Prison Rape Elimination Act Case Study

The use of force policy and the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) policy can often be too detailed in nature. This police dictate what orderly steps an officer must take to enforce policies because law enforcement administrators and managers decide subjectively if the action taken by the officer was right or wrong. These policies are detailed in nature to them having a higher risk of litigation.

For example, an officer is faced with a hostile Inmate who appears to be under the influence of a substance. The officer attempts to communicate with the inmate, but the irate inmate begins to yell and spits in the officer’s face. The Officers takes immediate action by grabbing the inmate’s shirt and turns him around to face the wall. The officers take this action because of he aware of being infected by the bodily fluids of the inmates. The Inmate makes a continuous attempt to turn around and face the officer. To prevent the inmate from making further contact, the officer holds the inmate’s head against the wall. Policy and procedures dictate that the officer should have called for assistance to subdue the inmate and placed him in handcuffs to gain control of the situation. …show more content…
A planned use of force could have been implemented by the immediate supervisor on the scene. Taking this action frees the officer of personal liability and holding the supervisor liable inmate injuries. The reactionary use of for would still cover the officer due to his perception of the immediate threat. The reactionary use of force leaves the officer open to more litigation and disciplinary action depending on the injuries the inmate sustained during this incident. Regardless of the Use of force policy implemented, the inmate can still hold someone responsible for the injuries they