The average Texas inmate was able to afford one five minute phone call every three months, yet this is only one example of severely limited interactions (Worely et al., 2010). The inmate population and eventually society are adversely impacted by the lack of contact or freedom in prison. Additional concerns include the impact elected isolation, inappropriate relationships, and snitching. It is hypothesized that limited amenities, lack of quality relationships, and institutionalization effect creates psychological issues for those who must re-enter society. Allowing some level of enjoyment and outside contact may be enough to encourage inmates to refrain from joining prison groups or disrupting the prison facilities. Other improvements can range from allowing the use of tobacco or increasing contact with outside contacts. If inmates fail to receive simple pleasures and freedoms while incarcerated, it is unrealistic to expect that inmates to maintain civil attitudes while incarcerated, or once released.
Additional Readings
The two additional readings used the same data set from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which had high levels of superfluous relationships between inmates and staff (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). The research initially contacted 508 prisoners who had committed boundary violations between 1995 and 1998, but there were only 82 positive responses (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). Ultimately, 32 inmates were chosen to participate in an unstructured interview that included 11 general questions about the relationships (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). Worley, Marquart, and Mullings (2003) used the data to develop an understanding of who initiates inappropriate contact, the ...
... middle of paper ...
...ork: Oxford University Press.
Hassine, V. (2011). Relationships between inmates and guards. In Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (Ed.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (pp. 86-89). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Henningsen, R., Johnson, W., Wells, T. (2011). Supermax prisons. In Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (Ed.), Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings (pp. 78-85). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Worley, R., Marquart, J., & Mullings, J. (2003). Prison guard predators: an analysis of inmates who established inappropriate relationships with prison staff, 1995-1998. Deviant Behavior, 24(2), 175-194.
Worley, R., Tewksbury, R., & Frantzen, D. (2010). Preventing fatal attractions: lessons learned from inmate boundary violators in a southern penitentiary system. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(4), 347-360.
" With violence affecting so many lives, one can understand the desire driven by fear to lock away young male offenders. But considering their impoverished, danger-filled lives, I wonder whether the threat of being locked up for decades can really deter them from crime" (305). Hopkins is definitely not our stereotypical prisoner. Most generally, our view of prisoners is not that of someone who has this profound use of wording and this broad sense of knowledge.
The picture this book paints would no doubt bother corrections professionals in prisons where prisoner-staff relationships and officer solidarity are more developed. In training, Conover is told that "the most important thing you can learn here is to communicate with inmates." And the Sing Sing staff who enjoy the most success and fulfillment i...
...they want to be not only respected but also being able to survive in the prison environment. In prison, there are so many inmates and not two inmates are the same. The inmates will disrespect the officers by calling them names, giving officers difficult times, but it goes the other way around too. It is disturbing image after learning that sometimes it is the officer’s fault and not just the inmates’ wrongdoings. There will be times when officers and inmates will engage in a conspiracy crime and times when the female staff is engaged in sexual actions with an inmate. Conover wrote this book to allow the audience to see the prison society from many different point-of-views and give future officers an early insight to becoming a correctional officer.
Relations during this time with the prison and the outside world are discussed, as well as how these relations dominated life inside of a prison and developed new challenges within the prison. After Ragen left, Frank Pate become his successors. Pate faced a problem because he neither sought nor exercised the charismatic authority of Ragen. The Prison remained an imperatively coordinated paramilitary organization, which still required its warden to personify its goals and values. Jacobs goes on to discusses how what Pate did, was not the same direction or ideas that Ragen was doing or had. Jacobs’s counties this discussion with the challenges and issues that prison had during the time of 1961 through 1970. Jacobs blames that the loss of a warden who could command absolute authority, the loss of local autonomy, it heightened race problems among blacks, and the penetration of legal norms exposed severe strains in the authrotitarian system, and says pate cant control
The correctional subculture is not described as extensively as the police subculture; however, many elements of misconduct and criminal activities are similar (Pollock, 2014). The parallelism of corruption between the police and correctional officer are as follows: (1) use of force; (2) acceptance of gratuities from inmates; (3) mistreatment/sexual coercion of inmates; and (4) abuse of authority for personal gains (Pollock, 2014). According to Pardue et al. (2011), there are two types of sexual coercion found within the prison subculture and they are as follows: (1) coercion between convicts; and (2) coercion between convicts and staff members (p. 289). The Department of Corrections is aware of staff sexual abuse and harassment of women prisoners, and they have been playing “catch up” to accommodate the challenges of this persisting problem (Clear et al., 2013, p.
Throughout his novel, Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire, author and professor Robert Perkinson outlines the three current dominant purposes of prison. The first, punishment, is the act of disciplining offenders in an effort to prevent them from recommitting a particular crime. Harsh punishment encourages prisoners to behave because many will not want to face the consequences of further incarceration. While the purpose of punishment is often denounced, many do agree that prison should continue to be used as a means of protecting law-abiding citizens from violent offenders. The isolation of inmates, prison’s second purpose, exists to protect the public. Rehabilitation is currently the third purpose of prison. Rehabilitation is considered successful when a prisoner does n...
...rulson, Marquart, Vaughn, Bever (2010). Additional research has revealed that individual-level risk factors, like gang history, recurrent prison confinements, active criminal justice status, previous arrests and convictions, substance abuse history, and others are associated with prison misconduct and violence among inmates (DeLisis, Caudill, Trulson, Marquart, Vaughn, Bever (2010). In other research inmates’ psychological characteristic were studied such as anger in relation to their criminal history, these variables also relate to misconduct in prison.
Lab, Steven P. “Institutional Corrections.” Criminal Justice: The Essentials. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
Stickrath, Thomas J., and Gregory A. Bucholtz. "Supermaximum Security Prisons Are Necessary." Supermax Prisons: Beyond the Rock. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Facility, 2003. Rpt. in America's Prisons. Ed. Clare Hanrahan. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
Ralph, P.H.(1997). From Self Preservation to Organized Crime: The Evolution of Inmate Gangs. In J.W. Marquart, & J.R. Sorensen (Eds.). Correctional Contexts: Contemporary and Classical Readings (pp. 182-186). Los Angeles: Roxbury
The past two decades have engendered a very serious and historic shift in the utilization of confinement within the United States. In 1980, there were less than five hundred thousand people confined in the nation’s prisons and jails. Today we have approximately two million and the numbers are still elevating. We are spending over thirty five billion annually on corrections while many other regime accommodations for education, health
During the early half of the 19th century, there were two new models of prisons being built in the United States. Along with the new styles of prisons being constructed, two new styles of correctional systems were developed, the Pennsylvania system, and the Auburn, New York system (Mays & Winfree, 2009). Although the designs of the actual prisons were dramatically different, both systems shared similar ideals, with regards to how inmates should spend their days. Ultimately, the Auburn system prevailed as the more popular system of corrections in the United States, with some of the system’s correctional philosophies being used well into the 20th century (Mays & Winfree, 2009). Before discussing the actual philosophies, which were used to manage the inmates in each system, we should first look at the difference in the design of the prisons used in each system.
The career of a correctional officer has always captivated me in a way that is difficult to explain. Even as a child, I recall tuning into shows such as Lockup and Lockdown. In fact, my earliest, most vivid memories consist of me sitting in front of a TV screen with my eyes mesmerized by the hardened criminals visioned on the screen before me. It may seem peculiar, but I’ve always pictured myself inside the prison walls. What’s even more peculiar is that I’ve seldom visioned myself as a correctional officer; in fact, I’ve almost always visioned myself as a prisoner.
Shelden, R. G. (1999). The Prison Industrial Complex. Retrieved November 16, 2013, from www.populist.com: http://www.populist.com/99.11.prison.html
2nd ed. of the book. USA: Penguin Books, Ltd. [Accessed 01 January 2014]. The Prison Reform Trust.