A recent study, Abuse of Women in Custody: Sexual Misconduct and Shackling of Pregnant Women, by Amnesty International (AI) reports that even in the United States, women prisoners cannot expect safety from abuse by agents of the state. The report packs shock value but is also sensational and manipulative.

AI reports that women in the prison system are subject to sexual assault by guards and other staff and that their attackers are seldom prosecuted. The recent multi-million dollar award in favor of three female inmates in Mansfield, TX, who alleged rape and other sexual assaults by their guards, would seem a notable exception.

In California, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported approximately 120 cases between 1995–1998. Of these cases, 22 were substantiated, and all perpetrators experienced some form of censure.

According to AI, more than 1,000 cases of sexual misconduct were reported over the past three years. They also believe that hundreds more go unreported due to fear over retaliation. Upon closer inspection, however, AI defines sexual abuse broadly, including all sexual contact and content.

AI suggests that states classify everything, from suggestive language and sexual contact to actual rape, as sexual abuse, thereby, making it punishable. They further suggest that only female guards supervise female prisoners. Obviously, there should be rules in place for appropriate inmate and staff conduct. But AI's suggestions that women are victims of abuse are carefully spun sound bites to get across the more subtle suggestion that existing rules are inadequate.

In the process, they pervert the meaning of sexual abuse to instead mean anything adults might do regarding the topic of sex. This is clearly reminiscent of the crusade for sexual harassment rules. In the quest to "protect" women, consenting adults are cast as victims and victimizers. The media is complicit in the spinning of this story as yet another tale of victimized women.

The titles of prominent stories were variations on "Female inmates not protected," giving the initial impression that women are being systematically abused. The articles did little to dispel that impression, reading like AI press releases with new bylines. The journalists missed the real story here of confusing rules, double standards, and how an organization can make a report about inappropriate sexual conduct between staff and inmates into headlines about the plight of abused women.

There are indeed many problems in our prison system, including overcrowding and inadequate background checks for guards. However, it is crucial to document accurately the real problems, not sensationalize inappropriate behavior.

When rape occurs, call it rape. When assault occurs, call it assault. Having sex in an inappropriate setting should be guarded against, but abuse it is not. However inappropriate, consensual sex should not be confused with rape. To publicly declare such confusion would regress the status of women to mindless animals without an ability to know when they really mean "no."

Here's a counter suggestion to those proposed by AI. States should apply existing criminal statutes to those who have committed sexual assault, a real crime with too many real victims. And journalists should make sure abuse is occurring before writing a story about the oppression of the week.