Prison Gangs in California Prisons - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: PRISON GANGS Prison gangs in California prisons: Prison control and recidivism The following paper provides a discussion on misconduct in California Prisons with a focus on gang activity. A discussion about the statistics of the California justice system is followed by an overview of the top five prison gangs in the California prison system. Through a look at relevant studies on treatment, methods to decrease recidivism and violent activities within prison are suggested. However, the subject is a complicated problem that has yet to have a satisfactory solution. Prison gangs and misconduct within prisons by those gangs occurs through a power dynamic that often leaves prison officials helpless. Key Terms: Prison – an institution of incarceration Recidivism – a return to prison after having been released due to a subsequent crime Gang – an organized group of men who actively create goals that are related to illegal activity in order to serve both protection and survival needs Protection – a sense that others cannot harm one because a group has formed to ensure retribution that is worse than the risk of harming a member of the group Prison gangs in California prisons: Prison control and recidivism Introduction The existence of a powerful set of groups within the California prison system has created a dynamic that has not always left the prison administration in charge of their populations. The burden of the system has created an environment in which the disenfranchised can come together to form their own political systems with justice and habit being defined from within the population of prisoners. There are a great number of gangs in the prison system, but the top five are the Mara Salvatrucha MS-13, Black Guerrilla Family, Mexican Mafia, La Nuestra Familia and the Aryan Brotherhood. Methods of cognitive behavioral treatment have been successful in making changes in post-prison behaviors. However, the dynamics of dominance within a prison are difficult to address, aggressive action serving to further unite the gangs, while less aggressive treatment does not end the gang and allows for a sense of ‘deliberate indifference’ to the consequences of incarceration that violate the safety of prisoners from one another. The nature of California prison dynamics is such that the dynamics of the relations of power and dominance create a violent atmosphere, controlled by the will of the gangs rather than the prison authorities. One of the most startling statistics about the nature of the prison system in California is that 66% of released prisoners will return to prison within three years. Beyond the dangers that recidivism presents to the public, the system in California is rife with higher rates of homicide, suicide, and assaults than the national average. The system is burdened by the higher rates of pay given to guards through the efforts of a strong union, creating a system that, despite a more than 66 billion dollar budget, is unable to well serve the needs of the prisoners, creating strife and encouraging internal gangs to provide what the state does not alternatively provide (Petersili, 2008, p. 207). The gang system in the California system has grown strong, with a set of rules and a hierarchal structure that is gaining momentum in creating power structures within the prison populations. In the late twentieth century, increases in prison populations have more than quadrupled, where in 1973 there was an average of 110 per 100,000 of the overall population who were incarceration, but by 2005, 491 per 100,000 of the overall population are put into prison per year. With the existing prisoners counted, that figure becomes 738 per 100,000. This translates to mean that more than 2.3 million people in the United States are in prison (Petersili 2008, p. 207). The California Prison system, by March of 2007, had 171,800 prisoners, constituting the largest prison population amongst the fifty states (Petersili, 2008, 209). California Prison Gangs The following exploration examines the nature of the top five gangs in California, operating both inside and outside of the prison system. The gangs are primarily ethnologically determined, with each gang being organized through a structured hierarchy. Initiations are involved in membership, and most are violent. The following looks at the fifth rated gang down to the first. Mara Salvatrucha MS-13 The Mara Salvatrucha MS-13 was formed sometime during 1988 or 1989 in Los Angeles. The Mara Salvatrucha MS-13 are from El Salvador, and an interesting and tragic dynamic has been established where members of the gang were deported back to El Salvador, joining the leftist guerillas, then coming back to the United States after having been trained within those armed guerilla forces. According to Abadinsky (2010), this recycling of people back and forth between El Salvador, each new entry into the United States bringing groups of trained soldiers, has resulted in a population of 6-10 thousand MS-13 members (p. 188). The structure of MS-13 gang is defined by small groups called cliques. The cliques have members that are age 11 – 40, led by a veteranos, although the FBI sees no national organized head of all the groups. Tattoos are expected on the body of those involved, signifying membership and membership comes after an initiation. An initiation can include being ‘jumped’ in, which means 13 seconds of being beaten by the rest of the membership, or committing a felonious act. In prison, most members are ‘jumped’ in (Abadinsky, 2010). Black Guerrilla Family The Black Guerrilla Family was created in 1966, only one year before the Aryan Brotherhood formed their organization. This group was created with a political agenda, their philosophies including belief systems about the American government. According to Hicks (2010), “It was established by former Black Panther member George L. Jackson as a Marxist/Maoist/Leninist revolutionary organization with three central goals: (1) to eradicate racism, (2) to maintain the struggle for dignity in prison, and (3) to overthrow the United States government” (p. 86). Rather than have direct outside ties to a continuation of their gang, they affiliate themselves with gangs that are created outside the prison system. This includes rival gangs, the Bloods and the Crips which are both based out of Los Angeles (Hicks, 2010). Mexican Mafia The Mexican Mafia is a prison based gang, primarily consisting of Los Angeles based Mexican American prisoners. Either murder or the drawing of blood are required to get into the gang, and once in, the only way out is death. This is considered a ‘blood in, blood out’ structure of membership. The group was founded in 1957 by 13 young Mexican American males who formed the group with the intent of creating protection for themselves. In 1967 the group had grown to control a great deal of the illicit trades, but made the mistake of attacking someone outside of their group, inciting the birth of the La Nuestra Familia. This gang was created for the same reasons as the Mexican Mafia, in order to secure protection. The Mexican Mafia and the La Nuestra Familia have been in an active feud ever since that initial event in 1967(Abadinsky, 2010). La Nuestra Familia Formed in 1968 after the incident with the Mexican Mafia, La Nuestra Familia is identified by the symbols of the sombrero and the dagger. Most of the leadership was from Northern California, which created a geographical symmetry to the Mexican Mafia which was formed in Southern California. This specific geographic division created a defining method of choosing members. It also created a war that resulted in riots and murders where the memberships were in the deepest conflict (Schmidt & O'Reilly, 2007). In the 1980s, the La Nuestra Familia was the first gang to be indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The Norteno gangs of Northern California are under control of the prison gang La Nuestra Familia which means that the center of power is not out in the world, but within the prison system. The illegal operations are managed by exterior leaders who owe their allegiance to the leaders within the prison system. The Nortenos are gangs that are north of Bakersfield, while the Surenos are those who live south of Bakersfield. The Surenos are not as tightly controlled by the Mexican Mafia as are the Nortenos controlled by La Nuestra Familia. Aryan Brotherhood The Aryan Brotherhood is allied with the Mexican Mafia. This gang was formed in 1964 by white inmates at San Quentin to oppose the power of the Black Guerilla Family. Members of the gang have a green shamrock tattooed on their hand. At the present time, the gang has control of all of the maximum security prisons across the United States. Most of the top leadership is turned over to supermax prisons, their personal ties to their gang severed and their prison sentences increased due to their illegal and violent activities within the prison. This has not slowed the gang down. Most of the activities within the prison are tied to the Aryan Brotherhood, with gambling being one of their biggest enterprises. The prisoners are required to have outside contacts send money orders to members who are outside of the prison in order to clear debts (Abadinsky, 2010). The Aryan Brotherhood does not recruit like most prison gangs. While most gangs want numbers, the Aryan Brotherhood is a group that is joined through invitation. That invitation is only extended when a potential member, called ‘probate’, is thought to have an advantage that might further the needs of the Brotherhood. The Aryan Brotherhood also uses the ‘blood in, blood out’ philosophy of membership, with an attack on a specific threat or enemy being the cost of entry into the gang. Once receiving an invitation, it is unlikely that it would be refused as this would incur the wrath of the Brotherhood. Known as one of the most dangerous and powerful prison gangs, the only way out is through death and being released from prison will not release a man from his obligations to the gang. He is expected to support his ‘brothers’ who are still in prison (Williams, 2006). Misconduct in California Prisons The resulting build up of prison gangs and the power that they wield has put both other prisoners and prison staff in danger, their lives held in the hands of prisoners, rather than having control over the inmates. According to Petersili (2008), “Prison gangs have emerged with new power and influence, challenging the ability of prison administrators to control the prison environment. Some contend that staff and inmate assaults are common and that there is a pervasive culture of fear and violence in many U.S. prisons” (p, 208). The tables have turned, to a certain degree, with the power of the inmates creating a control problem for the administration of the security of the system. Rape is one way in which men in prison assert dominance over one another. According to Man and Cronin (2002) “In a prison society where each of its members is male, many inmates seek to reestablish their sense of dominance by using rape as a means of forcing other men to assume a submissive role that is perceived as feminine within that society” (p. 131). The social construction of an all male society changes the gender dynamic from the dominant male and the submissive female to the alpha male and the submissive males who are then bent to their will through forced humiliation and weakening of the spirit through means of sexual attack. Rape behaviors in prison, according to Man and Cronin (2002) are predictable. As well, while the existence of this behavior is well known to officials, the claim to not have specific knowledge of each event keeps them held without liability. In the case if Farmer v. Brennan in 1994 established that a two part test must be satisfied to establish liability. The first was in asserting that there was a clear presence of harm, which is undeniable in the case of rape. The second, however, is much more difficult as a ‘deliberate indifference’ to that harm must be proven on the part of officials (Mann & Cronin 2002). This appears to be the problem with misconduct in prisons. A structure of power has been built in which unspoken rules are created and unofficial condoning of these rules takes place as the ways in which power is asserted are not aggressively addressed. Of course, the ways in which gang behavior and domination are asserted creates a difficult problem for prison officials. Interference can sometimes make things worse. As discussed by Di Placido et al (2006), approaching the problem from the perspective of aggressive and active methods through which the gangs are suppressed, the identity of the gangs can be strengthened through unifying against the prison as a stronger force. This has resulted in at least one clear example in a Canadian prison where segregation led to a revolt that resulted in assault on guards and prison staff, resulting in a great many injuries to both staff and prisoners (Di Placido et al, 2006). Gangs and Treatment for Recidivism When Arnold (1966) began studying the concept of a ‘gang’, one of the first identifying properties that he found was that it was made up of lower class males who come together in a group using illegal methods in order to provide what legal means of acquisition did not provide. Gangs were a battle against poverty. While the gang systems have changed to include a larger demographic, youth no longer being the central requirement to belonging to a gang, the purpose has remained relatively the same. Gangs provide a foundation of power amongst those who have become disenfranchised from the accepted social system (Burns & Peyrot, 2003).. It is important, however, to understand that the power that gangs have is based upon a type of socialization. In understanding this, the cure to this problem is likely to have behaviors modified, re-socializing the prison population to conform to civil laws, decreasing recidivism rates through treatment. In an effort to address this problem, Di Placido et al (2006) studied the effects of high intensity cognitive-behavioral programs as they affected the rate of recidivism of gang members. Of those who found themselves back into the prison system, the types of crimes of the treated group were far less violent than those of the untreated group. Other methods of trying to find resolutions for the problems of gang power, according to Di Placido et al (2006), have not been very successful. Keeping gangs separated from each other created an increase in the power held by individual gangs (Trulson & Marquart, 2002). Putting gang leaders into segregation increased the solidarity of the members, creating a greater sense of identity through the martyrdom of their leaders. Encouraging members to leave gangs is also ineffective as the danger to the individual who chooses to leave is going to be much higher than the penalties that a gang will have for a member who leaves. Conclusion Most prison gangs are created with the intent of forming a group of protection so that others will not harm or violate an individual. The purpose of this formation is originally to protect against the acts of others, but appears to quickly become a form of organized crime in which profit is gained through the activities that occur both inside and outside of the prison. As shown by the Aryan Brotherhood, the irony of prison based gangs is that they hold enough power to influence events outside of the prison walls. All of the gangs discussed in this paper have power that extends beyond the walls of the institutions. Despite aggressive actions to slow the power of the gangs, they seem to persevere and overcome any action that is done by the prison system or by the federal government. The RICO act was used against leadership of La Nuestra Familia, but it still remains the second most powerful gang organization. Handling misconduct within a prison system is a difficult task. Men in a prison are there for having committed a crime, thus they are already in the process of serving a sentence, often for an extended period of time. Therefore, punishment that promotes change can be a complex problem. As shown through the La Nuestra Familia gang, putting their leaders in prison only served to strengthen the membership. Di Placido et al (2006) has suggested that high intensity cognitive-behavioral treatment is effective in lowering prison misconduct and recidivism, but this needs far more investigation to be considered a consistent solution. While there are many resources, none provide a true answer to this problem. References Abadinsky, H. (2010). Organized crime. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Arnold, W. R. (Winter 1966). The concept of gang. The Sociological Quarterly. 7(1): 59-75. Burns, S. L. & M. Peyrot. (August 2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems. 50 (3): 416-438. Di Placido, C., Simon, T. L., Witte, T. D., Gu, D., and Wong, C.P. (12 May 2006). Treatment of gang members can reduce recidivism and institutional misconduct. Law and Human Behavior. 30(1): 93-114. Hicks, R. E. (2010). Hidden in the shadow of truth: Why our black boys choose criminality prison and enslavement. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse. Man, C. D. and J. P. Cronan. (Winter 2002). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for ‘deliberate indifference’. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality. 92(1/2): 127-186. Petersilia, J. (2008). California’s correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. Crime and Justice. 37(1): 207-278. Schmidt, L. M., & O'Reilly, J. T. (2007). Gangs and law enforcement: A guide for dealing with gang-related violence. Springfield, Ill: C.C. Thomas. Trulson, C & J. W. Marquart. (2002). The caged melting pot: Toward an understanding of the consequences of desegregation in prisons. Law & Society Review. 36(4): 743-782. Williams, G. (2006). Siege in Lucasville. Bloomington, Ind: Rooftop. Tough Love: Nurturing and Coercing Responsibility and Recovery in California Drug Courts Author(s): Stacy Lee Burns and Mark Peyrot Source: Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 3 (August 2003), pp. 416-438 Read More