Bias in Prison Disciplinary Actions
Project Proposal
Course name
Student’s name
Date
Abstract
This research paper examines the relationship between gender, history of mental health conditions, and aggression and violence with prison disciplinary action. The paper introduces a background of the research topic. A review of the existing literature exploits the gaps that exist in the literature, thus guides the research further. The methods to be used in collecting data and the dependent and independent variables are also highlighted in the project proposal.
Introduction
Essentially, this paper theorizes on the need to establish if there is biasness in prison disciplinary actions from the perspective of correctional officers. Recently, solitary confinement and disciplinary segregation in prisons have come under scrutiny from researchers, policymakers, and the public. The practice has raised many questions for violating the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Although many prior studies have focused on examining the impact of biasness in prison disciplinary action on the mental health status, little research has been done to understand its impact across gender, mental illness, and level of aggression and violence (Severson, 2019).
Correctional officers play a vital role in administering correctional services in prison facilities; they interact with the prisoners and ensure a smooth flow of prison services. Prisoners are denied freedom and are expected to conform to a code of set norms to reform their adversities in behavior (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006). The discretion of controlling the inmates lies in correctional officers’ hands. They think about how to act in adverse situations. One correctional officer’s administration of justice varies from the administration of justice by another; how the officers handle the same situations differ depending on their personalities.
Institutional rules can be administered following formal and informal routes. The correctional officers are at liberty to choose which route to administer the rules. Formal rules follow a certain code where an officer decides to record an observed violation of the prison rules. Formal rules follow set formal standards, including intervention by the courts on the kind of punishment given to the inmate. However, the application of the stated rules is in discrete control of the correctional officer; the decision on whom the rules apply to, when, and the degree of application largely depends on the officer’s analysis of the given situation (Fisher & Jiang, 2000). The variations in the application of the stated rules can result in bias. Research has exhibited variations in the officers’ application of prison laws depending on certain physical and social characteristics. The application of informal laws is also in discrete control of the correctional officers; the variations in applying the given laws are observable and can lead to the associated bias depending on the application context and to whom the laws are being applied.
The prevalence of mental illness in correctional facilities is way higher than in the normal populations; the rates of mental illness among women in correctional facilities are way higher than men (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017). Rehabilitation services are present in the correctional facilities, but rehabilitation and representation of the mentally ill prisoners are way low. As such, the chances of mentally ill prisoners going contrary to the facility’s rules are very high. With the high number of females having mental illness compared to men, it’s expected that more women are likely to face the corrections often compared to men. The prevalence of mistakes among the mentally ill prisoners will possibly be higher compared to the normal population. There is a general correlation between mental illness and misconduct; mentally ill prisoners’ mental capacity to conform to the facility’s code of conduct is limited. Administration of punishments is done based on the inmate’s misconduct; a look into the inmate’s mental illness is key in delivering the nature of punishment as there is a tendency for mentally ill inmates receiving more punishments than the rest of prisoners (Kempany, 2018).
Statement of Problem:
In many prisons, prison warders and correctional officers have been perceived to offer different disciplinary actions based on gender, mental illness, and level of aggression and violence. As a result, most inmates have tended to exhibit more aggressive and violent behaviors. A literature review indicates that little attention has been directed towards understanding the level of biasness in prison disciplinary actions. Therefore, this study intends to examine the level of biasness in prison disciplinary actions with respect to gender, mental illness, and level of aggression and violence.
Literature Review:
In this section, the study will review existing literature studies that have been conducted related to biasness in prison disciplinary actions based on gender differences, a history of mental illness, and level of aggression and violence. Additionally, the study is expected to present the situation in prison on how prison wards and correctional offer to achieve disciplinary actions. This section’s outcome is expected to identify gaps in the literature that still exist regarding biasness in prison disciplinary actions.
Numerous surveys and studies have shown the rise in the numbers of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons. The increasing proportion of prisoners with mental illness is a factor worth looking into as it affects the prison facilities’ general stability. The prevalence of mental illness in prison facilities is three times higher than that in mental care facilities; the proportion of mental illness in prisons is also two to four times greater than that in the general public. The prison conditions subject the inmates to conditions associated with increased stress levels, with a history of mental illness, the inmates are likely to develop mental health-related conditions due to the associated stress. The thinking capacity and ability of mentally ill inmates to follow instructions and conditions set in the correctional facilities are troublesome; thus, their high chances of breaking the set protocols (Severson, 2019).
Apart from the mental health services provided, prisons treat mentally ill inmates just like the other prisoners. They are expected to behave in the same way, be confined in the same facilities, follow the same routines as other inmates, and comply with the same rules (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006). However, mentally ill inmates cannot comply with prison rules as other prisoners do. As a result, they are likely to break the prison rules, thus requiring action from the correctional officers. Understanding the inmates’ mental health condition is critical in defining the kind of punishment accorded; otherwise, mentally ill inmates will suffer a series of punishments.
Mental illness is associated with behaviors such as aggression, violence, and disruptive behaviors as such inmates may receive a general call from within them to desist from following the common established routine procedures such as coming out of the cells, standing out for the routine count, taking a shower and removal of clothes from the cell bars. In extreme conditions, the inmates may try to harm others or even attempt suicide. The prevalence of mental health cuts across genders and races; however, the exhibited behavior manifests based on the proportion of mentally ill populations in the prisons (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006).
Correctional officers and prison authorities are mandated to keep the security of the prison facilities and the safety of the inmates and staff. The code is in general contention with the vulnerability of mentally ill inmates. Training of correctional officers need to capture mental illness; their understanding of how to best handle mentally ill inmates is critical in promoting their safety (Kempany, 2018). Continuous punishments may lead to continuous and intentional mistakes by the mentally ill inmates, which will worsen the prison cells’ situation. Prison rules operate somewhat like a penal code; the correctional officers design the punishment’s nature to be accorded for the committed crime; their characterization of the misconduct is limited. Mentally ill inmates who act out of their way are treated just like the rest of the inmates without considering their state of mental health. Research shows that correctional officers treat my mentally ill inmates’ misconduct punitively to prevent the occurrence of such in the prison facilities with little regard to the cause of the associated behavior and handling it from a psychological perspective. Focusing on the causes of the associated behavior and the impacts of the punishment on inmate’s mental health condition is key in handling the situation (Fisher & Jiang, 2000).
Concepts/Conceptualization:
Three key models, namely deprivation, importation, coping models, will be utilized to understand the biasness in prison disciplinary actions. Each model is expected to identify how each variable of interest contributes to variation in the level of biasness in prison disciplinary action.
Deprivation Model:
The deprivation model postulates that harsh conditions inside the prison institutions can promote and maladaptation by inmates characterized by aggression, violence, anxiety, distress, and suicide to adapt to the stressful prison conditions. Prison’s depriving conditions produce self-destructive and aggressive behavior among the inmates. The prison’s conditions are derivative in nature as they alleviate the inmates from the normal society running with associated liberty. The prison conditions are defined to exert total control over the inmate’s socialization and living conditions. From these deprivations that the theory’s postulators formed the basis on, the five key deprivations are deprivation of goods and services, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of autonomy, deprivation of heterosexual relationships, and deprivation of security. Encompassed, this defines what is termed as the pains of imprisonment. Deprivation contributes to the bridge of inmates’ essential rights, contributing to the inmates’ stress factors and mistakes. Resultant aggressive behavior leads to adversities in behavior, calling for disciplinary action from correctional officers. The discipline adopted is based on the disciplinary officer’s point of view and analysis of the given situation.
Importation Model
The importation model attributes mal-adaption to the characteristics of the inmates rather than features specific to the prison environment. Proponents of the importation model criticize the deprivation model as narrow and ignoring the inmates’ characteristics, which largely influence prison behavior. Viewing the prison conditions as an isolated system helped define this theory; outrageous behaviors are imported from outside the prison facility. The importation model suggests that the inmate’s behavior is largely defined by the psychological, social, and demographic conditions rather than the prison conditions. The inmates’ psychological state and mental well-being depict what they do and how they react under certain conditions. History of related psychiatric conditions increases the possibility of the inmate acting contrary to the penal conduct as their thinking level is limited.
Coping model
Coping defines how well an inmate can adapt to prison conditions. As discussed earlier, the inmates’ liberty is at stake as the essential services have been curtailed. The adaptability varies from an inmate to the other. Some inmates will fit into the prison conditions and cope with the instructions given by the correctional officer. On the contrary, some inmates will perceive the detainment as severe punishment. As such, there is a tendency that they will develop behavior that is repellent to the correctional officers, thus violating the prison rules and conduct. The coping is individually based and traverses the inmate’s gender and age.
Conceptualization
The factors under analysis in this research paper are the relationship between gender and prison disciplinary action, history of mental illness and prison disciplinary action, and the level of aggression and violence and prison disciplinary action. Based on the conceptualization methods above, gender, mental illness, aggression, and violence will be assessed against the prison disciplinary actions to justify the postulations advocated in the above model and determine whether there is any correlation.
Methodology:
Consistent with prior research on biasness in prison disciplinary action, the sample used in this qualitative research will be the sample was limited to secondary survey data collected from the 2014 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, a nationally representative data set collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for Justice. The survey data will cover a wide of topics, including but not limited to current offense, current sentence, personal characteristics, mental health and substance abuse history and treatment, history of misconduct, and disciplinary responses.
Hypothesis
Three null hypotheses that are expected to be tested in the study are:
- There is no relationship between gender and prison disciplinary action.
- There is no relationship between a history of mental illness and prison disciplinary action.
- There is no relationship between the level of aggression and violence and prison disciplinary action.
Variables of Interest
While the independent variable consists of gender differences, history of mental illness, and level of aggression and violence among inmates, the dependent variable was formed by the biasness in prison disciplinary action provided by prison warders and correctional officers.
Variables Controlled
The dependent variable, which is the biasness in prison disciplinary action provided by prison warders and correctional officers, can be controlled since it is dependent on other factors. The performance of the independent variables will predict the outcome of the dependent variable.
Measurement of the Variables
The variables will be measured concurrently in the course of the research based on the data obtained from the 2014 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, a nationally representative data set collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for Justice.
Reliability and Validity of the Collected Data
The reliability of a given data set is obtained by comparing different versions of the same measurement. Being obtained from a national statistics body, the data obtained in this research are reliable and valid.
Research design
The research uses qualitative analysis based on the data from the U.S. census bureau’s data on the 2014 survey of inmates. Analysis of the various variables will be done based on the data collected in the bureau’s database.
Sample Plan
Since the research is based on the census results, I will not be planning on the sample but rather analyzing the census report’s data.
Data Collection Plan
The data collection plan used in this research will be qualitative in nature. A review of the census data to draw meaningful conclusions to our research will be done. Qualitative data collection techniques provide depth and detail about a given situation. The depth of the analysis is great in that it provides an all-inclusive view. It also creates openness by encouraging people to participate in the research process. It saves time and money that could be used in the research process as already gathered data is used in the research. The disadvantage of using qualitative data collection techniques is that it is not a statistically representative form of data collection; it does not provide a statistical representation of the collected data. Qualitative research methods might lose data; researchers who cannot use the gathered data will just lose it.
Quantitative data collection techniques, on the other, represent statistically significant mathematical results. The obtained data represents the actual situation in the field.
Ethical Considerations
The project is based on already collected data results; thus, there are no ethical considerations in this research.
Conclusion:
Professionalism on the part of correctional officers is essential in promoting a fair and just correctional system. The study will be conducted based on qualitative research on data that was collected in the U.S. census of 2014. Analysis of the variables identified in the hypothesis will be done based on the collected data results, thus drawing conclusions and recommendations from the analysis.
References
Beauregard, V., Chadillon-Farinacci, V., Brochu, S., & Cousineau, M. M. (2013). Enforcing institutional regulations in prison settings: The case of gambling in Quebec. International Criminal Justice Review, 23(2), 170-184. (Beauregard et al. 2013)
Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2006). Psychopathy factors and risk for aggressive behavior: A test of the “threatened egotism” hypothesis. Law and human behavior, 30(1), 51-74.
Fisher-Giorlando, M., & Jiang, S. (2000). Race and disciplinary reports: An empirical study of correctional officers. Sociological Spectrum, 20(2), 169-194.
Kempany, K. G. (2018). Sanctioning and Punishment in Prisons: An Examination of the Institutional Disciplinary Response to Formal Inmate Misconduct (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).
Severson, R. E. (2019). Gender differences in mental health, institutional misconduct, and disciplinary segregation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(12), 1719-1737