The Classification, Housing, and Sorting of Inmates in California Prisons - Article Example

Segregation in the California prison systems Segregation in the California prison systems What sociological questions did the researcher ask? In the research article that was written by Philip Goodman on segregation in the prisons, these are some of the sociological questions that he asked to show an overview of the problems he intended to address. One, he questions the regular interactional processes that influence the classification, housing, and sorting of inmates in California Prisons. This is based on a point of those prisons being termed as the most obvious supporters of racial segregation enacted by the state. Two, he questions how the correctional officers and officers play a part in or maybe endure the racialization of facilities and inmates. The third sociological question he intended to answer was how routine interactions are shaped and impacted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) procedures and paperwork. The researcher was interested in these questions because he intended to review how segregation occurs in prison settings. This is after the U.S Supreme court in 2005 ruled that the California’s Correctional Centers unwritten practice that consisted of segregating inmates on the basis of their race, in cells that were shared by two people in its reception centers, was to be put to strict scrutiny under the highest standard of constitutional review…(Johnson v. California 2005, 543 U.S. 499, at 506) (Goodman, 2008). After the ruling, the Supreme Court returned the case to the lower courts to reexamine it under the newly formed standard of review. Also, California was put into the task to reveal that its tacit practice was narrowly framed by the powerful interests of the government. CDCR later made a peaceful agreement with Johnson, as opposed to facing further legal dispute in the lower courts in regard to this issue. For this reason, many journalists, legislators, prison officials, academics, public, and researchers have developed interest in reviewing the CDCR practices and policies with respect to racial segregation. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme courts in Johnson v. California formed the motive behind the sociological questions in Goodman’s research (Goodman, 2008). In this article, the literature review is summarized in a way that it shows some findings and positions of other authors concerning the issue. The significance of the research questions is built from the flow of these summaries. For example, the literature review is presented in the form of why studying racial segregation in California prisons is of importance. The first evidence given was from a review from California department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which shows that the largest prison systems are located in California, with one hundred and seventy thousands women and men and sixty thousand employees. The second evidence comes from Senate Select Committee on the California Correctional System, which in 2005 stated that racial segregation is widely spread in California prisons. The third review comes from Supreme Court and CDCR. The evidence suggests that racial segregation cannot be found in any policy manuals of the CDCR, but rather what they have is an unwritten practice that is enlightened by an actual racial segregation policy. Finally, the demographic composition of prisons in California is somehow unusual, with inmates branded as either Black, Hispanic, white, or other, representing roughly twenty-nine, thirty-nine, twenty-six, or six percent of inmates respectively….() (Goodman, 2008).Not only are the research questions related directly to the literature review, but also the literature review is organized around the research questions. How did they answer the question? Observational method was used to collect data in two facilities belonging to men, one in the central region of the state, and the other one in Southern California….(). The two fieldwork sites were conveniently selected. The researcher described and took note of the inmate and inmates’ behaviors including the language that was used. The data were collected from a sample of thousands of inmates that were processed in the central (Goodman, 2008). In south, more than a thousand inmates were observed (Goodman, 2008). No formal interviews were used. However, the researcher informally asked the officers in charge some questions about their interactions and work. In the field, the researcher also took few notes on a napkin and wrote few conversations that were related to racial segregation in California prisons. He made short visits to other reception centers based in California. Such places visited included juvenile facility in California, women’s prison, a San Diego men’s prison, and also men’s prison that was located outside the Bay area (Goodman, 2008). Most of the jotting was done in hidden places to avoid suspicion by the inmates and officers, which might have caused alterations in how they related. How did they present their findings? The findings were presented in three various parts. The first part examines the data of the researcher and data from other prison researchers to make a conclusion that those locked up in the prison and prisons are all racialized. The language of officers is examined in the second part that officers are indeed involved in the creation of prisons that are racialized. The third part contains the central point of this research as per the researcher. This part presents the habitual practices that determine the segregation moves made by officers and inmates in the course of the process of categorization that makes segregation by skin color possible. The findings show that how race are produced and the processes in which people are put into categories are determined by the inmates, officers and also administrators. The findings further demonstrate that these three groups derive powers from different sources, but they are not only restrained by the relationship they have, but also they are enabled by the relationship between them. In his findings on racialized prisons, he discovered that in California prisons, racial segregation gives an indication of a belief in racial contamination dangerousness after he noticed some labeled barber boxes that were displayed publicly. The researcher also found out that racial language dominates the reception centers, with specific speeches acting as a guide to racial segregation and violence. The officers allow such kind of languages in the prisons and sometimes engage in such speeches especially when welcoming inmates, therefore reflecting the officer’s approval of the legitimacy and importance of these kinds of racial divisions. His findings on racializing moves show that both the interactional moves by the officers and inmates influences the process by which incoming inmates are racially categorized and also a group or gang affiliation. They are categorized by a structure formed by prison administrators and officers. The housing form is also influenced by the administrators of the prison. It is for this reason that the researcher calls it “a negotiated settlement (Goodman, 2008). The research findings on regularities revealed that it was a must for inmate to fill out the 1882 form of housing. The form consisted fields like disruptive or gang group, ethnicity, and group affiliation, which means that the form acted to structure and direct the process of segregation in prisons. Another finding of regularities stated that in the California prisons, single housing categories, and one race were the only options the incoming inmates had. They only had an option of choose only one option. It was deemed unacceptable for an inmate not to name a racial category he came from. The power of the inmate to influence the process to be used in his or her categorization is not absolute (Goodman, 2008). However, it is limited to the decisions made by the administrators and officers on which categories are permissible. Therefore, the interaction between the officer and the inmate in which categorization is born, which means that racial segregation and categorization is made possible. The researcher mostly wrote about the data without showing it to the reader. The voice used to report these findings is an active voice where the researcher gives an account of most of the actions that were performed by the inmates, officers, and administrators. The author uses both first person and third person voice, with the third person voice used the most. The researcher is writing for the Law and the Society Association, Pacific Sociological Association, CDCR, the Supreme Court, and other researchers from prisons. How do you evaluate this work? The observational method used to collect data from an interactive perspective and institutional ethnography match the research questions. The question aimed at examining segregation in the prisons of California although the sample used was bulky, tedious, and time consuming. Also, the observation method could have been subject to observer bias; therefore reliability and validity of the data collected could have been undermined. A representative sample would have been better. Goodman presented the data in a way that convinced me. The data supported his argument that racial categorization is the building block of racial segregation and it is influenced by negotiated settlement that emanates from power from 3 parties namely officers, administrators, and inmates (Goodman, 2008). According to his explanations, Goodman collected data in Central and Southern Prisons in a covert manner, without informing the participants of the scope and nature of the investigation, therefore, making an ethical implication. This research study has made me understand segregation in the prisons in a new way. Before, it did not occur to me that the process of categorization that leads to segregation in prisons was influenced by the incoming inmates. I thought that segregation is influenced by the administration and officers only. From this, I have learned to see the social world from interactive relationships, where different variables can interact to cause an effect. Reference Goodman, P. (2008). It’s Just Black, White, or Hispanic: An Observational Study of Racializing Moves in California’s segregated Prison Reception Centers. Law and Society Review, 42(4), 735-770. Read More