Routledge Handbook on American Prisons

Laurie A. Gould, John J. Brent, Laurie A. Gould, John J. Brent

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429674471
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Diritto
• Subtopic: Teoria e pratica del diritto

The Routledge Handbook on American Prisons is an authoritative volume that provides an overview of the state of U.S. prisons and synthesizes the research on the many facets of the prison system. The United States is exceptional in its use of incarceration as punishment. It not only has the largest prison population in the world, but also the highest per-capita incarceration rate. Research and debate about mass incarceration continues to grow, with mounting bipartisan agreement on the need for criminal justice reform.

Divided into four sections (Prisons: Security, Operations and Administration; Types of Offenders and Populations; Living and Dying in Prison; and Release, Reentry, and Reform), the volume explores the key issues fundamental to understanding the U.S. prison system, including the characteristics of facilities; inmate risk assessment and classification, prison administration and employment, for-profit prisons, special populations, overcrowding, prison health care, prison violence, the special circumstances of death row prisoners, collateral consequences of incarceration, prison programming, and parole. The final section examines reform efforts and ideas, and offers suggestions for future research and attention.

With contributions from leading correctional scholars, this book is a valuable resource for scholars with an interest in U.S. prisons and the issues surrounding them. It is structured to serve scholars and graduate students studying corrections, penology, institutional corrections, and other related topics.

Part I

Prison Security, Operations, and Administration

1

Prison Rules, Regulations, and Disciplinary Procedures

Beverly Reece and Catherine D. Marcum

Prisons are different from most other organizations as their clientele are involuntary involved. In other words, the inmates who are incarcerated in correctional facilities are generally unhappy about their current situation and do not want to maintain positive relationships with those individuals responsible for their supervision. Yet, the prison facility is dependent upon these “clients” to work in the daily operations of the prison, such as the kitchen, janitorial work, and maintenance, in order to keep the prison running smoothly on a daily basis. Much like any other organization, every player must perform his or her job in order for the agency to function. However, in a correctional facility there is a fine balance between client cooperation and development of a dangerous environment.

Correctional facilities have the goal of keeping inmates safe and secure, but also forcing them to follow the rules of the facility to maintain that safety and security. When rules are broken, correctional staff have protocol for disciplinary procedures and management of problem inmates. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the methods by which correctional facilities set and enforce rules. We will discuss different types of prison regulations and rules, as well as the management of rule violators. In addition, we will discuss special issues that may affect how officials are able to manage inmates.

Prison Regulations

Effective management of inmates can be approached in multiple ways, depending upon the preference and experience of the administration. Each facility’s approach to inmate management varies based on the amount of freedom and choice allowed to inmates. One method of inmate management is the administrative control model, which asserts that the prison administration is in control of the level of prisoner misconduct allowed in a facility (Dilulio, 1990). According to Dilulio, prisons that operate under a formal organizational structure with clear rules and routines, as well as leadership and division of labor, should have less misconduct. Furthermore, weak management style will allow illicit behaviors and gang membership to flourish and diminish the authority of correctional staff. Essentially, the administrative control model stresses the importance of maintaining structure and discipline with inmates, not giving them the opportunity to have opinions or choice about daily operations in the facility.

Other correctional experts are more supportive of the inmate balance theory style of management (Clemmer, 1940), which gives inmates the ability to provide more input into the operation of the prison. This theory asserts that in order to effectively run a facility, staff should tolerate minor infractions and allow inmate leaders to handle small problems within their group. Essentially, advocates of this model believe that by giving inmates more say and opportunity in the management of their environment, the more likely they are to comply with the important rules and regulations of a correctional environment.

There are benefits and downsides to using each model. While maintaining strict control of inmates can improve the safety and security of daily operations, it is more likely that inmates will revolt, riot, and possibly pursue violence as a method of strike against complete removal of liberty. On the other hand, inmates under the inmate control balance theory model have more say in their daily lives and may be happier with not having such strict control over mundane activities. However, there are inmates who would take advantage of said freedom, resulting in severe abuse of and violation of rules.

Standards on Treatment of Prisoners

There are a number of different standards on the treatment of inmates from a variety of different sources, from the local level to the international level. These standards for correctional facilities are often guidelines that are typically not mandatory or law, but which promote security, order, safety, care, and justice within the operations of correctional facilities through recommendations. In this section, a number of different standards will be discussed including the American Correctional Association’s (ACA) standards, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) standards, and the United Nations’ (UN) Standard Minimum Rules (SMRs) for the treatment of prisoners. In addition, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) will be discussed.

The ACA standards provide guidelines for a number of aspects of facility and agency operation. Specifically, they are believed to aid in the development of “independent agency policy and procedure” governing everyday operations (ACA, n.d.). ACA standards differ from other standards in that ACA standards are categorized into mandatory and nonmandatory guidelines. In order to be accredited, facilities are required to abide by all mandatory standards and 90 percent of the nonmandatory standards.

The ACA provides a broad description of their standards. For instance, the ACA standards surrounding safety require facilities to adhere to federal, state, and local safety and fire codes, as well as emergency planning and preparation. The security standards require inspections and training on firearms, searches of visitors and staff, and inmate counting procedures. There are currently 22 manuals containing the ACA standards, and these manuals include sections that regulate policy, procedure, and practice for a number of other institutional activities. Recently, the ACA added International Core Standards, implementing basic correctional principles at the international level. According to the ACA, over 1,300 facilities and agencies worldwide integrate the standards into their daily and routine operations.

The ABA standards on the treatment of prisoners issue a number of principles and parameters to assist in guiding correctional agencies’ policies and practices. In the third edition, 83 standards are provided that apply to facilities where individuals are confined, except for facilities solely housing juveniles or for immigration detention. The legal sources that the standards rely on include laws (e.g., federal statutes and regulations), court decisions, settlements under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.), and consent decrees not involving the Department of Justice (DOJ). In the standards, it is noted that recommendations are provided, not laws, set out by the ABA. The current edition is over 400 pages in length, and although all principles cannot be covered in this chapter, a few main points will be highlighted.

Standard 23–1.1 General principles governing imprisonment notes: “A correctional facility should be safe and orderly and should be run in a fair and lawful manner …. Correctional authorities should respect the human rights and dignity of prisoners” (ABA, 2011, p. 31). This includes protecting inmates from other inmates, as well as correctional staff. In addition, this section states that inmates should be adequately prepared for reentry to society upon release and that facilities should be adequately staffed. A lack of resources should not be used as a justification for violating prisoners’ rights. Further, facilities should be monitored by independent government agencies. It is interesting to note that the U.S. does not have an independent authority to monitor prison and detention facilities and agencies.

Following the above standard, Standard 23–1.2 lists broad principles that correctional authorities should follow:

(a)provide prisoners with: (i) humane and healthful living conditions; (ii) safety from harm, including protection from punitive or excessive force and protection from abuse by other prisoners and staff; (iii) necessary health care; (iv) freedom from staff harassment and invidious discrimination; (v) freedom of religion and substantial freedom of expression; (vi) conditions conducive to maintaining healthy relationships with their families; (vii) opportunities to participate in constructive activity and rehabilitative programs; and (viii) comprehensive reentry planning; and

(b)implement effective policies and procedures for: (i) investigation and resolution of complaints and problems; (ii) fair and rational decision-making; and (iii) internal and external oversight of correctional operations.

(ABA, 2011, pp. 20–21)

The standards outlined by the ABA broadly coincide with those indicated in the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment (freedom of religion) and Eighth Amendment (protection against cruel and unusual punishment).

In addition to the recommendations provided by the ABA, the United Nations also set out its SMRs for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). The rules were first adopted in 1955, and a revised version of these rules was adopted unanimously in December 2015. The revised rules are known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, in recognition of the late President of South Africa “who spent 27 years in prison in the course of his struggle for global human rights, equality, democracy and the promotion of a culture of peace” (United Nations, 2017, para. 5). One remarkable quote from Mandela in particular is: “No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones” (United Nations, 2017, para. 1).

Part I of the Nelson Mandela Rules discusses the general management of prisons, which is made applicable to all categories of prisoners, including those who are subject to corrective or “security measures.” Part II covers rules only applicable to certain categories of prisoners within each section. In the new version of the rules, eight areas were revised, including: 1) respect for prisoners’ inherent dignity (including the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment); 2) medical and health services (clarifying that healthcare is a state responsibility and should be an equal standard to that available in the community); 3) disciplinary measures and sanctions (updated guidance on instruments of restraint, procedural guidelines for disciplinary procedures, and clarification of prohibited disciplinary sanctions; in addition, prison staff are encouraged to use conflict resolution, and limitations on solitary confinement were included for the first time); 4) investigations of deaths and torture in custody; 5) protection of vulnerable groups; 6) access to legal representation; 7) complaints and independent inspection (updated provisions dealing with information for prisoners and access to complaint mechanisms); and 8) training of staff.¹

In addition to the ACA’s standards, ABA’s standards, and the Nelson Mandela Rules, the United States federal government has also addressed the increasing issue of sexual assault of inmates within correctional facilities. In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PREA, creating a zero-tolerance policy against sexual assaults in our state and federal correctional system. Under PREA, individual’s found guilty of sexual assault against inmates (whether it be other inmates or correctional staff) are punished more severely than in the past. Inmate perpetrators can be relocated to a higher security level facility, or placed in solitary confinement. It is also possible that inmates who sexually assault other inmates can be charged with a separate criminal offense. Correctional staff who perpetrate sexual assault could face termination, as well as criminal charges. In addition, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is required to release yearly statistics on the reported and confirmed frequency of sexual assault in United States state and federal facilities for adults and juveniles (Pub. L. No. 108–79. 117 Stat. 972).

Administrative Infractions

Although the guidelines noted above for treatment of prisoners are comprehensive (and mostly suggestive, not including PREA), individual facilities and agencies often have rules and procedures in place that inmates are required to follow. In particular, inmates are required to abide by all federal and state laws as well as institutional rules and regulations. Failing to abide by the institution’s rules may result in an administrative infraction. Upon arrival to prison, inmates typically are made aware of rules and regulations via an inmate information handbook. Inmates are encouraged to read these handbooks and are held responsible for knowing the contents. Usually inmates complete an orientation upon arrival where administrative rules and regulations are discussed, along with information on facility programs and services. Some institutions report holding town hall meetings to announce policy and procedural changes.

The problem with these initial methods of orientation is the expectation that this one-time, broad method of rule review is sufficient. Many inmates have educational deficiencies and are unable to fully read and comprehend the contents of the handbook. Further, new inmates are trying to understand and adjust to their surroundings, and may not have the ability to pay attention to presentations and orientations due to perceived dangers and threats around them. Even if inmates understand the rules and regulations of a facility, there is no follow-up with these inmates after merging into the general population. Rules on paper compared to actual real life in a prison facility can be quite a contradiction, and inmates generally have a reminder of these regulations when one is broken. Administrative infractions, or the breaking of a rule or regulation of a correctional facility by an inmate, results in disciplinary procedures. First, we will examine the rules and regulations associated with inmate life.

Rules Surrounding Inmate Privileges

Inmates often have rules they are required to abide by that are associated with certain privileges. Inmate privileges differ from inmate rights, in that privileges are not constitutionally protected. Privileges often involve correspondence with the outside world, either through mail, telephone, or visitation. These privileges and the rules surrounding these privileges often vary across facilities and agencies. Privileges also can be dependent on the security level of the facility or the security level of the inmate.

Inmates typically are permitted to correspond with ot...