These despicable acts are seen to be
sanctioned or viewed to be tolerable by the prison population and the admin through tacit approval of such overt
behaviors thus seen as “norms” rather than the exception to the rule or
expectation.
It has been a
long standing culturally acceptable
practice in prison that certain kinds of prisoners are reasonably eligible
to be targeted for rape or sexual assault with minimized consequences either by
peer pressure of the population or the disciplinary process maintained by
correctional employees. Fundamentally and culturally speaking some victims “ask
for it” while others “deserve such treatment” based on the prison code and
culture set forth by various prison groups over a long period of time.
A total recall
of my own experiences involving sexual assaults and shower rapes reflect the
oxymoronic situational assessments associated with this kind of behavior that
sets it apart from any other disciplinary or behavioral concern. It is fair to
say it has a category by itself and is often handled or ignored according to
the customs and practices recognized to deal with such occasions. Prisoners who
are sexually assaulted or raped rarely
report it to staff.
They deal with
it internally and “suck it up” creating a psychological matter as well as a
physical concern. The culture is unforgiving and makes this a taboo condition
no matter which way the prisoner deals with it. If he or she remains quiet
there is a subtle inference they “asked for it or liked it.” This is the most
common approach to the problem when viewed
at its lowest level of discovery. Even when ignored, the problem may repeat
itself unless dynamics change.
If the prisoner
reports it to an employee or medical staff he or she puts a “snitch jacket” on
themselves and has to deal with the urgent needs to separate, isolate and
ensure their safety from further harm or retaliatory conduct by the predators
since they have no alienated themselves from the rest of the population by
telling of the rape or assault. There is rarely a middle ground here where the
prisoner can feel safe or comfortable that the incident will be handle
properly, expediently and with consideration for the victim at all times.
There is no trust factor here when it
comes to the abuse of prisoners either by other prisoners or by staff. The
abuse is based on perceived “weakness” upon entry or by characteristics that
stereotype victims as they enter the system. Some of these characteristics
developed by the culture and certainly without any scientific or anecdotal
evidence as it is purely based on conjecture and personal valuation of the
victim much like many high profile cases in our communities where the victim
has been portrayed as not being dressed properly, being in the wrong place
wrong time and asking for it.
These
characteristics are stereotypes created by culture and not anything that
warrants legitimization by any process other than word of mouth, ideas or
notions of intent voluntary or involuntary and suggestive conduct by those who
carry some influence within the prison population or in some cases, employee.
Thus technically, any prisoner can be set up for rape or sexual assault by
anyone who perceives them to be receptive or willing to take such abuse and not
say anything about it. Another characteristic is power and dominance over
another.
Thus we go back
to the characteristics that draw such notions and stating unequivocally this is
based on my own experience as a prison deputy warden, we categorize prisoners
into three (3) categories.
Let the record
reflect before there are any misunderstandings a prisoner does not need to look
like a woman to be victimize by a sexual assault. It is a factor but in most
cases these are either secondary or ancillary reasons for their vulnerability.
Based on my
experience as a corrections administrator handling such cased for a span of
twenty five years, I have found circumstance that follow patterns of behaviors
directly or indirectly related to victim and predator. There appear to be three
(3) distinguishing identifying factors or elements that create such division of
potential victimization.
I.
The
first are those prisoners who based on their behavior, habits or mannerism are being
labeled to be most likely to be raped or sexually assaulted for they are
“built” that way. possessing "feminine" characteristics such as long
hair or a high voice, surgical implants, hormone treatments, altering prison
clothes to fit the contour of the body, possession of female underwear or make
up, etc.
What
is important to remember here is that prisoners with any one of these
characteristics typically face an increased risk of sexual abuse, while
prisoners with several overlapping characteristics are much more likely than
other prisoners to be targeted for abuse. There are variances here that will
determine the degree of vulnerability but that will be covered later on.
II.
The second
tagging of a victim is someone being mistakenly isolated or put in a situation
where rape is a natural consequence for their “behavior” to be taken as being
receptive to homosexuality relationships or their inability to defend
themselves while in prison and giving consent to perform sexual acts to
themselves and to others to avoid being threatened or repeatedly violated in
the future.
Specifically
this behavior various for these being tagged for their behavior because they
fit a stereotype that brings them into a profile that is easy to describe as
being “young, small in size, physically weak, gay, first offender, being
unassertive, unaggressive, shy, intellectual, not street-smart, or passive.”
This does not suggest them to behave in any form of submission but rather
because of these “behaviors” they have attracted attention to themselves and
that in itself creates a vacuum for them in the short term as they learn to
cope with prison life better and pick up a mentor, protector or a “buddy
system” that keeps them safer than before.
III.
The
final category are those prisoners who violate their own code and culture and
have a need to be “punished” by those in power. This is usually based on a
racial dominated hierarchy either formed by sheer majority of color on that
yard or associations with gangs who have their own by-laws when it comes to
seeking “justice” and “punishment” while under their control.
This
type of assault usually consists of a brutal physical assault at first commonly
known as a “beat down” and then followed up with a forced sexual act either
anal or oral but with multiple persons and so brutal and violent they essentially
break the person’s willpower down to a subhuman status and where they don’t
have another person to talk to or associate with as they are now lepers and
“property” of the aggressors.
The
majority of these types of victims are those who failed to have their papers
pass the acceptance stages and where their records reflect them of being
charged with, involved in or having been convicted of a sexual offense against
a woman or a minor.
There is much
more to discuss in order to reveal their
vulnerability to such attacks. In
order to be more aware of who are being targeted and what prison related
dynamics are involved in such a predatory act is essential information that
determines ability, opportunity, motive, racial and group mentality behaviors.
This issue can
be simplified although the process is very complex and difficult to understand
unless you are well skilled in predicting human behaviors where there are no
controlled parameters and at times, an “anything goes” attitude that impacts
the safety and order of the prison setting. A good example is a lack of closed
circuit cameras, blind spots, lack of containment space etc.
Hence we look
for physical plant, housing patterns or conditions that are conducive to
sexual
assaults and rapes rather than individuals. The strategy is to give the
prisoner as much protection as it is afforded under a peer pressure society
divided by age, race, creed, color, ethnicity, risk taking and crimes
committed.
Additionally the
effectiveness of protection is based
on variables related to operational procedures, staffing, isolation practices,
supervisory reviews and administrative intervention of assault and rapes and
effectively managing the consequences for such behaviors.
The effectiveness
of policies enforced determine prison conditions or human behavioral patterns.
The two main policies that are designed to prison rapes are classification and
housing procedures. Although the PREA policy is the main substance of such
enforcement, they are backed up by internal procedures that have to be unfailing
and practiced without exceptions or mistakes. This is where abuse prevention breaks down as this
very element is subject to abuse as well.
Such dedication
of strictly enforcing these standard provides a preliminary protective “cover”
or layer for prisoners to sense there is an awareness of this vulnerability
factor and risks associated with such conduct. However, a breakdown of such
“cover” in the areas where the administration and employees have principled or
structured responsibilities create those conditions that may likely lead to a
higher rate of sexual assaults or rapes compared to those structures being
intact.
Professionally
speaking if these infrastructures are maintained and controlled, rape, sexual
assaults and other crime related behaviors can be reduced if not prevented by
taking a proactive approach to setting the right conditions to minimize
criminal behaviors.
Using the known
characteristics of prisons rapist is an important tool and should be paid
attention to when implementing policies related to prison rapes. Such
characteristics are known and discussed but it must be mentioned that although
we know the characteristics of the prison rapist we can’t become psychic and
predict such attacks.
Characteristics are covered under the classification&
housing policies. They cover:
1. Prior history pre-sentence and
post-sentencing information showing personality qualities that makes them
high-risk. E.g. kidnaping, false
imprisonment, rape, aggravated assaults, homicide, weapons charges hate crimes
etc.
2. History of crimes committed, first
offender, repeat offender
3. Gang membership or associations
4. Institutional disciplinary history for
compliance for rules & regulations
5. Mental Illness or Personality Disorders
(history of treatment or diagnosis)
6. Age
7. Race and Ethnicity
8. Size, Physical Strength, Attitude, and
Propensity toward Violence (primarily housing issues)
9. Housing environment e.g. dormitory,
double bunk, maximum custody single cells
It has been my
experience that most prisoners abused or raped by other prisoners have been
white on white. However, in some cases there were cases of black on white
assaults. This was likely a situation created by poor housing techniques or
poor housing patterns.
The important
factor is a balance in housing race
so there are no “gangs” or organized activities condoned by race. This is the
most difficult factor to “control” in open living areas as there are more
whites and Hispanics inside prisons today. Regardless, most race issues are
kept along racial lines but abuse has no clear line to depend on.
While all these
factors are documented and important for the “control” element of circumstances
while in prison they are only one element of the prevention policies. Thus the
first layer of protection are solid written criteria that should not allow too
many exceptions or overrides in order to accommodate other external factors
such as overcrowding, bed space etc.
This formats the
agency’s commitment to providing a
basic foundation to provide fundamental and basic needs while incarcerated. The
intensity and dedication provided determines the outcomes or results of the
enforcement of such event.
The second
protective cover or layer should consist of institutional operational and
programming needs to be proportionate
with the population needs and “control” elements of the plan. These become
important to reinforce the legal responsibility to protect them while under
direct or indirect supervision of correctional staff or treatment staff. This
creates a real-time cultural awareness designed to avoid deliberate
indifference in movement, treatment, work, education & recreation supervision
and general safety issues.
They cover:
1. Physical plant e.g. lighting, doors,
locking devices, cameras, ingress & egress controls, surveillance or line
of sight capabilities, terrain conditions, fences, observation posts, towers, motion
detectors etc.
2. Staffing patterns, authorized posts,
visibility of such posts, searches, positive identification processes,
checkpoints, security checks of peripheral areas, security checks of remote
areas, timely welfare checks etc.
The third layer of protection for the
reduction or prevention of prison rapes is the mandatory requirements by PREA
that stipulates the prisoner is informed of their moral and legal obligations
to respect the rights of others and the right to report allegations of sexual
assault or rape or any other misconduct under the prisoner’s handbook or
institutional rules and regulations. This includes a copy of the disciplinary
sanctions for specific infractions and violations including sexual assaults,
rape, violent behaviors, extortion, coercion, bribery, bartering for sexual
favors etc. They cover:
|
2. Civil rights and Grievance procedures
3. How to report a crime
4. A video tape of the institutional rules
and regulations
5. Conditions outlined by the PREA Act.
The most
common inherent problem with this protective layer is that it serves as a thin line on moral depravity
that has often already been compromised by the nature of crime committed when
arrested sentenced and convicted. It is here where there is a major stumbling
block as it has to deal with the relationship between a reported sexual
assault or abuse and the relationship between victim and predator or
perpetrator. Regardless how this is handled, there are only three (3) options
available to the administration to resolve such matters. They are:
1. Investigate the complaint – conduct a
medical rape test kit by medical and confirm or desist.
·
Confirmation
would result in administrative disciplinary issued for perpetrator /
predator.
·
Confirmation
would result in voluntary protective custody for the victim who reported the
incident.
·
Lack
of evidence of a forcible rape or sexual attack would jeopardize the victim
for reporting this to the medical staff or administration creating a
credibility issue and further reporting status discrepancies which would put
the burden on the victim to proof such an event actually took place again.
2. Initiate a protective order and
segregate the victim from the perpetrator and explain that PC is not
permanent and will likely result placement back into a general population
status.
·
This
results in a temporary housing in segregation and likely release within 90
days and the status of the victim will be involuntary pending release to an
alternative yard.
·
The
danger has now been elevated and the probability of finding an alternative
diminishes.
3. Notify law enforcement and proceed with
criminal charges if victim is willing to testify against the perpetrator or
predator.
·
Involuntary
protective segregation / custody until the trial or case has been completed.
·
Long
term protective custody needs during term of incarceration.
This is where
the “report” breaks down as the victim has been put on notice he or she will
have altered their lifestyle dramatically and potentially caused them to be a
target of not an abuse, sexual assault or rape but in all reality of this
prison code and culture, a death
warrant while inside prison doing time.
The prison
code overtakes common sense, human dignity and respect issues and requires
the victim to decide whether or not they want to do their time in general
population or isolated in a segregated housing unit where movement,
programming, recreation and other privileges are severely restricted compared
to the general population setting.
Cultural
practices and customs have always been the main reason why abuse, sexual
assaults and rapes are diminished and
rarely reported. Staff make the victim aware of these severe consequences
and literally talk the victim out of filing a complaint or report. Although
morally wrong, giving the victim a clear idea of consequences even at the
beginning of such processes, serves as a barrier or obstacle to true
“justice” in most cases.
If this
practice was discouraged, the enforcement and disciplinary element of the
policies related to abuse and sexual assaults would carry more weight in the
population everywhere. As you can well see this is a political see-saw of
very challenging and multifaceted options that impact life and death conditions. A certain catch-22 for the victim as he or
she has been identified as a “snitch or rat” and has to suffer the
consequences for such actions basically denying a return to the original
housing status allowing the return to his housing where he was previous to
the abuse, assault or rape.
What it really
comes down to is the victim’s request, mental and physical condition to
endure any further abuse and the agency’s ability to protect him or her for
the duration of their term or sentence without putting them at risk or in a
most restrictive housing situation.
Those who are severely mentally ill stand to lose the
most as many commit suicide after multiple abuses or rapes as their
coping mechanism fail and their ability to withstand isolation or segregation
deteriorates their mental capacity and ability to cope and function inside
prisons.
It has been
widely recommended those prisoners identified to have severe or seriously
mentally ill disabilities should not be housed in isolation or segregation but
rather a certified treatment center where they can be put on a treatment
plan, receive their medication and ensure compliance and supervised within
their capabilities to understand or comprehend rules and regulations and do
their time under the guidance of a mental health provider or professional.
Reference:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment