Last November, federal prosecutors invited incarcerated woman Ilene Wahpet to deliver a victim impact statement at the sentencing of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employee Andrew Jones, who was convicted of Convicted of sexually assaulting three other prisoners.
Less than a year later, the U.S. government is fighting an early release petition filed by Vahpeta based on the same allegations prosecutors had previously invited her to speak about, saying she was not a designated victim in the criminal case against Jones and Her accusations are not credible.
Ministry of Justice declare In 2022, amid several serious investigations into sexual assault by federal prison staff, federal prisons are working to expand an early release program to include women abused in prison, but Vahpeta’s case is criminal An example of what justice advocates say is that the Justice Department is weakening the policy. Lawyers representing incarcerated women seeking early release because of their status as sexual assault survivors say federal prosecutors now often work to disqualify their clients because of too narrow a definition.
The core of the problem is new policy The U.S. Sentencing Commission passed a bill in April 2023 that would make federal prisoners sexually abused by staff eligible for compassionate release. Compassionate release is a policy that allows federal prisoners to apply for early release for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, such as terminal illness or family emergencies. However, the expansion includes a significant caveat that was added based on the Department of Justice’s recommendation. To be eligible, an inmate’s sexual abuse allegation “must be substantiated by a conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of responsibility in a civil case, or a finding in an administrative proceeding.”
Criminal justice advocacy group Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) has been providing legal representation to women formerly incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Dublin. , sexual abuse is rampant. turn it off earlier this year.
Shanna Rifkin, FAMM deputy general counsel, said that of the 25 cases they have taken on, 17 women have been released. But Rifkin said the administration’s opposition to the new policy statement has grown significantly since it came into effect.
“Prior to this policy statement taking effect on November 1, 2023, in nearly every case the administration either agreed or did not oppose compassionate release motions,” Rifkin said. “Since then, motions for compassionate release based on sexual abuse have been met with further resistance.”
The Justice Department argued that requiring a guilty verdict would set clear standards for judges. it written in a public opinion Regarding the Sentencing Commission’s proposed changes to “allow compassionate release hearings only after other administrative or legal proceedings have been completed, this would help ensure that charges are adjudicated more equitably, prevent mini-trials on charges, and reduce the number of pending trials.” interference with investigations and prosecutions.
However, Rifkin said this weakens a major reform in the 2018 First Step Act. and power to delay petitions.
“This essentially puts the Department of Justice back in the driver’s seat because who is in charge of criminal cases? The Department of Justice,” Rifkin said of the new policy announcement. “Victims of abuse have no say in when they file charges against their abusers.” “Whether it will be brought, and if so, who will be charged as the victim in the case.” “
While a conviction may sound like a reasonable standard, meeting it is surprisingly difficult in cases of sexual assault committed by government employees.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 6 percent of perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct in substantiated incidents in federal and state prisons from 2016 to 2018 were convicted, sentenced, fined, or pleaded guilty.
reason Details last year How a group of corrupt guards at a federal minimum-security camp in Florida preyed on women for years without oversight. The guards eventually admitted under oath to internal affairs investigators that they assaulted the imprisoned women, but most were allowed to retire and none were charged.
Last year, the Justice Department stepped up inspections of prisons and prosecutions of corrupt BOP employees, but even with more vigilant oversight, criminal cases do not move quickly through the court system, especially if defendants go to trial. Rifkin cited a pending case against a former FCI Dublin Correctional Officer who is accused of assaulting three women. he is Prosecuted in May 2023but his trial is not scheduled until 2025.
“So, ostensibly, female survivors of his abuse must wait until the government concludes their cases before they can pursue identifiable claims under this policy statement,” Rifkin explained.
As for civil lawsuits against government employees, which often take years to resolve, settlement agreements often provide that they do not constitute an admission of guilt by the defendant.
There are clear differences in how petitions are handled before and after the new standards are promulgated. Take Aimee Chavira, a former prisoner at Dublin FCI, for example. Said she was abused by five prison guards After being transferred out of prison, he continued to suffer retaliation.
When Chavela filed a petition for compassionate release, only one of the officers was charged and another committed suicide while under investigation. Nonetheless, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California filed suit. No objection to motion Respond to her petition. chavira is freed Last May.
In stark contrast to the Vahpeta case, prosecutors not only sought to apply the ruling requirements but also attacked her credibility.
in court documents be opposed to According to Vachpeta’s petition, prosecutors noted that Vachpeta never provided a victim impact statement due to objections from Jones’ attorney and concerns that her story was not fully corroborated. The government also took into account her initial refusal to cooperate with FBI investigators and her denial of abuse; that letters she wrote to her family while in solitary confinement made no mention of abuse; that she considered hiring an attorney; and that her description of abuse was inconsistent with Jones’ criminal case. The accounts of the named victims in the cases are remarkably similar.
“Even when she wrote to her parents, she was primarily concerned about getting out of incarceration as soon as possible rather than reporting what she saw,” federal prosecutors argued. “Furthermore, defendant never mentioned that he was a victim of abuse, But that she witnessed abuse.”
But this type of behavior is all too common in prison sex abuse cases. Incarcerated sexual assault victims often initially refuse to cooperate with investigators out of fear of retaliation from correctional officers, who still have complete control over their lives. In fact, Vahpeta was placed in solitary confinement while Jones was under investigation, where she remained for more than two months before Jones was taken out of jail. Beyond embarrassment or any other personal reasons, survivors’ communications with their families are often vague because correctional officers can read their letters and emails.
Bay Area news outlet KTVU has Interviewed dozens of women Regarding incidents of sexual abuse and retaliation within FCI Dublin over the past two years, and lawsuits filed on behalf of multiple incarcerated FCI Dublin women describe Details of the crackdown inside prisons: “Survivors who reported sexual abuse were subjected to verbal threats, physical assaults, solitary confinement, false disciplinary tickets issued, cells thrown out, property destroyed, mail (including legal mail) interfered with, strip searches, and Transferred to other BoP institutions away from their families and even targeted for further sexual abuse.
in a sentencing memorandum In Jones’ case, prosecutors are acutely aware of how retaliation works inside federal prisons. “In order to maintain the silence that was central to his predatory conduct, Jones created an environment of intimidation, fear and retaliation,” prosecutors wrote. “It was more than just words. Jones also coerced silence through violence and threats of violence. and obedience.”
Now, however, federal prosecutors view Vahpeta’s silence as a sign against her.
“The Department of Justice has determined whether Ms. Vakhpeta is lying. The ultimate result is that she is not lying,” Vakhpeta’s attorney wrote in a statement. reply. “When the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California invited her to read a victim impact statement at Officer Andrew Jones’ sentencing hearing, it determined that she was not. If the government believed Ms. Vahpeta was lying, it had a duty to do so, in fact, During the time Ms. Vahpeta cooperated with the government, the government never asked her or her lawyers what happened.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
