On January 31, 2003, the CNN Headline News Network reported over 1000 inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails with staph ("staphylococcus") infections, and that this was the largest known infectious prison outbreak. It is not unusual to see buried in the back of a newspaper an article on infectious outbreaks in jails and prisons. Things like tuberculosis, hepatitis, meningitis, dysentery, E. coli, and plasmosis. 

The question becomes: When society does not tolerate filthy, unsanitary conditions for dogs, cats, and other pets, farm animals, etc., why then is society apathetic to these same pestilence promoting conditions for the human beings who are being kept in our jails and prisons? 

In the movies, filthy disease ridden persons are cleaned-up, deloused, and screened prior to being placed in the inmate general population. This does not happen in real life, and the jails and prisons have resulting infectious outbreaks. People who are unable to unwilling to take care of themselves are simply thrown in with the other inmates with no concern or consideration for everyone's health. 

A recent and continuing situation at the Shasta County Jail illustrates the problem. Beginning around January 16, 2003, deputies placed an inmate called "Lamar," who is well known for personal hygiene problems, into a general population housing unit called a "POD." Lamar smelled like fecal matter and urine, as if he did not understand the concept of toilet paper and personal hygiene. For three days in a row, other inmates attempted to convince him to take a shower. It took bribes of coffee, tea, and other commissary items to get him to agree. He would be given soap and shampoo, but when finally entering the shower he would avoid actual bathing much like a small child. When exiting the shower he would sit down to get dressed, and when he got back up there would be feces remaining. This was after he has supposedly showered. 

The other inmates continually complained to Jail Staff--who ignored the complaints. On January 19, 2003, the trail of feces was shown to Officer Perla, who in the presence of numerous inmates admitted to seeing the feces, and recognizing them for what they were. The same day, a group of inmates filed a grievance directed to the "Duty Sergeant" that stated: 

"I'm wiring in regards to the guy in #19 Lamar. He refuses to use soap or shampoo when showering. He smells like piss and when getting out of the shower yesterday and the day before while putting his clothes on left shit (feces) on the bench buy [sic] the shower. This is a health risk to everyone else in the POD. He needs to be put where he can be supervised or get some help or something to that effect. He also has a very deep hack (cough) that needs to be checked out. Thank you." 

This grievance was signed by five inmates. It was answered by #283, whoever that is, as follows: "This complaint was checked out by your prowler and none of your complaints were valid. #283." 

It should be noted that "Prowler" is a Jail Staff job description and referred to Officer Perla. The inmates later confronted Perla asking: What do you mean the complaint is not valid? You saw the fecal matter yourself. Perla then stated, we don't have anywhere else to put him, we are not moving him. The entire group was threatened when Perla stated, if you keep pushing this we will turn this into "Ad Seg" (Administrative Segregation), and you will all be locked-down when we give him his hour out everyday. That way you won't have any contact with him. 

This threat was straight intimidation meant to stop any further grievances. It did indeed place a chilling effect on the willingness of the inmates to follow-up their denied grievance with an Appeal to the Jail Administration. Furthermore, Jail Staffs' threatened punitive solution would not have solved the problem. Lamar would still be spreading his fecal matter and other body effluents throughout the POD common area during his hour out, and therefore, still be exposing the other 31 POD inmates to potential pestilence. Lamar does not recognize his problem, and is simply unable to care for himself, and lockdown status would not change these facts. 

Perla later said they would be monitoring Lamar to make sure he showered, and to call an officer if he left more feces in the POD. Perla had originally talked to taking Lamar to Medical and bathing him. Perla never did this. Lamar is obviously unable to take care of himself, and jail staff does not want to take care of him, so they deferred the care to other inmates through threats of lockdown. 

On Monday morning, January 20, 2003, the night officer witnessed the complained of scenario, and reported this to Perla when he came on duty. Perla went to Lamar's cell, where he appeared discussed by the odor. He stated he would report this "downstairs," but didn't know what they would do. They did nothing. 

The collateral effects were now appearing, as some of the other older inmates, who are medically restricted to the lower tier (floor), are now making their way to the upstairs shower. They are afraid to use the shower that Lamar has contaminated for fear of contracting some pathogen and becoming stricken. Others, who cannot navigate the stairs to the upstairs shower--simply don't shower--adding to the overall problem. This is a situation that also cannot be solved by the threatened "Ad Seg solution." 

The most perilous time for infection spread is at meal time or through food. While waiting to be fed, Lamar often comes out of his room and sits at several of the tables that have been previously cleaned and disinfected for eating. While waiting, he moves around, picks at himself, scratches, hacks and coughs, leaving his trail of potential pestilence on the tables and seats he has visited. When the inmates who had previously cleaned the tables return to eat with their food trays in hand, they often find the table again contaminated. Then they must figure out some way to re-clean their table while also not contaminating the food trays they are carrying. If they had not seen him there, they simply become unknowingly exposed. 

On January 21, 2003, feces were again left on the shower bench, and Officer Perla was again shown this. He was sarcastically told, "There is no sense in showing you this, as you lie to us and deny everything you have seen!" Again on January 22 and 23, 2003, the inmates showed officers feces left by Lamar on the shower bench. Again, nothing was done. 

However, on January 24, 2003, Officer McCormick, a different officer, was shown the feces, and he took immediate action. Lamar was taken to Medical and given a bath, then clean clothes and bedding, and returned to the POD. It didn't last--he soiled himself soon again. On January 25, 2003, the other inmates attempted to bribe him to take another shower. He became belligerent and angry, denying he was a problem, then locked himself in his room. Later, during the regular laundry exchange, he refused clean clothing, and staff did not insist he exchange clothing. 

The problems continued, but the inmates were hesitant to complain because of the lockdown threats. However, after several days, on February 4, 2003, the inmates' health concerns overrode their fear of threats, and they again showed Officer Perla the feces. He again said he would inform "classification," and renewed the lockdown threat. It was pointed out to him that their lockdown solution would not change the problem of Lamar spreading potential pestilence throughout the common area. A common problem is their "knee-jerk" reaction solutions are simply punitive and are unrelated to problem solving. 

Later that same day, Jail Staff carried out their threat and placed Lamar on Ad Seg status within the POD. Perla told a group of inmates that Lamar would be let out into the "Day Room," (common area) each day for one hour after breakfast. When his hour is up, the officer will make him clean-up whatever mess he may have made. If you don't like that, you (the inmates) can reclean the POD yourselves, he finished. This is flawed thinking, because a person like Lamar could touch and contaminate virtually everything in the common area in an hours time, and as pathogens are microscopic in size, they do not necessarily leave visible signs. Thus, this was essentially a mandate for the other inmates to perform biohazard clean-up without being provided proper disinfecting equipment, personal biohazard protection equipment, and biohazard disposal containers. Moreover, pre-trial detainees, who are not yet convicted of any crime, should not be required to do potentially dangerous menial labor for which they are unqualified and untrained.. 

The Jail Staff attitudes behind this ridiculous solution is typical of why disease is rampant in jails and prisons. Supposedly, were someone to hold them accountable, it is illegal in California via Penal Code §673 and §2652 for jail personal to ignore problems that endanger the health of inmates. Additionally, the jails are ultimately tort liable for negligent acts or failure to act--but they don't care. Typically, government entities indemnify their employees via the taxpayers--so the employees don't care. The taxpayers continue to foot lawsuit costs, and the problems continue--because no one cares. 

But they should care--the remiss inexpedient staff has failed to recognize that they are also at risk from the very pathogens they ignore. For they can easily contract pestilence from untended filthy inmates, and worst yet, take some infectious pathogen home to their families, who in turn can spread it to the general public. 

Finally, in circumvention, the night of February 4, 2003, more reasonable minds prevailed after shift change. The cabal of officers with the obdurate obstinate anal myopic mentality that had prevailed for the previous 20 days went off duty. The night shift then moved Lamar to a more appropriate area of the jail. 

It should not have taken so long for someone to come to their senses. The United States Supreme Court in Crawford El v. Britton, (1998) 523 U.S. 574, at pages 590-591, said that Public Officials are presumed to be aware of the law governing their conduct. Repeating old precedent, in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, (1989) 484 U.S. 189, at pages 199-200, the Supreme Court states: ". . .When the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being." The Court rationalizes this as coming from "the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act in his own behalf," that renders him unable to care for himself. A group of Shasta County Jailers had ignored this law of the land. 

As previously stated, we as a society do these things for animals that we put in cages, but not for human beings who are inmates in our jails and prisons. We as Americans collectively yell at third world countries with deplorable prison conditions, but say "so be it" when it comes to American prison conditions. We have become a bully society telling the rest of the world to do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do. Avoidable pestilence in jails and prisons costs the taxpayers a good deal of money, and this will not change until the taxpayers tell their public servants to do their jobs properly. 

Inmate Tom Watson