Prison Gangs in the US - Essay Example

PRISON GANGS IN THE US Increased cases of formation of gangs within prisons in the United s have been noted in the recent past. Many opinions would be projected to explain the reason though the institutions of justice are yet to ascertain the cause of increased gangs and the most appropriate mechanisms of breaking these gangs. However, it is ascertained that the gangs exists within all prisons in US though identified with different purposes. For instance, there are the prisons gangs whose purposes are to supply drugs, offer protection to minor inmates while others exists only for prestige and reason of identification. The reasons of joining these gangs while in prisons are equally diversified and include the search for protection and in order to command control over all others. This study therefore intends to analyze the trends in prison gangs holistically within US, the reasons of their formation as well as the possible means of destroying them. Introduction The United States have increasingly been recording higher rates of gangs organized within the prisons over the last years (Sheldon, 2004). Both the increase in the number of gangs and gang members along with the increase in criminal activity by these individuals has lead to harsher responses by the criminal justice system including an increase in the incarceration of many gang members. For example, a study conducted in 1999 by prison administrators indicated that 24 percent of male prisoners and seven percent of female prisoners belong to a prison gang (Shelden, 2004). This was an approximately 167-percent increase in the number of prison gang members reported in 1991 whereby only nine percent of male and seven percent of female inmates reported belonging to a gang. In another study conducted in 1999 approximately 47,220 male were gang members in 1999 compared to a similar study in 1993 whereby 43,765 men were identified to be gang members in American prisons (a 7.9 percent increase) (Shelden, Tracy & Brown, 2001). However, some states that have been identified with higher number of gangs in their prison population, for example Illinois, reported that as many as 34.3 percent of inmates belonged to a prison gang (Fleisher & Decker, 2001) which was the highest percent of prison gang-affiliated inmates in the nation. Despite the number of identified gang members in prisons, research on both the existence and the handling of gangs behind institutional walls is relatively nonexistent (Scott, 2001; Skarbek, 2012). Gangs exist in all prisons throughout United States (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Moreover, most of the gangs within the same prison harbor rivalries, which are typically based on their race. However, evidence suggests the imprisonment of gang members has been a short-term solution for violence caused by these gangs in the community. In fact, this can result in an increase of cohesion between the member of the gang and increased recruitment of more members (Hagedorn, 1994; Knox (2005). It is hard to gain accurate data about the ways that many of Americas prisoners are involved in gang activity. However, many current researches about the existing of gangs in prisons lead one to expect that gangs and their members are prevalent in many prisons in the United States and elsewhere (Baugh, 1993). Another important fact about gangs in prisons is that some members were affiliates of gangs before their confinement. After they are arrested and confined, they still have a tendency to configure gangs in prisons and continue to recruit (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Gangs in prisons effect the environment of the prisoners lives and their impact reaches even prison administrators, guards, and all employees in the prison. The impact of prison gangs on prisoners lives may be most notably reflected for violence that occurs behind institutional walls between gang members, in the process of recruitment, and against staff. In some cases, gangs have played main roles inside the prisons through the protection of prisoners and push for certain systems of coexistence between the populations within prisons (Gabriel,1996). The main reason to become involved in gangs in prisons is that they provide protection in cases when the state does not offer it (Skaperdas, 2001). Due to these observations this paper will focuses on determining the reasons behind the extent of gangs in prison and the way they continue to exist. Further, results from this study will be used to develop new, innovative methods to curb the spread of gangs in prisons and prevent extortion inside prisons. Literature Gangs in prisons have existed for more than 60 years; the first recognized penal gang in the United States, the Gypsy Jokers, was established in 1950. Despite having only local ties, this gang serves as the first recognized cohesive group (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). These groups slowly but systematically expanded their presence in prisons throughout the United States. By 1969, prison gangs were introduced in Illinois. By the 1970s, the states adjacent to California and others bordering Mexico experienced the influx of gang members to their institutions. The incarceration of these individuals resulted in the formation and expansion of gangs in areas once unaffected (Shelden, Tracy & Brown, 2001). In addition, by the 1980s this behavior was transmitted to other states north of Illinois, and among regions such as Kentucky and Missouri. Nevertheless, it was identified the major cause of prison gangs formation was due the transfer or incarceration of gang members to other jurisdictions. Therefore, there were efforts to reproduce these organizations by new inmates in a prison system, thereby giving them a way of identifying themselves before imprisonment. The development of indigenous prison gangs was based on a variety of different factors including a sense of belonging, the need for protection during the period of confinement, or as a means to associate with those of the same race or ethnicity. Nevertheless, protection is a key factor that contributes to the formation of prison gangs, whereby individuals are recruited due to the challenge of fighting in order to survive in prison. In fact, there are situations where the new inmates are forced to join the gangs or pay for protection, while others become servants of these gang members (Hagedorn, 1994). In addition, gangs have a tendency of recruiting prisoners who have the same ideas and morals, because these individuals may be more willing use violence to promote the specific ideas and morals of the group and ultimately achieve the gangs aims. Gang members target inmates serving short sentences, and in their way they are assured that they will benefit from help from them after they leave the may be through visits or in financial terms prison (Skarbek, 2012). The gang members are expected to adhere to a stringent code of silence, whereby they are committed to their gang life, which is a reflection of their convictions. Moreover, these gangs facilitate activities such as black markets for illegal commodities, such as drugs, cell phones, or cigarettes (Skarbek, 2012). Approximately, 1.6 million individuals were imprisoned in state and federal prisons at the end of 2011(Carson & Sabol 2011), and because of the large number of men and women imprisoned in America society needs to pay more attention to what is occurring behind institutional walls. Efforts by the federal government, such as the Prison Rape Elimination Ace (PREA), include mechanisms for prison officials to reduce the number of violent acts occurring while incarcerated, thus, reducing the need for protection for weaker inmates by prison gangs or other groups who exist for the sole purpose of encouraging submission through violence (Schuhmann & Wodahl, 2011), . In addition, efforts such as the Second Chance Act and the focus on Evidenced Based practices both within and beyond institutional walls demonstrate the focus of correctional administrators as well as the public on rehabilitating or reforming offenders in an effort to reduce recidivism. Efforts to reform also include encouraging individuals to refrain from gang membership and activity while incarcerated and once they are released back into their communities. Thus, providing a decent life for those incarcerated will assist in the re-entry off offenders into the community. These initiatives further illustrate the need for the prison administrators to take the responsibility of sharing their administrative powers with the society by illuminating all dilemmas and problems that they face and to find appropriate solutions. The community must be attentive to this neglected side of society, prisons, and not left prisoners to face their fate on their own (Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Scott, 2001). Nevertheless, prisons are considered public institutions that are financed by funds collected through taxes, and things that happen in these institutions are influenced by the quality of the circumstances that surrounding the prisoner (Shelden, Tracy,& Brown, 2001). On the other hand, there are convictions by the citizens that involve consideration of the intelligent opinions concerning management of prisons, programming of inmates, and focusing on rehabilitation with the amenities. There have been proposals made by recently elected officials citing the need for capital punishment, removal of various recreational facilities in prisons and focusing on rehabilitation without the amenities. Moreover, they are seeking to do everything that can make the inmates straighten their lives instead of providing comfort in prisons. Prison Gang Structure and Development Prison gangs establish structures in which have individuals who are chosen as a leader to overseeing a board of members in the gang who make verdicts. Moreover, these groups have a form of bureaucratic leadership, where there are hierarchical ranks that establish organization that matches their counterparts in the community (Moore, 1978). In addition, there are leaders and hard-core members, whereby 15 to 20 percent of the members lack stake of leading the gang. Prison gangs possess a doctrine or slogan, which can be signified by signs of the membership. They have a tendency to use signs and symbols to share information and communicated between each other such as nonverbal methods of exchanging thoughts such as hand signs, colors, and tattoos are indicators of gang affiliation. They may also have a constitution that predetermines their behaviors, and the members are expected to portray absolute loyalty to other members (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Nonetheless, the gangs embrace ferocious conduct as habitual; in fact, this conduct is applied in promoting the members upward in the prison gang ladder. However, the gang focuses on their business of crime, which involves activities such as drug trafficking, every member has certain and specific duties. For example, the operation of drug trafficking is starting from bringing in contraband and then the process of promotion and selling and facilitation. The prison gang exerts pressure on unaffiliated inmates, whereby some have a problem in adjusting to the new conditions after imprisonment (Moore, 1978). In fact, physical security is considered essential to member of the gangs in terms of psychological and material functionality. Moreover, this function is the basis for communication networks for expedient delivery of contraband and commodities. Leaders of gangs on the streets typically remain leaders after incarceration. They charged with responsibilities of guiding gangs’ businesses and making decisions. For example, Curry and Decker (1998), explains that Larry Hoover who was a leader of Gangster Disciplines in the community continued as the leader of his gang for years during his imprisonment in an Illinois prison. Therefore, there are efforts aimed at holding the penal facilities responsible for determining the gang affiliations of inmates. Prison gangs also have a code of secrecy, which provides a basis of establishing power and prestige (Skarbek, 2012). In fact, this is evaluated through their ability to control other inmates throughout specific activities within the institutions. On the other hand, the prison gangs uses money and drugs as a representation of tangible symbols, through their ability to dominate other inmates, while other gangs have ability to offer safety, commodities and other services for members. Therefore, the gang’s capabilities are the basis of determining the gang’s status and prestige; in fact, this leads to a reinforcement of their commitment and solidarity (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Members are recruited to become immersed into the role of prison gangster as a carrier; thereby they spend an insignificant amount of participating in other social behaviors. Other characteristics of prison gangs include a good definition of their hierarchical structure. In this case, the chains of command are based on the experiences gained during the prison life. For instance, the prison is considered an institution that has members with welfare and police experience of involvement (Shelden, 2004). There are numerous anticipatory socializations in prison, where the prison system have an influence on nearly every inmate. On the other hand, there are realities associated with barrio life and contract that have a continuous and drastic influence on inmates. However, inmates focus on adapting, whereby the inmates perceive adaptation process as a variant to street life (Klein, 1995). The notorious aspect of prison life is associated with these gangs, especially among men’s prisons. For instance, after incarceration the inmates who are not affiliated with any gang have fear due to dangers he or she is subjected to because of existence of these gangs and they constantly coexist with the risk of gangs. In fact, some of these new inmates are not concerned about their survival than the prospects of being sexually abused or being exploited (Moore, 1978). Nevertheless, the guards have insufficient assistance to protect the new inmates in these prisons. Moreover, the prison administrators ignore rivalries in an effort of between gangs by tending to maintain a level of social control. Nonetheless, the new inmates are bound to identify a strategy for coping or dealing with the situation in the prison system. Prison gangs have problems that vary depending on the type of institutions due to the disparities in terms of the prison systems. For instance, a study conducted in 1999 regarding increased level of security leads to increased problems for the gangs (Shelden, 2004) found that during this study 10 percent of minimum-security prisons reported to experience disturbances from the gangs during the year. Prison gangs have been identified to have a significant involvement in drug business and violence in various prisons; in fact, they have an objective of dominating these two activities. Moreover, these gangs have money as their source of motivation and to help them achieve a high rank and power structure in prison (Klein, 1995). On the other hand, they exploit other inmates with an inherent weakness, which results from prison overcrowding, and other understaffed prisons with an ability to monitor activities of the inmates. During their business operations, when their profits are at stake, this results in violence and this patter is common in almost all prisons. According to Camp and Camp (1985), prison gangs usually have an aggregate three percent of the total population of the prison, though they cause fifty percent of cases of violence in these prisons. On the other hand, these gangs are confined in a small area and they have a finite number of customers who purchase drugs and other services such as prostitution and gambling. There are varieties of techniques applied by prison administrators in order to gain control over the gang members in the prison. Some of the recommended approaches include improvement of race relations, implementing stringent policies, elimination of gyms, monitoring of telephone calls mails, banning the wearing of gang colors as well as altering the use of colors on the walls thus instead of having blue or yellow walls using gray as neutral color. Moreover, transferring known gang members to other facilities, use of informers, segregating members, isolation of leaders, and monitoring of communication among the gang members, and offering assistance to the staff through attendance of training conferences (Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Scott, 2001). Numerous studies that have been recently conducted indicate that problems associated with prison gangs have been escalating over the years (provide some citations here). Since 1991, when the first custodial gang studies were administered, jail administrators reported that the figures of inmates joining gangs has risen. Besides, there were notable increase in the trend of inmates arriving under narcotic addictions where between 27% and 73.4% were imprisoned within the period between 1959 and 1980 (Skarbek, 2012). Nevertheless, there are expectations that the number of gang related and narcotic issues are bound to increase in the future. Isolation of gang leaders is a common strategy for controlling the gangs, whereby the gang leaders are locked down and this eliminates vertical communication within the gang. Consequently, the gang solidarity is broken and this can cause the end of the gang’s operation or functionality. For instance, the gang leaders are isolated from their groups through transfer among the institutions, whereby they are kept circulating among prisons. The other strategy involves reduction of gang members by identifying the inmates through their file, whereby they put a note indicating their involvement in gangs (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). In fact, this note is vital to the prison administrators, in order to classify them by being transferred in a high security facility. However, there are cases of inefficiency, whereby there are unconfirmed activities, which are reported by snitches, and this can lead to inappropriate labeling of inmates as a gang member (Klein, 1995). Therefore, when an inmate is labeled, they are controlled through threats of segregation or transfer, though there are no approaches involved for evaluation. There are cases where the correctional agencies have used databases for tracking members of gangs and their activities. Moreover, this acts as a way of facilitating effective communication between correctional and law enforcement agencies. In fact, this also improves data accuracy because information is entered after it is gathered. There are other digitized photos, which document gang members’ symbols and tattoos in correctional facilities (Scott, 2001; Skarbek, 2012). Therefore, through database searches the scars and tattoos can be used as a means of identifying the members. In addition, this increase the speed and capacity of updating intelligence information, whereby the database is shared as a tool to facilitate prison gang management. It is worth noting however that the case in Saudi Arabia is quite different with no such prison gangs in existence but on the contrary, religion groups within the prisons are in existence previously. Many groupings within the prisons in the country are religious based with distinction between Muslim groups as well as the Christian groups being noted. The Christians continue to face harsh legal charges, which often land them into prisons, and this motivates them towards formation of such groupings. On the other hand, Muslims from the larger population in the country and equally as part of the inmates. The observance of religious practices as prayers and such others motivates the different groups of Muslims to gang up and form these groupings. This therefore illustrates these outstanding differences between US prison gangs as compared to groups within Saudi Arabian prison religious groups (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science (ISISC), nd). In conclusion, this section provided a review of the literature on gangs in prison; therefore, this section offers a basis for testing the hypothesis by fostering an understanding of the relevant issues regarding gangs in prisons. While the literature, to date, provides an overview of the techniques used to respond to gangs in prison, no research has explored the effectiveness of these policies on a broad scale. Thus this study will expand the current literature by examining the gang related or security threat group policies and violence in five Midwestern correctional systems two years before and two years after the implementation of the policies. Hypothesis and Research Question; As noted in the literature, a variety of different policies has been implemented in an effort to reduce the number of gang-related violent activities behind institutional walls. As noted by Scott (2001), these include efforts such as zero-tolerance policies, altering the color of garments and institutional walls, and transferring known gang members to other facilities. No literature has examined whether these policies have effectively reduced the number of violent misconducts or behavior behind institutional walls. The following hypothesis will be tested to examine this relationship. H1: Violent incidents in prison will be less in two years after the implementation of ‘security threat group’ policies than two years prior to the implementation. The second area of concern for prisons is the reason why offenders join gangs. Previous research suggests that offenders join prison gangs for protection or for moral, racial or ethnic identification (Skarbek, 2012). Previous efforts to understand the reasons why offenders join, however, have failed to consider whether offenders weigh the benefit of protection over the cost of being caught as a member of a gang or a security threat group. Thus, this study will ask known gang members why they join and examine the extent to which they understand the institutional ramifications of their involvement. Methodology To answer the proposed hypothesis and research question both a quantitative and qualitative approach will be used. To test the hypothesis, violent incidents in prison will be less than two years after the implementation of ‘security threat group policies’ than two years prior to the implementation; official institutional data will be examined. The research will involve institutional data covering two years before the implementation of a ‘Security Threat Group policy’ and two years after the implementation. Questionnaires will be used to get the data as to what techniques were used to identify known gang members. The study will also ask how gang members are identified and what efforts are taken to reduce gang related crime and violence behind walls. The researcher will also contact the Department of Corrections for the five identified states in the Midwest (Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Missouri). This will assist in obtaining a list of the institutions including all custody levels, males, females and juveniles. In an effort to collect the data systematically, however, the researcher would work with the head of the research division in the respective state to collect the data. The questionnaire as attached herewith focuses on major facts on age, race, committing offense, length of the sentence as well as whether affiliated to any gang. In answering the question posed within the study, the researcher will identify one facility within the states outlined and identify sample representative in all categories; the juveniles, adult males as well as adult females. Identifying the warden will be effective in assisting with the process of identifying the gang members within the respective facility. An interview with the selected inmates would be effective in collecting the required data as to why they were in gangs and if possible investigate further on the benefits. Some incentive of some money would be used to allow the respondents cooperate. The researcher will have a written letter to the ISU institutional review board to get permission to collect data on the respective institutions. Presentation The findings obtained from this study will be used in the discussion, and will be presented through graphs and charts in order to develop a form of visualization, which can assist in understanding the relevant ideas gathered from the research. It is expected that the findings from this study will support the continued implementation of security threat group policies. Further, data will support the finding that violent encounters by gang members have been reduced since the implementation of SGT policies. Results from the interview data will further provide evidence and information on how to reduce the continued recruitment of prisoners into gangs once behind institutional walls. In addition, this information may be used to encourage those individuals who were affiliated with gangs prior to incarceration to withdraw from gang participation following their incarceration. Limitations of the Present Study States may not have consistent data thus presenting the challenge of acquiring enough data for analysis. States may not have had a mechanism to identify whether known gang members committed violent misconducts prior to the implementation of an SGT policy. Known gang members may be reluctant to be interviewed therefore, threatening the size of the sample. Interview participants may lie resulting to biased data being collected. Sample sizes may be too small for women and juveniles and thus the error of generalization. Findings and discussion. The findings obtained from this study will be used in the discussion. These findings will be presented through graphs and charts in order to develop a form of visualization, which can assist in understanding the relevant ideas gathered from the research. It is expected that the findings from this study will support the continued implementation of security threat group policies. Further, data will support the finding that violent encounters by gang members have been reduced since the implementation of SGT policies. Results from the interview data will further provide evidence and information on how to reduce the continued recruitment of prisoners into gangs once behind institutional walls. In addition, this information may be used to encourage those individuals who were affiliated with gangs prior to incarceration to withdraw from gang participation following their incarceration. Discussion: The literature evaluated in this study reveal that prison gangs have been in the increase within the US prisons mainly because of the increased incarceration of members of criminal gangs. Many people in prisons join gangs due to derived benefits including security and protection within the prisons. Many current gangs member join while in prisons. Many individuals who were gang members prior to incarceration continue their participation while confined. Isolation of gang leaders could break the gang solidarity and this can cause the end of the gang’s operation or functionality. Prison gangs have been identified to have a significant involvement in drug business. Conclusion: The literature review brings to mind many overlooked reasons behind the existence of gangs in prisons. Prison authorities and society ignore that reasons as well as how prison gangs’ function within these prisons. In this case, the section has offered an overview of issues regarding the gangs in prisons and their functionality in a way that can facilitate testing of the hypothesis and contribute substantially to the discussion of the research. In this case, the section has offered an overview of issues regarding the gangs in prisons and their functionality in a way that can facilitate testing of the hypothesis and contribute substantially to the discussion of the research. References Agedorn, J. (1990). Back in the field again: Gang research in the nineties. In C. R. Huff, Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Camp, G. & Camp, C. (1985), Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on Prisons. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Justice Research Program: Washington, DC. Curry, G. D., & Decker, S. H. (1998). Confronting gangs: Crime and community. Los Angeles: Roxbury. David, C. P., Scott, H. D., & Fleisher, M. (2011). From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(1), 12-24. Fleisher, M. & Decker, S. (2001). An overview of the challenge of prison gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1–9. Gaes, Gerald G., Susan Wallace, Evan Gilman, Jody Klein-Saffran, and Sharon Suppa. 2002. “the influence of prison Gang Affilliation on violence and other prison misconduct”. Prison journal, 82: 359-85. Griffin ML & Hepburn JR (2006) The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 419–448. Hagedorn, J. M. (1994). Homeboys, dope fiends, legits, and new jacks. Criminology, 32(2), 197- 197. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.indstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220691227?accountid=11592 Klein, M. (1995).The American street gang. New York: Oxford University Press. Knox, G. W. (1999). National assessment of gangs and security threat groups (STGs) in adult correctional institutions: Results of the 1999 Adult Corrections Surveys. Chicago: National Gang Crime Research Center Krienert JL & Fleisher MS (2001) Gang membership as a proxy for social deficiencies: a study of Nebraska inmates. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3 (1) 47–58. Lemmon, J. (2001). The social reality of gangs.Juvenile Justice Update, 7(1), 8-10. Mark, S. F., & Scott, H. D. (2001).An overview of the challenge of prison gangs.Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1-1. Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs and prisons in the barrio of Los Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Fleisher, M. (2011). From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(1), 12-24. Rodriguez, L. (2005). The end of the line: California gangs and the promise of street peace. Social Justice, 32(3), 12-23. Schuhmann, R.A. &Wodahl, E. J. (2011). Prison reform through federal legislation intervention: The case of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 111-128. Doi: 10.1177/0887403410365534 Scott, G. (2001). Broken windows behind bars: Eradicating prison gangs through ecological hardening and symbol cleansing, Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 23-36. Shelden, R. G., Tracy, S. T. & Brown, W. B. (2001).Youth gangs in American society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Shelden, R. G. (2004). Gangs. Encyclopedia of prisons & correctional facilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Skarbek, D. (2012). Prison gangs, norms and organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(1): 702-716. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science (ISISC), (nd). The religious rights and duties of Muslim inmates in prisons a guide for criminal justice personnel. Web. 20 November, 2013. < http://www.turnitoutsafely.com/antiplagiarism/> Zatz, M. S, & Portillos, E. L. (2000). Voices from the barrio: Chicano/a gangs, families, and communities. Criminology, 38(2): 369-401. Read More