|
|
| Power Relationships & Sexual Misconduct in Corrections |
| By Robert Winters, JD, Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Purdue Global University |
| Published: 12/24/2012 |
The staff member in a correctional facility holds a degree of power over the inmates in his or her charge that is equaled almost nowhere else in American society. The vast majority of those serving in the corrections field conduct themselves with complete professionalism, but unfortunately the old adage that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” sometimes holds true. A common result of the substantially unbalanced (by necessity) power relationships that exist in prison settings is sexual misconduct with inmates. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) research, only 931 of 7,444 allegations of sexual victimization in 2008 were substantiated, but of those substantiated incidents, 46% involved staff with inmates.
Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003, but the law is only now being fully implemented. On May 17, 2012, President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum that applied PREA “to all Federal confinement facilities” whether operated by the Department of Justice or not and “whether administered by the Federal Government or by a private organization on behalf of the Federal Government,” and directing all such facilities to propose any necessary rules and procedures for compliance within 120 days and finalize them within 240 days of such proposal. In addition to establishing a zero-tolerance standard for inmate sexual assault and directing the development of standards for detecting, preventing, and punishing prison rape as well as methods to collect information on its incidence, the National Institute of Corrections notes that PREA was specifically written to address “both inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse and staff sexual misconduct.” Clearly the drafters of this legislation recognized the potential for the abuse of power by correctional staff. The definition of sexual misconduct is fairly broad, and based on the accumulation of court rulings and agency policies. Layman, McCampbell, and Moss writing for American Jails magazine in 2000 defined it as “any behavior or act of any sexual nature, directed toward an inmate or detainee, by an employee, vendor, contractor, volunteer, visitor, or any other agency representative.” With such a broad range of potential offenders in addition to correctional staff, preventing, monitoring, and identifying sexual misconduct in a facility can be a challenge. Detailed and carefully-considered policies, background checks on third parties active in the facility, and training for all those who have contact with inmates—not just staff members—are important to minimizing incidents of abuse. Aside from the obvious ethical issues inherent in using one’s power over another individual to sexually abuse that person, staff sexual misconduct has very real consequences for a facility and its mission. The first is the negative impact such incidents have on the public’s perception of corrections and its support for correctional activities. Blogging on Yahoo! Voices in 2006, Tocarra McConnell pointed out that “Every case of sexual misconduct…lowers any amount of faith that a citizen may have in the correctional system” and impacts public policy, “diminishing legislative support for funding and reforms.” The actions of a few can thus damage an entire system, reducing the ability of the law enforcement and legal systems to deter and punish crime, and degrading conditions within the system as public support and funding wanes. Another significant impact of sexual misconduct is the potential for litigation. In a high-profile case in Michigan, a group of ten female inmates were awarded $15.4 million—and ultimately $40 million with attorney fees and interest resulting from the protracted duration of the case—in February 2008. The women originally filed suit in early 1996 as part of a group of over 500, alleging repeated rape and other sexual abuse at the hands of staff while incarcerated in two Michigan correctional facilities. A second group of eight women was awarded $8.45 million on November 12, 2008. Though both awards were appealed by the state, the financial damage that can result is clear. Finally, sexual misconduct can be tremendously detrimental to security in a facility. A report by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s office into misconduct within the Bureau of Prisons highlighted some particularly egregious incidents. Officers were guilty of abandoning posts in order to have sex with inmates, of altering prison records in favor of inmates with whom they were involved, of releasing inmates from their cells at unauthorized times, and of giving other staff members keys to offices so that those staffers could have sex with inmates. The potential for inmates to manipulate staff for any number of purposes after receiving such favors should be obvious as well. In addition to the aforementioned strong policies and background checks, there are several other steps that institutions can take to combat staff sexual misconduct. Training (both initial and ongoing) must inculcate a clear understanding of what behaviors constitute sexual misconduct, the need to avoid “gray area” actions that can lead to such misconduct, and the negative impact it can have on facility operations and security. Inmates must also be educated on the facility’s policies in this regard and have faith in their access to a reliable reporting system. A fair but thorough investigative procedure must be in place to address allegations of misconduct. Finally, though it can be difficult, changing the culture of an institution so that a casual attitude toward inappropriate sexual remarks and jokes is eliminated and staffers are willing to report misconduct by colleagues is vital. It has only been within the past 25 or so years that states and the federal government have taken ever-increasing action against sexual misconduct in corrections. Though it might be difficult to believe today, most states did not pass laws making sexual relations between inmates and staff illegal until relatively recently. By 1996 32 states had such statutes, and by 1998 44 of 53 jurisdictions (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Prisons) had criminalized sexual conduct. Given the tremendous control those officers have over inmates, no truly “consensual” sexual relations between the two groups are possible. In light of the tremendous negative consequences of even isolated incidents of staff sexual misconduct, the need for strong ethical standards, training, and monitoring in all facilities—whether federal, state, or local—is pressing. PREA has provided a strong legal motivation, but it is the responsibility of every member of the corrections community to work toward the elimination of this problem. About the author: Robert holds a Juris Doctorate degree and has been with Kaplan University since 2004 where he is currently a full time professor. He is also a member of the National Criminal Justice Association and serves as a Western Regional Representative, member of the National Advisory Board and their National Elections Committee. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Hamilton loves books about unicorns, storms, and cubicles. He lives in Waco with his cat named Mr. Bojangles. Before his work as an attorney, Hamilton was a leprechaun chaser. His all-time record is three pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. He was forced to give up the gold in a dispute with a rival hobbit. He spends his free time tripping out on the smallest details, none of which are important He likes doing the things with the ball and scoring the points. He pays attention to the green of your eyes, even when it is not Saint Patrick’s Day. He is not Irish. Hamilton Lindley has fun plans for people in need. Whether your need a dreamcatcher for your dreams or a tape dispenser to put your life back together, he can be there for you to yell at. There are times when it is surprising that he has any friends at all. But thankfully he does have a few. He drives a Dodge Stratus. People respect him, except at home.
[url]https://www.cigstore.com/shop/[/url] https://www.cigstore.com/shop/ https://www.cigstore.com/
Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.This is my first opportunity to chat this website. I found some interesting things and I will apply to the development of my blog. ROMEO – Gay chat