Forced Feeding

[MJS]

HARTFORD — —
Hunger-striking inmate William Coleman has lost more than 25 pounds in three weeks and is on the verge of again being force-fed by prison officials, according to one of his attorneys.

Coleman, an inmate at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, has been on an adjustablehunger strike for almost three years, sometimes taking milk, juice or a nutritional supplement, but twice refusing anything but water and ice chips for extended periods, pushing himself to the brink of permanent injury or death, prison officials say.

David J. McGuire, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut who has seen Coleman regularly, said he is alert but gaunt. He has refused anything but water since July 15 and now weighs about 155 pounds.

Link

Do you feel that the inmates rights are being violated here? Should the prison be force feeding him?

IMO, the prison is doing the right thing. As it said in the article, this could lead to future incidents, that the prison system doesn't need to deal with. The inmates lawyers are saying he has a right to refuse medical care. Ok...what about the inmates that attempt to kill themselves via hanging....should the Correctional staff not attempt to revive the inmate? Please...if that were to happen, there'd be a hell of alot more lawsuits than what we're looking at here.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Tough call.

The prison system is responsible for the wellbeing of the inmate, and inside he does not enjoy the basic freedoms that he'd have on the outside. Letting the inmate die of starvation would lead to all sorts of unpleasant scrutiny, and could be used by the inmates to blackmail the warden into agreeing with whatever demands the inmate is making to avoid that unpleasantness. Lawsuits are another angle, since the prison system is indeed responsible for the inmate.

Personally I'd be inclined to let him do to himself whatever he wants. But the realities of the situation make me think that this is probably the best call for the warden to make.

 

[MBuzzy]

HAHAHAHA - Inmate rights........If they wanted rights, they shouldn't have broken the law. Period. That is my opinion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In my opinion, the prison officials are right to force-feed inmates who refuse to eat to the point of their life and/or health being in jeopardy because of it.

This is backed up by Turner v. Safley, which established the 'Turner Test' to define when the prisoner's ordinary right to privacy may be infringed. Basically, it recognizes that the state has the right to run an effective penal and criminal justice system, and that such behavior is damaging to those efforts. It also recognizes that although even inmates have civil liberties, the state's interest in maintaining both the inmate's health & safety overrules if they attempt to go on a hunger strike.

If an inmate intends to call attention to their situation from the media, they have other means by which to do so. If they intend to commit suicide, there are other ways of doing that, too; ways which the state may not be able to intervene in quickly enough to save them.

So I don't believe the state is wrong to force-feed an inmate who goes on a hunger strike. I agree with the courts in this case.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

HAHAHAHA - Inmate rights........If they wanted rights, they shouldn't have broken the law. Period. That is my opinion.

Well, they still have some rights, it's just that they're (rightfully so) severely curtailed. They can't vote, can't drive, can't keep their lights on past curfew, etc., but they'd still be able to cry foul if a guard raped them. Whether it would get anywhere is a practical discussion.

As for the whole force-feeding thing, I can see where there'd be an issue, but I'd agree that the prison's in the right to force him to eat. They are, after all, in the state's care; their health is the state's responsibility, and giving them an indirect power through threat of wrongful death suit is too much.

 

[teekin]

In my opinion, the prison officials are right to force-feed inmates who refuse to eat to the point of their life and/or health being in jeopardy because of it.

This is backed up by Turner v. Safley, which established the 'Turner Test' to define when the prisoner's ordinary right to privacy may be infringed. Basically, it recognizes that the state has the right to run an effective penal and criminal justice system, and that such behavior is damaging to those efforts. It also recognizes that although even inmates have civil liberties, the state's interest in maintaining both the inmate's health & safety overrules if they attempt to go on a hunger strike.

If an inmate intends to call attention to their situation from the media, they have other means by which to do so. If they intend to commit suicide, there are other ways of doing that, too; ways which the state may not be able to intervene in quickly enough to save them.

So I don't believe the state is wrong to force-feed an inmate who goes on a hunger strike. I agree with the courts in this case.

I think that pretty well sums it up. Well said Bill.

Lori

 

[Big Don]

Hunger strikes have always struck me as something a two-year old does. When adults engage in this type of behavior, it is ridiculous. They should be ridiculed, not force fed, like two-year olds, they will eat when they get hungry... enough.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hunger strikes have always struck me as something a two-year old does. When adults engage in this type of behavior, it is ridiculous. They should be ridiculed, not force fed, like two-year olds, they will eat when they get hungry... enough.

Is that why Ghandi wore a diaper? LOL
Sean

 

[CoryKS]

The way I see it, if someone has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to spend a certain period of time in prison, then it is the job of the prison staff to ensure that that sentence is carried out. This isn't about the prisoner's right to die, it's about his obligation to pay the debt he incurred.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hunger strikes have always struck me as something a two-year old does. When adults engage in this type of behavior, it is ridiculous. They should be ridiculed, not force fed, like two-year olds, they will eat when they get hungry... enough.

It's not about throwing a temper tantrum. It's a tool used to gain media attention. It works. Ever hear of Bobby Sands?

People who see themselves as wrongfully imprisoned or as political prisoners will go to great lengths to use political means to draw attention to themselves and their situations.

Powerful actions may get powerful responses. It's all about politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-immolations

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why dis non-violent protests? Playing on public sympathey seems a more advanced solution to a problem. The only other option is violent protest, and that is the work of a two year old mentality.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Why dis non-violent protests? Playing on public sympathey seems a more advanced solution to a problem. The only other option is violent protest, and that is the work of a two year old mentality.
Sean

Violent or non-violent, such struggles are often waged. I think it is a mistake to dismiss either one. Both can be childish attempts to throw a personal temper tantrum, but both can also be powerful political struggles.

Intentional and calculated use of violence has also worked to gain public attention and then public sympathy. It is, if you will, the opposite end of terrorism. The goal is not to threaten the public with what might happen to them, but to shock the public with a startling act of violence and then say look what's happening to us.

Violent acts such as these can backfire if the public doesn't feel sympathy for those who perpetrate such acts, so it's a risk.

But acts such as these, violent and non-violent, are political acts. Just because the guy doing it isn't wearing a suit or running for office, don't think he's not a politician.

 

[Tez3]

It's not about throwing a temper tantrum. It's a tool used to gain media attention. It works. Ever hear of Bobby Sands?

People who see themselves as wrongfully imprisoned or as political prisoners will go to great lengths to use political means to draw attention to themselves and their situations.

Powerful actions may get powerful responses. It's all about politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_self-immolations

Yep, slimmer of the year 1981.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yep, slimmer of the year 1981.

Point being, we knew who he was here in the USA; his name was known most places. So it was effective in the sense that it got his name out. For this reason, I support the right of the prisons to force feed. Prevents martyrs.

 

[Tez3]

Point being, we knew who he was here in the USA; his name was known most places. So it was effective in the sense that it got his name out. For this reason, I support the right of the prisons to force feed. Prevents martyrs.

You knew who he was because at that time many in the USA were supporting the IRA with money and weapons. His death meant nothing, the support was there for the terrorists anyway. Sands was a cold blooded murderer, he shot and bombed innocent people, he's better dead and I hope he died miserably.

 

[Blade96]

Hunger strikes have always struck me as something a two-year old does. When adults engage in this type of behavior, it is ridiculous. They should be ridiculed, not force fed, like two-year olds, they will eat when they get hungry... enough.

I guess Nikolai Bukharin should have been ridiculed then for attempting to draw attention to an unjust system by hunger striking.

He was martyred too. But - he was immature,, right?

It's all about politics.

like Bukharin.

http://www.myscience.cc/wire/stanfo..._nikolai_bukharin_the_bolshevik-2010-stanford

 

[Tez3]

And if Bobby Sands had been an Al Queda bomber involved in 9/11 instead of an IRA bomber would you still have force fed him or let him die?

 

[teekin]

Sounds stupid but the letter of the law says he must be force fed until he is executed. Only makes sense if you look at the reasoningh Bill quoted.

lori

 

[Carol]

Tangentially related:

Phillip Markov, the alleged "Craigslist Killer" committed suicide in a Boston jail cell awaiting his trial.

The family of his alleged victim is distraught over this (reasons why are in the article), and there is talk of not only an investigation but a lawsuit, esp. as this was not the first time Markov has tried to commit suicide since being in the custody of the county.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1274824

 

[Big Don]

Tangentially related:

Phillip Markov, the alleged "Craigslist Killer" committed suicide in a Boston jail cell awaiting his trial.

The family of his alleged victim is distraught over this (reasons why are in the article), and there is talk of not only an investigation but a lawsuit, esp. as this was not the first time Markov has tried to commit suicide since being in the custody of the county.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1274824

When I saw this, I was almost as broken up as when Dahmer was killed in prison. Almost.