"Finch Fetch"
Contumãx Caninus
Standing against claims of corruption and abuses, prison administrators are quick to defend the culture of corrections with denial or, at best, an admission that a minuscule minority of 'bad apples' are responsible for the reported crimes, abuses, and negligence of correctional employees. As a state prisoner in Alaska's Spring Creek Correctional Center at Seward, Alaska, I know that neglect, physical and psychological abuse, abuse of authority, and some level of corruption are all-pervading. I have also experienced, first hand, the systematic processes of retaliation and persecution used to dissuade their disclosure.
The insidious and infectious nature of the attitudes and perspectives wherein abuse flourishes can be easily demonstrated by describing an incident I witnessed a few days ago. Shortly before 0900 Hours on Sunday, May 31, 1998 during a break from exercising, I turned from the water fountain near the Shift Supervisor's Office and saw a guard, Kevin Finch, C.O.II, spin a newsprint booklet some thirty feet across the floor and laugh as a physically and mentally ill prisoner went chasing after what he thought was a coveted TV Guide like a dog playing fetch for his Master. Guard Finch's mirth only increased at the antics of the prisoner when, to his dismay, the TV Guide turned out to be a bound advertisement from the Sunday newspaper. Enraged and sickened, but helpless in the face of the consequences of physical interference, I had to turn away.
This action was not surprising nor uncharacteristic of Guard Finch, whose attitude often brings to mind a mean child who dismembers insects and torments small animals for entertainment. I wish I could say it was surprising that this action took place, without interference, while he stood before the open door and reflective glass windows of his supervisor's office, but I cannot. Yet, more disturbing than Finch's actions or the inaction of those who occupied the Shift Supervisor's Office and who may, or may not, have been watching, was the smile on the face of a second guard, a C.O. I, a trainee under the tutelage of C.O.II's like Finch, who stood watching the degrading and de-humanizing treatment of that unfortunate prisoner-human being.
While it might be proclaimed, if the incident were ever admitted by prison officials, that Guard Finch and his ilk represent only a tiny minority among those correctional employees who, otherwise, are supposedly dedicated professionals, common sense says that the 'minority' cannot exist in a vacuum, and their arrogant, cruel, even torturous behaviors persist and thrive because of the complicity or apathy of the 'majority'. In this particular instance, similar to innumerable others like it that I have witnessed, I always find myself asking which participant was the sickest: The physically weak or mentally imbalanced prisoner who finds himself compelled to act in an outwardly foolish and degrading manner? The emotionally immature and spiritually twisted and undeveloped guard like Finch, who seeks his pleasure by taking cruel and cowardly actions against the disadvantaged? Or, Guard Finch's smiling fellow guard and trainee, or the occupants of the Shift Supervisor's Office, who, by their failure to condemn, much less interfere with, such behaviors, both facilitate and encourage abuse and neglect, and cultivates an environment that is far from 'correctional' or 'rehabilitative'?
Having written what I have, in my mind's eye I can see the progression of the protective response of correctional officials. First would be an outright denial of the incident and, if he can be identified, an attempt to discredit the author by attacking his character, thus his truthfulness, by resurrecting the crime that brought him to prison long ago. Concurrent with official denial, begins the harassment of the author in the form of superfluous searches, confiscation of his property, and dismissal from his work assignment. Then, when the stated facts are discovered to be provable, an admission of the incident will follow a disclaimer that it was unwitnessed by the guard's supervisors, was uncondoned by prison administrators, and a statement that appropriate action will be taken to assure that the abuse will not be repeated - actions that will not be disclosed, nor be so severe as to disrupt the career of the chastened guard.
To end on what may be an auspicious note, two days after witnessing this event I spoke with the trainee guard to tell him what I had seen and how it made me feel. I told him that I had previously watched him interact with other prisoners with a quick smile, a sympathetic ear, and in an outwardly fair manner, all strongly contrasting the smile he wore while watching the mean-spirited actions of Guard Finch. To his credit, he acknowledged the incident and, in hindsight, recognized that he had not given any thought to how that act might have been viewed from the perspective of the prisoner that had been mistreated or the prisoners who had watched it happen, and admitted that it was wrong and something that he would try to be aware of in the future. For that reason, he remains unnamed.