TDCJ has rejected the ACLU's request for TV on death row (see article below). But if it were granted, what shows should death row inmates be required to watch?


Death row inmates under television blackout

Opponents say state is ignoring a tool to control the condemned
By STEVE MCVICKER
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

A proposal to give death row inmates access to television is getting poor reception from the head of the state prison system's board of directors.

Of the 38 states that have capital punishment, Texas is the only one that does not allow condemned prisoners at least limited access to TV, say attorneys with the Texas American Civil Liberties Union. They also are the only Texas inmates who aren't allowed some amount of viewing time, a privilege that some experts believe helps ease behavior problems.


The ban doesn't appear likely to change in the near future, say ACLU officials, who can't get the chairwoman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice to even discuss the subject.


In May, ACLU prison project litigation director Yolanda Torres attempted to broach the idea in a letter to Chairwoman Christina Melton Crain.


"We believe it is significant that every other death row in the country has successfully developed and implemented policies and practices that allow death row prisoners access to television, while at the same time maintaining the safety and security of their employees and institutions," Torres wrote.


Crain responded two months later that the issue was not open for debate.


"I appreciate the passion and energy that you bring to matters for which you advocate," Crain wrote. "But as the Board and the current Administration do not wish to entertain this issue further, dialogue between you and me on this subject is now closed."


Crain did not respond to requests from the Houston Chronicle for an interview. However, through a spokesman, she e-mailed a brief statement.


"The Texas Department of Criminal Justice does not provide television privileges to offenders (on) ... death row," she stated, "and the board of criminal justice has no plans to amend this policy."



Stark difference
Life on death row has been drastically different since 1999, when the condemned inmates were moved from the Ellis Unit in Huntsville, where they were allowed to watch television, to what is now the Polunsky Unit in Livingston.



Privileges for death row inmates were reduced to the level of administrative segregation, or solitary confinement.


Now condemned prisoners are confined for 23 hours each day in their cells, which measure 6 1/2 feet by 10 feet. They receive one hour of daily recreation, either in an inside recreation yard or outdoor recreation area. They also receive their meals in their cells, are escorted to showers once daily and are escorted to the infirmary if they need medical care.


Death row inmates no longer participate in work programs.


They can be interviewed by the news media on Wednesdays and are allowed to meet with their attorneys Monday through Friday and occasionally on weekends through special arrangement.


Condemned inmates also may have visits from approved spiritual advisers and one general visit per week for a two-hour period. That period can be extended if a visitor has traveled more than 300 miles.


Death row prisoners also can receive newspapers and magazines through subscriptions and are allowed to spend $75 every 14 days in the unit's commissary on hygiene supplies and snacks.



Some don't see problem
The lack of TV viewing time is just fine with victims' rights activists.



"Convicted felons lose certain rights and privileges, and even more so for death row inmates," said Andy Kahan, victims' rights advocate for the city of Houston. "The pain, misery and grief that death row inmates have caused, committing some of the worst crimes known to mankind, should not be rewarded."


Kahan suggests that the inmates take out Book of the Month Club memberships and be required to write monthly book reports.


Dianne Clements of the group Justice For All adds that death row's configuration would require putting TV sets in individual cells.


That, she says, would provide another hiding place for contraband and a source for makeshift weapons. On Aug. 18, condemned murderer Jorge Salinas stabbed a prison guard 13 times with a metal rod from a typewriter. The guard was not seriously injured.


But the ACLU's Torres contends that, if 37 other prison systems found ways to provide TV access for death row, Texas officials should be able to do so.


Another supporter of TV on death row is Chase Riveland, the former director of the state prison systems in Washington and Colorado. He says some degree of access to television can be an important tool for keeping prisoners in line.


"In most jurisdictions, in order to have a television, an inmate has to have a good disciplinary record," said Riveland, now a consultant who has 36 years of correctional experience.


"If the inmates know they're going to lose their television if they misbehave, they're going to be very cautious about it, especially if they're in a lockdown situation (as in Texas), because that's their only real connection with the real world."


Riveland added that, in most other states, inmates' families pay for the TV sets.


"I can't even fathom why one wouldn't want to use such an inexpensive tool," he said.


He also suggests that the use of televisions on death row might actually ensure that inmates are mentally fit to be executed.


If kept in isolation, he said, "the odds of inmates becoming mentally ill are greatly enhanced."


"That, of course, then leads to all types of challenges against whether you can execute them," Riveland said. "And so, by not having televisions or other means of keeping them mentally alert, it may add to the taxpayer drain through additional litigation."



Reconsideration request
Texas ACLU Executive Director Will Harrell recently asked Crain to reconsider her "summary dismissal" of the organization's attempt to discuss the TV issue with prison officials.



Meredith Martin Rountree, the Texas ACLU's prison project director, believes Crain's decision is based on misguided popular opinion.


"TDCJ's job is not to pander to public misunderstandings and misconceptions about criminal justice," Rountree said.


"Its job is to run a safe and constitutional prison system and to make decisions based on sound, penological justifications.


"Every death row in the country has not only investigated this issue but has found that televisions are good management tools," Rountree said. "Why is TDCJ different?"

Isn't it sad when the bad killers (Gurule, et al.) ruin things for the good killers? Boo hoo hoo ...

John,

Have you watched TV lately? I do when I visit relatives or friends. I say put big screens in each individual cell, tune them only to the big 4 networks, and make it so they can NOT be turned off or turned down.

Ah, that would drive me crazy.

But, I haven't killed anybody and don't have all my meals brought to me. Perhaps if my mind were the kind that didn't mind killing or eating prison food, I also wouldn't mind watching network TV.

As it is, I recently added Netflix and expanded cable to my entertainment mix since it seems clear that network TV is really, really bad.

Now, we have one more problem for those teenagers on death row:

Teens who see sex on TV likelier to make it reality

From wire reports

CHICAGO�- Teenagers who watch a lot of television with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in intercourse than those who watch few such programs, according to a study published today.

The study covered 1,792 adolescents aged 12 to 17 who were quizzed on viewing habits and sexual activity and then surveyed again a year later. Both regular and cable television were included.


``This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities,'' said Rebecca Collins, a psychologist at the RAND Corp. who headed the study.


``The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in the sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behavior,'' she added.


The study found that youths who watched large amounts of programming with sexual content were also more likely to initiate sexual activities short of intercourse, such as oral sex.


It found that shows where sex was talked about but not depicted had just as much impact as the more explicit shows.� ''Both affect adolescents' perceptions of what is normal sexual behavior and propels their own sexual behavior,'' Collins said.


She said the 12-year-olds who watched a lot of sexual content behaved like the 14- or 15-years-olds who watched the least amount. ``The advancement in sexual behavior we saw among kids who watched a lot of sexual television was striking.''


Her comments were released in a statement in conjunction with publication of the study in the September issue of ''Pediatrics,'' the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.


The survey did not break down the amount of sexual exposure in terms of hours per week or percentages of material viewed, Collins said in an interview.


It did find that the 10 percent of those who watched the most television with sexual content were twice as likely to have initiated sexual intercourse when checked a year later than adolescents who were among the 10 percent who watched the least amount of sexual content.


``The best way for parents who are trying to figure out what is a lot versus little is to realize that the average (U.S.) child watches about three hours of television a day, and that the heaviest rates of sexual content are in prime time which is probably what those hours are made of,'' she said.


The report said earlier studies found that about two-thirds of TV entertainment programs contain sexual content, ranging from jokes and innuendo to intercourse and other behaviors.


The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

The Ana Nicole show should be enough punishment for death row inmates until it is their time to go.

Failing that, there are a number of reality shows I have read in the paper about that should be good fodder for them.

But really, are there not more important issues for the media and the do-gooders to concern themselves with other than tv for death row? Hungry children and children without medical insurance would seem to be of more moral and humanitarian concern than tv for convicts.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in the Texas and United States Constitutions, I didn't see any mention of mercy in general or tv specifically for death row inmates.

Something that keeps creeping into my normally pleasant and tolerant nature, forcing its ugly head through the facade of patience and civility I strive to maintain, is why stars, television and otherwise, find it so fulfilling to champion the causes of cold-blooded killers who have had to work (strenuously, usually) at receiving a death sentence in the first place...? Why is that so much fun for the Glovers, Sarandons, Bianca J.'s and others of what we in the business call "the industry" -- not that I'm in the business. Why is it not just as honorable and humane to take the sides of victims and their loved ones? Oh, yes, why aren't the bleeding hearts imploring for TVs on behalf of "lesser" inmates across the state who don't have televisions? In Ad Seg cellblocks from Beaumont to Beeville, New Boston to Childress and in between, there aren't television sets for the convicts. And many of those convicts will be "out" someday, living in your neighborhoods, working at your fast food joints. They can't even watch Food Network, for Pete's sake.

This whole discussion just borders on the insane. But then again, when in comes to positions advocated by the ACLU, nothing surprises me any more. If it's supported by the majority, the ACLU is against it. I wonder, if there ever comes a time when the majority in this country opposes the death penalty, whether the ACLU will begin advocating that convicted capital murderers have a constitutional right to be executed. This organization is just completely out of touch with the American mainstream; and takes pride in it.

With respect to Glover, Sarandon and other aging "celebrities" coddling death row inmates, A.P., I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. They are simply struggling to keep from becoming irrelevant. They are so insecure in their little artificial worlds that they measure their worth and self-esteem by the amount of media exposure they receive. The only way they can achieve this exposure is by advocating some extreme, fringe position that attracts the attention of liberal newspapers like the Houston Chronicle.

A.P., I thought you were part of "the industry" since you have a band. Don't get me wrong, I know you are the conservative part of "the industry." But only someone who is part of "the industry" can rock out with "Don't Come a Knockin' When the House is a Rockin'."

Well, Mark, thanks for the plug -- we are available for -bookings- (to borrow a term from the law enforcement world, heh, heh). By "conservative" are you referring to the band's version of that blues classic "Crossroads" with lead riffs played on a 5-string banjo? I always thought that was kind of unique, of course I'm the only one who thinks that; the other fellows think it would be good punishment to make death row inmates who don't have TV listen to it. But here I go again, drifting from the subject, attempting to get free publicity.

I still can't get past this notion of the ACLU that watching TV helps keep the inmates competent and reduces the incidence of mental illness. I'd truly like to see any studies that say that more TV is good for your mental health. More "Fear Factor," more "Jerry Springer," more silly reality shows and sitcoms with laugh tracks.

And don't kids who misbehave and get grounded often lose their TV privileges? Why should DEATH ROW be BETTER than a teenage grounding? I think the ACLU must need to watch more TV. They've come unhinged.