Chapter 8: A Case Study: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Review

Abstract

The endeavor of this valuation is to provide a comprehensive review of Pennsylvania Department of Correction System (DOCS). This is a review of the Pennsylvania DOCS addressing special populations within the prison population, State Correctional Institutions (SCI), Community Corrections Programs, and comparison to existing programs elsewhere when appropriate. The review consists of secondary data and existing literature relating to the correctional system of Pennsylvania and national standards. Extrapolations are based on dated data from 2009, although trends in prison reform may be viewed with similarity.

Introduction

The intent of this examination is to provide a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Correction System (DOCS). This analysis includes a review and presentation of correctional facilities within Pennsylvania which are identified as State Correctional Institutions (SCI). The contents of this review addressed special populations, minority representation, death row inmates and executions, and special populations. Further attention is provided to newly created programs designed to curtail over-crowding and rising costs of incarceration as well as misgivings within the system was explored and recommendations for the future is provided.

This analysis included a review and a comparison of the U.S. Census Bureau aggregate population statistics for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that offers a breakdown by ethnic status in relation to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOCS) inmate population. The discussion embraced minority status and disparity concerns relative to inmate sentencing of those minorities.

This evaluation focused on a brief summary of the due process guarantees of the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, with a discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment in its overarching application. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOCS) policy purpose resulting from the application of these amendments toward prisoners was explored.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Overview

According to Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Annual Report (2011), DOCS operates 28 SCI’s that consists of 24 male facilities; 2 female facilities; 1 young adult offender facility (YAOF); and 1 co-ed boot camp. This is further divided into 5 maximum SCI’s for adult males and 1 maximum security facility young adult offenders; 1SCI is designated for diagnostic and classification of prisoners; 2 substance abuse treatment SCI’s; 1 geriatric; and 1 forensic treatment SCI for the mentally ill (Appendices E-Intuitions/Designation). As of December of 2010 the DOCS housed 51,321 inmates (Appendices A-Population, Gender/Race/Age) of which 335 inmates are incarcerated for life. The annual budget request for FY 2011-2012 is $1,880,810,000 representing an 11% increase over the previous budget of $1,694,319,000. The inmate population has steadily increased 25% over the last seven years with FY 2004 population of 40,965 and FY 2010 inmate population of 51,321. The DOCS have incorporated innovative front end diversionary programs and alternative programs to offset the rising costs of incarceration and overcrowding of SCI (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Annual Report, 2011).

Authorization

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections receives their authority from the Pennsylvania Code Title 61 – PRISONS AND PAROLE and Chapter 95 COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS. The previously discussed revisions regarding reduced sentencing will be found in these sections as amended.

Pennsylvania DOCS Purpose

Mission Statement

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections operates as one team, embraces diversity, and commits to enhancing public safety. We are proud of our reputation as leaders in the corrections field. Our mission is to reduce criminal behavior by providing individualized treatment and education to offenders, resulting in successful community reintegration through accountability and positive change.

American Correctional Association Compliance

The PA DOCS as an American Correctional Association (ACA) accredited agency prescribes to the ethics of the ACA (Appendix C-ACA Code of Ethics). Further upon review of the following policies: 203 Searches of Inmates and Cells; 803 Inmate Mail and Incoming Publications;819 Religious Activities Policy; 009 News Media Relations (DOCS Policy Publications. www.cor.state.pa.us). They appear to meet the requirements established in the court decisions and standards set forth and PA DOCS provides for constant updating of policy as required by the accreditation process and contemporary court decisions.

U.S. Census Bureau-Pennsylvania

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (http://factfinder.census.gov/home) Pennsylvania’s 2010 population was 12,702,379. The total population is divided into the following ethnic and percentage as reported by the 2010 census: White-10,406,288 (81.9%); African American-1,377, 689 (10.8%); Asian-349,088 (2.7%); American Indian and Alaska Native-26,843 (0.2%); Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-3,653 (Z); Hispanic or Latino-300,983 (5.7%); and Two or more Races-237,835 (1.9%). The 2010 Census for the entire United States is 308,745,538. The growth in population from the 2000 to the 2010 census is a reported growth of 3.4% in Pennsylvania and a 9.7% overall growth nationwide. The total of non-white minority population represented within Pennsylvania is 18.1% or approximately 2.3 million people.

Pennsylvania Inmate Population

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, as of December of 2010, DOCS housed 51,321 inmates of which 335 inmates are incarcerated for life. The annual budget request for FY 2011-2012 is $1,880,810,000 representing an 11% increase over the previous budget of $1,694,319,000. The inmate population has steadily increased 25% over the last seven years with FY 2004 population of 40,965 and FY 2010 inmate population of 51,321. The DOCS 2010 Annual Report asserts that 48,603 males were incarcerated as compared to 2,718 females incarcerated during the same time period. This represents 62% of male prisoners were minority (50% Blacks; 11% Hispanic; and 1 % other) in comparison to 38% of White male inmates. As you can see from the census information previously provided the black population equates to 10.8 % of the total state population while accounting for 50% of the male inmate population. Further total minority populations in the state are approximately 20% but represent 62% of the inmate population among males.

The same report breaks out the females incarcerated (2,718) as 41% all minorities and 59% white females or 31% Black; 8% Hispanic; and 2% other. This is a reversal of the male inmate population however it remains that this is with a 20% minority population. The average age of those incarcerated is age 37. Disparity in sentencing may occur based on many factors such as economic means, social strata, legal representation, or environment. The next section looked at one other possible factor, PA sentencing structure.

Pennsylvania’s Criminal Code and Sentence Minimums and Maximums: Mandatory Pennsylvania Sentences

The Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Title 42, Chapter 21. Sub. F. provides the authority for sentencing structures for felonies, misdemeanors, probation and parole to be established by the Commission and used in criminal proceedings for the sentencing of defendants after conviction or plea of guilty. The sentencing structures for selected offense may be seen in Appendices D-Sentencing Chart. According to the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and as shown in Appendices-D those subsequently convicted of the same offense after the first conviction may receive an additional prison term.

The Commonwealth does not have a Three Strikes program but does however use habitual offender enhancements for second and third convictions for violent crimes. Habitual Offenders 42 Pa. C.S. §9714 requires mandatory sentencing of ten years for a second conviction for a crime of violence; a third or subsequent conviction for a crime of violence requires a sentence of twenty-five years or life. The Habitual Offender section 42 Pa. C.S. §9716 further delineates that two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable, the longest mandatory minimum applies. There exist many reasons for criminal behavior such as economic means, social strata, legal representation, or environment. The next section looks at one other possible factor and this is sentencing structure. Problematic for PA DOCS as is true for many states is the mandatory sentencing structures that have attributed to overcrowding and Constitutional concerns within the system.

PA DOCS appears to have met overcrowding issues, special population concerns, and court remedied sanctions with innovative programs which will be the topic of discussion in the remainder of this evaluation. This discussion will first address Constitutional issues and then will concentrate on the overcrowding and special populations in separate discussions contained herein.

Due Process Guarantees

History

The Bill of Rights are listed as the first ten amendment to the United States Constitution ratified on December 15, 1791as a promise to those supporters of the original ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 (Hall, 2012). The advent of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to the Constitution revolved around due process and equal protection. The Fifth Amendment contains a due process clause of sorts in that it states “No Person shall…; as compared to the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No State shall… deprive another of life, liberty or property without due process (Appendices A-Constitutional Amendments). Specifically the laws and procedures that once pertained only to the Federal Government were now attached to state process.

Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction Era providing the “Equal Protection” of state laws to its people (Hall, 2012). Through the Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment it has applied equally the first ten amendments to all states which at one time were reserved mainly for the federal government. This has had implications of due process for inmates of state correctional institutions as well as defendants not yet prosecuted as asserted by Hall (2012) “Any time an issue of fairness surfaces, due process should be examined…If the issue concerns one of improper classifications, equal protection law should be considered” (p.284). Cases dealing with religion, inmate mail, search and seizure and discipline are those selected for this discussion relative to PA DOCS Policies 203 Searches of Inmates and Cells; 803 Inmate Mail and Incoming Publications; 819 Religious Activities Policy; and 009 News Media Relations (DOCS Policy Publications. www.cor.state.pa.us/).

In review of the DOCS policies, many contain references to the American Correctional Association (ACA) and if not directly stated, have embedded in those policies portions of the ACA’s Code of Ethics. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is an ACA Accredited system. The policies reviewed and discussed herein appear to meet the states interest of security and the inmate’s interest in privacy, censorship, and searches.

Finally, asserted by the courts relative to prisoner and their rights they contend in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974-75 (1974) “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p. 460). The courts have concluded that rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, state statues, and regulations; however the scope of those rights may be further protected or amended by the courts and correctional officials (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

First Amendment

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference as well as the issue of censorship (Appendices A- Constitutional Amendments). The Court has concluded in U.S. v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) “A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest: if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p.476-477).

This is illustrated further in Turner v. Safley, 462 U.S. 78 (1987) “When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. In our view, such a standard is necessary if ‘prison administrators . . . and not the courts [are] to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional operations” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p.487). The court provided the following four issues critical to the evaluation of institutional policy using the balancing test:

1. There must be a valid rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.
2. Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open.
3. What impacts will the asserted right have on guards and other inmates?
4. It must be reasonable.

In the case of Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2^nd 697 (2006) the Pennsylvania’s DOCS policy of restrictions of privileges on the most incorrigible prisoners within the special segregation units of their prison system met the evaluation criteria in Turner v. Safley. Additionally due process was at issue as to whether Banks was provided an adequate avenue to be heard. In both instances the PA DOCS prevailed as the court recognized legitimate governmental interests in the policy and the fact Banks was represented by counsel throughout the process safeguarded the due process scheme (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

In related First Amendment decision the Freedom of Religion is decided in Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) Inmates argued that they were denied Buddhist accommodation as were other recognized orthodox religions. The Court ruled that the state did not have to supply a new chapel or ministers but merely provide reasonable accommodations to exercise religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz 482 U.S. 342 (1987), in this case the Court ruled that the desire to attend Jumu’ah interfered with prison security, and the limitation was constitutional on that account. “Here the District Court decided that the regulations alleged to infringe constitutional rights were reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p. 524). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the District Court, and it necessarily follows that the regulations in question do not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant supported by probable cause (Appendices A-Constitutional Amendments). In the correctional facility Fourth Amendment implications usually pertain to cell and individual searches, that is, when are they constitutional by statute and prison policy to maintain a safe and secure facility.

The interest of government to maintain safe and secure prisons provides for latitude within the state province to conduct searches of institutions and inmates. Such was the case in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) whereby the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment has no applicability to a prison cell (Branham & Hamden, 1997). They further maintained that prisoners are not guaranteed a reasonable expectation of privacy, but at the same time it does not provide free reign by the state to violate property rights of inmates without repercussions vested in the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment always stands as a protection against cruel and unusual punishments and there are adequate state tort and common-law remedies available to respondent to redress the alleged destruction of his personal property.

The seminal case of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) the court ruled that visual body cavity searches, strip searches, sometimes in front of other inmates, are constitutional. The majority opinion glosses over the grossness which is described in Justice Marshall’s dissenting opinion. These searches are valid even with pre-trial detainees. The court, in this case, ruled that body searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case was significant because it highlighted the balance between prisoner rights and prison safety and ruled that prison safety can supersede prisoner rights.

Eighth Amendment

The landmark case of Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1960) opened a Pandora’s Box of Fourteenth Amendment rulings which has since flooded the courts with individual liberty cases. Cases involving inmates and the penal institutions were no stranger to the courts as a result of this ruling. Cases involving inmate criminal conduct, hearings, access to legal services-Library; legal assistance and discipline are those selected for this discussion relative to PA DOCS. Finally, restated is the assertion by the courts relative to prisoner and rights they contend in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2974-75 (1974) “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p. 460). The courts have concluded that rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, state statues, and regulations; however the scope of those rights may be further protected or amended by the courts and correctional officials (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

The Eighth Amendment provides “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The U.S. Supreme in Furman V. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972) was the seminal case deciding capital punishment as a violation of the Eighth Amendment in that conspicuously absent from the legislation were any form of standards or guidelines directing the most severe of punishment (Branham & Hamden, 1997); within four years of the Furman v. Georgia; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2^nd 859 (1976) the court was deciding whether the new capital punishment legislation met Constitutional muster. In Gregg the issue of whether the legislation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments was before the court. Unlike the concerns of arbitrary or capricious meting out of the death sentence in Furman, the courts found in Gregg that carefully drafted statutes that ensure the sentencing authority is provided adequate information and guidance does not violate the Constitution.

The courts have since been asked to decide numerous issues relating to the constitutionality of policies and procedures dealing with due process and cruel and unusual punishment as it relates to correctional facilities. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOCS) established its procedures ensuring prison security will supersede individual inmate rights based on the determining case of Bell v. Wolfish (411 U.S. 520, 1979). The court ruled that an inmate constitutional right can be set aside in the interest of order, discipline, and security of the prison and justifiable, when the prison is investigating a “security” issue. Alternatively, prison officials must not “harass” the inmate and conduct the search without any justification. In the case of Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2^nd 697 (2006) the Pennsylvania’s DOCS policy of restrictions of privileges on the most incorrigible prisoners within the special segregation units of their prison system met the evaluation criteria in Turner v. Safley. Moreover, the due process was at issue as to whether Banks was provided an adequate avenue to be heard. In both instances the PA DOCS prevailed as the court recognized legitimate governmental interests in the policy and the fact Banks was represented by counsel throughout the process safeguarded the due process scheme (Branham & Hamden, 1997).

The courts have viewed the interest of government to maintain safe and secure prisons provides for latitude within the state province as paramount to limited liberties of inmates. Particularly true in DOCS ability to conduct searches of institutions and inmates, to apply discipline in a non-arbitrary manner, provide for limited access to legal assistance in non-criminal and confront witness except in the case of confidential witnesses the hearing officer may conduct an in-camera hearing to determine the veracity of the inmate witness. Branham & Hamden (1997) provide that in regard to procedural due process “the disciplining of inmates for their misconduct while in prison is critical to the maintenance of security and order within the institution” (p. 570). Such was the case in Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539, (1984), 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed. 2^nd 935 whereby the Court maintained that prisoners retained rights under the Due Process Clause but in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions by the state (Branham & Hamden, 1997). They further rejected the lower courts assertion that “whatever may be true of the Due Process Clause in general or of other rights protected by that clause against state infringement, the interest of prisoners in disciplinary procedures is not included in that “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Branham & Hamden, 1997, p. 572). The state provided a statutory realm for good time accrued by inmates, they also provided disciplinary procedures for forfeiting the good time and therefore must follow its policy. They concluded that the procedures established in the law for procedural due process as adequate providing minimum procedural due process for the circumstance and must be followed (Branham & Hamden, 1997). The Eighth Amendment serves as the vanguard against cruel and unusual punishments and there exist adequate state tort and common-law remedies available to respondent to redress the alleged destruction of his personal property.

Inmate Strike Index

The Department of Corrections’ Office of Chief Counsel — in an effort to assist attorneys, the courts and the general public track prison conditions civil litigation constituting “strikes” under the Federal and State Prison Litigation Reform Acts — has developed this website containing an Inmate Strike Index. The following is provided on www.cor.state.pa.us for further review of correctional policies relating to inmate access to the courts.

Federal PLRA Three Strikes Provision

The United States Congress, through the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
(Federal PLRA) Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat 1321, signed into law by President Clinton on April 26, 1996, amended 28 U.S.C. §1915 governing in forma pauperis status for prisoner litigation raising federal claims. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b) (4) states that [i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. To that end, 28 U.S.C. §1915 provides a process for indigent prisoners to pay filing fees in installments. However, 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) states:

[I]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Finally, absent a showing of imminent danger of serious bodily injury, an inmate litigant loses the privilege of in forma pauperis status, and must pay the complete filing fee or face dismissal of the action or appeal. (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/hide_chief_counsel/12356)

State PLRA Three Strikes Provision

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and signed into law by Governor Ridge Act 1998-84 (1998, June 18, P.L. 640, No. 84), added 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6601 et seq. (State PLRA), regarding in forma pauperis status for prisoner litigation raising state claims. The State PLRA supplements other grounds for the denial of in forma pauperis status as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6602(d) (1) requires that:

[a] prisoner shall not be prohibited from filing prison conditions litigation because the prisoner has no assets or other means to pay the filing fee. This paragraph shall not prevent the court from dismissing or otherwise disposing of prison conditions litigation pursuant to this chapter or any other provision of law.

In that regard, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6602 (e) and (f) provide, in relevant part, that:

(e) Dismissal of litigation. – Notwithstanding any filing fee which has been paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time, including prior to service on the defendant, if the court determines any of the following: . . .

(2) The prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity, which, if asserted would preclude the relief.

* * *

(f) Abusive litigation. – If the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and:

(1) Three or more of these prior civil actions have been dismissed pursuant to subsection (e) (2); or

(2) the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation against a person named as a defendant in the instant action or a person serving in the same official capacity as a named defendant and a court made a finding that the prior action was filed in bad faith or that the prisoner knowingly presented false evidence or testimony at a hearing or trial; the court may dismiss the action. The court shall not, however, dismiss a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order which makes a credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

(http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/hide_chief_counsel/12356)

Pennsylvania Special Population

HIV Macro Study

Pennsylvania DOCS considers HIV positive inmates a special population and has addressed the matter in policy and practice. HIV in prison populations is considered one of the most significant issues facing our prison administrators (Elliot, 2007). The percentage of HIV infected individuals is far greater in prison than in the general population (Elliot, 2007). Some surmise that this is in part because of the high percentage of prison population that use drugs in a regular basis. For these reasons, the corrections system must be sensitive to issues surrounding HIV policies and procedures in the prison system.

A highly influential study performed by Macalino, Sanford-Colby, Patel, Salas, Rich, Vlahov, & Sabin (2004) addressed the issue of HIV and the impact it has on the prison population. Their methodology observed the intake of 4,269 inmates at the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute during a two year time period of 1998-2000. The results revealed that approximately 20% of the inmates were infected with HIV; primarily associated with intravenous drug use. The study concluded a significant community health issue was the result of HIV prevalence in prison and the release of the inmate back into the civilian population, generally with shorter sentences due to non-violent nature of the crime and recidivism statistics indicate the inmate will recommit in a short period of time. The issue of recommitting is rather vague and ambiguous in the study but it is assumed that the return to shared needles and drug use will increase the spread of HIV once released. The authors proposed that correctional administrators focus on general disease prevention efforts such as screening, education, and vaccinations.

Another study performed by McClelland, Teplin, Abram, & Jacobs, (2002) supported these findings in relation to the female inmate population. In their study, the researchers canvassed 948 female inmates and found that those with “high risk” of contracting HIV were those females that had mental disorders, were homeless, has multiple prior arrests and were arrested on drug charges. Being that these high risk females often had shorter sentences, they were released back into the community sooner, which creates a serious health risk for the general public. The authors recommended that HIV in jails become a major public health priority.

HIV/Psychiatric Dual Populations

Psychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression have long been associated with risk behaviors for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV). The US prison population is reported to have elevated rates of HIV, hepatitis and most psychiatric disorders (Baillargeon, Paar, Wu, Giordano, Murray, Raimer, Avery, Diamond, and Pulvino, 2008, p. 124). The US prison system has become an important front in the effort to control HIV primarily due to the increase in drug-related convictions in the US prison system over the last 20 years. This fact alone has resulted in substantial increases in the proportion of offenders with HIV and HIV-related risk factors (Baillargeon, et al., 2008).

Psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression may underlie the high rates of HIV and hepatitis in prison populations by way of increased rates of high-risk sexual behavior and injection drug use. The elevated risk of these behaviors among patients with psychiatric disorders has been linked to a number of factors, including limited impulse control, difficulties in establishing stable social and sexual relationships, limited knowledge about HIV related risk factors, increased susceptibility to coercion and co-morbid alcohol and drug use (Baillargeon, et al., 2008).

Although previous studies have reported a strong association between psychiatric disorders and HIV infection in prison inmates (Baillargeon, Ducate et al., 2003; Treisman et al., 2001), no published research has assessed the association of psychiatric disorders and HIV/ hepatitis co-infection in the correctional setting. In a recent study of non-incarcerated patients with mental illness (Rosenberg et al., 2005), HIV/HCV-co-infected patients were reported to exhibit greater severity and chronicity of psychiatric disease than their HIV-mono-infected counterparts. It is plausible that HIV/hepatitis coinfection is associated with more severe or diverse psychiatric disease by way of behavioral risk factors, although no research has assessed these underlying characteristics (Baillargeon, Ducate, Pulvino, Bradshaw, Pulvino, Murray, and Olivera, 2003).

Pennsylvania DOCS Approach

PA DOCS considers special population as the following: geriatric, infirm, women inmates with special medical needs and disabled, mental-illness and Young Adult Offender Inmates (Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, and February 16, 2012). PA DOCS Policies provides the authority and general ethical intent of providing care or treatment for the categories discussed thus far. The categories are not exhaustive and are amended annually for the purposes of providing treatment and services in accordance with judicial review and legislative acts (Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012).

PA DOCS SCI’s are Americans with Disability Act compliant according to Roberts and Woods (Personal Communication, February 16, 2011) to include cells, service areas, and infirmaries. Therefore most infirmaries at each institution can provide adequate care for many of the situations that arise. This is particularly true for HIV infected inmates as previously discussed. The more severe a patient/inmate health issue, they are transferred to a special housing facility for skilled care beyond the capabilities of the SCI’s infirmary. In previous discussions the Death with Dignity program permits certain inmates transfer possibilities to hospice care facilities outside the PA DOC control (Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012; PA Corrections Reform-Act 81).

In addition to general health care, Roberts & Wood (Personal Communication, February 16, 2011) maintains that female inmates requiring Obstetric Care is contracted with local hospitals in the area of the SCI. This contracted service includes female inmates being transferred to a local hospital for birthing of a child and contrary to popular belief, no child is born within prison walls in Pennsylvania unless as an emergency situation may provide. Policy dictates that all contracted services as described are provided by external health care providers. They further contend that in extreme or chronic medical care situations for inmates at SCI’s outside care providers may be considered (Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012).

The table provided in Appendix A-SCI’s is highlighted in red for review of the three main skilled care facilities providing services to inmates within the PA DOCS. The Forensic Unit at Waymart is the designated facility for mental-illness care beyond the capability of the SCI infirmary. The facility at Waymart as of 12/31/2011 indicates a 90% capacity rate with an inmate population of 1,458. According to Roberts & Wood (Personal Communication, February 16, 2011) the population of PA DOCS inmates requiring mental health care is misleading as a percentage of those inmates listed are healthy inmates that provide upkeep for the facility. However the unit does provide services for the more severe cases within the PA DOCS population, but the actual number of inmates requiring the advanced level of care and treatment is not available.

PA DOCs Substantive Policies

07.04.01 Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Programs

The purpose of this policy is to establish a standardized method of delivering specialized Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Abuse Treatment Programs to all offenders who are alcohol and drug abusers, found eligible for services under the Department’s supervision.

13.02.01 Access to Health Care

This policy establishes procedures by which the Department of Corrections and medical vendor staff can ensure that all inmates have access to health care and provide professional health care services that comply with Department policies and procedures, ACA standards, and applicable laws.

13.8.1, Access to Mental Health Care

Every inmate entering the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections shall be given a psychological assessment conducted at the Diagnostic and Classification Center (DCC). The DCC shall administer basic psychometric testing and interview the inmate upon reception and

provide further assessments only for an inmate who evidences a need for more comprehensive evaluation.

Young Offenders

11.2.1, Reception and Classification Procedures Manual

General

The Young Adult Offenders Program (YAOP) is primarily designed for those offenders between the ages of 15-20 adjudicated as adults due to the nature of the criminal offense committed. The YAOP meets their special needs of education, adolescent development and recreational activity, while providing a safe environment for those offenders. All Young Adult Offenders (YAO) between the ages of 15-19 ½ will be classified and transferred to a YAOP (males to SCI Pine Grove; females to SCI Muncy) unless they have a serious psychiatric condition that requires treatment in a more clinical setting (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011; Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012).

Based on an alleged separation, court order, or other needs, a male YAO may be transferred to a facility other than SCI Pine Grove. Assignment of a male YAO to a facility other than SCI Pine Grove shall require approval by the Regional Deputy Secretary. In addition, any transfer of a YAO (for the purpose of these transfers, YAO is defined as anyone under the age of 18) from SCI Pine Grove to another facility shall also require approval by the Regional Deputy Secretary (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011; Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012).

In meeting ethical considerations set forth in policy, law and ACA Standards, the PA DOCS YAOP is run as a Therapeutic Community (TC). A TC is designed to use behavior modification as a primary management tool. YAO’s are encouraged to make life changes in areas of self-responsibility, discipline, respect for others and themselves, and to develop positive self-esteem. The YAO’s positive accomplishments are rewarded and negative or dysfunctional behavior is discouraged(Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011; Personal Communications Chuck Roberts, Dep. Asst. Administrator & Denise Wood, Records Administrator, February 16, 2012).

Treatment Programming

The PA DOCS YAO inmate’s day consists of a highly structured participation in education, leisure activities, group therapy, and program committees. The philosophy of the TC is to build self-esteem by participation in positive activities and reward for that activity. Each inmate’s daily routine includes participation in group and other activities designed as part of his/her prescribed program as provided in Figure 1-Program (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Figure 1-Program Development

(Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011)

Education

PA DOCS emphasizes education as the cornerstones YAO program. All participants are required to attend school for a minimum of five hours each day. The designated classes are designed to meet a wide variety of educational levels that are required by the YAO population. An inmate removed from school (generally disruptive inmate) shall result in Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) confinement and removal of all previously earned status. Participation in education in the education building is seen as a privilege by program staff. If an inmate is confined in the RHU, he/she is expected to continue with his/her studies while in the RHU by doing an in-cell study program. As required by law, any inmate under the age of 18 is mandated to be in an educational program four hours per day for an entire year (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Death Row Populations and Executions

Death Penalty Constitutionality

The decisive case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.238, 92 S.Ct.2726 (1972), the court was asked to decide the constitutionality of the Georgia Death Penalty Statute. In this statute, not unlike many other states during the same period, left the unfettered discretion to impose the death sentence to either a judge or jury was a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Branham & Hamden, 2009). As provided by Branham & Hamden (2009) “These statues had resulted in such arbitrary and haphazard imposition of the death penalty that, in the words of Justice White, there was [no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it is imposed from the many cases in which it is not]” (p. 279). The court was again confronted with the constitutionality of the Death Penalty within four years of the Furman decision in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2^nd 859 (1976) the court was deciding whether the new capital punishment legislation met Constitutional muster. In Gregg the issue of whether the legislation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments was before the court. Unlike the concerns of arbitrary or capricious meting out of the death sentence in Furman, the courts found in Gregg that carefully drafted statutes that ensure the sentencing authority is provided adequate information and guidance does not violate the Constitution (Branham & Hamden, 2009).

In a related case defining sentencing structures relative to the death penalty within states, Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct., 2978, 49 Led. 2^nd 944 (1976), examined the mandatory death sentence imposed on a broad spectrum of murder cases (Branham & Hamden, 2009). The court decided the Woodson case upon reviewing three aspects of the North Carolina statute: (1) Was it within the limits of civilized standards; (2) Is the statute in conformance with Furman’s rejection of unbridled discretion of a jury in meting out the death sentence; and (3) Does the statute consider the individual or merely consider the convicted as a person guilty of a designated offense. In all three questions the court cited the North Carolina Statute deficient and unconstitutional. Interesting enough the United States began attempting to remediate the mandatory sentencing of the death penalty in most cases as early as 1794 by Pennsylvania in that the death penalty was restricted to ‘murder in the first degree’. Primarily Pennsylvania and subsequent states did so based on societal demands and reluctance to find persons guilty of offenses with mandatory death as the outcome (Branham & Hamden, 2009).

Pennsylvania Death Penalty

Pennsylvania State Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Bradley that the death penalty sentencing procedures were unconstitutional based on the precedence established in Furman v. Georgia, 1972. At that point, there were some two dozen death cases in the state prison system. All were sentenced to life (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). In 1974, the legislature resurrected the law with amendments. At the same juncture thirteen execution cases were received by the Pennsylvania correctional system before the state’s high court again declared the law unconstitutional in a December 1977 decision in the case of Theodore Moody (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). The State Supreme Court, relying on Gregg v. Georgia (1976), declared the 1974 version of the death penalty too narrowly limited the circumstances which the jury may consider mitigating when making its decision on capital punishment. The state legislature quickly drafted a new version. It was enacted in September 1978 and this law, which remains in effect today, has been upheld in several recent appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). The constitutional version is as follows:

1. The death penalty may only be applied in cases where a defendant is found guilty of first degree murder. A separate hearing is held for the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If at least one of the ten aggravating circumstances listed in the law and none of the eight mitigating factors are found to be present, the verdict must be death.
2. The next step is formal sentencing by the judge. Frequently, there is a delay between the sentence verdict and formal sentencing as post-trial motions are heard and considered. An automatic review of the case by the state Supreme Court follows sentencing. The court can either uphold the sentence or vacate for imposition of a life sentence.
3. If the Supreme Court affirms the sentence, the case goes to the Governor’s Office where it is reviewed by appropriate legal counsel and, ultimately, by the Governor himself. Only the Governor may set the execution date, which is done through the signing of a document known as the Governor’s Warrant. By law, all executions are carried out at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview.

Pennsylvania Execution Methodology

In 1913 the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted electrocution as the method of execution and prior to this legislation the method was hanging. Pennsylvania was the first state to move away from public hangings in 1834 of which the method was conducted in both state facilities and county prisons. The last execution by electrocution was in 1962 of Elmo Smith for the rape and slaying of a women and this case was also one that a change of venue was granted for trial. During the period of 1915 and 1962 a total of 350 persons were executed in Pennsylvania by use of the electric chair at SCI Rockview to include two women.

Pennsylvania Death Row Statistics

As previously provided by the PA DOCS 2010 annual report of inmate profile and the U.S. Census Bureau the prison inmates represented are 62% of male prisoners were minority (50% Blacks; 11% Hispanic; and 1 % other) in comparison to 38% of White male inmates. As observed from the census information previously provided the black population in Pennsylvania equates to 10.8 % of the total population while accounting for 50% of the male inmate population. Further total minority populations in the state are approximately 20% but represent 62% of the inmate population among males.

The 2009 and 2010 inmate death row profile respectfully is as follows: White-71(32.3%) and 69 (31.4%); Black-129 (58.6%) and 127 (57.7%); Hispanic-18 (8.2%) and 18 (8.2%); and other- 2 (0.9%) and 2 (0.9%) and the greatest concentration of inmates are in the 30-54 year age range (Table 3 PA DOCS, 2011). Albeit the statistics are disproportionate, ironically the last three executions in the Commonwealth were carried out against all white male inmates in 1986, 1995, and 1999 are the following:

SCI NAME/INMATE NUMBER RACE DOB COUNTY JUDGE SENTENCED EXECUTED

PIT ZETTLEMOYER, Keith (AK-5854); W; 06/04/1955; Dauphin; Dowling; 04/24/1981; 05/02/1995

Was convicted in Dauphin County for the 1980 murder of a friend, Charles DeVetsco, who was scheduled to testify against him in a robbery trial.

Final Meal: 2 cheeseburgers, French fries, chocolate milk, chocolate pudding.

GRA MOSER, Leon Jerome (AY-6346); W; 09/15/1942; Montgomery; Tressler; 01/24/1986; 08/16/1995

Was convicted in Montgomery County for the 1985 murders of his ex-wife, Linda, and their two daughters following Palm Sunday services at their church.

Final Meal: 2 slices of pizza, cold cuts, pasta salad, frosted cup cake, Coca-Cola.

PIT HEIDNIK, Gary M. (AS-1398); W; 11/22/1943; Philadelphia; Abraham; 03/02/1989; 07/06/1999

Was sentenced to two death sentences in July 1988 for murdering two women he had imprisoned in his home. At his conviction, Heidnik also was convicted of six counts of kidnapping, five counts of rape, four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. In addition to the death sentences, he also received a cumulative prison term of 150 to 300 years.

Final Meal: 2 cups of black coffee, 4 pieces of pizza.

(07/26/1999 Press Office www.cor.state.pa.us/ )

Pennsylvania Execution Complex

The execution complex is located at the SCI Rockview and in 1997 the complex was moved outside of the facility’s perimeter to a former field hospital, located on prison grounds. The facility was renovated into a maximum-security building which will house capital cases for a short period of time just prior to execution. The relocation will allow officials to prepare for and carry out executions without disrupting the day-to-day operation of SCI Rockview. The relocation also enhances the safety and security of witnesses because it doesn’t require them to enter the facility to view an execution (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Mandated by law, individuals whose execution warrants have been signed by the governor are housed in solitary confinement apart from all other inmates. They are under constant direct supervision by corrections officers and their visits are restricted by law to immediate family, legal counsel and clergy, if they so choose. All male capital cases are housed at maximum-security facilities: SCIs Graterford and Greene. Females are housed at SCI Muncy and at a time designated by PA DOCS the inmate is transported to SCI Rockview and placed in the execution complex to await the sentence being carried out (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

The inmates are located in cells in the execution complex (often referred to as death row) generally the inmate is held in this setting only between their arrival and their execution. Inmates are permitted to have in their single person holding cell bedding — a mattress, pillow, blanket and sheets; a towel and a bar of soap; institutional clothing; legal papers; limited religious materials; some personal photos; and certain consumable items — such as cigarettes, toothbrush and toothpaste, writing implements — which are provided as needed and returned to the officer if not consumed. Reading material is also provided as requested, one item at a time. A TV or radio may be located on a stand outside the cell, if requested (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

To ensure accurate identity of the inmate they are fingerprinted upon arrival at the facility and the prints are compared to on file fingerprints and photograph. The condemned inmate will eat while at SCI Rockview will be the same as eaten by the rest of the inmate population, except the individual will be permitted to request one special meal from a menu of available items. More importantly in order to receive a stay of execution or other legal halting directive, an open phone line is maintained between SCI Rockview and the Governor’s Office to receive word of any last minute reprieves. That information would then be immediately given to SCI Rockview’s deputy superintendent for facility management who is on an open phone line in the injection room throughout the procedure (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Execution of Juveniles and Mentally Retarded

The U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders, citing the practice as offensive and counter to the “evolving standards of decency” that must guide interpretation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments in their decision Roper v. Simmons, 2005. The decision set aside the death sentence of Christopher Simmons, a Missouri man who was a 17-year-old high school junior when he hog-tied a woman and threw her into a river to drown after telling two friends that they could “get away with it” because they were minors. But the ruling also spares the lives of 72 death-row inmates in 19 states — including two in Pennsylvania — where until yesterday it was legal to execute offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes (McGough, 2005).

The death penalty had been previously altered in 2002 when the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled 6-3 that executing mentally retarded people was cruel and unusual punishment. The majority then cited a national consensus reflected in the fact that 16 states that had permitted the execution of retarded people in 1989 had changed their minds and outlawed the practice (McGough, 2005).

At the time of the ruling in Roper v. Simmons Pennsylvania was one of nineteen states that permitted the execution of juveniles. The court ruled that the age of permissible execution at the time of commission of the crime is 18. The sentences of juveniles on death row had since been commuted to Life without Parole and are the stance of Pennsylvania at this time.

Pennsylvania Parole Practice

Legislative Prison Package-ACT 81

The Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Title 42, Chapter 21. Sub. F. provides the authority for sentencing structures for felonies, misdemeanors, probation and parole to be established by the Commission and used in criminal proceedings for the sentencing of defendants after conviction or plea of guilty. On September 25, 2008, Governor Rendell signed into law 4 bills (House Bills 4-7) commonly referred to as the “Prison Package-ACT 81.” The prison package significantly changed a majority of existing prison-related laws; specifically, there are substantial changes relating to place-of-confinement, aggregation, work release, early parole, parole jurisdiction, compassionate release, State Intermediate Punishment, prisoner information, and prisoner transportation, amending the existing Title 42. This discussion will review the good conduct changes, parole and two specific programs previously discussed Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive and the State Intermediate Punishment Program (PA Corrections Reform-Act 81).

Goals of the Reform

It is important to understand the goals of the PA Prison reform package discussed and in light of the many amendments to existing laws and new provisions found in various Titles, it is helpful to understand that these reforms were designed and implemented as a collaboration with overarching public policy. These included provisions designed to: First, reduce county jail overcrowding and relieve the pressure to release jail inmates; Second, shift the burden for incarceration and treatment of serious offenders from the county system to the state system; Third, improve parole practices to ensure that public and victim safety is the primary consideration and ensure consistency and fairness; Four. improve offender treatment through centralized programs, administrative support, and specialized expertise; Five, ensure truth-in-sentencing for the victim, the public and the offender; Six, provide incentives for non-violent offenders to participate in evidence-based rehabilitative programs proven to reduce the recidivism risk; Seven, improve inmate safety through the improved exchange of information between the county and state system; Eight, provide for compassionate release of terminally ill inmates with appropriate safeguards; and Nine, reduce taxpayer costs through the centralization of treatment programs and prisoner transportation (PA Corrections Reform-Act 81).

Parole Reform

The 2008 Corrections Reform Act-81 required the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission to promulgate parole guidelines making public safety and victim safety the primary consideration in parole decisions and in line with the Act. The Act further required the Commission to use validated risk assessment tools and evidence-based practices in developing these guidelines and the guidelines would also apply to recommitments, back time, reparoles, and resentencing. The county judges, like the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP), would be covered by the statutory requirements and parole guidelines (PA Corrections Reform-Act 81).

Medical Release

Act 84 (HB7) replaces an outdated medical treatment statute, 61 P.S. § 81, that is almost 100 years old and is referred to as the humanitarian act. The amendment is designed to allow judges to place prisoners in hospitals, long-term nursing care facilities and hospice care locations. However, the requirements for such placements are quite stringent. For example, the prisoner must be: Seriously ill and not expected to live for more than one year; The facility must have agreed to accept the placement; The court must consider public safety and escape risks; and The DA and victim are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to approval. There are also additional requirements about provisions that must be contained in the court order (Personal Communications with Denise Wood, February 16, 2012; PA Corrections Reform-Act 81).

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Review: Rehabilitation and Recidivism

It is an assumption of this discussion section that any combination of social, biological or psychological factors may provide a clearer pathway of criminal conduct. Thereby based on the research provided that there is no one clearly articulated path effecting behavior of an individual but rather a maze of interconnected biological, social and psychological functions that influence behavior. Therefore the rehabilitation of an offender may not be as easy as most cookie cutter applications or “one size fits all” method that has been practiced for decades (Bartol & Bartol, 2008).

Bartol & Bartol (2008) assert “in terms of interventions, as expected, family therapy and medication were seldom recommended” (p.215). However, understanding that preventing all acts of violence or criminal behavior is an unattainable goal, neuropsychological evaluations are helpful in predicting future behavioral issues and therefore should be court ordered assessments for violators of domestic abuse victims and abusers, child abuse victims and abusers and children of frequent and intense acclimation to unsavory and dysfunctional homes (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). Moreover, the application of a Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) should be applied to the treatment of offenders. Cost is relative to exactly what you’re attempting to protect.

Recent research which focused on recidivism rates of inmate that have received educational and vocational training while incarcerated must provide attention to the skills required for job consideration when released (Hull, Forrester, Brown, Jobe, & McCullen, 2000). Their study supports the assumptions of this discussion that programs must not be generic, but specifically focused to develop skills in certain needed areas of the greater community. Correctional rehabilitation programs provided that did so found the recidivism rates of inmates were significantly less than those that did not receive training. In addition to the skills training required of inmates, equally important are the prescreening evaluations of inmates upon entry into the system. The following sections address more contemporary research of criminal behavior and antisocial behavior that may possess keys to evaluating inmates and assessing influential rehabilitation methodologies.

Neurological Aspects

Neurophysiology is the study of brain activity and neurological impairments may lead to the development of personality traits linked to antisocial behaviors; and there is now evidence that low self-control may in fact be regulated and controlled by the prefrontal cortex of the brain (Beaver, Wright & DeLisi, 2007). Dolan & Anderson (2002) assert ”that aggressive personality disordered offenders show evidence of a broad range of deficits in executive and memory function, particularly concept formation and logical memory, fits with much of the existing literature in antisocial populations. However, we have shown that it is offenders with high trait impulsivity that have deficits of this nature: a finding that may have special implications for therapeutic interventions” (p. 522). The neuropsychological evaluations of sexual offenders is the most common link between brain irregularities and sexual offenses and/or deviance including diverse types of deviance and offenders such as exhibitionist, pedophiles and rapist of adults (Joyal, Black & Dassylva, 2007).

Seo, Patrick & Kennealy attest that, “Impulsive aggression has been linked to uncontrollable negative emotion, and inability to regulate aggressive impulses which can often lead to violent behaviors. Neuro-psychological literature suggests that individuals with impulsive aggression may have abnormalities in brain regions involved in the control of emotion such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdale, and nucleus accumbens” (p. 386). Impulsive aggression has been associated with various pathological conditions to include depression, suicide and substance abuse which suggest a common biological and neurological malfunction involving serotonin and dopamine system abnormalities. Tiihonen et al. (2008, p. 206) purport “this study reports the first evidence that persistent violent offenders who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder are characterized by abnormal brain anatomy when compared with healthy men.” Based on the previous discussion it stands to reason that correctional officials may wish to process inmates on need and expected outcome based on individual assessment of the inmate.

Genetic Aspects

The gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) was found to moderate the effect of maltreatment. High levels of MAOA expression were less likely to develop antisocial problems and the inverse is true. The finding in this study will partially explain the fact that not every child subjected to maltreatment will develop antisocial mechanisms to cope (Caspi et al., 2002). “The MAOA gene is located on the X chromosome; it encodes the MAOA enzyme which metabolizes neurotransmitters such as such as norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine rendering them inactive…The Genetic deficiencies in MAOA activity have been linked to aggression in mice and humans” (Caspi et al., 2002, p. 582). Their study consisted of a sample of 1,037 from birth to adulthood through age 26 measuring four types of antisocial behavior and found for all four antisocial outcomes the pattern of findings was consistent with the hypothesis that the association between maltreatment and antisocial behavior is conditional dependent on the child’s MAOA genotype. The lower the MAOA gene accompanied by maltreatment the substantial risk of conduct disorder in children to later developed antisocial personality symptoms in adulthood (Caspi et al., 2002).

Coccaro, Kavoussi and McNamee (2000) focusses on the evidence suggesting that there are biological predispositions to aggression. The authors reviewed a case in which this issue arose in a forensic evaluation and discussed the implications of these findings in criminal settings. Aggression can be verbal, directed at inanimate objects, directed at other living beings, and it can be defensive, predatory, or impulsive. Most studies point to serotonin as one of the most important central neurotransmitters underlying the modulation of impulsive aggression. These authors work points to the possible biological vulnerability to aggression due to genetic influences. The authors support genetics and aggressive and antisocial behavior due to measures of serotonin and frontal lobe studies as they observed that: One of the most reliably documented biological variables implicated in aggressive behavior is the neurotransmitter serotonin. More recently, Coccaro et al. (2000) extensively reviewed the relationship between serotonin and externally directed violence. They referenced more than 20 studies, and their results corroborated earlier findings of a relationship between low serotonin and high incidences of violent behavior. They also reported evidence where increasing serotonin levels resulted in decreased aggressive responses in males.

These assumptions have presumably led to unilateral prison reform nationally and in the PA DOCS system outlined in the previously mentioned programs. PA DOCS in comparison to other states may be held out as a leader in risk reduction programs based on behavioral based data from empirical research. Pennsylvania DOCS has several re-entry programs to assist with the transition from prison back into the community. Studies have revealed that these transition programs are successful at reducing recidivism (Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006). Researchers will concede that there is no silver bullet to the causation of crime and requires research in most aspects of life to find the linkage. Researchers will also concede there is no one fix to offenders. Pennsylvania has committed to behavioral based and outcome based treatments in keeping with the latter philosophy.

Pennsylvania Specific Programs

Community Corrections

Community corrections are half-way houses established in urban settings throughout the state. As of FY 2008 there are 14 DOCS run facilities and 38 contracted facilities operating to provide reintegration of over 3,400 inmates into society (Community Corrections Center, 2008). An inmate assigned to a community corrections facility receives continued treatment for addictions and counseling in areas of family and employment. The inmate is gradually reduced from custodial control to personal responsibility. The role of the Community Corrections Programs in the DOCS is to provide a viable alternative to incarceration, while the inmate reacclimatized to social conditions outside prison walls.

State Intermediate Punishment Program

State Intermediate Punishment Program (SIP) was enacted in FY 2004 and became effective in May 2005 in response to concerns of criminal offending while under the influence of drugs and alcohol (SIP Performance Report, 2011). SIP was designed as an alternative to determinate sentencing while enhancing public safety through a period of incarceration. The SIP Performance Report (2011) reported that as of September, 2010 there were 933 graduates from the program. Results of the SIP Program indicate that six-month and one-year re-incarceration rates are lower than non-SIP participant inmates. The cost of incarceration is approximately $34,190.00 annually and this is realized as a savings when in the SIP Program, thus the 933 graduates of the program saved the State of Pennsylvania $31.5 million (SIP Performance Report, 2011).

SIP participants must apply and be accepted into a four phase program consisting of 24 months. Phase-one is a Court Determined Eligibility by statute and sentencing guidelines of which the offender is convicted of an alcohol or drug induced offense that does not include use of a deadly weapon, child molestation, incest or child exploitation, and does not have a history of violence. The offender is sentenced to 30 months per statute. Phase-two is DOC assessment at which time the offender is evaluated for treatment needs and determination of amenability to treatment. Doc provides a recommendation to the court and the district attorney and if all three components agree the offender is accepted into SIP in Phase-three. Phase-four consists of reintegration into the community for the remainder of the 24 month sentence (SIP Performance Report, 2011).

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) was established by Act 81 of 2008 providing that eligible non-violent offenders are incentivized by successfully completing program requirement in exchange for a reduced sentence. The criteria for eligibility is similar to that of the SIP Program and has a goal of creating an atmosphere of good behavior while incarcerated and to remain crime free upon release. These offenders are those that provide no reasonable indication that they pose a threat to public safety (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Report, 2011). The re-arrest rate of RRRI graduates is similar to those that did not enter the program; however the longitudinal data is in embryonic stages at this time for any statistical significance. What is significant is the approximate $11.5 million saved through freeing bed space by approximately 127,000 less days spent in prison (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Report, 2011).

Recidivism

A comparison of recidivism for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for years 1999 and 2004 are as follows: 1999 14% were re-incarcerated for new crimes compared to 16%; 23% for technical violations compared to 24%; and in 1999 63% never returned compared to 60% in 2004. This means that Pennsylvania suffered a 37% recidivism rate in 1999 compared to a 40% recidivism rate in 2004. From 2000 through 2010, the number of parole violator admissions increased by 29.3%, from 4,348 in 2000 to 5,621 in 2010 (Pew Center-Revolving Door). This is in part and parcels the reasoning of the above reported programs to decrease re-incarceration and decrease the prison population of non-violent offenders reducing the overall cost of the DOCS.

Data Collection

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections web page may be found at www.cor.state.pa.us which provided the primary source of data in this review. The web page also provides an array of information depicting DOC policies, inmate information, institution information, executions (3 executions since 1995-present-see Appendices-D) and warrants for execution, statistical data, Mission Statement, and programs and initiatives. In review of the DOCS policies, many contain references to the American Correctional Association (ACA) and if not directly stated, have embedded in those policies portions of the ACA’s Code of Ethics. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is an ACA Accredited system. Personnel interviews of PA DOCS key staff personnel were another source of data for this review. Copious notes were taken by the researcher and transcribed into final form provided in this report. This researcher has no personal allegiance to PA DOCS or personal bias against PA DOCS and therefore the information provided herein is as reported. The PA DOCS data and literature research are the basis of this review.

The DOCS programs initiated within the previous ten years also signals the system is a risk taker, unafraid to tackle new ideas in providing service to community and to inmate. The newer innovative programs discussed are aimed at the less violent and shorter sentence inmates (Appendices C-Maximum Sentences) which mainly provide for reduction of cost at his juncture, without longitudinal studies but there remains a void for reducing longer sentence terms, which may just be the need to protect society from the offender.

Discussion and Limitations

The PA DOCS as illustrated through their web page provides several innovative approaches to reducing costs and bed space within the system. It discusses alternatives to incarceration which have had to have the input of DOCS staff and political will on the part the legislature. Social learning should not be interpreted literally as to how criminal behavior is obtained but rather as a medium for acquisition, maintenance, and modification of behavior; more so social learning theory develops the relationship between motivation and control of criminal behavior (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Therefore the undoing of the already learned process requires longitudinal examination. Researchers will review, study and analyze theories and questions in “macro” and “micro” clusters. The macro approach recommended for future study is one that is broader across societies or major factions in comparison to the micro approach which is a smaller grouping. Akers (1998) argues that, “the dependent variable in macro-level theories is based ultimately on the same behavior that is the dependent variable in micro-level theories” (p. 330).

The data provided by the DOC shows a relationship of therapy and programs instrumental to the prevention of further criminal behavior by inmates. As there is not one single causation of criminal behavior, neither is the unraveling of previous criminal conduct of inmates and current indicators with any certainty as to which program will be useful to further prevent criminal conduct by the offender; therefore the data provided indicates usefulness, but longitudinal review is required.

Conclusion

It is imperative that the conversation regarding truth in sentencing from the length of a sentence to the actual crime committed and the crimes sentences for are examined more closely and honestly. As an example a rapist may be permitted to plea to an assault rather than the actual rape. This may be permitted for housing and safety issues surrounding a prisoner or expediting court proceeding. Overall examination of sentencing in order to achieve a stated goal requires alteration of more basic conversation such as, what will work to change the behavior of an inmate. Incarceration reform requires stretching the imagination and reaching beyond the cookie cutter methodology currently applied and society’s willingness to call that good. The ADOC operates a correctional system that adequately protects the public from the dangers of offenders, while balancing reentry needs and providing competent reentry programming. PA DOCS has committed to restating treatment measures by housing sex offenders in specific facilities in order to receive concentrated therapy and undergo testing in order to design the treatment plan specific to the offender. Also embedded in this assumption is that sex offenders will not be cataloged under illness with one treatment plan.

This is further echoed by Bartol & Bartol (2008) in which they contend that “a forensic psychiatric treatment community would be more suitable because it is evident that only therapeutic community treatment is effective in juveniles who are severely impaired, abused and neglected. Treatment of such juveniles should take place explicitly (at least in the initial phase) away from the influence of abusive, chaotic family and friends, even when these people are willing to change their attitudes” (p. 272). Such programs are multisystemic therapy (MST) programs which are intensive family and community based treatment for juveniles with antisocial behavior and mental health issues (Bartol & Bartol, 2008).

Finally the reality of it is that not all offenders can be saved and we as a society must accept that fact and have secure facilities for those who do not yield to treatment!

References

Abracen, Jeffrey, Looman, J., and Langdon, C, M… 2008. Treatment of sexual offenders with psychopathic traits: Recent research development and clinical implications.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(3), 144-166.

Akers, R. (1998). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology, 34, 229.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Edition. Text Revision. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Baillargeon, J. G., Paar, D. P., Wu, T., Giordano, T. P., Murray, O. Raimer, B. G., Avery, E. N., Diamond, P. M., and Pulvino, J.S. (2008). Psychiatric disorders, HIV infection and HIV/hepatitis co-infection in the correctional setting. Aids Care, 20 (1), 124-129.

Baillargeon, J. G., Ducate, S., Pulvino, J.S., Bradshaw, P., Pulvino, J.S., Murray, O., and Olivera, R. (2003). The association of psychiatric disorders and HIV infection in the correctional setting. Annals of Epidemiology, 13, 606-612.

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2008). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior (2nd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Beaver, K., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2007). Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 (1), 1,345-1,361.

Branham, L.S. & Hamden, M. S. (2009, 8^th Ed.). Cases and materials on the law and policy of sentencing and corrections. St. Paul, MN: West.

Caldwell, M. F., McCormick, D. J., Umstead, D., and Van Rybroek, G. (2007). Evidence of treatment progress and therapeutic outcomes among adolescents with psychopathic outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 573-587.

Caldwell, M. F., Skeem, J., Salekin, R., and Van Rybroek, G. (2006). Treatment response of adolescent offenders with psychopathy features: A 2-year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(5), 571-596.

Caspi, A., McCLay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851

Cleckley, Hervey M. 1941. The Mask of Sanity. St. Louis: Mosby.

Coccaro, E. F.: Kavoussi, R. J.: McNamee, B. (2000). Central neurotransmitter function in criminal aggression. the science, treatment, and prevention of anti-social behaviours: Application to the criminal justice system. Kingston, NJ, US: Civic Research Institute.

Cullen, F. T., & and Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological theory past to present (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Dolan, M., & Anderson, I. M. (2002). Executive and memory function and its relationship to trait impulsivity and aggression in personality disordered offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 13(3), 503-526.

Elliott, R. (2007). Deadly disregard: government refusal to implement evidence-based measures to prevent HIV and hepatitis C virus infections in prisons. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 177(3), 262-264. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hall, D. E. (2012). Criminal Law and Procedure (6^th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar/Cengage Inc.

Hare, R.D., Clark, D., Grann, M., and Thorton, D. (2000). Psychopathy and the

predictive validity of the PCL-R: An international perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(5), 623-645.

Hull, K. A., Forrester, S., Brown, J., Jobe, D., & McCullen, C. (2000). Analysis of Recidivism Rates for Participants of the Academic/Vocational/Transition Education Programs Offered by the Virginia Department of Correctional Education. Journal of Correctional Education, 51(2), 256-261. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Joyal, C. C., Black, D. N., & Dassylva, B. (2007). The neuropsychology and neurology of sexual deviance: A review and pilot study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 19(2), 155-173. Doi: 10.1007/s11194-007-9045-4

Listwan, S., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry Programs from Failing: Insights From Evidence-Based Corrections. Federal Probation, 70(3), 19-25. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Macalino, G. E., Sanford-Colby, S., Patel, S., Salas, C., Rich, J. D., Vlahov, D., & Sabin, K. (2004). Prevalence and incidence of HIV, Hepatitis B Virus, and Hepatitis C Virus infections among Males in Rhode Island prisons. American Journal of Public Health, 94(7), 1218-1223. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McClelland, G., Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., & Jacobs, N. (2002). HIV and AIDS Risk Behaviors among Female Jail Detainees: Implications for Public Health Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 818-825. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McGough, M. (2005). Supreme Court bars juvenile executions. Post-Gazette, Pittsburg, PA. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05061/464966.stm#ixzz1mZkoQbeo.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (2011). Annual Report. www.cor.state.pa.us/. Retrieved January 6, 2012.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (2011). Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Report, 2011. www.cor.state.pa.us/. Retrieved January 6, 2012.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (2011). State Intermediate Punishment Program Report . www.cor.state.pa.us/. Retrieved January 6, 2012.

Pew Center (N.D.).The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons: State by State. www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=85899358534

Treisman, G.J., Angelino, A.F., & Hutton, H.E. (2001). Psychiatric issues in the management of patients with HIV infection. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2857_2864.

U.S. Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Zajac, G. (2009). Psychopathy: Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatment. Research in Review, 12 (1) Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS – STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, P.O. Box 598, Camp Hill, PA 17001-0598

Revised: 12/15/11

SCI Albion-Male Medium

Supt. Michael Harlow

10745 Route 18

Albion, PA 16475-0001

(814) 756-5778

SCI Cambridge Springs-Female

Supt. Rhoda Winstead

451 Fullerton Avenue

Cambridge Springs, PA 16403

(814) 398-5400

SCI Camp Hill-Diagnostic and Classification

Supt. Richard Southers

P.O. Box 8837, 2500 Lisburn Road

Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837

(717) 737-4531

SCI Chester-Substance Abuse Facility

Supt. John C. Thomas

500 E. 4th Street

Chester, PA 19013-4551

(610) 490-5412

SCI Coal Township-Male Medium

Supt. David Varano

1 Kelley Drive

Coal Township, PA 17866-1020

(570) 644-7890

SCI Cresson-Male Medium/Minimum

Supt. Kenneth Cameron

P.O. Box a, Old Route 22

301 Corrections Road

Cresson, PA 16699-0001

(814) 886-8181

SCI Dallas-Male Medium

Supt. Jerome Walsh

1000 Follies Road

Dallas, PA 18612, (570) 675-1101

SCI Fayette-Male Maximum/newest Facility-Lifers

Supt. Brian Coleman

50 Overlook Drive

LaBelle, PA 15450-1050

(724) 364-2200

SCI Forest-Female-Maximum

Supt. Debra Sauers

286 Woodland Drive

P.O. Box 307

Marienville, PA 16239-0307

(814) 621-2110

SCI Frackville-Male Maximum

Supt. Robert Collins

1111 Altamont Boulevard

Frackville, PA 17931-2699

(570) 874-4516

SCI Graterford-Male Maximum-PA Largest Facility

Supt. Michael Wenerowicz

P.O. Box 246, Route 29

Graterford, PA 19426-0246

(610) 489-4151

SCI Greene-Male Maximum/Capital Case Inmates

Supt. Louis Folino

169 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370-8090

(724) 852-2902

SCI Greensburg-Male Medium

Supt. Joseph Mazurkiewicz

165 SCI Lane

Greensburg, PA  15601

(724) 837-4397

SCI Houtzdale-Male Medium

Supt. Steve Glunt

P.O. Box 1000

209 Institution Drive

Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

(814) 378-1000

SCI Huntingdon-Male Close Security-No inmate functions outside the facility.

Supt. Tabb Bickell

1100 Pike Street

Huntingdon, PA 16654-1112

(814) 643-2400

SCI Laurel Highlands-Male minimum-geriatric facility.

Supt. David Pitkins

P.O. Box 631

5706 Glades Pike

Somerset, PA 15501-0631

(814) 445-6501

SCI Mahanoy-Male Medium/Minimum

Supt. John Kerestes

301 Morea Road

Frackville, PA 17932

(570) 773-2158

SCI Mercer-Male Medium

Supt. Brian Thompson

801 Butler Pike

Mercer, PA 16137

(724) 662-1837

SCI Muncy-Male Medium

Supt. Nancy Giroux

Box 180 Route 405

Muncy, PA 17756-0180

(570) 546-3171

SCI Pine Grove-Young Adult Offender-Male-Maximum

Supt. Barry Johnson

189 Fyock Road

Indiana, PA 15701-6542

(724) 465-9630

SCI Pittsburgh-Male Medium-Substance Abuse Facility

Supt. Daniel Burns

3001 Beaver Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15233

(412) 761-1955

Quehanna Boot Camp-Co-ed Facility

Supt. Steve Glunt

4395 Quehanna Hwy

Karthaus, PA 16845-9714

(814) 263-4125

SCI Retreat-Male Mediuum

Supt. James McGrady

660 State Route 11

Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-3136

(570) 735-8754

SCI Rockview-Male Medium

Supt. Marirosa Lamas

Box A

1 Rockview Place

Bellefonte, PA 16823

(814) 355-4874

SCI Smithfield-Male Medium

Supt. Jon Fisher

P.O. Box 999, 1120 Pike Street

Huntingdon, PA 16652

(814) 643-6520

SCI Somerset-Male Medium

Supt. Gerald Rozum

1590 Walters Mill Road

Somerset, PA 15510-0001

(814) 443-8100

SCI Waymart-Male Maximum-Mentally Ill Treatment Facility

Supt. Wayne Gavin

P.O. Box 256 Route 6

Waymart, PA 18472-0256

(570) 488-5811

Training Academy

Director Mark Kresho

1451 North Market Street

Elizabethtown, PA 17022-1299

(717) 367-9070

Appendix B: Pennsylvania Correctional Facilities Prison Population – 2009

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/institutions/5270

Appendices C: American Correctional Association Code Of Ethics

www.aca.org

Preamble

The American correctional Association expects of its members unfailing honesty, respect for the dignity and individuality of human beings and a commitment to professional and compassionate service. To this end, we subscribe to the following principles.

1. Members shall respect and protect the civil and legal rights of all individuals.
2. Members shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain.
3. Members shall maintain relationships with colleagues to promote mutual respect within the profession and improve the quality of service.
4. Members shall make public criticism of their colleagues or their agencies only when warranted, verifiable, and constructive.
5. Members shall respect the importance of all disciplines within the criminal justice system and work to improve cooperation with each segment.
6. Members shall honor the public’s right to information and share information with the public to the extent permitted by law subject to individuals’ right to privacy.
7. Members shall respect and protect the right of the public to be safeguarded from criminal activity.
8. Members shall refrain from using their positions to secure personal privileges or advantages.
9. Members shall refrain from allowing personal interest to impair objectivity in the performance of duty while acting in an official capacity.
10. Members shall refrain from entering into any formal or informal activity or agreement which presents a conflict of interest or is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of duties.
11. Members shall refrain from accepting any gifts, services, or favors that is or appears to be improper or implies an obligation inconsistent with the free and objective exercise of professional duties.
12. Members shall clearly differentiate between personal views/statements and views/statements/positions made on behalf of the agency or Association.
13. Members shall report to appropriate authorities any corrupt or unethical behaviors in which there is sufficient evidence to justify review.
14. Members shall refrain from discriminating against any individual because of race, gender, creed, national origin, religious affiliation, age, disability, or any other type of prohibited discrimination.
15. Members shall preserve the integrity of private information; they shall refrain from seeking information on individuals beyond that which is necessary to implement responsibilities and perform their duties; members shall refrain from revealing nonpublic information unless expressly authorized to do so.
16. Members shall make all appointments, promotions, and dismissals in accordance with established civil service rules, applicable contract agreements, and individual merit, rather than furtherance of personal interests.
17. Members shall respect, promote, and contribute to a work place that is safe, healthy, and free of harassment in any form.

Adopted by the Board of Governors and Delegate Assembly in August 1994.

Appendices D: Court Commitments 2010

Appendix E: Constitutional Amendments

Bill of Rights: Considered the first ten amendment to the United States Constitution

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Appendix F: People who have been executed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (May 2, 1995 to Present)

SCI NAME/INMATE NUMBER RACE DOB COUNTY JUDGE SENTENCED EXECUTED

PIT ZETTLEMOYER, Keith (AK-5854) W 06/04/1955 Dauphin Dowling 04/24/1981 05/02/1995

Was convicted in Dauphin County for the 1980 murder of a friend, Charles DeVetsco, who was scheduled to testify against him in a robbery trial.

Final Meal: 2 cheeseburgers, French fries, chocolate milk, chocolate pudding.

GRA MOSER, Leon Jerome (AY-6346) W 09/15/1942 Montgomery Tressler 01/24/1986 08/16/1995

Was convicted in Montgomery County for the 1985 murders of his ex-wife, Linda, and their two daughters following Palm Sunday services at their church.

Final Meal: 2 slices of pizza, cold cuts, pasta salad, frosted cup cake, Coca-Cola.

PIT HEIDNIK, Gary M. (AS-1398) W 11/22/1943 Philadelphia Abraham 03/02/1989 07/06/1999

Was sentenced to two death sentences in July 1988 for murdering two women he had imprisoned in his home. At his conviction, Heidnik also was convicted of six counts of kidnapping, five counts of rape, four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. In addition to the death sentences, he also received a cumulative prison term of 150 to 300 years.

Final Meal: 2 cups of black coffee, 4 pieces of pizza.