Although prisoner rape is violative of international, U.S., and state laws, the historic response to prisoner rape has been inadequate and indifferent. According to Jenness and Smythe, it was the specific intent of the PREA to address these issues. As Jenness and Smyth point out, "Current institutional policies regarding sexual violence are in need of reform and greater enforcement. The Prison Rape Elimination Act creates important incentives and standards, encouraging states to respond more responsibly" (p. 490). In sum, despite the adoption of the recommendations by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, PREA represents a step in the right direction in modern correctional management. By contrast, in her study, "Introduction: Sexuality, Criminalization, and Social Control," Sears (2010) reports that, "Although PREA addresses a clear and pressing problem (sexual violence in prison), observers have criticized its primary focus on violent rape between male prisoners and its relative neglect of staff sexual abuse, the complexities of sexual coercion, and structural violence within the prison environment" (p. 1). Moreover, Sears maintains that the Prison Rape Elimination Act will unfairly target homosexual and bisexual juvenile offenders. According to Sears, "PREA has also effectively criminalized same-sex sexual activity between institutionalized girls, illuminating the capillary power of the adult male prison system to spread its policies...

2). Based on her analysis, Sears suggests that the juvenile justice system in the United States "robs girls of their sexual agency and systematically pathologizes, punishes, and marginalizes lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth" (p. 2). Taken together, Sears argues that although reforms are needed, the provisions of PREA are misplaced and are not the appropriate mechanism to achieve them.
Conclusion

The research showed that in 2003, President George Bush signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act that was intended to address the national social issue of prison rape. At first blush, it would seem that no one could argue with the need for this legislation as well as the recommendations of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. The research also showed, though, that despite the need, opponents of the legislation argue that the costs of implementation are prohibitive and the law does not go far enough in addressing the wide range of other social ills that are part of the problems being experienced in American prisons.

References

Jenness, V. & Smyth, M. (2011, Spring). The passage and implementation of the Prison Rape

Elimination Act: Legal endogeneity and the uncertain road from symbolic law to instrumental effects. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 489-493.

Sears, C. (2010, Spring). Introduction: Sexuality,…