Power, Silence, and Sexual Abuse in Custody: A Constitutional and Human Rights Analysis of Women’s Safety Behind Bar
Clicks: 31
ID: 287798
2025
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
9.0
/100
31 views
5 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #11 of 16 articles by views in Shodhbodhalaya
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This paper analyzes sexual abuse of women in custody in the United States as both a constitutional violation and a breach of international human rights law. Drawing on Amnesty International reports, Bureau of Justice Statistics data under PREA, and oversight findings from the OIG, it documents persistent patterns of staff-perpetrated sexual misconduct—ranging from assault to coercive “consensual” contact—alongside systemic underreporting driven by fear of retaliation, evidentiary hurdles, and staff codes of silence. The analysis situates custodial sexual abuse within international prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (ICCPR, ICESCR, DEVAW) and within U.S. constitutional doctrine recognizing prisoners’ rights to bodily integrity and freedom from deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. It further examines intersectional vulnerabilities (including race, disability, language, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with particular risks to transgender women), and maps uneven state statutory frameworks, noting remaining gaps (e.g., Vermont’s absence of a specific prohibition, defenses premised on “consent,” and penalties that chill reporting by criminalizing prisoners). The paper argues that zero tolerance under PREA requires enforceable standards, independent investigations, felony-level penalties for staff misconduct, and survivor-centered remedies, and concludes that bridging the law–practice gap is essential to ensure women’s safety behind bars.
| Reference Key |
imported_1761393061_68fcb9a538fa5
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Jaspreet Kaur Majithia |
| Journal | Shodhbodhalaya |
| Year | 2025 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.