Preface

• Author: John Ortiz Smykla
• Date: 01 October 1989
• Published date: 01 October 1989
• DOI: 10.1177/003288558906900201
• Subject Matter: Articles

i

Preface

The

Fall-Winter

issue

of

volume

69

of

The

Prison

Journal

continues

the

theme

of

prison

sexuality

begun

in

the

Spring-Summer

issue.

This

issue

contains

three

articles

on

AIDS

and

other

sexually

transmitted

diseases

(STD’s)

in

prison

and

five

articles

cover-

ing

the

threat

and

actual

occurrence

of

sexual

victimization,

male

prisoners’

sexual

adaptation,

affirmative

action,

and

the

barriers

to

effective

sex

offender

treatment.

To

begin

this

issue,

Moran

and

Peterman,

two

epidemiologists

with

the

Centers

for

Disease

Control

in

Atlanta,

present

data

on

the

prevalence

and

seroconversion

of

STD’s

among

prison

and

jail

detainees.

The

prevalence

of

STD’s

among

prison

and

jail

detainees

is

found

disproportionately

in

the

young

and

urban

poor.

It

may

be

asking

too

much

of

the

criminal

justice

system

to

do

something

about

a

problem

which

it

did

not

create

in

the

first

place.

Yet,

research

on

STD

transmission

among

prison

and

jail

inmates

reported

by

Moran

and

Peterman

and

by

others

in

the

Spring-Summer

issue

of

this

volume

is

relatively

low.

Correctional

administrators

have

controlled

STD

trans-

mission,

but

at

what

cost?

Mandatory

testing

and

enforced

segregation

raise

difficult

managerial,

moral,

legal,

ethical,

economic,

and

social

consequences.

Olivero

and

Roberts

review

Federal

courts

of

appeals

decisions

and

correctional

policies

on

mandatory

testing

and

enforced

segregation.

For

the

most

part,

the

courts

have

been

supportive

of

the

efforts

of

correctional

administrators

and

not

provided

defendants

injunctive

relief

whether

the

challenge

was

correctional

administrators

are

doing

too

much

(e.g.

Cordero

v.

Coughlin

upholding

segregation

of

infected

prisoners)

or

not

enough

(e.g.

Brown

v.

Owens

upholding

corrections

officials’

decision

not

to

test

food

service

workers).

Assuming

responsible

decisions

by

correctional

administrators,

the

position

of

Federal

courts

of

appeals

to

support

corrections

officials

can

be

seen

in

a

statement

by

the

Court

in

Glick

v.

Henderson:

&dquo;(the

plaintiff)

asks

this

court

to

involve

itself

in

a

medical

controversy

and

to

dictate

medical

guidelines

in

an

area

where

the

medical

profession

has

not

yet

spoken,

a

task

this

Court

is

hardly

suited

to

do&dquo;

(1988:539).

If

the

Court

is

looking

to

outside

experts

for

wisdom

and

guidance,

then

Clements’

research

could

shape

the

future

for

management

of

HIV-positive

prisoners.

Nationally

recognized

for

his

expertise

in

offender

classification,

Clements

writes

that

commonly

understood

principles

and

procedures

of

offender

classification

can

form

a

rational

basis

for

the

multiple

decisions

being

made

about

HIV

infected

inmates.

Proactive

correctional

administrators

wishing

to

avoid

unpleasant

and

costly

litigation

will

seriously

study

Clements’

recommendations

before

being

ordered

to

implement

them

by

the

courts.

Drawing

on

his

role

as

part

of

an

evaluation

team

in

one

jurisdiction

that

segregates

all

HIV-positive

inmates,

Clements’

inspection

revealed

severe

restric-

tions

on

access

to

service

(e.g.

recreation,

law

library,

vocational

training);

some

services

were

totally

absent

(psychological,

substance

abuse,

and

sex-offender);

AIDS

education

for

staff

and

inmates

was

voluntary,

outdated,

and

cursory;

inmate

risk

profiles

were

overshadowed

by

HIV

status;

and

a

host

of

psychological

problems

brought

on

by

enforced

segregation

(depression,

loneliness,

helplessness,

stress,

tension,

frustration,

and

aggression).

The

alternative

to

an

offender

management

system

based

on

fear

and

misinformation,

Clements

says,

is

the

use

of

an

empirically

verified

objective

classifica-

tion

system.

Such

systems

have

been

promulgated

over

the

past

20

years

by

the

National

Institute

of

Corrections

and

the

American

Correctional

Association.

With

minimal

effort,

the

courts

will

find

what

they

are

looking

for:

offender

classification

systems

based

on

medical,

public

health,

and

behavioral

realities.

Even

if

HIV

status

is

added

to

the

equation

of

an

offender’s

classification,

Clements

says

it

should

only

be

given

additive

weight,

not

overriding

or

multiplicative

power.

HIV

status

should

not

circum-

vent

offender

risk

profiles,

need

factors,

and

other

indicators

of

reasonably

valid

objec-

tive

classification

criteria.

We

must

not

regress

into

believing

&dquo;HIV-positive

inmate: