Skip to main content

A Case For Closing Osborn Correctional Institution


Mr. Liebowitz is, along with Brent McCall, the author of Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime, reviewed by Connecticut
Commentary on February, 2018. Mr. McCall’s most recent book is Sham, Inside the Criminal Corrections Racket, also reviewed by Connecticut Commentary.

By Michael Liebowitz

Anyone who criticizes the prison system invariably runs the risk of coming off as “soft on crime,” and faces accusations of wanting to coddle criminals. This dynamic is especially pronounced when the system’s critic is, like myself, a prison inmate. Our complaints are routinely dismissed as those of people who never respected the rights of others, but now have a heightened concern for their own rights.

Therefore, let me state emphatically that my concern is not only with the well-being of prisoners, but with the taxpayers who provide the funds to support a prison system that consistently fails to give them their money’s worth.

It is important to bear in mind that the prison system is not merely charged with punishing criminals, but with rehabilitating them so that, when they return to society, they do so as law abiding citizens. It is in this latter role that the system so abjectly fails.

It should be noted that while I have been a frequent critic of the Connecticut Department of Correction, until now I have never called for a prison to be closed.

My criticisms have been leveled at incompetent and indifferent staff and administrators, inconsistent and arbitrary rule enforcement, and inadequate programing, for instance. These are all issues of policy and implementation, which are subject to remediation. While such criticisms apply with equal or greater force to Osborn CI, the building itself in this facility is the overriding problem. This being the case, the problems arising from Osborne CI can only the settled by closing the facility.

Let us start with the cells, where inmates spend most of their time. Osborne was opened in the sixties, at a time when the prison population was much smaller than it is now. The cells were designed to house only one inmate, not two, as is currently the case. The cells are thus considerably smaller than those designed for two inmates in the newer institutions such as Macdougal CI. Furthermore, in the sixties the inmates had less property than two men sharing an extremely tight space. If you consider that criminals are not exactly known for their social skills and adaptability, you will have no problem understanding that this frequently leads to a high level of tension between cell mates. This tension is exacerbated when one of the cell mates is trying to rehabilitate himself, while the other is not.

The last thing I will discuss pertaining to cells is what, for me, is the most aggravating aspect of being confined in Osborn CI: all the windows in the cell doors, which are about 12” wide by 18” high, are wide-open, containing neither glass nor Plexiglas. This allows inmates to constantly yell to each other, while there is nothing obstructing this noise or the noise from recreation from entering one’s cell. This severely impedes one’s ability to read, write and introspect, all of which are essential to the rehabilitative process.

The cell blocks at Osborn CI initially were constructed to contain half the number of inmates presently housed in the facility -- at a time when there was no block recreation. Recreation at that time was held outside or in the gym. Now there is block recreation. Forcing so many inmates into such a cramped space results in a very loud and unruly environment. It also hinders inmates’ ability to walk around. This last may seem trivial, but when circumstances, such as the recent pandemic, necessitate our being confined to our blocks, such walking may be the only exercise we get. And remember who it is that pays the medical bills for unhealthy inmates.

Then there are the shower rooms which, at least in H and B blocks, are wholly inadequate, if judged by reasonable modern standards. These are small rooms consisting of three showerheads on each side separated from each other by roughly two feet. And while showers are meant for only six guys, there are, due to time constraints, often eight or nine inmates jammed together, allowing communicable diseases such as COVID and influenza to spread easily.

Even more disturbing, at least to my mind, is the fact that what goes on in these rooms is completely out of sight of the block officers. This makes it relatively easy for inmates to get away with committing acts of violence, as well as sex acts, both voluntary and involuntary. In the age of the “Prison Rape Elimination Act,” one would have thought that such shower rooms should have gone the way of the Dodo.

Finally, there are prison maintenance issues. In addition to the defective heating and frequent losses of hot water, these issues have caused my entire block to be relocated three times in the last year. Other blocks similarly were relocated, most recently two weeks ago, in response to the prison’s problems with Legionnaires’ disease. This resulted in more than a hundred inmates sleeping on the floors of the prison’s two gyms. In my 23 years of incarceration prior to October of 2020, I had never, for any reason, seen an entire housing block relocated. To me, this speaks volumes about the condition of this facility.

Now, difficult as it may be to envision, try to imagine what it is like to live day by day in such a facility as I have described, sharing a bathroom sized room with a veritable sociopath, being inundated with a constant cacophony of screaming inmates, forced to shower in a narrow space with five other prisoners, and being shuffled from block to block several times in the course of a year. On top of this, we are locked down every weekend due to staff shortages. Perhaps some think we deserve this, and perhaps we do, but how much personal growth, the avowed goal of modern penology, can be achieved while living in such an environment? And how much more daunting this task is for criminals who are already behind the eight ball. Who could possibly want someone unimproved by such primitive conditions to move into their community upon release from prison?

In closing, I think it bears mention that the prison population has been cut by more than half in recent years, and here in Connecticut prisons already have been closed. Two of the closed facilities, Radgowski and Northern, were relatively new, having been opened in the nineties.  Why Connecticut chose to close down two modem penitentiaries while leaving this dinosaur open is anyone’s guess. Osborn’s features render it a failed institution, a danger to both guards and inmates. It needs to be closed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e