Prisoner Rights Run Amok in Sex-change Case

(Wikipedia Commons)

by Diane Dimond

I unequivocally oppose a recent pro-prisoner court order that you may find positively shocking. I know I did.

The prisoner at the center of the controversy is MichelleKosilek. But up until 1993, this person was known as Robert Kosilek. In 1990, Robert’s wife, Cheryl, already distressed over his drinking came home to find him dressed up in her clothes. A fight ensued and the trial court found Robert was guilty of strangling Cheryl with a wire and abandoning her naked body in the family car outside a local mall.

Just before Kosilek went on trial for Cheryl’s murder in 1993, he declared he was a woman trapped in a man’s body and legally changed his name to Michelle. Kosilek appeared in court with long luxurious hair and wearing eye makeup, rouge, women’s glasses, slim cut jeans and a set of dangling circle earrings. Despite self-identifying as a female, upon conviction, Kosilek was sentenced to an all-male prison in Norfolk, Massachusetts to serve life in prison without parole.

Over the years, Kosilek’s attorneys have repeatedly filed motions asking the court to order sex-reassignment surgery for the convicted murderer. In 2002, after specialists testified Kosilek did, indeed, suffer from severe gender identity disorder the court allowed Kosilek to begin receiving taxpayer funded psychotherapy, female hormone injections, laser hair removal and access to women’s underwear and make-up. All of that wasn’t enough for Kosilek’s peace of mind, however. Court documents revealed s/he  attempted self-castration and twice attempted suicide in prison.

Now, let’s pause here so I can be clear. I have no doubt that gender identity disorder exists and that it can be psychological hell for those who are born this way. But there are lots of people on the outside struggling with Kosilek’s problem, unable to come up with the money for a gender reassignment operation. Do we afford convicted killers health care rights that law abiding citizens don’t have? The answer is yes, according to a recent decision from U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf.

“It may seem strange that in the United States citizens do not generally have a constitutional right to adequate medical care, but the Eighth Amendment promises prisoners such care,” Judge Wolf wrote in ruling that the state of Massachusetts must pay for the prisoner’s sex-change operation. To do otherwise, Wolf ruled, would constitution cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, stop and think about this a minute. Here is a person who lives in the general population of an all – male prison. It may be one thing for him to dress up like the character Klinger from the old M*A*S*H* TV series but it might be something altogether more dangerous for Kosilek to actually become transgendered and think nothing will change within his testosterone driven prison community. Judge Wolf heard testimony from prison officials about the unique security problems Kosilek’s case would present but he dismissed the argument. As it stands now Kosilek gets his free operation but the state could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which would delay things.

Other states have grappled with similar federal cases filed by prisoners wanting a sex change operation but I couldn’t find one where a judge actually ordered taxpayer funded surgery.

Judge Wolf’s apparently groundbreaking decision seems so shortsighted to me. He made it sound as if he had no choice in the matter, that it was a “medical necessity” for this prisoner. It’s as if the judge forgot that the state has already bent over backward to accommodate this prisoner’s numerous wishes over the years.

I’m not the only one who is outraged by this. After the ruling, U.S. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts said Kosilek’s surgery would be, “An outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars.” A niece of Cheryl Kosilek nearly begged the state to quickly appeal the decision saying, “As far as I’m concerned, he deserves nothing. If he wants to attempt suicide … let him.”

Judge Wolf’s written ruling didn’t address what would happen to Kosilek after the operation. Would s/he be left to fend for her/himself in the all-male population or be transferred to a women’s prison? What if Kosilek decides he is unhappy with the results and wants further surgery? And, most important, what signal does this send to all the other poor but law-abiding souls who cannot afford the psychotherapy, the hormones, the gender reassignment surgery? For the truly desperate it seems to be an invitation to commit a really serious crime so they can advance their goal of changing sexes.

I can see providing a prisoner a heart transplant or expensive cancer treatments so they don’t die. That, to me, fits in the “medically necessary” category. But, to those Kosilek sympathizers who declare granting this operation is humane – I asked them one question: How humane was Robert Kosilek when he pulled that wire around his wife’s neck and tugged on it until it nearly took her head off? He’s gotten enough rewards for his murderous behavior.

Tweet

What are Prisons Really For?

By Women in Crime Ink

 We've asked our contributors a few questions about the prison system. What is its purpose -- punishment, rehabilitation, or separating criminals from society? Is the system accomplishing that purpose? If the purpose is keeping criminals apart from the rest of society, are there alternatives besides incarceration in prison cells? 

Kathryn Casey:
It depends on the case. For those with life without parole, prisons are nothing more than a holding area, some more humane than others, where dangerous folks are segregated to keep society as a whole safer for the rest of us. For those who might someday get out, prison is primarily punishment, but it does offer, for those who reach out for it, a chance for rehabilitation.

Most of the prisons I've visited, and I've been in plenty down here in Texas, offer literacy and GED programs. Illiteracy is incredibly high behind bars. Yet I remember years ago meeting a convicted murderer who finished high school, got a bachelor's and a master's degree while serving a 60-year sentence. When I talked to him, he was working on a Ph.D. through a correspondence course. An inmate has to seek out the opportunities, and few do. For most offenders, the time in prison is simply punishment and wasted years.

One of the disappointing things is that there's so little treatment for sex offenders and violent criminals in prisons. Most aren't given any treatment at all until shortly before release, despite studies that show these types of ex-cons have high recidivism rates and require years of therapy, if there's any hope at all of preventing future crimes.

Donna Pendergast:

 The prison system aspires to rehabilitate offenders, but it isn't the purpose of the system -- only a goal.

The purpose of prison is to isolate offenders from society to protect the public and to punish offenders.  Unfortunately, although prison may not be a preferred experience, the amenities offered to offenders sometimes strain the bounds of belief. Libraries more extensive than in a prosecutor's office, large screen TVs, and well-equipped work out areas are standard fare at most prisons.  These privileges should be earned, not mandated.  I am not at all for any kind of abusive treatment of prisoners, but the prison experience should not be a posh one. That's why I am such a fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom I have posted on before.  Although he presides over a county jail rather than a prison, he makes sure that it is not a pleasant experience.  His standard retort to complaining prisoners is "If you don't like it, don't come back.

Katherine Scardino:

Jurors want revenge for a really heinous crime.  A kidnapping, rape or any crime involving a child induces immediate wrath on the defendant.  There is no discussion of rehabilitation.  I truly believe that a juror couldn't care less whether the prison system allows for counseling, education or any other individual assistance. The only issue is "how much does it cost?"  Your question: "why do we have a prison?"  It is, as Kathryn said, a "house" for people who have violated our laws. In capital cases, there are serious problems relating to sensory deprivation, where humans are kept in a box 23 out of 24 hours a day, and fed through a hole in the door.  This is inhuman and more than punishment. But, we say, they deserve this. These people hurt my family, my society, and should not be allowed to join the rest of us. No one disagrees with it. But prison should be more than a holding cell. Prison should be a place where bad people have an opportunity to learn about being better and returning to society as different people -- instead of learning how to be worse than they were when they entered the prison system. This does not help any of us.

Andrea Campbell:

Just as there are different camps on most major issues of any importance, there will always be disagreement on why offenders should be punished, how offenders should be punished, and what constitutes punishment. The common dictionary says quite generally that punishment is loss, severe treatment or suffering. Our prison systems are based on the concept that corrections serve these functions:  1) retribution, 2) deterrence, 3) incapacitation, and 4) rehabilitation. I think we also need to consider two other functions are enumerated: reintegration, and control.

But what about retribution for the victims? This system dictates that the severity of the offense should match the level of incarceration. If some petty, non-violent crook gets nicked, he might be able to do his time at an “honor farm.” Likewise, if a man has been convicted as a murderer, maximum security is probably what he’s earned. This methodology even weighs the type of probation on the same scale. In the aftermath, the probationary attention to follow-up and detail befits the crime similarly. Citizens should like this system, because they feel it shows the moral imperative of “getting tough on crime.” We might think about a new, modern Justice Model of punishment.

Like a “Just Desserts” concept,  it rejects the notion of rehabilitation as key and aims to avoid sentencing disparities. It seeks to match the punishment to the crime with room for variation, with a major difference up-front: To do a re-evaluation of the offender's past record. Then it would institute the type of justice a particular community wants reflected onto the behavior of its citizens. The foundation for the policy is that everyone is responsible for his/her own actions; that rational thought brought them to this end; that the criminal should bear the blame for his/her acts; and that the public needs protection and should be able to legislate punishment according to proscribed dicta of constitutional severity. As far as corrections, I think prisons should be privatized.

Pat Brown:

I think we have to look at two types of prisoners: those who can be rehabilitated and deserving of rehabilitation, and those who can't be rehabilitated nor deserving of rehabilitation. The latter are excessively violent repeat offenders, violent sexual predators and serial killers. Therapy does not "cure" arrogant psychopaths lacking in remorse or empathy; they will always be a danger to society, and they deserve no sympathy from us. Put them away and keep them away. Furthermore, we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money allowing them to amuse themselves studying and getting degrees while their victims are rotting in the grave or living lives or psychological, physical or economic poverty.

The former group can be divided into two subgroups: those who are willing to be rehabilitated and those who are not. Prisoners should earn their right to favors by the society they have abused and when they earn that consideration by good behavior and hard work, then they can be moved to a rehabilitation facility where they can earn an income and pay for their education and vocational training like citizens do on the outside.

Lisa Cohen:

This topic resonates particularly for me. For most of the last five years, I researched and wrote a book (AFTER ETAN: The Missing Child Case That Held America Captive) about the long, horrific “career” of Jose Ramos, a serial pedophile who damaged countless helpless children in the '70s and '80s (including Down's Syndrome and mentally challenged boys). He was finally locked away from any future victims in 1986 and has served the last 25 years in prison.  A generation of children have been safe from him. But in 2011, he’ll max out and will walk free unless someone can figure out a way to stop him. He’s never completed a sex offender program and has never taken responsibility for the worst of his crimes.

The father of Etan Patz, the boy Ramos almost certainly kidnapped, raped and killed, has said Ramos should never be released from prison.  “He’s a predator,” Stan Patz told me,  as well as a 60 Minutes audience, “and he should never be allowed near children again. He should be kept behind bars until he’s too old to walk.” His is a compelling argument.

But for the last year, I’ve been involved in a very different project, albeit on a related topic. "ONE LAST SHOT: A Story of Redemption," is an ongoing documentary I’ve been directing. It tells the story of inmates at maximum security Angola Prison, home to Louisiana’s Death Row and some of the most hardened criminals you will ever meet. Half of them are killers; 85 percent will die at Angola. The particular inmates I’m focusing on staff a hospice at the prison, where they help dying fellow inmates to a humane death, something most of them cheated their own victims out of.

I’ve now spent time with several of these men. Many committed their crimes decades ago. So did Jose Ramos.  They are soft-spoken and articulate. So was Jose Ramos whenever I talked to him.

But I watch as these hospice volunteers clearly care about their dying patients. They feed them, clean them, comfort them.  Sometimes they change their diapers.  They watch them slowly waste away and eventually die, holding their hands as they slip away.  They treat each other and their hospice colleagues with respect.  They speak eloquently of developing compassion, of nurturing their humanity. They say they seek redemption.

They seem different than Jose Ramos, and they want to send that message via this documentary. As I continue to film, I hope to learn for myself whether that is true.  If so, then programs like prison hospice, inmate counseling, religious rehabilitation, are worthwhile and need to be promoted.  I’ve heard over and over while at Angola the credo: “A man’s entire life should not be judged by his worst act.”  

Cathy Scott:

I'll quote my friend Kevin Powell, an author and a Brooklynite through and through who cares about his rundown community and is running for a seat in U.S. Congress.

One leg of his campaign platform is "rid the 'hood of crime and pollution." He says that includes redirecting imprisonment dollars into education and enhancing "alternative strategies to lower incarceration rates." He also calls for abolishing the death penalty. "These actions," he says, "will reduce the rates of recidivism while creating opportunities for success." As the late Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger once said in his "Factories with Fences" speech, "We need prison reforms that will encourage offenders to earn and learn their way to freedom." I'm with Powell and Burger. Change is needed, and giving inmates the tools they need is paramount for them to live as non-offenders and contributing members of society outside the prison walls.

Tweet

Closing the Door on a Bad Idea -- Early Prison Release

by Diane Dimond

Well, that didn’t take long. 

And it certainly didn’t take an Einstein to figure out that our rush to balance budgets by granting early parole or release to thousands of convicts wasn’t such a great idea. It sure isn’t saving the money proponents predicted.

Several states embraced the theory that they could save millions of dollars every year by paring down their prison populations. They’ve quickly come to realize some things just can’t be measured by money. Like public safety – and the threat to the public’s safety.

This was starkly illustrated in Illinois recently when that state’s early release program was labeled, “A big mistake,” by none other than the governor, Patrick Quinn (right). He came to that conclusion after learning some violent convicts were sent home after spending only a few weeks in lockup. More than fifty of the early released were soon accused of new crimes, making more work for law enforcement and prosecutors handling the costly new cases.

So, where exactly was the savings in all that?

The program became a train wreck in Michigan, where 13,541 inmates were granted early release last year. One convict featured in a recent New York Times story is Scott Hankins, a two-time sex-crimes convict accused of molesting young girls he met at church. Some were disabled, and some were reported to be as young as seven. Last year, Hankins’s psychologists declared he met the criteria for a pedophilia diagnosis, but he was released anyway -– well before his 30-year-sentence was up. Prosecutors are now appealing the early releases of Hankins and other sex criminals. Those appeals are time-consuming and expensive for the state.

In Oregon, legislators passed an early-release law last summer. Thousands of convicts became eligible, including Demetrius Payton, 33, a registered sex offender and convicted burglar. His second chance came in October 2009, when he got out of prison early. By January, Payton had been re-arrested for unlawful sexual penetration and felony burglary. He’s now the focus of an anti-crime radio campaign launched by concerned citizens and former prosecutors.

The voice of former District Attorney Tara Lawrence (right) reveals her exasperation with Oregon’s program to let prisoners, like Payton, out early. “Law enforcement caught him,” she says in the ad, “the politicians' new law released him … Law enforcement caught him again. With more than 4,800 prisoners up for early release … this won’t be the last one.”

Oregon has now suspended its early release program.

California, under a federal court order to reduce its prison population, has a plan that’s really gotten bollixed up. Even before the statewide program went into effect, county jails began releasing hundreds of prisoners. At least one, a violent offender named Kevin Peterson, was out for less than 24 hours when he was arrested for attempted rape. Now lawmakers say they never intended for county prisoners to be included in the early release program. Who will pay to fix the problem? The cash-strapped citizens of California, of course.

Several other states are also reassessing just how to juggle early release and public safety. These programs are supposed to target only low-risk and non-violent prisoners. But obviously repeat offenders, violent offenders and sex predators are among those being set free. That’s just not fair to the rest of us.

Regular readers of my posts know I’ve long preached the need for both prison and drug-law reform. Because of our national experiment with tougher drug sentencing, there are too many low-level drug offenders clogging up our courtrooms and prisons. De-criminalizing marijuana would go a long way toward solving today’s massively expensive and over-crowded prison situation. Then we could concentrate on getting the addicted back into mainstream, taxpaying society again. We also need to better re-assimilate and support convicts after they’ve served their time so they don’t come back. Those diagnosed as truly criminally insane need specialized handling. And those who simply don’t respond to rehabilitation? We need to find ways for them to pay their own way in the system through prison work projects.

But for now we need to struggle through this ill-fated idea of opening prison doors and allowing convicts to get out early. There’s got to be a better, safer way to try to balance budgets.

I suggest state officials take a deep breath and study what’s happened in Colorado. Early on officials there figured they could save $19 million with the early release of some 2,600 prisoners. Sounded like a great idea. But they took the time to actually study individual cases and realized that, in good conscience and with public safety top of mind, they could only justify releasing a mere 264 convicts.

It’s okay to admit a mistake. In fact, oftentimes it’s the smartest thing we can do.

Tweet