Quote:
Originally Posted by smiley  From the little i have read, Mr Eaglin has been 4 years incident free. So why would he still be a threat if his extra security was/is classified as temporary 4 years ago? Just shows the injustice of the system and how things are left up to the perception and interpretation of others.
So what is the Wardens definition of temporary then? It is sad when one has to take such measures as a hunger strike to be heard.
Yes incarcerate and isolate protecting others from the dangers of this man/men, but to then further the punishment that the Courts seem deemed fit the crime, then for them to impose THEIR OWN further punishment should be against the law. 
Hope that makes sense? |
Eaglin's and Smith's seemingly permanent Max Managament status is intended to serve one purpose only: punishment for having been involved in the incident in which an officer was murdered. But, had Officer Lathrem been murdered through no fault of the DOC, this would not be happening. It is happening, however, because the DOC was clearly liable for her death; by vitiating virtually all applicable security measures that night -- a fact set forth by the I.G.'s office -- the DOC literally marched her to her grave. And for that the DOC has been subject to intense public criticism and a wrongful death action too.
And here's the kicker: if Eaglin's security classification was downgraded from Max Management to Close Management, he would stay in the same 9 x 7 cell he's been in for years. The ONLY differences would be that he would then be permitted regular outdoor exercise (in a cage), non-contact visits, canteen privileges, and permission to listen to a radio in his cell.
In this case it is clear that the terms "temporary" and "recent" are left to subjective definition by the warden. And that Secretary McDonough refuses to amend departmental policy to reflect more finite definitions speaks volumes to the Florida DOC mentality: "screw you all, we do what we want to do and don;t give a damn about the law."