Please call today to have these important Bills heard!

Please PRESS FOR A HEARING ON SB 279 (Independent Ombudsman)  and AB 401 (COURTS OF INQUIRY bill that would EXONERATE the Innocent). Please call your Legislators and/or Ira Hanson (see below) today to have these Bills heard.

SB279 – Extremely important for Human Rights (Independent Ombudsman) – PRESS FOR A HEARING ON THIS BILL!We need an independent Ombudsman in Nevada to go to for complaints about the many abuses people in Nevada’s prisons suffer. This would be an independent office, not run by NDOC.

And AB401:COURTS OF INQUIRY Bill to EXONERATE the Innocent.

PRESS FOR A HEARING ON THIS BILL!

Please call Ira Hansen, Assembly Judiciary Chairman’s office today: 775-684-8851,ask that they call his office and pass AB401.

See also ThinkProgress for an article about AB 401.

Advertisements

Legislative alert: CDCR’s Step-Down Pilot Program is in fact systematic, mandatory brainwashing

In: SF Bay View, Dec. 15th 2013 (reblogged on NCTT-Cor-SHU)
by Heshima Denham

There is a matter of some urgency that should be passed along as broadly as possible, because it is just that serious. We issued a statement, “Creating broken men, Part 2,” where we voiced our outrage at the inclusion of the mandatory brainwashing components of Section 700.2 of the CDCR’s Step Down Program (SDP.) Since that time several things have developed:

1. The doctors took Zaharibu Dorrough to the review board and attempted to bribe him with the promise of transfer to Tehachapi and touch visits in Step 3 IF he agreed to participate in Step 2 for six months – most centrally the “self-directed journal” outlined in Section 700.2 – their hope being if Zah does it, then countless other younger, more vulnerable prisoners can be herded into this brainwashing program. He of course refused, and we’re putting the finishing touches on a new statement on all of this, so I’ll leave that point.

2. We had an opportunity to review one of the journals (“The Con Game”) and it’s even worse than we thought – well, more accurately, it’s exactly what we knew it would be: a blatant character invalidation and brainwashing tool.

3. Most disturbing of all, they’ve announced a director’s rules change to provisions of CCR Section 3040, which introduces mandatory brainwashing for EVERY PRISONER IN CDCR – called “cognitive behavioral therapy” – and attaching it to this same regulation that governs mandatory work and education assignments while confined to CDCR.

All of this is in violation of Article 1 of the Nuremburg Code and the most fundamental basics of human rights. I don’t know if this is simply an issue most don’t genuinely understand or if CDCR has so thoroughly hidden and downplayed what they are attempting – but this is the single greatest evil this struggle faces. It is even more urgent than the issue of indefinite solitary sensory deprivation confinement.

What we have determined is CDCR’s SDP Pilot Program has zero to do with “a behavior-based path for ‘validated’ prisoners to exit the SHU” and is in fact a systematic and mandatory brainwashing program using the prospect of eventual SHU release as the coercive component to force men and women to submit to these techniques.

According to the SDP/STG [Security Threat Group] policy, if you refuse to submit to the “cognitive restructuring” components of the SDP, such as “self-directed journals,” you will be “stuck” in whatever step they decide to stick you in … forever – or, like the debriefing process, until you finally capitulate and ask them to brainwash you. In other words, you can be “STG behavior”-free for, presumably, the rest of your life and you’ll still be stuck in say, Step 2, in the SHU.

They have changed nothing, but are creating a new and more efficient means to produce the same broken minds and subservient slaves as the debriefing process – only on a much grander scale. It is in fact worse than the debriefing process – and not simply in the SHU. They seek to extend this to every prison and prisoner in CDCR’s custody.

CDCR is in the process of changing their regulations to incorporate mandatory brainwashing – what they’re calling in this proposed rules change “cognitive behavioral therapy,” which they define as “evidence-based psychotherapeutic treatment which addresses dysfunctional emotions, maladaptive behaviors, and cognitive processes in all three areas to reach proscribed goals” – to ensure everyone who enters CDCR will leave it a warped, submissive and subservient slave.

What we have determined is CDCR’s SDP Pilot Program has zero to do with “a behavior-based path for ‘validated’ prisoners to exit the SHU” and is in fact a systematic and mandatory brainwashing program using the prospect of eventual SHU release as the coercive component to force men and women to submit to these techniques.


To ensure their capacity to force this conditioning on prisoners, they’ve actually attached this sick, twisted assault on the underclass to provisions of CCR Title 15, Section 3040, Participation, which makes work, education and “other programs” mandatory for all CDCR prisoners. It in turn derives its authority from the slavery provisions of the 13th Amendment. I can only describe this as evil. Every activist, family member and citizen should be mobilizing against this manifestation of fascism in their midst.

Here they seek to instill beliefs and values which are synonymous with those of right-wing, authoritarian conservatism – while simultaneously seeking to absolve the nature and structure of capitalist society and contrapositive authoritarian conditioning inherent in the U.S. fascist mass psychology for any of society’s ills, including institutional racism, sexism, intentional underdevelopment, social containment and criminalization.

Instead they seek to lay all blame at the feet of the individual and their choices – a view rejected and debunked by sociological and criminological academia for decades. The origin of all crime is the disproportionate distribution of wealth, privilege and opportunity in a society – not simply individual choices. It is the lack of viable choices which coerces people into the underground economy – and inevitably into prisons where they’ve erected a multi-billion dollar industry built on jailing millions of poor people and people of color.

CDCR is in the process of changing their regulations to incorporate mandatory brainwashing – what they’re calling in this proposed rules change “cognitive behavioral therapy,” to ensure everyone who enters CDCR will leave it a warped, submissive and subservient slave.


These journals stress “taking personal responsibility,” but CDCR takes none for the hundreds of female prisoners they forcibly sterilized in California prisons, the tens of thousands subjected to years of psychological torture in U.S. SHU units, the tens of billions of dollars pillaged from underclass and minority communities by lending institutions during the subprime loan fiascos, the centuries of institutional racism, sexism, xenophobia and state-sponsored hate that adversely affects the “choices” available to the people subjected to these structural components of U.S. capitalism.

Financial corporations embezzled billions of dollars from hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens – via credit default swaps and other exotic financial instruments – in 2008, and not one of these Wall Street executives or government regulators has spent a day in jail.

There’s a guy in 3 Block who got caught with 20 rocks of cocaine and another guy in B Section who stole two pizzas, and they both got 25 to life under the three strikes law – and CDCR and “The Change Company” [the name of the vendor providing them with the journals] have the audacity and unmitigated gall to speak of “responsible” vs. “irresponsible” thinking.

The origin of all crime is the disproportionate distribution of wealth, privilege and opportunity in a society – not simply individual choices. It is the lack of viable choices which coerces people into the underground economy – and inevitably into prisons where they’ve erected a multi-billion dollar industry built on jailing millions of poor people and people of color.


Prisons are tools of repression to enforce property rights and maintain the current social order. Social conditions in these capitalist nations are such that “perpetual growth” has met the boundaries of planetary ecological/environmental capacity. They can’t keep on reaping super profits from the appropriation of surplus labor value without meeting ever increasing resistance from those suffering the ever decreasing share of wealth and resources available.

Their solution is to increase the psychological and behavioral malleability and passivity of the most potentially revolutionary segments of U.S. society: the underclass, the working poor, the unemployed … the prisoner. CDCR is and has always been a model for the nation in prison “best practices.” As goes California – so goes the nation.

The introduction and imposition of mandatory brainwashing – cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive restructuring, self-directed journals, behavior modification etc. – across CDCR facilities will produce a steady stream of broken men and women; who will in turn take these techniques, warped values, authoritarian beliefs and twisted ideals out to their communities where, just like those female slaves who were subjected to “slave seasoning” would raise their sons to be “good boys” – physically strong, so they could work hard, but psychologically and emotionally weak, so they would not rebel against the institution of slavery and thereby be murdered brutally by the slavemaster.

Prisons are tools of repression to enforce property rights and maintain the current social order.


These broken men and women will warp the minds of others, who will in turn warp others, until we will have a docile, submissive, subservient U.S. underclass population, content to continue enduring even more exploitation, more severe repression, and even greater usurpations – all because we, the progressives, the revolutionaries, the social justice activists, the common man and woman failed to act.

I feel at times as though many simply don’t understand what’s transpiring, its interconnections and its ultimate social impact. There are no disparate social forces – all is interconnected, and it is within these interconnections that the vast, horrifying, awe-inspiring scope of what these evil people are trying to do becomes sickeningly clear.

I don’t believe the legislators in Sacramento know this is the case. Coercive behavior modification and/or cognitive restructuring techniques are prohibited under Article 1 of theNuremburg Code. The forced sterilization of female prisoners is a war crime.

Female slaves who were subjected to “slave seasoning” would raise their sons to be “good boys” – physically strong, so they could work hard, but psychologically and emotionally weak, so they would not rebel against the institution of slavery and thereby be murdered brutally by the slavemaster.


The fact that we must invoke the Nuremburg Code and war crimes statutes to oppose what a prison system in the U.S. is doing is the best proof of 1) how racist, sick and inhumane the U.S. actually is and 2) how completely oblivious the U.S. population is of this fact – and the U.S. mass media is complicit in this. It is my assessment that U.S. journalists have so thoroughly crafted this image of what they want the world to believe American society is, they willfully conceal, under-report and ignore and fail to investigate its vilest contradictions in order to preserve this illusion. Any journalist who claims ignorance must acknowledge it is a willful ignorance.

We simply can’t stand idly by and allow something like his to sweep up untold generations in this sick process. History will judge us all harshly should we do so. Every activist, every able-bodied person, period, should be mobilizing to oppose these violations of the Nuremburg Code.

Now as it relates to Section 700.2 of the SDP, noise has to be made about it, like nothing before, but as it relates to the new director’s rules changes to Title 15, Section 3040 and related sections, there will be a public hearing on this on Jan. 7, 2014, at 10-11 a.m. in the Kern Room at 1515 S St., North Building, Sacramento.

Written comments may be sent by mail to CDCR, Regulation and Policy Management Branch (RPMB), P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283, by fax to (916) 324-6075 or by email to RPMB@cdcr.ca.gov, by 5 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2014.

There will be a public hearing on this on Jan. 7, 2014, at 10-11 a.m. in the Kern Room at 1515 S St., North Building, Sacramento.


The Kern Room should be packed with protestors on Jan. 7 at 10 a.m. to bring media attention to the reality of this evil. A letter writing and email campaign should be organized to flood them with complaints about this continually leading up to Jan. 7.

I’m contacting everyone I can on this, and I do encourage you to do the same. This is even more important than the abolition of SHU.

The Kern Room should be packed with protestors on Jan. 7 at 10 a.m. to bring media attention to the reality of this evil.


It is these people’s intention to subject tens of thousands of prisoners, 95 percent of them hailing from underclass communities, to systematic cognitive restructuring where they begin with “character invalidation” and end with the complete subordination of their minds and behaviors to the dictates of authoritarian conservatism, manufacturing a docile, subservient population of men and women WHO WILL TAKE THESE SAME TECHNIQUES OUT TO THEIR COMMUNITES, warping the minds of generations to come.

In so doing, they not only make the expropriation of tax dollars, at the expense of prisoners, a more orderly process, but also make the exploitation of labor in society at large a less burdensome ordeal for corporations by stamping out the very thought of resistance or progressive, pro-people organizing.

Viewing all of this through the prism of its Hitlerian magnitude, the insidiousness of this undertaking is inspiringly horrific. We shouldn’t be having this discussion – these people have gone mad!

It is these people’s intention to subject tens of thousands of prisoners, 95 percent of them hailing from underclass communities, to systematic cognitive restructuring where they begin with “character invalidation” and end with the complete subordination of their minds and behaviors to the dictates of authoritarian conservatism, manufacturing a docile, subservient population of men and women.


The contact person on the brainwashing provisions of the new Section 3040 (et al) is Timothy Lockwood, (916) 445-2269 or RPMB@cdcr.gov. Regarding the subject matter, contact Michele Gonzalez at (916) 323-6662.

A note on those “self-directed journals,” at least all those CDCR is using: They have printed at the bottom of each page and the answer sheets: “It is illegal to photocopy this in any shape or form.” That alone should show anyone interested there’s something very wrong here.

National interfaith anti-torture group supports Montana State House bill to limit solitary confinement of juveniles and the mentally ill


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 22, 2013

CONTACT: Samantha Friedman, Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications
Office: (202) 265-3000 or cell: (202) 215-9260 or samantha@rabinowitz-dorf.com

National interfaith anti-torture group supports Montana State House bill to limit solitary confinement of juveniles and the mentally ill
Interfaith group’s feedback comes in advance of today’s hearing on the bill

WASHINGTON – A national interfaith anti-torture group today sent a letter to Montana House Judiciary Committee Chairman Krayton Kerns and other members of the committee, in support of a bill that would restrict the use of long-term solitary confinement in Montana state prison facilities.  On behalf of its more than 300 diverse faith-based organizational members across the United States, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture issued its support for the bill’s passage.

“The National Religious Campaign Against Torture, whose members represent all faith traditions, care deeply about eliminating prolonged solitary confinement. Research consistently demonstrates that the psychological effects, particularly among children and people with mental illness, are devastating.  We strongly support the passage of House Bill 536, particularly its provisions to end the use of solitary confinement of youth under 18, inmates with serious mental illness, and other prisoners needing special consideration, as well as its support for limiting long-term solitary confinement for all inmates,” said Laura Markle Downton, director of U.S. prisons policy and program for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

“The bill also includes a critical public safety measure by limiting the use of solitary confinement for prisoners who are within one year of their release.  As people of faith, we recognize that rehabilitation must include preparation for successful re-entry following incarceration.  Because of the devastating psychological and social impacts of prolonged solitary confinement, re-entry is significantly undermined by an inmate’s immediate release from solitary confinement into the community.”

NRCAT’s support of the bill comes in advance of a hearing scheduled for today, Friday, February 22, convened by the House Judiciary Committee, which will include discussion of House Bill 536, known as the “Montana Solitary Confinement Act.”  The hearing will be live-streamed online at http://leg.mt.gov/css/Video-and-Audio/live.asp?strView_id=84.  A vote on the bill is expected as early as Monday, February 25.

“Prolonged solitary confinement desecrates a person’s inherent dignity, denies the essential human need for community, and impedes genuine rehabilitation,” said Rev. Richard Killmer, executive director of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.  “The damage of solitary confinement upon the most vulnerable including juveniles and the mentally ill is a violation of human dignity and is of grave concern to the faith community.  House Bill 536 presents Montana with a critical opportunity to lead the way nationally in increasing access to rehabilitation and reducing harm.”

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture advocates for limiting the use of solitary confinement in U.S. federal and state prisons.  More information on NRCAT’s work in the field of solitary confinement is available at nrcat.org, as is the organization’s short documentary film on solitary confinement.  In 2010, NRCAT partnered with a diverse coalition of organizations in Maine to push for the successful passage of a resolve by the state legislature requiring the Department of Corrections to review its solitary confinement policies and procedures.  As a result of the review and its recommendations, the solitary confinement population in Maine has been reduced by more than 70 percent.  Momentum to halt the use of prolonged solitary confinement in U.S. prisons continues to build nationally, with the first-ever Congressional hearing on the use of prolonged solitary confinement convened last June by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.  Following the hearing, in February of this year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons agreed to the first-ever independent and comprehensive assessment of its use of prolonged solitary confinement in U.S. federal prisons.

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is a membership organization committed to ending U.S.-sponsored torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Since its formation in January 2006, more than 320 religious organizations have joined NRCAT, including representatives from the Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline Protestant, Unitarian Universalist, Quaker, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha’i, Buddhist, and Sikh communities. Members include national denominations and faith groups, regional organizations and local congregations.

###

ACLU: Democracy Tarnished in the Silver State

From ACLU Nevada
Jun 17th, 2011
Posted by Rebecca Gasca, ACLU of Nevada & Nicole Kief, ACLU

We had hoped that, amidst a sea of restrictive voting initiatives across the country, Nevada would be a beacon of light. But today, with a stroke of Gov. Brian Sandoval’s pen, the Silver State jumped on the voter suppression bandwagon.

Right now in Nevada, if you’re convicted of a felony, good luck figuring out how to get your voting rights back. The state’s absurdly complicated and overly punitive voter disfranchisement law bars an estimated 43,000 people with felony convictions from voting. (Across the country, these laws keep more than 5 million people out of the political process.)

If you get your hands on a copy of the ACLU of Nevada’s brochure (which needs two full pages to explain Nevada’s policy), you’ll learn that some people get their rights back when they finish their sentences, while others have to petition their courts of conviction for restoration. Those with federal convictions need — wait for it — presidential pardons in order to vote again.

Recognizing this mess, the legislature passed a bill to simplify and improve the state’s law, but Gov. Sandoval has just vetoed it. So much for expanding democracy.

Not only is Nevada’s disfranchisement law undemocratic, it’s a voter registrar’s nightmare. Indeed, when the ACLU of Nevada surveyed the 17 county clerk offices around the state, we found that not a single elections employee was able to provide a comprehensive answer to the question of whether people who had completed their felony sentences could vote.

If even the highly capable individuals charged with administering Nevada’s election laws are unable to comprehend all of the law’s twists and turns, how can we expect the voting public to understand it?

And it’s not just the ACLU and our ally the Brennan Center for Justice who recognize the need for change. In fact, the head of the American Probation and Parole Association testified that “full civic participation by citizens living in our community protects public safety…restoring the right to vote sends the message that ex-offenders are welcome as integral members of their home communities and helps invest them in our democracy.”

Shame on you, Gov. Sandoval. Investing people in our democracy is something we should all be able to get behind.

Governor vetoes audit for costs of death penalty in Nevada

Sandoval’s veto tally at 10 bills
By Ed Vogel
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Posted: Jun. 8, 2011

CARSON CITY — As the Legislature was rushing to adjourn at 1 a.m. Tuesday, Gov. Brian Sandoval was doing what he has done with increasing regularity during the legislative session: vetoing bills.

Sandoval vetoed Assembly Bill 501, which would have required an audit on the costs of the death penalty …

In vetoing the death penalty audit, Sandoval said he was not convinced it would be a fair audit.

“The bill, for example, lists the costs to be assessed in determining the overall fiscal impact of the imposition of the death penalty, but it does not specify how it is these costs will be assessed,” the governor said.

Sandoval, a former state attorney general and federal judge, said that death row inmates make “individualized litigation choices” that drive up the costs of their cases.

Nearly 80 prisoners are on Nevada’s death row in the Ely State Prison.

Almost all Republican legislators voted against the two bills.

Read the rest and the pieces inbetween here.

ACLU: Let’s be Smart on Crime

Submitted 04/11/2011

The death penalty is expensive. An increasing body of evidence shows that death penalty cases cost far more than cases seeking life in prison without parole, from trial preparation to execution. Seeking the death penalty automatically triggers heightened obligations for state-appointed defense attorneys. A recent review of the federal death penalty found that the median cost of a case in which the government seeks the death penalty is nearly eight times greater than similar cases where the death penalty was not sought.

By simply seeking the death penalty, the State significantly raises the stakes of a case – not only to the defendant, but to the taxpayers who foot the bill.

Nevada has no official studies of its own to confirm that the death penalty in fact is more expensive for the state. AB 501 authorizes such an in-depth study into the fiscal costs of the death penalty in Nevada and places a moratorium on executions through July 1, 2013 while the study is conducted.

We do know, however, that Nevada has expansive and often vague statutory language concerning the capital punishment. This opens the door to both costly litigation to pin down the meaning of these statutes and to prosecutors seeking the death penalty more often than they should. AB 460 aims to streamline and clarify Nevada’s death penalty laws and better allocate the limited resources of the criminal justice system.

Both of these bills will help the state focus money where it is most needed, and not on the costly, inefficient system of the death penalty.

Please send an email to your Assemblyperson now and urge them to support AB 460 and AB 501.

Sample Email in Support of AB 460 and AB 501

Dear Assemblyperson:

Like many Nevadans, I am concerned about the financial priorities of the state. I know that you have very hard choices ahead in deciding where to spend our limited resources and where to make cuts. There are no easy solutions, and like you, I want our state to focus its resources in the most thoughtful and meaningful ways. That is why I am strongly urging you to support AB460 and AB501.

AB501 will examine how much money we are spending on the death penalty over life in prison without the possibility of parole, and will impose a temporary moratorium on executions while the study is conducted. AB460 will clarify vague statory language about the death penalty, reducing the need for costly litigation over the laws and over-charging the death penalty.

Both AB460 and AB501 will save the state money – money that is desparately needed in other areas of the budget. We need to start being smart on crime, and can no longer afford to continue down such an expensive road.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address
———————–
Note by NPW: NPW supports at least the end of the death penalty and the end of Life without Parole sentences, as well as excessive sentencing.

SB 201 Ombudsman for Nevada´s prisons approved

SB201 for the Ombudsman has been approved (with amendments)!

S.B. 201

SENATE BILL NO. 201–SENATORS PARKS, LESLIE; BREEDEN,
COPENING, DENIS, HORSFORD, KIHUEN AND MANENDO
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
____________
JOINT SPONSORS: ASSEMBLYMEN MUNFORD, ANDERSON;
ATKINSON, BOBZIEN, CARLTON, CARRILLO AND HOGAN

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
SUMMARY—Revises provisions relating to correctional
institutions. (BDR 16-827)
FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.
Effect on the State: Yes.

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.

AN ACT relating to correctional institutions; establishing an
Ombudsman for Offenders to receive and process
complaints by offenders and certain other persons;
establishing the powers and duties of the Ombudsman;
requiring the Ombudsman to adopt regulations relating to
the processing of such complaints; requiring the
Ombudsman to make certain reports to the Department of
Corrections, the Legislature and the Advisory
Commission on the Administration of Justice; requiring
the Director of the Department to adopt regulations which
comply with certain standards; and providing other
matters properly relating thereto.
Legislative Counsel’s Digest:

1 Section 7 of this bill creates the Office of the Ombudsman for Offenders within
2 the Office of the Attorney General.
3 Section 8 of this bill grants the Attorney General the power to appoint and
4 remove the Ombudsman for Offenders.
5 Section 9 of this bill sets forth the powers of the Ombudsman.
6 Sections 10 and 11 of this bill specify the accounting and use of money
7 collected by the Ombudsman.
8 Section 12 of this bill directs the Ombudsman to establish regulations
9 governing the receipt, processing and reporting of complaints from Legislators,
10 offenders and family members of offenders and from the Ombudsman.
11 Sections 13 and 17 of this bill specify the responsibilities of the Ombudsman
12 concerning the processing and reporting of complaints and actions taken in
13 response to the complaints.
14 Section 14 of this bill requires the Ombudsman to notify certain persons of the
15 Ombudsman’s decision regarding the processing of a complaint.
16 Section 15 of this bill makes confidential certain information relating to
17 complaints, reports and recommendations.
18 Section 16 of this bill requires the Ombudsman to prepare and submit a
19 biennial report for the Department of Corrections, the Legislature and the Advisory
20 Commission on the Administration of Justice.
21 Section 18 of this bill prohibits the penalizing of an offender for certain acts
22 relating to complaints and prohibits the hindrance of the Ombudsman in performing
23 the duties of office.
24 Section 19 of this bill provides that the authority of the Ombudsman is not
25 exclusive of other available remedies.
26 Existing law requires the Director of the Department to protect the health and
27 safety of the staff and offenders in the institutions and facilities of the Department.
28 (NRS 209.131) Section 20 of this bill requires the Director to establish regulations
29 which comply with the standards set by the National Commission on Correctional
30 Health Care to govern staff training in medical emergency response and reporting.
31 Existing law also requires the Director to establish standards for the personal
32 hygiene of offenders and for the medical and dental services at correctional
33 institutions and facilities. (NRS 209.381) Section 21 of this bill requires those
34 standards to comply with standards set by the National Commission on
35 Correctional Health Care.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Chapter 209 of NRS is hereby amended by adding
2 thereto the provisions set forth as sections 2 to 19, inclusive, of this
3 act.
4 Sec. 2. As used in sections 2 to 19, inclusive, of this act,
5 unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined
6 in sections 3 to 6, inclusive, of this act have the meanings ascribed
7 to them in those sections.
8 Sec. 3. “Administrative act” includes an action, omission,
9 decision, recommendation, practice or other procedure of the
10 Department.
11 Sec. 4. “Complainant” means a Legislator, an offender or a
12 family member of an offender who files a complaint as described
13 in section 12 of this act.
14 Sec. 5. “Official” means the Director, a deputy director,
15 manager, warden or employee of the Department.
16 Sec. 6. “Ombudsman” means the Ombudsman for
17 Offenders.
1 Sec. 7. The Office of the Ombudsman for Offenders is
2 hereby created within the Office of the Attorney General.
3 Sec. 8. 1. The Attorney General shall appoint the
4 Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is in the unclassified service of the
5 State. The person appointed:
6 (a) Must be knowledgeable in the field of corrections; and
7 (b) Must be independent of the Department.
8 2. The Attorney General may remove the Ombudsman from
9 office for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
10 Sec. 9. The Ombudsman may:
11 1. Employ such staff as is necessary to carry out the duties
12 and functions of his or her office, in accordance with the
13 personnel practices and procedures established within the
14 Attorney General’s Office. The Ombudsman has sole discretion to
15 employ and remove any member of his or her staff.
16 2. Purchase necessary equipment.
17 3. Lease or make other suitable arrangements for office
18 space, but any lease which extends beyond the term of 1 year must
19 be reviewed and approved by a majority of the members of the
20 State Board of Examiners.
21 4. Perform such other functions and make such other
22 arrangements as may be necessary to carry out the duties and
23 functions of his or her office.
24 Sec. 10. 1. All money collected by the Ombudsman must be
25 deposited with the State Treasurer for credit to the Account for the
26 Ombudsman for Offenders, which is hereby created.
27 2. Money in the Account may be used:
28 (a) To defray the costs of maintaining the Office of the
29 Ombudsman; or
30 (b) For any other purpose authorized by the Legislature.
31 3. All claims against the Account must be paid as other
32 claims against the State are paid.
33 Sec. 11. All gifts and grants of money which the
34 Ombudsman is authorized to accept must be deposited with the
35 State Treasurer for credit to the Account for the Ombudsman for
36 Offenders.
37 Sec. 12. The Ombudsman shall, by regulation, establish
38 procedures for receiving, processing and reporting complaints
39 from a Legislator, an offender or a family member of an offender
40 and for processing and reporting allegations personally known to
41 the Ombudsman concerning:
42 1. An administrative act which is alleged to be contrary to law
43 or a policy of the Department; or
1 2. Significant issues relating to the health or safety of
2 offenders and other matters for which there is no effective
3 administrative remedy.
4 Sec. 13. 1. The Ombudsman shall advise a complainant to
5 pursue all administrative remedies that are available to the
6 complainant. The Ombudsman may request and shall receive from
7 the Department a progress report concerning the administrative
8 processing of a complaint. After the Department has taken
9 administrative action on a complaint, the Ombudsman may
10 process and report a complaint on the request of a complainant or
11 on his or her own initiative.
12 2. The Ombudsman is not required to process or report a
13 complaint brought before the Ombudsman. A person is not
14 entitled as a right to have his or her complaint processed or
15 reported by the Ombudsman.
16 Sec. 14. After the Ombudsman receives a complaint from a
17 Legislator, an offender or a family member of an offender as
18 described in section 12 of this act and decides to process
19 the complaint, the Ombudsman shall notify the complainant, the
20 offender or offenders affected and the Department. If the
21 Ombudsman declines to process the complaint, the Ombudsman
22 shall notify the complainant in writing and inform the offender or
23 offenders affected of the reasons for the Ombudsman’s decision.
24 Sec. 15. 1. Correspondence between the Ombudsman and
25 an offender is confidential and must be processed as privileged
26 correspondence in the same manner as letters between offenders
27 and courts, attorneys or public officials.
28 2. The Ombudsman shall keep confidential all matters
29 relating to a complaint and the identities of the complainants or
30 persons from whom information is acquired, except so far as
31 disclosures may be necessary to enable the Ombudsman to
32 perform the duties of the office and to support any
33 recommendations resulting from the processing of a complaint.
34 3. A report prepared and recommendations made by the
35 Ombudsman and submitted pursuant to section 16 of this act are
36 exempt from disclosure under chapter 239 of NRS.
37 Sec. 16. 1. For each regular session of the Legislature, the
38 Ombudsman shall prepare a report on:
39 (a) The conduct of the Office of the Ombudsman for
40 Offenders;
41 (b) Complaints processed by the Ombudsman; and
42 (c) Findings resulting from those complaints if the
43 Ombudsman finds:
44 (1) A matter that should be considered by the Department;
1 (2) An administrative act that should be modified or
2 cancelled;
3 (3) A statute or regulation that should be altered;
4 (4) An administrative act for which justification is
5 necessary;
6 (5) Significant issues relating to the health or safety of
7 offenders; or
8 (6) Any other significant concerns as set forth by
9 regulation.
10 2. The report must be submitted not later than September 1 of
11 each even-numbered year to the Department and the Director of
12 the Legislative Counsel Bureau for distribution to the Legislature
13 and the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice.
14 3. Subject to section 17 of this act, the Legislature may
15 forward all or part of a report prepared and submitted pursuant to
16 this section to the complainant or the offender or offenders
17 affected.
18 Sec. 17. 1. Before publishing a finding or recommendation
19 that expressly or by implication criticizes a person or the
20 Department, the Ombudsman must consult with that person or the
21 Department.
22 2. When publishing a finding adverse to the Department or
23 any person, the Ombudsman shall include in that publication a
24 statement of reasonable length made to the Ombudsman by the
25 Department or person in defense or mitigation of the action, if that
26 statement is provided within a reasonable period of time as
27 specified by regulation.
28 3. The Ombudsman may request to be notified by the
29 Department, within a specified period of time, of any action taken
30 on a recommendation.
31 4. The Ombudsman shall notify a complainant of actions
32 relating to the complaint taken by the Office of the Ombudsman
33 and the Department.
34 Sec. 18. 1. An offender must not be penalized in any way
35 by an official or the Department for filing a complaint,
36 complaining to a Legislator or cooperating with the Ombudsman
37 in researching a complaint.
38 2. A person or the Department shall not:
39 (a) Hinder the lawful actions of the Ombudsman or employees
40 of the Office of the Ombudsman; or
41 (b) Willfully refuse to comply with lawful demands of the
42 Office.
43 Sec. 19. The authority granted the Ombudsman pursuant to
44 sections 2 to 19, inclusive, of this act:
45 1. Is in addition to the authority granted under:

1 (a) The provisions of any other act or rule under which the
2 remedy or right of appeal or objection is provided for a person; or
3 (b) Any procedure provided for the inquiry into or
4 investigation of any other matter.
5 2. Shall not be:
6 (a) Construed to limit or affect the remedy or right of appeal or
7 objection; or
8 (b) Deemed part of an exclusionary process.
9 Sec. 20. NRS 209.131 is hereby amended to read as follows:
10 209.131 The Director shall:
11 1. Administer the Department under the direction of the Board.
12 2. Supervise the administration of all institutions and facilities
13 of the Department.
14 3. Receive, retain and release, in accordance with law,
15 offenders sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison.
16 4. Be responsible for the supervision, custody, treatment, care,
17 security and discipline of all offenders under his or her jurisdiction.
18 5. Ensure that any person employed by the Department whose
19 primary responsibilities are:
20 (a) The supervision, custody, security, discipline, safety and
21 transportation of an offender;
22 (b) The security and safety of the staff; and
23 (c) The security and safety of an institution or facility of the
24 Department,
25 is a correctional officer who has the powers of a peace officer
26 pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 289.220.
27 6. Establish regulations with the approval of the Board and
28 enforce all laws governing the administration of the Department and
29 the custody, care and training of offenders.
30 7. Take proper measures to protect the health and safety of the
31 staff and offenders in the institutions and facilities of the
32 Department [.] , including, without limitation, establishing
33 regulations, with the approval of the Board, which comply with
34 standards set by the National Commission on Correctional Health
35 Care to govern staff training in medical emergency response and
36 reporting.
37 8. Cause to be placed from time to time in conspicuous places
38 about each institution and facility copies of laws and regulations
39 relating to visits and correspondence between offenders and others.
40 9. Provide for the holding of religious services in the
41 institutions and facilities and make available to the offenders copies
42 of appropriate religious materials.

1 Sec. 21. NRS 209.381 is hereby amended to read as follows:
2 209.381 1. Each offender in an institution or facility of the
3 Department must be provided a healthful diet and appropriate,
4 sanitary housing.
5 2. The Director with the approval of the Board shall establish
6 standards which comply with standards set by the National
7 Commission on Correctional Health Care for personal hygiene of
8 offenders and for the medical and dental services of each institution
9 or facility.
H