The Situational Framework in Prison - Coursework Example

I. Introduction This research paper will attempt to explore the control of problem behaviour in prison from a socio-psychological or situational prevention framework. This analysis of situational prison control has drawn much attention from the intellectual community due to the accruing proof of success for situation prevention practices in lessening criminal behaviour in a vast array of community settings. The situational framework on crime is a comparatively new criminal justice concept that shifts the focus from the assumed criminal temperament of the offender to the characteristics of the possible crime scene that might motivate or facilitate criminal behaviour, as classically manifested in the Stanford Prison Experiment in which imprisoned good men became radically evil. Situational strategies include the methodical manipulation of features of the immediate contexts of potential criminals in an effort to hamper or restrain criminal responses (Toch 1992). According to the situational framework, behaviour can only be understood in relation to the interaction between the attributes of an actor and the features of the immediate environment wherein an act is carried out. Individuals behave differently because of differences in who they are and where they are. Therefore, in order to come up with a comprehensive picture of the challenges confronted by prison management because of issues in self, attitudes and behaviour in total institutions, the situational prison control perspective will be applied. II. Nature of the Problem: Definition and Prevalence Prisoner aggression towards staff includes deliberate physical contact, and includes pushing, sputtering, throwing objects, hitting and attacking with a deadly weapon. Physical aggression by prisoners can be differentiated from an array of other types of victimisation that a prison officer might endure. The everyday routine of guard includes continuous exposure to hazards and manoeuvring by prisoners. Moreover, for officers who are not accustomed to the traditional prison-officer practices, for instance, those taken into account to be too tolerant in their handling of prisoners, victimisation may take place at the accountability of other staff members and prison superintendents (Kantrowitz 1996). Apparently, the nature of interaction between prisoners and prison officers is relatively different from the interaction among prisoners; this is also referred to as power differential. Guards have official authority, and their task oftentimes involves forcing prisoners to do what they would otherwise do. The intrinsic nature of the guard’s responsibility makes them targets for attacks commonly; how individual prison officer perform their tasks may make them specific targets. Light (1991) presented an extensive breakdown of the several causes for prisoner-staff attacks. Because of some official incident accounts, he discovered that the greatest category of attacks seemed to be unexpected, apparently motiveless and basically random acts of violence against prison officers as they carried out everyday custodial tasks. Occasionally these attacks had a utilitarian intention, such as giving out the way for a prisoner to have himself immediately relocated to another institution. Typically, nevertheless, the attacks were instances of expressive hostility perhaps not aimed towards the victim specifically but against the management and the system in general. There may have been a particular setting off incident that took place some time prior to the attack of which the victim is oblivious. On the contrary, the attack may have been the outcome of a culmination of deprivations and aggravations throughout time (p. 243-244). The second largest category of attacks took place in reaction to an officer’s straightforward command. The most widespread command to provoke attack, attributing for more than half of the incidences in this category, was a command to go in or leave vicinity. Asking for identification and commands relating to the appearance of a prisoner were as well offensive. Light (1991) clarified the blatant rebelliousness of prisoners as responses to removal of autonomy and menaces to characters of masculinity (p. 246). A comparable subject matter of prisoner rebelliousness highlights the next category that Light (1990) referred to as ‘protest.’ In these instances, prisoners view their selves as injured parties of biased treatment and unimportant, conflicting or illogical rules. A general reason of protest was displeasure with the prison officer’s delivery of goods and services such as needing to wait to be carried over for medical treatment, a matter that Light views in terms of broader disappointments about being dependent on staff for the condition of numerous daily needs. Protest attacks as well took place when prisoners were met with regular security procedures, such as the rejection of entry into specific areas, the requests for identification or the deferral of prisoner visits. A vital factor, according to Light (1990), was the degree to which the prisoner sensed the rule was being aimed at specifically to him as opposed to being applied commonly to everybody (p. 272-274). Any mechanism of social control depends both on external regulations and internal constraints combined to a certain extent. Prison should make the most of external regulations as its inmates lack a sense of compliance and conformity or internal constraints. At the same time, excessive focus on external controls can weaken the deficient internal controls that are present. Due to lack of formal procedures for control, prison officers should then depend on informal procedures. Nevertheless, these informal procedures are normally in the form of structural accommodations in which the prison office awards the inmate influence over him or her through neglecting minor rule violations, using prisoners to control each other, and exploiting prisoners for valuable information (McCorkle et al. 1995). Prisons have substantial stage of conformity to norms devoid of much internalization of these norms; conformity is devoid of the institution and allegiance that goes with social control in the larger society. III. Activities and Regime for Prisoners Activities and regimes for prisoners should take into account the fact that aggression is a learned behaviour. Through experience and through observing others, people become aware that aggression often pays. People as well can learn the rewards of aggression. A prisoner whose aggressive behaviours successfully threaten other prisoner will probably turn out to be increasingly aggressive. Moreover, Albert Bandura (1997, 57) suggested a social learning theory of aggression. He argues that prisoner most likely learn aggression not merely through experiencing its rewards or payoffs but as well as observing others. As with other social behaviours, people learn aggression through observing others and remembering the consequences. The examination of situational prison control may lead to various assumptions. Primarily, a large extent of prison mayhem is a function of features of the prison environment. The environmental factors affecting the living conditions of prisoners can both produce misbehaviour and give out the prospects that permit misbehaviour to take place. Prison disorder can be put off through altering the prison environment in manners that lessen the inclination of prisoners to misbehave and make misbehaviour more complicated and difficult to carry out. Prevention efforts that fall short to address sufficiently the environmental forces that both produce and permit misbehaviour are more probably to be unproductive and may even intensify disorder. Following the work of social psychologists, social-scientific examination of prison disorder focused on the function of the prison social structure and the denials or miseries of imprisonment. Sykes (1958), in his book entitled Society of Captives, enumerated five deprivations of incarceration, namely, “deprivations of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy and security” (63). On the surface, these deprivations can be defined in physical term, yet far more crucial were the social and psychological repercussions addressing each deprivation. Hence, deprivation of liberty not only implies the physical detachment of the prisoner for the larger society but as well to the sense of seclusion and estrangement caused by a loss of social approval and acceptance. Deprivation of goods and services is not merely problematic but, in a society where appraisals of value are tied with material possession, defies the prisoner’s notion of personal sufficiency. Similarly, deprivation of heterosexual relationships includes both disappointments related to the physiological attributes of sexual self-denial, also, the psychological effects that detachment from the opposite sex has on its prisoner’s concept of their masculinity and sentiments of sexual sufficiency. Deprivation of economy consigns to the necessity to conform to rules and regulations, and to the disgrace and sense of defencelessness felt at having to rely upon prison officers for basic needs. Lastly, deprivation of security calls to the concern brought about by the ever-presence of threat from other inmates but, more importantly, to the prisoners’ troublesome self-doubt whether they have the needed guts and inner resources if an assault did actually happen (Sykes 1958, 64-66). The answer to prison disorder that is proposed by this analysis is to basically alter the coercive character of the prison regime. Some social psychologists warned that merely softening and humanising the prison environment would not necessarily eradicate the behaviour difficulties of prisoners (Toch 1992). Activities and regimes must particularly address the profound psychological pain brought about by the deprivations of imprisonment and thereby changing the social organisation of prisoners from which the disorder originates. A two-stage framework can be proposed as a means of integrating the conflicting arguments that disorder is created by prison circumstances on the one hand, and that is basically allowed by prison circumstances on the other. Precipitating and controlling factors are related in the framework in a sequential manner. According to the framework, behaviour is initially instigated by situational circumstances, and only then does the taking into account of opportunity emerge (ibid, 83). For instance, in the case of self-harm, prison circumstances may contribute to the sentiments of hopelessness that then encourages prisoners to pursue for processes of committing the act. Likewise, the opportunity to illegally get out of prison frequently is not acted upon if not other situational aspects initially make escape a favourable alternative. References Altman, I. (1975) The Environment and Social Behavior, Monterey CA, Brooks/Cole. Bandura, A. (1965) Influence of models reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1: 589–95. 1976, Social learning analysis of aggression, in E. Ribes-Inesta and A. Bandura (eds. ), Analysis of Delinquency and Aggression, Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum, pp. 203–32. 1977, Social-Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman. Brodsky, S. L. and Fowler, R. D. (1979) The social psychological consequences of confinement, in L. R. Abt and I. R. Stuart (eds. ), Social Psychology and Discretionary Law, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 260–9. Cooke, D. J. (1991) Violence in prisons: The influence of regime factors, Howard Journal 30: 95–109. Farrington, D.P. (1984) Delinquent and Criminal Behaviour. In Gale, A. & Chapman, J. (Eds.), (1993). Psychology and Social Problems: An Introduction to Applied Psychology. Wiltshire: Wiley. Forsyth, D. R. (1990) Group Dynamics (2nd edn), Pacific Grove CA, Brooks/Cole. Gale, A. & Chapman, J. Eds. (1993) Psychology and Social Problems: An Introduction to Applied Psychology, Wiltshire: Wiley. Goffman, E. (1959) Presentation of Self in Every Day Life. New York: Double Day Anchor Books. Hayes, L. M. and Rowan, J. R. (1988) National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years Later, Alexandria VA, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. Hogg & Vaughan (2008) Social Psychology. England: Pearson Prentice Hall. Kantrowitz, N. (1996) Close Control: Managing a Maximum Security Prison, Albany NY, Harrow and Heston. Light, S. C. (1990) The severity of assaults on prison officers: A contextual study, Social Science Quarterly 71: 267–84. 1991, Assaults on prison officers: interactional themes, Justice Quarterly 8: 241–61. McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D. and Drass, K. A. (1995) The roots of prison violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and “not-so total” institution models, Crime and Delinquency 41: 317–31. Morris, P. (1963) Pentoville: A Sociological Study of an English Prison. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul . Parker, M. (2007) Dynamic Security: The democratic therapeutic community in prison, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Sykes, G. (1958) The Society of Captives, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press. Toch, H. (1992) Mosaic of Despair: Human Breakdown in Prison. Washington, DC: Americal Psychological Association. Read More