Right now the California Department of Corrections (CDC) is under-fire for its policy of segregating prisoners based on their race. This stems from a recent decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court (Johnson v. California)(1), which could do away with the policy and leave the CDC with no other alternative to deal with its deadly racial gangs. This decision lacked the insight of the prison world that would have allowed the Court to make an informed decision based on reasonable evidence of what occurs One should not, for the sake of argument even attempt to imagine what life in prison is like. It is a latent institution that holds the demons of the earth and nobody should ever be subjected to that world. But, to a certain degree one must exemplify this entity so that society can at least, discernibly, understand why the decision in Johnson v. California will cost lives.

California houses approximately 160,000 inmates, that is more than any other state. 600 of those inmates are on Death Row, also more than any other state. Last year, Los Angeles was the murder capital of America. And not to mention that California is plagued by an overwhelming amount of Mexican, Black, and white street gangs.

As soon as an inmate enters one of the several prison reception centers, the CDC classifies him as either "Hispanic", "Black", "White", or "Other". If he is a violent offender he will more likely be housed in a prison cell with a cell mate in accordance to his race. This is not because the CDC practices discrimination, it is because they are trying to save his life.

When one is sentenced to live in a place filled with demented murderers, thieves, prodigal vagabonds, and sadistic pederasts, such things like discrimination are of no importance. The potential consequences of mishousing an inmate are devastating because for the prisoner, there is only one clear strategic analysis and direction cultivate your relationship with your race who will protect you, because it you do not you die.

Loyalty to one's race is prison is not an option, it's an obligation. The four major gangs that run California's prisons are: "Surenos" ("Southerners" Mexicans from Southern California), "Nuestra Familia" ("Our Family" Mexicans from Northern California), "The Aryan Brotherhood" (Whites), and "The Black Gorilla Family" (Blacks). Additionally, there are several smaller groups, all which of course are race-oriented and their alliance are with the mother groups. As soon as a prisoner enters a reception center, he is immediately adopted by his according group and forced to "Politic" follow prison rules.

These rules are simple, give your allegiance to your race; do not snitch on any member of your group; and of course do as your told. If a fellow member is attacked by a prisoner of another race or by a Correction's Officer it is one's obligation to immediately retaliate. If a "higher-up" tells you to kill another prisoner you must do it. If you refuse to undertake in any act you will be killed by your own group.

These "Politics" branch out to every inch of prison life. Your group eats together, sleeps together, and lives together. These rules evolved decades ago by the prisoners to produce a layered system of defense one will think twice before attacking a rival prisoner if it means one will be going up against his entire race.

Now, by conceding to these facts, it is not the position of the CDC that they in any way tolerate acts of violence, discrimination, or any actions that are contrary to the law. But, the CDC does understand for example: if there is tension between "The Black Gorilla Family" and "The Aryan Brotherhood", one could not in good judgment place a black inmate with a white inmate in the same cell by rule it is their obligation to assault and/or kill the other.

This is why the Supreme Court decision is one that could be classified only as ignorant. If the Justices would have used their authority to further amplify the record, and taken these simple factors into consideration, one would come to the conclusion that this is not a question of discrimination, but that of the 8th Amendment.

It would be cruel and unusual to intentionally force a man to hurt another, and by eliminating the CDC policy, that is exactly what will occur. This outweighs any question of discrimination that the Supreme Court was faced with. The CDC attempted to explain the diverse mannerisms of prisoners, their ethical codes, and a window into the racial wars that consume them. Instead of furthering their inquiry into these assertions, the court held "This Court should give no credence to such cynical, reflexive conclusions about race".(2)

Additionally, the Court held "The CDC has failed to explain why it could not, as an alternative to automatic segregation, rely on an individualized assessment of each inmates risk of violence when assigning him to a cell in a reception center. The Federal Bureau of Prison and other state systems do so without any apparent difficulty."(3) Again the court misses the point, this is an independent matter that involves unique circumstances that are interrelated with prison gangs in California and have nothing to do with other prisons.

California's prison gangs will never stop "Politicing" and allow an interceding party to govern them. So to minimize the violence, the CDC created a strategic itinerary to serve as a moderator in this bureaucratic state of chaos. Just as all governments, states, and entities must adapt to their unique particular problems, so does this one.

The Supreme Court has refused to consider these potential consequences and factor in the inevitable impulses that give these prisons life. The tension between these gangs is always in flux so the CDC has no way of knowing what groups are at war until they witness an assault or killing. Because the prisoners are segregated, the majority of these assaults occur on the yard or cafeteria. The officers then take immediate action by systematically controlling the disturbance by identifying their target and as to not allow any further violence, the yard is placed on "lockdown" until the matter can be resolved.

Now, for the sake of illustration, let us assume that the CDC policy of segregating prisoners is found to be unconstitutional and therefore the state must integrate all prisoners. Imagine this: the cells are integrated, and it is the obligation of the "Black Gorilla Family" to attack "The Aryan Brotherhood". Now instead of having a single incident where the officers can concentrate on, you now have hundreds of cells in chaos, not to mention that only a few cells are in actual sight of where the officer sits. So what happens is that you are not faced with just one incident, but hundreds of incidents, all spread out. And because the officers must locate the cells that are in chaos the assault is now a murder.

Additionally, you have incoming Black, and White inmates who have never been to prison, and because the CDC can not consider their race when housing them, many of them will be housed together, in other words they have been sentenced to die. At first glance, it was easy to see how the Court came to such a tentative conclusion when deciding that the CDC policy should be subjected to "strict scrutiny". This is understandable when one takes into account that these claims were argued in a nice clean courthouse where everyone is showered, shaved, wearing a nice tailored Armani Suit, making six figures a year, and no matter what, they get to go home everyday to their families and will not be forced to assault a rival judge because they have the security that the Constitution guarantees them.

But thousands of miles away, 160,000 men are fighting for that same right on a daily basis. And thousands of new prisoners will be forced to attack their new cell mate because the CDC was not allowed to house them using their current policy, all they know is that if they do not kill their cell mate they die.

When one does not have to live under these cruel and unusual conditions, it is easy to artificially construct an idea based on general concepts and then go home to your family. It is true that ignorance is bliss. It is the job of any lawyer, judge, or justice to familiarize him or herself with the case they will argue or listen to, but, there lies certain entities that no brief or oral argument can ever abstractly display to its audience. No representation could ever touch upon that grain of sand on the beach of problems within a California prison, and I am familiar with all of this, for I myself am a California prisoner.

The Supreme Court's decision, which will allow a Court to apply a strict standard in regards to how the CDC can house a prisoner is a slap in the face to the Constitution. It was that court's obligation, as the highest court of the land, to take into consideration the day to day facts of prison life in California and apply that to the law. And because the court has no clue to what occurs in these prisons on a day to day basis, their conclusion can be considered to be nothing more than a sham.

I will be the first to say that the CDC policy is not perfect I have seen things here that would make a billy-goat puke. But the bottom line is that no policy could ever eliminate the assaults and killings in California's Infernos, but, one can at least minimize these casualties by creating a system where 1) the officers can immediately take command over a disturbance; and 2) not place an inmate in a position where he has no other option than to kill his cell mate. The Supreme Court has it wrong, this policy is not about discrimination; it is about saving lives.

As I began by saying, nobody should ever be subjected to the evil that is prison, to the daily echoes of metal doors and the ever so normal question of "will today be my last day?" So perhaps this will provide the reader with a glimpse of what will occur if the wrong decision is handed down by whatever court decided to finally deal with this matter. Here, we are revealed by the truth, and only the truth. But nobody will know this because nobody will take the time to properly balance the density of a prisoner's life vs. one that is being discriminated.

-- a prisoner at Calipatria State Prison in California, July 2005

Notes: Johnson v. California (No. 03-636), Decided February 23, 2005, Supreme Court of the United States

MIM responds: This is a useful commentary on the reasons behind the racial segregation in California's prison. It is true that there is much fighting between prison gangs. And in fact the infamous fights in Corcoran prison yard in the 1990s that resulted in several deaths were set up by prison guards by putting prisoners of opposing gangs in the yard at the same time. Clearly there is a serious danger here. But what this essay misses is the reasons behind the gangs in California prisons, and the root causes of the segregation. MIM does not agree that segregation is done by guards to keep prisoners safe. The prison pigs set up fights for sport! And they have demonstrated their disinterest in prisoners' well being in many other ways. Rather, it is about the ease of doing their job. It is simpler for the prisons to segregate all prisoners.

In reality, many prisoners going in to California's gulags are not part of any gang. But immediately upon intake they are classified based on nationality and geography. So the system is set up to reinforce the gangs. Further, the need for gangs arises in the dangerous environment of the California prisons where prisoners face threats to their lives from all sides. Prison gangs, like street gangs, often provide a needed protection. Of course, without politics in command, these gangs will be nothing more than lumpen organizations fighting for their own material interests, often at the expense of their nation (i.e. selling drugs to people in their neighborhood). But these gangs don't grow out of a vacuum. It is the social conditions that drive people into gangs.

Rather than commend the California DOC for it's policy of segregation, MIM condemns the CDC for doing nothing to help prisoners better their lives. We criticize the CDC for failing to provide prisoners with any alternatives to prison gangs. And we condemn Amerikan capitalism for creating the conditions that push oppressed nation youth into gangs in the first place. Prison should not be a place where people fight for their lives, it should be a place where people learn how to live their lives better. Under imperialism it will never be more than a tool of social control, but we can envision a day when prisons will truly be a form of rehabilitation and education.

A former California SHU prisoner adds: As I have said in study group discussions, prison gangs do exist -- that prison and gang subculture with accompanying reactionary ideologies presents a obstacle hindering solidarity and organization among prisoners...Like another prison comrade stated -- the prison administration uses various gangs to separate and divide the various races into cliques that are at each other's throats...disunity...prison gangs only keep us divided and in conflict with each other and all that (disunity and lack of solidarity for political organization) benefits the prison administration. I would also mention narrow nationalism here as a danger of gangs. We need revolutionary nationalism. It is also important to mention that all prisoners are political prisoners--- the laws are designed in a way that ensures we will be labeled as "criminals" the creation of the laws and their application are in the hands of the imperialists.