Prison Gangs in the United States - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: PRISON GANGS Prison Gangs Prison Gangs Introduction For decades, the proliferation of gangs in prison has disturbed correctional institutions (Knox, 2005). Prison Gangs have become a significant source of violence in American correctional facilities. Beginning as early as the 1950’s changes began to occur in the prisons of the United States. These changes progressively eroded the inmate code of the past, and new sources of power and control emerged in the state prison system. Traditional Inmate Codes Sykes and Messinger (1960) studied the traditional inmate code in which they identified five main principles. First, inmates are not to interfere with other inmates, a rule which places a premium on "minding your own business." Inmates are not to inform on one another and not to place a fellow inmate in a precarious situation. The second principle commands "don't lose your head." Inmates should control their emotions during their incarceration. Third, inmates should not exploit each other. The traditional inmate code forbids racketeering, welshing on bets, stealing from other inmates, or retracting promises. Inmates have an obligation to share any wealth which they may acquire. Fourth, inmates should not show weakness or they jeopardize their masculine image. It is very important for an inmate to maintain his masculinity. Any signs of fear or cowardice will greatly harm an inmate's reputation in the prison. Finally, "don't be a sucker," in other words, prisoners should not trust the administration. This final principle demands that inmates reject the values of society represented by prison officials. Guards are always considered to be wrong in any dispute with inmates. The administration must not be trusted for any reason (Sykes and Messinger, 1960, p. 7-8). Adherence to the inmate code varies greatly. While most inmates make strong verbal commitment to the code, the actual behaviors of inmates often deviate from it (Ross & Richards, 2002). The inmate code serves to lessen the pains of imprisonment by increasing solidarity among the inmates (Sykes and Messinger, 1960. p. 16). By uniting inmate society, the code lessens the sense of isolation inmates often face. An inmate follows the prescription to share wealth, he can alleviate animosity and hostility. By sharing the limited wealth offered by prison society, the potential for psychological harm can be decreased substantially (Sykes and Messinger, 1960, p. 16). The threat to an inmate's masculine self ­image can be substantially alleviated by the requirement that inmates maintain their manhood through shows of strength and suppression of weakness (Sykes and Messinger, 1960. p. 17). When inmates arrive in prison they undergo prison procedures which have been likened to a series of status degradation ceremonies (Cloward, 1960; Sykes, 1958). These ceremonies convey two messages to the inmate. First, they involve the "ritual destruction of the individual's identity" (Cloward, 1960, p. 20). The individual's dignity is removed as his status is lowered. The lowering of status and stripping of dignity occurs through such procedures as strip searches, assignment of identification numbers instead of names, and the provision of uniforms, all of which create a homogenous inmate society. Second, the new identity provided to the inmate is of a lower status than their previous rank as a member of free society (Cloward, 1960, p. 20). Cloward (1960) argues that prison allows inmates to enhance their status through illegitimate means. Inmates may take on several roles in their efforts to gain status within prison culture. They may become merchants or peddlers who specialize in providing material goods to other inmates. Politicians, or "big-shots," will control the spread of information among inmates (Cloward, 1960, p. 34). These inmates will seek positions, which grant them greater freedom of movement or greater access to prison officials, allowing them to gather information. Finally, an inmate may assume the role of "right ­guy;" he will adhere strictly to the inmate code. The right-guy will gain the most respect from inmates due to his reputation for fairness between inmates, and the dignity, which he maintains in dealing with prison officials. The right guy will not tolerate disrespect from either fellow inmates or prison officials (Cloward, 1960, p. 34). In order for inmates to adopt one of these roles, they must receive implicit or explicit approval from prison officials. The merchant will often involve guards in smuggling operations. The right-guy "role arises because custodial personnel show a readiness, however reluctant, to confer status selectively on inmates who cannot be compelled by any other method short of force" (Cloward, 1960, p. 43). Thus, by tacitly approving one or more of these roles, the prison officials determine who will receive prestige within the inmate society. Once an inmate has achieved high status within prison society, developing a desire to maintain that status seems natural. Such inmates may become conservative in their desires to maintain the status quo (Cloward, 1960, p. 43). Inmates of lower status are constantly attempting to increase their status, thereby creating a constant struggle within inmate society. Inmate leaders use prison officials as allies in maintaining their status while being used themselves to monitor the activities of other inmates. Thus, inmate leaders become informal agents of social control. Both prison officials and inmate leaders have an interest in maintaining the status quo. If inmate leaders prove unsuccessful in controlling other inmates' behavior, they may jeopardize their elevated status. Prison officials may select new inmate leaders who are more capable of serving as agents of social control (Cloward, 1960, p. 45-49). Colvin's (1992) work, which examined the circumstances surrounding the New Mexico prison riot of 1980, illustrates these interactions between prison officials and inmates. The Penitentiary of New Mexico (PNM) was the location of one of the bloodiest prisoner uprisings in American history. Prior to the riot in February 1980, the administration of PNM had enacted a policy to isolate the leaders of the informal inmate cliques that had formed. (It is important to note that these cliques were not "gangs" in the traditional sense, rather they were small, informal groupings of inmates.) This policy of segregation of inmate leaders not only "removed inmates who had been troublesome to the administration, but also removed people from the inmate society who had provided stabilizing influences" (Colvin, 1992. p. 158). This removal of the upper echelons of the inmate hierarchy created a void in the inmate power structure which allowed several small groups to vie for power. Since the inmates who possessed the respect to quell potential conflict without resorting to violence were segregated by the new administration policy, relatively small conflicts began to lead to violence. The policy of segregation of inmate leaders also limited the ability of inmate leaders to socialize new inmates to the inmate code and orient them the effects of prisonization. This created a situation in which new inmates presented a more viable threat to the traditional inmate culture than normal. Colvin states that "some of these new inmates directly challenged the power and control exercised by older inmates who had not already been removed by the administration" (1992. p. 160). These "new upstarts had no respect for the inmate code. They could care less about the tattoos and signs. They were just power hungry and wanted to coerce people" (1992. p. 160). This resulted in an increase in the number of violent violations which were committed. History of Prison Gangs The above discussion provides a glimpse into traditional prison culture. This culture has served as the context for the emergence of many gangs. The existing research indicates that gangs have been a reality in prisons since 1950. The first identified prison gang, the Gypsy Jokers, emerged in the state of Washington in 1950 (Camp and Camp, 1985). There are few details available about this gang. It was not until seven years later that the first socially significant and large prison gang was founded, the Mexican Mafia. The California prison system served as the birthplace for some of the largest prison gangs currently operating. In 1957, the Deuel Vocational Institute witnessed the beginnings of what was to become the Mexican Mafia. According to Camp and Camp (1985), the founders of this prison gang were approximately half-a-dozen Chicano inmates who had been members of rival street gangs in their native Los Angeles. When the men were incarcerated, they decided to put aside past differences and unite to gain power within the institution (Camp and Camp, 1985). The Mexican Mafia began to victimize not only white and African-American inmates, but also targeted other Hispanic inmates who were not native Southern Californians. Isolated inmates were unable to compete with gang-based racketeering activities. Power within the inmate social structure became defined by a struggle between rival gangs; non- affiliated inmates were left impotent. Jacobs (1977) describes the result of this as a process of "balkanization" within the inmate population. Disciplinary problems began to shift as inmates divided along gang lines, becoming increasingly violent. Although the causes of heightened violence are debatable with Jacobs (1977) suggesting that the "balkanization" process merely exploited existing weaknesses in the prison administration rather than actually introducing new problems, the increase in gang-related disturbances is undeniable. It became common for confrontations to occur between prison officials and gang members. Inmates became increasingly belligerent when taking disciplinary action from guards. Jacobs (1977) quotes several incidents where guards were forced to acquiesce when accosted by a superior number of gang members acting in unison. Inmates simply refused to follow orders, refused to work, and refused to follow the rules. When a lieutenant was called to "walk" an inmate, he was often confronted with ten or twelve of the inmate's fellow gang members surrounding him, challenging his authority. One Stateville guard explained: "The inmate will say, 'Fuck you Jack, I'm not going'. Then a group of his gang will gather around him. I'll have to call a lieutenant. Sometimes one of the leaders will just come over and tell the member to go ahead." (Jacobs, 1977, p. 161) The number of violent attacks upon guards also increased with the emergence of gangs in Stateville. In the "(base)ball diamond incident" an apparently gang-orchestrated attack against seven guards occurred during a baseball game between inmates and collegians from Southern Illinois University (Jacobs, 1977). The pattern of gang-initiated violence in Stateville continued essentially unchecked until the administration began to address the issue of gang structure. Their response, which has become common in subsequent decades, was first to segregate and then finally to transfer the gang leaders to other institutions. In 1975, after the transfer of three leading members of the Black P Stone Nation to another facility, remaining members seized a cell block and subsequently killed a suspected informant. This lead to public acknowledgment that gangs had become a strong presence throughout the prison system (Jacobs, 1977). The Effect of Prison Gangs on Prison Culture The development of prison gangs has changed the traditional inmate code. The original purpose of the inmate code was to unite all prisoners in a brotherhood against the administration and society. Prison gangs have significantly changed inmate culture, and have balkanized the inmate population. Prison gangs have developed their own constitutions which have become the new inmate codes. Although these have adopted elements of the traditional inmate code, they have substantially altered that code to accommodate their own purposes. Buentello (as cited in Ralph, 1993) researched the constitutions of four Texas prison gangs: the Texas Syndicate, the Mexican Mafia of Texas, the Texas Mafia, and the Texas Aryan Brotherhood (T.A.B). The most concise constitution belongs to the Texas Syndicate and has only 22 rules. In keeping with the traditional inmate code, selected components of the Texas Syndicate constitution are: 6. A carnal comes before anyone or anything else. There will be no marano 's, turnkeys, in ESE TE. A carnal will never burn another carnal. Note: "carnal" - brother "marano" - employee of the Texas Department of Corrections or law enforcement official "ESE TE" - Spanish slang for Texas Syndicate (Buentello, Ralph, 1993, p. 182) These rules reflect the traditional structures against exploitation of inmates and trusting the administration. However, they modify the code by restricting the loyalty of gang members to other carnales, or gang brothers. The restriction of membership to inmates also serves to maintain the separation between the gang culture and the values of society represented by prison officials. While the above articles of the Texas Syndicate constitution maintain values of the traditional inmate code, the majority of the constitution diverges from it. For example: 3. A carnal has to take care of a muleta within two weeks if he is in a position to do so, or as soon as possible. 4. Whoever sponsors a carnal will be responsible for that particular carnal. 5. Every prospect will be investigated throughout the system, here, the feds, and the califas. 22. A muleta, or a problem, of a carnal is every carnales problem; everything comes in with a carnal: once he is accepted there is no such thing as a personal matter about the carnales; a carnales problem is our problem. Note: "muleta" - problem "califas" - California (Buentello, in Ralph. 1993. p. 182) These articles of the Texas Syndicate constitution establish the individual gang member as a part ofa broader community. The welfare of that community takes precedence over that of the individual. The purpose of the constitution is to reinforce the loyalty to the group over the individual. The rule that an inmate must resolve any problem within two weeks aids in building a reputation for the gang as a group to be respected and feared. If an individual inmate does not resolve the problem, his carnales are responsible. This transfers the problem from an individual matter to an issue for the entire gang. Inmates are no longer obligated to mind their own business as required by the traditional inmate code, in fact they must act in support of their carnales. This shared responsibility is reinforced through the assignment of responsibility for new prospects to the sponsoring member. Potential gang members are also subject to a detailed inspection of their history to determine their eligibility for membership. Gang rules contradict the old principle of "doing your own time;" now inmates are "doing gang time" (Sykes, 1958; Buentello. as cited in Ralph. 1993). Other critical aims of gang organization can be seen in two principles of the Mexican Mafia of Texas' (not to be confused with the Mexican Mafia originating in California) constitution. The Mexican Mafia's constitution maintains the "don't lose your head" requirement of the traditional inmate code. Specifically "above all, we have the responsibility to have discipline and not to get out of line, because this reflects completely on LA EME" (LA EME being the Mexican Mafia of Texas) (Buentello as cited in Ralph. 1993, p. 184). This rule places a responsibility on members to preserve the image of the gang as an organization which does not engage in irrational or impractical conflicts. The Mexican Mafia's constitution explicitly states the purpose of the organization. “In being a criminal organization, we will function in any aspect of criminal interest for the benefit or advancement of LE EME. We will traffic in drugs, contracts of assassination, prostitution, robbery of high magnitude, sports, arms, and in anything we can imagine” (Buentello, cited in Ralph. 1993, p. 186). This statement of the criminal nature of the gang is directly contradicts the traditional principle of the not exploiting fellow inmates. According to the ideal of the traditional inmate code, the prison should be a place where inmates are safe from criminal victimization. With the development of gangs, prisons, both in reality and in ideology, strengthened their reputations as places where inmates must be constantly wary of their fellow inmates. The gang constitution may also require a continuing commitment to the gang beyond the length of an inmate's sentence. The constitution of the T.A.B. provides an example of a trait common to all prison gangs. The T.A.B. constitution states: Upon release from TDC a member will contact another incarcerated member to notify the organization of his place of residence. The member notified will contact a member of the Steering Committee who will take note of the place of residence (Buentello, cited in Ralph, 1993, p. 188). The commitment to the gang is for life. Release from incarceration does not serve as a release from the responsibilities of gang membership. As stated in the T .A.B. constitution. "Death (is) the only termination of membership" (Buentello, cited in Ralph, 1993, p. 188). Regardless of whether an individual was affiliated with the gang prior to incarceration, he will continue membership in the gang, likely resulting in continued criminal activity when he returns to the community. All prison gang constitutions examined in previous research have a similar component regarding exiting the gang (Buentello, cited in Ralph, 1993). In contrast to the ethnic or geographic base of other prison gangs, the constitution of the Texas Mafia is unique in its statement that the organization has no racial or political ideology. Instead, the purpose of the Texas Mafia is solely criminal enterprise. This gang will accept any inmates as members, does not require death as the sole form of departure from the gang, and works in conjunction with other prison gangs (Buentello, cited in Ralph, 1993, p. 191). The only exception to its open membership policy is that the Texas Mafia has an agreement not to recruit Hispanic members, the Texas Mafia leaves this group of prospects to their "cousins" in the Texas Syndicate. They also espouse "respect" for the Texas Aryan Brotherhood, although this relationship is not as close as the one with the Texas Syndicate (Buentello, cited in Ralph, 1993, p. 191). The rules of the Texas Mafia illustrate efforts to maintain the solidarity of inmates mandated by the traditional inmate code, while at the same time disregarding the principles of non-exploitation in favor of activities that benefit the gang. Conclusion In some prisons, as early as the 1950’s, changes were occurring in the inmate subculture, particularly the inmate code. Inmate solidarity and ‘doing your own time’ were no longer accepted belief of all inmates. New sources of power and control emerged in the form of prison gangs. The development of prison gangs has had an important impact on prison culture. Gang inmates are now balkanized into several distinct camps within the institution. Although instances of cooperation do exist, most prison gangs are self-reliant and have a firm resolve to maintain their independence. Individual inmates who are gang members find their incarceration to be less isolating than their non-gang counterparts (Jacobs, 1977, p. 152). They are able to rely on their "brothers" to ease the pains of imprisonment as long as they uphold their responsibilities. References Camp, G. and C. Camp (1985). Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature, and Impact on Prisons. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Cloward, R. (1960). Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council. Colvin. M. (1992). The Penitentiary in Crisis: From Accommodation to Riot in New Mexico. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Jacobs J. (1977). Stateville: the Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Knox, G (2005). The problem of gangs and security threat groups (STGs) in American prisons today: Recent research findings from the 2004 Prison Gang Survey. Chicago: National Gang Crime Research Center. Retrieved December 09, 2011, from http:/ / www.ngcrc.com/ corr2006.html Ralph. P. (1993). Texas Prison Gangs. Department of Criminal Justice. Sam Houston State University. Huntsville, Texas. Ross, J. I. , & Richards, S. C. (2002). Behind bars: Surviving prison . Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Sykes, G. and S. Messinger 1960. The inmate social system. In R. Cloward (ed). Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council. Read More