#corporate dysfunction | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

if-you-fan-a-fire · 11 months ago

Text

"KEEPER GAVE WRONG AGE," Kingston Daily Standard. December 17, 1913. Page 1 & 7. ---- Attempt to Implicate Dr. Edwards in This Was Unsuccessful. ---- DEFENCE OF OFFICIALS ---- Deputy Warden on Stand - Admitted Conducting Two Hosings -Favors Tobacco For Convicts. ---- At this morning's session of the Penitentiary Commission Deputy Warden O'Leary was asked to explain why Guard Ingledew had been fined $5 for reporting the finding of a box containing needles in a convict's cell. He could give no explanation. The defence of the officials are now being heard.

An attempt was made to implicate Dr. Edwards, M.P., in connection with a charge which had been made in the application of a guard. The guard, however, would not implicate the doctor.

Dr. Edwards stoutly denied the insinuation.

KEEPER'S AGE GIVEN WRONG. Keeper D. Godkin, the first witness, was asked concerning his age. At first he stated that he was over 35 years of age. He was asked if he was any older and he said a little.

"How old is your eldest son?"

"About 22 years."

"Dou you know that your age in the records differs from what you told us?"

"Yes. I said I was over 35 years. I am about 45 years old."

An application was produced and the witness was asked if this was his application. He said that it looked like it. He was asked if his age was mentioned in the application. The witness said that it was and that it was about 10 years out.

"Who altered that date from 1871 to 1878?"

"I guess I did. I didn't have to swear to it."

"Did anyone suggest that you change it?"

"No. Inspector Stewart said that the date was not distinct and changed it?"

TRIED TO IMPLICATE DR. EDWARDS. The chairman pressed the witness in regard to this point, intimating that the change had been made at the instigation of Dr. Edwards. The witness, however, would not say that Dr. Edwards had anything whatever to do with it.

"I'm not going to swear a lie for any job in this institution," said the witness, when the chairman pressed him to be explicit.

DR. EDWARDS. Dr. J. W. Edwards, asked placed in the box, and after being sworn explained the application of Keeper Godkin. "I frequently receive applications from people of the county for positions. I provide such persons with applications, telling them the required age and height, and then I forward the letter to the department with my recommendation. In the case of this man, the application was sent to the department, and later it was returned by the inspector, stating that the figures in the date of birth were indistinct. I sent the application back to the guard, explaining what the inspector had told me. In my letter to the guard I merely quoted the letter of the inspector."

The chairman: "And you didn't see the application again?"

"No. The guard sent it back to the inspector."

Mr. Downey: "With your experience in the appointment of guards, are you prepared to say anything as to the wisdom of the present method. What is the effect on the service of the institution ?"

"I can't see that it affects the service; if men are examined and are found sound."

"Doesn't political recommendation precede physical examination?"

"Yes. I see your point. It is defect if political pressure is so strong as to appoint a man."

"I want to say this, however, I know what the age requirement is, and I know what the height requirement is, and I have pointed this out to every applicant. I leave the rest to the applicant."

DEFENCE OF OFFICIALS. The defence of the two officials was then commenced, Deputy Warden O'Leary be the first to be called.

Mr. Whiting: "How many prisoners are at the prison, and how many have reports against them?"

"There are about 500, about 35 per cent. have reports against them. Many of these are only admonished."

"How many of the convicts are real troublemakers ?"

"About 35 or 40."

Mr. Whiting asked about the hosing. The witness said that in his time hosing was only used once until Inspector Stewart was acting warden.

"How often was it used during his regime?"

FILE OR SIX HOSINGS. "Perhaps five or six times."

"What were the characters of the men who were hosed?"

"They were incorrigibles."

Dr. Etherington: "Some were insane, Buckley for instance."

"No. He was not insane at that time."

"Did you inflict that punishment on your own authority ?"

"Yes, I did, once on Buckley, and once on another convict. I was acting warden at the time."

"Is there any regulations governing them?"

"Yes. It is sanctioned by the regulations governing punishment."

Mr. Whiting read from the prison regulations, showing that in 1898, the punishment was authorized by the governor-in-council.

AS TO FAVORITISM. "In regard to the charge of favortism in connection with the roster, what do you say?"

"The men are appointed according to their ability. Sometimes a man has special qualifications for a certain post. Religion has never been considered for one moment."

Mr. Stewart objected, saying that Mr. Whiting, by his form of questions, was giving the evidence. Mr. Downey suggested that it would be better if Mr. Whiting would not "lead" the witness. Mr. Whiting agreed.

Mr. Whiting then produced a roster referred to by Inspector Hughes, in which the Inspector had charged favoritism in the selection of guards for certain posts. Roman Catholics were said to have been favored. The deputy stated that there was no favoritism shown.

Mr. Whiting asked an expression from the Commission on the charges of persecution. Mr. Stewart objected saying that he had no right to ask the commission to make a ruling.

Mr. Whiting retorted that in legal practice the counsel for the defence had a right to ask if a case hall been proved was closed. when the prosecution.

Mr. Downey stated that the Commission had no opportunity to look over the evidence and that it would be better to go over it.

TALE OF A MAT. In regard to a mat which Inspector Hughes, in his evidence, stated that the deputy warden wouldn't let him have, the witness said that the order was given by the guard in charge of the man who was taking the mat to the Inspector, who was then accountant.

Mr. Whiting then asked about quantity of wood, which it had been stated, was taken by the deputy. The deputy produced a requisition and a receipt showing that he had paid for it.

In regard to the charge made by Guard Aikens that the deputy had said he had no use for Dr. Edwards when he was informed that Dr. Ed- wards was running for parliament, the deputy said he never made the remark. He had never taken any interest in politics since his appointment.

Referring to a guard named Bannister who accused the deputy of keeping him on a wharf in the middle of winter, until his feet frozen, the deputy stated that were the man was under the charge of the Trade Instructor, Mr. Burns.

THE PERJURY CHARGE. Asked as to a charge made by Patterson that the deputy had perjured himself thirteen years ago, at an investigation into the disappearance of some gravel, the witness stated that he couldn't remember anything about it.

The deputy warden denied that be had ever made any statements to ex-convicts to the effect that would leave the prison in a a box. Evidence to this effect was given by two ex-convicts at last week's sessions.

In connection with the complaint made by a guard, Ross Davis, that he was refused a half holiday when others were granted them, the deputy stated that this was the result of an order issued by Inspector Stewart, the acting warden. The case of Guard Sullivan was mentioned. got off every Saturday afternoon to umpire baseball matches. These were taken off his regular holidays.

Mr. Downey - "I would feel safer inside these walls, than umpiring a baseball match."

The deputy also denied several other charges made against him. He said that he never took any part in politics.

CROSS-EXAMINATION. Mr. Stewart then took up his cross-examination.

"What experience did you have in prison work before your appointment?"

"I was in the Dominion police for several years. I was inspector when I was appointed."

"When you came here Mr. Metcalfe was warden. What experience did he have?"

"I don't think he had any."

Mr. Stewart then asked about several wardens who followed Mr. Metcalfe. The deputy stated that none of them had any experience in prison work.

"And in consequence they had to rely on you for the administration of the prison, didn't they?"

"They always consulted me." IMPORTANT POSITION. Mr. Stewart - "Your position is the most important in the internal administration of the prison, and among your regulations is one which holds you responsible for the administration and discipline, and also requires you to make an investigation of all reports against convicts. You do that don't you?"

"I did until Warden Irvine came. He makes the investigations. I still make a report."

"You assign the convicts to their different places?"

"I do."

"How do you do it?"

"When a convict comes in I find out if he has a trade or not, and how long he serves."

"Well, how about the stone pile?"

"Well, when a man comes in without a trade, I look him over; if he is healthy and robust looking but not very bright. I put him on the pile."

"How many are there on the pile."

"About 100 is the largest number."

"Some say they have been on the pile for over 5 years?"

ON PILE FIVE YEARS. "I guess they're right. There is no place else for them."

"Well then an incorrigible or troublesome convict would have greater opportunity to cause trouble there than anywhere else?"

"No, I don't think so. They are placed there because they were cripples, or not able to do any menial work."

"There have been a number of boys here who testified that they were on the pile for some time."

"Yes, because there was no other place for them."

"Well, isn't it a hard place?"

"Yes. It's degrading and monotonous. The convicts think its degrading."

The chairman: - "Are any convicts placed there for punishment?"

"No. If a man can't get along in his gang he is transferred to the stone pile."

"The stone pile is dangerous and unhealthy?"

"Yes. It is in a shed and it's very dusty."

CONDUCTED TWO HOSINGS. In regard to the hosing the deputy admitted conducting two hosings. In one case, a convict threw slops over a guard as he passed his cell, and called him names. He was bored for three minutes. This was in May of this year. The man was transferred subsequently to the insane ward. Another convict was hosed in the same month for swearing at a guard, while he was fighting with another convict.

"Was there a medical certificate secured before this hosing?"

"Yes."

Dr. Etherington: "Were there any medical certificates in the case of men sent to the punishment cell?" "No. Only in the case of corporal punishment."

"Do you know anything about the tubbing of convicts, with straps tying their hands, and feet?"

"No. I do not."

When did you first know of this " punishment?"

"Two or three years ago I saw a convict being taken out of a tub. His face was all dirt, and they said they were giving him a bath."

"But you would know of it, wouldn't you ?"

"I have heard of it going on."

Mr. Whiting: "What has this got to do with the case? Some guards know nothing about it."

Dr. Etherington: "The fact is that we have had testimony from guards and convicts of tubbing, and the order of the surgeon shows that tubbing has been going on."

"I have heard of men being strapped up to give them a bath when they refused to take one. But I never heard of it as a punishment."

AS TO INDECENCY. "Did you ever hear of indecent offences being committed by the convicts?"

"I have heard it said that there were a good deal of indecency stone pile No. 2, but I know on it would be impossible for the men to commit these offences without being seen."

"You have a good deal of trouble. with tobacco ?"

"Yes,"

"You are aware that the guards are responsible ?"

"Yes. I have my suspicions. Six or seven years ago I was instrumental in having an investigation and having a number of guards discharged for this offence."

"You think that the convicts should be given tobacco?"

SHOULD GET PLUG A WEEK. "Yes. I think that they should get a plug a week." ESCAPE OF CHARTRAND. In reference to the escape of the insane convict Chartrand, Mr. Stewart asked concerning a guard, who was in charge of the asylum, and who had a véry poor record.

The deputy was of the opinion that the guard was a capable officer, except for one weakness.

"The bars in the window in the corridor were cut. They could not have been cut at any other time than during the day time, when this guard was on duty?"

"No."

FINING OF GUARDS. In regard to the firing of guards, which is the procedure ?"

"The warden recommends their fining to the Inspector on the recommendation of the deputy warden."

"I notice here that Guard Godkin has been fined several times, while Guard Walsh, against whom there have been several complaints, has not been fined."

"That is left to the discretion of the warden."

Mr. Stewart read a report which the deputy warden made to the Inspector recommending that Guard Ingledéw be fined $5, for reporting the finding of a small box containing needles, thread, etc., in the cell of a convict in the hospital. In his communication the deputy pointed out as another instance of the friction between the overseer and some of the guards.

SHACKLED TO CELLS. In the evidence taken it was admitted by the deputy that convicts were shackled to the cells by their hands during working hours. The chairman stated that that form of punishment was seen by the commission in Stilwater, the model prison of the United States.

"The man is shackled to his cell until he promises to conform to orders," added the deputy.

When asked was there any "snitching" going on in the prison the deputy said not. "This is the spy system," said Dr. Etherington.

"Yes, but we don't have any such system here," said the deputy.

"Why was this man fined?"

"I was acting warden at the time."

Dr. Etherington asked if it was not a fact that the orderlies in the hospital were allowed many privileges, and that the box of needles had been left accessible to anyone passing.

The deputy stated that this was the case. The box had been in the corridor for several years.

Mr. Stewart pressed for an explanation of the fine imposed. The deputy couldn't reply.

"I suppose that the report made by Ingledew was only another instance of the friction which existed, and that the fine was levied on this account," stated Mr. Whiting as the commission adjourned.

The cross-examination of the deputy warden continued this afternoon.

#kingston penitentiary #royal commission #1913 kp royal commission #dysfunctions of the penitentiary #corporal punishment #hosing #solitary confinement #prison management #daniel o'leary #crime and punishment in canada #history of crime and punishment in canada #kingston ontario #deputy warden #dismissed guards #prison guards #partisan politics #corrupt officials

1 note · View note

seemabhatnagar · 3 months ago

Text

“Delhi HC Orders CBI Probe into Tragic Drowning of 3 IAS Aspirants at Rau's Coaching”

Kutumb through its trustee v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. along with Amrik Singh Babbar (Library) v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

W.P.(C)-10550/2024 & CM APPL. 43292/2024 In W.P.(C)-13308/2023

Before The Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the deaths of three civil services aspirants who drowned in the basement of an IAS coaching center in Rajendra Nagar. The direction came from an Division Bench comprising Acting Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Manmohan J andHon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela J acknowledging the seriousness of the incident and potential corruption by public servants.

Query by Court:

What caused the water to accumulate in the basement?

Why was the infrastructure not upgraded to prevent such incidents?

Who sanctioned the building plan, and was there any negligence in ensuring safety compliance?

Submission by MCD Commissioner:

The stormwater drain is dysfunctional and encroached upon by residents.

The physical infrastructure in Delhi is outdated and poorly maintained.

Measures will be taken to make the drains functional and remove encroachments and illegal constructions.

Submission by Delhi Police (ASG Sanjay Jain):

The investigation was carried out under extreme stress.

Further scientific investigation is needed.

The owner of the building has been arrested, but MCD officials have not been personally questioned yet.

Court's Observations:

Physical Infrastructure:

The physical infrastructure in Delhi, laid down 75 years ago, is inadequate and poorly maintained.

There is a need for modern physical, financial, and administrative infrastructure to cope with Delhi's growing population of over 3 crores.

MCD's Role:

The supervising officers of MCD are not performing their duties adequately.

The MCD was criticized for not respecting judicial orders and lacking accountability, with references to ongoing issues of unauthorized construction and inadequate enforcement.

There was negligence in repairing the stormwater drain and supervising the building's safety measures.

Investigation:

The investigation by Delhi Police was not handled scientifically.

The Court stressed the importance of conducting the investigation scientifically and without stress.

The involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was deemed necessary to ensure a thorough and unbiased investigation.

Court's Proceedings and Orders:

Transfer of Investigation:

The Court transferred the investigation to the CBI to ensure public confidence in the investigation process.

MCD Directives:

The MCD Commissioner was directed to ensure that the stormwater drains are functional.

Encroachments and illegal constructions in the area should be removed immediately.

Formation of Committee:

A committee headed by the Chief Secretary of GNCTD, MCD Commissioner, Commissioner Delhi Police, and DDA VC was constituted.

The committee was directed to submit its report within four weeks.

Court's Remarks to Delhi Police:

The Court emphasized the need for a transparent and factual investigation.

The Delhi Police was advised to conduct the investigation without stress and focus on scientific methods.

Compliance with Safety Regulations:

The Court referred to previous incidents and the lack of preventive measures taken by the authorities.

It highlighted the ongoing issue of illegal commercial buildings operating without proper approvals and safety clearances.

Seema Bhatnagar

1 note · View note