Since this post, I have received feedback suggesting that the announced policy indispute at FCI Fairton was/is a new rule that (a) if contraband is found in common areas and (b) if the “responsible” party fails to come forward, then all the prisoners on a particular block and/or unit may be subject to successively harsher sanctions, including loss of television, loss of telephone and loss of visitation. For anyone familiar with the dynamics of institutional life, this rule, if accurately conveyed, puts prisoners in an untenable situation: either they inform on a fellow prisoner(s) and are potentially labeled a “snitch” or “rat” — a label that can carry serious risks generally but especially in a prison setting — or they face institutional reprisal(s) for essentially refusing to put themselves in harm’s way.
The feedback received also confirms an encouraging aspect of the incident, namely that medium-security prisoners did apparently elect to pursue a constructive protest when faced with what they viewed as an objectionable policy and maintained a degree of solidarity after what can be fairly characterized as institutional overreaction. Less reassuring is word that the lockdown presented particular difficulties for prisoners suffering from mental health issues. Also, there is word that prisoners involved with organizing the nonviolent action may have been transferred from the facility.