Institutional aggression
The role of prison characteristics
• Cooke et al (2008) claim that, in order to understand institutional aggression, we need to consider the situational context where violence takes place. They argue that violent prisoners are only violent in certain circumstances. These circumstances include: • Overcrowding: the ministry of justice (2014) government report attributed the record rates of murder, suicide and assaults to the increased overcrowding in British prisons. Yuma (2010) found that prison population density had a significant effect on inmate-inmate violence rates in Japan, even after controlling for other possible contributing factors. • Heat and noise: prisons tend to be hot and noisy places. High temperatures and noise exacerbate (worsen) the effects of overcrowding and may predispose inmates to aggressive behaviour. Griffitt and Veitch (1971), in a study of students, found that a combination of high temperature and high population density produced more negative emotions than was the case with more comfortable temperatures and lower population density. • Job burnout: job burnout among prison staff means that they are psychologically worn out and exhausted from their job and have gradually stopped caring about the people who they work with. Maslach et al (2001) links job burnout to the development of violence in prison settings because of a deterioration in relationships with inmates and the overall functioning of the prison.
The role of dispositional characteristics
• Dispositional characteristics that have been found to relate to aggressive behaviour in prison include: • Anger, anti-social personality style and impulsivity - Wang and Diamond (1999) found that these three individual characteristics were stronger predictors of institutional aggression than ethnicity and type of offence committed. Of these, anger was the best predictor of violent behaviour while in prison. • Low self-control - DeLisi et al (2003) found that low self-control, particularly the tendency to lose ones temper easily, was a significant predictor of aggressive behaviour both before and during incarceration (imprisonment).
Institutional aggression in prisons
• Institutional aggression is the aggressive acts that are found in particular institutions. The importation model suggests that this is because prisons are full of dangerous people an that these violent characteristics must be 'imported' into the prison when prisons are sentenced. This theory uses a disposition explanation, which emphasises the causes of particular behaviour as being due to the enduring characteristics of the individuals involved. The deprivation model focuses on the stressful nature of prison and how this influences the inmates that are subjected to this form of stress. This theory uses a situational explanation, that emphasises the cause of particular behaviours as being due to the context that it occurs in.
Situational explanation: the deprivation model
• Institutional aggression, according to the deprivation model, is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of prison itself. The deprivation model argues that, in response to these conditions, inmates may act more aggressively. Sykes (1958) describes the specific deprivations that inmates experience within prison and which might be linked to an increase in violence. These include the loss of liberty (freedom), the loss of autonomy and the lack of security. Inmates may cope with the pains of imprisonment in several ways. Some choose to withdraw through seclusion in their cell or living space, whereas others choose to rebel in the form of violence against other prisoners or against staff. • Kimmet and Martin (2002) studied over 200 inmates and found that violence in prison is frequently a way of surviving the risk of exploitation (by appearing weak), an ever-present threat within prison culture. They found that most violent situations in prisons were more to do with non-material interests such as the need for respect and fairness or as a way of expressing loyalty and honour.
Dispositional explanation: the importation model
• Irwin and Cressey (1962) claim that inmates bring with them to prison their violent pasts and draw on their experience in an environment where toughness and physical exploitation are important survival skills. Prisoners are not 'blank slates' when they enter prison, and many of the normative systems developed on the outside world would be 'imported' into prison. In many cities, street culture has evolved (developed) what may be called a 'code of the streets'. This is a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behaviour, including violence. At the heart of this code in the issue of respect. Cultural belief systems such as the 'code of the street' define how some individuals behave once in prison, particularly when this code relates to gang membership.
Evaluation of the dispositional explanation
• The importation model has research support. Mears et al (2013) tested the view that inmate behaviour stems in part from the cultural belief systems that they import with them into prison. They measured the street code belief system and the prison experiences of inmates. Their results supported the argument a 'code of the street' belief system affects inmate violence. This affect is particular pronounced among those inmates who lack family support and are involved in gangs prior to incarceration. Further research support for the importation model comes from Poole and Regoli (1983) who found that the best indicator of violence among juvenile offenders was pre-institutional violence regardless of any situational factors in the institution. • Evidence from DeLisi et al (2004) challenges the importation model's claim that pre-prison gang membership predicts violence whilst in prison. They found that inmates with prior street gang involvement were no more likely than other inmates to engage in prison violence. However, this can be explained by the fact that violent gang members tend to be isolated from the general inmate population, therefore greatly restricting their opportunities for violence. For example, Fischer (2001) found that isolating known gang members in a special management unit reduced the rates of serious assault by 50%.
Evaluation of the situational explanation
• There is research to support the deprivation model's assumption that peer violence is used to relieve the deprivation experienced in institutional cultures, such as prisons. McCorkle et al (1995), in a study of 371 US prisons, found that situational factors such as overcrowding, lack of privacy and the lack of meaningful activity all significantly influenced inmate-on-inmate assaults and inmate-on-staff assaults. Franklin et al (2006) in their meta-analysis found that crowded prison conditions increased aggressive behaviour in younger inmates (aged 18-25) more than in other age groups. • There is research evidence that challenges the deprivation model. Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) collected data from more than 24,000 inmates from 58 prisons across the US. They included importation variables (e.g. race and criminal history) and deprivation variables (e.g. staff-to-prisoner ratio and security level) and tested which of these variables predicted the individual likelihood of aggressive behaviour while in prison. Harer and Steffensmeier concluded that age, race and criminal history were the only significant predictors of prison violence, whereas non of the deprivation variables were significant in this respect. • A real world application of the deprivation model happened at HMP Woodhill in the early 1990s. Prison governor David Wilson reasoned that if most violence occurs in environments that are hot, noisy and overcrowded, then this could be avoided by reducing these three factors. Wilson (2010) set up two units for violent prisoners that were less claustrophobic and 'prison like' and have a view of outside. The typical noise associated with prison life was reduced and masked by music from a local radio station. Temperatures were lowered so that it was no longer stifling hot. These changes virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff and other inmates, providing powerful support for the claim that situational variables are the main cause of prison violence.
Gang membership
• Within prison environments, gang membership is consistently related to violence and other forms of anti-social behaviour. Pre-prison gang membership appears to be an important determinant of prison misconduct. Allender and Marcell (2003) have found that gang members disproportionately engage in acts of prison violence. Members of street gangs offend at higher levels while in prison than their non-gang counterparts and account for a disproportionate amount of serious and violent crime. Drury and DeLisi (2011) studied over 1,000 inmates in prisons in the south-west of the USA and found that individuals who had been members of gangs prior to imprisonment were significantly more likely to commit various types of misconduct in prison including murder, hostage taking and assault with a deadly weapon.
