Our Prisons Are Scarring People For Life And Democratic Lawmakers Want To Know How To Help
Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Grace Napolitano want the National Institute of Mental Health to research post-traumatic prison disorder.
Every year, 640,000 people are released from US prisons. As disappointing as this probably is for "tough on crime" folks who would prefer that everyone convicted of a crime just stay in prison forever (whether or not they are actually guilty), this is a fact.
It is also a fact that being incarcerated is an incredibly traumatic thing for people to experience. I hate the term "common sense," but the logical conclusion that most people would draw after thinking about it for more than 30 seconds is that of course it's traumatizing to be locked up in a jail or a prison for any amount of time. How could it not be?
Given this, Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) and Grace Napolitano (CA-31) have written a letter to the National Institute of Mental Health, asking them to do more research on post-traumatic prison disorder, also called post-incarceration syndrome — so that when people leave jails or prisons, we know how to help them better adjust to the world outside.
Our national strategy to support people who are formerly incarcerated and end the cycle of mass incarceration must address post-traumatic prison disorder. Every year, more than 640,000 people are released from state and federal prisons. The status of their mental health is a major determinant of what happens next in their journey. Strengthening familial relationships, maintaining steady employment, and developing productive habits require a positive mental well-being. Thus, investing in the mental health of the formerly incarcerated population decreases the risk of recidivism and bolsters community safety.
NIMH has an important role to play in supporting the mental health of people transitioning from jails and prisons. By researching and publishing findings on post-traumatic prison disorder, your agency will inform how Congress, state and local governments, and community-based organizations respond to the complex needs of people who experience incarceration.
For some, the trauma of incarceration isn't a bug so much as it is a feature. A lot of Americans like the idea of prisons being horrific places, because they have deeply absorbed the idea that this will scare people straight and deter them from committing crimes for fear of ending up there. This has not, by and large, been what has happened with our prison system. We know a lot of people go in and come out "worse" than they were previously — and while some of this could be chalked up to other prisoners being a bad influence and doling out crime tips, a lot of it is probably because going to prison is a traumatizing experience.
When some people go fishing, they just catch the fish, take a pose with it for the dating apps, and throw it back into the water thinking that it is the humane thing to do. That it's better to do this than to, say, take the fish home and eat it. Research shows, however, that having a giant hook pop through their lips is not only pretty upsetting for the fish, but that the hole in their lip makes it more difficult for them to suck up real, not-attached-to-a-fishing line food, making it harder for them to survive.
With incarceration, we are traumatizing people, on purpose, forcing them to become accustomed to that daily trauma and then sending them back into society with a big, giant hole in their lip like it's no big deal. And it's harder for them to survive as well. We know sending people into war frequently causes post-traumatic stress disorder and makes it difficult for those who come back to readjust to society. It's the same for prisoners.
The effects of trauma are not just that people feel badly or are upset. It can result in substance abuse, make it difficult to hold down a job, put strains on relationships with friends and family members, especially those who can never really understand what they went through. It happens whether or not they want it to, regardless of how tough or bootstrappy they are.
If we are going to put people in prison and send them back out again, we have to figure out how to heal them afterwards. By researching the effects of this trauma and finding out what would help, we're not just helping those people on a personal level, we are also helping ourselves as a society.
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Herschel, Grifty Walker
Wait that headline doesn't make sense.
Herschel Walker — Hey! Stop throwing stuff at me, this is real news! — appears to have been up to some some mind-blowingly grifty shenanigans during his failed 2022 run against Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia) last year, according to reporting from the Daily Beast Wednesday. The Beast acquired a bunch of emails between Walker and a company owned by a longtime family friend of Walker's, billionaire industrial mogul Dennis Washington, who made it big in molybdenum and copper mining in Montana in the '70s and then expanded into industrialist stuff. (His novelty record, "Big In Molybdenum," flopped, however.)
In March 2022, the Beast reports, Walker emailed an executive for one of Washington's companies, conveniently named The Washington Corporations, to ask for money, which candidates do all the time, no big whoop. Except, as reporter Roger Sollenberger explains, candidates definitely don't make the kind of ask Walker did, because it's almost certainly illegal as fuck:
Walker wasn’t just asking for donations to his campaign; he was soliciting hundreds of thousands of dollars for his own personal company—a company that he never disclosed on his financial statements.
Emails obtained by The Daily Beast—and verified as authentic by a person with knowledge of the exchanges—show that Walker asked Washington to wire $535,200 directly to that undisclosed company, HR Talent, LLC.
And the emails reveal that not only did Washington complete Walker’s wire requests, he was under the impression that these were, in fact, political contributions
In the best possible circumstances, legal experts told The Daily Beast, the emails suggest violations of federal fundraising rules; in the worst case, they could be an indication of more serious crimes, such as wire fraud.
The story is very careful to point out that even though he'd never run for office before, Walker was very well briefed on campaign finance rules from the time he started running in 2021. In one of the emails to Washington, Walker even explained the limits that could be given to his campaign and to his super PAC, "34N22," so he can't very well claim he was just a simple country millionaire former football player who'd like to be a werewolf maybe.
While we do have to talk about donation amounts and such, we won't be going into all the financial ins and outs, because 1) that's already in the Daily Beast story, and also 2) that would be Math.
Sollenberger adds that after Washington's people were informed by a third party that the money that had been wired to Walker's company couldn't actually be used for political purposes, an executive emailed Walker to ask if the money sent to HR Talent could be redirected to the super PAC instead, but that Walker "appears to have dismissed" those worries. The story now includes an update, noting that the day after it ran,
a spokesperson for Washington said Walker had refunded the money but did not respond to questions about when that happened.
Look, everything's fine here, we're fine. How are you?
When Walker was preparing for the runoff election against Raphael Warnock, a November 29 email from Tim McHugh, executive VP for the Washington Corporations, notes that after McHugh had spoken with Walker on the phone about a new $100,000 contribution to the campaign that Walker had requested, McHugh was informed that
"any funds sent to the HR Talent account cannot legally be used for political purposes. Political contributions must go to either the Team Herschel or 34N22 accounts. [...] We will need your assistance to get the prior contributions made to the HR Talent account in March corrected."
Sollenberger decodes that for us:
Walker was not allowed to solicit donations for the super PAC in excess of federal limits, which this amount of money explicitly was. But that was not McHugh’s concern; he was worried about the hundreds of thousands of dollars his boss had wired to HR Talent in March.
But instead of addressing those concerns, Walker wrote back with an email detailing how Washington and his two sons, Kyle and Kevin, could donate $10,800 to his campaign, his recount effort, and his super PAC, with the remainder to go to his company, HR Talent. Yes, again, right after McHugh said hey, I hear that can't be used for your campaign.
As Sollenberger 'splains,
The numbers suggest that Walker had worked out a $100,000 arrangement with each Washington, with 95 percent of their contributions going to Walker’s company instead of the super PAC. But while Dennis Washington’s $5,800 campaign donations from the time do appear in FEC records, the $95,400 never hit the super PAC’s account. Kyle and Kevin Washington did not donate any money after the November emails.
Long story short: There's a lot of hinky stuff in the emails, and campaign finance experts told Sollenberger over and over that they'd never seen anything so insanely grifty:
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center, called the arrangement “jaw-dropping.” Jordan Libowitz, communications director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said if Walker “used the campaign to funnel money into his own business, that’s one of the biggest campaign finance crimes I’ve ever heard of.” Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer and deputy executive director of Documented, remarked that the exchanges were “stunning and, to my knowledge, without parallel in recent history.”
“Campaign finance laws are designed to prevent massive under-the-table payments like those described here,” Fischer said. “While we don’t have all the facts, these emails point to highly illegal, potentially even criminal activity.”
Libowitz even went so far as to suggest that Walker's scheme appears to have out-Trumped Donald Trump, because while Trump used campaign donations at his own businesses over and over, there were actual goods and services being purchased at the going market rates (though perhaps on the high side of the going rate, ahem). “Here, the money isn’t being spent by the campaign on Herschel’s businesses," Libowitz told Sollenberger. "The money never even goes to the campaign. It just goes straight to him.”
But wait, there's more!
Ghosh, of the Campaign Legal Center, agreed that Walker appears to have violated campaign finance laws, calling the scheme “$500,000 of grift.”
“It appears to be a fake campaign solicitation, designed to just profit personally from someone. That’s brazen in a way that’s off the charts,” he said.
On top of that, Ghosh pointed out that campaign law requires candidates to report all their sources of income, so Walker's failure to list HR Talent LLC in his financial statements appears to violate the law too. Further, Ghosh said, if Walker had misled Washington about where the money was going — as certainly seems to be the case — "Then we’re in the world of just defrauding somebody."
“Sounds a lot like wire fraud if the money didn’t make it to the campaign or super PAC,” Ghosh said. “And the fact they tried to do it again shows they’re trying to squeeze this billionaire.”
So what happens now? That would be up to federal prosecutors, who we assume pay attention to the news. And golly, wouldn't it be something if more on this came out, like with all the stuff on Clarence Thomas that started turning up after ProPublica did some digging?
If this does turn into an investigation, and an investigation turns into an arrest, we have two words of advice for the federal agents assigned to bring Mr. Walker in: Silver bullets.
Yr Wonkette is funded by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep shocking you with these astonishing Republican grift antics.
Congratulations On Your CPAC Speaking Slot, Subway Vigilante Choke Hold Killer Guy
There should've been another way.
The New York Times greeted us this morning to the following headline: "Man Dies on Subway After Another Rider Places Him in Chokehold." The subhed continues the passive writing style: "Video shows the man flailing his arms and kicking his legs as he attempts to free himself."
Twitter
The actual story here is that a subway rider put a man into a chokehold, held him there for 15 minutes, and killed him in front of people. Yes, the 30-year-old dead man was, as witnesses report, acting in a “hostile and erratic manner” toward other passengers.
Juan Alberto Vazquez, a freelance journalist, filmed the encounter and posted it on his Facebook page.
"‘I don’t have food, I don’t have a drink, I’m fed up," the man screamed, according to Mr. Vazquez. "I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I’m ready to die."
PREVIOUSLY:Can We All Agree On A Humane, Non-Skull-Busting Solution To The Homeless Crisis?
This all happened Monday afternoon on a northbound F train. The New York City Police Department said in a statement that when their officers showed up at the Broadway and East Houston Street subway station, the 30-year-old man was unconscious. They took him to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.
Vazquez says that the disturbed rider was frightening but hadn't actually assaulted anyone. “It was a very tense situation because you don’t know what he’s going to do afterwards,” he said.
I lived in New York City for 15 years. Mentally disturbed, homeless people on the subway weren’t uncommon. Yes, it was often unsettling, but generally speaking, people kept their distance or went into a different car. I never watched another rider literally kill someone before my very eyes. That would stick with me. (My son is disabled, so he can't ride New York subways anyway, as the elevators rarely work, but during our last visit, I would much rather he'd have seen a disturbed, shouting man than a man killed in front of him.)
A 24-year-old approached the screaming rider and grabbed him. It's not a crime to be obnoxious on public transit, so we can debate whether this in itself counts as assault. It's hardly a de-escalation tactic for dealing with someone who's seemingly suffering from a mental health episode.
While the 24-year-old held the rider in the chokehold, two other passengers attempted to restrain the rider. Vazquez suggested that no one watching this thought the 30-year-old man could die.
“None of us were thinking that,” he said. “He was moving and he was defending himself.”
The problem is that a wannabe Batman learns how to apply a chokehold — perhaps in the carefully controlled environment of a martial arts class. There are rarely medical complications under those conditions, but in the uncontrolled environment of your average F train, putting an aggressive, mentally unwell person in a chokehold can easily result in a "fight or flight" adrenaline response. Like the fine print in a pharmaceutical ad, side effects may include "anoxic brain injury, stroke, cardiac arrhythmia, or trauma to neck structures. The latter may include carotid dissection, tracheal collapse, or bony fracture."
Vazquez's video shows the 30-year-old man flailing his arms and kicking his legs as he attempted to free himself from civilians who lacked the law enforcement authority to detain him. When he finally went limp, the passengers who'd witnessed this brutal assault remained in denial.
“He’ll be all right,” said one person on the train as several others looked down at the man’s motionless body.
He wasn't.
The police took the 24-year-old into custody for questioning but later released him. The 30-year-old's death has not been ruled a homicide, and although police are still investigating, a spokesperson's description of events would make you think the 24-year-old was one of New York's finest rather than some random dude. (By the way, the New York Supreme Court banned law enforcement's use of chokeholds on suspects.)
"Further investigation revealed the 30-year-old was involved in a verbal dispute with the 24-year-old male and it escalated into a physical altercation," the spokesperson said in a phone call. "During the physical struggle between the two males, the 30-year-old male lost consciousness."
I've had a loved one who suffered from mental illness. While never physically aggressive, they could start to scream or ramble in a way that didn't make sense. Fortunately, when they had an episode at a supermarket, no one forced them to the ground and put them in a lethal chokehold.
The sad thing is that most New Yorkers, most Americans even, probably don't fear winding up in this 24-year-old's chokehold. Republicans won't seize upon his quick release as further proof of New York's "soft-on-crime" policies. Instead, many people will publicly or maybe privately rejoice that someone stood up to the undesirables. But this doesn't make anyone safer. And most of us — most of us — wouldn't celebrate.
Follow Stephen Robinson on Twitter if it still exists.
Catch SER on his new podcast, The Play Typer Guy.
Did you know SER has his own YouTube Channel? Well, now you do, so go subscribe right now!
Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty.
Zooey Zephyr's Taking The Bastards To Court
Nevertheless, she persists.
Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the state's first transgender lawmaker, isn't going to let Republicans in the Montana House of Representatives silence her. At least, not without a fight. Last week, you'll recall, the GOP supermajority voted to censure Zephyr for speaking up too transly against bills banning gender-affirming care and writing trans people out of Montana law. Rather than expelling her like the jerks in Tennessee did to their meddlesome Democrats, the Montana House barred Zephyr from the floor and hearing rooms of the Capitol until the legislative session ends later this week, preventing her from participating in debate while allowing her to vote, remotely and silently, and to watch the same public stream of House proceedings as anyone else can on the internet. So generous!
Previously:
Montana Republicans Want In On That 'Expel Democrats' Thing That Worked So Well For Tennessee
Montana House Republicans Officially Punish Zooey Zephyr For Legislating While Trans
Monday, Zephyr, with help from the Montana ACLU, filed a lawsuit in state court asking for an emergency injunction returning her to the House floor for whatever days remain in the session, arguing that her First Amendment rights had been stomped on. The suit also names several of her constituents as plaintiffs, arguing that the House's action effectively denied them and the rest of Zephyr's 11,000 constituents representation.
The AP interviewed one of those plaintiffs, Anna Wong, who has a transgender child and said she'd voted for Zephyr in 2022 because she knew Zephyr would "speak out against the onslaught of bills targeting transgender youth."
“Suicide amongst transgender youth is not imaginary,” Wong said. “It is not a game and it is not a political foil. It is real. It is heartbreaking. And it is the responsibility of my representative to speak out against bills promoting it.”
That's exactly what Zephyr was getting at when she spoke against Senate Bill 99, which bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. Zephyr accurately said forcing trans kids to undergo puberty as the sex they don't identify is "tantamount to torture" and said she hoped that those voting for the bill would "see the blood on your hands" the next time they pray during a House invocation. (Technically, the censure resolution only cited Zephyr's refusal to leave the floor last week during a demonstration by her supporters. But c'mon, we know why she was silenced.)
While there are only a few days left in the session, the Legislature still hasn't passed a budget, and Zephyr's lawsuit seeks her immediate reinstatement so she can represent her constituents in debate on that and other last minute bills.
Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), whose office will manage the defense in the lawsuit, dismissed it as "performance litigation — political activism masquerading as a lawsuit," and said that the courts have no power to intervene, because separation of powers.
As Hayes Brown notes at MSNBC, that argument may win out, unfortunately, because the US Constitution gives the US House and Senate the power to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings," and that generally applies to state legislatures too, because 14th Amendment. Montana's constitution does indeed allow the Legislature to expel or punish legislators for "good cause," with a two-thirds vote of the appropriate house.
Zephyr's lawsuit acknowledges that, but also argues that the House GOP leaders applied the rules unfairly and capriciously, so they were
acting within the “color of the law” — technically allowed but acting against the spirit of the law and beyond the scope of its reach.
Brown notes that the argument that the House is depriving Zephyr's constituents of representation may be more compelling than the First Amendment claim, since that's "the most immediate harm that a court could rule on given the closing window for participation."
But hey better a long shot than no shot at all. Zephyr has, since last week's vote, been dutifully showing up and sitting on a bench near the entrance to the House chamber to work on her laptop, although yesterday when she arrived, she found the bench had been taken already. So she worked at a table instead, standing up for her community.
\u201cSome folks showed up early this morning and sat on the public benches near the entrance to the House, so Seat 31 has moved.\n\nI'm up and ready to work. Plus, I hear stand desks are all the rage these days.\u201d— Rep. Zooey Zephyr (@Rep. Zooey Zephyr) 1682974009
Some folks showed up early this morning and sat on the public benches near the entrance to the House, so Seat 31 has moved.
I'm up and ready to work. Plus, I hear stand desks are all the rage these days.
But who were those ladies who made a point of arriving early to occupy the bench where Zephyr had been sitting? Ha ha it was a very funny trick by the wives of several prominent Republicans in the state Lege, including Jolene Regier, the mother of Speaker Matt Regier and wife of Senator Keith Regier. Wasn't that clever of them? It's inspiring to see how every aspect of governing in Republican-run states is now given over to trolling the libs!
\u201c@dutchessprim @ZoAndBehold The ladies on the bench are MT GOP legislature wives.....Jolene Regier, Sharon Deakin Nason, and Beth Hinebauch.\u201d— DutchessPrim\ud83d\udc99 (@DutchessPrim\ud83d\udc99) 1682976372
That is very humorous! Their husbands and sons kept Zephyr off the floor, and then the clever lady tricksters kept her off the bench, haha! Today, supporters of Zephyr made sure to be on the benches as soon as the Capitol doors opened, to save her a spot.
But also this morning, some unidentified opponent of trans rights took a less harmless approach to trying to silence Zephyr, calling the police in an attempt to send a SWAT team to the home of Zephyr's partner, journalist Erin Reed. Such SWATting attempts have resulted in at least two deaths — one from a police shooting, one from a heart attack — and many incidents in which police arrived at someone's door ready to use deadly force against a nonexistent threat.
Reed tweeted that the SWATting attempt against her failed, largely because "I've worked closely with the police in my community anticipating this," so there's one more tip for the journalist toolbox: If you write about issues that make the far-Right insane, let the police know they may get false reports of a hostage situation or other nonexistent crime at your home.
Update/clarification: The SWATting attempt may very well have come from outside Montana, because as indy reporter Alejandra Caraballo said on the Twitters, the dangerous hate troll site Kiwi Farms, which targets trans people and reporters for harassment in hopes that they'll kill themselves or die in a SWATting, added Reed to its page shortly before the attempted SWATting. They're pure evil.
This shit can't be tolerated. Zooey Zephyr isn't about to let herself be silenced, and neither should any of us who care about equality and freedom. Let your electeds, especially your Republican electeds, know that trans rights matter to you, and that if they think beating up on trans people will win them votes, it'll also get them very loud opposition, to say nothing of how they may end up in the history books on the same page as the Bull Connors and the George Wallaces.
And if you have some spare Ameros for Zooey Zephyr's 2024 reelection campaign, keep that in mind too. Montana needs her voice — and hey, she could use some company in the Montana House too.
[AP / MSNBC / Zephyr et al v. Montana]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can help keep our little Republic. It's a fixer-upper, but it has good bones.