Article
I was asked about the most unusual crime statistic within the justice system.
Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the USDOJ, about 67% of staff sexual misconduct perpetrators were female, and 69% of staff sexual harassment perpetrators were male.
It’s the only data I’ve seen as to females being the primary aggressors in any incident within a major crime-related category.
So in the most recent publicly released substantiated-incident data, female staff, not male, made up the majority of staff-perpetrators of “sexual misconduct.” Older reports show similar patterns.
Context
It is important to clarify what the BJS category “staff sexual misconduct” actually includes. According to BJS definitions:
It includes both consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior or acts by staff toward inmates, such as “romantic relationships.”
This means that “staff sexual misconduct” is not the same thing as “sexual assault” or “nonconsensual sex.” It can include apparently “consensual” relationships (though arguably inmates lack true ability to consent in custodial settings).
While BJS data clearly show a majority of staff sexual misconduct perpetrators are female, that does not necessarily equate to a majority of sexual assaults by staff being committed by female staff.
Because BJS lumps consensual and nonconsensual sex under “sexual misconduct,” the fact that a majority of misconduct is by female staff could reflect consensual or exploitative, but not necessarily what the public would label “rape.”
Media coverage and anecdotes may focus more on high-profile cases involving female staff, possibly reinforcing the impression that “most guards having sex with inmates are female.”
There has been a marked increase over time in the share of female correctional officers (COs) in U.S. prisons and jails. And, yes, credible arguments and documentation suggest that many staff–inmate sexual contacts reported as “consensual” are inherently coercive because of the power imbalance.
But while the data and literature offer evidence consistent with the idea that “consensual-looking” sex may be driven by incentives or coercion, there is no rigorous, public dataset that definitively classifies how many of those sexual contacts are “consensual but mediated by promises/privileges.”
Conclusions-Opinions
As stated, there is no definitive research indicating why female staff engage in sexual relationships with inmates. Existing explanations are drawn from the experiences of correctional staff and individual case reviews, rather than peer-reviewed or data-driven studies.
What follows is based on the opinions of correctional staff and investigators, as well as my experience as the director of public information for the Maryland Department of Public Safety.
Inmates will test the resolve of anyone in any correctional facility. Male inmates are not known to be feminists and can be (and often are) verbally abusive towards female staff.
In Maryland, female correctional officers constituted a large minority of staff in some correctional facilities.
Correctional staff suggested that female correctional officers were able to pass drug screens and criminal history backgrounds, whereas many male applicants could not.
Correctional staff also suggested that some female correctional officers engaged in sexual relationships with male inmates as a form of protection. Most female correctional officers were demonstrably smaller in size than male inmates. Anyone who works in corrections understands that prisons or jails can explode in violence at any time for an endless number of reasons.
Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that 66 percent of male inmates were currently serving time in prison for a violent offence. Some speculate that if you include criminal histories, that figure could easily go up to 80 percent.
Once a correctional officer crosses the line and engages in any prohibited behavior, they become a security risk with the possibility of engaging in additional prohibited acts like smuggling drugs, weapons, cigarettes, or smartphones. This dynamic is extensively discussed in correctional training academies.
However, it’s the opinion of many in corrections that female officers do a good job maintaining security in prisons and jails. We are addressing a small number of female correctional staff engaging in sexual contact.
Criminology studies suggest that inmates run most prisons, something that the public has a hard time understanding, but it’s probably a correct assumption to a degree. Inmates served as plumbers, electricians, food service personnel, cleaning crews, library staff, and program facilitators and tutors. To create daily services, inmates have a ton of verbal contact with correctional officers.
Thus, correctional officer “control” takes on a variety of actions, like verbal communications, something that female officers “may” be better suited for.
Inmates tell staff about what’s going on in a correctional facility, including people or groups causing trouble. Inmates do not want weeks of being locked in a cell because of fights or disturbances while missing visits, program participation, yard time, or a better quality of food.
Inmates want peaceful prisons. It’s their first priority. An explosion of violence threatens everyone.
Information is passed on to correctional staff about the need to address prison troublemakers with the warning that if they do not, the inmates will settle it themselves. Female correctional officers “may” be well-suited for these verbal interactions.
Thus, it’s my opinion, based on conversations with correctional staff, that a small minority of female correctional officers engage in sexual misconduct with inmates, mostly on a consensual basis. These acts are obviously inexcusable and lead to other prohibited acts that risk the security of the institution.
Prisons and jails are complex places where dynamics are immensely complicated and misunderstood by most on the outside. The fact that most correctional facilities are peaceful most of the time is something that astounds many, considering inmate histories of violence, mental illness, substance abuse, PTSD, brain injuries, and abuse as children.