What does it mean when inmates would rather die of hunger than remain in prison? A recent hunger strike conducted by many California prisoners throughout the state has brought attention to the current living conditions of the prison system.
For anyone familiar with prison terminology, words such as "SHU" and "supermax" are indicative of a sentence some feel to be worse than death. Security housing units (SHUs) and super-maximum security (supermax) spaces are controlled units within the prison system that maintain the most secure levels of custody available. The objective of these maximum security areas is to provide segregated housing for long-term inmates who have been classified as high risk. However, the solitary confinement, small enclosure of space and unconventional methods of feeding have earned SHUs and supermax units a reputation considered to be inhumane, even cruel and torturous.
While some prisoners unarguably require intense security, the same cannot be said to be true of all inmates. In many cases, prisoners have been mistakenly identified as guilty or unfairly convicted. Should these individuals be forced to endure the same confinement and lack of communication or activity that other convicts face? Furthermore, no matter what the crime, a person's level of treatment should be called into question when it leaves someone isolated beyond reasonable means.
Past reports that have taken a closer look at prison institutions have uncovered surprising facts that convey a less than flattering portrait of the conditions in which some inmates are forced to live. From inside the cell of a high-security prison unit the only things to be seen are the solid 20-foot high walls and a metal door with viewing holes no more than the size of a nickel. Everything from the bed to the bolted stool is a dull, cold concrete gray. Here, the prisoner remains for 22 ½ hours each day. The other hour and a half is spent alone in a concrete yard, this too a small area of confinement.
Inmates in SHUs have been placed there for involvement within a prison gang. Unfortunately, too many of these individuals claim to have been wrongly identified with a group to which they never belonged. They are now living with the ultimate consequence: solitary confinement. The only form of interaction these prisoners have is the pinky finger handshakes that sometimes happen through the cell door's tiny holes, and the food tray that is slid through a portal twice a day to feed the inmate. It is essentially no life at all.
These severe conditions have unsurprisingly led to a hunger strike engaged by thousands of prison dwellers across the state. The protest began on July 1, 2011 and quickly spread throughout California, with at least 1/3 of the state's facilities and more than 6,000 inmates participating. The refusal to eat emphasized the inmates' desperate attempts to end the long-term suffering caused by their equally long-term solitary confinement. The drastic decision to refuse food conveys the prisoners' sentiment that starvation is a better state of being than the one they were currently living.
After three weeks of the hunger strike, some of the prisoners' condition requests were amended but not nearly enough to meet the standards of a semi-normal lifestyle. As a direct result of their refusal to eat, prison inmates were promised to be given wool hats in cold weather, calendars for their wall and unspecified educational opportunities. No statements were made about the right of prisoners to receive phone calls, have visitors or obtain a semblance of normalcy in their everyday lives.
The hunger strike, which has yet to be officially deemed as complete, is probably only the beginning of what could turn into a huge outrage. Treatment of state prisoners in California is reflected by many other prison systems throughout the U.S. and inmates cannot be expected to continue living so inhumanely.
