Problem of Sexual Assault in US Prisons

Examine the problem of sexual assault in US prisons and critically analyze the measures taken to reduce it. (2000 WORDS)

In many U.S. penal institutions, the prevalence of abuse, violence torture and sexual assault are usual subjects in movies and TV shows. The media, in addition, perpetrate the idea that inmates in correctional and prisons facilities in the country suffer from abuse, overcrowding, extortion and other forms of violence. The reality about life in US jails, however, surpasses the media’s fiction. Because of public hesitation to spend more on taxes or spend more for the improvement of the American penal institutions to house criminals in a more ‘dignified’ facility, inmates usually get limited training, treatment, education and other opportunities for rehabilitation (Maguire 1999). In addition, inmates abuse one another and a few members of the prison staff physically abuse prisoners. However, the most common kind of violence committed on inmates in many US penal facilities is sexual assault. This assault is being perpetrated against males, females and even illegal immigrants housed in prisons across the country. To understand how this abuse takes place, we need to look closely at the US prison systems, penal laws and statutes, assess the problem, or evaluate the efficacy of government measures to curb sexual assault within US jails.

Many ordinary people have heard detailed media stories about prisoners being beaten by baton guards, fired unnecessarily with guns or raped and abused by prison officers. (World Report 2000) Authorities have found that penal facilities are replete with such abuse in almost every state in America. For example, a federal court concluded that the rate and number of “wholly unnecessary physical aggression” committed by guards in Texas jails mirrored a “culture” of sadistic and malicious violence” exhibited in those facilities. [1] Violence and other forms of harassment perpetrated against one another by prisoners are even more of a daily occurrence. Over 70 per cent of prisoners are assaulted and abused by their fellow prisoners every year by authorities and independent groups. The rate of violence and abuse in US jails continues to escalate almost annually. Near the turn of the century for instance in 1998, 79 prisoners were killed and thousands more suffered sever injuries (The Corrections Yearbook 1998). The previous year of 1997, 10 percent of inmates across the states and 3 percent of inmates housed in federal facilities were reported severely injured in scuffles and brawls since they have entered prisons. [2] The state prisons systems in New York have acknowledged the severity of this issue and confirmed that the ‘ extraordinary amount of crime committed in state prisons annually merely changes the Locus of criminal activity away from neighborhoods to correctional facilities “In the opinion of experts and authorities, street gangs have merely moved territories from the streets to the penal institutions.

Amidst this prevalence of abuse and the encroachment of gangs in the statewide penal institutions, sexual assault and sexual abuse emerge at the center of the problem. What is worse, though, males are the most common victims of sexual abuse. Human Rights Watch an organization also in the center of the issue, reported that sexual assault on males occurs in prisons around the country and added that rape in prison can be unimaginably brutal, as the gang attacks become an ordinary occurrence. [3]Victims of this assault are usually left for dead, severely beaten, bloody and in some cases, killed. Many of these individuals who experienced grave threats and had knives aimed at their throats, believed that they had no alternative except to engage in sexual acts. This form of coercion is said to be more common than gang rape and believed to be easily ignored by the authorities as compared to gang rape. However, many sexual abuses takes place as a result of subtle forms of threats and intimidation. Majority of individuals who serve sentences agree that the threat of brutality and slight intimidation is a common cause of yielding in to sexual abuse (Lewis 1999).

The most common scenario for the use of coercion to sexually abuse another prisoner is described by [4]D.A. a young inmate who recounted that while he was taking a nap in his bed after his transfer from another facility, he noticed that someone was in his cell. The guy threatened the young prisoner that if he did not give consent to have sex with him, the gang members other ‘homeboys’ would beat him up to death. This story is typical inside prison cell in the US. Other scenarios or techniques recounted by the victims of assault or coercion involved a power play in which the sexual offender and two or three of his friends. The gang would stop down on a prisoner of his choice in an aggressive manner as if he and his gang would beat the prisoner, but the offender would somehow stop the fight in order to gain the trust of his victim. Another type of coercion is when the victim is trapped into owing the perpetrator a favor. This usually involves drugs or a talk about drugs. The victim is asked to pay or repay joints or ‘licks of dope’ through drugs or money and if the victim has none of any of the aforementioned the only option is to bestow the perpetrator a sexual favor.

Human Rights Watch also reported that victims of rape and sexual assault in prisons across America resulted to concussions, broken limbs, wounds and other severe injuries.[5]For instance, one inmate from Texas told authorities that another inmate has inflicted wounds in him and repeatedly raped him. The inmate also suffered wounds which resulted to visible scars on his head and neck. The authorities at that particular jail shove the issue aside after a short investigation and after the went back to their cell, the other prisoner raped him again which he said was ‘more violent this time.’  Although many consider this kind of abuse unacceptable, authorities only imposed slight punishment, as for instance, 15-day segregation imposed to one inmate after he sexually assaulted another prisoner who he battered near murder.

In addition, victims of assault in prisons also suffer from constant sexual harassment after the assault. Groping, sexualized comments and whistling are the most prevalent kinds of abuse the victims undergo inside the prisons. [6]One inmate who entered prison when he was seventeen was pressured into submitting to the sexual whims of other prisoners and immediately coerced into a sexual act. He stated that, though he suffered from shock after his  incarceration for the crime of burglary, he suffered more psychological difficulties after inmates sexually molested him. Experts on the issue consider that constant threats and sexual harassments inside prisons results to the prisoners being convinced that they exhibit homosexual tendencies and in turn may entrap an inmate into a ‘sexually subordinate role.’[7]Other inmates also assert that once rape or assault has taken place, the victim himself turns into homosexual. It is therefore clear that sexual assaults in prison have both physical and psychological effects on inmates who suffered from the assault. In addition, even if the victim or the perpetrator is transferred to another cell, it does not provide assurance that the victim may be free from further abuse as in many cases, it could be new start of abuse.

Inmates in penal facilities across the United States may find that the only way out of sexual abuse is to gain their freedom or to be moved to another facility, protective custody or units and areas of safekeeping. However, inmates who suffered from sexual assault find it difficult to persuade prison authorities to permit such movement. This situation is a stark contrast to what Roger Matthews wrote in his book Doing Time in which he contends that crime is a deprivation of liberty but not necessarily aim to punish severely (Matthews 1999) as even though inmates are relocated in the custody areas, the conditions are still extremely punitive. If an inmate wanted to move to a protective custody by reporting sexual assault, the victim or the inmate would go through greater danger as the perpetrator might know that the victim reported him to the authorities. This would include threats of violent retaliations if the inmate who suffered abuse informs the prison officials (Eichenthal 1996).

However, [8]experts on the issue contend that the notion of consent, consensual sex and coercion becomes vague in the prison context as penal institutions have coercive surroundings. As prisoners have limited freedom or alternative, the issue of consent to sex or sexual assault cannot be ascertained easily. Sexual assaults are not just confined with males but record of assault on women in penal institutions also exists. Many women are victims of sexual assault or violence in jails and correctional institutions in America. The male staff and the male prison authorities usually perpetrate this abuse. [9] US female inmates complain about the male staff touching the breasts or private parts of the female inmates when these inmates undergo searches. Some male employees also watch inmates when naked and many become victims of sexual assault or rape. A majority of those complaints involve the prison facility’s male staff. This is against the international standards of penal system because prisons and jails in the US utilize men to guard female prisoners. The penal system likewise does place much restriction on their duties and obligations. [10]The ‘groping, touching and watching’ of the male staff are considered actions that the laws allow in the US. This terrifying and humiliating experience put constraints on the female inmates as most of them do not feel powerful to file complaints and are usually reluctant as they fear that their charges would fail to convince the authorities if the officer or the male staff denies the allegations. Most of them, just like the male inmates, fear retaliation. This fear is different though as in the case of the males, the perpetrator stay inside and with the females the fear is equally as great as the perpetrators hold power and authority.

The occurrence of rape and sexual assault in U.S. prisons is not just a problem of law or the penal system but a problem of psychology as well. However, most of all, the solutions and approach provided by legislation, penal authorities and the administrators of penal facilities lack efficiency and foresight. Prevention measures are lacking and punishment of abuse is also ineffective. In addition, the United States’ justice system only offers leniency on these kinds of actions. The failure to prevent and punish offenders inside the prison escalates the problems already severe. Still the primary responsibility lies on the shoulders of the prison authorities as preventing assault and rape in prisons call for strict classification of systems, orientation and training of the inmate staff, serious investigation of allegations of assault, rape or even just coercion. The victim’s interest must also be seriously put into consideration.

A bigger problem also lies on the refusal of prison officials to admit that such problems of assault and rape both on male and female inmates exist. Few steps have been taken to curb or thwart the occurrence of sexual offenses in prisons. Neither specific move nor the creation of regulation was instituted in order to prevent sexual assault. Authorities also failed to give prison staff orientation and training so that they can efficiently respond to the charges of assault or rape. Prison officials have not explicitly declared prohibiting rape on male inmates up till now. Nevertheless, there are improvements in the case of female inmates as the custodial sexual assault has been thwarted through institutional reforms.

Unfortunately, though, The US rules of courts state that if the authorities lacked knowledge of the charges of prisoner to prisoner offense or abuse, the offender prisoner cannot be held responsible to the offense charged. The assault, rape or offense should be clear and obvious for the prison officer to have noticed before the courts deem the charges credible. This provision allows many prison offices to ignore the offenses, as they have no incentive under the existing laws. Prison officials usually contend that they are not aware that offenses or assaults exist.

The state of North Carolina was an exception to this as the state legislators have passed measures to institute a pilot program on sexual assault prevention in prisons. This comes as an orientation program for inmates, information on reducing the problem of assault, and the counseling. Correctional officers are also required to gather data on occurrences of sexual aggression. The prison systems in the state also specifies that sexual offenders and victims be classified and be housed differently and this should be based on the data gathered which point whether the prisoner is a victim or a perpetrator.

           However, a new legislation with regard sexual assaults in prison has been passed. [11]The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 provides for the examination of the occurrence and consequences of prison rape in Federal, State, and local establishments and to afford ‘information, Services, · Recommendations and support for the safety of victims from prison rape. “The law states that inadequate data on sexual assault and rape is obtained and documented in US prisons but conservative estimates and findings contend that at least 13 percent of the inmates including females have been sexually molested and assaulted inside penal establishments across the country.  The law also admits and predicts that about 200,000 inmates will suffer from sexual assault in the future. The dire estimates mentioned that in the past 20 years, victims of sexual assault would exceed 1,000,000. The law calls for a ‘ review of current policies and practices of the Federal, State and local government regarding the prevention, identification and punishment of prison rape ‘ and a evaluation of existing connection between rape and prison environment. It also calls for the regulation and monitoring of enforcement guidelines intended to address the issue.

As the issue of the sexual assault on inmates by other inmates is a serious issue, different departments must also take measures to thwart or lessen occurrences of sexual assaults inside prisons. For one, correctional authorities should develop training programs, as this one is obviously lacking in the system, on the issue of male prisoner sexual assault. The expertise of outside scholar should be also included. The staff and officers in correction and penal facilities must also be attentive and observant to the problem and should be quick to recognize signs of abuse. Any claimant of abuse or assault should be transferred to a different facility. Investigations must also be promptly done so as to put to a halt or simply just curb the incidences of sexual assaults to prisoners and victims who were already robbed of dignity and will continue to be robbed of self-respect brought about by abuse, rape and sexual assault.

Rehabilitation of Sex and Drug Offenders in England and Wales

Amid the rising prison population in England and Wales, penal authorities, experts, concerned citizens and organizations have called for the re-evaluation of the efficiency of the rehabilitation system in the country. In the last few years, penal facilities in England and Wales experienced a considerable rise in prison population, which has attained its peak in 2004. [12] The population, doubling after more than just a decade, now rests at approximately 75,544, growing 3,000 prisoners more in just about a year. In addition, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of women in penal institutions, which increased 151% after 10 years. Data from the Home Office shows that the number of women in prisons jumped from 1,800 in 1994 to 4,594 in 2004. The number of juveniles languishing in jails has also doubled in the last 10 years. This dramatic increment in prison population brings about the issue of the efficiency of the rehabilitation program in England and Wales particularly the territories’ treatment program on sexual and drug offenders. The issue of rehabilitation is crucial as it results to a lesser number of prisoners under the penal system when the prisoners were discharged and deemed as reformed, and in turn minimizes expenses of the government and the burden on taxpayers. Furthermore, this will strengthen the existing laws on rehabilitative and restorative justice and in turn promotes respect of rights of every individual even if this individual has been convicted of a crime. In the last few years, research and data prepared by both the private and public sector of society affirms that the rehabilitation program with regards sexual and drug offenders in England and Wales are effective as it utilized systematic and efficient approach to the treatment of prisoners convicted of sexual and drug related offences. These programmes include Drug Treatment Programmes, Drug Intervention Programme, counselling, the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) and various more programmes aimed at educating, counselling, treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

The UK Home Office reported recently that the Drug Treatment Programme is utilized, as the offenders with drug and alcohol addiction need to be given therapy inside the penal facilities before they are permitted to take advantage of the skills development programme offered by the system which also allows offenders to receive education, trade training, qualifications, workshop skills which, if combined, will create better employment opportunities to those who are serving sentences. Huge amount of money has also been invested and allocated to the Drug Treatment Programmes to bestow effective therapy on offenders. The programme employs various means of treatment which include [13]detoxification, voluntary testing, awareness programmes. The Home Office states that through planning for these activities in a protective environment, progress is being made in providing opportunities for those with drug troubles to lead better lives.

In 2003, the Home Office also launched the Drugs Interventions Programme – a three-year programme that is a part of the government’s initiative to curb the effects of drug-related offences on the community. It also intends to extract offenders who abuse and misuse drugs from their criminal activities and put them under treatment.  Based on the report of the Home Office, those who misuse drugs often commit offences in order to obtain funds for their habits. This policy is said to reduce the consequences of crime on the community by taking offenders away from crime and into rehabilitative treatment. As many drug users, such as users of heroin and crack, are blamed for more than 50 percent of crimes, like burglary and theft for instance, the programme is said to have reduced the consequences of crime in society through the system’s redirection of offenders from drug misuse to treatment. Evidence presented by the Home Office illustrates that offenders who undergo treatment have greater probability of developing a life away from crime. The report from the Home Office further states that drug-related crimes decreased by 12 percent in 2005 and this only shows that treatment works if included with counselling and support which address the issues related to drug misuse by the offender. These issues, which include housing, mental health and relationship, are given consideration. Currently, more than 2,000 habitual drug users all over England and Wales undergo treatment and rehabilitation programmes every month. Authorities in this subject contend that the success of this program depends on the ability of drug enforcement agencies to cope with the rising demand of the service. Thus, the government increased its funding of the program from 140 million pounds in the year 2001 to almost 480 million pounds by 2007/08. Penal authorities have created a system to ensure that the efficient use of the appropriation. This means that more people will be able to undergo treatment in just a short period of waiting time. The Home Office also considered the programme’s efficacy as compelling since it pulled other rehabilitation programmes for offenders together and introduce a ‘beginning to end’ approach as well as a tailor-made treatment scheme targeting the individual and special needs of each offender.  Although many are enthusiastic about the new approach of rehabilitating offenders, some are sceptical of its efficacy. In addition, the government has announced that it will introduce special drug courts for offenders who misused drugs.

Pat Carlen, author of the book, Women and Punishment (2002), queries if it is reasonable for penal institutions to be utilized as ‘treatment’ facilities for women offenders as the treatment occurs in a restrictive environment devoid of the voluntary or free will aspect to submit to such treatment. Carlen (2002) adds that the voluntary aspect of treatment is essential to successful results of rehabilitation of drug offenders. The author furthermore questions if the focus of restorative justice should be centred on the ‘social justice’ aspect, especially on its treatment of women but also admits that if these needs with regards the social issues are not addressed, many of these offenders will like to re-offend once discharged from the institutions. Moreover, Carlen also notes that there is another issue arising from the availability of treatment in the penal facilities as these programmes are offered in prisons and particularly aimed at offenders only. Carlen notes that it is quite unfair since these treatments and rehabilitation programmes are not accessible to those who did not commit any crimes but, for instance, similarly suffer from substance abuse (Carlen 2002).

Still, other experts independent of the government contend that England and Wales’ medical approach to offender’s misuse of drugs is consistent with the British liberal pragmatism and humanist view on offenders who misused drugs (Franey et al. 1993) and they are beneficial initiatives which consider the prospects of offenders. In addition these are backed by national policy. Drug services in the United Kingdom, specifically in England and Wales like the National Health Service Drug Dependence Units and Community Drug Teams provide treatments that are effective and is unique compared to the other treatment programmes utilized in other countries.

Similarly, England and Wales’ rehabilitation programmes on sexual offenders, considered in the world as one of the best rehabilitation programmes for sex offenders, have become more efficient over the years although for many other experts, more improvement should be made. Recently, the UK Home Office released a study and evaluation of the Prison Based Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) highlighting its efficacy and achievements. The study included in its reach, programmes, which have been introduced since 1996 – before an accreditation scheme was put forward to ensure quality and efficacy of sexual offender treatment programme. The research included a treatment group composed of 647 men who were convicted to serve a four-year custodial sentence. The SOTP was a result of a more analytic study of available treatment for sex offenders, which shifted the management approach of sexual offenders from the punitive method employed in the past and still employed in other countries (McGuire 1995).

The creation of the cognitive behavioural approach in the rehabilitation and treatment of sexual offenders has been reviewed in this research intensively, in which the authors delineated the positive and negative treatment results in the literature. The scholars who conducted the research concluded that ‘empirical evidence supported the view that the cognitive behavioural treatment of sexual offenders ’ has beneficial consequences on easing recidivism and reconviction of sexual offenders  (Marshall, Anderson and Fernandez, 1999). After experiencing an increase in the number of sexual offenders who were given treatment in England and Wales, the Woolf report (1991) and the Criminal Justice Act of 1991, brought forward after the severe prison riots, recommended for ‘management of sexual offenders’ (Woolf 1991). The UK government in 1991 proclaimed a new scheme for the containment and treatment of offenders convicted of sexual crimes in England and Wales. The scheme involved the securing and rehabilitation of sexual offenders in limited number of penal institutions so as to facilitate the ease in delivery of appropriate treatment programme. The institutionalisation of the SOTP, created to gather data and evidence with regards treatment efficacy for sexual offenders, in 1992, paved the way for the adoption of the ‘cognitive behavioural approach’ of which programme monitoring and evaluation constituted as its most integral aspects.

However, the SOTP has been criticized there is restrictive research and data which analyses the efficacy of the disposals of this treatment. For some experts, clauses and impositions specified in the penal systems and penal law provisions are too new to apply. Furthermore, the available information provides data, which only measure success of the programme depending on the recidivism and reconviction of offenders, which in turn afford mixed results.

Moreover, Carlen and Worall (2004) argue that the shift in this kind of reform system for offenders, especially for women in conflict with the law is ‘disingenuous, as it fails to recognize the overriding goal’ of the prison system – to incarcerate offenders. In their book Analysing Women’s Imprisonment, the authors argue that the programme aimed at reforming women, including those who misused drugs and were involved in drug related offences, looked at women offenders too liberally and assumed that women who commit offences were not afforded proper treatment as a result of ‘feminism’ and empowerment of women in present times (Carlen and Worall 2004).

       Still, the findings of the study on SOTP (Friendship, Byron et al. 2003) suggest that the Core Programme has considerable impact on sexual reconviction and recidivism especially for middle risk offenders as well as low risk offenders. Although the finding did not suggest reduction of reconviction on high-risk level of offenders, the impact of the programme has considerable consequences on sexual offending as well as violent offending. Furthermore, the research asserted that the success of the programme is dependent on various factors such as the environment in which the treatment is given, quality of implementation and the offender’s response (Beech, Fisher and Beckett, 1999).

As compared to the rehabilitation system in other countries, the United Kingdom fares better in the efficacy of its program on sexual and drug offenders. The British government for instance has shifted between legal and medical remedies in order to solve the problem of drug misuse. The treatment of sexual offenders, for example, the paedophiles in the UK, has its focus on rehabilitation and reformation and not punishment. In contrast, the United States, considered as one of the most liberal countries in the world with regards its justice system relies almost exclusively on law enforcement efforts to curb drug and sexual related offences – the opposite of the systems in England and Wales where flexible and strong emphasis on medicalization of treatment for drug abusers is utilized and effected. As aforementioned, this approach is based on the UK systems pragmatic and liberal approach to crime and offenders, which was a result of its turbulent prison history.

In conclusion, the rehabilitation of sexual and drug offenders in England and Wales proved to be effective. Although the system utilized does not result to very compelling consequences on the penal institutions in England and Wales, the system could still be lauded as one of its kind in the world as it employs reformative, restorative and rehabilitative justice in its penal system, a requirement in order to enshrine the rights of men, whether criminal or ordinary citizens, in its democratic institutions.

Works Cited

• Beech, A.R., Fisher, D. and Beckett, R.C. (1999). STEP3: An evaluation of the prison sex offender treatment programme. London: HMSO.
• Carlen, P & Worrall, A. (2004). Analysing Women’s Imprisonment. Portland, Oregon: Willan Publishers.
• Carlen, P. (ed.). (2002). Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
• Falshaw, L., Friendship, C. and Bates, A. (2003). Sexual offenders – measuring reconviction, reoffending and recidivism. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No. 183. London: Home Office.
• Franey, C., Power, R., and Wells, B. (1993). Treatment and services for drug users in Britain. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 10 (6), 561-567.
• Friendship, C. and Thornton, D. (2001). Sexual reconviction for sexual offenders discharged fro m prison in England and Wales: Implications forevaluating treatment. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 285-292.
• Home Office, (2004-2007). Thematic Reports and Research Publications. Retrieved February 06, 2007, from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Web site: https://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmiprisons/thematic-reports1/
• Home Office, (2007). Prison Reform Trust. Retrieved February 07, 2007, from Prison Reform Trust Web site: https://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/
• Marshall, W.L., Anderson, D. and Fernandez, Y.’(1999). Cognitive Behavioural Treatment of Sexual Offenders. Chichester: Wiley. M c G u i re, J. (Ed). (1995). What Works: Reducing reoffending – guidelines from research and practice. Chichester: Wiley.
• Arkansas Department of Correction, “Sexual Aggression in Prisons and Jails: Awareness, Prevention, and Intervention” (undated manuscript), p. 4.
• California Department of Corrections. (1999) “CDC Facts,”. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, “Divisional Overview,”
• Department of State, Initial Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture (Part I. General Information), October 15, 1999 (hereinafter DOS, Torture Report).
• Eichenthal, David (1997), “Prison Crime in New York State,” Prison Journal, vol. 77, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 458-59.
• Human Rights Watch (1999), World Report 2000 (New York: Human Rights Watch), p. 394, describing violence and abuse at privately-operated prison facilities.
• Lewis, Anthony (1999) “Punishing the Country,” New York Times. Sept. 1999
• Matthews, Roger. (1999) Doing Time an introduction to the sociology of imprisonment (Basingstoke, Macmillan)
• Maguire, K. (1999).Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1999), pp. 481, 497.
• Maruschak, L.M. &  Beck, A.J. (2001). “Medical Problems of Inmates” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, January 2001,
• McShane, M & Williams, F. (1996 ). Encyclopedia of American Prisons (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,),
• Ruiz v. Johnson, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2060, at 236-37 (March 1, 1999). Case Records.
• The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. American Law. Penguin, New York. 2005
• [1] Marilyn D. McShane and Frank P. Williams III, eds., Encyclopedia of American Prisons (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996), p
• [2] David E. Eichenthal and Laurel Blatchford, “Prison Crime in New York State,” Prison Journal, vol. 77, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 458-
• [3] . Laura M. Maruschak and Allen J. Beck, “Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, January 2001, pp. 1, 4.

5. Letter to Human Rights Watch from V.H., Arkansas, November 17, 1996.

• [4] Human Rights Watch, Letters 1994
• [5] Human Rights Watch interview, Texas, March 1999.
• [6] Human Rights Watch interview, Texas, October 1998
• [7] . Letter to Human Rights Watch from P.S., Texas, October 17, 1996.
• [8] Arkansas Department of Correction, “Sexual Aggression in Prisons and Jails: Awareness, Prevention, and Intervention” (undated manuscript), p. 4.
• [9] See California Department of Corrections, “CDC Facts,” October 1999. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, “Divisional Overview,” December 1999.
• [10] Arkansas Department of Correction, “Sexual Aggression in Prisons and Jails: Awareness, Prevention, and Intervention” (undated manuscript), p. 4.
• [11] The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, copy from
• [12] Data taken from the Home Office website. https://www.drugs.gov.uk/publication-search/dip/DIP-prison-probation-booklet?view=Binary also at WWW.DRUGS.GOV.UK
• [13] Data taken from the Home Office website. https://www.drugs.gov.uk/publication-search/dip/DIP-prison-probation-booklet?view=Binary, also at WWW.DRUGS.GOV.UK