We mostly think of prison guards as being there to keep the inmates in — to protect the public from the convicts. Turns out they also have the job of protecting inmates from inmates.
It may take some kind of sensitivity training to get the state Department of Corrections up to speed, since the California Supreme Court today refused to review a ruling that said guards owe their charges a special duty of care.
The court’s denial keeps alive a suit filed by Alexis Giraldo, a transgender woman who claims she was raped on many occasions while in Folsom State Prison in early 2006. She accused Folsom guards, psychologists and others of ignoring her pleas for help.
San Francisco’s First District Court of Appeal set a precedent for California in November by ruling (.pdf) that there is a special relationship between jailers and inmates that imposes a duty of care on the former.
“Prisoners are vulnerable. And dependent,” Justice James Richman wrote. “Moreover, the relationship between [the two] is protective by nature.”
Prisons: ‘We don’t consider transgender issues. Except, we do.’ After the jump.
Michele Kane, a public information officer for the Department of Corrections, wasn’t sure what the immediate impact of the court’s denial might be.But she said it probably wouldn’t change the agency’s mission.
“Our primary concern is to provide a safe and secure environment for all inmates,” she said today. “CDC considers numerous factors when considering inmate placement. Being transgender doesn’t necessarily warrant a special housing assignment.”
Among the factors taken into account, Kane said, are a person’s mental health, medical needs and safety concerns. “And that includes transgender inmates.”
Giraldo’s attorney, Gregory Walston of San Francisco, didn’t return a call.
— Mike McKee
The flippant comment about CDCR needing "sensitivity training" for issues of inmate violence completely disregards the work officers do. Transgendered inmates raise a number of complex questions in the prisons, not the least of which is minimization of violence between inmates.
And the court's ruling that officers are liable for inmate on inmate violence and attacks, combined with Prison Receiver Kelso's plan for changing prison healthcare, is at odds with current economic conditions. The Governor's decision to furlough officers, cut or freeze pay, and the cancellation of officer training academies means there won't be enough officers to do everything the various court decisions require.
Posted by: Anonymous Contract Lawyer | February 12, 2009 at 09:23 AM
The Guards MUST provide some type of safety and/or protection. It is part of their job- inmate, staff & facility safety. Back in the 90's the guards at a prison in CA were actually putting on Gladiator fights-was national news. Whats changed? Not a lot...
Posted by: PrisonMovement | February 12, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Hey PrisonMovement, the same Federal Court system that issued the ruling stating that the [i]officers[/i] are duty bound to protect inmates cleared the officers of the accusations of staging "Gladiator Fights". Or do we have selective memory?
I agree with "Anonymous Contract Lawyer ". Flippant comments minimize the difficulty of working in an overcrowded, understaffed prison system that lacks management that is capable of the strategic vision and proper policies to protect the inmates, staff and the public. It's easy to blame "prison guards" in a poorly written fluff piece, it's a little more difficult to address the fact that she's going after a system that forces any inmate to“challeng[ing] prison policies that place transgender inmates, such as [plaintiff], who have the physical appearance of women, in the male inmate population without any meaningful precaution to the obvious
risk of sexual assault to them.”
Think the "guards" on the tiers at Folsom decided to house her in their prison? Think again.
Posted by: Set The Record Straight | February 12, 2009 at 08:14 PM
In Regard to PrisonMovements comment about the "Gladiator Fights". Those officers have been exhonerated, and cleared of all charges. It was by a decision of thier peers that they were deemed as false. Any if in the case tha tit were in fact true are you going to hold all of the 50,000+ Officers accountable for the actions of less than 10?
Posted by: NotAKnuckleDragger | February 14, 2009 at 09:59 AM