This actually has been an issue in penalogy. In the United States, our guiding principle has been gender equality - we treat male and female employees as much the same as possible. The result of this is we have female guards in male prisons and male guards in female prisons.
But other countries have different principles. Most countries require guards to be the same gender as their prisoners. And they argue that we’re wrong because we’re violating the civil rights of the prisoners by having male guards watch female prisoners and vice verse.
So we have two opposite systems, each claiming to be guided by higher moral principles.
I should also add, in the UK only certain people are given the right to search, anyone else doing it would be classed as an assault.
So, all Police, some medical practitioners and certain grades of prison staff, - not all of them and also these can only be undertaken in certain circumstances.There may be other more obscure ones, such as in the case of protection workers attempting to prevent suicide - these would be covered under emergency rules - preservation of life.
It is not something you would do alone, for many reasons.
Those such as store detectives or teachers, security guards and pseudo-law enforcers like airport security would have to wait until such a person was available, there are persuasive ways of trying to gain your consent, however if this was done and adequately witnessed and documented there would be a serious court case.
Even if you believe the subject has stolen some of your property and has it about their person you do not have the right to search unless you are doing so under the correct circumstances and also your profession is one of those so allowed.
Easy: Male prisoners should have the same rights as their female counterparts. That female guards might have less work to do (???) is completely irrelevant.
The rule regarding male officers not being allowed to search female inmates is not universal across all jails/prisons. In my experience, in most detention facilities, the preference is on same sex searches, with strips being 100% same sex, but necessity dictates. More male inmates means some men get searched by women.
I’ve seen where men hide contraband. I’m protected under the law, so screw delicate sensibilities, I’m getting up in their junk. Just like I would (do, have) females.
I don’t know specifically. I guess it’s considered gender roles - the idea that there are some things that are supposed to be done by men and some things that are supposed to be done by women.
The problem is that frisking prisoners is a routine and regular part of a guard’s job. If a woman can’t do that, then you’re going to have to assign a male guard to work with her to do the frisks. And if you’ve got a male guard there, why do you also need the female guard? What would end up happening is that you would have pretty much all male guards and wouldn’t hire any female guards. And then you end up in court defending yourself against a sexual discrimination lawsuit.
Suppose a prisoner objected to a similar search being conducted by an openly gay (but completely professional) male guard? That is, the prisoner could not point to any action taken by the guard that was inappropriate, but he objects simply based on his knowledge that the guard was gay. Could that circumstance render the search unreasonable?
Female guards could be even more limited than that. If they can’t search male prisoners can they supervise them in the showers? What about using the toilet? Considering that toilets are right out in the open and anybody watching the cell can see them restrictions like that would make female guards pretty useless. Just about the only thing left for them to do would be searching female visitors. Are male guards allowed to do those things (showers & toilet) in female jails/prisons?
Another thing, you know those prison documentaries that MSNBC, TruTV, and Discovery are so fond of showing? They frequently feature footage of group strip searches (with faces & naughty bits blurred) of male inmates, often in open areas where female staff are present in the background. They never show anything like that with female inmates, even when the whole documentary is about a women’s prison. Are women just not subject to group searchs, or is it a matter of wardens simply being unwilling to allow camera crews that much access to female prisoners? Or maybe the production companies are just afraid of turning off viewers who’s consider that too exploitive?
I’m frankly surprised that a prisoner, who has probably been denied contact with the opposite sex for some time, would mind a woman putting her hand in his pants. In fact, I’d bet if there were lines, most of the guys would be in the line to be searched by the woman.
The problem is that they’re already doing this for female prisoners (they can only be frisked by female guards). The arguments you’re making now could be applied to their situation as well.
I agree that the whole “only be frisked by your own gender” thing is stupid. But they’re already providing this “protection” for women and so I think it follows that men should be entitled to it, too.
That might just be an indication that male prisoners are more extroverted than female prisoners. I don’t know if this is the true everywhere but in New York, the media generally can only photograph or record a prisoner if he or she gives them permission to do so. So if you see any of those prison shows set in a NY prison or jail, you know that every prisoner signed a permission slip to appear.
The prison would likely win such a lawsuit. Treating genders equitably doesn’t mean that the number of people you hire has to be the same as its prevalence in the general population.
The way it’s handled in US law is not perfect but still seems to apply a reasonable test. I’ll confess to not knowing the details of US law on this topic but I remember something about the disparate impact test:
First, the plaintiff must show that a rule makes it so that a protected group is represented to a lesser degree among the employees.
Second, if the plaintiff succeeds at step 1, the defendant has to show that this rule pursues a legitimate goal through proportional means.
Third, if the defendant succeeds at step 2, the defendant must suggest a rule which would accomplish the legitimate goal but have a lesser impact on the representation of the group.
Here, the goal is legitimate since it’s protecting the privacy rights of inmates. I don’t see how another rule which protects the inmates’ privacy rights could have a lesser impact on the representation of female guards.
Except the courts say otherwise. They’ve pretty consistently ruled that male and female guards can do pat frisks and the other routine duties of working in a male prison equally so prisons cannot base their hiring on gender.
Bricker: “I’m curious if readers believe this is the proper result. And assuming that it is, what implications it has for the employment rights of female guards.”
I was assuming that this was the proper result. If it is the proper result, courts will start considering not having female guards search male inmates a legitimate goal.
Courts haven’t allowed hiring to be done by gender because they don’t consider having male inmates searched by same sex guards to be a legitimate goal. When and if the courts do, prisons will not have to worry about losing a lawsuit.
As for whether it is the proper result, I cannot see a distinction being made which doesn’t rely on stereotypes. See the previous comment about how the courts thought a male being nude in front of females is nothing. The prejudices of past judges can be corrected by (hopefully) present ones.
" I cannot see a distinction being made which doesn’t rely on stereotypes."
Actually, that’s too strong a statement. I should have said that thinking it’s not a violation of the male inmates privacy rights is based on stereotypes. The violation may be greater for females and it certainly represents more of a risk for female inmates but it is still a violation of male inmates’ privacy.
Yes, particularly in view of the fact that female inmates already have the same protection:
I’m more concerned by the implication that my taxes are paying people who spend 0.1% of their time on the clock performing strip-searches and 99.9% of it playing pinochle or watching TV or otherwise not working.
It is an ominous experience to be forced to remove every bit of clothing that you have on your body, and thus removing all of your dignity. To make thing worse is to have someone of the opposite sex either performing the search or in the same room watching the search. It is my understanding that males are not to search females at all according to the law, but females can on certain occasions search males. This is a double standard and should be against the law. The argument is that females do not get aroused at the site of nude males. That might be true to some extent but arousal is not the issue. The issue is dignity and the total embarrassment of a male being completely vulnerable and nude in front of a female. It is a proven fact that females do have a tendency to be aroused by the embarrassment, humiliation and the shear power of forcing a male to strip in front of them. If I, as a male was ever put into the position to be stripped searched by a female or in the sight of a female officer, I would totally refuse if even if they beat the crap out of me, I would fight until my dieing breath to keep my clothes on. I know one thing, they would have some explaining to do when a man was disfigured and killed just for the sake of a strip search.