criminal Justice chapters need to be summarized
F.m.a.y
chapter_6.pptxChapter 6: Ethics in Corrections
The Prison Explosion
The number of state and federal prison inmates increased from 400,000 in 1982 to almost 1.3 million in 1999; as of December 31, 2002, the number of male prisoners in state and federal prisons had reached 1,440,655, and the number of female prisoners had reached 97,491 (Harrison and Beck 2003).
The cost of corrections has also increased greatly. For example, in 1982, federal expenditure on corrections was $541 million; by 1999 this had increased to $4 billion, an increase of 650%. In the states during this same period, there was a 476% increase in corrections expenditure (Gifford 2002).
Overall, at the end of 2005, 1 in 136 U.S. residents was in prison or jail.
The Prison Explosion
The federal government increased its expenditure on corrections between 1982 and 2003 by 925%.
The number of women prisoners is expected to increase by 16% by 2011.
The female prison population has more than doubled since 1990. Growing at a faster rate than the male prison population.
Maximum Security Conditions
In his classic work on a maximum security prison, Sykes (1958, reprinted 1999) singles out as central to maximum security the fact that “the maximum security prison represents a social system in which an attempt is made to create and maintain total or almost total social control” (1999: xiv).
Prison conditions have changed since Sykes completed his work. One example is the conditions at Wisconsin’s Supermax Correctional Institution as described in the class action El and others v. Berge and Litscher (2001).
Maximum Security Conditions
The class action alleges that prisoners are with suicidal thinking, among other things, and that excessive use of force is a daily occurrence at the prison.
Another example of maximum security is Pelican Bay. The prison is entirely automated and inmates have almost no face-to-face contact with guards or other inmates (Austin and Irwin 2001: 127–128).
The justification for the creation of the costly supermax prison is by no means clear. They are said to have been constructed to house “the worst of the worst” (King and others 2008: 144).
There is an absence of empirical evidence and the rationale for the supermax prison continues to be questioned on theoretical, empirical and moral grounds (Sundt and others 2008: 95).
Medium and Minimum Security Conditions
Medium security prisons:
generally secure prisoners with double fences topped with barbed wire and house about one-third of all inmates.
often adopt the same procedures used in maximum security prisons, such as head counts and a high level of supervision.
are different from maximum security prisons because inmates work without constant supervision.
Minimum security prisons:
hold about 10% of all inmates, most of whom are non-violent, first-time offenders, and white collar criminals who are not considered to be dangerous.
emphasize a more normal life with open gates and a focus on vocational training.
Corrections in the 1960s
As Crouch (1980b: 12) explains, during the 1960s the courts reoriented their view of inmate petitions and claims, defining four general categories of prisoners’ rights:
prisoner access to the court to challenge convictions and treatment during confinement;
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, extending it to include conditions such as overcrowding and isolation;
procedural protections applying to decisions like discipline, transfer, and eligibility for parole;
the First Amendment freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech, as well as the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of race
Guarding Ethically
The modern era of corrections brought with it ethical standards for corrections officers and management.
Specific rules prohibit corruption in the form of personal gifts, personal privileges and conflicts of interest.
Staff are also obligated to report corrupt or unethical behavior.
Commentators also have opinions on the ethical behavior of correctional officers:
George A. Vose Jr. contends that in order for offenders to learn to become responsible citizens, they must be treated civilly by guards.
Kleinig (2001: 7) singles out the issue of punishment as central. As such, incarceration is punishment itself and that the purpose of incarceration is not to administer punishment additional to the inmate’s deprivation of liberty.
The Experience of Guarding
About one-third of guards interviewed by Lombardo (1989: 140) explained that the most dissatisfying parts of their job were danger and mental tension.
Guards often experience personal challenges from inmates. Concern for security and order cause guards to be suspicious of any events that interrupt prison routines.
One tenet of guard work taught to new recruits is the need to maintain social distance from the inmates (Crouch and Marquart 1980: 90).
Guards are also concerned about a lack of understanding from inmates.
Corruption of Authority
Corruption of authority refers to a practice by guards of deliberately refraining from enforcing prison rules and regulations.
When a guard decides how and when to enforce the rules, his or her decision is often seen as a corruption of authority (Lombardo 1989: 201). Deciding not to enforce rules is considered necessary to gain inmate cooperation.
Crouch and Marquart (1980: 77–78) summarize two other forms of potential corruption.
A loss of authority occurs when guards become too friendly with the inmates and fail to maintain the appropriate social distance.
The handing of tasks over to inmates creates a situation in which guards may become dependent on inmates.
Power and Authority: Controlling the Inmates
Hepburn (1985: 146) catalogs five forms of power:
Legitimate power
Coercive power
Reward power
Expert power
Referent power
Lombardo (1989: 93) also developed a typography of guard authority, comprising personal authority and legalistic authority:
Personal authority
Legalistic authority
Controlling the Inmates
According to one study, prison officials see themselves in a constant battle for compliance with the inmates (Sykes 1999: 38).
The close, intimate relationship and association between guards and prisoners gave rise to a relationship of reciprocity because guards could not remain distant from inmates or completely withdraw from them.
Sykes (1999: 50) does not think that rewards and punishments offers an adequate basis for guards to enforce control.
Guards who write violation reports for minor offenses are seen by inmates as lacking the ability to handle things on a man-to-man basis.
It is common within the prison environment for guards to exercise various informal controls. The operation of such can produce ethical issues and dilemmas.
Guarding with Discretion
The discretionary power of guards is shaped less by formal rules than by “an explicit understanding of the shared operational values and ethical principles that govern correctional practice” (Pollock 1994 in Gilbert 1999: 275).
In their research at an Atlanta prison, Guenther and Guenther (1980: 162) identified strategies that guards employed to minimize loss of control. Shakedowns, the use of informers to locate contraband or get information about potential violence or escape attempts, “the count” and the “siphon” all helped eliminate troublemakers and simplify the process of maintaining order.
Prison Guard Subculture
Kauffman (1988) argues that prison officers are a part of a distinct subculture, one that sets them apart from other professions. The central norms of this subculture inform their daily performance of duty.
Subculture and socialization: during training, guard recruits are socialized to the guard subculture.
In discussing the socialization of guards, Kauffman found that guards tended to appropriate the vales of the prison over their own established behavioral norms. There was a considerable dichotomy between the formal training program the guards had undergone and the on-the-job training they received.
Guard Types
Kauffman (1988L 250-251) identified five types of guards:
Pollyannas were guards who cared about their colleagues but were critical of the manner in which they dealt with inmates.
White hats were guards holding positive attitudes towards inmates but negative attitudes towards their fellow guards.
Hard asses were the antithesis of white hats, showing hostility towards inmates but identifying closely with fellow guards.
Burnouts displayed negative attitudes towards both their fellow guards and inmates, and were able to cope with the prison experience only barely, if at all.
Functionaries coped with prison by closing their minds to it, including both inmates and guards.
Use of Force
There are many situations within the prison environment that might provoke the use of force by guards in attempt to control inmates.
Kauffman’s research (1988: 222) found that most guards were horrified at the extent and nature of violence within prison. In coping with ethical dilemmas, many guards attempted to avoid actions that would injure inmates by refusing to carry out certain duties.
As guards become more socialized within the subculture, however, their ability to abstain from morally questionable acts weakened and they began to construct the prison as a separate moral realm and to perceive their dealing with prisoners as outside of common ethical norms.
Use of Force
The American Correctional Association Code of Ethics stipulates that members of the ACA must respect the “dignity and individuality of human beings” and must be committed to “professional and compassionate service.”
Guards’ use of force generally takes place within the formal structure and framework of prison rules and regulations designed to control prisoner conduct. However, sometimes force may be used informally
Use of Force
When discussing their justifications for using violence, guards focused on the inmate himself, on relationships among guards, and on the individual guard who engaged in the violence (Kauffman 1988” 141).
Guard violence was commonly justified as a means of controlling inmates, and many guards felt unable to maintain control without at least referring to violence.
Another justification was the belief that guard violence deterred inmate violence against guards.
The Court’s View of Use of Force
Walker (1996: 144) notes that over the past few decades, the courts have limited such force, but that guards are still given more latitude than police officers in the use of deadly force.
U.S. v Nix (1974)
McCullough v. Cody (1986)
Prisoner “Power”
Some activities on the part of inmates can be viewed as attempts to gain power or to resist guard power, such as using the court process to enforce rights, manufacturing weapons, employing unprovoked violence against guards, and coercing other inmates.
Kauffman (1988: 71) points to the upsurge in prison litigation during the 1960s and 1970s as instances of inmate “power” that counterbalanced administration power over inmates.
One study (Light, 1991) found the majority (26%) of assaults of officers by prisoners were random acts of violence. The second most frequent (13%) reason for an assault was as a response to a direct order from a guard.
Unethical Situations
Rape in prison has been defined as “all forms of sexual violence inflicted on anyone in custody, including someone awaiting trial in a county jail” (Stop Prison Rape 2007: 4).
A 1980 study of New York State male prisons revealed that 28% of inmates reported being targets of sexual aggression but only one inmate reported being report.
There is a wide disparity between reported rapes as notified by prison authorities and inmate victimization surveys. The latter show far higher rates than the official statistics.
Unethical Situations
Rape in Prison
According to Human Rights Watch (2001), the response of guards to complaints of rape is often inadequate and even callous, and gay inmates in particular, unless able to show clear physical injury, tend to have their complaints ignored because prison officials assume consent in sexual acts involving gay inmates.
In 2003 the President signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the first U.S. law addressing the issue of male prison rape.
Transgendered prisoners present special problems for correctional facilities.
For example, a study of assaults in the California prison system found that 59% of transgender inmates reported having been sexually abused compared with 4% of the general inmate population (Nader 2010: 83).
Transgender inmates are often held in solitary confinement based on PREA laws for “their own protection” (Shah 2010).
Unethical Situations
Unethical Situations
Corruption:
In a 1995 study, McCarthy examined 122 cases of alleged corrupt practices in the State Department of Corrections. The study revealed four major offense categories and a miscellaneous category comprising theft, embezzlement, trafficking, and misuse of authority. Theft made up one-quarter of all cases.
Whistle Blowing:
Hamm (1995: 202) provides several case studies that had a positive effect on a correctional organization (see Case Study 6.8).
Ethical Considerations in Probation and Parole
Like corrections officers, probation and parole officers are faced with decisions about whether to emphasize the protection of society or to aid the offender.
They are also accountable to demands from administrators and politicians about how their duties should be carried out.
A major ethical debate within the probation field concerns the issue of arming probation officers.
The American Correctional Association’s view on this issue is that there should be a demonstrated need for firearms, and once this need is clear, adequate and ongoing training in their use must be provided.
Chapter Summary
What should be the basis for an ethical system of guarding prisoners?
As with law enforcement, discretion is a critical component of correctional work even though the correctional discretion is considerably constrained by written rules and regulations that determine conduct for both guards and inmates.
Closely linked to discretion is the prison guard subculture.
Guard use of force is a major ethical issue in the prison environment. Despite detailed rules and regulations about the use of force, including deadly force, it is clear that some prison systems allow extralegal physical force to be used against inmates, and that this represents a part of the guard subculture because fighting an inmate is regarded as an expression of guard masculinity and machismo.
