Gallia omnis in partes tres divisa est.
(And in typing that, I answered that high school student’s over half a century ago question, “When will I ever use this?” because, obviously the answer is right now.}
Like Gaul, the Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson’s coronavirus circus at the county jail is, so far, divided into three parts.
When the Coronavirus first hit and people were beginning to understand groups in close quarters could create a Petri dish of infection, restaurants closed, bars closed, movie theaters closed, certain businesses closed, and schools closed all for the common good. It might have been a little over cautious for some, but when battling an unknown virus we adjusted approaches according to new information learned. It wasn’t that people were uninformed, it was more that people were becoming informed, or at least having the opportunity to be.
Until the president made the virus a political tool, most people accepted the science as it was discovered. They might not have liked it and wished things were otherwise, but people accepted, for the most part, what the experts were saying.
However, there were those who immediately latched onto whatever strange theory or remedy the president put out there, mainly because they believe whatever he says, no matter how bizarre. Either his saying things they already believe validates their out from left-field thinking, or they have found being seen as his ally as having personal benefits.
When the pandemic was first seen as such, there was a proposal to thin prison and jail populations to limit the spread of the virus in a closed, self contained petri dish, and, being reasonable, the proposal had specific requirements that had to be met before someone could be released.
Those arrested in the before the coronavirus times for minor offenses that the system saw as a routine approach, those arrested for minor crimes but who had not had their day in court and were, therefore, innocent until proven guilty; those who hadn’t the financial wherewithal to pay bail; those close to their release date; those in the most vulnerable demographics, would be considered for release most likely to some form of house arrest or placement in a less crowded facility.
Those arrested for, or convicted of major crimes were automatically off the list.
After assurance from ICE that it was only apprehending and detaining residents without proper paperwork after committing major crimes, making none of its detainees eligible, it was found that too many of those in detention were not what ICE described, but had been pulled over for things like minor traffic violations, were suspected of minor crimes, or were picked up in raids at work places, bars, and social gatherings. They were not violent criminals threatening their communities.
The “Cite and Release” program was new, and, of course, along with people who supported the program from the beginning, there were those who weighed whether or not to go along with it, not necessarily based on the merits of the program, but on personal opinions about who ICE detainees are supposed to be and who sits in the county jail, and might come to see that under the circumstances they might need to rethink things and act accordingly.
And there were those who saw the opportunity for self promotion and for perpetuating a tough guy image in the law and order world, and, perhaps, even saw that a tough stance might get the attention of someone, like the president, that could fulfill higher aspirations.
It was necessary in the last category to follow the lines being fed by the president regardless what science and common sense had to say.
In Bristol County Massachusetts, Sheriff Thomas Hodgson is staunchly in this last group.
His desire to project a tough law and order image not only included making broad, often baseless statements about immigrants and the inmates in his jails from whom he was saving the county, but his was an immediate, knee jerk rejection of the proposal to thin the jail house herd, a position he clung to even as his original claims were being disproven by on-going events.
The sheriff’s initial reaction was to say,
“We have no current plans to release inmates in the manners you described,”
And he subsequently explained,
“Releasing people to go back into the community, whether back to friends, family, or whoever may be exposed already? Why would we add people to that environment, when we have a controlled environment here? We could probably get them medical treatment faster.”
As he explained,
“We’re disinfecting as much as we possibly can. We are taking extra precautions. We are spraying more than we normally do. We educate the inmates about the preventive measures…. We’re doing probably more than most people would be doing on the outside. … We’ve not had any circumstances with any inmates here indicating (that they may have the coronavirus).”
He claimed there was no need to release anyone from his facilities because his approach would keep the virus out of his jails, and also that anyone who did not agree with him was, in his own words, attacking him individually, uninformed, politically motivated, and anti-Trump.
When an activist group demanded that “incarcerated and detained people, who pose no danger to individuals and the community” should be released “to thin out the population so that safer practices can be implemented”, and went so far as to not only criticize, but make a suggestion for a solution,
“These should prioritize those with serious medical conditions, others awaiting trial for inability to pay bail, and those who have been jailed for technical probation and parole violations. Anyone who is infected with the virus should be quarantined off site, but not at home, so as not to infect family members and friends,”
the sheriff dismissed it as a merely a political agenda.
“To make an arbitrary statement like that, without understanding the impact of it and the level of risk here versus on the outside, says it all. That’s why we are in the business we are in. We’ve dealt with this before in a prison setting. We have protocols. We make adjustments. We pay attention to the CDC. We pay attention to briefings from the White House.… As far as I’m concerned, it’s a baseless suggestion.”
“We suspect these detainees are working with outside political activist groups to use the coronavirus crisis to advance their political agenda.”
This immediate dismissal of people’s concerns and the reasonable release program was, itself, a fine example of an arbitrary decision, and the fact that he interprets it as something politically based, although there is no politics involved in addressing the virus, also would seem to illustrate that his concerns are more about politics than what is best for inmates and detainees.
If he had to deal with medical issues, he would be required to act in accordance with science and medical best practices. If he could convince people it was just political, he could do nothing, but just condemn the politics.
He claimed that if inmates were released, even temporarily, they would be exposed to the virus on the outside when they would have avoided any exposure to it on the inside, ignoring that his whole staff entered and exited Hodgson’s facilities on a daily basis and could very well be the way the virus would get into his jails.
And it did.
While still claiming the steps he had instituted in the jails, with no one monitoring the affects except those who worked for him and know not to speak against him, with no one other than he and his staff actually observing the alleged steps being taken, he had to begin admitting that first one, then a larger number of staff were testing positive for the virus and returning to work when they had recovered while we were learning that while “recovery” might mean an absence of the active virus, it did not eliminate a quiet dormant virus.
In spite of his assurances otherwise, by April he had to address the nurse at his facility who had tested positive.
“It’s encouraging that she’s had no symptoms for a week and is feeling well. It’s also encouraging that no other BCSO or CPS staff members, nor any inmates or detainees, have reported symptoms.”
And, so, they could just move on.
The virus was in, and that called for a distraction.
“Any headlines or press releases from political activist organization claiming infections or outbreaks are completely false and reckless.”
“There are lawyers who represent clients in our custody that are spreading lies and rumors around the community to advance their personal political agendas in a time of national crisis.”
And then a correctional officer and a K9 officer tested positive for COVID-19 according to a press release from Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson’s office.
“Both are feeling well. They have some minor symptoms but both said, overall, that they’re feeling okay. That’s very encouraging.”
At this point, even though no one was attacking his staff, but were questioning his decisions and lack of action, he felt the need to attempt to make it appear people were not being fair with his staff, so, like Trump who did not want to deal with racial injustice and chose to use his bully pulpit to misrepresent the reason for athletes taking a knee so he could have people seeing America under siege and defend the flag and the troops against a non-existent attack and not discuss racial disparity, the sheriff tried this approach, but in so doing revealed that the conditions he claimed would keep his jail virus free, had not been successful,
“My staff has to come into a very challenging environment.”
He went on to say what in retrospect was either his not seeing or choosing not to accept reality,
“Provided we remain mindful and vigilant with our social distancing and personal sanitation, both here and in the community, we can reach our shared goal of preventing our inmate population, us, and our families from becoming exposed to and infected by COVID-19.”
And rather than science and preventative measures, the sheriff continued to rely on his self-image and luck, and echoing one of Trump’s signature phrases when it comes to results.
“So far we don’t have any COVID-19 cases, knock on wood, in regards to our inmates and detainees. We hopefully won’t have any, but we’ll see.”
He had rejected a reasonable approach to preventing the spread of the virus in an enclosed environment for an approach that was, according to his own words, not a sure thing that he was clinging to, but a gamble that could go either way, an approach that involved knocking on wood.
As the virus was slowly making its way into his county jails, the sheriff dug his heals in and continued to adamantly insist that he had created conditions that would keep the virus out.
As the number of COVID 19 cases among staff, county inmates, and ICE detainees grew, and while what he declared would not happen was, in fact, happening, he modified a bit by explaining it was all under control. He began to present a new story, hoping, it seems, no one would remember his original declaration because something he had guaranteed would not happen was happening enough to need to be controlled.
He was proud that he was controlling that which he had insisted was just the ramblings and the politics of those who were attacking him individually, those who were uninformed and politically motivated, and anti-Trump.
He’s the captain of his own Titanic who insists that the ship is not sinking, and after helping a few people into a lifeboat then brags about the few people he saved while ignoring the hundreds he could have saved had he acted sooner and according to information at hand and not the original claim that only God could sink his ship.
He continued to oppose the practice of releasing those who were eligible according the “Cite and Release”, the recommendation he had in knee-jerk fashion refused to follow when it was first proposed.
His claim that the virus had not entered his jails because no inmates had tested positive followed the Trumpian line that the fewer the tests administered the fewer the positive results since testing was not being done in his facilities, and this was countered by a court order demanding that he test everyone in his facilities,
Within days of the order to have everyone at his facilities tested, according to a press release, six Bristol County Sheriff’s Office staff members and eight inmates tested positive for COVID-19, and a later press release issued on that same day stated that seven staff members had recovered from COVID and had returned to duty while eleven were away from the facility recovering.
This many people testing positive would mean the virus is in there, and the admission that seven staff members had gone through the before, during, and after stages of the virus before this press release while eleven others were going through it at that time clearly showed knocking on wood was not as effective an approach than sound medical steps would have been.
Making matters worse, in spite of the sheriff’s claiming,
“Releasing people to go back into the community, whether back to friends, family, or whoever may be exposed already? Why would we add people to that environment, when we have a controlled environment here?”
and boasting,
“We’re doing probably more than most people would be doing on the outside,”
Bristol County, with a population of 560,571 people, has so far had 8,399 cases of COVID-19. In the sheriff’s facilities out of the 625 people incarcerated there, 47 have been infected, and out of its 450 corrections officers, 43 have. Bristol County has experienced less than 15 COVID-19 infections per thousand people. In contrast, inmates in Hodgson’s jail have had roughly 75 cases per thousand while corrections officers have had more than 95 cases per thousand.
Contrary to his claims that his way was the safest, the Bristol County Corrections prisoner rate of infection is almost 5 times greater than the rest of the county, and among the corrections officers that would be a rate six times greater.
Any increase in numbers happened in a place the sheriff assured the public, his employers, it would not happen because he just knew that what he was doing was the only acceptable approach, and, so, he needed no advice from anyone else.
He played around the edges of court orders to follow the proposal so that he was not outright ignoring them, but wasn’t following them either.
Now we have arrived at the point where a press release from the sheriff’s office boasts that since June 19, only one staff member had joined the 42 Bristol County Sheriff’s Office staff members who had previously tested positive for COVID-19, as did one additional inmate, and that 47 inmates had recovered and returned to general population or had been released as their sentences had concluded.
Considering the timeline, this last group could have been released when the Site and Release program was originally enacted in the state months ago. Clearly it would have been safer.
According to the sheriff,
“The staff here has done an amazing job in the battle against COVID-19. We’ve flattened the curve in our facilities, but we’re not out of the woods yet. The virus is still out there, and we will continue to be vigilant and careful in our day-to-day operations.”
How do you praise yourself for flattening a curve you have consistently insisted just would not exist and for which your actions may have been responsible?
The general public only pays as much attention to the sheriff and his jails as they do school board members. They are both elected in really quiet voting years, and people having no kids in school often results in little interest in the day to day workings of the school department or the actions of the school committee unless something goes horribly wrong, and who holds those positions is not all that important to most. So, too, the general population pays little attention to sheriffs and jails if neither touches them directly. And since sheriff offices have their own spokespeople and public relations staff, what we often hear about the inmates and detainees is filtered and controlled.
So while the sheriff claims he had done the right thing, the court at whose edges he played, sees things otherwise.
The judge who has been dealing with the sheriff, his jails, and his ICE detention center, questioned the sheriff’s rosy picture of his success. Considering the history of Thomas Hodgson’s actions during the opening months of the Pandemic the judge recently said that
“just as the increased rate of infection does not prove deliberate indifference … the absence of known infections does not disprove deliberate indifference… We are not yet out of the woods.”
How could things have been different if the sheriff had been more open minded about addressing the virus?
And as far as ICE, the judge was concerned that,
“ICE’s insistence on opposing these bail applications on a blanket basis has led it to take some positions that are downright irrational, not to mention inhumane.”
Remember, there had been a riot in the ICE detention center at the Bristol County House of Corrections based on the initial refusal to test and then the panicked way the testing was to be done after the court required it. The sheriff may have blamed “activists” both inside and outside the jail for having played a role in staging the riot, claiming he and his staff were blindsided by the event, and that he has video to prove who had initiated the melee, yet, it has been 2 1/2 months since that event, and the tape has yet to be released to the public who employ the people involved and pay the taxes that pay for the jail and everything connected to it.
These are the three parts into which the fiasco has so far been divided:
- The denial that the pandemic was what it was and how it could eventually affect the incarcerated population and the claim that he alone could prevent it.
- The quiet growth of the virus and its entry into the jail by way of staff so what he claimed would not happen did.
- The latest claim that he had reduced that which he had originally assured us would not be and wanting praise for doing it.
The pandemic shows no signs of dying out. To the contrary, in the case of Bristol County, serious consideration needs to be given to addressing ways to minimize those incarcerated for minor crimes, whether or not convicted or waiting their day in court, unable to pay bail, are just shy of their release date, or are the people ICE forgot to tell us about, those none serious criminal threats to the community, those who were at work and got scooped up in a raid, or were stopped randomly on Acushnet Avenue the first night of the annual Portuguese festa.
The sheriff has the opportunity to do things correctly and humanely in the event there is a resurgence, or he can continue to play John Wayne, stamp his foot petulantly, and complain people are picking on him while he gambles with more lives.
: