    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     DEATH IN CUSTODY REPORTING ACT OF 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2908

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-113

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    37-008 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2007
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
    HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         LAMAR SMITH, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    JERROLD NADLER, New York                 Wisconsin
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MAXINE WATERS, California            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   CHRIS CANNON, Utah
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               RIC KELLER, Florida
    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         DARRELL ISSA, California
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   STEVE KING, Iowa
    LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota

                Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                     Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    MAXINE WATERS, California            J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                Wisconsin
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama                 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio

                          Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel

                        Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 JULY 24, 2007

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 2908, the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007''........     3

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.....................     1
    The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Jeffrey Sedgwick, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
      Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,
      Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................     7
      Prepared Statement.............................................    10
    Mr. Charles Sullivan, Executive Director and Co-Founder,
      International Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants,
      Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................    18
      Prepared Statement.............................................    19
    Ms. Jenni Gainsborough, Washington Office Director, Penal Reform
      International, Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................    19
      Prepared Statement.............................................    22
    Ms. Mary Scott, Mother of Jonathan Magbie, Mitchellville, MD
      Oral Testimony.................................................    24
      Prepared Statement.............................................    26

                                    APPENDIX

    Material Submitted for the Hearing Record........................    39

                     DEATH IN CUSTODY REPORTING ACT OF 2007

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                  and Homeland Security
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:49 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
    C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Waters, Delahunt, Johnson,
    Davis, Baldwin, Forbes, Sensenbrenner, Coble, and Chabot.
        Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel;
    Gregory Barnes, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, Majority
    Counsel; Veronica L. Eligan, Professional Staff Member; Michael
    Volkov, Minority Counsel; and Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. The Subcommittee will now come to
    order.
        I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R.
    2908, the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007.''
        The hearing will focus on the rationale for reauthorizing
    the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000,'' which expired
    on December 31, 2006. That bill had bipartisan support, created
    a uniform system for the reporting of deaths in law enforcement
    custody to the United States Department of Justice.
        Although it is a preliminary conclusion and needs to be
    confirmed by research and analysis, it appears that the act has
    contributed to the decline in death rates among those in
    various categories of law enforcement custody.
        Before the enactment of the ``Death in Custody Reporting
    Act of 2000,'' states had no uniform requirements for reporting
    the circumstances surrounding the death of persons in custody.
    The lack of uniform reporting requirements made it impossible
    to ascertain the percentage of deaths by suicide and homicides
    or from natural causes, which, in turn, made oversight of the
    treatment of those in custody inadequate.
        Consequently, an environment of suspicion arose surrounding
    over 1,000 deaths which were believed to have occurred in
    custody situations each year. Many of those that were ruled
    suicide or deaths from natural causes were suspected of being
    homicides committed either by officers or other prisoners.
        However, the indifference to prisoners' rights and safeties
    of those in custody made scrutiny of suspected death the low
    priority and deaths of questionable cause were rarely
    investigated.
        From the mid-1980's to the enactment of the ``Death in
    Custody Reporting Act,'' researchers and activists scrutinized
    the death rate in the Nation's jails and prisons and found very
    little reporting of the circumstances surrounding the deaths.
    In fact, by 1986, only 25 States and the District of Columbia
    even had jail inspection units.
        Moreover, even the States that did report deaths differed
    in basic reporting standards. Insufficient data and the lack of
    uniformity of the data collected made oversight of prisoner
    safety woefully inadequate.
        However, the interest in oversight that emerged through the
    researchers and activists shed light on conditions in local and
    State jails, which began a rising tide of wrongful death
    litigation. The increasing litigation forced some measure of
    accountability and conditions somewhat improved.
        Moreover, activism and news of litigation spurned media
    interest, which shed further light on the conditions.
        The watershed moment of bringing death in custody rates to
    national attention occurred in 1995. After conducting a 1-year
    investigation into prison conditions and the death rate of
    prisoners in custody, the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey ran a
    series of award-winning editorials that brought the seriousness
    of the lack of reporting to the Nation's attention.
        The editorials went on to detail abuses, including racism,
    overzealous police interrogations, cover-up and general police
    incompetence, which prompted Congressional action.
        Following successive introduction of bills in several
    Congresses with my Republican colleagues from Arkansas, first,
    Representative Tim Hutchinson and then-Representative Asa
    Hutchinson, the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000'' was
    passed. The law required States receiving certain Federal funds
    to comply with the reporting requirements established by the
    attorney general.
        Since the enactment of the act, the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, the BJS, has compiled a number of statistics
    detailing not only the circumstances of prisoner death, but the
    rates of death in prisons versus jails and the rates of death
    based on the sizes of the various facilities.
        With the detailed statistical data, policy-makers, both
    State and local, are able to make informed policy judgments
    about the treatment of persons in their custody, which has
    assisted in lowering the death rate. In fact, since the focus
    on death in custody emerged in the mid 19890's the latest BJS
    report, dated August 2005, shows a 64 percent decline in
    suicides and a 93 percent decline in the homicide rate.
        To continue this success, this hearing will hear testimony
    as part of the consideration of whether to reauthorize Public
    Law 106-297 as the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007.''
        [The bill, H.R. 2908, follows:]

        Mr. Scott of Virginia. It is now my pleasure to recognize
    my Virginia colleague, the gentleman from Virginia's 4th
    Congressional District, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
    Randy Forbes.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I appreciate
    your leadership for many years on this important issue, and I
    support your efforts to monitor the rate of deaths in custody.
        We have found common ground on the importance of continued
    oversight of Federal and State prisons. I am a strong advocate
    for tough penalties, particularly for violent offenders. The
    important goal of our criminal justice system can and should be
    pursued, while, at the same time, providing proper health-care
    services to prisoners.
        I wish to extend a very special welcome to Ms. Mary Scott,
    who has graciously agreed to share her story with us today. Ms.
    Scott's son, Jonathan Magbie, died in the D.C. Correctional
    Treatment Facility in September 2004, 4 days into a 10-day jail
    sentence for possession of marijuana.
        Jonathan was 4 years old when he was hit by a drunk driver,
    leaving him with limited to no use of his arms and no use of
    his legs. He suffered numerous ailments as a result of his
    injuries and required constant care. Sadly, Jonathan's death
    could have been prevented and should serve as an example for
    proper health care in Federal and State prison facilities.
        The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there were
    15,308 State prisoner deaths between 2001 and 2005. Likewise,
    there were an additional 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43
    juvenile deaths between 2000 and 2005. Between 2001 and 2004,
    half of all State prisoner deaths were the result of heart
    diseases and cancer. Two-thirds involved inmates aged 45 or
    older, and two-thirds were the result of medical problems which
    were present at the time of admission.
        Although illness-related deaths have slightly increased in
    recent years, the homicide and suicide rates in State prisons
    have dramatically decreased over the last 25 years.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about the
    significance of these trends, and I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        Without objection, other statements will be placed into the
    record.
        We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today to
    help us consider the reauthorization of the ``Death in Custody
    Reporting Act.''
        Our first witness will be Jeffrey Sedgwick, the director of
    the Bureau of Justice Statistics, where he oversees the
    collection of data required by the ``Death in Custody Reporting
    Act.'' As a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Mr.
    Sedgwick has authored a number of articles on law enforcement,
    criminal justice policy and policy analysis. He has a B.A.
    degree from Kenyon College, an MAPA and Ph.D. from the
    University of Virginia. And after earning his Ph.D., he joined
    the University of Massachusetts faculty and is presently on
    leave from that position.
        Our next witness will be Mr. Charles Sullivan, executive
    director and co-founder of the International Citizens United
    for Rehabilitation of Errants, or CURE. CURE is a grassroots
    organization dedicated to reducing crime through reform of the
    criminal justice system. CURE was instrumental in passing the
    ``Death in Custody Reporting Act'' in the state of Texas in
    1983. And after seeing the passage in Texas, Mr. Sullivan and
    CURE worked with Members of Congress toward a national
    reporting bill, which became the ``Death in Custody Reporting
    Act of 2000.'' He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy from
    St. Mary's College and a master's in history from Notre Dame
    Seminary in New Orleans.
        Our next witness is Ms. Jenni Gainsborough, director of the
    Washington office of Penal Reform International. PRI has
    officers throughout the world, developing and implementing
    programs to improve access to justice and to ensure the humane
    treatment of prisoners in accordance with the international
    human rights laws and standards. PRI also works to reduce the
    imprisonment through alternatives to incarceration and for the
    abolition of the death penalty. Prior to joining PRI in 2002,
    she was a senior policy analyst with the Sentencing Project.
    Before that, she was a public policy coordinator of the ACLU's
    national prison project. She began her career in criminal
    justice working with a Department of Justice program for
    serious habitual juvenile offenders. She has a B.A. in
    education in English from the University of London and an MBA
    from Pepperdine University in California.
        And our final witness will be Ms. Mary Scott. She has
    approximately 35 years of Federal service and currently works
    for the Federal Government at the U.S. Army Human Resources
    Command in Alexandria. She is a mother of five children and
    several grandchildren. And one of her children, as the Ranking
    Member has indicated, was incarcerated in Washington, DC, and
    died shortly after his incarceration. Ms. Scott was born and
    raised in Washington, DC, and is a graduate of Theodore
    Roosevelt High School.
        Now, each of our witnesses' written statements will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. I would ask each
    witness to summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less.
        And to help you stay within that time, there is a timing
    device on the table. When the light switches from green to
    yellow, you will have approximately 1 minute to conclude your
    testimony. And when the light turns red, it signals that the
    witness's 5 minutes have expired.
        We will now begin with Mr. Sedgwick.

      TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY SEDGWICK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE
      STATISTICS, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                        JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Sedgwick. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Jeffery Sedgwick,
    director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
        BJS is the official statistical agency of the United States
    Department of Justice and a component of the Office of Justice
    Programs.
        I am pleased to be here today to discuss the ``Deaths in
    Custody Reporting Act.''
        The health and well-being of persons subject to the custody
    of law enforcement and correctional authorities is an important
    issue in criminal justice. Collecting and reporting data on
    deaths in custody is also an important part of the Office of
    Justice Programs' mission to improve the fair administration of
    justice across America and of the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
    mission to collect, process, analyze and disseminate accurate
    and timely information on crime and the administration of
    justice.
        Mr. Chairman, BJS is committed to fulfilling the data
    collection and reporting provisions of DCRA. I am pleased to
    report that the Bureau has been successful in initiating the
    statistical activities of the Act.
        As a result of BJS's comprehensive collection effort, there
    is 100 percent coverage of State prisons and over 99 percent
    coverage for local jails and state-operated juvenile systems.
        Further, BJS developed the data collection covering State
    and local law enforcement agencies in more than 40 States.
    Between 2000 and 2005, the latest year for which complete data
    are available, BJS has collected and processed records on more
    than 15,000 deaths in State prisons, nearly 6,000 deaths in
    local jails, and 2,000 deaths in the process of arrest or
    transfer to detention.
        Since the Act was passed, BJS has released two
    groundbreaking reports on deaths in custody, a special report
    on suicide and homicide in State prisons and local jails and a
    report on medical causes of death in State prisons. These
    reports offered the first opportunity to analyze the personal
    characteristics, current offenses and environmental factors
    surrounding the inmate deaths on a national scale.
        While the first report highlighted sharp declines in
    suicide and homicide rates, it also provided important insights
    into the characteristics of persons most at risk of death, as
    well as knowledge of variations in death rates among systems
    and facilities.
        The second report concerned medical causes of death in
    State prisons, giving Congress and the public the first
    detailed look into the physical health and characteristics of
    inmates whose death in custody was medically-related.
        Though BJS has had tremendous success thus far in
    implementing the data collection provisions of DCRA, we face
    difficulties in obtaining information on deaths that occur in
    the process of arrest or in transit after arrest. To fully
    measure such deaths, it is necessary to gain data from
    approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies.
        While the sheer number of local law enforcement agencies is
    challenging, BJS has nevertheless instituted a collection plan
    that employs the help of various State respondents to obtain
    this information.
        Given the level of effort required to establish and
    maintain these partnerships and the need to work within ever
    present fiscal constraints, BJS has identified a way to
    economize. We have examined the payoff from quarterly versus
    annual reporting and have concluded that annual reporting would
    produce both more complete data and a more efficient
    collection.
        Most jails and law enforcement agencies report no deaths in
    custody during a given year, so quarterly reports produce no
    new data. When deaths do occur, it is unlikely that their full
    investigation will conclude in any given quarter, thus
    quarterly reports in these instances simply revisits the same
    deaths with no conclusion.
        BJS is committed to providing the best possible data to
    Congress and the public when reporting on deaths in custody. As
    evidence of this commitment, we have continued our DCRA
    statistical collections beyond the expiration date of the
    ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000.''
        Last week, BJS launched the ``Deaths in Custody'' section
    on our Web site. This section provides a series of detailed
    tables and downloadable spreadsheets for data users, including
    several years of data from the State prison, local jail and
    State juvenile correction facility collections.
        In the fall of 2007, BJS plans to issue its first report on
    arrest-related deaths. Drawing on roughly 2000 records of
    deaths submitted by over 40 States during a 3-year period, this
    study will provide a detailed analysis of circumstances
    surrounding these deaths, including the use of weapons or force
    against arresting officers, attempts to flee or resist arrest,
    and the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of arrest.
        The use of various weapons and restraint devices by law
    enforcement officers will also be studied.
        In the future, BJS also plans to release a report analyzing
    the medical causes related to deaths in local jails, where over
    half of all inmate deaths are caused by medical problems.
        BJS also looks forward to updating our published report on
    suicide and homicide trends in correctional facilities to look
    for changing patterns in these violent deaths.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    the opportunity to speak with you today, and I would be pleased
    to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sedgwick follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Sedgewick

        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        Before Mr. Sullivan, let me recognize the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Waters, and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Chabot, who are with us today, the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Coble, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Delahunt, who have been here.
        Mr. Sullivan?

       TESTIMONY OF CHARLES SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-
     FOUNDER, INTERNATIONAL CITIZENS UNITED FOR REHABILITATION OF
                        ERRANTS, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The reporting of deaths in custody is the only true
    objective statistic that points at the conditions of
    incarceration. Statistics such as disciplinary infractions or
    even accreditation presume some subjectivity.
        However, each of the almost estimated 5,000 deaths reported
    this year to the Bureau of Justice Statistics is an objective
    indicator of how a particular prison or jail is doing in regard
    to security and medical care.
        BJS will also be given the name, gender, race and age of
    the deceased, as well as the date, time and location of death.
    Finally, there will be a brief description of the circumstances
    surrounding the death.
        Through these reports, BJS has been able to analyze the
    personal characteristics, current offense and environmental
    factors surrounding these deaths. General highlights have shown
    that suicides in jails have substantially declined since the
    early 1980's, while homicides in State prisons have dropped an
    astounding 93 percent.
        Besides overall statistics, BJS has also been able to
    publish the number of deaths in each State, as well as in the
    50 largest jail jurisdictions throughout the country.
        Since this data about deaths is already collected by BJS, I
    would suggest that BJS place all these reports, including the
    names of the deceased, on its Web site. Relatively speaking,
    this is not a large number of deaths. It would include about
    3,000 deaths in State prisons, 1,000 in jails, 500 in law
    enforcement custody, and about 25 in juvenile correctional
    facilities.
        I would suggest that these reports be included with the
    State from which they came. Also, the deaths should be listed
    with the facility and the State where the death occurred. Where
    no deaths occurred, the facility would not be listed.
        When a year is completed, BJS would issue a news release. I
    suggest this, because in preparation for my testimony, I talked
    to wardens and national prison and jail experts. No one really
    was that familiar with these excellent statistics that BJS has
    collected.
        Having details of the deaths on its Web site would
    communicate the extreme importance of this objective data to
    the public, especially to corrections professionals. In the
    same way, the goal of the reporting of deaths in custody is to
    have all deaths reported.
        Presently, deaths in Federal custody are not reported. My
    second recommendation is to include deaths in the Federal
    Bureau of Prisons, immigration detention centers, and other
    Federal jurisdictions.
        Including on the BJS Web site all reported deaths, details,
    all reported details of all deaths in custody throughout the
    United States, it seems to me, would be the next step toward
    reducing deaths in custody. By highlighting the details of each
    death, the corrections and law enforcement professions could
    examine why this death occurred and how deaths like this can be
    prevented in the future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Charles Sullivan
        The reporting of deaths in custody is the only true objective
    statistic that points to the conditions of incarceration. Statistics
    such as disciplinary infractions or even accreditation presume some
    subjectivity. However, each of the almost 5,000 deaths reported this
    year to the Bureau of Justice Statistics is an objective indicator of
    how a particular prison or jail is doing in regard to security and
    medical care.
        BJS will also be given the name, gender, race, and age of the
    deceased as well as the date, time and location of the death. Finally,
    there will be a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the
    death.
        Through these reports, BJS has been able ``to analyze the personal
    characteristics, current offense and environmental factors''
    surrounding these deaths. General highlights have shown that suicides
    in jails have substantially declined since the early eighties while
    homicides in state prisons have dropped an astounding 93%.
        Besides overall statistics, BJS has also been able to publish the
    number of deaths in each state as well as in the 50 largest jail
    jurisdictions.
        Since this data about deaths is already collected by BJS, I would
    suggest that BJS place all all these Reports, including the names of
    the deceased, on its web site.
        Relatively speaking, this is not a large number of deaths. It would
    include about 3,000 deaths in state prisons, 1,000 in jails, 500 in law
    enforcement custody and 25 in juvenile correctional facilities. I would
    suggest that these reports be included with the state from which they
    came. Also, the deaths would be listed with the facility in the state
    where the death occurred. When no deaths occurred, the facility would
    not be listed.
        When a year is completed, BJS would issue a news release. I suggest
    this because in preparation for my testimony, I talked to wardens, and
    national prison and jail experts. No one really was that familiar with
    the excellent statistics BJS has collected. Having details of the
    deaths on its web site would communicate the extreme importance of this
    objective data to the public especially to corrections professionals.
        In the same way, the goal of the reporting of deaths in custody is
    to have ALL deaths reported. Presently, deaths in federal custody are
    not reported. My second recommendation is to include deaths in the
    Federal Bureau of Prisons, immigration detention centers and other
    federal jurisdictions.
        Including on the BJS web site ALL reported details of ALL deaths in
    custody throughout the United States would be the next step toward
    reducing deaths in custody. By highlighting the details of each death,
    the corrections and law enforcement professions can examine why this
    death occurred and how deaths like this can be prevented in the future.

        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
        Ms. Gainsborough?

     TESTIMONY OF JENNI GAINSBOROUGH, WASHINGTON OFFICE DIRECTOR,
               PENAL REFORM INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Gainsborough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
    the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
    today.
        And I also wanted to say how much I appreciate the Chairman
    for introducing this bill again and for all his work over the
    years and continuing support for upholding the human and civil
    rights of incarcerated people. They are much appreciated by all
    of us working to reform the prison system.
        The United States has more people behind bars than any
    other country in the world, not only in absolute numbers, but
    as a percentage of its population. We lock up people at a rate
    10 to 15 times higher than any other industrialized democracy.
    Almost one-quarter of the world's total number of prisoners is
    held in the U.S.
        Yet, despite the size of our incarcerated population, we
    lack any mandated national standards or any systemic oversight
    to ensure the conditions of confinement adhere to
    constitutional or human rights standards.
        Because it is so difficult to find out what happens in
    prisons and to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to
    produce systemic reforms, those instruments that we do have,
    such as the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act,'' are of great
    importance.
        The Chairman has already talked about the problems that led
    to the passing of DCRA originally in 2000 and the encouraging
    results that we have seen at least in some areas of deaths
    since those times, and it is very clear that we need this
    reporting to continue.
        The measurement of deaths in custody is crude, but it is an
    important measure for evaluating the culture of an institution.
    It reflects on health care, suicide prevention, prisoner-on-
    prisoner violence, and staff-on-prisoner violence. It will
    become a more effective tool in preventing deaths if the data
    it produces are used to make improvements in correctional
    health care, classification systems, suicide prevention, staff
    assignment and training, even facility design, all areas that
    could make a significant difference in preventing deaths.
        Learning how many people die of different illnesses is
    important, but it is only a beginning or, rather, it is an end,
    a snapshot of a final outcome. We need the information about
    deaths in order to analyze problems, improve faulty systems and
    work to reduce the numbers as much as possible.
        Unfortunately, the tendency is to hide the problems that
    exist precisely because government does not want to acknowledge
    or deal with them. It was extremely discouraging to learn from
    the recent testimony of the last surgeon general that the Bush
    administration prevented the release of the report on prison
    health care produced by his office because of fears that it
    would lead to calls for reform.
        The publication of a major report to Congress, the health
    status of soon to be released inmates, was also delayed for a
    long time and finally released with as little attention drawn
    to it as possible.
        In 1996, Congress acted to limit the role of the Federal
    courts in protecting prisoners from abuse by passing the
    ``Prison Litigation Reform Act.'' These actions are all
    symptomatic of a lack of concern at all levels of government
    for the well-being of people who have no alternative but to
    rely on the State to meet their health-care needs.
        They also suggest a lack of concern for the well-being of
    people who work in prisons, whose own health can be threatened.
        Asking for greater oversight and transparency of what
    happens in prisons and jails is not to undermine the
    professionalism of prison administrators or to call into
    question the good intentions of the majority of them. No one
    doubts that providing good health care in prison is
    challenging.
        People going into prisons and jails are likely to have
    greater health-care problems than those in the free world.
    People who become prisoners are generally poor, have not had
    good health care in their lives, and are often abusers of
    alcohol and drugs.
        But the fact that staff face difficult circumstances of the
    people in their care is an argument for greater, not less
    oversight. Adequate treatment of the physical and mental
    illness of people held in the custody of the State is not just
    a human right, but has important implications for the health
    and safety of the communities to which they will, in time, turn
    and to the health and safety of those who work in prisons and
    come in daily contact with them.
        The increased privatization of health care in prisons has
    certainly damaged the standard of care in many institutions.
    Reports and lawsuits have made it clear that a system in which
    companies submit low bids in order to win contracts and then
    cut back on services and personnel in order to maximize profits
    can lead directly to suffering and death.
        There are many reports and information about some of these
    problems. I touch some in my testimony and will be very happy
    to provide more.
        Private prison companies, both those providing health care
    and those owning prisons and managing the full range of
    custodial services, present particular problems to the lack of
    transparency and oversight. And I am very concerned about the
    wording of the bill that is out now, which does not explicitly
    include facilities operated by for-profit companies, and I
    would like to see language really make that clear.
        It is particularly problematic because those facilities
    include many of the immigrant detention centers, where problems
    have been reported. The Department of Homeland Security's
    inspector general issued a report earlier this year and found
    problems with medical care in a number of facilities.
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, told the New York
    Times last month that 62 inmates died in its custody from 2004
    to 2006. The ACLU has documented many instances of medical
    neglect leading to death.
        The number of people in immigration detention has doubled
    in a decade to 27,000 or more on any given day and negligent
    medical care is among the most frequent complaints by detainees
    nationwide.
        As currently written, DCRA does not require these deaths to
    be reported and this clearly, too, needs to be changed.
        Reporting alone will not solve the problems of health care
    in places of detention nor the other conditions that can lead
    to the death of prisoners, whether it is through suicide or
    violence inflicted by others. But understanding why prisoners
    die is an essential step in improving the system. It is one
    tool that can help to open up a closed world and provide some
    transparency.
        We see DCRA as one opportunity among several to improve
    current standards of care for people under the control of the
    State. The regulations to be developed under the ``Prison Rape
    Elimination Act'' will provide another tool and we hope there
    will be some strengthening of oversight and conditions in
    juvenile facilities included the reauthorization of the
    ``Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.''
        We also remain hopeful that one day the United States will
    ratify the optional protocol to the convention against torture,
    which would require us to develop a system of internal
    oversight and inspection.
        I realize that I am over my time and I will stop, but I
    will be very happy to provide any further information to the
    panel. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gainsborough follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Jenni Gainsborough
        My name is Jenni Gainsborough. I am the Director of the Washington
    Office of Penal Reform International (PRI). PRI is the world's largest
    international criminal justice reform organization working to improve
    access to justice, reduce the overuse of incarceration and ensure the
    humane treatment of prisoners in accordance with human rights laws,
    standards and norms. The Washington office's particular mandate is to
    broaden the knowledge and understanding of human rights mechanisms and
    standards in the U.S. among criminal justice reformers, policy makers
    and administrators and to encourage their integration into policy and
    practice here.
        Thank you for the invitation to address the Subcommittee on the
    issue of reporting deaths in custody. I would also like to thank
    Representative Scott for introducing HR 2908, the Death in Custody
    Reporting Act. His leadership on this issue as well as his continuing
    support for upholding the human and civil rights of incarcerated people
    are greatly appreciated by all of us working to reform the prison
    system.
        The United States now has more people behind bars than any other
    country in the world, not only in absolute numbers but as a percentage
    of its population. Our incarceration rate of more than 737 per 100,000
    is ten to fifteen times the rate of other industrialized democracies.
    We lock up more people, including children, for longer periods of time
    and the numbers and percentages increase every year. Almost one quarter
    of the world's total number of prisoners is held in the U.S. Yet
    despite the size of our incarcerated population, we lack any mandated
    national standards or any system for systemic oversight to ensure that
    conditions of confinement adhere to constitutional or human rights
    standards.
        Because it is so difficult to find out what happens in prisons and
    to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to produce systemic
    reforms, those instruments that we do have, such as the Death in
    Custody Reporting Act (DICRA) are of great importance. DICRA was passed
    originally in 2000 as a result of concerns about the questionable
    circumstances in thousands of deaths in police and prison custody.
    Before DICRA, data collection on prison deaths was incomplete in part
    because states lacked the incentive to participate but also because
    states were inconsistent in their reporting methods and the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics only required prisons to report aggregate death
    statistics rather than the details of individual cases.
        The measurement of deaths in custody is a crude but important
    measure for evaluating the culture of an institution--it reflects on
    healthcare, suicide prevention, prisoner-on-prisoner violence, and
    staff on prisoner violence. It will become a more effective tool in
    preventing deaths if the data it produces are used to make improvements
    in correctional healthcare, classification, suicide prevention, staff
    assignment and training, facility design, and other areas that can make
    a significant difference in preventing deaths.
        Learning how many people die of different illnesses is important
    but it is only a beginning--or rather it is an end, a snapshot of a
    final outcome. We need the information about deaths in order to analyze
    problems, improve faulty systems and to work to reduce the numbers as
    much as possible. Unfortunately, the tendency is to hide the problems
    that exist precisely because government does not want to acknowledge or
    deal with them.
        It was extremely discouraging to learn from the recent testimony of
    the last Surgeon General that the Bush administration prevented the
    release of the report on prison health care produced by his office
    because of fears that it would lead to calls for reform. The
    publication of a major report to Congress, The Health Status of Soon-
    to-be-Released Inmates was also delayed for a long time and was finally
    released in May 2002 so as to draw as little attention as possible. In
    1996, despite the fact that changing case law was already making it
    more difficult to obtain remedies in prisoner abuse cases, Congress
    acted to limit the role of the federal courts in protecting prisoners
    from abuses by passing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The
    limitations on the role of the courts imposed by the PLRA, further
    reduced oversight of what happens in the closed world of prisons.
        These actions are symptomatic of a lack of concern at all levels of
    government for the well being of people who have no alternative but to
    rely on the state to meet their healthcare needs. They also suggest a
    lack of concern for the well being of people who work in prisons whose
    own health can be threatened.
        Asking for greater oversight and transparency of what happens in
    prisons and jails, is not to undermine the professionalism of prison
    administrators or to call into question the good intentions of the
    majority of them. No one doubts that providing good healthcare in
    prison is challenging. People going into prisons and jails are likely
    to have greater health problems than those in the free world. People
    who become prisoners are generally poor and have not had good
    healthcare in their lives. They are often abusers of alcohol and drugs.
    A high percentage suffer from mental illnesses, often severe and often
    untreated. But the fact that staff face difficult circumstances with
    the people in their care is an argument for greater, not lesser,
    oversight. Adequate treatment of the physical and mental illnesses of
    people held in the custody of the state is not just a human right but
    it has important implications for the health and safety of the
    communities to which they will in time return and to the health and
    safety of those who work in prisons and come into daily contact with
    them. Communicable diseases like tuberculosis, Hepatitis C and HIV
    reach the public through people released from prison and those who
    visit or work inside places of detention.
        The increased privatization of healthcare in prisons has certainly
    damaged the standard of care in many institutions. Reports and laws
    suits have made it clear that a system in which companies submit low
    bids in order to win contracts and then cut back on services and
    personnel in order to maximize profits can lead directly to suffering
    and death. Prison Health Services (PHS), one of the largest private
    prison healthcare companies, has lost contracts in a number of
    jurisdictions, for example in Hillsborough County, FL, where a pregnant
    woman complained of labor pains for 12 hours before giving birth over a
    toilet to a baby who died on the way to the hospital; Dutchess County,
    N.Y., where a 35-year-old woman died after PHS doctors ignored her
    claims of chest pain for 10 days; Schenectady County, N.Y., where a
    Parkinson's patient was deprived of most of his medication and left to
    die in a bed soaked in his own urine.
        Private prison companies, both those providing healthcare and those
    owning prisons and managing the full range of custody services, present
    particular problems of lack of transparency and oversight. They often
    try to hide their problems by making claims of proprietary business
    information and, when lawsuits are brought, often settle out of court
    and impose requirements of confidentiality about the details of such
    settlements. I am concerned about the wording of HR 2908 which refers
    to the need to report ``information regarding the death of any person
    who is in the process of arrest, is en route to be incarcerated, or is
    incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, state prison, or other
    local or State correctional facility (including any juvenile
    facility).'' Unfortunately, this language does not explicitly include
    facilities operated by for-profit companies. Those facilities include
    many of the immigrant detention centers where problems have been
    reported.
        The Department of Homeland Security's inspector general issued a
    report earlier this year and found problems with medical care in a
    number of facilities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told
    the New York Times last month that 62 inmates died in its custody from
    2004 to 2006. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented
    many instances of medical neglect leading to death. Among those who
    died while in ICE custody were a man from Sierra Leone who collapsed at
    a Virginia jail after saying he did not get medicine for a kidney
    ailment, a woman from Barbados who died in another Virginia jail after
    telling her sister that she received no medicine for a uterine fibroid
    that caused hemorrhaging, and a South Korean woman who died after
    cellmates appealed to authorities for help over a period of weeks. The
    number of people in immigration detention has doubled in a decade to
    27,500 on any given day. Meanwhile, negligent medical care is among the
    most frequent complaints by detainees nationwide. As currently written,
    DICRA does not require these deaths to be reported. This clearly needs
    to be changed.
        Reporting alone will not solve the problems of healthcare in places
    of detention, nor the other conditions that can lead to the death of
    prisoners whether through suicide or violence inflicted by others, but
    understanding why prisoners die is an essential step in improving the
    system. It is one tool that can help to open up a closed world and
    provide some transparency. DICRA requires the Attorney General to
    develop guidelines for the reporting of data and we hope that the
    Attorney General will use that opportunity to ensure that the
    information is collected and disseminated in a way that maximizes its
    usefulness. It would be extremely helpful if the process began with
    discussions between all the stake holders to devise the best possible
    system to make sure that happens.
        We see DICRA as one opportunity among several to improve current
    standards of care for people under the control of the state. The
    regulations to be developed under the Prison Rape Elimination Act will
    provide another tool for greater transparency and we hope that there
    will be some strengthening of oversight of conditions in juvenile
    facilities included in the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
    Delinquency Prevention Act. We also remain hopeful that one day the
    United States will ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention
    Against Torture (OPCAT). The OPCAT would require us to develop a system
    of internal oversight and inspection appropriate to our federal system
    while ensuring that no one deprived of liberty is also deprived of a
    mechanism to ensure basic standards of humane treatment regardless of
    where he or she is held.
        It is simply inconsistent with the values and principles of the
    United States to continue to lock up so many people without providing
    the minimum levels of oversight that are considered essential in other
    western democracies. We very much appreciate the opportunity to draw
    attention to the need for the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act.
    Obviously, this testimony can only provide a very brief overview of
    some of the concerns that we would like to see addressed. There are
    problems at all stages of the system--people dying after the use of
    tasers and electronic stun guns by the police, children dying in boot
    camps and detention facilities because of abusive treatment, and
    problems with inadequate healthcare in prisons and jails. I would be
    more than happy to provide further information on any of the points
    raised here.
        Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee and
    Representative Scott for raising these issues and for working to ensure
    the continuation of the reporting requirements of DICRA.

        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you very much, Ms.
    Gainsborough.
        Ms. Scott?

                  TESTIMONY OF MARY SCOTT, MOTHER OF
                   JONATHAN MAGBIE, MITCHELLVILLE, MD

        Ms. Scott. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Scott. And I
    first want to thank you for this opportunity to give this
    testimony on behalf of my son, Jonathan.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, could you ask Ms. Scott to maybe
    pull the mike a little closer?
        Ms. Scott. Again, my name is Mary Scott, and I first want
    to thank you for this opportunity to give this testimony on
    behalf of my son, Jonathan Magbie, and also others who have
    died while in the prison or jail.
        I offer this statement as support of the reauthorization of
    the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act.''
        My son Jonathan's death represents the height of the
    corrections system's and perhaps the criminal justice system's
    brutality and inhumanity. You see, at the time of his death,
    Jonathan was a 27-year-old quadriplegic, literally without the
    ability to control any of his body functions, even breathing.
        On September 20, 2004, Jonathan was given a 10-day sentence
    by a D.C. superior court judge for a first-time marijuana
    possession. He didn't deny that he smoked. In fact, he told the
    judge that it made him feel better. Little did he know that
    this statement would cost him his life.
        Let me briefly explain.
        Jonathan was a respiratory-dependent quadriplegic. As a
    result of being hit by a car at the age of 4, he was paralyzed
    from the neck down and needed a ventilator to breath.
        His 10-day sentence to the District of Columbia jail became
    a grueling and inexplicable ordeal. While in the prison, he was
    deprived of basic medical services, isolated in a closed-door
    cell, from where he had absolutely no capability of
    communicating, left dehydrated and medically misdiagnosed.
        The D.C. jail and its medical staff, with the court's
    sanction, accepted Jonathan into custody and then abandoned
    him. Five days later, he was dead.
        How was his death reported to the Department of Justice? To
    what extent were the actual facts and circumstances and
    especially the causes of his death documented and examined? How
    was it that a man who was able to survive a debilitating
    accident at age 4, experienced life-threatening bouts with
    pneumonia, a life-threatening bone infection and numerous
    surgeries, was unable to survive 5 days in jail?
        The Department of Justice should know that this
    quadriplegic was not properly suctioned, that if his lungs
    weren't properly cleared, that he was not properly
    catheterized, that he was not properly fed nor given necessary
    fluids, that he lost more than 20 pounds in 5 days, that he was
    locked in a closed room and deprived of proper medical
    attention.
        What happened to my son epitomizes the potential cruel and
    inhuman treatment that an isolated and vulnerable inmate can
    experience.
        The point here is that Jonathan's death and the particular
    circumstances surrounding his death should be documented in the
    interest of public accountability. This information should be
    examined, in my opinion, to ensure that others learn from the
    mistakes of this experience and not repeat them hopefully ever
    again.
        As a mother of a son who died a traumatic death while in
    custody, I strongly urge this Committee to support
    reauthorization of the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act.'' Our
    government and our society need a law which requires uniform
    reporting of prison deaths to the Department of Justice.
        Such a law should also state specific consequences for
    noncompliance. No justice system, especially ours, should
    transcend public accountability or the letter of the law.
        Therefore, the government and the public should know when
    and how people die in custody. Judicial determinations that
    someone should be incarcerated should not mean that those
    individuals' humanity or the humanity of that very system of
    incarceration is nullified.
        I am not necessarily pointing a finger and casting
    universal blame for jail and prison-related deaths. What I am
    saying is that these deaths, for whatever reason, command
    public attention and especially the attention of government
    leaders and decision-makers who seek to make that system and
    more responsible.
        I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the common thread of
    government interest related to these deaths is the question
    whether our corrections system is meeting Federal standards and
    constitutional protections.
        In Jonathan's case, it is significant that the D.C.
    government conducted an investigation and held oversight
    hearings and sought explanations for Jonathan's death. There is
    no doubt that knowledge and information are powerful tools in
    monitoring our corrections system.
        The improvement of Federal policies and procedures can only
    come from vigilant Justice Department and Congressional
    scrutiny of the knowledge and information such as that required
    in this law.
        I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today, and I trust that your efforts in reauthorizing the
    law will be successful.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Scott follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Mary Scott
        Good afternoon:
        My name is Mary Scott, and I first want to thank you for this
    opportunity to give this testimony, on behalf of my son, Jonathan
    Magbie, and also others who have died while in the prison or jail. I
    offer this statement in support of the reauthorization of the Death in
    Custody Reporting Act.
        My son, Jonathan's death represents the height of the correction
    system's, and perhaps the criminal justice system's, brutality and
    inhumanity. You see, at the time of his death Jonathan was a 27 year
    old quadraplegic, literally without the ability to control any of his
    body functions, even breathing.
        On September 20, 2004, Jonathan was given a ten (10) day sentence
    by a D.C. Superior Court judge for a first time offense of marijuana
    possession. He didn't deny that he smoked. In fact, he told the judge
    that it made him feel better. Little did he know that this statement
    would cost him his life.
        Let me briefly explain. Jonathan was a respiratory dependent
    quadriplegic. As a result of being hit by a car at age four, he was
    paralyzed from the neck down and needed a ventilator to breathe. His
    ten day sentence to the District of Columbia jail became a grueling and
    inexplicable ordeal. While in the jail, he was deprived of basic
    medical services, isolated in a closed door cell (from where he had
    absolutely no capability of communicating), left dehydrated and
    medically misdiagnosed. The D.C. jail and its medical staff, with the
    court's sanction, accepted Jonathan into custody, and then abandoned
    him. Five days later, he was dead.
        How was his death reported to the Department of Justice? To what
    extent were the actual facts and circumstances, and especially the
    causes of his death, documented and examined? How was it that a man who
    was able to survive a debilitating accident at age four, experience
    life threatening bouts with pneumonia, a life threatening bone
    infection and numerous surgeries, was unable to survive five (5) days
    in jail? The Department of Justice should know that this quadriplegic
    was not properly suctioned, that his lungs were not properly cleared,
    that he was not properly catheterized, that he was not properly fed nor
    given necessary fluids, that he loss more than twenty pounds in five
    days, that he was locked in a closed room, and deprived of proper
    medical attention.
        What happened to my son epitomizes the potential cruel and inhuman
    treatment that an isolated and vulnerable inmate can experience.
        The point here is that Jonathan's death, and the particular
    circumstances surrounding his death, should be documented in the
    interest of public accountability. This information should be examined,
    in my opinion, to ensure that others learn from the mistakes of this
    experience and not repeat them, hopefully ever again.
        As a mother of a son who died a traumatic death while in custody, I
    strongly urge this Committee to support reauthorization of the Death in
    Custody Reporting Act. Our government and our society need a law which
    requires uniform reporting of prison deaths to the Department of
    Justice. Such a law should also state specific consequences for
    noncompliance.
        No justice system, especially ours, should transcend public
    accountability or the letter of the law. Therefore, the government and
    the public should know when and how people die in its custody. Judicial
    determinations that someone should be incarcerated should not mean that
    that those individuals' humanity or the humanity of that very system of
    incarceration is nullified. I am not necessarily pointing a finger and
    casting universal blame for jail and prison related deaths. What I am
    saying is that these deaths, for whatever reason, command public
    attention and especially the attention of government leaders and
    decision makers who seek to make that system safer and more
    responsible.
        I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the common thread of
    government interest related to these deaths is the question whether our
    corrections system is meeting federal standards and constitutional
    protections.
        In Jonathan's case, it is significant that the D.C. government
    conducted an investigation and held oversight hearings, and sought
    explanations for Jonathan's death. There is no doubt that knowledge and
    information are powerful tools in monitoring our corrections system.
    The improvement of federal policies and procedures can only come from
    vigilant Justice Department and congressional scrutiny of the knowledge
    and information such as that required in this law.
        I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today and I trust that your efforts in reauthorizing the law will be
    successful. THANK YOU.

        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you, Ms. Scott.
        Ms. Scott, are you represented by a lawyer? Could you
    identify him, in case there are questions, technical questions
    you may be asked?
        Ms. Scott. Mr. Donald Temple and Mr. Cockner.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. In case there are questions, Mr.
    Temple is here.
        Without objection, the Subcommittee will be recessed
    shortly, subject to the call of the Chair, so the Subcommittee
    can proceed with a previously scheduled markup.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. The Chair now recesses the
    Subcommittee markup and resumes the Committee hearing on the
    bill.
        And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Sedgwick, you mentioned the problem of defining the
    process of arrest. Could you recommend how we could clarify
    that so there would not be any question?
        Mr. Sedgwick. The problem is not in defining the process of
    arrest. The difficulty is in collecting data from that
    particular stage of custody or that particular form of custody.
        The challenge that we face with the law enforcement
    community, quite frankly, is that there are 18,000 law
    enforcement units in the United States. Only two States have
    mandatory or required reporting by local law enforcement to a
    State agency of deaths in custody.
        The consequences in terms of trying to collect accurate
    data on deaths that occur in the process of arrest or transport
    subsequent to arrest is, essentially, it requires us to go out
    and establish some type of data collection mechanism with
    18,000 different agencies, which has proven to be probably the
    most time-consuming task that we have been involved in with
    DCRA and it is part of the reason why we will be getting around
    to doing our first report on deaths in the process of law
    enforcement or arrest-related deaths this fall. It has simply
    taken a very long time.
        How we solve that problem is a question on which the
    Department has not taken a position. I can say from the point
    of view of BJS, as a data collection agency, it is an awful lot
    easier for us to get information out of those two States that
    have mandatory State laws requiring deaths in local law
    enforcement agencies be reported to the State government.
        It is much easier for us to collect data in those States
    than it is in the other 48.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        The question has been raised about whether or not the
    reporting is required for, I guess, contracted incarceration
    under the for-profit facilities. Is there any question about
    whether or not they are included under the present language?
        Mr. Sedgwick. Right now, we collect data for State prisons
    from State departments of corrections. So if a State department
    of corrections has operating under its jurisdiction a contract-
    out service, yes, we would get data from those institutions.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. There appeared to be some question
    about that. So you wouldn't have a problem with us making that
    clear that they are----
        Mr. Sedgwick. Not at all.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia [continuing]. To be included.
        Mr. Sedgwick. Not at all.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Do you include a difference in
    juvenile facilities and juveniles in adult facilities?
        Mr. Sedgwick. We do not, under the juvenile collection,
    include juveniles that are held in adult facilities, because
    they are reported by the adult facility. So to avoid double
    counting, any juvenile that is held in an adult facility in the
    United States is reported under the adult prison collection,
    not under the separate juvenile collection.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. But you would have the juveniles'
    age in that reporting.
        Mr. Sedgwick. We would.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Do you know what the Department of
    Justice does with the numbers or, particularly, what they do
    when they notice a high number of deaths coming from a
    particular facility?
        Mr. Sedgwick. I do not, not as the Director of a
    statistical agency. I am not privy to those kinds of
    operational decisions.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        Mr. Sullivan, in publicizing the information, are there any
    concerns that you might see in terms of violation of persons'
    privacy?
        Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I talked to an attorney about
    this and it doesn't seem to be any problem with actually
    including the name of the individual.
        There was a Supreme Court decision a few years ago
    concerning the suicide events, Foster, where someone was
    investigating that and wanted pictures in regard to the
    suicide, et cetera, and the Supreme Court said, ``No, you
    cannot receive these pictures.''
        But there was no problem with the name and this particular
    attorney, who I can certainly provide his name to the
    Subcommittee, seems to be very aware that there would not be
    any privacy problems in including the deceased.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Sedgwick, you indicated that half of the deaths
    are caused by medical problems. Exactly what do you mean by
    that?
        Mr. Sedgwick. No, actually, I think the correct figure is
    about 89 percent of the deaths that occur in prison are health-
    related. Among health-related, half of those deaths are caused
    by cancer or heart disease, I believe.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. So medical problems, you mean
    disease. You are not talking about malpractice.
        Mr. Sedgwick. Correct.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. I think I will shock my colleague by
    yielding back at this time to make sure I don't go over.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all the witnesses for being here.
        Ms. Scott, we want to thank you for taking time and joining
    us. I was just wondering if you could describe for us the
    extent of the medical care that your son required as a result
    of his condition.
        Ms. Scott. Jonathan required 24-hour medical or nursing
    care. He couldn't do anything on his own. He couldn't feed
    himself or he couldn't breath on his own. So that alone
    required that he have someone with him at all times.
        Mr. Forbes. And was that care provided at home by you or a
    nurse before he was incarcerated?
        Ms. Scott. Well, he had 20 hours a day of nursing care. The
    other 4 hours, the family took responsibility for.
        Mr. Forbes. After his death, what explanations were you
    offered for your son's lack of medical care while he was in
    jail?
        Ms. Scott. The lack of care? They never gave me--I mean,
    they never told me he did not receive the care.
        Mr. Forbes. So you were never informed that he wasn't.
        Were you able to be involved in any of the investigations
    of the oversight hearings that were conducted regarding----
        Ms. Scott. No.
        Mr. Forbes [continuing]. Jonathan's death? So you were
    excluded basically from all of those.
        Has there been any follow-up with you by the D.C.
    government or the Department of Justice regarding Jonathan's
    death?
        Ms. Scott. Follow-up in what way?
        Mr. Forbes. About any explanations about why he wasn't
    given medical care or the situation that led up to his death.
        Ms. Scott. Donald, is that--we are currently in litigation.
        Mr. Forbes. Don't answer anything that you don't feel
    comfortable doing.
        Mr. Temple. My name is Donald Temple. Just briefly, we have
    worked with the District of Columbia government in their
    oversight process. There was an inspector general report. There
    were city council hearings and health department investigation.
        As far as the city government is concerned, we did work
    with them to ascertain the causes of the death and areas in
    which improvements could be made.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        And, Ms. Scott, we are certainly sorry for your loss. Thank
    you for being here today.
        Ms. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Sedgwick, first of all, let me compliment
    you on a great choice in getting your Ph.D. from the University
    of Virginia.
        And then, also, what are the most common types of illnesses
    that are attributed to deaths in custody? And in follow-up, are
    you seeing any changing trends in the type or rate of certain
    illnesses? And they tend to vary region by region across the
    country and by type of custody.
        Mr. Sedgwick. On the latter question, I would prefer to
    give you a written answer to that, because that is pretty
    detailed.
        But we are seeing, I think, as you alluded to, heart
    disease and cancer accounts for half of all of the illness-
    related deaths of inmates in prison and, again, I would put
    that in the context that 89 percent of all State prisoner
    deaths are medical problems.
        We are seeing an increase in the types of illnesses that
    one would associate with increasing age, which is, in part, a
    reflection of longer sentences being handed out and, therefore,
    an aging prison population in the United States.
        So causes of death that you would normally associate with
    aging processes, whether that be lung cancer, heart disease and
    so on, are tending to become more prevalent.
        So I think I would stop there.
        Mr. Forbes. And you don't mind submitting, whenever you get
    the opportunity, for the record----
        Mr. Sedgwick. Not at all.
        Mr. Forbes [continuing]. The change by region.
        Mr. Sedgwick. Sure.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Sullivan, we have a Department of Justice
    report that indicates that the State prison homicide rate is
    down 93 percent since the 1980's and that suicide rates are 64
    percent lower than in the early 1980's.
        Do you have any explanation as to why that might be the
    case or what would you attribute the dramatic decrease in
    prisoner suicides and homicides to?
        Mr. Sullivan. Certainly, I think litigation, as we just
    discussed, but, also, there has been a move toward
    professionalism. As Mr. Scott said earlier, I think this
    reporting has had its impact on this and I don't think
    corrections is really threatened like they used to be.
        It used to be more them and us and whatever, but I think we
    are all working together to reduce the incidence of death, and
    that is why I think, to get back to my suggestion, that it be
    placed on the Internet so that everybody can see.
        I think, for example, Ms. Scott does not know for sure
    whether her son actually--his report was given. I don't think
    we can verify that, unless it is on the Internet.
        So that is why I think we are at a point that maybe we--by
    having the details, having the studies is so very important,
    but having the details of each death on the Internet.
        We do know that most entities that do report end up filling
    out a form that is on the Internet. It would be very simple to
    just forward that to the BJS Web site and have them list it
    according to their States, so that everybody would know, first
    of all, that it would be verified that it actually happened,
    that it was reported, and, secondly, it would be a continual
    move toward professionalism, where corrections professionals
    and law enforcement professionals could look at this particular
    case, this particular reporting of a death in custody and see
    then is there anything we can learn from this, as we have
    learned so much in regard to Ms. Scott's son.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        My time is up. I yield back the balance.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from California?
        Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I receive many letters from prisoners, some State, some
    Federal. Many of the complaints have to do with the inability
    of the inmate to negotiate their medical care inside the
    institutions.
        The complaints include those who go in who are taking
    medication that cannot get their medication once they have been
    incarcerated. The complaints include inability to see a doctor
    and the fact that oftentimes their complaints are just plain
    ignored inside the prison.
        I have written letters on behalf of families trying to get
    the authorities to respond to the request of the family and/or
    the inmate, and I am wondering what happens to my letters and
    letters of other family members.
        Are those letters held in a file or recorded in some way so
    that if, in fact, there is litigation, those lawyers would have
    access to that information that there have been requests, there
    had been an attempt to bring to the attention of the
    authorities that there may be some negligence?
        I would like to ask Mr. Sedgwick if he can respond to that.
        Mr. Sedgwick. Such letters are not filed at BJS. I can look
    into that and get back you and let you know whether or not
    there is another unit within the Department of Justice that
    would maintain access or maintain those letters and provide
    them on request to other parties.
        But the data that we collect would not include those
    letters, no. We send out a standard reporting form that we ask
    each jurisdiction to fill out, including details on particular
    circumstances of death. But they would not return with that
    form letters such as you are describing.
        Ms. Waters. Well, I bring this question up because I
    suspect that it is very difficult to access those letters in
    any of the institutions. I suspect that it is true. I don't
    know it to be true.
        However, Mr. Chairman, I bring it up for discussion,
    because I think it should be considered in the legislation that
    letters relative to the requests that are being made for
    medical attention, et cetera, be filed in a way that families
    and lawyers would have access to that information. I think that
    would be very important.
        Let me just say to Ms. Scott, I am very, very sorry to hear
    about what happened to your son. I know that you must feel
    extremely helpless in a case where your son, who had the
    disabilities that you described and cannot help himself, and,
    obviously, something went wrong, very, very wrong there.
        And so I am hopeful that in addition to your ability to
    seek some kind of justice for his death, that what we do here
    in Congress will help to be of assistance to inmates and
    families for the future. And thank you for coming to testify
    today.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        The gentleman from North Carolina?
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Scott, when I asked you to pull the mike closer to you
    earlier, I wasn't being critical of your delivery. It was my
    hearing impairment which was the problem. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Scott, were you involved in any way with the D.C.
    government investigation or the oversight hearings that were
    conducted regarding your son's death?
        Ms. Scott. No, I was not.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Sedgwick, the two States you mentioned, what
    are those two States?
        Mr. Sedgwick. California and Texas.
        Mr. Coble. And what are the requirements?
        Mr. Sedgwick. California and Texas have State laws
    requiring local law enforcement agencies to report all deaths
    in the process of arrest to be reported to a State agency.
        Mr. Coble. You may have already touched on this. What are
    the most common types of illnesses that are attributed to
    deaths in custody?
        Mr. Sedgwick. Medical causes of deaths are overwhelmingly
    the greatest cause of death for persons in custody in the
    United States and heart disease and----
        Mr. Coble. What was number one?
        Mr. Sedgwick. Heart disease is 27 percent, and cancer is 23
    percent. So 50 percent of 89 percent pass away from those two
    causes.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Sullivan, I am told that there has been at
    least a reporting of the dramatic decrease in prisoner suicides
    and homicides. To what do you attribute that?
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman, I really think there has been a
    move toward professionalism that we are seeing and reducing
    these deaths. I think it is something that corrections has, as
    a profession, has--and because it has come into its own, I
    think that, in my experience in dealing with correctional
    professionals, I see much more working together than we have
    ever worked in the past.
        Also, of course, there has been litigation and the
    reporting of deaths, accountability.
        Mr. Coble. That is encouraging.
        Mr. Sedgwick, regarding race, African-American, Caucasian,
    Hispanic, is there any sort of breakdown ratio-wise there to
    the number of deaths in custody?
        Mr. Sedgwick. I can provide that information for you in
    some detail. If you don't mind, I would prefer to give you the
    response to that in writing, just so I make sure that it is
    accurate.
        Mr. Coble. That would be fine.
        Thank you all for being with us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        We have a few other questions, if you would.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sullivan, is there evidence of underreporting?
        Mr. Sullivan. No, I don't think so. I think we have 100
    percent of the State prison system, but 99 percent of the
    jails, but I get back to I don't think this program has the
    respect that it should have.
        And I get back to what I keep bringing up, that if the
    details of each report was on the Web site, I think people
    could verify that it actually did happen. And I go back to, if
    I could just elaborate, I think the name of the person deceased
    should be on the Web site and I use the example of Los Angeles
    County jail.
        I think statistics would show that at least 200 to 300
    deaths occur there at that facility every year. People have
    talked about maybe taking the names and just having the details
    without the names.
        Well, I don't think you would be able to pinpoint exactly
    who this particular individual is without that name being
    attached. Now, certainly, in smaller jails, et cetera, where
    death is a rare event, you would be able to know. But in your
    large urban jails, you have many more deaths and that is why I
    feel that the entire report should be transferred to the BJS
    Web site.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        Mr. Sedgwick, what do you do to audit the numbers to make
    sure you are getting as accurate a report across the Nation as
    possible?
        Mr. Sedgwick. In designing a survey or a data collection
    instrument such as we use for DCRA, we spend a lot of time and
    pay a lot of attention to the design of the request for
    information, the form that has to be filled out and so on. We
    then issue that request for information. We get the responses
    back.
        In terms of a specific audit for us to be able to go in and
    read the records ourselves, we don't have that type of
    capability or capacity to do it.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. As Mr. Sullivan has suggested, if
    you have a name of someone you know through media reports or
    otherwise that has died in custody, do you check to see if
    their name would have been reported if you don't do things like
    that?
        Mr. Sedgwick. We could do that on a case-by-case basis.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. On a random basis, just to see if
    you are getting accurate numbers.
        Mr. Sedgwick. It could be done. We do not routinely do that
    now.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. In the reporting, is there evidence
    that some facilities have a lot more deaths or proportionately
    a lot more deaths than others?
        Mr. Sedgwick. There are variations across facilities.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Exactly what is made available to
    the public?
        Mr. Sedgwick. First of all, we have the public reports that
    are issued. I have mentioned two that have already been
    released and another that is due in October, and those are
    distributed quite widely and accompanied by press releases.
        In addition, public access to data tapes and, also, data
    tapes that are available for research use are made available
    through the archives at the University of Michigan.
        That process, I have to tell you, lags behind the
    dissemination of the paper reports.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. So if a researcher wanted to do some
    research, they could get to the original data.
        Mr. Sedgwick. They can get to a restricted use data tape
    that contains all of the information that we have, but to get
    that, they first have to go through an institutional review
    board process and then sign a----
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Confidentiality?
        Mr. Sedgwick [continuing]. Confidentiality statement, as
    well as a statement that their access to this data tape is for
    research purposes only.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. So for legitimate research purposes,
    they can get to the----
        Mr. Sedgwick. We are in the process of making those tapes
    available as I speak. Public access data tapes are different.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Ms. Gainsborough, do you have any
    evidence that many of the deaths are preventable?
        Ms. Gainsborough. It is very hard to get that kind of
    evidence absent the sort of investigation that would be
    required on an individual basis. But certainly we do know the
    results from litigation, for example, where it has been quite
    clearly established that there has been deficient medical care.
        As Congresswoman Waters already spoke about, in California,
    in particular, there have been endlessly documented examples of
    really poor health care in the prison system there, which is
    finally beginning to receive the kind of attention that it
    needs.
        But it is always tough. Prisons are very closed
    institutions and it is extremely difficult, particularly when
    the information coming out from prisons is fed through the
    prison administration, who clearly may have a different agenda
    to the family of the prisoner, who is often kept in the dark
    about what went on.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        The gentleman from Virginia?
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, once again, thank all of you.
        When we are up here, one of the things--I support the
    reporting act, but one of the things we always like to do is
    take apples and oranges and separate them and make sure we have
    the facts.
        And one of the things--this reporting act came out in 2000,
    I believe, is that true, Mr. Sedgwick? But we have had this
    decline in homicides and murders since the 1980's.
        And, Mr. Sedgwick, at some point in time, if you could give
    us a charting of how that fell, because we can't say that all
    this came because of this reporting act, because some of the
    statistics I was looking at, the 93 percent drop in suicide
    rates in jails, I mean, that was from 1983 to 2002 and this
    would be a truly miraculous act if it just was 2 years and it
    had all of a sudden reached that 93 percent.
        The other thing, just to make sure we are getting a full
    disclosure of what we have here, while we have this egregious
    situations, like Ms. Scott went through, and we all want to
    stop those, Mr. Sedgwick, isn't it also true that most States
    had no prisoner homicides during the course of a year?
        The second thing is, it is true that from 2001 until 2002,
    43 percent of all the prison murders took place in just three
    States--California, Texas and Maryland--according to a BJS
    report.
        The other thing that is interesting to note is this, that
    during 2002, for example, while we are talking about the
    homicide rates in our prisons, the homicide rate in the general
    population was greater than it was in the prisons and the
    jails. So you actually had a lower homicide rate in prisons and
    jails than you had in the U.S. population over a whole. Is that
    correct for 2002?
        And the mortality rate in State prisons from 2001 to 2004
    was 20 percent lower in State jails than it was for all of us
    who weren't in the jails. So while we recognize some of these
    statistics, we do have to kind of put a face on them.
        And one last thing. From 2000 to 2002, White inmates were
    six times more likely to commit suicide in a jail than African-
    American inmates and three times more likely than Hispanic
    inmates.
        So when we are looking at this, reporting is important, the
    statistics are important, but we also have to recognize that a
    lot of these homicides and murders concentrated in a few
    States. Overall, the system seems to be doing a fair job, just
    based on some of the reporting, and at least that the mortality
    and homicide rates that we are seeing, sometimes they are
    better inside the jails than they are outside for the general
    population.
        Am I distorting that all, Mr. Sedgwick, or is that a fair--
    --
        Mr. Sedgwick. No. I think you summarized that very
    accurately.
        Mr. Forbes. Good, good. And if you could just help us with
    that charting. I don't want to overload you with stuff, but
    that would just help us to take a look and make sure we are
    doing the right things on the reporting.
        But, again, thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Does the gentlelady from California
    have any additional questions?
        Ms. Waters. If I may, just for a minute.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Waters. Thank you.
        I would like to get back to my concerns about the requests
    for medical attention that are ignored or the family's request
    for someone to investigate the complaints of their relatives.
        And the reason that I want to do this is because some of
    these inmates die. And I want to know, I would like to know--
    have information about the lawsuits or the number of
    accusations against the facility that is alleged by families
    about the death of their relatives while they are incarcerated.
        Do you have that information?
        Mr. Sedgwick. No, I don't. That is not part of the
    information that we collect under DCRA.
        Ms. Waters. That is not included. Do the various facilities
    have that information?
        Mr. Sedgwick. I couldn't speculate on that. I would assume
    that--well, I won't assume. I won't speculate on State
    institutions that I don't know anything about.
        Ms. Waters. Has this ever been a discussion that you have
    had with anybody about the accusations of negligence inside the
    prisons as it relates to requests for medical assistance?
        Mr. Sedgwick. It has not been part of the discussions that
    we have had about implementing the provisions of DCRA. We do,
    under the provisions of DCRA, collect information on medical
    care that was made available to inmates who we then collect
    information on because they subsequently die.
        So we are able to and we have summarized in the reports
    that we have put out and, most recently, the one on medical
    causes of death of jail and prison inmates, we were able to
    give information or summarize information of what percentage of
    inmates who subsequently died were offered medical care and
    what sorts of care.
        So we were able to gather that kind of information. But the
    type of information that you are talking about is not
    information that we have collected under the provisions of DCRA
    nor am I sure how we would go about trying to get that
    information.
        Ms. Waters. So the information that you collect, it
    describes death. It places the deaths in various categories.
        Mr. Sedgwick. Exactly.
        Ms. Waters. So you would have, for example, if I need--
    well, I will ask you. Do you have information about HIV and
    AIDS?
        Mr. Sedgwick. Yes, we do, absolutely.
        Ms. Waters. And could you help us? What do you show? What
    are the numbers?
        Mr. Sedgwick. I actually have that in front of me. The rate
    of death from AIDS in State prison has dropped 85 percent in
    the last years of the preceding decade. So from 1995 to 2000,
    it dropped 85 percent. That compares to the mortality rate from
    all other illnesses, which has been rising.
        The non-AIDS mortality rate in State prisons has risen
    about 35 percent between 1980 and 2000.
        Ms. Waters. What was your first----
        Mr. Sedgwick. The first statistic was on AIDS deaths the
    rate has dropped 85 percent in the last 5 years of the 1990's.
        Ms. Waters. Well, what was it in the 5 years before that?
        Mr. Sedgwick. I don't know the specific rate of death, but
    I could get that information for you, if you would like.
        Ms. Waters. Yes. I mean, I would like to know.
        Mr. Sedgwick. I believe in our----
        Ms. Waters. I would like to know what you are describing
    when you say it has dropped 85 percent. I don't----
        Mr. Sedgwick. Well, what we do is we would calculate a
    mortality rate. What is the rate of death from AIDS per certain
    number of inmates?
        And then we would compare the rate in, for example, 1995--
    --
        Ms. Waters. I know how you get there. It is not complete
    information for us when we are looking at this kind of stuff.
    So I would appreciate knowing what it was the 5 years previous
    to.
        Mr. Sedgwick. What the death rate from AIDS was?
        Ms. Waters. Yes.
        Mr. Sedgwick. I would be happy to get that information for
    you.
        Ms. Waters. And I would like to know raw numbers, the exact
    numbers, the exact numbers. If there were 100 deaths in the
    first 5 years and it has dropped 85 percent, I would like to
    know exactly how many, what the raw numbers were.
        Mr. Sedgwick. So you would like the absolute numbers, as
    well as the rates.
        Ms. Waters. That is right. That is right.
        Mr. Sedgwick. We can get that for you.
        Ms. Waters. Absolutely. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Scott of Virginia. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady
    for her questions.
        And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for your
    testimony.
        I particularly want to thank Ms. Scott for being with us
    today. You are using your tragedy to make sure this doesn't
    happen to anyone else, and we certainly appreciate you being
    here, as well as all of the witnesses.
        Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
    in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
                                   Judiciary
        The ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000,'' requires
    jurisdictions to report any prisoner/inmate/detainee death, and the
    circumstances surrounding that death to the Justice Department
    annually. The act expired on 12/31/2006, and is introduced for
    reauthorization as the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007.''
        Before the act was passed there was no standardized reporting in
    the United States and it was suspected that over 1,000 persons died
    while in custody each year.
        Until the law passed in 2000, the only light shed on deaths in
    custody was by researchers and activists who began focusing on the
    issue in the early 1980s.
        In 1995, after conducting a one-year investigation, the Asbury Park
    Press of New Jersey ran a series of award-winning editorials that
    brought the seriousness of the lack of reporting to the nations's
    attention. The editorials detailed abuses throughout the criminal
    justice system including racism, overzealous police interrogations,
    cover-ups and general police incompetence, which prompted Congressional
    action.
        Since the early 1980s and continuing through 2005, the death rate
    of persons in custody has dropped by 93%.
        There is still work to do. BJS states that although prisons and
    jails have become forthcoming in their reporting, the reporting of
    deaths of people during arrest and during transport to jail is still
    suspect. The circumstances surrounding the deaths is not complete and
    BJS suspects that not all deaths are reported.
        We must now focus on improving the law. It has done much to
    overcome the problems in the institutions but we must widen the focus
    to police officers affecting arrests and transporting arrestees.
        We cannot allow the very officers charged with protecting and
    serving the public to be unchecked when it comes to the safety of
    persons in their custody. Whether someone in their custody dies through
    a violent encounter during arrest, through negligence or for any
    reason, there must be a proper accounting of the death. Justice demands
    nothing less.

     Prepared Statement of the Honorable Betty Sutton, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
                        Terrorism, and Homeland Security
        Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to add my voice in support of H.R. 2908,
    the ``Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007.''
        Mr. Chairman, you have been an advocate for the national reporting
    of in-custody deaths for more than 10 years now, and I admire your
    dedication in ensuring the public has access to this important
    information.
        Transparency and accountability are standards to which law
    enforcement agencies at every level of government must aspire. We must
    have a criminal justice system worthy of the trust of the American
    people, and we must have law enforcement agencies who consistently meet
    the highest standards of accountability.
        The Death in Custody Reporting Act is an example of how a small
    change in the law can yield enormous benefits. In the past, lax
    reporting requirements may have resulted in tragedies that will never
    find a full explanation. Individuals died in custody without any
    explanations or records as to why they were there in the first place.
        A 1995 investigation in the Asbury Park Press found that
    approximately 1,000 individuals died in custody each year, many under
    suspicious circumstances that were poorly documented by those entrusted
    with their safety.
        But after the Death in Custody Reporting Act was passed in 2000, we
    could for the first time systematically identify the ways in which our
    criminal justice system fell short.
        I am optimistic that with this reauthorization, we can do even
    more. There is a wealth of information contained in the reports
    generated under this act, and that presents us with an opportunity for
    real action leading to real improvements in the administration of
    justice.
        This is common sense legislation and the mechanisms for data
    collection on in-custody deaths are already in place. The Death in
    Custody Reporting Act has done a world of good in increasing
    accountability and it should be reauthorized.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.