General operational and educational information for corrections professionals. Not legal, medical, or compliance advice, and not a certification of compliance with any law or standard. Policies and standards vary by agency and jurisdiction; follow your facility's policy and your own legal, medical, and professional advisors.
Technology cannot detect sexual abuse, cannot establish consent or coercion, and cannot make a facility compliant with any standard. Vendors who imply otherwise create exposure for the agency that repeats the claim. This page lists the claims to avoid and what can honestly be said in their place.
Agencies repeat vendor language in policies, board presentations, and public statements. When that language overstates what a system does, the agency owns the overstatement, not the vendor.
PREA is an area where overstatement is particularly costly, because the subject matter attracts scrutiny and because the gap between the claim and the capability is usually easy for an expert to demonstrate.
It also damages the thing that actually helps. A facility that has been sold detection stops working on the controls that do reduce risk.
That a system detects sexual abuse or assault. It does not. What a camera captures is movement and position, and the determination is investigative and clinical work performed by people.
That software can distinguish consensual from coerced conduct. It cannot. Coercion in a custodial setting is a legal and investigative determination that no analytic system is positioned to make.
That a product makes a facility PREA compliant, or satisfies a standard, or certifies anything. No vendor can make a facility compliant. Compliance is determined by auditors against standards, based on the facility's own practice.
That coverage eliminates blind spots. Some areas cannot be covered for privacy reasons, and no facility is fully observable.
That an alert constitutes evidence of an offense. It is a prompt for a person to look. Describing it as anything more is a problem in a report and a larger one in testimony.
That a system identifies individuals by face. Virtual Patrol does not use facial recognition, and any claim of identification capability should be read carefully.
That the facility has produced a dated map of what it can and cannot see, including areas it has chosen not to cover for privacy reasons.
That designated areas receive continuous attention rather than depending on a monitor being watched at that moment.
That when a condition is raised, a person reviews it and the review is timestamped and attributable.
That the facility maintains a contemporaneous, corroborated record of what was raised and what staff did about it.
That the facility reviews its own records periodically and can show the sequence of what it found and what it did.
Each of those is verifiable and none of them claims a capability the technology does not have.
Virtual Patrol supports documentation, discipline, review, and proof. It does not make a facility compliant with any standard and does not certify anything.
It does not screen, classify, or assess people, does not determine that an offense occurred, and does not use facial recognition. A person reviews before anything is acted on.
If a claim about this product ever appears that goes beyond the previous two paragraphs, it is wrong and we want to know about it.
No. A camera records movement and position. The determination is investigative and clinical work performed by people.
No. Compliance is determined by auditors against standards based on your facility's own practice.
No. It is a prompt for a person to look. Treating it as evidence is a problem in a report and a larger one in testimony.
What the facility can see, what receives continuous attention, that a person reviews everything, and that the record is contemporaneous and corroborated.
No. It does not use facial recognition and does not identify individuals.
Because agencies repeat vendor language and end up owning it. Knowing which claims fail is more useful than a list of features.
