U.S.: Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners
Puck78
Posts: 737
U.S.: Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners
Worst Offenders Are State Prisons in Connecticut and Iowa
(New York, October 11, 2006) – Five state prison systems in the United States permit the use of aggressive, unmuzzled dogs to terrify and even attack prisoners in efforts to remove them from their cells, Human Rights Watch said today in a new report.
The 20-page report, “Cruel and Degrading: The Use of Dogs for Cell Extractions in U.S. Prisons,” publicly reveals this practice for the first time. It also shows that the practice is not only cruel, but wholly unnecessary as there are safer, more humane alternatives that corrections officers can use – and most across the country do use – to remove prisoners from their cells.
In Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, South Dakota and Utah, if a prisoner will not voluntarily leave his cell when ordered to do so, officers may bring a trained attack dog to the cell front to terrify the prisoner into compliance. If the prisoner still refuses, the dog is let into the cell to bite the prisoner. While the prisoner tries to fend off the dog, correctional officers place restraints on him and then remove him from the cell.
“The entire world has seen the photo of an Abu Ghraib detainee crouched in terror before a snarling dog, but the use of attack dogs against prisoners here in the U.S. has been a well-kept secret,” said Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch. “Longtime corrections professionals were appalled when we told them that guards in some states use dogs on prisoners.”
The state prison systems in Connecticut and Iowa frequently use dogs for cell extractions. In Utah, they have been used extremely rarely. In Delaware and South Dakota, although state corrections policies permit the use of dogs for cell extractions, prison officials say they are not in fact used for this purpose.
Corrections officials in Connecticut and Iowa insist the use of attack dogs is justified because they deter prisoner misconduct and reduce staff injuries. But 45 other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons reject their views.
The Arizona and Massachusetts prison systems formerly used dogs for cell extractions. In early 2006, both states ended the practice after a review of their use of force policies. The commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, Kathleen Dennehy, said that there are other ways to get an inmate to follow orders “than sending in an animal to rip his flesh.”
Dogs are frequently used in the United States and elsewhere to patrol prison perimeters and to search for contraband.
“We know of no other country in the world where officers use attack dogs to remove prisoners from their cells,” said Fellner. “State prison officials in these five states should adopt the more humane methods that their colleagues across the country already use.”
Human Rights Watch
Worst Offenders Are State Prisons in Connecticut and Iowa
(New York, October 11, 2006) – Five state prison systems in the United States permit the use of aggressive, unmuzzled dogs to terrify and even attack prisoners in efforts to remove them from their cells, Human Rights Watch said today in a new report.
The 20-page report, “Cruel and Degrading: The Use of Dogs for Cell Extractions in U.S. Prisons,” publicly reveals this practice for the first time. It also shows that the practice is not only cruel, but wholly unnecessary as there are safer, more humane alternatives that corrections officers can use – and most across the country do use – to remove prisoners from their cells.
In Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, South Dakota and Utah, if a prisoner will not voluntarily leave his cell when ordered to do so, officers may bring a trained attack dog to the cell front to terrify the prisoner into compliance. If the prisoner still refuses, the dog is let into the cell to bite the prisoner. While the prisoner tries to fend off the dog, correctional officers place restraints on him and then remove him from the cell.
“The entire world has seen the photo of an Abu Ghraib detainee crouched in terror before a snarling dog, but the use of attack dogs against prisoners here in the U.S. has been a well-kept secret,” said Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch. “Longtime corrections professionals were appalled when we told them that guards in some states use dogs on prisoners.”
The state prison systems in Connecticut and Iowa frequently use dogs for cell extractions. In Utah, they have been used extremely rarely. In Delaware and South Dakota, although state corrections policies permit the use of dogs for cell extractions, prison officials say they are not in fact used for this purpose.
Corrections officials in Connecticut and Iowa insist the use of attack dogs is justified because they deter prisoner misconduct and reduce staff injuries. But 45 other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons reject their views.
The Arizona and Massachusetts prison systems formerly used dogs for cell extractions. In early 2006, both states ended the practice after a review of their use of force policies. The commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, Kathleen Dennehy, said that there are other ways to get an inmate to follow orders “than sending in an animal to rip his flesh.”
Dogs are frequently used in the United States and elsewhere to patrol prison perimeters and to search for contraband.
“We know of no other country in the world where officers use attack dogs to remove prisoners from their cells,” said Fellner. “State prison officials in these five states should adopt the more humane methods that their colleagues across the country already use.”
Human Rights Watch
www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
What's next ;shoot them in the foot to make em dance out of their cells?
Since when does a stressful job justify this kind of behaviour?
naděje umírá poslední
I agree, there is the taser or a nightstick...either way if the prisoner doesnt come out when ordered, theres going to be hell to pay. Word to the wise...obey your friendly prison gaurd ....or else....
I guess maybe the guards should offer turndown service and mint on the prisoners' pillows everynight too... especially the pedophiles and murderers...they should be getting lobster for dinner and a nice iced latte every morning...
oh yeah wait a minute....maybe we should just let all of the thugs out...is is kinda inhumane to keep 'em locked up all the time...plus the cops on the outside don't have anything to do anyway but stand around eating donuts and think of new ways to screw with liberals...
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
_____________________
Yea, cause you know...everyone who's in person is a pedo or a killer. And if you've forgotten, the eight amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that cruel and unusual punishment shall be inflicted on criminals.
yeah yer right, some are ms13, bloods, crips, chinese lynch mob, etc....but i guess you never walked the halls of a maximum security prison at 1 am...
and unless the prisoner is : deaf, dumb , blind, or in some other way physically incapacitated they HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT RIGHT TO DISOBEY A GUARDS ORDERS! DISOBEY AND YOU GET THE DOG!
I know know you people think all of life's problems can solved with warm hugs and some cookies...but that isnt the way life works....
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
_____________________
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Why do you type in a smaller font than everyone else? It's hard to read.
It's like the garbage man who complains at the end of the day that he smells like shit. A prison guard knows what he is getting himself into before he applied and accepted the job. They get paid accordingly... It doesnt give them the right to use attack dogs to get people out of there cells.
how should prisoners that dont comply be treated? how about a taser or a nightstick?...maybe once these viloent douchebags taste some of the pain that they have spent years inflicting on others they will wise up and come out of there cells when ordered!?!?
what is your grand plan for having all prisoners comply?
have you ever been assualted by someone you were trying to help?
beleive it or not thats what the guards are there for...to help prisoners...not beat the crap out of them daily as is the popular opinion here... but unfortunately some of those violent pieces of crap think they run the show....personaly i dont like the idea of the dogs either because it puts a helpless animal at risk...a taser is much nicer...drops a 300 pound felon to the ground like the little beeatch he is....and you can shoot the juice to em repeatedly if need be...
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
_____________________
Yeah the garbage man's job might make him smell like shit, but at least the garbage isn't trying to kill him if given the oppurtunity.
These people are criminals, they have no rights. I'm more worried about the dog getting hurt. I say shot them with bean bags, and drag them out if they refuse to listen.
awwwww poor convicted felon doesn't like the puppy!!!
www.myspace.com/jensvad
naděje umírá poslední
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That doesn't mean they can't kill a person. Cops are trained to bring people down but yet somehow still manage to kill people. Anyway, what's the problem with using other means of getting these dudes to obey? It'd probably be cheaper anyway.
Yes, cops do manage to sometimes kill people, but that doesn't mean that having a police force is inhumane.
People in prison respect only what they fear. If you pamper every prisoner that acts out, then control will be that much harder to maintain. Ever watch the prison documentaries on A&E? Some of those prisoners who refuse to come out of their cells literally start flinging their own feces at the officers. Sick the dogs on 'em.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Why not taser or spray them with mace? I never said that having a police force is inhumane. The human race has proven themselves far too stupid NOT to have a police force.
Because the taser or mace don't have that "you had better not try this again" effect. If you've been watching the prison documentaries on A&E, then you've noticed that it is usually the same prisoners who are screwing with the officers over and over again.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
www.amnesty.org.uk
How can you pretend to impose to people to follow the law using methods that don't follow the law? You're contradicting yourself.
Indeed the guards will be sentenced for that.
www.amnesty.org.uk
but using a dog as a weapon??It is an unpredictable "weapon".You never knowe what a dog may do when it is feeling cornerd by the prisoner.It might attack without stopping or might deside that he likes the prisoner better then the guard....so besides the fact that it is torture in my opinion(both for the prisioner aswell as for the dog if it gets hurt),using methodes like this can go really wrong and then the effect that they are trying to get get's lost anyway.
And you are an expert on police attack dogs? Do you know how much training those dogs go through? Those dogs do not get their badge unless they've been trained to do exactly as the officer says. I'd trust a dog to do his job correctly before I trust an officer.
But, I agree that it is a danger to the dog. And for that reason I'd say that it is not right. However, I have no problems with a dog sinking his teeth into the arm of someone who refuses to comply with law enforcement. That is, after all, the rationale behind the usage of dogs out on the beat. If someone resists arrest, it is all the justification that is needed to sick the dog on him.
In the same situation in jail. By refusing to come out of his cell, the prisoner is saying that he is no longer a prisoner. It's like he's resisting arrest. And generally, speaking, it is not uncommon for those prisoners to thwart the prison officers with acts of violence.
So, how is the use of dogs to arrest someone different from using dogs to bring a prisoner under control in a prison?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
We had here in holland a big thing in the news a few months ago where some police dogs (that were only trained to seperate a group of people)went nuts because of the chaos that was going on.There where young girls and boys that where just coming out of the club that got serious bite wounds,the police could not get control back over the dogs.The dogs had their training and so did the cops that handled the dogs....so it can always happen that instinct takes over when the dogs are scared or something.
edit i think it is the same when a dog is used in an arrest....i also think that can lead to really unpredictable situations!
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Here in holland we have really different jails then in the us,some say they are just like hotels,but it gives less problems like this because the prisoners are not joining cells with others.Is more save for the guards that way too.So there are other ways.And for me using dogs is just crossing the line.
Anyway, back on topic:
there's a difference between methods approved and torture... and using dogs is not a method to put order between the prisoners, it's a method to torture them...
www.amnesty.org.uk
right...nothing funnier than a person being silenced.
I like how you said that. You said there's a difference between what's approved and what is torture...as if the opposite of torture is what's approved. If you gauge humanity on what is approved and not approved, then your understanding of humane treatment is questionable.
Your comment is a good example of what was discovered during the obedience experiments in the 50's. A test was conducted to see how much abuse a person would enact on another person if that abuse was sanctioned as "allowable" by an observing authority.
The results were that an overwhelming majority of people had little problem with what amounted to serious torture as long as they were being "instructed" to enact that torture. They weren't aware that it was a mock experiment, and that the person being tortured was an actor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
And this willingness comes from the mindset that you displayed just now - the mindset that whatever is approved must not be torture, and vice versa.
In other words, if dogs were approved and tasers not, you'd be saying that tasers are inhumane, while dogs are the more moral option.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825