Federal Correctional Complex, Petersburg Psychology Services Department
As of 2014, the Psychology Department consisted of 27 full-time staff members, there were 750 sex offenders at Petersburg Medium, and FCC Petersburg was one of only nine currently activated Sex Offender Management Program (SOMPs) in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the only SOMP yard in the BOP's Mid-Atlantic Region. Petersburg also has a Non-Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP-NR). (The Residential Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP-R) is at Federal Medical Center, Devens.)
- 1 Functions
- 2 Fundamental systemic flaws
- 3 Other questionable practices
- 4 Staff
- 5 References
Psychology Department main tasks are threefold: providing intellectual cover for mistreatment of prisoners; interrogating prisoners; and propagandizing to prisoners.
The first main function of the Psychology Services department is to provide intellectual cover for prison officials looking for excuses to mistreat prisoners (e.g. paruretics). If a prisoner claims to be psychologically disabled in some way, it is Psychology Services' role to say that he has been evaluated and not found to have any such disability; this paves the way for punishing him for malingering. Also, if a prisoner wishes to be treated for some psychological disorder, Psychology Services can either say that he does not need the treatment, or provide some sort of low-cost but ineffective treatment, and say that it is their professional opinion that that is all he needs. The courts will usually defer to their judgment (if the prisoner can even get his case into court; pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act prison administrative remedies have to be exhausted first, which takes months, by which time, the issue is often largely or completely moot).
Psychology Services also participates in the implementation of rather controversial "correctional management plans" (CMPs) pursuant to Program Statement 5324.10, chapter 4 of which authorizes sweeping powers — concerning restriction of visitation, correspondence, personal property, and telephone and electronic communication — that should be of concern to any civil libertarian. Specifically, the SOMP Psychologist develops the CMPs, which are then approved by the Warden. Allegedly, these CMPs are based on "individual risk assessments" and evaluations of what is "risk-relevant" that are well-grounded in science. In reality, the outcomes of this process reflect public animosity toward sex offenders, which is often based on ignorance and moral judgments grounded in religion, prejudice and bad science.
Specifically, the Program Statement provides, "Personal property in the categories listed below may be restricted: Items that may be used as sexual paraphernalia (e.g., photographs, pictures, or drawings depicting adults or children in sexually explicit or suggestive poses or situations). Materials that promote the sexual exploitation of children (e.g., written materials that romanticize adult-child sex; literature from pedophile organizations). Written correspondence in which individuals are discussed in a sexualized way. Written or pictorial materials that promote violence or reflect a degrading attitude to persons based on gender. Any other personal property deemed inappropriate by the SOMP Coordinator due to its association with the inmate's risk to engage in sexually offensive behavior."
Seemingly, Psychology Services is promoting a culture of asexuality or antisexuality in which prisoners are discouraged from having any sexual thoughts or desires at all. Radical feminist political correctness is reflected in the prohibition on materials that "reflect a degrading attitude to persons based on gender". Since radical feminists deem any erotic depiction to be a degrading objectification, and think that any sexual contact between people with differing levels of wealth, status, etc. in society is exploitative, this amounts to a blanket ban on a whole category of science, art and literature. (Radical feminist philosophy has greatly influenced sex offender psychologists; e.g., psychiatrist Judith Lewis Herman's influential Father-Daughter Incest, available from the FCC Petersburg Psychology Services library, was described as a "trenchant feminist analysis," "profoundly, passionately feminist", etc.)
The system is full of double standards. Radical feminists claim that images that depict nudity are degrading and therefore bad, and that the person who posed nude has been exploited; it is assumed that the people who had the person pose, and those who looked at the images, had evil intent. Yet the government requires prisoners to expose their genitals all the time, e.g. for strip searches or drug tests, for officers to look at. Prisoners are not even allowed a few minutes of privacy to use the restroom, masturbate, hang themselves, or do whatever other private business they need to attend to without leaving a window uncovered for officers to look at them through.
Prisoners deemed sex offenders are expected to reveal their sexual thoughts and behaviors; and whatever information the psychologists have about those things, they feel entitled to express judgements about, sometimes in front of the prisoners' peers. A prisoner who were to show so much interest in others' sexuality might be deemed to be a pervert, and his questions would be viewed as offensive and degrading. It is also ironic that people forced by the state to work at menial jobs for pennies per hour, under penalty of being written up for committing a Code 306 or 307 prohibited act ("Refusing to work" or "Refusing to obey an order", respectively), are being accused of being the ones guilty of exploitation; but of course, one won't hear a peep out of Psychology Services about that injustice.
The Program Statement also says, "Inmates may be restricted from visiting members of the general public who are: Prior child or adult victims of sexual offenses committed by the inmate. . . . Any other visitors deemed inappropriate by the SOMP Coordinator due to the inmate’s risk to engage in sexually offensive behavior." So, suppose that 20 years after an incident of child sexual assault, the victim, having reached adulthood, were to want to visit the offender in prison and discuss with him the effects of the assault and seek an apology or have some other conversation that might help the victim find closure. The BOP might prohibit this meeting from taking place, even though it could be beneficial to both parties.
Similar restrictions apply to correspondence and telephone visitation. The Psychology Department's embracing of retributive justice rather than restorative justice is evident in the fact that it does not offer any sort of victim-offender mediation. The closest the Bureau of Prisons has ever come to such a program was having prisoners listen to victim impact panels composed of people who were victimized by offenders other than those who were in the program; this is a far cry from having offenders meet with their specific victims. The Victim Offender Mediation Association notes:
|“|| The idea of bringing together a victim of a crime and the person who committed that crime is based on age-old values of justice, accountability, and restoration. . . . Through this process, crime victims have an opportunity to get answers to their questions about the crime and the person who committed it. They take an active role in getting their material and emotional needs met. Research indicates that victims who participate in VOM receive more restitution than those who do not and feel safer and less fearful afterwards than those who do not.
Offenders have an opportunity to take responsibility for what they have done. They learn the impact of their actions on others. They take an active role in making things right, for example, through restitution, apology, or community service. Research indicates that offenders who participate in VOM feel they were treated more fairly than those who do not, and have a higher rate of restitution completion than those who do not.
The "victim impact program" run by Psychology Services, in which psychologists talk about the impact of the offense, is unlikely to have as powerful on the prisoners as a program that would involve the actual victims and their statements. But two factors get in the way of victim offender mediation taking place: (1) most offenders at Petersburg are victimless; and (2) Psychology Services does not want to lose control of the process by allowing victims to have a say. There are many so-called victims who, when given the opportunity to speak, say "We were NOT abused!"
The younger partners to sexual relationships with adults have sometimes expressed indignation against the legal system, as in the case of 18-year-old Kevin Gillson's 15-year-old fiancee, who stated, "Thanks to the court system, I have lost the love of my life and the father of my unborn baby"; 30-year-old Heather Ingram's 17-year-old boyfriend, who stated "The idea that Heather exploited me is crazy . . . I consider Heather my girlfriend"; and Vili Fualaau, who stated with reference to Mary Kay Letourneau, his former teacher, "She wasn't taking advantage of me or talking me into something that I didn't want. I loved Mary. She and I had a deep, spiritual relationship." Obviously such statements would work counter to Psychology Services' arguments that all illegal sexual behavior is harmful. If Psychology Services had nothing to hide, it would have no problem with allowing the actual victims to participate in the process of rehabilitating offenders.
But, on the contrary, Psychology Services does whatever it can to keep "victims" away from the "offenders". Why might it be that the "victims" have to be forced not to have anything to do with those who allegedly victimized them; why would they not voluntarily stay away, if they felt themselves in danger of being harmed by those "offenders"? These are questions the Psychology Department does not answer, and which prisoners cannot ask, lest they come under suspicion as being unrepentant pedosexuals or pedosexual sympathizers who should be subjected to Psychology Department-instigated censorship and other forms of persecution. The Psychology Department's ideology cannot survive any serious challenge by logical argumentation, so the psychologists use the power they have been granted to silence their opponents, lest the light of truth dispel the myths.
BOP policy provides that CMPs can authorize to be treated as contraband "Materials that promote the sexual exploitation of children (e.g., written materials that romanticize adult-child sex; literature from pedophile organizations)". In other words, the Bureau of Prisons can distribute its propaganda at taxpayer expense, but the prisoners cannot have material, printed at the expense of private individuals, debunking that propaganda. The goal is to leave the prisoners without the means to easily prove their arguments. If the teachings of the sex offender treatment programs could stand up to criticism, then censorship of opposing arguments would be unnecessary. Furthermore, it is unproven that taking away these "risk-relevant" materials will actually have any effect on rates of sexual assault, or that the effect will be worth the costs to society in terms of lost liberty, correctional resources required to enforce these rules, and so on.
"Risk-relevant behavior" is defined by policy as "Institution behavior related to a sexual offender's history that indicates risk of future sexual offending upon release (e.g., an inmate convicted of child pornography who collects pictures of children . . .)" but it is not at all clear that attempting to repress sexual desires rather than having an outlet for them helps keep desires under control in the long term; it could be useless or worse than useless. Sexually frustrated prisoners may tend to be irritable and less pleasant to be around, and thus the prisoner population could become discontent and unruly. Certainly these rules diminish the prisoner's quality of life, which is not conducive to fostering a cooperative attitude. Prisoners who are subjected to a lot of restrictions have less of an incentive to be obedient because they have less freedom to lose by breaking the rules.
It could even be that restrictions on sexually stimulating material lead to more sexual assaults. Since the widespread availability of Internet pornography began circa 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent. Could it be that allowing pedosexuals to masturbate to images of children would allow them, by at least partially satisfying their desires, to be better able to resist having sex with unwilling partners? It may be that the Psychology Services Department's efforts to control these materials are entirely counterproductive toward the goal of protecting the public. A study found that the Czech Republic "like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse."
Fortunately, the correctional officers at Petersburg are generally too lazy to go about energetically enforcing all the restrictions that the hardliners in Psychology Services and S.I.S., eager to force their misguided, oppressive moral agenda down others' throats and/or justify their employment by inflating their statistics of incident reports filed, contraband seized, etc., might like them to. The exception would be when certain prisoners, and their outside advocates, become stones in the shoes of the warden and other upper-echelon staff by opposing the agenda of the powers that be. For example, some outsiders have attempted to help prisoners get essays, interview transcripts, etc. published that were critical of the regime.
Those prisoners and activists are subject to whatever reprisals the prison officials can throw at them, which tend to include, at minimum, additional scrutiny of correspondence with the goal of finding excuses to reject it pursuant to restrictions imposed by Program Statements 5265.11 and 5266.11; or contacting law enforcement agencies or probation officers to encourage investigation of the outside party, e.g. to get him thrown in prison for a violation of U.S.S.G. §5D1.3(c)(9), which states that "the defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer".
These associational restrictions are designed to destroy friendships and other relationships that might otherwise help people who have been victimized by the system band together to fight back. The Psychology Department wants offenders to be socially isolated from any person or group who might join with them to defeat tyranny. Like the Kremlin and every other oppressive regime, the U.S. Government seeks to use the full weight of the judicial system, when possible, to crack down on dissent. The Psychology Services Department does not seem to heed, or to agree with, what Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California:
|“||Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind.||”|
In January 2014, it came to the attention of Nathania.org, by means of the Oberon 2014.01.16 letter to Nathan Larson, that Comrade Todd Leeflang had been summoned to Psychology Services for questioning concerning his suspected (but non-existent) involvement with Nathania.org. This was undoubtedly intended to have a chilling effect on free speech, by letting the prisoners know that their communication with the owner of this bliki might result in unwanted scrutiny of their activities. The courts will, unfortunately, approve almost any oppression of prisoners that the prison officials justify as necessary to preserve the security and good order of the institution, so there is little that can be done other than publicly expose the injustice to a populace that, for the most part, is unsympathetic and uncaring.
The public allowed statutes to be enacted criminalizing certain victimless behaviors, for which these people are now in prison; as three dissenting justices in Osborne v. Ohio pointed out, there are significant free speech issues implicated in debates concerning child pornography. However, the public has been willing to allow people to be sent to prison merely for possessing or distributing images, rather than for forcibly infringing anyone's rights to life, liberty or property. It is unsurprising, then, that the public would also be willing to let the government squelch speech concerning the wisdom of the laws themselves. But there are still a few crusaders left for liberty and justice who have not yet become burnt out and demoralized with fighting a battle that others have given up as futile. The government seeks to use all available means to deter those last stubborn holdouts, if possible; and to destroy them, if necessary.
As Mises Institute founder and chairman Lew Rockwell points out, the state apparatus of control and coercion, as applied to child pornography, is not used to actually protect children, but "rather to intimidate the population in ways that people will find difficult to object to"; in so doing, "the state invades everyone's privacy, controls speech, interferes with families, and otherwise uses the issue as a wedge to eliminate every freedom." By encouraging people to look down on sex offenders as being a particularly vile kind of criminal, the government creates yet another division among the people that hinders them from uniting against their oppressors. These sorts of distractions make the people less likely to mount any organized opposition to new tyrannies; and thus they become easier to rule. Comrade Chris Zoukis writes:
|“|| It's my belief that all people in prison deserve the protections the Constitution offers, whether they're transgender, from a marginalized religious group, or convicted of unpopular crimes. When we're divided that's when our true power to advocate for ourselves fails. A united front, one which protects all of us, is required if we are to demand change, and demand that abuses stop. . . . .
A decade ago, prison officials started by banning publications which contained nudity, like Playboy magazine. Now they're expanding such prohibitions to include Sports Illustrated, Interview magazine, and other commercial publications which don't specifically feature nudity, and, more nefariously, to political speech which prison administrators deem to be a threat to prison order. Even Prison Legal News, the premier prison law publication, has had problems with various prison and jail systems banning their publication even though they repeatedly win in court. It's a very slippery slope that prison administrators are on, and censorship will be at the forefront of prison litigation in the years to come.
The regularity with which prison officials rely on sex offenders' unpopularity and the unpopularity of other fringe groups, to harass and subject such groups to additional restrictions is disturbing. At my prison, the administrators swept in and removed dozens of religious DVDs — from "minor" religions — because they had children in them, and thought that some inmates were misusing the materials. Kundun, Martin Scorcese's story of the Dalai Lama, was seized. This is absolutely absurd. The concept of restricting religious speech and practice because it might be misused by a relatively few inmates is abhorrent. If problems with such materials were to occur, the offending parties should be dealt with on an individual basis. All inmates at the institution shouldn't have their religious practice restricted because of the actions, or potential actions, of a few inmates. This is a clear instance of prison administrators taking issues which apply to a specific segment of the incarcerated population and forcing additional religious, and First Amendment restrictions on all of the inmates at the local institution.
The treatment of sex offenders as pariahs is in my opinion, a harbinger of future restrictions for prisoners as a group. Look at the sex offender registries — now there are methamphetamine registries and violent offender registries. What's next? I'll tell you what. Prison administrators are going to test out restrictions on the sex offenders, or on the Buddhists or Muslims, or on other fringe groups, to see if these smaller groups put up with the additional restrictions.
The second main function of the Psychology Department is to interrogate prisoners in order to obtain information that can be used against them or other prisoners. As with interrogations performed by law enforcement, the good cop/bad cop approach is frequently used, in which the psychologist plays the role of the government employee who is allegedly trying to help the prisoner. In reality, the psychologist's allegiance is to the same government as the "bad cops" who openly want to treat the offenders harshly, and the information is subject to being shared with those "bad cops." Some of these "bad cops" are within the Psychology Department itself; for example, the psychologists who will be imposing CMPs based on information the patients provide concerning their sexual thoughts and attractions, and the patients' stated opinions regarding what thoughts and behaviors are acceptable.
The Psychology Department also attempts to get prisoners to snitch on each other. For example, participants in the Residential Drug Abuse Program are required to hold another "accountable" which means that they are supposed to tell on one another when they observe infractions of the rules. Prisoners get around this by arranging to tell on one another for infractions so minor that they will not even be disciplined, let alone kicked out of the program.
It appears that some prisoners who wish to get in good with Psychology Services have established standing arrangements to have frequent sessions with their psychologists, which serve the purpose of, among other things, debriefing on activities engaged in, and/or statements made by, fellow prisoners. These meetings are less suspicious to other prisoners than a prisoner's frequently getting called over to the Lieutenant's Office might be, since he can claim that he is engaged in intensive psychological treatment. A good rapport with Psychology Services could serve a number of purposes, such as getting a favorable word put in with other prison officials at strategic moments.
After someone has been snitched upon, the psychologists' usual tactic is to confront the person with the testimony against him, and try to get him to incriminate himself. If he admits that he did what he's accused of, then this admission can be documented and used as a justification for restricting his liberty (e.g. through a CMP). The psychologists sometimes claim that they just want to know the facts so that they can provide necessary treatment; but there is no contract limiting their use of the information to such allegedly benign purposes.
In many cases, the behavior the person is accused of is engaging in a sexual act with another prisoner (a Code 205 prohibited act). Since all other prisoners are either male or transsexual, this means that the harmful effect of these inquisitions and persecutions falls mainly on homosexuals and bisexuals. The shameful history of the psychological profession in persecuting non-heterosexuals, which was manifested in decades past in the DSM-II designation of homosexuality as a mental illness, continues to be perpetuated by the FCC Petersburg Psychology Services Department to this day, but in a different way. The psychologists will use any excuse they can to inflict more suffering upon those who have already endured a lifetime of misery at the hands of bullies, legislators who pass discriminatory laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and other ignorant bigots, for not being born with a "straight" orientation.
Not that the gay lobby cares. In their efforts to go mainstream and pursue a few allegedly "core" issues such as gay marriage and repealing don't ask, don't tell, they long ago abandoned those of their brethren who are on the fringes of society — e.g. prisoners. It is manifest that the highest priority of these "reformers" is not to tear down oppressive social hierarchies, but to gain acceptance into them. So the LGBT prisoners, the metaphorical ugly forgotten bastard stepchildren of their more politically-connected "fellow travellers", are left to languish in despair, without any protection from the psychologists.
It is a truly sad state of affairs, and one which future generations will undoubtedly rightly condemn as barbaric. The magnitude of the betrayal is all the worse because of the evidence that sex offender laws are selectively enforced, with prosecutors more likely to bring charges against, and punish more harshly, same-sex age of consent violators. Consensual sex of and with adolescents was identified as a gay rights issue, until it became clear that those who took a principled stand would be exiled from the halls of power and influence.
The third main function of the Psychology Department is to propagandize against victimless crimes, such as child pornography distribution and consensual sex with people below that legal fiction known as the "age of consent." The propaganda tends to provoke the more principled, intellectually honest and outspoken members of treatment groups to demur from what is obviously bad logic and faulty "evidence". The attitudes of these members is duly noted for further use against them in later judicial and administrative proceedings (perhaps including drafting of CMPs). Thus, the propaganda serves to draw out incriminating reactions. After sufficient evidence along these lines has thus been gathered, the patients who consistently criticize the propaganda are then invited to leave the class, as they have an attitude that is not conducive to good treatment outcomes and that could interfere with indoctrinating others (or maintaining an environment in which it appears that orderly indoctrination is taking place without any skepticism being expressed concerning the viewpoints put forth by the psychologists).
Aside from these interrogation and weeding-out purposes, the propaganda also serves to further demoralize sex offenders by telling them that their opinions are only "justifications" and "rationalizations" for criminal behavior. That might be the case, but they could also be sincerely-held beliefs to which they, like any other person, should be considered entitled to hold and to express, without fear of punishment, in a truly free and democratic society. The chilling effect on free speech that prisoners encounter from the threat of surveillance is merely an intensified version of what people outside of prison experience. The regulations on consensual sex are a menace not only to sexual freedom but freedom of speech as well. Really, the treatment sessions amount to a form of verbal bullying in which the person in a position to punish the prisoner tells him what he should say and believe. He is not allowed a fair chance to present opposing arguments, and at any rate is already at a disadvantage because he is dealing with people with years of paid experience in pushing their propaganda. As Ludwig von Mises noted,
|“||Wherever and whenever men meet for discussing any affairs of their municipality, state, or nation, public opinion is in the process of evolving and changing, however trifling the immediate topic concerned may be. . . . In all these discussions the professionals have an advantage over the laymen. The odds are always in favor of those who devote all their effort exclusively to one thing only. Although not necessarily experts and often certainly not more clever than the amateurs, they enjoy the benefit of being specialists. Their eristic technique as well as their training are superior.||”|
The psychologists rely on many fallacies of relevance, including ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. The Psychology Services staff will, for example, make statements to the effect of, "You're just a pedosexual trying to justify his behavior; therefore, your arguments can be disregarded" or "the government has decreed that your behavior is wrong; therefore it is wrong." Ultimately, they resort to the appeal to force in saying, "We are in charge and therefore can punish you, or arrange for others to punish you, unless you either agree with us or stay silent." Except of course they don't use the word "pedosexual"; they use loaded terminology such as "child molester" or "abuser".
Miscategorization of child pornography distribution and possession as sex offenses
An example of the propaganda that takes place in the sex offender classes is an exercise conducted by Dr. Weisman, in which she asks the prisoners to think of a person they care about and write down all the things they like about that person. Then she says something to the effect of, "You weren't there to protect her, so she got fucked up the ass by a rapist" and grabs the piece of paper and balls it up in her hands. Then she hands the piece of paper back and asks the prisoner to flatten it out and return it to its original uncrumpled state. The prisoner responds that he cannot, and she replies that sexual assault victims cannot be restored back to their original state either. This is supposedly intended to make prisoners aware of the impact of their crimes, but in reality, many of these offenders were caught in sex stings in which their "victim" was actually a law enforcement officer; or else they were caught viewing or distributing child pornography, neither of which can be considered acts of aggression pursuant to libertarian theory.
In the case of child pornography possessors and distributors, the terminology "sex offender" is arguably not even applied properly because the person may have had no intent or interest in committing any of the depicted sexual acts. His behavior merely involved exchanging and using data. But the psychologists operate under the assumption that these "offenders" must be pedophiles; and, taking it a step further, that they must be potential sexual assailants.
Studies testing for a relationship between child pornography and child sexual assault have had mixed results. Taylor et al. (2001) found that there could be several different motives for downloading child pornography that would not tend to lead to sexual assaults against children. These include, for example, being sexually omnivorous (the individual may not be primarily interested in child pornography but instead has a pornography collection that depicts a wide range of sexual activities, including child pornography), sexually curious (the individual may download a few pictures because of curiosity; this could possibly lead to ongoing involvement in this behavior), or libertarian (the individual downloads child pornography to assert a right to freedom of access to this material). Of course, one will not hear this information in FCC Petersburg sex offender treatment classes; in keeping with government's tendency to exaggerate threats to the public as a justification for expanding its powers, all such motives are lumped into the category of "deviant", unwholesome and dangerous desires.
To call a child pornography consumer a sex offender would be like calling a person who watches footage of murders a violent offender. The government has similarly prohibited crime scene photographs from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting from being released, but there is debate about whether the potential for the photographs to inspire copycat killers and cause trauma might be outweighed by the beneficial effect the photos might have on public discourse concerning measures to protect children. Photographs are, after all, a storage medium of information, and decisions are best made with all the relevant information taken into consideration. One could make the same arguments about photographs of sexual assaults as one could regarding photographs of other kinds of assaults. If the government seeks to control thoughts by controlling information, then at that point what is being punished is not sex crime but thoughtcrime.
Efforts to stifle debate concerning ethics and effects of pedosexuality and pedosexual behavior
The psychologists' describing prisoners' thoughts and behaviors using terms that carry connotations and denotations of selfishness, moral depravity, etc. serves as a psychological sanction that can be used to browbeat and control them. The goal is to not only get prisoners to go through the motions of cooperating out of fear of punishment, but also instil guilt and shame that will deter them from speaking out against injustice. As George H. Smith writes in Atheism: The Case Against God:
|“|| Physical sanctions are usually uncomplicated and easy to detect, whereas psychological sanctions are often complex and subtle, which explains why they are rarely identified. A psychological sanction is a moral term that is used for the purpose of psychological intimidation, which is intended to motivate compliance with rules. Moral terms, when used in this fashion, function as psychological cue-words—words used to trigger emotions, rather than convey information.
A physical sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of fear. A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt. A man motivated by fear may still retain an element of rebelliousness, of determination to strike back given the opportunity. A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question.
|“||there is no way to disarm any man except through guilt. Through that which he himself has accepted as guilt. If a man has ever stolen a dime, you can impose on him the punishment intended for a bank robber and he will take it. He’ll bear any form of misery, he’ll feel that he deserves no better. If there’s not enough guilt in the world, we must create it. If we teach a man that it’s evil to look at spring flowers and he believes us and then does it – we’ll be able to do whatever we please with him. He won’t defend himself. He won’t feel he’s worth it. He won’t fight. But save us from the man the man who lives up to his own standards. Save us from the man of clean conscience. He’s the man who’ll beat us.||”|
Thus, what is happening now is a fight to keep the debate on pedosexuality's legitimization from beginning. As Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC) Harris Mirkin writes:
|“|| Battles about sexual ideologies occur in two phases. The second phase is a visible political fight like the current melee over gay and lesbian rights. Phase I struggles exist before the issues become politically visible, and are harder to detect. They display a similar pattern, and have been characteristic of the early contests over feminism and women's sexuality, of homosexuality in the 1950s, and of the politics of pedophilia today. . . . .
The battle to prevent the battle — the attempt to preserve the vision of the existing order as natural and unquestionable, and thus prevent its maintenance from being seen as a political question — is probably the most significant and hard fought of the ideological battles. At issue is the question of the legitimacy of the subordinate groups, since illegitimate groups are not recognized as putting forth valid claims. Thus black theorists argue that black culture and life was largely invisible to both blacks and whites in the pre-civil rights period, feminist theorists claim that male categories marginalized and delegitimatized women, homosexuals were ridiculed and dismissed in the 1950's, and pedophiles are vilified today. . . . .
Phase I conflicts are frequently framed as public health crises. The terminology of epidemics is used, with the various forms of illegitimate sex characterized as diseases that prey upon the innocent. Constitutional niceties become less important when a disease is being fought, since microbes and diseases have neither constitutional rights nor moral stature. The subordinate group is viewed as nihilistic, and sharp limits are placed on their speech and art on the grounds that they are disgusting, pornographic, dangerous to the social order and seductive of the innocent. . . . .
Political groups consistently exploit the fact that people can be mobilized if they perceive that children are in danger. The protection of children has always been a popular theme in the U.S., since it gives a patina of morality to legislation and politicians. It is possible that being against child abuse has functioned as a way for Americans, who are often accused of ignoring their children in their quest for success and money, to feel virtuous — especially since it is often the caretakers of children that are accused of abuse. As men and immigrants were seen as corrupters of virtuous women, and homosexuals were viewed as seducers of vulnerable heterosexuals, so pedophiles are seen as corrupters and seducers of the innocent. In a Phase I sexual battle the enemy is always viewed as evil incarnate.
Of course, if a prisoner were to successfully question the validity of these labels, the whole system of psychological sanctions would collapse like a house of cards. There are already some attempts being made to initiate criticism that will start this process, by challenging the sacrosanctity of the psychologists' pronouncements. Comrade Oberon perhaps put it best in the Oberon 2013.10.17 letter to Nathan Larson:
|“|| I may have been wrong telling people to not rationalize. Maybe that's the same thing as telling them not to think for themselves. This is the definition of rationalization per BOP program: "Offering intellectual, legal, or philosophical explanation of why your behavior wasn't wrong." I don't know about you, but I like to base my decisions on rational thinking. If they are telling me not to be rational then it is possibly because they want me to take on an irrational belief.
Another bullshit statement made by the program was, "If you are honest with yourself, you will likely acknowledge that your life was empty and unfilfilling as a result of your sexual behavior." You have to be kidding. My life was very fulfilling and full until I was forced to stop my sexual behavior by being arrested. It was at that point my life became empty and unfulfilling.
So much of this program is based on what I see as brainwashing so a person thinks and says what the government wants. There really is very little actual psychological therapy. To me, therapy is looking at a situation or belief and changing what needs to be changed by self-realization so the person lives a better life for themselves, not society. A society filled with happy, content people will be a positive one. A society filled with people living untruthful and oppressive lives will have problems and even threaten to fall apart.
There is a lot of government-funded propaganda circulating about the harm of adult-child sex; of course, there was also a lot of government-funded propaganda that circulated about the dangers of cannabis, before the cannabis legalization fight entered the stage it's in now. In each case, the propaganda was supposedly intended to help keep children safe, but was actually for the purpose of molding the public's political opinions concerning the need to continue prohibition. Those who questioned the truth of the government's propaganda were viewed as having selfish motives, while the motives of the government generally went unquestioned.
The government's true agenda is to prevent impressionable youth from forming any relationships that are outside its control, especially with adults who might have the resources to help that child take a stand against a state that wishes to dominate every aspect of his life with its rules and regulations. The state wants to take charge of children's "education" and eliminate the involvement and influence of third parties who might question the "education" taught in daytime detention centers (euphemistically termed "schools"). These days, a person other than a parent, or a teacher or some other agent of the state, who takes any interest in children tends to be viewed with suspicion. The people who hate childlovers and condone their persecution are useful dupes of a state that really does not have much concern for the children's well-being, except as pawns it can advance through its system of preparation for an eventual "promotion" to a role of serving the state more fully.
Children also serve the role of useful hostages; the state can control parents by threatening to take their children away if the parents do not demonstrate their willingness to obey the government, which allegedly makes them fit parents. The parents are deputized by the state to "keep their children under control," which puts the parent in the role of police officer and spy in charge of using force and invasions of privacy to ensure their children cooperate with their governmental masters. Much like the American system of dual sovereignty in which the U.S. states can add to, but not subtract from, the regulations imposed by the federal government, parents are allowed to impose their own rules on their children in addition to what the state already demands, but cannot abrogate the state's authority. If parents were not given sweeping powers over their children's lives, and children were instead regarded as sovereigns with full social equality to adults, it would eliminate the pretext for the state to play such an interventionist role in familial affairs. At any rate, the FCC Psychology Services Department assists in this overall program of government tyranny by providing the intellectual cover for denying "offenders" even consensual, supervised contact with children. The mentality of the Psychology Department is reminiscent of that of the fictional Inner Party member and Thought Police agent O'Brien, who in George Orwell's 1984 is put in charge of restoring sex criminal Winston Smith's sanity:
|“|| "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer", he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever."
The Psychology Department also offers a few mostly feel-good classes such as self-esteem workshops. There is some irony in a judge's, and society's, telling a prisoner he's a worthless piece of shit for committing crimes, who will forever be branded a felon and treated as a second-class citizen, and who may be subject to lifetime supervised release pursuant to  because he can't be trusted ever again; and then sending him to prison to undergo self-esteem training. Mostly these classes are a compliance check and obedience drill; the prison officials can tell which prisoners have a cooperative attitude by seeing which ones "play the game" by going to the recommended classes. Those prisoners are awarded with favorable custody classifications, if they can get their custody points low enough pursuant to Program Statement 5100.08.
Sex offenders are a significant focus of the Psychology Department's efforts; however, there is also a Residential Drug Abuse Program that allows some prisoners to get a year taken off their sentences if they behave perfectly and are willing to snitch. This RDAP location houses 143 beds (probably in overcrowded conditions, as in most U.S. federal prisons). This is described as "a modified therapeutic community model which seeks cooperation and self-disclosure from 'community members.'" In other words, the participants are expected to tell on themselves.
According to Comrade Zoukis, "Inmate participants are required to complete a fill-in-the-blank booklet and take a final test in order to pass the class. As our instructor informed us, as long as the participant attends all classes, they will pass the final test. In fact, some are known to make 100% on both the pre-test and the final test. This is due to the level of general knowledge among the inmates, and the elementary nature of the program." In other words, the classes do not actually teach anything the students do not already know, and it is all just a feel-good exercise in which the prisoners are given some busywork that even the most severely learning-disabled could excel at, to make it look like some rehabilitation is being provided.
One might consider it a partial reintroduction of the old parole system that was abolished in 1987, in which prisoners could get a significant amount of time off for good behavior, except that eligibility is restricted to a much smaller group; the sentence reduction is much less; and legislators are not willing to acknowledge it as parole, since that would be politically unpalatable, so they disguise it as drug abuse treatment. As usual, politics is all about taking actions that have more to do with empty symbolism than actually accomplishing the stated goals. Meanwhile, pragmatists sneak in their measures through the back door by calling them something other than what them are, and making a few token gestures aimed at creating a pretense that it is what it in fact is not.
Fundamental systemic flaws
Lack of a psychiatrist
Petersburg does not have an actual psychiatrist on staff, so medications are prescribed by a prison physician in consultation with members of the Psychology Department who are not qualified to make decisions concerning medications. Psychology Services interns are tasked with the duty to "coordinate psychopharmacological treatment". The state of affairs with reference to psychiatric medication at Petersburg can hardly be considered a best practice. Program Statement 6340.04 states, "It is recommended that each institution not having a full-time psychiatrist or regular access to tele-psychiatry, contract for psychiatric services." It does not appear this is being done.
Lack of confidentiality
The proceedings of these sex offender treatment groups are theoretically confidential; in reality, information leaks out immediately to the general prison population and becomes common knowledge in the form of anecdotes and rumors. This would have been the case even if the sex offender classes had not been infiltrated by those who sought to undermine the program by joining for the sake of collecting and sharing information. Thus, the prisoner in sex offender treatment is afforded no protection from ill-treatment by prisoners who may hold a grudge against him for what he discloses about his sexual history and thoughts. At any rate, psychologists are not bound to treat the information as confidential from the rest of the government under all circumstances.
The main purpose of this pseudo-confidentiality is to deter prisoners from warning their comrades outside the program about what goes on in the program, so that they would know to steer clear; and to keep secret from the public the rather unprofessional and unscientific practices that go on in those sessions. Obviously, self-interested psychologists will tend to concern themselves more with investigating leaks of information that reflects badly on them, rather than on prisoners; so reprisals are most likely against that brand of leaker.
As noted in Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5310.12, "there are no federal statutes specifically defining any privileged relationship between an inmate and his or her therapist, although common law, state statutes, and the American Psychiatric Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct regulates confidentiality. The Program Statement also notes, "Inmate users of psychological services within the Bureau of Prisons should be informed in advance of any limits to the confidentiality of their contact with psychology staff, (e.g., that the court will receive a report, that there is a duty to warn in certain instances, that information may be shared on occasion with other BOP staff, that psychology records are accessible under specific circumstances, that specific psychological information has been requested by a referring agency, supervisor, or staff member, etc.)."
It is questionable whether the prisoners are in fact aware of the full implications of their contacts with Psychology Services. Many prisoners sign up for sex offender treatment out of curiosity, or a desire to help themselves refrain from criminal behavior, or a belief that it will score them bonus points with their probation officers. In reality, if they happen to quit or get kicked out of the program, it will look worse on their report than if they'd never participated. They can also find themselves getting shipped to a prison that is more hostile toward sex offenders; Program Statement 5324.10 notes, "Program expulsions and withdrawals from the SOTP-R are always promptly removed from the residential treatment unit. Because these inmates may be disruptive to current SOTP participants, they may be redesignated to other Bureau institutions at the discretion of the Warden." FCC Petersburg does not have the SOTP-R (residential SOTP), but expulsion from the non-residential program does result in SOMP staff's preparing a discharge report that will be sent to the prisoner's unit team and probation officer. The Oberon 2013.12.23 letter to Nathan Larson notes:
|“||My real issue is the idea of consent. Too young to consent is bullshit. Their main argument is that under a certain age a person does not realize the consequences of having sex. In truth, who really does? I didn't know all the consequences of being in the SOMP program. In fact, we asked about what type of consequences there would be if we stepped out of the program during Phase II and they would not give us a straight answer. I know now the negative consequences but they kept it from us, so could I consent to being in the program by their meaning of the word "consent"?||”|
The treatment program has three phases; during Phase I, "participants are expected to . . . Demonstrate a willingness to discuss their offense conduct and/or relevant sexual behavior with treatment staff and other group members." During Phase II, "participants are expected to . . . Participate in a Process Group, demonstrating an appropriate level of self-disclosure. . . . . Participants have completed treatment when the SOMP Coordinator determines they have: . . . Made a commitment to positive change, as shown by observed positive behavior in their daily interactions. Demonstrated an appropriate degree of self-disclosure." In other words, if a prisoner decides he is not comfortable with answering the questions he is being asked about his sexual thoughts and behaviors (possibly including past illegal conduct for which the person has not yet been criminally prosecuted, perhaps because the government never found out about it or could not prove it by the required evidentiary standard), then he can be punished by being transferred to a decidedly less pleasant environment.
The admissions prisoners make in these classes are duly noted in their records, and can eventually be used to support diagnoses of pedophilic disorder and other paraphilias. (The first two diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are that the patient manifests "Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)" and "The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty." We can presume that government psychologists would tend to broadly construe these criteria.) These records can be subpoenaed for use in civil commitment and sentencing proceedings. The Inmate Orientation Handbook and Comrade Zoukis note, "Risk relevant information obtained from inmates, or obtained about inmates during the course of their incarceration, is not considered to be confidential. Risk relevant information obtained during an inmate's incarceration may be documented in an inmate's Psychology record, and reviewed in association with formal evaluation procedures utilized in the determination of whether an individual meets criteria for designation as a Sexually Dangerous Person, pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."
Even if the prisoner does not commit a new crime or federal supervised release violation, his damaging admissions can be used against him, for example in court proceedings to decide whether to terminate or modify his conditions of supervised release pursuant to . If he ever appears before a court for sentencing for a new crime or supervised release violation, whether it is a matter pertaining to sexual conduct or not, his admissions can be used against him as evidence of his dangerousness, pursuant to , which can justify deprivations of liberty, such as lengthy periods of incarceration and oppressive conditions of release (in the case of the latter, pursuant to ).
Conflicts of interest
As Program Statement 5310.12 notes:
|“|| APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct states that psychologists should avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients and should make every effort to avoid dual relationships with clients that could impair their professional judgement or increase the risk of client exploitation.
Ethical issues have, on occasion, surfaced, creating difficulty for psychologists asked to function in roles which they view as representing a dual relationship. Typically, conflicts arise when psychologists feel that the role they are being asked to perform jeopardizes their professional integrity, and thereby, hinders their effectiveness in delivering subsequent services.
These "dual role" issues are significant in that they can be viewed as a violation of the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and can place the psychologist in a difficult position. If the psychologist willingly assumes these roles and violates this Ethical Standard, the psychologist runs the risk of possible exclusion from the American Psychological Association and loss of professional license from State Boards of Examiners of Psychologists. If the psychologist refuses to assume these roles, the psychologist runs the risk of Bureau disciplinary action and gives the appearance of not being a good "team player".
This is an understatement, but the psychologists need not worry. The psychiatric profession long ago realized that it would be in their best interests to cooperate with the government. Large numbers of APA members have some sort of connection to the government, whether as researchers, forensic psychologists, prison psychologists, court-ordered treatment providers to supervised releasees, etc. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is written in such a way as to create plenty of business for such providers, by letting them diagnose people with disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, whose diagnostic criteria are tailored to the requirements of a government that wishes to stigmatize illegal behaviors by having them considered evidence of mental illness. (One of the DSM-5 criteria for antisocial personality disorder is that the person manifests "Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.") The APA is not going to punish federal prison psychologists for serving their true master, the BOP, at the expense of the patients.
Other questionable practices
(Mis)handling of situations involving paruresis
The Handbook of Correctional Mental Health notes:
|“||“[I]nmates may receive disciplinary sanctions for failing to comply with instructions and regulations, such as providing urine samples for drug screening. Some inmates, however, may claim that for psychological reasons they cannot produce a urine specimen while observed, a frequently occurring condition known as paruresis (Bohn and Sternbach 1997; Labbate 1996-1997; Zgourides 1987). Difficulty with public urination is one of several common social fears and phobias (Kessler et al. 1998), and it can occur with a wide range of severity among individuals or within the same person in different circumstances and times. No definitive or objective test is available to confirm or refute the presence of paruresis. The absence of prior treatment or the ability to void in some social situations but not in others does not rule it out. Although modalities associated with the treatment of social phobias help some individuals, no universally effective medication or other treatment exists. Coercive interventions, such as forcing fluids while observing a person with paruresis, are ineffective and can cause serious medical complications. Alternatives to observed urine specimen collection for individuals who self-report paruresis include unobserved collections in a dry room, testing of hair specimens, sweat testing with a patch, and blood testing ("Test for Drugs of Abuse" 2002). These alternatives preclude the need for futile attempts to differentiate inmates with true paruresis from those who fabricate complaints. Mental health professionals provide a valuable service to the disciplinary process and to inmates when they provide information about such conditions and helpful suggestions about their management.||”|
Specifically, prisoners who are unable to urinate while under direct visual supervision can be written up for having committed a Code 110 prohibited act, "Refusing to provide a urine sample". The psychologists have been flagrantly indifferent to the needs of paruretics, finding a variety of excuses for refusing to diagnose them. One such excuse is that the word "paruresis" does not appear in the DSM-IV-TR. The problem was listed under section 300.23 of the DSM-IV-TR as "performance fears . . . using a public restroom." The DSM-5 explicitly mentions paruresis by name, stating, "Some individuals fear and avoid urinating in public restrooms when other individuals are present (i.e., paruresis, or 'shy bladder syndrome'.)" It also notes, "Paruresis is more common in males." However, most prisoners do not have their own copy of the DSM and, lacking Internet access, will be unaware of this change. Also, the listing of paruresis in the DSM will do nothing for prisoners who cannot obtain a diagnosis.
Program Statement 6060.08 states, "Ordinarily, an inmate is expected to provide a urine sample within two hours of the request, but the Captain (or Lieutenant) may extend the time if warranted by specific situations (for example, the inmate has a documented medical or psychological problem, is dehydrated, etc.). Staff may consider supervising indirectly an inmate who claims to be willing but unable to provide a urine sample under direct visual supervision. For example, this might be accomplished by allowing the inmate to provide the sample in a secure, dry room after a thorough search has been made of both the inmate and the room." At least six state prison systems — Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Tennessee — have modified their drug testing regulations to provide accommodations for prisoners with paruresis.
Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry states, "Persons with social phobias (also called social anxiety disorder) have excessive fears of humiliation or embarrassment in various social settings, such as in speaking in public, urinating in a public rest room (also called shy bladder), and speaking to a date." The Synopsis describes shy bladder as "inability to void in a public bathroom" and notes that relaxation exercises are an application of behavior therapy for dealing with this disorder. Some paruretics experience delayed urination and must wait for their need to void to overcome their anxiety, while others are unable to urinate at all.
DSM section 300.23 contains several diagnostic criteria for social anxiety disorder. The Himle Paruresis Inventory, developed by Joseph Himle, is a ten-question questionnaire designed to help diagnose paruresis. Carol Olmert revised Himle's inventory to produce her own eight-question inventory; she also loosened the threshold of positive responses to inventory questions required to assess paruresis, noting, "If only one or two questions strike home but they are extremely accurate, you might be justified in calling yourself paruretic." Chief Psychologist Amy Boncher (verbally; she would never put this in writing) justifies the Psychology Department's refused to use these inventories by stating that a smart, well-informed prisoner would know which items on the checklist to tick to get the desired diagnosis, and that therefore those inventories are unreliable. She also states (again, verbally) that the dry cell poses unacceptable security risks for drug testing.
Paruresis is largely unrecognized by the prison psychologists, who find there to be epistemological problems involved in making a diagnosis, since the symptoms are mostly self-reported. This presents a problem when such prisoners are called upon to provide a urine sample under direct visual supervision. One excuse the psychologists use is that the prisoner has been psychologically evaluated but not diagnosed with social anxiety disorder. This ignores the fact that the psychologists, when they do their evaluations, do not test for the specific social phobia in question. However, the Psychology Department can successfully stonewall and hide behind the fact that the prison administrative remedies process is so cumbersome, lengthy (a serious problem if the prisoner's release date is approaching and he is trying to overturn the DHO's imposition of loss of good conduct time) and fraught with procedural pitfalls (e.g. filing photocopies rather than on carbonized forms can result in rejection, but so can failing to press hard enough on the pen to create four legible carbonized copies) that it is almost impossible to win. In a 13 December 2011 response to a BP-8, Dr. Boncher revealed her genius at equivocation (as well as her willingness to dodge the issue):
|“||You ask that Psychology specify which component of which evaluation would have been capable of uncovering evidence of paruresis and how it would have that capability. All of the Psychologists are qualified to diagnose Anxiety Disorders and none of them determined this was an appropriate diagnosis in your case. Further, as you referenced in your e-mail dated 11/16/2011, you have been administered psychological tests at other institutions, any of which could have detected the possibility of an Anxiety Disorder, but none of them did.||”|
Dr. Boncher's response sounds as though it addresses the matter, but actually dodges the question entirely of "which component of which evaluation would have been capable of uncovering evidence of paruresis and how it would have that capability" because she does not specify any component. She mentions "anxiety disorders" but not this particular specific social phobia; it could be that the tests were designed to detect other anxiety disorders but not that one. This is, in fact, the case when it comes to tests such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which has a psychasthenia scale, and the Personality Assessment Inventory, which also tests for anxiety. None of them ask about symptoms characteristics of paruresis. Dr. Boncher's response (in person, not in writing) was that the interview process would detect anything that the inventories didn't; but because there is no transcript of the interview, there is no way to prove whether questions pertinent to paruresis were asked. In reality, they are generally not asked, which is why paruretics do not get diagnosed with social phobia by BOP psychologists because of that condition. One can, in any case, infer that the questions were not asked by the fact that the psychological reports do not mention any such questions or responses thereto.
Dr. Boncher was the main culprit behind Psychology Services' stonewalling of these prisoners' efforts to obtain justice, but Dr. Reisweber was equally skeptical. Essentially, these prisoners were in a damned-in-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, because if (as happens in almost all cases) the prisoner did not report his paruretic symptoms prior to the drug test, he will be regarded by the Discipline Hearing Officer, Regional Director, and General Counsel as having fabricated the story on the spot, or after the fact; but if he does bring it up beforehand, Reisweber construed that as evidence they were planning beforehand to refuse a drug test and set up an excuse in advance. A prisoner's failure to seek a paruresis evaluation before being written up for refusing a drug test is sometimes used as a basis for denying an administrative remedy request for a paruresis evaluation.
As a practical matter, the only prisoners at FCC Petersburg who can obtain a paruresis diagnosis are those who can show the psychologists that they were diagnosed with it before they came to prison. Most people do not obtain such a diagnosis outside of prison because the treatments for paruresis are usually only partially effective, at best, and not always easy; many psychologists are ignorant about it; and it can be easier and cheaper to work around the problem rather than try to cure it. It is common practice for psychologists to make diagnoses based on information provided through self-reporting; e.g. a prisoner will often get a depression diagnosis if he reports having thoughts of hopelessness, loss of interest in activities he used to enjoy, etc. There is no way to verify these symptoms, but he still gets the diagnosis. A different standard is applied to social anxiety disorder.
The refusal to diagnose paruretics with social phobia violates Program Statement 6340.04, which requires "All institutions will provide the following services either through medical and mental health care staff at the institution or through consultation with community resources (the services may be delivered by clinicians and staff other than psychiatrists) . . . Mental health screening of inmates suffering from symptoms or behavioral disturbances indicative of possible mental illnesses or disorders; . . . Diagnosis and treatment of mild to moderate mental illnesses such as non-psychotic major depression, anxiety disorders, or sleep disorders".
Strangely enough, after refusing to diagnosis a prisoner with paruresis or social phobia, Psychology Services staff will offer the prisoner cognitive therapy for it. Such therapy is regarded by experts in the field of social phobia as ineffective compared to graduated exposure therapy, the standard treatment for paruresis. When asked about the seeming contradiction between refusing to diagnose for a disorder, and offering treatment for it, Boncher responded that it is Psychology Services' responsibility to offer such treatment. When asked for evidence that the prisoner does not have paruresis, Boncher's response (via the Warden) was that psychologists are not required to provide evidence disproving a patient's having a particular disorder.
The former practice was for Psychology Services (and Boncher in particular) to tell patients to seek a paruresis evaluation from Health Services; and in fact, the Discipline Hearing Officer makes the same recommendation to prisoners who claim to have shy bladder. It is unclear whether Psychology staff still give patients that advice, since Health Services unequivocably (and correctly) states that such diagnoses are under Psychology's purview. It essentially amounted to buck-passing between the two departments.
Thus far, civil rights clinics, constitutional law professors, and indigent assistance agencies have not shown much interest in helping with court cases involving paruresis. Even the Virginia Lawyer Referral Service, the Virginia State Bar program that lets prospective litigants get a half-hour consultation for $35, has declined to provide consultations in those cases. Further, FCC Petersburg is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which does not have a reputation for being kind to pro se defendants who are battling against the prison system.
Probably the only remedy that holds some prospect of working, in the short term, would be for paruretic prisoners to report their symptoms as early as possible and obtain written evidence that they made such reports (e.g. in the form of a response to an administrative remedy request asking for a paruresis evaluation); and, most importantly, in the event that the BOP fails to provide reasonable accommodations for the condition, get a family member or friend to write to their member of the U.S. Congress and ask him to intervene. This can not only help get the BOP to take action in response to specific cases, but also help educate Congressional staff on the need for legislation to address this issue. Those prisoners, and their supporters, with an interest in paruresis activism can join the International Paruresis Association (http://www.paruresis.org/).
Infringement of individual sovereignty concerning suicide
Pursuant to Program Statement 5324.08, the Chief Psychologist or her designee serves as a suicide prevention program coordinator. This person decides how to intervene to stop prisoners from committing suicide, e.g. by placing them on suicide watch, in which the prisoner is placed under observation in a room lacking fixtures or architectural features that would permit self-injury. This interference with the prisoner's right to kill himself is a violation of fundamental human rights. The arguments for allowing such suicides, and providing pentobarbital as a reliable and peaceful suicide method, are explained in What would be the consequences of allowing and/or facilitating prisoner suicides?
The fact that a psychologist would agree to fulfil such a role, rather than let the prisoner exercise his inalienable right to die, suggests a serious moral failing on the part of said psychologist. It is no excuse that the program statement requires it, or that the courts mandate that the prison system implement such a policy. Some rights are so basic as to supersede all constitutions, statutes, and the claimed authority of any governmental bodies established thereby. There also is no legitimate penological purpose served by preserving those prisoner's lives against their will, since the public will be protected from further crimes of the offender even more by his death than by his incarceration.
The prison staff want to talk prisoners out of killing themselves, or forcibly try to stop them from doing it, but don't want to take any action to improve prisoners' quality of life. On the contrary, they make it worse by writing restrictive CMPs and soliciting damaging admissions that can be reported to probation officers, and then used as an excuse to make the person's life hell after he gets out. When there is no hope, the logical option is suicide.
One might argue that there is always hope, since the political system can change; but the psychologists are also doing everything they can to stifle prisoners from participating freely in the marketplace of political ideas, and thereby find additional meaning and purpose in life, as well as reason to hope, by helping make a difference for themselves and others. The system often contains no paths to forgiveness and redemption, since in many cases the person is subject to a lifetime of intrusive monitoring and restrictions that make it difficult to find much usefulness or enjoyability in life. That the suicide rate among prisoners and supervised releasees is not much higher than it is, is a testament to the truth of what Victor Hugo wrote, that "fortunately or unfortunately, man is so constituted that he can suffer long and much, both morally and physically, without dying". Presently, the most radical pro-suicide-choice organization appears to be Exit International, which unfortunately does not have any U.S. chapters.
Note that some of the information below may be out-of-date, as Nathania.org is only able to obtain occasional intelligence reports from our sources behind enemy lines.
Andrea R. Weisman
Andrea R. Weisman (license number 0810003655), LCP, is a sex offender psychologist who received her degree in Clinical Psychology from Florida Institute of Technology. She also is typically the person who deals with conflicts involving the Jewish community at Petersburg. Her indignation against sex offenders' "rationalizations" (aka dissident opinions) is perhaps the most palpable of Psychology Services staff. She maintains a (somewhat) civil and welcoming facade to the new lambs arriving for slaughter, however, so as to encourage their involvement in the sex offender treatment programs. Once they have foolishly let down their guard and revealed all of their incriminating secrets, there is of course no need for her to maintain any pretense of respect or goodwill, or hold back from infringing their liberty, as by then it is too late for them to retract their statements. She is a truly fearsome presence at FCC Petersburg. She is listed as having some sort of association with 1 Point Pleasant Rd Henrico, VA 23228, (804) 264-4066; a reverse lookup shows this is Intercept Youth Services Incorporated.
Marcus R. Forbes
Marcus R. Forbes (license number 0810001856) is a sex offender psychologist who received a degree in Counseling Psychology from Indiana State University and who, having shown at least some degree of professional integrity, intellectual honesty, and concern for justice, will probably never be promoted to Chief Psychologist. He is not skilled enough in the art of CYA (covering yourself adequately), or did not become disillusioned with the system quickly enough to begin practicing CYA sufficiently early. He eventually succumbed to the pressures imposed by the system, and began practicing deliberate indifference, but it was already too late.
Kelli L. Heck
Kelli L. Heck (license number 0810002951), internship program coordinator, received her degree in Counseling Psychology from West Virginia University and is one of the seemingly nicer psychology Services staff members, which perhaps makes her potentially more dangerous as prisoners may be more inclined to open up to her; but not enough information has been gathered to be sure of what exact level of threat she poses to the well-being of others. However, she must be doing at least some harm to the prisoners and to society as a whole, or she would have been fired long ago for neglect of duty. One would do well to remember the words of Henry David Thoreau, "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." Block writes, that "if someone has anything to do with the illegitimate government, the presumption is that one is guilty of a crime. This presumption, of course, can be defeated, but one can only be absolved from the guilt otherwise entailed by engaging in an explicitly libertarian act (e.g., burrowing from within at the IRS)."
There are a number of persons of interest within the Psychology Department, about whom Nathania.org has not yet been able to gather much information. They include Staff Psychologist Corine Hill (not licensed by the Virginia Board of Psychology), another Minnesota School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University graduate; Staff Psychologist Abigayl Perelman (not licensed by the Virginia Board), who received her degree in Clinical Psychology-Law from the University of Alabama and probably is one of these New Agey spiritual-but-not-religious chicks, since she's reportedly into "mindfulness-based practices"; Staff Psychologist Kendra Pugh (license number 0810001789), who received her degree in Clinical Psychology from the Virginia Consortium Program in Professional Psychology; SOMP Coordinator Oliver Stone (not licensed by the Virginia Board), who received his degree in Clinical Psychology from Northwestern University; and DAP Coordinator Allyson N. Wood (not licensed by the Virginia Board), who received her degree in Clinical Psychology from Wright State University School of Professional Psychology.
FCC Petersburg Psychology Services Department is member #2169 of the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC). The Psychology Department recruits about four interns annually. Interns get paid $50,022 per year. As of early 2014, the department was seeking APPIC accreditation, and a site visit was expected before April 2014. Undoubtedly, it will be a shoo-in; due to regulatory capture, accreditation bodies tend to be almost completely worthless at upholding reasonable quality standards.
In their first year, interns complete a four-month rotation in each of the three primary rotations, viz., Drug Abuse Program, General Population/Mental Health, and Sex Offender Management Program. In their second year, interns complete a general population/mental health focused rotation. Like psychology interns everywhere, they undergo a quasi-probationary process in which they are asked to obey orders that would be repugnant to any decent, conscientious person with sound morals. Those who object and refuse are weeded out; those who do what they have to do to prosper have a promising career. Specifically, performance evaluations are forwarded to the intern's academic institution.
According to the pre-doctoral internship overview, "Interns will be encouraged to actively engage in varied professional activities which emphasize knowledge acquisition, professional collaboration and supervision, critical thinking, reflection, and practical experience". This seems to mostly consist of a weekly Journal Group in which interns present and discuss current research articles. (Thus, presumably, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia and other such classics from before our current era, when heterodox scholarly periodicals of that type came to be suppressed, are not among those whose articles are presented.) In reality, anyone who were to acquire sufficient knowledge and think critically would tend to come to the conclusion that many of the theories put forth by Psychology Services are a crock.
Allegedly, SOMP Treatment Specialists "provide empirically supported treatment" and "identify risks to the public". In reality, of course, their job is to provide politically-motivated propaganda and identify thoughtcrime. Likewise, RDAP is supposedly "evidence based"; actually, if there is any correlation between RDAP completion and what the system deems to be rehabilitation, it is because the decision to do what is necessary to complete it reflects that one has already, to some extent, become compliant with the system.
It is likely that there are some in the Psychology Department who disagree with some of its practices, but have learned to keep quiet and do their work, for the sake of their careers and families. One is reminded of what Thoreau said: "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. . . . . When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families."
There are also probably some who believe that they can do the most good by working within the system. Since climbing the rungs of power requires showing deference to the establishment and finding ways to better serve its interests, it is more likely that the system will corrupt the government employee, than that the government employee will bring about much change in the system. Lew Rockwell commented that, while it might be possible for a government employee to do a little good from within the system, "how much more would he do by quitting his job and writing an exposé on the entire bureaucratic racket?" It is fear of public backlash that tends to have the most powerful impact in bringing about reforms in government policy and practices.
Amy Alison Boncher
Amy Alison Boncher, Psy.D., Chief Psychologist, originally from Appleton, Wisconsin, graduated from Luther College in 1997 and obtained her degree from Clinical Psychology from the Minnesota School of Professional Psychology. She married Josh Berman on 18 September 2010 and had a child, Maggie, in 2012. She is quite masterful at the art of equivocation and avoidance of issues at hand, and often will tell disgruntled prisoners to file administrative remedies, which are well-known to be pointless. She is responsible for a great deal of impotent frustration and gnashing of teeth on the part of prisoners who are outmaneuvered by her in the bureaucratic processes.
Whoever chose Boncher for the Chief Psychologist position picked well, because she is the consummate provider of intellectual cover for BOP-implemented injustice. There is some circumstantial evidence that she sometimes throws BP-8s in the trash (or an equivalent, such as a file of BP-8s that will receive no response). Fortunately, BP-9s leave more of a paper trail, and can't be ignored without attracting the attention of the Warden. Her responses are works of art, brief but misleading (yet subtly so; statements that could be exposed as outright lies are avoided, at least in writing, although she does not mind telling untruths in person, as one-on-one conversations with prisoners have no significance) and, whenever possible, totally dodging the point, yet in a way that could be plausibly (but not accurately) construed, by one who willfully chose to construe it that way, as adequately addressing the issue.
She puts to shame less-skilled bureaucrats, who are lacking in the spark of creativity that inspires the exquisite crafting of a truly inspired (but as always, elegantly limited to the minimum length required for perfection) document justifying tyranny with superficially believable arguments. She is less impressive in person, where she allows herself to become more careless; but as alluded to earlier, those interactions are of no consequence as they allow one to produce nothing more admissible than hearsay as evidence that one could hold against her. Walter Block argued that one should "blame the officers of the government, but not the common soldiers. Just as the Nuremberg trials went after the general and colonels, not the privates and corporals, the libertarian authorities will make a similar distinction with respect to the minions of the state."
Boncher does not appear to be licensed by the Virginia Board of Psychology. However, the Minnesota Board of Psychology voted to license her on 29 February 2008. She lives in Richmond, Virginia. She is a fan of Carrie Underwood, Michael Bublé, Lady Gaga, Kelly Clarkson, Adele, P!nk, and Lilith Fair, The Bridge, Elementary, My Cat from Hell, The Soup, Project Runway, Glee, Criminal Minds, Rules of Engagement, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, The Closer, and So You Think You Can Dance.
When one learns more about one's adversaries, and perceives the humanity and the beauty, one wonders whether they see the same in us, or if we are, to them, only the face of evil. They have our presentence investigation reports and other files; they know about our lives, our families, our aspirations (former or otherwise). Yet the fight for liberty brings us into conflict against those who, for ideology or a paycheck, chose the side of tyranny, and so we do what we must; much as those who, on the opposing side, long ago decided that regardless of whatever good qualities we might have, we had to be destroyed because we were in the way of what they wanted to accomplish. One is reminded of this scene from Les Misérables:
|“|| "Let's prevent the second shot, at any rate," said Enjolras.
And, lowering his carbine, he aimed at the gunner, who, at that moment, bending over the breech of the gun, was correcting and finally adjusting the aim.
This gunner was a fine-looking sergeant of artillery, quite young, blond, with a mild face, and the intelligent air suited to that awesome, ominous weapon, which, by perfecting itself in horror, must end in ending war.
Combeferre, standing near Enjolras, looked at this young man.
"What a pity!" said Combeferre. "What a hideous thing these bloodbaths are! I'm sure, when there are no more kings, there will be no more war. Enjolras, you’re aiming at that sergeant, you're not looking at him. Just think that he’s a charming young man; he's intrepid; you can see that he's a thinker; these young artillerymen are well educated; he has a father, a mother, a family; he’s in love, probably; he's twenty-five at most; he might be your brother."
"He is," said Enjolras.
"Yes," said Combeferre, "and mine, too. Well, don't let's kill him."
"Leave me alone. We must do what we must."
And a tear rolled slowly down Enjolras's marble cheek.
At the same time he pressed the trigger of his carbine. The flash burst out. The artillery sergeant turned twice around, his arms stretched out in front of him, and his head raised as if to drink the air, then he fell over sideways onto the gun, and lay there motionless. His back could be seen, from the center of which a stream of blood gushed upward. The bullet had entered his breast and passed through his body. He was dead.
They had to carry away and replace him. It did give those defending the barricade a few extra minutes.
Cindy Dominique, drug abuse program coordinator, was a person who gave every indication of just being there for the paycheck. Unlike those psychologists who will gladly take on extra work in order to crack down more thoroughly on dissent and "deviant" sexual expression, in the eyes of Dominique, whatever made her job easier was good and whatever makes it harder was bad. Having, apparently, no ideological ax to grind, she could be regarded as mostly harmless, relative to others. One is reminded of Henry Hazlitt's remark, "We are lucky, indeed, if the needless bureaucrats are mere easygoing loafers." As of 2014, she appeared to no longer be working for the Psychology Department. She is not licensed with the Virginia Board of Psychology.
Jarrod R. Reisweber
Jarrod R. Reisweber (license number 0810004272), Drug Abuse Program coordinator, was one of the more openly judgmental and arrogant psychologists. As such, he was actually less dangerous than the norm, because be offended patients so quickly that they closed off. However, it could be that offending people can draw them into a conflict that it's against their interests to get into, and cause them to reveal too much, out of anger. He obtained his degree in Clinical and School Psychology from James Madison University, which makes him an outlier because JMU has a pretty friendly and welcoming culture and is not known for graduating many people who are total assholes. Reisweber has apparently been all over the place, having attended Menomonee Falls High School in Wisconsin, then lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and married Erika Curiel (a marriage and family therapist at the Remuda Ranch Center for Eating Disorders in Milford, Virginia) of Fredericksburg Virginia in McGregor, Iowa. He also apparently attended University of Pennsylvania.
Reisweber also co-authored Cognitive Therapy for Adolescents in School Settings; it certainly makes sense that a prison psychologist would also have an interest in the daytime detainment centers into which hapless youth are herded for indoctrination into the statist ideology. The thought of this man being put in charge of assisting with anyone's cognitive restructuring is depressing indeed. One of his favorite counter-arguments, when a prisoner blamed the state for his problems and described how life would be in a freer society, was to make an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum by saying that if his desk were to turn into candy canes and lollipops, they would have no shortage of sweet things to eat.
The moral of the story was apparently that it's pointless to talk about what might happen in an alternate universe where anything is possible. The analogy didn't hold, though, because it is possible for humans to bring about a libertarian society, while it is impossible for his desk to turn into candy. When this was pointed out, his response was that it is also possible for monkeys to fly out of his ass; this type of comment presumably was intended to let the prisoner know that there are no prospects of having a serious discussion. Reisweber's address on record is Hopewell, Virginia. He describes his BOP responsibilities as having been to "intervene with and assess inmates. Engaged in inmate de-escalation to avoid use of force, developed psychological interventions to be used by Bureau of Prison psychologists, and supervised interns as part of a pre-doctoral internship program."
He seemed to believe in a theory of "might makes right" or legal positivism, since he would say things to the effect of, "The way I can tell your way of doing things is not the right way, is that you're sitting in an orange jumpsuit with your hands cuffed behind your back, and you can't retrieve your eyeglasses that have fallen into your lap." Evidently, according to his theory, anyone the state subdues by force, pursuant to legislation prohibiting an act the person committed, is automatically in the wrong, regardless of what that prohibited behavior was. Currently, Reisweber works at an unnamed forensic complex, where his job allegedly is to "Coordinate a 143-bed residential treatment unit and two outpatient programs for inmates with substance abuse disorders. Clinically intervene with inmates and supervise nine staff members a year while serving as a coordinator."
James R. Schrage
James R. Schrage was a preternaturally pleasant and enthusiastic and (at least superficially and mostly inconsequentially, and subject to the inevitable constraints imposed by the BOP hierarchy and FCC Petersburg Psychology Department's office politics) kind Psychology Services predoctoral intern. He was relegated to an office filled with the Psychology Department's excess clutter, in recognition of his low status and, in all likelihood, the low regard his fellow Psychology Services staff members held him in for failing to be as self-interested and apathetic a bureaucrat, or as viciously vindictive a partisan for tyranny, as the average prison psychologist. Schrage was typically assigned to deal with argumentative prisoners the other staff had gotten tired of having anything to do with, but who had to be seen in order to check the box that the services prescribed by standard operating procedure had been rendered. Schrage regrettably expressed some rather ignorant opinions concerning recidivism rates of sex offenders, and had to be set straight by prisoners who were able to obtain the pertinent statistics. As of mid-2012, Schrage had moved on to another part of BOP. He is not licensed by the Virginia Board of Psychology.
It would seem that a former chief of Psychology Services at Petersburg was Stephen Formanski.
- See, e.g., Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17.
- See, e.g., Matthew 5:27–28.
- See, e.g., Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17.
- See, e.g., Matthew 5:27–28.
- "Prison Litigation Reform Act Must be Fixed, Law denies justice to victims". American Civil Liberties Union. 22 April 2008.
- Human Rights Watch (2009). "No Equal Justice" (PDF).
- Rothbard, Murray (May 1970). "The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight". LewRockwell.com.
And so, at the hard inner core of the Women's Liberation Movement lies a bitter, extremely neurotic if not psychotic, man-hating lesbianism. The quintessence of the New Feminism is revealed. Is this spirit confined to a few extremists? Is it unfair to tar the whole movement with the brush of the Lesbian Rampant? I'm afraid not. For example, one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident opposition to men treating women as "sex objects." This supposedly demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as "sex objects" is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex. These new monsters of the female gender are out to destroy the lovely and age-old custom-delighted in by normal women the world over-of women dressing to attract men and succeeding at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagants would impose upon us! A world where all girls look like unkempt wrestlers, where beauty and attractiveness have been replaced by ugliness and "unisex," where delightful femininity has been abolished on behalf of raucous, aggressive, and masculine feminism. Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. . . . . Women as "sex objects"? Of course they are sex objects, and praise the Lord they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today's increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for granted.
- Herman, Judith Lewis (4 June 2000). Father-Daughter Incest. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674002708.
- Herman, Judith Lewis. "Reviews, Father-Daughter Incest". Harvard University Press.
- "Program Statement 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program" (PDF). Federal Bureau of Prisons. 1 August 2011.
- Muth, William R. (June 1999). "Victim Impact Programs in the Federal Prison System". Journal of Correctional Education. 50 (2): 62–66.
- "Learn about Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM)". Victim Offender Mediation Association.
- Riegel, David L. (2007). We were NOT abused! (PDF). ISBN 0-9676997-3-8.
- Sutherland, Kate (2002–2003). "From Jailbird to Jailbait: Age of Consent Laws and the Construction of Teenage Sexualities". Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 9: 313.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (15 February 2013). "Program Statement 5324.10, Sex Offender Programs" (PDF).
- Castleman, Michael (27 April 2009). "Does Pornography Cause Social Harm?". Psychology Today.
- Diamond M., Jozifkova E., Weiss P. (October 2011). "Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic". Arch Sex Behav. 40 (5): 1037–1043. PMID 21116701. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (9 July 1999). "Program Statement 5265.11, Correspondence" (PDF).
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (9 November 2011). "Program Statement 5266.11, Incoming Publications" (PDF).
- Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1925)
- Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
- Rockwell, Lew (30 April 2008). "But What About the Children?". Mises Institute.
- White, Katherine (29 August 2013). "Interview with Christopher Zoukis, Prisoners' Rights Advocate". Prison Law Blog.
- Comrade Zoukis notes, "Psychology staff members are sometimes involved in tasks such as monitoring these inmates for possession of unauthorized materials, sexual conduct and other matters relating to such treatments. To date, the BOP has yet to promulgate extensive national policies for such offenders, but at some prisons there are special communications monitoring programs and other enforcement type activities beyond the scope of the usual therapeutic model." Comrade Zoukis also points out that for those who have been involved in "offensive sexually oriented activities, there could be concerns about potential civil commitment proceedings, or of internal investigations, and their prison's Psychology Department can become an adversary. The Psychology Department has a unique role in the BOP, and it can be a useful tool for rehabilitation and improving one's quality of life while incarcerated, provided the inmate is aware of its inherent limitation." Zoukis, Christopher (21 May 2013). "Psychology Services in the Federal Bureau of Prisons". Prison Law Blog.
- James, Steve (Fall 2009). "Romeo and Juliet Were Sex Offenders: An Analysis of the Age of Consent and a Call for Reform". UMKC Law Review. 78 (1): 241.
- Graupner, Helmut (1999). "Love versus abuse: Crossgenerational sexual relations of minors: A gay rights issue?". Journal of Homosexuality. 37. doi:10.1300/J082v37n04_03.
- Mises, Ludwig von (1944). "The Plain Citizen versus the Professional Propagandist of Bureaucratization". Bureaucracy.
- Mirkin, Harris (1999). "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia". Journal of Homosexuality. 37 (2).
There was little public discussion of gays and lesbians prior to the Stonewall riot in 1969 (though there was ferment within the gay community itself), just as in the 1990s there has not been a debate about the threat of child molesters. It was simply assumed that homosexuals were sick. Indeed a debate was precluded by the terms 'queer,' 'pansy' and 'fag' in the same way as any current discussion of intergenerational sex is stopped by the terms 'molester' and 'abuser.'
- McCarthy, Jennifer A. (2010). The relationship between possessing child pornography and child molestation. United State New York: UMI Dissertations Publishing. pp. n/a. ISBN 9781124120638.
- Rudra, Geetika (3 June 2013). "Sandy Hook Parents Petition to Block Release of Grisly Photos". ABC News.
- Smith, George H. "Religious Morality". Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 173.
- Rand, Ayn (1957). "Miracle Metal". Atlas Shrugged.
- Mirkin, Harris (1999). "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia". Journal of Homosexuality. 37 (2).
- Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four.
- Enacted as part of the PROTECT Act of 2003.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (12 September 2006). "Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification" (PDF).
- Zoukis, Christopher (21 May 2013). "Psychology Services in the Federal Bureau of Prisons". Prison Law Blog.
- "Parole in the Federal Probation System". United States Courts. May 2011.
- "Program Statement 6340.04, Psychiatric Services" (PDF). Federal Bureau of Prisons. 15 January 2005.
- "302.2, Pedophilic Disorder". DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association. 2013.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (November 2011). "Inmate Orientation Handbook" (PDF).
- Zoukis, Christopher (29 April 2013). "The Politics of Prison: Sex Offenders in the Federal Bureau of Prisons". Prison Law Blog.
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247–4248
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (30 August 1993). "Program Statement 5310.12, Psychology Services Manual" (PDF).
- "301.7, Antisocial Personality Disorder". DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association. 2013.
- Scott, Charles L. (15 October 2009). Handbook of Correctional Mental Health (2nd ed. ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. ISBN 978-1585623891.
- "300.23, Social Phobia (Social Anxiety Disorder". Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition: Text Revised. American Psychiatric Association. 2000. p. 453.
- "300.23, Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia)". DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. p. 203.
- "300.23, Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia)". DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. p. 206.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (24 November 1999). "Program Statement 6060.08, Urine Surveillance and Narcotic Identification" (PDF).
- Florida Department of Corrections Procedure 602.010, mentioned in footnote 12 of Pate v. Peel, 256 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Florida, Panama City Division) (“DOC's Procedure 602.010, Bashful Bladder Procedure, which outlines the steps to be taken to obtain a urine specimen from an inmate who claims that he suffers from BBS.”).
- "Procedure for Inmates Claiming to be Unable to Urinate in Presence of Others: The following procedures shall be employed when the watch commander reasonably believes that the inmate is unable to provide a urine specimen due to an alleged inability to urinate in the presence of others (shy bladder). Reasonable belief is based upon the following criteria, including, but not limited to: Medical or mental health records supporting the inmate's claim (to be evaluated by health services or OMH staff), prior disciplinary and/or computerized urinalysis testing data indicating a history of urinalysis testing violations, if applicable, and the inmate's behavior and demeanor at the time of request for the urine sample . . . . Staff shall not witness the inmate urinate into the specimen container." "7 NYCRR 1020.4(e)". New York Department of Correctional Services. 7 March 2012.
- "There may be extenuating medical (e.g., dehydration, kidney problems, medication, etc.) and psychological (e.g., social phobias) conditions that may preclude the giving of a sample. In such cases, the inmate must provide written evidence from the health care staff indicating such a condition. The Warden shall, in extreme cases, authorize the use of an alternative drug testing method for those inmates who have a documented medical condition that would prohibit the use of urinalysis testing. Approval of the commissioner or his designee is required prior to the use of any alternate drug testing method or instrument." Tennessee Department of Correction (1 June 2011). "Policy #506.21(VI)(B)(9), Inmate Drug/Alcohol Testing and Sanctions" (PDF).
- Soifer, Steven (2001). "Evolving Legal Ramifications". Shy Bladder Syndrome. New Harbinger. p. 98. ISBN 1-57224-227-2.
- Benjamin J. Sadock, Harold I. Kaplan, Virginia A. Sadock. "16.3 Specific Phobia and Social Phobia". Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry. p. 597.
- Benjamin J. Sadock, Harold I. Kaplan, Virginia A. Sadock. "35.8 Behavior Therapy. Table 35.8-2: Some Common Clinical Applications of Behavior Therapy". Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry. p. 957.
- Marshall, John R. (1994). "The Drama of Social Phobia". Social Phobia: From Shyness to Stage Fright. Perseus Books. p. 32. ISBN 978-0465078967.
Nurses and others who work in medical offices have long been aware that some individuals are unable to produce urine samples. This phenomenon, sometimes called "bashful bladder," paruresis, is the inability to urinate in public restrooms.
- "DSM-5 Definition of Social Anxiety Disorder". Social Anxiety Institute.
- Soifer, Steven (2001). "What is Bashful Bladder Syndrome and How Do You Know You Have It?". Shy Bladder Syndrome. New Harbinger Publications. pp. 8–9. ISBN 1-57224-227-2.
- Olmert, Carol (2008). "Do You Suffer from Paruresis?". Bathrooms Make Me Nervous. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-0-6152-4024-4.
- International Paruresis Association. "Drug-Testing Reform".
- Boncher, Amy Alison (13 December 2011). "Response to Attempt at Informal Resolution" (PDF).
- Wilson, Eric D. (24 October 2011). "659834-F1, Response to Request for Administrative Remedy" (PDF).. Actually, in this case, there was evidence that such an evaluation had been sought prior to the drug test; see Nathan Larson paruresis sequence. Specifically, see Forbes, Marcus (27 May 2011). "Clinical Intervention — Clinical Contact" (PDF). Psychology Data System.
- Soifer, Steven (2001). "Adjunct Therapies, Support Groups, and Workshops". Shy Bladder Syndrome. New Harbinger. p. 55. ISBN 1-57224-227-2.
While cognitive restructuring techniques have not been evaluated or proven as a primary treatment for paruresis, it is a helpful addition to graduated exposure therapy, especially if you have not responded successfully to graduated exposure therapy alone.
- Wilson, Eric D. (8 May 2012). "686149-F1, Response to Request for Administrative Remedy" (PDF).
- "Program Statement 5324.08, Suicide Prevention Program" (PDF). Federal Bureau of Prisons. 15 March 2007.
- Casella, Jean and Ridgeway, James (10 August 2012). "Federal Prisons Chief to Inmates: Don't Kill Yourself". Mother Jones.
- Hugo, Victor (1862). "The Interior of Despair". Les Misérables.
- "Exit Local Chapters". Exit International.
- Thoreau, Henry David (1849). "Resistance to Civil Government".
- Block, Walter E. (2009). "Libertarian Punishment Theory: Working for, and Donating to, the State". Libertarian Papers. 1 (17).
- Rockwell, Llewellyn H. (19 September 2012). "What Should Freedom Lovers Do?". Mises Daily.
- Block, Walter (Fall 2004). "Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I". Reason Papers: 113–130.
- Minnesota Board of Psychology (29 February 2008). "Minutes of the 397th Meeting" (PDF).
- Hugo, Victor (1862). "The Artillery-Men Compel People to Take Them Seriously". Les Misérables.
- Hazlitt, Henry (1946). "Disbanding Troops and Bureaucrats". Economics in One Lesson.
- "Curiel-Reisweber". Menomonee Falls Now. 4 May 2010.
- Heroux, Paul (8 November 2011). "Sex Offenders: Recidivism, Re-Entry Policy and Facts". Huffington Post.