A policy of banning all sex in prison will not work

A blanket ban on sex in prison leads to prisoners failing to report rape or sexual assault for fear of punishment.

The challenge currently facing prisons with regards sexual health and public opinion is not dissimilar to that faced by Edinburgh in the 1980s in the face of the HIV crisis. That was the chilling warning heard by the Howard League Commission on sex in prisons. The Commission’s first briefing, on consensual sex in male prisons, is published today. In the 1980s, Edinburgh saw a police crackdown on heroin use that was successful in cutting the number of available syringes and equipment at the very same time as HIV was introduced into the local drug scene. The result was that drug users shared needles and HIV spread, so that the city was briefly the aids capital of europe. The crisis was eventually eased by a public health approach that included needle exchanges and the distribution of methadone. The balance between crackdowns that play to punitive public sentiment and a public health approach that will actually reduce harm and prove most effective in protecting communities is one Chris Grayling should bear in mind, as he considers a crackdown on sex in prison.

The statistics on consensual sex in men’s prisons are limited and vague – a Home Office study back in 1994/5 reported that between 1.6 and 3.4 per cent of their sample adult male prisoners admitted to being engaged in consensual sex with an inmate. However, the true figure is thought to be higher. The British Association of Sexual Health and HIV told us that while female prisoners were likely to be open about sex with each other, male prisoners were not. According to the Terrence Higgins Trust male prisons tend to be more homophobic than the wider community, making honest reporting harder. Indeed, far from being ‘cosy’ for LGBT prisoners, all the evidence suggests that they are at greater risk of discrimination and most vulnerable to sexual abuse while inside.

The prison service instruction manual states: ‘there is no rule specifically prohibiting sexual acts between prisoners, but if they are observed by someone who finds (or could potentially find) their behaviour offensive, a charge…may
be appropriate.’ in practice this results in an inconsistent approach and a system ripe for abuse. Some prisoners have reported being left alone as long as they were discreet, while others reported staff trying to catch them out in order to issue them with a warning. It has also been suggested that separation and being written up can be used as a means of discriminating against openly gay prisoners, while policies preventing sex in prisons can be seen to ‘legitimise’ homophobic attitudes.

There is no denying that the issue of consensual sex in prison is a tricky one. The National Offender Management Service argued, in their evidence to us, that it is virtually impossible for staff to tell whether a relationship is consensual or coercive. It can be further complicated by the fact that what starts as consensual can later become coercive.

On a trip to the US I met Troy Isaak, a member of Just Detention International Survivors’ Council. He told me that during one period of incarceration in a Los Angeles jail he entered into a consensual relationship with another inmate but then when the relationship broke down he was repeatedly raped. Staff refused to do anything as he’d originally consented. Sex is banned in US jails.

However we must be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from cases such as this, which call for greater action in tackling the complexities of sexual abuse behind bars, not making the system more punitive for those who engage in consensual sex. A blanket ban on sex in prison leads to prisoners failing to report rape or sexual assault for fear of punishment. While a 2005 report (pdf) from the Prison Reform Trust and National Aids Trust expressed concern that ‘if sexual activity is subject to punitive sanctions, or stigmatised, the likelihood is that people will be less likely to take precautions.’ Most respondents to the Home Office study admitted they did not practice safe sex.

The Department of Health states that prisoners are more likely to be affected by blood-borne diseases, more likely to have engaged in high-risk behaviours and as a result are at higher risk of sexually transmitted infections. To ignore this and then ignore calls for help in practicing safe sex is, according to the Terrence Higgins Trust, ‘highly irresponsible and unethical.’

Her Majesty’s Prison Inspectorate, the Terrence Higgins Trust and National Aids Trust all raised concerns with the Commission about the variable access to condoms within prisons. We heard a range of approaches. Some prisons offer advice and make barrier protection, dental dams and lubrication freely available. However, in at least one privately run prison prisoners are only issued with a condom if they then return it used before being issued with another. Other prisons refuse to issue barrier protection. We received evidence from one HIV-positive prisoner who was refused protection and, as a result, went on to have unprotected sex with another inmate. We heard that some prisoners are sanctioned for requesting too many condoms. One prison governor even said they had no need to issue barrier protection as his prison contained no homosexuals. The National Aids Trust said, ‘attempts to control consensual sexual activity between prisoners risk undermining efforts to promote HIV prevention and improved sexual health in prison populations.’

What Chris Grayling and others need to remember is that this is not merely a health crisis confined to prisons: all of these prisoners will eventually return to their communities and will pass on any infections to the wider community. A policy of banning all sex in prison will not work: it will further legitimise homophobia within prisons, its implementation will result in a system ripe for abuse as well as discrimination against LGBT prisoners; it will discourage prisoners from reporting rape and sexual assault and divert attention from the real law and order issue – which is the correct management and response to occurrences of coercive sex in custody. Most importantly of all, it does nothing to address the fact that prisoners will continue to have sex and an even more punitive system will worsen the risky practices causing this public health crisis.

In the US, Just Detention International successfully showed that prison rape was not only inhumane but also cost the community far more – financially as well as socially – than successfully preventing rape behind bars. Similarly, the cost to us all will be greater in dealing with the spread of STIs than a pragmatic policy to ensure safe sex in our prison system.

Michael Amherst is on the board of Just Detention International and the Howard League Commission on Sex in Prisons

A prison guard at HMP Pentonville. Photo: Getty
Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle