User:Scotti mills/sandbox

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 Article Edit

CRIPA Edit Rough Draft

Background (KEEP)

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Peoples Act (CRIPA) was enacted into law in 1980, and enabled the Department of Justice to protect the rights of those individuals who were in the care of state institutions.[3] Such institutions include state and locally operated jails and prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, public nursing homes, mental health facilities and institutions for individuals with intellectual disabilities.[3] (Change Source: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/civil-rights-of-institutionalized-persons.html )

The law allows for the current holder of the attorney general’s office to intervene on behalf of institutionalized people whose rights may have been oppressed. This law was enacted to ensure the safety of those individuals who may feel uncomfortable reporting issues of abuse in government run institutions.

CRIPA does not create any new rights. Instead, it allows the attorney general to enforce already established rights (Change Source: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/rights-of-inmates.html ) of institutionalized persons.

How a Case is Brought About

The Department of Justice (DOJ) discovers possible civil rights violations in a number of ways. These reports can range from a number of informal means such as news reports, family members, the prisoners or inhabitants themselves, and from former and current employees of the institution.

After the DOJ has learned of a possible violation, the Civil Rights Division (CRT) of the DOJ must determine if it has the authority to conduct an investigation. Usually, the first question they ask is whether the institution in question is a public institution or not. To qualify as a public institution, there are two requirements that must be satisfied:

1.    An institution must be owned, operated or managed by or provides services on behalf of any state or political subdivision of the state.

2.    An institution must be one of the five types of facilities described in the statute.

Once a facility is determined to have met the requirements, the CRT reviews all complaints to determine whether the allegations merit a more extensive investigation. The attorney general has delegated the Assistant Attorney General to have the final decision on whether an investigation is warranted. In general, allegations against publicly operated facilities result in an investigation when the Division has received sufficient evidence of potential systemic violations of Federal rights, such as physical abuse, neglect, or lack of adequate medical or mental health care or education. [4]

Conducting an Investigation

Once it has been determined that there is need for an investigation, the attorney general must give the State or municipality at least one (1) weeks notice. Following the notice, the DOJ must contact State or Local government parties and arranges for a tour of the facility or facilities and may ask the parties to produce any number of documents that are deemed relevant to the case.

If, after the investigation, no civil rights violations are uncovered, the DOJ notifies jurisdiction and closes the investigation.

If a pattern of civil violations is uncovered, the Assistant Attorney General sends a "findings letter" that states the alleged violations, explains evidence that was found to support the findings and defines the minimum steps required to correct the violations. The CRT attorneys then meet with State and Local officials to discuss how to rectify violations.[4]

Settlements and Litigation

When Congress enacted CRIPA, they recognized that although it was not an ideal solution, litigation represented "the single most effective method for redressing systematic deprivations of institutionalized persons' Constitutional and Federal statutory rights."[4] Congress was aware of possible tensions relating to federalism with CRIPA, so they built in a window of negotiations that allow States the ability to avoid undue involvement of the federal judicial system. Congress believed that States should have the opportunity to fix conditions through certain processes voluntarily and informally.

As a result, the DOJ must wait 49 days after issuing a findings letter before they can file a suit against an institution. The DOJ, within the 49-day period, must make a good faith effort to work with the facility and ensure that it has had reasonable time to take corrective action. This is to ensure that every effort has been exhausted before filing a complaint. Although Congress' intent was not to wait months or years to file suit, the attorney general has no timetable as to how long they must negotiate with institutions prior to filing suit, other than the 49-day period. Therefore, some investigations and negotiations can last for years.

CRIPA strongly emphasizes negotiation. As a result, a majority of all CRIPA cases are settled in one form or another. Some of these come in the form of informal resolutions, which occur when states are cooperative, take initiative to correct problems voluntarily, and demonstrate that conditions have been improved.

Also, many investigations have resulted in court-endorsed agreements called consent decrees. They are either filed with the court in conjunction with a CRIPA complaint, or they can be filed after a CRIPA complaint has been filed and the case has been through numerous steps of litigation. Before the DOJ can file a CRIPA complaint, it is required that there is reasonable cause to believe the state is actively engaged in a practice of violating civil rights of individuals in an institution and egregious conditions that violate the constitutional rights of individuals residing in an institution. In addition, the attorney general must certify that CRIPA's procedural requirements of notification have been met and that a CRIPA action is in the best interest of the public.

CRIPA allows only for equitable relief as a remedy to any violations. These may include the institutions being given an injunction to stop certain practices, being ordered to upgrade facilities or increasing the size of the staff. The attorney general may seek the minimum necessary to ensure the rights of institutionalized people are guaranteed.[4]                 

Juvenile Correctional Facilities

As opposed to state adult institutions, juvenile correctional facilities are subject to more robust federal protections that regulate the treatment of youth, and thus are easier to bring investigations against when the DOJ is notified.

In addition to actions under CRIPA, the attorney general has the power to enforce parts of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which allows the attorney general to file lawsuits against administrators of juvenile justice systems who violate the rights of incarcerated juveniles.[2]

Juveniles are guaranteed the right of protection from violent residents and abusive staff members. They are to be provided sanitary living quarters, and they are not to be excessively isolated or unreasonably restrained. Juvenile offenders must also receive proper medical and mental health care. They also have the right to be educated, to have access to legal counsel, and to have family communication, recreation, and exercise.[5]

Current CRIPA Investigations

As of February 2017, there are currently 26 outstanding CRIPA investigations at some phase of the litigation process. These include 18 in the adult correctional docket, three in the juvenile rights docket, and five in the disabled rights docket.[6]

In Practice

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

On May 31, 2013 the Department of Justice issued its findings of the PDOC which concluded that “use of long term and extreme forms of solitary confinement on prisoners with serious mental illness at Cresson…, violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”[7] The investigation was closed on April 14th, 2016 following significant administrative improvements made by the PDOC.

This was a rare example of the DOJ bringing a case against the entire corrections system of a state. Generally the vast majority of cases are brought against individual facilities or counties. Also significant was the PDOC’s compliance with improvements. The enforcement mechanism of the CRIPA Act makes effective change difficult and extensively litigious, a key flaw in applicability.

U.S. versus territory of Guam

Another case of significance stems from the United States using the CRIPA Act to investigate jails and prisons within the Territory of Guam. The suit was brought in 1991 to make reforms in “the areas of fire safety, security, sanitation, and the provision of medical, mental, and dental health care.”[7] As of January 2015, the Territory has complied with the majority of provisions with a few outstanding issues still to fix. This case highlights the breadth of correction the CRIPA Act covers, as well as the universal applicability to any institutional facilities resting within the U.S. territorial hemisphere.

Critiques

(Shortfalls/Bad Examples of CRIPA Implementation/Enforcement)

References

6. https://www.justice.gov/crt/special-litigation-section-case-summaries#tutwiler-summ

7. https://www.justice.gov/crt/special-litigation-section-case-summaries#pdoc-summ

END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END END

For week 3's assignment, I thought it would be interesting to evaluate some of the articles on the men's movement (because i'm sure they aren't regulated by non-biased sources). I landed on the general wikipedia article for the mythopoetic mens movement (distinct from the broader men's movement) and added a section on the movements ideas on distinctions between genders and the relationships between them. Additionally I added a sentence on what was meant by "deep masculinity" and distinguished this from "toxic" masculinity.

For week 4

Mental Health Act

This page on the other hand seems way too broad in its scope and I would hope to reduce excessive information and irrelevant themes. I would also explore relegating sections to new pages altogether, as right now the introduction covers a wide variety of big topics. The page also comes with an edit notice for lack of sources, so there seems plenty of editing to do. I most certainly think I will be able to find appropriate sources on this category. The Wikitalk page for this topic has one unimportant post from 2007.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973

This Wikipedia page seems to be lacking in sufficient information. It is basically a copy of the law itself. I believe I could expand upon this by adding sections for implementation and impact, among other things. I most certainly think I will be able to find appropriate sources on this category. The talk page for this particular topic is rather empty and inconsequential.

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

I believe that there is far more than meets the eye to this page, as with many things pertaining to the criminal justice system. So, I believe that it could be overhauled into a page that expands on the current information and adds new sections that promote the significance and depth of this Act. I most certainly think I will be able to find appropriate sources on this category. It appears to me that this article hasn’t been discussed since 2011.

--~ Hey Scott, here's some things that you could edit. I like what you have so far! Other than that, it looks good! I can come back and look again if you'd like, but I think it looks good and flows pretty well.
 * Where are your references for 1-5 or are they coming over from the original doc?
 * Make sure that you have commas in the right places and aren't comma splicing
 * "was enacted into law in 1980," you don't need a comma there
 * you need a comma after the date May 31, 2013, because it's an introductory phrase
 * This is really informational! I would maybe recommend adding a section about why the DOJ decided to create this set of laws. Was there a case that would have benefitted from these laws?
 * Your citations seem to be really good for what you're working on and are all pretty nonbiased.
 * I would also link certain words and phrases to their respective Wikipedia pages like attorney general, congress, etc. This is like what you did with the good faith article.
 * You need to write out what the PDOC is before you start using the acronym
 * I also worry that the critiques section could be viewed as showing bias toward the act and would caution you to make sure that it stays impartial.