COs have a duty to maintain law and order in correctional institutions by ensuring that inmates abide by the laws governing the prison. They must monitor inmate activities and search inmates for contraband (Worley & Worley, 2016). In executing their duties, COs are expected to maintain high professional standards when interacting with inmates. At the same time, they are expected to maintain good rapport with the prisoners and act as good role models. Nevertheless, the violation of boundaries has become common occurrences in prisons. The constant interaction between officers and inmates in the closed environment may increase the likelihood of boundary violations. Boundary violations take the form of personal relationship, sexual relationships, and sexual abuse (Worley, Tewksbury, & Frantzen, 2010).
The scholars argue that professional boundary violations raise ethical dilemmas and issues. In this regard, ethical dilemmas refer to situations whereby it if difficult to make a decision because the right course of action may lead to a negative outcome or is unclear (Pollock, 2019). For example, let’s consider a hypothetical situation with a male CO by the name Oman working in a women’s prison. The officer constantly interacts with the inmates in their facilities. He has particularly developed good relationship with one of inmates by the name Jane who starts trusting and feels emotional secure with Oman. She openly shares some of her fears and concerns including her life before and inside the prison. Jane also readily shares valuable information relating to infractions in the prison, including inmates possessing contrabands and engaging in unlawful activities. Some of the information Jane recently shared with Oman helped in uncovering and mopping up contrabands in the facility. In one of their recent conversations, the woman confessed that she had feelings for him, and that she would like to have secret romantic relationship with him. Oman, startled, promised to respond later. The officer knows that the relationship has helped him to obtain valuable information that also aided in dealing with troublesome inmates and maintaining order in the facility. In addition, Oman is perfectly aware that, despite being unethical and illegal, turning her down will not only hurt Jane, but also create an antagonistic relationship with her. He has a dilemma of whether he should accept or turn the female inmate down.
Law and Policy Governing Relationship between Correctional Officers and Inmates
The law requires COs to maintain the highest standards of professional boundaries with inmates. The law prohibits officers from developing any personal relationships with incarcerated individuals. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 prohibits any intimate or sexual relationship between correctional officers and inmates as the latter cannot legally give consent. The Act established the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to investigate the causes and effect of rape in correctional facilities. The investigations uncovered prevalence of sexual abuse in the prisons. As a result, departments of corrections have developed zero-tolerance policies on sexual misconduct. The Department of Justice has published the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape to reiterate the government zero-tolerance towards inmate-officer relationships in prisons. Any officer found guilty of engaging in sexual misconduct can face disciplinary action which may include dismissal (Jones, 2015).
Decision Making Process
In making the decision, the officer will first have to consider the overall ethical issue. In Oman’s case, the ethical issue is conducting a sexual relationship with an inmate; he is a correctional officer and he is violating the law. The second consideration for Oman to make is the facts surrounding the issue. In this case, the officer has had a good relationship with Jane and the efficiency of his work has been boosted by his close interaction with her. However, Jane’s proposal to Oman creates an ethical dilemma, which can be explored using two different ethical models. Under ethical formalism, ethics are defined by strict application of the law, thus making any action taken in contravention of the law unethical. The law prohibits sexual relationships between correctional staff and inmates (Kowalski et al., 2020). As such, regardless of any situational considerations, ethical formalism renders Oman’s potential relationship with Joey unethical.
Get Expert Help Here
Conversely, utilitarianism measures how ethical a decision is based on the degree of good or harm that it brings (Pollock, 2019).Joey had been supplying Oman with valuable information which helped maintain order in the facility, and a relationship would continue the flow of information. Additionally, refusing Joey’s proposal would hurt her feelings and strain their relationship. Despite being against the law, the advantages of the relationship seem to outweigh the disadvantages, especially because it was proposed by Joey reducing the chances that she has been coerced into it. On weighing the options, Oman should decline entering a relationship with Joey because it is against the law, and therefore unethical. The rationale behind this law is that the power dynamics between an inmate and a correctional officer take away the former ability to give consent, increasing the chances of sexual abuse (Cooke et al., 2019). Additionally, sexual relationships have been used in correctional facilities as gateways to facilitate break outs and illegal transactions in prisons facilitated by correctional officers (Blackburn, Fowler, Mullings & Marquart, 2011).
Conclusion
Like other criminal justice officers, COs face various ethical dilemmas when administering their duties. This paper focused on boundary violations and sexual relationship as one ethical dilemma that the officers encounter. It is an innate feeling to desire love and care. Nevertheless, inmates are likely to take advantage of such feelings develop inappropriate relationships with correctional officers in return for particular. In addition, such relationships have contributed to sexual abuse of inmates in prisons. The use of ethical decision-making models can help officers deal with this dilemma among other ethical issues and ethical dilemmas that criminal justice officers experience.
References
Blackburn, A. G., Fowler, S. K., Mullings, J. L., & Marquart, J. W. (2011). When boundaries are broken: Inmate perceptions of correctional staff boundary violations.
Deviant Behavior, 32(4), 351-378.
DOI: 10.1080/01639621003748837
Cooke, B. K., Hall, R. C., Friedman, S. H., Jain, A., & Wagoner, R. (2019). Professional boundaries in corrections. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry, 47(1), 1-7.
DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.003825-19
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2022). Kant’s moral philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Jones, S. J. (2015). Recommendations for correctional leaders to reduce boundary violations: Female correctional employees and male inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 360-378.
DOI:10.1080/08974454.2014.989301
Kowalski, M. A., Mei, X., Turner, J. R., Stohr, M. K., & Hemmens, C. (2020). An analysis of statutes criminalizing correctional officer sexual misconduct with inmates. The Prison Journal, 100(1), 126-148.
DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882611
Pollock, J. M. (2019). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (10th ed.). Cengage learning Worley, R. M., Tewksbury, R., &Frantzen, D. (2010) Preventing fatal attractions: lessons learned from inmate boundary violators in a southern penitentiary system Criminal Justice Studies, 23(4), 347-360.
DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2010.516532
Worley, R. M., & Worley, V. B. (2016). The economics of “crossing over”: Examining the link between correctional officer pay and guard–inmate boundary violations. Deviant Behavior, 37 (1), 16-29.
DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.982781
