Criminology

While there is little evidence to establish any conclusive remarks on how prison culture is structured and how it evolves, adopted and manifested by the subjects involved, the idea that a prison culture of violence exists is an accepted fact. It is important to note that the question is not so much in the presence of prison culture of violence itself, rather than on how that culture is formed and adopted by the different relevant stake holders.

To analyze culture formation, it is crucial to understand what prison culture is. This paper suggests that culture prevalent inside the prisons be understood as necessarily comprised of the collective attitudes and cultural summary manifested in the interactions of different stakeholders namely inmates, management, staffs, and the regular spectators.  

That prison culture and community culture of violence are not two distinct entities is strongly considered in this paper. The relationship may be viewed in two ways either one-way or two-way. Furthermore, it can be viewed as either affirmative or negative. To this second possibility, two debates surround the issue. Byrne (200529, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.27), for instance, argues that prison culture and community culture violence are two related factors evident in the sense that exogenous factors are actually brought by inmates to play roles in the inmates behavior inside prisons. The other view is forwarded by Sykes (as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.27) in which essentially it is argued that the prison culture is generated right within the distinct conditions and circumstances found in the prison, without necessarily the participation from community or outside culture. Sykes (19586, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, 2005, 28) argues that the deprivation of liberties and the environmental conditions that apply in prison illicit that culture of violence that is distinct of a prison culture.    

This paper maintains that the individuality of the individual plays a key role in understanding the possibility that the cultures of violence in prison and community may not be totally distinctive elements that should be treated as void of any connection. The analysis involves consideration of the individual cultures that the different stake holders involved have. As the penal institutions is a stage for these different individuals who have, intentionally or otherwise, collaborated to form a cultural identity that in turn becomes reflected in prison context, considering how each group exerts their influence on prison culture formation is important.

1. Introduction
The attempt to analyze how the culture of violence in prisons is formed and adopted entails making an enquiry on whether such particular culture is formed apart of any outside influence such as what is called the community culture. Byrne and Hummer (2005, p.45) say that there is little study and empirical evidence gathered to support a well-established position about how the culture of violence is formed and perpetuated. Nonetheless, intuitively, we may argue that as the ways and thinking of an individual is a product of the different cultures surrounding him, at least at the intuitive level, we find valid support to the inquiry on how different cultures shape the mentality and dispositions of an individual.

One interesting thing to look at is how the community culture and prison culture of violence may be interacting in ways that may be difficult to quantify, yet nevertheless happen (Stowell and Byrne, p.37). The position of this paper is that prison culture and community culture are interrelated and not two distinct entities that are devoid of any interaction. While there is ample empirical evidence to support the case, a theoretical framework to establish the conclusion is possible.

In the course of the analysis, premises are drawn in consideration of the other factors that may help shed light in the understanding if, and how, such a relationship between community violence and prison violence exists. These factors include the social structures, legal framework and other social conditions that are operating within a specific community. Furthermore, in the process of analysis, ideas will be drawn heavily from the two book chapters written by Stowell  Byrne and by Byrne and Hummer, as well from the findings offered by the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE).

Whereas this paper acknowledges cultural relativity, it has been attempted here to approach the issue universally and thus, crossing over the limitations or borders or cultural relativity and diversity.    

1.1. Definition of the Problem
To put it somehow differently, this is a question on whether the individual is capable of exhibiting the same traits that he has outside the prison or, on the other hand, be empowered by the new culture which he gets acquainted with inside the prison (Stanford Prison Experiment). This is not a simple issue to explore on as there are many things that need to be clarified and made distinction about before the issue can be addressed adequately. These include the definitions of prison culture and community and what the possible nature of relationship is exactly being referred to- is it one-way, two-way, etc.

1.1.1. Definition of Prison Culture
An analysis of the matter regarding the link between community and prison cultures entails defining what prison culture is. The definition no doubt has a very important impact on how the matter will be viewed an analyzed. Yet, arriving at a comprehensive definition of prison culture is quite a challenging task because this requires the integration of the different perspectives, or notions on what culture is, that come from the different groups of individuals.

The plurality on opinions as to what prison culture is can be seen from the discussion by Sykes. Sykes (1958, as cited in Byrne and Hummer, p.42) states, For prisoners, inmate culture may take the form of a unique inmate code that defines how prisoners should act and react in prison settings. Sykes, in one sense, suggests a way by which the definition of prison culture is formed from the perspective of the inmates. Byrne and Hummer (2005, p.42) also mention other notions of prison culture that include inmate culture, staff culture, and management culture. In effect, these three cultures are the elements consisted in the prison culture.
 
1.1.2. The Different Perspectives
Theories Supporting the Absence of Interconnectedness between Community Culture and Prison Culture of Violence
According to Stowell and Byrne (p.28), one perspective that addresses this inquiry is apparent in the argument forwarded by Sykes. Sykes (19586, as cited Stowell and Byrne 2005, p.28) argues that the deprivation of liberties and the conditions of incarceration that apply in prison illicit that culture of violence that is distinct of a prison culture. In addition to that, Sykes (195822, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.29) argued that there is an untrusting behavior present among inmates that makes it conducive to commit crime. Sykes also argues that culture is product of individual behavior (as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.29). Krienert and Fleisher (2005, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.21) argued that culture has its own logic from which it forms its own reality.

Theories Supporting the Presence of Interconnectedness between Community Culture and Prison Culture of Violence
One of the major criticisms that theorists supporting the interconnection between community and prison cultures of violence against those who do otherwise is found in the latters definition of community. For instance, Heitgard and Bursik (1987, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.30) argued that prison is not to be treated as an isolated social institution. Taking Sykes arguments, for instance, we see how Sykes applied a limited definition of the word community and treated prison as an entity that is apart from the existence of this community (Stowell and Byrne, p.29).

Further to that, there is also the so-called importation model in which it is suggested that prison culture results from transfer of exogenous factors that are necessarily found in the outside community (Pattavina, et al., 2006, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.31). This idea is also supported by the empirical studies conducted in which the results clearly show that social institutions have interactions (Baller, et. al, 2001 Anselin, et. al, 2000, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.30). Additional support to this idea is seen in James Byrne (2006, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.31) who states that gangs are formed with basically the same pragmatic reasons, both inside prison and outside prison, in which individuals tend to seek advantage and interests protection by joining a gang. The opposite view is also forwarded by Byrne (as cited in Byrne 200529) in which essentially it is argued that the prison culture is a product of inmates experience prior their incarceration.

2. Discussion
2.1. The Reality of Culture of Violence in Prison
Prisons are correctional institutions, their existence has been made to help offenders change their devious ways and be better citizens (Foucault 1977233, as cited in Stowell and Byrne, p.27). This function associated with prisons as institution makes the idea of prison violence come rather contradictory to the very nature and function of this institution. However, there are a lot of reports regarding incidents of prison violence. Many of these cases have been initiated by the very people who are supposed to be working with the offenders to achieve the desired changes in behavior. According to the 60 Minutes report by CBS News (1999), Two years agoCorcoran State Prison was being investigated by the FBI because numerous correction officers- prison guards- were accused of staging inmate fights, sometimes wagering on the outcome and then, when those fights go out of control, of shooting the inmates involved. There are a number of evidences supporting the fact that prison culture of violence exists. The vast number of incidents of this nature prompted the inquiry of policy designs that would effectively lessen the number of incidents. This then leads to the question about the nature of this violence, that is, how it comes about and gets manifested by individuals who stay in the penal institution.

At this point, it is important to draw a distinction between whether that culture is a summative account of the different individualistic identities that are necessarily imported from the community culture or a culture that is formed right within the very conditions and borders of the penal institution, quite distinct from the community culture. In this case, it is helpful to cite what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment sought to find out whether the individual culture will manifest over the shared culture within context of prisons. The answer to this puzzle is a very crucial thing in understanding the link between community and prison culture of violence because it necessarily provides key understanding how the violence as fostered by this culture can be minimized. Quoting from David Spence, in a report made to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in Americas Prisons, The culture of our prisons virtually dictates the level of violence you will have in them. And if you change that culture, you will reduce the violence (2006, as cited in Byrne and Hummer, 2005, p.45)
  
2.2. Arguments and Proofs about the Interrelation in Community Culture and Prison Culture
Argument The key argument forwarded in this part is that the culture and identities found in the individuals are the same cultural identities that they carry into the penal institution, although the manifestation of it may be distorted by other factors that are defined by the conditions and circumstances of the new environmental setting.

Proof This claim may find its strength and support from the two theories in criminology called the theory of rational choice and conflict theory.

The rational theory is built around the understanding that each person is responsible for their actions based on thought.  This thought is surmised by making choice decisions in reference to means versus ends, costs, and benefits (Scott, 2000, para.1).  The fact that the individual decides and claims responsibility for such decisions based on thoughts suggests a correlation between community culture and prison culture in the sense that, the individual before going to prison is necessarily shaped and influenced by the community culture and that influence will be reflected in the decisions he will make when he goes inside the prison.

To what extent such culture will be reflected is difficult to say but the point is, the individual is already a thinking person with his own culture before he committed the crime and whatever external influences he might receive from the new environment will just accumulate together with what he has or he is already. It cannot change totally because saying so would entail admitting the fact that the individual will totally be a new person, quite distinct from what he is originally, without any slightest form of similarity. This very unlikely and any theory of knowledge cannot accept a total change of the individual- empiricists would say knowledge is  the accumulation of experience while rationalists would say that knowledge is based on reason which is a permanent possession by an individual which is not contextually-based (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, para.1).

The other criminological theory that can explain this interrelation is the Conflict Theory which is based on the theory of Karl Marx. The literature from  HYPERLINK httpwww.criminology.fsu.educrimtheory  httpwww.criminology.fsu.educrimtheoryconflict.htm (para. 1) states that the conflict theory attributes the fundamental cause of crime to social and economic forces that may result to different conflicts (i.e. interests, welfare, etc.). The conflict theory grounds for the interrelation of community violence and prison violence in the sense that social forces are factors that interplay to affect social structures and the interactions that happen therein. Thus, it is very hard to treat one particular structure as a totally separate entity.

Lastly, the interrelation is also supported by the fact on the study of race. Byrne and Hummer (2005, p.46) identified studies with findings indicating that higher prison violence is committed in prisons with high racial mixtures- white guards, female wardens, etc. These studies suggest that there a culture that is necessarily formed from the outside community is being reflected inside the prisons.  

2.4. Counterarguments- The Implausibility of Interrelation in Community Culture and Prison Culture
The introductory part of the Stanford Prison Experiment where they featured a study about memory and the mentor administering an electric shock strongly reveals a lot about human nature. Specifically, it reveals how humans would respond to the stimulus of authority that they recognize. Analyzing how prison culture may be formed and perpetuated can be done using the findings in the experiment with the teacher and electric shock. One very disturbing finding of the study is that humans can act against their conscience on the dictates of a recognized authority, regardless of whether such authority is legal and ethical or not.

The notion of authority is also crucial in understanding how an individual may be disposed to take certain course of actions, and in analyzing how the attitude, culture and beliefs of the person becomes re-shaped to accommodate respect for such authority. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, we saw how the traits true at the individual level has been overshadowed, to a great extent, by the newly formed collective traits that then operate within a particular context- thus, a restructuring of culture takes place and the authority functions as a very influential factor that affects ones thoughts and behavior, as well as the one of the conditions for the restructuring.

There are two ways by which the authority may be established. The funny thing is that an authority needs not even to be established with force, although in many cases the force was necessary to position such authority  either of these is necessarily a result of the legal framework being adopted. In the experiment, we have seen how the misconduct of the experimental law enforcers has been tolerated with silence by most of the experimental inmates simply because these inmates have recognized the power of the law enforcers over them- this is authority established without force. In parallel with real-life prisons, the same observations can be made and be backed up by the fact that the circumstances of the inmates leave them with little choice but to play cards well with the law enforcers because being in prison, some rights that are being enjoyed by free individuals become void as it applies to the inmates- liberty, choice between comfort and discomfort, privacy, etc. This is compounded by the fact that in prison, inmates are expected to obey. Being in a correctional institution where there is a prevailing mindset that the system corrects the deviant behaviors, less rebellion and more obedience are expected from the inmates.    

3. Conclusion
The issue on prison culture and its relation to community violence is a broad one that crosses perspectives- criminological, psychological, legal and sociological. The reasons cited to provide the counter arguments may be very tempting grounds to say that the two cultures (prison violence and community violence) are not at all related as the cultures are formed distinctly from one another, with different elements, environmental context and factors of consideration.

Admittedly, there are changes on how the individual things and acts outside prison and how he does inside because of the constraints they experience inside the institution. However, these are not sufficient, neither necessary, to conclude that the individual, upon entry to prison, will have a totally changed perspective as this also means  changing his individuality or everything  that defines his being a he or her being a she.

This paper suggests that prison culture may be considered as a summative account of different elements that all interplay to come up with the culture that then applies in the context of prisons. These elements are segregated based on the perspectives to which they comply, that is, as defined by the different groups of individuals all to be understood as having different interests, beliefs, attitudes, functions and roles to play. In an attempt to provide a more comprehensive, if not holistic, approach to the issue, this paper thus defines prison culture as the sum of the mentalities and ways of the different peoples who are part of the penal institutions. In addition to that, the justice system adopted also influences how this prison culture is structured as this is the legal context by which the factors of prison culture interplay and form a singular cultural identity that applies true for the penal institution
Moreover, individuals who have the experience of living both a community life and a prison life end up dealing with two different cultures  and this necessarily affects how these individuals think and act. Despite a readily admitted gap between these two cultures, there is however strong support to the argument that these two may not be totally distinct at all as the individual who get to be immersed with. In other words, these two cultures may affect each other in ways that may be hard to quantify and qualify, yet nevertheless present.