The Prison Society - Essay Example

PENOLOGY + For first-timers, prison is one of the most dreaded place one desires to end up regardless of the magnitude of whatever crime they might have committed. Mainly, the fear is a result of a perception that a prison is a cruel place where freedom is a form of luxury. On the other hand, every society strives to have individuals perceived or confirmed to be criminals rid of the streets in a bid to ensure security and normalcy remains. It is rather intriguing that in almost all prisons, the prisoners outnumber the guards yet the former tend to remain compliant and orderly. In a bid to understand what happens in prisons, various authors have participated in various writing. Penology was started in the early 40s with Donald Clemmer publishing the prison Community. The work elicited discussions and in 1958, Gresham Sykes published the society of captives, and lately, Ben Crewe’s The Prison Society. This paper seeks to show how the works of the last two authors confirm that prison is a place of order despite the prisoners outnumbering the guards. Adaptation is so strong that anyone who gets used to a particular habit or place will eventually start living as per the requirements of that place. According to Crewe (2009), adaptation is one of the reasons prisons have order yet the number of prisoners tend to more than the guard’s. Psychologically, the prisoners get acquainted to the regulations, and even though there is some form of resistance at the beginning, there tends to be acceptance once it is evident there is no escape route (Lubin and Schneider, 2009; Crewe and Bennett, 2012). That is to say, the prisoners might at first have self-denial on the reality of the prison, as time goes by it becomes apparent that they will not leave until the right time. Consequently, the psychological change occurs causing the prisoners to accept the fate, leading to observing the rules of the facility (Chantraine, 2004; Lerman, 2013). Similarly, Sykes (2007) noted that when the prisoners adapt to the situation, a relationship and interaction starts. For instance, prisoners are often released to carry out various activities including exercising in the yard, watching television, attend religious activities among others, and these activities help in bonding a relationship with the guards. The result sees the prisoners find no reason warranting an escape, and this helps them adopt the prison as another home. Ricciardelli (2014) who noted that once the prisoners accept the prison as another home, there lacks a need to seek an escape shared the above observations. In the modern-day, the levels of freedoms have increased though not enough to give the prisoners the much needed change to forsake crime. Prisoners boost order and compliance either through stringent rules or availing some forms of freedoms which make it easy for the prisoners to adapt (Sykes, 2007; Crewe, 2009). The modern-day prisons allow more freedoms unlike in the past, and this gives the prisoners a sense of freedom. As a result, there is minimal or no pressure to defy the rules set in the prison. On the other hand, in the past, the coercion that came with prison compelled the prisoners to comply with the rules albeit unwillingly (Steen and Bandy, 2007; Rigg, 2002). While some prisoners have adapted to prison life, and live a seemingly similar life to the outsider’s, some have been coerced by the cruelty that comes with this life. According to Sykes (2007) and Colvin (2007), the kind of treatment prisoners undergo sometimes make less human, and instead they become too frail to put up a fight. It was noted that because of the cruelty the prisoners go through, it becomes almost impossible for them to differentiate between right and wrong. This trend creates an impression that there is order and compliance on the part of the prisoners yet their human nature is almost altered completely. Because of denying prisoners their rights among them sexual, “a man perpetually locked up by himself in a cage is no longer a man at all; rather he is a semi human object” (p.6). That is to say that sometimes prisoners seem to comply with the rules and regulations of a prison not because that is precisely the case, but the punishment is too severe to bear in case of contravention of the same. In addition, Hudson (2003) argued that prisoners are places meant to convert the once-criminals into individuals whose input to the society is productive. Unfortunately, with the mistreatment extended to the prisoners in the places they initially thought would help in making them better, the situation worsens. It, therefore, explains the reason the modern prisons have done little to convert convicts into better people once released. Thus, the number of the guards manning a particular prison is almost irrelevant as long as the inmates are mistreated. For that reason, the prison will seem orderly and prisoners compliant, but that will not always be the case since other underlying issues, such as mistreatment, have not been adequately addressed. Rehabilitation is an additional reason for the prisoners to remain orderly and compliant of the prison rules, though it is still a subject of much debate. Both in the modern and past times, the prison is seen as a place where individuals who commit crime could be rehabilitated before being allowed back to the society (Sykes, 2007; Craig, 2004). While the subject of prison as a rehabilitation centre has elicited an intense debate, it suffices to say that the prisoners are indeed reformed at the prison. Gideon et al (2010), who stated that even though some methods of rehabilitation might not be as humane as one would expect, they result in a reformed character, have replicated these sentiments. Additionally, Tewksbury (2005) asserted that while the methods often applied by various correctional facilities are a centre of debate, one could not overlook the impact the prison life has on the prisoner. In some prison, mistreatment and cruelty is a norm that is aimed at changing the inmate. Elsewhere, the methods may vary with some freedoms allowed all in a bid to ensure that the prisoner is reformed. Even though cruelty is vehemently opposed as a means of aiding behaviour-reformation, other methods face criticism of a similar magnitude (Handtke and Wangmo, 2014). Hence, whichever, the method a prison facility might choose, the bottom line is that inmates tend to have character and behaviour reformation during and after the prison life. When this occurs while the offending person is in prison, there is a likelihood of order and compliance. Thus, this explains why the prisons are sometimes so orderly yet the number of guards is way below that of the prisoners. On the topic of rehabilitation, Crewe (2009) stated that rehabilitative programs greatly help the modern-day prisoners in working closely with the administrators. In order to achieve this goal, it is recommended that increased privileges become a norm in the prison as opposed to using cruelty and coercive means a way to achieve the same goal. It is further argued that if prisons are indeed a place for behaviour reformation, the methods to apply ought to give the affected individual some sense of freedom whilst making them aware of the repercussions of the actions (Steen and Bandy, 2007). In other words, it is imperative to strike a balance of freedoms and punishment since overstretching either would fail to achieve the very essential goal of reformation. In short, the prisoners need some freedoms, but enough to make them fail to distinguish the outside and prison life. Besides the input that the prison management and subsequent laws demand, the inmates themselves tend to behave differently in relation to their jail terms. For instance, Crewe (2009) noted that order and compliance in prisons in sometimes a result of the decisions by the prisoners themselves. For instance, it was noted that various categories of prisoners whose behaviour is prison is dependent on the jail terms they received coupled by their decision to take responsibility. One such category was termed as ‘enthusiasts’ where the individuals in this category tend to have a personal desire for reformation. Consequently, they tend to avoid an altercation, contravention and disobedience of the prison laws; this greatly helps in creating the impression that there is order in prison. Beside avoiding going against the requirements of the prison, this category of prisoner accept and embrace the legitimacy of the prison’s authority, thus commit to observing every rule in a bid to ensure reformation. The second category of prisoners entails the ‘pragmatists’ where the individuals in this group are committed to completing their jail time. While personal behaviour reformation might not be one of the motivations, this category wants to pay whatever price for their actions. Consequently, blushing shoulders with the authorities becomes almost non-occurrence on their part (Crewe, 2009). For that reason, commotion with other prisoners and unnecessary contravention of the laws become almost unlikely for this category of group. Therefore, when a prison has this category and the other mentioned earlier, there is a very strong likelihood that compliance an order will be evident in any prison. The third category of prisoners who sometimes make prison seem a peaceful and orderly place is the ‘Players’ which is simply a group of prisoners who feign compliance in the hope of receiving reward include parole. Crewe (2009) stated that this category of prisoners seldom engages in any activity in order to have their character reformed; rather the intention is to win the confidence of the authorities. In a neo-paternalistic culture, this behaviour would most likely see this category of prison get some rewards. In exchange, the prisoners would want to portray themselves as ones committed to the regulations, though that it not the case. Nonetheless, it would still paint the prisons as a place where the prisoners are compliant despite these intentions. Formation of groups by the prisoners is yet another reason the prisons could be seen as orderly even though in reality that might not be the case. Various catalysts help in the formation of groups in prison, and this either could mask the non-adherence or could help in the actual observation of the prison laws. Shared race, ethnic backgrounds, local loyalties and relationships developed earlier are some of the platforms that prisoners use in creating own circles which could either encourage compliance or contravention of the rules in prison. In the case of groups bent on breaking the laws, which includes an attempt to escape, it will still not be evident, but could even be camouflaged through feigned compliance (Sykes, 2007). On the other hand, the group committed to compliance will hardly exhibit signs of aggressions, and thus the guards will always seem in control of a thronged prison. Clearly, irrespective of whether the prisoners have ill intentions, committed to completing their sentences or simply desiring their reformation, the prison will always seem peaceful. Lack of cohesion between the prisoners and the administrators serve yet another reason one could misinterpret the prison life. It is not always that prisoners are compliant; the cruel system might deny them an opportunity to express themselves. According to Sykes (2007), the stringent rules in prison do not always play the purpose of aiding reformation. Often, these tend to inflame the situation, but since the prisoners have no alternative, they have to conform. Also, Cliquennois (2013) stated that the prison is sometimes seen to be peaceful and orderly because the prisoners clearly understand the animosity existing between them and the guards. Since the latter are armed, there is little they can do to show signs of aggression. In conclusion, the work that Gresham and Ben Crewe undertook individually has provided a collective picture of all the prisons. Though written at different times, the two works present the precise picture of the prisons throughout the world. While some developed, countries have since allowed more freedoms to their prisoners, others still embrace cruelty as a means of reformation. Various groups to reform their behaviours could attribute the order in prison to a number of factors including commitment. As indicated, this category not only avoids contravening the regulations, but also has an intense passion to reform. On the other hand, others simply want to serve their term and move on with their lives outside the prisons with little regard of reformation. Also, a third category sees people practice pretence on compliance hoping to get rewards from the administrators. Regardless, it is clear that the prison will always remain orderly and prisoners compliant irrespective of the number of guards because there are various groups of prisons with varied intentions. Bibliography Chantraine, G. (2004). Prison and sociological perspective. champpenal, (Vol. I). Cliquennois, G. (2013). Which penology for decision making in French prisons?. Punishment & Society, 15(5), pp.468-469. Colvin, M. (2007). Applying Differential Coercion and Social Support Theory to Prison Organizations: The Case of the Penitentiary of New Mexico. The Prison Journal, 87(3), pp.367-387. Craig, S. (2004). Rehabilitation versus Control: An Organizational Theory of Prison Management. The Prison Journal, 84(4 suppl), pp.92S-94S. Crewe, B. and Bennett, J. (2012). The Prisoner. NY: Routledge. Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: power, adaptation, and social life in an English prison. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gideon, L., Shoham, E. and Weisburd, D. (2010). Changing Prison Into a Therapeutic Milieu: Evidence from the Israeli National Rehabilitation Center for Prisoners. The Prison Journal, 90(2), pp.179-202. Handtke, V., & Wangmo, T. (2014). Ageing Prisoners’ Views on Death and Dying: Contemplating End-of-Life in Prison. Bioethical Inquiry, 11(3), pp.373-376 Hudson, B. (2003). Punishment, Justice and Responsibility. Punishment & Society, 5(2), pp.215- 219. Lerman, A. (2013). The modern prison paradox. NY: Cambridge University Press. Lubin, H., & Schneider, T. (2009). Change Is Possible: EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) with Life-Sentence and Veteran Prisoners at San Quentin State Prison. Energy Psychology Journal, 1(1). Mason, B. (2004), Imprisoned Freedom: A Sociological Study of a 21st Century Prison for Women in Ireland, London School of Economics, Ricciardelli, R. (2014). Coping Strategies: Investigating How Male Prisoners Manage the Threat of Victimization in Federal Prisons. The Prison Journal, 94(4), pp.411-434. Rigg, J. (2002). Measures of perceived coercion in prison treatment settings. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25(5), pp.473-490. Steen, S., & Bandy, R. (2007). When the policy becomes the problem: Criminal justice in the new millennium. Punishment & Society, 9(1), 5-9 Sykes, G. M. (2007). The society of captives: a study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, N.J. [u.a.], Princeton University Press. Tewksbury, R. (2005). Going to Prison: A Prison Visitation Program. The Prison Journal, 85(3), pp.292-94 Read More