Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

DeLong Statement
Page Three.
parish. ...o"o not have any connection points haseri on reason, humanity , psychiatry
or penoiogy. Jaiis represent human and societaifaiiure at its worst, nothing more,
nothing iess. Jails are a shortstop way of separating aherrant and undesirable
people from the rest of ns and rendering them as invisible as possible Anyone who
heiieves otherwise has never heen there. The people who heiievejaiis reh ahiiitate
usually need johs ...... In any stammer, powerimrsness is the norm..."
Detective Da ve Rohieheaux in C'rnsaa'er’s Cross (James Lee Burke, Simon and
Schuster, Jdtij)
The case of Hampton v. Ryan exemplifies many of the realities of the penal system.
(ine of which is that "the more things change the more they remain the same."
Despite the United Sates Supreme Court finding in the Nineteenth century that long
term solitary confinement was not permissible, such treatment of prisoners
continues , albeit in a different form, as allowed by modern technology. Inmates
such as Hampton are not confined without any stimulation whatsoever. They have
television, radio, reeorded music or educational material, rmding materials and
extremely limited, but very real, capacities to interact with loved ones (telephone
call and letters and non-contact visits].
The similarities between Hampton v. Ryan and Koch v. Stewart are striking. Judge
l\·‘[oran’s opinion and order seem to fit the instant case in virtually all respects. The
issue then becomes not one of whether or not Hampton is in solitary eonfmement
that is toxic to his mental and physical well being, but rather one of who is going to
be in charge of the mental and physical health of prisoners.
My colleagues and I who believe that such confinement is toxic, can point to
Hampton‘s deposition and [lr. Sharp’s summary and readily point out the inmates
reaction to his current situation. He has made more requests for medical care than
l , as a cancer patient and survivor have made, by over ten times in his recent y at is
of incarceration. He is clearly hypersensitive to his physical condition and prone to
“‘somaticize“ as described by Dr. Grassian and [ir. Potts. He has adopted the denial
described by Dr. Grassian with regard to his mental eondition, refusing after one
attempt that failed, to further request mental health treatment. He new claims that
he has no mental problems. Refusal to participate in the classification process that
might change his circumstances represents other aspects ofthe syndrome described
by Grassian and Potts, indifference, inability to trust and paranoia. The evidence
presented that “validates bim” as a Security Threat Group member is now many
years out of date and was, at the least, open to different interpretation when first
presented.
Case 2:03-cv—01706—NVW Document 73-4 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 73-4

Filed 11/20/2006

Page 1 of 1