Never forget those who have died because of various sex offender laws.
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - WA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - WA. Show all posts

April 25, 2017

Why Doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath Apply to the Nation’s Prisons?

UPDATE: Washington State: Class-action Alleges DOC Policy of Denying Medical Care
Original date: Nov 2015 Washington:

Many inmates will do anything to avoid seeking medical assistance if they can help it. A recent lawsuit in Washington State explains why.

The Hippocratic Oath has long embodied all that is good in the medical profession. Those who swear by it vow to act “for the benefit of the sick” and to prevent “harm and injustice” from befalling their patients.

But in the correctional system, the Oath is often undermined or, at best, ignored.

The Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) is an unfortunate example. Medical professionals within the WDOC acknowledge in depositions that its medical staff are required to use “a different standard to evaluate patients than is used [ ] in the community,” and some medical personnel in WDOC concede there is nothing “science-based or humane” about the policies that govern their decision-making.

These claims are currently the subject of a lawsuit, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, brought against WDOC by the non-profit Columbia Legal Services (CLS) on behalf of prisoners throughout the State of Washington. [See, Daniel Haldane, et al. v. G. Stephen Hammond, M.D., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ]

CLS is seeking to end WDOC’s use of “a healthcare pre-approval process to restrict medical costs at the expense of necessary prisoner healthcare” and maintains this practice poses “an ongoing, serious risk of harm to all 16,000 prisoners under DOC’s care,” according to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

The medical conditions complained of include: commonly withholding opioid treatment even when a prisoner’s chronic and substantial pain is unresponsive to other therapies; and refusing to authorize surgery even when, as a result, prisoners must struggle to wipe themselves after toileting.

While the efforts of CLS should be applauded, prisoners should nevertheless resist the temptation to believe this litigation will lead to better medical treatment throughout WDOC.

Even enlightened, well-meaning policies can degenerate into arbitrary and unsound decision-making. Having suffered the brunt of such decisions over the last quarter century during my confinement, I have come to believe a correctional system’s shortcomings are often rooted in the negative views of the employees.

Views that developed in an era of mass incarceration.

One of the consequences of mass incarceration is the adoption of a military mindset by many correctional employees as the paramount goal within prisons came to be maintaining order and security. When this becomes the ultimate objective, staff members can easily begin to perceive the prison as hostile territory and prisoners as the enemy—especially when the level of violence within a facility makes the working conditions quite dangerous (relatively speaking).

Once this prisoner-as-enemy mentality takes hold of correctional staff, the idea that they should show care or humanity to those who are confined seems to be frowned upon and rejected.

Harm and injustice at first is tolerated, then becomes accepted.

The prison infirmary is no exception. I have seen and felt the iciness that medical providers evince when they have this mindset . Trust me, it would impress the most cold-hearted convict.
Even in prisons with relatively safe working conditions, there is a general lack of sympathy for prisoners with medical problems.

Furthermore, to expect proper diagnosis and treatment to be advanced by people with these attitudes is to ignore common sense and human nature.

Yet even in prisons with relatively safe working conditions, there is a general lack of sympathy for prisoners with medical problems. Their health needs are rarely taken seriously.

Indeed, I have long resorted to toughing it out or trying every home remedy that a convict can conceive before heading to medical to find relief.

Like other medical departments in WDOC, prisoners must be ready for war when they enter the medical facility at Stafford Creek Corrections Center. While the inside is nice and clean, physician assistants and nurses face off with prisoners as adversaries.

When I explain what ails me, I know, without a doubt, that every attempt will be made to dismiss my symptoms as if I am malingering or exaggerating; and I will likely be sent away with, at best, ibuprofen or amitriptyline—WDOC’s cure-alls for damn near everything.

If I complained, it is almost certain that I would be ordered to leave unceremoniously; and, were I to hesitate because the pain I was enduring was all-consuming, I will be handcuffed and escorted to segregation—like the enemy.

The message is: We are unworthy.

We are degenerates.

We should be grateful to get any medical treatment by the DOC.

These ubiquitous views explain why a correctional system might see fit to establish “a practice of withholding necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical conditions,” as CLS claims to be the case with WDOC. Such practices only develop when correctional employees do not believe the welfare of prisoners is a priority.

That said, my jaundiced eye has not left me without empathy, so I urge readers not to judge correctional medical personnel too harshly.

With all due respect to Hippocrates, it is easy to tolerate harm and injustice when both have been perpetrated by one’s patients.

Jeremiah Bourgeois is a regular contributor to TCR, and an inmate in Washington State, where he is currently serving 25 years to life for a crime committed when he was 14. He will be eligible to go before the parole board in 2017. He welcomes comments from readers. ..Source.. by an inmate (reprint from: https://thecrimereport.org)

Read More of Article...

January 12, 2017

Microsoft sued by employees who developed PTSD after reviewing disturbing content

1-12-17 Washington:

In what sounds like the plot for an episode of the forward-looking dystopian show Black Mirror, Microsoft is being sued by two of its Online Safety Team employees over claims that they developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in their roles at the company.

In the lawsuit filed at the end of last year (PDF), Henry Soto and Greg Blauert, who worked at Microsoft’s facility in King County, Washington, claimed that they were tasked with reviewing toxic content – including images and videos of child sexual abuse, people dying, and murder – for years, so they could take it down, and flag it with law enforcement and child protection agencies .

The suit alleges that Microsoft was negligent in its handling of the mental health of the employees on this team – even though the company extended programs and benefits to ensure the welfare of people in its the Digital Crimes Unit, which had similar duties.

The case raises questions not just about the mental health and well-being of people in these taxing roles, but also about the ways in which content platforms deal with such content, in terms of policies that are enforced and technology that is developed and implemented to tackle it.

Moderating media that may not suitable for all audiences is important for social networks and other platforms that host user-submitted content, so they can promise their users a safe and positive environment – and policies that outline what’s okay to share are a good start. ..Continued.. by Abhimanyu Ghoshal

Read More of Article...

December 16, 2013

Washington sex offenders, ACLU sue to hide low-level offenders' identities

See earlier lawsuit
12-16-2013 Washington:

Teen molester's mom: Disclosure would hurt my son's victims

“My family would lose everything.”

That’s the argument made by a King County sex offender terrified his name will be publicized if the State Patrol releases the sex offender registry it maintains.

A married father of two convicted of sex crimes in 2009, the man is one of two low-level sex offenders brought forward by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit aimed at stopping the state from releasing the names of 21,000 registered sex offenders residing in Washington.

At issue in the lawsuit are “level one” offenders, convicts judged by police evaluators to pose the least risk of further sex crimes. The names of offenders deemed more likely to commit additional sex crimes – “level two” and “level three” offenders – are already broadcast on free, public websites maintained by state law enforcement.

Filing the potential class action lawsuit earlier this month, attorneys for the offenders contend their identities and addresses should not be released to a Franklin County woman who has requested the entire database under the state public records act.

Attorneys for the State Patrol argue that the database – like the criminal convictions underlying the registry – isn’t protected by state privacy law and should be released. They also note the database has previously been released to numerous civic and media organizations, including the YMCA.

On Thursday, a King County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the release of the database until the case can be fully heard. Such orders are the norm in public records disclosure lawsuits – there wouldn’t be much point to it if documents are released before the case is decided.

Represented by the ACLU and private attorneys, the offenders contend they should be able to live in the relative privacy afforded them by the “level one” classification.

Aside from administrative differences which lower the registration burden placed on them, level one offenders enjoy one big benefit over their higher-level contemporaries – their photos, names and crimes aren’t listed on the county sex offender sites. Additionally, while their past crimes are still reported to schools they attend, but police aren’t empowered to notify the community they live in.

That lower level of notoriety is earned by scoring well on a review conducted by law enforcement, and by meeting the obligations placed on them.

In a statement to the court, the King County man – “John Doe B” in the lawsuit – contended he’s complied with probation, reported any violations of his treatment plan and has avoided sanctions from his parole officer and counselor. Still, he could lose his job and shame his family if the larger community was better informed about his past.

“Knowing the public opinion about sex offenders, and the bias and hatred that many people have toward registered sex offenders, I’m worried about mental and physical abuse to my family and myself,” the man said in a Dec. 5 statement to the court.

Filing the lawsuit in King County Superior Court, attorneys for the offenders argued the State Patrol should not release its statewide database to Donna Zink, a resident and former mayor of Mesa. Reports in the Tri-City Herald and elsewhere indicate Zink has been attempting to compile a comprehensive list of Washington’s registered sex offenders.

In a statement Friday, ACLU of Washington staff attorney Vanessa Hernandez argued publicizing the database endangers offenders.

“Being identified publicly as a sex offender puts individuals at risk of being harassed, assaulted, or losing jobs and housing,” Hernandez said via an email sent by an ACLU spokesman. “The government should follow the state’s sex offender registration law, which says that names of these individuals should not be released automatically to the general public.”

Responding to the lawsuit for the State Patrol, Assistant Attorney General Shelley Williams said the offenders’ complaint is largely moot – the cat is already out of the bag.

The state has previously released the information Zink requested to other agencies, non-profit organizations, the general public and the media. Among the organizations that have previously received the database are the YMCA, an Eastern Washington housing authority and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The Kitsap Sun received a complete copy of the database in March 2012.

Writing the court, Williams said state law simply does not protect the sex offender database from public disclosure. Beyond that, court records already provide the information the offenders would have the court hide from the public.

“The plaintiffs’ key concern is being identified as convicted sex offenders,” Williams said in court papers. “The fact that a person has been convicted of a sex offense has long been accessible by the public.

“Not only is a sex offender’s conviction readily available … but the intimate details of an offender’s life are also potentially open to the public.”

To support their claims of concern, attorneys for the offenders submitted statements to the court for the families of the men and boys whose identities would be released to Zink.

Nearly all those statements came from the parents or guardians of offenders convicted as children. Most of the offenders were convicted of sex assaults against family members, which is to be expected.

While research into the issue varies, estimates are that 1-in-4 to 1-in-3 sexual assaults against children are committed by family members, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. Juvenile offenders commit about one third of all sex assaults against children.

The offenders’ parents and guardians said releasing the registry would shame the offenders unduly and could expose their victims as well. All argued publicity would make it harder for the offenders to get on with their lives.

“If publicizing level one sex offenders’ names and pictures prevented sexual abuse, protected victims or helped protect children in the community, I would continue to be an ardent supporter of public notification laws,” the mother of a young man convicted of molesting three younger siblings said in court papers. “However, as a mother who has experienced the other side of abuse, I only see the harmful effects and humiliation public notification causes families and most especially the victims of sexual abuse who are children.”

Another woman – mother to a son who sexually assaulted two of her young nieces – argued releasing low-level offenders’ names as “tantamount to bullying.”

“Other people shouldn’t be able to have the power to influence the rest of the people’s lives,” the woman said in a statement to the court. “Yes, the offenders have done that with their choices, but they have been in court for that and are making their restitution and changes in their lives.”

On Thursday, King County Superior Court Judge Jean Rietschel issued a preliminary injunction against the state barring the release of the database until the lawsuit is resolved. A trial date has not yet been set. ..Source.. by Levi Pulkkinen

Read More of Article...

February 6, 2013

AT&T to pay Washington prisoners’ families $45 million in telephone class action settlement

2-6-2013 Washington:

AT&T has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit involving collect calls made from Washington State prisons for $45 million, making at least 70,000 families eligible for payments.

The settlement, filed late Friday in King County Superior Court, ends a 12-year lawsuit that pin-balled between the state Supreme Court, the state Utilities and Trade Commission and King County Superior Court. Filed in 2000, the lawsuit accused AT&T and other phone companies of failing to disclose exorbitant rates for collect calls from prison. The case settled just as it was set to go to trial in King County to determine damages.

The lawsuit covers collect calls made between 1996 and 2000 from Department of Corrections facilities. The lawsuit was filed by family and friends of Paul Wright, editor of Prison Legal News and a former inmate in Washington State. Wright estimated that between 70,000 and 172,000 people could eligible for refunds, which include full reimbursement of the call charges, plus $200 per person.

At the time, those charges were $3.95 for the first minute and $.90 for each additional minute, according to Seattle attorney Chris Youtz, who pressed the class action case. After 20 minutes, the calls ended, requiring a new call, and a new surcharge. “The rates were ridiculous,” said Youtz.

Youtz said at least three people wracked up $20,000 in charges, according an analysis done during discovery in the case; others had $10,000 bills. Newspapers, such as The Seattle Times, and Columbia Legal Services, a nonprofit that monitors prison conditions, also likely will receive refunds for calls received from prisoners. If there is money left over after all class members who can be found are reimbursed – a big if, given the length of time that has gone by – some of the remainder will go to the Legal Foundation of Washington, which helps low-income people groups get lawyers, as ...continued... by Jonathan Martin

Read More of Article...