Victim's Father Protests Prisoner Transfer

Victim's advocate John Harmon (and father of fallen officer Casey Harmon) has recently made it into the media -again- by second-guessing MDOC officials and publicly protesting the transfer of prisoner Steven Farris from the Mississippi State Penitentiary to Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. Mr. Harmon's main concern was that WCCF was too "modern" for the likes of Steven Farris, and that Farris should still be housed somewhere on the grounds of the MSP at Parchman. >In the process of preparing to close Unit 32 at Parchman, about 70 prisoners were transferred to WCCF over a period of weeks. The WCCF houses prisoners of all security custody levels, including those with similar or worse charges than Farris, as well as at least two former death row prisoners, and has the same maximum security level as Unit 32. Contrary to what Mr. Harmon would like the public to believe, this transfer wasn't out of the norm.

If you'd like to read Steven's response to Mr. Harmon's protest and grandstanding, click here. The family and friends of Steven Farris manage this blog and help him make this more than a one-sided affair by typing and publishing his handwritten posts.

Understanding the Limitations of the Consent Decree

Wading through the mire that is legalese isn't an easy task. I hope that I am able to shine some light on the framework that the courts must work within when dealing with correcting unconstitutional prison conditions. I'll try to not veer off the topic.

I always recommend reading the laws and cases for yourself. The restrictions I speak of now can be found in United States Code Annotated, Title 18- Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part II- Criminal Procedure, Chapter 229- Postsentence Administration, Subchapter C- Imprisonment, 18 U.S.C.A. §3626, which has been effective since November 26, 1997.

§3626 is no joke, and it begins setting limits with its first lines:

Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions
  (a) Requirements for Relief.--
      (1) Prospective relief.--

          (A) Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

          conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the

          violation of the Federal right of particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.

          The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

          the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no

          further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

          right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

          violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial

          weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation

          of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

The courts are being told to grant the least amount of relief possible; just enough to correct the problem. And if the possible changes might be too costly or might effect public safety (as with releasing prisoners due to overcrowding), it's possible the courts won't grant relief at all.

A rash of prisoner lawsuits, many of which were frivolous, precede the laws and decisions that severely limited suits brought by prisoners. The Prison Litigation Reform Act set the stage and was followed by 18 U.S.C.A. §3626. Since then, more and more hurdles have been set up to obstruct prisoner litigation.

As I mentioned in the post titled, MDOC To Be Released From Presley v. Epps Agreement, one of the things that is limited is how long court ordered or enforced relief can last. The relevant subsection of §3626 reads:

(b) Termination of Relief.--
    (1) Termination of prospective relief.--
        (A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which
        prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon
        to motion of any party or intervener--
            (i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the
            prospective relief;
            (ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying
            termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
            (iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of
            enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after
            such date of enactment.

This is why, two years after the final modification of the consent decree, it had to be dismissed without prejudice. And now that Unit 32 has been closed down, the conditions there are a moot point. It was agreed upon between the plaintiffs and defendants in the Presley v. Epps suit that the standards for the Presley class would follow the class members wherever they were moved in the process of closing Unit 32.

Rules & Restrictio​ns for Mail (WCCF specific)

The rules and restrictions for sending mail to prisoners in Wilkinson County Correctional Facility differ slightly from the rules and restrictions for sending mail to prisoners at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. I will address the differences here, but suggest you read both. To read MSP's mail rules click here.

One of the major differences I've seen that I find encouraging is how the mailroom handles returning "non-allowable items" a prisoner might be sent by mistake. Instead of just returning whole letters because someone sent a prisoner a laminated bookmark or some such, the mail inspectors will remove the item and send the letter on to the prisoner. The prisoner must sign a form stating what he chooses to be done with the item. He can have it mailed back to the sender, sent to a different address, or have it destroyed. The prisoner also has the choice to appeal the decision. That's professional. That is the way it's supposed to be done.

Here are the differences in the rules:

• A prisoner can still receive (2) two pages with printed material from the Internet -front and back on each if you choose- but WCCF is more lenient on this arbitrary rule.

• Only (10) ten pictures per envelope, and the pictures are to be no larger than 3 in. x 5 in. A prisoner can only have ten pictures in his personal property at WCCF, anyway.

• No more than (6) newspaper clippings per envelope. >Prisoners at WCCF are allowed to recieve up to (4) four paperback books per package. Click the link for more on sending books.

• Prisoners at WCCF are only only allowed a subscription to (1) one adult/pornographic magazine. No magazine depicting penetration is allowed.

Print Page