Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "human-rights"
California Corrections implements landmark transgender prisoner rights policies
Some incredible news has come out of the California ruling from the case of Shiloh Quine, a transgender woman serving a life sentence in the state. The lawsuit, launched on behalf of Quine against the state of California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) asserted that the Department’s failure to provide her with sex reassignment surgery represented a violation of her 8th amendment rights. The case was settled in favor of Quine in August, but its effects are just now beginning to be felt.
This past week marked the official implementation of a state-wide policy by the CDCR to not only provide access to sex reassignment surgery when warranted by committee, but also to house post-operative transgender inmates to gender-appropriate facilities, and to provide access to commissary and clothing items “consistent with their gender identities.” It represents the first time that the state will pay for surgery, as opposed to only hormone therapy. And candidates must have a minimum of two years remaining in their sentence prior to be considered eligible.
The decision could represent the kind of watershed moment in transgender rights we’ve been waiting for, because it institutionalizes the recognition of what medical organizations have been saying for years: that gender dysphoria is a medical condition. As a medical condition, the failure to treat those experiencing the condition in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
This past week marked the official implementation of a state-wide policy by the CDCR to not only provide access to sex reassignment surgery when warranted by committee, but also to house post-operative transgender inmates to gender-appropriate facilities, and to provide access to commissary and clothing items “consistent with their gender identities.” It represents the first time that the state will pay for surgery, as opposed to only hormone therapy. And candidates must have a minimum of two years remaining in their sentence prior to be considered eligible.
The decision could represent the kind of watershed moment in transgender rights we’ve been waiting for, because it institutionalizes the recognition of what medical organizations have been saying for years: that gender dysphoria is a medical condition. As a medical condition, the failure to treat those experiencing the condition in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Why FCC Regulations Haven’t Stopped High Rates for Prison Calls
Making phone calls from prison doesn’t come cheap. It also comes with a lot of controversy.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last October issued regulations it said should control the high cost of telephone calls made through private companies to prison and jail inmates. A FCC press release said that regulation, backed by a narrow 3-2 vote, would address the “excessive rates and egregious fees” charged by prison telecom providers; agency advocates for the new regulations pointed out calls from prison could cost $14 per minute.
It wasn’t the FCC’s first stab at the problem. In 2013, it had imposed “interim” per-minute rate caps of 21¢ to 25¢, but only for interstate phone calls. The new rules the agency adopted last October included lower per-minute rate caps, for both interstate and intrastate phone calls, ranging from 11¢ to 22¢.
But the FCC’s regulations and interpretations soon received harsh treatment in the courts. First, early this March, a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. froze the newer caps before they could take effect, so they could review a legal challenge filed by prison call companies. The court left some other parts of the new regulations untouched, however.
At that point, the pro-price caps advocates at the FCC got what must have seemed at the time like a very bright idea. Even though only the new, blocked rate caps had addressed intrastate calls, they had also dropped the interim rule’s use of the term “interstate” and now just spoke of “inmate calling service.” The court which had blocked the new regulations had not objected to that wording change so, the argument went, the old interim caps now could be applied not just to interstate calls, but to intrastate ones as well.
So on March 16, just one day before the interim regulations were due to lapse for prisons (jails were scheduled to have them until June 20), the FCC issued a “reminder” of forthcoming regulatory changes, and casually -- and for the first time -- gave notice of its new interpretation: the old interim rate caps would now apply to intrastate calls. That bold, but perhaps unwise, step drew call providers back to court, where they quickly got another order, this time blocking the FCC’s new interpretation.
The non-blocked portions of the October 2015 rules included some provisions, like caps on ancillary fees, which would take a bite out of service providers’ income, but at least one, Securus Technologies, aggressively restructured its rates and charges to compensate.
Soon, the Human Rights Defense Center was writing the FCC to complain about a new round of “price gouging,” as the Dallas-based company hiked its fees and intrastate call rates, boosting the cost of some calls by 40% or 50%. Until the courts decide whether the new FCC rules are valid, or whether the agency could legally apply interim rate caps to intrastate calls, the cost of prison calls is likely to remain a continuing irritant.
There’s another, seldom discussed issue: the commissions (opponents call them kickbacks) most state and local correctional systems get for giving call providers exclusive access. The providers wanted the FCC to outlaw them, or at least let them include those payments in their cost structure; the agency spoke unfavorably of such payments but didn’t ban them.
