Running Head: DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 1

Deaf Inmates Do Not Have Equal Access in Prison

Deseree Allen

Sign Language Interpreting Program/Western Oregon University

November 18, 2019

Vicki Darden

Current Issues in Interpreting

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 2

Abstract

This meta-synthesis research was completed regarding the violations of rights for

Deaf inmates in a prison setting. The American prison system must provide access for

Deaf people and in many instances does not follow through with that obligation. Deaf

inmates are at high risk for abuse and isolation. They are frequently misunderstood by

fellow inmates and guards alike. Deaf prisoners have often been denied requests for

interpreters, including for events open to all prisoners, such as church or rehabilitation.

The articles that were examined for this paper, reviewed treatment of Deaf inmates, with

no age specification, in American prisons from 1990 to 2017. After completion of the

meta-synthesis there is ample evidence to show that Deaf inmates rights under the

American with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines are violated in American prisons.

Suggestions to remedy these violations include: better training for prison staff, inmates,

and legal counsel, identifying those prisoners who are Deaf, and housing all Deaf

prisoners in the same space.

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 3

Introduction

Prisoners in America represent a wide range of cultures, with a variety of needs

specific to the individual and often those needs go unmet. The Americans With

Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1991), was signed into law

with a goal of equal rights for American citizens with disabilities. In American prisons,

Deaf prisoners do not have equal access to events or communication, and these are

blatant violations of ADA (Duvall, 1999; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Schneider,

2004). Deaf inmates are denied interpreters which is often their only means of

communication with fellow inmates or prison staff (Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013;

Marshall, 2013; Vernon, 2010).

In 2004, webcams were set-up over an outdoor prison in Arizona. The prison was

nick-named “Tent City” and forced prisoners to live and work outside in temperatures

that could reach over 100 degrees. According to Lynch (2004) these webcams were a

source of entertainment and amusement. American citizens looked on and laughed as a

group of humans suffered in an inhumane set-up. One could assume the on-lookers of

this webcam felt the inmates deserved less than human conditions because they were

prisoners. Other people might feel that all humans deserve basic necessities, but that

the government should prioritize the needs of law-abiding citizens over the incarcerated

ones (Robbins, 1996). The reality is, prisoners’ rights are restricted, but their basic civil

rights are intact and in the case of Deaf inmates, their right to communication and

access in prison is fully covered under ADA (Blanck, 2017; Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda,

2013; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Rubin & McCampbell, 1994; Schneider, 2004).
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 4

The articles examined showed ADA violations for Deaf prisoners and offered solutions

so that those violations might not happen going forward.

Literature Review

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328

(1991), was established to protect American people with disabilities. There is ample

evidence to show that American prisons contain disabled inmates (Blanck, 2017; Duvall,

1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Rubin & McCampbell, 1994;

Schneider, 2004; Twersky-Glasner, 2003; Vernon, 2010).Generally, prisons do not

adhere to ADA guidelines when it comes to their Deaf (for the purposes of this paper

Deaf will refer to Deaf and Hard of Hearing) prisoners (Duvall, 1999; Marshall, 2013;

Robbins, 1996; Schneider, 2004). According to ADA, deafness is considered a disability

(The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328,

1991). Although there are people who find amusement and entertainment in the

suffering of inmates (Lynch, 2004), the majority argue that Deaf inmates still deserve

equal access in the prison setting (Duvall, 1999; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996;

Schneider, 2004). The Americans with Disabilities Act instructs all entities, including

state and governmental, to provide equal access for any person with a disability to any

programs and activities (Rubin & McCampbell, 1994). Deaf inmates are often are not

provided interpreters, and therefore frequently are unable to fully participate prison

programs (Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Vernon,

2010). Robbins (1996) suggests that disabled prisoners are often stripped of their

human dignity in prison.

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 5

The Americans with Disability Act protects the rights of prisoners

Many legal professionals and scholars understand that prisoners have limited

rights (Robbins, 1996, p. 54). Although inmates’ rights are reduced in prison, some civil

rights persist (Robbins, 1996). The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.

101-336, § 12202, 104 Stat. 328 (1991), does not provide immunity to the State. “Title II

of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that State and local governmental

entities, regardless of size, provide equal access for persons with disabilities to

programs, services, and activities of the entity, as well as to employment opportunities”

(Rubin & McCampbell, 1994, p. 1). The authors go on to explain that correctional

facilities are subject to this law.

The Americans with Disability Act is not adhered to in prison. Many authors

mentioned the violations of ADA for Deaf prisoners while incarcerated (Blanck, 2017;

Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Rubin, 1994;

Schneider, 2004). There is ample case law to support the claim that ADA is not followed

in prisons (Schneider, 2004). The Americans with Disabilities Act can be violated in

prisons in different ways, including the violation of Deaf prisoners’ human rights and

lack of access to communication (Marshall, 2013). Some prisons have claimed a lack of

funding for Deaf prisoner needs and some prison administration show indifference

towards those needs (Duvall, 1999). The Americans with Disabilities Act requires

prisons to provide adequate provisions for auxiliary devices as a way of communication

and receiving warnings and announcements (Robbins, 1996), these required auxiliary

devices are regularly not provided as they should be (Marshall, 2013).

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 6

Deaf inmates are at high risk in prison settings

Deaf inmates can be misunderstood by other inmates and prison personnel

(Blanck, 2017; Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall; 2013; Twersky-Glasner,

2003; Vernon, 2010). Most times, the staff and other inmates do not understand what

the needs of Deaf inmates are or what they are capable of (Blanck, 2017; Duvall, 1999;

Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Twersky-Glasner, 2003; Vernon, 2010). Deaf

prisoners can become isolated and fear for their safety when they cannot communicate

or understand what is going on around them (Marshall, 2013)

Deaf inmates are assumed to be fluent in English and skilled lipreaders.

The common assumption is that Deaf people can understand written or spoken English,

but many cannot (Marshall, 2013). If a person became deaf at a young age, it greatly

affects that person’s ability to learn the English language (Vernon, 2010). Many people

believe that lipreading can be relied on to communicate with Deaf people, and therefore

no interpreter is needed (Marshall, 2013). Prison staff frequently believe that Deaf

inmates can receive information and communicate using English and lip-reading

(Blanck, 2017). Staff believe all Deaf inmates can read lips and many believe that

raising their voice will help the Deaf person hear them (Blanck, 2017). When there is not

full communication there can be cultural misunderstandings (Lizor-Granda, 2013).

Deaf inmates are perceived as non-compliant or without disability. Inmates

and prison staff frequently do not know that Deaf inmates are deaf, because it is not

obvious, their disability goes unnoticed (Blanck, 2017). The diagnoses of hearing

impairment is difficult to assess in this setting (Twersky-Glasner, 2003). Robbins says,

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 7

“Their disability is not immediately observable, yet their lack of access to events

surrounding them parallels that of the wheelchair-bound paraplegic” (1996, p. 63).

Robbins (1996) also addresses the perspective of the guards and fellow inmates of

Deaf prisoners, noting that a guard can give a command to a deaf inmate, unaware they

are Deaf, and when that inmate doesn’t respond they can assume the Deaf inmate is

choosing not to comply.

Deaf inmates are at higher risk of physical harm in prison. When prisons do

not adhere to ADA guidelines, Deaf offenders are likely to be abused (Schneider, 2004;

Robbins, 1996). Recurrently, hearing inmates notice Deaf inmates’ vulnerability to

attack and Deaf inmates cannot hear an attacker approaching (Robbins, 1996). There

was a lawsuit where a Deaf plaintiff claimed that their prison did not adhere to ADA

guidelines and thus, “resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm, loss of function,

injury, and even death” (Blanck, 2017, p. 311). Prisoners with disabilities have a higher

chance of injuries from unwanted violence and other causes, than those without

disabilities, according to research (Blanck, 2017).

Deaf inmates’ rights are violated in prison settings

Deaf inmates repeatedly are not provided interpreters (Duvall, 1999; Lizor-

Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Vernon, 2010). Twersky-Glasner (2003)

asserts that correctional facility administrators should recognize the unique needs of

Deaf inmates. One of the unique needs of a Deaf inmate, is a signed language

interpreter (Duvall, 1999; Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Vernon, 2010). Signed

language interpreters are often not provided and are needed for communication support
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 8

(Lizor-Granda, 2013). Siegel says that “The need for and right to communication and

language is fundamental to the human condition” (2002, p. 258). The right to

communication is necessary and legally established (Siegel, 2002). Deaf prisoners are

legally entitled to an interpreter, but they are often not provided (Vernon, 2010). Some

Deaf inmates ask fellow inmates or guards to interpret for them, for lack of a better

option (Robins, 1996).

Deaf inmates cannot be involved in events without an interpreter. Deaf

inmates often go without interpreters and those interpreters could help with Deaf

prisoner socialization (Duvall, 1999). There have been accounts of Deaf prisoners

experiencing exclusion or denial from taking part in events or other programs because

of the lack of services, including rejected requests for interpreters (Blanck, 2017). Often,

a Deaf inmate is the only person in the prison who is deaf, and those same Deaf

prisoners are unable to participate in programs such as rehabilitation, classes, therapy,

and more (Vernon, 2010). When Deaf prisoners cannot understand what is happening

around them, they become isolated (Marshall, 2013).

Changes can be made to remedy ADA violations in Prison

Disabled inmates should be included in the process of deciding what

accommodations would be best serve the inmate’s ability to participate in programs or

activities at the prison (Rubin & McCampell, 1994). It can be difficult to change

processes and policies in prisons (Marshall, 2013). There are many options to improve

the care of incarcerated Deaf people in prison (Vernon, 2010).

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 9

Identify inmates who are Deaf. Prisons should identify which inmates are deaf

and hard of hearing (Blanck, 2017; Vernon, 2010). Most prisons are unaware of which

inmates are Deaf (Vernon, 2010). Not all ADA-defined disabilities are obvious, therefore

the administration should obtain information, regarding disabilities, that would keep the

operation of their facility safe (Rubin & McCampbell, 1994). There should be a

screening process to check for hearing loss for all incoming prisoners and those already

incarcerated (Blanck, 2017; Vernon, 2010). It is critical to identify and track which

inmates have disabilities, including those who are Deaf and afterward prisons can better

asses accommodation needs for disabled inmates (Blanck, 2017).

Deaf inmates should be housed in one facility. Moving all Deaf inmates to

one location is an option to enforce ADA provisions (Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall,

2013; Vernon, 2010). One suggestion was that each state should choose one

correctional facility to house all Deaf inmates for cost effectiveness and ultimately, equal

access for Deaf inmates (Lizor-Granda, 2013). Once Deaf inmates are identified, they

should be housed in separate units in the correctional system (Vernon, 2010). There are

established prisons that house all their Deaf inmates in one correctional facility with the

assumption that less interpreters will be needed and therefore save the facility money

(Marshall, 2013). An opposing view alleged that segregation of disabled prisoners into a

certain facility would violate ADA just as lack of interpreters does (Robbins,1996).

Prison staff should avoid segregating inmates based solely on their disability, on the

grounds that possible disability discrimination claims could arise (Rubin and

McCampbell, 1994).
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 10

Better training could reduce ADA violations. Communication barriers are

often not understood by staff, but better training could clarify the needs of inmates with

disabilities (Blanck, 2017). Training should be focused on legal advocacy for sign

language interpreters to help gain communication access for Deaf inmates (Lizor-

Granda, 2013). American Sign Language (ASL) classes, could be taught to prison staff

and hearing inmates (Marshall, 2013). ASL classes could boost sensitivity and

understanding of Deaf culture and moreover, increase communication access for Deaf

inmates (Marshall, 2013).

Methodology

This paper is a meta-synthesis of 11 scholarly articles and the Americans with

Disability Act (ADA) found through Western Oregon University library databases,

Google Scholar and Google. The research began with a concept that Deaf people are

not provided interpreters in prison. Overall, I reviewed 23 articles and the ADA. First, I

searched the databases using the following keywords and phrases: Deaf in prison,

interpreters in prison, ASL in prison, Deaf prisoner, Deaf prison experience. Of the

articles populated I pulled 19 to review. After reading the abstracts available, I decided

not to use the nine articles that were referencing prisons and inmates in other countries,

leaving me with 10 articles. Multiple journals proved useful in this research journey,

including Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (Siegel, 2002), Journal of Police

and Criminal Psychology (Twersky-Glasner, 2003), and American Annals of the Deaf,

(Vernon, 2010).
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 11

After a brief once-over of the articles found, I noticed a common theme

referencing back to the ADA law and I decided to focus on ADA violations as a base for

this paper. At that point I pulled the ADA law in its entirety and began to search for

opposition to Deaf inmates’ need for interpreters in prison. I searched the databases

previously mentioned for the following keywords and phrases: inmates don’t deserve

rights, inmates don’t deserve education, why inmates should not receive, inmates don’t

deserve, cost of interpreters in prison, responsibility for inmates, tent city, and who’s

responsible for inmates. This search provided four new articles, three of which could not

be used because they were not scholarly sources, but one article was scholarly and

about a prison in America. Although, the research began with hopes to prove that Deaf

inmates’ need interpreters, the research revealed multiple violations to ADA which led to

the final meta-synthesis that has been completed here.

Recommendations

To offer full access and rights under the ADA to Deaf prisoners, research should

be compiled to offer a clearer picture of the life of Deaf prisoners. A study could be

conducted to interview Deaf prisoners in a variety of prisons. This research should

include Deaf men and women who are currently incarcerated and those who have been

released. With perspectives of those already released versus those still incarcerated, an

opportunity to examine any improvements prisons have made would be available. Deaf

input regarding this issue is needed. Deaf community members who have never been

incarcerated could be asked for input about how to proceed and protect the rights of

Deaf prisoners.
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 12

Conclusion

After reviewing the articles, it seems that the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) is repeatedly violated for Deaf inmates in prisons across America (Duvall, 1999;

Marshall, 2013; Robbins, 1996; Schneider, 2004). Working interpreters should take note

of this, because Deaf prisoners will one day be free again, and could have

psychological trauma from their experience while incarcerated. Some suggestions to

improve the situation for Deaf inmates include: identifying Deaf inmates (Vernon, 2010;

Blanck, 2017), housing Deaf inmates in the same facility (Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall,

2013; Vernon, 2010), and better training for staff and other inmates (Blanck, 2017;

Lizor-Granda, 2013; Marshall, 2013).

None of the options suggested are a perfect solution. If prisons identified Deaf

inmates before entry to the prison, it would open a communication channel allowing for

accommodations to be set up for the Deaf inmate up front (Blanck, 2017). However, if

we identify all Deaf prisoners at intake, it is possible that they will be at greater risk

having their deafness known. As indicated by the research, inmates can take advantage

of a person’s deafness to cause them harm (Robbins, 1996). Housing all inmates in a

single location may seem like a good option at first, as Deaf inmates will have the ability

to socialize and possibly have support, if they desire it, to enforce their rights under

ADA. Yet, contemplating Robbins’ (1996) perspective, one must consider if housing all

Deaf inmates in the same facility stops the violation of one right and in turn violates

another. To segregate the Deaf inmates from the hearing inmates, could perpetuation a

problem that is already covertly there. Housing all Deaf prisoners together, may also
DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 13

lead to law suits (Rubin & McCampbell, 1994). Furthermore, segregation of Deaf

inmates could cause their morale to could go down because family and friends might be

prevented from visiting. Training is often a good thing, and could benefit prisoners and

staff alike, but training requires money. Budgets are ever shrinking, and facilities want to

save money whenever possible (Robbins, 1996).

The conversation about this issue facing Deaf prisoners, is a step in the right

direction. The Americans with Disabilities Act violations with Deaf prisoners has been an

on-going issue for almost 30 years and will not resolve itself. I believe we need to ask

the Deaf community, those who have been incarcerated, and those who have not, what

some options are. The Deaf perspective was lacking greatly in this meta-synthesis, and

to have a fuller picture of what is needed, that viewpoint should be considered.

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 14

References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).

Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm

Blanck, P. (2017). Disability in prison. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal,

26(2), 309-322. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=

hein.journals/scid26&div= 17&id=&page=

Duvall, J. L. (1999). Deaf in the Prison System. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/

app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=181885

Lizor-Granda, K. (2013). A description of communication between service providers and

seven deaf persons who have been incarcerated. (Doctoral Dissertation, Lamar

University-Beaumont). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/

e22d8f11fa9fd3fe69ca213bf7b693fb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Lynch, M. (2004). Punishing images: Jail Cam and the changing penal enterprise.

Punishment & Society, 6(3), 255-270.

Marshall, K. A. (2013). Silence to signs: bridging the communication gap for deaf and

hard-of-hearing inmates in prisons (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/3

Robbins, I. P. (1996). George Bush's America meets Dante's Inferno: The Americans

with Disabilities Act in prison. Yale Law & Policy Review, 15(1), 49-112.

Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol15/iss1/3/

Rubin, P. N., & McCampbell, S. W. (1994). American With Disabilities Act and criminal

justice: Providing inmate services. National Institute of Justice, Research in

DEAF INMATES DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ACCESS IN PRISON 15

Action, 1-7 Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/148139NCJRS.pdf

Schneider, N. R., & Sales, B. D. (2004). Deaf or hard of hearing inmates in prison.

Disability & Society, 19(1), 77-89. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000155631

Siegel, L. (2002). The argument for a constitutional right to communication and

language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(3), 258-266. doi:

10.1080/0968759032000155631

Twersky-Glasner, A. (2003). The ADA and Deaf Inmates. Journal of Police and Criminal

Psychology, 18(2), 34-40. Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203355

Vernon, M. (2010). The horror of being deaf and in prison. American Annals of the Deaf,

155(3), 311-321. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26235070