictive, highly controlled facilities. Absent thoughtful leadership and careful policies, the potential for human rights abuses at such "supermax" facilities is great. At Red Onion, unfortunately, the Virginia Department of Corrections has failed to embrace basic tenets of sound correctional practice and laws protecting inmates from abusive, degrading or cruel treatment:

•           The VirginiaDepartment of Corrections (DOC) is assigning to Red Onion men who are not theincorrigibly dangerous for whom super-maximum security confinement may bewarranted. Inmates who pose no extreme security or safety risk are subjected tounnecessarily restrictive controls and are arbitrarily deprived of theactivities and freedoms available ordinarily even in maximum security prisons.In a blatant effort to fill large super-maximum security facilities whose capacityexceeds the state's needs, officials are apparently planning to dilute evenfurther the criteria for admission to Red Onion and its newly-opened twin,Wallens Ridge State Prison.

•Prison staffuse force unnecessarily, excessively, and dangerously. Inmates are fired atwith shotguns and have been injured for minor misconduct, non-threateningerrors, or just behavior that guards have misinterpreted. These inmate actionsshould-and in most other prisons would-be handled by staff without weapons.Although physical force is never justifiable as punishment, inmates at RedOnion report staff's punitive use of electric shock stun devices.

•Conditions atthe facility are unnecessarily harsh and degrading. General population inmatesare confined in their cells more than twenty hours a day. In segregation,inmates are isolated twenty-three hours a day. All are subjected to remarkablelevels of control and forced to live in oppressive and counterproductiveidleness, denied educational, behavioral, vocational and work programs andreligious services. These conditions exceed reasonable security precautions forinmates who have not engaged in chronically violent or dangerous behaviorbehind bars.

•Correctionalofficers and other prison staff threaten inmates with abuse and subject them toracist remarks, derogatory language and other demeaning and harassing conduct.Facility administrators and supervisory staff appear to condone suchunprofessional conduct.

It is politically fashionable in many places to disregardmistreatment of inmates and to assume criminals by their conduct have forfeitedall claim to public concern. Human Rights Watch (HRW) believes the public-andofficials who are its servants-should not tolerate abusive treatment ofprisoners solely because they have committed crimes against others. As oneinmate at Red Onion wrote to HRW, "I don't pretend that prisoners are saints.Most can be real idiots, but their idiocy doesn't justify abuse, physical ormental."[2][2]We agree. Inmates must be treated with respect for their dignity as humanbeings and for their fundamental rights, whatever their crimes. Soundcorrectional practice mandates such treatment, as it is essential to safe,orderly and humane prisons. But it is also required by international humanrights treaties signed by the United States and binding on state as well asfederal officials.

Even if it is politically difficult, state officials andelected representatives have a duty not to condone abusive prison conditions.The concerns raised about Red Onion warrant careful investigation and fulldisclosure. The public should be fully informed about policies and practices atRed Onion-as at any prison-and should be able to subject them to critique anddebate. Unfortunately, the DOC uses the walls of Red Onion to keep the publicout, as well as prisoners in. It routinely denies the press access to facilitystaff and provides scant information about practices and policies there.

In March it denied Human Rights Watch permission to tour RedOnion and to interview staff. The DOC claimed that security considerationsprecluded it from granting Human Rights Watch access to Red Onion. Security,however, has not prevented other state and the federal corrections departmentsfrom permitting Human Rights Watch access to their super-maximum securityfacilities. When pressed to justify his refusal, Director of Corrections RonaldAngelone simply asserted to Human Rights Watch in a telephone conversation thatpermitting us to tour Red Onion was not in the state's "best interest." Heinsisted that since Red Onion was operated consistent with state and federallaw, there was no need for scrutiny by an independent human rightsorganization. The secretary of public safety, who has authority over the DOC,never responded to our letter ofFebruary22, 1999requesting reconsiderationof Angelone's decision.

We believe Mr. Angelone interprets the state's interests toonarrowly. As detailed below, there are many aspects of the facility thatwarrant public concern. Moreover, openness to scrutiny, information-sharing andengaging in informed, constructive discussions about policies and proceduresare indispensable to continual improvement of operations in corrections as inany other public endeavor. The unwillingness to let Human Rights Watch tour RedOnion, coupled with the DOC's notorious reluctance to give the press access tothe facility and its inmates,[3][3]suggests the DOC is uncomfortable in letting the public acquire a fullerpicture of operations there.

This report reflects our attempt to give the public some ofthat fuller picture about certain aspects of conditions at Red Onion. Ourdescription is based on communication with inmates and their families,information from the DOC and from press accounts and other public sources.Unfortunately, it is incomplete and despite our best efforts may fail toreflect all conditions accurately, because the DOC has prevented us fromdirectly observing the facility and has also refused to provide some of theinformation we requested.[4][4]

II.RECOMMENDATIONS

There is great potential for misuse of authority and abusein super-maximum security facilities. Informed and principled leadership andoversight can mitigate these dangers. We call on Virginia to demonstrate itscommitment to respect international human rights in the operation of Red Onion.Specifically, we recommend:

1)Use ofForce

The governor should establish a committee of experts in theuse of force in prisons who are independent of the DOC to review use of forceat Red Onion and to make recommendations based on their findings. The reviewshould include an assessment of existing use of force policies, including theadvisability and need to have firearms within the prison perimeter; trainingreceived by staff in use of force policies; the existence of adequate guidancefor staff in appropriate use of force; and the extent to which internalinvestigation and disciplinary procedures are effective in controlling improperuse of force. The committee should also review each incident in which weaponswere discharged at Red Onion to ascertain whether the use of force wasjustified. Results of the independent review should be provided to the DOC, thegovernor and the legislature and the public.

2)Assignmentto Red Onion

The DOC should not subject inmates to more restrictiveconditions than is reasonably necessary for their safe, secure and humaneconfinement. Inmates should not be assigned to Level 6 (super-maximum securityconfinement) unless they have demonstrated that they are chronically violent orassaultive, present a serious escape risk, have demonstrated a capacity toincite disturbances or otherwise pose a serious and present danger to theorderly operation of a less secure institution. Length of sentence alone shouldnot be the basis for assignment to a Level 6 facility.

Inmates who maintain good conduct for one year (or a shorterfixed period) should be eligible for transfer to a less secure facility absentparticularized and serious security concerns. Decisions to retain inmates atRed Onion should be reviewed by central headquarters staff. If an inmate isretained at Red Onion, he should be given the reasons for that decision andtold of specific steps he can take to secure a future transfer.

3)PublicReporting

The DOC should produce annually, and make available to thepublic, a statistical analysis of inmates at Red Onion and their securityscores. For all inmates held at Red Onion who do not have the designatedsecurity score stipulated in DOC criteria for assignment to a level 6 facilityor for whom the discretionary overrides have increased their security level bymore than one level, the DOC should provide a detailed explanation of thereasons for placement at Red Onion (with inmate names withheld for privacyreasons).

4)Segregation

Specific criteria for placement in segregation at Red Onionshould be established and communicated to inmates. Decisions regardingplacement in and release from segregation should be reviewed by centraladministration staff to minimize the potential for arbitrariness and abuse andto demonstrate the seriousness of such placements. After a fixed period of goodconduct, e.g. six months, inmates should be released from administrativesegregation unless there is a specific finding, based on objective factors andfollowing a hearing, that the inmate continues to constitute a serious dangerto prison safety and security.

If inmates are segregated for their own safety, they shouldbe provided the same privileges, programs and activities as general populationinmates.

5)Programs,Privileges and Security

The DOC should carefully scrutinize policies regardingprograms and privileges and routine security procedures for inmates todetermine the extent to which the harsh regimen at Red Onion can be amelioratedwithout jeopardizing legitimate security considerations. It should implement asystem of increased programs and privileges and diminished security controlsfor inmates who maintain good behavior.

Programs should be implemented that will increase thehumaneness of confinement at Red Onion and that will promote inmates' abilityto be placed in a less restrictive facility and to adjust to prison life.Educational, vocational, behavioral, substance abuse, religious and otherprogramming should be instituted consistent with legitimate security purposes.

6)MentalHealth

The DOC should establish policies excluding from prolongedconfinement in super-maximum security facilities inmates who suffer fromserious mental illnesses. It should review the treatment of mentally illinmates at Red Onion and take necessary steps to ensure they are providedadequate care and that all inmates receive the mental health screening andmonitoring that is appropriate in extended control facilities.

7)StaffIssues

Red Onion staff should be trained in and continuallyreminded of the importance of proper, respectful treatment of inmates. Abusiveconduct and displays of racism by staff, including derogatory remarks, shouldnot be tolerated.

8)PublicAccess

Red Onion should be as accessible to the public as securitypermits. Policies should be established to grant the press, independent citizengroups and other members of the public ready access to Red Onion's warden todiscuss conditions at the facility and should facilitate their ability toquickly secure interviews with inmates. Documents reflecting conditions at RedOnion should be readily available to the public, even if disclosure is notrequired under Virginia law. Information should be withheld only if its releasewould jeopardize security and with names deleted to protect privacy interests.

III.RED ONIONSTATE PRISON: BACKGROUND

In the mid-1990s, as part of a massive prison buildingeffort launched by then-Governor George Allen, the DOC decided to construct two1,200-bed facilities to house the state's most dangerous criminals, inmates whorequire extraordinary security measures. The first of the two identicalsuper-maximum security facilities to come on line, Red Onion State Prison,located in remote Wise County, began accepting inmates in August 1998 andcurrently holds approximately 1,000.[5][5]Ceremonies to inaugurate its twin, Wallens Ridge State Prison in Big Stone Gap,were held on April 9, 1999. Both facilities are Level 6, the most secure in theDOC's prison system. Little information was ever provided to the public tosubstantiate the projected existence of 2,400 chronically dangerous inmates inVirginia. The idea of supermax prisons was appealing-or at least tacitlyunquestioned-in a "tough on crime" political climate in which parole was abolishedand sentences lengthened.

In constructing Red Onion and Wallens Ridge, Virginiaparticipated in a national trend. Across the country, corrections departmentshave chosen to create special super-maximum security facilities for theconfinement of dangerous or disruptive prisoners.

Traditional prisons have had cells or units in which inmateswho were repeat or very serious violators of critical institutional rules couldbe isolated and segregated from the general population. An inmate might besegregated either as punishment following a disciplinary hearing (disciplinarysegregation, in Virginia called isolation)or segregated administratively as a management measure for an indefinite perioduntil authorities believed he could be safely returned to general population(administrative segregation). Although administrative segregation ostensibly isnot a punitive measure, conditions have been almost invariably as harsh andrestrictive as in disciplinary segregation.

Nowadays, segregation of inmates who engage in assaultive,dangerous, disruptive or escape-related or predatory behavior behind barsincreasingly takes place in super-maximum security facilities, of which thereare thirty-six in the U.S., including two in Virginia. Assignment to theseuniquely restrictive facilities is ordinarily not based on the inmate'sunderlying offense but on his conduct behind bars. Although conditions andpolicies vary somewhat from facility to facility, their common characteristicsare extreme social isolation, reduced environmental stimulation, scantrecreational, vocational, or educational opportunities and extraordinary levelsof surveillance and control.

Proliferation of these "supermax" prisons reflects in partthe belief of some corrections professionals that they are necessary to preventserious misconduct by the "worst of the worst" in their inmate population andthat concentrating dangerous inmates away from the rest of the prisonpopulation makes it possible to provide safer, more secure facilitieselsewhere.

But supermax prisons also play a symbolic role. Their highlyrestrictive nature is appealing in a conservative climate in which retributionis the principal response to crime. Unfortunately, this attitude can make iteasy to uncritically embrace harsh conditions and policies that are in fact notjustified by legitimate security needs or other penological purposes. Itencourages or condones supermax placement of inmates who do not in fact requiresuch restrictive controls for their proper management. It also can promote anindifference or blind eye to abusive conduct and a failure to adequatelysupervise staff and hold them accountable for abuse.

There is considerable debate even within the correctionsprofession over the cost, cost-benefit, operating and ethical/moral issuesraised by super-maximum security confinement. The constitutionality of supermaxisolation and other extreme restrictions remains unclear.[6][6]Super-maximum security confinement also raises important human rightsquestions.[7][7]Governments must respect the inherent dignity and basic rights of all people,including inmates. The United States has ratified international human rightstreaties that are binding on state as well as federal officials. Thesetreaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT), prohibit the abuse ofprisoners, including treatment that constitutes torture or is cruel, inhuman ordegrading. Additional international documents, including the United NationsStandard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Standard Minimum Rules),provide authoritative guidance on how governments may comply with their humanrights obligations with regard to prisoners. While super-maximum securityconfinement does not automatically violate protected human rights, it can ifconditions are unnecessarily harsh, if prisoners are unnecessarily subjected tothem, or if periods of solitary confinement are unduly long. Deprivations thatare disproportionate to reasonable correctional goals are inconsistent with thefundamental touchstone of all human rights-respect for the inherent dignity ofall human beings. Physical abuse-e.g. corporal punishment in the form ofbeatings or unjustified violence-is prohibited in a supermax as in any prison.

IV.A DAY IN THELIFE: BASIC CONDITIONS AT RED ONION

Red Onion houses inmates in both "general population" andsegregation.[8][8]Regardless of which category an inmate is in, he spends most of the day in asmall cell: general population inmates spend about 140 out of 168 hours in aweek confined to their cells; segregation inmates spend 162½ hours so confined.Inmates in general population are held two to a cell.[9][9]Insegregation they are single-celled.

The cells at Red Onion contain steel slabs with a thin mattressfor a bed; a steel desk and shelf and a toilet/sink combination. They havesolid metal doors with tray slots for passing food and handcuffing inmates anda piece of glass for viewing. The cells are configured so that inmates cannotsee each other from their cells. Communication of sorts is possible by yelling.Each cell has a single narrow window that cannot be opened but which allowssome natural light to enter. Windows facing the parking lots of the facilityhave been treated so inmates cannot see out. Inmates cannot regulate the lightsin their cells. The lights shine sixteen hours a day. At night, they arereduced to a dim glow that is, according to inmates, bright enough to read by.The two inmates in each cell in general population share one electrical outlet.

Guards armed with shotguns are stationed inside theperimeter of the prison. There are gunports overlooking the recreation yard andin the housing units. Virginia's use of firearms is atypical: most states rely"on higher numbers of staff as their primary means of physical control,supplemented by a variety of nonlethal weapons."[10][10]

General Population

Conditions for general population inmates at Red Onion areremarkably harsh and restrictive, far more so than at maximum securityfacilities. Inmates are stringently limited in their movement, socialinteraction, access to programs and ability to make ordinary day-to-daychoices. Certain aspects of Red Onion are, however, an improvement oversupermax prisons elsewhere: inmates are allowed recreation in limited groupsand also to eat together.

General population inmates are locked in the cramped cellstwenty hours or more a day with another person. Double-celling exacerbates thestrain of living in confinement most of the day and increases tension betweeninmates. Inmates find it difficult to spend most of their waking (and sleeping)hours in close quarters with a stranger.[11][11]Thelack of privacy is unrelenting. The men find it humiliating to use the toiletin the presence of another person.[12][12]Double-celling is also inconsistent with the premise that inmates at Red Onionare so dangerous or violent that they cannot be safely confined elsewhere. Ifthey are dangerous, how can it be safe to confine them in a small cell withanother person? We do not know if DOC officials screen inmates placed in doublecells to reduce the potential for conflict and violence.

Inmates in general population are allowed out of theircells, one housing "pod" at a time, to eat in the mess hall. They are alsoallowed outside their cells in limited groups for one hour of outsiderecreation in a bare yard with a basketball hoop and one hour of indoorrecreation daily. There is little or no athletic or sports equipment. Therecreation yard is supervised by officers armed with shotguns. Inmates are alsoallowed to leave their cells three times a week for ten-minute showers. Theshowers do not have curtains or doors; inmates are thus forced to involuntarilyexpose their genitals to female staff as well as other men when they shower.

Maintaining contact with families is extremely difficult forprisoners at Red Onion. They are allowed two fifteen-minute callsper month ifthe privilege has not been removed because of misconduct. Telephone calls mustbe collect and are expensive, posing a financial burden for the mostlylow-income families of inmates. Prisoners are allowed four two-hour non-contactvisits per month. The amount of visiting time is particularly meager given thatmost inmates at Red Onion come from areas that are hours away.[13][13]Inmates and their families visit in a small cubicle with a solid glasspartition between them; conversation is through an intercom phone. Duringvisits inmates are in leg shackles and waist chain, with one hand free.

Personal property is extremely limited, and only smallquantities of reading material are permitted in the cells. Publications arepermitted only with prior approval and only if purchased from an inmate'sprison account. A family, for example, cannot give their son a subscription toTimemagazine. Prison rejection ofreading material is hard to fathom. One inmate has been deniedPlowsharesnewsletter, a Catholicdevotional bookletLiving Faith,andan alternative newspaper, theNew RiverFree Press. Incoming letters can be of any length, but there is a maximumof ten pages allowed for photocopied enclosures, which restricts an inmate'sability to receive information and maintain contact with the outside world.[14][14]

Inmates at Red Onion are denied the group and individualprograms and activities available in most prisons, even though the DOC'spolicies acknowledge the importance of programming at all facilities. AccordingtoDivision of Institutions OperatingProcedure (DOP) 832, programming at Red Onion should "promote inmates'appropriate in-prison behaviors and coping skills and identify theirinappropriate maladaptive behaviors. Programming may have the result of helpinginmates develop positive, stable behavior records for eventual transition to alower level facility."[15][15]Thepolicy identifies appropriate programming to include anger management,substance abuse, wellness, behavior management, impulse control, and basicacademic programming. Seven months after Red Onion opened, most inmates' daysare marked by forced idleness. The DOC told HRW in March that they were workingon developing programs.

Currently, the only educational program available to inmatesare GED (high school equivalency) courses over the television. There are nogroup religious services or activities. Religious programs are also, apparently,limited to some television tapes.[16][16]There are no vocational or skill training programs. Indeed, the physical plantof the facility contains no space for classrooms or workshops. Jobopportunities are few, e.g., kitchen duty, sweeping housing units, cleaningshowers. After seven months, the library is not yet operating.

Red Onion may lack programs because Director of CorrectionsRon Angelone is dismissive of rehabilitation: "What are they going to berehabilitated for? To die gracefully in prison?"[17][17]Suchcomments may please part of the political spectrum, but they ignore severalrealities. Many Red Onion inmates will not be dying in prison. According to theWashington Post, one in five are scheduled for release in the next ten years.[18][18]Rehabilitation programs serve the DOC's mission of promoting safe and orderlyprisons. And, finally, rehabilitation is mandated by respect for thefundamental dignity of each inmate-whatever his crime.[19][19]

Segregation

Segregation is the modern form of solitary confinement;segregated inmates are almost completely deprived of the commonplace incidentsand routines of prison life. In theory, administrative segregation is not apunitive measure. In practice, it can only be described as punishing. The morethan 200[20][20]segregated inmates at Red Onion live in conditions designed to impose long-termsocial isolation and restricted environmental stimulation. Their world isaustere, cramped and claustrophobic. Security procedures imposed on all inmatesin segregation exceed those reasonably necessary for safety; their real purposemay be simply to intimidate and degrade. Prisoners' minimal physicalrequirements-food, shelter, clothing, warmth-are met, but little more. Thefacility offers nothing but bleak isolation to encourage or enable an inmate toreturn to general population or to enhance his ability to live peaceably oncehe has.

With minor exceptions, all of a segregated prisoner's wakinghours are circumscribed within the four walls of his cell. He is fed in hiscell, the food brought on a tray that is pushed through the door slot. He isallowed to leave his cell to shower three times a week. And he is permitted onehour of out-of-cell recreation five days a week. All the recreation is outside,rain or shine. Inmates are not provided with (or allowed to use their own)gloves or hats in cold weather nor to come inside early if the weather turnsbad while they are out. The recreation yard is surrounded by two-story-highconcrete walls and covered with a chain link grate. In an important departurefrom the practice at many super-maximum security facilities, at Red Onionsegregated inmates are allowed to spend recreation period together three at atime. This interrupts the otherwise unrelenting isolation. Inmates insegregation are also allowed to leave their cells for visits.

Every time an inmate in segregation leaves his cell he issubjected to extreme security measures. First he must strip, permit a visualsearch of his body (opening his mouth, lifting his genitals, bending over andspreading his buttocks), and hand his uniform out the food slot to be checked.After dressing, he backs up to the door, extends his hands through the cuffslot and is cuffed. Shacklesare then placed on his legs, and a lead isattached. Two officers then escort the inmate to recreation, the shower orwherever he is being taken, one holding the lead and one holding an electronicstun device (an Ultron II) against the inmate's body. The cuffs and shacklesare removed for recreation and showers and then replaced to return the inmateto his cell. These extensive security measures are taken even for inmates withno records of violence and, apparently, will be utilized for however long aninmate is kept in segregation, regardless of his good conduct.[21][21]

Nurses employed by a private contractor make rounds insegregation every day, speaking with inmates through the cell doors todetermine if medical attention is needed. A visit with a doctor cannot bescheduled unless the nurse decides it is necessary. If a doctor visit isscheduled, the doctor comes to the cell. After a routine search and restraintsprocedure on the inmate the doctor conducts the examination. At no time are therestraints removed, and the examination is conducted in the presence of guards,precluding any privacy.

The social isolation, the absence of stimulation, thatsegregated inmates at Red Onion experience is profound. For all but five hoursa week they are cut off from all other inmates, unable to see anyone other thanstaff who bring them their food or provide escort service or the fleetingperiodic visits of medical staff or other prison personnel. There are noprograms or activities other than the GED course or religious tapes ontelevision. Inmates who are literate can read- if they can obtain books (thereis no functioning library yet at the facility). They can write letters. If theyare able to afford it, they may purchase a 5"(no bigger) television-whichcan be taken away for misconduct-and a radio. Their visits are restricted toone visit per week for one hour.

In many super-maximum security facilities across thecountry, segregated inmates are able to acquire additional privileges andfreedoms through periods of good behavior or by completing program requirements(e.g., anger management or substance abuse courses). No such system exists atRed Onion. Inmates who maintain perfectly clear conduct records at Red Onionare subject to the same harsh regime as those who continue to violatedisciplinary rules.

Social isolation and confinement in a small space can bephysically and mentally dangerous and destructive to the persons subjected toit, particularly if endured for protracted periods.[22][22]Even persons who are mentally healthy can be damaged or incapacitated insegregation and can lose their ability to function in ordinary settings, togovern their behavior and make positive choices, and to interact with otherpeople. Prolonged confinement in isolation can also provoke symptoms usuallyassociated with psychosis or severe disorders- including perceptual distortionsand hallucinations, delusional states, hypersensitivity to external stimuli,difficulties with thinking, and panic attacks. Such symptoms can be provoked inhealthy personalities, but prisoners who enter segregation with preexistingpsychiatric disorders are at even higher risk of suffering psychologicaldeterioration and psychiatric harm. The periods of recreation with otherinmates undoubtedly offset the harm somewhat, but to an unknown extent.

Mentally Ill Inmates

Mentally ill inmates should not be confined for prolongedperiods in super-maximum security conditions, particularly those that exist insegregation at Red Onion. The conditions of isolation, enforced idleness,surveillance and control pose serious risks of aggravating their symptoms andprecipitating psychiatric decompensation.[23][23]"Although some mentally ill offenders are assaultive and require controlmeasures, much of the regime common to extended control facilities may beunnecessary, and even counterproductive, for this population," according to theNational Institute of Corrections.[24][24]

Inmates with serious mental illness are nonetheless sent toRed Onion and are housed both in general population and segregation.[25][25]Due to the DOC's non-cooperation we do not have reliable figures on the numberof mentally ill inmates at the facility. One inmate told us that in his pod oftwenty-two men, three were on psychotropic medication, and he thought at leasttwo more acted in ways that, as a lay person, seemed to him to indicate mentalhealth problems.

Proper mental health screening and monitoring are crucialfor inmates sent to supermax confinement.[26][26]Itis our understanding, however, that no special mental health evaluations areundertaken for each inmate sent to Red Onion. Nor, apparently, is theremonitoring that would permit the prompt identification of new or exacerbatedmental health problems and timely intervention.

Treatment of mental illness at Red Onion consists primarilyof psychotropic medications. Once a week a psychologist checks in on inmatesreceiving medication. Privacy and confidentiality are nonexistent: theconversation take place at the cell front, with guards and other inmateslistening. The visits are generally fleeting, consisting of a question "How areyou doing, any problems?", and then the psychologist is on to the next cell.For inmates in segregation there is no therapy other than medication. Althoughplacement in segregation is for an indefinite period and can last for years,mental health personnel have told inmates that because "this is a behavioralcontrol unit, there is no mental health treatment here."

V.ADMISSION ANDRELEASE

Physical conditions and policies at Red Onion wereostensibly designed with "superpredators" in mind- violent, incorrigibleinmates who cannot be safely confined in less secure facilities. Yet it appearsthat the DOC has diluted the concept of who requires assignment to Red Onion.The DOC is in fact willing to send men there who could and should be housed inless restrictive environments. Every indication is that this trend willaccelerate now that the state is also trying to fill Wallens Ridge. GovernorJames Gilmore stated on April 9, 1999 that felons caught with guns who qualifyfor a five-year mandatory sentence would be eligible for incarceration in RedOnion or Wallens Ridge. Public officials in Virginia thus appear to beadjusting supermax housing criteria not to reflect genuine security andmanagement needs but simply to fill what would otherwise be half empty-but veryexpensive-facilities.

A basic premise of contemporary corrections is that everyprisoner should be housed in the lowest security and custody level suitable foradequate supervision and the protection of staff, other inmates and thecommunity. Indeed, the DOC operating procedures provide that "no inmate will bemaintained in a more secure status than that which his behavior, risk potentialand treatment needs indicate."[27][27]Ensuring that inmates are not subjected to restrictions that are not reasonablynecessary for safety or security is cost-efficient and consistent with commonsense and legitimate correctional objectives. It is counterproductive to usesupermax facilities for " inmates for whom lesser levels of control may besatisfactory [when to do so] may deprive them of freedoms, education,treatment, and work opportunities from which they could reap significantbenefits and which may subject them to pressures detrimental to their physicaland psychological health."[28][28]

Avoiding the unnecessary use of supermax confinement is alsodictated by fundamental human rights principles. As stated in the StandardMinimum Rules, prisons should be operated with "no more restriction than isnecessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life."[29][29]To subject inmates to extremely harsh conditions depriving them of freedoms andprivileges ordinarily available in prison without adequate justificationconstitutes treatment that violates the basic dignity of inmates and theirright to be free of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. We do not considerthe DOC's desire to fill expensive prisons a sufficient justification forsending men to Red Onion (or Wallens Ridge, for that matter) if they do nototherwise require stringent controls.

The DOC instituted a new six-tiered classification system inNovember 1998 and is currently reclassifying inmates under the new system.[30][30]Level 6 facilities-Red Onion and Wallens Ridge-are the most restrictive andsecure. Inmate custody levels are determined through a scoring system thatassigns points for such factors as history of institutional violence, severityof current commitment offense, escape history, length of time remaining toserve, and age, among others. According to the new classification procedures,assignment to Red Onion requires a score of thirty-four points or more. Adiscretionary override for certain factors is permissible that would increase(or decrease) the security level. (According to classification experts,discretionary overrides should only increase/decrease a security level by one class.)According to the DOC's Institutional Assignment Criteria, the profile of aninmate classified for a Level 6 facility is "disruptive, assaultive; severebehavior problems; predatory-type behavior; escape risks."[31][31]

Once an inmate has been sent to Red Onion he can be confinedthere indefinitely. DOC classification criteria provide that inmates mustmaintain at least twenty-four months with "no disruptive behavior" prior toconsideration for a transfer to a less secure facility.[32][32]There is no guarantee, however, that even maintaining clear conduct will enablean inmate to be reclassified to a lower security level facility and to betransferred from Red Onion. The decision is at the discretion of the warden.

The DOC has not publicly released information on thestatistical profile of the men who have been sent to Red Onion. We have notseen, for example, any summary of the classification results or other data onthe institutional history and security and custody requirements of Red Onion'sinmates. The DOC has stated that approximately 50 percent are there because oftheir behavior. We do not know whether those inmates have in fact accumulatedthe thirty-four points required in the classification system or havedemonstrated that behind bars they are chronically violent or assaultive orotherwise severely threatening to the orderly operation of less secureinstitutions.[33][33]The DOC has not indicated, for example, how many have assaulted staff orinmates.

Several dozen men were sent to Red Onion when the facilityopened to serve as a work "cadre" providing inmate labor. Although theseinmates did not require Level 6 security, they have nevertheless been subjectedto the same restrictions as all other inmates at Red Onion, and they do nothave the privileges, freedoms, activities and freedom of movement they had attheir previous facilities. The DOC told Human Rights Watch that it did not havea definite timetable for removing these men from Red Onion and returning themto more appropriate facilities, although this could possibly occur in the nextfew months.[34][34]

Based on Mr. Angelone's comments as reported in the press,it appears that about half the population at Red Onion has been sent theresimply on the basis of a lengthy (eighty-five or more years) sentence. Weunderstand that men who enter the custody of the DOC with lengthy sentences arebeing sent directly to Red Onion from the receiving facility regardless oftheir security score.[35][35]Weconsider this practice indefensible, particularly in a state in which lengthysentences are commonplace.

Mr. Angelone has stated, "[F]or such an inmate you don'tneed to find out if his behavior is good or bad."[36][36]This view is not shared by most of his profession. Indeed, correctionsprofessionals know that many-perhaps most-inmates who have been sentenced tolong prison terms even for violent crimes are not management problems. (Indeed,most inmates in prison systems are well-behaved; they want to do their time andget on with their lives.) The usual practice in many jurisdictions is to placeinmates in the general population of maximum security facilities if they havebeen convicted, for example, of murder and have life sentences. They are thenreclassified after a year or so, and depending on their behavior may betransferred to less restrictive facilities.

The decision to use length of sentence as a basis forassignment to Red Onion is particularly difficult to justify in the case ofinmates who were already behind bars before Red Onion opened and who havedemonstrated by their actual behavior that they are not violent or difficultinmates requiring the extensive controls of a supermax. Yet we have receivedvarious complaints from inmates in just this situation. One inmate with a lifesentence, for example, had spent six infraction-free years in prison only to betransferred to Red Onion. One inmate told HRW that he was sent to Red Onioneven though he had a classification score of eighteen and had gone yearswithout any infractions. Another said he had been behind bars for twenty years ona life sentence and had no record of violent conduct, yet he too was sent toRed Onion. Another inmate told HRW he was sent to Red Onion even though he hadan "impeccable" institutional record. When he asked DOC personnel why he hadbeen transferred "they merely told me because of the length of my sentence(life plus fifty years) and also because I was an ‘in-fill' inmate. In otherwords, they did not have enough assaultive disruptive inmates in the prisonsystem to fill Red Onion. They have lied to the public about the need for theseprisons in Virginia."

That Virginia does not have enough inmates who havedisplayed dangerous conduct to fill Red Onion and Wallens Ridge should come asno surprise. Virginia has never had a particularly violent inmate population.In fiscal year 1997, the DOC had only 72 assaults on staff and 86 on inmatesout of a total prison population of 28,034.[37][37]Thetotal beds at Red Onion and Wallens Ridge constitute 6 to 8 percent ofVirginia's projected prison population.[38][38]Weare not aware of any DOC analysis that indicated such a high percentage of thestate prison population could reasonably be expected to need super-maximumsecurity confinement. On January 1, 1997, for example, Virginia had 852 inmatesin administrative segregation, or 3.5 percent of its total prison population.[39][39]

Before Red Onion opened, the DOC retained a national expertin classification systems, James Austin, to undertake a classification reviewof its prison population. The study analyzed such factors as history ofinstitutional violence, severity of current and prior offenses, escape history,and institutional disciplinary records.[40][40]Thestudy showed that while a relatively large number of Virginia inmates have beenconvicted of crimes that earn long sentences (in large part because of theabolition of parole), few engage in institutional violence or escapes.According to Mr. Austin, "Virginia does not have a prison population with highlevels of assaultive behavior. It is the length of sentences that gives Virginiaits high proportion of maximum security inmates."[41][41]Austin's analysis showed that only .9 percent of male inmates who had been inprison a year or longer had prison histories of assault and battery with aweapon; only .7 percent had escape histories. Only 1.6 percent would bereclassified to maximum security because of institutional misconduct (asopposed to other factors such as severity of commitment offense).

VI.THE USE OFSEGREGATION

Traditionally, segregation has been a punitive measureimposed for a set period of time, after a disciplinary hearing, as punishmentfor misconduct. In Virginia, as in all other states, authorities areincreasingly utilizing indefinite "administrative" segregation as a custodialmanagement tool. Whether in disciplinary or administrative segregation, theconditions for inmates are the essentially the same. Administrativesegregation, however, provides prison administrators with much greaterflexibility, and decisions to impose it are subject to little scrutiny from thecourts.

Because of the potential for abuse and the hardship oninmates, it is essential that careful standards and safeguards for the use ofadministrative segregation be developed and applied. The DOC's segregationpolicy does not enumerate clear criteria. It gives wide latitude to facilityadministrators to determine whom they choose to place in segregation, statingmerely: "Examples of inmates assigned to segregation ordinarily include inmatespresenting chronic behavior problems or those who present a serious threat tothemselves or to others. They may be severe escape risks or seriouslyaggressive individuals."[42][42]Thisstatement would permit, for example, the placement in segregation of mentallyill inmates as well as nuisance inmates who are nonviolent but who repeatedlyviolate minor rules. It is our understanding that placement in segregation atanother facility does not automatically mean placement in segregation upontransfer to Red Onion. Similarly, prior placement in general population is nota guarantee that transfer to Red Onion will be to general population there. Thedecision about whether an inmate is placed in segregation is made at theinstitution.

The DOC has not made public any information on the profileof inmates in segregation at Red Onion. We are aware of at least one inmate whodoes not meet reasonable criteria for being confined in prolonged socialisolation with extreme security controls. Although a due process hearing issupposed to be held prior to assignment to segregation-and inmates mayapparently grieve segregation decisions-the lack of any clear criteria precludesuccessful inmate challenges.

Segregation in Virginia is indefinite. DOC policies provideno guidance on permissible length of time in segregation. Inmates do not knowwhat, if anything, they can do to secure their release to general population.While the DOC's operating procedure mandates periodic reviews of an inmate'splacement in segregation, it does not specify criteria for guiding theinstitution's decision-making process. Nor does it affirm the goal of safelytransferring inmates to lesser custody as soon as feasible.

During the first sixty days of confinement in segregation atRed Onion, an inmate is reviewed once a week by the treatment programsupervisor who acts as the Institutional Classification Authority (ICA). Afterthat the review is every thirty days. In practice, the "review" consists of abrief meeting at the cell door. The ICA makes a recommendation to the warden,who has final decision over whether an inmate will be released to generalpopulation. Inmates assert that they are not told and do not know what -- ifanything -- they can do to hasten release from segregation. Inmates in theorycan appeal the decision through the grievance procedure, but such grievances gonowhere.

Ordinarily, prison inmates prefer general population tosegregation. At Red Onion, however, inmates find it a close call. Inmates ingeneral population are double-celled, the amount of out-of-cell time in generalpopulation is not that much greater than for segregation, and in generalpopulation inmates are exposed to "trigger happy" guards. As one inmate wroteto Human Rights Watch, "Frankly, in many ways, it is safer to be in thesegregation unit than in the so-called general population. Inmate on inmateviolence virtually does not exist [at Red Onion]. Inmate on guard violencevirtually does not exist here. Guard on inmate violence is high."

VII.STAFF-PRISONERRELATIONS

Conditions in super-maximum security prisons tend to fosterunusually hostile relations between prisoners and guards. The simple fact thatprisoners have been labeled the "worst of the worst" and are subject to extremecontrols and have minimal and highly structured interaction with staffencourages correctional officers to view them in a dehumanizing way and totreat them more harshly.

The quality of staff in a super-maximum security facilityis, therefore, "the single most important factor in ensuring safe, secure, andhumane operations."[43][43]Inaddition to personal qualities, it is important that the facility have adiverse workforce with an appropriate racial, ethnic and gender balance."Racial and ethnic balance is critical in the minimization of anger, creationof perceptions of fairness, providing equity in interpersonal dialogue withunder-represented inmate groups in the population, and maintaining culturalsensitivity."[44][44]

The preponderance of inmates at Red Onion are black, and thestaff is almost entirely white, drawn from the rural coal-mining area in whichthe prison is located. Many of the staff have family or community ties witheach other. They have had little or no direct contact with blacks beforebeginning work at Red Onion.

We do not know what selection process or special trainingthe DOC has provided staff at Red Onion. Inmates assert that many of the staffare respectful and professional. But they also describe some officers asdetermined to show "they can be badder than we are." These officers are quickto use derogatory terms and slurs, quick to use force, quick to impose theirauthority unnecessarily and capriciously. One inmate described to HRW therelations between staff and inmates as follows: "The guards are young-for themost part-and possess the mentality of juveniles-as do most of theprisoners-and they are into the macho mentality-as are most of the prisoners.The two do not mix well."

Tensions and misunderstandings perhaps inevitably arise froma clash of cultures in which both black prisoners and white staff holdmisconceptions and believe in caricatures about the other. But in a well-runfacility with appropriate staff selection, training and supervision, thosetensions can be minimized and kept from escalating into provocation,confrontations and violence. Unfortunately, white and black inmates alike atRed Onion describe an atmosphere of pervasive and blatant racism. Inmates claimthat officers routinely use such terms as "boy" and "nigger". One white inmatetold HRW that an officer said to him, with reference to a black inmate with areputation for sexual misbehavior, "What do you expect from a fucking nigger?"Another white inmate wrote to HRW that he had talked with an officer escortinghim about a shooting. He described the officer as "so excited about being ableto shoot ‘niggers...'[H]e couldn't wait to shoot some of them black bastards."A black inmate wrote HRW the following:

One night...this sergeant on the mid-night shift knocks onmy door. He stated that he had found my baby picture, and being that I waslocked-up [in segregation unit] and my personal property was badly handled Iasked for it. What he revealed was a computer like print out of a doctorholding a black male child by the feet with a very large penis.

Another black inmate wrote to a family member:

The treatment of brothers is inhuman and words alone cannotexplain it. Imagine, if you can, creating an atmosphere of so-called criminals(mostly black) who is considered less than human, who has no outside support tohear his cry. Place him in an environment where he is governed by staff (allwhites) whose only contact of blacks has been though media propaganda etc.

A third black inmate describes staff-inmate relations asfollows:

White guards constantly try to provoke black prisoners intophysical altercations by calling them boys, hollering at them to get theirattention, pointing the gun at their backs, threatening them. These guards haveshot more black prisoners, more warning shots for the least little actions byblack prisoners....

VIII.USE OF FORCE

Inmates learn the role use of force plays in the managementof Red Onion as soon as they arrive:

When I was taken out of the transport van I had two stunguns placed against my body and was told that if I didn't do what I was told, Iwould be shot from one of the gun posts located throughout Red Onion. I wastold by [a lieutenant], "We will kill you here, so don't mess up."

To date, nobody has been killed at Red Onion. But Red Onionis a facility that appears to be managed by reliance on the continual threatand actual use of physical force, including firearms, electronic stun devices,chemical sprays and restraints. From the information available to us, it seemsthat physical force is used unnecessarily and excessively at Red Onion. Inmatesclaim that they are shot at, shocked with electronic stun devices, beaten, andstrapped down for trivial nonviolent actions, e.g., moving slowly on the yard,yelling in the cells, refusing to return a paper cup. Instances of use of forceat Red Onion do not appear to reflect a realistic evaluation of the actual needfor a particular level of force. One inmate described to Human Rights Watch theprevailing ethos at Red Onion in the following terms: "You will do as you aretold, when you are told, how you are told, forever as long as you are told oryou will be shocked, shot, beaten or otherwise maimed, injured or killed, doyou understand, Boy?"

Some of these use of force incidents occur under the pretextof addressing legitimate security concerns but appear, in fact, to becalculated efforts to punish or deter misconduct-neither of which is apermissible reason for using force.[45][45]Similarly, we have been told of instances in which an application of force isinitiated for legitimate reasons but then escalates to a level that is out ofproportion to the objective risks presented by the inmate.[46][46]

The use of physical force to control prisoners is aninevitable part of prison administration. Sound and widely accepted correctionsprinciples sanctioned by law, however, mandate that force be used only whennecessary, and only to the degree necessary, to bring an inmate or inmatesunder control or to restore order to a facility.[47][47]Thegoal should be to minimize harm to inmates and staff by using the least amountof force that will be effective. Lethal force, in particularly, should not beused except as a last resort, when less life-threatening alternatives do not orcannot be expected to succeed and when there is an immediate threat of death orgreat bodily injury or dangerous escape.

A well-run prison with adequate numbers of trained andproperly supervised staff and adequate policies should not have to resort tophysical force as frequently as appears to be the case at Red Onion. The DOChas not released the number and kinds of use of force incidents that have occurredat Red Onion since it opened. It also refused to provide Human Rights Watchwith a copy of its use of force policies. We thus do not know whether staff atRed Onion are following or ignoring DOC policies when they use force as theprimary means of addressing inmate misconduct. Statements by DOC spokesmensuggest the DOC believes that at Red Onion breaking the rules-any rule-issufficient justification for use of force, including use of firearms.[48][48]Such a discredited philosophy has no place in modern corrections.

Firearms

Most states prohibit firearms within prison facilities, even within super-maximum security prisons. As one noted corrections expert has stated, "While firearms are appropriate and necessary in the perimeter towers to deter escape, firearms are neither appropriate nor necessary within the prison yard, and are especially inappropriate within...housing units...[T]he use of firearms within prison walls increases, rather than decreases, the risk of serious injury or death to both inmates and staff...."[49][49] Mainstream American corrections has rejected the use of firearms within prison walls because they are almost always unnecessary-staff rarely need firearms to restore order, even when confronting prisoners who are fighting. It is also extremely difficult to shoot accurately at moving inmates, particularly under intense or traumatic circumstances.

Virginia is one of three states in the nation in which firearms are routinely carried or deployed within the prison perimeter.[50][50] At Red Onion, officers carry shotguns in the control rooms within the housing units and in gunports overlooking the recreation yard. The first shot is supposed to be a warning shot and is a blank. Live rounds are then utilized. Red Onion officers fire rubber pellet "stingers," rounds which are considered non-lethal although they can inflict injury, particularly if fired at close range or to the head. Inmates have claimed-but we have not been able to confirm-that the officers are also equipped with No. 8 birdshot.[51][51] Shotguns firing birdshot are considered lethal weapons, even though birdshot is typically only lethal if fired at close range.

According to the press, Red Onion officers fired their weapons 63 times in the nine months since the facility opened.[52][52] Ten inmates have been injured. As of December, the rate of gunfire was five times that of the rest of the state's prisons combined.[53][53] The DOC claims most of the shots were warning shots. Reports from inmates and family members indicate that the level of gunfire may have slowed down after widespread negative publicity in December 1998[54][54] but that the frequency has picked up again. In March there were several incidents in which weapons were fired.

Anytime a firearm is discharged in the direction of a human being the potential for injury or death is unleashed. Because of the danger, use of force policies normally require that all reasonable means of apprehension and control should be exhausted before even "non-lethal" weapons are discharged. At Red Onion, however, officers discharge weapons in fairly routine non-threatening situations. The use of force policy appears to be: if an inmate disobeys an order, a warning shot is fired. If the inmate continues to disobey, the inmate is fired at.

Inmates believe they may be shot for talking over the wall that separates one recreation yard from another, for crossing the red line that is used to mark areas of permissible inmate presence, for leaning against a wall, for not moving quickly enough.[55][55] Whether true or not, this belief is fostered by staff. An attorney who visited a client at Red Onion recounted the following to Human Rights Watch : "When I was being escorted through the yard, the counselor noted some red lines painted on the concrete and told me that, if any inmate crosses a red line, he is shot. She said that as matter of factly as it she were telling me that they have lunch at noon."

The DOC has acknowledged described three instances in which staff fired shotguns at inmates during March 1999. According to press accounts based on DOC information, on March 5, three inmates were fighting in a recreation yard; they ignored an order to stop and ignored a warning round and further verbal warnings. The gun post officer then fired a total of seven rounds at the inmates' lower extremities. On March 17, an officer fired at the "lower extremities" of two inmates who were fighting in the segregation recreation yard who had ignored verbal warnings and a warning shot. March 25, 1999 two inmates were fighting in the recreation yard. After they ignored verbal warnings and a warning shot, an officer fired a stinger round at their "lower extremities". The inmates then stopped fighting but refused to follow an order to lie on the ground. The officer then fired another stinger round. One inmate had superficial wounds; the other inmate had pellets lodged in his face and had to be sent to a medical center.[56][56]

What is remarkable about each of these incidents is the lack of any apparent justification for firing at the inmates or for failing to use lesser means of force to resolve the situation. Fights between unarmed inmates are commonplace, everyday occurrences in prisons; across the country such fights are usually quickly resolved through the simple intervention of unarmed staff. In the March 25 incident, the shots were fired not only to secure an end to the fight but to make inmates who were no longer fighting lie down on the ground. Staff in the yard could have intervened at that point (if not earlier) and obviated the need for additional use of firearms. The incidents also show how easily injury can result from the inaccurate shots that are almost inevitable in a volatile situation.

We quote below from letters inmates have sent us describing incidents which firearms were used at Red Onion.[57][57] In each case, there is no apparent justification for the force that was used.

•           I witnessedanother shooting incident...where the officer fired shots because inmatesdidn't go to their rooms fast enough to suit the officer. During this incidentafter firing the shotgun the staff then came in and picked at random people tolock up for no reason. They proceeded to handcuff and shackle these inmates,bodily carried them out by their arms and legs, took them to the pod next door,threw them in the floor face first and beat, kicked and shocked these inmateswith stun guns.[58][58]

•Today,another incident happened where there was again no probable cause to shoottheir guns...D6-pod was outside for recreation and playing basketball, theinmates were struggling for the ball and one fell to the ground and all of asudden [the officer who was in the kitchen tower] shot his gun and stated theywere fighting. There were no punches thrown nor was there any inmate harmedand/or bruised. Also the guard in D0-1 tower shot his gun just for the sake ofshooting.

•The entireD-6 pod was outside for recreation and [the officer] was stationed in D&Cunit; tower, he called completion of recreational period, in the process ofinmates moving toward the unit, there were four and five inmates slowly movingfrom the card tables, but they were off the white concrete platform and on thegrass moving to building D. All of a sudden [the officer] shot the gun and then[an officer in another tower] sticks his gun out and shoots, thereforetwo-three shots was fired simply because inmate were not walking fast enough totheir bldg.

•I and anotherinmate were on rec yard A-2&3 when an inmate on rec yard A-4, 5, 6 told usof an assault that was about to happen against another inmate. About fifteenminutes later we hear the assault/fight start. After ninety seconds to twominutes we hear a gun fired. As you know the first shot is supposed to be awarning shot. After the first shot no others are fired. We then heard officersenter the yard and handcuffs clicking as the three inmates are removed. When myrec time was over I was escorted back to my cell by [an officer]. The [officer]told me they knew about the possibility of the assault before hand and gave mean account of how it unfolded. He told me that they waited to fire the gun untilone of the inmates was down and not able to fight anymore.

•While there Iwas shot at, or let's say a shot was fired because I was gathering my deck ofplaying cards. Instead of the 8:00 pm lock down it was called at 7:30 catchingus off guard.

•[An inmate] was jogging aroundthe yard, he was wearing closed headphones with walkman listening to a cassettewhile jogging. The order to move to the opposite side of the yard did not comeover any loud speaker or megaphone device-it was a shouted order from a gunport. The man never heard the order. The first shot knocked him down. He jumpedup not knowing why he was shot and was shot again. No one's life was in danger.No staff or prisoner was threatened by this man. In less than one minute hewould have been on the other side of the yard where other prisoners would havegotten his attention. The man was jogging in a circle. Had he stopped, turnedaround, and jogged in the opposite direction he would not have gotten to theother side of the yard any faster![59][59]

•Inmates have also told HumanRights Watch about the following instances when weapons have been usedunnecessarily:

•An inmate wasshot for refusing to allow himself to be cuffed and taken from the shower. Histen minutes allotted shower time had expired but he had not finished showering.He finished before the order to shoot was given, but it was too late.

•An inmate had an asthma attack inthe mess hall. His roommate bent over tohelp him. An officer startedhollering-although it was hard to understand his words-and fired his gun acouple of times. Everyone lay down. The roommate was subsequently beaten andthe asthmatic inmate kicked by officers.

•An inmate was in the recreationyard doing exercises. When the officers called the end of recreation, the inmatewas not finished his jumping jacks and did not want to stop. Officers fired athim, although he was not hit.

•On the way tothe shower a new arrival stopped to talk with an inmate in his cell. Theofficer told him to move on. He apparently did not move, or did not move fastenough, and he was shot at.

•An inmatewaiting for the doors of his cell to be opened got some tobacco from anotherinmate nearby. An officer fired his weapon at him.

•Two inmates were fighting intheir cell. An officer shot at the door to stop them.

Misuse of Electronic Stun Devices and Other Abuses

Uniformed staff at Red Onion carry electronic stun devicesthat give painful electric shocks either when pressed to the body ( the UltronII) or, in the case of tasers, through fired darts.[60][60]Inmates have asserted to HRW that they have been subjected to taser shocks whenfully restrained and for a wide range of minor misconduct that poses nophysical threat, e.g. verbal insolence. As alleged, the incidents suggest thatelectronic stun devices are being used as punishment, rather than forlegitimate control purposes.

•One inmatetold HRW that immediately upon arrival at Red Onion in September 1998, he andother inmates were told to strip and permit a visual body search, including byspreading their buttocks. Female staff were present-indeed one was taking avideo of the proceedings-and the inmate was reluctant to do as ordered in frontof them. A captain shot him with the taser in the presence of the warden,associate warden and a major. After the inmate had been tasered, the majorscreamed in his ear, "Boy, you're at Red Onion now" and then told the otherofficers to "get that nigger out of here." The inmate filed a grievance becausehe felt-correctly-that he should not have had to submit to a visual body searchstrip in front of female staff.

•The inmate'sgrievance was denied. The warden acknowledged that a taser had been usedbecause the inmate hesitated to strip and thus "was failing to obeyinstructions." The denial was upheld by the regional director without comment"based on the information provided." There was no effort to suggest thatapplication of physical force was warranted by any possibility of danger orthat non-physical efforts to persuade the inmate had been attempted and failed.[61][61]The use of the taser appears more likely to have been a deliberate andmalicious excessive use of force calculated to intimidate new arrivals to thefacility.[62][62]

•In denyingthe inmate's grievance, Warden George Deeds stated that post orders at RedOnion permit females to work at any post-in this case, assignment to the videocamera. It is widely recognized, however, that cross-gender strip searchesviolate inmates' individual dignity and right to privacy. The warden's policyat Red Onion ignores basic correctional principles and international standardsprohibiting cross-gender strip searches unless in an emergency.[63][63]

•Otherexamples of the use of electronic stun devices that inmates have recounted toHuman Rights Watch include:

•One man wasshot with a taser while in his cell for refusing to return a paper cup whenordered to do so. Restraints were then placed on his arms and legs, securingand immobilizing him on his bed. (The use of four-point restraints is discussedbelow.)

•An inmatewith a reputation for "pissing people off" was in his cell when he told anofficer that he wanted to have sex withher.The officer tasered him through the food slot.

•An inmate wastasered because he had his arm hanging through the food slot and did not removeit fast enough when told to do so.

•An inmate waskicking on his cell door because he wanted to make a phone call. An officercame and told him to be quiet. The inmate said, "Bring it on." Officers suitedup for a cell extraction came to the cell front and told the inmate to cuff up.The inmate complied. After he was handcuffed, and while still in his cell, oneof the officers then told him to step back away from the door and shot him witha taser.

•An inmate insegregation was kicking on his cell door and yelling. A sergeant told him thatif he "didn't stop kicking they'd fix it so he couldn't kick no more." Theinmate kicked and yelled a bit more and then stopped. A team of officers suitedup for a cell extraction came to his cell door and asked if he would cuff up.When he refused, the officers sprayed him with mace and tasered him. They thenentered his cell and restrained him. The inmate claims that after he was on theground, handcuffed and not resisting, he was shocked twice more. He was thenplaced in a shower, which is the proper procedure after use of a chemicalweapon subsequently put in a strip cell with no mattress for twenty-four hours.

In this incident, the taser was used as part of a cellextraction, a use of force procedure in which a team of officers forciblyrestrain an inmate and remove him from his cell. Staff at Red Onion-as at anyprison-are entitled to let inmates know that rules cannot be ignored withoutconsequence and to enforce prison rules through disciplinary procedures. Cellextractions are security measures, not disciplinary mechanisms, and they shouldbe used only because of an imminent serious risk to the safety and security ofthe institution. When cell extractions are used to respond to relatively minorinfractions that do not present imminent security risks-as would appear in theincident described above-staff are simply inflicting physical punishment underthe guise of a security operation.

We have received a few complaints of beatings at Red Onion.One case was brought to our attention by several inmates: an elderly inmatereportedly threw a balled-up piece of paper at one of the sergeants, strikinghim on his pants leg. That officer and several others rushed into the inmate'scell and beat him so badly that he had to stay at a hospital for a couple ofdays. Upon his return he was placed in restraints.[64][64]

Verbal threats are reportedly commonplace at Red Onion. Forexample, an inmate wrote to HRW that in January, some inmates were verbally"disrespecting the nurse" and she finally yelled loudly, "Shut the fuck up."Several minutes later four officers came to the inmate's cell, told him to cuffup, and then entered his cell. They pushed him down onto his bed, and one ofthe officers stated "that if I bothered the nurse again he will come back andbreak every bone in my body and if I think he was lying look into his eyesbecause he would eat my eyeballs out of their socket."

Inmates also claim Red Onion staff abuse restraint equipmentand strip cells, using them maliciously as punishment even though such use isprohibited. Four- and five-point[65][65]restraints immobilize an inmate on a bed. They should only be used in extremecircumstances-when an inmate left unrestrained poses a serious risk of injuryto himself or to others and when other types of restraints are ineffective-andfor no more time than is absolutely necessary.[66][66]Inmates assert, however, that staff atRed Onion place men in restraints as retaliation for misbehavior, e.g. throwingjuice on an officer. "[E]veryone here knows it's for punishment." They alsoassert that inmates are kept in restraints for arbitrary time periods-eighthours, seventy-two hours-regardless of the inmates' condition or the need forsuch control. Inmates have similarly complained that strip cells containing nofurnishings, bedding or equipment are used as punishment. The degrading natureof unnecessary strip cell confinement is heightened by officers' refusal toprovide toilet paper when needed.

When an HRW attorney met with inmates at Red Onion, the inmateshad to wear 50,000-volt stun belts even though they were shackled andhandcuffed. They were told that if they stood up the belts would be activatedby a remote transmitter. Prison staff felt the belts were necessary because theHRW representative was meeting with inmates in a room without presence ofofficers and with no physical barrier between her and the inmates. Given therestraints on the inmates and the presence of guards immediately outside theroom who were watching the meeting through a window in the door, the use ofstun belts seems excessive. One inmate believed they were used deliberately tointimidate inmates who were speaking with HRW. An inmate who had wanted to meetwith HRW did not because he was too upset by the prospect of wearing the stunbelt.

IX.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was researched and written by Jamie Fellner,Human Rights Watch associate counsel. It was edited by Cynthia Brown, programdirector of Human Rights Watch. Christina Portillo provided productionassistance.

This report was produced as part of Human Rights Watch'sspecial initiative on United States prisons. We are grateful to the OpenSociety Insitute for its funding of this initiative.

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the humanrights of people around the world.

We stand with victims and activists to bring offenders tojustice, to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom and to protectpeople from inhumane conduct in wartime.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and holdabusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those holding power to endabusive practices and respect international human rights law.

We enlist the public and the international community tosupport the cause of human rights for all.

The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; MicheleAlexander, development director; Reed Brody, advocacy director; Carroll Bogert,communications director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Barbara Guglielmo,finance and administration director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Lotte Leicht,Brussels office director; Patrick Minges, publications director; Susan Osnos,associate director; Jemera Rone, counsel; Wilder Tayler, general counsel; andJoanna Weschler, United Nations representative. Jonathan Fanton is the chair ofthe board. Robert L. Bernstein is the founding chair.

Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org

Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mailmessage to [email protected] with "subscribe hrw-news" in the body of themessage (leave the subject line blank).

[1][1]Human Rights Watch has reported on prison conditions and assessed the extent towhich prisoners' internationally guaranteed human rights are protected innumerous countries including Brazil, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israeland the Occupied Territories, Japan, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, the formerSoviet Union, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, andVenezuela, among others.

[2][2]Throughoutthis report, we include information and quotes from the more than thirtyinmates whom we have interviewed or from whom we have received writtencommunications. To protect their privacy and to prevent the possibility ofreprisals, we do not attribute information to specific inmates, nor do weidentify any of our sources by name. We also do not include the names ofindividual officers identified by inmates as having engaged in abusive conduct.The purpose of our research into conditions at Red Onion has not been to "namenames" or to document in detail individual instances of alleged misconduct bystaff but to alert the DOC of the need to take more seriously its obligationsto ensure humane conditions through appropriate policies, staff supervision,and internal disciplinary investigations and procedures.

[3][3]There was widespread media attention in Virginia to the DOC's refusing HumanRights Watch access to Red Onion. Shortly thereafter, the DOC granted areporter fromThe Washington Posttheopportunity to interview the warden and speak with some inmates there.

[4][4][4][4]AHuman Rights Watch representative met with Gene Johnson, the DOC's deputydirector of operations, and a representative from the DOC's legal staff onFebruary 24, 1999. They were unable, however, to give specific answers to manyquestions about policies and procedures at Red Onion. The DOC responded to aninitial document request by passing on a few department-wide policy statements;other information was denied, including a description of use of force policiesand principles and a profile of inmates at Red Onion. We have still notreceived a response to a second request for documents sent on March 17, 1999 toDirector Ronald Angelone.

[5][5]Seventy of the inmates are from the District of Columbia, pursuant to acontract between the Virginia and District of Columbia departments ofcorrections.

[6][6]NationalInstitute of Corrections (NIC),SupermaxPrisons: Overview and General Considerations, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice (DOJ), April 1999), p.2. The National Institute ofCorrections is preparing a publication that will address legal issues raised bysuper-maximum security facilities.

[7][7]HumanRights Watch is currently researching an analysis of the human rightsimplications of super-maximum security confinement nationwide. See also:Cold Storage. Human Rights Watch,Cold Storage: Super-Maximum SecurityConfinement in Indiana(New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997).

[8][8]Weunderstand that the facility is also supposed to have "transition units" butthat many of the cells in the transition pods are being used for segregation.

[9][9]Thepredominant view in the corrections field is that inmates who are so dangerousor disruptive as to require being confined in their cells most of the dayshould not be double-celled. Virginia, like some other states, has nonethelessused double cells at Red Onion to save expenses. This is ironic, perhaps, giventhat many question the need for the combined number of supermax beds availableat Red Onion and Wallens Ridge.

[10][10]NIC,Supermax Prisons, p.14.

[11][11]Someinmates apparently pass on recreation simply to be able to have some time alonewithout their cellmates.

[12][12]Accordingto inmates, toilet paper is rationed: two people receive two rolls that mustlast for seven days. "If you run out you're out of luck."

[13][13]Ittakes eight hours, for example, to drive to Red Onion from Richmond. Roanoke,the closest city, is almost four hours away by car.

[14][14]In other words, an inmate can receive a hundred-page letter, but he cannotreceive a one-page letter with fifteen pages of photocopied material enclosed.

[15][15]VADOC,DOP 832: Programs, August 1,1998.

[16][16]A Catholic inmate was denied access to a priest and the sacraments because itwas deemed a "security risk".

[17][17]MargaretEdds, "Punishing Crime; ‘Supermaxes' Deserve Super Scrutiny,"The Virginian-Pilot,January 10, 1999.

[18][18]Craig Timberg, "At Va.'s toughest Prison, Tight controls,"Washington Post, April 18, 1999.

[19][19]The ICCPR requires the "the reform and social readaptation of prisoners" to bethe essential aim of any prison system. ICCPR, Article 10(3). According to theStandard Minimum Rules, prison systems "should utilize all the remedial,educational, moral, spiritual, and other forces and forms of assistance whichare appropriate and available, and should seek to apply them according to theindividual treatment needs of the prisoners." Standard Minimum Rules, Article59.

[20][20]Wedo not have a precise figure for the number of inmates in segregation at RedOnion. We have been told variously that the figure is anywhere from 200 to over300.

[21][21]In some super-maximum security facilities, security measures are decreased forinmates who demonstrate good conduct over a period of time. Carrying stundevices during routine escort procedures is unusual and violates internationalstandards See Standard Minimum Rules, Article 54 (3), "Except in specialcircumstances, staff performing duties which bring them into direct contactwith prisoners should not be armed. Furthermore, staff should in nocircumstances be provided with arms unless they have been trained in theiruse."

[22][22]See, e.g.,Human Rights Watch,ColdStorage;Haney, Craig and Mona Lynch, "Regulating Prisons of the Future: APsychological Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement,"New York University Review of Law&Social; Change, XXIII, no. 4 (1997);Madridv. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(court rules super-maximumsecurity confinement of mentally ill is unconstitutional as cruel and unusualpunishment).

[23][23]Internationalstandards provide that mentally ill inmates should e treated in specializedinstitutions under medical management. Standard Minimum Rules, Article 82 (1).

[24][24]NIC,Supermax Prisons, p. 13."Extended control facility" is another term for "supermax prison".

[25][25]DOCpolicy permits the placement of mentally ill inmates in Level 6 facilities withthe exception of inmates with "severe" impairments. We do not know how the DOCdefines "severe" in practice.

[26][26]HumanRights Watch,Cold Storage. NIC,Supermax Prisons.

[27][27]VADOC,DOP 823-4.0.

[28][28]NIC,Supermax Prisons, p. 6.

[29][29]Standard Minimum Rules, Article 27.

[30][30]Mostjurisdictions today have adopted objective classification systems by whichprison authorities determine, based on an inmate's prior behavior and otherrelevant factors, the level of supervision and control the inmate requires.Length of sentence and even nature of commitment offense are factors that areconsidered, but they are by no means the sole factors. Indeed, although thepublic often is unaware of this fact, many persons who have committed seriouscrimes and who have long sentences are not dangerous or problem inmates, e.g.,inmates who assault or prey upon other inmates or staff.

[31][31]VADOC,Institutional Assignment Criteria,October 1998.

[32][32]"Disruptive"is defined as conviction for the most serious disciplinary offenses, an attemptat one of these violations or a pattern of convictions that indicate"significant suitability". Ibid.

[33][33]Wehave noted a tendency in other jurisdictions with supermax facilities forprison officials to use them for nuisance inmates, for inmates who commitfrequent but minor disciplinary infractions or others who do not reasonablyrequire such extensive restrictions on their movement and activities.

[34][34]HRWmeeting with Gene Johnson at the DOC on February 24, 1999.

[35][35]The security-level classification procedures and criteria issued in October andNovember of 1998 contain a requirement that any inmate with more than twentyyears to serve must be classified to at least a Level 3 facility. DOP 823823-7.1. They do not provide the for the automatic designation of persons withlong sentences to a Level 6 facility. VA DOC, DOP 823.

[36][36]Laurence Hammack, "ACLU Questions Inmate Placement at Red Onion,"TheRoanokeTimes,Jan 3, 1999.

[37][37]VADOC,Offender Statistical Summary FY 97.

[38][38]At one point, officials were predicting a total prison population of 40,000. Thirtythousand is now considered a more reasonable estimate.

[39][39]Camille Graham Camp and George M. Camp,TheCorrections Yearbook, (South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.,1997) Virginia had the tenth-highest percentage of inmates in administrativesegregation. The national average was 2.8 percent.

[40][40]TheDOC provided a copy of the classification analysis to Human Rights Watch inresponse to our request.

[41][41]Telephoneconversation with James Austin, professor, Institute on Crime, Justice andCorrections, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1999.According to the DOC'sOffenderStatistical Survey FY 1997, as of June 30, 1997 Virginia had a maximumsecurity population of 34 percent of the prison system. The national averagewas 12.3 percent. The percentage of Virginia's inmate population in maximumsecurity was the third-highest in the country. Camille and George Camp,Corrections Yearbook, p.16.

[42][42]VADOC,DOP 822-7.4: Isolation, Segregation,and Detention, April 16, 1992.

[43][43]NIC,Supermax Prisons, p. 16."[S]taff should possess the characteristics of maturity, intelligence and goodjudgment, and-at least for custody positions-be physically capable ofperforming the rigorous duties required of them. They should be even-tempered,consistent, and capable of respecting diversity in the inmate population...amismatch of skill, experiences, interests, and temperament can negativelyimpact the operation of the facility and can create a dangerous situation,[and] hinder the adjustment of the inmates to difficult conditions...." Ibid.

[44][44]Ibid.,p. 17.

[45][45]Corporal punishment is prohibited by the U.S. constitution and internationalhuman rights treaties. As a noted expert on prisons and use of force has noted,however, "Physical force applied under the guise of a necessary securitycontrol tactic can be-and is-employed to circumvent the constitutionalprohibition on such physical punishments." Steve Martin, "Sanctioned Violencein American Prisons," a chapter in the forthcoming John May, ed.,Building Violence: How America's Rush toIncarcerate Creates More Violence (Sage Publications).

[46][46]One inmate speculated that much of the abuse of force is due to inexperiencedofficers. As he wrote to Human Rights Watch:

These "one-stripe" officers haven't the experiencewith prisoners, and problem solving is nonexistent. These guys are young andthink they have a free hand in the use of force because superiors will backthem up. They are looking for "action" and disregard any communication skillsthey may have learned. I have noticed that older "one-stripers" get morerespect from inmates because they are not as cocky as the younger"one-stripers" and don't act as if they have to prove they are bad-asses. Ioften think that the younger c/os [officers] come off as trying to be a bad assbecause of fear. They have been told we're the meanest that Virginia has tooffer and they are scared.

[47][47]e.g.,Standard Minimum Rules, Article 54 (1), "Officers who have recourse to forcemust use no more than is strictly necessary."

[48][48]FrankGreen, "7 Fighting Inmates Fired On; Most Wounds at Red Onion Minor,"The Richmond Times Dispatch,April 7,1999.

[49][49]Declaration of Charles Fenton provided inMadridv. Gomez. Fenton is a retired federal warden and frequent expert witnessfor departments of corrections defending against prison conditions lawsuits. InMadrid v. Gomez, however, he was anexpert for plaintiffs.

[50][50]California and Nevada are the other two. Firearms were introduced intoVirginia's prisons by Director Angelone, who before coming to Virginia had beenhead of the Nevada Department of Corrections.

[51][51]The DOC has not responded to our April 9 inquiry regarding the alleged use ofbirdshot.

[52][52]Craig Timberg, "At Va.'s Toughest Prison, Tight Controls,"The Washington Post,April 18, 1999. See also, Frank Green, "7Fighting Inmates Fired On,"The RichmondTimes Dispatch,April 7, 1999.

[53][53]Frank Green, "Inmates, Critics Question Firearm Use at Red Onion SupermaxPrison,"The Richmond Times Dispatch,December 24, 1998.

[54][54]One inmate told Human Rights Watch: "When the place first opened, they wereshooting a lot of inmates for petty reasons or no reasons at all and beating upinmates right when they arrived. But there was some bad media coverage on thisplace so now it's pretty quiet here."

[55][55]Oneinmate wrote to HRW, "I have witnessed them shooting guns for no reason otherthan someone did not respond to an order quickly enough to suit them. In twomonths, in my pod alone...they have fired the gun three times-not one of thoseinstances being to prevent or stop an assault."

[56][56]FrankGreen, "7 Fighting Inmates Fired On." Inmates have also written to HRWdescribing these incidents.

[57][57]Wehave quoted verbatim the language used by the inmates, but have deleted namesand corrected misspelling.

[58][58]Ibid.

[59][59]DOC's version of incident reported by Frank Green, "Inmates, Critics QuestionFirearm Use at Red Onion Supermax,"TheRichmond Times Dispatch, December 24, 1998. The inmate who described theincident to Human Rights Watch noted that the press was unable to obtain acomplete understanding of what happened because the DOC would not let theminterview the inmates involved.

[60][60]A taser is an electrical gun that shoots darts up to a range of 15 feet. Thedarts can deliver up to 50,000 volts and temporarily incapacitate the victim.The extremely painful shock from a taser has been been described as "resemblingbeing hit on the back with a ‘four-by-four' by Arnold Schwarzenegger."Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. at 1175.

[61][61]Copies of the inmate's grievance and official responses are on file at HumanRights Watch.

[62][62]Other inmates also described to HRW the treatment they received upon immediatearrival at Red Onion, including being yelled at, threatened, and shoved, all inan atmosphere calculated to impress upon them that they were "at Red Onionnow."

[63][63]AmericanCorrectional Association (ACA),1998Standards Supplement, (ACA: Laurel, MD, 1998), Standard 3-4186, p. 29.General Comment 16 to Article 7, "Compilation of General RecommendationsAdopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies," U.N. Document HRI/GEN/Rev.1, July 29,1994. (So far as personal and body searches are concerned, effective measuresshould ensure that such searches are carried out in a manner consistent withthe dignity of the person who is being searched. Persons being subjected tobody searches by State officials, or medical personnel acting at the request ofthe State, should only be examined by persons of the same sex.) Most courtshave recognized that inmates should be protected from unwarranted intrusions ontheir privacy by guards of the opposite sex. See, generally, Human RightsWatch,All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse ofWomen in U.S. State Prisons, (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1996), pp.28-30 and passim.

[64][64]Someof the inmates identified the precipitating event differently, e.g. that thebeating followed the inmate's refusal to return a cup from his food tray.

[65][65]Four-point: arms and legs are secured. The fifth restraint used at Red Onion isa chest strap.

[66][66]SeeStandard 3-4183-1 in ACA,1998 StandardsSupplement. ACA,1996 StandardsSupplement, (ACA: Lanham, MD, 1996).