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

Executive Summary: Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage 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 justice system, legal system, and public concern.

Full Text Below:

Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage 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 justice system, legal system, and public concern.

The prison hostage incident was planned in advance by six prisoners. They took advantage of flaws in prison medical treatment procedures and prison visit procedures. They took prison administrators and “substitute civilian servicemen” hostage. They traded the hostages for long guns and handguns in the armory, 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.

But despite the adverse circumstances, the prison system still had two points worthy of recognition. First, during the two hostage swaps, higher-level administrators and prison officials voluntarily took the place of lower-level administrators and substitute civilian servicemen. 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, the other prison officials evacuated the facility in accordance with standard Riot Handling Protocol. They refused the captors' demand to open the gate leading to the outside. The prison authorities kept the situation confined. They prevented the six prisoner hostage crisis from spreading to the rest of the prison. They did not allow them to escape 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 initially told reporters that the prisoners "took 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 was six too many.

Several points surrounding the prison hostage incident must be thoroughly reviewed. One. Prison staffing and management issues. The six prisoners took advantage of prison doctor visits 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 scissors that they uses during the ordeal. 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 hostage takers were especially incensed at the privileged treatment accorded Chen Shui-bian, including the ease with which he was accorded medical parole. 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". Wen-Je Ko 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 substitute civilian servicemen serving in prison. In recent years, substitute civilian servicemen have been used for more and more jobs. They may fill in during labor shortages. But prisons are high-risk environments. Substitute civilian servicemen have little real world experience. This puts them at risk. It is also likely to result in “nobody minding the store”. The hostage takers' primary target was the substitute civilian servicemen. 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 old, or have served as law enforcement officers, parole officers, or corrections officers. Clearly substitute civilian servicemen should not work in prison.

Four. On scene negotiations, deployment, and protocol. 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. Some "mob boss" characters even entered into negotiations with them. Clearly the incident exhibited local Taiwan characteristics. Clearly none of this was “by the book.” The Warden even 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 hostage takers mistakenly assumed that the police were attacking 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 flaws must be addressed. Otherwise many provisions will ring hollow. The next time such an event occurs, the outcome might not be so fortunate.

監獄劫持事件暴露的四大問題
2015-02-13 01:33:12 聯合報 社論

高雄監獄囚犯挾持人質事件，昨日清晨在六名挾持者舉槍自盡後落幕。這起驚心動魄的挾持事件，歷經十四小時的對峙，能在人質毫髮無傷下收場，堪稱萬幸。然而，其間掀出的司法及獄政管理問題，確實值得司法、法務及相關各界重視。

這起監獄挾持事件，六名囚犯顯係事前經過共謀策劃，因而能夠利用獄方在看病、會客上的管理疏漏，挾持管理員和替代役男為人質，並利用人質交換取得槍械庫中的長短槍，形成要脅和對峙之勢。如此棘手的監獄挾持典獄長事件，是台灣治安史上首見，以現場警力荷槍實彈的嚴密部署看，可知情況之嚴峻。

但即便在這樣惡劣情勢下，獄方的整體應變仍有兩點值得肯定。一，其間兩次人質交換，都是較高層獄官自願取代低層管理員及替代役男，充當人質，顯示了他們的冷靜與勇敢，也使情勢處於較易掌握的狀態；二，在典獄長成為人質後，其他監獄管理人員根據「暴動處理程序」的ＳＯＰ流程全數撤離，而未屈從挾持者之要求開啟通往外面的閘門。正因為獄方將情勢控制在特定區間，因此六名囚犯的挾持行動未蔓延成整座監獄的暴動，更未放縱其得逞脫逸，故得以免於社會的不安。

這六名囚犯最後舉槍互射自盡，他們是否全皆出於自願，真相仍待查明。儘管首謀鄭立德在事發第一時間接受媒體訪問，即透露有「自我了斷」之意；但是，若僅為表達對司法與獄政的不滿，有無必要採取如此玉石俱焚手段，令人費解；無論如何，六條生命的代價未免太高。

檢視這次監獄挾持事件的來龍去脈，我們認為其中有幾點必須徹底檢討：第一，監獄的員額及管理問題：這次六名犯人能輕易利用看病的機會挾持人質，顯示獄方在這方面的管理暴露出很大疏漏。高雄監獄有二千多名人犯，但管理員僅二百多人，員額顯然不足因應，也因此配置不夠周密，致讓挾持者有機可乘。包括囚犯如何取得剪刀作為攻擊挾持武器，顯然也是管理漏洞造成，卻一步步擴大成為嚴重危機。

第二，政商人物在監的特權待遇：這次挾持者最感不滿的，就是陳水扁在獄中享受絕佳待遇並輕易保外就醫，但其他監獄犯人的人權問題諸如罹病、勞動、司法人權皆遭漠視，讓他們感到極為不公。對此，民進黨聲稱這只是囚徒的「藉口」，柯文哲則大談政府應如何制訂一套適用於所有犯人的辦法；事實上，辦法本來就訂在那裡，但如果不是綠營鍥而不捨地施壓打破規則，有些醫師更為他提供體檢紀錄，陳水扁如何有理由破格保外在家？從某個角度看，綠營利用政治手段為陳水扁開啟了出獄之門，這和鄭立德等六人挾持人質意圖逃獄，能說沒有因果關係嗎？

第三，替代役男是否適宜在監獄服役：近年替代役男的役職範圍愈來愈廣，雖可填補機關的人力短缺，但以監獄這種高風險部門，卻不宜讓社會經驗空白的替代役男擔任。因為，這不僅使他們易陷於險境，也容易造成監獄的管理空窗；這次，囚犯的首要下手目標就是替代役男，必然知道那是最弱的點。美國聯邦監獄的守衛，必須要四年制大學畢業，至少卅六歲，或曾擔任過執法、假釋、矯正之類的工作；可知，替代役男不應在監獄工作。

第四，對峙現場的談判、部署與秩序：這次事件一發生，立即被媒體引申為中南美的黑獄暴動；事實上，挾持者兩度接受替換人質，其間又有「大哥」級的民代進入協商，都顯出其處理具有台灣的「民間」特色，而非官方制式規範。包括矯正署長代念囚徒聲明，雖有人覺得不妥，但或許有兼顧人質安危及降低挾持者敵意之作用。然也正因為「插曲」不斷，談判的主軸由誰在掌控，便顯得模糊。此外，若干媒體為了貪功，使用空拍機在監獄上空拍攝畫面，讓挾持者誤以為警方動用直升機攻堅，因而對空開槍掃射。這顯示現場隔離控制不佳，外界這類突兀舉動極可能激怒人犯，導致他們萌生殺機。媒體報導一手消息固然重要，但絕對必須以人質安全為重，至少不可增加獄方和警方處理的負荷。

挾持事件落幕固值得慶幸，請不要忘記人們在懸疑對峙期間有過的焦慮。如果漏洞不補，聽任許多規定形同虛設，下一次再發生這種事件，結局恐怕沒那麼好過。