In this era of state government budget deficit problems, as they should, watchdog groups are looking towards more efficient government operations. A better return on taxpayer investment. Following the November, 2003, excoriation of the California corrections system by the State's Little Hoover Commission, an official state spending watchdog group, now, even the previously sacrosanct area--corrections--of taxpayer spending is being examined. In their Report, the Commission placed great emphasis on the recidivism rate in California, at 67%, being nearly twice the national average of 35%. The Commission blamed this on California's single minded focus on punishment, and called for a shift towards rehabilitation.

The Commission discussed many problematic areas which contributed to the total problem. One of these was that prisoner illiteracy in California was cited as being approximately 50%. When looking at efficiency, it is most often the little, even petty, things that cumulatively add up to a total problem which becomes huge. Literacy is a well known rehabilitation tool, and policies and procedures which discourage literacy, no matter how innocuous they may appear on their face, have far reaching collateral effects. In the area of corrections and recidivism, these effects convert to billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

With one seemingly innocuous rule, a local detention facility, the Shasta County Jail (hereinafter "JAIL"), discourages literacy. The rule is adamantly enforced to the point of obsession by some officers. So much so, that a reasonable person would question their motives in another environment. It is time to do so in the corrections industry. Is it a lack of understanding of the ramifications of the rule? Or, is it because of a complete understanding? Understanding that recidivism means job security in the prison industry complex! Let the reader decide--punishment or rehabilitation. Reasonable, well thought, rules which promote rehabilitation, or unreasonable rules which are punitive and promote recidivism at huge taxpayer expense. The following is but one example, of many available, to show how a punitive mind set can undermine rehabilitation, even though on its face the rule and its justification appear reasonable, that is until one looks deeper:

The rule in question is the "Two Book Rule." It is probably the most notorious and oppressive rule at the JAIL. The inmates consider this rule to be petty, and to be an infringement on their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. Not only from the implied right to read the material that goes along with the Freedom of the Press in printing the material, but also their freedom of religion rights, as religious books and material are also impacted by the rule. Among other nefarious JAIL policies, the denial of reading material based on limiting resources to two books makes this policy punitive rather than rehabilitative.

The Shasta County Jail, has as its beginning a "Mission Statement--Operational Philosophy." Among statements therein, the second and third paragraphs contain assertions which sound good, but are in reality incompatible with each other:

"The primary concern of each employee is to maintain a secure environment. This will be achieved through constant vigilance and adherence to policies and procedures. We will also offer self-improvement opportunities to the inmates, assisting in their successful reintroduction into the community.

Our objectives are to meet the needs of the present and the challenge of the future. We will strive to improve the quality of our service by continuing education, maintaining a supportive work environment and developing innovative techniques, making the Shasta County Sheriff's Office a recognized leader in detention operations."

Whatever publicist wrote this did a nice job. Too bad that in practice the primary concern of security is the only concern. The JAIL staff is not interested in "reasonable" and "adequate" security--only "absolute" security. Absolute security is not compatible with any sort of rehabilitation; it is only compatible with punishment. And this is essentially the mind set of JAIL staff. For example, on December 21, 2003, commensurate with JAIL staff's "bah humbug" holiday spirit and punitive petty mind set, Officer Shifflet was training a new officer, Heyde, by telling him in the presence of inmates, "We can't let them get away with the little things! Confiscate their extra books and writing pens!" And this they did.

It has been clearly established law for decades that pre-trial prisoners, who have not yet been convicted of any crime, may not be punished or held under punitive conditions. Only convicted prisoners may be punished. Nevertheless, all prisoners, regardless of their legal status, are treated the same in Shasta County--punitively.

In addition to the various statutory laws so providing, the courts have long upheld this principle based on constitutional principles, e.g.: Pretrial prisoners, who have been incarcerated not to receive punishment for their misdeeds but to insure their presence at trial, are entitled to the least restrictive alternatives consistent with the purpose behind their incarceration. (Rutherford v. Pitchess (D.C. Cal. 1978) 457 F. Supp. 104.). Except for the right to come and go as he pleases, a pre-trial detainee retains all rights of the bailee, and his rights may not be ignored because it is expedient or economical to do so. (Brenneman v. Madigan (D.C. Cal. 1972) 344 F.Supp. 128.). 

In the year 2000, the California Supreme Court upheld these basic principles quoting the U.S. Supreme Court case Bell v. Wolfish, (1979) 441 U.S. 520, allowing only restraints that are "reasonably related to legitimate government purpose--so as to ensure the defendant's presence at trial or to meet institutional security needs and the need for internal order and discipline. (Id. At p.p. 536-540, 547-548)--unless there is substantial evidence in the record to indicate that such conditions impose restraints that are excessive relative to the legitimate governmental purpose. (Id. at p. 548)." (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal. 4^th 900, 95 Cal.Rptr. 2d 377, 457, n. 22.)

While the JAIL's Mission Statement looks good in principle on its face, in practice it doesn't work as implied. The problem is entangled in how one defines "legitimate governmental purpose," which is synonymous with "legitimate penological purpose" for evaluation purposes, and this brings us back to "reasonable." When restraint of rights are not reasonable related to a legitimate purpose, or become excessive, they are considered arbitrary and capricious and run afoul of the law. This, of course is in addition to the negative impact this particular rule, and similar oppressive rules have on rehabilitation and thus recidivism. This was recognized by the November, 2003, Little Hoover Commission Report when it chastised California for its single minded emphasis on punishment. While directed at the Department of Corrections, this admonishment would also apply to county jails whose policies also result in punitive conditions even though punishment is not the stated intent.

For example, the JAIL's Mission Statement appears to promote self-improvement programs, assisting in successful reintegration into society, continuing education, etc.; but in reality, in actual practice, many rules discourage one of the most needed self-improvement areas--literacy. With half of the prisoners in California being illiterate (Little Hoover commission), literacy is a big problem. The Shasta County Jail staff routinely confiscate books, all kinds of books, novels, fiction, non-fiction, self-help books, educational material, Bibles, religious books and materials, and even writing pens.

In striking down a mail restriction, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals also noted a "correlation between reading, writing and inmate rehabilitation." (Morrison v. Hall, (9^th Cir. 2001) 261 F. 3d 896, 904, n. 7.) (Citing Willoughby Mariano, Reading Books Behind Bars Reading Programs for State Prison Inmates and Juvenile Hall Wards are Critical to Helping Offenders Develop Literacy and Avoid Return to Crime, Experts Say, L.A. Times, Jan. 30, 2002, at B2).

The JAIL confiscates books under the guise of calling books a fire hazard, claiming "the fire marshal says you can only have two books!" Here again the words "legitimate" and "reasonable" should come into play, but they don't in Shasta County. Inmates have questioned if the fire marshal ever made such a statement, as it does not sound reasonable for a separate entity, the fire service, to be attempting to micro-manage a jail in such a trivial manner as to be counting inmate books. Fire services would be more reasonably concerned with a total volume of combustible material. The attitude of "absolute" in whatever the JAIL does blinds the concept of reasonable and legitimate, instead resulting in the commonly heard imperious utterance, "If you don't like it, don't come to our jail!" Inmates often sardonically reply with, "I tried to get you to drop me off at a motel!" Communications thus cease. Respect for the officers and authority dengenerates, and in yet another way rehabilitation is negatively impacted. To exacerbate matters, the policies are poorly written, or often unwritten, thus promoting inconsistency between various JAIL staff members.

While preventing fires is on its face a legitimate concern, this particular reaction by authorities is excessive. It is unreasonable based on reality, and would fall within various court definitions as arbitrary and capricious. This because the JAIL cannot cite one documented "book fire" since smoking was eliminated from the JAIL several years ago, and probably never. Not only is there no ignition source to start a fire, but inmates value their books. Only those who fear knowledge ban or burn books. The only documented JAIL "fires" have actually been just smoke from JAIL equipment failures, e.g., "burned-up" fan belts on air handling equipment. I once challenged the JAIL--in writing--to cite one documented case of a fire involving inmates' personal property that has occurred since the elimination of smoking. The JAIL staff was unable to do so and avoided answering this challenge in writing, but I was told verbally, "Well, it has happened at other facilities." When pressed, these other facilities could not be definitively cited.

The book rule, thus, is a clear example of an exaggerated response to a non-existent problem. This falls squarely within court holdings that consider such rules valid only when reasonably related to legitimate penal (governmental) interests. (See, e.g., Turner v. Safley (1987) 482 U.S. 79, 89.) In determining the reasonableness of a prison regulation, courts should consider: (1) whether a "valid, rational connection" exists between the regulation and the legitimate interest advanced to justify it; (2) whether alternative means for exercising the asserted right to remain available; (3) whether accommodation of the asserted right will adversely affect guards, other inmates, and the allocations of prison resources generally; and (4) whether an obvious alternative the regulation exists "that fully accommodates the prisoners' right at de minimis cost to valid penological interests. . ." (Turner at p.p. 89-91).

Considering Turner Item (1), JAIL authorities cannot cite even one documented book fire, therefore, there is no valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate interest advanced to justify it. Thus, since the JAIL fails the first prong of the inquiry, the other prongs need not be addressed. (See Prison Legal News v. Cook (9^th Cir. 2001) 238 F.3d 1145, 1151.)

Insofar as the basic topic of this paper concerns rehabilitation, and the book subject is only an example problem, let us look at Turner Item (3) also. The Book Rule itself not only adversely affects both guards, and other inmates, but also it indirectly affects the public through its negative impact on recidivism. The JAIL's Mission Statement cites a "secure environment" as the "primary concern." A major component of a "secure environment" is that it be free of illicit and disruptive behavior. Things that are often spawned from boredom--lack of meaningful activity. When the JAIL removes positive activities' materials, such as books, self help reading materials, religious materials, and writing materials, etc., under the guise of a never existed problem, the JAIL itself creates a activity vacuum. A ancient proverb states, "Idle minds are the devil's workshop." In other words, with nothing to do, inmates will get into far more "trouble" than will legitimately occupied inmates. This well documented "trouble," of many forms, is a bona fide security problem that far outweighs the never existed but proffered book fire concern. Therefore, the book rule also miserably fails the Third Prong of Turner, as it would the Second and Fourth Prongs were they to be evaluated.

Again, the operative word is "reasonable." Exclusive of a Bible and a small dictionary, inmates at the JAIL may possess only two books in their cell. Thus, if one's religion requires both a Bible and a Prayer Book, and he or she possesses any other book--self-help, educational, or religious--that person may have no other reading material. This rule also would exclude an inmate from possessing a jail library book on a temporary basis. If the inmate's two books are self-help, religious or educational, then no leisure time reading material would be allowed under the ridiculous limit of two books. This is unreasonable, just as having no limits would be unreasonable in the other extreme.

State prisons in California allow 10 to 12 books, the number varying between institutions. In prisons, the authorities are more interested in total property volume, where the total volume of inmates personal property is limited to six cubic feet of non-expendable items, (See 15 CCR §3190 (b)), with some exclusions. Prison authorities are not inclined to micro-managing such things as the individual components of the total, e.g., a limit of ten personal letters, six personal photographs, two writing pens, etc., as does Shasta County. Prisons simply limit the total volume at six cubic feet. Of course, this may be changing as the prison guards union and its members attempt to disrupt the status quo, and cause dissension, to justify their jobs in the face of threatened cuts to corrections. Also, prisons do not claim as justification for the limit to be from at "fire hazard," but rather the limit is based on the difficulties in transferring a large volume of property when moving inmates. This concern is both reasonable and legitimate.

What does confiscating books have to do with punishment? Plenty! It is well documented that one of the cruelest punishments available is to lock a human being up with nothing to do, nothing to occupy the mind. Mental health experts claim this leads to insanity. Most jail inmates are eventually released. Treat them like animals, and animals are what they become. Then when this newly created animal is released back into society, he or she is probably worse than before the jail or prison experience. The knee-jerk reaction to cuts in jail or prison funding is always further oppression of the prisoners. The present such fad is to keep prisoners locked in their cells with little or no positive activities. The latest manifestation is alternating tier lockdown, in other words, half the inmates are allowed activities every other day. Books, other reading materials, and writing materials, are essential to provide meaningful time occupation during these increasingly lengthy periods of isolation.

The foregoing exposes why the JAIL's Mission Statement is in conflict with the reality of the JAIL'S actual policies, practices, and procedures. Such policies deter rather than assist successful reintegration into the community, and security. This costs the taxpayers unnecessary expense.

Inmate Tom Watson
Shasta County Jail
1655 West Street
Redding, CA 96001