Comments on: Washtenaw Jail Diary: Chapter 1, Part 1

By: Dan Ryan

Dan Ryan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:40:17 +0000

Re. the subject of phone calls… In the U.S. there is no right to an immediate phone call once in jail. In many areas, phone calls are a privilege that can be withheld from disruptive prisoners, which he appears to have been by his own account. Talking back to the deputies, not a good idea, anonymous buddy.

Secondly, he had an idea that he might go to jail before heading to court that day. His wife, or spouse, or whomever, could have called the jail’s PIO number to find out if he was incarcerated. Or, the court could have been called. The clerks will look at the docket sheet.

Or, perhaps he could have told his attorney to give his family a heads up after his incarceration.

It’s not like he went down a black hole.

His account is a good read, to be sure, but it’s not a case study of the operation of the county jail. In any case, there’s nothing in it so far to make me think the jail operated in any way other than to not meet the demands of a narcissitic prisoner.

By the way, given that the jail is overcrowded, it’s hard to actually get sent to jail. For crimes like drunken driving, even a first timer guilty of simple assault, there’s no jail time. Remember the case of that woman who embezzled lots of money from the kids’ hockey association? She didn’t even go to jail.

Given this situation, it’s likely he had lots of opportunities to avoid a jail sentence.

By: Michael Fitzgerald

Michael Fitzgerald — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:54:59 +0000

to the person who posted that he always rants about how other people are guilty and he is innocent, you misread him. He clearly acknowledges his own guilt, his neuroses that make his treatment worse than it might have been, and even that at least one other person there (old school) shouldn’t be. so far, I see someone with a middle-class background finding out that prison is much worse than he expected. As he says in installment two, he is writing this against the advice of his attorney, hence the vagueness of his crime. Though I wonder what he did, as well.

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:49:19 +0000

It is frightening what the government can do to you when it wants to get you, or has you in its maw. The specifics of the inmate’s crime(s) are irrelevant. Being held incommunicado is wrong, no matter what. Arbitrary detention in a punishment cell under the cover of suicide watch, is wrong, no matter what. Detention in jail for cause is one thing; unaccountable jailers, and intentional dehumanization, will not lead to improved behavior when inmates are released.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:21:59 +0000

“Guilt or innocence in this case is truly irrelevant.”

I’m thinking worse case here. And of course making all this up. I know nothing of this guy or this case.

Say the guy was in an car accident, drunk, fled the scene, was caught with a pile of prescription drugs that were not his.

He get’s his day in court and the Judge proposes something along the lines of, “get yourself in rehab, get yourself clean and we can work out suspended license, community service, probation, fines, etc… and all of this will get knocked down to misdemeanors.”

Guy skips rehab, fails to show up for drug tests or fails drug test, continues to drive… whatever. Let’s even add in that his lawyer even told him ahead of time that he was “probably” going to jail. (why not while I’m making up my own examples)

Extreme example. Plausible example. But if the example above was happened, other then the phone call I’m not that sympathetic.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:55:03 +0000

Guilt or innocence in this case is truly irrelevant. So is the exact nature of the alleged crime (which BTW was upgraded to “four felonies” as stated in the story). This guy could have been in a barroom brawl or written bad checks or left the scene of an accident or he could be innocent. The treatment is simply unnecessary and doesn’t contribute to any positive result. It doesn’t make the inmates behave any better.

What strikes me as most inhumane is keeping someone in custody for 56 hours while not notifying his family of his whereabouts. Did his family worry about him? Did his kids sit by the curb after school waiting for their dad to pick them up? Did his wife file a missing persons report. Did his wife have to unexpectedly skip a day of work to deal with kids and a missing husband? It’s simply unconscionable to turn a family’s life upside down like that for little or no good reason. If the guy was truly guilty, let there be one person paying the price, not his entire family who are clearly innocent victims in all of this.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:24:22 +0000

For those that are desiring the crime to be specified in order to gauge how sorry you feel, I think the point of the story is being missed. This isn’t about whether a single person “got what he deserved,” it’s about whether a jail run in such a fashion as described in the article is a good thing for anyone (society, prisoners, etc).

While I understand that people want to just dismiss the complaints of the author’s jail stay as one of his own making, the fact is if you were taken to a place unexpectedly and were held in a confined space against your will without being allowed any contact with the outside world, I seriously doubt anyone (if any) would react rationally.

Some commentators have said that the author should have simply obeyed the rules; but are the rules even remotely fair? No matter your thoughts on the author’s culpability you must admit he doesn’t seem like a suicide risk, and his denial of a phone call and completely being ignored by the guards for one outburst do not seem to do anyone any good, except maybe to make the guards feel a little bit superior. Should the author simply accept all rules being enforced on him, even those he feels (I think correctly) unjust?

When it comes down to it, jail is a forced giving up of control of your life to a bunch of strangers. And you hope the strangers are looking out for what is both fair and right, as they have been trained to do. In this case, I’m not sure if the hope is fulfilled.

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:38:32 +0000

Not a perspective you always get to hear, I’m looking forward to the next installment. Also, I think the comments are as interesting as the story.

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:21:06 +0000

Re #14: Rod, I agree that oversight of the penal system is necessary and that conditions should not be unnecessarily dehumanizing.

I simply do not share your concern about the ethical state of the system based on this single, anonymous, self-serving source. As I & other posters (#13, 16, 17, 19) noted, the OP provides considerable internal evidence that cuts against its credibility.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:25:32 +0000

I would really like to know details of the crime this guy committed. I think it’s pretty relevant to the story and could push me one way or the other on how sympathetic I am or not for the guy.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:16:36 +0000

I followed the twitter feed right up until the day it was taken down.

What consistently struck me about the narrative (sorry, not sure if this is in this ‘chapter’ or later on) was that in the same breath (tweet?) the author would dismiss his fellow inmates assertions of innocence on the grounds that they were *in jail,* then turn around and rail against the fact that he was in jail, but was *obviously* there unjustly. Found that to be an interesting piece of cognitive dissonance.