Tuesday, November 20, 2012
HIV In Prisons-MYTHS-Tattooing
April 26, 2006—A new study tracking HIV through the Georgia prison system is busting some myths about life behind bars and raising questions about why condoms are still so much harder for inmates to get their hands on than junk food, cigarettes and dirty tattoo needles.
The Georgia Department of Corrections and the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) questioned 68 Georgia prisoners who had gotten HIV while behind bars between 1988 and 2003 along with 68 serving sentences during the same 15 years without picking up the virus. Here are some of the myths debunked:
Myth #1: Prisons are a breeding ground for HIV.
“HIV transmission is not rare in prison, but neither is it rampant,” says Madeleine LaMarre, LPN, a study coauthor who used to work as a nurse in the Georgia system and now advises prison administrators on HIV care. “We knew of 9% [of all positive Georgia prisoners] who’d acquired HIV in the Georgia system,” LaMarre said. Meaning that 91% already had it when they got there.
Myth #2: Rape is the main form of prison sex.
By a wide majority (72%), consensual sex was the number one male-to-male sexual activity reported. And the nonconsensual category included 13 men who traded sex for money, food or cigarettes, along with seven reports of rape. “People [accept the] media portrayals of prison rape,” says the CDC’s Patrick Sullivan, PhD, a study coauthor who is an epidemiologist. “When there’s no data, other information fills in the gap.”
Myth #3: Sex between prisoners and guards happens mostly in women’s prisons.
Of the 59 men who said they’d had sex in prison, 26 reported encounters with male staffers and 21 with female staffers—higher than expected numbers on both sides.
Myth #4: Prisoners are reckless, putting others at risk.
Seventy-five percent of the positive men in the study said that upon release, they would let family and sex partners know about the sex they had in prison, welcome news considering how much HIV is blamed on ex-cons. And 30% of all those who reported having consensual sex said they did use some sort of protection—usually makeshift barriers like latex gloves or plastic wrap.
Myth #5: Prison tattooing does not transmit HIV.
These may be the oddest of the report’s findings—and they’re still under investigation. Twelve positive men in the study reported prison tattooing as their only risky behavior. More interviews and some genetic testing will say for sure. In the past, however, only the hardier hepatitis B and C viruses were known to be transmitted through tattooing with shared needles and dirty equipment.
What solutions do these findings suggest for the state of Georgia and the CDC? Prison advocates and public officials interviewed by POZ say it all points directly to more condoms and HIV education. Take the overestimation of rape, for instance: While rapists don’t often use condoms, consensual sex partners might—if they were available. And if staff are having so much more sex with prisoners than we thought, says Sullivan, “When Georgia looks at educational efforts, they need to recognize the prevention needs of staff too.”
Since 1994, the CDC has officially backed condom distribution in prisons along with education and testing. But fewer than 1% of correctional facilities in the U.S. currently offer condoms.
One proposal on the table recently in Georgia involves “clustering” positive prisoners in separate facilities. Sullivan says, “There are no data about the effectiveness of separate housing as a prevention strategy,” while Robert Cohen, MD, who monitors prison HIV care for the federal courts, suggests that segregation raises more problems than it solves. The bottom line, he says, is that “HIV is transmitted among prisoners just as it is among anyone else—and it can be prevented the same way too.”
Sex in Prison: Exploring the Myths and Realities
Abstract:
Homosexual rape is generally perceived as a common occurrence in male
prisons. On the contrary, studies show that inmate involvement in sexual
acts within the confines of prisons varies greatly. Nevertheless, sexual
contact, although prohibited, still occurs in prisons. Sexual activity is
also most consensual. Ironically, even prisoners subscribe to the myth of
pervasive sex in correctional institutions. The results of a survey of
prisoners' sexual activity in a Delaware prison are analyzed.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1995 Sage Publications, Inc.
Prison narratives, mass media and conclusions drawn from institutional research have fostered a perception of widespread "homosexual rape" in male penitentiaries. However studies of sexual contact in prison have shown inmate involvement to vary greatly. To explore the nature and frequency of sexual contact between male inmates in a Delaware prison, the authors administered a survey of sexual behavior Respondents were questioned extensively about sexual activities that they engaged in, directly observed, and heard about "through the grapevine" prior to their entry into a prison treatment program. Findings indicate that (a) although sexual contact is not widespread, it nevertheless occurs; (b) the preponderance of the activity is consensual rather than rape; and (c) inmates themselves perceive the myth of pervasive sex in prison, contradicting their own realities.
There is an unspoken ridicule of inmates who engage in sex today more than in the '70s and '80s. Sex still goes on in here. People I know don't use protection because it's not available. People are knowledgeable [about HIV] but still have sex.
Years ago it was normal to have sex, blow jobs, with other inmates even if you were not homosexual. Today if you do this, others consider you a fag. Most people that do it are lifers 'cause they don't care. No rapes without a condom. Just like on the streets; you can get sex anytime if you have money.
Anecdotal accounts of prison life have invariably depicted the routine occurrence of rape and consensual sex behind prison walls. Several investigations of these allegations have revealed that sex in prison, although prohibited, is a reality (Siegal, 1992). What is unclear, however, is the nature and frequency of inmate sexual activity. Our perceptions of sex in prison may be assimilated through media stories. Recall the sex scandal in a Georgia prison where 14 employees, including a deputy warden, were indicted for having sex with female inmates-an episode of prison misconduct where force of a psychological rather than a physical nature powered the abuse (Curriden, 1993). Another report accused Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, DC, of engaging in oral sex in a crowded prison visiting room while serving time for possession of cocaine. It was alleged that Barry's visitor was a prostitute (Nichols, 1992). More often than not, incidents of sexual aggression such as these are regarded as indicators of widespread rape throughout jail and prison systems. For example, in 1993 the New York Times ran an article titled "The Rape Crisis Behind Bars" that discussed the entrenched tradition of rape in prison and went on to characterize prisons as training sites for rapists (Donaldson, 1993, p. A 11). These assumptions, for the most part, have not been challenged.
Nonetheless, examinations of the actual incidence of sex in prison have shown frequencies of prisoner involvement to vary greatly. Some document the frequent occurrence of sex in persons, concluding that rape in prison is "rampant" (Weiss & Friar, 1974) and that sexual assaults are "epidemic" (Davis, 1968, p. 9). On the other hand, some researchers have found consensual sex in prison to be relatively infrequent, and sexual assaults are purported to be extremely rare. Studies report proportions of males admitting to being raped in prison to range from less than 1% Lockwood, 1980, p. 87; Tewksbury, 1989b, p. 38) to 41% (Wooden & Parker, 1982, p. 134). Accounts of overall sexual contact between male inmates, which can include consensual activity and/or acts of aggression, have been found to fluctuate from 19.4% (Tewksbury, 1989b, p. 35) to more than 90% (Barnes & Teeters, 1959, P. 373(1); Wooden & Parker, 1982, p. 126).
Charges of sexual brutality have at times prompted investigations of rape in men's penitentiaries and jails. Sex is forbidden in prison so that correctional officials can fulfill their objective of a safe and secure environment. However, sex may become an important commodity in prison; where there is material deprivation, sex can fuel an underground economy (Silberman, 1994). As such, the potential for violence surrounding these activities is vast. Additionally, rape and the threat of rape increase fear about masculinity and lead to compensatory aggressive displays of manhood (Irwin, 1980). General studies of sexual assault appear to conclude that most male victims of rape are indeed inmates rather than their non-incarcerated counterparts (Lipscomb, Muram, Speck, & Mercer, 1992), further justifying investigations of sex within prisons.
Consensual sexual activity among inmates has been examined less frequently than has coerced sex. Studies of sex between "homosexuals" in prison have taken the perspective that this type of sex is either a social problem or a consequence of being institutionalized. Prisoners have been said to "improvise" while in prison, as it is likely that there is no possibility of heterosexual contact (Irwin, 1980). However, few researchers have probed male-to-male sexual relationships between caring sexual partners, perhaps because there is thought to be little to no violence in this type of sexual contact; consensual sex is seen as less of a threat to inmate or institutional security than is rape and thus does not demand the attention of more violent behavior.(2) Nevertheless, some examinations have found consensual sex to be a more routine occurrence in prisons than are acts of rape, qualifying consensual sex as a topic worthy of greater regard.
Now, well into the 1990s and surrounded by the reality of HIV and AIDS in addition to the myriad of sexually transmitted diseases, the study of sex in prison takes on a further significance. Thus the importance of investigating prison sexual contact is to gain a better awareness of the nature and frequency of sex in prison so that we are more thoroughly prepared to safeguard prisoners from rape, other forms of coercion, and disease and so that we can better deal with the issues of consensual sex and condom distribution.
An early inquiry of sexual activities within prisons was accomplished as part of the research for the well-known volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948). Inmates from penal institutions were included in the study but were excluded in calculations of sex frequency rates because the researchers felt inmates were in a "special situation" with regard to their unusual state of deprivation. However, the researchers did make several deductions with regard to sex in prison. They inferred that although there is opportunity in prison for outlets such as masturbation, nocturnal emission, and homosexuality, "the sum total of sexual activity is very much below that found in similar groups outside of an institution" (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 210).
Going further, they explained, while it is in actuality a fact that a high percentage of them do become involved in such activity after they have been in a penal institution for some length of time, neither the homosexual nor masturbation ever provides any frequent
outlet for more than a small proportion of a prison population. (p. 529) Kinsey and his colleagues were suggesting that although many prisoners experience some form of sex while in prison (they would later estimate that this could be as high as 90% of inmates), it is not typically a recurrent activity for most.
Focusing on sexual aggression, Davis (1968) conducted a 26-month examination of the Philadelphia prison system. He reported that of 3,304 inmates interviewed, 97 had been sexually victimized. These 97 victims disclosed a total of 156 sexual assaults (including 55 attempts or coercive solicitations to commit sexual acts) that could be documented through records, polygraphs, and/or other corroborations. Because it was perceived that these findings were only the tip of the iceberg" (p. 11), Davis and his investigative committee made the "conservative estimate that the true number of assaults in the 26-month period was about 2,000" (p. 13).
Also examining sexual aggression in prison, Lockwood (1980) interviewed 107 inmates in a New York State prison facility who were considered targets of sexual aggressors. Targets were those who were thought to have been previously sexually assaulted, threatened, or intimidated while in prison. One third of the targets were selected by staff, one third were selected from protective custody, and one third were selected from a random sample of the entire population. Results indicated that of all the aggressive incidents that the targets reported to have occurred at some time in their institutional custody, only 8% were sexual assaults. With regard specifically to the random sample, only one inmate from this group was found to have been a victim of a sexual assault.
Wooden and Parker (1982) conducted a comprehensive study of inmates' sexual experiences throughout their current incarceration periods in a California prison. The researchers received a total of 200 completed questionnaires from inmates from a random sample of 607) and determined that 65% had had at least one sexual encounter while in prison. Of the sample, 14% acknowledged having been victimized including 41% of the homosexuals, 9% of the heterosexuals, and 2% of the bisexuals. The authors found the frequently used term homosexual rape to be inaccurate; they concluded that it is the heterosexual and bisexual inmates who are the instigators of sexual violence
Additionally, a supplementary questionnaire was given to a nonrandom sample of 80 self-identified homosexuals. Of these inmates, 95% reported having performed oral sex and 98% reported having been anally penetrated while in prison (p. 126). Sexual pressure was reported by 53% of this inmate sample, and more than 40% in this group had been forced to have sex during their incarcerations (p. 134).
Federal prisoners' sexual experiences were studied by Nacci and Kane (1983). A total of 330 males who had been selected randomly from among 17 federal institutions were interviewed. Of the respondents, 12% claimed to have had sexual contact in their present institutions (average time served = approximately 20 months). When asked whether they had had a homosexual experience in prison, 30% of the inmates responded that they had. However, questions relating specifically to sexual aggression revealed much smaller incidence rates. Only 2 inmates (0.6%) claimed to have been victims; one had been raped (defined as oral sodomy) and one was forced to perform an undesired sex act.(3)
Sexual incidence in an Ohio prison was studied by Tewksbury (1989b). The majority of the inmate respondents were recruited from the prison's college program. Of the 150 participants who returned completed questionnaires, 19.4% reported having had sexual contact with at least one other inmate while in prison during the preceding year. Regarding coercive sex, 92.6% claimed to never have been approached in a forceful or threatening manner, and no inmate admitted to having been raped in prison. When inmates were asked to estimate frequencies of sexual activities in prison, their estimates were much higher than the self-reported incidence rates. For example, respondents estimated that 14% of the prison's inmates had been raped while in prison.
Of late, only a handful of studies have ventured into the we of sex in prison. Those researchers who are examining sexual incidence within institutions are doing so for the purpose of investigating the issue of HIV/AIDS among inmate populations. For example, an alleged high incidence of sex among male Scottish prisoners along with concern over HIV transmission led to an examination of sexual activity within Scottish prisons. A total of 559 male and female inmates were interviewed out of a random stratified sample drawn from eight penal establishments. Results indicated that 1 man and 3 women reported having had sex while incarcerated. In addition to fear of reporting, the low rates of sexual activity were attributed to the unacceptability of anal intercourse in Scotland and the predominantly single-cell occupancy of Scottish prisons (Power et al., 1991).
Cooley (1993) measured sexual assault in an effort to estimate the personal and property victimization rates of inmates in five Canadian federal prisons. A questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 117 males who had been incarcerated at least 1 year prior to the interviews. It was revealed that 55 inmates had experienced at least one type of victimization, totaling 107 incidents over a 12-month period. However, of these 55 inmates, only 1 reported a victimization that was sex related.
Overall, analyses of sexual activity in prisons have been inconsistent and inconclusive. In general, when low rates of sexual contact are found, it has been resolved that the actual incidence is likely much greater, based on the assumption that much underreporting is occurring. On the other hand, when high rates of sexual activity are reported, one must be cognizant of the methodological dilemmas that accompany sex in prison research.
METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
To a great extent, the reason for the inconclusive nature of prison sex studies is due to the many methodological difficulties of researching sex in prison. The major drawback is one of accuracy in reporting. Prisoners may underestimate the incidence of sex because they are concerned with possible repercussions from inmates and correctional officers. They may be embarrassed to admit engaging in sex with others males for fear of being labeled as weak or gay, and they may fear the possibility of punitive measures. Even worse, admitting to having been raped in prison goes against the inmate code whereby status and power are based on domination and gratification (Wooden & Parker, 1982).
To eliminate the potentially negative consequences of self-reporting, official prison records can be reviewed for prior institutional sex offenses. These reports can also be used to validate or compare self-reported information. However, most sexual incidents are not officially recorded, limiting the accuracy of prison records. For example, Davis (1968) reported that of 2,000 sexual incidents that were estimated to have taken place in the Philadelphia prison system, only 40 resulted in internal discipline. Cooley (1993) noted that merely 9% of all 107 criminal victimization occurrences (which included only 1 sexual assault) had been reported to prison officials.
Possibly the most perplexing methodological issue in examining sex frequency and sex type among inmates involves the definitions of the sex-related incidents one is trying to measure. A large majority of studies do not make any effort to define the sexual terminology either to the inmates who are being interviewed or to the readers who must interpret the researchers' findings. Some analyses have measured rape in the broadest sense, as any act of coercion. Other studies break down these acts of coercion into categories such as forcible rape, sexual assault, sexual aggression, sexual solicitation, and attempted sexual acts. Perhaps even more damaging, researchers have failed to distinguish between consensual acts and acts of rape (Eigenberg, 1989). However, consensual sex is difficult to measure and consequently is difficult to define. The problem is that some sexual activity may appear consensual although an inmate may actually be coerced into participating only because he feels that there are no other alternatives. As a result, these two dissimilar types of sex, consensual and nonconsensual, have often been grouped together for analyses. This has no doubt added to the difficulty of assessing the true nature and incidence of sex in prisons.
Definitional ambiguity of sexual terminology has indeed been found to be a problem for inmates as well. In one study, 10% of the prisoners who were interviewed about their sexual experiences in prison were unsure whether they had ever been forced to have sex during their periods of incarceration (Wooden & Parker, 1982). Although it proves difficult to define the various sexual measures, an attempt must be made to clarify the terminology so that the research can become more accurate.
Great variability in population and sample selection has also hindered the comparability and generality of rates of sexual activity in prisons. Many researchers have interviewed only known homosexuals or inmates identified by correctional officers or other inmates as having been previously victimized. Unfortunately, these samples may incorrectly assess the occurrence of sexual activity, which in most cases would result in overestimating sexual frequency. For example, Wooden and Parker (1982) reported a very high sexual incidence rate, finding that 65% of their sample had experienced sexual contact while in prison. However, the prison from which the sample was chosen housed what the California Department of Corrections determined to be the state's "effeminate homosexuals" and "vulnerable heterosexual youngsters" (p. 9).(4)
The present study attempts to improve on these methodological obstacles. Moreover, it is the first look at the nature and frequency of sexual activity in a sample of Delaware prisoners. For this examination, we were in the unique situation of interviewing the male inmates in a prison-based therapeutic community (TC) with whom our interviewing staff had established excellent rapport.(5) This likely promoted greater honesty in responses. Further, these prisoners were asked not about sexual activities in their current TC but about sexual activities that they may have heard about, seen, or participated in when they were part of the general prison population.(6) Therefore, the respondents were separated from and had no further contact with the vast majority of the inmates about whom they were reporting. This should improve on some of the previous reporting problems researchers have had with prisoners who feared that other inmates or correctional officers would have access to their interviews.
METHODOLOGY
In March and April 1994, voluntary interviews were conducted with male inmates in a medium-security Delaware prison who were part of the facility's treatment program for drug abusers. All of the 106 TC inmates who had been in the program longer than 30 days were eligible for this study and were contacted for interviews. A total of 101 inmates were willing participants and were ultimately interviewed. All inmate accounts were credited with $5 approximately 3 weeks after the interviews. Respondents were guaranteed of the confidential nature of the interviews and were assured that their status in the TC program would not be affected by either participation or nonparticipation in this project.
Respondents' mean number of times having been incarcerated was 3.6, and they had spent an average of 69.6 months (lifetime) incarcerated. Inmates had been living in the prison TC an average of 10.8 months. The average age at the time of the interview was 29.6 years. The vast majority (92%) of the respondents were African American, 5% were White-Anglo, and 3% were Hispanic.(7)
Data were also gathered on the respondents' sexual histories. The age at which respondents reported their first voluntary sexual experiences was at a mean of 12.3 years. Almost 11 % of the respondents reported having been forced to have sex as children. The average number of lifetime sexual partners was 53, with a median of 25. Although all of the respondents classified themselves as heterosexual, 5% did admit to having at least one sexual experience with another man during their lifetimes.
Survey questions were conceived primarily to assess sexual activities among inmates and the respondents' personal sexual experiences while in prison. Again, respondents were asked not about sexual activities within their current environment but about sexual activities that they may have heard about, seen, or participated in while living within the general prison population during the year before entering the TC. Secondary topics included respondents' incarceration histories, early sexual experiences, and previous drug treatment experiences.
Sexual terms were defined for the respondents as follows.
Rape: oral or anal sex that is forced on somebody.
Attempted rape: a failed effort at forcing somebody to have oral or anal sex.
Consensual sex: oral or anal sex that is agreed on before the act takes place.
The benefit of defining the sex terms for the respondents was to maintain consistency in their responses. As discussed previously, delineating consensual sex from forced sex can be a complicated endeavor. Sexual alliances between inmates that appear to be of a consenting nature -- as there are no signs of physical force and/or it is an ongoing relationship -- may prove to be coerced. Our definitions attempt to help the respondents differentiate between consensual and coerced acts. Still, inmates may be unaware that some of the seemingly consensual acts are actually committed out of fear, threat of repercussion, or for gain. And this may be common. Bowker (1980) explains, "One must wonder how many so-called consensual homosexuals would never have engaged in this behavior were it not for having been raped or threatened with rape and exposed to the examples of other rape victims" (p. 15). We do acknowledge that the consensual sex reported by our respondents may instead be situations of sexual exploitation. However, to better ascertain the nature of the complex sexual interactions that occur between inmates, a qualitative or an ethnographic methodology involving detailed interviewing techniques (which were beyond the scope of this examination) would be required. As an exploratory study, we were concerned essentially with separating forced acts from consensual am as so discerned by the respondents.
One further note on the methodology is with regard to the prison population to which our subjects refer in their responses. Respondents are in most cases referring to personal observations or sexual activities that they heard about from inmates with whom they were previously housed. This general area of the prison, where the majority of the respondents were housed prior to entering the TC program, had a population of approximately 1,250 inmates. The racial composition of this population was 67% African American, 27% White, and 6% other (primarily Hispanic).
FINDINGS
CONSENSUAL SEX
Just over half (51.5%) of respondents reported ever having heard, by word of mouth from other inmates or from correctional officers, of consensual sex taking place during their previous year of imprisonment prior to entering the TC (see Table 1). We had anticipated that consensual sex would have occurred on a more regular basis, but a substantial percentage (35.6%) had never heard of consensual sex occurring during that previous year. We had expected sex-related gossip and rumors to abound in a prison setting, resulting in a greater percentage of inmates having at least been aware of consensual sex. Nevertheless, as made apparent by the large mean of 29.51, there were a number of inmates who reported hearing about consensual sex more than 20 times-some even hundreds of times..
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1995 Sage Publications, Inc.
Prison narratives, mass media and conclusions drawn from institutional research have fostered a perception of widespread "homosexual rape" in male penitentiaries. However studies of sexual contact in prison have shown inmate involvement to vary greatly. To explore the nature and frequency of sexual contact between male inmates in a Delaware prison, the authors administered a survey of sexual behavior Respondents were questioned extensively about sexual activities that they engaged in, directly observed, and heard about "through the grapevine" prior to their entry into a prison treatment program. Findings indicate that (a) although sexual contact is not widespread, it nevertheless occurs; (b) the preponderance of the activity is consensual rather than rape; and (c) inmates themselves perceive the myth of pervasive sex in prison, contradicting their own realities.
There is an unspoken ridicule of inmates who engage in sex today more than in the '70s and '80s. Sex still goes on in here. People I know don't use protection because it's not available. People are knowledgeable [about HIV] but still have sex.
Years ago it was normal to have sex, blow jobs, with other inmates even if you were not homosexual. Today if you do this, others consider you a fag. Most people that do it are lifers 'cause they don't care. No rapes without a condom. Just like on the streets; you can get sex anytime if you have money.
Anecdotal accounts of prison life have invariably depicted the routine occurrence of rape and consensual sex behind prison walls. Several investigations of these allegations have revealed that sex in prison, although prohibited, is a reality (Siegal, 1992). What is unclear, however, is the nature and frequency of inmate sexual activity. Our perceptions of sex in prison may be assimilated through media stories. Recall the sex scandal in a Georgia prison where 14 employees, including a deputy warden, were indicted for having sex with female inmates-an episode of prison misconduct where force of a psychological rather than a physical nature powered the abuse (Curriden, 1993). Another report accused Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, DC, of engaging in oral sex in a crowded prison visiting room while serving time for possession of cocaine. It was alleged that Barry's visitor was a prostitute (Nichols, 1992). More often than not, incidents of sexual aggression such as these are regarded as indicators of widespread rape throughout jail and prison systems. For example, in 1993 the New York Times ran an article titled "The Rape Crisis Behind Bars" that discussed the entrenched tradition of rape in prison and went on to characterize prisons as training sites for rapists (Donaldson, 1993, p. A 11). These assumptions, for the most part, have not been challenged.
Nonetheless, examinations of the actual incidence of sex in prison have shown frequencies of prisoner involvement to vary greatly. Some document the frequent occurrence of sex in persons, concluding that rape in prison is "rampant" (Weiss & Friar, 1974) and that sexual assaults are "epidemic" (Davis, 1968, p. 9). On the other hand, some researchers have found consensual sex in prison to be relatively infrequent, and sexual assaults are purported to be extremely rare. Studies report proportions of males admitting to being raped in prison to range from less than 1% Lockwood, 1980, p. 87; Tewksbury, 1989b, p. 38) to 41% (Wooden & Parker, 1982, p. 134). Accounts of overall sexual contact between male inmates, which can include consensual activity and/or acts of aggression, have been found to fluctuate from 19.4% (Tewksbury, 1989b, p. 35) to more than 90% (Barnes & Teeters, 1959, P. 373(1); Wooden & Parker, 1982, p. 126).
Charges of sexual brutality have at times prompted investigations of rape in men's penitentiaries and jails. Sex is forbidden in prison so that correctional officials can fulfill their objective of a safe and secure environment. However, sex may become an important commodity in prison; where there is material deprivation, sex can fuel an underground economy (Silberman, 1994). As such, the potential for violence surrounding these activities is vast. Additionally, rape and the threat of rape increase fear about masculinity and lead to compensatory aggressive displays of manhood (Irwin, 1980). General studies of sexual assault appear to conclude that most male victims of rape are indeed inmates rather than their non-incarcerated counterparts (Lipscomb, Muram, Speck, & Mercer, 1992), further justifying investigations of sex within prisons.
Consensual sexual activity among inmates has been examined less frequently than has coerced sex. Studies of sex between "homosexuals" in prison have taken the perspective that this type of sex is either a social problem or a consequence of being institutionalized. Prisoners have been said to "improvise" while in prison, as it is likely that there is no possibility of heterosexual contact (Irwin, 1980). However, few researchers have probed male-to-male sexual relationships between caring sexual partners, perhaps because there is thought to be little to no violence in this type of sexual contact; consensual sex is seen as less of a threat to inmate or institutional security than is rape and thus does not demand the attention of more violent behavior.(2) Nevertheless, some examinations have found consensual sex to be a more routine occurrence in prisons than are acts of rape, qualifying consensual sex as a topic worthy of greater regard.
Now, well into the 1990s and surrounded by the reality of HIV and AIDS in addition to the myriad of sexually transmitted diseases, the study of sex in prison takes on a further significance. Thus the importance of investigating prison sexual contact is to gain a better awareness of the nature and frequency of sex in prison so that we are more thoroughly prepared to safeguard prisoners from rape, other forms of coercion, and disease and so that we can better deal with the issues of consensual sex and condom distribution.
An early inquiry of sexual activities within prisons was accomplished as part of the research for the well-known volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948). Inmates from penal institutions were included in the study but were excluded in calculations of sex frequency rates because the researchers felt inmates were in a "special situation" with regard to their unusual state of deprivation. However, the researchers did make several deductions with regard to sex in prison. They inferred that although there is opportunity in prison for outlets such as masturbation, nocturnal emission, and homosexuality, "the sum total of sexual activity is very much below that found in similar groups outside of an institution" (Kinsey et al., 1948, p. 210).
Going further, they explained, while it is in actuality a fact that a high percentage of them do become involved in such activity after they have been in a penal institution for some length of time, neither the homosexual nor masturbation ever provides any frequent
outlet for more than a small proportion of a prison population. (p. 529) Kinsey and his colleagues were suggesting that although many prisoners experience some form of sex while in prison (they would later estimate that this could be as high as 90% of inmates), it is not typically a recurrent activity for most.
Focusing on sexual aggression, Davis (1968) conducted a 26-month examination of the Philadelphia prison system. He reported that of 3,304 inmates interviewed, 97 had been sexually victimized. These 97 victims disclosed a total of 156 sexual assaults (including 55 attempts or coercive solicitations to commit sexual acts) that could be documented through records, polygraphs, and/or other corroborations. Because it was perceived that these findings were only the tip of the iceberg" (p. 11), Davis and his investigative committee made the "conservative estimate that the true number of assaults in the 26-month period was about 2,000" (p. 13).
Also examining sexual aggression in prison, Lockwood (1980) interviewed 107 inmates in a New York State prison facility who were considered targets of sexual aggressors. Targets were those who were thought to have been previously sexually assaulted, threatened, or intimidated while in prison. One third of the targets were selected by staff, one third were selected from protective custody, and one third were selected from a random sample of the entire population. Results indicated that of all the aggressive incidents that the targets reported to have occurred at some time in their institutional custody, only 8% were sexual assaults. With regard specifically to the random sample, only one inmate from this group was found to have been a victim of a sexual assault.
Wooden and Parker (1982) conducted a comprehensive study of inmates' sexual experiences throughout their current incarceration periods in a California prison. The researchers received a total of 200 completed questionnaires from inmates from a random sample of 607) and determined that 65% had had at least one sexual encounter while in prison. Of the sample, 14% acknowledged having been victimized including 41% of the homosexuals, 9% of the heterosexuals, and 2% of the bisexuals. The authors found the frequently used term homosexual rape to be inaccurate; they concluded that it is the heterosexual and bisexual inmates who are the instigators of sexual violence
Additionally, a supplementary questionnaire was given to a nonrandom sample of 80 self-identified homosexuals. Of these inmates, 95% reported having performed oral sex and 98% reported having been anally penetrated while in prison (p. 126). Sexual pressure was reported by 53% of this inmate sample, and more than 40% in this group had been forced to have sex during their incarcerations (p. 134).
Federal prisoners' sexual experiences were studied by Nacci and Kane (1983). A total of 330 males who had been selected randomly from among 17 federal institutions were interviewed. Of the respondents, 12% claimed to have had sexual contact in their present institutions (average time served = approximately 20 months). When asked whether they had had a homosexual experience in prison, 30% of the inmates responded that they had. However, questions relating specifically to sexual aggression revealed much smaller incidence rates. Only 2 inmates (0.6%) claimed to have been victims; one had been raped (defined as oral sodomy) and one was forced to perform an undesired sex act.(3)
Sexual incidence in an Ohio prison was studied by Tewksbury (1989b). The majority of the inmate respondents were recruited from the prison's college program. Of the 150 participants who returned completed questionnaires, 19.4% reported having had sexual contact with at least one other inmate while in prison during the preceding year. Regarding coercive sex, 92.6% claimed to never have been approached in a forceful or threatening manner, and no inmate admitted to having been raped in prison. When inmates were asked to estimate frequencies of sexual activities in prison, their estimates were much higher than the self-reported incidence rates. For example, respondents estimated that 14% of the prison's inmates had been raped while in prison.
Of late, only a handful of studies have ventured into the we of sex in prison. Those researchers who are examining sexual incidence within institutions are doing so for the purpose of investigating the issue of HIV/AIDS among inmate populations. For example, an alleged high incidence of sex among male Scottish prisoners along with concern over HIV transmission led to an examination of sexual activity within Scottish prisons. A total of 559 male and female inmates were interviewed out of a random stratified sample drawn from eight penal establishments. Results indicated that 1 man and 3 women reported having had sex while incarcerated. In addition to fear of reporting, the low rates of sexual activity were attributed to the unacceptability of anal intercourse in Scotland and the predominantly single-cell occupancy of Scottish prisons (Power et al., 1991).
Cooley (1993) measured sexual assault in an effort to estimate the personal and property victimization rates of inmates in five Canadian federal prisons. A questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 117 males who had been incarcerated at least 1 year prior to the interviews. It was revealed that 55 inmates had experienced at least one type of victimization, totaling 107 incidents over a 12-month period. However, of these 55 inmates, only 1 reported a victimization that was sex related.
Overall, analyses of sexual activity in prisons have been inconsistent and inconclusive. In general, when low rates of sexual contact are found, it has been resolved that the actual incidence is likely much greater, based on the assumption that much underreporting is occurring. On the other hand, when high rates of sexual activity are reported, one must be cognizant of the methodological dilemmas that accompany sex in prison research.
METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
To a great extent, the reason for the inconclusive nature of prison sex studies is due to the many methodological difficulties of researching sex in prison. The major drawback is one of accuracy in reporting. Prisoners may underestimate the incidence of sex because they are concerned with possible repercussions from inmates and correctional officers. They may be embarrassed to admit engaging in sex with others males for fear of being labeled as weak or gay, and they may fear the possibility of punitive measures. Even worse, admitting to having been raped in prison goes against the inmate code whereby status and power are based on domination and gratification (Wooden & Parker, 1982).
To eliminate the potentially negative consequences of self-reporting, official prison records can be reviewed for prior institutional sex offenses. These reports can also be used to validate or compare self-reported information. However, most sexual incidents are not officially recorded, limiting the accuracy of prison records. For example, Davis (1968) reported that of 2,000 sexual incidents that were estimated to have taken place in the Philadelphia prison system, only 40 resulted in internal discipline. Cooley (1993) noted that merely 9% of all 107 criminal victimization occurrences (which included only 1 sexual assault) had been reported to prison officials.
Possibly the most perplexing methodological issue in examining sex frequency and sex type among inmates involves the definitions of the sex-related incidents one is trying to measure. A large majority of studies do not make any effort to define the sexual terminology either to the inmates who are being interviewed or to the readers who must interpret the researchers' findings. Some analyses have measured rape in the broadest sense, as any act of coercion. Other studies break down these acts of coercion into categories such as forcible rape, sexual assault, sexual aggression, sexual solicitation, and attempted sexual acts. Perhaps even more damaging, researchers have failed to distinguish between consensual acts and acts of rape (Eigenberg, 1989). However, consensual sex is difficult to measure and consequently is difficult to define. The problem is that some sexual activity may appear consensual although an inmate may actually be coerced into participating only because he feels that there are no other alternatives. As a result, these two dissimilar types of sex, consensual and nonconsensual, have often been grouped together for analyses. This has no doubt added to the difficulty of assessing the true nature and incidence of sex in prisons.
Definitional ambiguity of sexual terminology has indeed been found to be a problem for inmates as well. In one study, 10% of the prisoners who were interviewed about their sexual experiences in prison were unsure whether they had ever been forced to have sex during their periods of incarceration (Wooden & Parker, 1982). Although it proves difficult to define the various sexual measures, an attempt must be made to clarify the terminology so that the research can become more accurate.
Great variability in population and sample selection has also hindered the comparability and generality of rates of sexual activity in prisons. Many researchers have interviewed only known homosexuals or inmates identified by correctional officers or other inmates as having been previously victimized. Unfortunately, these samples may incorrectly assess the occurrence of sexual activity, which in most cases would result in overestimating sexual frequency. For example, Wooden and Parker (1982) reported a very high sexual incidence rate, finding that 65% of their sample had experienced sexual contact while in prison. However, the prison from which the sample was chosen housed what the California Department of Corrections determined to be the state's "effeminate homosexuals" and "vulnerable heterosexual youngsters" (p. 9).(4)
The present study attempts to improve on these methodological obstacles. Moreover, it is the first look at the nature and frequency of sexual activity in a sample of Delaware prisoners. For this examination, we were in the unique situation of interviewing the male inmates in a prison-based therapeutic community (TC) with whom our interviewing staff had established excellent rapport.(5) This likely promoted greater honesty in responses. Further, these prisoners were asked not about sexual activities in their current TC but about sexual activities that they may have heard about, seen, or participated in when they were part of the general prison population.(6) Therefore, the respondents were separated from and had no further contact with the vast majority of the inmates about whom they were reporting. This should improve on some of the previous reporting problems researchers have had with prisoners who feared that other inmates or correctional officers would have access to their interviews.
METHODOLOGY
In March and April 1994, voluntary interviews were conducted with male inmates in a medium-security Delaware prison who were part of the facility's treatment program for drug abusers. All of the 106 TC inmates who had been in the program longer than 30 days were eligible for this study and were contacted for interviews. A total of 101 inmates were willing participants and were ultimately interviewed. All inmate accounts were credited with $5 approximately 3 weeks after the interviews. Respondents were guaranteed of the confidential nature of the interviews and were assured that their status in the TC program would not be affected by either participation or nonparticipation in this project.
Respondents' mean number of times having been incarcerated was 3.6, and they had spent an average of 69.6 months (lifetime) incarcerated. Inmates had been living in the prison TC an average of 10.8 months. The average age at the time of the interview was 29.6 years. The vast majority (92%) of the respondents were African American, 5% were White-Anglo, and 3% were Hispanic.(7)
Data were also gathered on the respondents' sexual histories. The age at which respondents reported their first voluntary sexual experiences was at a mean of 12.3 years. Almost 11 % of the respondents reported having been forced to have sex as children. The average number of lifetime sexual partners was 53, with a median of 25. Although all of the respondents classified themselves as heterosexual, 5% did admit to having at least one sexual experience with another man during their lifetimes.
Survey questions were conceived primarily to assess sexual activities among inmates and the respondents' personal sexual experiences while in prison. Again, respondents were asked not about sexual activities within their current environment but about sexual activities that they may have heard about, seen, or participated in while living within the general prison population during the year before entering the TC. Secondary topics included respondents' incarceration histories, early sexual experiences, and previous drug treatment experiences.
Sexual terms were defined for the respondents as follows.
Rape: oral or anal sex that is forced on somebody.
Attempted rape: a failed effort at forcing somebody to have oral or anal sex.
Consensual sex: oral or anal sex that is agreed on before the act takes place.
The benefit of defining the sex terms for the respondents was to maintain consistency in their responses. As discussed previously, delineating consensual sex from forced sex can be a complicated endeavor. Sexual alliances between inmates that appear to be of a consenting nature -- as there are no signs of physical force and/or it is an ongoing relationship -- may prove to be coerced. Our definitions attempt to help the respondents differentiate between consensual and coerced acts. Still, inmates may be unaware that some of the seemingly consensual acts are actually committed out of fear, threat of repercussion, or for gain. And this may be common. Bowker (1980) explains, "One must wonder how many so-called consensual homosexuals would never have engaged in this behavior were it not for having been raped or threatened with rape and exposed to the examples of other rape victims" (p. 15). We do acknowledge that the consensual sex reported by our respondents may instead be situations of sexual exploitation. However, to better ascertain the nature of the complex sexual interactions that occur between inmates, a qualitative or an ethnographic methodology involving detailed interviewing techniques (which were beyond the scope of this examination) would be required. As an exploratory study, we were concerned essentially with separating forced acts from consensual am as so discerned by the respondents.
One further note on the methodology is with regard to the prison population to which our subjects refer in their responses. Respondents are in most cases referring to personal observations or sexual activities that they heard about from inmates with whom they were previously housed. This general area of the prison, where the majority of the respondents were housed prior to entering the TC program, had a population of approximately 1,250 inmates. The racial composition of this population was 67% African American, 27% White, and 6% other (primarily Hispanic).
FINDINGS
CONSENSUAL SEX
Just over half (51.5%) of respondents reported ever having heard, by word of mouth from other inmates or from correctional officers, of consensual sex taking place during their previous year of imprisonment prior to entering the TC (see Table 1). We had anticipated that consensual sex would have occurred on a more regular basis, but a substantial percentage (35.6%) had never heard of consensual sex occurring during that previous year. We had expected sex-related gossip and rumors to abound in a prison setting, resulting in a greater percentage of inmates having at least been aware of consensual sex. Nevertheless, as made apparent by the large mean of 29.51, there were a number of inmates who reported hearing about consensual sex more than 20 times-some even hundreds of times..
Myths and Realities
There are many myths and negative
stereotypes about criminalized women or women who come in contact with
the criminal justice system. These myths and stereotypes need to be
challenged and broken-down. By doing this work, we can understand the
nature and extent of women’s criminal acts. We can also begin to
understand the context of women’s criminality – that is, the things
about women’s lives and about society that contribute to women
committing crimes and to women’s acts being understood as crimes. Part
of this work requires us to look at the ways that race, class and other
identities are treated by society and by the justice system.
“The
legal system [can] reinforce sexist, racist, and, classist stereotypes
of women while simultaneously legitimizing patriarchal notions of the
need to socially control women. We must all commit to transforming the
social and economic position of girls and women and adamantly challenge
attempts to further subjugate women if we are truly interested in
addressing violence in our communities.”1
Sexism,
racism and classism work together to restrict women’s choices and to
control women. To understand the lives of criminalized women, we must
understand the role that sexism, racism, classism and other forms of
discrimination play in their lives.
This article looks at some of the big myths about criminalized women and tries to take them apart.
Myth: Women in Canada are committing more crimes and becoming more violent.
Reality:
This myth is not supported by statistics. Overall crime rates have
decreased dramatically in recent years. The number of reported crimes in
2004 was down by 12% and the number of incidents involving young people
reported to the police was down too.
Further,
there has been no significant change in how much violent crime is
committed in Canada or the patterns of violent and aggressive behaviour
in Canada.2 What has changed is Canada’s response to violent and
aggressive acts. Recently, everyone from the police to schools has
embraced a so-called “zero-tolerance” policies. These policies have
meant that the government is policing and prosecuting more forms of
violence.
While the overall
number of ‘violent’ offences committed by women remains low, the number
of women who are being criminalized is increasing. More women are being
put in prison and more women are being criminalized. This contributes to
the myth that women are becoming more violent.
This
is simply not true. The continuing cuts to social welfare and the
reduction in the number and quality of program for women mean that more
women are forced to struggle to survive and care for themselves and, if
they have any, their children. Increasingly, it is women’s survival
skills that are becoming criminalized.3
It
is important not to confuse crime rates and incidences of violence with
the criminalization of women. Dictionaries define “criminalization” as
turning someone into a criminal or treating someone as a criminal
(Merriam-Webster online dictionary). By reducing social supports, the
government is forcing women into more and more marginal existences. Most
criminalized women in Canada are inside provincial jails and are being
sentenced for crimes like theft, impaired driving, fraud, shoplifting,
sex-work related offences, and other non-violent offences.
Women
are not becoming more violent, but they are being pushed to support
themselves in ways that fall outside the law (like sex work or
shoplifting). The increased number of imprisoned and criminalized women
leads to the mistaken belief that women are becoming more violent.
Myth: Every woman is equally at risk of committing a crime and is treated equally before the law.
Reality:
The extent and nature of women’s ‘criminality’, the likelihood that
particular women will be imprisoned, and how particular women are
treated while incarcerated depends on women’s social location. Women of
different races and classes and sexual orientations and abilities have
different experiences. Gender and sex work with race, class and other
social locations or identities to impact how a woman experiences the
world.
Many women are more
at risk of coming in contact with the law and are not always treated as
equals before the law. In particular, Aboriginal women (including First
Nations, Metis, and Inuit women); racialized women; young women, in
particular single mothers; women living in poverty; women who have
experienced violence; women with mental health issues; and women with
addictions are more likely to be criminalized.
Myth: Women who are provincially imprisoned have it better than women who are federally imprisoned.
Reality:
Every woman who goes to jail is impacted. Most women experience some
form of stigma. All women who go to jail are separated for a time from
everything that is familiar to them.
Some
women are impacted in more serious ways than others. According to the
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 87.5% of
provincially-imprisoned women in 2006-2007 received a sentence of 3
months or less and the average sentence for provincially-sentenced women
was less than 2 months.
These
are short sentences compared to what women who are sent to federal
institutions receive. But shorter is not always better – or easier.
Whether a woman is sent to a federal institution or a provincial
institution her life is disrupted. She may lose her job or her home. Her
children may be apprehended by Children’s Aid or she may lose custody
to a family member or other parent.4 Women may be ostracized by their
communities when they return to them, and as a result, they may lose the
support of their communities.
Whether
or not women are in a federal or provincial institution, their health
may suffer. In the words of one woman reflecting on the experiences of
women with HIV/AIDS who are placed in custody or incarcerated:
“Continuity of care for women living with HIV/AIDS while in custody or
incarcerated is a real concern as it really impacts their lives...For
these women HIV/AIDS medication is provided (obligated to do so by law)
but there is no consistency and this can be very damaging to the women.
Sometimes doctors will provide only the medication they have available
and not the medication that has been prescribed to the woman. Changing
medication if you have HIV is a slow process which has to be done a
certain way otherwise your body will reject the medication....There is a
lack of understanding on the part of the legal system and other
authorities as to how the process of criminalization has many impacts on
the lives of women.”
Myth: Women have access to adequate programs and supports while provincially incarcerated.
Reality:
Because women are only a small minority of the population of imprisoned
people in Canada, they do not receive the same amount of funding for
programs within federal and, in particular, provincial institutions. As a
result, women have limited access to programs and supportive services.
The lack of supports for
women who are in conflict with the law influences how provincial
institutions (jails and detention centres) are used. A recent study on
federally sentenced women across Canada conducted from 2004-2006 found
that provincial jails are used as “holding cells” because there are few
supports for women who are incarcerated there.
As
a result, some women request increased jail time so that they are sent
to federal prisons where they will have access to more programs and
supports. This means that women remain imprisoned longer than necessary.
Myth: Women do not face any risks when reporting violence to the police or other authority figures
Reality:
The decision to report violence to the police, criminal justice and
social services depends on many factors. The statistics show that
violence against women is under-reported because women do not feel safe
enough to report violence.
According
to Statistics Canada (2006) the majority of victims of spousal assault
and over 90% of sexual assault victims did not seek support from the
criminal justice system.5
A
2008 study documenting women’s experiences with the Toronto Police
Services in domestic violence cases found that the most common reason
why women did not want to call the police in Toronto was due to a fear
of retaliation by the abuser, family or the community. Other reasons
women did not want to report violence were that women did not believe
that the incident was "serious". Some women feared that their partner
would be arrested or deported. Some women faced language barriers.
Women
who felt that the police had minimized the abuse they experienced said
they would be less willing to involve the police again. Women who were
charged by police in domestic violence situations they said that they
would not likely call the police in the future.
In the words of one Aboriginal woman recounting her experiences with police officers:
“Overall, I have had bad experience with police...been lied to by police, police have conducted unauthorized searches...”
Another
woman describes her experience with the police: “I was arrested
protesting...I was beaten up by the police and I suffered physical and
psychological trauma...”
While
the needs of some women are met when they report violence to the police
or authority figures, not all women have this experience. For the most
marginalized women in Ontario, reporting violence to authority figures
can put them in even more compromising situations. Some women are
charged under “dual charging.” Women who do not have status in Canada
may be reported to immigration. Some women will become involved with
child protection authorities and may have their children apprehended.
When you are in Jail, Can you get in trouble for Hurting Someone in a Fight?
The issue of ‘stand your ground’ laws has come to the forefront in
light of the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident in Sanford, Florida. But
what about if it happens in jail? When you get in a fight in jail, can
you get in trouble… especially if the ‘other guy’ gets hurt and he was
the one that started it?
The answer is both YES and NO.
Jails and prisons are filled with violent people. Fights and violence are a way of life for many of them. In addition, many of them have to make others believe they are tough and not afraid in order to avoid fights… in other words, peace through strength.
A large percentage of inmates have gang affiliations, owe or want to collect on drug, tobacco or gambling debts, many are going through withdrawl from drugs or alcohol addictions, most are dealing with personal or family issues they no longer have control over.
Therefore, fighting is common. Fights are violent and quick; they end within seconds of beginning because it’s impossible to hide them from authorities as ‘eyes’ are everywhere. Any noises or scuffles out of the ordinary can be heard and are immediately responded to. So when there’s a fight, it ends as soon as it begins and in most cases, both inmates are immediately thrown into segregation, it is investigated and the incident is over.
Even when one inmate gets seriously hurt, with no witnesses, who is to blame? And even if there is a guilty party, is anything done about it? Rarely.
So, if you think you are going to get into a fight or are about to be attacked when in jail, do as much damage to your opponent as you can in the 10-60 seconds you have, because your opponent is the last person you will be seeing for a while. And when you do get out of the SHU, your actions before and during the brief fight will determine how much respect others will give you from that point forward.
Jail and Prison is no different than life on the outside. The respect people treat you with mirrors the respect you deserve. It’s just that in jail or prison, you don’t have a lot of time to nurture that. Things move quickly.
The answer is both YES and NO.
Jails and prisons are filled with violent people. Fights and violence are a way of life for many of them. In addition, many of them have to make others believe they are tough and not afraid in order to avoid fights… in other words, peace through strength.
A large percentage of inmates have gang affiliations, owe or want to collect on drug, tobacco or gambling debts, many are going through withdrawl from drugs or alcohol addictions, most are dealing with personal or family issues they no longer have control over.
Therefore, fighting is common. Fights are violent and quick; they end within seconds of beginning because it’s impossible to hide them from authorities as ‘eyes’ are everywhere. Any noises or scuffles out of the ordinary can be heard and are immediately responded to. So when there’s a fight, it ends as soon as it begins and in most cases, both inmates are immediately thrown into segregation, it is investigated and the incident is over.
Even when one inmate gets seriously hurt, with no witnesses, who is to blame? And even if there is a guilty party, is anything done about it? Rarely.
So, if you think you are going to get into a fight or are about to be attacked when in jail, do as much damage to your opponent as you can in the 10-60 seconds you have, because your opponent is the last person you will be seeing for a while. And when you do get out of the SHU, your actions before and during the brief fight will determine how much respect others will give you from that point forward.
Jail and Prison is no different than life on the outside. The respect people treat you with mirrors the respect you deserve. It’s just that in jail or prison, you don’t have a lot of time to nurture that. Things move quickly.
Criminal Courts – What Would Happen if Everyone Arrested Demanded a Trial of their Peers?
Statistics vary, but throughout America, it is believed that between
eighty and ninety percent of people arrested choose a plea agreement
with prosecutors rather than take their case to trial. Why is this, and
what would happen if everyone exercised their constitutional right to a
speedy trial by a jury of their peers?
An Inmate’s Fear
When a person is arrested for a crime they enter a zone of fear that has no equal. They risk losing their job, their reputation, their children and most important at that moment, their freedom. They are locked in a jail cell with people they don’t know or feel comfortable around, the food is terrible, they have no privacy and they have lost control of all their personal belongings.
The things they take for granted; the internet, cell phones, privacy when going to the bathroom, our television, our car… all of that disappears in jail. The fear of potential jail or prison time, getting in a fight and getting hurt, and being shunned by their families and friends will motivate them to take extraordinary measures.
Doing time in jail is so frightening to most people, they will do anything to avoid it. Therefore, when their court-appointed public defender approaches them with a ‘plea’, they reach out and grab it, taking the first offer thrown at them in order to escape their hell. But could they get a better deal from the prosecutor? And what would happen if they demanded a trial?
Fast and Speedy Trials
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives everyone the right to a Fast and Speedy Trial by an ‘impartial’ jury. This means that a defendant has the right to a trial within a reasonable period of time that must be decided by a jury of their peers. Some states actually put a number on the definition of speedy.. and 90 days is the norm most places.
In general, the more serious the crime, the more time the prosecution is allowed to prepare their case. Prosecutors are willing to agree to plea agreements for lesser crimes (cases they consider a distraction, but that boost their conviction percentage) so they can focus on their more serious cases, cases that help their public image and careers.
However, these small cases, the vast majority (80-90%) of cases they prosecute, are for minor and insignificant crimes. And these are the ones that never make it to trial as the defendants are willing to ‘take a plea’ giving them short jail terms and probation rather than risk a greater punishment and the embarrassment that a trial would bring.
Demanding a Trial
If everyone arrested demanded their right to a court appointed lawyer (which they are entitled to by the Constitution) and a Speedy Trial by a jury of their peers, rather than taking a plea deal from the prosecution, there is no possible way the court systems in local counties (or the federal system) could handle the volume. Courts are already bogged down as it is now, as arrests are at levels that are unprecedented.
So…What Would Happen if Defendants Demanded a Trial?
Since county courts are already overburdened and operating on a limited budget and a limited time frame due to the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and expensive jail costs, the prosecutors would be forced to drop charges on more than half their cases. In fact, it is very likely that they would have to drop more than 75% of the cases they now handle.
A trial, even for a minor case, can take up to a full day at an absolute minimum. Even before the trial, interviewing and picking a jury from a pool can be another day of work. Then the jury has to be sequestered to decide on guilt, and in many cases, another day to decide a punishment.
Therefore, let’s just assume that a jury trial for each person arrested took 2-3 days. With some counties arresting hundreds of people every day, and a prosecutor’s office with a limited number of lawyers, you can see how quickly the system could get bogged down, both time-wise and financially.
The problem with this theory is that every inmate incarcerated or with a case pending would have to work together to bring the system to a halt, and the likelihood of that happening is unlikely.
An Inmate’s Fear
When a person is arrested for a crime they enter a zone of fear that has no equal. They risk losing their job, their reputation, their children and most important at that moment, their freedom. They are locked in a jail cell with people they don’t know or feel comfortable around, the food is terrible, they have no privacy and they have lost control of all their personal belongings.
The things they take for granted; the internet, cell phones, privacy when going to the bathroom, our television, our car… all of that disappears in jail. The fear of potential jail or prison time, getting in a fight and getting hurt, and being shunned by their families and friends will motivate them to take extraordinary measures.
Doing time in jail is so frightening to most people, they will do anything to avoid it. Therefore, when their court-appointed public defender approaches them with a ‘plea’, they reach out and grab it, taking the first offer thrown at them in order to escape their hell. But could they get a better deal from the prosecutor? And what would happen if they demanded a trial?
Fast and Speedy Trials
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives everyone the right to a Fast and Speedy Trial by an ‘impartial’ jury. This means that a defendant has the right to a trial within a reasonable period of time that must be decided by a jury of their peers. Some states actually put a number on the definition of speedy.. and 90 days is the norm most places.
In general, the more serious the crime, the more time the prosecution is allowed to prepare their case. Prosecutors are willing to agree to plea agreements for lesser crimes (cases they consider a distraction, but that boost their conviction percentage) so they can focus on their more serious cases, cases that help their public image and careers.
However, these small cases, the vast majority (80-90%) of cases they prosecute, are for minor and insignificant crimes. And these are the ones that never make it to trial as the defendants are willing to ‘take a plea’ giving them short jail terms and probation rather than risk a greater punishment and the embarrassment that a trial would bring.
Demanding a Trial
If everyone arrested demanded their right to a court appointed lawyer (which they are entitled to by the Constitution) and a Speedy Trial by a jury of their peers, rather than taking a plea deal from the prosecution, there is no possible way the court systems in local counties (or the federal system) could handle the volume. Courts are already bogged down as it is now, as arrests are at levels that are unprecedented.
So…What Would Happen if Defendants Demanded a Trial?
Since county courts are already overburdened and operating on a limited budget and a limited time frame due to the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and expensive jail costs, the prosecutors would be forced to drop charges on more than half their cases. In fact, it is very likely that they would have to drop more than 75% of the cases they now handle.
A trial, even for a minor case, can take up to a full day at an absolute minimum. Even before the trial, interviewing and picking a jury from a pool can be another day of work. Then the jury has to be sequestered to decide on guilt, and in many cases, another day to decide a punishment.
Therefore, let’s just assume that a jury trial for each person arrested took 2-3 days. With some counties arresting hundreds of people every day, and a prosecutor’s office with a limited number of lawyers, you can see how quickly the system could get bogged down, both time-wise and financially.
The problem with this theory is that every inmate incarcerated or with a case pending would have to work together to bring the system to a halt, and the likelihood of that happening is unlikely.
Jail and Prison Myths and Truths – What Really Goes On in Jails?
For many people the idea of being in jail or prison is a frightening
one. Being locked in a building, surrounded by armed guards and layers
of razor wire can be daunting. But is it as bad as television, movies
and the media want us to believe? The answer is both yes and no.
MYTH or TRUTH
1. I could be killed in Jail.
True.
However, let’s look at the numbers. An eight-year study that reviewed all inmate deaths between the years 2000-2007, found that out of a total of 8,097 deaths, less than 2% (171) were homicides.
Given that approximately 15 million inmates were arrested and booked into jails each year, over an eight year period, the chance of being killed while in jail was 1/100,000 of one percent, or stated another way, a one-in-10-million chance.
On another note:
30% of all deaths in Jails were due to suicide.
53% of all deaths were due to Illnesses, including AIDS.
10% of all deaths were due to accidents or intoxication.
There was a 25% higher chance of being murdered in a prison than in a jail, however the chance of this happening at all was surprisingly remote,
2. I could get beat up in Jail.
True.
Jails and prisons are notorious for fights. As long as that is understood, fights can usually be avoided by trying to keep calm and showing respect towards the other inmates. However, as in life on the outside, sometimes fights cannot be avoided. In jail, it is rare that a fight lasts for more than 20-30 seconds. With guards and closed-circuit cameras everywhere and the unmistakable ‘silence’ that overtakes a ‘yard’, a dining area or any unit where a fight breaks out, not to mention the attention of every surrounding inmate, fights are ended by the authorities as soon as they begin. Even if a person can’t defend himself that well, if he hangs on, the police will come to end the disturbance immediately.
3. Jails are filthy and ridden with disease.
False and True.
Most jails and prisons are like hospitals. Because of the high concentration of people occupying them, the chance for disease to spread quickly, and the fear of lawsuits, a lot of attention is focused on keeping the facility clean. Everyone has a stake in keeping it clean, from the staff to the inmates, as no one wants to get sick. In addition, since inmates do all the work and any job is coveted as it means time out their cell, they will do whatever it takes to do an excellent job because there are plenty of people waiting in line for their job and they don’t want to lose it.
Most jails issue fresh clothing twice a week for men and more often for women. The clothing is cleaned in industrial washing machines, and while inmates are issued underwear that was worn by someone else prior to being washed, in general the clothing is always fresh and clean. Prisons assign used clothing, however as an inmate, you are able to purchase your own undergarments from the commissary.
On the other hand, there are issues with MRSA (staph infections), just as there are in health clubs and hospitals worldwide these days. Lice can also be a problem, primarily in female units where they tend to groom more frequently and spread these insects from scalp to scalp through direct contact such as braiding each other’s hair.
OETA Story on Jail Food in Muskogee County, Oklahoma
Jail Food Video
4. The food is terrible and unhealthy.
True and False.
Most jails and prisons buy their food from food brokers who sell lots of frozen and canned goods that are close to their expiration dates. Further, the boxes of frozen food are usually stamped with a label that clearly states ‘For institutional use only’, which is code for jails and prisons. It is never used for restaurants or any other use. Many inmate kitchen workers report cooking with food that comes in boxes stamped ‘not for human consumption’, a code for animal/pet food use. The food generally tastes as bad it looks.
Spices are rarely used so the food is bland. In place of meat, many meals are laced with a grainy mixture of corn meal that adds texture and fill, but has no flavor.
On the positive side, many jails and prisons now operate small farms where they use inmate labor to grow their own fresh vegetables and fruits. While it may not be organically grown, it is fresh and more healthy than the canned vegetable ‘throw away’ lots that are the only other option, and there is satisfaction in growing it.
Federal law mandates that inmates receive at least two hot meals a day, with a combined total of 2,000 calories. You won’t starve in jail, but given that accused terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay receive a diet of 3,400 calories a day, it cannot be argued that our government thinks more highly of its American prisoners.
MYTH or TRUTH
1. I could be killed in Jail.
True.
However, let’s look at the numbers. An eight-year study that reviewed all inmate deaths between the years 2000-2007, found that out of a total of 8,097 deaths, less than 2% (171) were homicides.
Given that approximately 15 million inmates were arrested and booked into jails each year, over an eight year period, the chance of being killed while in jail was 1/100,000 of one percent, or stated another way, a one-in-10-million chance.
On another note:
30% of all deaths in Jails were due to suicide.
53% of all deaths were due to Illnesses, including AIDS.
10% of all deaths were due to accidents or intoxication.
There was a 25% higher chance of being murdered in a prison than in a jail, however the chance of this happening at all was surprisingly remote,
2. I could get beat up in Jail.
True.
Jails and prisons are notorious for fights. As long as that is understood, fights can usually be avoided by trying to keep calm and showing respect towards the other inmates. However, as in life on the outside, sometimes fights cannot be avoided. In jail, it is rare that a fight lasts for more than 20-30 seconds. With guards and closed-circuit cameras everywhere and the unmistakable ‘silence’ that overtakes a ‘yard’, a dining area or any unit where a fight breaks out, not to mention the attention of every surrounding inmate, fights are ended by the authorities as soon as they begin. Even if a person can’t defend himself that well, if he hangs on, the police will come to end the disturbance immediately.
3. Jails are filthy and ridden with disease.
False and True.
Most jails and prisons are like hospitals. Because of the high concentration of people occupying them, the chance for disease to spread quickly, and the fear of lawsuits, a lot of attention is focused on keeping the facility clean. Everyone has a stake in keeping it clean, from the staff to the inmates, as no one wants to get sick. In addition, since inmates do all the work and any job is coveted as it means time out their cell, they will do whatever it takes to do an excellent job because there are plenty of people waiting in line for their job and they don’t want to lose it.
Most jails issue fresh clothing twice a week for men and more often for women. The clothing is cleaned in industrial washing machines, and while inmates are issued underwear that was worn by someone else prior to being washed, in general the clothing is always fresh and clean. Prisons assign used clothing, however as an inmate, you are able to purchase your own undergarments from the commissary.
On the other hand, there are issues with MRSA (staph infections), just as there are in health clubs and hospitals worldwide these days. Lice can also be a problem, primarily in female units where they tend to groom more frequently and spread these insects from scalp to scalp through direct contact such as braiding each other’s hair.
OETA Story on Jail Food in Muskogee County, Oklahoma
Jail Food Video
4. The food is terrible and unhealthy.
True and False.
Most jails and prisons buy their food from food brokers who sell lots of frozen and canned goods that are close to their expiration dates. Further, the boxes of frozen food are usually stamped with a label that clearly states ‘For institutional use only’, which is code for jails and prisons. It is never used for restaurants or any other use. Many inmate kitchen workers report cooking with food that comes in boxes stamped ‘not for human consumption’, a code for animal/pet food use. The food generally tastes as bad it looks.
Spices are rarely used so the food is bland. In place of meat, many meals are laced with a grainy mixture of corn meal that adds texture and fill, but has no flavor.
On the positive side, many jails and prisons now operate small farms where they use inmate labor to grow their own fresh vegetables and fruits. While it may not be organically grown, it is fresh and more healthy than the canned vegetable ‘throw away’ lots that are the only other option, and there is satisfaction in growing it.
Federal law mandates that inmates receive at least two hot meals a day, with a combined total of 2,000 calories. You won’t starve in jail, but given that accused terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay receive a diet of 3,400 calories a day, it cannot be argued that our government thinks more highly of its American prisoners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)