The incident happened on 18th January 2004 during the morning hours. The occurrence was about the largest prison hostage at the Arizona State Prison Complex (Peak et al., 2008). Two prison inmates named Coy and Wassenaar attempted to escape and served a life sentence and 26 years respectively. Both prison inmates were housed with dangerous prisoners, and that they were offered a different location from other prisoners. Morey Unit had 100 prisoners at the time, which was the largest accommodation number in the entire Arizona State prison system. Coy and Wassenaar succeeded in seizing the unit tower and taking the correctional officers hostage. Seizing the unit tower was an added advantage to the prison inmates. Since their first plan failed, these two inmates planned for the second attempt. When they realized the escape was not possible in all ways, Coy and Wassenaar chose to control the unit by taking the guards hostage (Rigby, 2004). The incident happened in 15 days, with Coy and Wassenaar treating the hostages brutally and placing the negotiators in an immitigable situation. The 15 days were characterized by sexual assault and violence to other inmates and the guards.
Recommendations for Mitigation
One recommendation is that contractors who work for the prisons should have been considered instead of prison inmates. The fact that prisoners working in prison was deemed economical due to cheap labor provisions can see all prison segments. As a result, multiple prisoners often think of how they can find their way out. Coy and Wassenaar had excessive access to all the prison areas, making them take control of the guard tower. The other recommendation is that frequent shakedowns could have been conducted to discover shanks in the inmate cells before they were accessed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
National Infrastructure Protection Plan Framework
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) clearly defines the critical infrastructure protection responsibilities and roles for Homeland Security and establishes a comprehensive risk management concept or framework. The NIPP offers the coordinated framework that will help establish the requirements, goals, and priorities for infrastructure protection so that resources and funding are effectively applied (Hemme, 2015). The purpose of NIPP is to ensure that potential and known threats are addressed based on the coordinated risk-based programs and plans through the help of CI/KR security partners. These security partners can help the NIPP share and comprehend efficient resource use and implementation of the risk management plan.
Contrast of Public-Private Partnerships
Infrastructure is one of the most significant elements of a nation as it has to remain resilient and protected from any possible failures and forms of attacks. An established infrastructure's responsibility relies on both the private and the public sector to ensure the proper infrastructure update. Public-private sector partnerships are often linked to transport infrastructure-based projects. Public-private partnerships provide advantages for both sectors, such as the innovative technology that can also be disadvantageous for the private sector. For instance, railways and roads entail construction risk. If the products fail in timely delivery or have technical defects, or have increased cost estimates, then the private partner incurs the burden. The private sector also experiences availability risks because, at times, the private company cannot meet the standards or safety, leading to contract loss.
Steps of Vulnerability Assessment
The first step entails initial assessment. Defining every device's critical value and risk is imperative to identifying the assets dependent on the client's input. The input may include an assessment vulnerability scanner. It is essential to determine if any company staff can access the devices or access the authorized users and administrators. The various aspects of the initial assessment include the business impact analysis, residual risk treatment, risk tolerance level, and risk appetite. The second step is the system line definition which comprises gathering systems information prior to the vulnerability assessment. The device should be reviewed to check its services, processes, and open ports that need to be closed all the time. Comprehending the software and approved drivers is significant to ensure proper installation.
The third step is to conduct the vulnerability scan. The assessment scanner needs to use the right policy to have the desired outcomes. Before introducing the vulnerability scan, the company's compliance requirements need to be evaluated to know when the scan can be performed based on date and time (Meulenbelt e al., 2019). For the desired outcomes, the related plug-ins and tools to be used on the vulnerability assessment platform include full scan, aggressive scan, stealth scan, firewall scan, and CMS web scan comprised of Drupal, WordPress, and Joomla. The last step is the development of the vulnerability assessment report. This phase is essential regarding the addition of recommendations depending on the initial assessment objectives. The risk mitigation techniques are added depending on the criticalness of the outcome and available assets. Findings of the gap between the system baseline definition and the recommendation are critical. The results also need to be analyzed to help mitigate possible vulnerabilities and correct any deviations.
Conclusion
The Morey Unit hostage incident was one of the longest standoffs in the country. There were lessons learned for the affected state and the entire country. Much planning is needed to help in mitigating any potential vulnerability. Criminal behavior needs to be analyzed to help in forecasting such future incidences. The NIPP assists in dealing with potential threats and vulnerabilities on state-level facilities. Creating a working private-public sector partnership helps to ensure proper infrastructure helps in avoiding inmates taking advantage of the prison setup.
References
Hemme, K. (2015). Critical infrastructure protection: Maintenance is national security. Journal of Strategic Security , 8 (3), 25-39.
Meulenbelt, S. E., Van Passel, M. W., De Bruin, A., Van Den Berg, L. M., Schaap, M. M., Rutjes, S. A., ... & Bleijs, D. A. (2019). The Vulnerability Scan, a web tool to increase institutional biosecurity resilience. Frontiers in public health , 7 , 47.
Peak, K. J., Radli, E., Pearson, C., & Balaam, D. (2008). Hostage Situations in Detention Settings: Planning and Tactical Considerations. FBI L. Enforcement Bull. , 77 , 1.
Rigby, M. (2004, 15 th July). Arizona Prisoners Seize Tower; State Officials Point Fingers. Retrieved from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2004/jul/15/arizona-prisoners-seize-tower-state-officials-point-fingers/
