Forensic Psychology
Rhea Bhandari
ImprisonmentLecture.pptxImprisonment
Eduardo A. Vasquez, Ph.D.
Autumn 2020
What are prisons for?
Keep undesirables out?
Retribution?
Reduce chances of re-offending/recidivism?
Rehabilitate offenders?
Make the public feel safer?
Retribution: deliver punishment. Can be important to make public and victims feel there is justice.
Utilitarian: reduce recidivism, chances offender will do it again.
Humanitarian: offenders are typically victims of circumstance and need rehabilitation.
Perspectives
Regardless of your opinion, there are important things to remember about imprisonment:
Prisoners are a population at risk:
They risk violence
Suicide
2) Prison can make things worse, if not done correctly:
Prisoners can learn maladaptive behaviours
Become more criminally oriented
May contribute to an increase in recidivism, without dealing with underlying causes of criminality
3) Cost money and resources
Above all, remember that we live in a democracy. Thus, the state must follow rules of justice:
Punished for a crime you actually committed.
No excessive punishment.
Maintain rights even if you are in jail.
Health and safety of prisoners should be a priority.
5
PRISON POPULATION: ENGLAND & WALES
June, 2018: 83,163
Male = 79361, female = 3829
For statistics, follow link:
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Prisoner characteristics
So, clearly, the prison population is an at-risk group.
What imprisonment aims to achieve:
Prison Service Mission Statement, (1988)
“Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release.”
Development of penal policy
1980’S Harsher Tougher Sentencing (Retribution)
1990 – Riots
e.g. Strangeways
45 days, 1 dead prisoner, 47 prisoners injured, 147 prison officers.
‘Imprisonment can be an expensive way of 'making bad people worse' (Home Office, 1990).
Woolf Report (Custody, Care And Justice 1991)
Prisoners Cited:
1. Unsanitary Conditions
2. No Redress For Injustices
3. Negative Regimes
4. Lack Of Respect
5. Destruction Of Family Ties
Woolf report: recommendations
Increased delegation of responsibility to Governors of prisons
A contract for each prisoner
National system of accredited standards
No establishment should hold more prisoners than its certified normal level (CNA) of accommodation.
Access to sanitation for all inmates not later than February 1996
Prospects for prisoners to maintain links with families and community through more visits and home leaves.
Currently…….
Overcrowding still exists
Some prisoners still slop out
Still no consistent regime
Prisons can’t fulfil rehabilitative role successfully
increases re-offending?
Empirical evidence: Imprisonment & recidivism
Lloyd et al (1994): 4 types of sanctions
Community service
Probation
Probation with additional requirements
Imprisonment
Found:
No difference between reconviction across types of sentence
Concluded: different sentences don’t have different effects on reoffending
Boot camps: Mackenzie & Souryal (1995)
Short terms of incarceration in a strict military environment
Daily schedule of hard labour, drill, ceremony and physical training
Strong hope that tough punishment will deter future criminal involvement
Burton et al (1993)
Boot camp prisoners: more positive prosocial attitudes
But: MacKenzie & Souryal (1994): selection effect boot camp prisoners not the same as other prisoners: non-violent crimes and less serious criminal histories
Types of imprisonment
Mackenzie et al (1995)
In U.S.A. no impact of boot camps on recidivism.
One State there was an increase in recidivism but mixed results from 3 others.
But: problems with measures of reoffending
Also any success could be due to level of supervision post release – not to boot camp regime.
Why?
Concluded:
Most successful boot camps: had treatment programmes.
Recidivism was higher for camps that emphasised physical activity and military discipline without any therapeutic programming.
Physical exercise, military atmosphere and hard labour won’t change the behaviour of offenders if the criminogenic needs are not addressed (Mackenzie et al 1995)
McKenzie (2000) review of rehabilitation:
Increased control and surveillance in the community.
Boot camps using old-style military models.
Programmes emphasising specific deterrence (shock probation and Scared straight).
What doesn’t work
Meta-analysis:
Lipsey (1995): ‘Despite their popularity, the available studies indicate that they actually result in delinquency increases rather than decreases.’ (p. 74).
Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Re-offending by ex-prisoners costs us £11 billion per year.
So what effects does prison have? Environment
Gallo & Ruggiero (1991):
Prisons are ‘factories for the manufacture of psycho-social handicaps’.
Two most common forms of behaviour = aggression and depression.
Prisoners live in a state of constant anxiety or disengaged in a form of psychological absenteeism encouraged by the availability of drugs.
Imprisonment may itself be criminogenic (Cid (2009).
So what effects does prison have? Deprivation
Sykes (1958) – pains of prison leads to ‘profound hurt’
5 specific ‘pains’
Loss of liberty: confinement, removal from family, friends
Goods and services: choice amenities, material possessions
Frustration of sexual desire: prisoners figuratively castrated
Autonomy: regime routine, work, trivial restrictions e.g. letters
Personal security: enforced association with unpredictable prisoners causing fear anxiety and having to fight for the safety of possessions
Given that most prisoners are guilty of breaking the law, are these things bad?
So what effect does prison have? Psychologically
Bukstel & Kilman (1980)
reviewed 90 experimental studies: found:
Methodological flaws
Crowding, phase of sentence and peer groups impact on personal functioning
Deterioration results from poor adaptation to surroundings
Benign, passive and dependent personalities often adjust well
Indeterminant sentencing leads to adjustment problems
Important issues in prisons—Prison gangs.
Definition: “Group of prisoners with a leader whose negative behavior adversely impacts on the prison that holds them” (Fong & Buentello 1991).
Camp & Camp (1985).
1st gang in Washington State in 1950.
By 1957 gangs were in California: in 1962 appeared in Illinois.
By 1983 33 of 49 US prisons reported presence. 2% of prison population involved.
By 1992 10% adult males, 3% females and 17% young offenders involved (Knox 1994)
Aims and impact of prison gangs
1) Acquisition of finance through trades & power through violence (Stevens 1997)
3) Prison gangs control drug trade in North Carolina prisons (Stevens 1997).
2) Where gangs are active: large amounts of drugs, assaults, extortion and non-gang transfer requests (Rush, Stone & Wycoff 1998).
5) Prison gangs can control street gang activity (Sikes 1997): Can order punishment (beatings, murders). Though this can develop into intra-gang conflict in some cases.
4) Undermine order & control in the prison (Camp & Camp 1985; Fong & Buentello 1991). For example, 1987 - Texas prison authorities lost control of prison due to gang activity (Porter 1988).
Example: La “M” or Mexican mafia in California
Theories of prison gang development
Importation Theory: Street gang members imported into prison and re-group.
For many gang members’ entry into prison is a ‘homecoming’ (Jacobs, 1974). Just part of the life of a gang member.
Once in prison, pre-existing attitudes and behaviours continue (Irwin & Cressey 1964).
Indigenous theory (Buentello, Fong & Vogel 1991): gangs develop as a result of the system.
Stage 1: prisoner imprisoned. Must learn to deal with everyday threat of violence (Duffee, 1989). To cope with loneliness and isolation prisoner goes through process of prisonization (Clemmer 1940) adopts prisoner code of conduct
Stage 2: prisoner mixes with similar others: race, religion, region of origin (Camp & Camp 1985) or previous incarceration (Stevens 1997).
Stage 3: group becomes self protective – is recognised by others. It has no structure; no clear membership; no criminal activity.
Stage 4: group becomes predatory – recognises its potential for power; rules may be devised; weak members expelled; begins criminal activity.
Stage 5: group strengthens; becomes organised; evolves into prison gang.
Why gang membership might appeal
Offset some of the deprivation imprisonment imposes (Sykes 1958):
Liberty
Goods and services
Autonomy
Personal security: Prisoners fear intimidation and assault above all aspects of prison life (Adler 1994).
Characteristics of gang members
Reluctant to accept prison mandate or be involved in any non-criminal activity (Camp & Camp 1985).
Serve longer sentences and have more convictions (Sheldon 1991).
Are younger than their non-gang counterparts (Ralph, Hunter, Marquart, Curchier & Meriianos 1996).
Prison gangs in England & Wales
1st study (Wood & Adler 2001) included 180 prison staff across all categories of prison:
staff perceived high levels of prisoner group involvement in activities associated with prison gangs.
Perceived levels of events predicted staff concern over losing control and order in prison.
Found: most common group activities
Drugs
Groups formed along racial lines
Transfer requests
Groups assaulting other prisoners
Groups formed along regional lines
Contraband phone cards
Verbal domination by groups
Groups making threats to staff
Physical domination by groups
Requests for protective custody
2nd study: prisoners’ perspective
2 main aims:
1. Examine prisoners’ reports of own and others’ gang-related events to see if order and control undermined.
2. Identify prisoners most involved in gang-related activity and some of the psychological characteristics associated with involvement in gang-related activity.
Psychological factors
1. Prisonization:
Definition: .. “the taking on, in greater or lesser degree, the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary” (Clemmer 1940, p. 270).
Facilitated by association with prisoners who possess leadership qualities and are integrated into prison subculture.
Prisonized prisoners are reluctant to become involved with legitimate activities in prison.
Psychological factors:2 Social Support
Definition: “the perceived or actual instrumental and/or expressive provisions supplied by the community, social networks, and confiding partners.” (Lin 1986, p. 18).
Thoits (1995): perceived emotional social support ‘buffers’ against life’s stressors.
Interestingly, Giving of social support also conducive to psychological well being (e.g. Coles 1993).
Methods
Cross section - 360 prisoners in English prisons
Involvement assessed using quantitive and qualitative methodology based on variables associated with gang existence (e.g.Fong & Buentello 1991)
E.g.
Group violence
Group trades in contraband
Group protection of members
Adherence to ‘group rules’
Measures: perceived social support received from and to family and significant others in prison using adapted SOS A & B (Power, Champion & Aris 1988). Calculate dissatisfaction with SS IN & OUT.
Continued...
Measures of prisonization taken using Organizational Structure and Prisonization Scale (OSPS) (Thomas and Zingraff1974).
Gang activity & order and control
Results
Perceived gang events successfully predicted perceptions of reduced order in prison.
Perceived gang events successfully predicted perceptions of reduced staff control in prison.
Percentage of prisoners reporting own involvement.
Predicting prisoners’ personal involvement
Important predictors
Age: younger more involved
Gender: males more involved
Number of sentences: more served = more involved
Prisonized attitudes
Dissatisfaction with soc supp to others in prison: more satisfied with support to others = more involved
1st sentence & recidivist prisoners’ gang activity & ‘prisonization.’
82
52
35
42
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Group
member
protective
gp
take drugsown rulesillegal
trade
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gang activity
p<0.001
'Prisonization'
p<0.05
1 sentence
2+ sentences
