US Inspector General Michael Horowitz Thursday recommended that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) establish guidelines on the use of inmate statements in administrative misconduct investigations of BOP employees.

In an inquiry by the Office of the Inspector General, the BOP Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) stated it does not rely on inmate testimony when adjudicating misconduct findings that do not rise to the level of criminal prosecution unless there is corroborating evidence like forensic evidence or video. Horowitz claimed that interviews with BOP employees revealed further inconsistencies regarding when to rely on inmate testimony in administrative misconduct investigations.

Inmate testimony is considered without corroborating evidence in criminal and civil trials. Therefore, Horowitz argued, an inmate’s statement is worth less in an administrative investigation than in a criminal or civil trial under current BOP policies. Horowitz explained, “In short, inmates are not disqualified from providing testimony with evidentiary value in federal courts, and there is no valid reason for the BOP to decline to rely on such testimony.”

Horowitz provided three recommendations to the BOP: (1) the BOP should inform all of its employees that inmate testimony does not require corroboration for consideration in misconduct investigations; (2) the BOP should create a policy explaining how to handle inmate statements in administrative misconduct matters; and (3) the BOP should provide training to all of its employees on proper evidence standards and how to handle inmate statements.

Horowitz suggested that, if the BOP does not rely on inmate testimony absent corroboration, employees who engage in misconduct will avoid repercussions, and staff members will engage in misconduct because they believe they will not be held accountable for their actions.