Internal Conference Report (final)

Fifth Annual Women & Justice Conference Report:
Women, Prison, and Gender-Based Violence
April 14-15, 2015 – Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC
Internal Version

Acknowledgments
The Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School is grateful to the following
organizations and individuals for their valuable contributions to the Fifth Annual Women and Justice
Conference.
The Center would like to thank the Avon Foundation for Women for its generous grant to the Center,
which made possible this Conference and the Center’s work. We are also grateful to Seneca Women, the
Virtue Foundation, and Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe LLP for their support and partnership.
The Center would like to thank the panelists and conference participants, whose insights and experiences
allowed for a rich and fruitful discussion.
The Center would like to thank the members of its Steering Committee for their valuable participation in
the conference and continual support and guidance.
The Center would like to thank its conference rapporteurs: Allison Hoppe, Andrew Yost, Elinathan
Ohiomoba, Jackline Mwende Mwanthi, Maneepailin Sriuthenchai, and Sarone Solomon for their
tremendous support during and after the conference. Their assistance was crucial to the preparation of
this conference report.
The Center hopes that the ideas and best practices shared and new connections made at the conference
will assist participants in their important work to fulfill the implementation of the United Nations’ Bangkok
Rules.

Table of Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................................1
Day 1: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 ..................................................................................................................2
Panel 1: Advancing Justice for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence ......................................................2
Day 2: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 .............................................................................................................3
Panel 2: Framing the Issues – Women, Prison, and Gender-Based Violence.........................................3
Panel 3: The Role of Judges in Addressing the Causes, Conditions, and Consequences of Women’s
Imprisonment ..........................................................................................................................................10
Senior Roundtable on Women in the Judiciary .....................................................................................13
The Way Forward: Insights and Recommendations from Break-Out Group Discussions ...............13
Pathways to women’s imprisonment, sentencing, and alternatives to incarceration..............................13
Conditions of women’s imprisonment .....................................................................................................14
Consequences of women’s imprisonment, including for children and families.......................................17
Gender-based violence as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s imprisonment ...............19
Closing Remarks and Thanks..................................................................................................................20
Appendix 1: Recommendations from Senior Roundtable on Women in the Judiciary.....................21
Appendix 2: List of Participants ..............................................................................................................24

1 Women and Justice Conference 2015
Overview
The Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School held its fifth annual Women and
Justice Conference on April 14-15, 2015, at the law offices of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in
Washington, D.C. Entitled “Women, Prison, and Gender-Based Violence,” the conference brought
together more than seventy distinguished judges, human rights lawyers, and activists from over fifteen
countries. Through several public panels and a closed-session judicial colloquium, the conference
considered how violence against women can operate as a cause, condition, and consequence of
women’s imprisonment, and the role of judges in addressing those causes, conditions, and
consequences. Following the roundtable, the participating judges attended the Seneca Women Global
Leadership Forum, which included a special tribute to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor. The conference was made possible by a generous grant from the Avon Foundation for Women
and was also co-sponsored by Seneca Women and the Virtue Foundation.
In recent years, the number of women who are deprived of their liberty around the world has increased
significantly and disproportionately in comparison to the number of male prisoners. Yet, international and
domestic laws governing prisons traditionally have been designed for men. This began to change in 2010,
when the United Nations adopted the first set of international prison standards for women, the Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Female Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women
Offenders (Bangkok Rules). The Bangkok Rules recognize that the principle of nondiscrimination requires
States to address the unique challenges that women face and to take into account their particular needs.
However, the gender-specific experiences of women offenders and prisoners are often overlooked. These
include gender-based violence, which many women experience as a cause, condition, and consequence
of incarceration.
Studies of women prisoners reveal a strong correlation between violence against women and women's
imprisonment. The abuse that women experience is often a cause of their subsequent imprisonment. For
example, some women have used force to defend themselves against their abusers, while others have
committed economic offences in response to coercion by abusive partners. Gender-based violence also
pervades the experiences of many women in prison and is often a direct or indirect collateral
consequence of women's incarceration. Although the adoption of the Bangkok Rules was an important
achievement, much work is needed to implement their standards in laws, policies, and practices globally.
This work must include efforts to understand and address the pathways that cause women to end up in
prison, the conditions of their imprisonment, and the consequences of incarceration—as well as the
myriad ways in which gender-based violence is intertwined with these causes, conditions, and
consequences.
The Conference focused on the role of judges in these efforts, examining what judges can do to address
the pathways that lead to women's imprisonment, monitor and improve the conditions that women
experience in prison, and ameliorate the negative consequences of custody for women and their families.
By convening judges and other stakeholders from around the world, the conference facilitated an
important discussion on the role of judges in realizing the rights of women prisoners and offenders and
addressing the linkages between violence against women and women’s imprisonment. The Center thanks
all conference participants for an extremely valuable exchange of information, energy, and ideas.

Women and Justice Conference 2015 2
Day 1: Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Panel 1: Advancing Justice for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence
Welcoming Remarks: Kim Azzarelli, Co-Founder, Seneca Women and Partner, Seneca Point Global;
and Co-Founder and Steering Committee Chair, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
Conference Overview: Elizabeth Brundige, Executive Director, Avon Global Center for Women and
Justice and Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Moderator: Gigi M. Scoles, Director, Human Rights, Vital Voices Global Partnership
Panelists:
• Hon. Josselyne Béjar, Penal Judge, Criminal Court, Mexico and Secretary, Mexican Association
of Women Judges
• Christine Jaworsky, Program Director, Speak Out Against Domestic Violence, Avon Foundation
for Women; and Steering Committee Member, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
• Betsy Bramon, Program Officer, Office of Global Programs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor, U.S. Department of State
The fifth annual Women and Justice Conference began with welcoming remarks from Kim Azzarelli.
After greeting the participants, Ms. Azzarelli urged them to use their skills and resources to empower
women and girls and informed them of her forthcoming book entitled Fast Forward: How Women Can
Achieve Power and Purpose. Ms. Azzarelli concluded by introducing the Executive Director of the Avon
Global Center, Elizabeth Brundige.
Elizabeth Brundige informed the group that the rate of women’s imprisonment has increased
disproportionately in the last few decades. In 2010, the United Nations adopted the Bangkok Rules, which
require states to address the unique challenges that women face in prison. This includes addressing
gender-based violence, which many women experience as a cause, a condition, or a consequence of
incarceration. While introducing the theme of the first panel, Professor Brundige told the audience about
two reports from the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice—based on research from New York
State and Argentina—that considered the links between gender-based violence and female incarceration.
Cornell students affiliated with the Center also conducted broader research on the links between gender-
based violence and women’s imprisonment, which was cited by Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur
on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, in a report to the UN General Assembly.
This research was cited in the Special Rapporteur’s 2013 Report to the UN General Assembly on women
in prison. Prof. Brundige also spoke about Cornell Law School’s Death Penalty Worldwide Project, which
is conducting research on the challenges faced by women sentenced to death in countries around the
world. Prof. Brundige said that addressing these issues highlighted the critical role that judges and courts
can play in improving the lives of women caught up in the criminal justice system. The conference,
therefore, would examine what judges can do to address the causes, conditions, and consequences of
women’s imprisonment, particularly as they relate to gender-based violence.
Prof. Brundige said that the first panel would consider responses to gender-based violence, which can be
a root cause of women’s imprisonment. She noted that the experts on the panel would discuss a new
initiative that provides specialized training to judges.

Gigi Scoles, the moderator for the session, spoke about Vital Voices’ work in the area of gender-based
violence. She also explained that prior to her role as director of Human Rights with Vital Voices Global
Partnership she was a state prosecutor for eight years, partially focusing on child sexual assault and
trafficking. Ms. Scoles also spoke about her time in Dijbouti as a legal advisor on trafficking. Ms. Scoles
then introduced the three panelists.
Christine Jaworsky began by outlining Avon’s history and the Avon Foundation for Women’s extensive
work in empowering women since 1955. In 1992, the Avon Foundation launched a campaign against
breast cancer and polled to see which other issues were a priority. Violence against women was the most
frequently mentioned issue in these polls. The Foundation has granted about $60 million to address this
issue and launched the Speak Out About Domestic Violence initiative, which now operates in about fifty
countries that Avon works in. Working with Vital Voices and the U.S. Department of State, the initiative
has funded toolkits and delegations in many countries.
Betsy Bramon described the work of the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. One of
the programs funded by Bureau is the Gender-Based Violence Emergency Response and Protection
Initiative, which provides short-term assistance for survivors of extreme forms of gender-based violence
as a bridge to existing services, as well as providing technical assistance to those working to address
gender-based violence. It is also working with Vital Voices to build and coordinate a global network
across the Middle East, Africa, South and Central Asia, and Latin America. Ms. Bramon mentioned that
over 100 women from all over the world had sought emergency referrals over the past year: some were
victims of rape, and others were escaping death threats.
Hon. Josselyne Béjar stated that the sixteen criminal courts in the state of Guadalajara, Mexico receive
approximately twenty cases of gender-based violence per month including femicide and domestic
violence. Hon. Béjar outlined the cultural issues that she believes contribute to these cases: poverty,
machismo, and lack of access to economic opportunities, education and justice. The Avon Foundation
supported an initiative allowing Hon. Bejar to work with Vital Voices to hold the Justice Institute to Combat
Gender-Based Violence in Guadalajara in 2014. This program focused on domestic violence and
provided innovative training to judges, prosecutors, government officials, victim service providers, and law
enforcement officers. In the six months following the Justice Institute, Hon. Bejar says that the mentality
of state actors involved in the investigation and prosecution of these cases has changed.
Day 2: Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Panel 2: Framing the Issues – Women, Prison, and Gender-Based Violence
Welcoming Remarks: Hon. Ann C. Williams, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and
Steering Committee Member, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
Moderator: Sandra L. Babcock, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, International Human Rights
Clinic, Cornell Law School; and Steering Committee Member, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
Panelists:
• Sarah Chandler, Human Rights and Community Justice Trainer; and Former Coordinator of the
Lillooet Restorative Justice Program, Canada
• Corina Giacomello, Researcher, International Drug Policy Consortium, UK; and National Institute
of Penal Science, Mexico

• Olivia Rope, Program Officer, Penal Reform International
• Jaya Vasandani, Associate Director, Women in Prison Project, New York Correctional
Association
Hon. Ann C. Williams welcomed the participants to the second day of the conference, and said that the
conference addressed one of the “most compelling issues of our time.” Hon. Williams then provided some
background about the treatment of women in U.S. prisons. She told the audience how Congress first
focused on this issue in 1979, when it noted that women offenders in the United States were not getting
adequate healthcare and job training. Since then, Hon. Williams noted, despite progress in some states,
the main issues remain unaddressed as there is no systemic plan. Meanwhile, the number of
incarcerated women continues to grow. Hon. Williams referenced a study by Yale Law School’s Arthur
Liman Public Interest Program, which found that 1.6 million individuals, including 100,000 women, are
imprisoned in the United States. The study also found that in the federal system the rate of women being
incarcerated is higher than that of men. Hon. Williams then went on to discuss the significant role played
by race in the incarceration of women. Black women are two times more likely to be incarcerated and
Latina women are three times more likely to be incarcerated.
Next, Hon. Williams discussed the causes and conditions of women’s imprisonment. Studies show that
women prisoners are more likely than male prisoners to have mental-health needs, and 8 in 10 mentally
ill inmates are physically or sexually abused. 7 in 10 women who are incarcerated have minor children
(1.3 million). There is 40% more drug use among women in prison as compared to incarcerated men. Yet
another troubling condition of incarcerated women’s lives is the difficulty that they experience in receiving
visitors, as states enact policies that limit visitation rights or discourage an offender’s family from visiting.
For example, New Hampshire prohibits toys in visiting rooms, Rhode Island terminates visits if children
misbehave or make noise, and West Virginia requires visitors to have multiple forms of ID.
Hon. Williams then summarized the government’s attempt to convert the women’s prison in Danbury,
Connecticut, to a men’s facility. This proposal would have required the women prisoners to be relocated
over 1,000 miles away to Alabama, even though most of the women were from the Northeast. In
response to concerns raised by women prisoners and their families, Yale’s Liman program, judges,
congress members, and others, the Government relocated the women closer to home. Hon. Williams
shared the lesson learned from the Danbury campaign: “We have power, but how do we exercise that
power? We exercise that power when we work together.”
Hon. Williams ended by saying that Yale is working to address the lack of data by examining gender-
sensitive policies in penal institutions and that the future research may include a state-by-state analysis of
the success of gender-sensitive policies.
Sandra Babcock introduced the first panel of Day 2. Professor Babcock explained that the previous
day’s panel had focused on efforts to promote justice through prosecutions. By contrast, today’s panel
would focus on the causes, conditions, and consequences of women’s incarceration. Prof. Babcock
outlined how panels often focus on prosecutions and tools to help prosecutors obtain convictions for
gender-based violence, but do not focus on addressing a woman’s experience of violence at the
sentencing stage. It is more difficult to discuss gender-based violence and the causes, conditions, and
consequences of women’s incarceration because women offenders do not simply transgress the law:
they also transgress gender stereotypes. Women offenders do not fit preconceived ideas of women as
feminine and passive. Instead, women offenders are complicated persons; often, they have been
traumatized and victimized and acted out in response.
Prof. Babcock emphasized that there has been too little focus on how gender-based violence relates to
women’s incarceration. She noted that despite the numerous findings that Hon. Williams cited, there is a
dearth of data on experiences of violence and incarceration even though there is a need for such data

and Bangkok Rule 67 calls for this type of research. Prof. Babcock explained that Cornell Law School’s
Death Penalty Worldwide and the Avon Global Center have recently launched a project that examines
women on death row. The researchers were shocked to find that no organization had yet examined the
global population of women on death row. Based on a small sample set, the study has found a correlation
between gender-based violence and the imposition of capital sentences. Prof. Babcock hoped that this
study would launch a broader project, which would lead to the collection of further data to help advocate
for women on death row.
Olivia Rope explained that Penal Reform International (PRI) is an international NGO based in London
that prioritizes the implementation of the Bangkok Rules and the promotion of appropriate and sensitive
responses to offending by women, among other criminal justice issues. Ms. Rope noted that this year
marks the five-year anniversary of the United Nations’ adoption of the Bangkok Rules and stressed that it
is now time to implement the rules and meet the needs of incarcerated women. Ms. Rope explained that
her presentation would focus on three links between violence and incarceration: violence as a pathway to
incarceration, violence in detention, and returning to a life of violence.
Regarding the first topic, violence as a pathway to incarceration, Ms. Rope explained how incarceration is
often a result of layers of deprivation and discrimination. Some countries penalize women for sexual acts
like adultery, and women are imprisoned for adultery even when there is clear indication that the woman
was raped. In some countries, women are placed in custody for their own “protection.”
Ms. Rope then cited selected studies on the links between violence and incarceration. In Tunisia, almost
half of the incarcerated women that PRI surveyed had experienced domestic violence. In other research
in Argentina, 38% of the incarcerated women surveyed had experienced domestic violence before
entering prison, and 31% of the women surveyed had been raped at least once. Furthermore, PRI’s
research has found that a significant number of women are incarcerated for violent crimes against male
members of their family in which they acted in self-defense and to protect their children. Ms. Rope
emphasized that the Bangkok Rules provide a framework to address women offenders’ experiences of
violence. For instance, Rule 61 provides that, when sentencing women offenders, courts should have the
power to consider mitigating factors such as lack of criminal history or non-severity of an offense in light of
women’s caretaking responsibilities. Similarly, Rule 57 instructs states to develop appropriate responses
to women offenders—many of whom have a history of victimization—in developing non-custodial
alternatives to incarceration.
In light of these provisions of the Bangkok Rules, PRI is currently working with law firms providing pro
bono research on the legal treatment of women who commit violent crimes against male members of their
family following systemic domestic violence. The preliminary results from this research have shown a
need to sensitize legislators and judges to the dynamics of domestic violence. As an example, Ms. Rope
noted that in one case a judge had asked a woman offender who had experienced domestic violence why
she did not leave her husband. Also, judges and legislatures do not always recognize provocation as a
defense. Where provocation is recognized as a defense, it is either not applied consistently or not applied
at all. In the United Kingdom, there have been reforms such as the recognition of battered women’s
syndrome and the partial defense of “loss of control” for women who commit crimes in response to
violence.
Moving on to her second topic, violence in detention, Ms. Rope explained how female prisoners are often
particularly vulnerable because of their low socio-economic status and gender, and because they are not
aware of their rights. While in custody, women are subjected to ill treatment including virginity testing,
invasive body searches by male staff, insults, and rape. The Bangkok Rules provide guidance on
addressing and preventing violence in detention. For example, Bangkok Rule 6 provides that women
should be given a medical screening upon entering prison to detect signs of ill treatment. Additionally,
Rule 7 explains what a prison is obligated to do if symptoms of violence are detected.

Next, Ms. Rope discussed her third topic, returning to a life of violence, and the importance of
reintegration. After their release, women offenders are still subjected to violence and stereotypes. In
countries across the world, from Pakistan to Sweden, women offenders are shunned by their families
after returning from prison. Women offenders are rejected by their families and lose their parental rights.
These gender-specific challenges exist in addition to the normal challenges of transitioning to life after
incarceration. Bangkok Rules 43–45 provide guidance on how to address this problem.
Ms. Rope concluded by asking the judges to reflect upon how their national systems are addressing
violence prior to, during, and after incarceration, and how their national systems are working to reduce the
use of prisons through non-custodial alternatives.
Corina Giacomello explained that her research with the UK International Drug Policy Consortium and
the Mexican National Institute of Penal Science focuses on drug-related offenses. Over the past decade,
feminists and sociologists have helped shed light on how women become incarcerated and the effects of
incarceration on women. To understand women’s incarceration, Ms. Giacomello asked the audience to
consider, firstly, the impact of universal discrimination against women and patriarchal values and,
secondly, the specific country and setting where a woman is incarcerated.
Ms. Giacomello addressed how discrimination and patriarchal values can influence how women become
involved in illegal acts. Violence can trigger a woman’s involvement in illegal acts, but women can also
become involved in illegal acts because of what are perceived as “normal” gender relationships. Women
commit crimes because they believe in the authority of the men that they love and will be imprisoned
because a man said, “carry this” and they complied. The role that gendered relationships play in causing
women’s incarceration is masked by the gender-neutral characteristics of the law. What is defined as a
crime in a given society affects women’s incarceration in terms of the acts that initially render women
criminally liable and also in terms of the sentences that courts hand down. To some extent, we can make
generalizations about women’s incarceration: women offenders often come from a background of
violence, low education, minimal employment, and substance abuse, and the majority of incarcerated
women are mothers.
Ms. Giacomello highlighted how drug crime policies and penalties disproportionately impact women. Drug
offenses are usually nonviolent and usually entail a small amount of drugs, and there is growing evidence
that women are increasingly involved in and prosecuted for drug trafficking. In some countries, the
women’s prison population has doubled because of the use of women as mules. Drug trafficking is a
more “acceptable” crime for women because it fits within certain gender stereotypes that drug
organizations exploit. In these organizations, women mainly act in a secondary role as they are usually
lower-level members of the organization. Often a man orders them to hide the drugs that they traffic
within their bodies, and they do so to support their families.
Ms. Giacomello described how drug laws create disproportionate sentences and disproportionate rates of
pretrial detention because drug-related offenses are often classified as “serious.” Drug policies create a
standard of punishment that is independent of the person committing the crime and her circumstances.
Drug policies usually focus on the type of substance and the amount that the individual possessed. In this
way, we are “punishing the substance, not the woman.” To illustrate this point, Ms. Giacomello presented
a hypothetical involving two women who traffic drugs in the same jurisdiction, in the same way, and for
the exact same reasons. However, because they are trafficking different substances, one of which carries
harsher penalties, the women will face different legal consequences.
The Bangkok Rules call for the use of non-custodial measures even when an offense is classified as
serious, and for sentences proportional to the offence. Ms. Giacomello noted that the 2012 reforms to the
sentencing guidelines for drug-related offenses in England and Wales represented a step in the right

direction according to Bangkok Rules standards. The guidelines still instruct courts to consider the type of
substance and the amount possessed, but the guidelines now also ask courts to examine the degree of
leadership that the defendant exercised in the operation and to consider a series of mitigating and
aggravating factors. Ultimately, accounting for a defendant’s role and mitigating factors allows courts to
impose more consistent and proportional punishments.
Jaya Vasandani began by describing the Women and Prison Project of the New York Correctional
Association, which has the mandate to examine the conditions of confinement within New York State. The
Correctional Association engages in projects to reduce the rate of incarceration, make prison conditions
as humane as possible, advocate for legislative and policy changes, and ensure that offenders can
transition to their post-release lives. It is often noted that the United States houses 5% of the world’s
population but 20% of the world’s prison population. This trend is shown in starker terms when the female
prison population is examined: nearly a third of women prisoners worldwide are incarcerated in the United
States. Almost all of these women are low income and most are women of color. Most have experienced
addiction, mental abuse, and trauma. In New York, approximately 78% of women prisoners are mothers;
many of those mothers are primary caretakers. Many women are incarcerated far away from home, and
more than half of the incarcerated women in New York reported that they had not seen their children
since the beginning of their incarceration. Because most women prisoners are women of color, such
trends of mother-child separation disproportionately impact children of color. Many incarcerated women
are pregnant, and some give birth in prison. Based on these facts, Ms. Vasandani argued that the
criminal justice system is driven by racism and sexism.
Ms. Vasandani then explained how the Women in Prison Project uses gender as a framework to study
the criminal justice system because gender illuminates the ways that we criminalize self-defense and
degrade women in prison. Some of the ways that we degrade women in prison are by limiting their
visitation rights, not providing them sanitary napkins, and shackling them during childbirth. The
Correctional Association is focused on trying to change the criminal justice system’s response to survivors
of domestic violence. Survivors who engage in illegal activity are often given a prison sentence with little
chance of release. Ms. Vasandani stated that judges must have discretion so that they can consider
mitigating factors, such as experiences of violence or abuse, when imposing a sentence. Ms. Vasandani
told the audience about the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, which is a piece of legislation
pending in New York State that would permit judges to sentence survivors convicted of crimes directly
related to an abuser’s violence to lower prison terms and, in some cases, to community-based
alternatives to incarceration. To be eligible for sentencing under the Act, a survivor would need to show
that at the time of the offense, she was a victim of domestic violence being subjected to serious physical
or psychological abuse at the hands of a spouse or intimate partner, that the domestic violence was a
“significant contributing factor” to the offense, and that imposing a sentence according to the traditional
sentencing law would be “unduly harsh.” The portion of the bill that allows currently incarcerated survivors
of domestic violence to apply for resentencing is a key component as it signifies social recognition that
the old sentencing law was too harsh when applied to survivors of domestic violence.
Another area of concern, as outlined by Ms. Vasandani, is reproductive injustice. In a recent report, the
Correctional Association found that medical staff members dismissed pregnant prisoners’ concerns or
complaints about her health, and that women prisoners were denied food and medical care even when
they were pregnant. Indeed, every woman surveyed reported that the food that they were given was not
adequate. The report also found that solitary confinement was overused and even used to punish
pregnant women and that women were forced to give birth without a family member being present.
Despite New York State’s passage of a law prohibiting the use of shackles during childbirth, 23 of the 27
women that the Correctional Association surveyed reported that they were shackled during childbirth, in
clear violation of the law. Ms. Vasandani explained that shackling can occur several ways: for example,
prisoners can be put in handcuffs, ankle shackles, and waist chains to restrict their movement.

Sarah Chandler’s presentation focused on the effects of women’s incarceration on children. Ms.
Chandler first asked the conference participants to reflect what their life would have been like if their
mother had been in prison and who they would be as a person if this was the case. She then asked the
participants to consider the principle of the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois, which states that in every
deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations. What would the
effects of the incarceration of a mother be on the next seven generations?
Ms. Chandler then explained that she would frame her presentation around four questions:
(1) Why think about children? (2) What do we need to know? (3) How can we improve practices? (4)
What are examples of improvements?
In asking “Why think about children?,” Ms. Chandler started by explaining that, under the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child (f), all adults are duty bearers to children. The more authority and power we
have to impact the lives of children, the more responsibility we have for these children.
In asking “What do we need to know?,” Ms. Chandler outlined that we need to know the basic minimum
standards and the guidance on their implementation. We need to know the provisions of the CRC. The
CRC protects children from discrimination because of their parents’ status. Under the CRC, a child has a
right to be heard in any proceeding impacting him or her. Under the CRC, the best interests of the child
must be a primary consideration in any action concerning the child, and the CRC obligates states to
respect a child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular
basis.
The CRC has three optional protocols. The Third Optional Protocol, enacted in April 2014, creates an
individual complaint system that allows children or their representatives to file complaints regarding
violations of their rights under the CRC. Thus far, 17 states have ratified the Third Optional Protocol. With
regard to the “best interests of the child,” General Comment No. 14 issued by the Committee on the
Rights of the Child explains that the “best interests of the child” standard is a framework for all
proceedings involving children and what is in the best interests of the child may change depending upon
the circumstances. General Comment No. 14 discusses the rights of children with incarcerated parents in
particular and was intended to inform duty bearers. Additionally, General Comment on Article 30 of the
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child provides guidance on how to protect children’s
rights when their parents are incarcerated.
Beyond these legal instruments, Ms. Chandler emphasized that we need to know how women’s
incarceration affects children’s health. We need to understand that the incarceration of a parent can
increase a child’s risk of mental illness and that the incarceration of a parent can also increase the
likelihood that a child will become involved in the criminal justice system him or herself. Furthermore, it
has been shown that trauma releases hormones that disrupt the development of a child’s brain. Children
who are exposed to adversity show increased risk of developing chronic illnesses later in life. In contrast,
newer findings show that maternal bonding can help protect against disease.
Advocates should also have a better understanding of neuroscience. Stress causes a woman’s body to
produce cortisol. Cortisol, in turn, can be transmitted to an in utero child. Cortisol can also damage a fetus
and a woman’s eggs. A woman’s stress thus impacts a child. Children with toxic stress remain in a
prolonged fight-or-flight mode, and this can impede their ability to develop good relationships, cause them
to struggle in school, and use drugs, food, and high-risk sports as coping mechanisms. If we want to help
women, we need to make sure that they have an environment conducive to thriving.

In sum, we need to know the relevant standards, the situation of the child, the impact of our decisions, the
conditions we are subjecting the caregiver to, and whether this will diminish the caregiver’s or child’s
prospects.
To answer the third question that Ms. Chandler initially posed—“How can we improve practices?”—Ms.
Chandler stressed that courts need to consider the best interests of the child at sentencing and must take
into account how a sentence will impact a child’s development through, for example, child-impact
statements. Courts should confirm that women have access to pre- and post-natal care and ensure that a
parent who is going to be incarcerated is given time to make arrangements for her children’s care. We
should also identify gaps in regulations and policies, look for ways to optimize attachments, share best
practices, monitor training programs, and ensure that the CRC is implemented and discussed.
Ms. Chandler concluded her remarks by providing examples of improvements in the justice system. There
are improvements in countries such as Sweden, Egypt, and Slovenia. In New Zealand, for example,
pregnancy is a factor in sentencing. To end, Ms. Chandler reiterated the tenet of the Great Law of Peace
of the Iroquois: when addressing women’s incarceration, we need to think about the next seven
generations.
After the panelists’ remarks, the moderator, Professor Babcock, asked the following questions: (1) In the
regions where your organization is active, what are the main stumbling blocks to implementing the
Bangkok Rules? (2) What are the points of resistance among the judiciary to alternative measures?
In response to the first question, Ms. Chandler stated that in Canada the main barrier to the Bangkok
Rules’ implementation is lack of knowledge about the Rules. The national and provincial governments
have an obligation to educate the populace, but the governments do not live up to this responsibility.
NGOs try to fill this gap and educate the public about the rules but NGOs have limited capacity to do this.
In the end, the government needs to take its responsibility to educate the public more seriously.
Elaborating upon Ms. Chandler’s discussion of educating the public, Ms. Rope explained that Penal
Reform International focuses on educating the public on why women offenders need different treatment,
emphasizing that different treatment does not mean preferential treatment. With regard to stumbling
blocks to the Bangkok Rules’ implementation, Ms. Rope noted that healthcare for women prisoners can
be expensive. Another stumbling block to implementing the Bangkok Rules is educating correctional staff
about how court appearances and family visits, for instance, affect women differently than men.
Ms. Vasandani concurred with Ms. Chandler and Ms. Rope, noting that in New York there is a lack of
knowledge about the Bangkok Rules and, more generally, international human rights law. Indeed, Ms.
Vasandani observed that it is not just correctional officials that lack this knowledge but advocates too.
Advocates often are not aware of how they can use an international human rights framework. Even if they
are aware of this framework, they often do not prioritize its use.
Ms. Vasandani then responded to Professor Babcock’s second question about the judiciary’s
resistance to alternative sentencing measures. Ms. Vasandani noted that judges are usually quite
receptive to the idea of receiving more discretion in sentencing. In conversations that she has had with
individual judges, many have said that they do not want to impose mandatory sentences but their hands
are tied by statutes. Ms. Vasandani explained that, in her experience, prosecutors (rather than judges)
are usually the most resistant to alternative measures. Ms. Giacomello elaborated upon Ms. Vasandani’s
response to the second question and noted that sentencing laws often create “little room to maneuver”
because the laws do not allow judges to impose alternative measures. This is particularly true with regard
to drug-related offenses. Ms. Giacomello then outlined a more subtle obstacle that deters judges from
imposing alternative measures. The criminal justice system creates a mentality where judges do not want

to expose themselves to criticism of being “soft on crime” and deviating from the judicial norm by
imposing non-custodial measures. Within the justice system there is a sense that “everybody is doing
their work”: the police make arrests, the prosecutors prosecute, and the judges mete out punishment.
Judicial inertia prevents the use of alternative measures from becoming more commonplace.
Panel 3: The Role of Judges in Addressing the Causes, Conditions, and Consequences
of Women’s Imprisonment
Moderator: Hon. Janet Bond Arterton, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Panelists:
• Mrs. Val Castell, Magistrates’ Association National Lead on Women Offenders, United Kingdom
• Hon. Esme Chombo, Judge President, Central Region High Court, Malawi; and President,
Association of Women Judges of Malawi
• Hon. Suntariya Muanpawong, Chief Judge, Research Division, Supreme Court, Thailand
• Hon. Brenda P. Murray, Federal Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission; and Co-Chair, U.S. National Association of Women Judges Women in Prison
Committee
Hon. Janet Bond Arterton began the third panel by welcoming the participants. She commented that the
conference illustrates how lawyers, judges, prosecutors, staff, and the rest of the world need to know
more about women’s imprisonment: about how and why woman offenders enter the system, their
experience while there, and what happens once they exit. Hon. Arterton noted that the U.S. Attorney
General is taking a new approach to incarceration, encouraging individualized sentencing, and looking at
alternatives to mass incarceration. She concluded by introducing the panelists and remarked that
“knowledge gives us the wisdom that we need to be a wise judge.”
Val Castell commenced by describing her background on the topic of women in prison. In the United
Kingdom, magistrates’ courts deal with about 90% of criminal matters and can give a maximum sentence
of six months. Mrs. Castell is very interested in exploring alternatives to short sentences, as the causes of
imprisonment are well understood. She stated that it is necessary to look at motivation in addition to
causes and background of imprisonment. For instance, sometimes women are desperate, sometimes
women need a respite and are seeking a custodial sentence, and sometimes women are coerced. Mrs.
Castell mentioned that in cases involving women—especially foreign nationals—who are arrested on
cannabis farms, judges need to make sure that coercion was not a factor in their crime. However, women
can be capable of appalling crimes and not all women break the law through desperation or coercion.
Where serious crimes have been committed and there is nothing in a woman’s background to provide
mitigation, then it may be entirely appropriate for her to be imprisoned.
As a practical matter, the judiciary must examine the statutory requirements and question if custody is the
only option. Mrs. Castell mentioned that magistrates are risk averse and not always prepared to depart
from guidelines. Sending people to prison should be for public safety but sometimes people are sent to
prison because there are resources such as drug rehabilitation there. Mrs. Castell suggested that the
unavailability of rehabilitation services and programs outside of custodial sentences skews magistrates
toward awarding custodial sentences. Compounded with this, about 25% of female offenders are serving
sentences under six months. Mrs. Castel asked the participants to consider whether it is imperative that
these women are in prison when there are mitigating factors to consider, such as caring responsibilities,
vulnerability, and coercion by an abusive partner. There is also ignorance about what gender-specific
alternatives to incarceration are available. Especially in low-level crimes, advocates do not have much
time to get to know clients or understand what information they must gain to present to the magistrate for

mitigation purposes. The magistrate needs assistance from other actors to get the right information for
sentencing.
Mrs. Castell stressed that courts need much better information on both offenders and available options,
and also better provision of alternative options to custody. Otherwise, courts will keep sending women to
prison who could much better be sentenced in the community, in some cases because judges can see no
other prospect of people getting the treatment they need.
Hon. Suntariya Muanpawong began by showing the audience a picture of an overloaded women’s
dormitory in a Thai prison, where women are detained in extremely crowded facilities, living shoulder to
shoulder. Hon. Muanpawong explained that severe overcrowding in Thai prisons is as a result of lack of
investment, poor cooperation between the courts and the Ministry of Justice, and the fact that Thai judges
are not required to visit the prisons, which are far from the courts. Thailand has one of the highest
proportions of female prisoners in the world, with 14.5% of its prison population made up of women. Many
of the female prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses and prostitution. Hon. Muanpawong theorized
that some of these issues stem from judges’ lack of training and specifically their lack of training in
criminology and prisoner rehabilitation. Pregnant prisoners may, at the judge’s discretion, be granted
alternative sentences or housing. However, alternative facilities might not be available, so women are
sent to prison instead, where their children can stay with them until they are three years old.
Hon. Muanpawong urged the participants to reflect on the motivations of women offenders and consider
whether alternative sentences may be appropriate. In Thailand, drug laws and guidelines greatly impact
women as they can be sentenced to life in prison for certain drug offenses. Other issues also influence
women’s experiences in the criminal justice system: for example, with no legal aid, women are at a
disadvantage. Thai judges, like judges elsewhere, have certain prejudices. Battered women syndrome
remains unaddressed, and in rape cases, there are many problems with judges’ understanding of
consent.
To respond to these issues, the Thai government initiated a bill to protect women in the criminal justice
system, which senior judges have supported. There are also clearer guidelines on consent rules. The
chief judge worked with UNIFEM (now UN Women) to build a new gender-sensitive courtroom where,
during testimony, women give evidence behind a partition. In terms of the Bangkok Rules, Hon.
Muanpawong believes that not enough information was disseminated to the courts explaining the Rules.
Thailand’s Princess Bajrakitiyabha has tried to initiate many projects to help women prisoners but not all
have taken hold yet. One project that is working well is the Yoga in Prison Project, which allows female
prisoners to learn yoga and compete in competitions. After they learn this skill, they can become yoga
teachers on release. Hon. Muanpawong would like to see more of these and other creative social
enterprise projects in prisons.
Hon. Esme Chombo told the participants that before researching the conditions of women’s
imprisonment she was not aware of the situations that women face in the criminal justice system. When
she joined the Women Judges Association of Malawi she started to focus on what judges and other
stakeholders could do to improve women’s experiences in the criminal justice system. Hon. Chombo
stated that there was a “wealth of law” that judges are not using, which disadvantages those who could
benefit from the law. Hon. Chombo noted that, as judicial officers, judges have a lot of power and
influence they are not using.
Hon. Chombo proposed that the conference participants and their colleagues make it a regular practice to
ask victims about the impact of crimes committed against them. To illustrate this point, Hon. Chombo
mentioned a case of child abuse, where the presiding judge asked the parents of abused girls whether a
21-year sentence for the abuser was appropriate. The parents agreed, but the girls did not because the

sentence meant that the abuser would only serve three years per child. The takeaway is that it is
important for people to think that justice should be done and done well.
As mentioned by other speakers, Hon. Chombo stressed that judges have an obligation to visit prisons
and police cells. Hon. Chombo urged random visits to observe conditions in which women are
incarcerated. In Malawi, police cells have no room for women because they did not assume women would
commit crimes when they built the prisons. Women are therefore incarcerated in corridors and offices and
sexually abused by the same people who are meant to protect them. To remedy this situation, Hon.
Chombo recommends that police officers be required to give women bail because women are at
increased risk in police cells. She also endorses efforts to improve police cells. Currently, women are
separated from men only by bars. Prisons lack adequate sanitary facilities: instead of a toilet, women
must use a five-liter tin and squat. Men verbally abuse women when they need to take care of their needs
relating to menstruation, and the women are thus re-victimized. The Women Judges Association of
Malawi is taking these issues to the UN to see if there is a way to ensure women’s privacy in prison.
Hon. Chombo outlined the ways that judges can enhance women’s access to justice. Malawian law
allows for camp courts, where judges can go to prisons to conduct trials. Women’s cases usually take a
long time to come to court, even though they generally commit less serious crimes. Judges also have the
power to go to prisons and review cases. They can look to what alternative sentences could have been
given, and many times it is appropriate to release the prisoner.
Hon. Chombo also mentioned the need for better training for stakeholders. When a woman is raped or a
child is defiled, very little attention is paid to detail. The experts do not report enough information to help
the court make a determination on the offense. Medical staff need training on what evidence is needed to
establish technical offenses so as to not let a lack of evidence prevent people from being convicted.
Another issue is that some courts do not see the seriousness and impact of sexual violence on women so
they give very light sentences. Most male judges now realize that it is their responsibility to give these
offenses the due attention that they need and are beginning to join forces with women judges to give
appropriate sentences.
Hon. Brenda P. Murray began by discussing the history of the U.S. National Association of Women
Judges’ interventions on issues concerning women offenders. The first goal of the National Association of
Women Judges (NAWJ) was to ensure that current female judges were treated fairly and that women had
the opportunity to become judges. In 1981, the NAWJ created task forces to look at gender bias and
found that gender bias against women is a pervasive problem in the administration of justice. NAWJ
created a Women in Prison Committee in 1991 to maintain a continuous dialogue with the federal bureau
of prisons, the Department of Justice, and the White House. The Committee found that women received
unequal and discriminatory treatment and resolved to improve the conditions of incarcerated women by
advocating for more rights, education, and training for women in prison, as well as the elimination of
shackling during childbirth.
Hon. Murray considered the tension that other participants had raised during the day: how can judges
advocate for the improvement of incarcerated women’s conditions while upholding the integrity of the
judiciary, avoiding impropriety, and refraining from political activities? While these ethical considerations
are important, Hon. Murray opined that judges can write op-eds after visiting prison; can can talk to
elected officials; and, in some cases, depending on the issue being addressed, can sign petitions. The
issue, as Hon. Murray sees it, is that the public wants offenders to suffer and judges do not want to
diminish their chances of moving up the judicial ladder; therefore, judges do not want to be characterized
as soft on crime.

Senior Roundtable on Women in the Judiciary
On the second day of the 2015 Women and Justice Conference, twenty-five members of the judiciary
from around the world and eleven advocates participated in a closed-session judicial roundtable. The
participants split into four groups and discussed one of the following topics: pathways to women’s
imprisonment, sentencing, and alternatives to incarceration; conditions of women’s imprisonment;
gender-based violence as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s imprisonment; or
consequences of women’s imprisonment, including for children and families. Highlights and key
recommendations from the sessions are outlined below.
The Way Forward:
Insights and Recommendations from Break-Out Group Discussions
Moderator: Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Commentators:
• Hon. Debra A. James, Justice, New York State Supreme Court
• Hon. Sauda Mjasiri, Justice, Court of Appeal, Tanzania
• Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, Justice, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
• Hon. Cathy H. Serrette, Judge, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland
After returning from the breakout sessions, Hon. Virginia M. Kendall explained that during this final
plenary session a representative from each breakout group would present that group’s insights and
recommendations on PowerPoint. She remarked that the breakout sessions had undoubtedly produced a
lot of discussion and many insights.
Pathways to women’s imprisonment, sentencing, and alternatives to incarceration
Facilitator: Hon. Debra A. James, Justice, New York State Supreme Court
Discussion Questions:
• What is the role of the judiciary in addressing the structural and root causes of women’s
imprisonment, such as gender-based violence, poverty, anti-drug laws and policies, and the
expanded use of pre-trial detention?
• In what ways can judges take into account the histories of victimization of many women who
come into conflict with the law when adjudicating cases or making decisions about sentencing?
• What role can community-based alternatives to incarceration play in responding to the causes of
women’s involvement in criminal activity and reversing the increase in rates of women’s
imprisonment globally?
Hon. Debra A. James recounted her group’s discussion, which concentrated on Pathways to Women’s
Imprisonment, Sentencing, and Alternatives to Incarceration. In considering the role of the judiciary in
addressing the structural and root causes of women’s imprisonment, the group believed that judges

have the ability to inform and change the opinions of the public and legislature through their decisions. If
they give a sentence that is considered to be lenient, newspapers will sensationalize, but they can share
their reasoning and thus educate on the nuances of women’s imprisonment. The group felt that there
must be transparency and accountability; while consistency in sentencing is needed, there must also be
leeway to take account of individual circumstances and mitigating factors.
The group identified several causes of women’s incarceration, including poverty, illiteracy, lack of
education, drug abuse, and lack of mental-health services. Here, Hon. James noted that there is a
significant intersection between crime and mental health. In some developing countries there are simply
no mental-health services to help women. This is not simply a problem for the Global South; many
countries in the Global North also fail to provide adequate mental-health services.
The group also considered ways that judges can take into account the histories of victimization of
many women who come into conflict with the law when adjudicating cases or making decisions about
sentencing. Hon. James noted that in some jurisdictions, judges have discretion in sentencing and
granting bail. When judges have that discretion, it’s important that they have context to inform their
decision-making. In this regard, judges need to assess the family impact of incarceration, make
reasonable decisions about sentencing, and inform the public of their sentencing rationale. The group
also noted that judges have a responsibility to be proactive by providing training on these issues for
judges and lawyers in their country. While judges cannot be advocates, they can ask in mitigation
hearings whether the convicted person has family responsibilities that the judge should consider. Judges
should also be aware that victims may not always disclose the depth of their abuse.
The third topic that the group considered was the role that community-based alternatives to
incarceration can play in responding to the causes of women’s involvement in criminal activity and
reversing the increase in rates of women’s imprisonment globally. Hon. James explained that during the
breakout session, the group members had discussed the availability of community-based alternatives in
their respective jurisdictions. In Jamaica, some offenders can be referred to specialized drug-treatment
courts if they have substance-abuse problems. These courts can give suspended sentences or impose
community service. In Ghana, there is no right to legal representation, and there are presently no
community-based alternatives to incarceration. In China, there is a probation system but, according to a
judge from that country, the system does not work in practice. As part of their probation, offenders are
often given a fine. However, many offenders can’t afford to pay the fine, and when they fail to pay the
fine, they are imprisoned.
The group emphasized that facilitating prisoners’ reentry to society is key to reducing recidivism. In the
participants’ experiences, recidivism is particularly common among drug offenders. The group had
discussed the success of one reentry program in Connecticut. After sentencing, an offender can
voluntarily enter a drug-rehabilitation program. If the offender successfully completes the program, he or
she gets one year off of his or her probation.
Hon. James urged the judges to not just fulfill their basic duty but to provide trainings and to visit prisons
regularly to sensitize themselves.
Conditions of women’s imprisonment
Facilitator: Hon. Sauda Mjasiri, Justice, Court of Appeal, Tanzania
• In what ways do existing prison conditions—including with respect to health care; security
procedures; protection from gender-based violence; family contact; and education, training, and

rehabilitation resources—fail to address the needs and experiences of women prisoners and
detainees?
• In what ways have prison conditions failed to address the needs and experiences of women who
confront intersecting forms of discrimination, such as LBTI women, foreign national women, and
women who are racial or ethnic minorities?
• What steps can judges take to monitor and improve these conditions?
• In what ways can judges collaborate with each other and other justice system actors to reform
prison policies?
Hon. Sauda Mjasiri represented the group that considered the Conditions of Women’s Imprisonment.
During the breakout session, the group members had identified several issues with prison conditions.
First, the group members noted that there are problems regarding the medical services provided to
prisoners. During the breakout session, one judge had explained that in some jurisdictions, judges have
the authority to enroll offenders in rehabilitation or mental health programs. However, to issue such an
order, a judge must first have a report from a medical provider affirming that the offender suffers from the
types of problems that these programs would address. Often, the judge feels that enrolling an offender in
these types of programs would be appropriate; however, until the judge actually receives the medical
report, she cannot impose these alternative measures. There is frequently a long delay before the judge
receives the report. However, the judge is more or less powerless to expedite this process because, in
many instances, the state has outsourced these medical assessments to private companies. As a result,
the state and the prison facility can no longer control when an offender will get a medical assessment.
Instead, these outside providers control the timeline.
Additionally, the group remarked that in some jurisdictions the problem is not that the medical services
have been outsourced; rather, there is simply a lack of trained personnel and adequate facilities. Even
when prisoners are provided medical services, the medical providers do not comply with the governing
standards, and there is often a lack of follow-up care. The group members also pointed out that offenders
are often not given medical and mental assessments. When offenders are given mental assessments,
these assessments usually focus on determining whether the offender is competent to stand trial. The
mental assessment is not comprehensive and does not focus on detecting underlying issues such as
abuse and trauma. Compounded with the lack of medical services, the group identified the lack of
sanitary facilities and supplies in prisons as a major problem, especially the provision of sanitary napkins.
Second, the group noted several problems that contribute to the prevalence of gender-based violence
in prison. One group member stated that a possible cause of this problem is the lack of female
correctional officers. To address guard-on-inmate violence, one judge recommended requiring every
correctional officer to be subjected to a “complete psychological exam.” Her worry was that some people
that become correctional officers have unhealthy attitudes towards women prisoners and that there needs
to be a system to weed out such people. The group also recommended requiring correctional officers to
participate in gender-sensitivity training on an ongoing basis.
Third, the group identified several problems that relate to family contact. Prisons are typically located in
remote places, and family members often do not have a means of transportation that could allow them to
travel to and from the prison. The lack of pre- and post-natal childcare in prisons means that the family
contact rights of prisoners are not respected because they are not given adequate opportunities to care
for their children before and after their birth. The rooms where visits take place are sometimes off-putting
to visitors and leave them with a bad impression of the incarcerated person. Hon. Mjasiri explained that in
Tanzania, visitors are taken to a room where the prisoners are standing on the other side of a metal-bar
wall. The visitors and prisoners then talk through these metal bars. Such settings can be particularly
problematic if the prisoner has children, as it will discourage the children from visiting and will cause them

to view their parent in a negative light. Prisons sometimes lack telephones for the prisoners to call their
family members. To facilitate family contact, the group proposed that prisons allow prisoners to
communicate with their families through videoconferences. The group members had also discussed
conjugal visits but recognized that this is often a sensitive subject.
There are often budgetary constraints with regard to prison childcare programs, and these impact the
ability of a prisoner to have her child live with her in prison. In some countries, the central social welfare
department does not have any funds specifically allocated for supporting prison childcare programs. As a
result, childcare programs are not uniformly available throughout the country; whether there is funding for
childcare will depend upon the offender’s particular prison and its financial position.
Fourth, the group identified problems regarding the education services provided to prisoners. Upon
entering prison, prisoners are not given a screening to assess their level of education and literacy.
Prisoners are often not given computer training, even though teaching prisoners a marketable skill like
coding could be greatly beneficial.
Next, Hon. Mjasiri explained that the group had been asked to address the ways that prisoners are
subjected to multiple layers of discrimination. With regard to this issue, the group noted that several
factors can contribute to prisoners facing discrimination. There can be problems with the prison staff and
their training, language barriers, cultural differences, religious observations, and dietary restrictions.
Furthermore, LBTI individuals are not always placed in facilities that account for their gender identity, and
some are denied access to hormone therapy in prison. There is a lack of access to legal aid and a law
library, and prisoners who do not speak the local language have a particularly hard time finding legal aid
and legal resources in their own language.
Finally, the group proposed several recommendations to address these problems. Prisons should
require their staff to participate in cultural sensitivity training and provide facilities to allow prisoners to
videoconference with their families. This could allow prisoners to maintain contact with their family
members even when their in-person visitation privileges have been revoked. Also, prisons should install
cameras in the prison to protect against gender-based violence, provided that the cameras do not violate
the prisoners’ privacy. The group members asserted that a major stumbling block is that, upon entering
prison, prisoners are not given screenings to assess their education level and job experience.
Accordingly, the group recommended implementing such screening procedures. Additionally, prisons
should provide college programs to give the prisoners something to work towards and a better chance of
finding a job and reintegrating to society upon their release. The group identified several other types of
services that should be provided to prisoners. Prisoners should be provided services to improve their
spiritual wellbeing. In particular, several of the group members discussed allowing prisoners to take yoga
classes. The group recommended increasing the number of programs that allow prisoners to do
community service outside of the prison.
In terms of what judges can do to improve the conditions of women’s imprisonment, the group suggested
that they should collaborate with each other and join peer associations. Judges should advocate for
improvements to the criminal justice system and should make judicial prison visits mandatory. Hon.
Mjasiri noted that judges’ sentencing decisions can be valuably informed by an understanding of the
conditions of the prisons that they are sending people to. The group also suggested that judges use
human rights instruments to craft judicial orders that effect policy change. One judge explained during the
breakout session how she had presided over a constitutional case regarding the conditions of a prison. In
that case, the court found that the conditions were constitutionally inadequate and issued an order
requiring the prison to provide the prisoners with “decent food” and better living conditions. The order was
guided by international standards. The prison then used that order to successfully lobby the legislature for
additional funds. With these funds, the prison conditions improved. Judges can also mentor new judges

and provide other judges with guidance on how to advocate for prison reforms while staying within the
bounds of their governing codes of ethics. On this point, Justice Mjasiri stated that a judge’s duty extends
beyond presiding over cases.
The moderator, Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, commented that several of the previous groups’ points directly
related to her experiences working on a commission that oversees conditions in Chicago’s Cook County
Jail. Hon. Kendall explained that prisoners in Cook County Jail had sued over the prison conditions and
that, as a result of that litigation, Cook County Jail is subject to a consent decree that obligates the jail to
improve its conditions. First, Hon. Kendall outlined how Cook County Jail is one of the most crowded
prisons in the United States and that much of its population consists of pretrial detainees. On a given day,
the jail might have 10,000 pretrial detainees. Hon. Kendall noted that one way to improve the prison
system would be to simply avoid putting people in the prison system when it is not necessary. If judges
were given information about an offender’s family contacts and employment early on, they could better
determine whether it is necessary to place that offender in pretrial detention. Instead, at the bail hearing,
judges usually only have an offender’s rap sheet. Information about an offender’s family contacts and
employment usually only becomes a focus at sentencing. By then, however, it’s possible that an offender
has already spent a significant amount of time in pretrial detention. Second, Hon. Kendall noted that, in
line with one of the group’s recommendations, she had recommended installing cameras throughout
Cook County Jail to curb guard-on-inmate abuse. She indicated that this measure had been met with
some success and stated that staff in Cook County Jail also wear cameras on their collars. She then drew
a comparison between this strategy and the ongoing debate regarding over-aggressive police tactics,
noting how many argue that requiring police to wear body cameras would curb police brutality.
Consequences of women’s imprisonment, including for children and families
Facilitator: Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, Justice, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka (ret.)
• What are the negative collateral consequences of women’s incarceration for women prisoners
and their children, families, and communities?
• What steps can judges take to alleviate these consequences and promote the rehabilitation and
reintegration of women prisoners?
• In what ways can judges take into account a child’s best interests when sentencing a parent who
is the child’s primary caretaker?
• In what other ways can judges address the impact of parents’ detention and imprisonment on
children, for example, when making decisions about parental rights or engaging with policy-
makers on issues such as prison visitation and the location of prisons in relation to prisoners’
families?
Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane presented for the group that considered the Consequences of Women’s
Imprisonment, Especially for Children and Families. Hon Tilakawardane first explained that, during the
breakout session, the group members had decided to not focus on the direct consequences of
incarceration because these consequences had been largely addressed during the previous day’s panel
discussion. Instead, the group had focused on the collateral consequences of incarceration, including
physical, mental, and economic consequences. Hon. Tilakawardane highlighted that these consequences
are not always directly visible, but are pervasive and can have long-term consequences. For example,
from food deprivation, HIV/AIDS exposure, and lack of hygienic or medical facilities, prisoners can suffer
long-term consequences such as physical illnesses, nutritional deficiencies that can lead to infertility,
psychological problems, and drug dependencies.

On a related note, Hon. Tilakawardane explained how a woman’s incarceration can directly impact her
children and cause “intergenerational harm.” For instance, in Sri Lanka, if a child is born in prison, this is
noted on his or her birth certificate. At various stages in life, the child will have to present his or her birth
certificate and the fact that he or she was born in prison can be a source of discrimination. In particular,
Hon. Tilakawardane mentioned how children face stigma for this reason at school.
In relation to the steps that judges can take to alleviate these consequences and promote the
rehabilitation and reintegration of women prisoners, Hon Tilakawardane emphasized that judges have
the power to look into matters relating to an offender’s children. Judges need to ask questions, from
the pretrial to the post-sentencing stages, to make sure that arrangements are made for the children’s
care. In other words, judges should be concerned with arrangements for the children’s care long before
sentencing. In some countries, it might be argued that it is not “traditional” for courts to take such a
proactive stance towards an offender’s children but the group felt that judges need to reframe the issue
and show how making sure that the children are cared for is within the traditional role of the courts in
ensuring the “best interest of the child.” Judges should ensure that offenders are given time to make
arrangements for the care of their children. Judges should also take the time to follow up on particular
cases and make sure that an offender’s children are being cared for. In particular, Hon. Tilakawardane
mentioned how a judge could contact an offender’s spouse or partner to confirm that he or she will watch
the children. Judges are busy, but they need to take the time to assure that children “don’t fall through the
cracks.”
Hon. Tilakawardane discussed ways that judges can be leaders and make a difference. She recalled
that the first time that she had presided over a case involving a sexual offense, the courtroom had been
full of men who laughed as the details of the crime were discussed. Disgusted by their attitude, she asked
whether they would still be laughing if this crime had been committed against their daughters. This
episode showed how women judges need to be courageous. In some countries, especially in South Asia,
women judges are small in number. However, they need to be assertive and bring integrity to their court.
Additionally, judges can make a difference through their judicial writings. Hon. Tilakawardane mentioned
how one judge’s excellent discussion of battered women syndrome in an opinion led to its citation in
cases involving domestic violence across the world. Hon. Tilakawardane noted that American judges
typically refrain from citing foreign opinions but emphasized that judges in other countries readily use
foreign opinions as a tool of interpretation. She also mentioned the importance of citing international
instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 14 from the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a
primary consideration when a caretaker might be incarcerated.
Finally, Hon. Tilakawardane discussed how judges can shoulder the obligation to make the best
interests of the child paramount when sentencing mothers. When sentencing a woman, a judge can
be proactive and assess this by asking the woman about her children, their ages, how they will be cared
for, etc. In some jurisdictions, a probation officer would perform this type of child-impact assessment. In
jurisdictions without probation officers, a judge should be proactive and instruct a correctional officer to
gather information about an offender’s children. Additionally, judges should make use of alternative
methods of incarceration such as electronic tagging where appropriate.
During trial, judges should be aware of battered women syndrome and other defenses that may help
victims of violence and should receive training to understand the impact of violence on women and the
cumulative effect of violence and threats of violence. During sentencing, judges should take gender
differences into consideration by focusing on the individual defendant and his or her unique
circumstances, and whether he or she is a sole caregiver of children. During sentencing, judges should
also be aware of the neuroscience behind crimes of passion, when intense stress and fear can activate a
fight or flight response and chemical processes bypass the consequential thinking part of the brain. It is

also important for judges to understand that the brain of a victim protects itself and can block out
memories. Victims of violence commonly experience changed or only partial memories, and they may not
be able to process information in a consecutive order until much later.
Hon. Tilakawardane then emphasized the role that universities can play in helping judges shoulder the
obligation to ameliorate the consequences of women’s imprisonment. She noted that in many countries,
people believe that such problems and abuses “happen in other countries but not here.” Universities need
to conduct studies in these countries to show that such problems indeed exist. A judge must be armed
with data before she can lobby for change.
Gender-based violence as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s
imprisonment
Facilitator: Hon. Cathy H. Serrette, Judge, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland
• How does violence against women and girls operate as a cause, condition, and consequence of
women’s imprisonment?
• What steps can judges take during trial or sentencing to address women defendants’ experiences
of gender-based violence?
• How can judges help to prevent such violence from occurring in the first place?
• What role can judges play in addressing gender-based violence in prison, including violence
committed by guards and by other prisoners against women?
• How can judges help to improve the ability of formerly incarcerated women to live safe and
healthy lives free from violence after their release from prison?
Hon. Cathy H. Serrette explained that this breakout group had been asked to address how violence
against women operates as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s incarceration. First, the
group had identified steps that judges can take to better address the impact of violence against women.
Judges can be more proactive in all phases of the proceeding without losing their impartiality. Judges can
try to assess the impact of violence by asking questions about the circumstances of the offense to
contextualize what happened. During the breakout session, one judge had asked if it would be proper for
her, if she was presiding over a criminal matter, to confer with a fellow judge who had presided over a
child-custody proceeding involving the accused. The group members said that it “absolutely” would be
appropriate.
Judges need to make sure that public defenders are raising the issue of violence against women in their
arguments. Relatedly, judges need to make sure that prosecutors are giving these issues due
consideration. By doing these things, judges help create a more educated bar. Judges can look to
alternative measures and can impose sentences that include appropriate rehabilitative services. For
example, if a judge puts an offender on probation, the judge can issue a probation order that requires the
county to provide the offender with appropriate treatment services, although the availability of such
services will vary between jurisdictions. Judges need to have formal discussions with their colleagues on
this issue but also need to have informal discussions, which sometimes can be more fruitful.
Second, the group had discussed what judges can do to prevent violence against women in the first
place. Judges can use their leadership role to educate the public on gender-based violence and violence
against women. A judge from Kenya mentioned how she convened a meeting of court users in a rural
province of Kenya to discuss access to justice. She realized that the people were ready to take whatever
message she provided and talk about it. If she spoke out about violence or sexual offenses, her advice

would be heeded in the community. Judges can influence those they work with, and where it is not
appropriate for them to take a public stand, they can still influence those whose job it is to take that stand.
Hon. Serrette noted that organizations like the International Association of Women Judges are already
engaged in such work through initiatives like the Jurisprudence of Equality Program. Judges can discuss
how violence against women is a human rights issue, such as when judges were involved in campaigns
to address racism and lynching. The group felt that judges need to become involved in a comparable
campaign to end violence against women. Judges can monitor how women are treated and addressed in
the courtroom, can initiate treatment programs and convene advocates, and can address violence against
women in their judicial opinions. Written decisions that emphasize domestic violence, including the
broader culture of violence against women and relevant international norms, are particularly useful for
advocates who can then use these citations to strengthen pleadings for different cases.
Third, Hon. Serrette presented the group’s discussion on addressing gender-based violence in prison.
The group had noted that the presence of judges in a prison can be important to deter gender-based
violence. Judges can have a presence in the prison by participating in programs such as book clubs and
reentry programs. Participating in such programs serves two important functions: the women get to know
the judges and the prison staff realizes that the judges are watching. The group also recommended
increasing the number of advocates who visit the prison. In particular, the group mentioned how students
could visit the prison and advocate for prisoners as part of a law school clinic.
Fourth, the group had discussed how judges improve the ability of formerly incarcerated women to
live safe and healthy lives free from violence after their release from prison. Judges can help
offenders prepare for their lives after their release by making sure that prisons are offering them the right
training programs. Prisons need to provide women truly rehabilitative programs that will help them
become independent through skills training and/or education. Giving women the skills to be independent
helps ensure that they do not return to an abusive home after their release. Judges can lobby to make
sure that women prisoners are offered such programs.
In response to the group’s presentation, Hon. Kendall noted that some of the common themes that the
four groups addressed are encapsulated in the following two questions: “What can we do as judges?
What are the barriers to what we can do?” Judge Kendall explained that she had recently ended a six-
year stint serving on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Codes of Conduct Committee. In that capacity,
she served as a resource to judges and lawyers seeking guidance on professional ethics. Hon. Kendall
noted that many judges think that the only way to safely comply with their judicial code of conduct is to
avoid doing anything that goes beyond their traditional judicial duties. These types of judges stay in their
chambers and only speak publically when they are wearing a robe in a courtroom. She explained that she
has traveled all over the world and, when she speaks with judges about their ethical codes, she hears a
common mantra: “You might be able to do that in your country, but we can’t get away with that here.” Still,
Hon. Kendall explained that most judicial codes of ethics allow judges to take an active role in addressing
public issues. The rules usually provide fairly clear boundaries. For example, judges can write on legal
issues, assume a leadership role in an organization, and attend non-political events. Many judges think
that they have to have a limited role in public life, but that is not true.
Closing Remarks and Thanks
Elizabeth Brundige, Executive Director, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice and Assistant
Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
The day ended with closing remarks from Professor Brundige, who noted that judges are state actors and
that their strategies, innovations and efforts in and outside of their courtroom play a critical role in
realizing states’ obligation to act with due diligence to prevent and respond to violence against women.

Appendix 1: Recommendations from Senior Roundtable on Women in the
Judiciary
On the second day of the 2015 Women and Justice Conference, twenty-five members of the judiciary
from around the world and eleven advocates participated in a closed-session judicial roundtable. The
participants split into four groups and discussed one of the following topics: pathways to women’s
imprisonment, sentencing, and alternatives to incarceration; conditions of women’s imprisonment;
gender-based violence as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s imprisonment; or
consequences of women’s imprisonment, including for children and families. Highlights and key
recommendations from the sessions are outlined below.
Pathways to women’s imprisonment, sentencing, and alternatives to incarceration
This group focused on the role of the judiciary in addressing the structural and root causes of women’s
imprisonment, such as gender-based violence, poverty, anti-drug laws and policies, and the expanded
use of pre-trial detention. The participants discussed the ways in which judges can take into account of
the histories of victimization of many women who come into conflict with the law when adjudicating cases
or making decisions about sentencing. The participants also discussed the role of community-based
alternatives to incarceration in responding to and reversing the increase in rates of women’s
imprisonment globally.
Key recommendations:
• Through their judgments, judges can inform and educate the public and legislatures on the
nuances of women’s imprisonment.
• Root causes of women’s incarceration, including poverty, illiteracy, lack of education, drug abuse,
and lack of mental-health services must be acknowledged and addressed.
• Judges should take into account experiences of victimization in sentencing, assess the family
impact of incarceration, make reasonable decisions about sentencing, and inform the public of
their sentencing rationale.
• Where possible, judges could utilize community-based alternatives to incarceration such as
community service, suspended sentences, or electronic tagging.
• If appropriate and available, judges should consider referring offenders to drug-rehabilitation
programs.
Conditions of women’s imprisonment
This group discussed the ways that existing prison conditions—including with respect to health care,
security procedures, gender-based violence, family contact, and education, training, and rehabilitation
resources—fail to address the needs and experiences of women prisoners. The participants examined
the ways in which prison conditions compound intersecting forms of discrimination that LBTI women,
foreign national women, and women who are racial or ethnic minorities experience. The group also
examined the ways in which judges can monitor and improve these conditions, and the ways in which
judges can collaborate with each other and with other justice system actors to reform prison policies.
• Mental assessments of offenders should focus on detecting underlying issues such as trauma
and abuse, not merely an assessment of whether the accused is competent to stand trial.

• The state must provide adequate sanitary supplies to female inmates: it should not be NGOs’
responsibility to provide sanitary napkins.
• To decrease the prevalence of gender-based violence, correctional officers should undergo a
complete psychological exam when hired and should also participate in gender-sensitivity training
on an ongoing basis.
• Where possible, women should not be housed in prisons far from their families and should be
given visitation or videoconference and telephone calls with their children.
• Upon entering prison, prisoners should be screened to assess their level of education and literacy
and offered up-skilling opportunities through education and skills training with marketable skills.
They should also be given the opportunity to participate in services to improve their spiritual and
physical wellbeing.
• Judges should collaborate with each other to improve the conditions of women’s imprisonment
and should visit prisons to view conditions.
• Judges can use human rights instruments to craft judicial orders that effect policy change.
Consequences of women’s imprisonment, including for children and families
This group reviewed the negative collateral consequences of women’s incarceration for women prisoners
and their children, families, and communities. They discussed the steps that judges can take to alleviate
negative consequences of women’s imprisonment and promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of
women prisoners. The group also considered the ways in which judges can take into account a child’s
best interests when sentencing a parent who is a child’s primary caregiver.
• Judges’ obligation to enforce the best interests of the child can inform their sentencing of mothers
by looking into matters relating to an offender’s children. By asking appropriate questions from
the pretrial to the post-sentencing stages, judges can make sure that arrangements are being
made for children’s care.
• Judges should, where appropriate, cite international instruments such as the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 14 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, on
the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken into account as a primary
consideration.
• During trial, judges should be aware of battered women syndrome and other defenses that may
help victims of violence and should receive training to understand the cumulative effect of
violence and threats of violence on defendant-victims.
• Universities should conduct studies to inform judges on the consequences of women’s
imprisonment, including for children and families, so that judges can take this information into
account during trials.
Gender-based violence as a cause, condition, and consequence of women’s imprisonment
This group discussed the steps judges can take during trial or sentencing to address women defendants’
experiences of gender-based violence. The group contemplated the role that judges can play in
addressing gender-based violence in prison. They also discussed how judges can improve the ability of
formerly incarcerated women to live safe and healthy lives free from violence after their release from
prison.

• During trial, judges should be proactive by asking questions about the circumstances of the
offense to contextualize what happened and, where appropriate, confer with fellow judges who
are presiding over related proceedings.
• Judges should issue probation orders that require the county/state to provide the offender
appropriate treatment services, although the availability of such services will vary between
jurisdictions.
• Judges should use their leadership role to educate the public on gender-based violence and
violence against women. Judges can discuss how violence against women is a human rights
issue.
• Judges should visit prisons so that female prisoners get to know the judges and so that prison
staff members realize that the judges are watching.

Appendix 2: List of Participants
Judges and Magistrates
• Hon. Janet Bond Arterton, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
• Hon. Josselyne Béjar, Criminal Court, Mexico; Secretary, Mexican Association of Women
Judges
• Hon. Doreen G. Boakye-Agyei, High Court, Ghana
• Dr. Maria Cristina Camiňa, Criminal Court, Argentina (ret.); Associate Professor, Buenos Aires
University, Argentina
• Mrs. Val Castell, JP, Magistrates’ Association Lead on Women Offenders, United Kingdom
• Hon. Esme Chombo, High Court, Central Region of Malawi; President, Association of Women
Judges of Malawi
• Hon. Joan Churchill, U.S. Immigration Court for Washington, D.C./Arlington, VA (ret.)
• Hon. Juliet Harty Hatanga, City Hall Court, Uganda; Fellow, Leadership and Advocacy for
Women in Africa (LAWA) Fellowship Program, Georgetown University Law Center
• Hon. Laura L. Jacobson, New York State Supreme Court
• Hon. Debra A. James, New York State Supreme Court
• Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Hon. Martha Koome, Court of Appeal, Kenya
• Hon. Mavis E. E. Kwainoe, Accra Central District Court, Ghana
• Hon. LaTia W. Martin, New York State Supreme Court
• Hon. Zaila McCalla, OJ, Chief Justice of Jamaica
• Hon. Sauda Mjasiri, Court of Appeal, Tanzania
• Hon. Suntariya Muanpawong, Supreme Court, Thailand
• Hon. Brenda P. Murray, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Co-Chair, U.S. National
Association of Women Judges Women in Prison Committee
• Hon. Vera Nkwate Ngassa, Court of Appeals, Cameroon
• Hon. Mariama Sammo, Circuit Court, Ghana
• Hon. Cathy H. Serrette, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland
• Hon. Tangyin Song, Dalian Intermediate Court, China
• Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, Supreme Court, Sri Lanka (ret.)
• Hon. Ann Claire Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Steering Committee
Member, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School
• Hon. Betty J. Williams, New York State Supreme Court, U.S.; Co-Chair, U.S. National
Association of Women Judges Women in Prison Committee
Other Speakers and Participants
• Kim K. Azzarelli, Co-Founder, Seneca Women and Partner, Seneca Point Global; Co-Founder
and Steering Committee Chair, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law
School

• Professor Sandra L. Babcock, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, International Human
Rights Clinic, Cornell Law School; Steering Committee Member, Avon Global Center for Women
and Justice at Cornell Law School
• Marie-Claude Jean-Baptiste, Programs Director, Cyrus R. Vance Center for International
Justice
• Sarah Chandler, Human Rights and Community Justice Trainer; Former Coordinator of the
Lillooet Restorative Justice Program, Canada
• Corina Giacomello, Researcher, International Drug Policy Consortium, United Kingdom and
National Institute of Penal Science, Mexico
• Christine Jaworsky, Program Director, Speak Out Against Domestic Violence, Avon Foundation
for Women; Steering Committee Member, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell
Law School
• Delphine Lourtau, Research Director, Death Penalty Worldwide, Cornell Law School
• Winta Menghis, Senior Program Officer, International Association of Women Judges
• Olivia Rope, Program Officer, Penal Reform International
• Gigi M. Scoles, Director of Human Rights, Vital Voices Global Partnership
• Lynn Hecht Schafran, Senior Vice President and Director, National Judicial Education Program,
Legal Momentum
• Sarone Solomon, Attorney (Law Clerk)
• Jaya Vasandani, Associate Director, Women in Prison Project, New York Correctional
Association
Avon Global Center Faculty and Staff
• Professor Elizabeth Brundige, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School;
Executive Director, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School
• Anne-Claire Blok, Women and Justice Fellow, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
• Sharon Pia Hickey, Women and Justice Fellow, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
• Allison Hoppe, Cornell Law School JD Student
• Elinathan Ohiomoba, Cornell University PhD Student
• Maneepailin Sriuthenchai, Research Associate, Avon Global Center for Women and Justice
• Andrew Yost, Cornell Law School JD Student

Internal Conference Report (final)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Internal Conference Report (final)

Ähnlich wie Internal Conference Report (final) (20)

Internal Conference Report (final)