THE EFFECT OF SUPERMAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS ON AGGREGATE LEVELS OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE*

Supermax prisons have been advanced as means of controlling the “worst of the worst” and making prisons safer places to live and work. This research examined the effect of supermaxes on aggregate levels of violence in three prison systems using a multiple interrupted time series design. No support was found for the hypothesis that supermaxes reduce levels of inmate‐on‐inmate violence. Mixed support was found for the hypothesis that supermax increases staff safety: the implementation of a supermax had no effect on levels of inmate‐on‐staff assaults in Minnesota, temporarily increased staff injuries in Arizona, and reduced assaults against staff in Illinois.     

SUPERMAX INCARCERATION AND RECIDIVISM*

Since the early 1980s, supermax incarceration has emerged as a common feature of the American corrections landscape. This special type of high‐cost housing, which involves extended isolation with little programming or contact with others, remains largely unevaluated and is of interest for three reasons. First, the study of supermax housing offers a unique opportunity to understand the factors related to the successful reentry of offenders back into society. Second, it affords an opportunity to test the claims, many of which are grounded in mainstream criminological theory, that have been made about the putative effects of supermax confinement. Third, it provides an empirical touchstone that can help inform policy debates about the merits of such confinement. Examining data from the Florida Department of Corrections, we test competing hypotheses about the effects of supermax housing on 3‐year recidivism outcomes. We find evidence that supermax incarceration may increase violent recidivism but find no evidence of an effect of the duration of supermax incarceration or the recency of such incarceration to the time of release into society. We discuss the findings and their implications for theory, research, and policy.     

Crossing Borders and Criminalizing Identity: The Disintegrated Subjects of Administrative Sanctions

This paper draws on in‐depth, qualitative interviews that examine individual experiences in two different legal contexts: deportation regimes and supermax prisons. Through putting these contexts and experiences into dialogue, we identify common legal processes of punishment experiences across both contexts. Specifically, the U.S. legal system re‐labels immigrants (as deportable noncitizens) and supermax prisoners (as dangerous gang offenders). This re‐labeling begins a process of othering, which ends in categorical exclusions for both immigrants and supermax prisoners. As individuals experience this categorical exclusion, they cross multiple borders and boundaries—often against their will—moving from prison to detention center to other countries beyond the U.S. border, and from isolation to prison to “free” society. In both cases, the state action that subjects experience as punishment is civil and, therefore, nominally not punitive. Ultimately, excluded individuals find themselves in a space of legal nonexistence. By examining these common processes and experiences, we argue that a new kind of subject is revealed: a disintegrating subject (as opposed to a juridical or disciplinary subject) whose exclusion reinforces the power of the state.     

Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs

Scholars of mass incarceration point to the 1970s as a pivotal turning point in U.S. penal history, marked by a shift toward more punitive policies and a consensus that “nothing works” in rehabilitating inmates. However, while there has been extensive research on changes in policy makers' rhetoric, sentencing policy, and incarceration rates, scholars know very little about changes in the actual practices of punishment and prisoner rehabilitation. Using nationally representative data for U.S. state prisons, this article demonstrates that there were no major changes in investments in specialized facilities, funding for inmate services–related staff, or program participation rates throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s. Not until the 1990s, more than a decade after the start of the punitive era, did patterns of inmate services change, as investments in programming switched from academic to reentry‐related programs. These findings suggest that there is a large gap between rhetoric and reality in the case of inmate services and that since the 1990s, inmate “rehabilitation” has increasingly become equated with reentry‐related life skills programs.     

Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time to reentry

Despite the growth in and debate about super-maximum security housing, there exist few studies of inmates’ experiences or placement in supermax incarceration. The lack of research on this new type of confinement assumes particular salience given criticisms that such confinement is excessive, that placement in it is arbitrary, and that it may have adverse effects on reentry into society. The goal of this article was to inform efforts to understand how supermax housing is used and to contribute to policy debates about this housing. To this end, it used data from the Florida Department of Corrections to investigate several dimensions of the supermax experience. These included the frequency of placement into supermax confinement, the duration of time spent in such confinement, and the timing of it relative to reentry back into society. In addition, the article explored factors, especially behavioral indicators, that may contribute to decisions to place inmates in supermaxes. The article concludes by discussing the study's findings and implications for research and policy.     

WHEN THE COST IS TOO GREAT: THE EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF INCARCERATING THEIR PARENTS FOR DRUG OFFENCES1

The advent of the modern “war on drugs” and its accompanying “lock 'em up and throw away the key” crime policies largely explain the evolution of mass incarceration in the U.S. and account for much of the emotional and psychological pain caused to children who have lost their parents to long prison sentences. It is by reducing reliance on incarceration to tackle the “drug problem” in the United States that there will be a positive impact on reducing the number of parents being separated from their children for inordinate amounts of time, thereby potentially reducing the negative emotional and psychological impact on children. Aiding parents combat their addiction outside of prison walls is perhaps to most sensible criminal justice policy in addressing the needs of children who are caught in the cross‐fire of the war on drugs. In the meantime, as policy makers review, assess, and, eventually, reform draconian drug laws and sentencing policies, it is imperative that front‐line service providers who work with children and family and juvenile court judges be mindful of the emotional and psychological impact that parental incarceration has on youth. A more in‐depth understanding of the complexities of these young people's life experiences will hopefully enable the development of appropriate support services.     

New York State of Mind: Parental Incarceration and Children's Visitation in New York State

The incarceration of a parent has a variety of negative effects on a child's psychological, academic, and developmental success. Children can end up in foster care as a result of the state terminating parental rights due to the parent's incarceration. Despite imprisonment of their parent(s), maintenance of visitation with the parent(s) is still important for their children. However, not all prisons have visitation programs that are suitable to visiting children. This Note proposes a model state statute that will recognize the importance of visitation, implement “child friendly” visitation programs, facilitate training for prison staff, and provide transportation for children in major cities to the prison facilities.     

The Law‐Before: Legacies and Gaps in Penal Reform

This article introduces the law‐before as an analytic tool for enhancing explanations of legal reform. Based on an integration of neo‐institutional law and organizations studies and punishment studies of local variation in penal policy, I define the law‐before as the past organizational practices and power arrangements that precede law‐on‐the‐books and shape present day implementation. I utilize the law‐before as a heuristic to investigate the legacy effects of variations in local practice on the implementation of the prison downsizing law, AB 109, or “Realignment,” in California. I analyze organizational documents produced by county practitioners in the aftermath of AB 109's enactment in 2011 as empirical windows into how actors shape the meaning of law in local settings. I find that practitioners in counties with divergent historical imprisonment patterns enact four processes (overwriting or underwriting law, selective magnification, and selective siting) to arrive at distinct interpretations of AB 109 as mandating system‐wide decarceration or the relocation of incarceration from state prisons to county jails. Although my data do not speak to the ultimate implementation of AB 109, the processes revealed have practical implications for the reform goal of decarceration by rationalizing distinct resource allocations at an early stage in the implementation process.     

Towards a Fair and Balanced Assessment of Supermax Prisons

Supermaximum (“supermax”) security prisons have become a common feature of the corrections landscape. Despite their substantial costs, questions about their constitutionality, growing fiscal and managerial challenges confronting correctional systems, and increased demand for evidence‐based practices, little systematic empirical research about their effectiveness exists. Against this backdrop and a debate often framed in ideological terms, we identify five dimensions that we argue should be taken into account to provide a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons. Our study draws on a comprehensive analysis of existing research, site visits to three states, and interviews with 60 corrections policymakers, officials, and practitioners. We conclude with recommendations for research and policy.     

DOING HER OWN TIME? WOMEN'S RESPONSES TO PRISON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OLD AND THE NEW PENOLOGY*

Assumptions about gender role socialization dominated explanations for gender differences in responses to incarceration. We suspend these gender comparisons, which produced the focus on homosexuality and kinship networks in women's prisons, to determine how women's pre‐prison experiences, in the context of two different institutions, influence the way they “do time.” We analyze in‐depth interviews with a diverse sample of 70 female inmates housed in the California Institution for Women (CIW)—the oldest prison for women in the state—and Valley State Prison (VSP)—the newest prison for women. These two institutions differ in structure, size, and management philosophy, and accordingly necessitate the consideration of moderating situational effects. We use qualitative analysis to examine how women do time and to determine whether individual variations in doing time are similar across very different institutions.     

Politics,Prisons, and Law Enforcement: An Examination of the Emergence of “Law and Order” Politics in Texas

This article examines the rise of “law and order” politics in Texas, providing an in‐depth archival case study of changes in prison policy in a Southern state during the pivotal period when many U.S. states turned to mass incarceration. It brings attention to the important role an insurgent Republican governor and law enforcement officials played in shaping crime policy. Law enforcement's role is considered within a broader examination of political strategy during a period of intense socioeconomic volatility. The findings suggest that within particular political contexts, especially those with low levels of political participation, law enforcement agents might play a key role in shaping punishment.     

Effects of Educational Motives on Prisoners’ Participation in Education and Educational Desires

There are numerous individual and social benefits of increasing prisoners’ educational motivation and their level of education. During incarceration they can be motivated to consider education because of the value of education, their own resettlement, future job prospects, to break free from prison routines, or simply to be around others. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between prisoners’ educational motives and their participation in education or desires to start an education in prison. The participants were 750 prisoners who attended prison education in Norwegian prisons in 2009, plus 898 other prisoners. Three motive categories were identified: “Future planning”, “Social reasons and escapism”, and “Competence building” (learning for the sake of learning). The first factor explained more than twice of the variance of the sum of the two others. Prisoners with high scores in the competence building category were significantly more prone to participate in education in prison, also when other commonly used background variables were controlled for statistically. Among those who did not participate, high scores in competence building also predicted that they desired to start an education while incarcerated. Prisoners with high scores in the future planning category were less likely to participate in prison education. We then discuss why this latter somewhat surprising negative effect occurred.     

“BACK-END SENTENCING” AND REIMPRISONMENT: INDIVIDUAL,ORGANIZATIONAL, AND COMMUNITY PREDICTORS OF PAROLE SANCTIONING DECISIONS*

An understudied contributor to the massive growth of American incarceration is an increase in the practice of reimprisoning parolees through parole board revocations—now referred to as “back-end sentencing.” To conduct the analyses outlined in this article, we use data from the California Parole Study to analyze the effects of three clusters of factors (parolees' characteristics, organizational pressures, and community conditions) on these sentences. Our analyses are informed by theories that have been used to explain “front-end” (court) sentences, which center on the focal concerns of social-control agents, labeling, and racial threat. Our results indicate that status characteristics—race/ethnicity and gender—affect the likelihood that criminal parole violators are reimprisoned. Moreover, certain “pivotal categories” of parolees—registered sex offenders and those who have committed “serious” or “violent” offenses—are much more likely to be returned to prison than others. Organizational pressure (prison crowding) also affects the likelihood of reimprisonment. Communities' political punitiveness affects the likelihood that technical violators are reimprisoned and that serious or violent offenders are reimprisoned for criminal violations. In this article, we use these findings to consider ways that mass incarceration is driven by both top-down policies as well as bottom-up organizational and community forces.     

“It's Just Black,White, or Hispanic”: An Observational Study of Racializing Moves in California's Segregated Prison Reception Centers

This article takes as its launching point a 2005 U. S. Supreme Court case, Johnson v. California (543 U.S. 499), which ruled that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating inmates in prison reception centers is to be reviewed under the highest level of constitutional review, strict scrutiny. Relying on observational data from two California prison reception centers, this research is grounded in an interactionist perspective and influenced by Smith's work on “institutional ethnography.” I examine how racialization occurs in carceral settings, arguing that officers and inmates collaborate to arrive at a “negotiated settlement” regarding housing decisions. They do so working together (but not always in agreement) to shape how an inmate is categorized in terms of ‘race’/ethnicity and gang/group affiliation, within a framework established by official Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paperwork and related institutional understandings of housing needs. The findings demonstrate that administrators, officers, and inmates alike have influence over the process by which people are categorized and ‘race’ is produced, even as they derive their power from different sources and are both enabled and constrained by the relationship between them. I conclude that California prisons are, as Wacquant has put it, “the main machine for ‘race making’” (2005:128), and that the fuel for that machine—a series of patterned, negotiated settlements—happens in real time, “on the ground,” and with important consequences for inmates, officers, and administrators.     

HOW THE U.S. PRISON BOOM HAS CHANGED THE AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRISON POPULATION

This article provides a demographic exposition of the changes in the U.S prison population during the period of mass incarceration that began in the late twentieth century. By drawing on data from the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (1974–2004) for inmates 17–72 years of age (N = 336), we show that the age distribution shifted upward dramatically: Only 16 percent of the state prison population was 40 years old or older in 1974; by 2004, this percentage had doubled to 33 percent with the median age of prisoners rising from 27 to 34 years old. By using an estimable function approach, we find that the change in the age distribution of the prison population is primarily a cohort effect that is driven by the “enhanced” penal careers of the cohorts who hit young adulthood—the prime age of both crime and incarceration—when substance use was at its peak. Period‐specific factors (e.g., proclivity for punishment and incidence of offense) do matter, but they seem to play out more across the life cycles of persons most affected in young adulthood (cohort effects) than across all age groups at one point in time (period effects).     

Mothers Offending Against Their Role

ABSTRACT

Inmate mothers are not only seen to offend against society, but also against their role as mothers. They bear often public and private scorn for the dislocation their incarceration brings to their children and families. This paper reports on the Australian component of an international comparative policy study, Incarcerated mothers and children: Impact of prison environments(IM-CIPE). This study investigated the impact of the prison environment or institutional ecology on incarcerated mothers and their young children, aged birth to eight years (that is, mothers whose children live with them in custody and mothers who are separated from their children), in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and England. This paper draws on data from policy analyses; interviews with policy-makers, with inmate mothers, and with custodial and noncustodial staff; and observations within six women's prisons and their respective correctional authorities in the three Australian states. This paper argues for policies which support the inmate as mother and which support her children and their caregivers on the outside.     

Prison Recruitment as a Policy Tool of Local Economic Development: A Critical Evaluation

Like the sports franchises and foreign auto plants that preceded them, state and local governments are touting prisons as the latest means of economic miracle‐making, often for small towns and communities that are economically depressed. The building of prisons is supposedly tied to the development of a just, fair, and rational criminal justice policy in a civil democratic society. Prison building has positive and negative social and political consequences for these communities. This critical essay explores some of these consequences in light of the literature on prison siting, the experiences of communities and prisoners, and relevant statistical data in the public domain. It also offers an alternative framework for evaluating prison recruitment as a strategy for local economic development.     

Controlling Consensual Sex Among Prisoners

Despite recent legal advances for LGBT citizens, including the Supreme Court's recognition of a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual, same‐sex sex, prisons continue to regulate sex in much the same way they have been doing since the nineteenth century. Nationwide, prisons bar consensual sex among prisoners, and those who violate this policy face severe punishment, including administrative segregation. Interviews with prison officials from twenty‐three states uncover beliefs linking consensual sex with violence that places the overall security of the prison at risk. While supporting LGBT rights and the decriminalization of same‐sex sex in society, officials insist that prisons are not suited for similar change. This article explains why prison officials have been so committed to this policy and argues that the time has come to reconsider prison regulation of consensual sex.