The Quality of Medical Care in Federal Prison—Learn the Real Truth!

A recent editorial in the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel was titled, “Inmate deaths: Lengthy appeals process the real problem”. The author of the editorial, Al Ortenzo, was the Assistant Chief of Police for the city of Fort Lauderdale. In this article he stated that the level of healthcare in federal prison is far better than the inmates received in the outside world before coming to prison. Mr. Ortenzo, respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

I do agree that the appeal process is in the federal court system is overly burdensome. I also agree that Death Row should be a short term holding facility but only after all exhaustive attempts have been made to ensure that real justice has been afforded each prisoner. After reading Mr. Ortenzo’s article I assume that he is a proponent for the death penalty. I myself, am not against the death penalty, but only when it is clearly determined that the individual who is about to die really did the crime.

In his editorial, Assistant Chief of Police Ortenzo stated, “Each and every case, no matter how egregious the crime, certainly deserves several layers of careful and exhaustive reviews.”  Well Mr. Ortenzo, this is not happening in Fort Lauderdale, or in the State of Florida, or in the entire United States. This is not how our criminal justice process works. With the advent of DNA testing, many wrongfully incarcerated individuals are being proven innocent and being released from federal incarceration. The Innocence Project alone on April 23, 2007 exonerated its 200th inmate who was wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness identification through misidentification. Mr. Jerry Miller was exonerated through DNA testing and DNA evidence.  He had always maintained his innocence but to no avail. Fortunately, he was released after serving 24 years in federal prison. Jerry Miller lost nearly his entire adult life because of a wrongful conviction. He didn’t go to the death chamber, he didn’t lose his life.  Yet how many innocent individuals have gone to the death chamber before DNA testing could prove them innocent? We will never know, but even one is too many.

In cases where the accused admits guilt to the crime and there can be no possible mistake as evidenced by DNA testing, the death penalty may be warranted. But until that happens, we cannot say that several layers of careful and exhaustive reviews have taken place.

Mr. Ortenzo also stated, “Studies show that all prisoners, including those on death row, typically receive a far better level of medical care from taxpayers than they would otherwise have provided for themselves outside the prison walls.”  I have no idea what studies you have been reading Mr. Ortenzo, but I can certainly tell you they are not accurate, correct, or truthful. Mr. Ortenzo, your statement is just not correct. I doubt that you have ever been incarcerated in a federal prison. I have. You apparently believe what people tell you. I have been there, I experienced it, I know the truth!

After nearly 36 months in both a Federal Prison Camp and Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, Florida, I can assure you that the medical care in the Bureau of Prisons is pathetic, appalling and inexcusable. There are many federal prisoners serving sentences far less than death row inmates. Many have been convicted of crimes much less severe than those of Death Row inmates. I had far better medical care before my imprisonment and after my imprisonment as did many of the other white-collar inmates who were there during my incarceration.  Studies can be made to say anything the author directs or distorts them to say. Although this is unfortunate, it is true.

The federal government recently spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the banks, auto manufacturers, investment firms, and Wall Street companies in a matter of weeks if not days. The executives of these companies are not even in federal prison for their egregious mismanagement and crimes. Yet, the federal government and the Bureau of Prisons cannot see to it that individuals incarcerated in federal prison, regardless if they are on death row or not, are provided even minimal standards of healthcare. Mr. Ortenzo, instead of reading reports, go see for yourself!

For more information on medical care in prison go to www.jailtimeconsulting.com and also go to http://www.jailtimeconsulting.com/shop/medical-care-prison-pathetic-appalling-inexcusable-p-51.html.
Michael Frantz 

Michael Frantz is a leading Federal Prison Consultant and Prison Coach with Jail Time Consulting (JTC) in South Florida. The staff of JTC provides sentence reduction strategies, research, and many pre- and post-sentencing services for their clients. Michael has authored a bestselling book on federal prison titled, “Jail Time, What you need to know…Before you go to federal prison!” He has also authored over thirty-five JT Special Reports© on various federal prison issues affecting both the inmate and his/her family. They are available on the website. He writes a daily blog on the JTC website http://www.jailtimeconsulting.com answering readers’ questions and comments. New updates on current sentence reduction legislation and articles can be followed at Blogger at http://jailtimeconsulting.blogspot.com/. He is a nationally recognized authority on federal prison and has published over 40 articles nationwide. He is on Facebook at Jail Time Consulting, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jail-Time-Consulting/251197811579744.  He has been contacted by ABC’s 20/20, the Oprah Winfrey network, and the Fox News Network, as well as many radio and TV stations nationwide as an expert resource on federal prison. He can be reached at 954-522-2254, 800-804-4686, or at mike@jailtimeconsulting.com.

There is an Alternative to Federal Incarceration—It is called Pretrial Diversion

Pretrial diversion (PTD) also called pretrial intervention is an alternative sentencing mechanism which may divert certain eligible offenders from traditional criminal justice prison sentencing and federal incarceration. Pretrial diversion candidates (offenders) are processed into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation Service. Pretrial diversion allows first-time offenders a second chance at life, avoids federal prosecution, avoids a prison sentence, and avoids having a felony conviction on his record.  It also allows the offender to not be labeled as a felon or ex-con which helps him in securing employment and does not close many of the doors that the label of a “felon” does. In the majority of cases, offenders are diverted at the pre-charge stage. An eligible defendant for pretrial diversion that successfully completes the program will not be charged or, if charged, will have the charges against him dismissed. If the defendant does not successfully complete the program, he will be returned for prosecution.

Although the details of the pretrial diversion program may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, individuals arrested for the first time are given an option of keeping the crime off of their record without having to go to trial. Pretrial diversion is a program for certain first-time offenders to avoid being marked by a felony conviction for the rest of their lives. Pretrial diversion is known by a multiplicity of names, such as pretrial intervention, good behavior, withheld adjudication, and deferred prosecution.

The program works something like this. A first time offender who is charged with a criminal offense of a relatively minor nature and who appears to be an individual who is not likely to be a repeat offender may be given the option of pretrial diversion. If the defendant accepts the offer,  he will enter a plea of guilty to the criminal offense. The judge however will not enter an order of guilty in the case. The defendant is not guilty until the judge actually issues an order finding him guilty. At this point the defendant is in limbo between pleading guilty and being convicted.

Rather than find the person guilty, the judge will withhold his order of guilt initially and place the defendant under certain restrictions similar to probation or supervised release. If the defendant complies with the terms and conditions of the pretrial diversion agreement, he will have the charges dismissed. He will not be convicted of the crime and will not go to federal prison. This enables someone who made a one-time foolish mistake to get another chance at life with a clean record and not be scarred by a term in a federal prison. Pretrial diversion offers first time offenders hope without prison incarceration.

The pretrial diversion program is a benefit for both the government and the defendant. PTD accomplishes certain goals for both the defendant and the prosecution. First, it provides a vehicle for more expedient restitution to the victims of the crime. If the defendant serves time in prison his hourly wage is $0.12 per hour and the payment of restitution or fines is a long, painful process. Secondly, it deters future criminal behavior by diverting first time offenders from a traditional prison term to community supervision and the performance of services or even home detention. The defendant realizes that he was very close to federal incarceration, being labeled as a felon and will act more responsibly in the future by getting his second chance. Finally, it allows federal prosecutors to concentrate on major cases and those high profile cases that advance their careers, which by the way the way they all want. In most cases, the period of supervision or probation does not exceed eighteen (18) months.

A defendant, in order to get into the pretrial diversion program must meet certain criteria. A good Federal Prison Consultant knows the criteria and can prepare an initial evaluation or review for a defendant to determine his eligibility. If the defendant is eligible, the Consultant will prepare a comprehensive report documenting pretrial diversion as an alternative sentencing mechanism for the defendant for presenting to the Court.

In times when the Department of Justice has a 97% guilty plea rate in federal criminal cases and federal prosecutors have over a 75% conviction rate following trial and 91% of federal criminal defendants receive a prison sentence, isn’t it in a federal defendants best interest to call a reputable Federal Prison Consultant and determine if he is eligible for Pretrial Diversion or an alternative sentencing mechanism. I know if I was facing federal prison, I would!

More information on this subject and other forms of alternative sentencing can be found by calling Michael Frantz at 954-522-2254 or going to the JailTime Consulting website, http://www.jailtimeconsulting.com.

Michael Frantz is a leading Federal Prison Consultant with Jail Time Consulting (JTC) in South Florida. The staff of JTC provides sentence reduction strategies, research, and many pre- and post-sentencing services for their clients. Michael has authored a bestselling book on federal prison titled, “Jail Time, What you need to know…Before you go to federal prison!”He has also authored over thirty-five JT Special Reports© on various federal prison issues affecting both the inmate and his/her family. They are available on the website. He writes a daily blog on the JTC website http://www.jailtimeconsulting.com answering readers’ questions and comments. He is a nationally recognized authority on federal prison and has published over 40 articles nationwide. He is on Facebook at jailtimeconsulting@yahoo.com. He has been contacted by ABC’s 20/20, the Oprah Winfrey network, the Fox News Network, as well as many radio and TV stations nationwide. He can be reached at 954-522-2254, 800-804-4686, or at mike@jailtimeconsulting.com.

An Inmate’s Letter, The Pathetic Condition of Medical Care in Federal Prison!

This is a copy of a letter that I received from a federal inmate at FCI Beckley in Beaver, West Virginia. He had been waiting for dental care for over one year without any success. His mother called me asked me if we could help.  Here is his letter to me in his own words. His name is withheld for fear of retribution, by Rande Frantz, Federal Prison Consultant.

“In March or April of 2008, while at FCI Beckley, I chipped my tooth and my filling came out. I went to sick call and signed up for dental. I wasn’t seen till over a year later. In April or May of 2009 I was on the Call-Out Sheet for dental. When I got down there it was to have my teeth cleaned. I told Ms. Lucus (dental assistant or dental technician) I did not sign up to have my teeth cleaned.  She said, “Yes you did or you wouldn’t be on the Call-Out Sheet.” So we started to go back and forth about who was right or wrong. I told her I wasn’t the only (Name Deleted) here. She said that didn’t matter because it was me who signed up to have my teeth cleaned. So I said, “Show me” and she got mad. She said, “Fine”, and went and got a refusal form.  She told me I was refusing dental care.  I said I wasn’t. I told her I came over a year ago to have my filling put in. She said that can’t be. So I told her I’m not your lie or anyone else’s. Then she said sign this refusal form. I said no, then she said if I don’t she’ll lock me up. (She was inferring the SHU (Special Housing Unit) also called the HOLE). I said cool. I signed the form but at the bottom, below my name, I wrote, “Ms. Lucus made me sign this.” So a few hours go by and apparently Ms. Lucus talks to the C.O. (Correctional Officer, i.e., guard).  At recall that day, I was called to Medical.  She has my file in her hand. But before I get there, the police, (C.O.), tells me I need to apologize to Ms. Lucus. I said, Why should I, I have done nothing wrong? He said something like it would get me a long way and keep me out of big trouble. So I take the high road and do it. So she has my file in her hand when I walk through the door. She tells me I was right about my filling being out over a year. She said I must have missed the Call-Out. I tell her I didn’t. So she said I should have told her she took an x-ray of my tooth over a year ago. So I get on the Call-Out list a week or two later. When I get there my other tooth needs care more. So I get that one fixed. Now the tooth with the filling out is still not fixed. So I go back to medical in June of 2009 and sign up for dental again. So she, (Ms. Lucus), spins me and tells me to watch the Call-Out. Two weeks ago, the day my mom called you, I go back to Dental again because the tooth with the filling out is hurting real bad. I’m eating aspirin like candy to make my tooth stop hurting. Ms. Lucus tells me to watch the Call-Out again. My name never appeared on the Call-Out.  I ask her if she can give me something for the pain. I tell her the aspirin is making my chest hurt. I beg that lady for her help. She said it’s not her fault they are under staffed. I say it’s not my fault either. She said, “Say one more smart thing and I will send you to the HOLE.” I begged that woman for her help and she shit on me. Then last Tuesday they fixed my tooth, 18 months later.”

The information and details provided in this inmate’s letter are believed to be true. He would have no reason for lying. This is an actual inmate who experienced the problems and frustrations that are detailed in this letter. It was and continues to be very frustrating and exasperating for the inmates in federal prison. After all, it is their health and well being that is being jeopardized. The sad fact is that it does not have to be this way. I am sure part of the problem is lack of staffing and lack of qualified people, but attitude and the mind-set of some of the Health Service employees and prison staff in general also played an extremely important role in the overwhelming failure of their mission. Lack of funds reinforced this failure. If the Bureau of Prisons establishes policies, procedures, and adopts a Program Statement on the Care of Patients (Inmates), then all Bureau of Prisons’ facilities should be made to follow these rules and regulations and be held accountable. In this way, inmate health care can be uniform and standardized. It doesn’t have to be the absolute best, but it certainly shouldn’t be the absolute worst.

Unfortunately, this type of medical care in the Bureau of Prisons’ system is pathetic, appalling, and inexcusable. This is not an isolated case; it goes on all the time in all the prisons. Inmates in federal prison may be viewed as substandard citizens but does that mean they are only entitled to substandard or non-existent healthcare.  As a country, aren’t we better than that?

What Is In a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) For Federal Defendants?

The Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the subsequent Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) is without a doubt the most dominant and definitive document used by the Court in determining the length of a defendant’s federal prison sentence. The PSI is the defendant’s “Bible”, his life history as seen through the eyes of the probation officer authoring the report. Besides being instrumental in determining his federal prison sentence, the PSI is vitally important with respect to Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) federal prison designation, security level, custody level, restitution issues, work assignments, bunk assignments, furlough eligibility, transfers, community custody placement, inmate quality of life enhancements, admission into the 500-Hour Residential Drug Abuse Program and how the inmate is treated in prison by both the guards and inmates. The importance of the PSI cannot be overstated. It follows the defendant throughout his whole period of federal prison incarceration.

The Pre-sentence Investigation Report must apply the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

1)   In doing this the pre-sentence report must:

(A) Identify all applicable guidelines and policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;

(B) Calculate the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category;

(C) State the resulting sentencing range and kinds of sentences available;

(D) Identify any factor relevant to:

(i) The appropriate kind of sentence, or

(ii) The appropriate sentence within the applicable sentencing range; and

(E) Identify any basis for departing from the applicable sentencing range, either an upward or downward departure.

2)   The pre-sentence report must also contain the following additional information:

(A) The defendant’s history and characteristics, including:

(i) Any prior criminal record;

(ii) The defendant’s financial condition; and

(iii) Any circumstances affecting the defendant’s behavior that may be helpful in imposing sentence or in correctional treatment;

(B) Information that assesses any financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on any victim;

(C) When appropriate, the nature and extent of non-prison programs and resources available to the defendant;

(D) When the law provides for restitution, information sufficient for a restitution order;

(E) If the court orders a study under 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b), any resulting report and recommendation; and

(F) Any other information that the court requires, including information relevant to the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

(3) The pre-sentence report must not contain any of the following information. All the following must be excluded from the report:

(A) Any diagnoses that, if disclosed, might seriously disrupt a rehabilitation program;

(B) Any sources of information obtained upon a promise of confidentiality; and

(C) Any other information that, if disclosed, might result in physical or other harm to the defendant or others.

The Pre-Sentence Investigation Report is presumed to be fair, accurate, unbiased, and provide a true accounting of the defendant. In most cases it is anything but that. Remember, the PSI is written by a Probation Officer who works for the federal government—the same federal government that is trying to convict the defendant.  In most cases the PSI is slanted and biased against the defendant. When this happens, it is up to the defendant’s defense attorney to issue a written objection to the Probation Officer authoring the PSI. In many cases the defense attorney does not do this.

Prisoners often complain that they have been negatively impacted by inaccurate information in their PSI. A number of inmates at a federal prison were recently asked how many were affected negatively by errors in their PSI. Eighty (80%) percent responded that they were negatively affected by errors in their PSI. The eighty (80%) percent that responded were then asked how many were told by their attorney that the errors would have no detrimental effect or consequences. Almost one hundred (100%) percent raised their hands. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the defendant must make sure that any errors in the PSI, his “Bible”, are corrected before he enters prison. I would also recommend that to prevent these errors from getting into his PSI, the defendant’s attorney and/or a knowledgeable Federal Prison Consultant is present at the Pre-Sentencing Investigation Interview. The defendant should not go alone.

This alone speaks highly for having a competent, knowledgeable, and skilled Federal Prison Consultant on board. Currently, the Department of Justice has a 97% guilty plea rate in federal criminal cases. Federal prosecutors have over a 75% conviction rate following trial, and 91% of federal criminal defendants receive a prison sentence. It is no longer a question of will a federal defendant go to prison, it is now a question of how long will he or she be there and where will he/she go. If this doesn’t convince a federal defendant to retain the services of a well-respected Federal Prison Consultant, then he must bear the consequences.