Correctional Officer Misconduct: Facts and Remedies - Term Paper Example

Correctional Officer Misconduct: Facts and Remedies Introduction The objective of correctional facilities is to make offenders pay penalties for their crime and to reshape their behavior for living in a civilized society. However, correctional officers, who are entrusted, trained, and compensated to support the law and order system of the country, sometimes build unfair relationships with inmates to satisfy their financial as well as sexual desires. Since correctional facilities represent a closed institutional system which has little exposure to the outside world, staff misconduct is not detected and punished, and this favorable situation adds to the probability of correctional officer deviance. Sexual abuse of the inmates has been a major concern for the US federal government over the past few decades, because it hurts the country’s constitution as well as the law enforcement system as a whole. This paper will discuss the correctional officers’ misconduct, mostly the selling of drugs and sexual delinquency. The paper will also identify the prevention methods that can address the issue of prison staff misconduct. Misconduct of Correctional Officers Most of the past studies focused on violence or excessive force by correctional officers rather than paying enough attention to deviant behaviors such as corruption, theft, or sexual assault. As Ross (2013) points out, although correctional facilities including the American Correctional Association have codes of ethics or standards that specifically describe “dos” and “don’ts” and are taught to recruits, none of these organization attempts to investigate if there is any breach of these standards. According to the author, when an alleged or real correctional officer deviance is brought to the public’s attention, the organization’s credibility may be questioned, and only such a situation may initiate some sort of official investigation. In order to avoid such troubles, sometimes even supervisors may refuse to report the misconducts of correctional officers. Even a very limited sampling of newspaper headlines over the last several years shows that the issue of corruption by police, prosecutors, and judges poses potential threats to the country’s law enforcement system. Since the crimes committed by public officials are less likely to be reported, the actual level of corruption would be much higher. Benson (1988) states that when correctional officers engage in misconduct, they really exploit the discretionary allocative power they have been given over the property rights. The author says that since public officials including correctional officers are not monitored very closely, their self-interests may often dominate their professional ethics. Benson particularly states that the discretionary authority given to correctional officers is the major cause leading to corruption. The less probability of being detected and punished constitutes a crucial incentive for the misconduct by correctional officers. Since law enforcement officials are not residual claimants, they cannot capture profits when they refrain from corruption and focus on improving their performance efficiency in the production of law enforcement services. This situation also influences correctional officers to engage in different kind of misconducts. When power is concentrated in the hands of a few officers, the chance of misconduct or corruption is relatively high (Benson, 1988). In a report submitted to the Commission on Safety and Abuse by Mary K. Stohr (n.d.), six major findings related to the misconduct of correctional officers were identified. The first one is that prisons are not maximum security institutions unlike those depicted in movies and books. Referring to a recently conducted census of state and federal prisons, Stohr points out that only one-fifth of the prisons in the United States have a maximum security designation. However, most of the correctional officers are of good intention and do not engage in misconduct or brutality. Only a few of the staff have tendencies to engage in corruption. As Stohr points out, training given to correctional officers is not often adequate enough to prepare them for their tasks. The author is confident that effective leadership can change situation and add value to the efficient operation of correctional facilities. Finally, Stohr tells that since whistleblowers are often unfairly prosecuted for their sincere efforts, reporting malfeasance is very difficult in many prisons. Illegal and unethical conducts of correctional officers make prisons dangerous institutions, and this would cause much more social damage in the long term. Such misconducts harm not only the physical bodies of inmates but also their souls increasing their vulnerability to crime when they are released. In the words of Souryal (2009), “prison corruption may serve as a powerful subterranean force multiplier”. According to the author, it is sad to see that the public is neither interested to know what happens in the prison compound nor it raises voice for protecting the right of inmates. Souryal contends that prison corruption becomes a sensitive social issue because it is committed by public servants (correctional officers) who are entrusted, trained, and compensated to preserve some of the basic characteristics of a civil society. In the view of Souryal, prison corruption may include mainly three categories such as acts of misfeasance, acts of malfeasance, and acts of nonfeasance. A number of reasons may make correctional officers vulnerable to prison misconducts such as selling of drugs or sexual misconduct. Low pay is the most important reason that influences officers to engage in prison misconducts. According to a report by Mitchell (n.d.), prison officers are paid low when considering the extremely stressful work they do. The author adds that they never get paid for the overtime work. Today the starting salary for a state correctional officer is $22,006 a year, and this amount is not sufficient enough to enhance the living standards of a family comprising four members (Mitchell). As a result, many correctional officers consider bribery and other misconducts as a way to earn additional income. Prison officers who refuse to support corruption or report their colleagues’ misconducts are often harassed or even attacked by corrupt officers and inmates. Citing the financial difficulties faced by correctional officers, Mitchell suggests that a pay increase would improve the situation because the staff may not succumb to bribery or other misconducts anymore once their financial needs are met effectively. Selling of Drugs Correctional officers sell drugs to inmates in exchange of financial or sexual favors. Janna Bridges, who worked as a correctional officer at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility for eight years, tells that she knew officers making thousands of dollars from the contraband such as drugs they brought in. She adds that there had been sex between officers and inmates (Mitchell). Selling drugs to inmates by correctional officers is very common in most of the prisons because many officers found it difficult to refuse the offer of easy money. The majority of the correctional officers supervising the male population in prisons are females, and hence they are unable to conduct strip searches of the male inmates. Reports indicate that inmates can easily influence female officers by offering them financial or other unfair favors. Therefore, inmates very often approach female correctional officers to obtain the supply of drugs and other contraband. Correctional officers often think that prisons are the safest place to conduct such illegal trade transactions because occurrences inside a prison are barely exposed to the external world. In addition, the public or social workers are not interested to know what is happening inside the prison walls. As a result, the governmental authorities concerned also often close eyes to such unfair substance sales inside the prison. By offering inmates those unfair benefits, correctional officers earn thousands of dollars a day, and hence they consider it as a potential source of additional income. Some officers believe that offering drugs to inmates would assist them to reduce inmate violence to a great extent and to maintain a better relationship with inmates. In some cases, correctional officers offer contraband such as drugs to inmates with intent to use them sexually. Reports indicate that many inmates like to obtain the supply of drugs in exchange of sex. Sexual Misconduct Sexual assaults and harassments against women inmates by the prison staff are growing in the United States, and women prisoners often find it difficult to escape from the abusers. It is clear that unsolicited sexual touching or sexual abuse is not part of the penalty that offenders pay for their crime against the society. In the words of Buchanan (2005), women’s prisons in the US have become increasingly notorious for pervasive sexual abuse of female inmates by the male staff. According to the Human Rights Watch, the US male correctional officers have vaginally, anally, and orally abused female prisoners. The organization adds that male staff use not only physical force but also their authority to deny goods and privileges to female prisoners so as to compel them to have sex (Buchanan). Calhoun and Coleman (2002) conducted an explanatory study in order to examine various dimensions of staff-inmate sexual contact in a correctional facility in Hawaii. For this, the authors organized two focus group interviews with imprisoned women. The participants responded that there are three types of sexual abuse in prison such as trading, love, and in the line of duty. From the interviews, it was identified that roughly 20 percent of the correctional officers had sexual contact with a female inmate (Calhoun & Coleman). It is shocking to know that correctional officers mainly used drugs as an incentive for woman prisoners to trade for sexual contact. Some male correctional employees sexually exploited female prisoners through pat and strip searches, which represent a routine aspect of prison life. When the prison staff involve in inappropriate relationships with inmates, the situation creates an environment which is detrimental to both the safety and security of everyone in the correctional facility, including inmates. According to Marquart, Barnhill, and Balshaw-Biddle (2003) (as cited in Alexander), there are three institutional influences that can lead to inappropriate relationships between the prison employees and the inmates. First, correctional officers can influence inmates as they are authorized to reward prisoners for their good behavior. Second, correctional officers need to depend on inmates to perform numerous daily tasks which are essential to run prison operations effectively. Third, the correctional employees work very closely with the inmates so that the gap between them is considerably narrowed (Alexander). In the view of Alexander, doctoral professor of management at the Colorado Technical University, low self esteem of female correctional officers often aids the inmates to build inappropriate relationships (mainly sexual relationships) with them. According to the reports published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on sexual victimization in US prisons and jails, over 60% of allegations of sexual abuse in correctional facilities involved prison staff members rather than other prisoners. Despite several standards proposed by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to reduce sexual exploitation behind bars, sexual abuse in correctional facilities still remains to be major issue. Hunter (2009) tells that “due to the nature of prisons as ‘total institutions’, it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives – and in some cases over their release from prison” Prevention Methods Developing potential intervention and prevention methods is essential in order to address the issue of correctional officer deviance, which mainly includes selling of contraband such as drugs and sexual misconduct. In order to address this issue effectively, authorities concerned must give specific focus to the recruitment and selection of the correctional staff. In the opinion of Ross (2013), misconduct of officers in correctional facilities could be eliminated to a large extent by conducting comprehensive background investigations on applicants, proper and thorough training, and certification. Before hiring a correctional officer, an extensive criminal background investigation must be conducted to ensure that the candidate is free from felony convictions. In addition, well trained and experienced HR personnel must conduct a personal interview with the candidates to determine whether they are really suitable to perform the tasks of a correctional officer flawlessly. The scope of correctional officer training should not be restricted to skills and knowledge development but it should also cover the ethics, rules, and regulations of the position. The training strategies must be based on the guidelines established by the American Correctional Association and the American Jails Association. The state and federal correctional systems must try to terminate unsuitable candidates early in the process of selection so as to eliminate additional hiring costs. Finally, proper certification of correctional officers, including requiring them to acquire a particular body of knowledge, to abide by certain moral and ethical standards, and to undergo periodic certification renewal testing, would significantly minimize the possibility of the deviance. Individual states may develop their own processes to deal with the certification of correctional officers. Similarly, a number of other studies have proposed several solutions to curb the issue of correctional officer deviance. According to the findings of The US Department of Justice (1996), a set of three approaches may prevent officers’ sexual misconduct in prisons. First, it is necessary to develop appropriate policies specifically prohibiting sexual misconduct. For this, agencies must make certain that they maintain a clear and strict stand toward the sexual abuse of inmates by the prison staff. Sadly, many state correctional systems have addressed staff sexual misconduct only indirectly or in very general terms. Some other agencies hold the view that their policies concerning the sexual abuse of staff and/or inmates properly cover the area of sexual misconduct. The US Department for Justice strongly recommends agencies to clearly define, prohibit, and state penalties for sexual harassment involving staff and inmates. Second, effective staff training on sexual misconduct can be a potential approach to fight the issue of sexual abuse in correctional facilities. As part of this training, each correctional facility should communicate clear information on applicable laws, agency specific policy on sexual misconduct, and penalties for violating the applicable state and agency laws to the relevant audience. This training approach would put a moral check on correctional officers who tend to abuse inmates sexually. Third, inmate education on sexual misconduct is also needed to keep prisoners informed of their rights and privileges against sexual misconduct. Correctional facilities should provide inmates with basic information on sexual misconduct and ensure that they are well aware of different state and agency policies prohibiting such conduct. In addition, inmates must be well informed of the penalties for sexual misconduct as well as penalties for untrue allegations regarding sexual abuse. Souryal (2009) opines that misconduct of correctional officers can be alleviated to a great extent by upgrading the quality of correctional staff. As discussed already, correctional employees do not receive a market competitive entry-level pay, and hence they tend to earn additional income through unethical ways. In addition, the staff turnover rate is relatively high among correctional employees because of the stressful nature of their job and poor remuneration. Hence, it is recommendable for the government to increase the basic pay of correctional employees to improve their living standards and hence to improve the staff turnover rate. As Souryal points out, the old supervisory techniques commonly practiced in traditional prison administrations are not really effective to prevent staff misconduct, and therefore those techniques should be replaced with a quality-based supervisory system, which would assist prison agencies to enforce qualitative standards. The author suggests to reeducate supervisors in the philosophy of quality-based supervision and to give particular attention to the civil mindedness of supervisors who complete the training. Supervisors must be particularly retrained to notice irregular acts and encouraged to report the misconduct of their colleagues too. Furthermore, the prison management must be willing to invest adequately in achieving a superior quality supervisory level. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that the issue of correctional officer deviance is growing at an alarming rate in the United States despite a number of policy measures taken by the federal government to address the situation. The prison staff misconduct may often include selling of contraband such as drugs to inmates and sexual misconduct. The poor basic pay is the major problem persuading employees to earn additional income from bribery and other unfair activities. Since occurrences inside a prison compound are less likely to be exposed to the outer world, correctional officers think that prison is the safest place to engage in such illegal and unethical practices. Some officers support such contraband transactions in exchange of sex. Reports indicate that male correctional officers often use drugs as an incentive to insist female inmates to have sex. They also unfairly use their authority to deny rights and privileges to inmates in order to satisfy their sexual interests over woman prisoners. At the same time, male inmates try to make sexual relationships with female officers who are badly in need of money or have a low level self-esteem. Stricter policies, officer training, inmate education, improved staff remuneration, and the development of a quality-based supervisory system are some recommendable solutions to the issue of prison staff misconduct. References Alexander, M. E. (n.d.). The Sexual Attraction of Inmates. Research Paper. Colorado Technical University. Buchanan, K. S. (2005). Beyond modesty: Privacy in prison and risk of sexual abuse. Marquette Law Review, 88, 751-813. Benson, B. L. (1988). An institutional explanation for corruption of criminal justice officials. Cato Journal, 8 (1),139-163. Calhoun, A. J & Coleman, H. D. (2002). Female inmates’ perspectives on sexual abuse by correctional personal: An exploratory study. Women & Criminal Justice 13 (2/3), 101-124. Hunter, G. (2009). Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic. Prison Legal News. Mitchell, J. (n.d.). Mississippi prisons: Guards, low pay and corruption. The Clarion-Ledger. Ross, J. I. (2013). Deconstructing Correctional Officer Deviance: Toward Typologies of Actions and Controls. Criminal Justice Review 38(1), 110-126. Souryal, S. S. (2009). Deterring Corruption by Prison Personnel: A Principle-Based Perspective. The Prison Journal, 89 (1), 29-45. Stohr, M. K. (n.d.). Lessons in Corrections: A Report Submitted to the Commission on Safety and Abuse, Public Hearing 3. Submitted to the Commission in lieu of testifying in person. Department of Criminal Justice Boise State University. The US Department of Justice. (1996). Sexual misconduct in prisons: Law, agency response, and prevention. Special Issues in Corrections. staff of LIS, Inc. Read More