Journal of Crime and Justice PENAL REFORM AND ...

This article was downloaded by: [UAA/APU Consortium Library] On: 21 March 2014, At: 06:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Crime and Justice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ rjcj20

PENAL REFORM AND THE STABILITY OF PRISON ADAPTIVE MODES Chris Melde

a

a

Michigan State University Published online: 10 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Chris Melde (2008) PENAL REFORM AND THE STABILITY OF PRISON ADAPTIVE MODES, Journal of Crime and Justice, 31:1, 59-80, DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2008.9721244 To link to this article: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2008.9721244

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or

Downloaded by [UAA/APU Consortium Library] at 06:28 21 March 2014

warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


Journal of Crime and Justice Volume 31 Number 1 2008

59

PENAL REFORM AND THE STABILITY OF PRISON ADAPTIVE MODES

Chris Melde Michigan State University

ABSTRACT A dramatic sh$ in penal philosophy has occurred over the past thirtyyears. Incapacitation and punishment have efectively replaced the rehabilitative goals of mid-2flhcentury corrections, To assess how this change has affected the day-to-day lives of inmates, face-to-face interviews with men currently incarcerated in a maximum security Missouri prison, as well as historical accounts of “doing time,” are used. Findings show that past accounts of doing time show striking similarity to modern day explanations of everyday life in prison. Results lead one to call into question the impact penal ideology, whatever it may be, has on the experience of doing time in US.prisons.

INTRODUCTION Recent criminological literature has documented a general change in the focus of correctional institutions (Reitz, 2000; Petersilia, 2003). Beginning in the mid 1970s, researchers began to detail the consistent failure of prisons to rehabilitate offenders (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967; Martinson, 1974; Glaser, 1969)’ creating a “nothing works” mentality that was widely accepted by those on both sides of the political spectrum (Zimring and Hawkins, 1995). In place of rehabilitation, incarceration was accepted as the tool for the punishment and incapacitation of offenders. Along with this shift in ideology came an expansion in the prison population that continues today. Between 1980 and 2000 our


60

Journal of Crime and Justice

nation’s prison population has expanded from approximately 100 to 500 persons per 100,000, in spite of a recent downturn in overall crime rates (Irwin, 2005). In all, while the U.S. was once viewed as an innovator in penal reform, focusing on the rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted offenders, prisons today are seen as little more than “warehouses” for the down and out (Irwin, 2005) or “waste management” facilities (Feeley and Simon, 1992). The change in correctional philosophy from rehabilitation and reintegration to punishment and control was followed by a period with a paucity of scientific research on the inmate experience. Instead, philosophical appraisals of the current state of penal affairs and quantitative analyses of recidivism rates and violence in prison have been the center of modem correctional literature. Lost in this lengthy discussion of “what should be” in prison is an understanding of “what is.’’ As Lorna Rhodes documents (200 l), currently, few empirical observations can be found to back many of the theoretical and philosophical debates about the optimal correctional focus. The current shortage of qualitative research on penal institutions in the United States has not always been the case. In depth examinations of prison society, as well as first hand accounts of prison life were prevalent in the mid 20thcentury. Groundbreaking works by Clemmer (1940), Sykes (1958), Irwin (1970), and Jacobs (1977) opened the scientific community’s eyes to the realities of prison life. Yet today, as U.S. prison numbers continue to grow in spite of dwindling crime rates, in-depth examinations of these same issues are few and far between (for exceptions see Faulkner and Faulkner, 1997; Gartner and Kruttschnitt, 2004; Hassine, 2004; Irwin, 2005; Lerner, 2002; Schmid and Jones, 1993). Put another way, “the ethnography of the prison thus went into eclipse at the very moment when it was most urgently needed on both scientific and political grounds” (Wacquant, 2002: 385). Ethnographic accounts of prison society, and interpretations of the lived experience of those confined in our nation’s penal institutions could help shed light on the impact of documented changes in correctional philosophy. However, the basic question remains, ”how has inmate society changed under conditions where prisons’ populations have experienced extraordinary growth and prison management has undergone a wholesale rearrangement of mission and ideology?”(Simon, 2000:302). This paper is designed to help address this gap in the literature by describing the daily lives of inmates currently serving time in prison, and comparing these explanations with those of past prison ethnographies (especially Irwin, 1970 and Sykes, 1958). The primary


Journal of Crime & Justice

61

goal is to understand how widespread changes in the correctional system, including the sheer growth in prison population and the growing influence of prison gangs (Irwin, 2005), have influenced how inmates describe doing time. Data come from in-depth interviews with a sample of men currently serving time in a medium security facility in the State of Missouri. The State of Missouri has not been immune to the imprisonment binge noted above. In fact, the incarceration rate in the state of Missouri is one of the highest in the nation (gth overall), with an average increase in the incarceration rate in the last ten years over twice the national average- an increase of 2% for the US. versus 4.8% for Missouri (Missouri Department of Corrections, 2005). While Missouri is not representative of the United States as a whole, it has experienced tremendous growth in its overall rate of incarceration. Therefore, this study has important implications for policy as it allows for a comparison between a modem account of the inmate experience, and those documented before the drastic changes made throughout the late 20th century. From the findings, a better understanding of how changes in penal policy ultimately affect those serving time is possible.

ADAPTATION TO PRISON LIFE: A REVIEW OF THE LITURATURE Prison social organization has been documented for well over 100 years. For instance, Berkman (19 12) wrote about his experience in prison in the late 1800s, noting the roles inmates adopted to gain favor with those that could make doing time easier. His writings detail the role of “stools” and “trusties” that helped keep prison administrators apprised of the inner-workings of prison society, in turn receiving easier work assignments and other luxuries. Donald Clemmer wrote about these and other prison adaptations, and is most widely known for introducing the term “prisonization” to describe the process through which inmates take on “the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary” (1 940:8). Sykes (1958) made further sense of the prison culture by explaining the roles and behaviors of inmates from a structural hnctionalist perspective. In his writings, he explained that prison adaptive roles, such as “rats,” “real men,” “toughs,” and “hipsters,” are hnctional mechanisms through which inmates deal with the “pains of imprisonment” (Sykes and Messinger, 1960:19). Overall, Sykes


62


explained that adaptive roles, while different in nature, aid in coping with the depravities associated with life behind bars. Another well-known account of adaptations to prison life is detailed in John Irwin’s book The Felon (1970). Beyond the immediate influence this book had in the early 197Os, the timeliness of his writing is also remarkable. The data collected and described in The Felon (1970) takes place just before the ideological shift in corrections that spawned the current age of incarceration. In this seminal work conducted in the California prison system, Irwin illustrated how convicts navigated their daily lives before the dawn of the “nothing works” era. Specifically, Irwin described how inmates chose to answer the question: “How shall I do my time?’ (1970: 67). Irwin provided three possible answers inmates had for this question. The first is complete avoidance, as some cannot cope with the harsh realization of their impending confinement, and instead either commit suicide or “sink into psychosis” (Irwin, 1970: 67). The two more probable adaptations Irwin (1970) described were to keep to one’s basic orientation from the outside world, maintaining these values and norms within the institution; the other was to go native, making the prison world their own. Irwin labeled those who maintained their focus on the outside world as either “doing time” or “gleaning” (1970:68). Both of these groups tried to stay out of trouble, while also maintaining as high a comfort level as possible. To do so they usually kept to themselves, or a very small group. They avoided anything that would get them any more time or cause them any discomfort, which usually meant staying away from prison officials and troublemaking inmates. The main difference between the two groups was their focus on the future. Those who were merely “doing time” could see no significant changes in their eventual life back on the streets. They sought no identity reorientation, and no changes in hture criminal conduct. Their goal was simply to get out as soon as possible. “Gleaners,” on the other hand, made an effort to alter their life course through the resources available to them in prison. Their ultimate goal, besides getting out of prison, was to become a successful law-abiding citizen. On the exact opposite side of the spectrum from the “gleaners” are those Irwin (1970: 6 8 ) labeled as “jailing.” To jail is to cut oneself off from the norms and values of the outside world, instead focusing on the behaviors that would make one successhl within the prison. This often involved joining likeminded prison groups that sought power and prestige among the other inmates through central positions in the underground economy, as well as through physical coercion. At the



63

extreme end of those labeled as “jailing” are what Irwin called “lowriders” (1 970: 75); similar to what Sykes referred to as “gorillas” (1958: 90). “Lowriders” were hated by all but their small group of associates, because they were notorious for actively engaging others in physical confrontations, robbing cells, and generally forcing deference to their physical authority in pursuit of economic gain. Billy Robinson provides a description of the common sentiment inmates had for these groups: “He didn’t like or understand the youngsters but the joint was full of them now and he couldn’t avoid them. They were like a herd of animals, he thought. They wolf-packed people and were nothing as individuals” (1971 :39). Irwin describes these adaptations to prison life as rather nebulous, as it was nearly impossible to classify all inmates into one of these categories. Some inmates may start out in one group, only to shift to another over time. Still others may switch behavior patterns rather regularly, depending on their current situation. Normally, however, according to Irwin (1970), inmates would eventually conform to the norms of “doing time,” and separate themselves from large crowds and predatory acts of aggression. In other words, as an inmates’ tenure within the system grew longer, they generally conformed to a more individualistic style of doing time, a style more conducive to “the inmate code.” The inmate code, as described by Irwin (1970:69, 2005:32) and Sykes (1958), consisted of two maxims, “do your own time” and “don’t snitch.” To “do your own time” one was not to rely on others for their own self-preservation. If problems arose it was up to no one else to settle the dispute, whether it be through physical confrontation or by economic means. The second maxim of the prison code, “don’t snitch,” is found in many sectors of life in general, legal or otherwise. From the kindergarten playground to the police patrol units protecting our streets, a code of secrecy is deeply engrained in the minds of many. Just like in other segments of society, the concept was just as simple in prison, never provide incriminating information to the authorities, or as many of us learned at an early age; “don’t be a tattletale.” As will be discussed below, the grave consequence of the label “snitch” is understood by all members of prison society. While Irwin (1970) provided a thorough explanation of how inmates related to one another in the 1960s, it begs the question: How do inmates describe their relationships with one another today? Does the “inmate code” of the 1960s exist today? Are there any notable differences between doing time in the 1960s and today? Recent work


64


by current and former inmates has helped shed some light on these questions (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1997; Gartner and Kruttschnitt, 2004; Hassine, 2004; Irwin, 2005; Lerner, 2002; Schmid and Jones, 1993). For instance, Hassine (2004), a convicted felon serving a life term in prison, devoted an entire chapter to the inmate code of conduct in the third edition of his prison ethnography. He states that most prisoners still acknowledge the existence of the prison code, whereby inmates learn to mind their own business and never inform the guards of others’ actions. Hassine, however, does not believe that inmates actually live by this code. Instead, Hassine describes the inmate code as nothing more than a myth, as he stated “To prisoners, the Convict Code is a living thing meant more to create and express a sense of belonging than to dictate actual conduct” (2004: 205). Faulkner and Faulkner (1997) come to a similar conclusion, by noting the similarity in past accounts of the inmate code and those expressed in more recent time. However, they conclude that the inmate code has been weakened by the use of prison architecture and administrative policies that have ultimately led to a significant reduction in the probability of inmate violence. Faulkner and Faulkner conclude that this reduction in prison violence has rendered the convict code moot, unnecessary for survival in modern prisons. While the more recent works described above acknowledge the existence of the prison code, the authors conclude that the code may not exist as it once did. Whether through administrative practices (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1997) or a change in convict culture (Hassine, 2004), these authors conclude that prison today is qualitatively different than prisons of yesteryear. To expand upon these more recent works on the current state of inmate adaptive modes, in-depth interviews with currently incarcerated individuals are compared to early prison ethnographies.

METHODS The original intention of the following research with incarcerated inmates was to gain an understanding of the preparation these individuals were making for their eventual release back into society. It was soon realized this was a rather naive mindset on the part of the researcher. Instead of letting the inmates share their views of prison, an outside view about the role of prison was assumed. Assumptions were made about their beliefs, behaviors, and how they viewed their lives. In



65

sum, it was assumed that inmates would see prison as an opportunity to change, and that their daily lives would be directed by this overarching goal. It took only a couple of interviews to become apparent that, while the inmates labeled the facility a “going home prison,” the inmates’ focus was generally not so far-sighted. Instead, their focus was on “doing their time,” and the navigation of their current environment in the most secure manner possible. While nearly all had some experience in prison programming and made general comments on their plans for future employment and relationships on the streets, a reoccurring theme centered on the notion of living “day to day.” Accordingly, my questioning of these individuals came to incorporate this element of time, and my questions became more focused on how they carried out their daily lives in prison. Like Irwin’s (1970) work over thirty years ago, “How one does their time” still plays a major role in the lives of inmates. The question remains, however, have inmates’ explanations of doing time changed since Irwin’s writing? The following analysis is based on face-to-face interviews conducted with nine inmates in a level-3 Missouri Department of Correction’s facility; a system that ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest level of security. Inmates and staff considered this facility to be a “going home” prison, meaning this is the last stop for some inmates before release. Located just outside of a major metropolitan area in Missouri, one need not leave the sprawling suburbs of the city to visit the facility. In fact, the exit to the prison is shared by the local theme park, a large facility that draws people from many parts of the Midwest. As one approaches the exit from the east one can see roller coasters and Ferris wheels to the right, while one mile to the left rests the prison. The prison is laid out in a campus style format, with a long narrow administrative building serving as the entryway into the large prison yard. As one enters the yard from the administration building one can readily observe the free flow of prisoners throughout the recreation area. Immediately to your left is a row of four separate cell houses, each seemingly identical to the others. To the right is the recreation area, with handball courts and green space for exercising. Looking straight ahead one can see the gradual incline of the facility, as the razor-wired fences stop just short of the tree covered Missouri hill on which the prison sits just at the base. If not for the prison, with such close proximity to the local metropolitan area, one could not help but wonder how much this land would be worth on the free market. Because the original intention of the interviews was to gain an understanding of how inmates were using their time in prison to


66


prepare for life back on the streets, two qualifLing factors determined inmate eligibility for the study. First, respondents had to have been incarcerated for at least one-year, giving them ample time to adjust to their environment and begin their preparation activities. Second, inmates could not be serving life (or death) sentences, because reentry into society would therefore become a moot point. After accounting for these stipulations, staff in the central office of Missouri’s Department of Corrections, located in Jefferson City, Missouri, provided a list of randomly selected individuals housed at this particular prison facility. Although some research has shown that conducting interviews with currently incarcerated individuals threatens the validity and reliability of data collected because respondents “do not behave naturally’’ (Jacobs and Wright, 1999), the nature of the questioning was not about their criminal involvement, which was the cause for concern in their study. The line of questioning was based strictly on their current activities in prison, the social support networks they have built throughout their lives, including their time in prison, as well as their interpretation of prison life in general. Therefore, examination of the activities used by inmates to prepare themselves for release fiom prison, the support networks they use while doing so, and an interpretation of their daily lives may best be investigated while they are most relevant in the lives of the participants. Racially, four of the nine respondents were African-American, and the five remaining were Caucasian.* The age-range of those involved was 19-45. The average amount of time the respondents had been incarcerated for their current offense(s) was 4.6 years, with a range of 2 to 9 years. To date, interviewees anticipated their release from prison to be within the next three years. However, only two are serving a mandatory sentence, leaving the exit date of the other seven inmates in the hands of the parole board.3 Interviews were conducted in the staff office in one of four separate housing units at the facility, depending upon the assigned housing unit of the interviewee. While guided by preset questions concerning involvement in prison programs and activities, as well as support networks inside and outside of prison, interviews could best be described as semi-structured and informal. Unanticipated topics were often discussed throughout the course of the interview, and the amount of time devoted to the questions on the interview guide was determined by the relevance they had to the interviewee’s life. For instance, Neil, a nineteen-year-old male in the sample and self-proclaimed gang member, was not heavily involved in prison programs, so many of the

’



67

questions concerning these issues were skipped in favor of topics more relevant to his incarceration. The length of the interviews ranged from 45 minutes to 3 hours. A tape recorder was used in all interviews, providing the opportunity for later transcription for analysis purposes. While truthfklness is always a concern with qualitative research, the nature of the questioning was not threatening, and respondents were well aware of their right to refhe to respond to any such questions. However, due to a lack of official data on the actual activities of the individuals interviewed (e.g., a record of prison citations or involvement in prison programs) the information provided was not subject to any form of triangulation, and thus cannot be authenticated. Even with these concerns, past research has provided evidence that face-to-face data collection does provide valid and reliable information (Ball, 1967; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982). Another potential problem when conducting interviews in a prison setting is the skepticism inmates have about their involvement in the study.4 Even though the study was explained to them, on more than one occasion participants voiced their concern over their involvement, and required further explanations of my work’s purposes and how they were chosen for the study. Everyone that agreed to participate gave his signed consent to be interviewed. Further, the skepticism felt by most interviewees soon dissipated after they became more familiar with the line of questioning involved in the study.5

YOUNGSTERS, OLD-TIMERS, AND THE STABILITY OF PRISON ADAPTIVE MODES As will be described below, the parallels found between life in prison today and those described in previous prison ethnographies are striking. While the labels have changed, the manner in which these inmates describe “doing their time” is nearly identical to those described by Irwin (1970). Throughout the interview process a general theme arose whenever speaking about problems faced by inmates in prison. Interviewee after interviewee explained the tension between what they labeled “youngsters” and “old-timers.” With the exception of one interviewee (i.e., Neil, a 19-year old self-proclaimed gang member), “youngsters” were portrayed as the troublemakers that made the prison experience as most can only imagine, but succinctly depicted by one interviewee to be “like hell.”

68



Youngsters and Jailers The prototypical “youngster” is similar to Irwin’s “state raised youth” in that their behavior patterns fit squarely in the “jailing” category. These individuals tend to hang out in groups, out in the open, making themselves visible to their fellow inmates. Most importantly, however, they make their pursuit of power and respect visible for all to see. They seek to intimidate others both verbally and physically, often in pursuit of material goods, and always for increased status with other inmates. A subset of the jailing category that Irwin described was the almost universally despised “lowrider” (1970: 75). A corollary of this term of utter loathing in the modem Missouri prison, according to Ben, Luke, and Shane is “wolf.” While this term also appears in Sykes’ Society of Captives (1958: 9 9 , the role he describes should not be conhsed with the modern day “wolf,” as today’s wolf is similar to what Sykes describes as a “gorilla.” All of these individuals, in describing their daily navigation of the yard area in the center of the institution, expressed their disdain for “wolves,” as they travel in packs and pick on the weakest kids in the yard. The following comment was made by Ben concerning how these “wolves” work: With these groups there is a lot of intimidation that goes on. Directed at the younger white guys, that haven’t done no time. They prey on those type guys. They offer him things like cigarettes and coffee, then he’s in the spider web. Want it back 2 fold- 3 fold. Now you in debt with ‘em. They just prey on people like that.

Old-Timers and Doing Time Old-timers, like Irwin’s classification of “doing time,” try to stay out of “the mix” as much as they can. They keep themselves busy with work, lifting weights, and hanging out with a small group of associates! Unless they have an express purpose for being in the yard (exercise, going to and from WorWappointments) you can usually find them indoors, away from large crowds. Most inmates interviewed saw nothing good coming from associating with large groups. As Taylor describes the difference between how “youngsters” and “old-timers” settle disputes with other inmates, it’s easy to see how the yard becomes a place to avoid.


69


You won’t find them, uh, 10/15 old people going against 10115 other old people, you know what I’m sayin.’ You don’t find 5 or 6 old people going out here, the majority of ‘em, you don’t find ‘em going out here meeting one person in the bathroom, cornering them in the bathroom and beating all the living hell out of ‘em, you know what I’m sayin.’ These youngsters, that’s the way they move, that’s the way they play.

The Prison Code Like Irwin’s prison code, nearly all those interviewed explained how they abided by the rules of doing time (i.e., “do your own time” and “don’t snitch”). While lengthy in its entirety, Ben’s recollection of learning these maxims when he first entered prison sums up how one learns to do their time. The first time I ever came to prison, it was a scary experience. But one thing I know is when you go you’re suppose to keep your mouth closed, don’t make too many friends, and you don’t, when you see something you are suppose to just turn and walk away from it, you know. Don’t let nobody see that you seen something, because then, you know, if they get caught then they gonna think “Well this guy seen me so he’s the one that told on me.” So, you know, it was kind of a scary experience until I got in the flow of things, and I realized prison really isn’t like what I saw on TV. It is like the less you say the less trouble you get in. It’s basically a respect thing. If you respect people and their property, they’ll respect your property. That’s basically how 1 went about doing my time, I respected people and they respected me ...Even though we’re not on the same page, they respect me and I respect them.

One difference between the description of the corresponding labels in the current study and Irwin’s previous observations is the age limit Irwin places on “jailing.” Specifically, the inmates interviewed didn’t see these opposing behavioral groups as age-based, but rather age-correlated. Those who are “youngsters” tend to be younger, only to grow out of it in time. However, some retain their label as “youngster” in the general population well beyond the age of 30, Irwin’s cutoff for this type of behavior (1 970: 74), because of the manner in which they continue to do their time. As both Luke and Taylor stated in their respective interviews in response to a question concerning age and one’s label as “youngster”:

70



Luke- “My cellie’s a younger kid, but he’s got the mentality of an older person. He doesn’t go around causing trouble. It’s how you think, that’s the big thing. You got guys here running around here that’s 50 years old and you would think they was 20 years old. It’s all about that mentality.” Taylor- “Its not about age, its about how you do your time. I know guys in here that are like 50, but they’re still youngsters. They got that young head. That criminal mentality.”

Similarly, others considered themselves to be “old-timers” as soon as they entered prison for the first time, or soon after. Dave- “You know I’ve done a little time, but the whole time I’ve done I’ve always been an old-timer.

Taylor, a self-admitted “youngster” when he entered prison, while not going into detail about how one of his “youngster” friends had done him wrong, described how he had come to identify with the “oldtimers.” So that’s whenever I learned that them people aren’t the type of people that I, they’re just like the old friends that I had out on the street. You know, to an extent they are just like them. So that’s whenever 1 changed to the lifestyle I live right here right now. And the lifestyle I live right now there’s only, I would say, about 5 people that I associate with everyday.. .My bunky’s an old man, you know what I’m saying, he’s laid back and that’s the way he does his time. 1 learn a lot from him everyday too, you know. He’s basically good people, and that’s the type of people I like to be involved with. I don’t like to be involved with these young punks that are always trying to prove themselves or whatever. You know, trying to hurt somebody here, hurt somebody there. Don’t get me wrong, if it comes that way you have no choice, but to go out looking for trouble everyday is just dumb, and I’m tired of it.

In sum, while the names inmates attach to these adaptive modes have changed over the years, the basic properties they entail has stayed relatively stable. Youngsters, like the “jailers” of yesteryear, are heavily involved in the prison underground economy, and try to gain respect through predation. The basic difference between the explanations provided in the current interviews and those of Irwin’s is the age-limit placed on these labels. As previous statements make clear, relatively old inmates may still be labeled “youngsters” by their fellow


Journal of Crime h Justice

71

inmates depending upon their behavior pattern. Specifically, it is the manner in which one does their time, and the associates they make that supplies others with the cues to one’s general adaptive mode. As will be discussed in the next section, the adaptive modes first described in Irwin’s (1970) work and again throughout the interviews are driven by one over-arching need that dictates the behavior of all who enter the prison walls: personal security.

Putting Up a Front No matter how one chooses to adapt to prison life, the pervasive threat of physical confrontation at the hands of other inmates seems to dictate the behavior pattern of all who enter the prison walls. Youngsters join larger prison gangs for the protection they can provide. Old-timers keep to themselves, keep their mouths shut, and generally try to go unnoticed by their fellow inmates to avoid any physical confrontations. No matter the general behavior pattern one uses, or combination thereof, the ultimate goal is to lessen the amount of strain one feels while doing time. Dave describes how some inmates, usually the ones who have no associates already in prison, put up a “front” in order to find protection due to their fear of physical confiontation. Interviewer: What about people in here that don’t have those friends? Do you see a difference in how they react to prison? Dave: They try to throw what we consider in here to achieve a front. To be somebody they’re not. So, its wrong, but they do it. Interviewer: Ok, so basically people that come here who don’t have anybody try to put up a front to try to protect themselves. Dave: Right, try to fit in with a certain group, or associate with somebody to help ‘em. While fundamentally at odds with this ultimate goal, without exception, every interviewee explained the absolute necessity for standing up for oneself in times of conflict, as if each was reading from the same prison manual. The general assumption is that sticking up for oneself at the outset will prevent you from a number of altercations in the future. Shane, a drug addict in his early thirties that has been in and out of prison eight times since his late teens, describes how this process takes place:

12


In here its all about being tough, acting tough. In here I can be that,


on one scale. Not like I’m out here calling the shots, and being the

head guy everyone listens to cause I’m not. In here you gotta be a certain way. You can’t be weak or they’re gonna prey on you. So I consider myself one of the strong guys. I’m standing on my own in here. When I first come to prison I was at (another Missouri prison), and that’s where you’re throwing down. And there wasn’t all the cameras and stuff. If you wasn’t strong you got beat down on a regular and you lost all your commissary and that’s just the way it was.

Shane later goes on to provide his own experience with a “wolf,” and the manner in which he gained the respect needed to avoid further personal confrontations. The setting was a higher-level camp in Missouri, where he felt it necessary to join a white supremacy group for protection, “even though (he) didn’t believe in all that.” Because of the label he applied to himself, he and an African-American “wolf” began a feud that would lead to a couple of minor skirmishes. One day as he sat in his cell, boiling water to cook some food, the other inmate brought a group of his friends to accost him. Seeing his impending demise unless something drastic was done, Shane went on to explain: Shane: When the wolves are on you, you either get hurt real bad or you have to hurt someone real bad. Well I ended up I burnt somebody with boiling water real bad ...1 got respect for that.

One after another, interviewees explained the necessity, and absolute willingness to fight in order to maintain a level of respect within the institution. The belief is that any sign of weakness will only bring about more people trying to both fight and steal everything you own. The following is a list of explanations from those interviewed that shows the propensity to stand up to those who try to confront them. Dean: “I consider myself an old-timer. I’m pretty laid back ...but they know I ain’t gonna take no nonsense off ‘em. So they don’t push it. Its kinda like you let me survive 1 let you survive.” Jeremy: “Survival in here is about reputation. If they feel that they can take advantage, if they feel like they can come to you in an aggressive way and take what you have, then they’re gonna do it. Unless you do something about it then you can’t live in here.. .They don’t come to me not expecting a fight. They know 1 will fight if it comes down to it.”


73


Luke: “If you show somebody that you’re going to fight back, and it’s going to create a problem for them, nothing’s gonna happen to you.” Dave: “They’ll try to pull you in you know. They’ll try to pull some game on you to try to pull yah in. Like one guy talked to me about my tattoos and stuff, but 1 was like “I’m affiliated with Mary and her 5, well her four sisters” and he was like who’s that. And I was like “My hands” (holding up his hands in a fighting style).”

Just like the old adage “you never get a second chance to make a first impression,” prison inmates place great importance on the manner in which individuals carry themselves once inside the walls. “Fronts” are acted out in order to fit into the prison lifestyle. In order to prevent others from accosting them, as a defense mechanism, both youngsters and old-timers let others know of their willingness to fight at any time. They do so through the way in which they carry themselves, their speech pattern, and their associates. While you may not win every fight, and indeed, they explained going into fights “praying the guards would get there soon,” backing down is never an option. Those who do back down will inevitably open themselves for future altercations, so most choose to fight early rather than often.

SUMMARY In order to deal with the insecurities inherent in prison society, norms of behavior that have developed over the years shape the everyday lives of those incarcerated. Despite changes in the philosophical goals of corrections and the changes in the nature and size of the current prison population, the prison code, as described by Irwin (1970), Sykes (1958), and confirmed in more recent literature (Faulkner and Faulkner, 1997; Hassine, 2004; Lerner, 2002), is still very much alive today. Inmates are expected to “do their own time,” and not rely on others, especially the prison staff, for their own selfpreservation. Along with “doing their own time,” inmates are to mind their own business, and above all else “don’t snitch.” In all, one must prove to others they can stand on their own two feet. The pervasive threat of violence, no matter the era of incarceration, has grown to dictate the behavior of all who enter the gates. The script one follows in order to thwart these threats, whether that of the youngster or old-timer, while different in means, provide this same basic function.


74


Just as inmates in Irwin’s book believed the “state raised youth” were the root cause of the problems in their institutions, inmates today place the onus of their own fears and discontent squarely on the shoulders of the “youngsters.” It is the kids, who are frequently in prison gangs or cliques, who are coming in “with big time, or time without parole.. . lookin’ at it like they ain’t got nothing to lose,” that cause most of the trouble. They actively seek status and wealth by any means available to them in prison, whether it is through fighting, intimidation, or by association. In all, these groups provide for their own well being and safety through their strength in numbers, and the forced deference this arrangement provides. “Old-timers,” like those “doing time” in the mid- 1900s, go about obtaining their safety and well-being through avoidance. They generally keep to themselves, make only a few friends, and keep their daily lives busy with work and recreational activities. Their ultimate goal is to make their stay in prison as comfortable, and short, as possible. While they too are willing to fight to protect their reputation, they would just as soon avoid such a confrontation in the first place.

LIMITATIONS There are a number of limitations to the current research, which should be kept in mind before drawing any firm conclusions based on this work. First, the most glaring limitation is the Low number of subjects interviewed about their life in prison. Unfortunately, time and resource constraints limited the ability of the author to collect as much data as one would like. Nevertheless, the fact that answers provided by the interviewees became repetitious indicated a degree of topical saturation. There are few clear-cut standards as to the number of subjects that should be included in a nonprobabilistic sample. However, in a recent article reporting on an experiment conducted to track the number of interviews it took to develop thematic saturation, the authors concluded that saturation occurred after only 12 interviews (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson, 2006). Further, they concluded that “basic elements for metathemes were present as early as six interviews” (Guest et al., 2006:59). In a perfect world, the number of inmates interviewed would be much higher than what was possible for this research. With such a small sample, however, the findings are limited in terms of external validity and should be considered exploratory in nature.



75

A second limitation concerns the data used to compare the modern day accounts of doing time with those in the mid-20thCentury. Ideally, research comparing the ethnographic accounts of life in prison across time would involve the collection and use of primary data at both points in time, preferably at the same institution. However, the geographic location of the author, and the inability to find primary data from pre-1970 precluded any attempts to conduct such an experiment (see Gartner and Kmttschnitt 2004 for an example of such work). Therefore, the author cannot rule out the fact that Missouri prisons were/are different from those described in earlier research. The results, therefore, should not be considered definitive, but rather should be viewed as evidence supporting a continued, and more thorough, exploration of inmate life in the wake of a dramatic expansion in prison populations.

DISCUSSION Lost in the myriad of philosophical debate about the role and function of corrections in modem day America is a true understanding of the role these ideologies play on the lives of the incarcerated. Over the past quarter-century, a massive change has occurred in the manner in which society “does corrections,” yet an understanding of the manner in which the inmate “does time” is lacking. In an attempt to begin to fill this void, this research used face-to-face interviews with inmates incarcerated in a maximum security facility in Missouri in comparison with past works on the lives of inmates before the rise of get tough policies and the “imprisonment binge.” Even though the sample used in the current research was small, it leads one to believe that macro-level changes in the manner in which we as a society believe prisons should function does very little to change the day-today lives of the inmates we choose to incarcerate. While there may be some debate as to whether or not prisons have become safer, andor more efficient, the basic orientation of the average inmate, as it was in the past, is driven by the need to feel safe and secure. Behavior, therefore, cannot be expected to change unless this basic need is fulfilled. As Sykes so succinctly stated nearly 50 years ago: Present knowledge of human behavior is sufficient to let us say that whatever the influence of imprisonment on the man held captive may be, it will be a product of the patterns of social interaction which the prisoner enters into day after day, year after year, and not of the details of prison architecture, brief exhortations to reform, or

76



sporadic public attacks on the ‘prison problem.’ The particular pattern of social interaction into which the inmate enters is, in turn, part of a complex social system with its own norms, values, and methods of control; and any effort to reform the prison-and thus to reform the criminal- which ignores this social system of the prison is as futile as the labors of Sisyphus” (1958: 134) One can also draw on the work of J.E. Thomas, who believed the primary task of the prison was “to ensure removal of recalcitrant members of society” (1972:5), to better understand the primary focus of prison inmates. Specifically, Thomas believed that every organization, in spite of any conflict about goals and priorities, has one primary task. To understand any organization’s primary task, one must ask “What constitutes failure?” (Zimring and Hawkins, 1995:25). When this question is applied to inmates as a collective unit, research would suggest that the ability to adhere to the inmate code is the benchmark by which all inmates are judged. The inability to “do your own time” or mind one’s own business is what constitutes failure on the part of the inmate. Inmates are not ridiculed or physically attacked because of their failure to complete a drug treatment program. Inmates are not cornered in their cell for failing the G.E.D. test. Inmates are, however, ostracized by fellow inmates for getting too close to prison officials, or meddling in the affairs of other inmates. Inmates are taken advantage of, or physically assaulted, if they are perceived to be weak or unwilling to fight. Rehabilitation and reintegration, therefore, can only be secondary goals for inmates as long as there is an overarching threat of physical confiontation, and strict allegiance to the inmate code is deemed necessary. Drawing on Sykes’ (1958) conclusion, and the data gathered from the current interviews in a maximum security Missouri prison, policy recommendations that seek to change the behavior of convicted offenders on either side of prison walls must first have an effect on the inmates’ basic orientation and life goals. The basic goals of inmates, as they have been for the last half-century, are the maintenance of personal safety and the respect of one’s fellow inmates. The elimination of the persistent threat of physical abuse at the hands of other inmates should be priority number one for any initiative that seeks to create a positive change in the lives of inmates. Reducing the number of inmates housed at any one institution, while not a novel idea (for example Irwin, 2001), could reduce the persistent threat of violence by reducing anonymity among prisoners, as well as increase the ability of prison staff to oversee those


I1


incarcerated. After all, the basic premise of many reality TV shows is the fact that placing a large number of strangers in a confined space will inevitably lead to tension and conflict. While this makes for entertaining television, conflict induced by such conditions in our nation’s penal institutions has drastic consequences for the rehabilitative and reintegrative function of prison.

NOTES 1.

Even though I have no reason to believe the list was generated any other way than random, I personally did not conduct the procedure, making it impossible for me to conclude that indeed this was the procedure used to gather my research participants. However, the nature of the questions asked in the interviews was not such that a random list was necessary. Respondents only needed to be in prison for at least 1 year and not serving a life sentence to meet the requirements of my study, which they all did.

2.

he racial composition of Missouri prisons as of 2003 is: 51% White, 41% African American, 2% Other (http://www.corrections.state.mo.us/).

3.

Inmates described having to serve at least 80% of their sentences. After serving this amount of time the inmates were eligible for parole.

4.

Two inmates asked to participate declined after a short description of the study.

5.

One interviewee would only participate in the study after I said into the tape recorder “I am not a law enforcement agent, I am not a cop, and I don’t have any affiliation with the Department of Corrections.” After the interview, however, he thanked me for doing my research.

6.

The term ‘‘friend” was not usually used by the inmates without some form of qualification. Many would talk about those they associated with as “generally good people.” Most would also comment on how “you can’t really trust anyone in here.”

78


REFERENCES


Ball, J.C. (1967). “The Reliability and Validity of Interview Data Obtained from 59 Narcotic Drug Addicts.” American Journal of Sociology 72:650-654. Berkman, A. (1912). Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist. New York: Mother Earth Publishing. Chaiken, J.M. and M.R. Chaiken (1982). Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Faulkner, P.L. and W.R. Faulkner (1997). “Effect of Organizational Change on Inmate Status and the Inmate Code of Conduct.” Journal of Crime and Justice 20:55-72. Feely, M. and J. Simon (1992). “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications.” Criminology 30:449-74. Gartner, R. and C. Kruttschnitt (2004). “A Brief History of Doing Time: The California Institution for Women in the 1960s and the 1990s.” Law andsociety Review 38:267. Glaser, D. (1969). The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson (2006) “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18~59-82. Hassine, V. (2004) Life Without Parole: Living in Prison Today. Robert Johnson and Thomas J. Bernard (eds.) Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown. Irwin, J. (2005). The WarehousePrison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Journal of Crime &Justice

79

Jacobs, B.A. and R. Wright (1999). “Stick-Up, Street Culture, and Offender Motivation.” Criminology 37: 149-170.


Jacobs, J.B. ( 1 977). Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lerner, J.A. (2002) You’ve Got Nothing Coming: Notes From a Prison Fish. New York: Broadway Books. Missouri Department of Corrections (2005) “A Profile of the Institutional and Supervised Offender Population on June 30,2005” (www.doc.missouri.gov). Martinson, R. (1974). “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform.” Public Interest 35:22-54. Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967). The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reitz, K.R. (2000). The Disassembly and Reassembly of U.S. Sentencing Practices. In Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries, edited by M. Tonry and R. Frase. 222-258. New York: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, L. (2001). “Towards and Anthropology of Prisons.” Annual Review of Anthropology. 30:65-83. Robinson, B. (1971). “Love: A Hard-Legged Triangle.” Black Scholar 39 (September). Schmid, T.J. and R.S. Jones (1993). “Ambivalent Actions: Prison Strategies of First-Time, Short-Term Inmates.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2 I : 439-463. Simon, J. (2000). “The Society of Captives in the Era of Hyper-incarceration.” Theoretical Criminology 4:285-308. Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives: A Study in a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sykes, G. and S. Messinger (1960). Inmate Social System. Social Science Research Council Pamphlet.

80


Thomas, J.E. (1972). The English Prison OfJicer Since 1850: A Study in Conflict. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.


Wacquant, L. (2002). The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnography in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Ethnography 3:37 1-397. Zimring, F.E. and G. Hawkins (1995). Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.