Newsletter: Spring 2006: Support for Women in Prisons
By
Jennie Greene
The Alliance recently signed a friend-of-thecourt brief in support of women prisoners - victims of sexual assault and harassment while incarcerated - in New York State. Their case hinges on whether officials ignored abuse by prison employees and if the appeals process violates their human rights. We asked Jennie Greene from the Center for Constitutional Rights to provide us with some legal background.
On December 23, 2005, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief on behalf of a coalition of women's rights groups and international human rights organizations in support of a class of women prisoners seeking relief from sexual assault in prison. The case, Amador v. Superintendents of the Department of Correctional Services, brought by The Legal Aid Society's Prisoners' Rights Project in 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges New York State with failing to protect women prisoners from sexual assault and harassment by male prison employees.
Woman prisoners are raped, forced to display their bodies, threatened and harassed by prison employees. The lawsuit alleges that Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) officials turn a blind eye to the abuse and coerced prostitution of prisoners under their care, refusing to take action against the officers involved. Under DOCS policies, officers maintain assignments even after women prisoners have lodged repeated complaints of sexual misconduct against them.
The brief was written in response to the court's request for briefing about the Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 2003. This act requires that a prisoner wishing to file a suit "exhaust" all available administrative appeals. The court asked for arguments to address the question of whether a woman charging a guard with abuse had to specify not only the facts of the incident , but also to make a request that is identical to the specific remedy in the legal claim. Also at issue in this case is whether an inmate who is a victim of sexual assault might be justified in any failure to file a grievance in strict accordance with the rules of the grievance system.
The women argue that they have exhausted available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In arguing in support of the female prisoners, the brief relied on social science research documenting the impact of the fear of retaliation and the prevalence of post traumatic stress disorder in survivors of sexual assault, and the subsequent difficulty survivors experience in complying with excessively rigid exhaustion requirements.
The brief also contended the court should consider international laws and norms when deciding whether the women exhausted administrative remedies. Under customary international law, sexual assault, particularly against women by guards in a custodial setting, has been widely recognized as a violation of human rights for which an effective and accessible remedy must be made available. Dismissing a prisoner's suit on the grounds of failure to strictly exhaust administrative remedies, and thereby leaving her without an adequate remedy for the violation of her recognized rights, would conflict with established international laws and norms. These laws and norms also support the consideration of factual circumstances, such as a lack of counseling, the psychological effects of sexual trauma and the threat of retaliation, when determining whether to dismiss a prisoner's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The human rights organizations signing onto the brief included the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, the National Organization for Women-New York State, the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault, New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the Vera House, Inc.
Why We Signed On
The Alliance stands for helping all victims of rape and sexual abuse. We support those particularly vulnerable to attack due to circumstance, vulnerability, or other disenfranchisement. We stand by the disempowered who may not be able to turn to the criminal justice or other system. We also agree that the Department of Corrections should review whether its policies are adequate or need to be enforced to a greater degree. This is completely consistent with our work to improve policies and procedures for victims and their communities.
Jennie Greene works with the Center for Constitutional Rights.
[more]
← previous article
|
next article →
|
