Welcome to the Gang Validation Procedures in Prison WikiEdit
In prisons, there are procedures used to guide prison officials in validating gang members. However some of these prisons have been abusing these procedures and sentencing inmates to solitary confinement units for indeterminate lengths of time using false or insignificant evidence. This wiki is designed to discuss the policy changes needed in the current gang validation process in California.
About Gang ValidationEdit
Gang validation is a procedure where prisoners are identified or labeled as a gang member or having a gang affiliation.
The California prisons concentrated on most in this Wiki are Pelican Bay State Prison and Corcoran State Prison.
As of summer 2010, about 75-80 inmates are in SHU for discipline reasons. Approxiately 1,100 inmates are there for gang activities or gang membership.
Currently there are over 6,000 inmates in California SHUs.
Various Prison Gangs in CaliforniaEdit
- 18th Street Gang
- Aryan Brotherhood
- Black Guerilla Family
- Bull Dogs (F-14)
- Lady Rascals (Asian Female Gang)
- La Nuestra Familia
- Latin Ladies (Hispanic Female Gang)
- Mara Salvatrucha
- Mexican Mafia
- Midnite Pearls (Hispanic Female Gang)
- Nazi Low Riders
- Northern Structure
- Southside Scissors (Asian Female Gang)
- Texas Syndicate
- The Latin Kings
Abbreviations and DefinitionsEdit
CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) formerly known as California Department of Corrections (CDoC or CDC).
CPF (California Prison Focus): An organization that works to halt human rights violations, improve medical care, and abolish long-term isolation in California's prisons.
SHU (Secured Housing Units): solitary confinement housing for inmates with disciplinary issues and validated gang members.
ICC (Institution Classification Committee): sees each inmate and classifies them when being admitted to the prison. They also meet with the inmates being put into Administrative Segregation and SHU for discipline.
Current Validation ProceduresEdit
There are three times in the validation process where crucial decisions are made:
- The Office of Correctional Safety Committee's (OCS) decisions on whether or not the evidence submitted is sufficient to validate the inmate
- Once an inmate is validated, the ICC's decision of whether or not to release the inmate to general population or assign him an indeterminate SHU term
- At the periodic reviews where ICC determines whether the inmate continues to pose a threat and requires segregation or can be released from SHU.
Three pieces of evidence or source items are needed to validate an inmate as a gang member or having a gang affiliation. These can be self-admissions, tattoos, symbols, photographs, staff information/reports, and written materials. Prison officials are NOT required to promptly notify an inmate when evidence is found that is determined to be a source item for their validation.
The inmates being validated have NO right to call witnesses or present written statements from parties with relevant information during their hearing for validation.
A gang associate is defined in CCR Title 15, 3378 (c)(4) as "an inmates/parolee, who is involved periodically or regularly with members or associates of a gang. This identification requires at least three independent source items of documentation indicative of association with validated gang members as associates. Validation of an inmate/parolee as an associate of a prison gang shall require that at least one source item be a direct link to a current or former validated member or associate of the gang."
Inmates submit their rebuttals to the validation to the OCS. Upon validation and a time period of 180 days, inmates appear before ICC for consideration for release from SHU if they are no longer a threat to the institution.
Generally the only ways validated inmates can be released from SHU is if they die, get released from prison after the fulfillment of their sentence, or if they debrief. Debriefing is the process where an inmate gives prison officials any and all information they have regarding other inmates involved in gangs and gang activities going on in the prison. Debriefing is not safe for the inmate however because he is identified as a snitch and is quite often murdered.
- Castillo v. Alameida
- Sets forth modifications to criteria CDoC uses to decide whether or not to send and retain prisoners in the SHU for gang validation. The modifications are as follows:
- Notice and opportunity to be heard must both be given at the initial validation phase and the active/inactive review phases. Both evidence being considered and evidence being used needs to be given to the inmate
- Prisoners' opinions on validation evidence must be attained and recorded and then given to the decision makers presiding over the validations
- Standard for evidence now become "articulable basis" meaning that the CDoC staff must give some logical explanation as to why the activity was believed to be gang related
- "Current and active" as a gang member becomes a requirement for validation
- Rules directing the use of confidential informants are amended. These rules apply to debriefers and ordinary confidential informants. The following changes are to be made:
- CDoC can no longer rely on lists simply naming inmates without referencing their gang related actions
- One gang related incident reported by multiple sources is the equivalent of one piece of evidence
- CDoC can no longer rely on hearsay from confidential informants and confidential informants must have personal knowledge of gang related activity
- There is to be a modest litigation fund created for prisoners challenging their gang validations and it is to be administered by CPF
- CDoC will be held in contempt if they do not follow the terms in this settlement. To determine if they abide by the settlement, prisoners in SHU will be surveyed
- Lira v. Cate
- Lira was arrested while on parole and it was then that he realized that CDCR considered him a validated gang member.
- Evidence against Lira use to validate him:
- His name appeared on lists of inmates involved in gang activities that confidential informants created
- He possessed a drawing that contained the number 14, the Northern Star, and a Huelga bird normally associated with the Northern Structure
- His name was included on an incident report from a county jail
- He was included in a confidential memo
- Lira was never notified of the above sources of evidence used to validate him, nor was he able to refute the evidence
- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of Lira. They found:
- SHU prisoners have a legally recognizable liberty interest in remaining free from SHU confinement and that prisoners are to be afforded due process prior to being placed in SHU confinement
- Lira had standing because he suffered from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) and dysthymic disorder as a direct result from a stint in SHU
- It is a violation of due process to not notify inmate of the evidence relied on in validating him, or to not give him an opportunity to refute the evidence
- Validated SHU inmates are owed periodic reviews of their validation and SHU confinement
- The periodic reviews before the ICC were deficient because ICC had no real power or interest in reviewing the merit of the initial validation. Instead, the periodic reviews should be done in front of someone with power to review the merits of the evidence validating the inmates
- The number 14 and a Huelga Bird are NOT exclusively determinative of gang activity
- The possession of a drawing does NOT have a value in terms of evidence of gang membership because there is no proof the drawing was created by the inmate
- Confidential informant identifications are NOT reliable here because the debriefer was in Administrative Segregation while Lira was in SHU
- The county jail incident report also was NOT reliable because there was no CDC 115 issued and there was no physical evidence that the fight occurred
- However, the court admitted that less due process is afforded to those inmates in SHU for gang validation than for discipline reasons even though validated inmates are almost always there for much longer periods of time (Stewart v. Alameida)
- A Federal Court would only need one true piece of evidence to conclude validation is Constitutionally proper
There is not just one single problem with the current state of gang validations, but a plethora of them. These issues are discovered through surveys gathered from inmates in SHU and inmates who are seeking lawsuits against the prison.
Current gang validation procedures raise questions of profiling, discrimination, and mass validations. Some inmates even fall victim to mistaken identities as well. The process has seemed to become a "rubber stamp" validation process.
Throughout the three major decision making stages in the validation process, the validated inmate is not provided with an explanation or statement of reasons for their decision. They do not even receive acknowledgment or explanation on why the OCS found the inmate's rebuttal unpersuasive. Also, ICC regularly denies releases from SHU and again, does not give any reasons for why or how the inmate still poses a threat to the institution. Without any explanations, their decision is essentially shielded from being appealed because the inmates have no basis to challenge them on.
There has also been a blatant disregard for Castillo settlement. One example of this is when prison officials do NOT notify the inmate of the evidence used against them in their validation. Some report never being told the source items, while others report being told the evidence months to years after its discovery. It is not until then that the inmate can submit a rebuttal to the evidence. This delay in notification affects the inmate's ability to gather the facts and prepare a defense for themself because witnesses or those with knowledge of the incidents may no longer work at the prison or be detained at the prison, and memories fade over time. Also, inmates currently in the midst of the validation process are generally housed in Administrative Segregation units, making it difficult to collect and present evidence to make an adequate defense. Inmates are also unable to present a complete defense at their validation hearing because they have no right to call witnesses or present written statements from parties.
Prisoners can request issues of "Prison Focus," created by CPF for prisoners and non-prisoners, as reading materials. The newsletter is produced 2-3 times a year and contains information and opinions concerning prison conditions and issues in California. However the CDCR has been using the possession of certain issue of "Prison Focus" as a strike against the inmate towards validating them as a gang member. These issues include topics like George Jackson and Black August.
- George Jackson was an African-American left-wing activist, author, and Freedom Fighter. He was a member of the Black Panther Party and co-founded the Black Guerilla Family while in prison. Also while in prison he became a Soledad Brother for participating in the murder of a white prison guard at Soledad Prison in California in retaliation for the shooting-deaths of 3 other African American inmates. In 1971 in San Quentin, he snuck a gun into the prison in a wig after having a visitor and held guards hostage and began a rebellion. As he escaped to the yard, he was shot and killed.
- Black August originated in the California prisons to honor the fallen Freedom Fighters, including George Jackson. During the month of August, the brothers do not listen to the radio or watch TV. They do not eat or drink anything from sunrise to sunset. They also do not engage in loud and boastful behaviors. They did not support the prison's canteen. They do not use drugs or alcoholic beverages. During Black August, emphasis is put on sacrifice, political education, physical training, and resistance. August is known as "a month of meaning, of repression and radical resistance, of injustice and divine justice; of repression and righteous rebellion; of individual and collective efforts to free the slaves and break the chains that bind us."
There have been reports that some prisons use juvenile offenses committed decades ago as evidence of gang activity or membership. There have also been reports of prison officials using false evidence against them in order to validate them.
Some inmates reported that they were told they were being released from SHU, but then were asked to sign a pre-prepared statement by officers implicating other inmates as gang members, even if the statement is knowingly false. If the inmate refused, he was sent back to SHU. There are even reports of inmates lying to implicate other inmates as gang members, even if it is untrue, to retaliate against enemies and potentially help themselves receive lesser punishments.
Inferences of gang association that are used as evidence for validation are often based on an association that is nominal, passive, inactive, or purely technical. These inferences are appropriately used in the initial determination to segregate an inmate being validated. But the decision to keep the inmate in SHU and punish the inmate for gang association should be founded on more than mere inferences.
The private interests affected by the current validation procedures are as follows:
- Release date liberty: Validated inmates are given an indeterminate term in SHU. Because their time there is uncertain, they are ineligible to earn time back for good behavior. For example, if an inmate has 6 years left in sentence and is moved to SHU for gang validation, then the inmate will more likely than not be in SHU for the entire 6 years and will not get released any sooner.
- Mental and physical health: The conditions suffered by validated inmates in SHU are the same as the conditions violent offenders receive. There is also astounding evidence that long-term solitary confinement weakens a person's mental and physical health.
- Collateral consequences: When gang validated inmates are released on parole, they are appointed to the highest level of parole supervision (High Control). This decision is mandatory, NOT discretionary. This appointment involves great limitations on the parolee's liberties once released. These released inmates are also subject to GPS supervision, which requires them to wear GPS monitors for the entirety of their parole. Lastly, the inmates who are serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole are essentially ensured that the parole board will NOT grant a parole date.
But one of the biggest issues is that an inmate can be free of gang activity for years, have NO violent history and STILL be denied release from SHU based on the initial validation. Even those who renounce their gang membership remain in SHU for an indeterminate amount of time. CDoC is more willing to release inactive gang members because they assume the inmate will return to gang activity and implicate others as well. However those inmates who renounce their gang membership do not go back to the gang activities and therefore they won't implicate anyone once they get release back into general population. But if an inmate renounces his gang membership AND debriefs, then they will likely be released because CDoC received information regarding other prisoners that they can validate now.
In April 2011, several similarly situated inmates drafted a list of five demands and submitted it to the CDCR. They are as follows:
- Ending group punishment and administrative abuse. The part of this that specifically relates to validated inmates is the administrative abuse by the use of "safety and concern" to justify the solitary confinement of validated inmates for indefinite amounts of time.
- Abolish the debriefing policy and modifying the active/inactive gang status criteria. The reason behind abolishing the debriefing process is because these prisoners claim that debriefing is often demanded in return for better food, and then they or their families are put at risk because they "snitched". The reason behind modifying the active/inactive gang status criteria is because "perceived" gang membership is one of the most prominent reasons for being placed in solitary confinement. Under the current system, tattoos, reading material, and associations with other inmates is enough criteria to label them as an active gang member.
- Complying with the U.S. Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons 2006 Recommendations regarding an end to long-term solitary confinement. The prisoners are demanding an end to the conditions of isolation and ensure the prisoners in SHU and Ad-Seg units to have regular contact and freedom from extreme physical deprivations that are believed to cause lasting harm. They also demand that segregation be a last resort. They believe it would be best for the inmates to be able to participate in self-help treatment programs, work, education, religious, and other activities in order to promote a sense of community. The inmates also demand that any inmates that have been held in the SHU for the last 10-40+ years should be released into the general inmate population. Lastly, they demand that the inmates receive adequate natural sunlight and quality health care and treatment.
- Providing adequate and nutritious food. The inmates demand that the prisons stop denying adequate food to inmates and start providing more wholesome meals, including special diets and the ability to purchase additional vitamin supplements. The inmates claim that it is a common practice for the prison to deny them food or provide them with only half a tray of food for punishment purposes. They request that there be someone of authority (sergeant or lieutenant) to watch the serving of food to ensure every inmate gets a complete meal and the tray contains everything it is supposed to.
- Expanding and providing constructive programming and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates. The inmates demand that if they are to be in SHU indefinitely, there should at least be certain programs and privileges for them. These include:
- Allow the inmates one photo per year
- Allow the inmates one weekly phone call
- Allow the inmates two packages per year
- Expand the canteen
- Expand the list of allowed packages items
- Provide more TV channels
- Allow the inmates to have a TV and radio
- Allow the inmates to have hobby/craft items (i.e. construction paper, colored pencils, colored pens, watercolors, chalk, etc.)
- Allow the inmates to wear sweat suits and caps
- Allow the inmates to have calendars
- Install pull-up bars in the SHU yards
The Changes NeededEdit
To battle the current procedure of delaying notification or not notifying the inmate at all about the evidence used against them in validation, prison officials should be required to notify the inmates with 14 days of the date the evidence was discovered. This would allow for the inmate to have a fair opportunity to gather the facts and prepare a defense to the validation charges.
Another way to ensure inmates have the ability to gather sufficient evidence to defend themself is to assign them an Investigative Employee. The Investigative Employees are usually assigned to inmates charged with a CDC 115 Rules Violation. By assigning these employees to the inmates in the middle of the validation process whose housing restricts them from gathering evidence, it would ensure the inmate has the ability to present an adequate defense.
Inmates should be allowed to call witnesses and present written statements from inmates or other parties with relevant information for their defense at validation hearings. The inmates charges with CDC 115 Rules Violations have the right to present such evidence in their defense, so inmates being validated should have the same right.
As far as the evidence used against the inmate in the validation process goes, the inferences of gang association should be required to be more than nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical. The inferences should be made on a preponderance of the evidence in order to promote accuracy in the decision to validate the inmate.
The current procedures provide insufficient written explanations to the validated inmates. OCS should be required to provide validated inmates with a reasonably detailed explanation as to why the evidence was reliable and qualify as gang members. They should also be required to respond to the rebuttals of the validated inmates as to the sufficiency of their defense. And when ICC keeps an inmate in SHU indeterminately, they should be required to explain why the inmate continues to be a threat to the institution. Not only will this protect inmates from arbitrary decision making, but it also establishes a record for appeals to the validation.
On March 1, 2012, the CDCR released their new Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy. Section VI of this new strategy plan reviews the offender validation process and lays out the changes that will be made to the current process. Under this new strategy, the validation process will include a quality control certification review of gang identifications at a level NO LOWER than a Special Agent classification to ensure that the gang affiliate identifications are in compliance with Title 15 of the CCR. The newly proposed validation policy will be prospective in its application. The changes will dictate the validation of newly gang affiliates and will also change current gang affiliate statuses. As a part of this new policy, the discovery of gang materials or intelligence must be documented appropriately.
Under the current CDCR validation process, gang affiliates are identified as either gang members or gang associates. This new proposal release in March will add two more categories. One new category is called Suspect. This category will NOT be officially validated, but instead tracked for intelligence purposes. The second new category is called Monitor. This category represents any offender who has successful completed the first four steps in the SDP and has been returned to general population.
The following chart came from the CDCR proposal released in March to show the change in the language between the current process and the new proposal:
|Current Gang Validation Categories||New Validation Categories|
Member: A member is an offender/parolee or any person who has been accepted into membership by a gang. This identification requires at least 3 independent source items of documentation indicative of actual membership. Validation of an offender/parolee or any person as a member of a prison gang shall require that at least 1 source item be a direct link to a current or former validated member or associate of the gang.
No weighted point system currently applied.
|Member: Any offender or any person who, based on documented evidence, has been accepted into membership by a gang. Members will be identified by the IGI through the validation process and reviewed by OCS. This identification requires at least 3 independent source items with a value of 10 points or greater, coupled with intelligence indicative of a Member. Validation of an offender or any person as a Member shall require that at least 1 source item be a direct link to a current or former validated member or associate of the gang.|
Associate: An associate is an offender/parolee or any person who is involved periodically or regularly with members or associates of a gang. This identification requires at least 3 independent source items of documentation indicative of association with validated gang members or associates. Validation of an offender/parolee or any person as an associate of a prison gang shall require that at least 1 source item be a direct link to a current or former validated member or associate of the gang.
No weighted point system currently applied.
|Associate: Any offender or any person who, based on documented evidence, is involved periodically or regularly with the members of a criminal gang. Associates will be identified by the IGI through the validation process and reviewed by OCS. This identification requires at least 3 independent source items with a value of 10 points or greater, coupled with intelligence indicative of an Associate. Validation of an offender or any person as an Associate shall require at least 1 source item be direct link to a current or former validated member or associate of a gang.|
|Suspect: N/A||Suspect: Any offender who, based on documented evidence, is suspected of being involved in or assisting an affiliate in the commission of criminal gang behaviors or gang behaviors in violation of CDCR policy and/or state law and is tracked by the OCS pending validation. Suspects will require 2 or more points and would not be officially validated, but tracked for intelligence purposes and decisions that impact the institution's daily program needs. Suspects shall be identified by the IGI and will not require OCS validation review.|
|Inactive: The offender has not been involved in gang activity for a minimum of 6 years.||Monitored: Any offender who has successfully completed steps 1-4 in the SDP and has been returned to a general population or SNY setting. This period of monitoring will include continuous and on-going cell searches, mail and telephone call monitoring and periodic interviews with the Investigative Unit Staff.|
The next chart is point system established:
|Source Item||Description||Point Value|
|Symbols||Hand signs, distinctive clothing, graffiti, etc., which have been identified by investigators as being used by and distinctive to specific gangs. Staff shall describe the symbol and articulate why it has concluded the symbol is used by and distinctive to a specific gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||2 points|
|Informants||Documentation of information evidencing gang affiliation from an informant shall indicate the date of the information, whether the information is confidential or non-confidential, and an evaluation of the informant's reliability. Confidential material shall also meet the requirements established in CCR Title 15, Division 3, Section 3321. Staff shall articulate how the information specifically relates to the offender's involvement with the gang. The information may be used as a source of validation if the informant provides specific knowledge of how he/she knew the offender to be involved with the gang. Multiple confidential sources providing information regarding a single gang related incident or behavior shall constitute 1 source item. Exclusive reliance on hearsay information provided by informants will not be used for validation purposes. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||3 points|
|Debriefing Reports||Only information referencing specific gang related acts or conduct shall be considered as a source item, when utilizing information from another offender's debriefing. Multiple sources of information relative to a single gang related act or conduct shall be considered a single source of validation. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or security of the institution.||3 points|
|Written Materials||Any document such as membership or enemy lists, constitutions, organizational structures, codes, training materials, etc., of specific gangs. Staff shall articulate why, based on either the explicit or coded content, the written material is reliable evidence of affiliation with the gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||
Offender Identified in written material NOT in his possession: 2 points
Personal Possession: 4 points
|Photographs||Individual or group photographs with gang connotations such as those which include insignia, symbols, or other identified gang affiliates. The date of a photograph shall be reasonably ascertained prior to any photo being relied upon for inclusion as a source item. No photograph shall be considered for validation purposes that is estimated to be older than 6 years. Any photograph being utilized as a source item that depicts gang members shall require that at least 1 od the individuals be previously validated by the Department, or validated by the Department within 6 months of the photograph's established or estimated date or origin. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||4 points|
|Staff Information||Documentation of staff's visual or audible observations, e.g. roll call, cadence, and group exercise, etc., of gang activity. Staff shall articulate the basis for determining the content or conduct at issue is gang related. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||4 points|
|Other Agencies||Information evidencing gang affiliation provided by other agencies. Any information from another agency shall be documented by the staff person who receives such information, citing the source and validity of the information. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||
|Association||Information relative to the offender/parolee's association with identified gang affiliates. Information including addresses, names, identities and reasons why such information is indicative of gang involvement. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||4 points|
|Visitors||Visits from persons or entities that are documented as willfully promoting, furthering or assisting gang affiliates in activities associated with the gang. Staff shall articulate the basis for concluding the relationship between the visitor(s) and offender is gang related in nature or that the visitor(s) and offender engaged in conduct related to the gang. Staff shall articulate the basis for identifying the visitor(s) as associated with the gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||4 points|
|Communication||Documentation of telephone conversations, conversations between offenders, mail, notes, greeting cards, or other communication, including coded messages evidencing gang activity. Staff shall articulate why, based on either the explicit or coded content, the communication is reliable evidence of association or membership with the gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||4 points|
|Self Admission||Staff shall document information about an offender/parolee's verbal, written or otherwise implied admission and specific involvement with the gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||5 points|
|Offenses||Where the circumstances of an offense conclude that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any gang; such as where the offense is between rival gangs, the victim is verified gang affiliate, or the offender/parolee's crime partner is verified gang affiliate. Staff shall articulate why an offense is gang related. Multiple sources of information relative to a single incident or offense will be considered 1 source of validation. Staff shall document an disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or security of the institution.||6 points|
|Tattoos and/or Body Markings||Tattoos and/or body markings identified by investigators as being used by and distinctive to a specific gang. Staff shall describe the tattoo and/or body marking and articulate why it concluded the tattoo and/or body marking is used by and distinctive to a specific gang. Staff shall document and disclose this information to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||6 points|
|Legal Documents||Court transcripts, Probation Officer's reports, crime reports, arrest reports, or other legal documents evidencing gang conduct. Staff shall assure the document containing this information is disclosed to the offender/parolee in a written form that would not jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the institution.||7 points|
Under this validation process proposal, validated gang Associates can have their validation status upgraded to Member with the validation of 1 additional source item, of any point value, containing intelligence indicative of a Member.
- Dumbrique, Edward. "Using CA Penal Code Section 2933.6 to Expand Due Process Rights for Validated Inmates: A Guide to Action." Prison Focus. Vol. 37. pg 12-14.
- Champion, Steve. "The New Inquisition: Gang Validation." Prison Focus. Vol. 37. pg 17.
- Casella, Jean and James Ridgeway. "Voices From Solitary: Gang 'Validation' and Permanent Isolation in California Prisons." Solitary Watch. 7 August 2010. http://solitarywatch.com/2010/08/07/voices-from-solitary-gang-validation-and-permanent-isolation-in-california-prisons/
- "Prison Focus and Gang Validation." Prison Focus. Vol. 36. pg 18.
- McMahon, Marilyn. "Pelican Bay Report: Oct. to Nov. 2010." Prison Focus. Vol. 36. pg 19.
- "The Corcoran Report on SHU Conditions." Prison Focus. Vol. 35. pg 1.
- "Pelican Bay State Prison Visit of April 29, 2010." Prison Focus. Vol. 35. pg 6.
- State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. "Security Threat Group Prevention, Identification and Management Strategy." March 1, 2012. Version 5.5. pg 15.
- Prison Hunger Strike Solidarity. "Prisoners' Demands." April 3, 2011.
For More InformationEdit
- Litigation in Prison (LIP) Project: Created to promote and defend the rights of SHU prisoners and to stop the illegal and abusive practices of the CDoC
- CPF site: www.prisons.org
- Solitary Watch: A website to expose the issues in solitary confinement and other forms of torture in hopes of abolishing them (www.solitarywatch.com )