SM
Could you put a little moneyt in my commissary account?
St. Peter Visited In Jail By St. Paul
|
SM
Could you put a little moneyt in my commissary account?
St. Peter Visited In Jail By St. Paul
|
Prisons are part of the hospitality industry, the involuntary part. Government owns and operates prisons. Government controls prisons and the prisoners in them. Thus, a person might expect prisons to be the most lawful, safe places in America. However, many prisons have much illegality and danger.
When a new prisoner enters a jail or prison, there may be more than one empty bunk available. When there is more than one available, which one should he get?
When prisoners are housed in jail or prison, the prisoners are classified (for example, general population [ordinary prisoners] or maximum security [prisoners with a high probability of breaking important rules of the prison, such as rules against violence and escape]). Prisoners who in the same classification (for example, prisoners who are in the general population classification) are housed randomly (or at least are housed in a largely random way) in the areas of the jail for prisoners of that classification. If John and James share a bunkbed (one prisoner in the upper bunk, the other prisoner in the lower bunk), it is because they were both assigned to that bunkbed. The common assignment (in other words, assigning John and James to the same bunkbed) probably was done in complete disregard of the effects of that assignment on the two prisoners' behavior in jail or later.
California prisons segregate prisoners by race. For example, a bunkbed is all white or all black.
We think that, among prisoners:
Even when awake, prisoners spend much time on or near their beds; for example, playing cards, talking, listening to music, reading, or thinking. Consider a prisoner who enters jail and is classified as general population. There are 17 bunkbeds, each with one empty bunk, in the jail's general population area. In the perfect jail, how would the staff decide which of the 17 bunks to assign the prisoner to? By the way, this issue (which sleeping place to assign a prisoner to) exists even when there are no bunkbeds. If a prisoner sleeps in an ordinary bed (not a bunkbed), a few prisoners sleep near him in their ordinary beds. If 17 ordinary beds are available, which of the 17 beds should the new prisoner be assigned to? In which of the 17 settings do he and the prisoners near him have the lowest probability of stress? Even if each prisoner has a private room in a jail, to which private room (if more than one is available) should a new prisoner be assigned? A new prisoner should be in a room in which there is the lowest probability of stress for him and prisoners in rooms near his.
In summary, exactly where should the staff house a new prisoner to keep stress to a minimum? The C.O. who makes the housing decision may not have a few hours, or even five minutes, to calculate the probability of crime, stress, or anything else for the new prisoner for each available bunk. Furthermore, the C.O. may not be interested in the mathematics of predicting and the new prisoner may refuse to talk about himself.
A jail usually knows something about each new prisoner; for example: height, date of birth, whether this is the first time he is in that jail, whether one of the crimes he's accused of is a felony, and the kind of crime he's accused of (for example: theft, drugs, violence). The jail may know if he's on probation or on parole and how many times he's been arrested. The jail may know other things about him. The jail may be able to easily find out some information about the prisoner; for example, whether he's married, whether he has a job, and whether he recently voted. Those facts are a better basis for bunk assignment than randomness. A computer could recommend a bunk (from among those bunks which are available) after using a multiple regression equation to evaluate the suitability of each available bunk. The equation would be constructed after regression analysis considering the many, possible predictors allused to above (for example: height, age, criminal record [including the kind of crime of which the prisoner is currently accused], whether it's his first time in that jail, how well he behaved the last time he was in that jail, whether the prisoner is married, and place of birth). A bunkbed-assignment equation based on only one or two predictors would be better tnan randomness, which is essentially the current policy. How could a jail find out which of the following results in the least amount of stress (and therefore, we presume, the least amount of violence and other crime) among prisoners: random assignment, only one of the criteria we suggest above (for example, height), or more than one of the criteria? If assignment by one criterion (for example, height) is even worse than random assignment, how would the jail find out? It would be a tragedy to abandom random assignment for an even worse system.
Cortisol is a corticosteroid hormone produced by the adrenal cortex. Cortisol is involved in the response to stress. Scientists widely use cortisol level (for example, cortisol level in saliva) to measure stress in people; for example, in:
If a jail changes (for example, if a jail assigns bunks using a new system), prisoner cortisol should go down if prisoner stress goes down and cortisol should go up if stress goes up. To reduce violence, it is important to reduce prisoners' stress. To see if any new policy (for example, a new bunk-assignment policy) reduces stress, one could see if cortisol goes down. One could look at cortisol levels in all prisoners or in groups one is especially interested in; for example: prisoners being prosecuted for a felony, first time prisoners, prisoners of various races, prisoners far from home, or prisoners who've been locked up for a long time. Cortisol is in saliva, urine, and blood. If the jail asks prisoners to sell cortisol every morning, the jail probably won't have to pay much if they supply it by spitting into a test tube. One could inform prisoners in writing that no drug testing (for example, for illegal drugs) will be done on the saliva, that the sole purpose of the test is scientific research about imprisonment, and that the saliva will be discarded after it is tested. To assure prisoners that the saliva would not be used to try to detect illegal drugs, saliva would not be bought from prisoners in their first several days of imprisonment. Saliva tests would be easy income for prisoners. Keeping in mind that the sole purpose of saliva tests would be to help prisoners, and that a salive test is fast and comfortable for the prisoner giving salive, maybe a jail would have the legal right to compel prisoners (or at least prisoners convicted of a crime) to supply saliva.
We now briefly sketch one, possible way that research might be done. Consider a jail interested in its general population prisoners. There are two groups of general population prisoners in the research, groups 1 and 2. Group 2 is the control group. In each group, 100 prisoners supply saliva every morning for five, consecutive days. The cortisol samples are sent to a laboratory. Some labs will do cortisol tests without a doctor's order although we don't know if that policy applies to patients who are prisoners. In any event, it should be easy to get a doctor to ask the lab to do the tests. The researcher thus learns 200 saliva donors' cortisol levels for 5 days. The researcher knows, from the jail, facts about each saliva donor and the prisoner who sleeps nearest him: height, age, and so forth. The researcher uses multiple regression analysis to develop an equation that shows how those facts predict cortisol level. The researcher then writes a script or program to assign prisoners to bunks based on the equation. Let's assume that group 1 is all of the prisoners on one floor of a jail and that all prisoners there sleep in a bunkbed. Every prisoner in group 1 gets a new bunk based on the computer program (which is based on the equation). Assume that the equation shows that: height is the only fact that matters; and that cortisol level is lowest for prisoners who are closest to their bunkmate (the prisoner in the other bunk of the unkbed) in height. The computer program assigns new housing on that floor (the group 1 floor) as follows. At one end of the floor, the computer program assigns the tallest prisoner in group 1 to a bunkbed. The other bunk in that bunkbed is assigned by the program to the second tallest prisoner in group 1. The third bunk goes to the thrid tallest prisoner in group 1, and so on. The shortest prisoner in group 1 will be at the opposite end of the floor.
The prisoners in group 2 (the control group) are all of the prisoners on a different floor. All of them are assigned to new bunks on that floor. However, they are randomly assigned to bunks. For them, the computer program (and therefore the equation) is ignored.
The research waits about ten days. Then the researcher gets saliva from prisoners in groups 1 and 2 who previously provided saliva. If the equation is right, the prisoners in group 1 should have lower cortisol than they had before their housing was based on height.
If housing based on the equation reduces stress, the cortisol level of prisoners in group 1 should decline more than the cortisol level of prisoners in group 2 (whose housing is random, not based on the equation).
Even if the saliva donors in group 1 have a different cortisol level after they get new housing based on the computer program (which is based on the equation), the difference might be a coincidence. The researcher must calculate the probability that a different cortisol level is a coincidence. If the cortisol level for group 1 donors goes down, if the cortisol level goes down more than for group 2 donors (the control group), and if it is highly unlikely that the lower cortisol level for group 1 is a coincidence, the researcher can tentatively conclude that the prisoners in group 1 have less stress. This is the essence of one, possible, research design. Lower stress should mean less violence and maybe fewer escapes.
It's appropriate to learn cortisol levels of different classifications of prisoner; for example, general population and maximum security. Different equations might apply to different classifications. Different equations might apply to different jails and prisons.
Above we suggest a way to develop an equation, and a computer program or script based on the equation, to reduce prisoners' stress and therefore violence and maybe some escapes. If a new prisoner enters a jail, the computer program finds every bunkbed he's eligible for (for example, every general population bunkbed if he's a general population prisoner) with an empty bunk, then finds (from among those bunkbeds) the bunkbed whose other occupant is closest in height to the new prisoner's height, then assigns the new prisoner to that bunkbed.
In this discussion, we use height as a simple example of what multiple regression analysis might show to be the way to house prisoners that minimizes prisoners' cortisol levels. We guess that a real equation would use several predictors, not just one. Randomly assigning prisoners causes much, unnecessary violence and other crime. Incidentally, the suggested system is compatible with racial segregation. For example, if there are two, white prisoners assigned to a bunkbed, the prison still needs to decide which two whites.
Cortisol and other indicators of stress can be used to observe the effect on prisoners of any change ion a jail, not just a change in how they are housed.
In the discussion above, we are interested in prisoners' cortisol because: change in cortisol level is a good measure of change in stress; and because prisoners' stress is a cause of and a result of crime in prison. Why not ignorre change in cortisol level and what it measures (namely, change in stress)? Why not use multiple regression analysis to directly measure the effects of any change in a prison (for example, a change in where prisoners are housed within that prison) on crime in that prison? A prison's crime records poorly measure how much crime occurs in the prison. Therefore, changes in prisoners' cortisol level are a better measure (of changes in the amount of violence and other prison crime) than are the prison's crime records. Furthermore, stress reduction is inherently good. Even if we assume that prisoners' stress is unrelated to the amount of crime in the prison, the prison's management should still try to reduce prisoners' stress.
Incidentally, the stress-measurement system described above can be used for men other than prisoners.
We guess that cortisol is never used in criminal investigation.
Consider a prison dormitory room in which 28 prisoners live. Each prisoner voluntarily provides saliva every morning. The prisoners are paid for this. One day, a prisoner living in that room severely beats one of the other prisoners in that room until he is unconscious. Being in a fight, even if one is the winner, causes stress. The prison staff discovers the beaten, unconscious prisoner, who is brought to a hospital. The attacker probably had, during the fight, a stress level which was high compared to his normal stress level. Even if all prisoners are calm when they give saliva, salivary cortisol may be high in the prisoner who had recently been under high stress (the prisoner who beat the other prisoner).
One might compare cortisol level before and after the fight. One says, "Of all prisoners who live in the room except the victim, John showed the highest percentage increase in cortisol when we compared saliva given before the fight and after the fight. Therefore, he is a suspect." He could have a big increase in stress for reasons that have nothing to do with the fight. This cortisol system often would generate leads. It is not foolproof.
Cortisol is not the only chemical evidence of recent stress. Cortisol is available from other tissues (for example, blood and urine), not just saliva. We guess that a court might order that a prison staff may, as part of a criminal investigation, take a tissue sample from prisoners to test for cortisol. We guess that the biggest weakness in using cortisol is that, to investigate as well as possible, there should be a before level, a cortisol level before the suspect was under a lot if stress. That would be the base level, the level to which the post-stress level would be compared.
We don't know if one could spot suspects solely by looking at cortisol levels after the fight. We don't know if an investigator could say, "The fight was Tuesday afternoon. John's cortisol level was much higher Wednesday morning than it was Thursday. Of the prisoners living in that room except for the victim, no other prisoner showed a bigger percentage drop from Wednesday (soon after the fight) to Thursday (longer after the fight). Therefore, John is a suspect."
Above is a crudely simplified, brief sketch of how cortisol might be used to identify people who had been under a lot of stress recently before (not necessarily while) they gave a cortisol sample. Even if a person is calm when he gives saliva, salivary cortisol may be high (compared to what it normally is for him) if he recently had been under stress.
Property Index Number: 29-04-428-002-0000 Address : 14501 S State St City : Riverdale Township : Thornton Neighborhood : 24 Taxcode : 37041 Assessed Valuation 2006 First Pass Assessment 2005 Board of Review Certified Land Assessed Value 2,475 2,475 Building Assessed Value 0 0 Total Assessed Value 2,475 2,475 Property Characteristics Class: 1-00 Description : Vacant Land Land Square Footage: 3,750