Commencement ETC PC

04/19/2026

“This week, I’m stepping a little outside of my usual lane…
Still psychology. Just a different delivery. 👀”

04/19/2026

When misconduct is framed as “hazing”…
it’s often something much more serious.

A former corrections officer at SCI Forest in Pennsylvania has pleaded guilty to assaulting two trainee officers during what investigators described as hazing incidents.

According to the investigation, he restrained the trainees with handcuffs and subjected them to non-consensual, s*xually abusive acts.

Multiple staff members witnessed portions of the incidents, and the victims were left restrained until others intervened.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this is a clear example of coercive power being normalized through group culture.

“Hazing” is often minimized as tradition or initiation—but psychologically, it functions as:

Boundary testing
Power assertion
Forced compliance under authority

And when it escalates into s*xualized behavior, it becomes something more precise:

abuse disguised as bonding.

What’s equally important here is the presence of witnesses.

When multiple people observe harmful behavior and don’t intervene, it raises questions about:

Group conformity
Fear of retaliation
Normalization of misconduct

This is how harmful cultures sustain themselves—not just through perpetrators, but through silence.

This case disrupts a common narrative.

We often focus on abuse toward incarcerated individuals—but here, the harm occurred within the staff structure itself.

That matters.

Because systems that tolerate internal misconduct:

Are less likely to intervene externally
May normalize power misuse across roles
And often rely on hierarchy and silence to maintain control

If abuse can occur during training—
at the entry point into the profession—
what does that say about the culture being reinforced?

If harmful behavior is framed as “initiation” instead of misconduct—

At what point does culture become complicity…
and who is responsible for stopping it?

HARRISBURG — Attorney General Dave Sunday announced that a former corrections officer at SCI Forest has pleaded guilty to assaulting two correctional officers in training during apparent hazing incidents.

04/19/2026

“Forensic psychologist by day… poet by night 🎤🧠
Catch me bringing bars to the Georgia Psychological Association stage.”

04/18/2026

A tattoo shop inside a prison sounds unusual—
until you look at what it’s actually trying to solve.

At Minnesota’s Stillwater prison, a tattoo apprenticeship program is training incarcerated individuals to become licensed tattoo artists—while also reducing unsafe, underground tattooing inside the facility.

Participants are selected based on behavior and artistic ability, complete structured training, and can earn licensure that allows them to work legally after release.

The program also addresses a major health concern: unregulated tattooing in prisons has historically contributed to the spread of diseases like hepatitis C.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this taps into something often overlooked in corrections:

behavior change is tied to identity—not just punishment.

Programs like this do more than teach a skill. They:

Create structure and purpose
Reinforce self-control and delayed gratification
Offer a prosocial identity (“artist” instead of “offender”)

And that identity shift matters.

Because when people begin to see themselves differently,
their behavior often follows.

This is where the conversation gets more complex.

Correctional systems are often built around restriction and control—
but research consistently shows that opportunity and skill-building are key factors in reducing reoffending.

So the question becomes:

Are prisons designed to hold people…
or to prepare them to return?

Because those are two very different goals—and they produce very different outcomes.

If programs like this can reduce harm inside prisons and improve outcomes after release—

Why aren’t they the standard instead of the exception?

The Minnesota prison’s pioneering tattoo apprentice program prepares prisoners for new careers in a booming field, and also reducing unsanctioned tattoos that pose a health risk.

04/17/2026

What if the goal isn’t just punishment…
but speed?

The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed a rule that would make it easier for states to fast-track the death penalty process—reducing the time between conviction and ex*****on by streamlining federal appeals.

The proposal would remove barriers that have prevented states from using an expedited review system and make approvals permanent, potentially cutting years off the process.

Officials argue this would deliver “swift and effective justice” for victims of capital crimes.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this raises a critical tension:

speed vs. accuracy.

Capital cases are among the most complex in the legal system, often involving:

Mental health evaluations
Questions of competency
Appeals based on ineffective counsel or new evidence

Those processes take time—not because the system is broken, but because the stakes are irreversible.

When timelines are shortened, the risk isn’t just delay reduction—
it’s error compression.

And in high-stakes decision-making, pressure to move faster can:

Reduce thoroughness
Increase cognitive bias
Limit opportunities to catch mistakes

This proposal isn’t just procedural—it’s philosophical.

It reflects a shift toward prioritizing finality and punishment efficiency over prolonged review.

But historically, extended appeals in death penalty cases have been one of the primary ways wrongful convictions are uncovered.

So the question becomes:
What is the system optimizing for?

Speed?
Certainty?
Or justice?

Because in capital punishment, those aren’t always the same thing.

If the cost of getting it wrong is irreversible—

How fast should the system be allowed to move?

The Trump administration is proposing a new rule to streamline the federal review of capital cases, which the Justice Department says will reduce the time between conviction and ex*****on in death penalty cases. The proposed rule aims to restore an expedited review process that was implemented in 19...

04/16/2026

When a judge orders someone released…
and law enforcement refuses—
that’s not just disagreement. That’s a power struggle.

In Las Vegas, a sheriff refused to comply with a judge’s order to release a man with 35 prior arrests on electronic monitoring, arguing he posed a serious risk to public safety.

The judge warned of possible contempt, while the sheriff’s office pushed back—saying state law gives them authority to decide who can safely be supervised outside jail.

The dispute is now headed to the Nevada Supreme Court, where the central question is: who actually has the final say—courts or law enforcement?

From a forensic psychology perspective, this case highlights a deeper issue than one individual defendant:

competing definitions of risk.

The court is guided by legal standards (least restrictive conditions, due process)
Law enforcement is guided by perceived threat and past behavior

Both are making decisions about future risk—but using different frameworks.

And here’s the key tension:
Risk assessment is not purely objective. It’s shaped by:

Experience
Institutional priorities
Cognitive bias (especially around repeat offending)

So when two authorities interpret the same person differently, conflict isn’t surprising—it’s built into the system.

This case raises a fundamental question about power and accountability:

If law enforcement can override judicial decisions based on perceived risk—
what happens to due process?

But on the other hand—
if courts release individuals without fully accounting for real-world supervision limits—
what happens to public safety?

This isn’t a simple right vs. wrong issue.
It’s a structural tension between:

Legal authority
Discretionary power
And responsibility for outcomes

When systems disagree about who is “too dangerous” to release—

Who should have the final say…
and what safeguards should exist to prevent either side from getting it wrong?

A Las Vegas sheriff is refusing to release a repeat offender with 35 arrests despite a judge’s order. Here's what to know.

04/15/2026

When a law enforcement leader says they’ll ignore the law…
that’s not just controversial—it’s consequential.

Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank has drawn scrutiny after publicly stating he would not hire non-citizens for law enforcement roles—despite state law allowing certain non-citizens (including DACA recipients and permanent residents) to serve.

Prosecutors warned that his position could violate anti-discrimination laws and expose the county to legal liability, but he has refused to retract his statement.

This is part of a broader pattern of controversy, including public remarks rejecting legislative authority and signaling willingness to defy laws he disagrees with.

From a forensic psychology perspective, leadership behavior doesn’t just reflect personal beliefs—it sets the behavioral tone for entire systems.

When authority figures:

Publicly challenge legal boundaries
Frame compliance as optional
Position themselves in opposition to oversight

…it can shift norms within the organization.

This is how norm erosion begins.

Not through one act of misconduct—
but through repeated signals that rules are flexible, depending on who holds power.

This case raises deeper questions about discretion, bias, and access to power.

Because decisions about:

Who is “qualified” to serve
Who is trusted with authority
And whose rights are protected

are never neutral in systems of enforcement.

And when those decisions conflict with established law,
it creates tension between individual authority and institutional accountability.

If those tasked with enforcing the law can choose when to follow it—

What does accountability actually look like…
and who is responsible for enforcing it?

Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank is standing his ground in a public dispute with county prosecutors over his declaration that his office will not hire noncitizens as deputies or corrections officers, a position that has put him at odds with county legal advisors, state law, and a Washington State L

04/14/2026

When someone dies in federal custody…
and basic protocols weren’t followed—
that’s not just a mistake.

Newly released files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s death are bringing renewed attention to what happened the night he died in federal custody.

According to the documents, one of the correctional officers on duty failed to complete required 30-minute checks, and both guards were previously accused of sleeping during their shift and falsifying records.

Additional details show unusual behavior, including internet searches about Epstein shortly before his body was discovered.

His death was officially ruled a su***de—but the procedural failures continue to raise questions.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this case isn’t just about one night—it’s about system reliability under pressure.

Correctional systems rely on routine:

Scheduled checks
Documentation
Supervision protocols

These aren’t minor tasks—they are safeguards against preventable harm.

When those systems break down—whether due to fatigue, culture, or negligence—risk doesn’t just increase…
it becomes systemic.

And when staff begin normalizing shortcuts (like skipped rounds or falsified logs),
that signals something deeper than individual failure—it suggests institutional drift.

This case sits at the intersection of:

State responsibility
Transparency
Accountability in closed systems

Because when someone dies in custody, the burden isn’t just on what happened—
but on whether the system functioned the way it was supposed to.

And here, multiple safeguards appear to have failed at once.

Not just supervision.
Not just documentation.
But oversight.

If the systems designed to prevent harm weren’t followed—

How do we distinguish between an unpredictable outcome…
and a preventable one?

In the years since disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead from what was ruled a su***de in his prison cell on August 10, 2019, conspiracy theories have abounded about whether the convicted s*x offender actually killed himself.

04/13/2026

When people inside a system—and outside of it—are all saying the same thing…
it’s usually not an isolated problem.

Alabama lawmakers recently held a public hearing on proposed prison oversight legislation aimed at increasing accountability within the state’s correctional system.

During the hearing, testimony came from formerly incarcerated individuals, correctional staff, and families of people who died in custody—many describing violence, unsafe conditions, and a lack of transparency inside prisons.

The proposed bill would create an independent oversight structure to monitor conditions, investigate complaints, and report systemic issues.

However, instead of moving forward with the full legislation, lawmakers are considering a pilot oversight program to test reforms first.

From a forensic psychology perspective, one of the strongest indicators of systemic dysfunction is converging narratives.

When multiple groups—

incarcerated individuals
staff
families

all describe similar patterns of harm, it suggests we’re not looking at isolated incidents…
but at a shared environment shaping behavior and outcomes.

In these settings, chronic exposure to:

violence
instability
lack of oversight

can normalize risk and desensitize both staff and inmates—making harmful conditions feel routine instead of urgent.

This is where oversight becomes more than policy—it becomes protection.

Because closed systems like prisons operate with limited visibility,
accountability often depends on:

external monitoring
transparency
independent investigation

Without those, harm can persist without interruption.

And when reform is delayed—even in favor of a “pilot”—
it raises a critical question about urgency:

How much evidence of harm is enough to act?

If the problems are already well-documented and widely acknowledged—

Why does accountability so often come in phases…
instead of in action?

Proponents shared stories of corruption and deplorable conditions Wednesday during a hearing on a bill to establish an independent office to monitor Alabama prisons.

04/12/2026

50 days in solitary confinement…
and a jury says that crossed the line.

A federal jury awarded damages to an incarcerated man at SCI Greene in Pennsylvania after finding that correctional staff violated his constitutional rights during a prolonged stay in solitary confinement.

The lawsuit alleged he was deprived of basic necessities, including hygiene, recreation, and access to legal materials—conditions the jury determined amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

From a forensic psychology perspective, prolonged solitary confinement isn’t just restrictive—it’s psychologically destabilizing.

Extended isolation is associated with:

Increased anxiety and paranoia
Cognitive impairment
Emotional dysregulation
Heightened risk of self-harm

And here’s the key issue:
When those effects are predictable, continuing those conditions moves from management… to potential harm.

This case highlights a tension at the core of correctional systems:

Solitary confinement is often framed as a tool for control and safety—
but when it deprives individuals of basic human needs, it raises constitutional concerns.

What stands out is that accountability only came after litigation.

Not during the conditions.
Not during the confinement.
Only after harm was recognized and challenged in court.

If we already understand the psychological impact of prolonged isolation—

At what point does it stop being a security measure…
and start becoming a form of harm?

An inmate at a Pennsylvania prison was successful in convincing a jury that two correctional officers subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in...

04/11/2026

It started with a food tray.
It ended with a Taser—used on inmates and staff.

A South Carolina detention officer resigned and now faces criminal charges after deploying a Taser inside a jail housing unit during a confrontation with inmates.

The officer had initially been told to leave and de-escalate—but returned while still upset and discharged the Taser, striking an inmate and multiple correctional officers in the process.

He has since been charged with assault and misconduct in office.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this is a textbook example of emotional dysregulation under authority.

In high-stress environments like jails, staff are expected to:

Maintain control
Regulate their own emotional responses
De-escalate conflict—not amplify it

But when an authority figure becomes emotionally activated—especially in a setting where they already hold power—the risk of escalation increases dramatically.

What stands out here isn’t just the use of force…
it’s the failure to disengage after being told to step away.

That’s not just poor judgment—it’s a breakdown in self-regulation under pressure.

This case highlights a deeper issue:

Correctional systems rely heavily on individual officers to exercise restraint, judgment, and emotional control—
but often operate in environments that undermine those very skills.

When someone with power loses control:

The harm spreads (in this case, even to other staff)
Accountability happens after the fact
And the system frames it as an “individual failure”

But how often are these outcomes shaped by training, culture, and oversight?

If maintaining control is one of the most critical parts of the job—

What systems are actually in place to ensure that the people with the most power can regulate themselves when it matters most?

He had been sworn in since January 20, 2026.

04/10/2026

They weren’t fighting.
They weren’t resisting.
They were praying.

A federal jury awarded $667,000 to eight Muslim men incarcerated in Missouri after correctional officers pepper-sprayed them while they were praying together.

The men—who had previously been allowed to pray in their housing unit—were handcuffed, sprayed, and placed in solitary confinement. Some were left without access to water to wash off the chemical agent.

The jury found violations of their constitutional rights, including religious freedom and protection from excessive force.

From a forensic psychology perspective, this case highlights how authority + bias + discretion can converge in dangerous ways.

In correctional environments, staff are given wide discretion to interpret behavior as:

Compliance vs. defiance
Order vs. threat

But when implicit bias or institutional culture frames a religious practice as “disobedience,”
that perception can rapidly escalate into force.

This isn’t just about one decision—it’s about how systems define what counts as a threat in the first place.

This case sits at the intersection of:

Religious freedom
Use of force
Power dynamics in closed systems

Because prisons operate with limited transparency, constitutional violations often only surface after harm has already occurred.

And when practicing your religion can be reinterpreted as misconduct,
it raises a deeper question about whose rights are actually protected inside these systems.

If something as fundamental as prayer can be treated as a threat—

What does that say about how power is exercised… and who is most vulnerable to it?

A federal jury has awarded $667,000 in damages to a group of incarcerated Muslim men in Missouri who were pepper-sprayed while praying.