Sexual Misconduct
Sexual Misconduct Amongst Correction Officers and Inmates
9/9/2014
Sexual Misconduct is misconduct of sexual nature that is used for sexual gratification, install fear, intimidation and or to gain power or dominance. In many workplaces, sexual misconduct is something that is heavily frowned upon. Whether it is in an office environment or a school, it is very inappropriate. Nowhere is it more inappropriate than in the correctional system. In the United States, there have been inmates who have reported experiencing some kind of sexual victimization at the hands of correctional staff. Before being selected for hire to work for the Department of Corrections, all candidates undergo a hiring process of approximately ten steps. Three of the most important steps, during the hiring process, are Pre-Investigatory Interview, a Background Investigation, and a Written Peace Officer Psychological Evaluation (POPE). The purpose is to investigate the characteristics of a candidate is to establish any liabilities to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In 2002, Susan McCampbell and Larry Fischer created a policy development guide that deals with staff sexual misconduct with inmates. According to the guide, “Sexual misconduct is illegal in 47 out of 50 states, it compromises facility security and creates work environments that are negative for both staff and inmates” (McCampbell & Fischer, 2002). It can also be either a random incident or a sign that the jail’s management and operational systems are falling apart. Inmates are not able to consent to sex much just like how those with mental disabilities and juveniles are deemed incapable of consenting to sex. In other words, even if the inmate is willing to engage in sexual activities with the staff, any kind of sexual contact is legally nonconsensual. When undergoing training, corrections officers are asked to list the possible behaviors that could have helped them identify sexual
9/9/2014
Sexual Misconduct is misconduct of sexual nature that is used for sexual gratification, install fear, intimidation and or to gain power or dominance. In many workplaces, sexual misconduct is something that is heavily frowned upon. Whether it is in an office environment or a school, it is very inappropriate. Nowhere is it more inappropriate than in the correctional system. In the United States, there have been inmates who have reported experiencing some kind of sexual victimization at the hands of correctional staff. Before being selected for hire to work for the Department of Corrections, all candidates undergo a hiring process of approximately ten steps. Three of the most important steps, during the hiring process, are Pre-Investigatory Interview, a Background Investigation, and a Written Peace Officer Psychological Evaluation (POPE). The purpose is to investigate the characteristics of a candidate is to establish any liabilities to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In 2002, Susan McCampbell and Larry Fischer created a policy development guide that deals with staff sexual misconduct with inmates. According to the guide, “Sexual misconduct is illegal in 47 out of 50 states, it compromises facility security and creates work environments that are negative for both staff and inmates” (McCampbell & Fischer, 2002). It can also be either a random incident or a sign that the jail’s management and operational systems are falling apart. Inmates are not able to consent to sex much just like how those with mental disabilities and juveniles are deemed incapable of consenting to sex. In other words, even if the inmate is willing to engage in sexual activities with the staff, any kind of sexual contact is legally nonconsensual. When undergoing training, corrections officers are asked to list the possible behaviors that could have helped them identify sexual