2 ASSESSMENTS DUE IN 48 HOURS

p.120

© Chris Salvo/The Image Bank/Getty Images

6 Prisons Media Library

CHAPTER 6 Media Library

PREMIUM VIDEOPREMIUM VIDEO

Career VideoCareer Video

Payne career video 6.1: Former Drug Investigator

Feature VideoFeature Video

Schram Personal Perspective video 6.1: Prison Culture

SAGE News ClipSAGE News Clip

SAGE News Clip 6.1: HIV-Positive Inmates in Alabama

SAGE News Clip 6.2: Attica Prison Riot

JOURNAL ARTICLEJOURNAL ARTICLE

Journal Article 6.1: Prison architec- ture and inmate misconduct: A mul- tilevel assessment

Journal Article 6.2: Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “su- permax” confinement.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

11 To understand how prisons are different from jails and the basic characteristics of prisons, including their physical design.

22 To grasp how and to what extent prisons function as part of the larger correctional system.

33 To understand the basic facts of the state prison system versus the federal prison system.

44 To gain basic fluency in prison demographics.

55 To understand prison classification systems and risk levels.

66 To grasp some of the extremes in the system such as crowding, the supermax, and isolation.

77 To know about basic types of prisoner services and understand some of the challenges involved in delivering them.

88 To gain a basic sense of the prison environment.

p.121

California Department of Corrections

The crowded living quarters of San

Quentin Prison in California, January

2006. As a result of overcrowding in

the California state prison system, the

U.S. Supreme Court ordered

California to reduce its prison

population (the second largest in the

nation, after Texas).

Prisons are the most iconic of all correctional institutions; they have been featured time and again in film and fiction, almost as characters in their own right, certainly as settings for riveting drama. But, in reality, prison and prison life are not all that romantic. The prison environment is harsh, and life in prison is full of stress and tedium, conditions made worse in situations where overcrowding is a major issue. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in an unprecedented decision, that chronic overcrowding in California’s prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. According to the narrow majority of the court, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. To meet the court’s requirement to substantially reduce overcrowding within two years, the state’s beleaguered prison system set about planning for the release of 33,000 nonviolent, low-level prisoners to the counties for supervision at the local level or transfer out of state (see “In the Courts” on page 127.)

The mandate to reduce overcrowding sparked debates over its implementation

and consequences in California and across the country. Some believed that, instead of releasing prisoners, the prison system should be expanded further and that high rates of incarceration—fueled by tough sentencing laws and practices—were the key to lowering crime rates. But it would take many years to build enough beds to house the number of prisoners over capacity, too much time for California to meet the two-year timetable ordered by the court. Fiscal constraints and a desire for change drove others to support new reforms, including many observers who previously argued for expansion. The public and the body politic are finally having to admit that it is simply too expensive to keep locking everyone up.

p.122

The Means to an End As discussed in Chapter 3, prisons have several ostensible functions—punishment, deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. Whether prison accomplishes these goals—whether it falls short or goes too far—is the subject of much debate. For example, some criminologists believe that the certainty of punishment and the swiftness of its delivery contribute more to deterrence than does the length of a person’s

©Jelson25

From the air, one might think this is a

typical rural high school, but it is the

U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg,

Pennsylvania.

sentence. And there is a long-standing debate about whether the death penalty

truly serves to deter homicide.1 Debate also continues about whether rehabilitation is or should be a core function of prisons. Incarceration serves other societal functions as well. Many would argue that prisons function as a means of social control and a political

weapon used against entire communities. The fact that U.S. prisons are filled disproportionately with people of color points to this control—a critical and persistent problem (see Chapter 11).

There are more specific goals within institutions, such as providing services or maintaining a healthy, safe environment. However, security is the predominant concern inside a prison. The goal of control always trumps other considerations, especially in an emergency situation. For example, in the event of a prison riot, the prison will go on total lockdown, which interrupts education, counseling, and other services.

SAGE News Clip SAGE News Clip 6.2: Attica Prison Riot

Although the goals of prison may include retribution and punishment, it is not generally accepted that prison should lead

to the deterioration of a prisoner’s physical and mental health. The punishment is meant to be the denial of liberty. The ideal modern prison institution is safe, clean, and orderly, and maybe even beneficial and cost-effective. However, this ideal is difficult to achieve for many reasons, beginning with the tensions inherent in the very concept of locking people up. Few prisons always meet all legal and ethical standards, and many breach the most basic standards of humane practice.

Prisons are different from jails. Prisons are federally or state-run institutions to incarcerate those convicted and sentenced to more than a year; jails detain people in many short-term custody situations. Consequently, the jail population turns over far more often than the prison population. Data from the National Institute of Corrections indicate that, on average, a 1,000-bed jail turns over completely 36 times a year (36,000 individuals admitted and released), whereas a 1,000-bed prison may turn over

750 inmates in a year2 (see Chapter 4). Prisons vary widely in their design, size, and security level, among other factors. However, common structural elements typically include barbed wire, concrete, high perimeter walls, armed guard towers, external and internal patrols, surveillance cameras, geographic barriers (cliffs, forests, water), systematic dehumanization, and psychological

domination. They are often located away from urban centers in more remote locations—far also from the public’s view.

p.123

Design of Prisons The architecture of prisons in large part defines the human interactions that occur within them. Various correctional goals have given rise to some of the forms described in this section. A prison’s design expresses and facilitates the intended level of security and surveillance. Prison architects consider what kinds of prisoners and what kind of prison life the walls will contain. They plan for maintaining control over prisoner movement, watching and counting inmates, housing styles, meals, laundry, exercise, treatment, medical care, religious service, education, visiting, and administrative functions. All of these considerations must be combined with location and climate and, of course, cost.

Journal Article Journal Article 6.1: Prison architec- ture and inmate misconduct: A multi- level assessment CLICK TO SHOW

The most common designs are variations on either a linear theme or a radial one. Maximum-security facilities are often laid

out with branches set at right angles. Cells are lined up along a straight central corridor and stacked several levels up. These may allow for easy movement, but require regular surveillance by guards who must walk past a cell to see inside it. Radial designs have a central control room where guards can see into a number of cells at once. There are also courtyard designs and clusters, or pods, of multiple radial units, which allow for more direct supervision and interaction between guards and prisoners.

A precursor to the current radial design was the panopticon, meaning “all-seeing,” a creation of an English social theorist from the late 18th century named Jeremy Bentham. Bentham lobbied for many years to see his idea realized, but it never was built in the United States. The concept was a wheel-like structure with a central tower from which guards could see into every cell. However, because the tower’s design would shield the guards, the occupants of the cells would not be able to tell when they were or were not being watched. Bentham thought one of the strong selling points of his idea was how little it would cost to staff the structure.

What the Numbers Say At the end of 2015, the national prisoner population was almost 1.53 million. As

large as this number is, it still represents a decline that has persisted for several years from its peak in 2009 at 1.6 million. The decline in total prisoners is a result of both fewer admissions and a larger number of releases compared to prior years. Prisoners in 2015 included approximately 196,000 held in the federal system and

1.33 million held in state facilities.3 These numbers do not include the jail population or the millions on parole or probation.

© AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File

Pelican Bay State Prison, California.

Prison architecture is a professional

specialty—form and function bent to a

sociopolitical purpose.

p.124

The Growth of U.S. Prisons

The phenomenal growth of the U.S. prison complex is a subject worthy of its own volume (see Chapter 16). In brief, the U.S.

prison population remained relatively stable for most of the 20th century, dipping during wartimes—the 1940s and the 1960s. Beginning in the late 1970s, the number of incarcerated Americans took a sharp turn upward and continued to rise into the 2000s.

The general surge upward cannot be explained by general population growth. If so, the rate of imprisonment—the number of inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents—would have remained relatively constant. Instead, the rate rose drastically for over three decades, increasing by 427% from 96 in 1970 to 506 in 2008. It then began a decline, decreasing almost 10% to 458 in 2015. Nevertheless, the United States still incarcerates a larger proportion of its population than any other nation in

the world.4

State and Regional Differences

The U.S. states vary widely in many ways that impact their incarceration rates, from size, region, climate, topography, and demographics to culture, political climate, legislation, law enforcement policy, characteristics of the judiciary, and reform efforts. Consequently, prison population sizes and rates have an enormous range among the states. In 2016, the highest incarceration rate was found in Washington, D.C. (1,196) and was followed

closely by Louisiana, Georgia, Oklahoma,

and Alabama.5 In addition, these rates are always in flux; they may be falling in some states and rising in others.

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity

A closer look at overall incarceration rates reveals an enormous disparity in rates of incarceration depending on gender and race. To illustrate, the 2015 incarceration rate for sentenced women was 64 and for sentenced men was 863. For White women, the rate was 52, for Hispanic women 63, and for African American women 103. For White men, the rate was 457, for Hispanic men 1,043, and for

African American men 2, 613.6

Postcard of an American panopticon: “Interior view

of cell house, new Illinois State Penitentiary at

Stateville, near Joliet, Ill.” Scanned from the

postcard collection of Alex Wellerstein.

The “roundhouse” at Illinois State

Penitentiary at Stateville was built in

the 1920s using a panopticon-inspired

design. Some might call Bentham’s

“all-seeing” design for prisons

ingenious, others diabolical.

p.125

Figure 6.1 National Rate of Imprisonment, 1925 to 2015

Figure 6.1 shows that, throughout most of the 20th century, the imprisonment rate was stable, rising above 130 per 100,000 only for a couple of years just prior to World War II. However, in the late 1970s, it started a sharp rise that did not show signs of ending until 2009. The imprisonment rate per 100,000 was 96 in 1970, 139 in 1980, 297 in 1990, 478 in 2000, and 500 in 2010. The high point was 506 in 2008, at which point a gradual decline began, to 458 in 2015.

Source: ttp://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_6.html#6_bf.

Admissions and Length of

Stay in Custody

New admissions and length of stay are the primary factors in prison population counts. In simple terms, decreasing the number of offenders sentenced to time in prison means lower prison populations. If, over time, the number of individuals who are beginning a prison sentence stays the same but their time served decreases, then overall prison population counts will also decrease. Even a small reduction in sentence length can have an impact on the prison population, and sentencing reform is certainly an avenue toward relieving pressure on overburdened systems. The decline in total prisoners after 2009 resulted from both fewer admissions and more releases than in previous years. The reduction in admissions was partly due to an increase in reforms and programming meant to allow low-level offenders to avoid incarceration and reduce recidivism. Such strategies include diversion programs, specialty courts, and drug treatment centers. The increase in releases was partly the result of reduced sentences for “non-non-nons” (nonviolent, nonsexual, nonserious offenders). Of course, the reverse is also true: More individuals sentenced to prison and longer stays increase population counts.

Facilities

In 2005, there were 1,719 state and 102

federal prison facilities dispersed across

the country, 135 more than in 2000.7

(More recent counts are not available, although new prison construction, both private and public, continued after the release of the last national census.) These facilities ranged in size from halfway houses that hold just a few low-risk inmates to sprawling complexes that house

thousands of prisoners of all types.8

p.126

Table 6.1 Prison Population and Rate of Imprisonment for Prisoners* in Federal and State Systems, 2015

The overall rate of imprisonment in the United States in 2015 was 458 for every 100,000 of any age in the general population. State rates ranged from under 200 for Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota to rates of more than 600 for Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The federal rate in 2015 was 55. The federal rate is always low compared to state rates because most criminal law falls under state jurisdiction.

*Sentenced to one year or more.

**Rate of imprisonment per 100,000 in general population, all ages.

***Illinois, Nevada and Oregon rates are estimated.

Source: Carson and Golinelli 2013.

p.127

IN THE COURTS

Brown, Governor of California, et al. v. Plata et al.

Appeal from the U.S. DistrictAppeal from the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern andCourts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of CaliforniaNorthern Districts of California No. 09–1233;No. 09–1233;

Argued November 30, 2010—Argued November 30, 2010—

Decided May 23, 2011Decided May 23, 2011

In 2011, the total design capacity for California prisons was about 80,000 inmates, but the population had grown to over 170,000. This crowding contributed to a fundamental breakdown in safety, security, health services, and suicide prevention and to making the prisons very dangerous for staff and inmates alike. The governor declared that California’s prisons were in a state of emergency. A series of class-action judgments against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation attempted to remedy these problems without much success. Plaintiffs used the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act to argue that only immediate reductions in the inmate population could solve the breakdown of fundamental Eighth Amendment protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff’s claims and sustained the order of a federal three-judge panel to reduce the California prison population to 137% of its design capacity in two years. Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy found:

As a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are

fundamental to liberty. Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. “The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than

the dignity of man.”1

To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inmates “may actually produce physical

‘torture or a lingering death.’”2

Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and

has no place in civilized society.3

This case was an unprecedented occasion of the U.S. Supreme Court ordering a state to release inmates. If

government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation. By 2012, the state had succeeded in reducing the prison population to approximately 125,000, largely

through its “realignment” strategies.4

(See Chapter 16 Spotlight “California’s Realignment.”) In the spring of 2014, the three-judge court overseeing the process granted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation a two-year extension to achieve the mandated 137% capacity

limit.5

Notes

1.1. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 2002 (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 1958 (plurality opinion)

2.2. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 1976 (quoting In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 1890 see generally Alan Elsner, Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America’s Prisons (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2004)

3.3. See also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687, n. 9 (1978)

4.4. Schlanger 2013

5.5. Prison Law Office 2017

State facilities included 1,190 secure confinement facilities and 529 community- based facilities. Confinement facilities (prisons, farms, camps) are typically larger and more remotely located than community-based facilities (halfway houses, restitution centers, prerelease centers, work release centers, and study centers). All or most of those held in community-based facilities are regularly allowed to leave on their own for work or study, while those in confinement facilities generally do not have this liberty. Community-based settings cost less than prisons and allow inmates to retain or reestablish connections with their families and communities, employment, education, rehabilitative programming, and other services. These settings can be used as alternatives to traditional secure confine- ment or as a transition between prison and the community.

p.128

Although representing just 4% (54,233) of the total state and federal prison population, between 1995 and 2005, the number of people serving time in community-based facilities rose at almost twice the rate of those serving time in secure facilities.

© iStockphoto.com/thawornurak

In America, a person’s race and

ethnicity have a strong correlation to

one’s likelihood of incarceration.

Facility Capacity

As one would expect, the 30-year growth in prison populations described above was accompanied by similar increases in the number of prison facilities. Issues with crowding and conditions of confinement also grew. All but 12 U.S. states had at least one prison under court order (consent de- cree) either to reduce overcrowding or for specific issues with conditions of confinement in 2000 or 2005. At the end of 2015, 18 states and the federal prison system held more inmates than their

facilities were designed to hold.9

Prison Costs Burgeoning prison systems have exerted

increasing strain on government budgets. As state revenues have decreased, housing, feeding, and providing medical care for growing numbers of low-risk prisoners has emerged as an extravagant use of scarce taxpayer dollars—ever more difficult to justify as other vital services suffer, such as education, health care, and transportation. These fiscal constraints are prompting lawmakers to cut corrections expenses. Just as policy decisions have driven growth, they also drive cuts. Some states are looking at lower-cost measures that emphasize such strategies as treatment in the community, collaboration among relevant agencies, and improved re- entry programming.

According to a 2011 survey by the Vera Institute, the total state prison costs for 40 of 50 states was $39 billion. Vera calculated costs for each state, taking into account the additional costs of incarceration that often fall outside of the prison budget. These include employee benefits, capital expenditures, legal claims, private prisons, and statewide administrative costs. Each state has its own mix of these budget items outside the direct prison budget, varying from less than 1% (Arizona) to 34% (Connecticut). The Vera survey controlled for this. The average annual per capita expenditure on each prisoner was just over $31,000. The range was from $14,600 (Kentucky) to

$60,000 (New York).10

The meaning of per-prisoner costs is complex. Lower spending can mean substandard services, such as avoidance of needed medical care, which is one of the main drivers of prison costs. In addition, per-prisoner costs do not measure facility crowding, staff working conditions, recidivism, or public safety.

p.129

The Federal System The federal penal code covers a vast range of areas—for example, commerce, federal elections, food and drugs, customs, and income tax issues. Federal prisoners are those convicted of or charged with breaking a federal law such as drug trafficking across state borders, bank robbery, tax evasion, white-collar crimes that involve interstate commerce, mail fraud, crimes that occur on federal property, or immigration law violations. Persons convicted of felonies in the District of Columbia and on Indian lands also fall under federal jurisdiction. A former student who was convicted of hacking Sarah Palin’s e-mail was sentenced

to a year and a day in federal prison.11

Figure 6.2 Offense Types of Sentenced Prisoners* in State Prisons, 2015

Source: Carson and Anderson 2016.

Figure 6.3 Offense Types of Sentenced Prisoners* in Federal Prisons, 2015

In 2015, violent offenders made up just over half (53%) of state prisoners, property offenders 19%, drug offenders 16%, and public order offenders 12% (see Figure 6.2). In the same year, violent offenders made up just 7% of federal prisoners, property offenders 6%, drug offenders 50%, and public order offenders 36%. * Serving a sentence of at least one year. Most serious conviction offense is reported.

Violent offenses include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, manslaughter, rape, other sexual assault, robbery, assault, and other.

Property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, and other.

Drug offenses include trafficking, possession, and other.

Public order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice,

morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other.

Source: Carson and Anderson 2016.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) operates institutions of five security levels. It also operates prison camps and a number of administrative facilities that have special missions, including detaining pretrial defendants and treating prisoners with serious medical conditions. There is one federal super-maximum-security prison called the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, or ADMAX, in Florence, Colorado, which has the capacity for 490 prisoners and 800 staff. The federal system operates one low- security prison for women and three others that house both women and men. It operated Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay until its closure as a prison in 1963. Alcatraz is now one of the most frequently visited sites in the National Park system.

History and Growth of Federal Prisons

The first federal prison was authorized in 1891 and took more than 10 years to build. Prior to that, the few federal prisoners that there were stayed in military facilities such as what existed in Leavenworth, Kansas. The federal government gradually added more specialized prisons for women and juveniles to the system.

President Herbert Hoover signed the bill to create the Bureau of Prisons in 1930. The BOP was intended to bring about a more centralized and uniform system that had higher professional standards and exercised more humane care of prisoners than those that existed at the time.

p.130

Table 6.2 Length of Stay (in months) of Sentenced State Prisoners

Between 2002 and 2012, the average length of stay for state prisoners admitted for a new offense remained relatively constant. Table 6.2 shows that average time served for violent and property offenses remained the same, for drug offenses dropped slightly, and for public order offenses

rose slightly.12

Source: Carson 2017.

Over the decades, the major increases in

prisoner population were driven mainly by changes in federal legislation and sentencing policy. The Volstead Act of 1919 (Prohibition, or the Eighteenth Amendment) criminalized the production and sale of alcohol and therefore created thousands of new prisoners. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished federal parole and ushered in determinate sentencing and mandatory minimums. This was a move away from judicial discretion and earned good-time credit. The result was longer sentences, which helped fuel the rapid growth of the federal prison population. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 sent the federal prison population in the other direction, reducing sentences for certain drug offenses (see Chapter 3 Spotlight “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010”). Besides Congress, White House policy and presidential appointees in the Department of Justice can drive federal prison populations up or down. Recent reductions in the federal prison population were partially facilitated by Obama-era directives to prosecutors to consider each case individually rather than uniformly pursuing the most serious charges and toughest penalties allowed by federal sentencing guidelines. This more nuanced and, some would say, lenient approach was a change from the “law and order” Bush administration and was quickly reversed by Trump appointee Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

© REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Illegal immigrants line up against a

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security bus in El Paso, Texas, so they

can be unshackled and led across the

border to Juarez, Mexico, by

Immigration and Customs

Enforcement agents, 2009.

Trends in the state prison population are not so easily swayed as federal prison counts, because each state has its own system. However, states do tend to follow suit, if gradually, when federal correctional laws and policies change. Further, Supreme Court decisions can directly impact state systems, as when the Court forbade the death penalty and life without the possibility of parole for minors. And Congress can make federal funding contingent on states abiding by correctional legislation, as it does for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (see Chapter 8).

Immigration and Federal Prisons

Tensions run high over issues surrounding immigration—especially in the border states. Increases in illegal immigration and the related policies and practices of law enforcement have altered the federal prison population’s racial and ethnic composition. Racial disparity is a chronic problem in all parts of America’s criminal justice system. Clear-cut evidence that policy drives the disproportion is perhaps nowhere more evident than in federal prisons (see Chapter 11).

State Prisons State prisons are the “workhorses” of corrections in the United States. In 2015, they held 87% of the nation’s 1.5 million prisoners (again, not counting jail inmates). Three states accounted for over a quarter of all state prisoners—Texas, California,

and Florida.14 State corrections systems are administered by the executive branch of state government, whereas jails are usually administered at the county or city level, and probation is often under the authority of the judicial branch.

p.131

Figure 6.4 Federal Prison Population

Growth

In 1940, the population of the federal prison system was approximately 20,000. By 1980, that population had grown by only 5,000. However, it increased to 40,000 by 1986, doubled to 80,000 by 1995, and then more than doubled again to over 187,000 by 2005. Still dwarfed in number by the state system, this nevertheless represents an explosion of prison expansion, reaching a historic high in 2013 with over 219,000 prisoners. The federal population then fell to 188,513 by May 2017. This included 21,379 prisoners in private facilities and 13,388 in community-based

facilities.13

Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017.

Not surprisingly, states vary significantly in the locations of their facilities, how many there are, how many prisoners they hold, what types of security levels they maintain, and whether they adhere to a more centralized or decentralized model. Urban prisons are few. San Quentin is one such, and it is built on land that is coveted in a high-value real estate market. Rural prisons are a boon to local economies.

Building a prison near a small town is often viewed as a way out of economic depression. Besides prison construction and operation, there are many private and influential producers of supporting services and goods that make prison a mainstay of the economy. However, a community that has such a focused industry also runs the risk of subsequent economic hardship should the prison shut down.

Military Prisons and the War on Terror In the 2000s, the prisons that were often making news were those run by the U.S. military and associated with the War on Terror, especially Abu Ghraib in Iraq (now under sole Iraqi control) and Guantánamo in Cuba. These resemble maximum- security prisons in the United States for their heavily fortified settings and stark conditions of confinement, but they are not considered part of the U.S. corrections system as defined in this text. They hold mainly foreign inmates suspected of terrorist acts who are not afforded basic U.S. constitutional protections such as habeas corpus and legal representation. The facilities are, for the most part, not subject to the same laws, regulations, and processes as state and federal prisons and mainstream prisons and jails. However, largely because of their separate legal

Military Police at camp X-Ray on the

Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

bring a detainee to an interrogation

room, February 6, 2002. © REUTERS /

Marc Serota

realm, military prisons offer cautionary tales that apply to mainstream corrections. These facilities have documented and egregious histories of abuse by prison guards and military personnel, and they demonstrate the risk of a harshly punitive culture among staff, exacerbated by policies that are unclear, culturally insensitive, and inhumane.

p.132

Classification Systems By the middle of the 19th century, prisoners were routinely separated—men from women, children from adults, and the

healthy from the unwell. Reformers began to demand that prisons separate groups of individuals by their degree of criminality. Over time, a logical means of sorting prisoners grew in importance. Today, the general prison population is classified by risk level into units (some of which are for special populations) such as disciplinary segregation, protective custody, mental health, or medical units. Systems of classification are based on the premise that individuals with varying offense profiles, levels of risk, and methods of supervision require different security levels in custody.

The first prison classification screening tools were based on psychological and personality tests that were used on men entering the armed services during World War I. Up until the Progressive Era, when the concept of rehabilitation began to take hold, prisoners were separated simply according to their age, gender, and number of offenses; first-timers were kept away from repeat offenders, when possible. Beginning in the 1970s, the growing prison population led to a series of riots and allegations of abuse against prisoners. Charges of arbitrariness and unfair placement helped solidify the classification system as an essential part of a well-run institution. Institutions shifted toward objective classification based on reliable and valid criteria. This more diagnostic approach led to a medical-style model of

identifying problems and prescribing treatments. However, there was no standardization, and decisions were still

made subjectively.15

Narrow schemes based on a single variable have given way to a more modern approach that uses tools based on predictive data—tools that have been validated by a generally accepted method of evaluation. California and the Federal Bureau of Prisons were the first to develop such systems to improve consistency and the accuracy of risk prediction.

Prison administrators have their choice of many classification tools. These tools create a profile for each prisoner using tested predictors of behavior. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has developed a system called the Custody Determination Model. According to the NIC, the essential components of classification cover goals and planning, thorough implementation, the use of valid instruments, a formal and centralized housing plan, appropriate override factors, data collection and monitoring, and evaluation of the system’s process and impact.

p.133

Sophisticated classification systems are intended as strategic tools to manage prisons and as a safeguard to treat

prisoners fairly and safely. For many years, the standard has been to assign the least restrictive classification necessary to protect safety at all levels, to assess the needs of prisoners, and to promote positive change among prisoners through incentives rather than relying on the experience of prison officials to “know” how to place prisoners, or any other subjective method of decision making. Rules about how to place inmates were meant to ensure proper decision making, orderliness, and appropriate conditions for prisoners.

The basic system parameters are the prisoner’s conviction offense, age, gender (although almost all classification systems are designed for men), custody level, gang affiliation, general motivation level, and history of institutional “adjustment.” Assessment tools collect and measure additional details on mental and physical health status, substance abuse issues, academic and vocational education, work experience, relationships, history of trauma or victimization, and life skills. On the qualitative side, instruments assess personality traits, especially those related to prison life, such as attitude toward authority, level of motivation, expression of predatory tendencies, ability to form friendships, aggressiveness, passivity, fearfulness, and level of remorse.

Prisoners are assessed for classification

purposes when they enter the state or federal prison system, when they are admitted to the specific facility where they will serve their sentence, upon assignment to a specific housing unit, and any time they are transferred. Reassessments might be scheduled according to a person’s security level or could occur for a variety of other reasons determined by prison administrators, such as significant changes in an individual’s behavior. Classification systems can also help with developing the right kind and the right number of treatment programs based on the needs of the prisoner population, identification of good candidates for therapeutic commu- nities, establishing appropriate work opportunities, monitoring the gang population, and reducing racial disparities. Prison administrators must balance the assessment results with practical considerations, such as bed space; they must also periodically revalidate their classification systems and instruments to make sure they are working as intended.

Figure 6.5 Federal Immigration Sentencing, 2015

© iStock.com/VallarieE

Immigration violations fall under federal jurisdiction. In 2015, Hispanics accounted for 32% of individuals sentenced to federal prison for offenses not related to immigration, but a full 95% of those sentenced for immigration offenses. Most immigration offenses were either entering or residing in the United States illegally (82%) or smuggling or harboring an illegal alien (12%). The vast majority (92%) of immigration offenses were

committed by non–U.S. citizens.16

Source: Schmitt and Jones 2016.

p.134

SPOTLIGHT

ARIZONA’S IMMIGRATION LAWS

Controversy rages over immigration policies at the state level as well as on the national stage. Immigration laws present a host of thorny issues, among them the intersection of legislation, prison industry lobbyists, and persons entering the country illegally. Arizona passed a hotly debated law (SB 1070) that opponents see as racial profiling and supporters see as a bold step toward addressing illegal immigration from Mexico. Arizona’s highly charged policy of requiring the police to stop anyone who the officer has “reasonable suspicion” is in the country illegally and to detain anyone who is not in possession of proof of legal entry is certain to increase the number of persons detained by the state. National Public Radio aired a story several months after the legislation passed about the interests of the private prison corporations that

helped pass the legislation.1 Viewed

from a business perspective, new detainees equate to a new market; from this perspective, the law opens the door to for-profit prison industry “opportunities.” This clearly raises a new set of moral questions related to immigration. It may eventually be up to the courts to decide where to draw the line in the broader issue of what appears to be a serious ethical

conflict, that is, companies contracting for building prison space and lobbying the government to pass the laws that would ensure those prisons stay filled

and profitable.2 Besides the profit motive issue, the law has been challenged on several civil rights and constitutional grounds. In its first ruling on SB 1070 in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld police investigations of the immigration status of suspects but struck down other parts of the law, including its criminalization of the failure to apply for and carry a registration card indicating one’s legal status. Political pressure and other lawsuits eventually led to a 2016 settlement that dismantled much of the law. Law enforcement officers are no longer required to inquire about immigration status, but they may do so at their own discretion as long as other constitutional protections are respected.

QUESTIONS 1 Should each state decide its own

policies related to immigration?

2 Discuss what would be an appropriate definition of reasonable suspicion.

3 Discuss the problem inherent in private prisons lobbying for

punitive sentencing.

Notes

1.1. Sullivan 2010

2.2. Arizona v. United States 2012

Security Levels The security level of a facility is defined by a combination of architecture, rules, technology, and regimentation. Security levels are based on the kinds of controls considered necessary to accomplish the goals of incarceration and to prevent escape, violence to staff or other inmates, and other in-custody criminal or disruptive behavior. Both the state and federal prison systems have at least minimum-, medium-, and high-security (maximum) institutions. Each level of prison is subject to its own challenges in controlling behavior and in monitoring abuses of power. The differences in facilities related to security level include gun towers, external security barriers, cameras, razor wire, staff-to- inmate ratios, external patrols, and frequency of head counts.

p.135

Minimum Security

Negotiating With Protesting Prisoners

In response to complaints by some inmates about their deprivation of rights by being placed in administrative segregated housing units, a large number of prisoners go on a hunger strike. Spokespersons for the inmates say that many inmates are willing to sacrifice their health and safety to stop the harsh segregation policies. Dozens of inmates refuse to eat prison food and will not perform their work assignments. Some refuse to come out of their cells for daily exercise. The hunger strikers appear to represent inmates from diverse racial groups and gangs.

Prison officials claim that the hunger strike is a ploy by powerful prison gangs to increase their influence behind the walls. They claim that inmates are still eating food bought in the prison commissary and no one is at great risk. The corrections staff claim that current segregation policies are necessary to protect the safety of inmates and staff. They argue that to give in to inmates’ demands for change will undermine the authority of correctional officers and could lead to

more violence. Prison officials ask the courts to allow them to engage in

force-feeding of convicts who are facing imminent threat of death or serious health problems.

Families of inmates are protesting outside the prison gates, and they tell of dire health challenges faced by those refusing food. Many prominent celebrities, editorial writers, and politicians have rallied on behalf of the inmates’ cause, demanding that prison officials negotiate a resolution with the hunger strikers.

YOU DECIDE: As director ofAs director of corrections, do you negotiatecorrections, do you negotiate with the striking inmates or theirwith the striking inmates or their spokespersons to resolve thespokespersons to resolve the protest? What is the compromiseprotest? What is the compromise you seek?you seek?

These are the least restrictive facilities and have a range of forms, such as ranches, farms, or cottages. They are for prisoners who pose very little physical security risk— first-timers, white-collar criminals, or nonviolent prisoners with short sentences. Minimum-security facilities are the least oppressive and imposing. Minimum- security prisoners often wear their own clothing, but there is still regulation and regimentation. The less restrictive

atmosphere is not necessarily the most predictable or easiest to manage. Minimum-security facilities have their disadvantages; more interaction and less surveillance can open up opportunities for violence or abuse among prisoners and between prisoners and staff.

Medium Security

These facilities are more restrictive, designed typically with razor wire perimeters. They may have gun towers and guards on foot or in vehicles. They often have dormitory-style housing and fewer rules than maximum-security facilities. Prisoners wear institutional clothing but may have more freedom of movement within the facility, which is allowed for a population at lower risk for violence or escape. Medium-security facilities are often sectors of entire prison complexes, adjoining higher-security units or campuses. Administrators can easily transfer prisoners as they change classification levels. The possibility of transfer to a higher security level with stricter, more oppressive conditions serves as leverage that prison administrators can hold over inmates as a means of control.

Maximum Security

Maximum-security facilities operate with a focus mostly on custody and control and less on treatment and rehabilitation. These

facilities often impose 22 to 24 hours of lockup every day. They are the highest security level in most prison complexes. Because movement is so highly controlled and prisoners are more isolated from one another, these facilities may tend to have a lower incidence of violence and abuse than what is found in lower-security settings. However, orderliness is not necessarily a sign of effectiveness in achieving any kind of lasting behavior change.

p.136

The Supermax The super-maximum-security prison—or supermax—is the most extremely fortified form of incarceration in the United States, ostensibly reserved for the “worst of the worst.” Supermax facilities are intended for the most violent, escape-prone, and rebellious prisoners and gangsters who pose the greatest threat to the institution, to society, or to other prisoners. However, supermax prisoners are not all lifers; most of those held in the supermax are eventually released.

Journal Article Journal Article 6.2: Mental health is- sues in long-term solitary and “super- max” confinement. CLICK TO SHOW

Separate facilities or adjunct units in prison complexes, supermaxes, and specialty housing units (SHUs) hold prisoners in extreme isolation, confined to their typical six-foot-by-eight-foot cells for 22 to 24 hours a day; any other hours might be spent on exercise in a separate, solitary enclosure. Conditions vary from one to another of more than 55 such facilities in approximately 40 states, with a

total capacity of 25,000 prisoners.17

However, some of the common conditions include heavily reinforced concrete walls, floors, ceilings, doors, and windows; lights left on 24 hours a day; constant video surveillance; meals served through an opening in the door (the “bean slot”); and highly limited visits, mail, phone calls, and human contact. In addition, the administrators of these facilities have wide leeway to use their judgment in determining who goes to isolation and for what, how long prisoners must stay in isolation, and how to manage and discipline those prisoners without a great deal of review from outside the facility and without a regular prisoner grievance procedure.

According to one theory of corrections, the supermax concentrates troublesome inmates and cliques into one high-security environment—instead of dispersing them throughout the system—for a uniform scheme of supervision.

A 1999 NIC study revealed that there is no single agreed-upon definition about what a supermax is and who should be housed in one. Specifics vary widely on the criteria for admission or release, the maximum length of stay, the transition out of isolation, the inclusion or exclusion of the mentally ill, the amount and type of programming (in many cases, there is none), and the degree to which human contact is allowed.

The NIC finally adopted this definition:

A highly restrictive, high-custody housing unit within a secure facility, or an entire secure facility that isolates inmates from the general prison population and from each other due to grievous crimes, repetitive assault, or violent institutional behavior, the threat of escape or actual escape from high custody facility(s), or inciting or threatening to incite disturbances in a

correctional institution.18

Cruel and Usual?

Proponents of supermax isolation include prison officials and politicians who claim that it is a necessary means of control for those it houses and a deterrent to other prisoners. They say there are few alternatives for those prisoners who present a clear and imminent danger. However, even during the period of prison

expansion, when states were planning and constructing new supermax facilities, controversy swirled around them.

p.137

It is now widely accepted among penologists and researchers—and even some correctional officers and wardens— that the extreme conditions of the supermax exact a human cost in terms of cognitive and emotional health that is well beyond the goals of incarceration and may cross the border into pointless suffering. Indeed, esteemed criminologist Norval Morris stated that supermaxes “raise the level of punishment close to that of

psychological torture.”21

Figure 6.6 State Prison Security Levels

Source: Stephan 2008.

The deleterious impact of extreme and prolonged isolation is now known to be significant not only for inmates, but also for staff. Professor Craig Haney argues that the supermax environment reaches perverse extremes and negatively influences staff, who are also subjected to the dehumanizing architecture, degrading rituals, and emotional tensions. These conditions lead to a higher probability of maltreatment of prisoners ranging from

indifference to brutality.22

Although the supermax is supposed to be used only for the extremely dangerous, there are many instances of its use for punitive sanctions for lower-level prisoners or as “protective” isolation for HIV-positive or mentally ill inmates. The

NIC suggests that prison administrators should conservatively and clearly define the population for the SHU. Other prisoners should be housed in less extreme conditions, including the mentally ill, the “incorrigible” who need frequent segregation, those who need protection, those who need administrative confinement for separation but not control, and those in need of observation. “These facilities are inappropriate for the

nuisance inmate.”23

Figure 6.7 Federal Prison Security Levels

Overall, more than half (54%) of U.S. state prisons

are low security, a quarter are medium security,

and just under a quarter are high security.19

Federal prison facilities are 36% low or minimum security, 28% medium, 6% high or maximum, and about 30% are multilevel complexes or administrative facilities holding prisoners with particular needs such as those awaiting trial or

with mental health issues.20

Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017.

Due process is meant to govern any placement in the SHU. The criteria for release (determinate time, behavior change) must also be defined. SHU inmates are sometimes released directly to the streets, creating a public safety risk of unknown proportions. It has been shown that mental states can deteriorate rapidly inside these units, sometimes within days. Few prisons have a well-organized, stepped-down release plan for inmates who spend time in the SHU or the supermax.

p.138

SPOTLIGHT

ISOLATION AND THE SUPERMAX

Alcatraz, in the center of San Francisco Bay, is the forerunner of the modern supermax. In the nearly 30 years “The Rock” was in operation, the nation’s most notorious and hard-core prisoners lived there. Similarly, the likes of the Unabomber, Zacarias Moussaoui, and Juan Matta- Ballesteros are serving life sentences in the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADMAX) in Florence, Colorado. Their crimes are notorious, but many other unknown prisoners occupy the 550 underground beds of the only supermax operated by the Federal

Bureau of Prisons.1

Isolation as a tactic for control of prisoners is not a new concept, nor is the use of solitary confinement (the “hole”) new as a prison within a prison. These measures have been used for decades to break the spirit and make an example out of certain prisoners for certain behavior. In 1829, the Quakers who established the Eastern State Penitentiary believed that isolation with a Bible would lead a prisoner to recognize and repent for

his failings.2 Within decades, isolation had shown little appreciable effectiveness in accomplishing this goal and was largely abandoned for being an inhumane strategy.

The idea of the supermax came much later. In two separate incidents in 1983, two officers and one inmate were killed in the U.S. penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, which led to indefinite

lockdown of the entire facility.3 This penitentiary housed violent and rebellious prisoners and hard-core gangsters who manipulated their empires from inside prison. Later, in 1994, the federal government opened ADMAX, the first of many such super- secure-custody prisons. A majority of all states operate one or more supermax facility.

QUESTIONS 1 Should isolation be used as a

behavior control strategy? If so, who should be subject to it?

2 Research accounts by former prisoners who have spent time in extreme isolation. Discuss their experiences.

3 Discuss how you think you would be affected by spending time in isolation.

Notes

1.1. Collins 2004

2.2. Eastern State Penitentiary n.d.

3.3. Federal Bureau of Prisons n.d.-c

Challenges in court (Ruiz v. Johnson, Wilkinson v. Austin) have contested the standards for the operation of a supermax facility. In the 1995 case Madrid v. Gomez, a federal judge found that conditions at the now notorious Pelican Bay prison in California “may well hover on the edge of what is humanly tolerable.”

Besides their human toll, supermax facilities cost significantly more to build because of the heavily reinforced structure, perimeters, doors, locks, and electronic surveillance equipment. Operations cost more as well; the staff-to- prisoner ratio is as high as two to one.

Programs and Services There is a range of programs and services in prisons; the prison population has multiple needs that programs are intended to address. Structuring time and engaging prisoners in productive activity is widely seen as a key method of maintaining a safe and well-functioning facility. Punishment alone is not effective in reforming prisoners. Rehabilitative programs in prison, like those for probation and parole, are based on criminogenic factors—the risk factors that contribute to criminal behavior such as antisocial values and peers, certain personality traits, low self-

control, and family dysfunction. Programs are designed to address education, employment, substance abuse treatment, behavior and counseling, medical services, and recreation. However, the main function of prison is behavior control, and when officials are faced with a choice between the two, security always takes priority over the delivery of services.

SAGE News Clip SAGE News Clip 6.1: HIV-Positive Inmates in Alabama

p.139

Compared to the general population, prisoners typically have significantly higher rates of substance abuse, victimization, undiagnosed or untreated mental health problems, illiteracy, poverty, underemployment, and other forms of dis- enfranchisement. Thus, the treatment they do or do not get in prison can have a significant impact on subsequent

© REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Administrative segregation prisoners

take part in a group therapy session at

San Quentin state prison in San

Quentin, California. San Quentin

prison is California’s oldest

correctional facility and houses the

state’s only gas chamber.

successes and failures.

Attitudes about how to handle inmate needs fluctuate over time. Treatment as viewed from a medical model fell from favor during the 1970s, when the view that “nothing works” in rehabilitation took hold, and programs were greatly reduced nationwide. Representatives from both sides of the political aisle became suspicious of rehabilitation. Liberals criticized behavior change as mind control, and conservatives characterized addressing prisoner needs as pampering. Many of these attitudes persist, but the United States appears to be reawakening

© REUTERS/Clay Mclachlan

An officer checks doors at the

Adjustment Center group of cells

housing death row inmates inside San

Quentin.

to the idea that smart correctional policy includes well-designed and tested methods for dealing with the risk factors that are known to correlate with crime.

Still, many members of the public, lawmakers, and correctional professionals alike are skeptical about the value of treatment and services for prisoners. The public often resents prisoners when the perception is that prisoners have more opportunities than what is available to many in the community. It is understandable that prisoner access to medical care, for example, seems unfair to many law-abiding people who cannot afford it themselves. Despite the inequities, the solution surely can’t be to deny health care to the sick and elderly in

© iStockphoto.comfranckreporter

Once the site of harsh punishment

and strict isolation—while

tantalizingly close to freedom—

Alcatraz is now one of the most

prison.

Prisons enlist a gamut of providers, including teachers, counselors, case managers, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses, and chaplains. Their working conditions are often more challenging and their compensation is often lower than what they would earn for the same work in the private sector. Whereas the role of prison custodial staff calls on powers of control and intimidation, program and treatment providers offer benefits to prisoners and relationships that are defined more by trust.

p.140

visited of the U.S. national parks.

Service providers in prison, including teachers, encounter many obstacles to continuity and consistency. One of the major challenges in the delivery of effective programming is overcrowding. Not only is it impossible to conduct classes when classrooms have been retooled as dormitories, but a more pressurized atmosphere also leads to more frequent disruption and chaos, making scheduling, concentration, and learning or treatment even more difficult.

Program effectiveness is extremely variable and highly dependent on the way programs are conceived and implemented. All prison programs are by no means created equal. Evaluating them is an ongoing task of the research community and departments of corrections. The findings of research inquiry have the potential to inform and improve the delivery of effective programming. Moving toward more effective treatment in prison hinges in large part on the ability of leadership to enlist the buy-in of its line staff, whose day-to-day interactions and practical application of policy are crucial to the definition of the social order behind bars.

Federal Programming

The federal system runs educational programs such as literacy, English as a second language, and GED courses. Completion of a GED is a requirement to obtain anything above an entry-level job while in federal prison. In 2016, there were 15,822 federal inmates enrolled in GED

programs; 6,456 of them graduated.24 The system also administers hundreds of occupational programs, plus courses offered by other entities, including the Department of Labor. All federal facilities have some level of psychological and psychiatric counseling, substance abuse treatment being one focus of counseling. Federal prisons are under a mandate to provide drug treatment to every eligible

inmate.25

Federal Bureau of Prisons

In some prisons, especially women’s

facilities, inmates take part in service

dog training, which has many

emotional benefits for the

participants.

p.141

Education

Education has for decades been the cornerstone of rehabilitation philosophy. Support for prison education in the state and federal systems has come and gone over the years. But research gives credence to the concept that education is a sound, long-term investment in public safety. To paraphrase one reporter, not only does an education make it much easier for a parolee to find and hold a decent job, but—unlike drug users—there are no relapses for those who escape

illiteracy.26

A person’s education level may be one of the more reliable predictors of criminal behavior. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), roughly two thirds of prisoners have less than a high school education, and many have learning disabilities. Large numbers of prisoners need remedial education and basic literacy skills. Education is one type of prison program that is more understandable for its direct link to participation in the economy (and avoiding crime) and, therefore, is more acceptable to the public.

The capacity of prison educational programs is inadequate compared to the need. Even though 85% of all state and federal prisons have some kind of education programs, there are long waiting lists for enrollment, especially for GED

programs.27 In the federal system, having a GED is a prerequisite to eligibility for the higher-paying prison jobs.

Vocational training is also offered in just over half of prisons. However, vocational training in prison too rarely teaches skills that are truly marketable, especially in a rapidly changing marketplace. In addition, ex-prisoners, even if they do have skills, face public stigma and legal obstacles to employment in a broad range of jobs.

Some studies have begun to evaluate the link between prison education and recidivism. A 2013 meta-analysis by RAND summarized the results of such studies conducted over nearly 20 years. The aggregate results show a distinct and significant set of advantages for inmates that participated in education programs in terms of less recidivism (a 13% reduction), better job prospects after leaving prison (13% more former inmates found employment), and lower costs to prison systems for educating rather than reincarcerating prisoners. Further, the studies pointed to better results for inmates who received vocational education versus academic education and improved results in reading (slightly better) and math (significantly better) for those whose instruction included computer-assisted learning methods. In addition to measuring these beneficial outcomes, the meta-analysis concluded

that the next wave of research should focus more closely on what makes an education program high-quality, the best curricula, the optimum number of instruction hours, and more methodical ways of pooling and examining research

results.28

© Bloomberg/Getty Images

Inmates training to become

commercial underwater divers

receive classroom instruction on

diving history, science, and techniques

at the Marine Technology Training

Center, part of the California Prison

Industry Authority, of the state prison

in Chino, California.

p.142

A Texas study found that educational programs might be most effective in reducing recidivism, especially for the

most educationally disadvantaged.29

Brewster and Sharp concluded that a GED, whether it was mandatory or voluntary, was strongly associated with being less

likely to reoffend, especially for women.30

Although education is clearly a way to increase the skills and self-respect of prisoners, researchers have yet to fully evaluate the power of education to keep prisoners from committing new crime.

Recommendations from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office point to the difficulties in funding, participation, and program interruptions, among others:

• Fund programs based on actual attendance, not enrollment.

• Develop incentives for inmate participation and achievement.

• Fill teacher vacancies.

• Limit the negative impact of lockdowns on programs.

• Develop a case management system that assigns inmates to the most appropriate programs based on risk and needs.

• Base decisions for funding education on

ongoing assessments of programs.31

Drug Treatment

According to a report from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at

Columbia University, the prevalence of

drug and alcohol abuse among the prison population rose 43% from 1996 to 2006. The CASA research concluded that 65% of prisoners met the medical criteria for substance abuse, and another 15% to 20% were substance involved and under the

influence at the time of their crimes.32

These are, as expected, higher rates of use and abuse than among the general population.

Career Video Payne career video 6.1: Former Drug Investigator

Clearly, the need for treatment is immense. But there is a great deal of discrepancy between that need and how many prisoners are actually receiving related services. There were drug and alcohol dependency programs in 74% of state and

federal prisons in 2005.33 But some sources claim that only 17% of programs are effective, and only 12% of prisoners

are enrolled in substance abuse

treatment.34 Furthermore, in many ways, the prison environment is antithetical to treatment, which relies on trust, honesty, a certain willingness to be receptive or vulnerable, and, some argue, voluntary participation, which by its very nature is not possible in prison.

Physical and Mental Health

Care35

Prisoners have high rates of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and sexually transmitted diseases. Many of these conditions are associated with a high-risk way of life. These health conditions, especially HIV/AIDS, present challenges for prison administrators. Whether to test all entering prisoners as well as standing populations of inmates is highly controversial. Administrators may want to identify prisoners who test positive for the virus to segregate them and protect the others. However, such segregation stigmatizes prisoners and does nothing to promote education and appropriate protection for everyone in the system.

Prisoners also have high rates of chronic diseases, such as cancer, hypertension, diabetes, and heart conditions. Of the 3,927 inmates who died in state prison in 2014 (not including death penalty cases),

the leading causes of illness-related death were cancer (30%), heart disease (26%), liver disease (9%), respiratory disease (7%), and AIDS-related causes (2%). Suicide accounted for 7% of the deaths, homicides

2%, and drug or alcohol overdoses 1%.36

p.143

© REUTERS / Lucy Nicholson

Inmates exercise at a California state

prison in Chino, California, 2011. The

Supreme Court ordered California to

release more than 30,000 inmates or

take other steps to ease overcrowding

in its prisons to prevent “needless

suffering and death.” The U.S. has

more than 2 million people in state

and local prisons. It has long had the

highest incarceration rate in the

world.

There are high rates of mental health problems among prisoners, especially

women. According to a special report from the BJS, 56% of state prisoners in 2005

had a history of mental health problems.37

Many argue that mental health has been criminalized in U.S. society, resulting in the incarceration of people with mental health problems. Further, prisons and jails are not well equipped, and corrections personnel are not well trained, to deal effectively and humanely with the mentally ill. Mental health treatment is sorely inadequate in prison and mostly consists of the dispensing of behavior-modifying medication. Prison itself is considered to be a risk factor for mental health conditions.

Recreation

Recreation programs for prisoners are generally considered to be part of a healthy rehabilitation plan. It is not hard to imagine that recreational activities are closely tied to prison morale. Some of the activities offered in prisons may include exercise courses, team sports, woodworking, musical activities, open gym time, weightlifting, and an outdoor yard. These activities may be supervised by a specialist in recreation or a general correctional officer. Participation in some recreational programs may be contingent on good behavior; participants may have to be free of any behavior problems or rule infractions for a certain period to be eligible for recreation. Some programs may

entail a fee.

There is some controversy about recreation for prisoners. Most prison administrators recognize the value in maintaining some normal and healthy activity among the prison population. Recreation certainly contributes to that. On the other hand, media images of prisoners participating in recreation tend to convey the idea that prisoners have an easy and comfortable life. The public seems easily swayed into thinking that prisoners are not being punished enough if they have time to play baseball. In addition, images of prisoners lifting weights and getting stronger and more muscular seem to raise anxiety among the public, and perhaps even among prison administrators and guards.

p.144

SPOTLIGHT

PERSONALITY AND PRISON LEADERSHIP

Prisons have been run with a certain effectiveness by the force of personality of a single administrator

or warden. Dr. George Beto, who ran Texas prisons from 1962 to 1972, had such a personality. He imposed a paramilitary model of control that was highly effective in maintaining order and accomplishing his personal goals for the prison. He enlisted the “natural” prison leaders to help run or “tend” the prison and rewarded them for doing so. His method placed a nonnegotiable value on work and learning to read. Discipline was unwaveringly strict—with swift and certain consequences for stepping outside the lines; Beto literally had inmates walk between painted lines on the floor. He reinforced the behavior he wanted with a system of rewards as well. One problem with these methods is that it is almost impossible to pass them on to a successor. The personality itself becomes the method and is central to its effectiveness. Also problematic is the tricky balance between control as a means to instill order and discipline taken to an inhumane extreme:

A great problem in American prisons is finding something constructive for the inmates to do. In many prisons, especially in the north and east, they warehouse convicts—they keep them in cells and permit them to lie around all day long. Every able

man in our department works. And he works hard. . . .

If we don’t do anything else in the Department of Corrections we at least teach them the dignity of

work and the necessity of work.1

They’ve got this place so regulated that there’s no chance to screw up. Here, every decision, even the tiniest one, is made for you.... It’s like running a poultry farm. There’s good feed, the cages are clean, they wash down the animals, but it’s all mechanical. Honor, integrity, decency—these are the human things that there is no attempt to instill. It’s the antithesis of the outside world, where you have to take some measure of responsibility for yourself. They turn out great prisoners here—

but broken people.2

QUESTIONS 1 What are the most important

qualities for a prison warden to have? Why?

2 Should a warden institutionalize his or her personal methods? Discuss ways a warden might accomplish this.

Notes

1.1. George Beto in Chase 2009, 111

2.2. Frank Leahy in Chase 2009, 111

In fact, weightlifting was highlighted as the symbol of prisoner leniency during the get- tough 1990s. During the Clinton administration, Congressman Richard Zimmer (R-NJ), introduced legislation called the No Frills Prison Act: Amendment to Prevent Luxurious Conditions in Prisons. It was this legislation that helped to spur a debate on prisoner privilege in general, and weightlifting in particular. In the wake of the federal legislation, some states enacted similar laws, which also eliminated or limited cable television, computers, legal research materials, and many other amenities. Another side of this debate was well articulated by a group called the National Correctional Recreation Association (NCRA), which was founded by custody officers in the mid- 1960s. The NCRA defends recreation, including weightlifting, as building self- esteem and self-discipline, counteracting idleness, creating incentives, and relieving stress.

p.145

The American Bar Association (ABA) developed and adopted standards for the

treatment of prisoners that address

recreation and leisure activities and call for minimizing time in cells and daily opportunities to maintain physical health— in the open air, if possible.

Work and Inmate Labor

Of all public state and federal facilities, 95% have work programs. Inmates earn very little; wages are usually under $1 per hour. In some states, prisoners earn nothing for their work.

Exploiting captive labor and labor as punishment and as a way to accomplish large-scale public works projects is not a new idea. Slaves in Egypt built the pyramids, according to some theorists. Prisoners housed on a ship in San Francisco Bay built their own prison at San Quentin. One of the most potent images of captivity is the prison chain gang at work in the fields or on the railroads in the South. Prison labor has been used and exploited in various schemes and with varying degrees of attention to the welfare and civil rights of the prisoners.

There is a legitimate claim to valuing work as a productive use of time and as an opportunity to learn responsibility, self- discipline, and marketable skills. Structured time can increase the safety of the prison environment. Work as a rehabilitative strategy is also a legitimate

value. However, there is great potential to abuse and exploit prisoner labor.

Controversy still surrounds prison labor, and objections come from different camps. Labor unions complain that cheap prisoner labor undercuts them, and they object to unfair competition. Prisoners’ work often supports the very institution that confines them, but these jobs (from laundry to license plates) rarely prepare inmates for work on the outside. Contracting prisoner labor out to local industry creates a conflict of interest for wardens and sets up an unseemly motivation to maintain a prison population of a profitable size and fitness. These problematic interests have led to laws restricting the use, movement, or sale of prison labor and goods produced by prisoners.

The Prison Environment Prisons are large and complex organizations with several levels of administrative hierarchy. The prison warden is at the top of the chain of command and has ultimate responsibility for the facility. Leadership sets a tone and communicates a level of confidence and competence. Low confidence can destabilize the institution, which then becomes a more dangerous place. A power vacuum is always filled in prison. If prison administrators lose power, the strongest

among the prisoners stand to gain it.38

Feature Video Schram Personal Perspective video 6.1: Prison Culture

© Photo 12/Universal Images Group/Getty Images;

© Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis Premium

Historical/Getty Images

A Southern chain gang circa 1903 and

a modern prison work crew. How are

they similar? How are they different?

p.146

Wardens are accountable to commissioners or the head of the state’s department of corrections. Deputies oversee subdepartments, such as custody, programs, and industries. Line staff work directly with the prisoners performing searches, movements of prisoners, and head counts. Other staff support the functions of the prison, such as office personnel, accounting, purchasing, food services, and training. Providers of professional services are separate from the regular prison employees and are often under the direction of the state department of corrections. However, prisoners do much of the daily work of

running the facility.

The prison environment is one in which all aspects of the prisoner’s life are regimented and overseen. Individuality is systematically reduced through uniform clothing, removal of personal belongings, and assignment of numbers, among other measures. Prisoners get up, dress, eat, shower, exercise, and sleep according to the prison schedule.

The relationship between officers and prisoners is more complex and nuanced than one might assume. They are more dependent on one another than may be evident on the surface, and they are together for months or years on end. Except for the highest-security facilities, inmates and guards are in close physical proximity to one another for much of the day. Prison guards have the backing of the state and the institution—they have the weapons and the resources—but prisoners have many idle hours, devise creative solutions to problems, and outnumber the guards. It is in the interest of guards to engage in subtle negotiations of the more minor rules to gain cooperation with the more important rules that have to do with safety.

Prisons are social systems as well as penal institutions, with hierarchies, enterprise, and alliances—subtle and not so subtle politics and agendas—it’s what people do.

However, prison relationships are fundamentally coercive. Inmate social systems are guided by a code that solidifies prisoner unity against officials, even though there are other social divisions as well. Numerous subgroups within the inmate population and the staff often divide along lines of race, age, gang affiliation, or language, and loyalties within and among these groups vary to a wide degree. Nevertheless, corrections officers, as police (and, to some extent, most employee groups), tend to live by a code of silence—a value of never revealing damaging information about a colleague.

© REUTERS / Lucy Nicholson

An inmate is led by a prison guard at

the California Institution for Men in

Chino, California, 2011.

p.147

Correctional officers view their work role as everything from human service provider

to brutal enforcer. Their training is in many ways similar to basic military training, with emphasis on physical conditioning, disciplined behavior, and a component of classroom learning. Prison guards have the same daily environment as the prisoners. Their responsibilities include both the custodial and the rehabilitative, roles that can be challenging to balance. Because prison is a stressful and dangerous environment, there tends to be high turnover and rates of burnout. Personnel issues make management of the prison even more difficult. Where the ethnic makeup of the staff is distinctly different from that of the prisoners, significant cultural barriers between officers and prisoners often exist, including language barriers. Some officer training may include learning Spanish, for instance, in places where the prisoner population includes many Spanish speakers. Staff training is often an ongoing effort, especially in light of constantly changing legal requirements, such as proper handling of prison sexual safety and accommodations for disabled prisoners (see Chapter 9).

Discipline Prison discipline encompasses several levels of hierarchy. Prison administrators control prisoner behavior—a basic function of incarceration. Doing so presents the basic administrative

challenge of keeping order and safety inside a facility. There is also the balance between control of a prisoner and ease of abusing the power differential between captors and captives. Because of the “slippery slope” of total authority, prisons themselves must also be subject to oversight to monitor performance in carrying out the goals of incarceration and protecting the civil rights of prisoners. What happens when prisoners break the rules inside, and what happens when prison officials do?

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation introduces prisoner discipline as follows in its Operations Manual:

The Department provides a graduated system of inmate discipline designed to be administered commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. Discipline shall be so administered as to maintain control, conserve human values and individual dignity and promote socially desirable changes in

attitude and behavior.39

People in prison (presumably) have already broken society’s laws and are often not compelled to submit to authority. In prison, they are governed by an even more stringent set of rules and regulations than what exists on the outside. Despite all the means of control inside a facility, people

break the rules all the time, both prisoners and staff. Serious and violent crime as well as minor disorder occurs inside of prison. The warden is ultimately responsible for disciplining prison staff as well as prisoners.

Prisons have formal and informal schemes of consequences for breaking the rules, usually based on the granting or removal of privileges and comforts and presumably proportional to the seriousness of the behavior. Prisons have many rules, so rule breaking can range from relatively minor issues (petty theft or vandalism, misuse of telephone privileges, use of vulgar language) to very serious matters (possession of contraband, assault, or homicide). Privileges include mail, visits, phone calls, and recreation. Prisoners can be issued “tickets” for misconduct, whether minor or more serious. Typically, a disciplinary committee reviews prisoner complaints and charges against prisoners, conducts hearings, and makes determinations of guilt and punishment. Of course, a great deal of the daily negotiation for control goes on all the time in informal ways that are dictated by the relationships and culture inside the institution.

p.148

SPOTLIGHT

SPOTLIGHT

PRISON SEX CULTURE

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) was assigned the responsibility of assisting the corrections field in addressing the problem of prison sexual violence as part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. One element in that effort was a series of focus groups and interviews with staff from 12 facilities across the nation to increase knowledge about the realities of sexual culture in prisons and jails from the perspective of those who work closely with inmates.

The NIC conducted these interviews and produced three volumes of results from the research in partnership with the Moss Group, a Washington, D.C.– based consulting firm. The first volume focused on preventing and responding to sexual assaults in adult prisons and jails; the second, on investigating sexual assault; and the third, on sexual violence in women’s prisons and jails. These three documents provide a unique and in- depth look at the staff point of view on the subject of sexual behavior among prisoners and between staff

and prisoners.1

According to the reports, the majority of staff recognized the gravity of the issue of sexual misconduct and abuse; they believed that preventing it is an important part of their job. Staff generally believed that incidents were infrequent, although they conceded that they are difficult to count. Even without having direct or firsthand knowledge, and even if the victim doesn’t come forward, staff had a sense of when “something was wrong.” Staff developed a sense of who in the institution is likely to be vulnerable or likely to be predatory; they contended that smaller, younger, or more effeminate individuals are more likely to be victimized. Staff recognized what is referred to as the “grooming process” (cultivating a sexual relationship) or “protective pairing” (seeking shelter from a stronger, more experienced inmate as a benefit of a sexual relationship). Because of the deprivations of prison and jail, both women and men may engage in situational same-sex behavior. Others of their fellow prisoners may be offended by same-sex physical contact.

One of the main challenges cited by staff was being able to distinguish coerced sex from consensual sex. Though sexual relationships among prisoners are against the rules, they

may not constitute a law violation. The difficulty in getting to the truth about an incident has to do with a number of factors, including inmates being reluctant to tell because of the risk of retaliation for “snitching,” stories changing from one period of questioning to the next, or a lack of evidence. Also, falsely accusing a person of sexual misconduct or worse —whether it is alleged against a staff member or another inmate—can be used as a strategic weapon by individuals who have very little power otherwise. Almost all staff agreed that all reports of sexual abuse or violence must be taken seriously and investigated appropriately, regardless of who the alleged perpetrator might be. They also agreed that there can be no consensual relationship between a staff member and an inmate; such an alliance is by definition coercive and

wrong—morally, ethically, and legally.2

p.149

In responding to victimization, it is difficult for staff to balance their desire to be compassionate toward inmates and not wanting to open themselves up to being manipulated or accused of wrongdoing. As an example, staff opinion varied about whether and when it was appropriate to give a prisoner a hug.

Particularly in women’s facilities, sexual violence may tend to be less common than it is in men’s facilities, and incarcerated women focus more on relationships than men do. Staff observed that many conflicts or instances of physical violence among women prisoners stemmed ultimately from personal intimate relationships. Many incarcerated women have histories of abuse and unhealthy ideas about what constitutes a relationship. Some women don’t even know that they have a right to say no. There may be a great deal of confusion or misunderstanding of intentions, both among inmates and between them and the staff members. And intimacy —especially inappropriate intimacy— tends to exacerbate vulnerabilities

and create drama.3

In general, staff admitted to having inadequate training in detecting problem situations, responding to them in a professional manner, and preventing them from happening in the future. Some forward-thinking administrators are making a concerted effort to thoughtfully change facility and agency culture and to foster an environment that is safe for staff and prisoners alike.

QUESTIONS

1 Discuss ways that custody staff might be able to balance compassion and professional distance.

2 Why might a prisoner not want to report an incident of sexual misconduct or abuse?

3 Should staff try to intervene in prisoner relationships when they feel someone might be vulnerable to victimization? If so, how should they do so?

Notes

1.1. National Institute of Corrections and the Moss Group 2006, 2007, 2009

2.2. National Institute of Corrections and the Moss Group 2006

3.3. National Institute of Corrections and the Moss Group 2009

Especially for very serious behaviors, every prison must have a procedure that incorporates due process elements similar to what exists on the outside—in effect, a justice system within a justice system. Prisoners have a right to receive a complaint, have a fair hearing, confront witnesses, have help to prepare for the hearing, have the decision in writing, and appeal the decision. The right to counsel

was granted by the court at first, then was

taken away after two years.

The issue of prisoner discipline and prison oversight tests one of the stickier tensions inside prison. Espousing a more hands-off approach, John DiIulio stated that “prison officials oversee prisoners, and the courts oversee the prison officials. Courts have increased bureaucratization—more reliance on ‘bulky training manuals’ than the ‘integrity, personality, keen wit,’ and

discretion of the line staff.”40

Until the 1960s, prisoners were generally thought to have no rights, and the courts took a hands-off approach to corrections. The civil rights era helped to create a climate of change that affected prisoners as well. The Supreme Court case Cooper v. Pate recognized prisoners as persons whose rights are protected by the

Constitution.41 As such, they are allowed to sue prison officials for such issues as brutality, deprivation of medical care, or denial of other basic rights. They can also challenge the legality of their confinement through a writ of habeas corpus. Predictably, prisoner litigation skyrocketed after the Cooper decision. The next obstacle for prisoners was gaining access to legal counsel and the courts. It was not always the case, but now most prisons have law libraries, and prisoners are supposed to have access to legal counsel. Many prisoners have

pressed charges and succeeded in testing their rights in court, prompting judges to take more of an interest in prison oversight and influence reform measures. Despite the protections of the court, prisoners are still at a disadvantage to exert their rights and may fear retaliation by prison officials.

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

p.150

One of the difficulties with prisoner discipline is its potential for being applied in a capricious or unjust manner. Some wardens may make no apology for this. Others have instituted a more structured matrix for applying specific punishments for specific behaviors. In addition, a department should have prescribed methods for disciplining prisoners, procedures for investigation, and requirements for detailed documentation of incidents and their consequences.

SUMMARY

Prisons are intended to be the means by which society carries out its objectives of punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Although there are other ways to achieve these goals of society, the United States relies heavily on prisons as a correctional sanction.

Correctional facilities run by the federal government are for people who break federal laws such as those governing immigration and drug trafficking across

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

state borders. Each state operates its

own prison system as well, and over 85% of prisoners are in state prisons. There are many regional differences among state prisons and state criminal law. Many of these are problematic differences, with some states criminalizing the same actions that are legal in other states—crossing borders, marijuana possession, gay marriages, and abortion, among others. Rates of incarceration serve as the best method of comparison. There are striking differences in rates for minorities compared to Whites, for the wealthy compared to the poor, and for women compared to men.

Prisoners are usually classified into risk levels depending on their histories, their current offense, and other factors. Their classification level helps administrators separate prisoners into groups according to the degree of supervision needed to control behavior and administer services.

Prisons are architecturally varied but are typified by fortified structures, armed guards, razor wire, regimentation, controlled connections with the outside, and harsh conditions inside. Prisons are designed to accommodate a number of security levels—minimum being the least fortified for those prisoners who pose

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

the lowest threat to public safety and safety within the facility. Medium security is more restrictive, and maximum is even more so. The supermax exerts the most control and keeps some prisoners in extreme isolation. Prison life is fraught with controversy. There are ongoing tensions and legal challenges between the administration of prisons and the rights of those confined inside.

Prison is used in the United States more than in any other nation, and the consequent financial and social costs are extremely high. Prisons are expensive to build and to operate. Addressing the basic needs of prisoners costs the taxpayers. Again, addressing the underlying issues that contribute to criminal offending is also expensive but may be considered an investment in the future safety of the community, as healthier, better educated, less drug- dependent, more employable former prisoners have a better chance of staying out of prison.

Conditions inside of prisons affect the prisoners and the prison staff as well. Discipline and maintaining order involve a complex balance of objectives for prison administrators. Research can help identify the ways in which prisons can operate more efficiently and with better success in rehabilitation.

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

p.151

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. 1. What are the main objectives and

functions of incarceration?

2. 2. Discuss the U.S. reliance on prison as the main means of correctional control. What might be viable alternatives?

3. 3. How do state correctional systems compare to the federal system?

4. 4. Discuss comparative rates of incarceration for males and females and for different ethnicities and races.

5. 5. How does prison crowding affect administrators, guards, and prisoners?

6. 6. How do immigration laws interact with prison privatization?

7. 7. Discuss a plausible step-down strategy for releasing inmates from supermax facilities.

8. 8. Describe the main intent behind prisoner classification systems and discuss the problems administrators face in implementing them.

9. 9. What kind of services should prisons provide to prisoners, and why?

10.10. How are prisoners and guards

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

dependent on one another?

KEY TERMS Community-based facilities, 127

Consent decree, 128

Contraband, 147

Criminogenic, 138

Cruel and unusual, 121

Disciplinary segregation, 132

Disenfranchisement, 139

Good-time credit, 130

Habeas corpus, 131

Halfway house, 125

Lockdown, 122

Protective custody, 132

Secure confinement, 127

Security level, 129

Supermax, 136

Therapeutic community, 133

NOTES 1. 1. Death Penalty Focus 2013; Radelet

and LaCock 2009

2. 2. Hall 2006

3. 3. Carson and Anderson 2016.

4. 4. World Prison Brief n.d.

5. 5. Wagner and Walsh 2016

6. 6. Carson and Anderson 2016

7. 7. Stephan 2008

8. 8. Federal prisons are managed by the

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Bureau of Prisons and generally hold individuals awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or serving sentences for violations of federal law. These facilities also hold some individuals awaiting trial or sentencing by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Marshals Service. Sentenced felons from the District of Columbia also serve their sentences in federal prisons.

9. 9. West, Sabol, and Greenman 2010; Carson and Anderson 2016

10.10. Henrichson and Delaney 2012

11.11. Protalinski 2011

12.12. Carson 2014

13.13. Federal Bureau of Prisons n.d.-d

14.14. Carson and Anderson 2016

15.15. Austin and Hardyman 2004; Carson 2014

16.16. Lopez 2009

17.17. Mears 2005

18.18. Riveland 1999, 6

19.19. Stephan 2008

20.20. Federal Bureau of Prisons n.d.-a

21.21. Morris 2017, 98

22.22. Haney 2003; Lovell 2008

23.23. Riveland 1999, 7

24.24. Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017

25.25. Federal Bureau of Prisons n.d.-b

26.26. Sterngold 2006

27.27. Stephan 2008

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

28.28. Davis et al. 2013

29.29. Adams et al. 1994

30.30. Brewster and Sharp 2002

31.31. Legislative Analyst’s Office 2008

32.32. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 2010

p.152

33.33. Stephan 2008

34.34. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 2010

35.35. Chari et al. 2016

36.36. Noonan 2016

37.37. Bureau of Justice Statistics 2006

38.38. Ross and Richards 2002

39.39. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2014

40.40. DiIulio 1987, 73

41.41. Cooper v. Pate 1964

DIGITAL RESOURCES

Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge at edge.sagepub.com/krisberg2e

SAGE edge for students provides a personalized approach to help you accomplish your coursework goals in an

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

easy-to-use learning environment. This site includes mobile-friendly eFlashcards and web quizzes as well as web, audio, and video resources and links to SAGE journal articles.

FOR FURTHER EXPLORATIONFOR FURTHER EXPLORATION AND APPLICATION, TAKE A LOOKAND APPLICATION, TAKE A LOOK AT THE INTERACTIVE EBOOK FORAT THE INTERACTIVE EBOOK FOR THESE PREMIUM RESOURCES:THESE PREMIUM RESOURCES:

Career Video 6.1:Career Video 6.1: Former Drug

Investigator

Feature Video 6.1:Feature Video 6.1: Prison

Culture

Journal Article 6.1:Journal Article 6.1: Prison archi-

tecture and inmate misconduct: A multilevel assessment

Journal Article 6.2:Journal Article 6.2: Mental

health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement

SAGE News Clip 6.1:SAGE News Clip 6.1: HIV-Posi-

tive Inmates in Alabama

SAGE News Clip 6.2:SAGE News Clip 6.2: Attica

Prison Riot

p.153

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

PRACTICE AND

APPLY WHAT

YOU’VE LEARNED

edge.sagepub.com/krisberg2e

WANT A BETTER GRADE ON YOUR NEXT

PRINTED BY: Jason Jones <[email protected]>. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

TEST?

Head to the study site where you’ll find:

• eFlashcardseFlashcards to strengthen your understanding of key terms.

• Practice quizzesPractice quizzes to test your comprehension of key concepts.

• Videos and multimediaVideos and multimedia contentcontent to enhance your exploration of key topics