Prison Hostage Crisis Reveals Four Major Problems

 Prison Hostage Crisis Reveals Four Major Problems

United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

A Translation

February 13, 2015

A Summary

Six inmates last Wednesday took hostages inside Kaohsiung Prison. Early Thursday morning, all six rioters shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage-taking incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant serious attention of the judiciary, justice administration, and other relevant circles.

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

See full text of the editorial below

Six inmates last Wednesday took hostages inside Kaohsiung Prison. Early Thursday morning, all six rioters shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage-taking incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant serious attention of the judiciary, justice administration, and other relevant circles.

The prison hostage incident apparently was planned in advance by six prisoners. They took advantage of loopholes in prison medical treatment procedures and prison visit procedures. They took prison administrators and “army conscripts providing alternate services” hostage. They forced the hostages to break into prison armory for rifles and handguns, leading to a tense standoff. This was the first time in Taiwan history that prisoners have taken a prison warden hostage. Heavily-armed police surrounding the prison revealed just how grim the situation had become.

Despite the adverse circumstances, over all the prison still had two points worthy of recognition. First, during the two hostage swaps, top prison officials voluntarily took the place of lower-level ones and army conscripts providing alternate services. Their willingness to serve as hostages evinced coolness and courage. It also made it easier for them to grasp the situation from within the prison. Secondly, once the warden was taken hostage, all other prison officers evacuated from the facility in accordance with the SOP of Riot Handling Protocol. They refused the rioters’ demand to open the gate leading to the outside world. The prison authorities confined the situation in a limited area, preventing the hostage crisis from spreading to the rest of the prison. They successfully prevented them from escaping to the outside, and spared the public any anxiety.

The six prisoners eventually shot and killed themselves. Whether their actions were entirely voluntary has yet to be determined. Cheng Li-teh, leader of the six, initially told reporters that the prisoners thought of "taking their own lives”. Was their motive merely to protest the justice system and prison conditions? If so, was such an extreme measure really necessary? One has to wonder. In any case, six lives lost were six too many.

Several points surrounding the prison hostage incident must be thoroughly reviewed. One. Prison staffing and management issues. The six prison inmates took advantage medical consultations in prison to take hostages. Prison management procedures are clearly inadequate. Kaohsiung Prison houses over 2,000 prisoners, but it has only 200 administrators. Obviously this is not enough. Security procedures are also inadequate. They allowed the prisoners to take hostages. Prisoners were able to obtain workshop scissors that they use as weapons during the riot. Clearly prison security procedures contain serious loopholes. A single misstep turned into a serious crisis.

Two. Politicians and businessmen who are serving time receive privileged treatment. The rioters were especially incensed at the privileged treatment accorded former President Chen Shui-bian, including the ease with which he was granted medical parole. Meanwhile, the medical, work, and legal rights of other prisoners are ignored. They feel this is extremely unfair. The DPP dismisses the prisoners' grievances as "mere excuses". Ko Wen-Je held forth about how the government should establish a single standard for all prisoners. In fact, such a single standard already exists. The problem is the Green Camp persists in applying pressure and breaking the rules. Other physicians have even provided Chen with medical records. What reason does Chen Shui-bian have to demand privileged treatment and house custody? The Green Camp applied political pressure in order to open prison doors for Chen Shui-bian. Does this really have no connection to Cheng Li-teh and hostage taking in order to get out of prison?

Three. The suitability of army conscripts providing alternate services serving in prison. In recent years, army conscripts providing alternate services have been used for more and more jobs. They may fill in during labor shortages. But prisons are high-risk environments. The army conscripts providing alternate services have little real world experience. This puts them at risk. It is also likely to result in virtually “nobody minding the store”. In this incident, the hostage takers' primary target was the army conscripts providing alternate services. They knew they were the system's weak point. US federal prison guards must have a four-year college degree. They must be at least 36 years of age, or have served as law enforcement, parole, or corrections officers. Clearly army conscripts providing alternate services should not work in prison.

Four. On scene negotiations, deployment, and maintenance of order. When the incident first occurred, the media immediately linked it to prison riots in Central and South American hellholes. In fact, the hostage takers twice agreed to accept replacement hostages. A certain elected representative in deliberative council with "mob boss" background even entered into negotiations with them. The incident exhibited Taiwan’s “local characteristics.” Clearly none of this was “by the book.” Chief of the Corrections Department under the Justice Ministry read the prisoners' declaration. Some consider this inappropriate. But it may have help ensure the safety of the hostages by reducing the hostage takers' hostility. These "interludes" however blurred the question of who was really in control of negotiations. Also, some reporters used drones to film the prison from the air. The rioters mistakenly assumed that the police were initiating a crackdown from helicopters, and fired into the air. The perimeter was clearly not secured. This unexpected move could easily have enraged the hostage takers, and provoked them to kill. Media coverage is important. But hostage safety must come first. At least it must not increase the burden on prison authorities and the police.

Thankfully the hostage incident has ended. But we must not forget people's anxiety during the confrontation. These loopholes must be addressed. Otherwise many provisions will ring hollow. The next time such an incident occurs, the outcome might not be so fortunate.

(Courtesy of United Daily News editorial)

Attachment : none