Learning to code can be an incredibly lucrative skill in today’s technical age, but is it a potential “threat to order and security?”

Ohio and Michigan prisons ban books that aim to teach computer programming skills, according to MuckRock, a non-profit site aimed at sharing public information via the Freedom of Information Act. The organization recently obtained a list of banned books in state prisons.

“Their decisions to ban educational texts related to programming, alongside erotica and literature published by neo-nazi groups, are in stark contrast with practices in other states and countries, where prisons include coding in educational programs,” writes MuckRock.

Ohio’s list of banned books contained titles like “Beginning Linux Programming 4th Edition,” “The Linux Professional Institute Certification Guide,” and “Operating Systems Demystified.” The state gave no explanation as to why the books were banned.

Ohio prisons ban books on learning @Linux alongside erotica and neo-Nazi literature https://t.co/kYNt6Qfb6E pic.twitter.com/9sUeg204Zw

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) August 18, 2017

In Michigan, prisoners were specifically banned from reading books the Department of Corrections believes “contains information about computer programs and applications.” Texts like “Windows 98 6 in 1” and “Windows Game Programming for Dummies” were banned because they represent a “threat to the order and security of the institution.”

According to MuckRock, 15 books are banned for including information about computer programming, including guides to web design and a book aimed at teaching the elderly how to use computers.

Stark Contrast to Silicon Valley

The decision to ban these kinds of books is a stark contrast from rehabilitation efforts in San Quentin, California. At the San Quentin State Prison, Chris Redlitz of The Last Mile helps to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society through web education and career training opportunities. In 2014, he launched Code.7370 San Quentin, the first computer programming curriculum in a U.S. prison.

Inmates in the program help build apps and other software for startups and established companies like Airbnb. Because they can’t use the internet, the development shop’s coders work on a closed network. The men in the program make $16.77 an hour.

In April, CNBC reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison. That is likely due to the fact that the program is exceptionally beneficial to inmates, because it provides prisoners with an entrepreneurial skillset that enables them to start a career for themselves upon release, rather than relying on limited job opportunities available to felons.

The Code.7370 curriculum has since expanded to five more prisons in California, including two women’s prisons, and Redlitz has hopes to create a national program within the next five years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are Some Prisons Banning Inmates From Teaching Themselves to Code? appeared first on Law Street.

Prisoners in White County, Tennessee can now receive a credit for 30 days off their sentences if they voluntarily undergo a birth control procedure.

General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed the standing order instituting the program on May 15. Since then, at least 32 women and 38 men have volunteered for the procedure. Female prisoners receive a Nexplanon arm implant, which works for up to three years. Male prisoners receive a vasectomy. The Tennessee Department of Health conducts both procedures free of charge for the inmates.

Judge Benningfield decided to sign the order after speaking with the Department of Health. He says his hope is that the program will end the vicious cycle of drug-addicted ex-cons giving birth to children they cannot support and who might one day become drug users and criminals themselves. “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children,” he said in an interview with Nashville’s News Channel 5. “I understand it won’t be entirely successful, but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win-win.”

Not everyone agrees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement on Wednesday calling the program “unconstitutional:”

Offering a so-called ‘choice’ between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

There is also dissent closer to home. Tennessee’s District Attorney Bryant Dunaway has instructed his staff not to make arrangements regarding the program. “Those decisions are personal in nature and I think that’s just something the court system should not encourage or mandate,” he told local news station WTKR.

So far, 32 female volunteers have received their implants. The male volunteers are still waiting for their procedures to begin.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tennessee Inmates Trading Time in Prison for Birth Control and Vasectomies appeared first on Law Street.

Given the amount of security guards and surveillance cameras located in prisons there shouldn’t be inmates doing drugs or dying from drug-related causes. But in California prisons, that’s exactly what’s happening. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is spending $8 million this year on drug-detecting scanners and new drug-sniffing dogs. Officers have also conducted strip searches on visitors suspected of carrying drugs. These new procedures were born out of the shocking revelation that inmates in California prisons are dying from drug overdoses at three times the national rate. But is increased scrutiny of visitors really the best course of action?

Officials have hopes that these new methods will lead to a decrease in the death rate. But despite officers’ opinions that the efforts are discouraging drug smuggling, reports show that might not be the case, and that instead these policies just create problems for visitors. There have been more than 6,000 scans on visitors and employees at eleven different prisons and no drugs were found. Mohamed Shehk, an Oakland-based spokesman for Critical Resistance, stated, “The statistics — $8 million, 6,000 scans and nothing to show for it — show that these are intended to intimidate and criminalize people who are going to see their loved ones inside.”

More than 150 California inmates have died due to drug overdoses since 2006, with a high of 24 deaths in 2013. Sharing needles, which often leads to the spread of Hepatitis C infections, killed 69 inmates in 2013 alone. Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard is determined to change this high rate and is modeling California’s new procedures after those that were successful in the Pennsylvania Corrections Department, which he led for a decade. Pennsylvania’s annual rate of drug or alcohol deaths per 100,000 inmates is one, while California’s is eight per 100,000 inmates.

But while officers may feel like these new methods are helping, many visitors disagree and have begun to criticize them, especially the strip searches. “It’s a humiliating process, that can be easily used to humiliate and demean people, and was only for visitors, often women,” said Democratic Senator Loni Hancock. Tania Gamboa, a visitor at Kern Valley State Prison in California, was visiting her brother when an ion scan machine tested her positive for exposure to heroin. She felt humiliated after she was required to strip naked in front of two female correctional officers and squat to demonstrate that she was not concealing drugs. “It doesn’t make sense for me, knowing that I don’t do all that and I got detected for it,” Gamboa said. The big problem is that these procedures are beginning to make visitors feel like suspects.

Along with the strip search complaints, there have also been complaints about the dog searches. Wayne Conrad, the department’s statewide canine program coordinator, resigned last fall after the correctional facility decided to use dogs to search humans. Conrad explained his problem with the procedures, saying that there’s potential for false positives that could lead to lawsuits.

In order to mitigate those concerns, there are changes being made to the breeds of dogs used to search visitors. German shepherds in California prisons have been effective at finding hidden drugs. But as a result of these complaints, the department is now turning to less intimidating and more approachable dogs such as Labrador Retrievers–“fluffy, friendly dogs,” Northern California canine program coordinator Sgt. Brian Pyle called them. While this is an understandable move, it doesn’t change the fact that the dogs are searching these visitors can be read as upsetting or demeaning in some cases.

Concerned lawmakers that oversee state prisons included language in the California budget plan passed this week that would put an end to the searches and require an evaluation of the department’s other efforts. Correctional facilities do not want drugs brought into prisons that could lead to inmates deaths, but visitors do not want to feel embarrassed or humiliated as they are being searched. Officials are going to have to find an effective way to lower the death rates of the inmates and stop drug smuggling with procedures that do not leave the visitors feeling violated.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do We Solve the Drug Overdose Problem in California Prisons? appeared first on Law Street.

A record number of inmates imprisoned for crimes they did not commit were exonerated in 2014, according to a newly released report. The National Registry of Exonerations–a project by the University of Michigan Law School–released the report Tuesday boasting a total of 125 exonerations in the United States.

This was a significant increase compared to the previous highest total of 91 in both 2013 and 2012. In 2014, Texas led the list of number of exonerations with 39, followed by New York with 17, and Illinois with seven. The 37 percent increase is largely driven by an increase in drug related exonerations, most notably 33 separate exonerations in Harris County (Houston), Texas, due to an upped focus on reviewing arrests there.

Texas led the country in exonerations last year, with 39, followed by NY with 17 http://t.co/qMKDsPlNClpic.twitter.com/ARp6iwTbe1

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) January 27, 2015

Many of these exonerations involved inmates pleading guilty to drug possession when they had no such drugs. Inger Chandler, head of the Conviction Review Section in the Harris County District Attorney’s office, hypothesized the reasons behind this, saying:

Some probably thought the pills or powders they were carrying contained illegal drugs when in fact they didn’t; others – especially defendants with criminal records, who generally cannot post the comparatively high bails that are set for them and who risk substantial terms in prison if convicted – agreed to attractive plea bargains at their initial court appearances, despite their innocence, rather than remain in pretrial custody and risk years in prison.

Pleading guilty to something you didn’t do apparently isn’t that uncommon. According to the report, a record breaking 47 of the 125 defendants were exonerated of crimes that they actually pled guilty to, continuing a growing trend that was evident last year as well.

While groups like the Innocence Project have devoted themselves for years to helping the “not guilty” behind bars, this report attributes the spike in exonerations to growing law enforcement cooperation and newly formed prosecutorial “Conviction Integrity Units” (CIU). This shows that the legal system is beginning to take more action to address innocence claims that were traditionally ignored. Prosecutors among these 15 CIUs have begun to tackle what they call a serious problem of “erroneous convictions” by reexamining cases with claims of innocence, accounting for 49 of the 2014 exonerations. University of Michigan law professor and co-founder of the registry told USA Today:

I think there is a seachange in the thinking related to the fallibility of the criminal justice system. It turns out that (wrongful conviction) is a much more common problem than everybody realizes.

DNA testing wasn’t the magical cure-all for freeing these prisoners that shows like “CSI” would have you believe. Only 22 cases involved DNA evidence, accounting for 18% of the exonerations.

The crimes most commonly exonerated since 1989 have been either homicides or sex-related. Some of these prisoners (mostly male) have been behind bars for decades awaiting their freedom. Take Ricky Jackson for example, who was wrongfully convicted of murder, attempted murder and robbery in 1975. Jackson spent 39 years, the longest time ever served by an exoneree, in an Ohio prison until he was acquitted after a witness recanted the false testimony that put him behind bars.

According to the New York Times, the felony convictions system has a success rate of 99.973 percent, making the error rate .027 percent. As impressive as that may seem, given the high levels of incarceration in the United States, that means that there are still undoubtedly more inmates still incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. This report’s startling numbers may provide some of these prisoners hope in their own legal battles.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Exonerations of Wrongly Accused Hit Record High in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

With barbed wire fences, armed-guard towers, extensive searching by guards, and locked rooms, prisons seem to be a place almost completely cut off from the world. Few would think marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and OxyContin are commonplace behind prison walls. The War on Drugs has led to nearly half of federal inmates being sentenced for drug crimes. If illegal drugs can easily be found behind bars in the most controlled of environments, what can be done to prevent substance abuse by inmates?

What are the statistics on drug use inside prisons?

Prisons seem to be the last place one would think to find drugs, yet prevalent gang activity and dependency on drugs has created a thriving black market. Drug use in prisons has become more relevant due to increasing calls for improved substance abuse treatment for inmates. According to CASA Columbia, 65 percent of inmates in 2010 met the criteria for substance abuse or addiction. Those who suffer from addiction and committed crimes relating to drugs or alcohol make up 85 percent of the nation’s prison population. A large segment of the prison population has been affected by drugs and alcohol prior to incarceration, but prison walls have not been a barrier to these substances.

Reliable statistics on drug use in prisons are difficult to attain. The frequency of drug testing is not standardized across facilities and can be random or can be issued with reasonable suspicion to specific inmates. Furthermore, prisoners have no reason to confess to using, and officials in prisons do not want to report unfavorable statistics. Technology has helped those behind bars to coordinate their drug trade while locked up. Cell phones allow inmates to track drugs via satellite and can even allow access to mobile banking. The prevalence of cell phones in prisons indicates the ease of obtaining contraband and the method for obtaining drugs.

The case of California

• Roughly 1,000 seizures of drugs are reported in California prisons each year.
• From 2006-2008, 44 of California’s inmates died from drug overdoses.
• From 2008-2009, California officers seized the highest amount of drugs in decades: 2,832 grams of marijuana and 92 grams of cocaine.
• In June 2013, 23 percent of California’s inmates tested positive for illegal substances and another 30 percent refused to be tested.
• In 2013, California alone confiscated over 12,000 cell phones from their prisons.
• More than 4,000 drug-related incidents were reported in California prisons in 2013.

These are far from the rates of drug usage outside of prison, but they still have strong implications. It is important to note that drug testing is often conducted by urine analysis, which will only detect drug use from the past several days. In contrast, testing hair can detect drug use from the past 90 days. In response to testing, drug use in prison often involves drugs that are harder to detect, such as heroin or prescription drugs.

How are drugs smuggled inside the prison?

From the Outside

Reports from the Washington Times and The Economist showed the limitless creativity exhibited by inmates to get contraband through extensive security. In some cases, drugs are thrown over prison walls in a ball or package. Some prisons do not scan all mail, so drugs can be delivered through mail and even on the backs of stamps. Oftentimes visitors may bring in drugs by “plugging” their body cavities or hiding drugs in a baby’s diaper. The drugs are then given to an inmate by way of a kiss, dropped in a shared can of soda, or food. Some inmates’ work detail, such as receiving deliveries, allow them greater privileges and more opportunities to bring in drugs.

From Staff

By the admission of those who work inside prisons, the most likely smuggling culprits are staff members themselves. Staff are searched before entering the facility but sometimes they are not as thoroughly searched as visitors. Staff have brought in drugs on their person or even hidden in their food. Some staff members do it for money to supplement their modest salary. Others are young and easily manipulated by seemingly friendly inmates. In April 2013, 13 correctional officers in Maryland were indicted for aiding the Black Guerrilla Family, a national prison gang thriving in Baltimore. The guards allegedly smuggled in cell phones, drugs, and other contraband on their person and in food. One indicted guard was reported to have made $3000-$5000 dollars a week for smuggling contraband to one inmate. Once guards are involved, drug use by inmates often goes overlooked.  ­­

The Market

Numerous inmates have verified drugs are as available in prisons as they are on the street, but not in the form of a cash market. Prisoners typically trade by using tobacco or items bought from commissary. Prisoners claim drugs inside a prison sell for more than 4 times the legal price outside prison walls. In an interview with The Fix, one anonymous prisoner claimed, “You can get whatever you want in here. Marijuana, heroin, whatever. They had oxy-80s on the pound for $160 each. It’s way more expensive than on the street, but if you got the money you can buy them… The sad thing about it all is, they lock you up for drugs and they can’t even keep the drugs out of the prison.” The shocking video below, made by inmates in Orleans Parish Prison, shows drugs, alcohol, guns, and gambling – all within prison walls:

What are the consequences of drug smuggling?

Consequences of drug smuggling vary. Drug use in prisons can pose security problems, escalate violence, lead to disputes regarding debts owed, and increase health and overdose concerns. Anyone bringing drugs into prison can be prosecuted, and inmates face write-ups and revoked privileges.

New York

In New York, if an inmate is caught with drugs or has tested positive, he is sent to solitary confinement for up to 3 months for his first offense. Prisoners in solitary are prohibited from any treatment programs they may have been in and those on the waiting list for treatment are removed from the list. Between 2005 and 2007, New York sentenced inmates to a collective 2,561 years in solitary from drug-related charges. Time in solitary confinement has negative emotional and physical consequences on inmates, who are potentially more vulnerable to using once they are released in the general population. These inmates are often sentenced to longer prison time with probation revoked or delayed and visiting privileges suspended.

California

Recently the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation proposed a plan where those who test positive for drug use will lose 90 days of pay from their work assignments, though inmates make only 8 to 32 cents per hour of work.

What do prisons do to treat drug addiction?

Access to Programs

Some inmates may not want substance abuse treatment. But for those who do, a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office showed that while 31,803 inmates were enrolled in basic drug education programs, more than 51,000 inmates were on waiting lists for periods up to 3 months. Prison overcrowding, with federal prisons operating at 40 percent above capacity, has meant limited access to these programs. A 2010 CASA Columbia report showed only 11 percent of inmates with substance abuse and addiction disorders receive any treatment during their incarcerations.

Programs

Different facilities offer different programs to treat drug abuse. Federal inmates have access to residential programs, transitional programs, nonresidential programs, and drug education programs. Other treatment programs vary by state. Tight budgets have forced states such as Kansas and Pennsylvania to cut treatment programs inside prisons and instead divert offenders to less expensive treatment programs outside of prison. Some claim that prisons should be focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Others argue that prison is the best chance to treat those with substance abuse problems to help prevent future crimes, but oftentimes this opportunity goes unused.

Medical Treatment in Prison

Treating an addiction like heroin or opioids can require Methadone or Buprenorphine to help with withdrawal symptoms. However, a drug like Methadone requires strict regulation and is expensive for correctional facilities in the short run. Allowing Methadone in prisons means it may be  sold on the black market and could even lead to inmates robbing the dispensary. Only half of states provide these treatment drugs even though both are listed by the World Health Organization as drugs that should be available to prisoners at all times.

Cost Effectiveness

Human Rights Watch has reported that for every $1 spent on substance abuse programs, states save $2-$6 dollars in the long run from reduced recidivism rates. One study found that for each inmate who remained sober, employed, and crime-free, the United States would save $91,000 per year. There is a great demand for substance abuse rehabilitation programs which can lead to early release and save government money. Watch this video for more information on the benefit of substance abuse programs in prison:

What else can be done to prevent drug use in prisons?

Many consider the Pennsylvania plan to limit inmate access to illicit drugs among the most successful. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections instituted a zero-tolerance policy after facing increasing drug usage in its prisons. The plan called for:

• Criminal prosecution of inmates caught with drugs
• Increased surveillance of inmates and visitors
• Increased visits by drug-detecting dogs
• Greater number of cell searches
• Improved technology in detection and scanning systems
• Random monitoring of phone calls
• Drug testing by hair rather than solely by urine analysis
• Revoked visiting privileges for offenders

In 1996, 7.8 percent of Pennsylvania inmates whose hair was tested showed illicit drug usage in the past 90 days. With the addition of the measures above, only 1.4 percent of inmates tested positive two years later. Along with the falling rates of drug use, assaults on inmates decreased 70 percent and assaults on staff decreased 57 percent.

Many states have looked to follow Pennsylvania’s example. However, many of the strategies in prisons are not replicated in more lax county jails. Furthermore, once inmates leave prisons, they enter less strict programs or probation where drugs are easy to obtain. Limiting drug use in prisons makes little sense if inmates do not have treatment and are overwhelmed by the availability of illegal drugs once they are no longer behind bars.

Critics have taken issue with the level of strictness required to eradicate drug use in prisons. Prisons could always be made worse. States could require inmates to spend more time locked in their rooms, have less free time in the yard, and have very closely-monitored visits. The question becomes at what cost should prisons seek to be drug-free. Many facilities simply do not have the staff to better supervise the amount of visits they receive. Accommodative visiting policies are aimed at making family visits easier since contact with family is integral to an inmate’s success after prison.

Balancing what prisons can actually achieve with their limited staff, funding, and how they can best keep contraband outside without completely dehumanizing inmates remains a complicated act. Stronger substance abuse programs may be necessary to prevent drug use, but completely eliminating the supply of drugs could be a game of hide and seek that will never end.

Resources

Primary

US Code 1791: Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison

US Code 14052: Enhanced Penalties for Illegal Drug Use in Federal Prisons

NCJRS: Reducing Drug Use in Prisons: Pennsylvania’s Approach

Additional

Nation’s Health: Report Finds Most U.S. Inmates Suffer From Substance Abuse

CASA: Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population

Economist: Drugs in Prisons: Supply and Remand

Washington Times: Drugs Inside Prison Walls

Newsweek: The Case for Treating Drug Addicts in Prison

Daily Beast: With Cigarettes Banned in Most Prisons, Gangs Shift

Hills Treatment Center: Drug Rehab Programs in Jail and Prison

Syracuse: Prison and Drugs: State Often Denies Help

USA Today: Prisoners Face Long Wait for Drug-Rehab Services

The Fix: Drug Treatment in Prison

Columbus Dispatch: Drug Use in Ohio’s Prisons Spiked

CBS: California Prisons Find 1 in 4 Inmates Used Drugs

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the War on Drugs Takes on a New Form Behind Bars appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011 there were 8,763 allegations of sexual victimization in American prisons, jails and other adult correctional facilities, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) annual report on the sexual victimization of inmates.

The data used to compile this report was drawn from a random sample “of not less than 10 percent of all federal, state, and county prisons and a representative sample of municipal prisons […] includ[ing] at least one prison from each state.” With 2.2 million people currently incarcerated in the United States, the sample number of allegations represented in the BJS report does not do justice to the true number of inmates who experience sexual victimization, as 90 percent of all federal, state, and county prisons (and subsequently their inmates) were excluded from the data used to compile the report.

These findings do, however, follow an upward trend in recent years, with 7,855 complaints filed in 2009 and 8,404 complaints filed in 2010. Of these allegations, 51 percent involved nonconsensual acts or abusive sexual contact between inmates, while the other 49 percent were sexual misconduct or sexual harassment involving prison staff. It was conservatively estimated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that approximately 1 in 10 inmates were assaulted in 2012, and as prison populations continue to grow, it can be assumed that this number has only increased in the past two years.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act:

This report comes out a little more than a decade after the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was passed in 2003 with unanimous support from both parties in Congress. The PREA is meant to address the problem of sexual abuse of any person who finds him/herself imprisoned or detained by a United States correctional agency. The act works to “develop and implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape” in both public and private facilities.

Although the PREA was signed in 2003, these national standards will be going into effect for the first time in August, 2014. Just last month, the governors from each state had to submit a certification that they were either in full compliance with the national standards developed by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) or that they were actively working towards full compliance.

Despite the fact that the act was passed through Congress unanimously, there are some states that are refusing to comply with the PREA national standards, citing that they impose too great of a financial burden, undermine state rights, or that their states already have effective standards in place for the prevention of rape.

The governors of Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, Texas, and Utah have all formally informed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that they will not try to meet PREA standards, however the vast majority of American states and territories have promised that they will work towards full compliance, devoting at least 5 percent of their grant funding to accomplish this goal.

At the moment, only two states (New Hampshire and New Jersey) have correctional facilities that are fully compliant with PREA standards. Considering the fact that Brenda Smith, a former commissioner of the NPREC, stated that the standards are a far cry from unreachable, it is rather surprising that only two states can boast that they are up to code.

If protecting prisoners from sexual abuse is the bare minimum that states can do, then the disturbing statistics in the recent BJS report show that we still have a long way to go before the issue of prison rape can begin to be resolved.

What the Statistics Show:

Though attitudes are certainly changing – the very existence of the PREA is proof of that – the opinions of people like Governor Rick Perry, who claims that existing procedures are more than adequate, reflect an awful truth: most institutions are not as “hard on prison rape” as they pretend they are.

Despite the fact that any sexual contact between staff and inmates is illegal (even if it “appeared-to-be” willing) only 78 percent of staff perpetrators were fired or resigned according the BJS report. This means that 22 percent of these staff members still hold their jobs and continue to work in plain view of their victims.

As if the fact that 49 percent of all of these allegations involve prison staff is not bad enough, only 45 percent of the staff offenders were arrested, referred for prosecution or convicted following the incident.

This means that more than half (55 percent) of staff perpetrators faced no legal consequences for substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct towards prisoners. Even the perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization only faced legal consequences 48 percent of the time.

What all of these numbers mean is that more than half of all substantiated allegations of sexual victimization in prisons do not result in justice for their victims, even if the incidents are reported, investigated, and found to be true.

These statistics do not even take into account the number of unreported instances of sexual misconduct, nor the number of victims that suffer in silence out of unwarranted shame or legitimate fear of retaliation, but they do paint a rather chilling picture for those of us that are fortunate enough to not be behind bars.

Why it Matters:

It is important to remember that while these crimes are happening in prisons, they have long reaching effects that expand well beyond prison walls.

Prison rape endangers public safety by making brutalized inmates more likely to commit other crimes when they are released. Victims of prison rape also suffer from severe physical and psychological effects that they carry with them after they served their time. This makes it difficult for inmates to reintegrate back into society and hold down a steady job, making them far more likely to become either homeless or require government aid.

With at least 650,000 inmates released each year, this is a problem society will continually have to confront. Although the PREA is a step in the right direction, we as a society have to be prepared to do more than just the “bare minimum” to protect prisoners from sexual victimization at the hands of both staff and their fellow inmates.

No matter the crime, rape is never part of the sentence.

[BJS Press Release]

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [sammireachers via Pixabay]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Rape Part of the Sentence? appeared first on Law Street.