#Shawshank Redemption Quotes Rehabilitation free
The man pummeled King until he was able to break free and run screaming to a guard for help.
∻ehind him slipped a burly fellow inmate at the Ross Correctional Institution in Chillicothe. It was a cold evening in December, 1998, and King, convicted seven years earlier on weapons and assault charges, was headed into his cell for the night. In prison, they call what happened to Alfred King a hit. The Plain Dealer article described how such retaliation can go beyond that cited in Nathans report: Nathan reported 87.2% of inmates surveyed agreed with the statement, I believe staff will retaliate or get back at me if I use the inmate grievance process. Of those whod actually used the grievance system, 91.9% agreed with this statement while 70% reported personally facing such retaliation.Īlthough retaliation is clearly illegal, it isnt just inmates who reported it 48% of staff members acknowledged that retaliation occurs at least some of the time when inmates complain.Ī June 17 Cleveland Plain Dealer article quoted CIIC Executive Director Davis: Theres a perception that you need to be either foolish or fearless to use the system. While Nathans study found no evidence of state murder for filing a grievance, retaliation is the rule, not the exception.
#Shawshank Redemption Quotes Rehabilitation movie
Remember the scene in the film The Shawshank Redemption in which new inmates are introduced to prison life by watching an inmate who dared to complain being beaten to death by guards? That movie was filmed in the former Mansfield, Ohio prison. Of these grievances, 79% (6171) were found to be without merit. Use of the grievance procedure ranged from approximately 2% at low-security and pre-release facilities to 38% at the Ohio State Penitentiary. Those filing grievances represented about 10% of the average daily prison population in Ohios 33 prisons. 13, 2001, reflects important and credible input from inmates, the chief inspector and her staff, wardens, institutional inspectors, and institutional supervisory staff.ĭuring fiscal year 2000 (July 1, 1999June 30, 2000) a total of 4585 inmates filed a total of 8580 grievances. Nathan concluded that his report, ∾valuation of the Inmate Grievance System, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, dated Feb. 16 and 17, he conducted in-depth interviews with Chief Inspector Jorgensen-Martinez and the four assistant chief inspectors assigned to her office. Nathan also reviewed letters he received from inmates, spoke casually with a few prisoners at several institutions, and interviewed two inmates at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility whose letters hed received prior to visiting that facility. Nathans research team also conducted an extensive analysis of a sample of grievances in order to provide an independent, objective evaluation of how the system is operating against which to measure the more subjective responses to structured surveys by various participants in the grievance process. Separate surveys were prepared for wardens and institutional inspectors throughout the DRC as well as for inmates and supervisors at seven selected institutions. Nathan to provide consultation and assistance in a review and revision of the Departments inmate grievance procedure. In May, 2000, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) hired Vincent M.