Inmate Code
The informal organization and hierarchy in prisons
Man is a social being and a prisoner is no exception. Irrespective of the differences that occur, prisoners form social organizations. Power is given to some people crowning the now officials with recognition and empowering them to make interventions in cases of wing problems (Crewe, 2008, Subcultures). A new coming inmate has to show surrender to the prisons officials and at times in very humiliating ways. The newcomer is stripped naked before the head and forced to bow in total submission. With the anus now completely exposed, a finger is inserted to find out whether the prisoner has any hidden drugs in the rectum. This operation is, in the real sense, carried out to leave the newcomer terrified, humiliated and of course submissive to the seniors (Dorpat, 2007). Power can also be granted to prisoners not because of their influence but as a result of their ability to obtain and give rare goods as well as services. This is practical in England, and not to be left out in Wales, where hard drugs and especially heroin smuggled inside prison, can easily make one climb up the prison ladder of power. Others can earn their power by their negative trait of aggression. (Crewe, 2008, Subcultures). The females are placed below men in the hierarchy (Wellford, 1967).
Inmate Code in Operation
Just like in any other social institution, these informal organizations are also controlled by a set of rules and regulations these are normative elements that deal with wrong doers. However, the norms come from different sources. The prison administration has its own norms that prisoners are supposed to adhere to. The other is a set of norms designed by the inmate themselves and this is known as the inmate code (Wellford, 1967). Inmate code therefore can be defined as a set of maxims, values and norms formulated and accepted by inmates to guide their conduct in the prison life (Crewe, 2008 Inmate code). Here, inmate code will be put in use to mean the normative element adoption by the inmates or to put it in one word, prisonization (Wellford, 1967).The inmate code was in 1940 described for the first time by a person by the name Clemmer (Wilson, 1986).
Inmate code differs from administrative patterns. In adhering to the inmate code, an inmate rejects the defined code of conduct by the administration. The free world that if full of ambiguities, however permits a person to lie within the range of the specific and the general conduct. In behind bars, the inmates are to either follow the administrative or inmate rules but not both. There exists conflict when the two are in operation. The administrative rules as Wellford spells out in his journal, Factors Associated with Adoption of the Inmate Code a Study of Normative Socialization, demands the prisoner to
(1) divulge any information he has about another inmates deviant behaviour, (2) give support to the treatment facilities under the motivation of bettering himself, (3) work diligently at each job assigned on the assumption that his work may prepare him for a future trade, (4) divulge any information he has on escape plans or the smuggling into the institution of goods or money, and (6) refrain from forming close associations with other inmates (Wellford, 1967).
The prisoners code is very negative towards the above stated principles. For instance, it emphasizes on refusing to inform about fellow inmates and gives more strength to formation of inmate groups. This is a clear indication that administration and prisoners codes of conduct fiercely conflict the two cannot go together (Wellford, 1967). The inmate code seeks to oppose the set goals and values of prison authorities. In addition, the inmate code strongly prohibits a bend to the set prisons conventions and strictly calls for loyalty to the inmate code and group at large. The code prescribes that none of the inmates information should be leaked outside their boundaries and whoever dares is, as Dorpat puts it in his book, Crimes of punishment Americas Culture of Violence, subjected to brutal attacks. The inmate who is not cooperative is termed as a rat or a squealer (Dorpat, 2007). Inmate code also defines the behaviour boundaries of an inmate who, in case of violation, is punished by other inmates. The punishments vary from one codes breakage to another and may include violence to an extent of murder and ostracism. Inmate code value masculinity and shouts in rebuking weakness (Dorpat, 2007).
As Freeman puts it in his book, correctional organizational and management public policy challenges, behaviour, and structure the inmate relies heavily on exaggerated images of masculinity that encourage macho behaviour while condemning weakness, such as compassion, caring, sharing feelings and emotions, or expressing personal pain.(Freeman, 1999).The inmate code stipulates that inmates should be loyal to each other and not nosing others businesses and avoiding exploiting other inmates (Freeman, 1999). It also states that the inmate also referred to as the stand-up inmate should never whine, sob plead guilty or try to seek favour with the administration by pleasing them either by working or accepting their opinions (Freeman, 1999).
According to Thomas, Blomberg Lucken, 2000, in their book, American penology A history of control, in the inmate code of conduct
Inmates were not to interfere with other inmates interest(dont be nosey, dont have a loose lip, keep off a mans back, dont put a guy on the spot), exploit fellow inmate(dont break your word, dont welsh on debts), weaken(dont whine or cop out) or be a sucker(guards were not to be trusted) and the inmate was always to side with the other inmates as a real man who pulled his own time and was viewed by other inmates as a man of integrity and autonomy(Thomas, Blomberg Lucken, 2000).
Dorpat also in his book, Crimes of punishment Americas Culture of Violence, points out these to be the major inmate codes (Dorpat, 2007).
The start of the inmate code in prisons
The Inmate Code which entails inmate own made rules, starts with the inmates admission to jail. They are pushed to accept the place they hold in prison as inferiors according to a formed hierarchy. Previously, out of the prison life, they were known by a name but in prison they are given a number. Their good clothes are replaced by prison uniforms. They are never free and are forced to adopt the rules of prison. This brings the inmate to total surrender of personal autonomy which together with several changes can harm the identity of the victim. To compensate the lost personal identity, prisoners come up with organizations that are informal. They formulate inmate codes that govern their behaviours and through this they achieve cohesiveness as they can identify with others who are also going through the same kind of alienation (Dorpat, 2007).
The overall torture of behind bars causes prisonization. The codes help them to reduce deprivation feeling that is brought about by prisoners being dispossessed of goods and services, heterosexual relationships and autonomy. As a result of deprivation, inmates develop frustration, hatred, stress and negativity of prison and its guards. To fight away this feeling, they form an inmate subculture (Dorpat, 2007). By showing respect, loyalty and generosity towards their fellow inmates, by not being exploitative, avoiding coming into negative terms with others interests and by being resistant towards the prison staff , inmates develop a common identity (Crewe, 2008 Inmate code).
Morris Rothman (1995) in, The Oxford history of the prison The Practice of Punishment in Western society, calls this the deprivation or adaptation model in which the inmates have to follow codes to enable them survive the deprivations found in the institutions (Morris Rothman, 1995). On the other hand, the inmate code can also play a role in hurting the self esteem of a prisoner. There is a negative correlation between self esteem and inmate code identity. Identifying oneself with this code can push one to misconducts like defying the prison authorities (Carriere, 1996). The time that a prisoner spends in prison, the level of adopting the inmate code (prisonization), self-esteem changes together with self disclosure are all associated with the deprivation model (White Yvette, 1981).
Apart from the toxic environment of prison, the inmate code could have its root from inmates live before the incarceration. The behaviours, attitudes and values, could have been from prisoners street lives as members of a gang or basically as criminals (Dorpat, 2007). For Morris and Rothman, it is an importation model of corrections that was imported by organized criminals and professional thieves into the institutions (Morris Rothman, 1995).
The adoption of the inmate code
There exists a variety of factors that lead to the inmate code adoption. Of the factors, the ones that look more important are sentence length, phase of institutional career and lastly the type of social criminal (Wellford, 1967). Garrity in his book, Effects of Length of Incarceration upon Parole adjustment and Estimation of Optimum Sentence, observes the longer one is exposed to prisoners code, greater are the chances for its incorporation. The increase in time positively reinforces the inmate code. However according to the researches that were carried out, there was a low and almost insignificant relationship between the time one served in prison and the adoption level (Wellford, 1967).
Phase of institutional career in relation to adoption of the inmate code is a factor of time but in a different perspective, prisonization was found to precede linearly and also u-shaped style. Prizonization is at the lowest at the early and at the late phases of the prison life. That is to say, the first six months after joining the institution and the last six months before moving out of prison. The phase at the middle is the highest phase of inmate code adoption statistically, the outstanding differences were significant. The findings made here were being explained in regard to the reasons of inmate code development. The inmate code was founded to alleviate the pain caused by imprisonment. Therefore, it seems to be acceptable at the point at which prison was unbearable in the middle phase of the institutional career (Wellford, 1967).
Criminal social type can also be looked as a determinant of prisonization. Using the method of sociometry, there are a variety of roles a prisoner plays, which are not inmate code oriented. The roles can also be grouped using the prisoners code in case of right guy and square john roles as they are known. Right guy or in other word anti-social inmates are highly prisonized. The square john, pro-social inmates, is not prizonized normatively (Wellford, 1967).
It can therefore be concluded that inmate code affects prisoners in different ways. The differences are acclaimed to the background, attitudes, values, life philosophy, and status and overall roles played by the prisoner. However, the greatest problem is determining which method to be applied in establishing the role played by a particular inmate, the variable has not been related directly with prisonization and this result is emphatic situational effects and not the individuals characteristics to explain inmate code and the adoption degree. Studies show that two factors are related to the inmate code adoption despite the fact that they are independent entities. These factors are phase of institutional career and criminal social type. Their relationship and at the same time difference suggests the need of a complex theory (Wellford, 1967).
A theory derivational theory, can better explain the inmate code adoption. The inmate, after entering prison, is exposed to many pains and to mitigate the pains, prisoners turn to the so called inmate culture. In the explanation of the phase institutional career also referred to as the U curve, by use of derivational model, there is an important aspect that will be left out the inmates activity before incarceration which will influence hisher adoption to prisoners code(Wellford, 1967). This is because the code mirrors the general sub-culture of the criminals. It is therefore important to marry the phase institutional career and the criminal social type in relation to the adoption of the inmate code. It looks more logical in the assumption that depriving nature of prisons, situational element, and the inmates characteristic affects the degree of inmate code adoption (Wellford, 1967).
However, the fact that inmates are not all highly prisonized is an indication that the culture of the inmates is dissimilar. The picture that is seen in the inmate community is one that fails to have cohesiveness but organized in conflicting roles. It is not right to assume inmate community as a sub-societies series because there exists a consensus between certain elements in the prisoners code. The best way is to look at inmate society without basing it in terms of organization-disorganization. It should be visualized as a unit with its organization lying between the extremes (Wellford, 1967).
To describe this kind of organization, a concept near-group can be used. The near-group has three organizational levels. First level is made up of near-group leaders they work for the organizational maintenance. Second level carries the claimers of affiliation with the organization but is only active in response to emotional needs. Level three has those whose participation in the near-group is occasional they do not consider themselves members. They lie at the peripheral. Practically, in prison, this structure is evident. Inmates who are anti-social are in level one and the pro-social lie around near-group periphery (Wellford, 1967).The differences in the degree of inmate code adoption, commitment and identification with the culture of the inmates can therefore be well explained by the near-group concept. In regard to this, how is the phase of institutional career related to the rate of prisonization Derivational model correctly points out that all prisoners follow U pattern in prisonization. The adoption of the inmate code is according to what has been discussed earlier on mainly determined by individuals characteristic before being a victim of criminal subculture. This may differ depending on the persons stage in the cycle of deprivation (Wellford, 1967).
The complexity of the inmate code
Though the inmate code is a characteristic of every prison, it may be complex than one may imagine. It is full of ambiguity and is more negotiable than the ordinary rules. There appears to be no single code despite of its simplicity that is agreed upon by all prisoners. For instance, all inmates support that informing is an unforgivable crime. However, informing may be justified in situations such as when life of a prisoner is at risk. In the juvenile prisons, there are rules against vulnerability that leads to the punishment of the weak. On the other hand, in adults these norms are termed as exploitative. A group of the inmates will term charging interests on loans given to be a good business which is in contrary with others who consider it as a breakage to the cohesiveness of the inmates. These varying interpretations of the prison codes make the inmate code complex (Crewe, 2008 Inmate code).
Another complexity of the inmate code is that some prisoners are very loyal to the codes and they abide by them. They are wholly committed to the inmate code. Another lot of inmates will show no or little cooperation as far as the inmate code is concerned. Another group still will be frequent violators of the code. These are the ones who hold allegiance to individuals from both inside and out of prison (Crewe, 2008 Inmate code). Prisons are not full of fools as some people may conclude there are very intelligent men and women. The intelligent inmates in a number of occasions use the inmate code as a toll of exploiting other inmates, for example, discouraging inmates from giving any information of their deeds. Indeed, the conclusion that the inmate code can alleviate the inmates frustrations may be incorrect conforming may even cause more frustrations. Prisoners may be required to suppress their bitter emotions as a way of not showing weakness and this causes them pain. Generally, this makes the inmate code very hard to understand (Crewe, 2008 Inmate code).
Adherence to or violation of the inmate code
The inmate codes have for a long time been used in various jail institutions by prisoners and this is proves that the code are not easy to break (Bell, 2002). It remains to be a very powerful socialization agent. Inmates who go by the set inmate codes earn themselves respect and the weak or disloyal ones are looked down upon (Crewe, 2008 Subcultures). However, it is easier said than done. Adherence to the inmate code is an individualistic Orientation and many of the prisoners find it easy in saying that they will comply with the rules than the practical adherence. Some prisoners acquire alienative responses towards the imprisonment pains (Thomas, Blomberg Lucken, 2000).
The violation of the prison code differs. Those who violated communication code by giving information to the guards are branded rat and squealer. The one who always supported the guards was referred to as centre man. Another violated the code by applying force to take from weaker prisoners. He or she was not saved either and was regarded as a gorilla. A merchant manipulated others by economic exploitation. Others still, the fags practiced homosexuality that was not an acceptable ordeal according to the inmate code of conduct. Wolves caused aggression and punks submitted sexually. The dreaded ball busters were disobedient and constantly crossed with the guards leading to the overall punishment of the prisoners (Thomas, Blomberg and Lucken, 2000). The violation of the inmate code result in a variety of punishments which include corporal punishment and more scaring murder (Mays Winfree, 2009).
There is however a notable difference between adherence to inmate code and gender. There is no solidarity in womens prisons. The females form pseudo-familia relationships in the prisons. Their primary relationships replace their inmate code loyalty (Wilson, 1986). Being assimilated into this subculture in females is determined by importation. They in this case assimilate more to the inmate code than the males (Wilson, 1986).
Effects of the inmate code
The inmate code may to some extent have a positive effect of maintaining social contacts in the prison keeping inmate solidarity (Dorpat, 2007). The inmate code may also negatively affect the lives of the prisoners to a large extent such that it becomes part of their lives even after their sentence posing a great threat to the community (Freeman, 1999). Sykes in his book, The society of captives A study of maximum-security prison notes that the trauma of being designated one of the very worst human beings in the world left prisoners with life long scars (Sykes, 1958).Inside prison, the inmate is subjected to severe torture, what Nimmo refers to as pains of imprisonment (Nimmo, 1980).
Conclusion
We are living in an evolving world and not to be left behind, the inmate code as Freeman notes is continuously evolving such that what was contained in the inmate code of 1950s is not what is there today (Freeman, 1999).The inmate code, though in great opposition of the prisons administrative rules helps to control behaviour in prisons and this makes it, just like any other set of norms, very important despite the odds.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment