corrections in america
ismails95
8Corrections-SupervisingEthically.pptxEthics in Corrections – Supervising Ethically
Fisher College
R. Boomhower
The Experience of Supervision
People do not typically aspire to be C/Os
Seeking this work is typically a reaction to the need for employment or is a result of an unexpected job change
Job security and a regular salary are paramount
In many rural areas, this may be the only decent employment
Lombardo (2017) 1/3 of officers he interviewed at Auburn considered danger and mental tension as the most dissatisfying parts of their jobs
Danger = unpredictability of a violent occurrence
Constant possibility that might result from seemingly arbitrary events
Frequently experience personal challenges from inmates
Officers tend to view suspiciously any events that interrupt prison routines
Includes “free world” treatment personnel
Believe outsiders know very little about inmates and fail to appreciate the need for constant security
The openness to outsiders has reduced inmate attacks on personnel
Often feel as though they lack support of their supervisors and administrators
Some saw programs like work release, education release, ability to receive a college education were improper benefits
They were obtaining work while law abiding folks were not
Guarding Ethically
Rules prohibit corruption in the form of gifts, personal privileges, and conflict of interest
Staff are obligated to report corruption or unethical bx
Officers see offenders are people who have failed in their obligations as citizens
Ethical Dimensions: Punishment, Prison Conditions
Incarceration itself is the punishment
Purpose of incarceration is not to administer additional punishment over and above the deprivation of liberty
Ex: control over visits may be justified as part of prison security, but should not invalidate other practices regarding visits/ conjugal relations
Ex: searching prisoners can be justified based on security, but strip searching may be considered humiliating beyond proper security measures
Inmates “do not forfeit their essential humanity”
In Newjack, Conover notes he had NO ethical training
Ethical Challenges
A humane correctional system is nearly impossible because retribution is the main philosophy
In institutions where inmate rights are easily violated, it is easy to ignore ethical and professional standards of conduct
Guarding with Discretion
Discretionary powers can easily involve questions of ethical conduct
Gilbert (2017) argues that administrators ought to allow C/Os to exercise discretion whenever there is an absence of policy or where policy is vague or inconsistent
Subculture includes an informal code of ethics (officer’s code)
Obligations that prison officers owe to each other and they should exercise discretion in defined circumstances (Kauffman, 2017)
Ex: helping other officers beat an inmate is generally unethical, but from the officer's POV would conform to the norm that an officer must always support another officer against inmates
Officer’s Code
Unethical Situations
Use of Force
When is it appropriate to use force in corrections?
Things to consider:
Should the force have been used at all?
Was excessive force used?
Was the force justified?
Witnessing and Experiencing Violence in Prisons
Officers often face a moral dilemma
Clash between own personal ethics and expectations of them as officers
As they spend more time in prison and absorb culture, ability to abstain from morally questionable acts weakened
Construct prison as a separate moral world
Focus on the inmate himself, on relationships among officers and on the individual officer who engaged in the violence
Using Force
Conover (2001) – in NY it is permissible to lay hands on an inmate for:
self defense,
to prevent injury to a person or property,
to quell a disturbance,
to enforce compliance with a lawful directive
or to prevent an escape
Deadly force can be used to
prevent an escape,
in self defense
or to prevent arson
Officer culture at a TX facility defined ”good officers” as those who are able to perform routine prison actions and to break up fights and maintain discipline without citing inmates for disciplinary infractions
There was a willingness to break up fights, a readiness to engage in confrontations with inmates and an inclination to fight inmates
All of which were essential attributes for promotion
Verbal assaults were commonly used to humiliate inmates and destroy his standing in the eyes of other prisoners
Name calling, use of racial terms, threats
Kauffman (2017) observed that use of force varies from prison to prison according to level of security
Force cannot be used to carry out routine tasks
Inmate assault was questioned in terms of its definition
Tried to differentiate between force to restrain an inmate and that beyond what was necessary
Marquat (2016) notes that unofficial coercion is so common that it was a norm for officers
It was not applied arbitrarily but in a structured and systematic process intended to maintain control, enforce deference to officers, and build officer solidarity
Those who used this system were considered good promotion prospects
Officers’ Perspectives on Use of Force
Marquat found that the unofficial use of force had become a parallel system for social control
As such, it built a culture of secrecy in which officers at higher levels refrained from talking about coercive displays of force with lower ranking officers
Lower ranking officers, however, routinely asked questions about when to use force – never received satisfactory answers
Results in wide discretion among officers
Officer Violence As informal Justice
Use of violence was not intended as a symbol of power, but rather a reflection of their sense of vulnerability
Officers were dissatisfied about official punishments and therefore sought their own form of justice
Officers at MCI Walpole (MA) experienced considerable pressure to use violent means to handle prisoners AND to engage in violence consistent with norms requiring them to support their colleagues
This was reinforced by their genuine fear for survival
How do Officers justify using force against inmates?
Way to control inmates – unable to maintain control without at least referring to violence
Deterred inmate violence
Prevent future assaults and punish past ones
Self defense – defined broadly
Uphold a reputation for meeting aggression with aggression
Symbol not of power but of their vulnerability
Little short term sanctions
Need to support colleagues
Some saw no need for justification – it was natural
Constraining Officer Violence
Kauffman: coercion tends to fuel inmates’ anger and hatred rater than suppressing their resistance and rebellion
Coercion requires staff to constantly increase the severity of sanctions in order to be useful long term
Coercion fails to resolve the inherent conflict between inmates and officers
Judicial Review of Use of Force
US v Nix (1974) – SCOTUS held that a determined escapee may kidnap a hostage or kill an officer to commit other unlawful acts to ease his escape
Gave officers more latitude than LE in using deadly force
Whitely v Albers (1986) – excessive force in corrections is governed by 8th Amendment
Legal standard for brutality is whether the force is applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or whether it was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm
Clark v Evans (1988) – no duty to use disabling force rather than lethal force to break up a fight among prisoners
Kenny v Indiana Youth Center (1991) – must look at various factors to determine if unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering was inflicted
Whether the force needed to be used, injury inflicted, nature of threat to safety, efforts to adopt less severe courses of action
Correctional Policy on Use of Force
Walker analyzed 4 states policies on use of force
All permitted it to prevent escape
2 suggested failure to use it to prevent an escape could result in disciplinary action
ACA suggest that policies should be geared to the institution
Ex: halfway house – do not pose a threat to public safety
U.S. Bureau of Prisons limits deadly force by prohibiting firearms in minimum security
Does permit it to prevent an escape when authorized by the warden or an officer’s judgment that it is necessary to prevent he loss of life or grievous bodily harm
Cannot use against juveniles
Common to prohibit use of warning shots if they may result in injury
Rape in Prison
Prisoner rape – all forms of sexual violence inflicted on anyone in custody including someone awaiting trial in county jail
1966 Philadelphia study found 4.7% of inmates reported being assaulted while incarcerated
1980 NY study found 28% of inmates reported being targets of sexual aggression but only 1 reported being raped
1977 NC study found 2.4% were sexually assaulted
1982 CA study found 14% were sexually assaulted
1984 study of federal facilities found 2% rate of sexual targets and .3% rape rate
Highest rate found in NE: 22% of male inmates
2003 OK 4.5%
Reducing the inmate population can reduce rape
Rape is far more pervasive than acknowledged by prison authorities
Wardens indicated it was “relatively rare” in their facilities
Human Rights Watch report that administrators are indifferent
Many fail to take protective measures when inmates seeks help and instead advise them to fight their attackers
C/O response is often the imposition of minor disciplinary sanctions (30 days in segregation or moving rapists to another facility)
Victims often go into Protective Custody
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
Into effect in 2003 – 1st US law addressing male prison rape
Setting a zero-tolerance standard for prison rape
Prioritizing the prevention of rape in each prison system
Devising and implementing national standards to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish rape
Collecting data and information on the incidence of rape
Increasing prison staff’s accountability for failing to detect, prevent, reduce, or punish rape
Transgender Prisoners
Two main approaches to transgender inmates:
Genital based placement
Identify based placement
59% of transgender inmates report being sexually abused (compared to 4% of general inmate population)
Often facilities will segregate the inmate to resolve the placement issue
Australian approaches:
Social based – emphasizes the social aspects of identity and how a person self identifies
Surgery based – has the inmate undergone Sexual Realignment Surgery
In U.S. often held in solitary, based on PREA laws for their own protection
Inmates have litigated the issue of whether they are entitled to hormone therapy
DOJ has said that inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria must be treated the same as any other medical condition
Some states have “freeze frame” policies
Allow inmates to continue any treatment they were receiving before their arrest but ban new treatments
This policy existed at federal level until 2011
Now treatment plans must be regularly renewed, hormone treatment may be permitted, regardless of it was in place at time of the arrest
June 2015, 1st time could provide accurate estimates of rates of sexual victimization among transgender inmates:
An estimated 35% of transgender inmates in prisons and 34% in jails reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or by a staff person in the past 12 months, or since admission when less than 12 months.
About one quarter of transgender inmates in prisons and jails reported an incident involving another inmate, and almost three quarters said the incidents involved nonconsensual sex acts.
Transgender inmates reported levels of sexual misconduct by staff in prisons and jails as 17% in prisons and 23% in jails. Staff pressured 66% of transgender inmates to engage in sexual acts; among those victimized by staff, more than 40% reported physical injury by the staff member involved
Corruption
Corruption – intentional violation of organizational norms by public employees for personal gain
During 1st 5 years as Commissioner of DOC in MA, George Vose fired 80-100 staff as a result of misconduct
Petty theft
Trafficking
Embezzlement
Misuse of authority
Loss of personal valuables or contraband
Smuggling contraband
Generally involves officers
Conversion of state property to one’s own use
Misusing discretion for personal gain
½ of all complaints
Whistle-Blowing in Corrections
2017 60 minutes covered reported cases of whistle-blowing in CA prisons
Claimed inmates from different ethnic groups had been set up to fight each other in a small prison exercise yard
Not unusual for officers to place bets
If the fights got out of control, officers would sometimes shoot at inmates
6 inmates (in 9 years) had been shot dead and many other wounded
Mid 2018 a female C/O reported her fellow officers for sleeping on the night shift – she had asked them not to and told them she felt unsafe
They subjected her to graffiti on prison walls, abusive phone calls and letters, damaging her car
Oversight of Prisons
Judiciary has been the primary oversight mechanism
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PRLA) – gave state and local government the right to end judicial oversight of their facilities
2006 – Katzenbach Commission drew attention to lack of oversight
Private prisons have even less oversight
Ethical Issues IN Probation And Parole
2019: 3.9 m people on probation
1990: 2.6 m people on probation
Workload of probation and parole officers has dramatically increased with the rise in intensive supervision probation
P/O’s face tension between role of parole/probation as treatment or as punishment, the supposed ineffectiveness of probation/parole as a form of punishment, concerns relating to the duty of these officers toward their clients
Conflict between surveillance and service
Parole is more surveillance than service – instructed to make surprise visits to parolees
Probation is sometimes more report writing to the courts than surveillance or service
Abadinsky proposed three models:
Law enforcement model
Primary role is public protection
Therapeutic model
Rehabilitation and aiding the offender is central
Synthetic model
Blend of LE and therapeutic models
Trend over past decade of making probation tougher, emphasizing risk control, and stressing enforcement of sanction for breaches of probation
Probation Officers and LE
Probation today has gained a new LE emphasis
Common for P/O’s to be proactive in enforcing probation conditions through monitoring, surveillance, search and seizure, drug testing
Legally a P/O can ask LE for assistance in searching probationers – search must be related to probation/parole and not a cover for police purposes
Probationers agree to waive 4th Amendment rights to allow for search and seizure of person, residence and vehicle
Probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy
Must be associated with legitimate government demands
Police also rely on P/O’s for info about probationers
Arming Probation Officers
2/3 of states parole officers are armed
Some argue that probation officers should not be armed because it creates an atmosphere of distrust between the officer and probationer
Some argue they need it for protection
ACA argues there should be a demonstrated need for firearms – and once demonstrated clear, adequate, ongoing training in their use
Federal system - most jurisdictions allow probation officer to carry firearms
Treatment or Control?
Goal of probation remains matching the probationer with treatment and rehabilitation services in the community
Caseloads should be between 30 and 50 cases
Currently P/O’s are challenged ethically between choosing who among their clients will receive adequate treatment services – especially as caseloads rise
There is also an increased demand for PSRs (Pre-sentence Reports) which are time consuming
Privatizing Probation
Largest private probation in AL is Judicial Correction Services
June 2018 – city of Clanton, AL had to terminate its contract following lawsuits alleging the company had threatened to jail indigent person if they failed to pay fees and fines due to the company
Charged a supervision fee of $40 a month
Some argue that this has resulted in a return to debtors prisons
United Kingdom: 70% of probation services are outsourced to the private sector
Parole
Year end 2018, DOJ reported 853,200 people were on parole
Re-incarceration rate for parolees was stable at 9%
Board of Parole Hearing recommends parole only 2 - 5% of the time
Marcy's Law – interval between successive parole applications following a rejection have been fixed at 3 to 15 years – average waiting time of 5 years
Treatment for parolees is scare – often focus on surveillance
Greater number of parole violations are being detected and revocation is becoming routine – partly due to zero tolerance policies
At Risk parole Population Returned to Incarceration
Abolition of Parole for LWOP
Life w/o Parole (LWOP)currently being served by more than 41,000 inmates
Increase of 28,500 since 1992
FL, IL, OA, LA, ME, PA, SA and federal system have abolished parole
Graham v FL (2010) – LWOP for a noncapital offense is a violation of 8th A C/U
Struck down LWOP for juveniles for offenses other than murder
LWOP is the 2nd most severe punishment under the law – deprives convicted person of the most basic liberties without hope of restoration
Parole Officers AS Police
Tension between treatment and control has been resolved for parole officers – control is main focus
Has become a policing role
Over 80% of parolees are supervised on caseloads that average 69 parolees
Parolees are seen face to face less than twice a month
Parole officers complain about lack of time and resources, increased Paperwork, and higher caseloads
