July
11, 2014
The
AlpenHorn News
By S.E.
Williams
“There were no
discrepancies found at any of the five County Detention Centers the Grand Jury
inspected. All personnel during each site visited were knowledgeable and
professional.”
This was the conclusion reached
by the 2013-2014 San Bernardino County Grand Jury as published in its Final
Report last week. This assessment includes the jurors’ perception of the
heavily maligned West Valley Detention Center.
The report created quite a
stir—but not for the usual reasons. Historically, Grand Jury Final Reports are
controversial for what they reveal. This year’s report sparked controversy for
what was either a bold and intentional oversight on the part of the jurors; or,
the result of an inexplicably weak and surprisingly shallow assessment of the
county’s detention centers—especially the West Valley facility.
The Grand Jury assessment is of
particular concern considering the San Bernardino County detention centers are
currently under intense scrutiny by local, state and national media. The
intense focus began in early April when it was revealed that the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) had launched an investigation of alleged civil-rights
violations at the West Valley Detention Center. Concurrently, the San
Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department publically admitted that its command
staff had launched an investigation into possible misconduct by detention
center personnel.
In addition, it was well
publicized that there are at least two federal civil rights lawsuits pending
that involve at least 14 plaintiffs. The suits were filed against San
Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon; commander of the West Valley Detention
Center, Jeff Rose; and, at least one sheriff deputy, B. Teychea.
The plaintiffs have reportedly
asked for 150 million dollars each—if successful, county taxpayers could be on
the hook for more than two billion dollars.
Court documents detail
allegations against authorities at the West Valley Detention Center that are
shocking. The claims of torture are most notably egregious. Some of the most
deplorable include allegations that inmates subjected to electric shock to the
genitalia; sleep deprivation and sodomy; that shot guns were held to their
heads; their arms were handcuffed behind their backs to the point of
excruciating pain. The court documents described such treatment of these
inmates as “… malicious, sadistic and designed to inflict pain and suffering…”
It is also well publicized that
at least four deputies previously assigned to the West Valley Detention Center
are no longer employed there and it is rumored that several more may be
terminated. It has also been well reported that the case against detention
center personnel may be handed to the U. S. Attorney for further investigation
and consideration of criminal charges.
How did the Grand Jury miss the
mark regarding this scandal by such a wide margin? A detailed review of the
Grand Jury Report by The Alpenhorn News showed that the jurors conducted
their field inspection of the West Valley Detention Center on September 9,
2013. Admittedly, this was well before the stories of alleged torture surfaced
in April of this year. However, jury’s report also documents that something
prompted the jurors to request information from the facility beyond what they
observed during their September 9th visit. Although the jurors
visited three other detention facilities and a holding facility, West Valley
was the only place where jurors documented a request for further information.
Why?
Was this additional request the
result of a red flag that raised some unspecified concern(s); concern(s)
they ultimately chose to ignore. After all, their initial notation on the
official inspection form for the West Valley Detention Center showed, “Impression
of staff/inmate interactions: Good”. However, the document also noted a
total of 230 minor inmate grievances per month and a total of 10 major
incidents. Certainly, the West Valley Detention Center has a much larger
capacity than the other detention facilities but these numbers appeared out of
proportion to what was identified at the other centers.
During their visit the jurors
also made note of one suicide, ten attempted suicides and a total of four
deaths by other causes. The causes were identified as one by natural causes;
two as the result of pre-existing conditions; and, one homicide.
1 comment:
Luckily, innovation has pushed preparing have a peek here to a higher level through mixed learning programs, which consolidate face to face courses with teacher drove online projects and self-guided techniques, for example, e-learning.
Post a Comment