An Analysis of Statutes Criminalizing Correctional Officer Sexual Misconduct With Inmates

• DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882611
• Author: Craig Hemmens,Mary K. Stohr,John R. Turner,Melissa A. Kowalski,Xiaohan Mei
• Date: 01 January 2020
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882611

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(1) 126 –148

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882611

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

An Analysis of

Statutes Criminalizing

Correctional Officer

Sexual Misconduct

With Inmates

Melissa A. Kowalski1, Xiaohan Mei2,

John R. Turner3, Mary K. Stohr3,

and Craig Hemmens3

Abstract

The 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) mandates that U.S. state

correctional systems regulate and reduce staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct

in state correctional facilities. As data on correctional officer sexual

misconduct are limited and its legal definition varies across states, this

study utilized statutory analysis to document how staff sexual misconduct

is defined and how it is punished across state correctional systems. The

most notable finding is that although all 50 states have statutes designed to

protect incarcerated persons from being sexually victimized by correctional

staff, they are far from uniform.

Keywords

correctional officer, sexual misconduct, statute, PREA

1The College at Brockport, State University of New York, USA

2California State University, Los Angeles, USA

3Washington State University, Pullman, USA

Corresponding Author:

Melissa A. Kowalski, Department of Criminal Justice, The College at Brockport, State

University of New York, Albert W. Brown Building 231, 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport,

NY 14420, USA.

Email: mkowalski@brockport.edu

882611TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519882611The Prison JournalKowalski et al.

research-article2019

Kowalski et al. 127

Introduction

Imprisonment is painful for inmates, even without the threat or experience

of being sexually victimized (Johnson, 2002). Yet, the sexual victimization

of inmates by correctional officers is an unfortunate reality in some cor-

rectional institutions (National Institute of Corrections [NIC], 1996). The

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; 1999) reported that the three larg-

est correctional systems in the United States—the Federal Bureau of

Prisons, the California Department of Corrections, and the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice—had approximately 506 allegations of staff sexual

misconduct. Of these cases, 92 were determined to be legitimate, and most

implicated offenders either resigned or were terminated. Despite these

reports, the study of correctional officer sexual misconduct in correctional

institutions was widely ignored prior to the 1990s (Human Rights Watch,

1996; Layman, McCampbell, & Moss, 2000).

Over the last decade, research demonstrates that a substantial number of

inmates have been victimized by correctional staff. For example, the National

Inmate Survey (NIS) reported that from 2008 to 2009, 2.8% of state and fed-

eral inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates had sexual contact with staff (Beck,

Harrison, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2010). In the report updated for 2011

to 2012, 3.2% of jail inmates and 4% of prison inmates informed they had

been the victims of sexual assault by either staff or other inmates (Beck,

Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013).

Undoubtedly, one of the most significant pieces of legislation regarding

correctional settings’ sexual misconduct was the passage of the Prison Rape

Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. It was the first law passed in the United

States concerning prisoner assault in general (Smith, 2008). Under PREA,

prison systems are expected to utilize a standard definition of prison rape for

the purpose of collecting data to better understand sexual misconduct in cor-

rectional settings. This law also requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

to collect information on sexual assaults in both youth and adult correctional

facilities. Notably, PREA’s creation raised concerns that included the under-

reporting of incidents by victims, threats to facility security, insufficient staff

training, and the potential danger to the public once abused inmates returned

to the community (PREA, 2003).

Before PREA was implemented, the extent to which state prisons and the

federal prison system were addressing sexual violence is unknown (Zweig,

Naser, Blackmore, & Schaffer, 2006). Furthermore, prior to PREA, few state

departments of corrections proactively addressed sexual violence in their pris-

ons and/or did not have a prevention program in their facilities (Human Rights

Watch, 2001). In fact, a substantial number of inmates disclosed their