[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.