Cross-posted at Caroline Heldman’s blog.
News media are comparing Hurricane Irene to Hurricane Katrina in ways that allow us to forget that Hurricane Katrina was a humanmade disaster, but in one way, these events are similar – prisoner evacuation. New Orleans officials chose not to evacuate 7,000 inmates, some of whom were trapped in flooded cells and later left on a bridge for days without food and water, as detailed in this post. Officials in New York have made the same decision with Hurricane Irene.
Elizabeth Furth, a former student who has participated in rebuilding efforts in New Orleans, sent in this map showing that Rikers Island is not part of the City’s evacuation plan:
Riker’s Island is the unzoned white blob in this close up:
Mayor Bloomberg announced that Riker’s Island would not be evacuated at a recent press conference, despite the fact that the island is surrounded by areas with the second highest evacuation rating (Zone B). Other New York islands on the map are in Zone A (mandatory evacuation) or Zone B, but Riker’s has no evacuating rating, perhaps because the Department of Corrections doesn’t have an evacuation plan. According to the New York Times blog, “no hypothetical evacuation plan for the roughly 12,000 inmates that the facility may house on a given day even exists. Contingencies do exist for smaller-scale relocations from one facility to another.”
Solitary Watch reports that Rikers Island was built on landfill, which is especially vulnerable to disasters. Rikers Island may weather Hurricane Irene without incident, but this disaster has again revealed how prisoners are considered disposable in times of crisis.
Comments 22
Lauren — August 27, 2011
OMFSM. That's horrible.
Jamie Schlote — August 27, 2011
The hopeful part of me wonders if Rikers has its own evacuation plan and it's just not mentioned on the NY Times map since those using the map as a reference are not in the prison?
Village Idiot — August 27, 2011
That place is an ongoing disaster on a good day; I've known a few folks who got damaged in there, mentally and physically. The abuses are legendary and well documented (Amnesty International should have a field office there).
Anyway, If they lose power long enough to run out of fuel for the backup generators that I can only assume they have and the place goes dark then it's going to get really interesting on the rock. By 'interesting,' I mean of course that there will likely be fewer inmates present at dawn or whenever the lights come back on due to a sudden rash of tragic accidents. Hey, it was dark so they probably... fell (yeah that's it, they fell and somehow their heads hit the concrete about a dozen times each). And if it gets flooded then it might turn into the kind of international news event that makes people shake their heads slowly in disbelief and horror (it would do that now if the world got a peek inside, but I digress).
Andrew — August 27, 2011
Another good reason to privatize the prison system, right?
Abbey — August 27, 2011
Are all of the employees evacuating?
Rachel — August 27, 2011
In that press conference Bloomberg said it's not being evacuated since it's not in Zone A (though it does say something that this isn't shown on the map. If it was, then there wouldn't be any ambiguity about why it's not being evacuated.) http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/08/27/hurricane-irene-rikers-island-no-evacuation-at-citys-main-jail/
Also, saying that they are 'surrounded by areas with the second highest evacuation rating' is a little ridiculous. There are only 3 ratings. You could also say 'it is surrounded by areas with the second lowest evacuation rating.' Furthermore, the island is equally surrounded by Zones B and Zones C. While there are also other New York islands that are in Zone A, there are other islands that are not in Zone A. Obviously we shouldn't be leaving prisoners to rot in times of crisis, but if Rikers island wasn't a prison, then the people living there wouldn't be on the current evacuation list either. I realize that the reason Rikers is not in Zone A may be because a bunch of prisoners live there (so they are pretending it's not in Zone A), but it may be also because the island actually isn't in danger of flooding in a Category 1 Hurricane. I hope it's because there is no danger, and I hope the prisoners don't suffer so we can find out the real reasoning. However, there is really no excuse for not having an evacuation plan in place. No excuse at all. Really messed up.
Je glimlach van vandaag - deel 19 - Pagina 137 - 9lives - Games Forum — August 28, 2011
[...] [...]
A Few More Links on Prison/Jail Emergency Preparedness « Prison Law Blog — August 28, 2011
[...] New York Prisoners Left in the Path of Hurricane Irene [...]
tenderhooligan — August 28, 2011
Shocking but not surprising, particularly given the precedent sent in Katrina.
[links] Link salad is juiced on the pump | jlake.com — August 28, 2011
[...] New York Prisoners Left In The Path of Hurricane Irene [...]
Umlud — August 28, 2011
From your quote from the NYTimes blog, the problem appears to be as much an administrative one as a physical one (that then results in a combined administrative and logistical problem):
This speaks -- to me -- more to the department of corrections being blind-sided by this event; something that hasn't happened since 1938. Yes, pulling together contingency plans for a what if scenario for evacuating Rikers Island in the event of a hurricane could have been undertaken following the 1938 hurricane, but it would also have to have been periodically updated as conditions in the area (and in the prison) changed, and the investment would likely have been seen as wasteful spending during eras of budget cuts (and likely scrapped, thus needing another administration to re-start investments in the planning process).
Voters don't like what is perceived to be "wasteful government spending", and continuous spending to update evacuation plans for an island prison complex due to a 100-year-event (as the flooding from the hurricane was forecast to be) could well fall inside that perception of "wasteful government spending."
Could not the city have started moving people out to other facilities ahead of time? Well, perhaps, but I don't know (and likely most readers of this blog don't know) the logistic difficulties that are inherent with scaling up the NYTimes blog's statement of, "Contingencies do exist for smaller-scale relocations from one facility to another." How much police effort would have to be shifted from other public-safety operations? What would the political heat on the city be if New Yorkers discovered that the city government was (to put easy spin on it) 'spending money saving criminals instead of the innocent citizens of the city'?
I noted earlier that it seemed to me that the department of corrections was blind-sided by this event. I previously established that it was popularly quoted as being a potential 100-year flood event (and thus likely was not planned for -- or had updated plans maintained). If you can agree that it was highly unlikely that there was decent planning (and updated plans) available, then let's look at the problem in light of the time line, because (given enough time), perhaps Rikers could have transferred some of the inmates, using their contingency plans. I looked around the NOAA site, but could not find accurate information that confirms what I recall: the hurricane forecasts placing the storm over NYC didn't start to come out until last Monday (August 21), which would mean that Rikers would have had less than six days to move out a significant number of inmates to other facilities based on plans that were only meant for contingencies of moving a smaller number of inmates.
If we were -- in sum -- a people who did care a modicum more about these people who are in our custody (extrapolated from us, since we have an ostensibly representative government), then we would likely have had adequate flooding predictions to include Rikers (instead of having to extrapolate -- sans data -- to say things like "despite the fact that the island is surrounded by areas with the second highest evacuation rating") as well as monies to put toward adequate planning to cover such rare occurrences as this one. (After all, a 100-year flooding event means that each year there is a statistical 1/100 chance that it will happen, not that a flooding event won't happen for another 100 years.) However, we are a society that (more often than not) praise law enforcement officials and politicians who are "tough on crime" (which usually means "no compromising with felons" and often means "don't give prisoners more stuff"), and therefore we get situations like a prison island that has no viable plan to relocate an house its inmates in the face of a hurricane. (And this is exacerbated by the fact that hurricanes don't have a history of hitting NYC -- or come close to hitting it -- very often).
If we are to have the responsibility of governance as a people (think: "We the people" and "government of the people, by the people, for the people"), then we need to learn to think about those whose lives are held by us. However, while I state this point of humanist governance, I would also caution people to (seemingly) jumping directly to conclusions of the one above. The historical condition viz hurricanes is significantly different than New Orleans. Likely, too, Rikers is a very different sort of prison than those in New Orleans, requiring a very different level of logistical and administrative coordination. (And don't forget about the vastly different legal, political, and social differences between New York and Louisiana nor New York City and New Orleans.) Making the direct link -- without making reference to these differences and the ones I outlined above -- is sloppy analysis.
Umlud — August 28, 2011
Re: "Solitary Watch reports that Rikers Island was built on landfill, which is especially vulnerable to disasters."
This is an incorrect citation of the fact and a fudging of the implications in two parts.
First, the incorrect citation: Solitary Watch did, indeed, have this information, but it clearly cited its source as the New York City Department of Corrections' website (not themselves). Proper citation should mention this, rather than merely pointing to Solitary Watch. Therefore, something like "Solitary Watch -- reporting figures from New York City's own Department of Corrections -- reports that..." would have been far more accurate. (Sorry, but freshmen would have been marked down for that mistake in my classes.)
The first of what seems to me to be fudging: You state that it "was built on landfill", which -- without greater knowledge of the facts -- makes no distinction between the entirety of the island vs a portion of the island. Looking again at Solitary Watch, we find that their figure (from NYCDoC) is that "more than three-quarters" is built on landfill. Now, while that is a huge percent, it is a fudging of the original cited figure. Since you have a PhD, this being a mere slip-up seems rather dubious, since the number is right there in the citation, and because the island pre-existed the settlement by the Dutch in the 17th Century (i.e., it couldn't have all been "built on landfill"). (Sorry, but more points off for massaging the data.)
The second of what seems to me to be fudging: You state that it "is especially vulnerable to disasters," which is again not what Solitary Watch said, which was that it "is generally thought to be more vulnerable to natural disasters." As a writer, the difference between your "is especially vulnerable" and the original "generally thought to be more vulnerable" are worlds apart. Your use is a declarative statement of fact, while Solitary Watch's is not, so unless you are an engineer qualified in determining the structural integrity of such an island add-on, then you should not make the definitive statement of "is". (Sorry, again, but mangling the difference between "is" and "thought to be" only seems to point to again massaging the data to make it fit your narrative.)
I am not arguing that Rikers Island is not mostly constituted of landfill. Nor am I arguing that reclaimed land is more structurally sound than natural geological landforms. (However, I am arguing that you did a poor job of citing the source of the fact that Rikers was partially built on landfill.)
I am pointing out, though, that within one sentence, you have committed three distinct academic fouls that would have lowered many a student's grade for what would be countenanced as factual sloppiness at best. Furthermore, recognizing these fouls only diminishes the strength of your argument, since I now have to wonder about the verisimilitude of your entire argument. (And holding a PhD only makes these errors more egregious in my opinion, since I would expect you to know better.)
Allen Chan — August 28, 2011
Yea, Myr. Bloomberg mentioned that the Island isn't even in any danger. The title is very misleading.
Tyler — August 30, 2011
I was going to say more, but this post is either intellectually dishonest (i.e., purposefully manipulative) or ignorant... your choice.