I wish to express my appreciation for those of you who take the time to read my story. Anyone wishing to become involved, to get to know me better or help me through this injustice: I'm looking forward to hearing from you via daryl.wheatfall@hotmail.com or Polunsky #999020/Mr.Daryl Wheatfall/3872 FM 350 South/Livingston TX 77351/USA.
01-03-2009
Interview with a death row guard
INCAGED conducts an interview with an anonymous death row guard we'll identify as Mr/Ms Anonymous, interviewed on March 10, 2007 surrounding the circumstances which caused death row inmate Ryan Dickson to spear correctional officer Larry Stane in the face. I believe this is an interview you'll find insightful.
Thank you, Mr/Ms Anonymous, for agreeing to share your opinion and views with INCAGED readers. OK, so after reading my article "They'll never change", which shares the details why Ryan Dickson speared a guard in the face - what were your thoughts about this? A - First, it's I who would like to thank you for allowing me to share my views and opinions on this subject. I found "They'll never change" very interesting. Some of what was written I agree with. The rest I think is just propaganda. You made Dickson sound like a little angel. But if that's what truly happened, I blame the ranking supervisor for a problem. A shaving case could have been informally resolved if Dickson was willing to shave. I wish you would have printed the name of the guard and sergeant involved. Q - Sorry. Dickson didn't mention their names. I'll agree with you, a shaving case should have been informally resolved by the sergeant. Can you tell me, after hearing about this incident, how did it make you feel? A - At first, I felt angry! One of my fellow co-workers, another guard got speared in the face! This could have been me - I was mad. Afterward, after having time to think, the thinking man took over, I began to wonder about who all was involved, what caused this incident, then I began to wonder about everything that goes on inside this building. So, I held my opinion until I found out more. Q - So please tell my readers what you heard, did you believe what you found out? A - Half of it. Yes. The rumor mill was flying everywhere. Some were saying the incident happened because Dickson was expecting a date to be executed, and he was mad. Others said someone else paid him to do it. I'm not sure about anything I heard, I heard all kind of stuff. Q - I guess, it could be said that to get back, retaliation against a guard, would be a good motive once someone receives a date to be murdered. If this was so it would happen all the time. Did you know any of this before it happened? A - No, I didn't have any knowledge about this before the incident. Q - With many years of experience, would you say all guards conduct themselves professionally? A - No. Most guards are too young. They don't have enough life experience, nor training to be working inside a prison environment. They should be properly supervised before given full authority over death row prisoners. I'm not saying all guards are inexperienced, under-trained and unprofessional. All do not fall into this category. I work with many who conduct themselves professionally, myself included we do our jobs by the letter. Here's an example: you or someone else piss me off and I'm still going to feed you. You just won't get your chance to shower. No, wait, don't write that down! Q - OK, I hope I don' piss you off, it's real considerate that you're going to feed me. No, seriously, will you share your opinion on the majority of death row prisoners' attitudes towards you, guards? A - I myself receive respect from most prisoners. This has a lot to do with experience and the professional manner how I treat all prisoners the same. There are some I have to treat them on the same level that they act. But most just want to be respected and allowed to do their time, deal with their situation they're facing. I'm able to say things to most prisoners, prisoners who wouldn't accept the same thing from an inexperienced guard. Some guards don't possess a professional attitude to do this job. I've learned over the years that most death row prisoners normally give back the same attitude they're receiving. Q - Can you give the readers a better understanding - is there a large number of death row prisoners who're violently aggressive towards guards? A - No, there isn't a large number. Death row prisoners have way too many problems and other matters on their minds. There are disagreements and confrontations, which are properly addressed. There are major uses of forces, prisoners are gassed; but most death row prisoners try focusing on what's goin on in their lives. Q - I see. I guess this explains why there's a large number of death row prisoners living on level 1 pods. There're close to 400 death row prisoners and there're less than 35 prisoners on level 2 and under 5 on level 3. OK, can you tell me, have you witnessed many attacks on death row? A - Yes, some guards have been spit on, feces and urine or whatever thrown on them, speared, cut. Yet, in the past few years these incidents have gone down. In my opinion, here's why some of these events happen: On the Job Training: during training young guards are shown films on disruptive prisoners. They're told what to expect and how they should handle themselves around these kind of prisoners. Stories of the past are shared on how it used to be, many take these stories and come in with a fixed perception. They're just looking for the worst, yet most death row priosners are concerned about getting off death row; the biggest sound you hear is a typewriter going, a radio playing or inmates playing a game of chess over the runway. Q - Interesting. Do you feel that most guards are fair? A - Yes. Q - Have you witnessed guards being unfair? A - Yes. I've seen it both ways. In some cases when an inmate allows his hair to grow too long, most guards don't harass 'em about it. Or when there're pictures on the wall that the inmate knows he's not supposed to have on the walls; in some cases a professional degree is given. In Dickson's case, if he was willing to shave, the sergeant shouldn't have allowed that case to go through, in my opinion. Q - In your opinion, are death row prisoners aggressive? A - No. 96% isn't. 4% are aggressive. Q - Can you tell us: why are guards speared and thrown on? A - There are many circumstances which create confrontation. (1) Some guards are under-trained, lacking professionalism brings his/her problems to work. (2) An immature prisoner may be unable to deal with a mental disorder. (3) The rumor mill fills some guards' head with misinformation. (4) Young inexperienced guards are not properly supervised. As I said, there are many reasons that create confrontation; but it goes both ways. Q - OK. Please tell us, are ranking officials fair, do they do their jobs correctly? A - No. Q - Do ranking officers deliberately support their guards more so than being impartial when addressing prisoners'problems? A - Yes. Q - Do ranking officials lie? A - I won't say No, but I won't say Yes. There's the potential that it could be happening. Ranking officers are held accountable by unit administration. Q - How? A - Their ranking status and job is threatened. Q - I see, it sounds like the decisions made are made on how that person feels at that moment. Can you tell me, do you feel the living condition and treatment are fair for death row prisoners? A - For most part yes. I feel some punishments should be harder. If I were in your guys'position, I would expect it to be a lot harder on me. This isn't pre-K, you guys are in here to be punished. As long as your punishment is fair and impartial, I have no problem with it. I've seen what conditions are like in Iraq and Mexico prisons, you guys have it made. Q - Do you feel that the conditions play a role in the mental deterioration of prisoners? A - Yes. Being deprived of not being able to witness what's going on in the world, not being able to watch TV, this creates free time, prisoners have nothing to do inside their cell. I feel we should sell TVs out this unit commissary. Q - The attack on Officer Larry Stane, do you think it would have happened under better conditions? A - No. Q - Why do you say this? A - If you keep someone inside a box with nothing to do, this person only has time to pay attention to what's in front of him: his conditions, his loneliness, anger, and his many other problems with what's going wrong in his life. Give this individual a release valve, something to occupy this prisoner's mind, like in-cell craft, a TV, anything that would distract this prisoner from reflecting on all he loses, his suffering, as he paces the floor, all of this would be placed in the back of his mind. He would also know, if he's disruptive he would lose his TV privilege. When a prisoner is able to escape his suffering by going into another world, this is a place that the prisoner protects. Thank you, Mr/Ms Anonymous, you have been very insightful. Your views and opinions gives INCAGED readers a better idea of death row and its atmosphere, what it's like working inside a control environment.
INCAGED focuses on what the appeals court is deciding, whether lower courts are complying with its previous ruling on the faulty jury instruction where juries decide if death sentences are based on future danger.
The question is: Does a life sentence mean a person convicted of capital punishment will be a future danger to society and those around him? This is the concept injected into the minds of members of a jury asked to decide if convicted individuals of capital murder will be a danger in the future. Yet Lower Courts aren't complying with the law, this is the real danger. What happens when the rules aren't being followed by judges, prosecutors, prison administrators and guards who abuse and neglect their authority and positions? Abuse that creates negative reactions within those under their authority, yet they're responsible for causing the negative situation by abusing their authority. Does this present a future danger to society and those convicted of capital murder? Please consider this as INCAGED reveals what took place on December 1, 2006.
Death row prisoner Ryan Dickson got fed up with being victimized by guards who don't carry out the rules correctly. "I'm sick and tired of being made to endure neglectful treatment by these guards who only use the rules to punish, hold us prisoners down", Dickson stated. Neglect of the rules caused Dickson to take action where a guard would be injured. Disciplinary case 20070097893 states on the date and time 12/01/06 7:59 at 12 building E pod cell 69 offender Dickson, Ryan 999250 did assault Officer Stane, Larry Co III with namely an unknown homemade weapon by shooting it through the wire mesh on his door. The assault resulted in injuries that required treatment beyond first aid.
What kind of treatment is needed on victims of a psychological assault, it's how the attack comes when a victim of those who abuse and neglect their authority, yet to so many this attack isn't viewed as a violent act.
Speaking for INCAGED and the DRIVE Movement - Dickson's violent act isn't encouraged, promoted nor condoned with our efforts to raise awareness and involvement to create change. Educating society while generating improvements surrounding prisoners' treatment and conditions is what our efforts and goals are all about. With outside help and support we believe as a whole our efforts will one day abolish the death penalty through positive efforts - not violent.
However, we haven't forgotten the violence of the past, what took place in the struggle fighting to create better treatment and conditions for the poor black people during segregation. Demonstrators exercising a non-violent protest were confronted by violence from the police, using their authority to cause destruction, to discourage and prevent change from taking place. Death row prisoners are up against these identical forces. I wish for you to see the mentality of these forces, which will explainwhat would push a man to stop caring and take action against these forces.
Police commissioner Eugene (Bull) Conner commanded police and firemen to use high pressure hoses and K-9 police dogs to drive demonstrators back. Legal reinforcements were provided by a local judge who issued a sweeping injunction barring protest marches. Almost a thousand blacks were either in jail or out on bond. Men who stared into the face of violence, fighting for equality, were labeled as criminals - while every violent act committed against these men was supported legally. Meaning the violence committed by the police wasn't considered wrong.
On May 3, 1963 Martin Luther King Jr., in a peaceful demonstration against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, decided to take a calculated risk by committing thousands of children on the front line facing an angry white mob of firemen and policemen who inflicted them with their violent acts. These children endured nightsticks, police dogs and high-powered water hoses that could strip the bark off trees. How can the mentality of those who have generated this kind of violence be forgotten?
This concept lives within many of those in charge within Polunsky Unit, where the guards control its everyday operations: it's masked but it's the same mentality of the police who committed violent acts upon innocent men, women and children. You be the jury, who's a future danger to society - the individual abusing the authoity to provoke a situation or the individual reacting to this antagonizer?
Will this system ever change, will they stop thier killing by abolishing the death penalty? Please consider all of this as I share the circumstances with what took place on December 1, 2006.
Dickson explained that he was within weeks of the required 90 days of good behavior without a disciplinary case. On the day in question he was asked to shave. Yet, while in the shower the guard wasn't able to provide him with a razor. Stating that all the razors had been mixed together inside the bucket used to carry the razors around. The guard was unable to tell one razor from another. After Michael Johnson committed suicide October 19, 2006, unit administration installed a so-called 'fool proof' way to issue out razors to all level 2 and 3 prisoners who aren't able to keep razors inside their cages. Razors are issued out by request or when ordered, but we're only allowed to have a razor while in the shower. The old system they used to use: all razors were kept on a board inside the picket; this always caused confusion. Razors would come up missing or another prisoner would be given the razor used by another prisoner. The new sysytem being used now: razors are placed in a bucket with 84 holes all the way around the side. a number over each hole identifying the cage the razor belongs to.
Now guards are instructed to walk around with this bucket as prisoners are being placed into the shower, those needing to shave are given a razor, when we are being removed, the razor is returned and placed back under its number in the side of the bucket. Like all other rules, the guards don't follow them. This new 'fool proof' system lasted only a week and a half, the guards don't like walking around with this bucket. One guard said he feels like a girl picking flowers, so when someone asks for their razor, the guards are so focused on putting prisoners in and pulling them out of the shower, we're always told: "I'll get your razor to you later". Which sometimes never happens.
In Dickson's case he was told all the razors had spilled over causing them to mix all together, preventing the guard from telling one razor from another. Leaving Dickson without a razor to shave with, unaware of these circumstances another guard was ordered to write a case on Dickson for failing to groom. Dickson explained he wasn't given a razor and the guard knew level 2 status prisoners aren't allowed to keep razors inside their cages. "OK, I understand your situation, I'll take care of this", the guard stated, meaning he would personally explain the confusion, cleaning up the situation. However, neglectfully the guard never explained the mix-up - he simply lied. Causing Dickson to be falsely written up for refusing to groom, though Dickson never had a razor to groom. Dickson was placed in a situation out of his control due to the rule not allowing prisoners on level 2 and 3 to have razors, as well the unprofessionalism of the guard neglecting to give him a razor as well explaining to the sergeant why Dickson was unable to groom. The sergeant informed Dickson he had received a case for not grooming, what was his statement on the case? Dickson explained what had happened yet the sergeant only stated: "I've to go by what's written on the case". No matter what causes the situation, ranking officials don't care about the truth, no matter what. One would still question: is this enough reason for Dickson to justify spearing a man in the face? This incident was only one of many injustices that were allowed to build up into one big snowball; receiving the case only set the snowball into motion, where it rolled out of control.
For society a person who's on death row, on a low level within the prison system, this describes that individual as a bad person, who's a trouble maker. This is the only way a prisoner who has speared a man in the face will bes een by society. Yet the circumstances which caused the incident won't be acknowledged; something had to happen to cause Dickson to strike out. Yet in most cases this is never considered. This is what jurors in capital cases aren't considering when asked to decide if a death sentence should be imposed because they believe the defendant will probably commit more violent acts in the future.
Jurors are being asked to make a prediction, just as you would create an opinion on Dickson after hearing that he speared a guard in the face. You would quickly believe this man is a future danger. No one knows the future, if you're a juror isn't it best to know what created the situation which drove Dickson to strike out; isn't this an important fact? Isn't it necessary to identify who is reponsible for igniting the situation? Dickson wanted to shave, and due to the rules, unprofessionalism and mismanagement he was unable to do so. Here's a man who's trying to get his level 1 status only to receive a disciplinary case he feels is injustice. This is like setting a house on fire and taking Dickson to jail for it. Could this explain what caused Dickson to disregard trying for level 1 status and take action, knowing he's throwing all away he wanted?
To fill a man with energy of dismay, anger and disappointment, no doubt this is what drove Michael Johnson to take his own life. This energy caused a man to lose all sense of hope, having no faith within the judicial and penal system. The message Michael Johnson left on the wall in his own blood saying "I didn't do it" is a clear sign reveling a man who gave up just as Dickson gave in to his anger and gave up caring about what happens to him.
Again and again, incident after incident, the penal and judicial system continue to reveal it's broken. Here in Texas juries are asked to decide the fate of individual convicted of capital murder by relying on expert testimony. It's exactly how society relies on trusted officials like judges, prosecutors, prison administrators and guards to report the truth to society. These individuals and experts are sitting in trusted positions, yet these people don't always speak and reveal the truth.
Here are two situations where expert testimony was used to send men to prison to be sentenced to death; their testimony was nothing more than an opinion.
In the first case, in 1986, Dr. Edward Gripon, a psychiatrist, testified that David Harris, then 25 years old, convicted of murder, posed a substantial risk of further violent acts. Yet Dr. Gripon had never examined nor met Mr. Harris! His opinion was solely based upon the conclusion of the prosecutor's description of the defendant's past conduct. Mr. Harris was 43 years old when he was executed June 30, 2004. His lawyer would submit a petition to a state appeals court saying "Dr. Gripon's prediction 18 years ago has turned out to be wrong. Mr. Harris's years in prison have been marred by only minor infractions, like having too many postage stamps or hanging a clothes line up in his cell". (Reported by Adam Ziptots for The New York Times)
In the second case, the headline reads: "How many death row inmates are guilty? Don't ask police chemist Joyce Gilchrist in Oklahoma City".Joyce Gilchrist stated hair and semen samples found in victims matched those of Pierce. The FBI became involved due to the false conviction of Jeffrey Pierce, who was found guilty of rape in 1986. Although the victim initially told officers that Pierce was not the rapist! An Appellate Court later found Gilchrist had violated a court order by failing to forward the hair and semen evidence. But affirmed Pierce's conviction nevertheless, describing Gilchrist's violation as a harmless error. Ultimately DNA testing proved conclusively that there was no match between the evidence found in the apartment and the accused. After serving 15 yers in a violent prison, Pierce was released in May 2001.
'Harmless error' is the talismanic phrase frequently invoked by appellate courts at the behest of prosecutors, to maintain questionable convictions it is applied more frequently as the fear of the political repercussions of freeing convicted rapists, murderers and drug dealers grows in appellate courts. Gilchrist's court testemonies may have sent 11 people to their death, 12 others remain on death row. Gilchrist is certainly a villain but she is not alone with what was allowed to take place. (This story was reported by Alan M. Dershowitz)
These two reports reveal how people - some innocent people - are being thrown into prison under manipulation of the facts, which are seen by the courts as harmless errors or erroneous predictions stating a person will be a future danger. Under these circumstances, how can anyone be seen as a future danger? If the judicial system is broken, then surely the penal system is in far worse conditions. In Dickson's case maybe the pressure of enduring injustice after injustice was just too heavy for him to continue to carry, which caused him more than frustration while dealing with the reality of living inside a cage waiting to be murdered by the state of Texas.
This may be difficult for some of you to understand, viewing Dickson's situation for the outside looking in, totally unaware what takes place on this side of the wall. No one knows what made Dickson take action, yet if we consider all of the circumstances, a violation of the rules and unprofessionalism cannot be described as harmless - these facts share some responsibilities with what happened. Does society care about these facts, with what caused a man who's following the rules because he's trying to be placed on a level 1 status, to simply stop caring about this and just strike out? Against a guard? When Society hears about the details of a guard getting attacked by a prisoner, it will be received the same way a jury accepted erroneous testimonies from experts like Joyce Gilchrist and Dr. Edward Gripon.
This is what society and juries are relying on, yet case after case states it's a fact these professional experts don't always speak the truth.
David Harris was executed; yet 18 years in prison reveals he wasn't a future danger to those working within the penal system. Karla Faye Tucker is only another example, showing the world that change is able to take place behind prison walls. Irregardless of the changes Karla Faye Made, she would be killed anyway, her death points out death row isn't about rehabilitation - what is there a death row prisoner has to care about? This is why INCAGED and the DRIVE Movement - along with many human rights groups like CEDP, ISO, TAMADP, just to name a few - are fighting to create hope, direction and change in attitudes, treatments and conditions. Help us make a difference, because to do nothing is only to allow acts committed by Dickson to continue to escalate into an eruption where only the act is seen as future danger, not what caused the eruption. When nothing is done, THEY'LL NEVER CHANGE!
(This article was first shared with the public in January 2007)
