Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons

Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons-#2

Parts: 1 2 3 4

Legal Action to Expose and Remedy Abuses

As stated above, in 1993 women prisoners in the District of Columbia sued the DCDC. Their complaint asserted that the DCDC failed to protect them from rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment by corrections officers, provided them with inadequate medical care, subjected them to poor conditions of confinement, and offered them educational, work, religious and recreational programs inferior to those provided to male prisoners. Brenda Smith of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), an attorney on that lawsuit, told Human Rights Watch that through her work providing legal services and programming to incarcerated women since 1990, she had received reports of sexual assaults and pregnancies within the prisons and assisted several women on an individual basis. However, it was not until the lawsuit was filed that the magnitude and pattern of the abuses were exposed. She told us, "It is really like this dirty little secret that everyone in corrections knows about and doesn't want to talk about. It is a huge problem."⁽³⁰⁰⁾ According to Smith, attorney on the lawsuit, over ninety women came forward and many, although not all of them, complained of sexual misconduct by prison staff.⁽³⁰¹⁾ All of these women were incarcerated in one of three facilities operated by the DCDC: D.C. Central Facility (Jail), the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and the Lorton Minimum Security Annex (Annex).

A three-week trial was held in June 1994, before June Green, a senior district court judge for the District of Columbia. In her December 1994 ruling, Judge Green found a general acceptance within the DCDC of sexual relationships between staff and prisoners that gave rise to a "sexualized environment."⁽³⁰²⁾ As to the legal claim, she concluded that there was a pattern of sexual harassment of incarcerated women by male corrections staff that violated the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.⁽³⁰³⁾

Subsequent to her findings, Judge Green issued an extensive order directing the DCDC to remedy constitutional violations within its corrections system. Her order addressed a range of problems that contributed to the sexual abuse and degrading treatment of incarcerated women, including: the absence of a clear prohibition on sexual activity and sexualized language, the failure to report and investigate allegations of such misconduct, and the lack of training for corrections staff and for female prisoners.⁽³⁰⁴⁾

Within the order, the judge appointed an independent special monitor⁽³⁰⁵⁾ to receive and investigate complaints of sexual misconduct at the three facilities housing women and to report her findings to the warden at each institution. The special monitor was also instructed to investigate any outstanding allegations of sexual misconduct and to oversee the DCDC's resolution of sexual misconduct complaints. The special monitor, Grace Lopes, who has a three-person staff, began her duties on December 1, 1995. While the special monitor has improved the complaints process, she is responsible for monitoring several other court orders in D.C. prisons and is extremely busy.⁽³⁰⁶⁾ In addition, Lopes has not taken many affirmative steps to contact women prisoners. Smith of NWLC asked Lopes to explain her job and responsibilities at a session of NWLC's training for women prisoners in D.C. She declined.⁽³⁰⁷⁾

The order also requires the DCDC to institute training for corrections employees specifically addressing issues arising in a women's institution as well as training on sexual harassment for female prisoners. Corrections employees have already begun to receive training provided by the DCDC, although without any contributions from local nongovernmental organizations working on the issue.

The judge further directed the DCDC to write and institute a policy prohibiting sexual harassment of female prisoners by corrections employees. This policy, which went into effect on May 15, 1995, prohibits sexual misconduct against prisoners by any employee or agent of the DCDC.⁽³⁰⁸⁾ Sexual misconduct is defined broadly in the policy to include: any act of sexual abuse, sexual assault, physical contact of a sexual nature, sexual harassment,⁽³⁰⁹⁾ and invasion of privacy (including observing prisoners' personal affairs without a sound penological reason), and any "conversations or correspondence which demonstrates or suggests a romantic or intimate relationship between an inmate and employee."⁽³¹⁰⁾ Penalties range from reprimands for some first offenses to termination for a first offense of sexual assault or sexual abuse. But, even though the new D.C. sexual abuse law criminalizes any sexual contact between prisoners and prison officials regardless of evidence of coercion, the DCDC policy requires that only allegations of unwelcome sexual intercourse or sexual touching be reported to the police.⁽³¹¹⁾

The policy also contains many additional safeguards for female prisoners. The policy strictly prohibits overt or covert retaliation against prisoners, sets a time frame for investigations⁽³¹²⁾ and imposes a positive obligation on DCDC and its employees to report in writing sexual misconduct, either witnessed or suspected. Failure to report shall subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to termination.⁽³¹³⁾ Another innovation is a confidential twenty-four-hour telephone hotline for female prisoners to report sexual misconduct, which became operational in 1996. Under the new policy, information and documentation of sexual misconduct complaints must be kept confidential and only released to relevant parties on a "need to know basis." Moreover, any prisoner who reports sexual misconduct "may request and be treated as a anonymous informant."⁽³¹⁴⁾

The DCDC appealed the court's appointment of a special monitor to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, and certain programming requirements,⁽³¹⁵⁾ but not the court's finding of an eighth amendment violation. The DCDC's appeal was argued in front of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1995. However, after the April 1996 passage of Prison Litigation Reform Act, federal legislation which limits the available remedies for custodial abuse,⁽³¹⁶⁾ the DCDC filed a brief requesting that certain provisions of the district court's decision, including the appointment of a special monitor to investigate sexual misconduct, be removed.⁽³¹⁷⁾ On August 30, 1996, a three-judge panel of the Circuit Court released its decision overturning most provisions of the district court's decision, including the appointment of a special monitor to investigate sexual misconduct. The eighth amendment finding, however, was not affected. The women prisoners have filed an appeal to have the case heard by the entire D.C. Circuit.⁽³¹⁸⁾

Female employees at DCDC also sued the department for sexually degrading conduct by staff at all levels in women's prisons, including high-ranking officials.⁽³¹⁹⁾ In January 1994 eight current and former female employees filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the DCDC alleging a pattern of sexual harassment against female staff.⁽³²⁰⁾ The trial, which concluded August 9, 1995, was bifurcated into a liability phase and a separate damages phase. Under the liability phase, the jury found that there was a pattern of sexual harassment of female corrections officers and retaliation against those officers who tried to protect women from sexual harassment.⁽³²¹⁾ It also found that the DCDC constituted a hostile work environment whereby supervisors and employees engaged in offensive conduct of a sexual nature.⁽³²²⁾ The jury then awarded the original six plaintiffs more than $1.4 million in damages.⁽³²³⁾ The DCDC appealed the jury verdicts and court findings. Oral arguments for the appeal were held on May 14, 1996. On May 20, 1996, the circuit court remanded the case to the district court for additional findings of fact on the district court's finding that defendants had not complied with discovery rules and court orders. The district court complied with this request on June 19, 1996,⁽³²⁴⁾ and on August 23, 1996, the Circuit Court overturned the District Court's decision to prohibit the DCDC's witnesses from testifying.⁽³²⁵⁾ The case will be tried again with the additional testimony from the defense.

In addition to the two class action suits, at least one civil suit has been pursued in the District of Columbia by a female prisoner raped and impregnated by a guard. The prisoner filed suit in 1993 against the DCDC and Lt. Joseph Willis who worked at the Correctional Detention Facility.⁽³²⁶⁾ The plaintiff's suit alleged that the DCDC was liable for Willis's actions because it had failed to take sufficient action to discourage or prevent guards from having sex with prisoners. The DCDC withdrew its legal support of Willis in July 1994 after firing him for reasons unrelated to the suit. The DCDC then asserted that once Willis became involved with the plaintiff he violated DCDC policy and therefore, the DCDC had no responsibility for his actions. Willis, on the other hand, argued that he had a consensual relationship with the plaintiff and as a result, she suffered no injury. Willis submitted alleged love letters from the plaintiff to support that defense. In response, the plaintiff alleged that there was no possibility of consent in prison. In October 1995, the jury rejected the defenses of the DCDC and Willis and found the DCDC liable for $5,000 in damages, which as of February 1996 they still had not paid. The jury also found Willis liable for $25,000 in damages.

ABUSES⁽³²⁷⁾

Rape, Sexual Assault or Abuse, and Criminal Sexual Contact

During the Women Prisoners case, the district court heard from many women incarcerated in Washington, D.C. who were sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by prison staff, including corrections officers as well as civilian staff.⁽³²⁸⁾ The judge cited the testimony of Jane Doe RR, Jane Doe Q, and Jane Doe W, all of whom were raped or sexually assaulted by male corrections staff. Jane Doe RR was forced to perform oral sex on a corrections officer at CTF, Jane Doe Q was raped by a corrections officer while housed in the prison infirmary at the Jail, and Jane Doe W was sexually assaulted by a sergeant while incarcerated at CTF. In addition, a CTF officer tried on several occasions to fondle Jane Doe K's breasts, vagina, and buttocks; male officers and employees fondled women's breasts, legs, arms, and buttocks; and a teacher at the print shop often tried to kiss Jane Doe OOO.⁽³²⁹⁾

More recently, complaints were filed against L.C. Jones, acting deputy warden for operations at the CTF, alleging that he anally raped a female prisoner in November 1995.⁽³³⁰⁾ Reportedly, the prisoner went to Jones's office to get his signature on an official order. Jones, according to the prisoner, refused to sign the order until the woman had sex with him. The prisoner asserted that although she agreed to have sex with Jones, he forced her to have anal sex. The authorities became aware of the rape when the woman was treated at D.C. General Hospital for a ruptured rectum.⁽³³¹⁾ Jones, who was the first individual to be charged under D.C.'s new "anti-sexual abuse" law, was placed on administrative leave with pay during the criminal proceedings. The case was presented to a grand jury for an indictment, and the grand jury declined to press charges.⁽³³²⁾ In addition, the special monitor, in a separate, concurrent investigation, cleared Jones of all charges.⁽³³³⁾ To our knowledge, no other cases have been pursued under the "anti-sexual abuse" statute as of this writing.⁽³³⁴⁾

Attorneys in the Women Prisoners case also argued that women incarcerated in D.C. prisons were coerced into sexual activity with prison staff through the use of threats, including the use of disciplinary reports.⁽³³⁵⁾ According to the court papers and testimony at trial, corrections employees also compelled women into sexual relationships in exchange for favorable treatment and goods, including cigarettes, candy, food, and money.⁽³³⁶⁾ In some cases, women became pregnant as a result of these liaisons.⁽³³⁷⁾ The district court found that these allegations were proved during the trial.

Abusive and Degrading Language

Several plaintiffs testified that women prisoners in the District of Columbia are constantly subjected to degrading, sexualized language. One Jane Doe testified that when she informed an officer that she was going to take a shower, he responded, "Well, you go ahead and do that, and I'll be in there to stick my rod up in you."⁽³³⁸⁾ The court also found that male corrections staff and male prisoners frequently made derogatory comments about the women's breasts and buttocks.⁽³³⁹⁾ Testimony at trial revealed that some staff at the Annex were aware of and witnessed the male prisoners' conduct but failed to take any disciplinary action. Since the court decision, as discussed later in this chapter, the degrading treatment continues at D.C. correctional facilities.

Further, one former employee testified at the corrections employees trial that in the early 1980s female prisoners at the D.C. jail were lined up by several high-ranking male officials who:

looked them over and picked the women they wanted to work in their offices. Lower ranking officers picked from the inmates who were left over . . . and those women were assigned to do special duties for them.⁽³⁴⁰⁾

The former employee also testified that several of these prisoners told her that the male employees used the work assignments as an opportunity to have sex with the prisoners.⁽³⁴¹⁾

These abuses took place in a context that is largely devoid of privacy protections for women from viewing by male guards and prisoners.⁽³⁴²⁾ According to Judge Green's opinion, male officers did not announce themselves in the housing areas, and the structural design of CTF permitted male prisoners to view the women's cells from a number of locations inside the facility.⁽³⁴³⁾

THE SYSTEM'S RESPONSE

Prior to the filing of the class action suit in 1993, the DCDC had been very slow to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct and degrading treatment within its facilities. Judge Green found that while the DCDC had several policies ostensibly intended to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct and criminal behavior, including a grievance procedure, these were "of little value since the [DCDC] address[ed] the problem of sexual harassment of women prisoners with no specific staff training, inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations and timid sanctions."⁽³⁴⁴⁾

The district court found that there was no clear procedure for reporting and investigating complaints of sexual misconduct. Investigations were handled inconsistently among the three facilities, and staff did not routinely report abuses that came to their attention. In some cases, the DCDC failed entirely to investigate, while in other instances investigations lingered and remained unresolved. Judge Green also found that the investigative process was biased in favor of corrections staff; where an allegation amounted to the word of a prisoner against the word of an employee, the DCDC sided with the employee and summarily dismissed the prisoner's claim.⁽³⁴⁵⁾

The DCDC also generally failed to discipline employees for sexual misconduct. Some officers were reassigned to other facilities while others remained at the same institution and were even assigned to work in the unit where the complainants were housed. In one case cited by the district court, several prisoners complained to the prison administration about sexually explicit harassment from a teacher, but "there [was] no evidence that the administration took corrective action."⁽³⁴⁶⁾ In another instance, Deputy Warden L.C. Jones, discussed elsewhere in this chapter, reportedly discouraged a prisoner from pressing a complaint or discussing it with attorneys on the suit.⁽³⁴⁷⁾ In exchange, he promised to assist her in getting released from prison. Jones himself was cited for sexual misconduct in both the Women Prisoners litigation⁽³⁴⁸⁾ and the women corrections officers' suit, yet, to our knowledge, he has never been disciplined by the DCDC. Attorney Brenda Smith reiterated this point. She found very few instances of disciplinary action against abusive officers, and even when such actions were taken, the penalties were disproportionately mild, limited often to a brief suspension.⁽³⁴⁹⁾ The corrections department seldom referred cases of sexual assault or rape to the D.C. police; when the police did investigate, the DCDC automatically ceased its own internal inquiry.

There was no effective mechanism in the DCDC for protecting the complainants' confidentiality. The judge found that reported incidents "quickly became a matter of public knowledge among prisoners and staff," who then retaliated against and harassed the complainants.⁽³⁵⁰⁾ Judge Green concluded that "those who report the [sexual] harassment often experience increased stress and may end up becoming isolated from other women in the institution."⁽³⁵¹⁾ She was persuaded by testimony at the trial that the department's failure to respond to abuses, combined with the women's history of sexual abuse, compounded the women's ordeal. Attorney Smith agreed with the judge's conclusion. In investigating the abuses, she found a serious problem of underreporting of sexual misconduct because many women had a well-founded fear of filing complaints.⁽³⁵²⁾

Retaliation by staff within the DCDC assumed many forms: complainants were placed in administrative segregation; targeted for disciplinary reports, which affected their parole; removed from programs which they needed; and denied work assignments.⁽³⁵³⁾ Women who spoke out also received a "snitch jacket" or reputation within the prison community that they were untrustworthy. This label then exposed them to abuse from other prisoners.

The Effect of Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia

In response to the order issued in the Women Prisoners suit and the accompanying policy, the DCDC response to sexual misconduct has improved. For example, in August 1995, the DCDC suspended seven corrections officers for attending a party at the city jail where two female prisoners did a striptease.⁽³⁵⁴⁾ In addition, Smith reports that since the new policy went into effect, more officers have been reporting sexual misconduct by their fellow guards.⁽³⁵⁵⁾ She attributes this improvement to the policy's reporting requirement and to the increased awareness of the problem of sexual misconduct raised by the suit. Nonetheless, according to Smith, a "significant core" of the corrections officers continues to not take sexual misconduct seriously, and she continues to receive allegations of sexual misconduct by DCDC staff.⁽³⁵⁶⁾

Moreover, it is particularly problematic that, in regard to the anal rape allegation against L.C. Jones that was rejected by the grand jury and special monitor, the special monitor reportedly planned to explore the possibility of filing perjury charges against the prisoner.⁽³⁵⁷⁾ Brenda Smith told us that she credits her client's testimony and is concerned more generally that prosecution for perjury in this instance will discourage women prisoners from coming forward in the future.⁽³⁵⁸⁾ Human Rights Watch shares this concern. While we oppose false allegations, we believe prosecution should be used only in extreme cases where such accusations are manifestly malicious or in bad faith. This caution takes into account the chilling effect such punishments have on prisoners reporting sexual misconduct.

In addition, neither Smith nor her client was officially informed of the grand jury's decision or the conclusions of the special monitor. Indeed, Smith learned of the grand jury's decision and the special monitor's report from a Washington Post reporter.⁽³⁵⁹⁾ She then notified her client. As of March 21, 1996, neither Smith nor her client had received written notice of the special monitor's decision or a copy of the special monitor's report. Smith later received a copy of the decision after specifically requesting it. Without a copy of the report being provided automatically, the right to appeal guaranteed by the new DCDC policy had been rendered virtually meaningless because neither Smith nor her client were aware of the rationale for the decision. The client has appealed the decisions.⁽³⁶⁰⁾

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. The U.S. attorney should strictly enforce the anti-sexual abuse law of the District of Columbia prohibiting sexual intercourse and contact with a person in custody. The consent of the victim, which is not a legal defense to a prosecution under this section, should not be a de facto bar to prosecution.

II. The DCDC should revise its sexual misconduct policy to require that all complaints of sexual contact between a prisoner and a corrections official be forwarded to the police, pursuant to the D.C. anti-sexual abuse law, rather than the current requirement of forwarding only allegations of "unwelcome" sexual intercourse or touching.

III. The DCDC should notify prisoners and their legal representatives of the results of investigations into their complaints and forward their findings to them promptly in order to permit prisoners to file well-grounded appeals in accordance with the DCDC policy.

IV. Prisoners who file sexual misconduct complaints that either the criminal authorities or the DCDC decide not to pursue, should not automatically be subject to a perjury investigation, without any additional evidence that the prisoner filed a false statement maliciously or in bad faith.

V. The D.C. City Council should create a fully empowered and independent review board to investigate, among other things, complaints of sexual misconduct that are not satisfactorily resolved by the grievance or investigative mechanisms.

A. The review board should have the authority to turn over evidence of wrongdoing for criminal investigation and prosecution. The board should also be able to recommend remedial action--including temporary reassignment or suspension of the accused--to end abuses or other problems uncovered during an investigation.

B. The review board should develop a system whereby the records of corrections employees who have been the subject of repeated complaints are reviewed by the appropriate authorities.

C. The review board should provide a toll-free telephone number that prisoners can use to contact investigators or to file anonymous complaints of employee misconduct, including retaliation against complainants.

V. GEORGIA

In Georgia prison officials entrusted with custodial power over the women's prison population have engaged in serious sexual misconduct. Indeed, prior to 1992, officers raped, sexually assaulted and sexually harassed female prisoners with little regard for legal or institutional constraints. Although Georgia criminal law formally prohibited sexual contact between prison officials and prisoners, the law was not enforced. Similarly, the departmental policies arguably barring such abuses were belied by the impunity with which prison staff, including supervisory staff, engaged in sexual relations with prisoners.

Unlike most other states, however, Georgia has been forced to take meaningful steps to put a stop to these abuses. In 1992, because of an amended class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Georgia women prisoners, the problem of custodial sexual misconduct received significant public attention, spurring departmental efforts toward reform. More concretely, the lawsuit resulted in a number of federal court orders requiring the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to rectify many of its past practices. Although at times the GDC responded less than enthusiastically to this persistent judicial prodding, the overall atmosphere in its women's prisons has greatly improved. Nonetheless, even now sexual contact between officers and prisoners occurs and, in some instances, amounts to rape or sexual assault.

Our investigation of custodial sexual misconduct in Georgia was conducted during the pendency of the aforementioned lawsuit, Cason v. Seckinger.⁽³⁶¹⁾ The case was originally filed in 1984 as a challenge to prison conditions in Georgia and was amended in March 1992 to include allegations that women incarcerated at the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (GWCI) were being subjected to custodial sexual abuse. In conducting our investigation, we interviewed nine current and former prisoners, all of whom served time at GWCI;⁽³⁶²⁾ attorneys and a clinical social worker active on the suit and on the civil damages suits spawned by the abuses at GWCI; the former Baldwin County prosecutor, responsible for trying prison staff indicted for criminal sexual contact with prisoners; the former GDC assistant deputy commissioner for women's services; and other individuals with firsthand knowledge of the conditions at GWCI, including a former GDC employee.⁽³⁶³⁾ We also reviewed the records of disciplinary hearings of correctional officers that corroborate or augment the testimony of the prisoners we interviewed. While we primarily investigated abuses that occurred prior to March 1992, our investigation also examined incidents of sexual misconduct occurring since March 1992 and the GDC's response to these abuses.

Human Rights Watch urges the Georgia authorities responsible for the corrections and criminal justice systems to intensify their efforts toward preventing and prosecuting custodial sexual misconduct. In particular, we believe that Georgia prosecutors should strictly enforce the state's criminal prohibition on sexual contact with a person in custody and that the GDC, for its part, should refer to prosecution all cases that fall within the statutory definition. The GDC should also use extreme caution in assessing disciplinary reports against prisoners whose complaints of sexual misconduct are found to be unsubstantiated; collaborate with lawyers litigating Cason, and with organizations that assist victims of rape, to develop further the training programs for staff and women prisoners regarding sexual misconduct; and publish regular reports of the results of its sexual misconduct investigations and of disciplinary actions taken as a result of such investigations. Finally, we recommend that the Georgia Legislature create a fully empowered and independent review board to monitor the GDC's compliance with the requirements of Cason and to ensure that complaints of sexual misconduct are adequately investigated and remedied.

CONTEXT

Custodial Environment

Mirroring a national pattern, Georgia's female prison population has increased dramatically over the last fifteen years.⁽³⁶⁴⁾ As of March 1996, women constituted 6 percent--over 2,000 prisoners--of an overall prison population of 35,000.⁽³⁶⁵⁾ One-third of these women have been convicted of violent crimes, 22 percent of drug offenses. Their average age is thirty-three. Two-thirds of female prisoners are non-white (Georgia's prison statistics do not indicate the racial makeup of the prison population beyond white and non-white). The vast majority have at least one child.

Until 1989 Georgia operated only one prison for women--the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (GWCI)--in conjunction with a nearby camp facility, Colony Farm. In 1989 the state opened a second women's facility, the Milan Correctional Institution, to ease overcrowding at GWCI (Milan CI has since reverted back to being a male facility). Then, largely in response to the litigation mentioned above, the GDC converted the Washington Correctional Institution (Washington CI) to a women's facility in 1992; also at plaintiffs' request, it began to convert Metro Correctional Institution (Metro CI) to a women's facility in 1993; then in 1994 it opened the Pulaski Correctional Institution as an additional women's facility, as was previously planned. The GWCI was converted to a men's facility in 1993 and renamed the Baldwin Correctional Institution. In mid-1996, as a symbolic element in a "get tough on prisoners" campaign, Georgia changed the names of all of its penal facilities, replacing the designation "correctional institution" with "state prison," so that Pulaski Correctional Institution, for example, is now Pulaski State Prison.⁽³⁶⁶⁾

Georgia, like other states, permits male officers to work in its women's prisons.⁽³⁶⁷⁾ At GWCI, the prison whose abuses were cited in the amended lawsuit, male guards far outnumbered female guards at the time the suit was revised to cover custodial sexual abuse. In April 1992, immediately after the amended complaint was filed, the GDC promulgated a rule restricting certain staff positions to staff of the same sex as the prisoners supervised. The positions for which cross-gender guarding was deemed inappropriate were those "involving frequent or prolonged physical contact with, and/or visual observation of unclothed inmates, and/or where potential invasion of the inmate's privacy is unavoidable in the course of normal facility operations."⁽³⁶⁸⁾ In March 1996, the GDC further narrowed the positions for which cross-gender guarding is permissible: it agreed to a consent order in the Cason suit by which only female staff will be assigned to women's housing units.⁽³⁶⁹⁾

Despite these restrictions on assignment, male guards still outnumber female guards in two of three Georgia women's facilities; only Pulaski has more women than men officers. In March 1996, however, GDC Commissioner Wayne Garner began transferring male guards out of Washington CI and replacing them with female guards. He planned to continue transferring staff--and to effect similar transfers at Georgia's other two women's prisons--until there were no male staff in contact positions with women inmates.⁽³⁷⁰⁾ The new policy was immediately challenged by the Georgia State Employees Union on anti-discrimination grounds, however.⁽³⁷¹⁾ In late August 1996, after the Georgia Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated an investigation of the transfers, the GDC reversed itself and returned the transferred women guards back to work in their original facilities.⁽³⁷²⁾

The potential for abuse inherent in the custodial context--heightened by reliance on cross-gender guarding--is reinforced by the case histories of many women prisoners. A high proportion of incarcerated women--and, according to Cason class counsel, an overwhelming proportion of the women singled out for sexual abuse--enter the correctional system with a prior history of sexual victimization. As Darien Bogenholm, a clinical social worker who worked on the Cason litigation, described it: "[You] do not have to go far until you hear this train wreck history of sexual abuse."⁽³⁷³⁾

Accustomed to sexual exploitation, many women prisoners have little awareness of their rights. Indeed, Lisa Burnette, an attorney with Zimring, Ellin & Miller litigating the class action, explained: "These women do not have a clear idea what is rape . . . [They do not] realize what rape [is], let alone sexual harassment."⁽³⁷⁴⁾ In her view, if abusive custodial relationships are to be stopped, the women must be given education and counseling. Not only must they be told of their right to object to sexual misconduct, many of them would benefit greatly from psychological care regarding their prior sexual abuse.⁽³⁷⁵⁾

Corrections staff often targeted the most vulnerable women: those who were younger, emotionally weaker or with lower self-esteem. Attorney Bob Cullen told us that the initial psychological profile of a women will indicate whether she is likely to be a victim or report abuse. This profile is contained in a woman's file and is accessible to prison staff. He found a high correlation between those women who were victimized by corrections staff and those who had a victim profile. In fact, he said, "I haven't seen a file of a woman deemed unlikely to be victimized who was."⁽³⁷⁶⁾

Preying on women inmates' vulnerabilities, male officers enticed them into sexual involvement by making them feel special. A number of incarcerated women emphasized this point in their administrative hearing testimonies and in their interviews with us. Jane Doe 85 told us that in order to persuade her into sexual relations, Lt. James Philyaw made her feel like he cared: "Sometimes he would call me to his office to see how I was and he would tell me things, like how pretty I was and that he was there for me." Other prisoners spoke of receiving cards and flowers from staff, personal items, favors--special attention that helped allay their fear of being alone and unprotected in the correctional setting.

State Legal and Regulatory Framework

As a matter of state criminal law, sexual contact with a person in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections has been punishable as a felony since 1983. Under Section 16-6-5.1 of Georgia's criminal code, which carries a penalty of one to three years' imprisonment, a person commits sexual assault when:

he engages in sexual contact with another person who is in the custody of the law . . . or who is detained in [an] institution and such actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person.⁽³⁷⁷⁾

Sexual contact is defined as "any contact for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor with the intimate parts of a person not married to the actor."⁽³⁷⁸⁾ The consent of the incarcerated person is irrelevant.

Until January 1995, when new standard operating procedures went into effect pursuant to a consent order in the Cason litigation, the statutory ban on sexual contact with a prisoner was not incorporated explicitly into GDC departmental policy. Rather, when seeking to discipline officers and employees for misconduct, the GDC, like many other state correctional agencies, relied on broad provisions regarding personal dealings. One such provision is a short, vague statement on the back of signed employee identification cards which provides: "There shall be no personal or business dealings with prisoners, probationers or parolees."⁽³⁷⁹⁾ Another is included in the GDC standards of conduct, which states: "It shall be prohibited for any employee to knowingly have personal involvement with . . . known prisoners or active probationers." A third provision, Administrative Regulation 125-2-1.07(d), provides: "Employees shall not . . . maintain personal associations with, engage in personal business or trade with, or engage in non-job-related correspondence with, or correspond in behalf of or for, known prisoners, active probationers, or parolees."⁽³⁸⁰⁾

At present, GDC standard operating procedures specifically distinguish sexual misconduct from personal dealings, defining what actions constitute sexual contact, sexual abuse and sexual harassment.⁽³⁸¹⁾

National and International Law Protections

The eighth amendment to the Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, has been interpreted by U.S. courts to protect prisoners against rape and sexual assault. This constitutional shield is further augmented by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of the right to privacy and personal integrity, which, in a series of lower court cases, has been interpreted to prohibit male guards from strip-searching female prisoners or conducting intrusive pat-frisks. In one recent case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Georgia, ruled that prisoners retain a constitutional right to bodily privacy protecting them from being viewed while naked by corrections officers of the opposite sex.⁽³⁸²⁾ The case was filed by men incarcerated at the Georgia State Prison to challenge the assignment of female officers to their housing units, where the officers could view the prisoners using the showers and toilets and while they were undressed. The circuit court expressly referred to and followed an emerging trend in other circuits recognizing that prisoners retain a constitutional right to privacy.⁽³⁸³⁾ The decision did not, however, address what specific measures the GDC must implement to protect this right.

Constitutional protections on prisoners' rights are enforceable via lawsuits filed by or on behalf of prisoners, or by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Historically, U.S. prisoners have achieved most of their landmark victories through private litigation, particularly through suits litigated by prisoners' rights groups such as the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Yet if certain stringent intent requirements are met, the DOJ may criminally prosecute abusive prison officials under general federal civil rights provisions.⁽³⁸⁴⁾ In addition, the DOJ has the statutory right to investigate and institute civil actions under the Civil Rights of Institutional Persons Act (CRIPA) whenever it finds that a state facility engages in a pattern or practice of subjecting prisoners to "egregious or flagrant conditions" in violation of the Constitution.⁽³⁸⁵⁾

In addition to constitutional protections, prisoners' rights are also protected under international human rights treaties that are legally binding on the United States. The primary international legal instruments protecting the rights of U.S. prisoners are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by the United States in 1993, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified in 1994. Both treaties bar torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which authoritative international fora have interpreted as including sexual abuse. To constitute torture, an act must cause severe physical or mental suffering and must be committed for a purpose such as obtaining information from the victim, punishing her, or intimidating or coercing her. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes acts causing a lesser degree of suffering that need not be committed for a particular purpose.

When prison staff members use force, the threat of force, or other means of coercion to compel a prisoner to engage in sexual intercourse, their acts constitute rape and, therefore, torture. Torture also occurs when prison staff use force or coercion to engage in sexual touching of prisoners where such acts cause serious physical or mental suffering. Instances of sexual touching or of sexual intercourse that does not amount to rape may constitute torture or cruel or inhuman treatment, depending on the level of physical or mental suffering involved. Other forms of sexual misconduct, such as inappropriate pat or strip searches or verbal harassment, that do not rise to the level of torture or of cruel or inhuman treatment, may be condemned as degrading treatment.

Legal Action to Expose and Prevent Abuses

The amended complaint filed in 1992 in Cason v. Seckinger, a federal class action lawsuit against the GDC, marked a turning point in Georgia's handling of custodial sexual misconduct.⁽³⁸⁶⁾ The complaint alleged rape, sexual assault and coerced sexual activity, involuntary abortions, and retaliation or threats of retaliation against women who refused to participate in sexual activities within the prison. Supporting the complaint were the affidavits of ten women, identified only as Jane Does, who either were forced to engage in sexual relations with prison staff or who had direct knowledge of ongoing sexual misconduct within the prison.⁽³⁸⁷⁾

The prisoners' allegations were reported almost immediately in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and other local press. Under intense public scrutiny, the GDC, in negotiation with the plaintiffs' attorneys, launched an investigation of the charges and entered a period of internal review. This internal review, discussed in more detail below, included an investigation into past misconduct, disciplinary action against certain staff, and a number of reforms. In March 1993 the story was aired nationally by "Day One," an ABC television news show that had conducted its own four-month investigation of the problem. Subsequently, the Department of Corrections commissioner, Bobby Whitworth, stepped down and joined the Georgia Parole Board. The deputy commissioner, Lanson Newsome, opted for early retirement.⁽³⁸⁸⁾

The lawsuit, which was still pending at the time this report went to print, has never resulted in a full trial, although numerous hearings have been held. Under the supervision of the magistrate judge hearing the case, attorneys representing the women and those representing the GDC have attempted to work together to investigate and address the concerns raised by the suit. The magistrate has also issued a number of orders requiring the GDC to institute reforms. Most notably, in March 1994, he issued an order permanently enjoining sexual contact, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment of all women incarcerated, now and in the future, by any staff, employee, agent or contractor of the GDC.⁽³⁸⁹⁾ He found that such an injunction was necessary in light of the past and continuing problems with sexual abuse, and despite efforts being made by the GDC to prevent future misconduct, to guarantee the women's constitutional rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

ABUSES⁽³⁹⁰⁾

Custodial sexual misconduct in Georgia has involved a range of offenses. Corrections officials have raped, sexually assaulted and engaged in criminal sexual contact with prisoners. They have also degraded female prisoners verbally, using highly sexualized language, and violated their right to privacy. While Georgia's criminal law bans sexual contact in custody, prisoners and advocates for prisoners rights have had to wage a long battle to ensure its enforcement. And, our investigation found, past practices linger.

Before Cason

Abuses prior to March 1992 included forced sexual intercourse and other misconduct likely to result in severe physical and psychological harm to the prisoner. Moreover, the perpetrators engaged in such abuses with impunity.

Unless indicated by the use of a full name, the names of the prisoners have been changed to protect their anonymity. In some cases, the location and exact date of prisoner interviews have also been withheld.

Rape, Sexual Assault or Abuse, and Criminal Sexual Contact

Until March 1992 an environment existed within Georgia women's prisons such that sexual relations between staff and prisoners were an accepted occurrence. Within GWCI and Colony Farm, members of the prison staff fondled and groped female prisoners, sexually propositioned them, and coerced them into sexual relationships either upon threat of retaliation or in exchange for contraband, favorable treatment and attention. They manipulated women's work schedules and freely called women from their units or work details for sex. As Bob Cullen, Cason class counsel, put it, "You get the impression from the staff at GWCI that it was a sexual smorgasbord and they could pick and choose whom they wanted."⁽³⁹¹⁾ Other corrections employees at the prison turned a blind eye to the ongoing sexual misconduct.

Disciplinary hearings conducted by the GDC reveal that it was often those in supervisory positions at GWCI who exploited their positions to coerce prisoners into sexual relations over a period of years. In particular, the hearings showed that three men--Lt. James Philyaw, Deputy Warden Cornelius Stanley, and Ray Griffin, then senior ranking officer at Colony Farm--used their positions of authority to abuse sexually a number of female prisoners under their supervision. Many of the descriptions of abuses below are based on the decisions of administrative law judges in state disciplinary hearings and the testimony of incarcerated women at those hearings. The Department of Corrections called the prisoners to testify as witnesses against the employees to substantiate charges of sexual misconduct.

The most notable among those charged was Lt. James Philyaw, who worked as the night shift supervisor for security at GWCI. According to testimonies at his disciplinary hearing, Philyaw had sex with at least seven prisoners over a five-year period, from 1987 to 1991, while employed at GWCI and Colony Farm. Philyaw appeared to follow a pattern. He would approach certain prisoners, compliment them by telling them how pretty they were and offer them his assistance. He would tell them to come to him if they needed anything, including assistance with a disciplinary report, and he offered to bring them things such as cigarettes and alcohol. He then pushed them into having sexual relations with him, threatening them if they did not comply.

Philyaw directed women to meet him in various locations around the prison, particularly offices in the administration building which were empty in the evenings. Each time, he apparently assigned officers under his supervision to locations where they would not discover his activities. The administrative law judge in the hearing concluded that Philyaw had the power to call prisoners to certain locations and "knew precisely where all of his subordinates were at any given time and had the power to position them where he wanted and at times as he wished."⁽³⁹²⁾

Jane Doe 14 was reassigned in the summer of 1990 by Philyaw to buff the floors in the administration building (A-building) at night. This switch reportedly occurred a few days after he called her into his office and complimented her on her appearance. According to Jane Doe 14, on her first night on duty, Philyaw told her to follow him into the bathroom, where he kissed her and told her he was attracted to her and wanted to have sex. She told him she was menstruating and nothing else occurred that evening. Philyaw continued to pressure Jane Doe 14 for sex on subsequent evenings. A few evenings later, Philyaw called Jane Doe 14 into the men's bathroom, where he had spread a sheet on the floor, and raped her. Over the next three months, Jane Doe 14 had sex--anal, oral and vaginal--with Philyaw on repeated occasions. Jane Doe 14 stated at the disciplinary hearing that Philyaw's status within the institution not only prompted her to submit to his advances, it prevented her from coming forward. When asked why she allowed Philyaw to have sex with her, she replied, "because he was a lieutenant and he was over that shift, he was like the warden of that shift, and he could do anything he wanted to me, and no one was going to believe me just like he said." The situation ended when Lieutenant Philyaw was transferred to Colony Farm.⁽³⁹³⁾

Philyaw also manipulated at least one prisoner's dependency on alcohol to entice her into sexual relations. Jane Doe 85 had a drinking problem prior to incarceration; she submitted to sexual relations with Philyaw because, she said, he gave her alcohol and made her believe he cared. He allegedly also suggested items such as marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes. She testified:

I drank, and I would smoke marijuana. . . . When I got locked up I didn't know how to deal with my problems without getting high, I was real vulnerable and depressed at that time. I had not been locked up very long, and I didn't go outside much, so when he came along it was comforting to know that someone in blue could help me, so I believed in him. I believed he could help me, and he gave me alcohol.⁽³⁹⁴⁾

In exchange for having sexual relations with him, Philyaw provided prisoners with certain items and granted them special privileges that often violated prison policy. The first time Jane Doe 85 had sex with Philyaw, he called her into the room, locked the door and gave her a bottle of Jack Daniels which they drank, and she submitted to sexual intercourse. Jane Doe 85 told us that she and Philyaw had sexual relations on four or five occasions over a two-month period, either in a counselor's office at Colony Farm or at her work assignment. He would come to her dorm and put cigarettes in her locker or under her mattress. Philyaw promised Jane Doe 14 "that if she received any DRs [disciplinary reports] to let him know so that he could take care of them; and . . . he would write a letter in her behalf to the parole board."⁽³⁹⁵⁾ When a friend received a DR, Jane Doe 14 raised the issue with Philyaw and performed oral sex on him; the friend was never called on the DR. Jane Doe 15, according to the disciplinary hearing, had sexual intercourse with Philyaw seven to eleven times over a three-month period. In return, he did favors for her, such as moving prisoners at her request and permitting her to see her prison file, contrary to prison policy.⁽³⁹⁶⁾

In another incident, Jane Doe 88 witnessed Philyaw having sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 111 in a secretary's office; he later approached her and "told [her] not to repeat what [she] had seen and he asked [her] was there anything he could do for [her]."⁽³⁹⁷⁾ Philyaw subsequently put money in her prison account. Jane Doe 88 testified that she wrote to Internal Affairs about the incident but received no response.⁽³⁹⁸⁾

Philyaw often targeted prisoners who were loners or emotionally vulnerable. According to testimony at his disciplinary hearing, Philyaw called Jane Doe 13 from the prison yard to the control area and told her "he had noticed that she did not hang around with a lot of other people and therefore felt he could trust her. . . . He told her he was attracted to her and would like to have sex with her."⁽³⁹⁹⁾ Philyaw proceeded to kiss and undress the prisoner, then to have sexual intercourse with her. Following this, Philyaw gave Jane Doe 13 special privileges and interceded on her behalf when she was disciplined by another officer.⁽⁴⁰⁰⁾

Philyaw pursued a similar pattern with Jane Doe 64. He counseled Jane Doe 64 one evening when she was upset about a broken relationship with a male prisoner, then continued to pay her special attention. According to Jane Doe 64's testimony at his disciplinary hearing:

I liked the feeling that I had of being special and important to someone, and he made me believe that I was special. . . . He made me feel like I was the only person that he was involved with, by telling me so many things . . . that made me think it was special.⁽⁴⁰¹⁾

She testified that she started spending extended periods of time in the prison library so she could see or talk to Philyaw. Then, on one occasion, Philyaw brought her to the administrative offices to "do some filing" and, she testified:

[I] went back to the office where he was, and he shut the door and we began to kiss and fondle, and at that time is the first time that I performed oral sex on him, but we did not finish because he told me to stop, and I suppose he told me to stop because he hadn't made arrangements for that particular meeting, and perhaps didn't know where all of his officers were, or if someone was due to come back, and so he made me stop.⁽⁴⁰²⁾

He arranged for them to meet and have either oral or vaginal intercourse on two additional occasions. The abuses ended when Philyaw canceled a prearranged meeting, and Jane Doe 64 learned that he had sex with another prisoner earlier that day.⁽⁴⁰³⁾

The disciplinary hearings we reviewed also showed that Deputy Warden Cornelius Stanley raped at least one inmate, Jane Doe 39, and attempted to intimidate another, Jane Doe 15, to prevent her from repeating her allegations of sexual misconduct against Philyaw. According to his disciplinary hearing, Stanley called Jane Doe 39 into his office to discuss problems she was having, then groped her breasts and genitals, and told her, "I want to fuck you." He then pulled down Jane Doe 39's pants and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Stanley reportedly told her "there was nothing she could do and that she would not be believed if she told any one about his actions."⁽⁴⁰⁴⁾ On two other occasions, while Jane Doe 39 was in lockdown in the Mental Health Unit (MHU) without clothing, Stanley came into her cell and groped her. On one of these occasions, he also raped her. According to Jane Doe 39, Stanley said, "You should give up. You're going to have sex with me whether you want it or not."⁽⁴⁰⁵⁾

A third employee in a supervisory position, Baby Ray Griffin, maintained a sexual relationship with Jane Doe 11 both while she was incarcerated and during her parole. Griffin was a correctional institutional manager at GWCI, assigned to Colony Farm as its highest ranking officer.⁽⁴⁰⁶⁾ According to the disciplinary decision, Griffin had sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 11 on a regular basis at Colony Farm, in places such as the storage closet, the officer's restroom, or an office. When Jane Doe 11 was transferred to the Macon Transitional Center, Griffin would pick her up either on her weekend leaves and take her to a hotel, or drive her to or from her work assignment, and they would engage in sexual intercourse in his car. Upon her release, Jane Doe 11 moved into Griffin's home near the prison until she was seen driving his car by another prison employee in September 1990.⁽⁴⁰⁷⁾

In another case at GWCI, a first-time prisoner, Felicia J., was sexually involved for several months with Officer A, the male supervisor on her work assignment.⁽⁴⁰⁸⁾ According to Felicia J., Officer A would talk to her and, she said, make her laugh and feel good. One day, she and Officer A had sexual intercourse. They continued to meet for nearly a year at various locations he designated--the dining hall, the gym, the warehouse, the clinic--knowing others would not be present. She told us the relationship over time became increasingly intense and Officer A began requesting her to perform "strange sex acts," like putting on handcuffs, biting her, and roughhousing. She reportedly tried to get out of the relationship and began to stay close to officers whom she knew would not tolerate Officer A's behavior. The relationship came to the attention of officials within the prison, and an investigation was initiated. Felicia J. told us that she repeatedly denied any sexual involvement with the officer because she feared that she would be disciplined if she told the truth. According to Felicia J., then Warden Black ultimately called her into his office and told her to avoid the officer. Documentation we obtained indicates that Black similarly counseled the officer to avoid Felicia J. Eventually, she and the officer were discovered by a nurse having sex in a closet, and the officer was transferred to a men's prison.

After her relationship with Officer A ended, Felicia J. became involved with Officer B who reportedly brought her certain things, such as gum and stamps, which she either could not afford or could not obtain within the prison. She told us that she has no family in Georgia and the relationship was "the way to make my life."⁽⁴⁰⁹⁾

Philyaw, Stanley, Griffin, and Officer A were not the only employees at GWCI sexually involved with female prisoners. A number of other employees were later indicted for such misconduct under Georgia criminal statutes covering sexual assault, sodomy and rape. Not all of the officers indicted were men. Four women, Jackie Lee, Sandra Floyd, Rachel Durden, and Pam Saulsbury, were charged with sexual contact against a person in custody for their alleged relationships with different Jane Does between 1987 and 1990.⁽⁴¹⁰⁾

Allegations of sexual misconduct also arose at the Milan Correctional Institution, which was opened in 1989. The record of one disciplinary hearing reveals that the store manager at Milan, Samuel Evans, between 1990 and 1991, offered prisoners store goods in exchange for fondling their breasts or asking them to undress, while other prisoners served as lookouts.⁽⁴¹¹⁾ GDC documents also indicate that in 1991 an athletics coach at Milan CI groped one prisoner's breasts and pulled down her pants, while he cornered and "engaged in a sex act in a standing position" with another prisoner. He repeatedly commented on a third prisoner's breasts and asked her to do a "table dance" for him.

Mistreatment of Prisoners Impregnated by Guards

In at least one instance prior to March 1992, a prisoner at GWCI became pregnant by a corrections officer.⁽⁴¹²⁾ According to Jane Doe 1, the supervisor on her work assignment had been repeatedly "coming on" to her. Then, one day, the supervisor allegedly cornered and raped her. Both before and after this incident, she reportedly spoke to her counselor on at least three occasions to request a change of assignment, but her request was denied by the warden. At one time, she said, she stopped reporting to work but returned after she was threatened by prison officials with segregation. When she missed a menstrual period after her rape, Jane Doe 1 told her supervisor she thought she was pregnant. She told us he responded, "I could always beat it out of you."⁽⁴¹³⁾

Days later, in May 1989, approximately seven weeks after the rape, Jane Doe 1 reportedly was called into the warden's office early in the morning. She alleges that the warden at the time, Gary Black, "told me if I did not get an abortion then I would not get parole." Jane Doe 1 stated that she never consented to the abortion but was forced to have one by then Warden Black. She told us, "I never consented to Black. I never signed anything indicating consent." The conversation was reportedly overheard by Black's secretary who, according to Jane Doe 1, came forward as a witness in Jane Doe 1's civil suit against the state.

Despite her unwillingness to undergo the abortion, she was taken out of the prison at 4:00 a.m. and driven to an Atlanta clinic where the procedure was performed. At the clinic, she was "dragged through a picketing group of anti-abortion activists." She described the whole experience as emotionally wrenching. She was very depressed following the abortion, but was not offered therapy for over five years. Another former employee, who escorted Jane Doe 1 to the hospital for the procedure, kept copies of the check written by the GDC and Jane Doe 1's medical record to support Jane Doe 1's allegations.

Privacy Violations and Mentally Ill Prisoners

Women prisoners with mental illnesses have been particularly vulnerable to privacy violations, in some instances so severe that they amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Women incarcerated in the Mental Health Unit at GWCI, perceived to be suicide risks, were forcibly stripped by male and female staff and placed in restraints, including straightjackets or four-point restraints. In some cases, women were stripped and left hog-tied in their cells.⁽⁴¹⁴⁾ The women were then left naked for up to three days where they could be viewed by members of the opposite sex. Videotapes of women being stripped sometimes revealed discrepancies between officers' reports of their treatment of prisoners and the visual record. In one incident, the officer's report neglected to reveal that a prisoner's hands and feet were shackled, a point made clear by the video.⁽⁴¹⁵⁾

The GDC policy in place required prison personnel to employ the least restrictive means possible to restrain disruptive or mentally ill prisoners but was silent on the stripping of prisoners, the use of videotapes, and the presence of correctional officers of the opposite sex.⁽⁴¹⁶⁾ According to press reports, the then deputy commissioner of the GDC, Lanson Newsome, told wardens in November 1991 never to hog-tie psychiatric patients. The practice, however, continued at the women's prison until April 1992, when a new warden and administration were installed.⁽⁴¹⁷⁾

Attorney Bob Cullen told us that it is virtually impossible to obtain an accurate assessment of the number of women who were victimized in this way, since many of the GDC's logbooks vanished. Based upon the remaining logbooks, Cullen found that at least sixty-four women incarcerated at GWCI were forcibly stripped and restrained over an eight-month period from 1991-1992.

After Cason

Our inquiry focused not only on past abuses but also on more current instances of sexual misconduct in Georgia women's prisons. We recognize that since the Cason lawsuit was amended in 1992, the GDC has taken important steps to improve its investigation of and response to allegations of custodial sexual misconduct. Nonetheless, on many issues, the necessary reforms were only instituted after persistent prodding from Cason class counsel, supported by the court, raising concerns regarding whether such improvements will prove to be deep-rooted and permanent.

Rape, Sexual Assault or Abuse, and Criminal Sexual Contact

The initial publicity and subsequent court orders stemming from the Cason lawsuit had a noticeable effect in reducing the level of abuse. Advocates monitoring the women's prisons noted a decline in the frequency and severity of sexual misconduct and what they describe as "perverse sexual behavior."⁽⁴¹⁸⁾ Most notably, incidents of forced sexual intercourse have declined precipitously. Instances of rape, sexual assault or abuse, and sexual harassment by corrections staff have nonetheless continued to occur, though the climate of impunity that existed prior to the suit has dissipated. Bob Cullen told us that he has learned of approximately 370 reported incidents of sexual misconduct since March 1992, a number of which have been detailed in press reports.⁽⁴¹⁹⁾

In one case a female prisoner, Dolores T., reported that she was sexually involved with a religious leader employed by the GDC who provided her with marriage counseling. After several prior counseling meetings, the religious leader arrived at the prison one evening in August 1992 and called her to the chapel. When she got ready to leave, he reportedly embraced her and made a move to kiss her, but she pulled away. She told us, "It was too long . . . I was uncomfortable and felt threatened."⁽⁴²⁰⁾

Approximately two weeks later, Dolores T. saw him again during a scheduled service that, she said, only she attended. He had allegedly told the other women that the service for the evening was canceled. That night, he reportedly grabbed her ankle and wanted to know why she pulled away on the other occasion; they kissed and he fondled her. She subsequently had three "sexual encounters" with the religious leader over the next two months. The relationship ended when she discovered he was involved with two other prisoners. Dolores T. told us that he was fired after his wife discovered collect phone calls that Dolores T. and other prisoners had made and letters they had written to him.

In May 1993 two kitchen workers at Washington CI were suspended for alleged sexual misconduct with incarcerated prisoners.⁽⁴²¹⁾ Describing sexual misconduct by staff there, social worker Darien Bogenholm said, "You go there to meet a mate and have a baby," and "It's an atmosphere of a middle school bus in the summer time."⁽⁴²²⁾ She told us:

There is sex all over--the kitchen, the utility room--it seems. The guards are known to be touchers and sexually inappropriate. There is a lot of discussion of the women's sex lives in the free world.⁽⁴²³⁾

Sexual misconduct persisted at other facilities as well. In June 1993 a teacher at GWCI/Baldwin was suspended and ultimately fired after he raped a prisoner.⁽⁴²⁴⁾ In September 1993 one corrections officer was fired from GWCI/Baldwin, and another was transferred to a men's facility for sexual misconduct with prisoners. The first officer, according to press reports, allegedly had "sexually explicit and suggestive" conversations with a prisoner, sent her cards and flowers, and gave her his home phone number. The second officer, accused of impregnating a prisoner at GWCI/Baldwin, was transferred pending DNA testing to determine paternity, and later fired.⁽⁴²⁵⁾

At Metro CI, another prisoner told a number of corrections employees of her sexual involvement with male staff but received no response for months. According to her affidavit, she was approached by a male corrections officer and a maintenance employee around Christmas 1993 and began to have sexual relations with them in March and April 1994.⁽⁴²⁶⁾ During this time, the woman discussed her sexual relations with an athletics coach at Metro CI and also told a number of corrections officers. At one point, she reportedly informed an officer that she believed she was pregnant, and he told her to "pray about it." She also allegedly requested a pregnancy test from the medical clinic, but no test was given, nor did anyone ask any questions. The situation was finally revealed in April 1994, when the woman told the warden and her attorney, yet she reportedly had sexual intercourse with one of the male staff days later.

Prisoners' difficulties in obtaining goods, even relatively minor items, enhance their vulnerability to sexual misconduct. Unlike other states we visited, Georgia does not provide prisoners with a stipend for their work. As a result, prisoners are financially dependent: they must rely on state allocations to obtain personal items, including clothing and personal hygiene supplies, or they must depend on their families or friends to purchase them. Until the last couple of years, the GDC provided a very limited supply of sanitary products, including toilet paper. Cullen told us that when he began the case, he "couldn't go through a day of interviewing without hearing complaints about this." These restrictions, said Cullen, "encouraged problems because the women will do whatever they have to, to get what they need."⁽⁴²⁷⁾ Similarly, a surprising proportion of the reported instances of sexual misconduct during 1995 stemmed from a new state prison policy banning cigarettes. Imposed in July 1995, it immediately created a tremendous black market in cigarettes and a trade in sex for cigarettes. As of February 1, 1996, however, the ban was lifted: all facilities now permit smoking in the outdoor areas.

Mistreatment of Prisoners Impregnated by Guards

There has been at least one case of a prison employee impregnating an inmate at Washington CI since the Cason suit was filed. In 1994 a prisoner at Washington CI was impregnated by a male teacher on staff.⁽⁴²⁸⁾ The teacher reportedly asked the woman to remain after class, then took her into the bathroom. S