|
Volume 25, Nos. 3 & 4 (2001) reprinted by permission Legal Studies Forum A PROMINENT JUDGE GOES TO PRISON JACK E. CALL* Sol Wachtler, AFTER THE MADNESS: A JUDGE’S OWN PRISON MEMOIR New York: Random House, 1997 The year 1984 provided another watershed event in Judge Wachtler’s life—he was named trustee of a trust established for Joy Silverman by her stepfather. Ms. Silverman was a socially prominent and attractive woman who was seventeen years younger than Wachtler. His fiduciary relationship with Ms. Silverman developed into an affair. In 1990, Wachtler experienced a major depression. Rather than seek professional help, Wachtler thought he could “self-medicate.” He saw different doctors and received prescriptions from them that he thought would enable him to deal with the difficulties he was experiencing. None of the doctors was aware of the various medications Wachtler was taking. As the depression worsened, Wachtler decided that he could deal better with his difficulties if he terminated his personal relationship with Ms. Silverman.1 After doing this, he had second thoughts about it. He realized that he missed the feeling of being needed by her and the gratification that he had received from helping her. When he attempted to resume a personal relationship with Ms. Silverman, she was not interested. When she informed Wachtler that she had begun a relationship with another man, he became intensely jealous. His mental illness (he was later diagnosed as manic-depressive) and the combination of medications that he was taking clouded his perception and judgment. He engaged in a bizarre series of behaviors that were designed to “win back” Ms. Silverman. He attempted to create situations that would cause her to conclude that she needed Wachtler’s advice and support again. As each effort failed, Wachtler attempted something more bizarre than his previous efforts. Eventually, Ms. Silverman figured out who was orchestrating these events. Because they had begun to take on a threatening tone, she contacted law enforcement authorities. One of Wachtler’s tactics had been to pretend to be a man named David Purdy, who had harassed Ms. Silverman (in the hope that she would be prompted to call on Wachtler for help). When Wachtler (acting as Purdy) sent a letter to Joy Silverman’s daughter demanding $20,000 to make him leave her alone, the FBI arrested Wachtler for extortion. Eventually, Wachtler pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening letter and was sentenced to a term of fifteen months in federal prison. While in prison, Wachtler kept a journal of events that occurred to him or that he observed and his thoughts about these occurrences. According to him, his motivation for keeping the journal was to preserve his own sanity2 and was initiated, in part at least, at the urging of Thomas Wolfe, author of The Right Stuff and Bonfire of the Vanities.3 It was while listening to a talk radio show one night while in prison that Wachtler decided there might be some merit in publishing his journal. The talk show host and his guest, who had written an article about prisons, had complained that living conditions in prisons were not harsh enough. Wachtler took issue with their comments and concluded that publishing his journal might help educate the public about the realities of prison life.4 After the Madness is really a book with three very different perspectives. One perspective presents reminiscences about events in Wachtler’s life that he reflected upon while in prison. A second perspective explores Wachtler’s thoughts about issues of public importance linked to his prison experiences. For example, Wachtler shares his opinions about the merits of solitary confinement as punishment, drug-testing prisoners, entrapment as a criminal defense, the death penalty, the law of confessions, and the exclusionary rule. He presents an extended critique of overly harsh sentencing in general and the effect of the federal sentencing guidelines in particular. He relates (in numerous places throughout the book) the stories of several prisoners he came to know in prison to illustrate unfair sentencing. The third perspective deals with Wachtler’s view of his life in prison. It is that perspective that is the focus of this review. Wachtler’s observations about prison life deal with four primary topics—the arbitrariness of prison officials, the needless insensitivity of prison officials to prisoners, the difficulties of living conditions in prisons, and important characteristics of most prisoners. Arbitrariness of Prison Officials Most of the arbitrariness on the part of prison officials that Wachtler describes deals with actions taken against him. The inference is that the arbitrariness shown Wachtler is likely to be shown other prisoners as well. This arbitrariness was exhibited from the outset of Wachtler’s tenure with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The judge who sentenced Wachtler recommended that he serve his sentence in a federal camp in Pensacola, Florida. Just three days before Wachtler began to serve his sentence, federal prison officials decided that he would be sent instead to a high security prison in Butner, North Carolina. The reason for this change in plans was never explained to Wachtler. (Butner has a substantial psychiatric unit, and Wachtler was, by his own admission, mentally ill. However, Wachtler seems to view this change in plans as motivated by punitive, rather than therapeutic reasons).5 After Wachtler had gotten “settled in” at Butner, a job had to be found for him. Wachtler became aware that a need for someone to operate the prison law library had just arisen. Quite logically, Wachtler volunteered for the job. The reaction of his counselor to this request was near laughter. He was told that his presence in the law library would create too much of an attraction and would disturb prison routine. Not only would Wachtler not be assigned as law librarian, but he was told to stay away from the prison law library. (Wachtler realized, of course, that the prison legally could not prevent him from using the law library, but he decided that it was in his own best interest not to challenge prison authority on this point).6 Less than two months into Wachtler’s sentence, he was stabbed twice in his back one Sunday evening while he was lying in his bunk (whether he was asleep or in that ambiguous state between full sleep and being awake, Wachtler cannot recall). Fortunately, the wounds were not serious and were promptly treated by a physician’s assistant. From Wachtler’s perspective, however, the prison’s handling of this incident was arbitrary in at least two respects. First, when a member of the prison security staff interviewed Wachtler as part of his investigation of the stabbing, he presented Wachtler with his conclusion that the stab wounds were self-inflicted.7 Wachtler pointed out that this would have been virtually impossible, since the wounds were near the middle of his back. The investigator responded by suggesting that Wachtler may have employed another inmate to perform the task for him because Wachtler wanted to be transferred out of Butner. Wachtler pointed out that employing another inmate to stab him would have been extremely risky, both for him (just how sure could he have been that this inmate would have inflicted only minor injuries?) and the inmate (if the inmate was found out, he most certainly would have been disciplined severely). What’s more, Wachtler did not want to be transferred out of Butner. While he was not terribly fond of Butner, he had been removed from solitary confinement and had adjusted relatively well to life in the mental health unit. Even if he had wanted a transfer and had succeeded in getting one, he could not have known where he would be transferred. He might just as well have ended up somewhere worse than Butner. The arbitrariness of this action was reinforced for Wachtler by the investigator’s contention that the stabbing incident would make a good chapter in Wachtler’s book. (Apparently, the prison staff had become aware that Wachtler was keeping a journal). Though the investigator persisted in his theory that Wachtler had arranged his own stabbing, he was detained in solitary—purportedly for his own good—while he recuperated. The last incident in After the Madness that suggests the arbitrariness of prison officials affected all inmates at Butner.8 The showing of movies in the television room was popular with prisoners. Seating was on a “first come, first seated” basis, but sometimes there were not enough chairs to accommodate inmate demand. The work schedules of some inmates made it impractical for them to arrive before other inmates—especially those inmates who virtually camped out in the TV room. So inmates had developed their own seat reservation system. Inmates would place some object (usually a towel) on a chair to reserve that chair for the evening’s movie. Although it may seem odd that a bunch of convicted criminals would abide by such an informal system that was grounded on the extension of courtesy to each other, Wachtler assures the reader that the system worked. For some unexplained reason, the prison staff did not like this system. One day, they removed all the markers that inmates had placed on chairs. That evening, several inmates engaged in disagreements about who had marked what chairs. The disagreement resulted in several bloody fights. An informal system that had minimized conflict among inmates was arbitrarily undermined. Insensitivity of Prison Officials to Prisoners Wachtler does not argue that prison staff should develop close relations with prisoners. He does maintain, however, that in spite of their crimes, prisoners should be treated with a certain minimal level of courtesy because all human beings are entitled to some dignity. He relates several incidents that represent a failure to extend even this basic courtesy. He concludes that, as far as most prison officials are concerned, the inmates may as well be invisible—they are nonpersons.9 The first act of insensitivity occurred even before Wachtler began to serve his sentence, although he did not become aware of the discourtesy until he arrived at Butner.10 As part of the process of helping a newly incarcerated prisoner adjust to prison life, Wachtler’s probation officer sent him some basic instructions. They indicated that in prison he could have books, family pictures, and a radio with earphones. Wachtler and his wife dutifully packed a duffel bag with these (and other) items. When he arrived at Butner, he discovered that what his instructions meant was that after he arrived in prison, he could receive books (paperbacks only, unless the book came from a publisher or bookstore), family pictures, and a radio that were sent to him from the outside. All these items that Wachtler had brought with him were sent home. Apparently, prison officials assumed that soon-to-be inmates would intuitively understand that this was the rule. Another insensitivity involved Wachtler’s transfer to another prison.11 After three months at Butner, Wachtler was told that the psychiatric staff at Butner had decided that his mental illness was more serious than originally thought, and he needed treatment at Rochester Prison—a federal facility associated with the Mayo Clinic. He was given a date that he would be transferred. The day before this date, he was awakened by a guard at five in the morning and told that he had to be ready to leave for Minnesota in fifteen minutes. He was later told that the change in plans occurred because of an unexpected opportunity to send Wachtler to Rochester on a plane with another inmate from another nearby federal institution who was also being flown to Rochester. Unexpected as this opportunity may have been, it seems likely that Butner officials had more than fifteen minutes notice of it. Two other incidents of insensitivity involved medical treatment. After he received treatment for his stab wounds from a physician’s assistant (not a doctor—itself a kind of insensitivity), Wachtler was in considerable pain, which was aggravated by his prison bunk (basically a metal shelf with a three-inch mattress on it). Although Wachtler requested a prescription-strength painkiller, he was given only a choice of Tylenol or Motrin.12 The other medical incident involved Wachtler’s participation in a Fourth of July picnic race.13 Some other inmates convinced him that it would help out their unit if Wachtler participated in an over-fifty race against another inmate from another unit. During the race, Wachtler stepped in a gopher hole and took a very hard fall, injuring his ribs. Wachtler, in considerable pain, was seen again by a physician’s assistant, who indicated that it would be Tuesday (the race had been on a Friday afternoon) before X-rays could be taken to determine if the ribs were cracked or broken. For three days, Wachtler slept on his padded metal shelf with no medication (and with lingering bronchitis that caused him to cough frequently, further irritating the rib injury). When Tuesday came, the X-rays were finally taken. Waiting for the results of the X-rays, someone finally asked Wachtler why he was still there. When he indicated that he was awaiting his X-ray results, he was told that it would be a few days before the X-rays were ready. After Wachtler finished serving his sentence several months later, he visited a doctor who took another set of X-rays of his ribs. The doctor indicated (the same day) that Wachtler had broken four ribs. “The pain must have been excruciating,” the doctor said.14 It was during this broken rib episode that Wachtler experienced another interesting example of prison officials’ insensitivity. When Wachtler went back for his Tuesday X-rays, a nurse asked for his identification card and then called him “Ashtler.” When Wachtler indicated that his name started with a “W,” the nurse insisted that there was no “W” before his name on the ID card. Wachtler indicated that was because a clerk had cut off the “W” in preparing the card for lamination, but she would be able to see that there was indeed a “W” at the beginning of his last name on his signature. After a long pause, the nurse reluctantly called him “Washtler.” Wachtler indicates that he bothered to relate this seemingly insignificant encounter because “I believe it was the first time since being in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons [over nine months] that I was able to convince any member of the staff that I, a prisoner, was on the right side of the argument. I only wish that the focus of my victory had been something more dramatic and significant than the pronunciation of my own name.”15 In another incident, Wachtler was told by a nurse (who had conducted his monthly check of vital signs) that he should have his blood pressure checked again that evening because it was a little high. As he was returning from religious services that evening, he saw the nurse leaving. He approached her and asked her who was going to check his blood pressure, since she was leaving. She indicated that another nurse would do it and was expecting him. Not long after that, Wachtler heard a PA announcement directing him to report to the office of the guard responsible for security in his wing. In a very gruff and confrontational manner, the guard asked Wachtler what he had said to the nurse. When he said he had asked her who was going to check his blood pressure, the guard said, “Didn’t you say ‘high blood pressure’? I was there, buddy—I heard you say ‘high blood pressure.’” When Wachtler indicated that he might have said something about “high blood pressure,” the guard replied, “If I ever hear you make another wise-ass remark like that, I’m going to throw you in the hole [solitary confinement]. You better watch your mouth—and don’t ever forget who and what you are!”16 The last example of insensitivity involves implementation of the “compassionate release” program. Under this program, terminally-ill patients in imminent threat of death can request an early release so that they can die with their families. An inmate friend of Wachtler who worked in the terminally-ill ward at Rochester obtained the records of terminally-ill inmates who had requested compassionate release in the previous year. In six cases that had denied the compassionate release request, four of the inmates had already died.17 Wachtler concluded that there is not much compassion in the compassionate release program. Difficult Living Conditions While it is not unusual to hear members of the public complain about the “country club conditions” of modern prisons, it is clear from Wachtler’s description of life in the two federal prisons where he was incarcerated that conditions in prison are in fact quite difficult. The arbitrariness and insensitivity of prison officials discussed in the previous two sections contribute to this environment. The things that make living in prison so difficult range from small indignities to substantial dangers. At the “small indignities” end of the spectrum, Wachtler noticed as soon as he began to serve his sentence how hard it was to adjust to confinement in a very small place (his first cell was ten feet by twelve feet, but many prison cells are much smaller) with no pillow, and a padded steel shelf that served as a bed, and a disturbingly high noise level (especially at night).18 He had difficulty reading as a diversion because prison officials would not allow him to use his contact lenses (the liquid cleaners can be adulterated with contraband and are too difficult to inspect). After much red tape, the prison let Wachtler’s wife send him generic, off-the-rack reading glasses. After a while, these glasses were no longer effective. Wachtler was in prison nearly eight months before the Bureau of Prisons finally provided him with prescription bifocals.19 Raw sewage sometimes backed up into Wachtler’s cell.20 At times his cell was infested with cockroaches.21 But the most serious of these “small indignities” was the absence of things that free persons take so much for granted, like privacy and freedom of movement, the ability to smell fresh air or see the blue sky, and the opportunity to enjoy a time of quiet.22 The reader gets the clear impression that these small indignities are really not so small at all. One of the larger problems concerned access to medical care. It is obvious from the prison’s treatment of Wachtler’s stab wounds and the broken ribs suffered in his fall during the Fourth of July sprint race that the quality of medical care was quite low. Physician’s assistants were used as gatekeepers to determine which medical problems deserved the attention of a doctor. Wachtler was fortunate that the injuries he suffered in prison were not more serious. His descriptions of the medical treatment he received do not inspire confidence that more serious problems would be given sufficient attention to insure that they would not become life-threatening.23 Another larger problem mentioned by Wachtler is given surprisingly little attention. He refers to it as “the world of loneliness.”24 He cites an old saying that “you come into prison alone, and you leave alone.”25 Some popular cultural representations of prison life show the development of close personal relationships in prison. In the movie The Shawshank Redemption, for example, the two main characters develop a close friendship that persists even after both prisoners are out of prison (one through parole; the other through escape). Wachtler indicates that prison “is not the place to make lasting friendships.”26 He appears to attribute this to the fact that prisoners are led to think very poorly of themselves and of each other. Apparently he feels that this lack of regard for each other gives them little incentive to seek each other’s friendship. In the end, it is not Wachtler’s discussion of the loneliness issue that conveys the message so much as the sense of loneliness that pervades his entire discussion of the prison experience. Wachtler mentions at least a couple dozen prisoners with whom he interacted in prison. In none of these descriptions is there any sense that he “connected” with any of them in a really personal and meaningful way. There is a sense that he was not only “doing time” but “biding time”—biding time until he could be back with his family and the friends he had before going to prison.27 The last of the larger problems that constitute part of a prisoner’s living conditions is the one that most people probably think of first when they think about prison living conditions—the dangers faced by inmates. The two greatest dangers are physical and sexual assault, although the lack of adequate medical attention might constitute another significant danger. Surprisingly, Wachtler makes no mention at all of the preva- lence or risk of sexual assault in the two prisons where he was incarcerated, a significant omission from his book. Wachtler also does not discuss the danger of physical assault in a systematic way. As we have already seen, he was stabbed in the back while dozing one evening in his bunk at Butner. He also describes an incident in the TV room at Rochester one evening when he and about a dozen other inmates were watching a movie. A “Marielito” (a Cuban immigrant who came to this country as part of the large Cuban emigration during the Carter Administration and who had been imprisoned on suspicion of criminal behavior in Cuba) came into the room and abruptly changed the station to a Spanish-speaking station. When the other inmates protested his action, he refused to change the station back. The other inmates looked to Wachtler to mediate this incident (as he says they often did). When Wachtler tried to speak to the Marielito inmate about what he had done, the inmate picked up a chair and used it to hit another inmate who approached him. The other inmates then subdued the Marielito. These incidents certainly suggest that prison is a dangerous place to be. However, it is striking that Wachtler does not mention how other inmates feel about the extent to which they feel a sense of danger in prison and what steps, if any, they take to protect themselves. It is also noteworthy that Wachtler’s journal does not suggest that he was very anxious about his own safety in prison. There is little, if any, discussion about things Wachtler did to protect himself from physical or sexual attack, even after he had been a victim of a physical attack. There is an incident described early in the book where a well-known bank robber from New York (given the pseudonym Dave Pistone) tells Wachtler that he will “take care” of anyone who threatens Wachtler.28 It may be that this assurance allayed Wachtler’s concerns about being attacked. At best, this is only a partial explanation, however, because Pistone was with Wachtler at Butner but was not with Wachtler during the eight months he spent at Rochester. Important Characteristics of Prisoners In spite of Wachtler’s loneliness and the inability to make real friendships in prison, he seems to have had extensive conversations with other prisoners. This suggests that in spite of substantial differences in backgrounds, upbringings, educational levels, social standing, interests, and value systems, Wachtler and some of the prisoners were able to find common ground. This may say something about the bond among inmates that the prison system creates or the innate human need for social contact, but whatever the explanation, the interesting point is that in spite of these substantial personal differences, there was nothing that prevented Wachtler and these inmates from interacting socially. How much of his own personal experiences Wachtler shared with them, we cannot tell. Wachtler suggests they shared significant personal experiences with him. (Of course, whether what they told him was true is another matter). All of this is important because it indicates that regardless of the illegal behavior that these men engaged in, many (perhaps most) of them had sufficiently appealing personalities that Wachtler wanted to interact with them, for whatever reasons. Another interesting characteristic of the inmates with whom Wachtler interacted was their attitudes about their own crimes. The standard wisdom on this issue is that inmates deny committing the crimes that resulted in their incarceration. As Red tells Andy in The Shawshank Redemption when he admits to and describes the crime that brought him to prison, “I’m the only guilty prisoner at Shawshank.” Wachtler’s experience was different. He found that inmates freely admitted their crimes. They often tried to minimize the significance of their crimes, or they complained about the appropriateness of their sentence. Most often, they complained that the police induced them to commit their crimes, but they did not deny their guilt.29 Inmates place great important on visits from family and friends. After the Madness includes numerous descriptions of visits Wachtler received. These visits seem to have uplifted Wachtler’s spirits and helped give him the determination to endure the difficulties of prison life. They also helped counteract the psychological effects of the way he was treated by prison officials. If they viewed him as “invisible” and a nonperson, visits from family and friends reminded him that there were still people who valued him and considered him a person of worth. Of course, Wachtler was lucky in this respect. He enjoyed advantages that many of his fellow prisoners did not enjoy; he was serving a short sentence. It is much easier for family and friends to stand by a loved one who will soon be back among them. One of the ironies of the importance of visits is that the longer the sentence being served, the greater the inmate’s need for the support provided by visits. However, the longer the sentence, the less likely it is that the inmate will receive this support. Wachtler also had family and friends with the financial means to pay for the trips to the places where he was incarcerated. The family and friends of an inmate of limited means could not easily have made the trips from New York to North Carolina and Minnesota. What’s more, Wachtler’s status in the legal community brought him a few visits of the kind that other inmates would not be likely to receive. One of the more moving incidents in After the Madness is the description of a visit that Wachtler received at Rochester from Justice Harry Blackmun when Blackmun was at the Mayo Clinic for a physical examination.30 Blackmun embraced Wachtler and expressed his admiration for Wachtler. It is difficult to overestimate the reaffirming effect that such an incident must have had on Wachtler, who had accepted responsibility for his crime and was attempting to rebuild his life.31 Wachtler also points out that while visits are terribly important to inmates, they can be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, Wachtler was delighted to see family members and friends, but especially with his family, he hated the fact that the visit served to remind his loved ones of the shameful thing he had done that had brought them confusion, disappointment, and embarrassment.32 He also points out that after the generally uplifting experience of the visit, he had to endure the degrading indignity of a strip search before he could return to his cell.33 Thus visits were not entirely positive experiences. Perhaps the most important characteristic of inmates is their need for respect. “If you asked a prisoner what means most to someone in this environment, he would tell you, ‘Respect.’ That is not to say deference, or special treatment—just the respect due to any person who is a decent human being.”34 Numerous incidents described in After the Madness illustrate this point. At Rochester, a physical exam had detected calcium in Wachtler’s blood. This can be an indicator of a cancerous lesion or tumor, so Wachtler’s doctor arranged for him to receive a bone scan at the nearby Mayo Clinic. When the time came for Wachtler to be escorted to the clinic, the guard who came to take him brought with him some chains to shackle Wachtler during the trip. This was standard procedure at Rochester Prison. Wachtler indicates that for the first time since going to prison, he refused to do what he was told to do. The guard indicated that unless Wachtler was shackled, he would not receive the bone scan. Wachtler responded by saying that “if being chained like an animal is a condition of receiving medical treatment, then I refuse medical treatment.”35 Another incident concerned the quality of food being served in the mess hall at Rochester Prison.36 The quality of the food, which was never high to begin with, had deteriorated noticeably during Wachtler’s short time there. Some of the inmates had had enough. They decided to organize a food boycott, even though they knew that the consequences, if caught, would be severe. The five ringleaders of the boycott picked a supper when liver was on the menu. (Apparently this particular meal was picked because inmates generally dislike liver under the best of circumstances, so it was thought that participation in the boycott would be higher for this meal). They posted flyers in the bathrooms, urging their fellow prisoners to pass up this meal. Word of the planned boycott reached the warden. He called a couple dozen inmates into his office individually for a chat. Shortly thereafter, the five boycott organizers were placed in solitary confinement. Although this incident was superficially about a desire for better food, it can also be seen as a protest about respect. The inmates saw the deteriorating quality of their meals as an affront to them as human beings entitled to decent food. At least five of them were willing to risk substantial punishment to make a statement about this lack of respect. Wachtler contends this lack of respect from prison officials is pervasive. According to Wachtler, it contributes to an enduring desire on the part of inmates to “beat the man.” This phrase describes any action by an inmate that circumvents the rules and normal practices of the prison. It includes things like sneaking food out of the mess hall, making homemade wine, cooking meals in your cell, or having a tattoo made. When one inmate “beats the man,” all inmates take some pleasure in the accomplishment. Even Wachtler, who was clearly a “model prisoner,” tried once to “beat the man.” One particularly bad supper consisted of very dry hamburgers on very dry buns. However, it also included an individual-sized bag of potato chips. This was a food item that was packaged in such a way that even the prison chefs could not ruin it. Wachtler felt an urge to save the chips for a midnight snack. He decided that since he was wearing a bulky sweatshirt, it should not be difficult for him to conceal the bag of chips under the sweatshirt. Although this seems like a fairly easy “caper” to pull off, Wachtler was not up to the task. On his way out of the mess hall, Wachtler was approached by three guards who asked him what he had under his sweater. Rather than simply admitting what he had done, Wachtler pulled up his shirt and the bag of chips fell to the ground. Everyone who witnessed this event found it quite funny— everyone except Wachtler. Conclusion After the Madness is not a literary classic. Nor is it the book I would recommend to those who want to read an insightful book about prison experience. Nevertheless, it is a well-written and engaging book, even if it has serious shortcomings. A good example is the lack of depth (and at times lack of clarity) in Wachtler’s treatment of the compassionate release program.37 He criticizes prison officials because the case files he saw (provided him by a fellow inmate who worked in the terminally-ill ward of the Rochester hospital) indicated that four of the six inmates whose files he examined died before a decision was made in their cases. However, there is no indication of whether these six files were the only files he saw, whether they were all of the inmates who sought compassionate release over a period of time (or were hand-picked by Wachtler’s inmate acquaintance), or the precise nature of their cases. Perhaps the inmates waited longer than they should have to apply. Perhaps their terminal illnesses progressed too rapidly to provide a reasonable time for prison officials to act on the request. Nor is one given any description of the decision-making process to permit a more informed judgment about the reason-ableness of the decisions that were made. Nor is any thought given to the possibility that the prison had experienced cases of abuse of the process by inmates that had caused prison officials to become more cautious in their decision-making process. The issue of the quality of medical treatment is another example of lack of depth. Wachtler seems to complain that he was not given prescription-level painkillers after he was stabbed in his cell38 or after he broke four ribs in a fall during the Fourth of July picnic.39 However, he gives no consideration to the issue of inmates exaggerating or fabricating their need for painkillers as a way to obtain these pills for their own “recreational” use or to sell to other inmates. Another example of lack of depth: After other inmates had subdued the “Marielito” inmate who threatened Wachtler with a chair in the TV room, they told Wachtler to hit the inmate because he had “dissed” Wachtler. Wachtler indicates that prisoners will not tolerate being disrespected,40 but says that being “dissed” never bothered him very much. Ultimately, Wachtler refused to strike the Marielito inmate, and the other inmates essentially “took care” of the disrespect shown Wachtler. Wachtler does not discuss what effect, if any, this incident had on the respect shown him by the inmates who had intervened on his behalf. On occasion, Wachtler is unclear about important points. We have already seen one example of this in the discussion of his criticism of the compassionate release program.41 Another example concerns his discussion of prison snitches. Early in the book, Wachtler indicates that there is no disgrace in being a snitch at Butner.42 In two other places, however, he indicates that being branded a snitch “would incur the enmity of all . . . fellow inmates”43 and the “only class of persons detested more than the hacks [guards] . . . is the snitches.”44 In one of the places, he seems to use the term “snitch” to refer to someone who had informed on his associates in a criminal enterprise, while in the other two places, the term seems to refer to an inmate who has informed on another inmate. However, Wachtler never clarifies whether the type of snitch one is makes a difference, nor does he explain the apparent contradiction between his first comment about snitches and his last two comments. Another lack of clarity can be seen in Wachtler’s description of an incident that occurred during a visit from several family members on his sixty-fourth birthday.45 Wachtler relates his enjoyment at observing his three-year-old granddaughter, Kim, playing with the daughter of another inmate. Afterward, Kim approached one of the guards, who treated her “rudely and with impatience.” This incident was described to illustrate (again) how insensitive prison officials can be to prisoners and their families. However, since Wachtler does not describe what really happened between Kim and the guard, one has to rely on Wachtler’s judgment that the guard was rude and impatient with her. Wachtler’s discussion of medical treatment received by inmates is another case in point.46 His mention of the failure to give him pain-killers and the delayed X-rays for his rib injuries convey a message that prison officials were almost indifferent to his medical needs. On the other hand, his description of the nurse who checked his blood pressure, a doctor he encountered when he first arrived at Rochester,47 and the concern about the presence of calcium in his blood create somewhat different impressions. Wachtler makes no effort to reconcile these inconsistent observations. At times, Wachtler gives insufficient consideration to the prison’s side of things, as for example in his criticism of the prison’s handling of the compassionate release program and its refusal to give Wachtler prescription-strength painkillers.48 Another example involves his description of the way the prison dealt with the informal reservation system that inmates had developed to permit inmates who could not make it early to the TV room for the showing of a movie to reserve a chair for themselves.49 The method inmates had developed for reserving chairs seemed to work well and to minimize conflict amongst inmates. However, again one must take Wachtler’s word for this. He makes no effort to try to explain what the guards’ motives were for their actions. Nor does he even posit the possibility that there might have been something about this informal reservation system that had created some problem of which he was unaware. These criticisms of After the Madness are not insignificant. Yet, Wachtler never suggests that his book is an attempt to present a systematic account of prison life or a thorough criticism of the way prisons are run. He presents it only for the purpose of giving the public a more realistic portrayal of prison life than they usually get from the media. With that goal as a measuring stick, After the Madness succeeds admirably. |
