NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY OCTOBER 21, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

04CH_Corrections_Stojkovic.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY OCTOBER 21, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

▪ Describe early conceptions of the prison social system. ▪ Explain the functional/deprivation model of prison social organization. ▪ Explain the importation model of prison social organization. ▪ Explain contemporary conceptions of imprisonment. ▪ Identify modern explanations of doing “hard time.” ▪ Describe both the private agenda and public agenda of correctional officers.

Ann Johansson/Associated Press

Imprisonment 4

Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization

Introduction “This is our home. . . . What you got to remember is that we live here. This prison is noth- ing but a mini-society that we run. The guards are only here for a job. We are here twenty- four hours a day.” This quote from the movie Other Prisoners highlights the importance of the prison social structure and its influence on a prison’s everyday workings. From correctional officers to “new fish” inmates, each individual involved in a prison is immersed in its social world. Many scholars have attempted to understand the effects the prison world has on those who interact within it. This chapter discusses various ideas about the origin of prison social structures and the internal and external factors that influence them.

In our discussion, we will examine models that attempt to explain the character and for- mation of inmate societies, highlighting the most important aspects of each. We show how each model contributes something different to the discussion of prison social structures and imprisonment as well as how prisoners’ roles make each model significant.

Our examination of prison social structure begins by exploring early conceptualizations of the prison world. From there we look at the functional/deprivation model of inmate social systems, a model that has significantly contributed to the research literature. This model was heavily influenced by the discipline of sociology and remains a major explanation for the social structures that exist behind prison walls. Then we explore another model of inmate social systems that was created, in part, by an ex-offender. This model, known as the impor- tation model, argues that influences external to a prison are the most critical when trying to understand and explain its social structures.

The chapter then examines some contemporary ideas regarding how prison social structures are created. Prisons today are quite complex and require other models to fully explain their social workings. We examine these contemporary ideas and comment on their relevancy to understanding prison social structures and imprisonment in general. We also explore the research literature on correctional officers, raising some key issues that face these crimi- nal justice professionals. Finally, we conclude by exploring some contemporary ideas about prison management and its relation to prisoner social systems. These ideas are at the fore- front of thought about how prisoners’ social systems should be controlled by prison officials.

4.1 Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization Our understanding of prison social structures was quite limited until the mid-20th century. It was clear that people who ran institutions of confinement were aware of many of the key ele- ments of what we would call a social system today, such as roles, differentiation, organization, and complexity. Nevertheless, an investigation of the prison’s own unique social structure did not begin until 1940, when Donald Clemmer published his now classic piece, The Prison Com- munity. In it, Clemmer argued that prisoners formed social arrangements inside the institu- tion similar to those found on the outside. More importantly, Clemmer argued that through institutionalization, inmates experience a process whereby traditional values, beliefs, and attitudes were stripped from them and replaced by the prison’s cultural values, which are often based on manipulation, deceit, and criminality.

Section 4.1

Section 4.1Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization

Prisonization Clemmer’s analysis suggested that prison- ers changed their behavior upon being incarcerated. This change, which Clemmer called prisonization, involves the adop- tion of specific behavioral patterns that are consistent with a prison’s culture. Clemmer argued that a prisoner becomes increasingly removed from conventional and accepted behaviors and actions the longer he or she is under the influence of prison society. In addition to suggesting that prisoners internalize unconventional attitudes in prison, Clemmer also argued that these antisocial attitudes become more firmly entrenched the longer a per- son is institutionalized. In effect, the lon- ger the incarceration experience, the more prisonized the inmate becomes; and the more prisonized the inmate, the more difficult it is to reach and reform him. Clemmer argued that the length of time served is a key factor that affects the degree to which an inmate loses his or her belief in and acceptance of traditional values, beliefs, and attitudes.

Testing the Prisonization Hypothesis: Wheeler To test Clemmer’s hypothesis, many early researchers examined the influence of time served on prisoner behavior, as well as the relationship between time served and the acceptance and internalization of the prison culture. For example, Stanton Wheeler (1961) sought to test the degree to which prisoners become prisonized over time and how that affects their allegiance and conformity to the prison staff ’s expectations. Did an inmate who had many contacts with the prison social system exhibit more of a prisonized experience than the inmate who had fewer contacts with the prison social system? In addition, how did an inmate’s allegiance to the prison social system vary by degree of time served? Were there differences between inmates who had served shorter sentences compared to those who served longer ones in terms of their allegiance to staff expectations? Wheeler’s analysis largely supported the priso- nization hypothesis put forth by Clemmer.

Wheeler found that the degree to which inmates became prisonized was directly related to their involvement in the informal social system of the prison. Inmates also experienced a sense of role conflict as they became more assimilated into the social system. Wheeler (1961) states:

The inmate who values friendship among his peers and also desires to con- form to the staff ’s norms faces a vivid and real role conflict. The conflict is not apparent or perhaps is not felt so intensely during the earliest stages of con- finement, but with increasing length of time in the prison the strain becomes acute; inmates move to resolve the strain either by giving up or being excluded from primary ties, or by a shift in attitudes. (p. 704)

© Columbia/courtesy Everett Collection Movies like The Shawshank Redemption illustrate the idea of prisonization: that it is hard to return to society after a long imprisonment. In what ways do you think movies stereotype prison life?

Section 4.1Early Conceptions of Prison Social Organization

Wheeler also argued that the degree of assimilation to inmate culture was contingent on the “career phase” in which inmates found themselves. This concept, known as differential attachment, suggests inmates assimilate in a U-shaped pattern, whereby greater allegiance to conventional attitudes and staff norms are experienced in the early and late phases of con- finement, and there is less acceptance of such norms in the middle phase of incarceration. In other words, inmates who had served less than 6 months were generally very accepting of staff expectations and conformed to them, whereas those who had served more than 6 months and had more than 6 months left were the least accepting and conforming. Thus, the more removed a prisoner is from the community, the less accepting he or she is of staff expec- tations and, as a result, the more pronounced the prisonization. Research suggests inmates behave this way out of self-interest; most show conformity with staff expectations toward the end of a sentence as a means to ensure release from the institution.

Wheeler’s research essentially agreed with Clemmer’s prisonization hypothesis but indicated it was not necessarily the case for all inmates. He went on to suggest that prisoners need to be dealt with according to their phase of incarceration. His research suggests that inmates are prisonized and “deprisonized” and that a direct, linear progression into negative behav- ior patterns is not always the result of length of time served. Instead, inmates’ adaptive pat- terns are complex and require other types of research to determine how they cope with their environments.

Testing the Prisonization Hypothesis: Garabedian Peter Garabedian (1963) continued the investigation into the prisonization process by exam- ining the social roles and socialization processes present in the prison community. Like Wheeler, Garabedian sought to examine the complexities associated with prisonization but also aimed to identify role types exhibited by inmates. He found essentially five role types: Square John, Right Guy, Politician, Outlaw, and Ding. These role types represent prisoners’ adaptive responses to problems endemic to the prison setting.

Square Johns are most in tune with the conventional attitudes and values of the prison’s staff and its society. They seek to do their time with as few problems as possible and in accordance with the expectations of the staff.

Right Guys are most opposed to the expectations of the staff; they are viewed as the prisoner most in tune with the expectations and demands of the inmate society and ultimately the most respected. According to Garabedian, both the Square John and Right Guy roles subor- dinate their individual interests to the collective interests of the group. It is the group that counts, not the individual.

Politicians are the keenest type of inmate and have usually committed crimes that involved manipulation and deceit. They tend to interact with both inmates and staff.

Outlaws are the most feared type of inmate. They have resorted to violence or will use it to get what they want from others. They tend to be isolated from other inmates and staff because of their penchant for physical confrontations.

Finally, the Dings are those who have no other social characterization that clearly defines their behaviors. In many cases, according to Garabedian, they have committed nonviolent sex

Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

offenses. They tend to fade into the background of the inmate culture and are isolated from meaningful inmate and staff contact.

These role types respond to the prison environment in differentiated and unique ways. Like Clemmer and Wheeler, Garabedian found that an inmate’s degree of prisonization varies by role type. For Dings, the early phase is the most important; for Right Guys and Square Johns, the middle phase; and for Outlaws, the late phase. Politicians were not found to have a critical phase during institutionalization. Prisoners’ differential form of adaptation by role type not only suggests that inmate social systems are complex but also reinforces the idea that uni- form treatment programs may not be the most effective for changing the behaviors of inmates who hold different roles.

The early research on prisons and the prisonization process suggests not only that adapting to the prison environment is a complex process but also that a prison’s social structure pro- duces behaviors and role types that vary over time. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to ask whether prison social systems vary by both time and location. For example, is the prisoner social system of a medium security institution the same as that found in a maximum secu- rity penitentiary—and do these systems remain constant over time? The early evidence sug- gested that prisoner social structures represent prisoners’ complex adaptation to their indi- vidual environments. As such, prison social structures may be viewed as prisoners’ unique attempts to cope with their environment. Or they may be the function of attitudes, beliefs, and values that prisoners bring into the institution by virtue of being incarcerated. These two views seek to answer the most fundamental question about how prisoner social structures develop: “How and why do these social structures originate in the prison environment?” To provide an answer, we must explore the two major models of inmate social system devel- opment: the functional/deprivation and importation models. We begin with the functional/ deprivation model.

4.2 The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

In 1958 sociologist Gresham Sykes published The Society of Captives, which provided com- prehensive and enlightening accounts of prison life and how incarcerated men adapted to it. Today this small work is considered a classic in prison literature, since it put forth a major conceptual model for understanding prisoner social systems: the functional/depri- vation model.

This model observes that prisoners interact with and adapt to the prison setting by devel- oping rules and regulations that enable them to cope with its unique demands. As a result, prison behavioral patterns are directly functional to the environment of the prison. All pris- oner behaviors are viewed as responses to the regimen imposed by the institutional setting. Sykes wanted to know how and why prisoners respond to prison the way they do, and he sought to identify and classify related behaviors.

To answer these questions, Sykes went to a maximum security prison in New Jersey and observed the adaptation patterns exhibited by prisoners. He found three fundamental adap- tive processes at work. First, he argued that prisoners experience pains of imprisonment

Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

by virtue of being placed in the institution. These pains are unique to an inmate’s particular prison environment, and the prisoner social system revolves around trying to cope with these pains individually and collectively.

Second, Sykes found that prisoners create clearly identifiable argot roles in prison. Note that these labels are now largely considered outdated by most modern correctional schol- ars and professionals However, Sykes’s intent at the time was to describe specific identities and expectations for the prisoners who assume them. Take, for example, the prisoner who is aggressive toward other inmates. Known as the “gorilla” in the prison of the 1950s (and as Garabedian’s “outlaw” in the 1960s), this person resorts to the threat or use of force to get what he or she wants from other prisoners. Like the pains of imprisonment, these argot roles represent functional responses to the deprivations experienced in prison.

Finally, Sykes argued that there is a relationship between prison stability and inmates’ social organization. Understanding control in a prison requires an examination of the role the inmate social system plays in providing stability. A prison’s stability is inexorably tied to pris- oners’ social organization and how they adapt to the day-to-day contingencies of prison life.

The Pains of Imprisonment Inmates essentially experience five pains of imprisonment; each one is a deprivation experi- enced simply by virtue of being in prison.

Deprivation of Liberty First and foremost, prisoners experience the deprivation of liberty. The most visible and deeply felt pain, this deprivation is the most obvious, since the inmate cannot leave the prison; and in fact, the deprivation of liberty is a prison’s central purpose. The inmate is in the state of “involuntary seclusion of the outlaw” (Sykes, 1958, p. 65). He or she is not only restricted from making decisions about the ability to move at will but, more importantly, is rejected by the community through being placed in prison. The inmate must find a way to cope with the label of prisoner (both within prison and upon being released). Often, the prisoner “copes” by rejecting the society that has placed him or her in prison.

Deprivation of Goods and Services Second, prisoners are deprived of most goods and services when incarcerated; they no longer have access to many of the amenities they enjoyed when they were free. In this process, the prisoner is stigmatized as less of a social being, in society’s eyes. In a world where material possessions are critical to the definition of oneself, a rather poor disposition is created and perpetuated by being incarcerated—a prisoner is denied the basic items that general society uses to define success or even acceptance. In short, as Sykes (1958) suggests, “[The prisoner] must carry the additional burden of social definitions which equate his material deprivation with personal inadequacy” (p. 70).

Deprivation of Sexual Contact Third, prison settings typically deprive an inmate of her or his preferred sexual activi- ties. Because of the physical limitations imposed by prison, it may be impossible for some

Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

prisoners to adopt their preferred sexual roles while incarcerated. As with material posses- sions, denying an inmate’s sexual expression restricts an important part of his or her iden- tity. Heterosexual prisoners who engage in same-gender sexual behaviors while incarcerated are reflecting functional adaptations to a setting in which their preferred means of sexual expression are denied. Interestingly, since the 1950s a few states—California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington—have instituted conjugal visits as a way to alleviate this form of deprivation (Goldstein, 2015).

Denial of Autonomy Fourth, prison denies inmates their auton- omy. Autonomy refers to one’s ability to make daily decisions about one’s life. In prison, however, practically all decisions are made for the inmate; as a result, he or she is at the mercy of the wishes of the correctional staff. This situation of depen- dency reduces many prisoners to a state of childhood, in which they are unable to make even rudimentary decisions about their lives. In this sense the custodial regi- men is demeaning and repulsive to many inmates; it violates their self-image as people who can make their own decisions. By being denied this opportunity to make their own decisions, prisoners are forced to live dependent lives.

Deprivation of Security Finally, while in prison, inmates are deprived of security. Most prisoners do not feel safe in an environment where dangerous people have been placed. As one inmate put it, “The worst thing about prison is you have to live with other pris- oners” (Sykes 1958, p. 77). Indeed, many prisoners feel that the institution is not safe and secure and that they could be vic- timized at any time. Moreover, many inmates experience constant conflict with other inmates who seek to gain favors or property and test them for weakness or strength. This pressure strains an inmate’s self-image, producing a deep-seated anxi- ety. How an inmate reacts to these chal- lenges affects his or her reputation among other inmates.

David Goldman/Associated Press Being denied autonomy, such as the ability to decide when and what to eat, is one of several pains of imprisonment. In your opinion, is it necessary to deprive inmates of their autonomy? Why or why not?

Nanine Hartzenbusch/Associated Press Loss of security is another major pain of imprisonment. This photo shows weapons confiscated from inmates after a prison sweep. How might this specific pain of imprisonment influence prisoner behavior?

Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

Taken together, these five pains of imprisonment are focal points around which inmates’ social interactions revolve. In response, Sykes (1958) suggests that an inmate can either function as a participant in a “war of all against all” (pp. 82–83) or bind him- or herself into a position of cooperation with other inmates to alleviate the pains of imprisonment.

Through this lens, the prison social structure represents a compromise between individuals seeking to cope with the pains of imprisonment and a collective body of inmates who negoti- ate informal rules regarding how they address the pains of imprisonment. It is the mixture of these two positions that defines the nature and extent of a prison’s social system. Addition- ally, the prisoner social world functions as a mechanism by which to adapt to the “rigors of confinement.” These rigors “can at least be mitigated by the patterns of social interaction established among the inmates themselves” (Sykes, 1958, p. 82).

Social Roles in Prisons Surprisingly, there has been scant research on inmate social groups over the past several decades. Most prison research has focused on negative actions without conscious regard for how social groups function or how they affect prisoners and those whose job it is to keep them in check.

One study (Chong, 2013), however, investigated social groups in California prisons with the aim of understanding how they function. The most striking finding was that racial segregation

Applying Criminal Justice: Prison Gangs and Drugs

Research has documented the existence and prevalence of prison gangs. In most prisons, gangs are a part of the social system and have proved to be very difficult to control, espe- cially because such gangs have many members spread across different institutions. Not only do prison gangs exist in the big states of California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois, they also pose a problem for correctional systems at all levels of government (federal, state, and local).

A 2010 study by Winterdyk and Ruddell of prisons systems with nearly 2 million U.S. inmates revealed that not only had prison gangs increased in number, they had also become more “disruptive and sophisticated” (p. 731) over the previous 5 years. The study indicated that there were no obvious ways to address the problems these gangs cause. One complaint lodged in this study was that a lack of rehabilitation opportunities for inmates was “one shortcoming in the range of gang management strategies in most jurisdictions” (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010, p. 730).

Among the more serious issues associated with prison gangs is their distribution of illegal drugs. As discussed earlier, the deprivation of goods and services is a significant adjustment for prisoners; when the inmate social system serves to distribute items to prisoners, it pro- vides a way to ameliorate the harsh conditions of confinement. How do drugs affect prison- ers’ attitudes toward their surroundings? Is there a way to offer prisoners an alternative to prison gangs and illegal drugs that is more prosocial? Or are prison gangs too powerful, especially in their ability to distribute illegal drugs? How might correctional officials combat prison gangs and drug distribution?

Section 4.2The Functional/Deprivation Model of Prison Social Organization

continues to be the main social grouping in California prisons. Chong also found that the leaders of such groups hold great sway in terms of how inmate populations func- tion and the degree of peace they are able to experience.

Just as leaders emerge in every social setting, whether it is read- ily apparent or not, leaders exist in the inmate community as well. The inmate community regularly has leaders representing their respective groups and there is a tremendous amount of commu- nication at the level of leadership that affects the inmate community and determines many social occurrences. (Chong, 2013, p.36)

Leaders determine whether there will be war or peace among groups in the complex social networks of modern prisons.

Prison Social Organization and Stability The functional/deprivation model highlights the importance of the relationship between the formal structure of the prison and the informal workings of the prisoner social system. The inmate social system forms in response to the prison’s structures and processes; yet at the same time, the inmates’ social world is a critical component of the smooth operation of the prison. To deny this reality is to fail to accept the kinds of power that prisoners have in a correctional setting. As Sykes (1958) suggests, when prison staff cannot maintain control through a more formal system of rules and regulations, they may rely instead rely on a series of accommodations. He states:

Unable to count on a sense of duty to motivate their captives to obey and unable to depend on the direct and immediate use of violence to insure a step- by-step submission to the rules, the custodians must fall back on a system of rewards and punishments. (Sykes, 1958, p. 50)

Because of this give-and-take relationship between correctional officer and inmate, the cor- rectional officer provides a modicum of control that is critical to the mission of the institution. In this way the system of informal rewards and punishments serves the central need of the prison: stability. Moreover, guards must deal with the fact that prisons have many inherent weaknesses that make total prisoner compliance nearly impossible to achieve. To begin with, throughout the course of their workday, guards can develop close, trusting relationships with the prisoners. While guards may not completely trust prisoners, they learn to respect the inmates as people who happen to be in prison, as opposed to criminals who have been incar- cerated. Daily interactions tend to soften guards’ perception of inmates, and this makes it more difficult for a guard to demand and expect total compliance from an inmate.

Section 4.3The Importation Model of Prison Social Organization

Second, reciprocity is foundational to the role of a guard. Largely due to an imbalance between the demands of the role and the resources available to meet these demands, guards cannot accomplish all the functions required of them. As a result, many inmates serve to carry out functions that are assigned to guards. For example, keeping the cell block clean is a correc- tional officer duty, but is often given to an inmate as part of his or her duties. Under this arrangement, the cell block is kept clean, the officer is happy, and the inmate is able to work and may receive favors from the officer, such as more time out of his or her cell. This reci- procity can, in turn, force some guards to turn their backs on rule violations or to be less demanding of inmates when it comes to enforcing policies and procedures. Take our previous example: the officer may allow the inmate to possess contraband items, such as food taken from the cafeteria to be consumed in the cell block, which is against the prison’s rules. The officers exercise discretionary authority in a way that legitimizes the reciprocal relationship between correctional officer and prisoner. In this way the guards’ authority may be somewhat eroded, but the daily tasks of the job end up getting done.

Finally, a guard is evaluated on how well he or she maintains control over the cell block. By providing rewards and benefits to prisoners, a guard provides more certainty to the prison environment and exerts greater control over the population. Navigating the inmate social system using give-and-take arrangements becomes a critical component of the prison’s for- mal structure. More importantly, the guard is placed in the middle of an inmate social system that thrives on the reciprocity between the correctional officer and the inmate. Therefore, the coercive power presumably inherent in a correctional officer’s role is diminished by the structural qualities of the prison.

The social organization of prisoners is invariably tied to a prison’s stability. Keeping inmates in line requires administrative staff and custodial officers to balance the demands of the inmate body with the formal policies that define order in the prison. Research literature on the adequacy of the functional/deprivation model has been plentiful. Beginning with Sykes in the 1950s and continuing well into the 1960s, the functional model has been used to examine a number of phenomena in prisons, including prisoners’ sexual behaviors and drug habits (Akers, Hayner, & Gruninger, 1974), the informal system of contraband distribution (Williams & Fish, 1974; Gleason, 1978; Kalinich, 1986), and how prisoners adjust to the pains of impris- onment (Street, Vinter, & Perrow, 1969; Tittle, 1969; Thomas, 1977). All of this research sup- ports parts of the functional/deprivation model and suggests it is useful for explaining how inmate social systems develop and the purposes they serve in the prison environment. Unfor- tunately, however, prison socialization has not been a topic of recent research. As Kreager and Kruttschnitt (2018) have observed, “Inmate social organization was once a central area within criminology that stalled just as incarceration rates dramatically climbed” (p. 261).

4.3 The Importation Model of Prison Social Organization While the functional/deprivation theory of inmate social organization examines how the prison environment influences the inmate social system, the importation model suggests that prisoners’ experiences and attitudes prior to incarceration are critical to understanding their adaptation processes. In a seminal piece published in 1962, ex-offender John Irwin and sociologist Donald Cressey presented the importation model’s basic principles.

Section 4.3The Importation Model of Prison Social Organization

Irwin and Cressey (1962) did not deny the pains of imprisonment nor the prisonization ordeal as described by the functional/deprivation model; rather, they argued that prisoners’ adjust- ments to these institutions are a function of adaptive patterns learned prior to incarceration and are not functionally related to the prison structure. In addition, they believed that these modes of adaptation can be tied directly to specific role types. The prison social system, they suggested, is composed of clearly identifiable roles and referent subcultures, or what Irwin and Cressey called the thief subculture, the convict subculture, and the legitimate subculture.

Thief Subculture According to Irwin and Cressey (1962), the thief subculture is composed of individuals who hold specific values common to thieves everywhere. These include the notion that criminals should neither trust nor cooperate with police, not betray other thieves, be reliable and cool- headed, and be “solid” in the eyes of other inmates. Irwin and Cressey describe how the thief subculture thrives on the idea that an individual must have the requisite skills to be a good thief but, more importantly, will defend the honor of being a thief. In-group loyalties to the thief subculture are more important to other prisoners than one’s criminal skill. Finally, the thief subculture supports and lends advice to those group members who are unfamiliar with the workings of the prison or the inmate social system. In effect, the subculture works toward resolving conflicts among group members in prison and guides members on “how to do time” behind bars.

Convict Subculture Unlike the thief subculture, the convict subculture is uniquely tied to the workings of the prison. These are individuals who have had extensive experience with jails and prisons and are familiar with their deprivations. The central tenet of the convict subculture is utilitarian- ism, and its goal is to manipulate the prison system for personal advantage. Members of the convict subculture work toward acquiring wealth and attaining positions of power within the inmate social system. Most importantly, members of the convict subculture have a long record of confinement, usually one that goes back to juvenile institutions. Their extensive experience with prison systems enables them to transition from institution to institution. Finally, Irwin and Cressey argue that the emphasis on manipulation and utilitarian values is not a product of the prison environment. Rather, these values reflect an ethic acquired prior to incarceration and are consistent with beliefs held by many “hard-core” members of lower socioeconomic classes, from which most prisoners come.

Legitimate Subculture Unlike the thief and convict subcultures, the legitimate subculture views institutional rules and regulations as part of doing time. These are the inmates who seek status by following the approved mechanisms of the prison’s administration, such as being involved in the institu- tional newspaper or its inmate council. They are minimally involved in the inmate social sys- tem and usually do their time with as little trouble as possible; they are typically the least problematic inmates for prison officials. In addition, members of this subculture make up a large portion of many prison populations. In the early 1960s Irwin and Cressey estimated that close to 40% of the total inmate population belonged to the legitimate subculture. It is difficult to say what percentage of the inmate population belongs to this subculture today,

Section 4.4Contemporary Conceptions of Imprisonment: Stateville

since there have been massive changes both in the scale and scope of incarcera- tion and in the nature of the inmate social system. The influence of gangs, drugs, and violence on prisons has also significantly altered the traditional notions of the pris- oner social system.

Follow-up studies have supported the importation model (Wellford, 1967; Schwartz, 1971; Thomas, 1975), and many have attempted to incorporate this perspective, along with the functional approach, into an integrative model of the prisonization process. Proponents of both the importation and functional models have recognized the utility of employing tenets from each approach to explain the dynamics of the inmate social system. Like the functional model, the importation perspective has provided some deep insight into how prisoner social systems function, yet it too has limi- tations on the extent to which it can explain the system’s various activities.

For example, it is not clear that all prisoners can be classified into one of these three prison subcultures. The prison social structure is more complex and dynamic than was originally stated by Irwin and Cressey. This led Irwin (1980) to comment on the prison’s changing social structure. No longer was the prison primarily composed of three predominant subcultures, he argued. Instead, the prisoner social system was thought to be composed of groups or gangs of prisoners, each with their own identity and purpose. As a result of this thinking, more con- temporary explanations of the inmate social system have emphasized the role of gang and racial affiliations. This contemporary view has served to support or even expand the importa- tion hypothesis more than it has served to critique it, however. While the original importation model suggested the prevalence of three subcultures, the more contemporary view suggests that the inmate social system is much more factionalized and fragmented, defined by gang membership and ethnic or racial identification. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the prisoner social world requires a broader examination of the prison.

4.4 Contemporary Conceptions of Imprisonment: Stateville

In an influential book titled Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society, James Jacobs (1977) argued that prisons could no longer be understood as an entity outside the realm of society’s other institutions. The book took into account that in the past, much of what occurred in prisons was hidden from the general public. In more contemporary times, however, Jacobs argued that the prison could no longer be viewed as an institution beyond the public’s pur- view. Rather, it had moved from the periphery of society to a more visible position. In addition, Jacobs argued that the prison had become more accountable; the public could now examine

Kevin Anderson/Lawrence Journal-World/Associated Press Inmates in the legitimate subculture participate in approved activities, such as the prison choir. Why do you think so many inmates take part in the legitimate subculture?

Section 4.4Contemporary Conceptions of Imprisonment: Stateville

prison officials’ practices and conduct. Jacobs suggested that prison functions and operations have become open to public scrutiny; in fact, it was in the 1970s that prison officials first began needing to justify their actions to the public and the watchful eyes of the judiciary. To make his argument, Jacobs used the case of the Stateville penitentiary (located in the state of Illinois) to show how changes in prison administration were occurring across the country.

Jacobs argued that the Stateville penitentiary underwent a series of stages that redefined its purpose and changed the structure of the inmate social system. Part of his argument is the idea that the changing prisoner social world affects the prison environment, and administra- tive reactions to these changes are what contribute to the development of the modern prison. His analysis shows how the prison has been influenced by the workings and representations of general society. No longer is the prisoner social structure explained relative to singular models, such as those provided by the functional and importation models. Instead, analysis of the prisoner social system must include the role of broader social events that define such a structure.

Jacobs thought there were a number of events and processes that defined the character and direction of the Stateville penitentiary over a 50-year period. Two central stages emerged from his analysis: the development of an authoritarian regime at the prison from 1925 to 1970 and the search for a new equilibrium after 1970.

The Authoritarian Regime (1925–1970) Early on, the Stateville penitentiary was dominated by the will and charisma of one man: War- den Joseph E. Ragen. Ragen became warden during a period in which political partisanship and outside influence were causing chaos within the prison. He held the position from 1936 to 1961 and brought to it his own personal philosophy on penal operations that served as the cornerstone of his administration. He made it clear that he was in charge of the prison. In fact, both inmates and staff were aware of Ragen’s power, and he gained the compliance of both groups. Jacobs (1977) summarizes Ragen’s 25-year tenure as warden in the following way:

Joe Ragen’s 25 year “rule” of Stateville was based upon the patriarchal author- ity he achieved. In the vocabulary of both employees and inmates, “he ran it.” The “old boss” devoted his life to perfecting the world’s most orderly prison regime. He exercised personal control over every detail, no matter how insig- nificant. He tolerated challenges neither by inmates nor by employees nor by outside interest groups. He cultivated an image which made him invincible to his subordinates as well as to prisoners. (p. 29)

Ragen’s leadership at Stateville changed the internal machinations of the inmate social sys- tem. Fear and intimidation were commonplace; staff adapted strident strategies to control the inmate population, including by cultivating prison “rats,” men who leaked information to guards about the activities of other inmates. Ragen was notorious for instilling fear into the inmate body through various expressions of his power. In addition, he kept the institution out of the public eye by keeping it quiet, orderly, and peaceful. The internal composition of the prison also changed during this period; the inmate population went from having a majority of White prisoners to a majority of Black prisoners in the late 1950s and early 1960s. As a result, the rules and regulations of the inmate social system began to change.

Section 4.4Contemporary Conceptions of Imprisonment: Stateville

It was in the early 1960s that the prison began to experience great change. Regan retired in 1961, but it was changes in the social structure of external society that affected Stateville the most. With the growth of the civil rights movement and the changing expectations of minor- ity groups, the prison—like other social institutions—needed to respond to these changes. In most prisons across the country, officials did so by repressing and suppressing inmate leaders and those who challenged the authority of institutional policies and procedures. This approach only created tension in prisons, particularly among those prisoners who viewed the institution as a representation of a repressive and racially divided society. As a result, prisoner social systems became fragmented, and racial divisions were common. It was prison officials’ search for equilibrium in the 1970s that dominated administrators’ institutional agendas, including at Stateville.

The Search for a New Equilibrium (1970–1975) The search for equilibrium at the Stateville penitentiary began with a transformation of the prison’s organizational structure. Jacobs (1977) argued that changes at the prison were fueled by three sources: the creation of a Department of Corrections; the cultivation of an educated administrative staff; and the hiring of civilian personnel such as teachers, counselors, and social workers.

Department of Corrections The state of Illinois created a separate Department of Corrections tasked with overseeing the operations of all institutions. This enabled the activities of all Illinois prisons to be monitored and controlled through one centralized office. By centralizing its power, the Illinois Depart- ment of Corrections significantly reduced the local autonomy of prison officials. As a result, the prison was no longer under the sole control of the warden and his administrative staff.

Educated Administrative Officials Associated with this centralization of authority was the development of a staff of highly edu- cated professionals who were considered an elite corps of administrative officials. In short, the central office became a bureaucracy with all the attendant rules and regulations. This bureaucratization fostered a new approach to prison operation. Unlike in the past, when wardens had local control and could run things the way they saw fit, the new philosophy in Illinois (and the rest of the country) was that administrative personnel should be profession- alized through education and training. At this point, as Jacobs (1977) states, Stateville peni- tentiary transformed “from a patriarchal organization based upon traditional authority to a rational–legal bureaucracy” (p. 73). This search for equilibrium made clear that the central office sought to find a new way of doing things.

Teachers, Counselors, and Social Workers The prison began to hire more civilian personnel to serve as teachers, counselors, and social workers. These professionals took issue with the prison system’s authoritarian and patriar- chal structure and its total control over employees. As a result, they demanded that changes be made to decision-making and rule-making processes.

Section 4.4Contemporary Conceptions of Imprisonment: Stateville

The Legal System, Gangs, and Guards The centralization of authority, the rise of professional managers, and the involve- ment of more civilians in day-to-day oper- ations heralded more problems than solu- tions regarding how to run the prisons. As a result, the Illinois Department of Correc- tions encountered major problems between 1970 and 1975, including the intrusion of the legal system, the penetra- tion of gangs, and the transition of the guard force. Each of these problems posed serious tests to the newly formed profes- sional managers who headed the Illinois Department of Corrections.

The legal environment demanded that the administration fundamentally change how it ran the prison, and it kept correctional admin- istrators busy trying to comply with court orders. In addition, the rise of the professional administration heralded much intrastaff conflict, which produced fertile ground for the pro- liferation and penetration of gangs in the prison. As Jacobs states, gangs could only flourish in an uncertain organizational environment where maintenance and control functions went unmet. Therefore, Jacobs (1977) states, “it was only in the context of this organizational crisis that the gangs were able to organize, recruit, and achieve dominance” (p. 138).

Moreover, the guard force at the Stateville penitentiary went through several changes, many of which directly affected the operation of the prison. According to Jacobs (1977), the intro- duction of a reform-minded administration drove the growth of public employee unionism, and the racial integration of the staff caused many divisions among those who worked in the prison. It was clear that the prison was being affected by the changes in the external environ- ment and that many of these were not well received by the traditional guard force. Racial inte- gration of the staff, for example, produced much animosity between White officers who were already employed at the prison and newly recruited Black officers, who often sympathized with the plight of prisoners. These conditions fostered an environment in which staff had no control over the inmate social system. The prisoner social world at Stateville had become truly out of control; violent and aggressive prisoner gangs ran the penitentiary. The result was that staff lost all institutional control, and relationships between guards and key elements of the inmate social system critically deteriorated.

Clearly, any attempt to impose a pure bureaucracy on a prison has limits. Yet the reforms that have been adopted by American prisons over the past 4 decades have drastically altered how inmate social systems function. Can prisons be run without the kinds of relationships that Sykes and other functional/deprivation proponents argue are inherent in the prison structure? Or can we instill other management techniques that improve prisoners’ condi- tions while maintaining the kind of control required in a prison? These questions continue to challenge correctional administrators today.

Kiichiro Sato/Associated Press Here a reading teacher works with an offender. As outsiders, civilian personnel working in prisons during the 1970s brought new perspectives on how prisons should be run. In your opinion, were these efforts beneficial?

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

The remainder of this chapter will examine opposing viewpoints on how prisons can be man- aged so they can serve as useful social institutions that produce more law-abiding citizens. Fundamentally, our goal is to explore how inmate social systems can be positively changed. The next section offers specific suggestions for how prisons can become places where inmates can learn to cope and mature. Under this view, the correctional officer is considered an inte- gral part of a prisoner’s rehabilitation process. The final section explores a control model of prison management, one that emphasizes administrators’ greater involvement and account- ability in monitoring prisoner social systems.

4.5 The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

Today the prisoner social world is much more complex and requires a different approach to understand how prisoners cope with the experience of being incarcerated. One work that has received considerable attention in this area is Robert Johnson’s Hard Time. Johnson (2002) states, “Prisons are nothing if not painful, yet the implications of this stark fact have never been fully appreciated by reformers” (p. 39).

Put simply, understanding the modern penitentiary requires accepting the fundamental prem- ise that prisons were designed to be painful, and that being incarcerated requires inmates to feel pain. This view is similar to what the functional/deprivation model described. Yet the view offered by Johnson is that inmates’ “pains of imprisonment” are much more psychologi- cal than physical and constitute the hard time that they experience. Therefore, the critical question for understanding the contemporary prison is, “How do prisoners cope with hard time—the psychological pain—they experience?”

Mature Coping According to the functional/deprivation model, the inmate social system’s primary purpose is to alleviate the pains of imprisonment. Johnson, however, suggests that the contemporary ways in which prisoners cope with these pains are much more diverse and have no consistent pattern of adaptation. Moreover, he suggests that the fundamental purpose of prison manage- ment is to help prisoners cultivate mature and conventional ways of adapting to prison, with the hope that such behavior patterns will be exhibited upon release. Prison’s fundamental purpose, therefore, should be to teach prisoners socially acceptable ways to cope with an inherently painful experience. As Johnson (2002) states:

Prisoners must cope maturely with the demands of prison life; if they do not, the prison experience will simply add to their catalog of failure and defeat. Mature coping, in fact, does more than prevent one’s prison life from becom- ing yet another series of personal setbacks. It is at the core of what we mean by correction or rehabilitation, and thus creates the possibility of a more con- structive life after release from prison. (p. 56)

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

Mature coping is essentially composed of three skills that prisoners must learn: recogniz- ing that there are common problems regarding adjustment, refusing to resort to violence or deception, and caring for oneself and others.

Recognize Common Problems of Adjustment Prisoners must recognize that there are common problems with adjusting to prison life. This requires the prisoner to in turn recognize that there are both acceptable and unacceptable ways of responding to such problems. Facing a problem demands that an individual react in a way that is acceptable, not only within the constraints of the prison but also to the general public. Many prisoners have lived lives of illusion and fantasy, but such mechanisms are not acceptable among mature people who must confront and deal with their problems in a realis- tic and reasonable fashion. Prisoners must learn this skill if they are to successfully cope with and adjust to prison.

Refuse to Resort to Violence or Deception Prisoners must also avoid resorting to violence or deception if they are to maturely cope with the prison experience. For many prisoners, violence and deception have been guiding prin- ciples in their interactions with others. In the long run, however, such approaches are doomed to fail. In fact, being incarcerated typically results from the long-term futility of relying on such coping mechanisms. The mature individual does not seek to hide behind deception nor resort to violence when aggrieved. Instead, the mature individual learns acceptable ways of interacting with others and accepts society’s rules for resolving conflicts.

Care for Oneself and Others The prisoner must learn that caring for oneself and others is an important aspect of success- fully adjusting to prison. A prisoner must view his or her experience in the context of the broader community of individuals, all of whom are seeking to adjust and cope with the pres- sures of everyday existence. In the words of Johnson, Rocheleau, and Martin (2016), interac- tions must feature a sense of “altruistic egotism” (p. 22), whereby there is equal concern for oneself and other individuals. In this way individuals learn to respect the community and live within the parameters of acceptable behavior that it defines. Only through cooperative and agreed-upon rules can the community survive. This principle applies to both the prison com- munity and the outside social community, and it is a prison’s job to help prisoners learn the value of showing concern for others.

Niches The sad fact is that these principles tend not to be reinforced in prison contexts. There- fore, Johnson makes a distinction between the prison’s public culture, which suggests that manipulation and force are the best coping strategies, and its private culture, which sup- ports adjustment and mature adaptation to prison. The prison community has failed when the public cultural norms are in opposition to mature coping among prisoners. Therefore, correctional administrators are faced with the herculean task of reconciling the demands of

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

the public culture with mature coping strategies to deal with problems appropriately, avoid deception and violence, and care for oneself and others.

This is no easy task, yet Johnson (2002) suggests it is possible for prisoners to learn mature coping strategies, since many inmates have no desire to exclusively or wholeheartedly accept the norms of the prison’s public culture. Instead, they have developed adaptation strategies that minimize interactions within the prison’s public culture and primarily exist within their own “range of ecological options that support life ‘off the yard’” (Johnson, 2002, p. 66). These options are also referred to as niches, which can consist, for example, of inmates who are from similar cities or towns, participate in the same recreational activities, or share a reli- gious affiliation. Niches allow inmates to bond with other like-minded inmates and support each other in addressing problems associated with incarceration. Niches can serve as mecha- nisms for adapting to the prison experience and provide inmates with a way to successfully adjust to the prison setting outside the prison’s public culture.

Such niches are vast and can be very diverse. There is no single, monolithic niche or inmate social system that serves to help all inmates deal with the pains of imprisonment. The public tends to regard prisons as places of violence and deceit, with attendant norms that support such values. However, prisons house a number of private cultures that can support pris- oners’ mature adjustment to the pains of imprisonment. The diversity of such pri- vate prison cultures is what makes them uniquely distinctive and effective in sup- porting prisoners’ adjustments.

At present, however, many prison niches can only help prisoners reduce their stress and therefore do not help them learn acceptable ways to cope with prison life. In short, they are merely havens from the stresses produced and reinforced by the prison’s public culture. Niches tend to avoid the problems associated with prison life. The goal, however, should be to teach inmates appropriate ways of facing problems in order to get them to adopt acceptable behaviors and adjust to the prison setting. One way to accomplish this is to include all actors in the process of developing prisoners’ healthy adjustment, includ- ing those in charge of overseeing and controlling prisoners—correctional officers. If prison- ers are to adjust successfully to 21st-century prisons, then no other role is as pivotal as that of the correctional officer. This important point will be addressed in a later section.

Damian Dovarganes/Associated Press Niches are often organized around activities or religious affiliations and address issues related to imprisonment. These inmates are participating in a seminary training program. How do you think this might encourage their successful adaptation to prison life?

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

Three-Strikes Legislation Legislation of the late 1980s and early 1990s had a profound impact on prisons’ social struc- ture and imprisonment more generally. For the first time in U.S. history, prison populations experienced unparalleled growth (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012b). Nothing more directly affected this growth than the three-strikes legislation, which was passed in California after the 1993 murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, who was abducted from her home at knifepoint and later strangled. Her murderer—Richard Allen Davis—was a recently released prisoner. Based on the premise that criminals should be punished more severely for recurring criminal activity, the California law sought to increase penalties for offenders who had a history of committing felonies.

While three-strikes legislation was adopted by several states, California’s statue was the most rigorous. Under its law, a third “strike” earns the offender a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. The estimates vary, yet the total cost of this initiative reaches well into billions of dol- lars, and in California alone, it was estimated that the law would force the state to build 80 new prisons at a cost of $21 billion (Koetting & Schiraldi, 1994). By mid-1996 the legality of three-strikes legislation had been questioned by many appellate courts, both in California and across the country.

In 2012 California adjusted its three-strikes statute, requiring that an offender’s third strike be a serious felony. No longer could offenders be given a sentence of 25 years to life for steal- ing a piece of pizza as their third strike (which is what had occurred in the first three-strikes case, in 1994). It is estimated that over 3,000 offenders have been sentenced under the 1994 law and are serving life sentences. When the 2012 law allowed offenders to be released if they did not have a violent conviction, the state predicted it could save upward of $150 million to $200 million (Lagos, 2011). Surprisingly, although California reduced its prison popula- tion by 30,000 inmates from 2012 to 2015, the costs associated with incarceration have not decreased. The lack of savings has been blamed on court-mandated spending increases, infla- tion, and increases in staffing for institutions (Respaut, 2016).

On the national level, court challenges to mandatory, repeat offender laws like three strikes often fail; this has led some to call for laws to be restructured in both state legislatures and U.S. Congress, as was done in California (Barkow, 2012). The effects of mandatory sentencing laws on prison social structure and prison management have been profound.

Growth in Prison Populations Irwin and Austin (1994) argue that the most direct effect of such legislation has been the massive growth in prisoner populations, which has had deleterious effects on prisons’ social organization. Figure 4.1 shows the growth in prison populations over a 30-year period begin- ning in 1980. Unlike the prisons of the 1980s, those of the 1990s saw the inmate social system become intensified and stratified; warring factions now compete for control of the prison yard. Furthermore, prison crowding has exacerbated already tenuous social relationships between keeper and kept, such that prison control is much more difficult to maintain.

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

Figure 4.1: Incarcerated adult correctional population, 1980–2016

The number of incarcerated adults increased steadily from 1980 through 2016, with moderate decreases occurring during the last few years.

From “Figure: Total Adult Correctional Population, 1980-2016,” in “Key Statistic: Total Correctional Population,” by Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018 (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=487)

Increased Violence Violence, especially ethnic and racial violence, has escalated in prisons (Irwin & Austin, 1994). “Tougher laws” have both increased the number of incarcerated offenders and made in-prison violence more likely. The prison social organization has become even further fragmented, such that gang activity and control over limited prison commodities has become fierce. In many prisons, the escalation of violence can be traced to mandatory sentencing (Irwin & Austin, 1994). Moreover, the contemporary prison has imposed greater restrictions on the freedom of prisoners to move about, largely due to overcrowding and the resulting limited available space and resources. In addition, the proliferation of prison rules and regulations has made the process of “doing time” more cumbersome and difficult for inmates. The combi- nation of less freedom, overcrowding, fewer prison activities, and a more formalistic regimen of control has significantly altered the prison social organization (Haney, 2010). Some have suggested this has resulted in a climate in which increased violence is an acceptable survival strategy for many prisoners (Silberman, 1995).

Number

Year

‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 ‘02 ‘04 ‘06 ‘08 ‘12‘10 ‘14 ‘16

State prison

Jail

Federal prison

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

The Prisoner’s Response How do prisoners respond to such conditions? Many become crippled by the prison experi- ence and feel alienated, powerless, and hopeless. This does not bode well for society, since the vast majority of these people will be released into their communities feeling angry, under- skilled, and uneducated. Their prospects for succeeding in conventional society are drasti- cally reduced, and their chances of returning to prison are very high.

The trend across the United States during the 1990s was to address these concerns by taking more punitive approaches to incarceration. Only at the start of the 21st century did people begin to question the efficacy of get-tough approaches and their effect on prisoners, both during their time in prison and after their release. In 2001, for example, the Council of State Governments noted the need for prisons to change their focus because of the spiraling costs of imprisonment and the negative conditions more punitive practices created for prisoners. The council also recognized that most prisoners would be released to the community. The council has worked hard to create useable mechanisms for states to address prisoner reentry (Council of State Governments, 2005).

Understanding that overcrowding has become problematic for prison administrators, many state legislators have succumbed to pressure from both correctional officials and the public to build more restrictive facilities to address potentially violent and disruptive inmates who can- not function in the traditional prison. These facilities are designed to restrict the movement of prisoners such that control is maximized and prisoner amenities are minimized.

Super-Max Prisons Unlike the past, when there was tacit negotiation with prisoners and inmate leaders regarding control in the prison setting, the prison managers of the 1990s sought to end such arrangements and construct facilities that are maximally restrictive and punitive and are directed toward those leaders of the prison social structure who pose the greatest threats to prison security. These facilities, known as super-max prisons, are designed to pre- vent interactions among inmates and restrict their physical movement. Inmates are confined to their cells for up to 23 hours a day. This strategy aims to achieve greater control over the prison. Research into the effectiveness of super-max pris- ons has been critical, however, and con- cerns have been raised about the humane- ness of such an approach to managing problematic prisoners, many of whom suffer from serious mental health prob- lems (Lovell, 2008; Haney, 2010).

Chris McLean/Pueblo Chieftain/Associated Press High-maintenance prisoners are sent to super- max prisons, such as the federal penitentiary at Florence, Colorado. Do you think these types of prisons can successfully control troublesome inmates?

Section 4.5The Modern-Day Experience of Incarceration: 1980–Present

The vast majority of prisoners are not placed in such facilities; they are reserved for the most difficult inmates, who tend to be drug dealers, prison gang leaders, and offenders who have violent histories. The best known super-max facilities are Pelican Bay prison in California and the federal penitentiary at Florence, Colorado; however, many states have constructed their own versions of the super-max prison. Research on the effects of these prisons has been sparse, yet critics argue that although their intended effect has been to reduce the power of the inmate social system by locking down inmate leaders in restrictive conditions, the unin- tended consequences have been so profound that questions must be asked about their effi- cacy and their costs, both financial and human.

In Madrid v. Gomez (1995), the federal court issued a sweeping indictment of the Pelican Bay prison and how in some cases it tortured prisoners to gain their compliance. Critics say that these types of tactics produce such long-term psychological damage to prisoners that the prison’s usefulness must be reexamined. Correctional officials, on the other hand, point out that given the trend to incarcerate offenders for protracted periods of time, fewer resources to address inmates’ educational and recreational needs, and a punitive correctional philoso- phy supported by many political leaders, it is not clear how prisons will operate without the threat of a super-max facility to handle the most difficult inmates.

Since the mid-1990s more devastating critiques of the super-max prison have emerged. Haney (2008) provides the most serious critique, concluding that in the “toxic ideological atmosphere” (p. 961) of the 1990s, states rushed to build super-max prisons with a pun- ishment philosophy that stressed personal responsibility and denied how the role of wider social forces affect crime and criminals. More importantly, this toxic environment had devas- tating effects on the prison, polarizing prisoners and officers. Officers now viewed their role as one of simply managing and warehousing prisoners in ever-growing facilities. The inmate social system became even more fragmented as prisoners attempted to deal with their situ- ations through gang affiliation (for protection), drug activity (for pleasure and profit), and racial identity (for protection and identity). The result has been a “culture of disdain” (Lovell, 2008, p. 993), whereby inmates’ lives are forever changed, disruptive and disturbed behavior is normative, and there is greater violence among inmates and between inmates and staff.

From a prisoner’s perspective, the prison social system totally collapsed under the weight of the conditions described above. Hassine (1999) provides one of the most descriptive portray- als of what it is like to exist in an overcrowded and violent prison, where individual adjust- ment and survival is next to impossible. He documents the eroding social system of control among inmates, confused and overworked correctional staff, and limited budgets for anything other than confinement and control. His writings are based on his experience being incarcer- ated in the Pennsylvania prison system for more than 20 years. His account describes a pris- oner social system and prison system in total disarray. Others have offered similar “insider” perspectives into the prison of the 21st century (see Ross & Richards, 2003).

Since the prison’s traditional social system has fragmented, correctional officials have been hard pressed to come up with solutions to their problems. The negotiations and practices of the past kept the prisoner social world in check; inmate leaders dealt with correctional offi- cers and prison managers in an informal way to control and stabilize the prison. With the for- malization of prison policies, increased crowding, more prisoners serving longer sentences, and few incentives to change, it is not clear how the prison social system of the 21st century will be made more tractable. We will examine this issue later in the chapter.

Section 4.6Correctional Officers at Work

4.6 Correctional Officers at Work While a plethora of research has been conducted on the workings of inmate social systems, until recently, very little had been produced on correctional officers and their work environ- ments. Traditionally, very few studies have been done into the role of correctional officers; most research focused only on the backgrounds of those people who entered the field. How- ever, since the 1980s much research has investigated correctional officers and the bases for their attitudes and perceptions of their work environments. Most of the early research exam- ined correctional officer attitudes, but later research examined the organizational determi- nants of these attitudes.

Individual Determinants of Correctional Officers’ Attitudes Much research focused on two different types of determinants of correctional officers’ atti- tudes. The first line of research investigated officers’ individual backgrounds and how they correlate with officers’ attitudes toward prisoners, taking into account variables such as race, gender, age, age of entry into correctional officer work, and education. Findings have been inconsistent with respect to attitudes among correctional officers. For example, Toch and Klofas’s (1982) study of four prisons in New York found that non-White officers were signifi- cantly more likely to prefer detached relationships from inmates. Other research, however, found that with respect to race, there were no differences between White and non-White offi- cers regarding custody issues but that Black officers were more supportive of rehabilitation when compared to White officers (Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989).

Applying Criminal Justice: Prison Rape

In 2003 the U.S. Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Prison Rape Elim- ination Act (PREA) into law. The law was created to address the problem of prisoner sexual assault. Its purpose was not only to develop initiatives to address the problem of prison sex- ual assault but also to collect systematic information and promote performance standards for correctional systems to be held accountable to reduce prison sexual assault and report it when it occurred. Institutions and states that do not comply with PREA standards can face a 5% reduction in federal funding for each year the state is in noncompliance.

As you reflect on what you have learned in this chapter, consider the many questions raised by this law. For example: What will be challenging about investigating and reporting prison sexual assault? Are the reported figures (it is estimated that from 3% to 20% of the pris- oner population is sexually assaulted) reliable measures of prison sexual assault? Addition- ally, since prisoners cannot make willful choices in prison regarding sexual relations, does all prison sex count as sexual assault? What role does the inmate social system play in the prison sex trade? Is prison sex a response to the deprivations of incarceration, as suggested by Sykes? Is sexual assault in prison similar to sexual assault on the outside? What other distinctions should be made regarding sex and sexual assault? Will answers to any of these questions make reporting prison sexual assault more problematic—and if so, what type of accountability scheme should be devised for prison officials?

Section 4.6Correctional Officers at Work

Research by both Jurik (1985) and Cullen et al. (1989) found that gender did not affect cor- rectional officers’ attitudes regarding prisoners. However, research concerning age and edu- cation generated less consistent findings. While Poole and Regoli (1980) found that there was a negative relationship between education and custody, neither Crouch and Alpert (1982) nor Jurik (1985) found evidence of a relationship between education and attitudes toward prisoners. Similar findings exist regarding the effect of a correctional officer’s age when hired. Overall, the research suggests that an officer’s race, education, or gender have no bearing on his or her attitude toward inmates. Like prisoners, correctional officers tend to be a disparate group of individuals who hold no singular attitude toward prisoners.

However, more recently, a study by Wooldredge and Steiner (2016) determined that correc- tional officers’ sex and race

mattered for shaping an officer’s pride with co-workers, consideration of transferring to another facility, and perceptions of co-workers’ job satisfac- tion, but only as they were linked to perceptions of sexism and racism. Per- ceptions of safety also mattered. Yet, levels of inmate crime and victimiza- tion were irrelevant for shaping attitudes. Positive attitudes were also more common in facilities housing higher risk populations, and in facilities for men. (p. 576)

Organizational Determinants of Correctional Officers’ Attitudes The second line of inquiry focuses on organizational determinants of correctional officer atti- tudes. This research tends to focus on variables such as role conflict, shift worked, job stress, frequency of inmate contact, and perceptions of danger. Similar to the findings regarding indi- vidual determinants of correctional officer attitudes, research into organizational determi- nants of correctional officer attitudes shows no consistent pattern. While Smith and Hepburn (1979) found greater punitive attitudes among correctional officers in minimum security units, Jurik (1985) found the exact opposite in her research: There was more support for pro- gramming and rehabilitative efforts among correctional officers in minimum security units. Finally, Cullen et al. (1989) found no relationship between working in a maximum security unit and support for either custody or rehabilitation. Again, these same inconsistencies are also found when one examines other organizational determinants of correctional officers’ attitudes, such as job stress, shift worked, and frequency of contact with prisoners (Farkas, 2001). Yet research conducted by Lambert, Barton-Bellessa, Hogan, and Paoline (2012) con- cluded that correctional officers’ orientation (either support for punishment or support for rehabilitation) does affect the degree to which they view themselves as “organizational citi- zens” committed to the prison. Interestingly, the researchers found that correctional officers who were oriented toward punishment were less committed to the prison.

The research makes clear that correctional officers—like prisoners—are not a homogenous group. Some correctional officers are punitive, while others are more supportive of rehabili- tation. The reasons for this diversity, along with the sources of correctional officer attitudes and how they can be influenced, are not so clear. What is clear is that correctional officers’ attitudes are diverse and influence their interactions with prisoners. The work of Johnson (2002) can shed light on how the private and public cultures of correctional officers influence their attitudes toward inmates.

Section 4.6Correctional Officers at Work

Public vs. Private Agendas That correctional officers have diverse and often divergent attitudes toward pris- oners may stem from their various agen- das. On the one hand, correctional officers have a public agenda, one that reinforces the stereotype that officers are “hacks,” “screws,” and “thugs.” This view is often portrayed in the media but represents just a small percentage of officers. This rather pejorative worldview has captured the attention of not only the public but also correctional administrators.

It is equally important to examine what Johnson (2002) refers to as correctional officers’ private agenda, which regards the role of correctional officers as more complex than the public agenda might indicate. The private agenda emphasizes that correctional officers have multiple roles, one of which includes a desire to help prisoners adjust to the prison setting. This notion—that correctional officers seek to be effective agents of change—is often out of line with the predominant view portrayed in popular media and many segments of society.

Correctional officers can be change agents in three ways: by providing goods and ser- vices to prisoners, by acting as their refer- ral agent or advocate, and by helping them adjust to the institution (Johnson, 2002). This view of the correctional officer requires some different thinking from both correctional adminis- trators and the general public. In this view, correctional officers are not seen simply as custo- dians; rather, they represent the front line of correctional work, underscoring the importance of human interaction and its utility to the operation of the institution. Those who advocate for this approach to the correctional officer role claim that interactions with prisoners will change and the prison will operate on the earned authority of the keeper rather than the iron fist of coercion.

Governing Prisons: Human Service or Control? Much of what is known about prison and prisoners comes from sociological research, espe- cially the literature on prison social structure and how inmates adapt to their incarceration experiences. In addition, much of the research has provided either direct or indirect sugges- tions as to how the prisoner society should be governed.

Scott Olson/Getty Images News/© 2011 Getty Images In the private agenda view, correctional officers can function as agents of change. Do you believe it is possible for correctional officers and inmates to have positive relationships? Why or why not?

Section 4.6Correctional Officers at Work

Take, for example, the functional/deprivation model of inmate socialization discussed earlier in this chapter, which states that prisoner society is a direct response to the pains of impris- onment imposed by the prison’s structure and administration. To alleviate these pains, pris- oners enter into social relations with each other and develop symbiotic relationships with correctional officers and administrators to keep order and control. Moreover, correctional administration officials need to be aware of the inmate social system and recognize its lead- ers, as well as promote compromise between inmate leaders and prison officials. In effect, given the way prisons are designed, the give-and-take relationship between inmate leaders and prison management is inevitable.

However, what if prison sociology has taken us down the wrong path? What if it has focused too much attention on inmate society and too little on effective correctional administration? Could it be that both functional and importation theories of inmate socialization have accen- tuated and even inflated the power of inmate societies or inmate subcultures? What if prisons can be governed in largely the same ways as other governmental bureaucracies or private companies? These questions explore how prison social structure can be modified so that prison officials can most effectively govern prisons, rather than prisoners.

Such questions have been raised by DiIulio (1987) in his provocative book, Governing Pris- ons. His work represents a break from the traditional explanations of prison social structure and correctional administration. Through a comparative study of three major systems (Cali- fornia, Michigan, and Texas), DiIulio argues that effective correctional administration can be achieved in the contemporary prison. His approach differs from the work of others in that he suggests correctional administration must begin and end with the managers of the institu- tions. He does not consider the traditional sociological literature on prisons as persuasive or compelling; rather, he argues that prison officials must wield control. To operate prisons with the implications suggested by traditional sociology is unacceptable and will never restore order and service. In short, he considers sociological views of the prison as unacceptable when it comes to prison management.

DiIulio further argues that the foundation for effective correctional management lies in cor- rectional administrations’ ability to direct and lead institutions. In his view, governing prisons requires that the governed be subject to the control of the government. In prison, the govern- ment is composed of the wardens and correctional staff; inmate societies should not control the prison’s social dynamics. While DiIulio does not deny the existence of inmate societies, he does not think they are relevant to the operation of the prison’s social structure. Clearly, pris- oners form social systems behind bars, but correctional officials should control such systems to the benefit of all who live in (prisoners) and run (staff ) the institution. In this way prisoner social structure is dictated by the administration of the prison. Achieving that balance can be found in three distinct models of prison governance: the control model, the responsibility model, and the consensual model.

The Control Model According to DiIulio, the Texas Department of Corrections provides the best example of a control model prison. Under this model of management, control is centralized in the hands of correctional officials, including line-staff personnel. The objectives of such a sys- tem are orderly, rule-oriented, clean prisons. Through a system of rules and regulations, the

Section 4.6Correctional Officers at Work

correctional staff—not the prisoners—maintain control of the inmate social system and dic- tate the prison’s day-to-day operations.

Some may argue that the control model represents the worst form of prison management, particularly from the perspective of the prisoner. How can one, for example, suggest that bureaucratic routines alone will address prisoners’ needs? In fact, it could be equally argued that intensive rules and regulations may be perceived by many prisoners as oppressive and therefore counterproductive to promoting effective long-term change. As Johnson (2002) suggests, “attributing correctional benefits to bald custodial control perhaps has always been more a rationalization than a rational correctional agenda, and it simply reinforce(s) the legit- imacy of the authoritarian regime” (p. 77).

While DiIulio (1987) has argued that custody is a precursor to treatment, it is not clear how requiring inmates to be clean shaven and properly dressed promotes long-term change. While getting inmates to have clean faces and wear proper prison attire is a laudable goal, there is no reason to believe that such behavior will help them internalize the behavior patterns that are consistent with societal expectations. In other words, a prison system may produce nice- looking institutions and prisoners, but it may not necessarily educate prisoners in a way that promotes constructive change.

The Responsibility Model According to DiIulio, Michigan’s prison system is a good example of the responsi- bility model of prison management, which emphasizes the idea that while incarcerated, prisoners should have as much control over their lives as possible, so long as doing so upholds the institu- tion’s security needs. This model’s central tenet is that inmates learn responsible behavior while incarcerated, typically through examples offered by correctional staff. In addition, the responsibility model deemphasizes the authority of correc- tional staff and tries to encourage individ- ual growth and expression among prisoners.

The Consensual Model Compared to the control and responsibil- ity models, the consensual model of correctional management allows prisoners to be more involved in the operations of institutions. According to DiIulio, a good example of this model comes from the Californian prisons of the 1960s and 1970s. A retreat from this model of prison management occurred when the prison population skyrocketed, leading to a major Supreme Court decision (Brown v. Plata, 2011; see Chapter 2). The model’s fundamental premise is that effective correctional administration requires the consent of the governed.

Tom Pennington/Fort Worth Star-Telegram/McClatchy-Tribune/ Getty Images

According to DiIulio, Texas prisons best exemplify the control model. Here, new prisoners in a Texas facility await health screenings. Which of DiIulio’s models do you prefer?

Conclusion

In this way prisoners are viewed as an integral part of prison management and administra- tion, not in a formal sense, but in the view that no prison can be run without the cooperation and consent of those who are being incarcerated. Of the three models, the consensual model subscribes more to the lessons espoused by prison sociology, and in DiIulio’s opinion, it suf- fers from them. With no coherent correctional principles and practices, the consensual model cannot be objectively evaluated, as can the control and responsibility models.

However, evaluating any of DiIulio’s three models of prison management is difficult. There has never been any assessment of the models, nor has any empirical research been undertaken to support his assertions (Stojkovic, 1990). Nevertheless, his ideas have generated debates on how best to run and manage prisons, a topic that had been typically overshadowed by the early literature on prisons that tended to minimize prison management and highlight the power of the inmate social system. However, there has been little discussion of the inmate social system in the 21st century. Research questions have focused more on how best to man- age prison facilities.

Conclusion This chapter examined a central topic in corrections—prisoner social systems. We have pre- sented several views regarding the origination of inmate social systems, attempting to high- light those points that enhance our understanding of the phenomenon. To date, the literature extensively explored the social worlds of prisoners and their workings. Whether we ascribe to the functional/deprivation model, the importation perspective, or both depends on our assumptions and examination of the empirical evidence.

Much of what is known from the research suggests that both approaches—functional/depri- vation and importation—are supportable, at least in part. It is true that prisoners suffer from the pains of imprisonment, yet much less is known about how they cope with said pains; if they rely on an indigenous social structure or learned behavioral patterns imported from out- side the correctional facility, or both. Therefore, contemporary examinations have explored not only the questions of origination and adaptation to prison but, more importantly, how the prison is part of broader society.

At present, we are trying to discover what the proper role of the prison should be in society and where prisoner social systems fit in this bigger picture. Some would say that prisons need to be more focused and committed to delivering human services, while others argue that the priority should be to restore control over the prison’s social order and to help prison- ers with their personal rehabilitation. However, these views need not be mutually exclusive; future research is required to determine what the prison’s most effective role will be as we move forward.

The 21st-century prison is full of complexity. Although prison populations initially grew in the beginning of the century, they are now beginning to shrink, and the states and the fed- eral government must figure out how to address the growing number of prisoners who are returning to communities. Later chapters will explore the topic of prisoner reentry by exam- ining community corrections, parole, and probation.

Conclusion

Key Ideas • Prisoners adapt to their incarceration experience. • The functional/deprivation model of prisoner socialization, offered in the

1950s, constitutes a major model for understanding how prisoners adapt to the prison experience.

• The major contributors to the functional/deprivation model were Donald Clemmer, Stanton Wheeler, Peter Garabedian, and Gresham Sykes.

• An alternative to the functional/deprivation model is the importation model of pris- oner socialization, offered by John Irwin and Donald Cressey in the 1960s.

• The modern view of prisons, advanced in the 1970s, stresses that they have become more influenced by factors in the free world, to the extent that they represent a microcosm of larger society.

• The contemporary view of the prison, advanced in the 1980s and 1990s, stresses that they must be places where prisoners feel pain and that prisoners have a wide variety of adaptive mechanisms to cope with imprisonment, including by forming niches.

• Questions regarding the best ways to manage or govern prisons, rather than manag- ing prisoners, have become important in the 21st century.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. According to Gresham Sykes, why is it that prison officials cannot have total control

in prisons? How would you empower correctional staff personnel as they go about their day-to-day responsibilities?

2. To what extent do you think the prisonization process exists? Why? 3. What input—if any—should groups outside of prisons have regarding how the

prison is managed? Would greater oversight by external bodies make prisons a bet- ter and safer place?

4. How would you address the problems of prison gangs, prison violence, and drugs in prison?

5. What do think about the use of super-max prisons in managing problematic prisoners?

Key Terms argot roles Roles assumed by prisoners as a result of their incarceration.

consensual model A model of prison man- agement that stresses inmate participation.

control model A model of prison manage- ment that stresses security and prisoner discipline.

convict subculture A group of prisoners who believe in the inmate code because of their lengthy incarceration.

differential attachment Varied responses to the adoption of the inmate code, depend- ing on the part of the prison sentence being served.

functional/deprivation model A model of inmate social systems that lists and describes the experiences of prisoners and how they adapt to the prison environment.

hard time A period of difficulties or hardship.

Conclusion

importation model A view of the prison social structure that suggests not only that the mechanisms of adaptation to prison are learned prior to incarceration, but that these modes of adaptation can be tied directly to specific role types. These role types make up three referent subcultures: the thief sub- culture, convict subculture, and legitimate subculture.

legitimate subculture The group of inmates who hold legitimate values as expressed in society.

niches Small groups of prisoners who band together to assist one another during their imprisonment.

pains of imprisonment The psychological difficulties experienced by prisoners due to their incarceration.

prisonization A process of adaptation to the prison by prisoners.

private agenda A belief among correc- tional officers that their role is to help pris- oners adjust to the prison setting.

private culture Beliefs held by prisoners that support adjustment and mature adap- tation to the prison.

public agenda A perspective among correctional officers that promotes tough- ness and is punishment oriented toward prisoners.

public culture Beliefs held by prisoners that manipulation and use of force are the best strategies to adjust to the prison.

responsibility model A model of prison management that stresses cooperation among inmates and prison officials in order to instill positive and responsible behaviors among prisoners.

super-max prisons Facilities designed to deal with the most dangerous of prison- ers by preventing any interaction among inmates and restricting their physical movement.

thief subculture The group of prisoners who hold the values of thievery and crime.

Web Resources A website designed to promote contacts between prisoners and people on the outside with the intent of fostering relationships on many different levels. http://www.convictpenpals.com

A website dedicated to fostering relationships between inmates and people in the free world. http://www.meet-an-inmate.com

A website for correctional professionals and those interested in understanding corrections from differing points of view. It helps promote greater awareness regarding the correc- tions field. http://www.correctionsone.com

Additional Resources A revealing portrait of how doing time in the modern prison affects prisoners and their hopes of changing toward positive social values.

Carceral, K. C. (2003). Behind a convict’s eyes: Doing time in a modern prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Conclusion

A description of correctional officer work and prison from the perspective of a journalist turned correctional officer.

Conover. T. (2000). Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing. New York, NY: Random House.

A riveting series of accounts from a long-term prisoner regarding the effects of prolonged incarceration on a person. The author died in 2012 while still a prisoner.

Hassine, V. (1999). Life without parole: Living in prison today. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

A descriptive profile of contemporary incarceration from the perspective of a new prisoner.

Lerner, J. (2010). You got nothing coming: Notes from a prison fish. Dublin, Ireland: Transworld Publishers.

The growing literature of current and former convicts is revealed in this book. The authors, both former prisoners, stress the importance of the prisoner perspective in understanding prisons.

Ross, J., & Richards, S. (Eds.). (2003). Convict criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning.