The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): Snitching,Sexuality,and Normalizing Deviance

Abstract

The normalization of deviance in the form of prison rape finds common themes in media, rape myths, and common discourse. However, these portrayals fail to include real world policies and the perspectives of incarcerated populations. As such, the normalization of deviance is assessed in the context of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). A thematic analysis was conducted using qualitative survey responses from 407 males incarcerated in three medium-level security state prisons in the Southern United States. Surprisingly, respondents rejected stereotypical notions of sexuality (institutional deviancy) and snitching (cultural deviancy) surrounding prison rape. Rather, respondents favored standardized safety procedures and institutional responses designed to reduced risk, while also endorsing views that traditional snitching codes were not applicable to prison rape. This study provides implications for researchers and practitioners, particularly in the context of the implementation of PREA.

Keywords

normalization of deviance prison rape sexuality snitching qualitative analysis

In 2012, the Department of Justice adopted national standards designed to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape, as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). It was noted that, “for too long, incidents of sexual abuse have not been taken as seriously as sexual abuse outside prison walls. In popular culture, prison rape is often the subject of jokes; in public discourse, it may be dismissed by some as an inevitable-or even deserved-consequence of criminality” (see National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 2012, p. 37106). To address this perceived lack of urgency, PREA was passed in 2003, requiring the mandating of national databases of prison sexual violence and providing distinct and clear avenues for incarcerated persons to report and ensure appropriate recourse for sexual violence within prisons. While these programmatic steps occurred, the normalization of prison rape as a form of institutional deviance remained a common theme in mass media, rape myths, and linguistic discourse.

The normalization of deviance conflicts with empirical assessments of sexual assault occurring in prison, particularly as it over-inflates the prevalence of prison rape while minimizing the long-term impact on victims of sexual assault. For example, the media depicts rape in prison as ubiquitous, while the actual rate is estimated to be 1.9% (Beck et al., 2013; Gaes & Goldberg, 2004). When the definition is extended to include a range of behaviors from unwanted touching to non-consensual sex, approximately 3.2% of jail and 4.0% of state and federal incarcerated persons report victimization (Beck et al., 2013). Data on sexual victimization from 2012 to 2015 document that about 8% of allegations were substantiated, which equates to 0.59 per 1,000 incarcerated individuals for prison and 0.80 per 1,000 incarcerated individuals for jail (Rantala, 2018).

Prison rape is typically portrayed in the media as being omnipresent, predatorial and with short-term consequences for victims. In contrast, research indicates that prison rape is relatively rare, often involving consensual relationships (rather than predatorial assaults from unknown offenders), and with long term consequences for victims such as interpersonal difficulties, physical symptoms, and traumatic emotional responses (Gilmartin-Zena, 1985). The discordance between public opinion and the reality of prison rape is captured by the oft-repeated fact that “individuals are more likely to be sexually assaulted on a college campus than in one of our nations nearly 200 adult prisons” (Krienert & Walsh, 2021, p. 194). Despite evidence to the contrary, the normalization of prison rape as a form of institutional deviance has continued to be associated with prison culture. This dissonance needs further empirical research, particularly within the context of PREA, as programs designed to reduce sexual violence in prison may benefit from an increased understanding of the normalization of deviance. To date, there is a paucity of research during the implementation of PREA (see Ratkalkar & Atkin-Plunk, 2020; Rudes et al., 2021; Smith, 2020, Smith, 2021 for exceptions), which this research aims to rectify. Similarly, research has been limited in the specific contexts within a facility and its impact on the reporting of prison rape to authorities (Kubiak et al., 2017).

Literature Review

The Normalization of Deviance

The concept of the normalization of deviance, initially developed from the aviation industry, serves to minimize, or even ignore routine acts of deviancy by considering them to be an inevitability and unavoidable aspect of institutional culture despite potentially disastrous consequences (Albright, 2017; Vaughan, 1996, 1999). The concept has been applied to other industries where individual failures are cited as the exceptions rather than systemic neglect, such as in health care (Banja, 2010; King, 2010), project management (Pinto, 2014), and construction (Hajikazemi et al., 2019). Presenting disasters as the result of isolated human failings is an effective means to avoid acknowledgement of organizational level failures due to complacency or intentional ignorance of routine acts of deviancy.

A prime example of the normalization of deviance centers on Vaughan’s (1996) research surrounding the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. Here, the normalization of deviance was encapsulated by the catastrophic explosion due to the failure of O-ring joints, which had been a noted concern that was never addressed. Vaughan (1996) delineated three elements defining the normalization of deviance: production of culture (institutionalized norms and beliefs that shape the day-to-day processes of an organization), the culture of production (compromises related to cost and scheduling that impact safety), and structural secrecy (unsaid things that remain hidden due to bureaucracy and the division of labor). These three elements have relevancy to the issue of prison rape. The public perception that prison staff and incarcerated people expect and tolerate rape is a production of culture. The culture of production is akin to safety resources being stretched thin within a prison, or a lack of training to identify and address what would constitute prison rape. Structural secrecy can be observed in the way incidents (or facilitation of incidents) are hidden from supervisors and/or the public eye. Furthermore, media representations and linguistic discourse in society have normalized the expectation of prison rape as an inevitability and thus something deserved, perhaps leading to a reduction of consideration for systemic issues within a correctional system. This normalization process paired with the lack of compassion or feelings of deservingness (akin to acceptance of rape myths) involving incarcerated people may also serve to implicitly facilitate future acts of sexual violence and/or ineffective institutional responses.

Media Representations of the Normalization of Sexual Violence in Prison

The normalization of deviance in sexual violence is likely the result of a combination of the impact of inaccurate media portrayals coupled with the acceptance of rape myths in society. There is significant research conducted on these two issues and their impact on the acceptance or rejection of sexual violence in general (and prison in particular). In terms of the media reinforcement of prison rape as normal: since the inception of exploitation films in the 1960s and 1970s, prison settings are featured in all forms of media, often with a focus on sexual activities. Specifically, films such as 99 Women (1969) and Chained Heat (1983) entail sexual encounters between female incarcerated people, as well as incarcerated individuals with male or female correctional staff, often of a non-consensual nature. Even modern television shows such as Netflix’s Orange Is the New Black (2013) that are not explicitly constructed to specifically appeal to the same prurient interests feature many subplots based around prison rape and non-consensual sexual activities. Media depicting men in prison are less frequently observed within a sexual context, but rape was a commonly used plot device in HBO’s Oz (1997) and to comedic effect in Aaron McGruder’s The Boondocks (2005). Even reality-based and documentary media include sensationalized imagery when presenting prison rape that is incongruent with actualities (Cecil, 2007). With most people’s only exposure to prison life stemming from these forms of sensationalized media, prison rape is typically normalized as being an inevitable and expected aspect of incarceration.

There are a wealth of studies and a noteworthy meta-analysis on the topic of rape myths in society (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). This includes rape myths in the context of male-on-male rape, with linkages to expected gender and social roles (Turchik & Edwards, 2012). Rape myths become particularly salient in the criminal justice milieu, as there is an established link between individual perceptions and the future engagement in and/or acceptance of sexual violence (Ehrlich, 2001). For example, Cook and Lane (2017) found that the presence of rape myths (e.g., “men cannot be raped”) and negative perceptions of homosexuality were significant predictors of victim blaming and a reduction of proactive institutional responses in a sample of correctional officers working in jail. Other studies indicated that the acceptance of rape myths by police officers is correlated with an increased likelihood of blaming the victim, having less desire to intervene to assist victims, and less punitive responses toward offenders (Ehrlich, 2001; Krahé et al., 2008; Sleath & Bull, 2015). Even in the context of an experiential learning tour of prison designed for criminal justice majors that documented changes in perceptions, stereotypes, and theoretical orientations, a substantial number of pre-tour essays included the phrase, “don’t drop the soap” as an attempt to predict sexual violence as expressed through attempted humor (Smith et al., 2010, p. 5). While media representations and the presence of rape myths are prime antecedents to the normalization of prison rape deviance, the resulting themes found in the empirical literature center on the outcomes of institutional deviance (i.e., prison sexuality) and cultural deviance (i.e., the role of snitching in prison sexual violence).

Institutional Deviance: Prison Sexuality

To date, most empirical studies regarding prison sexuality were conducted before the implementation of PREA. Although largely forbidden in practice, consensual and nonconsensual sexual activity in the prison setting is acknowledged, and studies of it date back as far as 1934 (Hensley et al., 2005). Deprivation of sexual relationships is noted as one of the pains of imprisonment that requires adaptation within prison (Sykes, 1958). The study of it is complex, and fraught with difficulties due to the population targeted, secrecy on the part of prison administrators, and a perception of it as being not “clean” or “easy” suggests that research is limited in scope (Hensley et al., 2005). Sex in prison serves multiple expressive and instrumental purposes, such as in exchange for protection, goods, or other benefits, as a show of dominance to other incarcerated individuals, or as a replacement for non-prison based sexual encounters (Garland & Wilson, 2012).

Even in the context of mutual consent or masturbation, sexual activity within a prison is prohibited. Of the few systematic investigations, findings suggest that younger and non-gang affiliated incarcerated people are more likely to be disciplined for consensual sexual misconduct infractions (Tewksbury & Connor, 2014). This, however, may not necessarily be the reality, as older and gang affiliated incarcerated people may simply be more adept at avoiding detection (Tewksbury & Connor, 2014). One of the goals of PREA is the requirement that a wider spectrum of sexual behaviors be considered beyond just rape (Rudes et al., 2021). While same-sex activities may violate organizational policy, PREA does distinguish rape from consensual non-heterosexual behaviors. Prior to PREA, the is evidence that correctional officers expressed less concern for gay male incarcerated people, under the false assumption that even coerced sex would be something enjoyable (Beck & Harrison, 2007; Fleisher & Krienert, 2006, Ratkalkar & Atkin-Plunk, 2020). Navigating prison sexuality under PREA can be complex, for example, an increased prohibition of consensual sexual activities may inadvertently increase the risk of rape due to the lack of legitimate outlets for sexual desires (Nielsen, 2017).

An individual’s sexual orientation prior to incarceration is a significant factor for rape victimization within a prison. Hensley et al. (2005) found that about half of the victims in their study identified as gay or bisexual before incarceration, and targeted incarcerated individuals were first threatened with sexual violence within the first two months of their incarceration. This may be indicative of early identifications of any sense of weakness or departures from masculinity as precursors to potential sexual assault victimization. Ratkalkar and Atkin-Plunk (2020) report that non-heterosexual individuals in a men’s prison reported fearing rape at a rate double that of their heterosexual peers.

Difficulties in identification also arise due to inconsistent definitions of what constitutes sexual assault, as well as not discerning the differences between consensual and coerced sexual activities at an administrative level (Eigenberg, 2000; Hensley et al., 2002). Before PREA, Wardens reported little faith in novel policies and instead supported additional training and supervision to address issues of sexual assault. (Hensley et al., 2002). Generally speaking, reporting rates of sexual assault within facilities have also been hindered by the perception that individuals would not be believed due to their criminal status (Culley, 2012; Kubiak et al., 2005, 2017). Pre-PREA, the ability for individual states to set policy, as well as differing institutional enforcement, often limited time frames in which sexual assaults were reported (Kubiak et al., 2017). PREA also explicitly acknowledges sexual behaviors by staff against incarcerated persons, reiterating the importance of designating these as abusive as well (Rudes et al., 2021). Post-PREA, the attitudes did not change significantly with a majority of Wardens focusing on increased supervision of incarcerated individuals, rather than staff, a key solution to the problem (Moster & Jeglic, 2009). The detection and response to prison rape by corrections staff is of significance, as the literature indicates that there is a reduced likelihood of victims themselves reporting rape due to the fear of being labeled a snitch by other incarcerated people or risk of facing future consequences from correctional officers.

Cultural Deviance: The Role of Snitching

The incarcerated person’s code that forbids snitching is among the first scientific observations of cultural deviance since the inception of corrections as a field of study (Johnson, 1961). As an extension of the “us versus them” mentality within prisons, the reporting of a fellow incarcerated person for any reason can lead to social isolation, violence or even death, with expectations to handle one’s own problem or leave it to other incarcerated individuals rather than bring correctional personnel into the situation. For this reason, it is likely that sexual assault between incarcerated persons is under-reported or in some cases even unreported due to the code against snitching.

Regardless of context, men in general are hesitant to report sexual victimization due to the potential stigma of being labeled as “less” masculine, fear of being perceived as gay, or a belief that authorities will not take the claim seriously (Bullock & Beckson, 2011; Chapleau et al., 2008). These are crucial cultural factors in prison rape, as some studies show a tendency of incarcerated persons to blame the victim for their victimization due to a perceived “inner homosexuality,” as well as an irredeemable loss of respect and status if the victim did not physically retaliate during the incident (Fleisher & Krienert, 2006, 2009). This, coupled with the incarcerated person’s code as related to snitching, suggests that reporting to corrections personnel is unlikely, and thus official acknowledgment and documentation of prison rape is heavily contingent on staff observations.

The actuality of snitching may be different than its perception, and there are still significant gaps in the literature on the topic. For example, early research indicates that despite outward appearances, many incarcerated people served as informants in some capacity, and that building tenders (incarcerated persons who assumed an informal supervisory role with the staff’s acknowledgement) frequently assumed the role of snitch when directly empowered by prison authorities (Jacobs, 1977; Marquart & Roebuck, 1985). Thus far, there is little to suggest contexts in which incarcerated individuals may identify snitching as an appropriate response (Garland & Wilson, 2012). Several studies of prison rape that occurred prior to the implementation of PREA found that incarcerated persons were less likely to view prison rape as snitching earlier in their incarceration period, which may be indicative of the effects of prisonization over time (Clemmer, 1958; Garland & Wilson, 2012). Given that PREA hinges on the reports of incarcerated persons and staff within the prison institution,¹ the role of snitching in reporting prison rape in corrections requires further investigation. If sexual violence is perceived to be an expected form of deviant behavior within prison culture, then the result will be a normalization process that mitigates the seriousness of this form of deviance.

While the sources of the normalization of deviance as prison sex are media representations, linguistic discourse, and rape myths in general society, there is a need to further explore the outcomes that emerge in the empirical literature. Specifically, incarcerated persons’ perceptions of institutional deviance (i.e., prison sexuality) and cultural deviance (i.e., the role of snitching in prison sexual violence). This is particularly salient in the context of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) as this federal mandate is rooted in an institutional safety approach designed to reduce and/or stop prison rape. To date, the role of the normalization of deviance has yet to be studied within this context.

Methods

The current study occurred within a correctional system in the Southern United States. This state prison system contains 21 correctional institutions (19 male and 2 female prisons) and 7 community-based pre-release/work centers, holding approximately 22,000 incarcerated persons. During the implementation of PREA within the system, three male prisons were selected as pilot sites with a long-term goal of replicating best practices for other prisons. The pilot sites supported the overarching mission of increasing safety for incarcerated individuals and staff in all prisons and community-based centers in the system. All education and training approaches were developed and provided by Just Detention International (JDI). JDI (2021) is a health and human rights organization that seeks to end sexual abuse in all forms of detention. JDI has considerable expertise in delivering training, resources, and toolkits for correctional staff and incarcerated persons; in the current study JDI delivered a core curriculum; however; some materials were tailored to meet the specific needs of each prison.

Procedures

A survey was developed with a focus on broad issues related to institutional safety, incarcerated persons’ perceptions of sexual violence, reporting policies, education developments, and incarcerated persons’ expectations regarding the implementation of PREA at their institution and throughout the prison system. A series of quantitative prompt questions were included, followed by open-ended qualitative questions; these qualitative responses serve as the basis of the analyzed data. The principal researcher conducted several meetings with the Inmate Representative Council (IRC) at each of the three prisons. The IRC features two designated incarcerated persons who represent each dorm within the prison, with each prison having approximately six dorms. The IRC functions as a means of communication, dialogue, and engagement between prison administration and the broader population of incarcerated persons. These IRC representatives received drafts of the questions and provided key feedback. In a separate meeting, correctional administrators and officers also provided feedback on the draft questions.

On the day of data collection, a meeting between the researcher and the IRC occurred, with IRC representatives returning to their respective dorms to inform and encourage incarcerated persons to participate in the study. No members of the correctional staff or Inmate Representative Council (IRC) were involved in the distribution or collection of surveys. In each prison dorm, the researcher distributed all informed consent documents, pencils, and surveys to incarcerated individuals in each dorm and then waited a minimum of 30 minutes for respondents to complete and return surveys. The researcher had a locked wooden box marked “confidential” in which incarcerated persons could place completed surveys. The box remained locked until the researcher returned to the university, with all data stored in a locked cabinet and inside a locked office (and only available to the research team). Data analysis occurred on a designated password protected computer. All data collection activities occurred between August and October 2016.

Sample

All male residents in three medium-level security state prisons were provided the opportunity to complete a paper survey. Residents housed in restrictive housing (e.g., lockup, mental health dorms) or under the age of 18 years old were excluded from the study due to a lack of adequate staffing within the prison system. This produced a total sample frame of 3,298 incarcerated individuals. A total of 407 usable surveys were returned, resulting in a 12.3% response rate, with a range from 9.7% to 17.8%. While response rates were low, they are comparable to research on the topic of sexual violence in prison that rely on incarcerated persons’ perceptions (see Moster & Jeglic, 2009; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2013). A demographic portrait can be seen in Table 1: Demographics, which also includes comparative data with the entire state prison population (as recorded by the research agency within the state prison system).

Table 1.

Demographics.

Age (years)	Sample	State incarcerated person population
18–25	9.9%	11.8%
26–33	20.5	22.3
34–41	25.2	28.1
42–49	18.6	16.4
50+	25.8	21.4
Race
Black/African American	53.6%	56.4
White	39.1	37.6
Asian	0.4	0.4
Multi-racial	2.1	1.9
Other	4.8	3.7
Length of incarceration
1 year or less	8.9%	11.7
2–5 years	28.8	27.3
6–10 years	22.9	19.8
11–20 years	28.8	28.8
Over 20 years	10.7	12.4
Sexual/gender orientation
Straight/heterosexual	92.0%	N/A
Gay/lesbian	2.3	N/A
Bisexual	1.3	N/A
Not sure	0.8	N/A
Transgender	0.7	N/A

Sample demographics included incarcerated individuals 18 to 25 years old (9.9%), 26 to 33 years old (20.5%), 34 to 41 years old (25.2%), 42 to 49 years old (18.6%), and 50 years and older (25.8%). Racial characteristics of the sample included Black/African American (53.6%), White (39.1%), Asian (0.4%), Multi-Racial (2.1%), and Other (4.8%). Total length of incarceration was 1 year or less (8.9%), 2 to 5 years (28.8%), 6 to 10 years (22.9%), 11 to 20 years (28.8%), and longer than 20 years (10.7%). The sexual orientation of the sample was self-reported as straight/heterosexual (92.0%), gay/lesbian (2.3%), bisexual (1.3%), not sure (0.8%), and other (3.6%). Three incarcerated individuals identified as Transgender. Of the sample, 26.1% had been diagnosed with a mental health condition or disorder, 67.9% had not been diagnosed with a mental health condition or disorder, and 6.0% did not know.

The sample demographics were fairly similar to demographics for all 19 male institutions within the state prison system (as documented by data provide by the research division of the prison agency). This included the following age range: 18 to 25 years old (11.8%), 26 to 33 years old (22.3%), 34 to 41 years old (28.1%), 42 to 49 years old (16.4%), and 50 years and older (21.4%). Racial characteristics of the population was Black/African American (56.4%), White (37.6%), Asian (0.4%), Multi-Racial (1.9%), and Other (3.7%). Total length of incarceration was 1 year or less (11.7%), 2 to 5 years (27.3%), 6 to 10 years (19.8%), 11 to 20 years (28.8%), and 11.7 and longer than 20 years (12.4%). There were no reliable population data related to incarcerated persons’ sexual orientation or mental health condition/disorder.

Analytic Strategy

The codes were categorized by key themes related to the normalization of deviance, particularly snitching and sexuality. Thematic analysis has successfully been utilized to identify perceptions of incarcerated persons in prior corrections-based research generally (Smith & Power, 2014) and specific to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Smith, 2021). Incarcerated persons’ responses were entered into a database and analyzed using ATLAS/ti. software. A thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive approach endorsed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Thematic analysis was deemed the most suitable approach as it “is not wed to any pre-existing theoretical framework” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 9). The thematic analysis started with open coding, a microanalysis of the data where the goal is to generate initial code categories. This was followed by establishing categories and relationships via axial coding. Finally, the analysis utilized selective coding, where categories were integrated and refined into a theoretical scheme. Thematic saturation was achieved when further analysis reveals no new themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Green & Thorogood, 2004). Themes were based on patterns that emerged as significance and/or interesting data points (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017).

Results

A thematic analysis produced several categories of interest regarding the normalization of deviance in both prison rape (institutional deviance) and snitching (cultural deviance).

Prison Rape

In response to the implementation of PREA and the role of prison rape there were several key themes that emerged. A large number of respondents (n = 295 or 72.5%) dismissed prison rape as being far less common, relevant, or important in relation to historical recollections when compared to more pressing current challenges (i.e., lack of staffing):

“I have been locked up for 8 years now, and in this timeframe, I have not been a part of any sexual abuse willing or unwilling. I have not been on a yard where someone was raped so to be honest the PREA really has no effect on me at all. Furthermore, I would like to give you an idea for your next survey. I think it should be about how the inmate population is treated because of the shortage of staff.” (R. 104)

Of these respondents, those who had long histories of incarceration (i.e., more than 10 years of incarceration and/or repeated incarcerations) were likely to highlight changes over time with a reliance on violence to protect oneself from prison rape in the past. One incarcerated person wrote, “this prison system used to be the Wild, Wild West for rape.” This was reinforced by a theme of dismissing the prevalence and seriousness of prison rape in the modern-day prison context. This can be seen in the following accounts:

“Rape does not happen like that anymore, maybe every now and again, but not like you see on TV.” (R. 4)

“There are too many gay people running around for someone to get raped.” (R. 58)

Respondents (n = 245 or 60.2%) expressed universal support for the implementation of PREA despite a lack of staff to support and maintain programs in general in order to mitigate the threat of prison rape. The lack of staff led to incarcerated persons being placed on lockdown status, which increased aggression, mental distress, and hopelessness. The staffing crisis was viewed as “PREA not being taken seriously” by respondents:

“Rape is not the problem at this prison, being locked down and oppressed 20 days of a month is the problem.” (R. 165)

“I don’t think that prison rape is a problem here at this prison. I do feel that there are more pressing issues like being locked down or not being able to take showers after work because of lockdowns or not being able to do rec.” (R. 77)

While prison rape was dismissed as being very rare, not a problem, or secondary to other incarcerated person’s needs, respondents were apt to endorse PREA as an effective mechanism for addressing more routine sexuality issues involving incarcerated persons (n = 198 or 48.6%). For example, one male respondent reported that he woke up in his cell to find his roommate masturbating:

“I woke up and my cell mate is jacking off. Now I know he took the PREA class too so I told him that he couldn’t do that with me around. He knew I could tell a officer or report him. He stopped and it worked out ok. I think before PREA that would have been more difficult to deal with.” (R. 38).

A secondary theme in prison rape centered on the very small subset of sex offenders who were known or suspected of being predatory and/or violent (n = 155 or 38.1%). These offenders were perceived to be exceptionally dangerous and a threat to the safety of the entire prison. Respondents expressed strong opinions on the appropriate institutional response. Respondents identified utility in the use of “pink jumpsuits”² to identify potential risky incarcerated individuals. These respondents argued that the use of the “pink jumpsuits” could help them reduce risk of prison rape, as sexually violent offenders were easily identifiable. Respondents also supported the restriction of violent sex offenders to specific dorms where they would be clustered together to reduce overall risk (n = 122 or 29.9%). Respondents cautioned that this approach carried the possibility of becoming a “sex offender’s classroom” and a “cesspool.” Respondents also recognized the complexity of prison rape by highlighting the need for treatment in this subset of sexual predators. One respondent wrote,

“The one that’s doing the rape needs help too. Something happened to them during childhood. They think – ‘Maybe parents or neighbor did something to me (sexual abuse), so why can’t I do it to someone else?’.” (R. 109)

Prison Snitching

The issue of reporting of prison rape within the context of the implementation of PREA produced several significant key themes. A dominant theme was the complete rejection of the term “snitching” when applied to reporting prison rape (n = 364 or 89.4%). Respondents stated that the reluctance to self-report prison rape victimization was likely due to incarcerated persons being “embarrassed,” “proud,” “afraid,” and “scared.” However, respondents were adamant that “sexual abuse should not be done” and “we have the right to report it.” Respondents completely dismissed the label of “snitch” as being irrelevant to the reporting of prison rape. One respondent wrote, “snitching in the case of rape is not a thing.” One respondent wrote, “If rape happened to me, I would snitch to hell and back,” and another respondent wrote “that’s not snitching if its rape.”

Some respondents (n = 110 or 27.0%) stated there is the potential for violent payback from other incarcerated persons if they reported or “snitched on rape” but this was viewed as a minimal concern. Snitching was far more likely when respondents viewed indications of physical abuse and violence coupled with resistance from the victim. This is evidenced here:

“If I ever saw an inmate with marks or bruises or someone trying to get away from someone trying to rape them or trying to fight back, I would report it to the first officer I could find.” (R. 88).

Without key physical behavioral markers such as marks, bruises, or victim resistance, there was increased confusion in events that involved consensual between incarcerated persons or incarcerated person-staff³ relationships “gone bad” (n = 188 or 46.2%). Here the cultural perception of respondents was centered on “doing one’s time” and avoiding unnecessary conflict. As one incarcerated individual summarized,

“If it is a rape then I will snitch, no doubt. But relationships gone bad are none of my business. My job is to do my own time and get out of prison.” (R. 91)

Another key theme surrounding snitching involved respondents’ observations of institutional responses following an incarcerated person’s report (n = 345 or 85.8%). Here, respondents held overwhelming support for the implementation of PREA that was juxtaposed by concerns about institutional compliance with reporting protocols and responses after a ‘snitch’ report of sexual violence. Supportive comments from respondents for PREA include:

“PREA can help inmates who are weak in spirit to be able to stop or reach out to someone that can help prevent prison rape. People who are being touched or effected by other inmates that are trying to violate them in any way have a way to help themselves as well as others.” (R. 105)

“PREA has potential to address and correct damaging and perverse situations on the part of staff and inmates.” (R. 44)

“It’s about time someone addressed these issues, instead of hiding the truth about gang problems and drug problems which lead to the rapes.” (R. 200)

Respondents expressed negativity toward a lack of any real institutional response to snitching. They stated that institutional responses by staff were inconsistent, delayed, non-confidential, and often resulting in re-victimization of the alleged victim (n = 265 or 65.1%). Institutional follow-up (or lack thereof) was viewed by incarcerated persons as being far more pivotal than the notion of snitching, as documented here:

“I don’t think PREA has strength because inmates are going to do what they want to do; some willingly and some by force. There is not enough staff to make it work. You see that nothing happens when inmates snitch.” (R. 155)

“I have been in prison now for five years and I haven’t heard a lot of PREA cases. The ones I have heard about though, they do come and investigate. After a few days of the incident, I really don’t hear of anything else.” (R. 60)

“In theory, it is a great thing, but in practice it is just a policy in place as a façade. Proving to society that something is being done.” (R. 177)

Discussion

The normalization of prison rape as expressed in media, rape myths, and common social discourse had very little support in this study. Respondents in this sample were aware of these stereotypical perceptions in the media and public (e.g., high prevalence of prison rape, incarcerated persons’ acceptance of prison rape, snitching code, etc.), though they rejected them outright. What emerged were perceptions of prison rape that were based in the humanization of incarcerated individuals, assessments of risk, and safety-based (rather than sexuality-based) programs and policies that were mostly centered on the need for adequate staffing. This was also indicative in the discussion regarding sex offender specific programs, indicating an awareness of the dangers of sexual violence for the general population. Fortunately, these perceptions were in accordance with the safety-approach that is the foundation of PREA. Moreover, the original tenets of the normalization of deviance literature found in the aeronautics/aviation, public health, and construction industries also endorse a safety approach making this a suitable line of research and policy intervention for the topic of prison rape and other forms of sexual violence occurring in prison (Vaughan, 1999).

A key finding that requires further investigation involves the complete rejection of the ‘snitch’ label for reporting prison rape. This was particularly salient where there were behavioral indicators like victim resistance and/or physical injuries on victims. Incarcerated persons viewed predatory sex offenders negatively and held various perceptions on the best strategic response. This echoes a key finding in Carlson’s (2009) study of 409 individuals from 23 male prisons in 10 different states. Here, prison rapists were viewed as sick and often described in derogatory manners (Carlson, 2009). For example, one individual stated that incarcerated persons “don’t like predators, our people think they should be taken out and killed, predators are like animals, they are sick and should be killed” (Carlson, 2009, p. 98). Much like non-incarcerated society, rapists were viewed with particularly negative, disparaging, and violent discourse, however in the current study there was also consideration of the need for more treatment for this group of incarcerated individuals. This is likely due to mainstream society viewing corrections as a means of isolating and removing sexual predators, while incarcerated populations have fewer options (and less power) for such approaches.

The additional finding that the snitch label was not linked to incarcerated persons’ perceptions of prison rape stands in contrast to existing research. For example, Garland and Wilson (2012) found that 65% of those studied responded that reporting prison rape is the same as snitching. This change in perception could be an indication of the impact of the support for reporting processes via PREA. It could also be due to their study’s use of secondary data collected in 2004 and 2005, a period when PREA protocols were less developed. However, this finding suggests that more work is needed to develop a better understanding of the role of the incarcerated individual’s code for reporting of sexual violence occurring in prison.

This study provides implications that can be bifurcated into research-based and practitioner-based approaches. For researchers, the current study indicates that incarcerated persons may perceive prison rape to be a safety issue rather than one of sexuality. This reinforces the notion that sexual violence is based in power and control, rather than simply sexual gratification. While studies that investigate the prevalence of sexual activity, experiences of LGBTI populations, individual behaviors like masturbation, and the presence of pornography are valuable, they may be maximizing the role of sexuality while minimizing the incarcerated persons’ focus on institutional safety. In this study, incarcerated individuals dismissed prison rape as being infrequent, not relevant, or far less common when compared to the past and when contrasted to more pressing challenges (i.e., lack of staffing). Prison rape was viewed as relatively rare and non-problematic, though consensual relationships between incarcerated persons or incarcerated person-staff relationships that had “gone bad” were more challenging as they threatened the safety and stability of the prison milieu and provided less opportunity for intervention.

For practitioner-based and policy-implications, there was clear evidence that incarcerated individuals in this sample were closely monitoring institutional responses to prison rape and other PREA violations. The Prison Rape Elimination Act serves as a mandate of safety. This includes, though is not limited to, staff training, the education of incarcerated persons, data collection, institutional compliance, and standardized reporting protocols. This favors normalization of deviance literature that emphasized standard operating procedures that reinforce safety (Albright, 2017). The current sample viewed the lack of adequate staffing as a direct threat to safety in prison, while simultaneously perceiving staff implementation of PREA protocols as a complimentary safety issue.

Limitations and Future Directions

While the current study produced several insights into the normalization of prison rape as studied in the context of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), it is not without limitations. While the low response rate is comparable to other research involving incarcerated persons’ perceptions on prison rape, it must be recognized that a large portion of incarcerated people did not engage in the study. The low response rate limits the generalizability of the findings. Gaining the perceptions of these individuals, or at minimum an understanding of their lack of participation, would benefit future research on this topic. Likewise, future empirical assessments would be strengthened by the comparison of incarcerated persons and staff perceptions, as normalization practices are very salient to front line bureaucrats like correctional officers. These front-line bureaucrats are responsible for interpreting and applying policy through their daily working lives (Lipsky, 1980). The perceptions of correctional administrators would also serve as an effective research approach for future empirical assessments. Another limitation in the current study is the lack of triangulated data (e.g., institutional data) on the prevalence of prison rape, however in a related project these data were examined and deemed unreliable (i.e., reported institutional events were very low). As such, the current study relies exclusively on perceptual data. Future research that examines the role that an incarcerated individual’s age, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity may impact their perception of snitching or the importance of PREA is also of interest, to determine if there are important variations, as persons who are incarcerated are not a homogenous population.

Much like research regarding safety approaches from NASA, the aviation industry, as well as public health and construction industries, a reliance on standardized safety procedures and institutional responses via PREA, the issue of normalizing prison rape within a correctional facility is addressed. This safety approach was supported by the respondents as opposed to sexualized approaches that normalized the deviance of prison rape that is perpetrated by the media, public discourse, and rape myths. This support of PREA and the overall safety approach taken was favored over traditional views that supported prison rape and punished snitching.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No 2015-RP-BX-009 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office of Victims of Crime, and the SMART office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ORCID iDs

Hayden P. Smith

Creaig A. Dunton

Notes

References

Albright

(2017). Normalization of deviance-SOPs are not a suggestion. Business & Commercial Aviation, 40–43.

Banja

(2010). The normalization of deviance in healthcare delivery. Business Horizons, 53(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.10.006

Beck

Berzofsky

Casper

Krebs

(2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Beck

Harrison

(2007). Sexual victimization in state and federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Bureau of Justice Statistics

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bullock

Beckson

(2011). Male victims of sexual assault: Phenomenology, psychology, physiology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 197–205.

Carlson

(2009). Man up or punk out: The role of masculinity in prison rape [Electronic theses and dissertations, doctoral dissertation]. University of Central Florida.

Cecil

D. K.

(2007). Looking beyond caged heat: Media images of women in prison. Feminist Criminology, 2(4), 304–326. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1557085107306142

Chapleau

Oswald

Russell

(2008). Male rape myths: The role of gender, violence, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313529

10.

Clemmer

(1958). The prison community (2nd ed.). Rinehart and Company.

11.

Cook

Lane

(2017). Blaming the victim: Perceptions about incarcerated sexual assault victim culpability among a sample of jail correctional officers. Victims & Offenders, 12(3), 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1065531

12.

Culley

(2012). “The Judge Didn’t Sentence Me to Be Raped”: Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections: A 15-Year Battle Against the Sexual Abuse of Women Inmates in Michigan. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.687955

13.

Ehrlich

(2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent (1st ed.). Routledge.

14.

Eigenberg

(2000). Correctional officers and their perceptions of homosexuality, rape and prostitution in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885500080004007

15.

Fleisher

Krienert

(2006). The culture of prison sexual violence. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216515.pdf

16.

Fleisher

Krienert

(2009). The myth of prison rape: Sexual culture in American prisons. Rowman and Littlefield.

17.

Gaes

Goldberg

(2004). Prison rape: A critical review of the literature. National Institute of Justice.

18.

Garland

Wilson

(2012). Prison inmates’ views of whether reporting rape is the same as snitching: An exploratory study and research agenda. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(6), 1201–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468238

19.

Gilmartin-Zena

(1985). Rape impact: Immediately and two months later. Deviant Behavior, 6(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1985.9967684

20.

Green

Thorogood

(2004). Qualitative methods for health research. SAGE.

21.

Hajikazemi

Ahola

Aaltonen

Aarseth

Anderson

(2019, June 26–28). Normalization of deviance in the construction industry, a managerial perspective [Paper presentation]. EURAM 2019: Exploring the Future of Management, Lisbon, Portugal.

22.

Hensley

Dumond

Tewksbury

Dumond

(2002). Possible solutions for preventing inmate sexual assault: Examining wardens’ beliefs. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898968

23.

Hensley

Koscheski

Tewksbury

(2005). Examining the characteristics of male sexual assault targets in a southern maximum-security prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505276069

24.

Jacobs

(1977). Stateville: The penitentiary in mass society. University of Chicago Press.

25.

Johnson

(1961). Sociology of confinement: Assimilation and the prison “rat”. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 51(5), 528–533.

26.

Just Detention International. (2021). Our mission. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://justdetention.org/who-we-are/our-mission/

27.

King

(2010). To err is human, to drift is normalization of deviance. AORN Journal, 91(2), 284–286.

28.

Krahé

Temkin

Bieneck

Berger

(2008). Prospective lawyers’ rape stereotypes and schematic decision making about rape cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(5), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160801932380

29.

Krienert

Walsh

(2021). Sexual behavior in prison. In Gould

L. A.

Brent

J. J.

(Eds.), Handbook on American prisons (pp. 194–207). Routledge.

30.

Kubiak

S. P.

Brenner

H. J.

Byebee

Campbell

Cummings

C. E.

Darcy

K. M.

Fedock

Goodman-Williams

(2017). Sexual misconduct in prison: What factors affect whether incarcerated women will report abuses committed by prison staff? Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 361–374. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/lhb0000239

31.

Kubiak

S. P.

Hanna

Balton

(2005). “I came to prison to do my time—Not to get raped”: Coping within the institutional setting. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 8(2–3), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434610590956921

32.

Lipsky

(1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

33.

Maguire

Delahunt

(2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 8(3), 3351–3354.

34.

Marquart

Roebuck

(1985). Prison guards and ‘snitches’: Deviance within a total institution. British Journal of Criminology, 25(3), 217–233.

35.

Moster

Jeglic

(2009). Prison warden attitudes toward prison rape and sexual assault: Findings since the prison rape elimination act (PREA). The Prison Journal, 89(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508329981

36.

National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape 2012, 77, Fed. Reg. 37016 (June 12, 2012) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115).

37.

Nielsen

(2017). Beyond PREA: An interdisciplinary framework for evaluating sexual violence in prisons. UCLA Law Review, 64(1), 230–280.

38.

Pinto

(2014). Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2013.06.004

39.

Rantala

(2018). Sexual victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2012–15. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice Report.

40.

Ratkalkar

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

(2020). Can i ask for help? The relationship among incarcerated males’ sexual orientation, sexual abuse history, and perceptions of rape in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19–20), 4117–4140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517714440

41.

Rudes

D. S.

Magnuson

Portilo

Hattery

(2021). Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens. Punishment & Society, 23(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520952155

42.

Sleath

Bull

(2015). A brief report on rape myth acceptance: Differences between police officers, law students, and psychology students in the United Kingdom. Violence and Victims, 30(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-13-00035

43.

Smith

H. P.

(2020). Evaluating the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): A “lessons learned” approach. Evaluation & Program Planning, 83, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101855

44.

Smith

H. P.

(2021). Correctional officer and inmate perceptions of the prison rape elimination act (PREA): A thematic analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(2), 213–225.

45.

Smith

H. P.

Koons-Witt

Meade

(2010). Demystifying prisons through the use of experiential learning. Corrections Compendium, 35(2), 1–20.

46.

Smith

H. P.

Power

(2014). Themes underlying self-injurious behavior in prison: Gender convergence and divergence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(4), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.902004

47.

Struckman-Johnson

Kruse

Gross

Sumners

(2013). A pre-PREA survey of inmate and correctional staff opinions on how to prevent prison sexual assault. Prison Journal, 93(4), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513501023

48.

Suarez

Gadalla

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354503

49.

Sykes

(1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press.

50.

Tewksbury

Connor

(2014). Who is having sex inside prison? Deviant Behavior, 35(12), 993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.901078

51.

Turchik

Edwards

(2012). Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023207

52.

Vaughan

(1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.

53.

Vaughan

(1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 271–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.271