172 The reasons for underreporting of sexual assault on the outside 173 are redoubled in prison. 174 Women cannot trust that their reports will remain conªdential, concerns about retaliation 164 Adlerstein, supra note 149, at 1691. 165 Violence Against Women , supra note 3, ¶ 62. 166 The Tip of the Discrimination Iceberg, supra note 27, at 3 (citing Kristin Bu- miller, Victims in the Shadow of the Law: A Critique of the Model of Legal Protection , 12 Signs 421, 429 (1987)); see also Lajeunesse et al., supra note 149, at 80. 167 Amador Statement, supra note 6, ¶ 45(f); Nowhere to Hide , supra note 3. 168 Rathbone , supra note 4, at 55, 65; see also Amador Statement, supra note 6, ¶¶ 35, 39(q), 47(f) (“Women may be charged with disciplinary offenses for having sexual relations with staff, despite the fact that sexual acts by prisoners with staff are involuntary as a matter of state law.”) (referring to N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(e)); Nowhere to Hide , supra note 3. 169 Amador Statement, supra note 6, ¶ 49(h); Abuse of Women in Custody, supra note 3, at 27; Rathbone , supra note 4, at 55, 65. 170 See, e.g. , Nowhere to Hide , supra note 3; Rathbone , supra note 4, at 61 . 171 The Tip of the Discrimination Iceberg, supra note 27, at 8; see also Girshick, supra note 4, at 107. 172 Estimates from the Redesigned Survey , supra note 46, at 1; MacKinnon , To- ward a Feminist Theory , supra note 102, at 179; Estrich, supra note 102, at 1140. 173 These reasons include shame, fear of the abuser’s revenge, concern that the woman will not be believed, certainty that her conduct will be judged against rape myths and stereotypes about appropriate feminine conduct, fear that the investigation will prove as humiliating as the assault, and concern that police or courts will be unsympathetic to her claims. See R. v. Ewanchuck,  S.C.R. 330, 336 (L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., agreeing with the judgment) (Can.); R. v. Seaboyer,  2 S.C.R. 577, 650 (L’Heureux- Dubé, J., dissenting in part) (Can.); The Tip of the Discrimination Iceberg , supra note 27, at 8; see also R. v. Osolin,  4 S.C.R. 595, 624–27 (L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissent- ing) (Can.). 174 See Amador Statement, supra note 6, ¶ 26 (noting that the threat of underreporting is exacerbated in prison); Abuse of Women in Custody, supra note 3, at 13, 15 (discuss- ing reasons victims of sexual assault may underreport abuse); The Tip of the Discrimi- nation Iceberg , supra note 27, at 8 (“Allegations of abuse are complicated and compro- mised when they occur in institutional settings.”); Deterring Staff Sexual Abuse , su- pra note 8, at 2 (“Due to fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among in- mates, personal embarrassment, and lack of trust in staff, victims are often reluctant to report incidents to correctional authorities.”).
2007] Impunity: Sexual Abuse in Women’s Prisons 67 are very real, 175 they feel that the process is stacked against them, and they continue to be at the mercy of their abusers, with no opportunity for escape.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 44 pages?
- Spring '11
- The American, supra note