DO PRISON SYSTEMS HONOUR FEMALE RIGHTS? A CASE STUDY OF FEMALE PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, AND DENMARK
By Claudia Amendoeira
The concept of imprisoning individuals is one as old as time. Ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia had dungeons for criminals to await death sentences, the Old testament details the imprisonment of Joseph in Egypt, and prison legislation was drafted as early as 1215, when King John signed the Magna Carta to make fair trials a right. Although these primitive systems have evolved through the centuries, resulting in the 19th century birth of our current justice system, all of them had one thing in common: they were built by men, for men. Women, who constitute a very small percentage of the prison population (about 7%), are then awkwardly squeezed in without any adjustments to their gender-based needs. Recent talk around this issue has increased pressure in prisons to adopt a “women-centric” approach: one which caters to women’s needs as care-takers and mothers, and acknowledges the pervasiveness of abuse and mental illness in their lives. And yet, this is not a unanimously accepted course of action, with some arguing that dropping the uniform prison standard is discriminatory to men and counter-productive to gender equality. Before analysing this new approach, we need to address the underlying, gender-equality debate which seems to be stalling its implementation.
So, is reforming prison life according to women’s needs, resulting perhaps in different sentencing or searching tactics for females, a long-overdue acknowledgment of female rights, or a jeopardization of true gender equality?
Society seeks to work, principally and structurally, on the premises that men and women are the same, but not equal. Let’s take sporting events as examples. As a result of biological differences, men and women do not compete in the same leagues. Yet what we fight for is not that they face one another, or cover exactly the same distances, but that each of their leagues is treated with the same respect, and factors like payment and media coverage are equalized.
In other words, gender equality does not mean that men and women are treated as identicals, but that both their specific needs and characteristics are honoured in identical ways.
Why don’t we adopt the same principles for prisons that we do for sporting events, and various other societal features? Why don’t we accept that, just like different hormonal levels call for adaptations in sports, female concerns like menstruation and pregnancies call for adaptations as well? Female and male prisoners live in different biological and physical realities, meaning that adopting the same practices for both will have different results for each. The prison system in countries like the United States and New Zealand fails to recognize this.
PROBLEMS IN THE PRISON SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEW ZEALAND
Women are the primary caretakers of children — with 80% of American prisoners reporting that they are mothers, and three-quarters having children under the age of 18. Prison life away from their children has a very deep physiological effect on them. And yet, mothers are seldom included in foster care planning. The small size of the New York prison’s “Children’s Center” means that they are often unable to play with their children during visitation hours, and 41% of women are held in a facility which is more than 8 hours away from New York City, where most of their children still live.
With regards to health care, women require aid in a range of female-specific issues, from pregnancies and miscarriages, to menstruation, hormonal changes, and breast cancer. However, a 2008 report found that in New Zealand “one in three prisoners was unable to see a nurse when they wanted to in the previous 12 months.” In the US, a similar report claimed that “gynecological services for women in prison is inadequate”: only half of state prisons offered female-specific services such as mammograms and Pap smears, and shackling pregnant prisoners
was still allowed, a practice which can decreased fetal heart rate and cause hemorrhage. Furthermore, women inmates are disproportionately more likely to be victims of abuse: in New York, that discrepancy stands from 70% in female offenders to 12% in male ones. The significance of past trauma, combined with biological advantages which facilitate males imposing their will through force, pushes for the elimination of typical vigilance methods like guards watching inmates undress or body grouping them. Instead, 70% of guards in America’s prisons are male, and engage in constant physical contact with the female prisoners they quite literally control. This imbalance of power leads to cases of rape and abuse, and often involves the coercing of prisoners to perform sexual favors in exchange for extra food or to avoid punishment. As voiced by Diana Block, founding member of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, “all the dynamics of sexism […] and sexual violence that are prevalant in society as a whole are translated directly into the conduct […] within prisons with very little protection or surveillance.”In light of these negligences, it is unsurprising that mental health issues are extremely prevalent amongst female offenders, with one fifth of them having high levels of suicide ideation in New Zealand, and 57% personality disorders.
But even then their response is unsatisfactory: no one was delegated as being responsible for prisoners with personality disorders, and there was no regular screening system for mental illnesses. Prisoners who developed conditions during their incarceration had to rely on guards noticing it. These shocking realizations, combined with the fact that the US has the highest rate of incarcerated females in the world, begs for prison reform which empowers women, helps them with their struggles, and honours their family ties.
For over fifteen years, Canada’s prison system has worked with this goal in mind.
CANADA AS A CASE-STUDY OF “WOMEN-CENTRIC” PRISON REFORMS.
After a series of seven suicides during a 15-month period, and a 1994 scandal where female prisoners were abused by a male guard, Canada’s Federal System has undertaken severe “women-centric” adaptations. In 2000, the only Federal women’s prison was replaced by five smaller campus-styled cottages which require prisoners to live cooperatively and allows them freedom of movement. Architecturally, cells and bars were exchanged for open-air “hubs of wellness” which prioritize access to natural light, fresh air, colour, space, and access to land. More community release centers like half-way houses, addiction treatment and aboriginal facilities were built, and its staff trained on “sexism, sexual orientation, racism, aboriginal traditions, and other issues relating to power and class.” Women began being detained closer to home, the conditions of their physical imprisonment greatly improved, and a new range of services to fit their needs was created.
However, the death of 19-year old Ashley Smith, who was held in isolation for two years after altercations with authorities, prompted an analysis on the reforms, and unfortunately the verdict was that their implementation fell short of expectations. “Sometimes I think it would be better to go back to the old way, you know — where you got nothing, you didn’t expect anything,” voices one women, faced with the reality that her supervision is still unnecessarily excruciating and unsafe, as are the methods used to detain her and her relationship with authority figures. During this period of reform, mental health issues amongst inmates actually increased from 13% to 21%, as new drug-prevention provisions were “cookie-cutter” instead of tailored to each patient. Women were also given extremely limited opportunities to interact with their communities, and so many were unprepared to stay sober in real-life although they had been able to do so whilst supervised under treatment. Once personally interviewed, prisoners complained the most about health care and staff performance, and called for increased work opportunities reintegrating them into communities.
But although Canada cannot not be regarded as an utopian female imprisonment example, it should be regarded as a valuable lesson.
The failure of this countries’ “women-centric” approach lays on the lack of fundamental changes to accompany supplementary ones: improvements in facilities and building designs are only beneficial if changes in staff culture and the overall mentality towards prisoners are enacted. In other words, a large cultural change is imminent, one directed towards people and not buildings, and the prison systems in countries like Denmark is proof of that.
DANISH SYSTEM AS EVIDENCE THAT A CULTURALLY PROGRESSIVE PRISON CULTURE IS THE BIGGEST DETERMINANT OF SUCCESS.
The Danish cultural approach to prison life has the approximation to normal life as its pillar: eliminating the power gap between guards and prisoners, intervening as little as possible in women’s day-to-day, and emphasising the importance of mental well being.
Probably the biggest difference between the Scandinavian system and the Canadian one is that these adopt practices of “self-management” instead of close control or scrutinization. Convicts carry out daily tasks such as shopping, laundering, and exam-taking, keep the keys to their own cells, and are only searched by staff in the rare cases of drug suspicion. Regulations are also more flexible, as couples can live and raise a child together, and all inmates have unlimited calling time. By ensuring mentally-ill patients are diverted outside the prison system, drug users are placed in rehabilitation centers, and victims of violence are massaged frequently to experience touching in a positive way, women’s illnesses and traumas are cared for. Abortions are arranged, contraception is available, and information leaflets are handed out. This autonomy improves women’s happiness and decreases disputes, creating an environment where staff and inmates interact freely and amenable to prepare them for life outside bars.
The positive outcomes of an independence-focus prison system promotes a respectable culture. For example, self-harm, which is very uncommon, does not affect women disproportionately more than men, and Denmark has one of the lowest female imprisonment rates in Europe.
Women imprisonment certainly presents a challenge, as a delicate balance is needed to ensure they are being taught discipline and conduct, but in an environment which understands how to teach women those things. Nevertheless, if we don’t change prison culture to achieve that balance, incarceration might plunge women into a spiral of reoffense. We still have a long path of change until the ideal women-centric prison system; however, recognizing the need for change is a promising first step.
SOURCES:
https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_prison_4th_edn_v4_web.pdf https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/women_and_imprisonment_-_2nd_edition.pdf https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/womens_prisons_int_review_final_report_v2.pdf https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/women_prison.pdf https://eji.org/news/shackling-of-pregnant-women-in-jails-and-prisons-continues/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/sexual-harassment-abuse-womens-prisons-me-too-5231b62c1785/ https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/canadas-prisons-killed-ashley-smith-national-crime-shame/
About the Writer: Claudia Amendoeira
Claudia was born and raised in Cascais, Portugal, and she is attending Georgetown University next year, where she plans to major in Political Economy and minor in History. Besides collaborating with Feminx Focus to write articles raising awareness to women-centric issues, she is a writer at the newspaper ShoutOut UK, and created her own tutoring business — Pathways College Tutors — to help students gain admission into extremely competitive U.S Universities. She is deeply passionate about social justice, with a specific focus on the criminal justice system and how it often operates as a system of racial control.
