Vermont jails' new special meal: Penalty or prevention?
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau - Published: November 18, 2005
MONTPELIER — A court will likely decide in the next few months whether the Vermont prison system's new special recipe is a 21st-century version of bread and water or merely a way to keep unruly inmates from throwing their utensils.
This fall the Department of Corrections began serving "nutraloaf" — a mixture of bread, vegetables, beans and other ingredients — to prisoners who have thrown feces, urine, utensils or food at corrections officers. That seems to be a growing problem, particularly at the state's newest prison facility in Springfield, according to officials.
Because nutraloaf can be served without trays or utensils it takes away the chance to hurl such objects at prison staff or other inmates.
But nutraloaf, described by some as "intentionally unappetizing," is punishment rather than prevention, according to the state Prisoners' Rights Office.
"It is punishment, there is no getting around that," said Seth Lipschutz, a lawyer for prisoners' rights who has filed a lawsuit on behalf of several inmates to stop the use of nutraloaf.
"Prisoners have got to be treated with some degree of dignity; they are people and they deserve respect," he said. "Of course they also deserve punishment."
Courts in other states have heard similar cases and ruled that giving prisoners nutraloaf is not cruel and unusual punishment, Lipschutz said. But he's not arguing that it is.
Vermont law carefully spells out how inmates can be punished for bad behavior, and changing their diet to punish them is not allowed, he said.
Secondly, nutraloaf is not of the same quality as regular prison food, as required under state law for prisoners who are being punished, Lipschutz said. Nutraloaf is so high in fiber it can cause gastric illness, he said, and temperature, appearance and palatability — not just nutrition — count toward quality.
Not so, according to Kurt Kuehl, assistant attorney general for corrections.
"Nutraloaf is neither punishment, nor is its quality inferior to that of regular inmate meals," he said in his filings in Windsor County Superior Court, where the case will be heard.
"Nutraloaf is a nutritionally balanced form of an alternative meal," he said in a telephone interview. "Quality does not include taste and how it looks."It should be kept in mind that the five or six inmates who have been served nutraloaf since the new policy went into effect in September had thrown bodily fluids or food at prison staff, said Robert Kupec Jr., facilities executive for the Department of Corrections.
"No inmate need ever be placed on nutraloaf," he said. "We want to change a behavior and we need to do it in a way that is nutritionally sound."
He does not know of inmates becoming sick from the extra fiber in nutraloaf, he said.
The old method was to blend up the prison's regular meal and give it to the prisoners to drink, when they couldn't be given trays or utensils, Kupec said.
"I wouldn't want to drink that," he said. "I think nutraloaf is a much better alternative."
The throwing of urine and feces is also dangerous, given the risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis, Kupec said.
Lipschutz of the Prisoners' Rights Office said nobody should ever have urine or feces thrown on them, but argued there are better ways of dealing with it than by serving nutraloaf to inmates for up to seven days.
"It's disgusting and I think it is shameful we have sunk to this level," he said. "It saddens me."
"There are a lot of really caring, really competent people who work for the Department of Corrections, they are actively trying to make a difference in people's lives," Lipschutz said.
But he noted that most of the roughly 80 incidents that could have triggered a nutraloaf penalty in the last two years occurred in Springfield and were reported by a handful of corrections officers. He said that indicated there were deeper problems between inmates and some corrections staff.
Kupec replied, "I dismiss that."
Inmates who have personal problems with corrections officers can talk to shift supervisors or file grievances, he said.
"We had to come up with a type of intervention that would help mitigate that type of behavior," Kupec said. "We believe we have done that."
Meanwhile, Kuehl said the Attorney General's Office has filed a motion to dismiss the case seeking to bar the use of nutraloaf.
The prisoners who brought the lawsuit do not have standing to bring the case, he said, because they have not been served nutraloaf, and the case should be an individual rather than a class-action lawsuit.
"Either it is legal or it is not legal," he said.
The Legislature may weigh in, as well. The Corrections Oversight Committee is considering a change in the law that would limit the definition of prison food quality to nutrition, not aesthetics.
"It's vague," said Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, minority leader and a proponent of the change.
Nutraloaf should be all right, she said, as long as it is reserved for prisoners who have acted badly, and safeguards are in place to prevent its overuse.
"I frankly regard it as absolutely the appropriate thing to do," she said. "I don't have an objection to it."
Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that nutraloaf should be used very sparingly.
"It sounds pretty draconian, but when you consider if it is used very sparingly …" he said. "Given the behavior of several of the offenders, sometimes something like that is necessary for the protection of other inmates and staff. I would hope the rules are very clear and it is used very few times."
Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com.
42