Dogs Used in Connecticut States Prisons

 

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

 

Attack dogs used in state prisons

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=13885
Friday, October 13, 2006
associated press
Copyright © 2006 AP Wire
 
 
 
NEW YORK -- Connecticut in among five states that allow the use of trained attack dogs to control prison inmates, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Wednesday.
 
The report, "Cruel and Degrading: The use of dogs for cell extractions in U.S. prisons," says policies in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, South Dakota and Utah allow guards to use "aggressive, un-muzzled" dogs to compel uncooperative prisoners to leave their cells.
 
It said dogs may be ordered to bite prisoners if they resist.
 
"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, U.S. director of Human Rights Watch. "Longtime corrections professionals were appalled when we told them that guards in some states use dogs on prisoners."
 
 
"Human Rights Watch knows of no other country in the world that authorizes the use of dogs to attack prisoners who will not voluntarily leave their cells," the report said.
 
The independent group, based in New York, said it does not object to the use of dogs to patrol prison grounds.
 
The report notes that in South Dakota, Utah and Delaware, dogs are rarely used in cells, if at all. In Connecticut, dogs were used in 20 cases in 2005, and in Iowa in 63 cases between March 2005 and March 2006, it says.
 
Brian Garnett, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Correction, said the number of Connecticut cases is closer to a half dozen a year.
 
"The Connecticut Department of Correction has only used trained canines for cell extraction under extreme circumstances and on minimal occasions," Garnett said. "When an inmate presents an imminent danger to staff or the public and only after all viable options have been exhausted."
 
 
Garnett added that the 22 trained dogs used in Connecticut's prison system have played an important role in the security and safety of prison facilities, helping to identify drugs and control crowds. The dogs have been used since the mid-1980s.
 
Human Rights Watch said prison officials it interviewed in Connecticut and Iowa said using dogs to remove prisoners from cells reduces injuries to guards and keeps prisons safer.
 
 
On the Net:
Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/
 
 

 

ACLU Urges Connecticut Officials to End Use of Attack Dogs to Control Prisoners (11/17/2006)

http://www.aclu.org/prison/gen/27437prs20061117.html


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Connecticut is the Only Remaining State in the Nation to Persist in "Barbaric" Practice, ACLU Says

HARTFORD, CT -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut and the ACLU's National Prison Project are urging Governor M. Jodi Rell to end the use of canines to control prisoners, a barbaric practice that calls to mind the notorious photos of snarling dogs used against prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

In a November 16th letter, the ACLU called upon the governor to ban the use of attack dogs in Connecticut prisons, after the Connecticut Department of Correction stated in a letter to the ACLU that it will continue its use of dogs to extract disobedient prisoners from prison cells, making Connecticut the only state in the nation to continue using this demeaning practice.

"Every other state in the nation has figured out how to manage prisoners without the use of attack dogs," said Margaret Winter of the ACLU National Prison Project. "Properly trained correctional officers should never have to turn to such drastic and dangerous practices."

In a recent report about the use of attack dogs on prisoners in the United States, Human Rights Watch revealed that five states currently authorize the use of dogs for cell extractions, and of those, only Iowa and Connecticut actually used dogs for cell extractions. Immediately following the release of the report, Iowa announced that it would cease the use of dogs against prisoners.

The ACLU brought these facts to the attention of Theresa Lantz, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction, in a letter dated October 30, 2006. The letter explained, "The use of a fierce animal to control an imprisoned person is inherently degrading, and there is a pervasive view among corrections professionals that the use of dogs for cell extractions is neither necessary nor appropriate since there are always better and equally effective alternatives."

The ACLU letter to Commission Lantz also cited an October 15 Hartford Courant editorial calling the practice of using dogs for cell extractions "cruel" and noting that it "brings to mind the graphic photos of snarling dogs used to control inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

In her November 8 response to the ACLU, Commissioner Lantz said that canines are "used during cell extractions only under rare and extreme circumstances" and that "when an inmate presents an imminent threat to life, however, I would rather have a dog face that risk than a correctional officer."

Roger Vann, Executive Director of the ACLU of Connecticut, called the Commissioner's response inadequate and unpersuasive. "We urge the Governor and the legislature of Connecticut to call a halt to the use of attack dogs against prisoners," he said. "It is shameful that Connecticut should be the last state in the Union to continue to tolerate this barbaric practice." The ACLU's letter to Governor Rell is online at: www.aclu.org/prison/gen/27432lgl20061030.html

The ACLU's letter to Commissioner Lantz is online at: www.aclu.org/prison/gen/27428lgl20061030.html

The Human Rights Watch report, Cruel and Degrading: The Use of Dogs for Cell Extractions in U.S. Prisons, is online at:
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us1006/

 

Commissioner Lantz's response is online at: www.aclu.org/prison/gen/27429lgl20061108.html   

 

 

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-prisondogs.artoct15,0,3430084.story

From courant.com 
--------------------
Stop Using Dogs On Inmates 
--------------------


October 15, 2006

Using unmuzzled dogs to terrify uncooperative inmates in Connecticut 
and pry them out of their prison cells is a policy that should be put to 
sleep.

Connecticut is one of only five states in the nation that engages in 
such a practice, according to Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit research 
organization based in New York.

According to the human rights group, a dog is sent into the cell of a 
noncompliant prisoner cell to bite him. Guards then slip restraints on 
the prisoner while he's busy trying to fend the dog off. The cruel 
practice brings to mind the graphic photos of snarling dogs used to control 
inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

A Connecticut corrections official argues that trained canines are used 
for cell extractions "under extreme circumstances and on minimal 
occasions," far fewer than the 20 cases in 2005 that were cited in the Human 
Rights Watch report. The state's 22 highly trained corrections dogs are 
used to detect drugs, patrol prison grounds and train postal workers 
and other delivery personnel in how to prevent dog attacks.

If 45 other state correction systems have found more humane ways to 
physically extract prisoners, so can Connecticut. 
Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant


--------------------

 

Standards Governing Use of Force in Prisons

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” interpreted to reflect evolving standards of decency. Prohibited punishment includes excessive or unnecessary force by prison staff that is not “applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline” but instead is done “maliciously or sadistically to cause harm.” There is no jurisprudence on the constitutionality of using dogs for cell extractions.

State and federal correctional policies regarding use of force typically reflect three key principles: 1) force should only be used when necessary; 2) the nature or amount of force used should be proportional to the need, i.e., no more than necessary; and 3) physical force should not be used as punishment.44  Use of force policies also typically enumerate the kinds of force that may be used—e.g., some permit the use of electronic stun devices, others do not.  As noted above, there is a pervasive view within corrections that the use of dogs for cell extractions is not a necessary or appropriate option because there are always better and equally effective alternatives. There is also a sense that there is something inherently wrong or distasteful in using an animal for this purpose.

International human rights law illuminates why the use of dogs in cell extractions is wrong. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, mandates that “[a]ll persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Human Rights Watch believes that deliberately instilling terror into an inmate by exploiting the primal fear of aggressive dogs and deliberately permitting a snarling, barking dog to bite the inmate cannot be squared with fundamental human dignity. 

The Covenant, as well as the Convention against Torture (also ratified by the United States), both affirm the right of inmates to not be subjected to treatment that constitutes torture or is otherwise cruel, inhuman or degrading. We believe that the use of dogs in cell extractions is degrading and could even be inhuman, depending on the extent of injury from the dog. The use of a fierce animal to control an imprisoned person is inherently humiliating, denying an inmate’s personhood. Terrifying an inmate into compliance also denies his personal integrity. It reduces the inmate himself to an animal crouched in fear in the face of attack.  

The principles of proportionality and necessity also come into play here.  International human rights law instruments limit the staff use of force in prison to situations when it is necessary, and then permit only so much force as is necessary.45 In light of alternative methods to maintain control over an individual inmate who is locked in his cell, it is difficult to conceive of situations in which the use of an attack dog for a cell extraction could ever pass the tests of necessity and proportionality.  

There are basically two categories of prison abuse: conduct which is sanctioned by express policy and misconduct that violates policy. The use of dogs to assist in cell extractions is an example of the former. As such, it is also is easy to eradicate – a mere stroke of the pen can suffice.

The goal of protecting staff or deterring inmate misconduct cannot justify the use of dogs to terrorize and even bite prisoners. Security and control can be maintained while treating inmates at all times, and in all circumstances, decently, humanely, and justly. 

 
This report was written by Jamie Fellner, director of the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch with the assistance of Keramet Reiter, former associate for the U.S. program. Most of the research was conducted by Reiter. Dinah Pokempner, general counsel, and Joe Saunders, deputy program director, reviewed the report. Ashoka Mukpo, U.S. program associate, provided production assistance.

 



 

I. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp34.htm

Rule 54(3):

Except in special circumstances, staff performing duties which bring them into direct contact with prisoners should not be armed. Furthermore, staff should in no circumstances be provided with arms unless they have been trained in their use.

II. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp43.htm

Principle 4:

Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

Principle 5:

Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

(b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

(c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

(d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

Principle 15:

Law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention, shall not use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution, or when personal safety is threatened.

III. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp42.htm

Article 3:

Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.

Commentary:

(a) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used.

(b) National law ordinarily restricts the use of force by law enforcement officials in accordance with a principle of proportionality. It is to be understood that such national principles of proportionality are to be respected in the interpretation of this provision. In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.


 

Updated  5/23/07

MTWT-HOME