Women's Prison

Sex and Social Structure

Gene Kassebaum

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780202309330
• eBook ISBN: 9781351471213
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Criminologia

A thoroughly researched pioneering work based on personal interviews with inmates and prison personnel and on data compiled from questionnaires and inmate record files, Women's Prison reveals that homosexual liaisons are the primary foundation of the social structure of female inmates; shows that homosexual behavior can be a superficial kind of adjustment to particular situational privations; amplifies and broadens the application of earlier findings on men's prisons; opens the way for future studies involving the delineation of homosexual roles in the free community.This study began with both of the authors' interest in gathering data on women in prison to see whether there were female prisoner types consistent with the reported characteristics of male prisoners. Early in the course of this study it became apparent that the most salient distinction to be made among the female inmates was between those who were and those who were not engaged in homosexual behavior in prison, and further, of those who were so involved, between the incumbents of masculine and feminine roles.It has become increasingly apparent that prison behavior is rooted in more than just the conditions of confinement. Unlike their male counterparts who establish the so-called inmate code, women prisoners suffer intensely from the loss of affectional relationships and form homosexual liaisons as the primary foundation of their social organization. The great majority of homosexually involved inmates have their first affair in prison, returning to heterosexual roles outside prison.Women's Prison is a revealing study of social structure and homosexuality for sociologists; of vital interest to social workers, parole officers and chaplains dealing with female inmates as well as penologists and criminologists; and provocative reading for the non-specialist.

2
Female Prisoners and the “Inmate Code”

It has been consistently reported that one response of male prisoners to the pains of imprisonment has been the establishment of a sub rosa social system. Male prisoners, according to Sykes and Messinger, support to varying degrees “a system of group norms that are directly related to mitigating the pains of imprisonment.” These norms constitute the so-called “inmate code” and the degrees to which inmates support the various components of the code constitute a variety of interrelated social roles—the inmate social system.¹ The code provides a philosophy for doing time and the inmate social organization provides the mechanism for implementing the maxims of the code. In the code are rationalizations for criminal behavior, solutions for obtaining scarce goods and services, and descriptions of appropriate ways of dealing with the staff and fellow inmates. Men new to prison find information available from merchants. Right guys and good cons provide models for appropriate inmate behavior.

The inmate social system has been shown to be functional not only for inmates, but to serve custodial ends for the staff as well. The system provides interpersonal support, normative guidance, and certain material goods but it does so at the price of forcing inmates to submit to some additional controls exercised by their fellow inmates. These informal controls are often as effective in maintaining order in the prison community as are the formal mechanisms available to the staff.² Controls are necessary because certain of the activities conducted by inmate politicians and merchants are illegal and also because even those inmates not directly involved in wheeling and dealing find it to their advantage that inmate behavior be ordered and predictable.³ The inmate social system is generated in part because of the need for stable patterns of expectations and frames of reference. Prisoners have nor more wish than anyone else to live in an environment where the behavior of others is uncontrolled and unpredictable.

The principal means of control in the inmate social system of maximum security prisons has been the prohibition against giving to the staff any information which betrays inmate activities or which could be used against any fellow prisoner:

The most obvious social boundary in the custodial institution is, of course, that which exists between captors and captives; and inmates argue fiercely that a prisoner should never give any information to the custodians which will act to the detriment of a fellow inmate. Since the most trivial piece of information may, all unwittingly, lead to another inmate’s downfall, the ban on communication is extended to cover all but the most routine matters. The bureaucracy of custodians and the population of prisoners are supposed to struggle in silence.⁴

Violation of the code prohibiting ratting has resulted in the imposition of the most severe punitive sanctions inmates can apply, including death.⁵ Conversely, the “hero” of the social system of male prisoners is the loyal and resolute right gwy.⁶

Loyalty and Group Solidarity Among Female Prisoners

Our interviews suggested that any prohibition against ratting at Frontera was almost universally violated and that the role of the snitch had been articulated to a point where differentiations were made, not between those who kept quiet and those who ratted, but in terms of the kind of stool pigeon one was. A dry snitch, for example, was one who feigned innocence about snitching but “just happened” to mention something to staff. A cold snitch, as distinguished by the inmates, “talks about you to staff in your presence,” and a plain snitch writes notes to staff or snitches behind a closed door.⁷ A woman who snitched only occasionally was referred to as having a jacket, one who had snitched many times as having an overcoat. Our interviewees estimated that between fifty and ninety percent of the population were snitches. The good con or right guy type of female prisoner, called a regular, was largely defined as the inmate who did not snitch. For that small proportion of the population that can be called regulars, doing time at Frontera is a frustrating experience. One disgruntled regular, who was at the time of the interview under the pressure of a staff investigation into the theft of some demerol from the hospital, described her feelings as follows:

You can’t put pressure on squealers—a few of us would like to—because this would be reported right away. The only people who don’t snitch are a few old-time inmates, especially those from Tehachapi [the location of the prison prior to 1952]. If you could just get the inmates not to cop out on everything—even if they did when it meant more time for them or someone ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• PREFACE
• CONTENTS
• One The Pains of Imprisonment
• Two Female Prisoners and the “Inmate Code”
• Three The Reaction of Female Inmates to the Pains of Imprisonment
• Four The Extent of Homosexual Behavior in the Prison Setting
• Five Social-Psychological Bases of Homosexual Role Differantiation
• Six The Dynamics of Prison Homosexuality: The Course of the Love Affair
• Seven The Dynamics of Prison Homosexuality: The Character of the Love Affair
• Eight Some Implications of the Homosexual Adaptation for prison staff
• Appendix A Methodological Note on Research in the Area of Sexual Behavior
• Index