Staff Sexual Misconduct in Community Corrections: A Negation of Justice - Thesis Example

Staff Sexual Misconduct in Community Corrections: A Negation of Justice Full The historical development of community corrections has illustrated that its emergence is in response to the society’s call for a compassionate and more humane criminal justice grounded on the belief that not all offenders are evils and thus can be rehabilitated to be successfully reintegrated into the community. However, this noble purpose of community corrections is proven complex to achieve as there are various obstacles to its achievement. One of which is the increasing reports on staff sexual misconduct. Due to the manipulative and coercive nature of SSM exacerbated by the culture of silence, fear and shame predominating community corrections, the prevalence, extent and severity of SSM in community corrections setting remain indeterminable. Nonetheless, the devastating impact of SSM on the victim, on the institution, and on the community makes it serious enough to attract public outrage and policy change. However, the nature of the problem also shows that policy change should go beyond simply criminalizing SSM but also changing the culture of community corrections into a culture of self-respect and vigilance, transforming its repressive environment into a caring and just environment, and reorienting correction agencies, officers and staff to become responsible guardians of justice. Such is truly a difficult task yet an imperative. Staff Sexual Misconduct in Community Corrections: A Negation of Justice Community corrections as defined “includes all non-incarcerating correctional sanctions imposed upon an offender for the purpose of reintegrating that offender within the community” (Hanser, 2010, p. 2). US policy makers determined that offenders humanely treated while in detention are more likely to reintegrate successfully into the community than those who suffer from any kind of abuse while in detention, and that detention security officers and staff can profoundly impact on the successful community reintegration of offenders, consequently the safety of the community (Maccarone, 2007). Fundamentally so, community corrections officers and staff are bound by law, ethics and morality to be socially responsible in the conduct of their given tasks (Freeman, 1999). But unfortunately, reports of staff sexual misconduct (henceforth, SSM) within community corrections have increasingly attracted public criticism and policy making because such incidents do not simply violate the very purpose of community corrections but more so negate the very essence of justice. Community Corrections At the core of the US criminal justice system is no other than ‘doing justice, controlling crime, and preventing crime’ (Cole & Smith, 2008, p. 28). It is along these goals that the history of American community corrections should be best understood (Alarid, 2013). However, history has proven that the quest for these goals is not a straight path but rather a road of twist and turns. It is unsurprising therefore that the development of community corrections – be it historical or definitional – has been complex and unclear (Hanser, 2010). Definition Though defined in varied ways, community corrections is generally understood as one form of criminal sanction for offenders of non-violent crimes, juvenile offenders and offenders on probation or parole where offenders’ sentences are served while undergoing various programs of rehabilitation ultimately to help them be reintegrated successfully into the community (Cole & Smith, 2008; Hanser, 2010; Alarid, 2013). Underlying the sanction of community corrections, Alarid (2013) comprehensively explains, is the fact that most offenders are not violent – Cole & Smith’s (2008) criminal justice wedding cake clearly illustrates that a large number of criminal offenses constitute misdemeanors and lesser felonies – thus most offenders can better serve their sentences in the community, and that this arrangement is beneficial to the offender, to the victim, and to the community. By serving their sentences in the community, Alarid furthers that offenders can simultaneously earn a living, thus enabling them to repay their victims and be of service to the community through paying community taxes; they can be easily reintegrated to the community in due time since they are not denied of community relations; and they are less likely to become more violent and be added to recidivists since they are not exposed to the subculture of violence predominating prison facilities. Thus community corrections supervision, Alarid continues, is tasked primarily with carrying out the court verdict simultaneously ensuring that the public is safe, that victims are justly compensated and treated, and that offenders are rehabilitated enough to be reintegrated to lawful community life. Brief history Following Cole and Smith’s (2008) account, community corrections emerged along the development of the community model of corrections in response to changing socio-political demands of the American society. The development of community corrections in the US can be attributed not only to America’s search for the best approach as to how crime could be deterred and reduced amidst growing public concerns of keeping American communities safe but also be perceived as a response to growing calls for social and political reforms, including the penal system, amidst reports of widespread corruption and inhumane treatment of prisoners. A review of the long history of American corrections to Cole and Smith’s (2008) account was predominantly retributive in form and approach being originally grounded on the philosophy of penitence and retribution. It was not until the latter part of the 20th century that the current system of community corrections was developed. They further that much of this development can be traced back to the reformers – the Progressives, who in the earliest part of the 20th century introduced the utilization of the social and behavioral sciences as the guiding ideas of criminal rehabilitation, thus replacing the unscientific long held religious and traditional moral wisdom. As a result criminality was approached more scientifically by 1920s, resulting to more compassionate sanctions such as ‘probation, indeterminate sentences, presentence reports, parole, and treatment programs’. By 1930s, the American corrections followed the rehabilitation model or the medical model, which ‘emphasize the need to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some form of vocational or educational training or therapy’ (p. 293). However by 1970s, this model failed to deter recidivism. This failure compounded by the social and political movements that perceived criminality more as a result of an unjust social order rather than an individual’s volition, led the American people to press for the community reintegration of offenders as the aim of corrections, thus the emergence and predominance of the community corrections model in American corrections. Though its efficacy has not been evidently established, this model remains significant until today. (pp. 293-295) It is also worthy to note Barton-Bellesa & Hanser’s (2012) account that the community-based alternatives American corrections practices today have actually originated from four early specific sanctions of leniency used in European countries. The earliest of which was the sanctuary, which was practiced for over a thousand years and was eliminated along with the predominance of secular courts over ecclesiastical courts. Under this sanction, specific places (town, city or church) were identified as neutral ground from criminal prosecution. To these places, offenders may go and live to avoid prosecution, essentially choosing their own banishment thus freeing the state of correctional responsibility. Next earliest sanction was the benefit of clergy, which was essentially the Roman Catholic Church’s assertion of its authority over England against the Crown. This sanction, to Barton-Bellesa and Hanser’s analysis, clearly evinced that ideology and public policy are closely intertwined and that power struggles shape and manipulate justice in its purest form, thus supporting the argument that community corrections do operate in a given historic-socio-political context. Under this sanction, all members of the church (clerics, monks and nuns) allegedly involved in crime could only be prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Church’s court of bishops on the ground that their crimes are committed not against the Crown but against God, a realm of the church. Later in the 14th century, this sanction was also extended to literate secular members of the church amidst England’s disorganized and inhumane sentencing structure, but was later abolished in 1827 upon the substantial improvement of the English criminal law. Another lenient sanction was the judicial reprieve, which was commonly practiced in England in the latter part of 1700s. This sanction was dependent on the discretion of the judge and was reserved only for offenders of minor crimes whom the judge found not dangerous and thus would be better not incarcerated with violent offenders. Thus, Barton-Bellesa and Hanser further that underlying judicial reprieve was the concern to help offenders refrain from committing further crimes in the future. Suffice it to say then that this was illustrative of the rehabilitation perspective, which guided American corrections in the early part of the 20th century. Lastly, the sanction of recognizance or known as ‘binding over’ in England which was first used in the US in the Commonwealth v. Chase (1830) is seen to be the first precursor of probation. This sanction, like judicial reprieves was usually meant for petty crime offenders. Citing Latessa and Allen (1999), Barton-Bellesa and Hanser note that since recognizance has allowed the supervised temporary freedom of the offender revocable in case of further crime offense, it has sometimes been perceived to be the genesis of the concept of community supervision. (pp. 5-8) Thus the historical development of community corrections clearly illustrates its primary concern on both the welfare of offenders and the safety of the community by deterring crime through offenders’ rehabilitation. Underlying this purpose is the view that not all offenders are evil and can be changed into better and productive members of the society. Thus compassion, respect, fairness and trustworthiness should be inherent to the operation and supervision of community corrections. Without these values, community corrections will never achieve its goals. Understandably so, SSM in community corrections has created an outrage from both policy makers and the American public. Staff Sexual Misconduct in Community Corrections Any form of sexual abuse in community corrections, most especially between correction officers or staff and offenders, immediately jeopardizes the integrity of community corrections and thus erodes the much needed public trust and legislative support (Maccarone, 2007; Abner, 2009; Buell & McCampbell, 2009). Such SSM not only violates the very purpose of community corrections but more so negates the essence of justice, as the supposed safe guarders have become the perpetrators of criminality thus essentially sabotaging the criminal justice system. Definition The Bureau of Justice Statistics identified SSM as among the forms of sexual violence that commonly occur in corrections settings. SSM involves the corrections officer or staff (employee or volunteer), official visitor, or representative of the agency and the offender in any form of sexual act, such as intentional lustful touching of sensitive parts of the body like genitals, buttocks, breast, inner thigh, and the like; sex whether attempted only or consummated, or whether forced or requested; and indecent exposure or prying for sexual pleasure (Abner, 2009, p. 5) On the other hand, rape is defined in PREA as sexual assault or molestation through force or where the victim is in no mental, psychological and physical capacity and position to consent or to resist (Maccarone, 2007, p. 83). Nature If sexual activity among inmates, be it consensual or not, is prohibited in corrections setting, sexual relationship between officers or staff and offenders is criminalized. “Probation and parole authorities (and to a much larger extent, jail and prison administrators) are governed primarily by state laws that protect individuals in their care from sexual assault” (Maccarone, 2007, p. 85). Why is this so? Because the latter does not only put the people involved and the institution at greater risk, but also undermines criminal justice. What made this so, as Abner (2009) comprehensively explains, is the glaring unequal power relations that exists between corrections officers or staff and the offender, not to say the tasks that corrections officers or staff are entrusted with. Thus any sexual activity that occurs between officers or staff and offenders in corrections setting can never be considered consensual in nature, because there will always be an element of manipulation, coercion, and usurpation of authority – Either the offender may feel powerless to resist the sexual advances of the officer or staff or the offender may take advantage of the power the officer or staff carries. Given the power and authority entrusted on community corrections professionals to manage and supervise offenders, Abner furthers that it is therefore the primary responsibility of corrections professionals to avoid doing anything that can lead to or can be misconstrued sexual by the offender. Other than this, Abner furthers, SSM itself is something that is hard to monitor, because more often than not, victims and even witnesses are unwilling to talk. This difficulty becomes even greater in corrections because of its environmental settings and the culture of silence, fear and shame that predominates corrections. Prevalence Although sexual violence in corrections is common public knowledge, its prevalence and extent remains inconclusive until today – one study (Tewksbury, 1989) says its 1%; another study (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996) says its 22% (as cited in Abner, 2009, 7). But Abner notes that lesser is known about the prevalence of SSM in community corrections. Despite this though various cases where corrections officers, both male and female, charged and convicted of sexual misconduct – i.e., the conviction of a probation officer in Portland, Oregon for sexual abuse of 5 juvenile boys from 1994-2002, the conviction of a corrections officer in Concord, New Hampshire for raping a woman inmate at the Shea Farm Halfway House, the charge of consensual sexual relationship with male inmates by two Prince William County, Virginia female corrections officers (Abner, 2009, p. 1) – evinced that SSM is a serious problem confronting American community corrections. Perhaps, SSM in corrections has been as old as the establishment of corrections itself. In fact, despite the criminalization of SSM and well-defined agency policies regarding this matter, reports of staff abuse of this nature have remained an increasing concern for community corrections administrators (Buell & McCampbell, 2009). The inability to determine the prevalence and extent of SSM in community corrections poses another great challenge that needs to be addressed in order to arrest it. Good thing though according to Maccarone (2007), the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 makes community corrections be included in the BJS annual statistical review. This means an effort to systematize the gathering of data regarding SSM in community corrections. Impact and implications Any form, but most especially rape, of SSM in community corrections, is something that has to be confronted seriously because of its short-term and long-term severe and profound adverse impact on the victim, physically, emotionally and behaviorally, that will ultimately jeopardize the safety of the community as well (Maccarone, 2007; Abner, 2009). The short-term impact of sexual abuse may result to various psychological problems – i.e. ‘post-traumatic stress syndrome, rape trauma syndrome, anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies’. Other than this, it is most likely that the health of both parties involved will be at greater risk – i.e. ‘contraction of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well as pregnancy’. On the other hand, its long-term impact essentially leads to the development of more serious problem and criminal behaviors, such as alcohol and substance abuse, promiscuity, more violent or aggressive behavior. (Abner, 2009, p. 15) Various studies (Cotton & Groth, 1982; Peters & Peters, 1998; Macmillan, 2001; Human Rights Watch, 2001; Walker et al., 2005) similarly indicate that violent victimization, including sexual abuse and assault, more likely results to a higher risk of deviant behavior in later life or future involvement in criminal activity (as cited in Abner, 2009, p. 20). Abner further notes that though the effects of sexual assault on victims whether in the community or under correctional supervision are seemingly similar, the impact on the latter is much severe. This clearly implies that SSM does not deter but rather promotes criminal behavior in offenders under community corrections, that SSM does not protect the community but rather puts the community at greater security and health risk, and that SSM does not help promote the integrity of the community corrections in particular and the criminal justice in general. In effect, SSM violates everything that the community corrections stands for, thus the imperative to address this problem. Failure to eliminate SSM will make community corrections ineffective, not because the concept is bad but because the implementers failed to fulfill their sworn duties. Conclusion and Recommendation Despite its criminalization, SSM remains a threat to the integrity and efficacy of community corrections. The nature of the problem of SSM makes the determination of its prevalence, extent and severity difficult. However, even in the absence of definite data as to how prevalent and severe is the problem of SSM in community corrections, the profundity of its adverse short-term and long-term impact on the victim, on the institution (community corrections in particular and the criminal justice in general), and on the community, is more than enough to recognize the need for some policy change. This policy change should go beyond criminalizing SSM. It should address the transformation of the predominant culture of silence, fear and shame in community corrections into culture of self-respect and vigilance and its corrupting environment into a caring and just environment. This may sound utopian, yet this is the need, thus the challenge for policy makers and community corrections professionals. \ References Abner, C. A. (2009). Preventing and responding to corrections-based sexual abuse: A guide for community corrections professionals. US: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/APPA/pubs/PRCBSA.pdf Alarid, L. F. (2013). Community-based corrections (9th ed.). CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Barton-Bellesa, S. M.& Hanser, R. D. (2012). Community-based corrections: A text/reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Buell, M., McCampbell, S. W. (2009). Preventing staff misconduct in the community corrections setting. Corrections Today, 65 (1), 90-91. Cole, G. F. & Smith, C. E. (2008). Justice in America (5th ed.). CA: Thomson Higher Education. Freeman, R. M. (1999). Correctional organization and management: Pubic policy challenges, behaviour and structure. US: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hanser, R. D. (2010). Community corrections. CA: SAGE. Retrieved from Maccarone, R. M. (2007). Community Corrections and the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Corrections Today, 69 (5), 82-85. Read More