_______________SLAVES TO THE SYSTEM BY NINA SIEGAL (09/01/98)
	I read Nina Siegal's story on allegations of horrendous abuse of female inmates by correctional staff in both federal and state facilities with interest. As somebody who has worked in a prison, I would admit that the conditions in them are often a disgrace to humanity. Moreover, the salary structure tends to produce, at least in many states, a corps of officers whose education and professionalism should be an embarrassment to the states that employ them. However, Siegal's story verges on fantasy. For example, nowhere does she show any familiarity with the procedures that govern an ACA-accredited yard. When forced-cell moves are done (moves that take place because an inmate has refused, for whatever reasons, to "cuff up"), both federal institutions and the state of Arizona, to name the systems I have some knowledge of, require that the move be filmed. Further, Siegal is rather too willing to take the veracity of inmates' accounts for granted, without doing much work to corroborate their stories. She also seems to have a curious notion of civil liberties. When the officers implicated in the outrageous assault on Ms. Lucas were not prosecuted owing to lack of evidence, she failed to observe that the civil liberties of all citizens matter. Better investigative techniques are in order, but to imply that they should have been prosecuted even when the relevant investigative bodies noted insufficient evidence is to have as lax a sense of prosecutorial discretion as Ken Starr. Finally, in the main case, Siegal does not tell us what in-house action, if any, was taken against the officers on duty while Ms. Lucas was raped. Based on her story, I don't even know if they still work for the Bureau of Prisons or were given commendation medals, though her tone would lead you to expect the latter. The truth about prisons is horrible enough without telling just one side. It may be that telling one side makes for a juicier story, but it leaves informed readers questioning Salon's commitment to fair dealing. Whatever happens, I hope that one day prisons will be replaced by humane means for dealing with law breakers. It would help considerably if Americans, when considering legal penalties, took seriously the possibility that the object of punishment might be somebody they love. -- Michael Lavin As a longtime appreciative reader of Salon and a participant in Salon's Table Talk, I was delighted to see your note about the beginning of a series of stories on the horrendous crisis in the prison industry. This is an issue that has been sorely in need of work for a very long time -- no surprise given the rah-rah build-build mentality that has gone unabated for close to 20 years, combined with the vaunted "public-private partnerships" that are so politically popular but that build a profit motive into every aspect of the system from medical care to mattresses. Jails and prisons are a greedy institution with an endless appetite ... worthy of major focus. But I read the article on sexual abuse of women by New York writer Nina Siegal -- introduced as an investigative report -- and am prepared to nominate it for an award for creative writing. I've waited a day to write this because I've been so steamed. Let me tell you why. This article is so filled with blatant inaccuracies and wild exaggerations as to be completely ludicrous to anyone seriously involved in corrections or even prisoner advocacy, except for the hopelessly inept and misinformed. First, in the story by inmate Cruz, she tearfully describes not responding to her harasser because he had a gun and a baton. Do you guys fact-check? Do you know that guns are virtually never used inside of ANY correctional facility and certainly not at the county jail level? I called the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department to verify this fact, but it was only in order to be able to say I did so, because I knew the answer. There was no gun even in sight of that inmate inside the yard. The reason? Because prisoners vastly outnumber guards in virtually every facility. They are desperate and often angry and stressed. Guns simply are not used. One gun in the hands of one prisoner could kill a lot of people fast, and women prisoners are not at all known for homemade prison weapons. Batons? Yes. Sometimes (not always). Pepper spray or mace? Sometimes, but rarely. Generally what they have is a "man down" radio or some other form of notification. I cannot tell you how serious an error just that one is. The assertion that he had a gun will make Salon the laughingstock of any corrections professional, law enforcement officer or, indeed, most prisoners. Is there sexual abuse in jails and prisons? You bet. But "most women suffer it"? It reminds me a bit of a study done a few years ago on rape that said that some phenomenally huge number of women would be raped in their lifetime, but when one took the study apart it was clear that "rape" had been defined as any "unwilling" sexual intercourse and unwilling had been defined as: "Did you ever have sex with someone when you didn't want to?" Ask any 54-year-old married woman that question and the answer is likely to be yes. And ask any 54-year-old man the same question and a goodly portion of them will say yes as well. This is a writer who had a view and an agenda and chose quotes to support it. To call it an "investigation" is absurd. I've been a committed foe of corrections for longer than some of you have been alive and I have never, ever written a letter in support of any correctional system or facility. Not ever. I could walk you through any jail or prison in this country and point out illegalities, violations of policies and procedures, inadequate physical plants, poor training of staff, constitutional deficiencies. And I also promise you that I could come to California and walk two or three of you through the Santa Clara facility and show you why it is not even remotely possible for several of these allegations to be credible. I don't need to even have been there to know. I have been in over 100 facilities in this country and others -- mostly as a rabble-rouser of the first order. This writer clearly has not. She may know how to write but she does not have a clue about prisons and jails. -- Donna Nina Siegal responds: Thank you for taking the time to write a letter in response to my piece about sexual abuse of women in prison. I'm sorry to hear that my article got you so steamed, and that you found it "filled with blatant inaccuracies and wild exaggerations." I must say, however, that I think your problems with the story result more from a differing point of view than from any factual errors I may have made. Why don't I start from the end of your letter, where you suggest that I do "not have a clue about prisons and jails." Here's a short list of my credentials for writing about prisons: Since 1995, I have visited four California state prisons and one federal prison in California, in addition to several jail and juvenile detention facilities. I am well acquainted with many of the prison activist organizations both in California and across the nation, and have frequently discussed prisons with officials at the California Department of Corrections, other state facilities and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I have been writing about juvenile and criminal justice since 1995, covering everything from youth gang-tracking databases to the Unabomber trial to the California ban on face-to-face media interviews with inmates. Such articles have appeared in the New York Times, Ms. magazine, the Progressive, the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the Women's Review of Books. In 1998 I won an award from Project Censored for the 11th best story of the year, for a series of articles I wrote about health care in women's prisons in California for the Bay Guardian. This month, I have a 4,500-word feature article in Ms. about women in prison, which I'm sure will steam you as well. I also have a piece coming out in Poz Magazine in November about treatment of HIV/AIDS in prison. I currently work for the New York Times, as a reporter for the City section. I have not been able to reach my source yet on the gun and baton issue you raised. I am looking into it and will respond as soon as I am able. The issue, however, seems to be a minor one: I did not assert that Cruz didn't respond to her harasser simply because he carried a weapon, but because he was in a position of power over her on almost every conceivable level. It was not appropriate for this guard to handcuff Cruz to a cell and molest her, regardless of what was in his holster. Furthermore, I do know for a fact that some prisons allow their guards to carry weapons, and only a few specifically prohibit the carrying of firearms in the facility. Your point that it is inaccurate to say that "most women" suffer from some form of abuse is also a question of judgment. I clearly state in my piece that sexual misconduct ranges from everything from watching women while they shower to actual rape. I would never suggest that "most women" in prison are victims of the kind of abuse suffered by Robin Lucas or Elly Cruz, but I stand by the assertion that the atmosphere of sexual intimidation in women's prisons does impact most women. I take very seriously your accusation that my work is a piece of "fiction." And just as you offer to come to California and walk my editors through our facilities here, I would be happy to invite you to look through the thousands of pages of documentation that I have for this story, and introduce you to all my sources so that they can tell you just what they told me. Unfortunately, I do not have a gruesome enough imagination to come up with this stuff on my own. My only intention in writing this piece was to allow the voices of those women victimized inside to be heard. I have no other agenda. But I wonder what yours is. It seems that you yourself are well versed in the art of exaggeration. I'm wondering, if you are such a foe of corrections, what the purpose of attacking my work would be.
_______________ONE WHO MATTERED BY JOE CONASON (09/08/98)
	The past few days have been filled with a miasma of confusion and distress here in Nova Scotia. We have been shaken to our heart's core by the crashing of Swissair Flight 111 in our waters, and have responded with an outpouring of assistance. Volunteers and professionals both mobilized in a heartbeat, desperately racing against time and temperature in a search for survivors in St. Margaret's Bay, while others stood by and waited and prayed against the inevitable. Probably no one in our province knew any of those who were passengers or crew on that ill-fated flight. Even when information about some of those on board began to trickle out, they were still faceless, anonymous in the way so many crash victims are. It was not until tonight, when I read Joe Conason's stirring tribute to Dr. Jonathan Mann, that a personal face suddenly hove into perspective. I was moved beyond expression by Conason's words, and found myself shedding tears with even deeper regret. It seems to me that Conason summed up events of the past number of months succinctly with his words, "In a time when everything of real significance is overwhelmed by babble about the president's sexual deceits, let me tell you about someone who actually mattered." The world, including those of us in Nova Scotia, mourns the loss of Dr. Mann, and his wife, and wonders at the injustice of it all. -- Jodi DeLong I want to thank Joe Conason for his piece on Jonathan Mann. Professor Mann devoted his life as a doctor, a teacher and an activist to helping other people, not just in his own community but around the world. He also worked to enlist as many allies as possible in his fight for the human right to good health: In the second or third lecture of a class he taught for Harvard undergraduates, "AIDS, Health and Human Rights," he lowered his voice conspiratorially and said, "I actually have a secret agenda. I want to convert all of you into public health advocates." Everyone grinned, and by the end of the semester more than a few students had become believers. Amid the wide appreciation of his and his wife's work, it should not go unsaid that in addition to being a devoted activist, Professor Mann was a gifted classroom teacher and a mensch as a human being. -- Rachel B. Tiven
_______________SALON'S COVERAGE OF THE CLINTON CRISIS
	Just a short note to say that I'm a new visitor to your site, and I am impressed. I've been following the White House scandal since January. When Hillary fingered a right-wing conspiracy, I thought, "Yeah, that sounds about right; NOW I'm interested." Too bad she and Bill left it up to the mainstream media to follow up on that. Now, I'm afraid, it's gotten buried under a landslide of Falwellian moralizing. Finally, last week I got thoroughly fed up with the middle-aged Blitzers and Donaldsons and Russerts, and their obsessive support of the inquisition. Their subtle piety puzzles me. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they were alive and conscious during the '60s. If the spirit of the '60s is emblematized by marijuana, then clearly Clinton wasn't the only dude who didn't inhale. Indeed, Clinton may be the only character in this whole American soap opera who did inhale! But let's face it: Mainstream journalists have got as much reason as Starr has for seeing that Clinton does not survive. Like Starr, they have invested millions of dollars and hours, and they have to justify that expense somehow -- especially given the public's disgust with their coverage. Mainstream journalists have a vested interest in getting those Clinton approval polls down to where they need them, if they are to win back public support for their fixation. In desperation, I logged on to Salon, and as soon as I did, I began to realize that the reason I hadn't done so sooner is that I have been subtly influenced by the mainstream networks to believe that Salon journalism is "too partisan" -- unlike theirs, of course, which is "objective." (!) I wish I could backtrack and pinpoint exactly how the political chat-show hosts manage to create the impression that all Internet news is ipso facto Drudge-mode. It would make a fascinating research project for some eager media critic. In reading through your archive on the scandals, I find many of my own instincts about what's going on confirmed and documented. Thanks for that. -- D. Relke SALON | Sept. 11, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| WHAT WE REALLY CAN'T FORGIVE CLINTON FOR: HE GOT CAUGHT BY FRED BRANFMAN

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.