• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

According to his unsealed indictment, Epstein was charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to traffic minors for sex. The indictment can be read here. This was what the Grand Jury returned. There are no mystical magical sooper-double-sekrit "other charges" that the case against Epstein was "really about". The reason the case was handled in the Southern District of New York is because some of the crimes substantively took place in the Southern District of New York, which is clearly stated in the indictment if you read it. It was also obviously less problematic than charging him in Florida where he had already stood trial and been convicted for activities in that state.

Ghislaine Maxwell's Grand Jury indictment is also public. She has been charged with enticement of a minor to travel for sex, conspiracy to do same, transportation of a minor for sex, conspiracy to do same, and two counts of perjury. These crimes also took place in or involved the Southern District of New York, as is fully explained in the indictment for anyone to read. Again, there is no mention of any other secret not-yet-disclosed crimes that Maxwell's indictment is "really about". These are the charges she will go on trial for.
 
Bob001 said:
I think it would be hard to contend that enhanced mental health care would be a civil rights violation. The usual complaint is that prisoners aren't getting enough care for physical and mental ailments. In Epstein's case, "suicide watch" meant that guards would check his cell more frequently and that another inmate would be assigned to his cell. That's nothing like physical restraint, forced medication, solitary confinement etc., etc. I continue to be surprised that they didn't have a camera in his cell, but reportedly that would be a civil rights violation.
Click to expand...

No; I'm afraid you have an incorrect impression of what actual "suicide watch" entails. It is not simply guards checking on a prisoner more often than usual. It is invasive and indignifying, and involves a complete and total absence of any shred of privacy for the prisoner. Defense counsels have a legitimate interest in making sure their clients aren't subject to it unnecessarily, or that the prison isn't using it in practice as a vindictive or punitive measure.
 
Bob001 said:
I think it would be hard to contend that enhanced mental health care would be a civil rights violation. The usual complaint is that prisoners aren't getting enough care for physical and mental ailments. In Epstein's case, "suicide watch" meant that guards would check his cell more frequently and that another inmate would be assigned to his cell. That's nothing like physical restraint, forced medication, solitary confinement etc., etc. I continue to be surprised that they didn't have a camera in his cell, but reportedly that would be a civil rights violation.
Click to expand...

Checkmite said:
No; I'm afraid you have an incorrect impression of what actual "suicide watch" entails. It is not simply guards checking on a prisoner more often than usual. It is invasive and indignifying, and involves a complete and total absence of any shred of privacy for the prisoner. Defense counsels have a legitimate interest in making sure their clients aren't subject to it unnecessarily, or that the prison isn't using it in practice as a vindictive or punitive measure.
Click to expand...

Right! I seem to recall that the conditions under which Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning) was held was considered anything but “enhanced mental health care”. It was routinely described by Manning’s supporters as “torture”, because Manning was left naked effectively in a completely bare room. It did not sound like something designed to repair mental health but literally nothing but making the act of suicide physically impossible.
 
angrysoba said:
Right! I seem to recall that the conditions under which Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning) was held was considered anything but “enhanced mental health care”. It was routinely described by Manning’s supporters as “torture”, because Manning was left naked effectively in a completely bare room. It did not sound like something designed to repair mental health but literally nothing but making the act of suicide physically impossible.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Suicide watch in prison has nothing whatsoever to do with "mental health care".
 
In England there isn't a single "suicide watch" regime there is a management process if I recall correctly it is known as ACCT. It is rare that a prisoner on "suicide watch" will be continually observed by prison staff, that is usually only for short periods of time, the more more standard approach would be to have agreed number of observations. And these aren't "every half an hour" they are "twice in a 60 minute period", this is to prevent a prisoner being able to learn when observations will happen and plan their suicide by the obs schedule. From what I understand something similar was in place for Epstein but they failed to follow their process, sadly this is all too common in England.
 
Checkmite said:
No; I'm afraid you have an incorrect impression of what actual "suicide watch" entails. It is not simply guards checking on a prisoner more often than usual. It is invasive and indignifying, and involves a complete and total absence of any shred of privacy for the prisoner. Defense counsels have a legitimate interest in making sure their clients aren't subject to it unnecessarily, or that the prison isn't using it in practice as a vindictive or punitive measure.
Click to expand...

If that's true I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't think a federal prisoner has much of a claim to privacy. Epstein either attempted suicide or was severely attacked two weeks before he died. I would think that would at least justify a camera in his cell and close monitoring.
 
Bob001 said:
If that's true I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't think a federal prisoner has much of a claim to privacy.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, suicide watch goes beyond that. Here's Wikipedia:

People under suicide watch are put into an environment where it would be difficult for them to hurt themselves. In many cases, any dangerous items will be removed from the area, such as sharp objects and some furniture, or they may be placed in a special padded cell, which has nothing outcropping from the walls (e.g., a clothes hook or door closing bracket) to provide a place for a ligature to be attached, and with only a drain-grill on the floor. They may be stripped of anything with which they might hurt themselves or use as a noose, including shoelaces, belts, neckties,[1] bras, shoes, socks, suspenders and bed sheets.[2] In extreme cases the inmate may be undressed entirely.
In even more extreme cases, inmates may be placed in "therapeutic restraints", a four- or five-point restraint system. The inmate is placed on their back on a mattress. Their arms and legs are tied down and a belt is placed across the chest. In a five-point system the head is also restrained. An inmate is allowed a range of movement every two hours, when one limb is released and they are allowed to move it for a short period. They are then restrained again, proceeding to the next limb. This process is repeated until all areas restrained have been moved. This process usually continues in eight-hour shifts, and the inmate has a face-to-face encounter with a mental health professional at least once in each eight-hour interval. This cannot continue for more than 16 consecutive hours. The inmate is continually watched by staff during this time.

In the most extreme cases of self-harm, only when all other avenues have not worked or are impracticable,[citation needed] "chemical restraint" drugs may be used to sedate the inmate. In order for a facility to administer a chemical restraint, it must have the approval/recommendation of a licensed mental health professional, the facility warden, and a court order
Click to expand...

And...

Inmates are often placed naked in suicide cells, which are usually bare concrete, often without bedding (to prevent hanging by using bedsheets), and under frequent or continuous observation by guards. Unsanitary conditions are also common since toilet paper, underwear and tampons (all potential means of choking) are restricted.
Click to expand...

And...

Being on a suicide watch does not guarantee a person will not kill oneself. Ashley Smith, a female inmate at a facility in Canada, killed herself while under suicide watch in October 2007. The circumstances surrounding her death were the subject of the Ashley Smith inquest.
Click to expand...

Link


Bob001 said:
Epstein either attempted suicide or was severely attacked two weeks before he died. I would think that would at least justify a camera in his cell and close monitoring.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be rude here, but a lot of people are looking at this from the point of view of Epstein being just too damn important for the usual run of the mill criminal justice systems to be in effect here. Do any of us usually give much time to thinking about how these places are and how they ought to be run? Well, I admit that I do not, but I also get the impression that many people who opine on various platforms about "There's just no way that someone like Epstein should not have been on round the clock surveillance and care. There's no other explanation for his death other than Aliens!" etc...

But here is a Twitter thread from Popehat (someone posted earlier in this thread) that seems to make a lot more sense to me if we are to try and think about this in logical, rational terms...

Link
 
Bob001 said:
Nevertheless, I don't think a federal prisoner has much of a claim to privacy.
Click to expand...

Except that the law recognizes that they still have rights. It's not as if being sentenced for a crime means you are no longer recognized as a human being, even if that sometimes appears to be the case...
 
Checkmite said:
No; I'm afraid you have an incorrect impression of what actual "suicide watch" entails. It is not simply guards checking on a prisoner more often than usual. It is invasive and indignifying, and involves a complete and total absence of any shred of privacy for the prisoner. Defense counsels have a legitimate interest in making sure their clients aren't subject to it unnecessarily, or that the prison isn't using it in practice as a vindictive or punitive measure.
Click to expand...


I certainly agree that the more extreme steps which are known to be taken under the rubric of "suicide watch" can be vindictive or punitive. Perhaps even both.

But that doesn't mean that they necessarily are. Not all procedures are the same all the time.

This is why I questioned whether Epstein's lawyers could simply "demand" that he be taken off of suicide watch.

The flip-side of this, although observed more often in the breach, I know, is that there is some duty of care incumbent upon the custodians. They cannot, if sufficient reason exists, simply disregard any threats to Epstein's health and welfare. There can be grounds for prudent steps to be taken to protect against such threats, including the threat of suicide.

Failure to do so might put the custodians in the wrong and expose them to legal repercussions.

It works both ways.

I would not disagree that his lawyers could argue that some such steps might exceed what is prudent and reasonable, and that they could petition a court to hear arguments in support of such a contention and request intervention. But I don't believe that their abilities are at the level of allowing them to make any "demands". Or to have them immediately enforced, at any rate. They can "demand" 'til the cows come home, of course. About anything that they are pleased to.

And they often will. That is, after all, what lawyers do.
 
Bob001 said:
If that's true I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't think a federal prisoner has much of a claim to privacy. Epstein either attempted suicide or was severely attacked two weeks before he died. I would think that would at least justify a camera in his cell and close monitoring.
Click to expand...

Such a move is considered extreme in the UK (should say E&W and Scotland - NI is often very different so read my use of UK here to mean E&W and Scotland only) and is only used in exceptional circumstances and again for as a short of possible. (As an example of extreme and exceptional circumstances, I know an anecdote of a prisoner who would when in crisis run headlong as fast as possible at the wall of his cell.) It is also very "resource" heavy as it requires someone to be continuously watching the CCTV feed 24 hours a day.
 
quadraginta said:
I certainly agree that the more extreme steps which are known to be taken under the rubric of "suicide watch" can be vindictive or punitive. Perhaps even both.

But that doesn't mean that they necessarily are. Not all procedures are the same all the time.

This is why I questioned whether Epstein's lawyers could simply "demand" that he be taken off of suicide watch.
The flip-side of this, although observed more often in the breach, I know, is that there is some duty of care incumbent upon the custodians. They cannot, if sufficient reason exists, simply disregard any threats to Epstein's health and welfare. There can be grounds for prudent steps to be taken to protect against such threats, including the threat of suicide.

Failure to do so might put the custodians in the wrong and expose them to legal repercussions.

It works both ways.

I would not disagree that his lawyers could argue that some such steps might exceed what is prudent and reasonable, and that they could petition a court to hear arguments in support of such a contention and request intervention. But I don't believe that their abilities are at the level of allowing them to make any "demands". Or to have them immediately enforced, at any rate. They can "demand" 'til the cows come home, of course. About anything that they are pleased to.

And they often will. That is, after all, what lawyers do.
Click to expand...

In the UK the burden is placed on the prison service to say why someone needs to be on suicide watch, and a prisoner can challenge that and if the health care staff involved agree or an external assessment is made -lawyers could bring in their own healthcare professionals to evaluate the prisoner - then the prison can't "force" a prisoner to be on suicide watch. (Don't want to go down the chronic underfunding that makes many of these processes laughable in the UK.)

It is expensive whether you look at it from a pure dollar cost or personnel hours to have prisoners on suicide watch, prisons aren't going to do it unless they are sure there is an immediate and current risk of a suicide attempt.

It is not strange at all that someone who commanded the legal resources Epstein could, would be able to get themselves taken off suicide watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom