Attack dogs used in CT prisons

[Kat Kanning]

Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners
    Human Rights Watch

    Tuesday 10 October 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."

    To see videos from two cell extractions, as well as a training video for using dogs in cell extractions, click here. http://hrw.org/campaigns/us/2006/prisons1006/index.htm

    To read the Human Rights Watch report, "Cruel and Degrading: The Use of Dogs for Cell Extractions in U.S. Prisons," click here. http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us1006/

  -------


Connecticut

The Connecticut Department of Correction began using dogs for cell extractions in 1985. They were first used at Somers State Prison as a ?visible deterrent, to assist staff and provide a non-lethal response to inmate generated violence within the facilities particularly when the inmate presents a high risk of injury to the public, to staff or other inmates.?18 Under current policy, dogs may be used in a cell extraction ?when verbal intervention has been exhausted and chemical agent cannot be used.?19  The only statistics the Department of Correction provided Human Rights Watch on the frequency with which dogs have been used in cell extractions were for 2005. In that year, staff brought dogs onto the cell blocks for cell extractions twenty times. In eleven of these incidents, the dogs were directly involved in the cell extractions. In the other nine, the dogs were not sent into the cell.20 It is not clear whether Connecticut permits the use of dogs for cell extractions when the prisoner is mentally ill. A Department of Corrections employee told Human Rights Watch that he ?couldn?t imagine we would use dogs? for cell extractions of the mentally ill. ?There is too much potential for things to go wrong because you cannot assume someone who is mentally ill will act in a rational manner.?21 According to the department?s public affairs office, however, dogs may be used on prisoners with mental illness after a ?direct mental health intervention has failed and the inmate is considered to be a threat to staff or his/her self.?22

[aries]

that's no news to me they use them on people they arrest too... not really for confessions but for intimidation and punishment (aka being jury judge and executioner)

[John]

"It is not clear whether Connecticut permits the use of dogs for cell extractions when the prisoner is mentally ill."

Who is realy "mentaly ill?"  Maybe the judge?
The judge in the Lauren Ann Canario case is the one doing the needless harm to others.
It was well presented to the court (at her araignment) that "there was no need" to even arrest Ms. Canario.
Is this clown/judge just deaf?

[Kat Kanning]

Russell confirmed with York Prison today that they're using attack dogs at that particular jail.     I feel sick.

[Armed_Tennesseean]

I always  ??? when I watch cops and they scream at the perp to stop resisting a dog biting their arm off.

[John]

Please be in CT. Monday morning!
All NY and New England folks can be there within a few hours.
Please - if you can - also continue to make calls this weekend.

[Michael Fisher]

Russell confirmed with York Prison today that they're using attack dogs at that particular jail.     I feel sick.

This is absolutely horrible. 

[Michael Fisher]

What? They interviewed this police officer 6 days in the future?  ???

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us1006/4.htm#_ftn30

(30) Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Mike Knolls, an officer in the Special Operations Unit of the Utah Department of Corrections, October 26, 2006.

[John]

This is absolutely horrible. 

We will make changes happen.
Thank you for all you have done in NH my freind!

[bwisok]

Kat, Russell,

Do you have any information on what is being done to Lauren now?  Has she been allowed to write or to receive calls?  If not, it seems odd.  Even Jack Kevorkian here in Michigan--where I'm termporarily staying--went to some prison up in the Upper Peninsula, and I believe he was allowed to write and to receive visitors. 

Just on the face of it, don't we have a good case of unequal treatment?  An eighth amendment case against cruel and unusual punishment?  This is not even close to being proportional use of the police power.  Is there any media in Connecticut that wants to make this a cause celebre?  Someone in the media must be independent and human down there. 

bw

[Kat Kanning]

She has not received phone calls, written any letters, or had any visitors.  She could do these things if she was cooperating, but she doesn't want to do that.  She seems to be receiving letters.

The New London newspaper, The Day, has always been a supporter of the anti-eminent domain crowd, but we didn't see them at her rally, only Channel 8 tv.