Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > Military Prison Talk & UCMJ
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Military Prison Talk & UCMJ This forum is dedicated to those who have a loved one in a military prison, or dealing with the military legal system (UCMJ).

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2004, 02:42 PM
DeNada DeNada is offline
One Day At A Time
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 644
Thanks: 12
Thanked 66 Times in 42 Posts
Default General Military Prison Information

The Military Correctional System: An Overview
by: David Hassenritter

May 15, 2003, marked the 128th anniversary of
the establishment of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks
(USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., originally
designated the U.S. Military Prison, and
the start of a military correctional system. Although many
are not aware, the military does have inmates and its own
correctional system. The military correctional system was
established by Congress in 1873 and evolved from the first
meeting of the American Prison Association (forerunner of
today’s American Correctional Association) in 1870. What
was sought was a correctional system with ACA-accredited
facilities throughout the world with a mission to confine
and rehabilitate U.S. military inmates. Correctional specialists
in the Army and Marine Corps also have the mission of
operating prisoner of war camps and terrorist/detainee
facilities. The military correctional system is not as it is
portrayed in the movies The Dirty Dozen and The Last Castle,
but it does have a rich and interesting history. From the
beginning, military corrections has shown flexibility and
ingenuity that has helped maintain military discipline, protect
society and rehabilitate offenders, while providing a
standard for civilian correctional facilities.
The Beginning
Prior to the establishment of the first military prison in
1875, the military disciplinary system relied heavily on corporal
punishment or acts of public humiliation to deter
others and maintain strict discipline. Punishment included
forfeiture of pay and allowances, flogging, branding, keelhauling
(offenders tied to a rope looped beneath the vessel,
dragged under the keel and up the other side, causing
their skin to be scraped raw), confinement, solitary confinement
with bread and water, and the death penalty. This
approach to punishment reflected the era’s prevailing attitude
toward crime and punishment. If confinement was
needed, military inmates were housed in various state prisons
and military stockades. Military inmates sentenced to
long terms of confinement were usually incarcerated in
state or local jails and prisons. Military stockades, which
were comparable to civilian jails, were in poor physical
condition and were designed to be punitive and not rehabilitative.
Confining military inmates in civilian and military
facilities resulted in inmate abuse, lack of uniform treatment
and limited military control of inmates. Today, the
military correctional system is organized in a three-tiered
system consisting of 59 facilities designed to confine
inmates based on sentence length, geographical location
and treatment programs. The goal is to develop inmates so
that they are successfully prepared to return to active military
service or to the civilian community.
Present-Day Military Corrections
The Department of Defense Corrections Council, made up
of each service’s corrections director and chair of the
respective clemency and parole board, provides oversight
and guidance to the services. Each service headquarters
develops policies and budgets and provides oversight to the
facilities they operate. The Army is the executive agent for
Level 3 corrections. The Army and Marine Corps are the
only services that possess active-duty service members with
a career military occupation of correctional officer.
The military’s 59 facilities have a design capacity of
4,166 and an operational capacity of 3,249. The total population
in military facilities at year-end 2002 was 2,377, comprising
57 percent of its design capacity and 73 percent of
its operational capacity. While the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and most states battle crowding issues, the military in
2002 had the lowest percentage of its capacity used,
according to a comparison of the departments of Justice
and Defense 2002 annual reports. The military has the fifth
lowest inmate population in the country and confines 170
inmates per 100,000 service members, compared with the
national average of 701 inmates per 100,000 residents. The
Army operates six facilities, confining the most military
inmates (41 percent), while the Navy operates 11 facilities
that confine 34 percent of the military inmate population;
the Marine Corps operates six facilities, confining 20 percent
of the inmate population; and the Air Force operates
36 facilities, confining 5 percent of the military inmate population.
Level 1 is the lowest tier in the correctional system and
is used to confine pretrial and post-trial inmates with sen-
tences of up to one year. The facilites are equivalent to
local jails and have limited programs. The Navy operates
six Level 1 facilities, the Marine Corps operates two, and
the Air Force operates 36. The Army does not operate
Level 1 facilities but uses other service facilities or contracts
with local jails for confinement of pretrial or posttrial
Army inmates with a sentence of less than 30 days.
Level 2 is the middle tier that confines pretrial and posttrial
inmates sentenced up to seven years. The majority (65
percent) of military inmates are confined in Level 2 facilities.
Educational, vocational and mental health treatment
programs are available at these facilities. In addition, certain
facilities, such as Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig in
San Diego and Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig in South
Carolina, have specialized sex offender programs. The
Army operates three Level 2 facilities, which it calls regional
correctional facilities, the Marine Corps operates three
Level 2 brigs, and the Navy operates three Level 2 brigs.
Since 2000, the Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig has been
designated the Level 3 facility for females in order to standardize
treatment and consolidate space and assets. The
Air Force operates no Level 2 facilities, so the majority of
its inmates are confined at the two naval consolidated
brigs. Army and Marine Corps facilities are staffed with military
correctional officers, along with military and civilian
personnel with medical, religious and other support specialties.
At the Navy facilities, the security personnel consist
predominantly of Navy-enlisted personnel on shore
duty status who are not correctional officers but are
screened and provided a basic corrections course prior to
assignment at the facility. In addition, there are correctional
specialists from the Army and Marine Corps as well as
Air Force law enforcement and clinical staff. The staff also
includes a civilian cadre that provides long-term continuity
and expertise.
USDB at Fort Leavenworth is the only facility in the third
and highest tier of the military correctional system and is
the only Department of Defense maximum-security confinement
facility. For the most part, all male military inmates
with sentences longer than seven years are confined at Fort
Leavenworth. Inmates with shorter sentences but who are
national security-related offenders, escape risks or unmanageable
offenders at other facilities are also confined there.
USDB does not confine pretrial inmates. USDB’s motto is
“Our Mission, Your Future.” The focus is on punitive correction
and rehabilitation. Rehabilitative programs include
an extensive array of counseling services. The foundation
group for all treatment programs is the reasoning and rehabilitation
(cognitive skill building) group. Other programs
include anger and stress management, substance abuse
and sex offender assessment and treatment, and selfgrowth.
In addition, individual treatment plans are used
with offenders. A majority of the staff are Army correctional
specialists working in the security/custody positions.
Also, there are Department of Defense civilian and service
members with other military occupational skills from the
Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force filling the administrative,
vocational and treatment staff positions.
The military operates 11 overseas facilities that are not
classified in the three-tiered system. Pretrial and post-trial
inmates awaiting transfer back to facilities in the United
States are confined there. There are limited programs at
the overseas facilities that are based on the short time
inmates are confined there. In 2002, there were 142 inmates
confined in overseas facilities. The total capacity is 618,
with major facilities in Mannheim, Germany (Army); Pyongtaek,
Korea (Army); Okinawa, Japan (Marines); and Hawaii
(Navy).
Military Correctional Highlights
• In 1870, while attending the first conference of the
American Prison Association, Maj. Thomas A. Barr
(known as the father of USDB), became aware of military
inmate abuse and a lack of uniform treatment for
military inmates.
• In 1871, the military evaluated the treatment of military
inmates in civilian jails and the British Military
Prison System in Canada. The investigation confirmed
inmate abuse, lack of uniform treatment and
limited Army control of inmates in state penitentiaries.
• In 1873, Congress authorized the establishment of a
military prison to confine military offenders sentenced
to a period of confinement in excess of 60
days.
• In 1875, the U.S. Military Prison was built and became
the first military prison.
• In 1877, U.S. Military Prison inmates were employed
making boots, shoes and similar products in the first
vocational training program for inmates in the United
States.
• In 1895, the U.S. Military Prison was transferred to
the control of the Department of Justice and became
the first penitentiary operated by the federal government.
It was later returned to military control in 1906.
• In 1907, a prison facility at Alcatraz, Calif., opened as
the USDB, Pacific. In 1934, control was transferred to
the BOP.
• In 1908, Portsmouth Naval Prison in New Hampshire
was opened under the command of Col. Kelton of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
• In 1915, mandated by a congressional act, the name
of U.S. Military Prison changed to United States Disciplinary
Barracks.
• In 1917, Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Osbourne (considered the
father of naval corrections) assumed command of
Portsmouth Naval Prison. Osbourne and two others
went undercover in the prison to see what changes
needed to be made.
• In 1929, control of USDB at Fort Leavenworth transferred
to the BOP for the second time until 1940.
• In 1945, Pvt. Eddie D. Slovic became the last deserter
(absence without leave (AWOL) for more than 30
days) to be executed.
• In 1945, the military conducted executions of 14 prisoners
of war at USDB.
• In July 1950, Department of Defense instruction mandated
corrective rather than punitive treatment of
inmates and declared that convicted servicemen
could be restored to active duty. In October 1951, the
Air Force began carrying out that mandate by activating
the 3,320th Retraining Group at Amarillo Air
Force Base in Texas. The motto was “Fieri Potest: It
can be done.”
• In 1961, the last military execution was conducted. (A
1973 Supreme Court ruling resulted in the commutation
of those on death row, and since then no military
executions have been conducted.)
• In 1968, the Army Correctional Training Facility was
established at Fort Riley, Kan. Its mission was to
return military inmates to duty with improved attributes
and motivation through intensive training,
supervision and correctional treatment. It has been
described as the first boot camp or “shock incarceration”
program.
• In 1974, a five-building rehabilitation complex was
completed on Lowry Air Force Base in Colorado to
include the first Air Force female confinement and
rehabilitation unit. Also that year, the Department of
Defense developed a regional military correctional
facility plan. This decision led to the confinement at
USDB of inmates from all the services sentenced to
punitive discharge and long terms. Prior to this, all
services either housed their own long-term inmates
or contracted with the BOP.
• In 1988, USDB became the first Army and military correctional
facility to receive ACA accreditation.
• In 1992, the Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig
became the first naval correctional facility to receive
ACA accreditation.
• In 1994, the military established an agreement with
the BOP to house up to 500 inmates of various custody
levels in federal facilities in exchange for property
at two military installations.
• In 2001, the Camp Pendleton Brig in California
became the first Marine Corps correctional facility to
be accredited.
• In 2002, the new USDB opened at Fort Leavenworth,
replacing the original “castle” (a reference to its
design), the longest operating federal facility. Also in
2002, Col. Colleen McGuire became the first female
commandant of USDB, Fort Leavenworth. In addition,
the U.S. Army Confinement Facility, Europe, in
Mannheim, Germany, became the first overseas facility
of any type — civilian or military — to receive ACA
accreditation.
Military Versus Civilian Inmates
Today’s military inmates are very different from those of
yesteryear. Common offenses in the late 1700s were disrespect,
disobedience, desertion and alcohol abuse, which
were punishable by various sanctions, including solitary
confinement or execution. During times of war up to 1970,
the most common offenses for inmates were desertion and
AWOL. However, the 1970s saw a change in convicted
offenses, shifting from mainly desertion and AWOL to a
split between military-unique offenses and civilian offenses.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, the pendulum continued to
swing more toward civilian violent offenses.
According to Department of Defense confinement
reports, at year-end 2002, the average military inmate was
male (97 percent), white (61 percent), a high school graduate
(99 percent), most likely committed a crime against a
person (38 percent) and was released from military prisons
at the end of his sentence. At year-end 2002, the most commonly
committed offense by military inmates was rape, followed
by drug possession and then drug trafficking. The
most common property offense was larceny. Military
offenses of desertion, AWOL, disrespect, malingering, adultery
and other crimes that are unique to the military made
up only 12 percent of the post-trial population. Inmate sentences
range up to life, life without parole and death.
Inmates can be sentenced to death, which is carried out by
lethal injection, by committing such offenses as desertion
during time of war or treason. Sixty-six percent of the posttrial
population had a sentence of more than one year at
year-end 2002, while 19 inmates had a sentence between 50
to 99 years, 44 were sentenced to life, six to life without
parole and seven to death.
A comparison in 2002 of the departments of Defense and
Justice reports revealed that state and federal inmates
were most likely to be black males (45 percent), while military
inmates were white males (61 percent). Females make
up only 4 percent of the military inmate population and 6
percent of the state and federal inmate population. In both
populations, a majority of the inmates are between the
ages of 20 and 35. In 2001, the military inmate was more
likely than a state and federal inmate to be confined for a
drug offense (33 percent versus 24 percent) but less likely
to be incarcerated for a violent crime (38 percent versus 45
percent) or a property crime (14.5 percent versus 18 percent).
In 2002, military inmates confined for drug offenses
dropped to 28 percent, while the number of violent offenders
rose to 44 percent of the population and property
offenders increased slightly to 16 percent.
Return-to-Duty Program
Before the Gulf War, the most frequent offense committed
during previous wars was desertion. In response, an
effort was made to retrain as many inmates as possible to
return to duty during and/or after they have served their
sentence. Unlike those in The Dirty Dozen, these were not
soldiers sentenced to death being sent on a secret mission
to win the war — these were soldiers with minor militaryunique
offenses. Those who were selected and completed
the return-to-duty program returned to active duty to complete
the remainder of their service obligation with an
opportunity to serve honorably and receive an honorable
discharge. This restoration program provided a valuable
manpower source during the wars and saved thousands of
soldiers from having a black mark (dishonorable discharge)
follow them throughout their civilian life. During
World War II, 42,373 of 84,245 inmates were returned to
duty either during or after confinement, while during the
Korean War, 4,800 of the 18,653 inmates were returned to
duty. Today, due to downsizing of the military, the returnto-
duty program is very small, with only the Air Force having
an active, structured facility and program. The other
services have determined operating a return-to-duty unit is
not cost-effective for the low number of service members
returned to duty.
Conclusion
The military correctional system is a model system that
has evolved over the years since the first meeting of the
American Prison Association. It has been forward thinking,
developing innovative programs, such as vocational training
and prison alternatives (boot camps), which were later
adapted in civilian correctional systems. Those released
from military prisons under supervision have a lower
recidivism rate than the national average. The skills developed
in operating military prisons have become critical in
operating detention camps throughout the world during
military conflicts (enemy prisoners of war) and the global
war on terrorism (detention camps in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and Bagram, Afghanistan). Despite all this, as are
state and federal systems, the military correctional system
is under scrutiny for divestiture and privatization, and its
future is uncertain. This is not the first time the military
has looked at getting out of the prison business, and it
comes at a time when the military occupational specialty of
correctional specialists not only ensures a safe and effective
prison operation but also provides commanders in the
field key expertise to operate prisoner of war camps and
detention facilities for other personnel in an operational
environment. The question must be asked, can the military
afford to lose this key skill set that is gained through training
and experience from operating correctional facilities?
The military correctional system has a proud history, is
effective in securing and training inmates for release back
to the military or civilian life as productive citizens, and
provides the necessary skills to fight in the global war on
terrorism.
REFERENCES
Department of Defense. 2003. Air Force 2002 annual confinement
report (DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Army 2002 annual confinement report
(DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Marine Corps 2002 annual confinement
report (DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Navy 2002 annual confinement report
(DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (March).
Haasenritter, D.K. 1990. A comparative study of the demographic
profile of prisoners confined in the federal and U.S. Army correctional
systems. Thesis for a master’s degree in criminal justice,
University of South Carolina.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. Prisoners
in 2002, Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
(July).
Lt. Col. David K. Haasenritter is senior correctional adviser
to the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs.
__________________
"Some things you just have to live through, and when they're done, they're done."
****************************************
The information provided is not legal advice and you may not rely on it as such. It is strongly advised if you have need of legal assistance to consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeNada For This Useful Post:
Ranaeb2 (08-15-2010), StephanieluvsBr (06-03-2010)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 05-16-2005, 03:15 AM
Gismodcat Gismodcat is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default I need help!

My fiance is going to be transferred to Military Prison in Kansas today - I assume it will be Forth Leavenworth. He is facing 5 years in prison. We just had his court date past Thursday in Texas. Thanks God it happened that I could have been with him. Since I am back now in Germany since yesterday and I do not have any idea about military law, prisons or the regulations I would really appreciate to receive as many information as possible. I am going nuts here over being so far away from him not knowing anything.
I´d like to know how far is a contact with him possible (visits, phone calls, letters, mails). Maybe you even could tell me how successful appeals could be in general. Thank´s a lot in advance!



Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNada
The Military Correctional System: An Overview
by: David Hassenritter

May 15, 2003, marked the 128th anniversary of
the establishment of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks
(USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., originally
designated the U.S. Military Prison, and
the start of a military correctional system. Although many
are not aware, the military does have inmates and its own
correctional system. The military correctional system was
established by Congress in 1873 and evolved from the first
meeting of the American Prison Association (forerunner of
today’s American Correctional Association) in 1870. What
was sought was a correctional system with ACA-accredited
facilities throughout the world with a mission to confine
and rehabilitate U.S. military inmates. Correctional specialists
in the Army and Marine Corps also have the mission of
operating prisoner of war camps and terrorist/detainee
facilities. The military correctional system is not as it is
portrayed in the movies The Dirty Dozen and The Last Castle,
but it does have a rich and interesting history. From the
beginning, military corrections has shown flexibility and
ingenuity that has helped maintain military discipline, protect
society and rehabilitate offenders, while providing a
standard for civilian correctional facilities.
The Beginning
Prior to the establishment of the first military prison in
1875, the military disciplinary system relied heavily on corporal
punishment or acts of public humiliation to deter
others and maintain strict discipline. Punishment included
forfeiture of pay and allowances, flogging, branding, keelhauling
(offenders tied to a rope looped beneath the vessel,
dragged under the keel and up the other side, causing
their skin to be scraped raw), confinement, solitary confinement
with bread and water, and the death penalty. This
approach to punishment reflected the era’s prevailing attitude
toward crime and punishment. If confinement was
needed, military inmates were housed in various state prisons
and military stockades. Military inmates sentenced to
long terms of confinement were usually incarcerated in
state or local jails and prisons. Military stockades, which
were comparable to civilian jails, were in poor physical
condition and were designed to be punitive and not rehabilitative.
Confining military inmates in civilian and military
facilities resulted in inmate abuse, lack of uniform treatment
and limited military control of inmates. Today, the
military correctional system is organized in a three-tiered
system consisting of 59 facilities designed to confine
inmates based on sentence length, geographical location
and treatment programs. The goal is to develop inmates so
that they are successfully prepared to return to active military
service or to the civilian community.
Present-Day Military Corrections
The Department of Defense Corrections Council, made up
of each service’s corrections director and chair of the
respective clemency and parole board, provides oversight
and guidance to the services. Each service headquarters
develops policies and budgets and provides oversight to the
facilities they operate. The Army is the executive agent for
Level 3 corrections. The Army and Marine Corps are the
only services that possess active-duty service members with
a career military occupation of correctional officer.
The military’s 59 facilities have a design capacity of
4,166 and an operational capacity of 3,249. The total population
in military facilities at year-end 2002 was 2,377, comprising
57 percent of its design capacity and 73 percent of
its operational capacity. While the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and most states battle crowding issues, the military in
2002 had the lowest percentage of its capacity used,
according to a comparison of the departments of Justice
and Defense 2002 annual reports. The military has the fifth
lowest inmate population in the country and confines 170
inmates per 100,000 service members, compared with the
national average of 701 inmates per 100,000 residents. The
Army operates six facilities, confining the most military
inmates (41 percent), while the Navy operates 11 facilities
that confine 34 percent of the military inmate population;
the Marine Corps operates six facilities, confining 20 percent
of the inmate population; and the Air Force operates
36 facilities, confining 5 percent of the military inmate population.
Level 1 is the lowest tier in the correctional system and
is used to confine pretrial and post-trial inmates with sen-
tences of up to one year. The facilites are equivalent to
local jails and have limited programs. The Navy operates
six Level 1 facilities, the Marine Corps operates two, and
the Air Force operates 36. The Army does not operate
Level 1 facilities but uses other service facilities or contracts
with local jails for confinement of pretrial or posttrial
Army inmates with a sentence of less than 30 days.
Level 2 is the middle tier that confines pretrial and posttrial
inmates sentenced up to seven years. The majority (65
percent) of military inmates are confined in Level 2 facilities.
Educational, vocational and mental health treatment
programs are available at these facilities. In addition, certain
facilities, such as Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig in
San Diego and Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig in South
Carolina, have specialized sex offender programs. The
Army operates three Level 2 facilities, which it calls regional
correctional facilities, the Marine Corps operates three
Level 2 brigs, and the Navy operates three Level 2 brigs.
Since 2000, the Miramar Naval Consolidated Brig has been
designated the Level 3 facility for females in order to standardize
treatment and consolidate space and assets. The
Air Force operates no Level 2 facilities, so the majority of
its inmates are confined at the two naval consolidated
brigs. Army and Marine Corps facilities are staffed with military
correctional officers, along with military and civilian
personnel with medical, religious and other support specialties.
At the Navy facilities, the security personnel consist
predominantly of Navy-enlisted personnel on shore
duty status who are not correctional officers but are
screened and provided a basic corrections course prior to
assignment at the facility. In addition, there are correctional
specialists from the Army and Marine Corps as well as
Air Force law enforcement and clinical staff. The staff also
includes a civilian cadre that provides long-term continuity
and expertise.
USDB at Fort Leavenworth is the only facility in the third
and highest tier of the military correctional system and is
the only Department of Defense maximum-security confinement
facility. For the most part, all male military inmates
with sentences longer than seven years are confined at Fort
Leavenworth. Inmates with shorter sentences but who are
national security-related offenders, escape risks or unmanageable
offenders at other facilities are also confined there.
USDB does not confine pretrial inmates. USDB’s motto is
“Our Mission, Your Future.” The focus is on punitive correction
and rehabilitation. Rehabilitative programs include
an extensive array of counseling services. The foundation
group for all treatment programs is the reasoning and rehabilitation
(cognitive skill building) group. Other programs
include anger and stress management, substance abuse
and sex offender assessment and treatment, and selfgrowth.
In addition, individual treatment plans are used
with offenders. A majority of the staff are Army correctional
specialists working in the security/custody positions.
Also, there are Department of Defense civilian and service
members with other military occupational skills from the
Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force filling the administrative,
vocational and treatment staff positions.
The military operates 11 overseas facilities that are not
classified in the three-tiered system. Pretrial and post-trial
inmates awaiting transfer back to facilities in the United
States are confined there. There are limited programs at
the overseas facilities that are based on the short time
inmates are confined there. In 2002, there were 142 inmates
confined in overseas facilities. The total capacity is 618,
with major facilities in Mannheim, Germany (Army); Pyongtaek,
Korea (Army); Okinawa, Japan (Marines); and Hawaii
(Navy).
Military Correctional Highlights
• In 1870, while attending the first conference of the
American Prison Association, Maj. Thomas A. Barr
(known as the father of USDB), became aware of military
inmate abuse and a lack of uniform treatment for
military inmates.
• In 1871, the military evaluated the treatment of military
inmates in civilian jails and the British Military
Prison System in Canada. The investigation confirmed
inmate abuse, lack of uniform treatment and
limited Army control of inmates in state penitentiaries.
• In 1873, Congress authorized the establishment of a
military prison to confine military offenders sentenced
to a period of confinement in excess of 60
days.
• In 1875, the U.S. Military Prison was built and became
the first military prison.
• In 1877, U.S. Military Prison inmates were employed
making boots, shoes and similar products in the first
vocational training program for inmates in the United
States.
• In 1895, the U.S. Military Prison was transferred to
the control of the Department of Justice and became
the first penitentiary operated by the federal government.
It was later returned to military control in 1906.
• In 1907, a prison facility at Alcatraz, Calif., opened as
the USDB, Pacific. In 1934, control was transferred to
the BOP.
• In 1908, Portsmouth Naval Prison in New Hampshire
was opened under the command of Col. Kelton of the
U.S. Marine Corps.
• In 1915, mandated by a congressional act, the name
of U.S. Military Prison changed to United States Disciplinary
Barracks.
• In 1917, Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Osbourne (considered the
father of naval corrections) assumed command of
Portsmouth Naval Prison. Osbourne and two others
went undercover in the prison to see what changes
needed to be made.
• In 1929, control of USDB at Fort Leavenworth transferred
to the BOP for the second time until 1940.
• In 1945, Pvt. Eddie D. Slovic became the last deserter
(absence without leave (AWOL) for more than 30
days) to be executed.
• In 1945, the military conducted executions of 14 prisoners
of war at USDB.
• In July 1950, Department of Defense instruction mandated
corrective rather than punitive treatment of
inmates and declared that convicted servicemen
could be restored to active duty. In October 1951, the
Air Force began carrying out that mandate by activating
the 3,320th Retraining Group at Amarillo Air
Force Base in Texas. The motto was “Fieri Potest: It
can be done.”
• In 1961, the last military execution was conducted. (A
1973 Supreme Court ruling resulted in the commutation
of those on death row, and since then no military
executions have been conducted.)
• In 1968, the Army Correctional Training Facility was
established at Fort Riley, Kan. Its mission was to
return military inmates to duty with improved attributes
and motivation through intensive training,
supervision and correctional treatment. It has been
described as the first boot camp or “shock incarceration”
program.
• In 1974, a five-building rehabilitation complex was
completed on Lowry Air Force Base in Colorado to
include the first Air Force female confinement and
rehabilitation unit. Also that year, the Department of
Defense developed a regional military correctional
facility plan. This decision led to the confinement at
USDB of inmates from all the services sentenced to
punitive discharge and long terms. Prior to this, all
services either housed their own long-term inmates
or contracted with the BOP.
• In 1988, USDB became the first Army and military correctional
facility to receive ACA accreditation.
• In 1992, the Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig
became the first naval correctional facility to receive
ACA accreditation.
• In 1994, the military established an agreement with
the BOP to house up to 500 inmates of various custody
levels in federal facilities in exchange for property
at two military installations.
• In 2001, the Camp Pendleton Brig in California
became the first Marine Corps correctional facility to
be accredited.
• In 2002, the new USDB opened at Fort Leavenworth,
replacing the original “castle” (a reference to its
design), the longest operating federal facility. Also in
2002, Col. Colleen McGuire became the first female
commandant of USDB, Fort Leavenworth. In addition,
the U.S. Army Confinement Facility, Europe, in
Mannheim, Germany, became the first overseas facility
of any type — civilian or military — to receive ACA
accreditation.
Military Versus Civilian Inmates
Today’s military inmates are very different from those of
yesteryear. Common offenses in the late 1700s were disrespect,
disobedience, desertion and alcohol abuse, which
were punishable by various sanctions, including solitary
confinement or execution. During times of war up to 1970,
the most common offenses for inmates were desertion and
AWOL. However, the 1970s saw a change in convicted
offenses, shifting from mainly desertion and AWOL to a
split between military-unique offenses and civilian offenses.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, the pendulum continued to
swing more toward civilian violent offenses.
According to Department of Defense confinement
reports, at year-end 2002, the average military inmate was
male (97 percent), white (61 percent), a high school graduate
(99 percent), most likely committed a crime against a
person (38 percent) and was released from military prisons
at the end of his sentence. At year-end 2002, the most commonly
committed offense by military inmates was rape, followed
by drug possession and then drug trafficking. The
most common property offense was larceny. Military
offenses of desertion, AWOL, disrespect, malingering, adultery
and other crimes that are unique to the military made
up only 12 percent of the post-trial population. Inmate sentences
range up to life, life without parole and death.
Inmates can be sentenced to death, which is carried out by
lethal injection, by committing such offenses as desertion
during time of war or treason. Sixty-six percent of the posttrial
population had a sentence of more than one year at
year-end 2002, while 19 inmates had a sentence between 50
to 99 years, 44 were sentenced to life, six to life without
parole and seven to death.
A comparison in 2002 of the departments of Defense and
Justice reports revealed that state and federal inmates
were most likely to be black males (45 percent), while military
inmates were white males (61 percent). Females make
up only 4 percent of the military inmate population and 6
percent of the state and federal inmate population. In both
populations, a majority of the inmates are between the
ages of 20 and 35. In 2001, the military inmate was more
likely than a state and federal inmate to be confined for a
drug offense (33 percent versus 24 percent) but less likely
to be incarcerated for a violent crime (38 percent versus 45
percent) or a property crime (14.5 percent versus 18 percent).
In 2002, military inmates confined for drug offenses
dropped to 28 percent, while the number of violent offenders
rose to 44 percent of the population and property
offenders increased slightly to 16 percent.
Return-to-Duty Program
Before the Gulf War, the most frequent offense committed
during previous wars was desertion. In response, an
effort was made to retrain as many inmates as possible to
return to duty during and/or after they have served their
sentence. Unlike those in The Dirty Dozen, these were not
soldiers sentenced to death being sent on a secret mission
to win the war — these were soldiers with minor militaryunique
offenses. Those who were selected and completed
the return-to-duty program returned to active duty to complete
the remainder of their service obligation with an
opportunity to serve honorably and receive an honorable
discharge. This restoration program provided a valuable
manpower source during the wars and saved thousands of
soldiers from having a black mark (dishonorable discharge)
follow them throughout their civilian life. During
World War II, 42,373 of 84,245 inmates were returned to
duty either during or after confinement, while during the
Korean War, 4,800 of the 18,653 inmates were returned to
duty. Today, due to downsizing of the military, the returnto-
duty program is very small, with only the Air Force having
an active, structured facility and program. The other
services have determined operating a return-to-duty unit is
not cost-effective for the low number of service members
returned to duty.
Conclusion
The military correctional system is a model system that
has evolved over the years since the first meeting of the
American Prison Association. It has been forward thinking,
developing innovative programs, such as vocational training
and prison alternatives (boot camps), which were later
adapted in civilian correctional systems. Those released
from military prisons under supervision have a lower
recidivism rate than the national average. The skills developed
in operating military prisons have become critical in
operating detention camps throughout the world during
military conflicts (enemy prisoners of war) and the global
war on terrorism (detention camps in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and Bagram, Afghanistan). Despite all this, as are
state and federal systems, the military correctional system
is under scrutiny for divestiture and privatization, and its
future is uncertain. This is not the first time the military
has looked at getting out of the prison business, and it
comes at a time when the military occupational specialty of
correctional specialists not only ensures a safe and effective
prison operation but also provides commanders in the
field key expertise to operate prisoner of war camps and
detention facilities for other personnel in an operational
environment. The question must be asked, can the military
afford to lose this key skill set that is gained through training
and experience from operating correctional facilities?
The military correctional system has a proud history, is
effective in securing and training inmates for release back
to the military or civilian life as productive citizens, and
provides the necessary skills to fight in the global war on
terrorism.
REFERENCES
Department of Defense. 2003. Air Force 2002 annual confinement
report (DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Army 2002 annual confinement report
(DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Marine Corps 2002 annual confinement
report (DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (February).
Department of Defense. 2003. Navy 2002 annual confinement report
(DD form 2720), Washington, D.C. (March).
Haasenritter, D.K. 1990. A comparative study of the demographic
profile of prisoners confined in the federal and U.S. Army correctional
systems. Thesis for a master’s degree in criminal justice,
University of South Carolina.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. Prisoners
in 2002, Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
(July).
Lt. Col. David K. Haasenritter is senior correctional adviser
to the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2005, 08:09 AM
FriscoLady's Avatar
FriscoLady FriscoLady is offline
Account Closed
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 9,629
Thanks: 2,289
Thanked 2,385 Times in 1,088 Posts
Default

Gismodcat,

First welcome to PTO!

The two best people to ask are DeNada and Abndave. I would suggest Private Messaging them with your questions.

Patti
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2005, 12:18 PM
abndave's Avatar
abndave abndave is offline
Registered Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 955
Thanks: 6
Thanked 442 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Interesting overview. I take strong exception to the statement that there is "an extensive array of counseling services." The Reasoning and Rehabilitation course might be appropriate for the general run of the civilian population, where education and socialization levels are often low (no offense meant, but look at the statistics). For a prison population with a general education level of at least high school, it is simply worthless. Further, most military inmates have completed at least some military service successfully. This speaks to the higher level of social skills and self discipline among military inmates. The other main course for inmates is called Anger Management. This is also worthless. Beyond R&R, and Anger Management, both of which are short duration, there is essentially nothing. Counseling, either group or individual is minimal-to-nonexistent. There are inmate-run groups that try to function similar to AA. These may be marginally successful, but they are hampered by the lack of any real confidentiality. The counseling program (if it may be called that) is also hampered by the fact that any information an inmate reveals in such a session may be used against him. I was told this by the evaluator in my first evaluation session. I shut up.
Some will say that the above is simply "attitude" or that I don't know what I am talking about. To that I can only reply that maybe it is, and maybe I don't. As regards my qualifications to make these observations, I can only point to my masters degree in psychological counseling. That doesn't make me an expert, but it does give me far better credentials in the behavioral sciences than the people running those programs.
Now that the sour grapes are out of the way: You can't call the inmate, but he can call you. The rates are high, but it is possible. Inmate phone rates are a scandal nationwide and the DB is no exception. He can certainly write and you can write him. The mail room is - let's just say bad, and let's just say things disappear - but you should be able to get letters through. You can't send books or stuff. These have to come from the vendor, so you could order things through places like Amazon.com. As for visits, according to my family, and other inmates I have talked to, it's a bit of a nutroll. He has to apply for permission for you to visit, and it is a cumbersome and time consuming process. Just give yourself plenty of time and assume the "DB" will lose the paperwork a couple of times. In this, as in all things, BE PERSISTENT. Don't give up. Inmates really need that support.
God bless you.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to abndave For This Useful Post:
StephanieluvsBr (06-03-2010)
  #5  
Old 05-22-2005, 07:49 PM
DeNada DeNada is offline
One Day At A Time
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 644
Thanks: 12
Thanked 66 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Dave,
I'd have to agree with you on most points. My son has told me the "counseling" is, at best, erratic. As to the confidentiality, he hasn't mentioned being told that the information is admissible against him. (As a lawyer, I have a real problem with that. According to the Rules of Evidence, a therapist-patient privilege exists with the subject of therapy being confidential and therefore inadmissible, unless the patient/defendant has put the subject of the therapy, usually a mental state, into issue.) He doesn't have the opportunity, yet, to participate in any group therapies as he is not in general population, but I've heard from others that the group sessions aren't that helpful. As to the mailroom, I've heard it is run by someone who thinks they are not subject to the USDB/Army regulations, much less federal law! I've had few problems getting mail through, but some of the things that have been sent to my son were arbitrarily disapproved. Calls are less expensive if you send the inmate money (money orders only) to be deposited to their phone account. The calls are 20 to 30 minutes long and are $12.00 or thereabouts. At least, they were at last reckoning. Much cheaper than the 20 minute collect call for $35.00 we used to get! I have had no problems with visitation. My son puts in his Form 510 request to have the visit approved 30 days in advance. He usually has the approval within 7 days or so. No denials as yet. Although he is only allowed visits from immediate family, he has managed to have a one-time visit from a cousin approved. When we have visited, all staff were very polite and helpful. My main complaint about visitation is having to sit in that tiny room with two chairs and one phone while talking to my son through plexiglas. It is very difficult for two visitors to talk/hear on the same phone! We end up in contorted positions trying to share our time with him. He will, hopefully, be eligible to move into general population in October, so that painful experience will be a thing of the past! Although my information doesn't differ all that much from yours, I think there's a more positive outlook here. I can certainly understand your point of view, though. And you are so right in that we must be persistent in our requests and in supporting the inmates (even the ones we don't know). Take Care,
~ Lisa
__________________
"Some things you just have to live through, and when they're done, they're done."
****************************************
The information provided is not legal advice and you may not rely on it as such. It is strongly advised if you have need of legal assistance to consult an attorney.

Last edited by DeNada; 05-22-2005 at 07:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DeNada For This Useful Post:
StephanieluvsBr (06-03-2010)
  #6  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:11 AM
cokorn cokorn is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: maine
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Well as a former inmate in the castle jul91-jul95 i can truley attest to the futility of the counseling services and although a few in each class may benefiet. most are only using the class to pass time and to punch that card that says to the parole board yup I completed this and that class.
Most inmates are fairly smart (although my spelling doesnt prove it) and can determine what to tell the parole board All records of all classes are given to the parole board for review. As far as phone calls andvisits the above info is good. i could recomend getting a vonage high speed phone service and select a number for that phone that is local to the area. thiswill make phone calling alot cheaper and it is accepted as any standard phone number is

In the end the sun will rise
and it is not what you do in life, but who you are while doing it (anonymous)

In memory of all wrongfully incarcerated Miitary prisoners.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-27-2005, 09:01 PM
discoball's Avatar
discoball discoball is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: one more hurdle...parole
Posts: 1,013
Thanks: 79
Thanked 270 Times in 156 Posts
Default

also, i just read this and i know that in the military, there is no such thing as confidentiality in the military; i had to go through it with my husband. so its frustrating to understand how the ask them to go through these groups to strive for Parole, yet knowing anything they say in these groups will be used against them in appeals/clemency. they say they work for your good, but they really work against you. aahh!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-27-2005, 11:29 PM
abndave's Avatar
abndave abndave is offline
Registered Member
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 955
Thanks: 6
Thanked 442 Times in 120 Posts
Default

I would give a big Amen to the statement that there is no confidentiality in the military prison system. My exposure to the non-military side is limited, but as I understand it, there is little confidentiality there, either.
I remember going through the psychological assessment process (for want of a better name) at Leavenworth. I sat down for my interview with a young NCO, and the first thing he said to me was "if you admit to anything we don't know, I have to report it." I asked what they did with that information, and he said he didn't know. I have pretty extensive education in psychology, to include testing, and I know when I am being bs'ed. Needless to say, I didn't feel like opening up...
As to the military system's ability to rehabilitate, in general, the report says people released from military incarceration have a lower recidivism rate than the general prison population. Gee...Could this be because the miltitary prison system has a largely educated and disciplined population that is around 95% (or higher) first time offenders?
For those of you that haven't done so already, check out the Cox Report. This came out a couple of years ago and recommended sweeping changes in the UCMJ. It was completely ignored by congress. I imagine you can still find it on www.militaryinjustice.org.
Finally, I continue to be majorly impressed by prisontalk. This is one outstanding site.
Don't lose faith, don't lose hope, and keep those prayers coming.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to abndave For This Useful Post:
StephanieluvsBr (06-03-2010)
  #9  
Old 05-19-2010, 12:32 AM
honey707 honey707 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: canada
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

does any body know about series7
__________________
series 7 ssat
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-03-2010, 04:18 PM
StephanieluvsBr's Avatar
StephanieluvsBr StephanieluvsBr is offline
I liv 4 God n luv Brandon
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Springfield, Mo., USA
Posts: 53
Thanks: 41
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Never heard of series7, but my fiance (and hopefully soon to be husband, married by proxy) is at Ft. L. I go visit him from Missouri every two weeks or so. Feel free to PM me.
__________________
I'still feel relatively new tothis ... so please excuse any dumb questions that may have answers listed somewhere else. Thanks!






Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-03-2010, 05:19 PM
StephanieluvsBr's Avatar
StephanieluvsBr StephanieluvsBr is offline
I liv 4 God n luv Brandon
 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Springfield, Mo., USA
Posts: 53
Thanks: 41
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by honey707 View Post
does any body know about series7
Never heard of it ... what is it?
__________________
I'still feel relatively new tothis ... so please excuse any dumb questions that may have answers listed somewhere else. Thanks!






Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-02-2010, 03:36 AM
Dradak Dradak is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Don't know if any of you are still active in Prison Talk but what you said about confidentiality is still true. I was warned by my civilian attorney that anyhting I said in any counseling session could be used against me. AS to recitivisim rates, other than the fact that most military prisoners are better educated and more socially mature, it probably has more to do with the fact that many of us we either charged with "crimes" unique to the military or crimes that would never have been charged in the civilian sector. In the military the ONLY confidentiality you have is with a priest and then only when taking the sacrament of confession.

As to the counseling services I had minimal involvement there. I had my interview with the Brig Psychologist and after reviewing my intake surveys and discussing my case he came to the conclusion that there was no need for counseling. I did do a victim impact class and it was a joke. It was obviously developed for prisoners with a significantly lower educational level than the average soldier/airman/marine/sailor and we all just went through the motions (including the instructor) to punch that ticket.

Where they miss the mark is in providing training in skills that can allow us to earn a living once we get out becuase some of us will be all but unemployable regardless of our business qualifications (not too many places willing to hire registered sex offenders). Focus should be on Web Design, computer graphics design, etc...all could be sole proprietor businesses the ex-con could form, run and succeed at without regard to his past.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-04-2010, 05:55 PM
DeNada DeNada is offline
One Day At A Time
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 644
Thanks: 12
Thanked 66 Times in 42 Posts
Default

The USDB has at least one work detail that certifies (after completion of required hours) the inmate with the Dept of Labor at, I believe, an apprentice level for Graphic Design. I hope there are more occupational areas that are included in the program. As for the counseling at the DB, I don't know. I've been told they're fairly unsubstantial.
__________________
"Some things you just have to live through, and when they're done, they're done."
****************************************
The information provided is not legal advice and you may not rely on it as such. It is strongly advised if you have need of legal assistance to consult an attorney.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-13-2011, 10:59 AM
thubab2 thubab2 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Việt Nam
Posts: 8
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I will be going to Miramar soon and was just wanting to know what to expect.I have seen some ex-inmates on here and would like to know your experience. I can't find much information on it since the site is closed down. I just want to basically know what kind of classes they have to offer, school/certifications, or anything that you might deem useful to get into. I am wanting to get something good...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Father-in-law to Satellite Camp at Fort Dix forafriend Federal Prison Self Surrendering Information 9 02-06-2007 07:21 PM
Health Care in Jails...Expose by The New York Times titantoo New York Prison News & Events 6 04-05-2005 06:55 PM
Bill H.R. 1829 sherri13 Prison Legislation & Laws 1 05-27-2003 09:37 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics