|
|
 |
Correctional ResponseTo the Editor, J.E. Relly's "Supermax" (April 29) was such a misrepresentation of facts and truth that it would be impossible for me to address every single inaccurately reported issue without writing a letter of equally epic proportions. It is very ironic that Relly would accuse the Arizona Department of Corrections of keeping its Special Management Unit II "isolated and unknown" even after this agency, starting as far back as a year ago, provided her with a substantial amount of documented information, numerous interviews with prison officials, and a comprehensive tour of the SMU II. It is very clear to me that Relly had an agenda in writing this highly fictitious story.
Mental health care in the Arizona Department of Corrections is comparable, if not better than that provided in the community. Inmates with acute mental health symptoms can be seen immediately by staff, regardless of the hour of the day, or day of the week. Think about it. Can anyone in the community obtain mental health services with this kind of immediacy? The blatantly one-sided reporting in this article exemplified a level of incompetence that was truly at a level to behold. It even went so far as to falsely state that inmates in the SMU II who cover their light to sleep in darkness are disciplined and refused their next meal. At no time are inmates refused or denied meals as a result of this action in the SMU II or anywhere in the Arizona prison system. To report such an outrageous falsehood only demonstrates an inability to report the facts. In another word, incompetence. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the Arizona Department of Corrections is responsible for ensuring the protection of the society through the safe, secure and orderly operation of its prisons. By not dealing with the most violent of inmates, including those who are severely mentally ill, this Department would be breaching its responsibility not only to the public, but also to other inmates, and our staff. After reading the totally misleading Tucson Weekly article, one might believe we "lock 'em up, and throw away the key, and forget about them." How completely untrue. --Terry L. Stewart Director, Arizona Department of Corrections J.E. Relly replies: I regret that Director Stewart felt it was necessary to make libelous statements about my article which was based entirely on solid journalism. The research and reporting included a review of numerous prison documents, federal and county court records, Department of Corrections policy and procedure manuals, and dozens of taped interviews. I also received a well-chaperoned tour of SMU II. As Mr. Stewart mentioned, I began reporting on SMU II about one year ago. Yes, Special Management Unit II is isolated and unknown. While the DOC did provide documented information as is required by the state's public records law, it also cited department policy on excessive research time as a reason for not providing sensitive information which I had to go elsewhere to find. I was also told that certain records didn't exist when I was told otherwise by corrections officers. In addition, the DOC does not permit inmates to have face-to-face interviews with the press, which in itself limits the public's view of what goes on inside the prisons. Phone calls may be monitored. Inmates who communicate by mail are subject to staff screening. I'm not certain what Mr. Stewart meant about my agenda to mislead readers about the treatment of the mentally ill at SMU II. I reported the facts, including the DOC mental health director's statements about how frequently inmates are seen by mental health staff. The mental health director seems to be a progressive professional who is trying her best to work within the extreme conditions of SMU I and SMU II, which she herself admitted are not ideal. I think it might be interesting to add that the weekly group therapy sessions, limited to the mental health unit's SMU II inmates, are conducted with inmates remaining in cages. I didn't write about other mental health programs in the department because the article was about the supermax. I first heard about inmates being denied a meal when they cover their cell lights from corrections staff. I eventually read it in a SMU policy publication that I reviewed at the Department of Corrections administrative office in Phoenix.
Credit Where Credit's DueTo the Editor, I am writing to request clarifications to The Weekly's article on architecture in Tucson ("Designs In The Dust," April 22). The article states that "Together with Jody Gibbs, he (Vint) designed the Southside Presbyterian Church." Actually, Jody Gibbs designed the church and that effort. The construction of the church was administered by our partnership, Gibbs & Vint Architects, in 1993. The Tohono O'odham Elders' Center mentioned earlier in the article was also a project of our partnership, and we share the credit for that design. The project team was Bob Vint, Jody Gibbs, Murat Germen and Sherry Ison. Finally, the article states that "Vint made affordable housing for a farmworkers' co-op in rural Arizona, along with Gibbs." This is not accurate: in the early '80s, as a recent graduate and apprentice at the non-profit Tucson Design Center, I was a member of the project team for the farmworkers' housing. The Director of the Design Center, Jody Gibbs, is the architect of the buildings. I worked for him on the project as a graduate architect and draftsman, and I learned a great deal from him in the process. Other members of the team were Corky Poster (assistant director of the Design Center), Pat Malchow and Bill Ford. I appreciate the fact that The Weekly has kept the topic of architecture in the public eye. --Bob Vint
Savage ResponseTo the Editor, Regarding the Savage Love column: I have been an avid reader of the Tucson Weekly for many years. As a psychiatric technician for 23 years on an In-Patient Psyche Unit, I used to bring it in the community. We used The Weekly as a resource for the patients to locate mostly free community activities, as most SMI (Seriously Mentally Ill) people have limited incomes. Jeff Smith, the letters to the editor and the Chow section have always been my favorites. This week I was leafing through the rest of The Weekly and on page 62 noticed a headline in bold type which said "Taster's Choice," so I thought it was a second restaurant review and started to read it. To say I was astonished would be an understatement! I am a 66-year-old woman who has lived a full life and I am not a prude. However, I feel the content of that article is something that does not belong in The Weekly. This is a publication that is picked up by thousands of families, many of whom have pre-teen and teen children. The subject matter of that article is something to be discussed between intimate partners, not to be left on the coffee table for young children to accidentally discover. I am certain articles of that nature are published in other magazines which feature nude photographs or couples in sexual positions. However, I doubt that most families would pick up magazines of that sort at the bookstore or newsstands and then leave them on the family coffee table. I will continue to read The Weekly, but I urge you to use some sense of good taste (no pun intended) and leave that material to rags/papers/books/magazines who have no compunctions about putting "smut" on their pages. --Cathy Boushey We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-99 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
In meeting the agenda of misleading your readers into believing
that mentally ill inmates are poorly treated and their conditions
are worsened by being incarcerated at SMU II, here are some facts
about the treatment of these inmates that were left out of the
article: