KAMLOWSKY:
If
you
sit
in
the
Four
B’s
Café
in
Deer
Lodge
and
gaze
across
the
street
at
Montana
State
Prison,
you’re
assaulted
by
a
variety
of
emotions.
It’s
a
cold,
gray,
stone
structure
made
more
foreboding
because
of
the
knowledge
that
men
are
locked
inside
its
gates
for
years,
even
life.
Your
eyes
are
immediately
drawn
to
the
tower
in
the
Northwest
corner
–
it’s
part
of
the
original
building
dating
back
over
one
hundred
years.
It
is
in
that
tower
[unintelligible]
that
the
last
prison
riot
ended
in
1959
with
the
death
of
two
inmates
and
a
guard.
Deputy
Warden
Reuben
Dwight
[CHECK
NAME]
led
a
charge
through
a
hole
blasted
by
a
bazooka,
and
what
had
been
a
two-‐day
riot
was
over.
There
is
some
comfort
in
the
knowledge
that
the
attitudes
and
conditions
that
led
to
the
bloody
chapter
in
Montana’s
prison
history
have
changed
to
the
point
where
a
repeat
performance,
although
not
impossible,
is
certainly
unlikely.
We
do
not
put
men
in
prison
for
the
same
reasons
as
we
did
ten
or
fifteen
years
ago,
nor
do
we
keep
them
as
long.
We
have
found
there
are
better
ways:
better
for
the
society
to
which
these
condemned
men
must
return,
and
equally
as
important,
better
for
the
men
themselves.
Somewhere
over
the
last
decade
or
so,
society
has
learned
that
a
human
being
in
prison
is
still
a
human
being,
and
that
is
a
long
step
away
from
that
bloody
tower.
Who
really
is
in
prison?
How
did
that
person
get
there?
What
will
happen
to
him
if
and
when
he
gets
out?
Public
interest
in
prison
rides
the
crest
of
sensational
news
items
dealing
with
riots,
inmates
dying
alone
in
the
hole,
knifings,
a
warden
leaving
his
post,
and
all
the
rest:
but
what
of
the
rest?
Do
the
days
stretch
dull
and
empty
before
a
man
who
sleeps
under
lock
and
key?
Are
the
hopes
and
dreams
and
ambitions
of
these
men
locked
away
as
securely
as
society
has
locked
them
away?
Is
there
anything
being
done
to
help
these
men
realize
their
potential
and
benefit
both
themselves
and
the
society
they
have
offended?
Does
the
prison
stink
for
the
guard
as
odoriferously
as
it
does
for
the
guarded?
Warden
James
Estelle
talked
about
men
who
come
to
Montana
State
Prison.
ESTELLE:
Well,
we,
uh,
we
don’t
have
any,
um,
Humphrey
Bogarts
or
Edward
G.
Robinsons,
uh,
in
our
prison
system,
and,
um,
over
the
country
there
are
very
few,
um,
highly
organized
or
highly
sophisticated
prisoners
in
prison.
Prison
populations
are
generally
made
up
of,
of
failures,
uh,
they’ve
failed
in
school
and
they’ve
failed
on
probation
and
they’ve
failed
at
the
county
or
city
level
of
correctional
programs,
uh,
obviously
they’ve
failed
in
their
chosen
profession
of
crime,
or
they
wouldn’t
be
in
prison,
so,
um,
pretty
much
they’re
failures,
uh,
they
are
not
the
best
educated
group
of
people,
uh,
their
educational
level,
um,
in
Montana
now
is
some
place
between
eight
grade
and
the
ninth
grade.
Uh,
many,
many
of
them
come,
uh,
a
very
high
proportion
of
them
come
from
broken
homes,
or
homes
where
there’s
only
one
parent
to
figure
there,
um,
they,
uh,
the
average
prisoner
today
in
Montana
is
about
thirty
years
old
and,
uh,
certainly
this
does
not
represent
his
first
brush
with
the
law,
and,
uh,
there’s
one
thing
that
we
do
have,
though,
uh,
going
for
the
prisoner,
or
the
prisoner
has
going
for
himself,
uh,
most
of
these
men
are
trainable,
uh,
they
have
potential
for
good
and,
uh,
with
the
proper
programs,
uh,
provided,
why
they
can
become
supportive
of
the
community
rather
than
destructive
of
the
community.
KAMLOWSKY:
Most
of
these
men
are
trainable;
they
have
potential
for
good,
and
with
the
proper
programs
provided
they
can
become
supportive
of
the
community
rather
than
destructive
of
the
community.
The
metamorphic
development
of
this
theory
has
been
long
in
coming,
and
Warden
Estelle
calls
these
men
“failures.”
Brent
Marco,
who
heads
the
Governor’s
Crime
Control
Commission,
refers
to
men
in
prison
as
“losers”.
Often,
society
gives
them
labels
such
as
“alcoholics”
or
“dope
addicts”
-‐
more
often
than
not,
the
human
refuse
of
a
society
which
seems
to
have
little
time
or
sympathy
for
the
poor,
uneducated,
weak,
inept
people
it
spawns.
Many
are
members
of
ethnic
and
economic
minorities.
To
some
degree,
these
men
display
in
the
past
or
at
present,
varying
stages
of
mental
collapse:
psychotics,
neurotics,
men
whose
errors
in
judgment
have
been
too
numerous
and
too
frequent.
As
is
so
often
the
case,
individuals
view
themselves
in
a
far
different
light
than
do
others.
Two
inmates
whom
I
talked
with
gave
their
views
on
the
matter
of
failure.
One
man,
convicted
of
manslaughter,
who
had
educational
experience
far
above
the
normal
educational
level
at
the
prison,
flatly
rejected
the
failure
theory.
He
said
he
liked
his
lifestyle
before
entering
prison
and
would,
in
all
probability,
return
to
it
once
released.
He
felt
the
law
enforcement
officials
from
his
home
area
prosecuted
him
for
his
lifestyle,
and
his
conviction
was
based
more
on
that
than
on
his
crime.
Another
man,
serving
a
sentence
for
writing
bad
checks,
seemed
to
be
more
representative
of
inmates
in
general.
He
said,
when
he
first
entered
prison,
he
did
not
consider
himself
a
failure,
but
came
to
realize,
through
counseling,
that
perhaps
he
had
been.
The
counseling,
he
said,
gave
him
a
better
understanding
of
himself.
Failure
also
has
different
meanings
to
different
individuals.
One
inmate,
commenting
on
the
subject,
applied
it
to
his
life
in
prison,
where
he
definitely
did
not
consider
himself
a
failure.
Mental
toughness
is
a
requirement
to
successfully
survive,
and
in
that
sense
this
man
considered
himself
a
success.
He
also
drew
a
definite
line
between
a
convict
and
an
inmate
–
it
is
a
subject
we
will
go
into
in
greater
detail
later
in
this
program.
Finally,
on
this
matter
of
failure
or
success
as
viewed
by
the
inmates
themselves,
a
man
who
has
served
in
three
other
prisons
felt
that,
despite
his
apprehensions
and
convictions,
he
was
a
successful
criminal.
(to
inmate)
They
tell
me
you’re
quite
a
safecracker.
INMATE:
I
suppose
I
am,
uh…
KAMLOWSKY:
You
suppose
you
are?
You’ve,
uh,
served
time
for
doing
this,
what
happened,
I
mean,
how,
if
you
are
–
what
happened,
what,
how’d
they
get
you?
INMATE:
Uh,
it’s
just,
uh,
you
know,
one
of
those
things
that
happened,
you
know,
uh…I
generally
get
to
thinking
that
I’m
so
good
that,
uh,
I
can’t
get
caught
is
what
happens
and
then
I
get
busted.
KAMLOWSKY:
Why
would
you
choose
to,
uh,
crack
a
safe
than,
and
get
money
out
of
there,
than,
uh,
day-‐to-‐day
earn
it?
INMATE:
Well,
uh,
the
money
is
faster,
uh,
and…in
some
ways
it’s
easier,
uh,
like,
uh,
I
might
get
a
thousand
dollars
and
take,
uh,
the,
depending
upon
the
safe
it
would
vary
from,
like,
five
minutes
to
maybe
thirty
minutes,
and
I’d
get
a
thousand
dollars
for
that.
KAMLOWSKY:
Would
you
say
there’s
a
thrill
involved
in
doing
something
like
this?
INMATE:
Uh,
for
me,
no,
no,
not
–
KAMLOWSKY:
You
don’t
look
at
it
from
a
standpoint
of
being
excitement
for
you,
it’s
absolutely
the
money
that’s
the,
uh,
instigating
thing
that
gets
you
to
do
it.
INMATE:
Yeah,
well,
yeah,
it’s,
I’m
in
it
strictly
on
a,
you
know,
on
a
business,
money-‐
type
thing,
but,
uh,
there
is
a,
later
on,
like,
uh,
after
I’ve
hit
a
town,
uh,
we
call
it
“hit
a
town”
it’s,
I
hit,
like,
eight
or
nine
businesses
in
a,
in
a
particular
town
and
I’m,
I’m
away,
I’m
home,
I,
uh,
there’s
a
thrill
then
because
I’m
laughing
,
or
I
think
it’s
really
humorous
and,
uh,
I’d
like
to
be
there
when
the
guy
opens
his,
you
know,
when
the
town
wakes
up
the
next
morning
and
finds
itself
a
financial
disaster
area,
uh
–
KAMLOWSKY:
Red,
as
he
is
known,
considers
himself
a
hardened
criminal.
He
did
say
during
the
interview
that
he
is
not
going
to
return
to
crime
when
he
is
released
and
added
quickly
it
was
not
because
of
anything
he
had
learned
in
prison,
he
was
just
tired
of
doing
time.
Well,
these
attitudes
and
many
others
are
formed
after
long
years
and
many
experiences
–
certainly
some
of
them
have
their
roots
in
childhood,
but
for
our
purposes
it
is
sufficient
to
point
out
that
almost
to
a
man,
the
Montana
State
Prison
staff
and,
to
some
degree,
the
inmates
themselves,
felt
that
attitudes
at
the
prison
have
solid
origins
in
what
happened
to
them
in
county
and
city
jails,
and
in
the
courts,
before
they
ever
get
to
Deer
Lodge.
The
staff’s
feeling
in
this
area
was
stated
by
Joe
Leopowsky
[CHECK
NAME],
director
of
the
classification
and
treatment
center
at
the
prison.
(to
Leopowsky)
Their
feelings,
then,
are
they
not
depressed,
are
they
not
a
little
antagonistic?
LEOPOWSKY:
Well,
when
they
first
come
in,
some
may
be
depressed,
some
may
not
be
depressed,
it
just
depends
on
the
individual,
as
what
had
occurred
at
the
county
jail
or
at
the
county
level.
KAMLOWSKY:
It
is
obvious,
then,
what
happens
to
a
man,
or
perhaps
more
properly,
how
the
inmate
feels
he
has
been
treated
by
our
judicial
system
is
of
paramount
importance.
It
is
very
important
to
keep
in
mind
when
examining
this
aspect
of
prison
life
that
what
your
and
my
attitude
toward
law
enforcement
officials
and
court
procedures
is
is
of
very
little
consequence.
What
is
important
is
the
attitude
of
the
prisoner
himself,
whether
or
not
that
attitude
has
any
basis
in
fact.
A
sullen
prisoner
population
must
be
handled
a
great
deal
differently
than
one
whose
attitude
has
been
softened
by
better
treatment
at
the
local
level.
The
question
then
becomes:
how
effective
is
our
community-‐level
program
in
dealing
with
law-‐
breakers?
In
fact,
how
does
it
work?
Brent
Marco,
Crime
Commission
Control
Head,
explains
the
system,
and
I
call
your
particular
attention
to
the
dominant
role
judges
have
in
the
system.
MARCO:
All
judicial
systems
are
rather
complicated;
it’s
hard
to
verbalize,
really,
and
give
a,
a
true
picture
of,
uh,
a
criminal
system.
I
think
if
you
can
think
of
a
circle,
you
have
three
main
areas,
or
three
main
functions
that
are
distinguishable
from
one
end
of
the
system
to
the
other.
At
the,
at
the
front
end
you
have
the
police,
the
law
enforcement
officers
who
apprehend
offenders,
and
in
the
middle
you
have
the
courts
set-‐up
and
the
prosecuting
attorney,
the
county
attorney
in
this
state,
and
at
the,
the
other
end
you
have
the
corrections,
the
corrections
and
rehabilitation,
probation,
and
parole.
A
person
who
has
committed
a
crime
can
enter
the
system,
uh,
several
different
ways
–
he
can
be
arrested
by
a
policeman,
um,
with
a
warrant
or
without
a
warrant
if,
if
the,
uh,
policeman
sees
the
offense
being
committed.
He
can
also
be,
uh,
the
process
can
be
started
at
the
district
court
level
if
the
crime
is
known,
but
the
offender
has
not
yet
been
apprehended.
The
major
steps,
uh,
that
occur,
the
county
attorney
is
involved
and
the
offender
is
taken,
uh,
before
a
justice
of
the
peace
court
in
most
cases
for
an
initial
appearance
and
at
this
time
he’s
given
his,
uh,
his
constitutional
rights
concerning,
uh,
bail,
what
he’s
charged
with,
the
right
to
have
a
lawyer
and
if
he’s
indigent,
to,
uh,
have
a
lawyer
appointed,
and
the
fact
that
he
can
remain
silent
and,
and
so
forth.
After
the
initial
appearance,
he’ll
have
a
preliminary
hearing
or
he
can
waive
a
preliminary
hearing
and
about
that
time,
um,
formal
charges
will
be
made
in,
in
the
court,
and,
uh,
his
trial
will,
uh,
follow.
The
trial
will
–
and,
of
course,
at
any
time
along
here
the,
the
defendant
can
plead
guilty,
and,
uh,
of
course
he
wouldn’t
have
a
trial
in
that
case
–
if
it
goes
to
trail
he
can
be
acquitted,
uh,
by
the
jury,
or
he
can
be,
uh,
have
an
insanity
hearing
and
if
he’s
declared
to
be
insane
he
would
be,
the
trial
would
not
proceed
and
he
would
go
to
another
institution
for
treatment.
If
the
trial
proceeds
and
the
jury
finds
the
man
guilty,
then
at
that
point,
uh,
the
judge
would
order
a
pre-‐sentence
investigation
and
this
procedure
is
used
by
judges
to,
uh,
give
fair
sentences,
equitable
sentences,
uh,
a
sentence
that
fits
the
individual
rather
than
a
flat
sentence
for
a
particular
crime.
The
judge
has
a
great
deal
of
discretion
sentencing
prisoners
–
he
can,
of
course,
send
them
to
Deer
Lodge,
uh,
the
state
prison,
for
felonies,
he
can,
uh,
sentence
them
to
the
county
jail,
he
can
put
them
on
probation
and
parole
in
the
area,
sentence
them
and
then
not
incarcerate
them
but
keep
them
in
the
community
under
the
care
and
supervision
of,
uh,
an
adult
probation
officer.
And
the
judge
has
several
other,
um,
alternatives
–
he
can
defer
the
imposition
of
sentence
and
he
can,
uh,
sentence
a
person
and
then
suspend
a
certain
amount
of
the
sentence,
so
the
judge
has
a
great
deal
of
leeway,
a
great
deal
of
control
over,
um,
what
will
happen
to
the
offender
after
he’s
been
declared,
uh,
guilty
by
the
jury.
KAMLOWSKY:
Knowing
the
options
open
to
a
judge
in
sentencing
and
remembering
the
importance
his
actions
have
on
determining
a
man’s
attitude
upon
entering
prison
is
worthy
of
a
moment
to
get
a
district
judge’s
thoughts
on
what
he
considers
in
making
his
determination.
I
talked
with
Judge
Gordon
Bennett.
BENNETT:
There’s
another
consideration
that
many
people
are
not
aware
of.
That
consideration
is
the
minimum
amount
of
time
that
he
can
spend
in
prison
under
the
law.
For
example,
we
have
mentioned,
I
believe,
the
crime
of
second-‐degree
murder,
which
is
punishable
up
to
a
period
of
ten
years.
Uh,
theoretically,
and
I
think
in
many
cases,
uh,
people
who
are
committed
to
the
state
penitentiary
for
a
period
of
ten
years
can
and
are
released
in
as
little
time
as
one
year
and
ten
months
and
fifteen
days.
Now,
this
is
not
determinative
by
itself,
of
what
the
length
of
the
given
sentence
will
be,
but
it
is
a
factor.
For
example,
if
this
person
who
committed
second-‐degree
murder,
uh,
is
in
need
of
training,
uh,
extensive
training
period,
if
his
psychological,
uh,
testing
shows
that
he
has
great
psychological
deficiencies
that
would
take
time
to
mend,
uh,
if
we
find
perhaps
that
he
is,
uh,
physically,
uh,
deprived,
it’s
just
possible
that
the
court
may
decide
that,
uh,
even
though
this
person
is
a
first
offender,
if
the
crime
were
violent
enough,
that
it
might
be
advisable
to
sentence
him
to
ten
years
so
that
he
will
get
a
minimum
of
a
year
and
ten
months
and
fifteen
days.
Now
perhaps
it
might
appear
to
some
people
as
a
very
heavy
sentence
when
you
sentence
a
first
offender
to
ten
years,
but
you
may
not,
in
fact
–
and
this
is
the
point
I’m
trying
to
make
–
you
may
not
be,
in
fact,
as
it
turns
out,
be
sentencing
him
to
ten
years,
you
may
be
sentencing
him
to
the
minimum
time
it
may
take
to
get
him
back
on
his
feet
and
prepared
to
cope
with
life
on
the
outside.
KAMLOWSKY:
You
do
sentence
first-‐time
offenders,
then,
to
prison.
BENNETT:
Generally
speaking,
um,
we
of
course
are
entitled
under
law,
where
we
have
a
first
offender,
to
suspend
the
execution
of
any
sentence,
uh,
we
may
impose.
And
frequently
we
do,
but,
uh,
not
infrequently
we
do
not
suspend
the
sentence
that
is
imposed,
or
all
of
it
-‐
sometimes
we
suspend
just
part
of
the
execution
of
the
sentence,
the
service
of
the
sentence
of
the
person
[prison?].
KAMLOWSKY:
Sometimes
judges,
I
would
assume,
like
people
in
the
media,
become
human,
and
we’re
all
supposed
to
be
objective,
but
are
you
ever
aware
of
an
individual’s
conduct
in
the
courtroom
or
his
deportment
while
he
is
being
detained,
uh,
during
the
trial?
Are
you
ever
influenced
–
and
I
don’t,
I
shouldn’t
use
the
word
“influenced”
–
but
bothered,
concerned
by
his
either
lack
of
care
of
what
happens
to
him,
or
his
belligerence,
does
this
ever
enter
your
mind
while
you’re
sitting
there
alone,
trying
to
decide
just
what,
exactly
what
to
do
with
this
individual?
BENNETT:
Well,
you
read
the
right
word
in
the
first
place
–
influenced
is
correct,
and,
uh,
we
like
to
think
of
ourselves
as
human,
sometimes
we
even
pride
ourselves
in
that,
and
it’s
impossible
for
a
human
being
not
to
be
influenced
by
the
appearance,
the
deportment,
the
activities
of
the
defendant
while
he
is
before
you.
Um,
you
try
not
to
permit
it
to
have
what
you
view
as
undue
influence,
you’d
try
to
be
as
objective
as
possible
and
look
at
the
man,
and
look
at
the
man’s
record,
as
well
as
the
man
himself.
But,
uh,
it’s
very,
very
difficult
to
ignore
the
look
on
a
man’s
face,
to
ignore
whether
or
not
he
seems
to
be
testifying
honestly
or
not,
uh,
to
ignore
what
you
inevitably
hear,
not
only
about
what
his
prior
record
is
from
the
police,
but
from
what
you
hear
in
the
community
as
to
the
man’s
reputation.
All
these
things
are
influential,
and
to
deny
that
would
simply
be
to
deny
something
that’s
almost
self-‐evident.
[END
OF
RECORDING]
