Figure 1
Figure 1, a chart describing the correctional facilities’ responsibilities and the victim’s rights following a gassing attack. The first section describes aftercare, which includes the medical and psychological aftercare for the victim. A correctional facility must offer the victim medical treatment communicable disease testing, and the right to test the inmate for communicable diseases. The victim can file workers’ compensation to obtain employer-covered medical care and temporary disability benefits. Further, the correctional facility must inform the victim if it has knowledge that the inmate perpetrator is infected with a communicable disease, as well as informing the victim of the inmate’s communicable disease test results, and victim’s own test results. Psychological aftercare procedures entail the correctional facility offering victims mental health counseling, peer counseling, and the Employee Assistance Program. The second section outlines the investigation and prosecution procedures, which includes the correctional facility’s completion of the incident report. The correctional facility must complete an incident report, investigate and collect evidence, send the gassing substance for testing, and refer the case to the district attorney. The district attorney either charges the inmate with a crime or declines to prosecute. If the district attorney charges the inmate, the inmate is either found guilty, and two, three, or four years are added to the inmate’s sentence, or found not guilty. The third section describes the internal discipline and preventative measures that a correctional facility uses to prevent future gassing attacks. After a gassing attack, the correctional facility will notify the inmate of violation and conduct a discipline hearing. Inmates may receive the following types of discipline: secured housing, loss of privileges, loss of credit time, or disciplinary diet. The correctional facility can implement various preventative measures including secured housing, door barriers, hand-held or portable shields, cell “gasser” tags, face shields, biohazard suits, and gloves.
Figure 2
Figure 2, a chart describing the effects of four communicable diseases that victims can contract from the bodily fluids used in a gassing attack. These four communicable diseases are Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) that weakens the immune system, decreasing and eventually destroying a person’s ability to fight off infections and disease. HIV infections can eventually lead to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Hepatitis B that is an inflammation of the liver caused by a virus. Acute cases are short-term infections that range in severity from a mild illness to a serious condition requiring hospitalization. Chronic cases can lead to liver damage, liver cancer, and death. Tuberculosis (TB) including latent TB, which is non symptomatic and con contagious, can lead to contagious TB disease. TB disease affects the lungs as well as the brain, kidneys, and spine, and it can be fatal if not treated. Finally, Hepatitis C that is an inflammation of the liver caused by a virus. Infection can result in a short-term illness, but for a majority of infected people, chronic infection develops that can cause liver disease, liver cancer, or death.
Figure 3
Figure 3, a bar graph comparing the average number of gassing attacks per year per 1,000 inmates from 2015 to 2017 for the three correctional facilities we reviewed—CIM, Men’s Central and Santa Rita—and 10 additional California state prisons. Starting from the left side, the graphic shows the following gassing attacks per 1,000 inmates for 10 California state prisons are 5.3 for the California Men’s Colony; none for Avenal State Prison; 2.6 for Mule Creek State Prison; 0.4 for the California State Prison, Solano; 4 for the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility; 0.2 for the Correctional Training Facility; 0.6 for the Valley State Prison for Women; 2.3 for the San Quentin State Prison; 1.1 for the California Correctional Institution; and 0.2 for the Centinela State Prison. Finally, in a shaded area on the right side of the bar chart are the three correctional facilities that we reviewed and the graphic shows the gassing attacks per 1,000 inmates are 2.5 for CIM; 6.3 for Santa Rita; and 18.9 for Men’s Central.
Figure 4
Figure 4 is a bar chart that shows the average number of days the three correctional facilities we reviewed—CIM, Men’s Central, and Santa Rita—took to complete 3 steps in an investigation process following a gassing attack. The three steps are Step 1, facility evidence collection; Step 2, detective review’ and Step 3, crime laboratory testing. The bar chart shows that CIM took, on average, a total of 89 days to complete its investigations, including 70 days for the facility to collect the evidence, and 29 days for a detective to review the case. CIM does not perform Step 3. Men’s Central took, on average, a total of 225 days to complete its investigations, including 15 days for the facility to collect the evidence, 70 days for the a detective to review the case, and 140 days for the crime laboratory to test the gassing substance to confirm the existence of bodily fluids. Finally, Santa Rita took, on average, a total of only 17 days for the facility to collect the evidence as it does not Steps 2 and 3.
Figure 5
Figure 5 presents five examples of preventative tools that the three correctional facilities we reviewed—CIM, Men’s Central and Santa Rita—use to mitigate gassing attacks. These preventative measures include images of the following: correctional officers in full-body biohazard suits and helmets; tags with the word “gasser” that attach to the outside of a cell that houses an inmates who has previously committed a gassing attack; hard-door (solid metal) cells; a Bio-Barrier protective shield that attaches to the outside of a hard door cell; and examples of face shields for correctional staff when moving or interacting with inmates who have committed previous gassing attacks.
Figure 6
Figure 6 presents five examples of potential hazards that enable gassing attacks at the three correctional facilities we reviewed—CIM, Men’s Central and Santa Rita. These potential hazards include images of the following: speaker ports on cell doors that inmates can throw bodily fluids through; a milk carton and a cup that inmates can use to throw or propel the bodily fluid; food ports on cell doors that inmates can throw bodily fluids through; open bar cell doors that inmates can throw bodily fluids through; and a linear layout that features a straight row of open bar cell doors that make it difficult for officers to see inmates and that make officers more vulnerable to a gassing attack.