Arbery defendant describes only being allowed out of jail cell 1 hour a day

'It's oppressive' | Man accused in Ahmaud Arbery death tells judge he spends 23 hours a day in jail, First Coast News, November 16, 2021

William Bryan, one of the defendants in the Arbery trial, describes being kept in a jail cell 23 hours a day, only being allowed outside of the cell for 1 hour each day.

You can think what you want about this particular defendant, but let's talk about jail conditions in general.

At the time of the video, he says he has been held in the Glynn County Detention Center for 18 months before his trial.

He describes how his cell is about 8 by 12 feet in size, he estimates. The cell itself has no windows to the outside. But there is a glass window panel in the door, only about half a foot wide, from which he can see natural sunlight coming down through a skylight in a big interior room.

There is no television in the cell, although there is a television in the common space outside.
He only has the opportunity to take a shower once each day, but he says sometimes he may have to wait up to 36 hours to take a shower. He doesn't get to choose when he takes a shower. It could be anywhere between 4:30 in the morning to 8:30 in the morning.

The space he is in is designated for prisoners being held in special protective custody for their own protection, so none of the prisoners in that specific cellblock are allowed to fraternize with each other.

Of course none of the prisoners in that jail are able to go literally outside, to an area that does not have a ceiling.

The toilet in the cell is of course is stainless steel and the walls are cinderblock.

Three meals a day are brought to his cell, but the dinner is a bagged meal and is cold.

For the first three months he was allowed non-contact visitation through glass, with a telephone, but due to the Covid pandemic, after that he has not been allowed any actual in-person visits except by his lawyer. He is allowed to talk to his family on a video monitor but only two times each week for only 15 minutes each time. He can make phone calls, but they are very expensive per minute. He has to pay for them.

 

He's in protective custody because they believe he's vulnerable to attack. I don't know the process where he's at, but I know from a couple of relatives who has gone through this...that he might go to a "processing" prison. In that prison he is locked op 23 hours a day...probably with another prisoner.

Then he might be sent to his prison "home" and will probably share a cell with several others. I know in the state my relatives are in, the prisons are entirely segregated by race. Hopefully that will be the case with him.

 

I know of jails where you are confined 24/7/365 without any outside time, one is in Benton country Arkansass...

 

Having been through the system decades ago several times I believe I have a bit of experience to speak on this issue.

Generally speaking there are three types of confinement in a correctional facility.

disciplinary confinement, it's pretty self-explanatory you got in trouble within the facility.
You are not allowed novels that come on the book cart, you do not get the privilege of certain canteen items, you can basically order hygiene items and stationary.

The only reading material you are allowed is religious text.

Now the next two forms of confinement are essentially the same. Protective custody and administrative confinement.

You can order food items and candies and whatnot from canteen. You're allowed to have the privilege of novels as well as religious texts or other books.

Now the administration can place an inmate into protective custody on their own or an inmate can request to be placed into protective custody.

Now granted I have not been a guest of our state system since 2005 but when I was doing time you got three showers a week.

Anytime your cell door is open they have a flap that before your door is open you place your hands through and your handcuffed behind your back.

You will get 2 hours of recreation once a week in what amounted to a large dog kennel.

Now there is a fourth type of confinement at least in the Florida department of corrections known as closed custody, or controlled management.

This means you're among the most incorrigible of inmates, you have done things like attack staff or other inmates repeatedly and proven you're an extreme security risk to the facility.

And this type of confinement you get a review in front of a kangaroo court every 6 months to see if you might be allowed back in the general population. If you had the slightest disciplinary infraction they will see you again in 6 months .

There are inmates who have spent decades under such conditions.

All of these forms of confinement have been repeatedly challenged in courts of law and found to be legal

 

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

The problems with this are that this was pre-trial detention. We know now he was found guilty but he was to be presumed innocent before then. At a result, his incarceration should only have been to detain him - not to punish him. Punishing people before their trial means that one presumes guilt. If that is how it's going to be, then the society should be honest and say they presume guilt.

In addition, one should be wary of extra-judicial punishment. If one is to be sentenced to prison - that is one thing. However, administrating a slow torturous death instead is not what is stated in the sentence. If that is what a society wants, then they should codify it in law.

 

Murder defendants are rarely granted bail.

 

Irrelevant.

 

We disagree. I think it's the central point.

 

So, you believe that murderers should be considered guilty until proven innocent?

 

I'm just saying that as a matter of public safety I'm glad murder defendants rarely get bail.

 

43% get bail. That is not rare. And if one supports the Constitution one should not support rare bail.

Any detention should only be to ensure the defendant attends trial.

So, do you believe that defendants should be punished while in pre-trial detention?

If not, then we're in general agreement on this particular issue.

Do you believe that warden/guards should be allowed to met out extra-judicial punishment to prisoners?

If not, then we're in general agreement on this particular issue.

 

Depends on the prisoner. I believe some defendants merit detention in the interest of public safety.
Wardens and guards deserve wide latitude.

 

I believe that if the case against the defendant is so damning, then they should start the trial immediately - preferably the same day. A speedy trial is what the Constitution demands.

I would disagree with this. I see no reason to give wardens and guards "wide latitude". Unless, by "wide latitude", you mean changing the time of day people shower or changing the toilet paper distributor.

 

That is actually not unusual at all in jail. Been there, done that. I often went 3-4 days without ever leaving my cell at all, and in the same way, they would announce showers whenever the guards thought it was our turn and we had to head out with no warning.

This is a country jail, not prison. It is intended for serving short sentences, and holding until trial. Want a TV in your cell and more liberal outside privileges', go to a State Prison or a Federal Penitentiary.

 

But he is also a detainee, not an inmate. An Inmate has been tried and found guilty of their crime. A detainee is still awaiting trial.

 

What an incredibly stupid comment here. You do realize that the person in this story had no idea they were involving themselves in something that would later be characterized as a murder?

There has been plenty of discussion about the story in other parts of this forum. He did not even realize he was doing anything very wrong at the time. He simply cut off the path of someone who he believed to be a criminal suspect (even though that belief was unfounded) by pulling out of his own driveway, and then continued to follow that person in his car. For doing this, he was convicted of "murder".

I hate that stupid saying "Don't do the crime if crime if you can't do the time", because in many cases (like this one) it simply does not really apply to reality.

The man had no idea whatsoever that he would be accused of a murder, or even a very serious crime, before he committed the actions that would later be characterized as taking part in a murder.

 

Nonsense. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

 

On the contrary, I think what you are saying is total nonsense. You seem to lack the context behind this specific story to truly be able to make any characterizations about it.

What you are saying might apply to something like bank robbery, but not to this story.

 

It applies. He participated in killing an innocent man and is being punished appropriately.

 

He didn't knowingly participate in killing an innocent man. See the big difference there?

 

Doesn't matter.

 

Does not matter.

How much time do you think an inmate or detainee spends outside of their cells?

Trust me, been there - done that. Got an entire 2 hours out of my cell each week.

What, you think they should be free to roam the prison at will?

 

I see, so maybe you would like to explain how your comment "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" applies to this specific story.

You pretty much just conceded that he was convicted of something that he did not consciously decide to do.

He pulled his car out of his own driveway to block someone else's path who he believed was a suspect trying to get away, and then he followed that suspect in his car. But you say, by doing that, he broke the law, and now we should not feel sorry for him, whatever he suffers.

I honestly don't understand your thinking or logic on this one at all.

But let me guess, your entire argument will be based on taking his actions and attempting to characterize them as something else.

 

No. Actually I don't believe his denial. And in any case, he was convicted for his actions, not his state of mind.