DOJ OIG Concerns: BOP Handling Of Inmate Statements In Misconduct Investigations.pdf

This Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) memorandum expresses serious concerns regarding the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) handling of investigations into alleged misconduct by its employees. The issue arose from an inquiry about a disciplinary action following an OIG investigation of sexual abuse by a BOP employee.

Key Concerns:

1. Inmate Testimony Disregard: The OIG was informed that the BOP does not rely on inmate testimony for administrative misconduct findings unless there's independent evidence (e.g., videos, forensic evidence) establishing the misconduct. However, such testimony is admissible and often sufficient in criminal and civil cases with a lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard compared to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" required in criminal cases.

2. Inconsistent Policy Application: The BOP's position contradicts DOJ policies and Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) regulations, which mandate individual credibility assessments for alleged victims without considering their inmate status.

3. Case Example: In a case where the OIG substantiated misconduct based on credible inmate testimony and corroborating evidence, the BOP limited discipline to a short suspension, despite criminal charges against the employee for sexual abuse.

Consequences of Current Practice:

- Risks for BOP in handling administrative matters, as inmate testimony is often crucial but dismissed.
- Potential underreporting or unproved misconduct due to inmates' fear of retaliation or mistrust in the system.

Request:

The OIG requests a review and clarification of BOP policies regarding the use of inmate statements in disciplinary proceedings.