Prison rape nonstory

Most of the front page of yesterday's Times Union was taken up by a story headlined: "Cruel, but not unusual," with the drophed: "Great Meadow in Washington County ranks 5th worst nationwide for inmate sex abuse." Says the lede: "Behind the walls of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, less than 75 miles from the state Capitol, an old stereotype remains hauntingly true: Go to prison, risk rape."

This succeeded in getting my attention because prison rape is a genuinely awful thing, and I had not thought the rate of it was worse than average in New York state. I still don't think so. The story is based on the percentages of inmates who report sexual assaults by a fellow inmate or staff member. The nationwide rate, according to the story, is 4.5 percent, and at Great Meadow the rate is 11.3 percent.

But it turns out that when you break the Great Meadow figure down, only 3 percent involves alleged inmate-on-inmate abuse, and 9.3 percent is the alleged staff-on-inmate rate. This seems odd on its face, because all the inmates at this maximum security facility and the overwhelming majority of guards are male. It is well known that heterosexual prisoners deprived of female company may turn to homosexual sex and sometimes rape, but the guards suffer no similar deprivation. The story provides no actual evidence for any incident of a Great Meadow prison guard raping or sexually abusing an inmate.

To its credit, the TU story quotes the Department of Corrections spokesman, Erik Kriss, who "attributed the Great Meadow numbers to pat-and-frisk searches to find contraband." It also quotes the correction officers' union president, Donn Rowe, who notes that "Some of the people making these allegations are not in the situation they're in for being honest people." No one in the story disputes these remarks, and they seem to me to account for the numbers. That is to say, inmates are complaining about the way guards pat them down in searches for contraband. Their complaints may or may not have merit. But they don't amount to an epidemic of guards raping inmates, or justify the TU sensationalizing this story to the point of distortion.

Comments

[Chris P]

It is nice to have a rational examination of the TU's Great Meadow story regarding the collection and presentation of statistics. The TU story becomes slightly less alarming but still disturbing nevertheless.

[Matthew]

Your story operates under a horriblely flawed premise. Rape is never about the actual sex (male-female company or lack thereof), its about power. Power over one person to another.

[Brian]

And while I understand the unreliability of the numbers for the reasons Bob stated, Matt does make a good point. Remember, the numbers cited are for allegations of sexual assault, which includes, but is not limited to, rape.

[Jim Flateau]

After having served 21 years as chief NY state prisons spokesman, I agree with our hosts comments, but would go a bit further. First, one should look as a necessary first step at the numbers produced by DOCS as reported rapes/assaults. Then, one must determine if they are accurate. As in the outside world, I am sure not all prison assaults are reported, for a variety of reasons including those that do not exist on the outside. So the simple fact some assaults are not listed by DOCS does not a cover up mean. Then, one can talk to inmate lobbying groups, such as the Correctional Association. What reports do they have, plus what documentation do they offer? What about inmate attorneys? What are they hearing? Proof? Are inmates or families reporting assaults to prosecutors. the FBI or other law enforcement officials or even to their state legislators? My point is, there are a number of ways to obtain such information if someone is serious about looking beyond the anonymous reports accepted without question by federal bean counters. Then there is of course the credibility issue. It is not only possible that inmates may be lying, but there is also the issue of retaliation. Officer Jones writes up Inmate Smith today for drug possession. Tomorrow, Inmate Smith fills out a federal form, anonymously of course, accusing Officer Jones of rape. There is also the issue of expected returns. Staff is pretty much aware of the increased potential for the transmission of disease through sex with inmates, a far higher probability than sex with the average person on the street. One need look no further than the incidence of HIV/AIDS among inmates versus the general population to reach that conclusion. So does it pass the smell test that staff would initiate three times the number of assaults-on-inmates as those perpetrated by inmates-against-inmates? Especially when the staff can choose outside victims or partners but inmates cannot? None of this is to downplay the reality and horror of prison sex assaults/rape. But I think it important that the discussion start with facts. I know of no other newspaper that gave this questionable report the kind of play that the TU did. Of course, there are reasons for that. But that’s another posting.

[Bob Conner]

Jim, thanks for making these excellent points based on your highly relevant real world expertise.

[Brian]

It's also important to realize that the numbers cited by the TU appear to be an apples-to-apples comparison. So while the points Jim makes are valid, it seems like they would affect the numbers nationwide not solely at Great Meadow. The point isn't necessarily the exact numbers 11.3% and 4.5% but that the numbers at GM are 2 1/2 times higher than the national average. Is there something specific at GM whereby inmates fabricate (according to Jim's implication) these reports at a disproportionately higher rate than in prisons nationwide? If not, then it's perfectly legitimate to ask why numbers at GM are 2 1/2 times higher than those nationwide?