Why do people keep dying in police custody?

[laughing dog]

Are you suggesting there is a reasonable level for deaths of people in police custody?

If there is a reasonable level of deaths in a hospital, there would have to be one for jails and prisons. As I said in my earlier posts, people in police custody are in one of the most stressful situations possible in life. Factors which have nothing to do with their legal problems are magnified.

For outcomes like unforeseen and sudden adverse health events or unknown/undisclosed illnesses, I'd agree that there is some statistical outcome. But not for death from suicides because the incarceration is a likely factor in the death.

 

[Bronzeage]

If there is a reasonable level of deaths in a hospital, there would have to be one for jails and prisons. As I said in my earlier posts, people in police custody are in one of the most stressful situations possible in life. Factors which have nothing to do with their legal problems are magnified.

For outcomes like unforeseen and sudden adverse health events or unknown/undisclosed illnesses, I'd agree that there is some statistical outcome. But not for death from suicides because the incarceration is a likely factor in the death.

That is why the word "reasonable" is attached to the word "level." Death from suicide, death from injuries sustained during arrest and transportation, and death at the hands of other inmates, are not to be included in the statistics of the reasonable.

 

[Toni]

For outcomes like unforeseen and sudden adverse health events or unknown/undisclosed illnesses, I'd agree that there is some statistical outcome. But not for death from suicides because the incarceration is a likely factor in the death.

That is why the word "reasonable" is attached to the word "level." Death from suicide, death from injuries sustained during arrest and transportation, and death at the hands of other inmates, are not to be included in the statistics of the reasonable.

I disagree. Deaths from injuries sustained during arrest and transport should not happen, with an exception being as the result of the transport vehicle being in a serious accident.

Deaths from suicide should also not happen, and certainly not with the frequency they seem to happen.

I would also argue that nor should deaths 'at the hands of others' which I take to mean at the hands of other inmates. Also should not happen.

Why not go for zero in custody deaths? Why not make that a goal?

 

[Toni]

If there is a reasonable level of deaths in a hospital, there would have to be one for jails and prisons. As I said in my earlier posts, people in police custody are in one of the most stressful situations possible in life. Factors which have nothing to do with their legal problems are magnified.

^^THIS^^

Zero is ridiculous. The reasonable number (the number at which no reasonable person would assume notable unjustice or incompetence) is not only not zero, it isn't even the same as death rates outside of jail, it is higher. The inherent stress of jail will increase death by natural causes, and will increase suicides which cannot be reasonably prevented in many cases unless their is clear evidence of imminent intent. In addition, death by other innmates is guaranteed to be more than zero, unless every prisoner is kept permanently in solitary. Despite greater control than outside of prisons, there is also a 10000 fold increase the concentration of people seeking to harm each other and more people doing things that motivate others to want to kill them. Thus it is hard to estimate what is a reasonable (see above definition for that) number of unnatural deaths would be relative to such death rates outside of prison.
Finally, death by jailors is guaranteed to be above zero, because legit efforts of jailors to protect themselves, prevent escapes, and prevent attacks on other inmates will always be above zero.

Pollyanna mayors of fairylands can say things like "The death rate of people in custody should be zero", but those of us seeking a rational perspective on what our goals and expectations should be would pay no heed to it.

It's more like pseudo sophisticates who think they are all 'bad' and 'realistic' but who are in reality cynical cowards who are unwilling to do the hard work of pursuing zero deaths in custody.

Because it's easier. Because it's someone else, and usually someone who does not look like your cousin or favorite aunt or uncle. Or the face you see in the mirror. Because we have decided that incarcerating people for traffic violations, minor consumption, minor drug violations and then not caring particularly what happens to the person we took into custody because 'they broke the law.' So long as its one we don't break ourselves.

Easy is the lazy way. The unrealistic way because really: it could be any one of us if we got pulled over on the wrong day--the day we lost someone we loved, our job. whatever.

It's also cowardly.

 

[bilby]

For outcomes like unforeseen and sudden adverse health events or unknown/undisclosed illnesses, I'd agree that there is some statistical outcome. But not for death from suicides because the incarceration is a likely factor in the death.

That is why the word "reasonable" is attached to the word "level." Death from suicide, death from injuries sustained during arrest and transportation, and death at the hands of other inmates, are not to be included in the statistics of the reasonable.

Indeed.

A person under arrest is being restrained by the authorities from choosing what situations to place himself in, choosing when to leave a dangerous situation, or taking actions to defend himself; the burden of protecting him therefore falls on those authorities.

It is expensive to provide single occupancy holding cells for all prisoners at police stations. A common way to cut costs is to have a single 'holding cell' into which prisoners are placed while the police determine what to do with them next. This is, IMO, completely unacceptable; it is known to result in assaults and even killings of one prisoner by another.

Imagine that you (or someone you care for) is arrested on suspicion of a crime that you did not, in fact commit. You spend an hour or two alone in a cell; the cops realise they have the wrong man, and you are free to go. No problem.

Now, imagine that you spend an hour or two in a cell with a collection of people, one (or more) of whom decides to pick a fight with you. If you encountered the same situation on the street, or in a public place, you have choices - you can walk away, or, if circumstances dictate, run. That's not an option in a prison cell. You will be involved in a fight, like it or not; you may be seriously injured or even killed. This is a big problem. It could happen to ANYONE. It happens a lot. It shouldn't happen. Period.

Even convicted felons should have the basic right to be protected from violent assault; The fact that their ability to escape danger has been removed by the authorities creates an obligation for those authorities to defend them against that danger.

If I see a brawl start in a bar, I can choose to leave. If you prevent me from leaving, and I get hurt, then it's your fault.

Of course, if a person has an undiagnosed cerebral aneurysm, that bursts and kills him at 4pm, it makes no difference whether he is at home or in jail at 4pm; some deaths just happen, and those kinds of deaths happening in jail are, sadly, inevitable. But they should be very rare (as they are outside jail); and when they happen, they should trigger a detailed investigation to ensure that the death really was unavoidable, and that the authorities took all possible measures to provide the level of care for the deceased's life that he could have provided himself if at liberty. Not all reasonable measures; but all possible measures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Safety, yes--but I don't think preventing suicide falls into that category other than with psych cases.

If preventing suicide is not part of keeping a person safe, what definition of safe are you using?

Because suicide is a choice, not a threat. Barring mental illness I don't think it's a choice that should be taken from people.

 

[Toni]

If preventing suicide is not part of keeping a person safe, what definition of safe are you using?

Because suicide is a choice, not a threat. Barring mental illness I don't think it's a choice that should be taken from people.

Suicide is the fatal form of depression which is an illness, not a 'choice.' It is a particularly cruel disease. It is also cruel when those suffering from depression are jailed over minor offenses and denied access to the medication they require to manage their disease.

The other unfortunate thing is that not everything is treatable by medication. Lack of compassion, for one. Arrogance for another.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is why the word "reasonable" is attached to the word "level." Death from suicide, death from injuries sustained during arrest and transportation, and death at the hands of other inmates, are not to be included in the statistics of the reasonable.

I disagree. Deaths from injuries sustained during arrest and transport should not happen, with an exception being as the result of the transport vehicle being in a serious accident.

Deaths from suicide should also not happen, and certainly not with the frequency they seem to happen.

I would also argue that nor should deaths 'at the hands of others' which I take to mean at the hands of other inmates. Also should not happen.

Why not go for zero in custody deaths? Why not make that a goal?

Because zero is a logical contradiction.

In any process, defects can be reduced by dedicating more resources to the process and quality control. The law of diminishing returns appears quickly and if we reduce defects to zero, costs expand to infinity.

I think you misunderstood my post. The three causes of death I listed, are not reasonable to expect in jail, since these are three things directly under the control of jail management. Jail management must be held strictly accountable for death by these causes.

There will still be cases where a person's death maybe precipitated by the jail, but beyond the control of the jailers. An asthmatic may have a sudden attack and die before aid arrives. The attack may have been brought on by stress, but the person would have died just the same if he had been in a restaurant. There are a lot of similar medical conditions which may become a crisis under severe stress.

A county lock up is not a trauma center or an ICU. It is possible to eliminate jail death due to suicide, injuries, or violence, with reasonable expense.

To eliminate all preventable deaths would require far more resources than we have.

 

[Toni]

I disagree. Deaths from injuries sustained during arrest and transport should not happen, with an exception being as the result of the transport vehicle being in a serious accident.

Deaths from suicide should also not happen, and certainly not with the frequency they seem to happen.

I would also argue that nor should deaths 'at the hands of others' which I take to mean at the hands of other inmates. Also should not happen.

Why not go for zero in custody deaths? Why not make that a goal?

Because zero is a logical contradiction.

In any process, defects can be reduced by dedicating more resources to the process and quality control. The law of diminishing returns appears quickly and if we reduce defects to zero, costs expand to infinity.

I think you misunderstood my post. The three causes of death I listed, are not reasonable to expect in jail, since these are three things directly under the control of jail management. Jail management must be held strictly accountable for death by these causes.

There will still be cases where a person's death maybe precipitated by the jail, but beyond the control of the jailers. An asthmatic may have a sudden attack and die before aid arrives. The attack may have been brought on by stress, but the person would have died just the same if he had been in a restaurant. There are a lot of similar medical conditions which may become a crisis under severe stress.

A county lock up is not a trauma center or an ICU. It is possible to eliminate jail death due to suicide, injuries, or violence, with reasonable expense.

To eliminate all preventable deaths would require far more resources than we have.

I understand completely. Some deaths are unavoidable. That does not mean that they are acceptable. There is a difference.

Are you familiar with the concept of Chasing Zero? It's a concept in the health care industry that we must chase the elusive zero preventable deaths due to hospital error.

http://www.safetyleaders.org/pages/chasingZeroDocumentary.jsp

While being incarcerated is not the same thing as being in the hospital (although my dad would have disagreed with that statement), there are similarities, the major one being is that your life is in the hands of people who are charged with ensuring your safety. You are in a stressful environment, you often have very little control over the circumstances in which you find yourself. Your goal is to get out safely. It should also be the goal of every staff member in a jail as it is in the hospital.

I used the number Zero as the number of acceptable preventable deaths while incarcerated. You are correct that it is not possible to prevent all deaths. Someone can have an unanticipated asthma attack or heart attack or stroke, for example.

But even asthma deaths can be prevented--by ensuring that those incarcerated have access to the meds they need. This is particularly critical for some medications, including those taken by diabetics. Mentioned here because sometimes, insulin issues can mimic intoxication and can be brought on by sudden, unpredicted or imperfectly controlled blood sugar changes, leading to arrests for drunken driving--and death.

We may never be able to achieve zero preventable deaths while incarcerated. But failing to set that goal and to work assiduously towards it is stating that some people's lives just don't matter. People who are taken to jail have not been convicted of any crime, much less a capital offense. They are not free to manage their own health, their own meds and are in an extremely stressful situation which increases the risks of many chronic ailments, including those which have not been diagnosed or those which may be poorly controlled without prompt--not hours long delays but prompt! medical attention.

They are not there by their own choice, so we--society--who has decided that they need to be held against their will for (someone's safety) need to do our best to ensure their safety.

It's wrong to do otherwise. Like war and the expenses related to returning vets and their various medical ailments, including mental health, if it is too expensive to do our best to ensure the safety of every single person arrested because there are just so many of them--maybe we just need to quit having wars and quit arresting people for minor offenses. Would reduce the costs and a lot of pain and suffering for a lot of people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because suicide is a choice, not a threat. Barring mental illness I don't think it's a choice that should be taken from people.

Suicide is the fatal form of depression which is an illness, not a 'choice.' It is a particularly cruel disease. It is also cruel when those suffering from depression are jailed over minor offenses and denied access to the medication they require to manage their disease.

The other unfortunate thing is that not everything is treatable by medication. Lack of compassion, for one. Arrogance for another.

Note that I said "barring mental illness". Depression is a mental illness.

Your life falling apart because you made yet another stupid decision isn't mental illness, though.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because zero is a logical contradiction.

In any process, defects can be reduced by dedicating more resources to the process and quality control. The law of diminishing returns appears quickly and if we reduce defects to zero, costs expand to infinity.

I think you misunderstood my post. The three causes of death I listed, are not reasonable to expect in jail, since these are three things directly under the control of jail management. Jail management must be held strictly accountable for death by these causes.

There will still be cases where a person's death maybe precipitated by the jail, but beyond the control of the jailers. An asthmatic may have a sudden attack and die before aid arrives. The attack may have been brought on by stress, but the person would have died just the same if he had been in a restaurant. There are a lot of similar medical conditions which may become a crisis under severe stress.

A county lock up is not a trauma center or an ICU. It is possible to eliminate jail death due to suicide, injuries, or violence, with reasonable expense.

To eliminate all preventable deaths would require far more resources than we have.

I understand completely. Some deaths are unavoidable. That does not mean that they are acceptable. There is a difference.

Are you familiar with the concept of Chasing Zero? It's a concept in the health care industry that we must chase the elusive zero preventable deaths due to hospital error.

....

I am familiar with chasing zero and I've even tried to do it.

The problem always lies in the definition of "acceptance" and "preventable." Anything can be prevented in hindsight and if we label a subset of the deaths as preventable, we accept the unpreventable kind.

 

[Toni]

I understand completely. Some deaths are unavoidable. That does not mean that they are acceptable. There is a difference.

Are you familiar with the concept of Chasing Zero? It's a concept in the health care industry that we must chase the elusive zero preventable deaths due to hospital error.

....

I am familiar with chasing zero and I've even tried to do it.

The problem always lies in the definition of "acceptance" and "preventable." Anything can be prevented in hindsight and if we label a subset of the deaths as preventable, we accept the unpreventable kind.

We can also learn from errors and mistakes and take measures to prevent such in the future.

If we don't set zero as a goal and work towards that goal, then we are basically saying good enough is good enough, shit happens, que sera sera, and most importantly: It will never be me or my family or anybody like us so it's regrettable, but nothing to beat ourselves up over. Because people like us are more important and good people like us will never be in that situation.