|
The
Investigation and the Investigators
Agency
investigative protocols on how to manage allegations of staff sexual
misconduct must be in place before allegations arise.
At a minimum, these protocols should address:
-
How reports are taken;
-
Preliminary inquiry procedures;
-
Notifying staff and inmates of investigation, where required by state law, administrative regulations or collective bargaining agreements;
-
Medical and mental health intervention, as needed, for those involved;
-
Collecting and preserving evidence;
-
Reassignment of staff, if necessary, during the investigation;
-
Rehousing of inmates, if necessary; and
-
Establishing partnerships with outside agencies, such as prosecutors, state and local law enforcement agencies, hospitals, advocacy groups, etc.
Those
assigned the job of investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct
need insight and skills that allow the layers of these difficult
cases to be revealed. These investigations sometimes involve human nature at its
worst, interactive human dynamics, staff who have compromised their
integrity, and, possibly, friends and co-workers.
The
investigator must be aware of the unique dangers of those in authority
having sexual relationships with inmates/detainees.
The investigator must also be able to handle the implications of
potentially bringing about the criminal prosecution of a fellow
employee, and even someone
of higher rank. (See – Garrity and
Miranda)
One aspect
of internal investigations in jails is the inmate’s quid
pro quo. An
inmate making an allegation, a victim or a witness, may demand something
of the jail administrator in order to cooperate. This quid pro quo may
include intervention in the inmate’s current criminal case,
re-housing, change in classification, special visits, or program
participation. An agency
may choose to have whatever policy is in its mission and best interest.
It would be optimal in designing the agency’s investigative
protocol to give factors like quid pro quo ample
thought before the issue comes up.
Does the investigator have the authority to “negotiate” with
an inmate? Whatever happens
in each case can become agency “practice”, so careful thought is
needed.
TOP
The
example of quid pro quo is just
one aspect of how any jail needs to think through how zero tolerance,
mandatory reporting, and investigative standards are set. Even with the best procedures, the jail administrator may
have the task of overcoming the “blue wall of silence” or other
staff resistance to what they may perceive as inmate friendly and
anti-staff. Zero tolerance,
complete, fair and thorough investigations are in the best interests of
staff. Such policies contribute to a positive work environment and
safety.
What
happens in smaller jails, where there is not the luxury of specialized
training, or the allegations have so galvanized the staff that a peer
cannot manage the investigation with fairness and impartiality?
The local law enforcement agency is a resource, but few sex
crimes investigators will understand and appreciate the jail culture.
Some police agencies may even see the sex as “consensual”
with no “victim.” Other
law enforcement agencies may see investigations as unproductive because
the prosecutor will not rush the case to a grand jury due to the nature
of the crime. What options
exist?
Agencies
who do not have the capacity for investigations need to acknowledge this
fact, and move to establish relationships with investigating agencies
before allegations surface. Development
of a memorandum of understanding with the local police, local
prosecutor, state police, state attorney general, or even state
corrections’ inspectors can provide resources.
Cross training with partners can help the ability of
jail staff to identify the presence of a crime,
and preserve the crime scene and/or evidence until the
investigative partner arrives. Training
with the jail staff, and familiarization with the jail culture will
allow sex crime investigators who usually investigate crimes in the
“free” world to appreciate the nuances, subtleties, and culture that
impact investigations in the custodial setting.
The list
that follows provides a number of recommendations to enhance investigators’ effectiveness:
-
Clear direction and support
from the agency administration;
-
Specific training on how to
conduct investigations into staff sexual misconduct;
-
Supervision of the investigative process through meetings with commanders and others,
as necessary, to map out investigative options and plans;
-
Partnerships with other
agencies,such as
prosecutors medical
providers,and mental health providers who can provide advice, support
and direct services during an investigation;
-
Cross-referenced and easily accessible database of previous investigations;
-
Sufficient staffing of investigative units, or other options, to ensure prompt and thorough investigations;
-
Understanding of the
demographics of the inmate/detainee populations; and
-
Understanding of the culture
– both staff and inmate/detainee – within the facility.
TOP
|
