Journal article

Debunking the Myths of American Corrections: An Exploratory Analysis

Jeffrey Ian Ross

Published online: 15 May 2012 � Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This article briefly reviews the literature on the myths of corrections and then

identifies sixteen of the most prominent misrepresentations about jails, prisons, correc-

tional workers, and convicts in the United States. It then systematically examines the

reality of each. The article uses scholarly research, governmental and news reports, and

personal experience of former inmates to cast doubt on many of the myths that have been

developed. It argues that most of the misrepresentations about corrections can be called

into question.

Introduction

Myths are statements or stories that embellish the truth. They are passed on from person to

person, organizations to their members, and sometimes from generation to generation.

Myths are often accepted without much regard to (or knowledge about) the evidence that

challenges them. We have myths about all sorts of individuals, organizations, professions,

places, processes and experiences. Myths have deep roots in folklore and culture and are

often timeless.

Despite advances in both the physical and social sciences, numerous people, places and

things are shrouded in myths, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misinformation.

Myths serve numerous purposes including disguising the original intent of the person or

constituency who made the original communication, filling gaps in our knowledge, and

convincing the public of the virtues of the mythmaker (Kappeler and Potter 2005; Bohm

and Walker 2006). Perhaps nowhere is the presence of myths more noticeable than in the

American criminal justice system (Pepinsky and Jesilow 1985). All branches, from the

courts to law enforcement agencies, to the individuals who work and/or are monitored and

processed by the criminal justice system have fallen prey to the problem of myths.

Although these myths are occasionally challenged, rarely are the myths about corrections

J. I. Ross (&) School of Criminal Justice, College of Criminal Justice, Center for Comparative and International Law, University of Baltimore, 1420 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Crit Crim (2012) 20:409–427 DOI 10.1007/s10612-012-9158-z

(i.e., convicts, correctional workers, institutions, and processes) systematically presented

and analyzed.

The average person is not likely to be overly concerned with and about the field of

corrections, the incarceration process, inmates, those who work in correctional facilities,

and the myths surrounding these components of our criminal justice system. One of the

most debilitating effects of myths, however, is that they can prevent an unbiased under-

standing of the problems of jails, prisons, convicts and correctional workers and hamper

our ability to find meaningful solutions to the social problem of corrections. Left

unexamined the misrepresentations may exacerbate the current correctional system in the

United States including:

1. The overreliance on corrections as an appropriate sanction when individuals break the

criminal law;

2. The glamorization of jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities as a fun and

perhaps exciting places to live and/or work1;

3. The failure to take seriously certain prison conditions including food, living situations,

and violence;

4. The proclivity of correctional personnel to maintain the status quo; and,

5. The inability to properly manage the re-entry process.

The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the most prominent myths and

misrepresentations in the field of corrections. It starts by giving a brief literature review on

the myths in corrections. It then outlines sixteen of the most prominent myths. Finally, the

article attempts to call into question the evidence upon which these myths have been made.

The reader must keep in mind that not all myths that the author identifies can be supported

by research that conforms to scientifically agreed upon standards (e.g., public opinion

research). However, just because this standard is not met, neither means that the myth does

not exist, or nor that it can not be debunked. In other words, one can call into question the

appropriateness of the myth, but may not have the suitable evidence to confront or debunk

the myth.

Scholarly Literature on the Myths of Crime, Criminal Justice, and Corrections2

Analyzing the myths about corrections is not easy. In many cases, the empirical infor-

mation to counter-balance the myths is contradictory, if it exists at all. Information about

the myths of corrections can typically be found as single chapters in criminology/criminal

justice textbooks or in scholarly journal articles for the field. For example, Kappeler and

Potter (2005) devote a chapter in their book The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice to the usefulness of prisons as a deterrent to crime and criminals. Alternatively, Bohm and

Walker (2006) include seven out of 27 entries dealing with myths of corrections in their

edited book Demystifying Crime and Criminal Justice. Ross (2003, 2008) has written

single chapters in two of his books that look at the importance of mythmaking in the field

of corrections, why these misrepresentations are successful, and outlines the role of

1 Many young African-American and Hispanic men believe that incarceration is an inevitable life stage that they must experience first hand. 2 The identification of the myths was mainly limited to the scholarly literature. Future iterations of this work may look other cultural industries.

410 J. I. Ross

123

prominent cultural industries in introducing, promoting and sustaining the myths of

corrections.

More numerous are the handful of scholarly articles on a wide array of corrections

topics that deal in part with selected myths involving correctional officers (Kolfas and

Toch 1982), intermediate punishments (Peterson and Palumbo 1997), where correctional

institutions are built (Shichor 1992), sex in prison (Saum et al. 1995), homosexuality

behind bars (Propper 1981), the effectiveness of treating female convicts (Feinman 1983),

violence behind bars (Byrne and Hummer 2007), and supermax prisons (Pizarro et al.

2006). Finally, occasionally articles on the myths of corrections appear in practitioner-

based publications that may focus on correctional industries (McAuley 1994), women’s

lives behind bars (Clowers 2001), and sexual assault of inmates (McCampbell and Layman

2001). Although the problems of myths in the field of corrections has been noted by jail

and prison scholars (Lovell and Stojkovic 1987), none of the above cited works should be

interpreted as the final word. No scholarly work has provided a comprehensive and

systematic examination of the numerous myths. The following article consolidates these

myths and reviews, including the scholarly, popular and anecdotal literature that calls into

question these myths.

Method

The previously mentioned books and articles were read and a comprehensive search pri-

marily focused on the scholarly research was conducted to identify as many myths about

corrections as possible.3 Work was then consulted which tried to determine the origins of

the myth and the empirical and/or anecdotal evidence which supported or contradicted the

myth. The study also benefitted from the authors’ previous work experience in a correc-

tional institution, numerous visits to prison and other correctional facilities, and conver-

sations with both inmates and correctional workers. Indeed one of the shortcomings in this

area of research is the paucity of public opinion research on public attitudes towards

corrections. With notable exceptions (e.g., Cullen et al. (2000) most of the research on jails

and prisons avoids this kind of methodology.

The balance of this article critically examines these myths and any empirical evidence

that calls their validity into question.

Findings4

There are sixteen prominent and interrelated myths about prisons, convicts, and correc-

tional officers. They can be ordered into four categories dealing with everything from the

quality of living conditions to the effectiveness of the criminal sanction. The most salient

myths include:

3 Indeed, if the sample of research was expanded to more scholarly sources, there would probably be more myths. The author recognizes that not all myths have been identified, but this review captures the most important ones. 4 Three myths are ignored in this analysis. First, is ‘‘That Imprisonment is the Most Severe Form of Punishment,’’ second is ‘‘That Prisons Can be Self-Supporting,’’ and third is ‘‘The Focus of Community Corrections is Rehabilitation.’’ Although these represent chapters appearing in Bohm and Walker (2006), very few other scholars mention these and thus they are ignored.

Debunking the Myths 411

123

A. Quality of living conditions

• cleanliness of correctional institutions

• food quality

• the appropriateness of health care

• the presence and cost of certain amenities

• access to educational programs and recreational opportunities

• the frequency of sex and/or male rape

B. Convicts

• convicts’ physical appearance

• prisoners’ violent tendencies

• inmates’ guilt

C. Correctional officers

• correctional officers’ lack of concern for inmates

D. The effectiveness of the correctional sanction

• the effectiveness of community corrections

• the relationship between incarceration and crime rates

• the cost of jails and prisons

• the types and length of punishment for convicted criminals

• prisoners’ inability to be rehabilitated

• the utility of jails and prisons as a deterrent to crime

The following section systematically examines these myths and presents information

that contradicts them.

The Quality of Living Conditions

The public tends to believe that jails and prisons, as well as the living conditions within,

are either too harsh or too lavish. Rarely do individuals adopt a more middle-ground

perspective. The general term ‘‘prison conditions’’ usually refers to the living arrange-

ments, including cleanliness, food quality, the appropriateness of health care, the presence

and cost of certain amenities, access to educational and recreational opportunities, and the

frequency of sex and/or rape in correctional facilities.

Cleanliness

Although the administrative corridors within prisons are most likely spotless, the cell house

may be filthy. Generally, all the areas of the correctional facility in which the public has

access or supervisors have offices are cleaned relentlessly. Further into the interior of

correctional institutions, behind the security thresholds and into the cellblocks where the

prisoners live, the hallways and cells can be dusty, musty, and dirty. The lighting and

ventilation may also be poor. Exceptions to this state of affairs occur when jail and prison

officials anticipate or expect an official visit of some sort (e.g., by politicians, inspection

teams, accreditation members, etc.). In those situations, even when the visit is ‘‘unan-

nounced’’ or a ‘‘surprise,’’ the visit is always preceded by a mad rush to clean the areas,

whereby teams of inmates are mobilized to clean the facility.

412 J. I. Ross

123

Food A considerable amount of controversy surrounds the quality of food in correctional

facilities (Ross and Richards 2003: Chp. 7). Understandably, inmates’ perceptions are

often based on a comparison of prison food and the meals they ate on the outside before

being incarcerated. Some of the firsthand stories offered by cons and correctional officers

about this food seem to be exaggerated. Moreover, since there are 51 different correctional

systems in the U.S. proper (i.e., Federal plus fifty States), plus jails used solely by some of

the United States’ territorial holdings, institutional food can vary from one correctional

system to another.

Convicts frequently refer to institutional meals as ‘‘dog food,’’ ‘‘Ken-L Rations,’’ or

‘‘Alpo.’’ For the most part, prisons offer similar institutional food that is found at public

hospitals, schools, summer camp, or on military bases. On the extreme end of things, the

best meals are often served on holidays or on days when ‘‘dignitaries’’ are expected to visit.

On these occasions, the kitchen might prepare food of somewhat better quality. Some

facilities have special dietary food lines for those who suffer from medical conditions (e.g.,

diabetics) or those whose religion bans the consumption of particular foods. For example,

the ‘‘common fare’’ diet (a simple meal that doesn’t contain pork, mix meat with milk

products, or use utensils that have come into contact with pork—basically, a kosher diet) is

often requested for prisoners of the Jewish or Muslim faith.

Rarely are strictly vegetarian or vegan meals served in prison (Ogden and Rebein 2001).

Certain correctional facilities have gone as far as to integrate the local cuisine into their

menu. Jail/prison food is regionalized and often provided or subcontracted to a private

firm. The GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut), for example, has several regional menus that

it follows in its various facilities throughout the country, allegedly to appeal to local tastes

and to appease inmates. In practice, however, it has been alleged that the GEO Group

serves the least expensive option. The result is that some inmates are confused by the menu

and presentation of food.

Some days, however—regardless of the type of cuisine—the food is prepared, served,

and thrown out after being tested by only a small number of brave inmates because it looks,

smells and tastes bad. Frequently items are cooked without any proper seasoning (and

inmates might be required to purchase salt/pepper from the commissary). The result is that

prison/jail food is sometimes incredibly bland, and the same food items are served

repeatedly and over again, with very little variety.

Occasionally, the fruit and vegetables appear to be bruised, overripe, or rotten, while the

meat is often of the lowest quality (Ross and Richards 2002: Chp. 7). Typically, the least

expensive food is purchased by the subcontractor correctional facility, or the DOC. So, not

only is the quality poor, but fruits, vegetables, and even meat are purchased at a discount

because it is bruised, bordering on stale, or otherwise unsellable in a retail environment.

And if the basic food quality wasn’t already bad enough, convicts routinely complain that

COs are prone to mixing excrement, rodent parts, and insects into the prisoners’ food—a

claim that is difficult to verify (Hassine 1996/2004).

Prisoners who work in the cafeteria generally eat better food and more of it than do their

fellow inmates with different work responsibilities simply because of increased access.

Many also use this job detail to steal food and resell it to other inmates (Ross and Richards

2002: Chap. 7). Stolen food is often a currency in jails/prisons, used in lieu of ‘‘money’’ to

purchase other contraband (e.g., cigarettes, drugs, etc.).

Depending on the prison system, those who are locked down in solitary confinement

may receive ‘‘prison loafs,’’ (also known as nutraloaf) in which the food offered for the day

is ground up, placed in a baking pan, reheated, and then served. In many jails and prisons,

the food is so horrific and mundane, that inmates rely on the commissary purchases to buy

Debunking the Myths 413

123

food for their daily meals. Typically, inmates can order items from a commissary on a

weekly basis. Inmates have developed ingenious ways to make meals out of snack items

purchased from a prison commissary.

Quality of Healthcare Inmates are thought to be given above average and completely free

medical and dental care that typically is denied to the less-well off in society. The truth is

that there are numerous cases in which prisoners have been denied much-needed medical

attention. Convicts—some with life- threatening diseases–have had their medication flu-

shed down toilets, broken bones or detached retinas ignored for months, and given dentures

that do not fit (Murphy 2003). It is difficult to accurately determine how prevalent this

practice is. In some states, such as Florida, upon entry all medications are taken from the

inmates for 30 days to ‘‘re-evaluate their conditions.’’ Often times the jail/prison medi-

cation formulary is very limited, so that inmates are not permitted access to medications

prescribed prior to their incarceration (Vaughn and Carroll 1998).

Also, prescription drugs are typically dispensed according to a ‘‘pill call’’ schedule that

is regimented and scheduled for administrative convenience. The result is that medications

are often dispensed/administered at the wrong time. Predictably, this has led to serious

mental problems, the deaths for some inmates, and litigation by the plaintiffs and/or their

families.

Inmates often worry about catching serious and possibly fatal diseases and with good

reason–correctional facilities are notoriously unhealthy places (McDonald 1999; Speed

Weed 2001; Murphy 2003). History shows that, in earlier times, convicts routinely con-

tracted cholera, yellow fever, and tuberculosis in prisons. Currently, the most common

health concerns inside prisons include noise/hearing loss, lung cancer, asbestos poisoning,

tuberculosis, hepatitis, MRSA, and AIDS. Prisons are typically dirty, unsanitary, over-

crowded, and poorly ventilated—conditions that make it easy for many communicable

diseases to quickly spread throughout the entire inmate population—and to correctional

officers, and perhaps even their family members and friends.

Information about disease prevention, which could be crucial to convicts’ (and cor-

rectional officers’) health, is rarely distributed in an effective manner. ‘‘The material

provided is usually in the form of pamphlets, which are usually beyond the reading level of

many inmates’’ (Ross 2008: 74).

The prison infirmary is usually poorly staffed, and rarely are inmates taken outside the

gates to a civilian hospital. Outside hospitals (or even medical specialist appointments)

are highly discouraged by facility administrators, because each trip to a hospital requires

staff to accompany each inmate, vehicles for transportation, etc. Often C.O.s assigned to

hospital trips are on ‘‘forced overtime’’ status, and may ‘‘punish’’ an inmate needing such

medical attention by withholding meals/water during such trips. Inmates rarely speak to

psychologists or counselors and if they do, will more than likely be sent back to the tier

when it looks like they have calmed down from anything resembling a psychological

crisis. Convicts in minimum-security facilities might be taken to a hospital because

ambulances can enter and exit this type of prison relatively quickly, as compared to a

penitentiary, but even these extraordinary costs and measures are disfavored by prison

administrators. In many correctional facilities, inmates are charged a co-payment for a

visit to the infirmary, visit to the nurse, etc. This serves to discourage inmates from

seeking medical attention, as the co-payment is made by deducting the amount of the fee

from an inmate’s prison account (the same account an inmate uses to pay for commissary

items, etc.).

414 J. I. Ross

123

The Presence and Cost of Certain Amenities

Many people believe that correctional facilities coddle prisoners (Kappeler et al. 1996:

260), especially because taxpayer dollars have been spent on country-club-like facilities

with amenities such as free cable television; state-of-the-art exercise equipment (Kappeler

et al. 1996: 264; Freeman 2000: 8); quality education; and medical, dental care and

psychological services (McShane et al. 2006).

The country-club myth can probably be traced back to Robert James Bidinotto’s article

‘‘Must Our Prisons Be Resorts?’’ published in the November 1994 issue of the politically

conservative Reader’s Digest magazine. Bidinotto’s ‘‘Resorts’’ article described ‘‘Massa-

chusetts lifers eating prime rib, of felons in Pennsylvania exercising on aerobic machines,

of inmates in New Mexico enjoying conjugal relations with their wives. ‘Hasn’t the time

come,’ Bidinotto asked, ‘for us to require public officials to explain why prisons need to be

resorts?’’’(Hallinan 2003: 102). Wright adds, ‘‘Prisons are depicted as lush country clubs

where prisoners lounge around in comfort between leisurely sets of tennis and weight-

lifting, dining on steak and lobster, watching cable television, and leafing through por-

nographic magazines. An entire industry of politicians, victims’ revenge groups, and law

enforcement agencies are dedicated to pushing the concept of the country club prison.

They have ready accomplices within most of the media’’ (Wright 2000: 16). The general

impression was that inmates all on our hard earned tax dollars were being coddled and that

they were using the opportunity to exercise, to get physically stronger and ultimately to

intimidate correctional officers while behind bars as well as the public upon their release.

Bidinotto’s description ‘‘was quickly echoed by politicians…,. The country club myth

motivated some legislatures to ban exercise equipment (e.g., weights) in prison and tele-

visions in prison cells. In 1995, North Carolina legislators voted to ban TV sets, weight

rooms, and outdoor basketball courts. Alabama, Florida, and Arizona reinstituted the chain

gang,… Other states enacted equally draconian measures. In Mississippi, legislators voted

to put inmates back into the striped uniforms of the 1800s’’ (Hallinan 2003: 103). Finally,

to support the conservative approach toward prison confinement, Congress (under Rep-

resentative Republican Dick Zimmer) passed The No Frills Prison Act in 2001 to bar such

amenities as televisions and coffee pots in Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) cells.

What the public forgets, however, is that although most correctional institutions have

televisions, they aren’t all in working condition, and those in the cell house must be shared

by all inmates on that block, pod, or tier. Moreover, the available programs have to be

shared by all inmates. This is not to say that what gets viewed is determined by a show of

hands, because other subtle dynamics are often at play in these micro-level decisions.

Alternatively, some correctional facilities allow inmates to purchase televisions (typically

a relative orders one from a designated on-line retailer, for direct delivery to the jail/

prison). Additionally, television sets, sports and exercise equipment are disproportionately

paid out of inmate funds rather than taxpayer dollars.

Correctional experts argue that these amenities often act as pacifiers for the convicts,

and the athletic equipment serves as a means of exercising that persons who would

otherwise lead to a sedentary lifestyle—and so face increased risks of heart disease and

other ‘‘diseases of sloth.’’ Finally, for most inmates, particularly those who are not visited

by loved ones, the only means of communication with the outside world is through cor-

respondence. Most states have contracted with big telephone companies and charge

inmates outrageous rates to call outside of the facility, in particular long-distance phone

calls (Center for Constitutional Rights, no date).

Debunking the Myths 415

123

Access to Educational Programs and Rehabilitative Opportunities Moreover, access to

higher education, beyond a high-school GED, is nonexistent in many state correctional

facilities (Taylor and Tewksbury 1998; Tregea 2003). Typically, those inmates who wish

to an education beyond a GED, must do so through correspondence courses (Taylor 2002).

They will need to be paid either by the convict (through their commissary account) and/or

his friends or loved ones. Typically, prisons may have an education section or department

that occupies a floor or wing of a building. This may include a small library and a few

classrooms. It might be staffed by teachers, COs, and convict clerks, with a range of

certifications, training, and ability. The utility of the program depends as much on the skills

of the officers or teachers, as the determination of the individual prisoners (e.g., Fisher-

Giorlando 2003; Tregea 2003). The quality of educational programs generally varies based

on the security level. Most convicts are lucky to receive basic instruction that would lead to

the achievement of a GED. The education programs are mostly inadequate. Very few

resources (staff, space, etc.) are devoted to ‘‘inmate education.’’ Prison administrators

rarely support higher education. Convicts taking college classes also may be subject to

frequent cell searches and disciplinary transfers to administrative detention (solitary

confinement) or other institutions. This disrupts their ability to regularly take classes. The

Violent Crime Control Act (aka the Crime Bill) passed in 1994, during the Clinton

Administration, cut off funding for postsecondary correctional education to prisoners. Up

until the summer of 1995, Federal Pell Grants were available for prisoners in both state and

federal prisons, as a means of paying college tuition for courses taught inside its walls or

by correspondence. This benefit was not without its problems.

With respect to rehabilitative programs, many prisons have a variety of alcohol and drug

treatment programs. Too often, the programs are run by staff or inmates who are

unqualified. ‘‘Departments of corrections frequently encourage inmates to establish self-

help programs. These are run primarily by the inmates themselves and often express ethnic

and cultural goals. Self-help groups meet in the evenings and on weekends. They usually

are required to have a staff sponsor and to establish governing bylaws and procedures’’

(Bartollas 2002: 314). Needless to say, there are many problems with drug treatment

behind bars (Austin 1998). Some of the more successful methods are Alcoholics Anony-

mous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). These programs, sometimes with the assis-

tance of outside volunteers, teach and support prisoners in a ‘‘twelve-step program.’’ This

involves both psychological and lifestyle changes. There is a certain continuity with these

programs because when prisoners are released on parole, their officers may require ex-cons

to attend these meetings and/or one of the conditions of parole is to attend AA/NA (Austin

1998). In fact, many individuals in AA/NA are ex-cons. Anger Management Programs, on

the other hand, have been found to be of questionable utility (Terry 2002: 160–183). Once

again and unfortunately, in the recent get-tough era, however, state governments have cut

back funding in providing competent therapy.

The Frequency of Sex/Male Rape in Prison There is widespread belief that ‘‘rape is the

most common type of sexual activity that takes place in prison and that this type of assault

is a frequent occurrence’’ (Kappeler et al. 1996: 269). Most people who are sent to

correctional facilities fear being sexually assaulted (Lockwood 1980, 1985; Rideau 1992;

Human Rights Watch 2001). Media presentations, especially popular Hollywood movies

(e.g., American Me, American History X, Shawshank Redemption, etc.), help to perpetrate

the fear of sexual assault in correctional institutions by containing at least one act of

homosexual rape.

416 J. I. Ross

123

Undoubtedly, there is both consensual and coerced sex in correctional facilities. In

general, sexual assault within prison walls depends on a number of factors (e.g., Lockwood

1980, 1985; Nacci and Kane 1983; Tewksbury 1989), but it less frequent than the popular

media tends to portray it. The practice of sex behind bars is also complicated by male

prostitution. Saum et al. (1995) reported that only 3 % of convicts ever witnessed a sexual

assault and that 60 % of the respondents said they never heard of any rapes occurring

during their incarceration. Nevertheless, some convicts routinely and habitually exploit

others sexually. Some convicts or groups of cons try to coerce ‘‘fish’’ (the new arrivals),

using fear, threats, and/or violence, into sexual submission. To surrender will put a fish at

the mercy of the violent thugs; if they resist, however, they could be seen as challenging

the rapists and thus set themselves up for possible and violent retaliation. Recent research

stimulated by the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 suggests that the

prison rape is very rare (approximately 4.5 % of all inmates indicate being victims)

(Kaufman 2008).

Convicts5

Physical Appearance of Convicts/Dangerousness of Convicts

Prisoners are stereotypically viewed as intimidating, overpowering, strong, and muscular,

with bodies laden with tattoos. The public tends to believe that all inmates are violent.

Demographic data paint another picture; in fact, most convicts look like average people.

Many inhabitants of today’s jails in particular, are homeless individuals who are unable to

afford bail or to be released on their own recognizance (Austin and Irwin 2001; Miller

1996). Their bodies are weary from years of maltreatment and malnutrition.

Violence, which is endemic to most correctional facilities, has several dimensions. The

most common types are psychological and physical violence, both of which abound in

correctional settings (Fleisher 1989; Bottoms 1999). Psychological violence (or trauma) is

one of the causes and effects of physical violence. The first affects the convicts’ mental

state and often leads to cynicism, anger, depression, suicide, and resistance to authority.

Physical violence affects the inmates’ bodies and eventually their minds.

Most people in prison have not actually committed violent crimes. The majority of

individuals who are sentenced to correctional facilities have committed petty crimes ‘‘with

no aggravating features- that is, no significant amount of money, no injury, or any other

feature that would cause ordinary citizens to view the crime as particularly seri-

ous.’’(Austin and Irwin 2001: 26). Nevertheless, there are several kinds of physical vio-

lence in which cons engage behind bars including assaults, disturbances, rebellions, riots,

and sexual assault (Cohen et al. 1976; Fleisher 1989). Sometimes the distinctions among

these types are difficult to discern because of the fluidity of the actions.

Prisoners are frequently beaten, stabbed, or killed within correctional facilities. Despite

collection efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

data on violence in prison is notoriously unreliable (Gibbons and de Katzenbach 2008: 25).

It is generally understood, though, that the higher the correctional facility’s security level,

the more potential for violence exists. The most violent convicts are young men serving

long sentences. Older prisoners may be more dangerous, but they’re also more rational in

5 Some members of the public believe that those who are incarcerated are guilty. This may be a fruitful area for follow-up research, but I could not track down any peer reviewed articles supporting this point.

Debunking the Myths 417

123

their use of violence. That is precisely why they have survived long enough to become older inmates (Ross and Richards 2003).

Some of the physical violence is planned; cons might carefully plot out how they will

attack a fellow prisoner or CO. Most violence, however, is spontaneous, and results from

some annoyance or irritation or perceived disrespect. This frustration may start with

something as simple as someone stepping in front of a prisoner in a long line, or changing a

television channel without ‘‘permission.’’ These actions are more than a bother in prison,

though, they are direct challenges. The line-jumper believes (or wants to find out if) the

fellow inmate can be intimidated, while the channel-changer is claiming authority over the

television (and maybe even the room). If these inmates get away with their actions, they

will be back another time, when they will, perhaps, up the ante.

The potential for violence inside prisons prompts one of many convicts’ biggest fears;

that if they’re involved in a violent crime within prison walls, their sentence might be

extended. Even once prisoners decide they can do ‘‘their own time,’’ (in other words, if left

alone they will be able to survive just fine), situations may still arise in which they have to

prove and/or defend themselves. This will inevitably put them in a position where they will

commit another crime, be convicted (aka catch another case), extend their time behind

bars, and never be released (Hassine 1996/2004).

Some COs may instigate violence among prisoners—for example, by putting two cons

who hate each other together in the same cell or tier, and sitting back to watch the fireworks

during an otherwise monotonous shift. Regardless of the correctional officers’ preference

for or aversion to violence, most jails and prisons still experience their share of distur-

bances, rebellions, and riots (Useem and Kimball 1989).

Correctional officers (and administrators) need to closely monitor all forms of violence

in order to respond appropriately. If they overreact, the situation may get out of control

(e.g., a riot); if the ignore the activity, they may have that same riot on their hands; if they

under-react, they may have that same riot on their hands. Most correctional workers,

contrary to popular belief, typically want to prevent violent acts, and want prisoners to live,

if only because any deaths will result in an investigation with tedious questions to answer

and copious paperwork to complete. More commonly, though, correctional officers do not

want to see an other human unnecessarily hurt.

Correctional Officers

The Uncaring Disposition of Correctional Officers

Many people believe that all officers are uncaring. This is called the ‘‘smug hack concept’’

(Kolfas and Toch 1982) and it characterizes correctional officers as a ‘‘custody-oriented

‘guard’ known for brutality, incompetence, low intelligence, indifference to human suf-

fering, and an obsession with routine’’ (Freeman 2000: 6–7).

Prison staff members are not above periodically using physical violence or less-than-

lethal force (e.g., pepper spray and TASER guns) against convicts (Pratt et al. 1999). COs

are allowed by law to use force when life and property are in peril. Additionally, most

correctional systems require their officers to be trained in and to follow the ‘‘continuum of

force’’ model, where there is a range of appropriate, escalating responses to uncooperative

or disobedient inmates (including physical presence, verbal commands, and show of force

by having several officers present). In this model, resort to violence is the choice of last

resort.

418 J. I. Ross

123

When officers do beat convicts, it is sometimes out of retaliation for an attack on an

officer or for the instigation of work strikes, riots, or escape attempts. Occasionally, COs

have been accused, engaged in, and convicted of torture (Kerness and Ehehosi 2001).

Meanwhile, most correctional officers are usually careful to keep any retaliatory acts

discreet to avoid witnesses and other types of proof, and—if force is used—they often rely

on the idea of strength in numbers. The FBOP and most State correctional facilities, for

example, have a Special Operations Response Team (SORT) or Correctional Emergency

Response Team (CERT) (pejoratively referred to by inmates as the goon squad or ‘‘Ninja

Turtles’’). This group typically consists of five officers and one lieutenant who are called

upon for cell extractions when inmates refuse to get out of their cells.

The more important question regarding COs and violence is: How frequently is it used

and is it done in an indiscriminate manner? Unfortunately, just like with inmate-on-inmate

violence, comprehensive and reliable empirical research regarding officer-on-inmate vio-

lence is not available.

Regardless perhaps, is the realization that correctional officers do not need to use

violence to convince most convicts to follow orders, rules, procedures, and policies.

Officers typically achieve their authority through five bases of power, the two most

important of which are legitimate and informational power (Hepburn 1985).

Most COs will try to avoid being violent at the workplace. Instead, COs will rely on

threats and other nonphysical indications of power. To begin with, most prisoners are

typically in better physical condition than the average CO. There is also a strong likelihood

that other inmates will come to the assistance of the convict being beaten, so the (unarmed)

correctional officers are likely to be outnumbered and hurt, or even killed. Moreover, CO

violence creates too much ill will that their victims will remember for a long time, which

may lead to retaliation at a later point in time. Finally, often there is substantial official

paperwork and possibly a ‘‘Use of Force’’ report to be completed.

Unlike the violence cons inflict on each other, most CO violence is more subtle. If they

dislike an inmate, COs—either alone or in a group—may engage in several disrespectful

actions. As some convicts and excons (e.g., Richards 2003) have suggested, though, not all

correctional officers fall under this stereotype; some do make the effort to help convicts

and to support their efforts at rehabilitation.

The Effectiveness of the Correctional Sanction

The Effectiveness of Community Corrections

Community corrections involves a variety of programs and sanctions for individuals who

have been charged with or convicted of a crime, or served jail or prison time, but are still

under the supervision of the criminal justice system (e.g., parole). There are numerous

community corrections options, including prerelease, supervised release, probation,

intermediate sanctions, parole, and mandatory release.

The problems with community corrections involve not only the agencies and officers,

but also the individuals who are awaiting their trials; people who have been convicted of a

crime, but sentenced to probation; inmates who are released from jail or prison on parole;

and their families and loved ones. During the past decade, this community-based approach

has encountered numerous problems that stem largely from repeated criticisms during the

1980s and 1990s that community-corrections programs have been too lenient and that

tougher sanctions and forms of control needed to be implemented (e.g., Morris and Tonry

1990).

Debunking the Myths 419

123

Several difficulties confront the modern practice of community corrections. These

include: role conflict; the location of community corrections offices; rigid, bureaucratic, or

inflexible supervisors; the failure to make a meaningful reduction in recidivism; high levels

of work-related stress; violence by probationers and parolees against their officers/agents;

overcrowded/overburdened probation and parole officers/agents; and a lack of adequate

funding (Ross 2008).

The effectiveness of community corrections has been misrepresented by many con-

stituencies with vested interests. ‘‘It has been thought that the best way to help an offender

integrate into law-abiding communities is community-treatment programs. But, commu-

nity-corrections programs have turned out to be feeding grounds for standard criminal

justice, rather than substitutes. Once again, legal repression of crime is part of the crime

problem, not a solution’’ (Pepinsky and Jesilow 1985: 16). One of the biggest challenges

with community corrections is that most personnel operate as if they are police officers or

collection agencies, with officers demanding that parolees pay for their own supervision,

drug and alcohol therapy, child support, court costs, restitution, IRS payments, and rent for

halfway houses. Parole officers often do not provide meaningful help, services, or

employment contacts (Richards 1998).

Community corrections now stresses programs that make probationers and parolees

more accountable and the public better protected (e.g., through intensive probation,

electronic monitoring [EM], and house arrest) (Feeley and Simon 1992; Lucken 1998).

These gains, however, have come at a cost. Probation and parole agents spend a consid-

erable amount of their time writing reports, receiving training, going to court, attending

probation and parole revocation hearings, talking with program providers, all of which take

time away from actually supervising their caseload.

The Relationship Between Incarceration and Crime Rates

Not withstanding the fact that numerous scholars have called into question the manner by

which we determine the official crime. One of the most frequently cited reasons behind

incarceration is the belief that by locking people up, the general crime rate will go down.

Mickalowski (2006) does a great job in explaining how ‘‘annual increases in punishment

were often associated with decreases in crime, and at other times with increases in crime.

From a statistical standpoint, annual changes in rates of imprisonment show only a weak

correlation with annual changes in rates of violent crime’’ (pp. 180–181).

Cost of Jails and Prisons

Many individuals mistakenly believe that incarceration is expensive because of the free

amenities that are provided to inmates (Kappeler et al. 264). A complimentary myth is that

the costs of building and operating correctional facilities would be lessened through

privatization (Blakely and Smykla 2006). Although the construction of prisons is expen-

sive, by comparison, little money is spent on inmate resources such as education, voca-

tional services, recreation, or health care. Although staff salaries and benefits are relatively

high—in part to attract workers to a tough, and potentially deadly, job—it is rarely the

provision of amenities to prisoners that leads to escalating costs.

It costs American taxpayers approximately $34.5 billion annually to incarcerate

convicts. More specifically, in 2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) had a budget

close to $6,185.4 million (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2012summary/pdf/fy12-bop-bud-

summary.pdf). And in 2001 (the latest figures available), ‘‘States spent $29.5 billion for

420 J. I. Ross

123

prisons’’ (Stephan 2004). Moreover, ‘‘State correctional expenditures increased 145 % in

2001 constant dollars from $15.6 billion in FY 1986 to $38.2 billion in FY 2001; prison

expenditures increased 150 % from $11.7 billion to $29.5 billion’’ (Stephan 2004).

Contrast these amounts with our expenditures to fight the ‘‘war on drugs.’’ For example,

in 2007, the Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (the coordinating body

that guides and monitors the federal government’s response to illegal drug use, cultivation,

manufacture, and trafficking) received $18.5 billion to fight ‘the war on drugs.’ This

amount excludes the separate drug war costs above, those involving imprisonment of drug

offenders.

Although figures vary between the States and the federal system, it costs an average of

$22,600 each year to house and maintain State prisoners and $22,632 to provide the same

function to inmates in the FBOP (Stephan 2004). Still, inmates, correctional officers,

wardens, and other correctional professionals are quick to admit that their field is seriously

underfunded and that the effects are significant: overcrowding; the premature release of

prisoners who are unsuitable for the community; the continuous retrofitting of old insti-

tutions; the lack of qualified employees and proper training; and a constant shortage of

funds for necessities such as the renovation of old facilities, construction of new prisons,

and, perhaps most importantly, development of rehabilitative programs to keep inmates

busy and to prepare ex-inmates to stay ex-inmates, after release.

As a result of the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, American jails and prisons received a temporary increase in funding. This additional

support arrived in the form of grants from the federal government ‘‘to construct, develop,

expand, modify, operate, or improve correctional facilities, including boot camp facilities

and other alternative correctional institutions that can free conventional prison space for

the confinement of violent prisoners, to ensure that prison cell space is available for the

confinement of violent inmates and to implement truth in sentencing laws for sentencing

violent offenders.’’

Beginning with the George W. Bush presidency in January 2001, however, tax revenues

from local, state, and the federal government were diverted to other pressing items.

Especially in the wake of September 11, governments at all levels have directed a dis-

proportionate amount of their public-safety budgets to law enforcement and have cut back

on courts and corrections expenses. Moreover, politicians who don’t want to appear ‘‘soft

on crime’’ refrain from increasing the budget for corrections.

The familiar refrain of ‘‘corrections must do more with less’’ is frequently repeated in

the legislatures and on the cellblocks and tiers. This policy, called fiscal conservatism, is

‘‘to be achieved through the development and implementation of cost-minimization

strategies… [including] cost containment, controlling building costs, land revenue

enhancement) designed to reduce the public tax burden. The increasingly important

component of fiscal conservatism is the privatization of correctional services traditionally

provided by government’’ (Freeman 1999: 108). Regardless, although the purchase of land

and expenses incurred in maintaining the physical plant of correctional facilities is high,

the biggest expenditure—as with most businesses—is personnel.

Over the past two decades, expenditures for the corrections industry have increased.

This is largely due to a much larger population of prisoners, occasioned by changes in

previously mentioned sentencing laws and practices (e.g., ‘‘three strikes you’re out,’’ truth

in sentencing, and the abolition of parole in several States and in the federal system). Other

increased costs have been incurred by ‘‘building out’’ (i.e., expansion) or by the con-

struction of new facilities. Finally, the number of convicts with special needs is growing;

this includes older inmates (people with longer sentences are aging inside prison), female

Debunking the Myths 421

123

inmates who have more special needs than their male counterparts, drug-dependent

inmates who need special programming, gang members who need more secure housing,

and inmates with medical (i.e., AIDS, TB, hepatitis) and mental health issues who may

need expensive treatment.

In order to deal with significant crowding issues and its economic costs, most depart-

ments of corrections (DOCs) and the FBOP have taken at least one of three approaches:

front-end, back-end, or increasing the capacity of facilities (Freeman 1999: Chap. 4). The

first strategy usually consists of reducing the number of prisoners entering jails and prisons.

The second option involves releasing prisoners from correctional institutions earlier than

their initial sentence allowed or using legislative caps on prisoner populations in facilities.

Lastly, and the most preferred option of many states has been for their DOCs to have

increased the size of their facilities or have found other ways to house more inmates into

the correctional facilities they currently run by being creative with the existing space (e.g.,

tents, mobile homes, converting gyms into dormitories, or even just stacking four or five

inmates in a cell designed for two). However, in the recent financial crisis (2008–2009)

some states (e.g., Michigan and California) are being forced to close facilities and release

inmates earlier than scheduled due to extreme/dire state budget constraints. The reality is

that the warehousing of prisoners in this country has led to the collapse of state budgets.

The Kind/amount of Punishment that Convicts Receive

Dating as far back as the philosopher and statesmen Jeremy Bentham (1748–1823), there

has been a widely held belief that the punishment should fit the crime. In other words, the

kind and duration of punishment should be as harsh or significant as the crime committed.

However, ‘‘When crime becomes prevalent, popular consensus on how much harm a crime

entails is impossible to achieve.’’ (Pepinsky and Jesilow 1985: 16). According to Kappeler,

Blumberg, and Potter, ‘‘Equity of punishment for similar crimes is one fertile area for

myths about corrections’’ (p. 258). Empirical research has largely disproved this

assumption; the academic discussion about racial disparity in sentencing highlights this

question. Moreover, racially balanced sentencing does not correct the problem of unequal

sentencing practices.

Closely connected to this point is the fact that some individuals, especially legislators,

believe that mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers will deter these kinds of

criminal offenses. These types of sentences however, too often target low-level drug users

instead of the more serious criminals for whom they were designed. At least under Federal

criminal law, only those drug dealers with information to give police—typically middle

managers and kingpins, rather than easily replaced street-level dealers—can get relief from

mandatory prison sentences with a Government motion. Thus, some professionals suggest,

Federal prosecutors seek the longest sentences against those with the most responsibility in

a drug operation, and the best chance for rehabilitation (if it was offered). Not only are

these sentences ineffective because they don’t achieve their intended goals, then, but they

are also interpreted very broadly.

There is also a general belief among the public that our prisons ‘‘do not punish prisoners

severely enough. Institutions are perceived as places where individuals leisurely pass their

time’’ watching television, reading, exercising, and otherwise just hanging out, ‘‘oblivious

to the responsibilities that persons on the outside are forced to meet’’ (Kappeler et al. 1996:

264). Needless to say, those paying just minimal attention to prison documentaries on cable

stations like Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) or Tru TV (former Court TV) will

gain a very different perspective. Moreover, only the most sociopathic inmates—a minute

422 J. I. Ross

123

minority indeed—serve their sentences without suffering extreme guilt for the suffering

they cause the families and others they have left behind, to survive alone (provided, of

course, there is any family left behind).

Prisoners Cannot be Rehabilitated

There is a belief that ‘‘prisoners are incorrigible and unworthy of the rights enjoyed by the

rest of us’’ (Kappeler et al. 1996: 266). This perception is largely derived from selected

stories about ex-cons who, when out on bail, probation, and parole, return to a life of crime.

This partial reality is buttressed by the media’s focus on extreme cases (Cullen and Smith

2006).

Largely motivated by the 1971 Attica riot, some scholars have focused a considerable

amount of attention on figuring out how to improve corrections. One of the most infamous

pieces of research was the 1974 report popularly credited to Robert Martinson titled ‘‘What

Works?—Questions and Answers about Prison Reform.’’ In short, he concluded that ‘‘with

few and isolated exceptions,’’ the rehabilitative programs ‘‘had no appreciable effect’’ on

recidivism (i.e., re-offense after release). If you closely look at the longer study, he was

really saying that across categories of intervention (e.g., counseling and probation) no

modality seemed to work reliably (more often than not). Nevertheless, most people have

interpreted Martinson to mean that absolutely nothing worked to rehabilitate convicts, to

prevent them from relapsing into their old criminal ways.

Although scholars (e.g., Palmer 1975) criticized Martinson by noting that 48 % of the

studies with recidivism data in Martinson’s study showed positive treatment effects,

Martinson’s findings were welcomed by conservatives at the time who thought they had

finally found a semi-respectable scholar to support their claims and efforts.

Even though Martinson later recanted his position (1979) by then, ‘‘few people wanted

to listen. The movement away from rehabilitation and toward increased punishment was

supported by Martinson’s original article. Conservative politicians and academics had

pounced on the article and used it to bolster arguments for longer and more punitive

sentences’’ (Hallinan 2003: 36). This occurred despite the accumulation of good science on

rehabilitation (Cullen and Gendreau 1989, 2000; Andrews and Bonta 2006).

Nevertheless, most Americans and some correctional practitioners do support the idea

of rehabilitation (Flanagan and Caulfeld 1984; Cullen et al. 1988; Cullen and Gendreau

1989, 2000; Cullen et al. 2000; Kifer et al. 2003). More specifically, these parties usually

advocate most strongly for the rehabilitation of juveniles and less so for violent adult

inmates. In general, Americans support both treatment and punishment—they do not see

these as irreconcilable approaches to convicted criminals. Finally, we now have a growing

body of knowledge on what works with convicts (mainly cognitive-behavioral programs

with high-risk convicts, preferably delivered in the community and followed up with

aftercare and employment). How one implements these programs is, of course, another

story. Regardless of how we tinker with the programs, correctional settings are typically

suboptimal environments for inmates’ rehabilitation.

Within jails and prisons, the emphasis is disproportionately on punishment, with an

assumed external benefit of improved community safety. Although there are ‘‘respon-

sivity’’ issues (meaning that individuals react differently to how treatment is given to

them), there is growing evidence, as previously noted, that most prisoners are generally

amenable to cognitive-behavioral interventions. Low-risk inmates, on the other hand, don’t

require this type of intervention, and existing assessment instruments are effective at

identifying inmates as such.

Debunking the Myths 423

123

Meanwhile, well-meaning individuals and organizations periodically gain access to

prisons and, with the blessing of the warden, senior correctional personnel, or the DOC,

manage to implement their ‘‘rehabilitative’’ programs. Unfortunately, this ‘‘correctional

quackery’’ often suffers from poor science. Their beneficial claims are typically made

based on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. It is also difficult for advocates to

compare the advantages of their experiment/s to other programs that can be introduced. For

example, how do these skills and experiences they respectively teach or expose inmates to

transfer to something that is tangibly useful on the outside? (Latessa et al. 2002).

Understandably, ‘‘Some rehabilitation programs work better than others, but no program

works all the time—or even most of the time. The best success rate for the best programs is

only about 20 %, and even this figure can be misleading. Different programs measure

‘success’ in different ways’’ (Hallinan 2003: 133).

For some researchers, ‘‘success is defined as a complete halt to criminal activity—in

other words, the inmate, after being released, never again has a brush with the law. For

others, an inmate may be considered rehabilitated if the ‘rate’ of criminal activity declines:

He may be rearrested (or reconvicted or reimprisoned) and still be considered ‘rehabili-

tated’ so long as he is not rearrested as often as he might have been had he not participated

in the rehabilitation program. The consensus is that programs that work best tend to be

those that teach so-called ‘life skills’ like balancing a checkbook and those that stress

family involvement’’ (Hallinan 2003:133).

Jails and Prisons Deter Criminals

Most people believe that only imprisonment can serve as a deterrent and effectively punish

individuals who have committed crimes (Kappeler et al. 1996: 262; Michalowski 2006).

Likewise, despite the public’s belief that crime rates will drop if we lengthen convicts’

sentences, this perception is not supported by empirical data. Although prisoners (because

they are incarcerated) are frustrated in their attempts to commit crimes in the so-called free

world, the threat of stiffer penalties rarely prevents individuals from committing future

crimes. Many people are at point where they do not care about the potential sanction they

might receive (i.e., jail or prison) if they break the law, or they’re convinced that they

won’t be caught.

In fact, we know from the testimonials of individuals sentenced to community cor-

rections (i.e., probation and parole) that jails and prisons are not the only effective crime

deterrent. Community corrections, for some excons, can be just as punitive as a jail cell, to

the point that some inmates who are released on to parole request to go back to prison to

serve out the rest of their time. People and organizations that are trying to reform the

correctional system support the idea of rehabilitation based on programs, education, or

other alternatives rather than long periods of incarceration. ‘‘When the pollster Lou Harris

surveyed Americans in 1970, his company found that 73 % of them thought the primary

purpose of prison should be rehabilitation. By 1995, only 26 % did. By comparison 58 %

of those questioned in 1995 felt prisons were there to punish’’ (Hallinan 2003: xiv).

Conclusion

This rendering of the myths and reality of corrections in America should be helpful to those

who care about our communities, criminal justice policies and agencies and where our tax

dollars are being spent. It clarified, contextualized and in many cases contradicted populist

424 J. I. Ross

123

and pundit characterizations (and misunderstandings) and arguments about jails, prisons,

community corrections, convicts and correctional workers. Although the myths themselves

deserve special attention, equally important is an understanding of how the myths are

created. This is a subject better addressed in by further research. Understanding the myths

should help pave the way to meaningful attempts at reform in correctional system in the

United States.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to Catherine Leidemer, Greg Newbold, Dawn L. Rothe, and Phil Stinson and the anonymous reviewers for this journal for comments on this paper.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson/Lexus Nexis.

Austin, James. (1998). The limits of prison drug treatment. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 66–74.

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2001). It’s about time. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bartollas, Clemens. (2002). Invitation to corrections. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Blakely, C., & Smykla, J. O. (2006). Correctional privatization and the myth of inherent efficiency. In R.

M. Bohm & J. T. Walker (Eds.), Demystifying crime and criminal justice (pp. 214–220). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Bohm, R. M., & Walker, J. T. (Eds.). (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons, In Tonry, M. & Petersilia, J. (Eds.) Prisons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 26, 205–281.

Byrne, J. M., & Hummer, D. (2007). Myths and realities of prison violence: A review of the evidence. Victims & Offenders, 2(1), 77–90.

Center for Constitutional Rights. (nd) FAQs: Prison phone rates. New York, NY: Center for Constitutional Rights. http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs%3A-prison-phone-rates, downloaded March 22, 2012.

Clowers, M. (2001). Dykes, gangs, and danger: debunking popular myths about maximum security-life. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9, 22–30.

Cohen, A. K., Cole, G. F., & Bailey, R. G. (1976). Prison violence. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Cullen, F. T., Cullen, J., & Wozniak, J. (1988). Is Rehabilitation Dead? The myth of the punitive public.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 303–317. Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime

and Justice, 27, 1–79. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: reconsidering the

‘nothing works’ debate. In L. Goodstein & D. Mackenzie (Eds.), American prisons: Issues in research and policy (pp. 23–44). New York: Plenum Publishing Company.

Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects, In Horney, J. (Ed.) Criminal justice 2000. Vol. 3 policies processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, pp. 109–175.

Cullen, F. T., & Smith, P. (2006). The myth that correctional rehabilitation does not work. In R. M. Bohm & J. T. Walker (Eds.), Demystifying crime and criminal justice (pp. 227–238). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, 449–474.

Feinman, C. (1983). Historical overview of the treatment of incarcerated women myths and realities of rehabilitation. The Prison Journal, 63, 12–26.

Fisher-Giorlando, M. (2003). Why I study prisons: My twenty-year personal and professional odyssey and an understanding of southern prisons. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 59–76). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Flanagan, T. J., & Caulfeld, S. L. (1984). Public opinion. The Prison Journal, 64, 31–46. Fleisher, M. S. (1989). Warehousing violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Freeman, R. M. (1999). Correctional organization and management. Boston: Butterworth Heinmann.

Debunking the Myths 425

123

Freeman, R. M. (2000). Popular culture and corrections. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Gibbons, J. J., & de Katzenbach, N. B. (2008). Confronting confinement: A report of the national com-

mission on safety and abuse in prison. 2006. www.prisoncommission.org. Hallinan, J. T. (2003). Going up the river: Travels in a prison nation. New York: Random House. Hassine, V. (1996/2004). Life without parole: Living in prison today, Third Edition. Los Angeles, CA:

Roxbury Press. Hepburn, J. (1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison guards. Criminology,

23, 145–156. Human Rights Watch. (2001). No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch. Kappeler, V. E., Blumberg, M., & Potter, G. W. (1996). The mythology of crime and criminal justice.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. W. (2005). The mythology of crime and criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove,

IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Kaufman, P. (2008). Prison rape: Research explores prevalence, prevention, NIJ Journal, March, No. 259.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/259/prison-rape.htm downloaded September 18, 2009. Kerness, B., & Ehehosi, M. (2001). Torture in U.S. Prisons: Evidence of U.S. Human Rights Violations.

Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee. Kifer, M., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. (2003). The goals of corruption: Perspectives from the line. Criminal

Justice Review, 28(1), 47–69. Kolfas, J., & Toch, H. (1982). The guard subculture myth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

192, 238–254. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the

possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43–49. Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison sexual violence. New York: Elsevier Books. Lockwood, D. (1985). Issues in prison sexual violence. In M. Brasswell, S. Dillingham, & R. Montgomery

(Eds.), Prison violence. Cincinnati: Anderson, pp. Lovell, R., & Stojkovic, S. (1987). Symbols, and policymaking in corrections. Criminal Justice Policy

Review, 2, 225–239. Lucken, K. (1998). Contemporary penal trends: Modern or postmodern. British Journal of Criminology, 38,

106–123. Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views, a note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law

Review, 7, 243–258. McAuley, L. (1994). Exploding myths about correctional industries. Corrections Today, 56, 8. McCampbell, S. W., & Layman, E. P. (2001). Investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct with

inmates: Myths and realities. Sheriff Magazine, 53(20–23), 27. McDonald, D. (1999). Medical care in prisons. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 427–478).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McShane, M., Williams, F. P., & Peltz, B. (2006). The myth of prisons as country clubs. In R. M. Bohm &

J. T. Walker (Eds.), Demystifying crime and criminal justice (pp. 201–208). Los Angeles CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Michalowski, R. (2006). The myth that punishment reduces crime. In R. M. Bohm & J. T. Walker (Eds.), Demystifying crime and criminal justice (pp. 179–192). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Miller, J. G. (1996). Search and destroy: African–American males in the criminal justice system. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation. New York: Oxford University Press. Murphy, D. (2003). Aspirin ain’t gonna help the kind of pain i’m in: Health care in the federal bureau of

prisons. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 247–266). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

Nacci, P., & Kane, T. (1983). The incidence of sex and sexual aggression in federal prisons. Federal Probation, 47, 31–36.

Ogden, A., & Rebein, P. (2001). Do prison inmates have a right to vegetarian meals. Vegetarian Journal. http://vrg.org/journal/vj2001mar/2002marprison.htm.

Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 123–152. Pepinsky, H., & Jesilow, P. (1985). Myths that cause crime. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press. Peterson, R. D., & Palumbo, D. J. (1997). The social construction of intermediate punishments. The Prison

Journal, 77, 77–91. Pizarro, J. M., Vanja, M., Stenius, K., & Pratt, T. P. (2006). Supermax prisons: myths. Criminal Justice

Policy Review, 17, 6–21.

426 J. I. Ross

123

Pratt, T. C., Maahs, J., & Hemmens, C. (1999). The history of the use of force in corrections. In C. Hemmens & E. Atherton (Eds.), Use of force: Current practice and policy (pp. 13–22). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Propper, A. M. (1981). Prison homosexuality—myth and reality. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co. Richards, S. C. (1998). Community punishment: Lessons from the darkness. In J. I. Ross (Ed.), Cutting the

edge: Current perspectives in radical/critical criminology and criminal justice (pp. 122–144). West- port, CT: Praeger.

Richards, S. C. (2003). My journey through the federal bureau of prisons. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 120–149). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Rideau, W. (1992). The sexual jungle. In W. Rideau & R. Wikberg (Eds.), Life sentences: Rage and survival behind the bars (pp. 73–107). New York: Times Books.

Ross, J. I. (2003). (Mis)Representing prisons: The role of our cultural industries. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 37–58). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ross, J. I. (2008). Special problems in corrections. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (2002). Behind bars: Surviving prison. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (Eds.). (2003). Convict criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Saum, C., Surratt, H., Inciardi, J., & Bennett, R. (1995). Sex in prison: Exploring the myths and realities. The

Prison Journal, 75, 413–431. Shichor, D. (1992). Myths and realities in prison siting. Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 70–88. Speed Weed, W. (2001). Incubating disease. Prison are rife with infectious illnesses- and threaten to spread

them to the public, Mother Jones, July 10, www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/prisons/print_ disease.html.

Stephan, J. J. (2004). State prison expenditures, 2001. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Pro- grams. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Special Report. June NCJ 202949. www.ojp.usdoj/bjs/abstracts/ spe01.htm (accessed August 27, 2007).

Taylor, J. M. (2002). Prisoners guerilla handbook to correspondence programs in the United States and Canada (2nd ed.). Brunswick, ME: Biddle Pub. Co.

Taylor, J. M., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Post-secondary correctional education: The imprisoned university. In T. Alleman & R. Gido (Eds.), Turnstile justice: Issues in American corrections (pp. 126–158). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Terry, C. (2002). Overcoming prison and addiction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Tewksbury, R. (1989). Fear of sexual assault in prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 69, 62–71. Tregea, W. S. (2003). Twenty years teaching college in prison. In J. I. Ross & S. C. Richards (Eds.), Convict

criminology (pp. 309–324). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1989). States of siege: US prison riots, 1971–1986. New York: Oxford University

Press. Vaughn, M., & Carroll, L. (1998). Separate and unequal: Prison versus free-world medical care. Justice

Quarterly, 15, 3–40. Wright, P. (2000). The cultural commodification of prisons. Social Justice, 27(3), 15–21.

Debunking the Myths 427

123