Jail strip search: what ‘degraded’ it

There would’ve been less noise and heat over the mass stripping of inmates at the Cebu Provincial Jail last Feb. 28 had there been no publicized photos of it.

No dispute that it was, to the jail warden and PDEA, “absolutely necessary” as it was the only way inmates would be separated from contraband they were hiding in one swift action. Individual frisking would’ve given time to conceal or destroy illegal material.

[Media and their consumers often swap terms applied to those confined in jails. BJMP has also not bothered to correct the mistake. Under its “Compiled Operations Manual of 2015: “prisoner” is convicted of the crime by final judgment; “detainee” is undergoing investigation, trial or awaiting final ruling. Both “prisoner” and “detainee” though may be called “inmate.”]

Sympathy

Commission on Human Rights, Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, Vice President Leni Robredo and the Human Rights Watch deplore the jail managers move.

What tugged their sympathy for the inmates must be the image of naked men sitting on jail floor. Had no photo surfaced in media, it would’ve been as un-controversial as previous mass strip searches. What would’ve reached the public would’ve been just the finding of contraband, including illegal drugs, money and cellular phones. News text of the strip search, minus the photos, wouldnt have drawn much reaction.

Did the strip not shame them, even if no image had leaked out? It did, it would degrade any person, especially if it would include invasive act, such as probing anus or vagina. But there are rules for that, which the BJMP manual plainly and lucidly details.

Balancing act

As to the public shaming, the image of nudity is less stark and repulsive than that of college students doing a naked run on the streets: students’ faces are covered but, often, not their private parts.

The jail managers must be aware of the continuing balancing act they must do: how to stop the illegal acts committed behind bars without violating basic rights of inmates.