A National Analysis of Shackling Laws and Policies as They Relate to Pregnant Incarcerated Women

• Author: Sarah Y. Thomas,Jennifer L. Lanterman
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1557085117737617
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117737617

Feminist Criminology

2019, Vol. 14(2) 263 –284

© The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1557085117737617

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Article

A National Analysis of

Shackling Laws and Policies

as They Relate to Pregnant

Incarcerated Women

Sarah Y. Thomas1,2 and Jennifer L. Lanterman1

Abstract

Pregnant incarcerated women pose unique challenges in jails and prisons. Many states

still require or permit the shackling of pregnant incarcerated women throughout the

pregnancy and during labor, delivery, and recovery. This study includes a content

analysis of shackling laws and policies currently in effect throughout the United

States. The findings identify the range of shackling laws and policies at the state

level and whether these laws and policies adhere to a female indifferent or gender-

specific orientation. Finally, the implications are discussed to assist lawmakers and

correctional administrators in understanding the effects and potential outcomes of

certain types of laws and policies.

Keywords

pregnant incarcerated women, shackling, female indifferent, gender specificity

Introduction

On October 15, 2013, Juana Villegas received a US$490,000 settlement, because she

was shackled to a hospital bed while giving birth in Nashville, Tennessee. A federal

court found that the jail officers had shown deliberate indifference to the medical

needs of Villegas by having cuffed her ankle to the hospital bed through most of her

labor and recovery (Preston, 2013). Recently, there have been federal civil lawsuits

filed against correctional facilities and staff members claiming that there was

1University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA

2Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno, NV, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sarah Y. Thomas, Department of Sociology, Truckee Meadows Community College, 7000 Dandini Blvd.,

Reno, NV 89512, USA.

Email: sthomas@tmcc.edu

737617FCXXXX10.1177/1557085117737617Feminist CriminologyThomas and Lanterman

research-article2017

264 Feminist Criminology 14(2)

deliberate indifference demonstrated in the shackling or use of mechanical restraints

on incarcerated women during pregnancy or during transportation to medical facilities

for pregnancy-related care. This has led to an increase in media coverage regarding the

practice of shackling pregnant incarcerated women.

Proponents report the laws and policies are necessary to protect correctional staff,

judges, medical personnel, and members of the public from harm and to prevent flight.

The proponents generally argue that the correctional staff should decide whether or not

a pregnant incarcerated woman should be restrained, and the issue should be dealt with

on a case-by-case basis (Harvard & Schwartzman, 2013). Conversely, critics argue

that the shackling of pregnant incarcerated women is unnecessary and may constitute

cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States (Sichel, 2007; U.S. Const., Amend. VIII).

The current study includes a content analysis of the shackling laws and policies in

effect in each state (as of December 22, 2015) to develop a typology of these laws and

policies throughout the United States. The purpose of this study is to determine the

degree of consonance between current shackling laws and policies and the viewpoints

of proponents and critics. Specifically, this study examines whether current shackling

laws and policies adopt a female indifferent or a gender-specific orientation. The study

is anchored in Binion’s (1993) discussion regarding the impact of gender neutrality in

the law. Proponents of broad shackling policies argue that giving discretion to correc-

tional officers in determining whether restraints should be used is justified. In addi-

tion, proponents adopt a female indifferent stance relative to shackling laws and

policies. In other words, in the pursuit of equal protection and in an attempt to treat all

inmates equally, proponents may overlook certain legitimate gender differences, such

as pregnancy. Critics believe that restraints are being used on pregnant incarcerated

women as the default practice when shackling should be the rare exception. In addi-

tion, critics argue that shackling laws and policies should reflect a gender-specific

orientation and should recognize the dangers of shackling incarcerated women who

are pregnant. The findings are reported and the implications are discussed to inform

lawmakers and correctional administrators about the issue of shackling pregnant

incarcerated women.

Background

Pregnant Incarcerated Women: A Unique Subpopulation

Approximately 6% to 10% of the women entering the criminal justice system each

year are pregnant and there are about 2,000 births per year to incarcerated women

(Quinn, 2014). Pregnancies in correctional facilities are often considered high risk due

to the prevalence of alcohol and substance abuse, smoking, and sexually transmitted

diseases in this population (Hotelling, 2008). In addition, there is variation in access to

prenatal and perinatal care in American prisons and jails, which further increases the

incidence of high-risk pregnancies. Collectively, these factors lead miscarriages and

cellblock births, which contribute to newborn deaths, to be commonplace (Roth,