essay on violence in prisons

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

Analysis & Opinion

How Atrocious Prisons Conditions Make Us All Less Safe

The American prison system seems designed to ensure that people return to incarceration instead of successfully reentering society.

Shon Hopwood
Prison and Jail Reform
Social & Economic Harm

This essay is part of the Brennan Center’s series examining the punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system .

Imagine one of those dystopian movies in which some character inhabits a world marked by dehumanization and a continual state of fear, neglect, and physical violence — The Hunger Games , for instance, or Mad Max . Now imagine that the people living in those worlds return to ours to become your neighbors. After such brutal traumatization, is it any wonder that they might struggle to obtain stable housing or employment, manage mental illness, deal with conflict, or become a better spouse or parent?

This is no fantasy world. American prisons cage millions of human beings in conditions similar to those movies. Of the more than 1.5 million people incarcerated in American prisons in 2019, more than 95 percent will be released back into the community at some point, at a rate of around 600,000 people each year. Given those numbers, we should ensure that those in our prisons come home better off, not worse — for their sake, but for society’s as well.

Yet our prisons fail miserably at preparing people for a law-abiding and successful life after release. A long-term study of recidivism rates of people released from state prisons from 2005 to 2014 found that 68 percent were arrested within three years and 83 percent were arrested within nine years following their release. And evidence confirms the great irony of our American criminal justice system: the longer someone spends in “corrections,” the less likely they are to stay out of jail or prison after their release. The data tells us that people are spending more time in prisons and the longest prison terms just keep getting longer, and thus our system of mass incarceration all but assures high rates of recidivism.

It is not difficult to understand why our prisons largely fail at preparing people to return to society successfully. American prisons are dangerous. Most are understaffed and overpopulated. Because of inadequate supervision, people in our prisons are exposed to incredible amounts of violence, including sexual violence. As just one example, in 2019 the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division concluded that Alabama’s prison system failed to protect prisoners from astounding levels of homicide and rape. In a single week, there were four stabbings (one that involved a death), three sexual assaults, several beatings, and one person’s bed set on fire as he slept.

Our prisons are so violent that they meaningfully impact the rehabilitation efforts for those inside them. There is an ever-present fear of violence in our gladiator-style prisons, where people have no protection from it. Incarcerated people who frequently witness violence and feel helpless to protect against it can experience post-traumatic stress symptoms — such as anxiety, depression, paranoia, and difficulty with emotional regulation — that last years after their release from custody. Because escalating conflict is the norm for those serving time in American prisons (often provoking violence as a self-defense mechanism), when they face conflict after being released, they are ill-equipped to handle it in a productive way. If the number of people impacted by prison violence was small, this situation would still be unjust and inhumane. But when more than 113 million Americans have had a close family member in jail or prison, the social costs can be cataclysmic.

Part of the reason our prisons are so violent is due to the idleness that occurs in them. As prison systems expanded over the last four decades, many states rejected the role of rehabilitation and reduced the number of available rehabilitation and educational programs. In Florida, which is the nation’s third largest prison system, there are virtually no education programs for prisoners, even though research shows that those programs reduce violence in prison and the recidivism rate for those released from prison.

It is not just the violence that is harmful. How American prisons are designed negatively impacts the ability of people to be self-reliant after their release. Prisons create social isolation by taking people from their communities and placing them behind razor wire, in locked cages. Through strict authoritarianism, rules, and control, prisons lessen personal autonomy and increase institutional dependence. This ensures that people learn to rely upon the free room and board only a prison can offer, thus rendering them less able to cope with economic demands upon release .

The location of our prisons also causes harm. Many prisons are located far away from cities and hundreds of miles from prisoners’ families. Consequently, family relationships deteriorate, impacting both prisoners and their loved ones. Just this past Mother’s Day, more than 150,000 imprisoned mothers spent the day apart from their children. As children with an incarcerated parent run greater risks of health and psychological problems, lower economic wellbeing, and decreased educational attainment, the aggravating effect of imprisonment far from one’s family is obvious.

The ill-considered location of prisons also increases the likelihood of inadequate attention paid to people with serious mental issues, who are widely present in our prisons. Prisons in remote and rural areas fail to hire and retain mental health professionals , and due to a lack of such resources, misdiagnosis of serious mental health issues is more likely. And not only is the treatment of such prisoners inadequate, but false negative determinations can also make it more difficult for them to receive disability benefits or treatment once released.

Prisons tend to rinse away the parts that make us human. They continue to use solitary confinement as a mechanism for dealing with idleness and misconduct, despite studies showing that it creates or exacerbates mental illness. Our prisons also foster an environment that values dehumanization and cruelty. At the federal prison in which I served for more than a decade, I watched correctional officers handcuff and then kick a friend of mine who had a softball-sized hernia protruding from his stomach. Because he was asking for medical attention, they treated him like a dog. There was little empathy in that place. And for over 10 years of my life, when those in authority addressed me, it was with the label “inmate.” The message every day, both explicitly and implicitly, was that I was unworthy of respect and dignity. Such an environment leads people to have a diminished sense of self-worth and personal value , affecting a person’s ability to empathize with others. The ability to empathize is a vital step towards rehabilitation, and when our prisons fail to rehabilitate, public safety ultimately suffers.

In sum, if you were to design a system to perpetuate intergenerational cycles of violence and imprisonment in communities already overburdened by criminal justice involvement, then the American prison system is what you would create. It routinely and persistently fails to produce the fair and just outcomes that will make us all safer.

So what can be done to fix our prisons? One of the reasons why our prison systems are so immune to change is because the worst of prison abuses occur behind closed doors, away from public view. Few prison systems have the independent oversight and transparency needed to ensure that they implement the best policies or comply with constitutional protections such as the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment .

There is no reason why our prisons should not be modeled on the principle of human dignity , which respects the worth of every human being. If you translated that into policy, it would mean that people in prison would be protected from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and would be provided with adequate mental health and medical treatment. It would mean prison systems would foster interpersonal relationships by placing people in facilities close to their loved ones and allowing ample in-person, phone, and video visitation. It would mean providing training on how to become better citizens, spouses, and parents. And it would mean offering educational and vocational programs designed to provide job skills for reentry, and behavioral programs designed to create empathy and autonomy, thereby preparing former prisoners to lead law-abiding and successful lives.

Shon Hopwood is a lawyer and associate professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. He served over 10 years in federal prison and is the author of Law Man: Memoir of Jailhouse Lawyer .

Related Issues:

Social & Economic Harm

The Prosecutor Problem

A former assistant U.S. attorney explains how prosecutors’ decisions are fueling mass incarceration — and what can be done about it.

A Holistic Approach to Legal Advocacy

For poor, persecuted communities, helping them overcome legal challenges isn’t nearly enough.

Surviving a Daily Storm

A formerly incarcerated writer reflects on her time behind bars and the gender disparities in the criminal justice system.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

The Violence Against People Behind Bars That We Don’t See

There is an epidemic of violence inside prisons.

T he constant violence perpetrated by police officers on Black and Latino people can now be seen by the broader public, thanks to cellphone videos and police bodycam footage. But what we almost never see is the regular abuse people behind bars endure at the hands of correctional officers.

The use of excessive force against prisoners, from punches to chemical spraying, is an everyday occurrence that violates our constitution. Taking measures like installing more cameras to hold perpetrators accountable and implementing meaningful oversight of our nation’s prisons are important to curb abhorrent conditions of confinement. But we need to also prioritize taking steps to significantly reduce mass incarceration so that we are no longer the world’s number one incarcerator.

The late Columbia Law School professor Robert A. Ferguson put it best: we have created a criminal justice system that is divided so that, post-conviction, the “suffering of the convicted is carefully arranged to take place somewhere out of sight.”

In a recent report , the Justice Department and Alabama’s three U.S. attorneys exposed what happens behind the prison gates in their state. They found pervasive use of excessive force against those incarcerated in men’s prisons, identifying violations of excessive force rules in 12 of the 13 Alabama prisons reviewed. Correctional officers, the report said, often relied on force “while making no effort to de-escalate tense situations.”

It took years of officials visiting these prisons, interviewing those who worked and were imprisoned there, speaking to family members of those who were incarcerated, and analyzing reams of testimony, documents, emails, videos, medical records, and more to understand how those who were under the supervision of the state of Alabama were deprived of not only their constitutional rights, but of their humanity.

In one incident, a prisoner stuck his tongue out at a sergeant. The sergeant responded by punching the handcuffed prisoner in the face. The report also found that Alabama’s correctional officers frequently use chemical spray on prisoners while they remained in locked cells.

Although this report was not focused on racial disparities, it’s important to acknowledge who comprises Alabama’s male prisons. Currently, Black men represent 50% of Alabama’s overall prison population and 55% of its male prison population. Yet, only 26.6% of Alabama’s overall population is Black.

The Justice Department’s recommendations for how to remedy Alabama’s constitutional violations range from installing more cameras to allowing prisoners to register formal complaints about uses of force. It is shocking that some of the recommendations aren’t already status quo. But cases of violent staff and a lack of accountability are commonplace beyond Alabama in our country’s vast network of jails, prisons, and detention centers. A group of formerly incarcerated women from New Jersey recently testified they were sexually assaulted and harassed by corrections officers who came into their cells at night while security cameras were pointed at ceilings. In 2018, the Intercept published data uncovering that 1,224 instances of sexual assault were reported in ICE detention centers and only 43 complaints were investigated.

These problems can’t be fixed overnight, yet improvements like some of the DOJ’s recommendations are within reach. In addition, and most importantly, we need to meaningfully reduce our prison population.

Research from the Brennan Center for Justice shows that in 2016, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population — 576,000 people — were behind bars for no compelling public safety reason. Our analysis found that 25% of those in state and federal prison—364,000 people—most of them convicted of less serious crimes, would be better served by off ramps from the justice system such as diversion and programming, without spending even a day in prison. We also found that about 14% (212,000 prisoners) had already served long sentences for serious crimes and could be safely released. Considering we would need to cut our incarceration rate by approximately 75 percent just to line up with the average of the rest of the world, we could start there.

In states like Alabama, with an extensive backlog of parole-eligible cases, releasing people who are eligible for parole is another key way to remove them from a harmful prison setting. Alabama should also create an independent oversight entity with the authority to conduct surprise inspections of prison facilities and check on those who are incarcerated.

In January, a task force created by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey to study the state’s prison system recommended a broad array of solutions to improving Alabama’s prisons, including increasing funding to hire additional correctional staff, expanding medical and mental-health services, and adding educational programs. The task force also called for implementing early release incentives for those who complete certain programs.

But the governor’s recommendations will fall short without a serious culture shift within our prisons and a true, national de-carceration effort. Incidents of sexual assault and violence are far too common in our nation’s prisons and jails. More than 95% of those in our prisons will eventually leave and reintegrate into their communities . We must greatly reduce our use of incarceration, or we condemn people not only to time away from their families and communities but also to years of abuse.

More Must-Reads from TIME

The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024
Inside the Rise of Bitcoin-Powered Pools and Bathhouses
How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
Your Questions About Early Voting , Answered
Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

State Profiles
Advocacy Toolkit
Fact Sheets

Stay Informed

Get the latest updates:

Can you make a tax-deductible gift to support our work?

September 14, 2024 : Our advocacy department will host a workshop at the MacArthur Justice Center’s Realizing Releases convening . The workshop will provide strategies for investigating state parole systems. Register for the convening here .
September 18, 2024 : Senior Research Analyst Emily Widra will join a panel discussion hosted by the Harvard Kennedy School about the health inequities people in the criminal legal system face. The webinar starts at 4:30 pm ET. Learn more and register for the webinar here .

Not near you? Invite us to your city, college or organization.

No escape: The trauma of witnessing violence in prison

A recent study of recently incarcerated people finds that witnessing violence is a frequent and traumatizing experience in prison..

by Emily Widra , December 2, 2020

Early this year — before COVID-19 began to tear through U.S. prisons — five people were killed in Mississippi state prisons over the course of one week. A civil rights lawyer reported in February that he was receiving 30 to 60 letters each week describing pervasive “beatings, stabbings, denial of medical care, and retaliation for grievances” in Florida state prisons. That same month, people incarcerated in the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit documenting allegations of abuse at the hands of correctional officers, including being tased, punched, and attacked by guard dogs.

While these horrific stories received some media coverage, the plague of violence behind bars is often overlooked and ignored. And when it does receive public attention, a discussion of the effects on those forced to witness this violence is almost always absent. Most people in prison want to return home to their families without incident, and without adding time to their sentences by participating in further violence. But during their incarceration, many people become unwilling witnesses to horrific and traumatizing violence, as brought to light in a February publication by Professors Meghan Novisky and Robert Peralta.

In their study — one of the first studies on this subject — Novisky and Peralta interview recently incarcerated people about their experiences with violence behind bars. They find that prisons have become “exposure points” for extreme violence that undermines rehabilitation, reentry, and mental and physical health. Because this is a qualitative (rather than quantitative) study based on extensive open-ended interviews, the results are not necessarily generalizable. However, studies like this provide insight into individual experiences and point to areas in need of further study.

Participants in Novisky and Peralta’s study reported witnessing frequent, brutal acts of violence, including stabbings, attacks with scalding substances, multi-person assaults, and murder. They also described the lingering effects of witnessing these traumatic events, including hypervigilance, anxiety, depression, and avoidance. These traumatic events affect health and social function in ways that are not so different from the aftereffects faced by survivors of direct violence and war.

Violence behind bars is inescapable and traumatizing

Violence in prison is unavoidable. By design, prisons offer few safe spaces where one can sneak away — and those that exist offer only a small measure of protection. Novisky and Peralta’s findings echo previous research revealing that incarcerated people often “feel safer” in their private spaces, such as cells, or in a supervised or structured public space, such as a chapel, rather than in public spaces like showers, reception, or on their unit. However, even inside their cells, people remain vulnerable to seeing or hearing violence and being victimized themselves.

Participants in Novisky and Peralta’s study discussed graphic, horrific acts of violence they had witnessed during their incarceration: stabbings, beatings, broken bones, and attacks with makeshift weapons. Some participants were even forced into direct, involuntary participation, by being required to clean up blood after an attack or murder. “I used so much bleach in that bathroom … I just couldn’t look,” one participant recalled. “I just kept pouring the bleach in it [the blood], and pouring the bleach in it, and then I would mop it.” As the authors succinctly state, “the burdens of violence are placed not just on the direct victims, but also on witnesses of violence.”

Responses to witnessed violence behind bars can result in post-traumatic stress symptoms , like anxiety, depression, avoidance, hypersensitivity, hypervigilance, suicidality, flashbacks, and difficulty with emotional regulation. Participants described experiencing flashbacks and being hypervigilant, even after release. One participant explained: “I’m trying to change my life and my thinking. But it [the violence] always pops up. I get flashbacks about it … just how the violence is. In a split second you can be cool. And then the next thing you know, there’s people getting stabbed or a fight breaks out over nothin’.”

The effects of witnessing violence are compounded by pre-existing mental health conditions, which are more common in prisons and jails than in the general public. As one participant in the Novisky and Peralta study put it, prison is no place to recover from past traumas or to manage ongoing mental health concerns: “I don’t think it [prison] made my PTSD worse, it just made the PTSD I already had trigger the symptoms.”

graph showing percent of people in prison experiencing physical or sexual violence

Violence in prison by the numbers

Prisons are inherently violent places where incarcerated people (often with their own histories of victimization and trauma) are frequently exposed to violence with disastrous consequences. Because there is no national survey of how many people witness violence behind bars, we compiled data from various Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys and a 2010 nationally representative study to show the prevalence of violence. The table below shows the most recent data available, 1 although it is likely that many of these events are underreported.

Given the vast number of violent interactions occurring behind bars, as well as the close quarters and scarce privacy in correctional facilities, it is likely that most or all incarcerated people witness some kind of violence.

Estimating the prevalence of violence in prisons and jails
Indicator of violence	State prisons	Federal prisons	County jails	Source
	Reported incidents and estimates
Deaths by suicide in correctional facility	255 deaths in 2016		333 deaths in 2016	;
Deaths by homicide in correctional facility	95 deaths in 2016		31 deaths in 2016	;
“Intentionally injured” by staff or other incarcerated person since admission to prison	14.8% of incarcerated people in 2004	8.3% of incarcerated people in 2004
“Staff-on-inmate assaults”	21% of incarcerated men were assaulted by staff over 6 months in 2005
“Inmate-on-inmate assaults”	26,396 assaults in 2005
Incidents of sexual victimization of incarcerated people (perpetrated by staff and incarcerated people)	16,940 reported incidents in 2015	740 reported incidents in 2015	5,809 reported incidents in 2015
	1,473 substantiated incidents in state and federal prisons and local jails in 2015

Prison is rarely the first place that incarcerated people experience violence

Even before entering a prison or jail, incarcerated people are more likely than those on the outside to have experienced abuse and trauma. An extensive 2014 study found that 30% to 60% of men in state prisons had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), compared to 3% to 6% of the general male population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 36.7% of women in state prisons experienced childhood abuse, compared to 12 to 17% of all adult women in the U.S. (although this research has not been updated since 1999). In fact, at least half of incarcerated women identify at least one traumatic event in their lives.

The effects of this earlier trauma carries over into people’s incarceration. Most people entering prison have experienced a “ legacy of victimization ” that puts them at higher risk for substance use, PTSD, depression, and criminal behavior. Irritability and aggressive behavior are also common responses to trauma, either acutely or as symptoms of PTSD. Rather than providing treatment or rehabilitation to disrupt the ongoing trauma that justice-involved people often face, existing research suggests our criminal justice system functions in a way that only perpetuates a cycle of violence. It is not surprising, then, that violence behind bars is common.

The relationship between past traumas and violence in prisons is further illuminated by a growing body of psychological research revealing that traumatic experiences (direct or indirect) increase the likelihood of mental illnesses. And we know that incarcerated people with a history of mental health problems are more likely to engage in physical or verbal assault against staff or other incarcerated people. 2

Violence continues after release

The cycle of violence also continues after prison. An analysis of homicide victims in Baltimore, Maryland, found that the vast majority were justice system-involved, and one in four victims were on parole or probation at the time of their murder. Other research has found that formerly incarcerated Black adults are more likely than those with no history of incarceration to be beaten, mugged, raped, sexually assaulted, stalked, or to witness another person being seriously injured.

“Gladiator school” and ties to PTSD among veterans

While the effects of witnessing violence in correctional facilities have not been extensively studied, Novisky and Peralta’s findings are reminiscent of the significant body of psychological research about veterans, witnessed violence, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. And while a prison is not a war zone, the study participants themselves made these comparisons, describing prison as “going through a nuclear war,” “a jungle where only the strong survive,” “needing to go be ready to go to war constantly,” and “gladiator school.” Veterans, regardless of exposure to combat, are disproportionately at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and can experience the same debilitating symptoms of PTSD that Novisky and Peralta document among recently incarcerated people.

In an article drawing attention to PTSD among our nation’s veterans, journalist Sebastian Junger describes his own experience with symptoms of PTSD after witnessing violence in Afghanistan. Importantly, he points out that only about 10 percent of our armed forces actually see combat, so the exorbitantly high rates of PTSD among returning servicemembers are not only caused by direct exposure to danger. 3 The extensive psychological research on witnessed violence among veterans helps us better understand the risks of witnessing violence in other contexts; with the findings from Novisky and Peralta’s study, we can see a similar pattern of post-traumatic stress symptoms among incarcerated people who have witnessed acts of violence, even if they did not participate directly.

Witnessing violence — whether on a neighborhood block , prison unit, or a battlefield — carries serious ramifications. Exposure to this kind of stress can lead to poor health outcomes , such as cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and even certain cancers, which are compounded by inadequate correctional health care. Previous research has also shown that violent prison conditions — including direct victimization, the perception of a threatening prison environment, and hostile relationships with correctional officers — increase the likelihood of recidivism.

Moving forward

Novisky and Peralta’s study should be read as a call for more research — and concern — about prison violence. Future research should focus on the effects of witnessed violence on further marginalized populations, including women, youth, transgender people , people with disabilities , and people of color behind bars.

The researchers also recommend policy changes related to their findings. In prisons, they recommend trauma-informed training of correctional staff, assessing incarcerated people to identify those most at risk for victimization, and the expansion of correctional healthcare to include more robust mental health and trauma-informed services. They also recommend that providers in the reentry system receive training regarding the potential consequences of exposure to extreme violence behind bars, such as PTSD, distrust, and anxiety.

While it is important to address the immediate, serious needs of people dealing with the trauma of prison violence, the only way to truly minimize the harm is to limit exposure to the violent prison environment. That means, at a minimum, taking Novisky and Peralta’s final recommendation to heart: changing the “overall frequency with which incarceration is relied upon as a sanction.” We need to reduce lengthy sentences and divert more people from incarceration to more supportive interventions. It also means changing how we respond to violence, as we explore in more depth in our April 2020 report about sentences for violent offenses, Reforms without Results .

Vast research with veterans shows that trauma comes not only from direct violent victimization, but can also stem from witnessing violence. Research among non-incarcerated populations further shows that trauma and chronic stress have a number of adverse effects on the human mind and body. And studies done behind bars show us that incarceration takes a toll on physical and mental health, and that accessing adequate care in prison is a challenge in and of itself. With all of these factors at play and with violence undermining what little rehabilitative effect the justice system hopes to have, we are stacking the cards against incarcerated people.

The forthcoming release of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 (expected before 2021), will provide updated information. ↩

Based on data from 2011 to 2012, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 14.2% of people who indicate experiencing serious psychological distress in the past 30 days are written up or charged with some kind of assault while incarcerated in state prison, compared to 11.6% of people with any history of mental health problems, and 4.1% of people with no indications of mental health problems. ↩

Studies of U.S. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suggest that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD for veterans is anywhere from 13.5% (which is more than double that of the general population) to 30% . ↩

Emily Widra is a Senior Research Analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative. ( Other articles | Full bio | Contact )

Related briefings:

New report: Disabled people targeted by violence at high rates +
New report, Reforms Without Results, lays out the case for including people convicted of violence in criminal justice reforms +
New data: Solitary confinement increases risk of premature death after release +

One response:

I am 31 years old and have spent half of my life in and out of juveniles and prisons. I suffer from PTSD because of the violence I suffered and witnessed in the T.D.C.J. I was denied medical treatment and put in solitary by the prison guards where I suffered kidney failure. I was in a coma and had to do dialysis. I am very paranoid of people and people who abuse their authority.

Why are calls from prisons and jails so expensive?

We look at the progress in the fight for phone justice and what comes next.

Research Library

We curate a searchable database of 4,000+ original research reports, organizing each entry by topic and adding brief summaries.

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie

The U.S. incarcerates over 1.9 million people, more than any other country. Where are they locked up and why? Read our report.

Jails and bail: Our research

One out of three people behind bars is in a local jail. Our research drives jail reform.

Prisoner to Violence

After a bloody fight in the yard, an inmate reflects on his behavior..

This article was published in collaboration with Vice .

S lant whispers and looming stares pass through the prison yard around 3:30 p.m. It’s July, and hotter than usual on Michigan’s upper peninsula.

Gatherings of inmates begin to form: eight by the pull-up bars, four on the basketball court, nine behind the phones. The air is barely breathable with all the tension, which has built up ever since an act of disrespect—the breaking of a gang sign—earlier at chow.

Everyone here has their war story. We’re all long-conditioned by a street life, the hustling, the fistfights. Seasoned from past penitentiary wars, time in the hole, lifting law books in laundry bags for exercise, one thousand push-ups a day. Institutionalized.

But when I look at my friends and homeboys whom I’ve known for awhile, or grew up with, what I see is fear, confusion. Expressions I know too well from staring in my own mirror, trying to remember myself, trying to remember my home. I know there was something before this: my family, an old life. But to think that far back, to try to reconstruct my own innocence and even frailty, would hurt my soul—and a memory of home shouldn’t hurt.

Suddenly, my group of inmates storms one side of the yard.

I feel nothing further as I dash across the court and plunge a self-made shank into a combatant’s jaw, neck, and chest; then into another’s, feeling the rusty metal penetrate flesh with every swing and whack.

“Wassup now!” I yell, as a barrage of my wild punches meets another victim.

Officers with squawking walkie-talkies soon position themselves to regain control of the yard. A gas canister bounces onto the basketball court, spewing out white, thick smoke. It’s followed by another, until the yard is fogged with tear gas. “Get on the fucking ground!” I hear. Inmates scatter, coughing blood—but I never learned how to stop when I got started.

My eyes and face burn as I prowl through the smoke, looking for the rest of the fight. Someone else’s blood is crusted on my knuckles.

I’m not thinking. I’m not human. I’m what a prison made of me. “Get the fuck on the ground!” the officer yells, pointing his taser at my body. I don’t comply. I keep that slow, dragging saunter, striding over the defeated inmates. “Don’t move!” another officer says, before positioning himself to shoot.

Then, in one swift motion, my body stiffens before I smack the ground, the volts bouncing violently inside of me until everything is black.

D izzy and distraught, I awake in a single-man cell with a yellow piece of paper resting on my chest. I’m naked, and my body, all of a sudden, is cold and aching.

There’s a blue jumpsuit on the green mat; the cell itself has not been cleaned since the last occupant.

I put the jumpsuit on slowly, then begin to read what’s on the paper: “This prisoner is unmanageable in G.P. (General Population). Loss of all privileges. No TV, books, sheets, no hygiene products. 24-hour watch.”

It is Saturday. I won’t see administration until Monday. I pace around the small quarters, calming and conjuring the self.

My war story began early, and peaked around the time my son was ready to come into this world. He was seven pounds, four ounces, and I knew then that I had to do what was necessary to take care of my family.

I sacrificed to provide for them—to make money—but got lost in it. My baby momma and I argued nonstop about my being in the streets. She said I was giving too much to something that was sucking the humanity straight out of my body, taking me away from the family.

I didn’t disagree. I knew that when I opened myself to a violent way of life, I would be vulnerable to that violence entering my heart.

Back in my cell, amid the unit’s mix of rap battles, trivia games, and disagreements about Cardi B’s gang affiliation, I hear the news that a few people died earlier in the melee. “That nigga bugged out on them boys,” one inmate says out of the corner of his door. “They shot ’em with that—uhh, uhh... Damn!”

“A taser, old fool,” another inmate says.

“Yeah, yeah. I know, muthafucka,” the inmate declares. “They hit ’em three times and he still wouldn’t stay down!” The inmates riff on the officers’ use of force. “You know they gonna charge them boys for murder… Yup. And over what some young dummy did.”

“What he do?” the other inmate asks.

“He broke a gang sign, with his hands.”

My stomach turns. I think about the charges the facility will try to trump on me. What the hell did I do? If it’s true, what the inmates are saying, then I can’t take back what I’ve done.

Later, I learn no one died in the fight that day. But even when I thought they did, I didn’t feel much remorse. Death is too common in prison to feel anything for someone who would take your life too if they had to.

I t’s Sunday morning and the wing officer decides to bring me a third of my property: pictures, hygiene products, and bedsheets. I immediately clean my cell. I clean myself. I scurry my hand over old scars and flinch at new ones on my abdomen and chest; the burnt flesh feels rubbery, like it’s not a part of me anymore, not even real.

Whatever I’ve become has nothing to do with me. Nothing , I think to myself before saying the word into the metal mirror above the steel sink. Nothing . I don’t stare too long at myself, though, out of a fear of what my reflection will tell me.

Solitary confinement is meant for one thing: breaking. The paint peeling off the walls, the scuffed floors from years of pacing, the smell of piss and feces—it is all a message to the soul that it is trapped.

10 o’clock. Count time , I hear.

Automatic lights blink on. As soon as the officer hits the steps, the young brother in the cell next to mine begins to beat rhythmically on the steel door. This continues well into the evening.

T he night lends solitary its brutality. I pace my cell, awake. Cry. Scream.

I haven’t seen my family or friends in 10 years, nor spoken to them in six. My son could end up here, lost in prison, the same violence driving him to the end.

My heart turns now. The system is hungry for my child’s soul. What can I do to stop it? Can I stop it? I have to reject all emotion—I can’t be human, won’t be, I say out loud over and over, my hands pressed against my face. But what about your son?

My neighbor beats on the wall again, but this time asks if I’m working on a rap. “Something like that,” I say.

His name is Marcus, he says. He wants to be a rapper and his sister thinks he’s as good as Gucci Mane.

I listen to him ramble about his family problems.

Become a Member

Marcus’s baby momma is in a serious relationship with one of his friends; his family is not supporting him mentally or financially, even as he keeps on getting jumped by gangs.

“Young dog, don’t let the world call your bluff,” is all I say.

The quietness lingers between us, though outside the unit is loud as usual.

Then, in a low voice, Marcus says that tomorrow morning he is going home.

I pause. Then I tell him to stay focused and that it’s a blessing to make it out of prison in one piece; I also remind myself of it.

First thing in the morning, Marcus will be free. I’m happy for him.

A fter 3:00 a.m. shift change, I hear the young homie packing up, a struggle with his luggage, too heavy maybe, but why so much? Is that the tightening of a bedsheet?

It sounds like his body is beating violently against the wall, a slight change of direction—his decision that it’s too late . I scream out, but all the while I try to block it out, try not to understand why he would choose this, why he would fear his family, the world.

The muffled struggle echoes in my mind. Is he hanging there now, suspended?

In another 30 minutes, the unit is full of officers and nurses, as it was after my fight. Officials want to know, again, what happened. But the inmates behind the steel doors can't explain it, the violence, so they pay no attention to the officials’ requests, nor to the young boy, Marcus, being hauled out like a stillborn out of a woman.

Demetrius Buckley, 32, is incarcerated at St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, where he is serving 18 to 30 years for 2nd-degree murder and two years for a weapons charge.

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Corrections (DOC) confirmed that the author was involved in a fight in July 2014 at Baraga Correctional Facility that broadly meets the description in this essay. However, the DOC had no report of stabbings during the altercation, and the spokesperson said there were no suicides around this time at the facility.

Our reporting has real impact on the criminal justice system

Michelle Jones was incarcerated in Indiana for more than two decades and was released last month. In a breathtaking feat of rehabilitation, Jones has become a published scholar of American history and an author of plays.

Our journalism establishes facts, exposes failures and examines solutions for a criminal justice system in crisis. If you believe in what we do, become a member today.

Stay up to date on our reporting and analysis.

Causes and Prevention of Violence in Prisons NOTE: A shorter version of this document has been published as a chapter in a book published in 2005

January 2005

Griffith University

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

A.S. Maitland

James A. Inciardi
Dorothy Lockwood
Judith A. Quintan
SOC SCI QUART
Can J Criminol
Dennis Cooley
BRIT J CRIMINOL

Beverly Wolfus
Ralph Bierman
Pamela Steinke
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

How Can Prisons Eliminate Violence? One Researcher Is Determined to Find Out.

There are theories about what causes prison violence, but a new three-year, seven-state study is seeking hard data to document the problem — and find solutions.

Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn

Sign up for our newsletter

Previously: part i, ‘ i can kill you in here and no one would know it’.

Nancy Rodriguez was frustrated.

From her time visiting prisons across the nation as a researcher, Rodriguez knew prison facilities were dangerous places. She knew that both the incarcerated population and correctional staff faced atmospheres of violence and intimidation. But she also knew she was powerless to provide scientifically based guidance to prison officials. There just wasn’t enough data to latch on to — on how often and why prison violence occurred — to come up with a solution.

There were occasional headlines when a death occurred or an incarcerated person leaked photos or video to the media, but it was anecdotal and specific to one prison in one state. There was a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey that collected information from incarcerated people on violence, but that ended in 2004 . There were reports about sexual violence, mandated by the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, and those on homicides. But there was no uniform metric that detailed all violence in all prisons across the United States.

“ As a researcher, not being able to say, ‘ This is what we can do’ — that was tremendously frustrating,” Rodriguez said. She didn’t have the tools to help incarcerated people transition from a life of violence inside prison to their homes and families. She didn’t have strategies or interventions for correctional staff to keep them safe. “ I was frustrated at the fact that we have many correctional leaders who are forward-thinking, who are tremendously innovative in many ways, who value data and research and want to use it to improve correctional systems … and I saw that they just did not have the tools and did not know what to do in many cases. I thought, certainly there is a role for science here.”

Today, that science is leading the way as Rodriguez sets out to find answers. With a $ 2 . 7 million grant from Arnold Ventures and the buy-in from correctional leaders in seven states, she is launching a three-year study to collect data and set up an evidence-based framework for reducing and preventing incidents of violence inside prisons.

Grant from Arnold Ventures to launch a three-year study to reduce and prevent incidents of violence inside prisons.

“ It’s a landmark study — an examination of an important dynamic where lives are at stake,” said Jeremy Travis , Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures. “ We thought it was worth a big investment.”

The criminal justice work done at Arnold Ventures is heavily focused on transparency as a way of holding systems accountable and demystifying them so that progress can be made. The new prison violence study will go a long way toward doing just that, said Jocelyn Fontaine , Director of Criminal Justice Research at the philanthropy.

“ Prisons are closed places; they are out of sight, very much out of mind for the general population,” Fontaine said. “ Our theory of change is that the pathway to reform is in opening them, making the invisible more visible, so by revealing what’s happening, then we hope that people would be motivated to change them.

“ And I don’t just mean the public — getting the public to be angered and push on systems to be more accountable — but also administrators themselves,” she said. “ Policymakers will take a look at something and say, ‘ Oh goodness, I didn’t know about this, and so therefore we want to change it’ by knowing the true extent and scope of something. So that’s our theory. That reform can come by them being more transparent and accountable.”

‘ Open and Honest’ About Successes and Failures

Two years ago — after leaving the National Institute of Justice as its Director and settling in California as a Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine — Rodriguez reached out to correctional leaders to gauge their interest in studying the issue of prison violence. Those seven leaders all signed on to be part of her Prison Violence Consortium, holding candid discussions about violence in their prisons, the ways in which violence is captured and reported, how they address incidents, and what can be done to better understand and reduce violence.

Now, with the Arnold Ventures grant, Rodriguez and the seven states are taking their study even further.

Research will include a review of prison incident reports, interviews with incarcerated people and staff in 23 prison facilities, and a review of the policies and practices that guide the state systems on responding to violence. The seven leaders will then implement the state-specific recommendations from the study and begin collecting data. The ultimate goal is to have the knowledge be used not just by these systems but systems throughout the country.

Having the states open their prison doors to the study is what makes the work so compelling, Travis said.

“ There’s an incentive to downplay or minimize or, at worst, sweep under the rug problems of violence,” he said. “ The fact that these states have allowed the UCI team in to look at something that is potentially embarrassing to them is a great testament to their desire to come to grips with this problem. I think this has potential for opening up a different conversation about violence in prisons that begins with the principle of transparency.”

Pennsylvania — which has spent the better part of the past decade working to reduce violence inside its prisons — is one of the states committed to Rodriguez’s study. Over his nine-year tenure as the state’s Secretary of Corrections, John Wetzel has adopted a number of proactive initiatives to address inappropriate behavior in his prisons. The state has a proven intel network to track rumblings of violence, incorporates verbal de-escalation sessions into its staff training, uses a classification system to determine where incarcerated people should be housed, and keeps violence-reduction statistics on its website for the public to view.

Wetzel joined the Prison Violence Consortium because he wanted to share the work his state has done to reduce prison violence, “ but also, opportunities to learn from other systems — you can’t put a price on that,” he said. “ I’ve never been afraid of folks looking inside our facilities. I think the only way to get better is to be open and honest about your successes and your failures and then make modifications to mitigate your failures.”

‘ A Profound Level of Neglect’

Rodriguez’s study seeks to capture which individual, institutional and situational factors cause prison violence. She’s heard her share of theories over the years.

“ I hear everything from you can’t talk about violence without talking about contraband or the illegal drug market, you can’t talk about violence without talking about the racialized environments and the role of gangs, you can’t discount mental health in discussing violence, you can’t ignore the conditions of confinement that exist and the limits of one’s freedom and movement, you can’t ignore staff and their engagement with incarcerated persons,” Rodriguez said.

All of those factors certainly play a role, Rodriguez said, but because violence is a highly complex problem, it’s important to not lose sight of the fact there could be other factors at play. And that’s why the study — rooted in rigorous methods — is so important.

Craig Haney, a psychologist and professor at the University of California Santa Cruz, has spent decades inspecting prisons and interviewing incarcerated people and correctional officers, trying to understand the causes and psychological impact of various conditions of confinement. He was one of the researchers in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which investigated the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the prison population and correctional officers.

Sometimes when prison systems are badly managed, abusive and overcrowded, stress and tension can brew for only so long before it explodes. Take the 1971 Attica prison riot. This was “ a group of prisoners who had been deprived, ignored, mistreated for a long time and were seeking redress, and when they realized that they could not achieve it through normal mechanisms, there was a collective response,” Haney said.

That’s why the concern about the recent reports of excessive force, neglect and inhumane conditions at prisons in Alabama and Mississippi is so appropriate, Haney said.

“ These are places where there has been a profound level of neglect of prisoners’ basic needs, a failure of the prison system to respond in a meaningful and remotely caring way,” said Haney, who has recently spent time at prisons in both states. “ Both places are plagued by really significant levels of overcrowding and corresponding staff shortages; they’re underfunded institutions in which prisoners are in dire need of the basic necessities of life.”

Tabb Bickell, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, saw first-hand how his state turned things around after the 1989 Camp Hill prison riot — of which he, as a young correctional officer, was beaten and taken hostage — and he believes a big factor in reducing violence was gaining resources.

“ When I started in corrections at $ 6 . 25 an hour, I remember walking out of there thinking, ‘ I just made 45 bucks today to do this ,’” Bickell said. “ And now through Wetzel and some of his people ahead of him, the money has gotten to where it makes it a competitive, decent place to work.”

And when correctional officers are compensated properly, when prisons aren’t overcrowded and understaffed but have good programming and decent living conditions, when the incarcerated population is treated humanely, there is less of a risk for violence, Haney said.

“ Well-run prisons that have the interests and the needs of the prisoners at the forefront are not places where riots break out,” he said.

‘ Always Being on Point’

Anyone who has ever stepped into a prison has witnessed the ripple effects that violence can have, Rodriguez said. And those effects — which will also be researched in the new study — don’t end when a person is released.

Herbert Morales, who experienced violence at the hands of correctional officers and his incarcerated peers during his time in New York State prisons from 1985 to 2017 , has been out for three years but is still triggered by noises that, in his mind, mean a correctional officer may be coming after him.

“ Right now, when I fall asleep, noise could go on about me, people could yell, music could play, I’ll sleep through it,” Morales said. “ But if you take a set of keys and you tap it against metal, I’ll pop up like I was never asleep.”

Tyrrell Muhammad has been home 15 years and he still wakes up every day at 4 : 35 a.m., “ always being on point, always being on alert, and I can’t stop, I can’t get rid of it. It has become part of my everyday existence.” That’s because the shift change in prison was at 5 a.m., and it was imperative to be awake and ready.

Josiah Rich, a Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Brown University and the Director and Co-Founder of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at The Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, has been witness to the effects of violence on incarcerated people.

He’s been visiting prisons mostly in Rhode Island for the past 25 years, taking care of people with HIV and other infectious diseases as well as providing treatment for opioid addiction. Patients will come into his exam room, close the door and just melt.

“ They’ll talk about their frustrations and their fears and things that have happened to them, repeated traumas,” Rich said, and then the session will come to an end, “ and you can see them kind of like steel themselves and put their battle mask on their face, and it’s like, ‘ Now I’ve got to go back in there. Thanks doc, see you later, back into the maelstrom.’”

Violence, Travis said, is part of the “ dark underbelly” of an already dark prison system, and it’s critical that society not look away. He is hopeful the new study will make the country face what’s happening inside prisons.

“ Prisons are toxic environments, and they do enormous harm, and it’s hard for any society that calls itself civilized to confront that reality, much less the reality that these are living situations that are not safe,” Travis said. “ It’s easier for us to claim there will be episodic outbreaks rather than to acknowledge that violence is a fact of daily life for those who already are deprived of liberty and for those who work in prisons. It’s a harsh reality to grapple with.”

‘ This is the Future of Corrections’

Go inside the Young Men Emerging unit in the D.C. Department of Corrections with this in-depth short film, “ Emerging: The Story of YME ” — produced by a former YME member — and learn how they build community and help one another take ownership of their stories.

What are you looking for?

Have an evidence-based week

Get The Abstract from Arnold Ventures delivered to your inbox.

A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 3, 2020, review article, prison culture, management, and in-prison violence.

John Wooldredge 1
View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221–0389, USA; email: [email protected]
Vol. 3:165-188 (Volume publication date January 2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041359
Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Academic attention to violence and other forms of in-prison misconduct is on the rise, although most research continues to be framed within now stale perspectives. A broader framework is needed that builds on the more contemporary aspects of these perspectives and incorporates other elements of prison culture and management that potentially influence violent offending and victimization in prison. This article begins with an overview of cumulative knowledge on prison culture to highlight relevant ideas on inmate adaptation to confinement and how violence might manifest from (mal)adaptation. How prison management shapes and reflects culture is also discussed with an emphasis on how prison officers affect inmate safety. A bi-level framework is presented that brings together the piecemeal contributions of research to date to provide a more comprehensive understanding of offending and victimization that should facilitate crime prevention in prison while improving the humanity of the prison experience.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

Alesina A , Baqir R , Easterly W 1999 . Public goods and ethnic divisions. Q. J. Econ. 114 : 1243– 84 [Google Scholar]
Allport G. 1954 . The Nature of Prejudice Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publ [Google Scholar]
Alpert G , Hicks D. 1977 . Prisoners’ attitudes toward components of the legal and judicial systems. Criminology 14 : 461– 82 [Google Scholar]
Anderson E. 1999 . Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City New York: WW Norton [Google Scholar]
Andrews D , Bonta J. 2017 . The Psychology of Criminal Conduct New York: Routledge, 6th ed.. [Google Scholar]
Armstrong G , Griffin M. 2004 . Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. J. Crim. Justice 32 : 577– 92 [Google Scholar]
Auty K , Liebling A. 2019 . Exploring the relationship between prison social climate and reoffending. Justice Q In press [Google Scholar]
Bernstein L. 2001 . Private commercial law in the cotton industry: creating cooperation through norms, rules, and institutions. Mich. Law Rev. 99 : 1724– 88 [Google Scholar]
Beuersbergen K , Dirkzwager A , Eichelsheim V , Van Der Laan P , Nieuwbeerta P 2015 . Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct. Crim. Justice Behav. 42 : 196– 218 [Google Scholar]
Bloom B , Owen B , Covington S 2003 . Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Correct [Google Scholar]
Bottoms A. 1999 . Interpersonal violence and social order in prison. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 26 : 205– 82 [Google Scholar]
Bottoms A , Tankebe J. 2012 . Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 102 : 119– 70 [Google Scholar]
Buchanan K. 2007 . Impunity: sexual abuse in women's prisons. Harv. Civil Rights–Civil Lib. Law Rev. 42 : 45– 87 [Google Scholar]
Bursik R , Grasmick H. 1993 . Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control New York: Lexington Books [Google Scholar]
Camp G , Camp C. 1985 . Prison gangs: their extent, nature, and impact on prisons Natl. Crim. Justice Ref. Serv. Rep. NCJ99458, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
Camp S , Gaes G , Langan N , Saylor W 2003 . The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: a multilevel investigation. Justice Q 20 : 501– 33 [Google Scholar]
Carroll L. 1974 . Hacks, Blacks, and Cons Lexington, MA: Lexington Books [Google Scholar]
Clayton O , Carr T. 1983 . The effects of prison capacity upon infraction rates. Crim. Justice Rev. 9 : 69– 77 [Google Scholar]
Clemmer D. 1940 . The Prison Community Boston: Christopher [Google Scholar]
Cochran J , Mears D. 2016 . The path of least desistance: inmate compliance and recidivism. Justice Q 34 : 431– 58 [Google Scholar]
Cohen L , Felson M. 1979 . Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44 : 588– 608 [Google Scholar]
Colvin M. 1992 . The Penitentiary in Crisis: From Accommodation to Riot in New Mexico Albany, NY: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
Crewe B. 2009 . The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English Prison Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Crewe B. 2011 . Depth, weight, tightness: revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishm. Soc. 13 : 509– 29 [Google Scholar]
Crewe B , Laws B. 2018 . Subcultural adaptations to incarceration. See Wooldredge & Smith 2018 125– 42
Decker S , Pyrooz D. 2018 . The real gangbanging is in prison. See Wooldredge & Smith 2018 143– 62
Dewey J , Bentley A. 1949 . Knowing and the Known Boston: Beacon Press [Google Scholar]
Dilulio J. 1987 . Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
Ekland-Olson S. 1986 . Crowding, social control, and prison violence: evidence from the post-Ruiz years in Texas. Law Soc. Rev. 20 : 389– 421 [Google Scholar]
Feeley M , Simon J. 1992 . The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30 : 449– 74 [Google Scholar]
Felson M. 1986 . Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal controls, and criminal outcomes. The Reasoning Criminal D Cornish, R Clarke 119– 28 Seacaucus, NJ: Springer [Google Scholar]
Finkelhor D , Asdigian N. 1996 . Risk factors for youth victimization: beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence Vict 11 : 3– 19 [Google Scholar]
Fishman J. 1934 . Sex in Prison; Revealing Sex Conditions in American Prisons New York: Natl. Library [Google Scholar]
Fong R. 1990 . The organizational structure of prison gangs: a Texas case study. Fed. Probat. 54 : 36– 43 [Google Scholar]
Franke D , Bierie D , MacKenzie D 2010 . Legitimacy in corrections: a randomized experiment comparing a boot camp with a prison. Criminol. Public Policy 9 : 89– 118 [Google Scholar]
Fuentes N. 2006 . The Rise and Fall of the Nuestra Familia Jefferson, WI: Know Gangs Publ [Google Scholar]
Gaes G , McGuire W. 1985 . Prison violence: the contribution of crowding versus other determinants of prison assault rates. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 22 : 41– 65 [Google Scholar]
Gambetta D. 2009 . Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Garland D. 1990 . Punishment in Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
Garofalo J. 1986 . Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. Positive Criminology M Gottfredson, T Hirschi 23– 42 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
Giallombardo R. 1966 . Society of Women: A Study of a Women's Prison New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
Goffman E. 1961 . Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates New York: Penguin Random House [Google Scholar]
Goodstein L , MacKenzie D , Shotland R 1984 . Personal control and inmate adjustment to prison. Criminology 22 : 343– 69 [Google Scholar]
Gordon J , Stichman A. 2016 . The influence of rehabilitative and punishment ideology on correctional officers’ perceptions of informal bases of power. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 60 : 1591– 608 [Google Scholar]
Griffin M , Hogan N , Lambert E 2012 . Doing “people work” in the prison setting: an examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff burnout. Crim. Justice Behav. 39 : 1131– 47 [Google Scholar]
Haney C , Banks W , Zimbardo P 1973 . Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. Int. J. Criminol. Penol. 1 : 69– 97 [Google Scholar]
Hardyman P , Van Voorhis P 2004 . Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice Natl. Inst. Correct [Google Scholar]
Heffernan E. 1972 . Making It in Prison: The Square, the Cool, and the Life New York: Wiley-Interscience [Google Scholar]
Henderson H , Wells W , Maguire E , Gray J 2010 . Evaluating the measurement properties of procedural justice in a correctional setting. Crim. Justice Behav. 37 : 384– 99 [Google Scholar]
Hepburn J. 1985 . The exercise of power in coercive organizations: a study of prison guards. Criminology 23 : 145– 64 [Google Scholar]
Hindelang M , Gottfredson M , Garofalo J 1978 . Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization Cambridge, MA: Ballinger [Google Scholar]
Hirschi T. 1969 . Causes of Delinquency Berkeley: Univ. California Press [Google Scholar]
Hirschi T , Gottfredson M. 1983 . Age and the explanation of crime. Am. J. Sociol. 89 : 552– 84 [Google Scholar]
Holtfreter K , Reisig M , Pratt T 2008 . Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology 46 : 189– 220 [Google Scholar]
Huebner B. 2003 . Administrative determinants of inmate violence: a multilevel analysis. J. Crim. Justice 31 : 107– 17 [Google Scholar]
Irwin J. 1980 . Prisons in Turmoil Boston: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
Irwin J. 2005 . The Warehouse Prison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class Los Angeles: Roxbury Press [Google Scholar]
Irwin J , Cressey D. 1962 . Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Soc. Probl. 10 : 142– 55 [Google Scholar]
Jacobs B , Wright R. 2006 . Street Justice: Retaliation in the Criminal Underworld New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Jacobs J. 1974 . Street gangs behind bars. Soc. Probl. 21 : 395– 409 [Google Scholar]
Jacobs J. 1977 . Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
Jacobs J. 1980 . The prisoners’ rights movement and its impact, 1960–1980. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 2 : 429– 70 [Google Scholar]
Jensen G , Jones D. 1976 . Perspectives on inmate culture: a study of women in prison. Soc. Forces 54 : 590– 603 [Google Scholar]
Johnson R. 2002 . Hard Time Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
Kauffman K. 1988 . Prison Officers and Their World Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Kornhauser R. 1978 . Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytical Models Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
Kruttschnitt C , Gartner R. 2005 . Marking Time in the Golden State: Women's Imprisonment in California Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Kruttschnitt C , Slotboom A , Dirkzwager A , Bijleveld C 2013 . Bringing women's carceral experiences into the “new punitiveness” fray. Justice Q 30 : 18– 43 [Google Scholar]
Lambert E , Hogan G , Griffin M 2007 . The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. J. Crim. Justice 35 : 644– 56 [Google Scholar]
Lawrence S , Travis J. 2004 . The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping America's Prison Expansion Washington, DC: Urban Press [Google Scholar]
Lazarus R. 1966 . Psychological Stress and the Coping Process New York: McGraw-Hill [Google Scholar]
Lenski G , Lenski J. 1978 . Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology New York: McGraw-Hill, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
Lerman A , Page J. 2012 . The state of the job: an embedded work role perspective on prison officer attitudes. Punishm. Soc. 14 : 503– 29 [Google Scholar]
Liebling A. 1994 . Suicides amongst women prisoners. Howard J 33 : 1– 9 [Google Scholar]
Liebling A. 2004 . Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Liebling A , Kant D. 2018 . The two cultures: correctional officers and key differences in institutional climate. See Wooldredge & Smith 2018 208– 32
Liebling A , Price D , Shefer G 2011 . The Prison Officer Cullompton, UK: Willan Publ, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
Lipsky M. 1980 . Street-Level Bureaucracy New York: Russell Sage [Google Scholar]
Lombardo L. 1989 . Guards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publ [Google Scholar]
Lyman M. 1989 . Gangland Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas [Google Scholar]
MacKenzie D , Goodstein L , Blouin D 1987 . Personal control and prisoner adjustment: an empirical test of a proposed model. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 24 : 49– 68 [Google Scholar]
Mahmood S , Tripodi S , Vaughn M , Bender K , Schwartz R 2012 . Effects of personality disorder and impulsivity on emotional adaptations in prison among women offenders. Psychiatry Q 83 : 467– 80 [Google Scholar]
Mandaraka-Sheppard A. 1986 . The Dynamics of Aggression in Women's Prisons in England Aldershot, UK: Gower [Google Scholar]
Marquart J. 1986 . Prison guards and the use of physical coercion as a mechanism of prisoner control. Criminology 24 : 347– 66 [Google Scholar]
McClellan D , Farabee D , Crouch B 1997 . Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: a comparison of male and female prisoners. Crim. Justice Behav. 24 : 455– 76 [Google Scholar]
McCorkle R. 1992 . Personal precautions to violence in prison. Crim. Justice Behav. 19 : 160– 73 [Google Scholar]
McCorkle R , Miethe T , Drass K 1995 . The roots of prison violence: a test of the deprivation, management, and “not-so-total” institution models. Crime Delinquency 41 : 317– 31 [Google Scholar]
Meade B. 2012 . Examining the effects of religiosity and religious environments on inmate misconduct PhD Thesis, Univ South Carolina, Columbia, SC: [Google Scholar]
Miethe T , Meier R. 1994 . Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations Albany, NY: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
Moloney K , van den Bergh B , Moller L 2009 . Women in prison: the central issues of gender characteristics and trauma history. Public Health 123 : 426– 30 [Google Scholar]
Morris R , Worrall J. 2014 . Prison architecture and inmate misconduct: a multilevel assessment. Crime Delinquency 60 : 1083– 109 [Google Scholar]
Murray H. 1938 . Explorations in Personality: A Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of College Age New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Nacci P , Teitelbaum H , Prather J 1977 . Population density and inmate misconduct rates in the federal prison system. Fed. Probat. 41 : 26– 31 [Google Scholar]
Owen B. 1998 . In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a Women's Prison Albany, NY: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
Ousey G , Wilcox P , Fisher B 2011 . Something old, something new: revisiting competing hypotheses of the victimization-offending relationship among adolescents. J. Quant. Criminol. 27 : 53– 84 [Google Scholar]
Paulus P , McCain G , Cox C 1985 . The effects of crowding in prisons and jails. Reactions to Crime: The Public, the Police, Courts and Prisons D Farrington, J Gunn 113– 34 Chichester: Wiley [Google Scholar]
Pyrooz D , Decker S , Fleisher M 2011 . From the street to the prison, from prison to the street: understanding and responding to prison gangs. J. Aggress. Confl. Peace Res. 3 : 12– 24 [Google Scholar]
Reimer H. 1937 . Socialization in the prison community. Proceedings of the American Prison Association 151– 55 New York: Am. Prison Assoc [Google Scholar]
Reisig M , Mesko G. 2009 . Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychol. Crime Law 15 : 41– 59 [Google Scholar]
Rierden A. 1997 . The Farm: Life Inside a Women's Prison Amherst, MA: Univ. Mass. Press [Google Scholar]
Rowe A. 2011 . Narratives of self and identity in women's prisons: stigma and the struggle for self-definition in penal regimes. Punishm. Soc. 13 : 571– 91 [Google Scholar]
Ruback R , Carr T. 1984 . Crowding in a women's prison: attitudinal and behavioral effects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14 : 57– 68 [Google Scholar]
Ruback R , Carr T. 1993 . Prison crowding over time: the relationship of density and changes in density to infraction rates. Crim. Justice Behav. 20 : 130– 48 [Google Scholar]
Sampson R. 1986 . Crime in cities: the effects of formal and informal social control. In Crime Justice Rev . . Res 8 : 271– 311 [Google Scholar]
Sampson R , Groves B. 1989 . Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94 : 774– 802 [Google Scholar]
Sampson R , Laub J. 1993 . Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Throughout Life Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Schaeffer E. 2008 . Remittances and reputations in Hawala money-transfer systems: self-enforcing exchange on an international scale. J. Priv. Enterp. 24 : 95– 117 [Google Scholar]
Schaufeli W , Peeters M. 2000 . Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: a literature review. Int. J. Stress Manag. 7 : 19– 48 [Google Scholar]
Schenk A , Fremouw W. 2012 . Individual characteristics related to prison violence: a critical review of the literature. Aggress. Violent Behav. 17 : 430– 42 [Google Scholar]
Schreck C. 1999 . Criminal victimization and low self-control: an extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Q 16 : 633– 54 [Google Scholar]
Shamir B , Drory A. 1981 . Some correlates of prison guards' beliefs. Crim. Justice Behav. 8 : 233– 49 [Google Scholar]
Skarbek D. 2014 . The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Slotboom A , Kruttschnitt C , Bijleveld C , Menting B 2011 . Psychological well-being of incarcerated women in the Netherlands: importation or deprivation?. Punishm. Soc. 13 : 176– 97 [Google Scholar]
Sparks J , Bottoms A , Hay W 1996 . Prisons and the Problem of Order Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Sparks R. 1982 . Research on Victims of Crime Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off [Google Scholar]
Stastny C , Tyrnauer G. 1983 . Who Rules the Joint? The Changing Political Culture of Maximum-Security Prisons in America Lexington, MA: Lexington Books [Google Scholar]
Steiner B. 2018 . Measuring and explaining inmate misconduct. See Wooldredge & Smith 2018 235– 54
Steiner B , Butler D , Ellison J 2014 . Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Crim. Justice 42 : 462– 70 [Google Scholar]
Steiner B , Wooldredge J. 2013 . Implications of different outcome measures for an understanding of inmate misconduct. Crime Delinquency 59 : 1234– 62 [Google Scholar]
Steiner B , Wooldredge J. 2015 . Examining the sources of correctional officer legitimacy. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 105 : 679– 704 [Google Scholar]
Steiner B , Wooldredge J. 2018 . Prison officer legitimacy, their exercise of power, and inmate rule breaking. Criminology 56 : 750– 79 [Google Scholar]
Sykes G. 1958 . The Society of Captives Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Sykes G , Messinger S. 1960 . The inmate social system. Theoretical Studies of Social Organization of the Prison R Cloward, D Cressey 5– 19 New York: Soc. Sci. Res. Counc [Google Scholar]
Sylvester S , Reed J , Nelson D 1977 . Prison Homicide Jamaica, NY: Spectrum Publ [Google Scholar]
Tahamont S. 2019 . The effect of facility security classification on serious rules violation reports in California prisons: a regression discontinuity design. J Quant. Criminol. In press [Google Scholar]
Tankebe J. 2013 . Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51 : 103– 35 [Google Scholar]
Tittle C. 1969 . Inmate organization: sex differentiation and the influence of criminal subcultures. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34 : 492– 505 [Google Scholar]
Toby J. 1957 . Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 48 : 12– 17 [Google Scholar]
Toch H. 1977 . Living in Prison New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
Toch H , Adams K , Grant J 1989 . Coping: Maladaptation in the Prison New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books [Google Scholar]
Trammell R. 2009 . Values, rules, and keeping the peace: how men describe order and the inmate code in California prisons. Deviant Behav 30 : 746– 71 [Google Scholar]
Trulson C , Marquart J. 2002 . The caged melting pot: toward an understanding of the consequences of desegregation in prisons. Law Soc. Rev. 36 : 743– 82 [Google Scholar]
Tyler T. 1990 . Why People Obey the Law New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Tyler T. 2010 . Legitimacy in corrections: policy implications. Criminol. Public Policy 9 : 127– 34 [Google Scholar]
Uggen C , Kruttschnitt C. 1998 . Crime in the breaking: gender differences in desistance. Law Soc. Rev. 32 : 401– 28 [Google Scholar]
Useem B. 1985 . Disorganization and the New Mexico prison riot of 1980. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50 : 677– 88 [Google Scholar]
Useem B. 2018 . Prison riots. See Wooldredge & Smith 2018 255– 69
Useem B , Kimball P. 1989 . States of Siege : U.S. Prison Riots, 1971–1986 . New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Useem B , Piehl A. 2006 . Prison buildup and disorder. Punishm. Soc. 8 : 87– 115 [Google Scholar]
Useem B , Reisig M. 1999 . Collective action in prisons: protests, disturbances, and riots. Criminology 37 : 735– 59 [Google Scholar]
Varese F. 2011 . Mafias on the Move: How Organized Crime Conquers New Territories Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Walters G. 1998 . Time series and correlational analyses of inmate-initiated assaultive incidents in a large correctional system. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 42 : 124– 32 [Google Scholar]
Ward D , Kassebaum G. 1964 . Homosexuality: a mode of adaptation in a prison for women. Soc. Probl. 12 : 159– 77 [Google Scholar]
Ward D , Kassebaum G. 1965 . Women's Prison: Sex and Social Structure Chicago: Aldine [Google Scholar]
Wilcox P , Land K , Hunt S 2003 . Criminal Circumstance: A Multicontextual Criminal Opportunity Theory New York: Aldine de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
Wilson W. 1987 . The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
Wolff N , Shi J , Blitz C 2008 . Racial and ethnic disparities in types and sources of victimization inside prison. Prison J 88 : 451– 72 [Google Scholar]
Wolff N , Shi J , Siegel J 2009 . Understanding physical victimization inside prisons: factors that predict risk. Justice Q 26 : 445– 75 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J. 1998 . Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 35 : 480– 502 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Griffin T , Pratt T 2001 . Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behavior: predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Q 18 : 203– 31 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Smith P 2018 . The Oxford Handbook of Prisons and Imprisonment New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Steiner B. 2009 . Comparing methods for examining relationships between prisoncrowding and inmate violence. Justice Q 26 795– 826 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Steiner B. 2014 . A bi-level framework for understanding prisoner victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 30 : 141– 62 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Steiner B. 2016a . Assessing the need for gender-specific explanations of prisoner victimization. Justice Q 33 : 209– 38 [Google Scholar]
Wooldredge J , Steiner B. 2016b . The exercise of power in prison organizations and implications for legitimacy. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 106 : 125– 66 [Google Scholar]
Article Type: Review Article

A better path forward for criminal justice: Changing prisons to help people change

Download a PDF of this chapter.

Subscribe to Governance Weekly

Christy visher and christy visher professor - university of delaware john eason john eason associate professor - university of wisconsin.

17 min read

Below is the third chapter from “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice,” a report by the Brookings-AEI Working Group on Criminal Justice Reform. You can access other chapters from the report here .

Prison culture and environment are essential to public health and safety. While much of the policy debate and public attention of prisons focuses on private facilities, roughly 83 percent of the more than 1,600 U.S. facilities are owned and operated by states. 1 This suggest that states are an essential unit of analysis in understanding the far-reaching effects of imprisonment and the site of potential solutions. Policy change within institutions has to begin at the state level through the departments of corrections. For example, California has rebranded their state corrections division and renamed it the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. For many, these are not only name changes but shifts in policy and practice. In this chapter, we rethink the treatment environment of the prison by highlighting strategies for developing cognitive behavioral communities in prison—immersive cognitive communities. This new approach promotes new ways of thinking and behaving for both incarcerated persons and correctional staff. Behavior change requires changing thinking patterns and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based strategy that can be utilized in the prison setting. We focus on short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations to begin implementing this model and initiate reforms for the organizational structure of prisons.

Level Setting

The U.S. has seen a steady decline in the federal and state prison population over the last eleven years, with a 2019 population of about 1.4 million men and women incarcerated at year-end, hitting its lowest level since 1995. 2 With the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, criminal justice reformers have urged a continued focus on reducing prison populations and many states are permitting early releases of nonviolent offenders and even closing prisons. Thus, we are likely to see a dramatic reduction in the prison population when the data are tabulated for 2020.

However, it is undeniable that the U.S. will continue to use incarceration as a sanction for criminal behavior at a much higher rate than in other Western countries, in part because of our higher rate of violent offenses. Consequently, a majority of people incarcerated in the U.S. are serving a prison sentence for a violent offense (58 percent). The most serious offense for the remainder is property offenses (16 percent), drug offenses (13 percent), or other offenses (13 percent; generally, weapons, driving offenses, and supervision violations). 3 Moreover, the majority of people in U.S. prisons have been previously incarcerated. The prison population is largely drawn from the most disadvantaged part of the nation’s population: mostly men under age 40, disproportionately minority, with inadequate education. Prisoners often carry additional deficits of drug and alcohol addictions, mental and physical illnesses, and lack of work experience. 4

According to data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average sentence length in state courts for those sentenced to confinement in a state prison is about 4 years and the average time served is about 2.5 years. Those sentenced for a violent offense typically serve about 4.7 years with persons sentenced for murder or manslaughter serving an average of 15 years before their release. 5 Thus, it is important to consider the conditions of prison life in understanding how individuals rejoin society at the conclusion of their sentence. Are they prepared to be valuable community members? What lessons have they learned during their confinement that may help them turn their life around? Will they be successful in avoiding a return to prison? What is the most successful path for helping returning citizens reintegrate into their communities?

Regrettably, prison life is often fraught with difficulty. Being sentenced to incarceration can be traumatic, leading to mental health disorders and difficulty rejoining society. Incarcerated individuals must adjust to the deprivation of liberty, separation from family and social supports, and a loss of personal control over all aspects of one’s life. In prison, individuals face a loss of self-worth, loneliness, high levels of uncertainty and fear, and idleness for long periods of time. Imprisonment disrupts the routines of daily life and has been described as “disorienting” and a “shock to the system”. 6 Further, some researchers have described the existence of a “convict code” in prison that governs behavior and interactions with norms of prison life including mind your own business, no snitching, be tough, and don’t get too close with correctional staff. While these strategies can assist incarcerated persons in surviving prison, these tools are less helpful in ensuring successful reintegration.

Thus, the entire prison experience can jeopardize the personal characteristics required to be effective partners, parents, and employees once they are released. Coupled with the lack of vocational training, education, and reentry programs, individuals face a variety of challenges to reintegrating into their communities. Successful reintegration will not only improve public safety but forces us to reconsider public safety as essential to public health.

Despite the toll of difficult conditions of prison, people who are incarcerated believe that they can be successful citizens. In surveys and interviews with men and women in prison, the majority express hope for their future. Most were employed before their incarceration and have family that will help them get back on their feet. Many have children that they were supporting and want to reconnect with. They realize that finding a job may be hard, but they believe they will be able to avoid the actions that got them into trouble, principally committing crimes and using illegal substances. 7 Research also shows that most individuals with criminal records, especially those convicted of violent crimes, were often victims themselves. This complicates the “victim”-“offender” binary that dominates the popular discourse about crime. By moving beyond this binary, we propose cognitive behavioral therapy, among a host of therapeutic approaches, as part of a broader restorative approach.

Despite having histories of associating with other people who commit crimes and use illegal drugs, incarcerated individuals have pro-social family and friends in their lives. They also may have some personality characteristics that make it difficult to resist involvement in criminal behavior, including impulsivity, lack of self-control, anger/defiance, and weak problem-solving and coping skills. Psychologists have concluded that the primary individual characteristics influencing criminal behavior are thinking patterns that foster criminal activity, associating with other people who engage in criminal activity, personality patterns that support criminal activity, and a history of engaging in criminal activity. 8 While the context constrains individual behavior and choices, the motivation for incarcerated individuals to change their behavior is rooted in their value of family and other positive relationships. However, most prison environments pose significant challenges for incarcerated individuals to develop motivation to make positive changes. Interpersonal relationships in prison are difficult as there is often a culture of mistrust and suspicion coupled with a profound absence of empathy. Despite these challenges, cognitive behavioral interventions can provide a successful path for reintegration.

Many psychologists believe that changing unwanted or negative behaviors requires changing thinking patterns since thoughts and feelings affect behaviors. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) emerged as a psycho-social intervention that helps people learn how to identify and change destructive or disturbing thought patterns that have a negative influence on behavior and emotions. It focuses on challenging and changing unhelpful cognitive distortions and behaviors, improving emotional regulation, and developing personal coping strategies that target solving current problems. 9 In most cases, CBT is a gradual process that helps a person take incremental steps towards a behavior change. CBT has been directed at a wide range of conditions including various addictions (smoking, alcohol, and drug use), eating disorders, phobias, and problems dealing with stress or anxiety. CBT programs help people identify negative thoughts, practice skills for use in real-world situations, and learn problem-solving skills. For example, a person with a substance use disorder might start practicing new coping skills and rehearsing ways to avoid or deal with a high-risk situation that could trigger a relapse.

Since criminal behavior is driven partly by certain thinking patterns that predispose individuals to commit crimes or engage in illegal activities, CBT helps people with criminal records change their attitudes and gives them tools to avoid risky situations. Cognitive behavioral therapy is a comprehensive and time-consuming treatment, typically, requiring intensive group sessions over many months with individualized homework assignments. Evaluations of CBT programs for justice-involved people found that cognitive restructuring treatment was significantly effective in reducing criminal behavior, with those receiving CBT showing recidivism reductions of 20 to 30 percent compared to control groups. 10 Thus, the widespread implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy as part of correctional programming could lead to fewer rearrests and lower likelihood of reincarceration after release. CBT can also be used to mitigate prison culture and thus help reintegrate returning citizens back into their communities.

Thus, the widespread implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy as part of correctional programming could lead to fewer rearrests and lower likelihood of reincarceration after release.

Even the most robust CBT program that meets three hours per week leaves 165 hours a week in which the participant is enmeshed in the typical prison environment. Such an arrangement is bound to dilute the therapy’s impact. To counter these negative influences, the new idea is to connect CBT programming in prison with the old idea of therapeutic communities. Therapeutic communities—either in prison or the community—were established as a self-help substance use rehabilitation approach and instituted the idea that separating the target population from the general population would allow a pro-social community to develop and thereby discourage antisocial cognitions and behaviors. The therapeutic community model relies heavily on participant leadership and requires participants to intervene in arguments and guide treatment groups. Inside prisons, therapeutic communities are a separate housing unit that fosters a rehabilitative environment.

Cognitive Communities in prison would be an immersive experience in cognitive behavioral therapy involving cognitive restructuring, anti-criminal modeling, skill building, problem-solving, and emotion management. These communities would promote new ways of thinking and behaving among its participants around the clock, from breakfast in the morning through residents’ daily routines, including formal CBT sessions, to the evening meal and post-dinner activities. Blending the best aspects of therapeutic communities with CBT principles would lead to Cognitive Communities with several key elements: a separate physical space, community participation in daily activities, reinforcement of pro-social behavior, use of teachable moments, and structured programs. This cultural shift in prison organization provides a foundation for restorative justice practices in prisons.

Accordingly, our recommendations include:

Short-Term Reforms

Create Transforming Prisons Act

Accelerate decarceration begun during pandemic.

Medium-Term Reforms

Encourage Rehabilitative Focus in State Prisons

Foster greater use of community sanctions.

Long-Term Reforms

Embrace Rehabilitative/Restorative Community Justice Models

Encourage collaborations between corrections agencies and researchers, short-term reforms.

To begin transforming prisons to help prisons and people change, a new funding opportunity for state departments of correction is needed. We propose the Transforming Prisons Act (funded through the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance) which would permit states to apply for funds to support innovative programs and practices that would improve prison conditions both for the people who live in prisons and work in prisons. This dual approach would begin to transform prisons into a more just and humane experience for both groups. These new funds could support broad implementation of Cognitive Communities by training the group facilitators and the correctional staff assigned to the specialized prison units. Funds could also be used to broaden other therapeutic programming to support individuals in improving pro-social behaviors through parenting classes, family engagement workshops, anger management, and artistic programming. One example is the California Transformative Arts which promotes self-awareness and improves mental health through artistic expression. Together, these programs could mark a rehabilitative turn in corrections.

While we work to change policies and practices to make prisons more humane, we also need to work towards decarceration. The COVID-19 crisis has enabled innovations in diverting and improving efforts to reintegrate returning citizens in the U.S. During the pandemic, many states took bold steps in implementing early release for older incarcerated persons especially those with health disorders. Research shows that returning citizens of advanced age and with poor health conditions are far less likely to commit crime after release. This set of circumstances makes continued diversion and reintegration of this population a much wiser investment than incarceration.

MEDIUM-TERM REFORMS

In direct response to calls to abolish prisons and defund the police, state prisons should move away from focusing on incapacitation to rehabilitation. To assist in this change, federal funds should be tied to embracing a rehabilitative mission to transform prisons. This transformation should be rooted in evidence-based therapeutic programming, documenting impacts on both incarcerated individuals and corrections staff. Prison good-time policies should be revisited so that incarcerated individuals receive substantial credit for participating in intensive programming such as Cognitive Communities. With a backdrop of an energized rehabilitative philosophy, states should be supported in their efforts to implement innovative models and programming to improve the reintegration of returning citizens and change the organizational structure of their prisons.

In direct response to calls to abolish prisons and defund the police, state prisons should move away from focusing on incapacitation to rehabilitation.

As the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, current U.S. incarceration policies and practices are costly for families, communities, and state budgets. Openly punitive incarceration policies make it exceedingly difficult for incarcerated individuals to successfully reintegrate into communities as residents, family members, and employees. A long-term policy goal in the U.S. must be to reduce our over-reliance on incarceration through shorter prison terms, increased reliance on community sanctions, and closing prisons. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that decarceration poses minimal risk to community safety. Given this steady decline in the prison population and decline in prison building in the U.S. since 2000, we encourage other types of development in rural communities to loosen the grip of prisons in these areas. Alternative development for rural communities is important because the most disadvantaged rural communities are both senders of prisoners and receivers of prisons with roughly 70 percent of prison facilities located in rural communities.

LONG-TERM REFORMS

Public safety and public health goals can be achieved through Community Justice Centers—these are sites that act as a diversion preference for individuals who may be in a personal crisis due to mental health conditions, substance use, or family trauma. Recent research demonstrates that using social or public health services to intervene in such situations can lead to better outcomes for communities than involving the criminal justice system. To be clear, many situations can be improved by crisis intervention expertise specializing in de-escalation rather than involving the justice system which may have competing objectives. Community Justice Centers are nongovernmental organizations that divert individuals in crisis away from law enforcement and the justice system. Such diversion also helps ease the social work burden on the justice system that it is often ill-equipped to handle.

Researchers and corrections agencies need to develop working relationships to permit the study of innovative organizational approaches. In the past, the National Institute of Justice created a researcher-practitioner partnership program , whereby local researchers worked with criminal justice practitioners (generally, law enforcement) to develop research projects that would benefit local criminal justice agencies and test innovative solutions to local problems. A similar program could be announced to help researchers assist corrections agencies and officials in identifying research projects that could address problems facing prisons and prison officials (e.g., safety, staff burnout, and prisoner grievance procedures).

Recommendations for Future Research

Some existing jail and prison correctional systems are implementing broad organization changes, including immersive faith-based correctional programs, jail-based 60- to 90-day reentry programs to prepare individuals for their transition to the community, Scandinavian and other European models to change prison culture, and an innovative Cognitive Community approach operating in several correctional facilities in Virginia. However, these efforts have not been rigorously evaluated. New models could be developed and tested widely, preferably through randomized controlled trials, and funded by the research arm of the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), or various private funders, including Arnold Ventures.

Correctional agencies in some states may be ready to implement the Cognitive Community model using a separate section of a prison or smaller facility not in use. Funding is needed to evaluate these pilot efforts, assess fidelity to the model standards, identify challenges faced in implementing the model, and propose any modifications to improve the proposed Cognitive Community model. Full-scale rigorous tests of the Cognitive Community model are needed which would randomly assign eligible inmates to the Cognitive Community environment or to continue to carry out their sentence in a regular prison setting. Ideally, these studies would observe the implementation of the program, assess intermediate outcomes while participants are enrolled in the program, follow participants upon release and examine post-release experiences in the post-release CBT program, and then assess a set of reentry outcomes at several intervals for at least one year after release.

Prison culture and environment are essential to community public health and safety. Incarcerated individuals have difficulty successfully reintegrating into their communities after release because the environment in most U.S. prisons is not conducive to positive change. Normalizing prison environments with evidence-based programming, including cognitive behavioral therapy, education, and personal development, will help incarcerated individuals lead successful lives in the community as family members, employees, and community residents. States need to move towards less reliance on incarceration and more attention to community justice models.

Violence in Incarcerated Populations: a Review of the Literature

Intentional Violence (S Bonne and M Crandall, Section Editors)
Published: 27 July 2022
Volume 8 , pages 172–178, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Ayana Worthey 1 ,
Arielle Thomas 2 , 3 ,
Caitlin Jones 1 ,
Adil Abuzeid 1 &
Cassandra Q. White 4

337 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

To provide an overview of the current research surrounding violence in prison populations.

Recent Findings

It has been a long-held misconception that race plays a factor in the propensity to commit violence leading to the higher rates of incarceration. On review of recent data, exposure to violence and socioeconomic status play a big part in not only how a person’s path leads to incarceration, but also to the continuation of the cycle of violence. The lack of effective interventions in the prison and jail environments also contributes to the incidence of violence in this patient population. Furthermore, this lack of intervention leads to the development, or worsening in some cases, of medical and psychiatric problems in this group.

Incarcerated populations are at high risk for physical and sexual assault from other inmates as well as from staff. The consequence of this environment exacerbates pre-existing physical and mental conditions. Further research must be done into evidence-based interventions that address these overwhelming disparities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Overview of harm reduction in prisons in seven European countries

Seeking Safety for women in incarceration: a systematic review

Data availability.

Upon request.

Code Availability

Kang-Brown J, Montagnet C, Heiss J. People in Jail and Prison in 20202021. Available from: https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-jail-and-prison-in-2020.pdf . Accessed 5 Aug 2021.

Fazel S, Baillargeon J. The health of prisoners. The Lancet. 2011;377(9769):956–65.

Article Google Scholar

Chang Z, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H, Fazel S. Substance use disorders, psychiatric disorders, and mortality after release from prison: a nationwide longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(5):422–30.

Massoglia M, Pare PP, Schnittker J, Gagnon A. The relationship between incarceration and premature adult mortality: gender specific evidence. Soc Sci Res. 2014;46:142–54.

Beck A, Berzofsky M, Caspar R, Krebs C, Young M, Thomas J, et al. Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics 2013.

Smith E, Stroop J, Beck A, Cantor D, Hartge J, Heaton L, et al. Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile Facilities, 2018. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics 2019.

Carson EA, Mueller S, Zeng Z, Su E, Epps-Carey C. Mortality in State and Federal Prisons, 2001–2018 Statistical Tables. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics 2021.

E. Ann Carson PD, Anderson E, Markman J, Kaeble D, Maruschak L, Alper M, et al. Prisoners in 2015. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2016.

Reidy TJ, Sorensen JR. Prison Homicides: A Multidimensional Comparison of Perpetrators and Victims. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract. 2017;17(2):99–116.

Reidy TJ, Sorensen JR, Bonner HS. Prison Homicide: An Extension of Violent Criminal Careers? J Interpers Violence. 2020;35(23/24):5676–90.

Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). online: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2005.

Carson EA, Mueller S, Zeng Z, Hendrixson E, Epps-Carey C. Mortality in Local Jails, 2000–2018 - Statistical Tables. US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2021.

Favril L, Stoliker B, Vander LF. What Differentiates Prisoners Who Attempt Suicide from Those Who Experience Suicidal Ideation? A Nationally Representative Study. Suicide Life-Threat Behav. 2020;50(5):975–89.

Fazel S, Cartwright J, Norman-Nott A, Hawton K. Suicide in prisoners: a systematic review of risk factors. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(11):1721–31.

Hayes LM. National study of jail suicide: 20 years later. J Correct Health Care. 2012;18(3):233–45.

Roma P, Pompili M, Lester D, Girardi P, Ferracuti S. Incremental conditions of isolation as a predictor of suicide in prisoners. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;233(1–3):e1-2.

Dixon KJ, Ertl AM, Leavitt RA, Sheats KJ, Fowler KA, Jack SPD. Suicides Among Incarcerated Persons in 18 U.S. States: Findings From the National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003–2014. J Correct Health Care. 2020;26(3):279–91.

Sung H. Prevalence and risk factors of violence-related and accident-related injuries among state prisoners. J Correct Health Care. 2010;16(3):178–87.

Wolff N, Jing S. Contextualization of physical and sexual assault in male prisons: incidents and their aftermath. J Correct Health Care. 2009;15(1):58–77; quiz 80–2.

Steiner B, Ellison JM, Butler HD, Cain CM. The Impact of Inmate and Prison Characteristics on Prisoner Victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2017;18(1):17–36.

Wooldredge J. Prison Culture, Management, and In-Prison Violence. Annu Rev Criminol. 2020;3(1):165–88.

Steiner B, Meade B. Assessing the Relationship between Exposure to Violence and Inmate Maladjustment within and Across State Correctional Facilities. US Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice; 2013.

Smith HP. EVALUATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA): A “LESSONS LEARNED” APPROACH. Eval Program Plann. 2020;83: 101855.

Rantala R, Stroop J, Mueller S, Motivans M, Coulton B, Thomas J, et al. Sexual victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2012–15.: US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs 2018.

Warren J, Jackson S, Loper AB, Burnette M. Risk Markers For Sexual Predation and Victimization in Prison. National Institute of Justice; 2009. Contract No.: 230522.

Hilinski-Rosick CM, Freiburger TL. Sexual Violence Among Male Inmates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(5/6):NP3285-NP303.

Ratkalkar M, Atkin-Plunk CA. Can I Ask for Help? The Relationship Among Incarcerated Males’ Sexual Orientation, Sexual Abuse History, and Perceptions of Rape in Prison. J Interpers Violence. 2020;35(19/20):4117–40.

Fedock G, Cummings C, Kubiak S, Bybee D, Campbell R, Darcy K. Incarcerated Women’s Experiences of Staff-Perpetrated Rape: Racial Disparities and Justice Gaps in Institutional Responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2019:088626051985053.

Beck A, Rantala R, Rexroat J. Sexual Victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2009–11. In: Statistics BoJ, editor.: US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs; 2014.

Davis AJ. Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and Sheriff’s Vans. Society. 1968;6(2):8–17.

Carroll L. Humanitarian Reform and Biracial Sexual Assault in a Maximum Security Prison. Urban Life; 1977. p. 417–37.

Bonner HS, Rodriguez FA, Sorensen JR. Race, ethnicity, and prison disciplinary misconduct. J Ethn Crim Justice. 2017;15(1):36–51.

Schenk AM, Fremouw WJ. Individual characteristics related to prison violence: A critical review of the literature. Aggress Violent Beh. 2012;17(5):430–42.

Griffin ML, Hepburn JR. The Effect of Gang Affiliation on Violent Misconduct Among Inmates During the Early Years of Confinement. Crim Justice Behav. 2006;33(4):419–66.

Steiner B, Butler HD, Ellison JM. Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. J Crim Just. 2014;42(6):462–70.

Lindekugel D, Bell K. Correlates of Violence within Washington state prisons. Criminol Crim Justice, Law Soc. 2015;16(1):21–34.

Google Scholar

Massoglia M, Pridemore WA. Incarceration and Health. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015;41:291–310.

Massoglia M. Incarceration as exposure: the prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses. J Health Soc Behav. 2008;49(1):56–71.

Wang EA, Pletcher M, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, Kertesz SG, Kiefe CI, et al. Incarceration, incident hypertension, and access to health care: findings from the coronary artery risk development in young adults (CARDIA) study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(7):687–93.

Houle B. The Effect of Incarceration on Adult Male BMI Trajectories, United States, 1981–2006. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2014;1(1):21–8.

Prins SJ, Draper L. Improving outcomes for people with mental illnesses under community corrections supervision: A guide to research-informed policy and practice. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center; 2009.

Fuller E, Sheriff A, Kennard M, Lamb H, Pavle J. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center. 2010.

Martin MS, Colman I, Simpson AIF, McKenzie K. Mental health screening tools in correctional institutions: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13:275-.

Fazel S, Hayes AJ, Bartellas K, Clerici M, Trestman R. Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(9):871–81.

Rocheleau AM. Ways of Coping and Involvement in Prison Violence. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2013;59.

Newman M, Fedina L, Nam B, Devylder J, Alleyne-Green B. Associations Between Interpersonal Violence, Psychological Distress, and Suicidal Ideation Among Formerly Incarcerated Men and Women. J Interpers Violence. 2020:088626052093304.

Wallace D, Wang X. Does in-prison physical and mental health impact recidivism? SSM Popul Health. 2020;11: 100569.

Lauger A, Maruschak L, Mueller S, Field M, Su E. PREA Data-Collection Activities Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2020.

Ahlin EM. Risk Factors of Sexual Assault and Victimization Among Youth in Custody. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(3/4):NP2164–87NP.

Field MB, Davis E. Victim, Perpetrator, and Incident Characteristics of Sexual Victimization of Youth in Juvenile Facilities, 2018 - Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2020.

Heaton L, Cantor D, Bruce C, Ren W, Harte J. Facility-level and Individual-level correlates of Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016.

Holman B, Ziedenberg J. The Dangers of Detention: The IMpact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute; 2006.

Ruch DA, Sheftall AH, Schlagbaum P, Fontanella CA, Campo JV, Bridge JA. Characteristics and Precipitating Circumstances of Suicide Among Incarcerated Youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58(5):514-.

Houchins DE, Jimenez E, Langley N, Plescow K, Henrich CC. Predictors of Self-Determination and Mental Health Symptoms Among Youth in Juvenile Justice Facilities. Behav Disord. 2021;46(3):138–48.

Baćak V, Thurman K, Eyer K, Qureshi R, Bird JDP, Rivera LM, et al. Incarceration as a Health Determinant for Sexual Orientation and Gender Minority Persons. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(8):994–9.

Ledesma E, Ford CL. Health Implications of Housing Assignments for Incarcerated Transgender Women. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(5):650–4.

Meyer IH, Flores AR, Stemple L, Romero AP, Wilson BD, Herman JL. Incarceration Rates and Traits of Sexual Minorities in the United States: National Inmate Survey, 2011–2012. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):267–73.

Lydon J, Carrington K, Low H, MIller R, Yazdy M. Coming out of Concrete Closets: A Report on Black and Pink’s National LGBTQ Prisoner Survey. Dorchester, MA: Black Pink; 2015.

Poteat TC, Malik M, Beyrer C. Epidemiology of HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infections, Viral Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis Among Incarcerated Transgender People: A Case of Limited Data. Epidemiol Rev. 2018;40(1):27–39.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

Ayana Worthey, Caitlin Jones & Adil Abuzeid

Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Arielle Thomas

American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA

University of Florida College of Medicine – Jacksonville, 655 West 8th Street, Jacksonville, FL, 32211, USA

Cassandra Q. White

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassandra Q. White .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All of the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on Intentional Violence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Worthey, A., Thomas, A., Jones, C. et al. Violence in Incarcerated Populations: a Review of the Literature. Curr Trauma Rep 8 , 172–178 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-022-00234-4

Download citation

Accepted : 03 June 2022

Published : 27 July 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-022-00234-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Incarcerated populations
Penal institutions
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Death Penalty
Children in Adult Prison
Wrongful Convictions
Excessive Punishment

Prison Conditions

Legacy of Slavery
Racial Terror Lynching
Racial Segregation
Presumption of Guilt
Community Remembrance Project
Hunger Relief
Unjust Fees and Fines
Health Care
True Justice Documentary
A History of Racial Injustice Calendar
Donation Questions

124 results for "Prison"

Millions of Americans are incarcerated in overcrowded, violent, and inhumane jails and prisons that do not provide treatment, education, or rehabilitation. EJI is fighting for reforms that protect incarcerated people.

As prison populations surged nationwide in the 1990s and conditions began to deteriorate, lawmakers made it harder for incarcerated people to file and win civil rights lawsuits in federal court and largely eliminated court oversight of prisons and jails. 1 Meredith Booker, “ 20 Years Is Enough: Time to Repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act ,” Prison Policy Initiative (May 5, 2016).

Today, prisons and jails in America are in crisis. Incarcerated people are beaten, stabbed, raped, and killed in facilities run by corrupt officials who abuse their power with impunity. People who need medical care, help managing their disabilities, mental health and addiction treatment, and suicide prevention are denied care , ignored, punished, and placed in solitary confinement. And despite growing bipartisan support for criminal justice reform, the private prison industry continues to block meaningful proposals. 2 The Sentencing Project, “ Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S. Growth in Private Prisons ” (2018).

Escalating Violence

Alabama’s Prisons Are Deadliest in the Nation

Over the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the level of violence in Alabama state prisons.

Alabama’s prisons are the most violent in the nation. The U.S. Department of Justice found in a statewide investigation that Alabama routinely violates the constitutional rights of people in its prisons, where homicide and sexual abuse is common, knives and dangerous drugs are rampant, and incarcerated people are extorted, threatened, stabbed, raped, and even tied up for days without guards noticing.

Serious understaffing, systemic classification failures, and official misconduct and corruption have left thousands of incarcerated individuals across Alabama and the nation vulnerable to abuse, assaults, and uncontrolled violence. 3 Matt Ford, “ The Everyday Brutality of America’s Prisons ,” The New Republic (Apr. 5, 2019).

Denying Treatment

Related Resource

The Marshall Project

A tragic case in New York illustrates how prisons are failing to provide adequate mental health treatment.

More than half of all Americans in prison or jail have a mental illness. 4 Mental Health America, “ Access to Mental Health Care and Incarceration .”’ Prison officials often fail to provide appropriate treatment for people whose behavior is difficult to manage, instead resorting to physical force and solitary confinement, which can aggravate mental health problems.

More than 60,000 people in the U.S. are held in solitary confinement. 5 Liman Center for Public Interest Law & Association of State Correctional Administrators, “ Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell ” (Oct. 2018). They’re isolated in small cells for 23 hours a day, allowed out only for showers, brief exercise, or medical visits, and denied calls or visits from family members. Studies show that people held in long-term solitary confinement suffer from anxiety, paranoia, perceptual disturbances, and deep depression. Nationwide, suicides among people held in isolation account for almost 50% of all prison suicides, even though less than 8% of the prison population is in isolation. 6 Erica Goode, “ Solitary Confinement: Punished for Life,” New York Times (Aug. 4, 2015).

The Supreme Court signaled in 2011 that failing to provide adequate medical and mental health care to incarcerated people could result in drastic consequences for states. It found that California’s grossly inadequate medical and mental health care is “incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society” and ordered the state to release up to 46,000 people from its “horrendous” prisons. 7 ‘ Brown v. Plata , 563 U.S. 493 (2011).’

But states like Alabama continue to fall far below basic constitutional requirements. In 2017, a federal court found Alabama’s “ horrendously inadequate ” mental health services had led to a “skyrocketing suicide rate” among incarcerated people. The court found that prison officials don’t identify people with serious mental health needs. There’s no adequate treatment for incarcerated people who are suicidal. And Alabama prisons discipline people with mental illness, often putting them in isolation for long periods of time.

Tolerating Abuse

Related Case

The Murder of Rocrast Mack

A 24-year-old man was beaten to death by guards at Alabama’s Ventress Prison.

A handful of abusive officers can engage in extreme cruelty and criminal misconduct if their supervisors look the other way. When violent correctional officers are not held accountable, a dangerous culture of impunity flourishes.

The culture of impunity in Alabama, and in many other states, starts at the leadership level. The Justice Department found in 2019 that the Alabama Department of Corrections had long been aware of the unconstitutional conditions in its prisons, yet “little has changed.” In fact, the violence has gotten worse since the Justice Department announced its statewide investigation in 2016.

Similarly, ADOC failed to do anything about the “toxic, sexualized environment that permit[ted] staff sexual abuse and harassment” at Tutwiler Prison for Women despite “repeated notification of the problems.”

In the face of rising homicide rates, Alabama officials misrepresented causes of death and the number of homicides in the state’s prisons. The Justice Department reported that Alabama officials knew that staff were smuggling dangerous drugs into prisons. But rather than address staff corruption and illegal activity, state officials tried to hide the alarming number of drug overdose deaths in Alabama prisons by misreporting the data.

Enriching Corporations

No universal decline in mass incarceration.

Report from the Vera Institute of Justice shows “the specter of mass incarceration is alive and well.”

Mass incarceration is “an expensive way to achieve less public safety.” 8 Don Stemen, “ The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer ,” Vera Institute of Justice (2017). It cost taxpayers almost $87 billion in 2015 for roughly the same level of public safety achieved in 1978 for $5.5 billion. 9 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “ Summary Report: Expenditure and Employment Data for the Criminal Justice System 1978 ” (Sept. 1980). Factoring in policing and court costs, and expenses paid by families to support incarcerated loved ones, mass incarceration costs state and federal governments and American families $182 billion each year. 10 Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, “ Following the Money of Mass Incarceration ,” Prison Policy Initiative (2017).

Rising costs have spurred some local, state, and federal policymakers to reduce incarceration. But private corrections companies are heavily invested in keeping more than two million Americans behind bars. 11 Eric Markowitz, “ Making Profits on the Captive Prison Market ,” The New Yorker (Sept. 4, 2016).

The U.S. has the world’s largest private prison population. 12 The Sentencing Project, “ Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S. Growth in Private Prisons ” (2018). Private prisons house 8.2% (121,420) of the 1.5 million people in state and federal prisons. 13 Jennifer Bronson & E. Ann Carson, “ Prisoners in 2017 ,” Bureau of Justice Statistics (Apr. 2019). Private prison corporations reported revenues of nearly $4 billion in 2017. 14 Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, “ Following the Money of Mass Incarceration,” Prison Policy Initiative (2017). The private prison population is on the rise , despite growing evidence that private prisons are less safe, do not promote rehabilitation, and do not save taxpayers money.

The fastest-growing incarcerated population is people detained by immigration officials. 15 Gretchen Gavett, “ Map: The U.S. Immigration Detention Boom ,” PBS Frontline (Oct. 18, 2011). The federal government is increasingly relying on private, profit-based immigration detention facilities . 16 Madison Pauly, “ Trump’s Immigration Crackdown is a Boom Time for Private Prisons ,” Mother Jones (May/June 2018). Private detention companies are paid a set fee per detainee per night, and they negotiate contracts that guarantee a minimum daily headcount, creating perverse incentives for government officials. Many run notoriously dangerous facilities with horrific conditions that operate far outside federal oversight. 17 Emily Ryo & Ian Peacock, “ The Landscape of Immigration Detention in the United States ,” American Immigration Council (Dec. 2018).

Private prison companies profit from providing services at virtually every step of the criminal justice process, from privatized fine and ticket collection to bail bonds and privatized probation services. Profits come from charging high fees for services like GPS ankle monitoring, drug testing, phone and video calls, and even health care. 18 In the Public Interest, “ Private Companies Profit from Almost Every Function of America’s Criminal Justice System ” (Jan. 20, 2016).

Many state and local governments have entered into expensive long-term contracts with private prison corporations to build and sometimes operate prison facilities. Since these contracts prevent prison capacity from being changed or reduced, they effectively block criminal justice and immigration policy changes. 19 Bryce Covert, “ How Private Prison Companies Could Get Around a Federal Ban ,” The American Prospect (June 28, 2019).

Featured Work

EJI is confronting the nation’s most deadly and overcrowded prison system by investigating, documenting, and filing federal lawsuits and complaints about conditions in Alabama’s prisons.

Challenging Violent Prison Culture

EJI is suing the Alabama Department of Corrections for failing to respond to dangerous conditions and a high rate of violence at St. Clair Correctional Facility.

Investigating Sexual Abuse

EJI exposed the widespread sexual abuse of women incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison for Women, leading to a federal investigation.

Exposing Corruption, Violence, and Abuse

EJI has documented severe physical and sexual abuse and violence perpetrated by correctional officers and officials in three Alabama prisons for men.

Fourth Homicide in Six Months at Alabama’s Limestone Prison

Another Alabama Man Killed at Ventress Prison

Third Homicide in Four Months at Alabama’s Limestone Correctional Facility

Another Alabama Prison Homicide at Donaldson Correctional Facility

Explore more in Criminal Justice Reform

Dismantling Prisons: Abolitionist Feminism, Women, Incarceration and #MeToo

by Philippa Greer [1]

“Lisa Montgomery is mentally ill. Presently her mental condition results in her inability rationally to understand she will be executed, why she will be executed, or even where she is.” — Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus , Lisa Marie Montgomery v. Warden of USP Terre Haute, Michael Carvajal, Jeffrey Rosen, 8 January 2021

Lisa Montgomery was executed on 13 January 2021 at a federal facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, United States. A victim of incest, sexual assault and abuse from childhood into her adult life, the United States government executed her by lethal injection despite its abject failure throughout her life to protect her from cumulative, severe child abuse and sexual violence. Lisa’s male attorneys, seemingly uninformed about her endurance of gender violence, failed to present a comprehensive picture of her decades of torture and abuse to the jury in her 2007 capital trial when she was sentenced to death. As observed by Sandra Babcock , founder of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide , the result for Lisa was deadly, since: “[p]rosecutors have a set playbook in capital cases involving women…[t]hey condemn women who are bad mothers, or who don’t fit an idealized version of femininity.”

As reasoned by The New York Times , Lisa Montgomery’s life experiences should not have been treated by the criminal justice system as genderless, rather she “endured a lifetime of abuse because she was a woman. She was trafficked and raped because she was a girl.” Government systems and institutions repeatedly failed her – from child protective services, to the education system, to law enforcement, to mental health services, to domestic violence advocacy. Her resultant mental illness gave rise to her eventual commission of a horrific crime. Yet, in addressing Lisa Montgomery’s case and advocating that her execution would constitute an “injustice on top of an injustice” given her lifetime endurance of sexual and gender-based violence, The New York Times averred that: “[n]o one is arguing that Lisa Montgomery should be freed from prison.”

Yet for prison abolitionists, including myself, who think beyond prisons as a tool to solve society’s problems and seek to reduce or eliminate them, the last claim is not true. However, before turning to address the current carceral moment through the lens of abolitionist feminism – and the inherent tensions it presents for carceral feminism in the context of #MeToo – it is imperative to firstly reflect upon the subject of women and incarceration itself. While attending to the dismantling project foreshadowed by prison abolition, it is essential that we pay attention to the issue of women in prison, in particular by documenting the unique problems encountered by incarcerated women in order to address them.

Women and Incarceration

Firstly, turning to the numerical context of women in prison, and noting that the United Kingdom has three separate prison systems across the distinct legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is worth contextualising that over the six year projection horizon from 2020-2026 in England and Wales, the prison population is expected to increase to 98,700 by September 2026, according to the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom . This is largely due to the anticipated result of the recruitment of an extra 20,000 police officers, which is expected to increase charge volumes and therefore increase the future prison population. As of 20 November 2020, the prison population in England and Wales was 78,838 . It is projected to increase in the short term to a pre-COVID-19 level of 83,200 by September 2021 , then to keep increasing steadily to 98,700 offenders by September 2026 .

However, the cohort of female adult prisoners make up only a small proportion of the overall population. In September 2020, females over the age of eighteen equated to 3,217 of the 79,235 prison population . By September 2026, they are expected to be just 4,500 of the 98,700 inmates in England and Wales. According to these statistics, men are therefore over 20 times more likely than women to be imprisoned in England and Wales.

In Scotland, following several years of sustained decrease, the prison population has risen sharply since 2017-2018 to an annual average of around 8,200 in 2019-2020 according to the Scottish Government . Yet this rise has been amongst the population of adult men only. The average number of women in prison has remained stable since 2013-2014. Therefore, throughout this time period, men consistently made up the majority of people in prison in Scotland, while the proportion of prisoners who are women decreased over the last ten years, from 1,693 individuals in 2010-2011 (8.3% of the total) to 1,263 in 2019-2020 (7.3%).

Last but not least within UK borders, according to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, the overall average daily prison population in Northern Ireland increased by 4.7% during 2019-2020, to 1,516 prisoners. While males increased from 1,384 to 1,442 and the female population increased from 65 to 74 , a larger proportion of female receptions were sentenced to “short” custodial sentences of one year or less (85.6%) compared to males (76.8%) . Therefore, overall across the United Kingdom, female prisoners are overwhelmingly a minority within the long-term prison population.

Across the Atlantic, the United States has the dubious distinction of incarcerating the highest prison population per capita in the OECD (England and Wales has the thirteenth highest prison population per capita, with Scotland being the fourteenth and Northern Ireland being the twenty-sixth in the world). According to The Sentencing Project , there are 2.2 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails today. Since 2000, the United States has drifted around the 1.5 million prisoners mark. However around 231,000 women and girls were incarcerated in the United States as of 2019 according to the Prison Policy Initiative . Accordingly, in stark contrast to the total incarcerated population, women prisoners similarly remain a minority in the world’s most carceral nation.

Yet despite the fact that female prisoners are fewer in number, the outsized role of prisons and jails, including for pre-trial incarceration, has serious consequences for incarcerated women and their families. These impacts are seldom given due attention in mainstream media and public discourse. By contrast, high profile criminal cases tend to consume the public and media’s attention from a sensationalist viewpoint when it comes to the topic of women and incarceration, to the detriment of the majority of female non-violent prisoners .

Woman in prison cell, seen through bars with her head in her hands

Photo by Matthew Henry on Stocksnap .

Indeed, my personal interest in the gendered experience of women within the criminal justice system was first piqued by the tragic case of Aileen Wuornos , who was executed in Florida and referred to by the international media as everything from a “ man-hating lesbian killer ” to a “ feminist hero who murdered in self-defense ”. Years later, working for the British NGO Reprieve, and assisting in a juror investigation in the case of Linda Carty , a British grandmother currently on death row in Texas, I further reflected upon the experience of females prosecuted for crimes through a gendered lens (in Linda’s case, through a gruesome prosecutorial theory which had asserted that she planned to kill a pregnant mother in order to steal her baby). In the international realm, I have met in detention the first woman to be convicted of genocide by an international tribunal , Pauline Nyiramasuhko, and took note as she was labeled even in academic settings as the “ mother of atrocities ” for her role in the Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsi. Indeed, Pauline Nyiramasuhko’s case generated a high level of media and academic attention from the perspective of challenging how the roles of women as mothers do not prohibit them from planning or participating in violent crimes. The focus of media and public attention to cases involving females accused of violent crimes arguably shapes public understanding and the framing of the social issue of women in prison.

The absence of focus on female prisoners overall is in part perhaps attributable to the fact that there are typically fewer women prisoners than men, as highlighted above, and because the criminal justice sphere has traditionally been the purview of men. For instance, in the United States, the vast majority of police leaders and officers , corrections staff and prison wardens are men. In elected office, in 2021, there are still more men than women. For example, in 2021, 144 women serve in the US Congress: 26 women serve in the Senate and 118 women in the House . The number of women in statewide elective executive posts is 94, and the proportion of women in state legislatures is 30.8 percent . Therefore men are disproportionately involved in both the administration of punishment and incarceration and the drafting of policies on punishment and incarceration in the United States.

Similarly in England and Wales, as of 31 March 2020, there were 40,319 female police officers , constituting just 31 percent of police officers (less than a third overall). Only 36.9 percent (69) of senior leaders in public prisons and in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) were female. Further, while the UK elected a record number of female Members of Parliament in 2019, almost two-thirds of seats in the House of Commons were still represented by men. Criminology has also traditionally focused on men .

The gendered nature of the penal sector, shaped by primarily male institutional actors, results in prisons and jails being designed by men for men. In turn, they are not tailored to women’s needs and experiences . Given the comparatively low number of female prisoners and resultant invisibility of the female correctional population, the issue of incarceration is further cast as a men’s issue.

The human cost is immeasurable. As noted by Penal Reform International , “[p]risons are single sex, coercive institutions designed to hold men in a secure environment.” The result is that women’s prisons are a poor adaptation of this model, being regimes under which women are held that do not respond to their specific needs. Further, as there are fewer women in prison, there are usually a smaller number of distinct facilities for women, resulting in women being held at greater distance from their families and communities . How women are impacted differently by the criminal justice system than men and how criminology has historically focused on studying men’s experiences must be remedied. A light must also be shone in particular upon the ways in which women’s abuse and resultant survival strategies are criminalized .

According to the National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence , there are six main pathways to incarceration which correlate with histories of abuse when it comes to female offenders, namely: 1.) abuse survivors and “runaway girls” ; 2.) “street women” and prostituted women; 3.) women with untreated addictions; 4.) women arrested for economic crimes, sometimes coerced by batterers; 5.) women arrested for harming others, either falsely or for defending themselves; and 6.) women affected by the enforcement of discriminatory and coercive welfare, immigration and corrections policies and drug laws.

Women in the correctional system almost universally have histories of abuse and crimes stemming from that abuse (such as status offenses from running away from home as children, drug use to cope with the mental health effects of abuse, and sex work to pay for such self-medication). This means that the system of imprisoning women is built upon the criminalization of survival strategies , creating a “sexual violence to prison pipeline” (as argued by Mariame Kaba in 2017).

While a majority of female inmates experience sexual or physical abuse before entering prison, once incarcerated, the carceral system overwhelmingly fails to address such histories of abuse and there is typically a lack of adequate mental health services available . Women may be routinely administered medication without the opportunity to undergo psychotherapeutic treatment.

Further, the fact that prison is usually an institution of sexual violence itself, where people are sexually assaulted and raped as part of the system, must be addressed in the context of women and incarceration. For instance, in the United States, while such data is not disaggregated by sex or gender, correctional administrators reported almost 25,000 allegations of sexual victimization in 2015 in adult correctional institutions. According to Prison Policy, records show that correctional officials have subjected female inmates to rape, other sexual assault, sexual extortion, and groping during body searches in addition to strip searches and cavity searches.

Beyond enduring sexual abuse in prison , women in prison are also subject to medical neglect, often receive inadequate reproductive health care, and are often denied essential medical resources and treatments, particularly during times of pregnancy . Despite reform efforts, the shackling of all prisoners, including pregnant prisoners, is policy in federal prisons in certain circumstances and exists in almost all state prisons in the US .

Prison abolition is a feminist struggle. The above data illuminates the multitude of ways in which mass incarceration has deeply gendered effects, and resultantly has acute effects on families, constituting a suitable site for feminist intervention. For instance, since 1991, the number of children with a mother in prison in the United States has more than doubled, by 131%, and eighty-five percent of the primary caregivers of children during the mother’s incarceration were maternal grandmothers . Moreover, that the global prison industrial complex was built on black and brown women’s bodies and built on the criminalization of women’s survival strategies is undoubtedly a feminist concern.

In addition, abolition is not the end of the story for women, who are typically the primary caregivers who will be affected by the other systems of surveillance in place beyond physical prisons walls, including state involvement in their lives through child welfare and probation and parole systems. Michelle Alexander’s 2018 editorial follow-up, The Newest Jim Crow , to her foundational work The New Jim Crow urges us to stop thinking about the system of mass incarceration as simply a prison system and to address the urgent need to dismantle the digital prisons which exist in society. For instance, the emergence of “e-carceration”, or digital prisons, including the systems governing probation and parole and the over-policing inherent within child welfare systems, subjects societies to new, high-tech forms of racial and social surveillance and control.

Private corporations are investing in the electronic surveillance of those who have been criminalized , creating electronic monitors and G.P.S. tracking systems for the “re-entry” of those released from prison or jail. Yet these systems of electronic control and monitoring are replacing traditional, physical brick-and-mortar prisons, with invisible ones. Such punitive systems of surveillance are a manifestation of the over-policing of black bodies, women’s bodies, poverty, and motherhood . As Michelle Alexander argues , using fewer physical cages will not mean that less people will be caged, rather “many of the current reform efforts contain the seeds of the next generation of racial and social control.”

We must accordingly extend the gaze of feminist abolition from mass incarceration to mass criminalization if we are to address the perpetual criminalization, surveillance, monitoring and control of those already disadvantaged and marginalized in our societies. As these surveillance systems infiltrate mostly poor neighborhoods and families of colour, black and brown women’s mothering is ultimately compromised. As noted by Venezia Michalsen , by closing prisons, “we are simply clipping branches from the racist and misogynist tree, while the roots continue to flourish, surveilling Black women through other means.”

Therefore there is a need for prison abolition to be considered from a feminist perspective because of the impact of prison— in all of its forms (including the structures in the community which expand the state’s reach) — on women. Yet, in addressing the topic of prison abolition from a feminist perspective, we must respond to the fact that the prison industrial complex has done a lot to make women— although it should be acknowledged, primarily white women— feel safe.

Addressing the Fallacy of #MeToo through an Abolitionist Lens

“We’ve now been in quarantine longer than #BrockTurner turner was in jail.” —Twitter user, 5 August 2020

Many prominent organizations and movements fighting domestic and sexual violence against women have heavily relied on policing and prisons. This has been consistently highlighted and criticised by INCITE!, a network of radical feminists of colour organizing to end state, community and personal violence against women of colour.

Following the six-month prison sentence imposed upon Brock Turner, the Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, some feminist groups expressed outrage at the shortness of the sentence . For the first time since 1932, California voters proceeded to recall a sitting judge when they voted to remove Judge Aaron Persky, the sentencing judge in Brock Turner’s case. Judge Persky was removed, despite the potential harm to poor and minority defendants ultimately created by such a removal, which could deter other judges from rendering shorter prison sentences. Indeed, as public defenders argued , such a precedent would likely contribute to high rates of incarceration and play into the already prominent trend within judicial elections across the country of punishing mercy and rewarding punitiveness.

As noted by deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, Sajid Khan , “the culture of mass incarceration has so shaped our minds ” that “we still insist on arbitrary, lengthy terms of incarceration as the response to crime.” Indeed, as INCITE! has emphasised , as accusations against high profile sexual offenders like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby mounted, calls for justice similarly centered around arrest and prison. The convictions of such powerful men were classed specifically as “male accountability”, for instance by Ben Leit in The Spectator, who noted that , “Weinstein will be exactly where he belongs— behind bars.”

Yet such a response fails to recognise that harsher criminal punishments and lengthier prison sentences have, as INCITE! advocates, “always fallen hardest upon— and devastated— people and communities of colour” , while providing little safety or prevention from gender violence.

The inherent tension within the #MeToo movement and its relation to the criminal justice system becomes yet clearer when we recall the remarks of Judge Rosemarie Aquilina , who presided over the sentencing hearing of Larry Nassar, the former USA Gymnastics doctor who was convicted of molesting female gymnasts and sentenced to up to 175 years’ imprisonment. For instance, such statements went as far as alluding to prison rape: “[o]ur Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did […] I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.” Through grassroots activism to judicial reasoning, carceral feminists overly rely on increased punitive responses and state power in the fight to end violence against women.

Building on the foundational work of INCITE!, much has been written about how we must reconcile prison abolition with the #MeToo movement, with a view to combatting impunity for sexual and gender-based violence through non-carceral means. Indeed, an overreliance on policing, prosecution, and imprisonment to resolve gendered or sexual violence is misplaced. As argued by Alex Press , despite convictions and prison sentences for outliers such as Harvey Weinstein, his powerful counterparts, “the unknown numbers of Wall Street traders, media executives, and political leaders who have committed less-well documented assaults” are not the ones who will be channelled into the criminal justice system. Instead, as Press argues , it will be the poor and working class, particularly those from communities of colour.

The question of mass incarceration and the negative state engagement surrounding it is best understood through gendered and feminist lenses . For abolitionist feminists, the struggle to end violence cannot be found within punitive and carceral systems, as prisons are sites of violence that can never be adequately reformed since both sexual and gender-based violence are reproduced by the carceral state. Instead, prisons must be eliminated, along with the conditions that channel individuals from society into prison, including racism, poverty and the root causes of violence .

Protest sign reading "End Violence Against Women"

Photo by Fmtechgirl on Wikimedia Commons .

As summarized by Maureen Mansfield in The Progressive Policy Think Tank , abolitionist feminism invites us to consider the world we want and how to organise to build it. Seeking a world beyond prisons, it focuses our attention on developing stronger communities and attaining gender, racial and economic justice. Abolitionist feminism therefore encourages us to consider our problems from a social justice, rather than a criminal justice or carceral state, perspective. In seeking alternative systemic strategies for addressing harm, it also acknowledges and responds to the violence caused by the state itself.

An abolitionist feminist lens reveals how carceral feminisms (as so labeled by Elizabeth Bernstein in 2007 ) (in common with other carceral ideologies) rely on criminalization, increased policing, prosecution and imprisonment, which reinforces state violence , as the solution to gender-based violence. Such an approach thereby upholds a system which ultimately punishes along race, class, gender identity and immigration status lines, which runs counter to the reported belief systems of many forms of feminism in terms of perpetuating race, class and gender violence. With respect to gender, the criminal justice system has particular impacts on women (cisgender and trans), trans men, gender non-conforming and intersex people, even when they themselves are victimised by violence and indeed despite the fact that women and LGBT persons are frequent targets of the criminal justice system.

In the US context, the turn toward criminalization within anti-violence activism gave rise to Congress passing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, as the result of years of organising and strategic litigation by feminists which, as explained by Priya Kandaswamy , relied upon the “construction of women as innocent victims of violence who deserve protection from the state.” As INCITE! emphasises , carceral feminisms ultimately view solutions to gender-based violence through a white middle-class lens. In so doing, they ignore the ways in which intersecting identities (such as race, class, gender identity and immigration status) leave certain women more vulnerable to violence, including state violence.

As Beth Richie highlights , such a premise creates a binary between the “criminal” and the “victim”, thus excluding criminalised populations from the services they need as survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, including undocumented immigrants, substance users, sex workers and welfare recipients. It further alienates individuals from criminalised communities (such as people of colour, queer and transgender people), who are more likely to be targeted, than helped, by the criminal-justice institutions that anti-violence activists turn to.

Taking the example of VAWA, this prompted law enforcement to respond to complaints of domestic violence, sexual assault and other gender-based violence via ensuing mandatory arrest laws, policies on dual arrests (in which police could also arrest survivors) and punitive prison sentences. Such effects have led to the critique of VAWA as a failed policy . Yet despite VAWA’s punitive approach, in the majority of sexual assault cases, perpetrators are less likely to go to jail or prison than other criminals and sexual assault remains dramatically underreported . Punitive approaches ultimately fail to stop sexual and gender-based violence and in particular, domestic violence.

The expansion of punishment systems in response to sexual and gender-based violence is not only ineffective but it also results in, what Venezia Michalsen describes as an “expansion of racist, punitive, and patriarchal systems that punish and surveil communities of colour, in particular the mothering of Black and brown women.” As previously noted, such examples include the misogynist systems of surveillance sanctioned by the child welfare system in the United States.

More broadly, carceral feminisms focus narrowly on incarceration as if prison exists in a vacuum and the prison industrial complex does not bear its strange fruits within wider society. It is as if life were an episode of Law and Order —or Inspector Morse in the UK. As the credits roll at the end of the episode, with a sense of relief, everyone resumes their day, for a person has been apprehended and placed behind bars and the story has ended; the problem has gone away.

Yet as human beings are put in cages, families have to pay for phone calls to speak to them and incur costs to visit them, women have to figure out how to pay the household bills having lost a breadwinner in the family to the carceral system. In the desire to punish away our problems, women, and black women in particular, and their families, bear the brunt of the peripheral effects of the penal system . While white carceral feminisms focus on the immediate “solution” to the problem of crime, white women typically do not have to think about the ripple effects of the criminal justice system. Much like in an episode of Law and Order or Inspector Morse , the focus is on the goal of incarceration in isolation, which appears to make the problem go away, without any attention paid to the repercussions of the system.

In a world without prisons, the way to address sexual and gender-based violence without relying on state violence is through transformative justice and community-based responses rooted in care, which are not dismissive of conditions of poverty, race, and exploitation. As advocated by Angela Harris, the restorative justice lens focuses on healing, repair, and accountability . With respect to healing, this includes investing in resources to assist survivors to leave abusive environments, mental health and trauma counselling, and inclusive sexual assault centres that are accessible to all survivors. With respect to repair and accountability, this must include counselling for the person who caused harm, as well as a number of restorative justice efforts such as victim-offender mediation, community justice conferencing, workshops and trainings, removal from leadership positions, admission of guilt, public or private apologies, and specific behavioural changes.

Moreover, we must rechannel our resources to the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence before it occurs and address the root causes of systemic violence against women. Such prevention mechanisms include investing in education, health, social housing and the creation of unarmed service teams (outside of the police force) to address mental health, drug-related crises and gender-based violence. Additionally, prevention requires an investment in the societal and cultural shifts needed to end sexual and gender-based violence, such as confronting the centuries of policies and attitudes that dismiss sexual violence against women and the structures that protect perpetrators.

Image by Oregon State University on Flickr .

Women are undeniably leading the charge of the modern day prison abolition movement. From the origins of Angela Davis and Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s core work in the movement to abolish prisons, to contemporary organisers and activists in the criminal justice arena reimagining a world without prisons, women, and black women in particular, have played a central role in the movement. At the same time, women have been unprotected and failed most intensely by the criminal justice system.

As I have argued, the relative invisibility of the female correctional population and the fact that the issue of incarceration is typically cast as a men’s issue, detracts attention from the treatment of women in prison. The topic of women in prison, and the fact that women are routinely incarcerated in institutions designed to hold men, is highly relevant to a feminist analysis of prison abolition. So too is the fact that the system of imprisoning women is itself built upon the criminalization of survival strategies . That mass incarceration, and “e-carceration” (including the systems of probation, parole and child welfare) heavily impact women, and acutely affect families, further constitutes a suitable entry point for abolitionist feminist intervention.

However, abolitionist feminism must build on the ways in which restorative justice efforts can appeal to the distinct objectives of ending both sexual and gender-based violence and abolishing the prison industrial complex. Certainly, if abolitionist thought is to become more robust for the masses, it must better respond to carceral feminist tensions by demonstrating how sexual and gender-based violence can be better addressed outside of the penal realm, while also highlighting how incarceration does not make us safer . Ultimately, reparation cannot be delivered through punitive carceral systems . As prisons are rooted in systems of slavery and white supremacy , they cannot be used to end the violence which persists in our societies.

[1] Legal Officer, United Nations. This paper is written by the author in her personal capacity and does not reflect the views of the United Nations.

Search Engenderings

Engenderings on Twitter

If you wish to submit a post to Engenderings, you can contact us at [email protected] . Have a look at our notes for contributors page!

Engenderings RSS

Feministing
feministkilljoys
LSE British Politics & Policy blog
LSE Impact Blog
LSE Review of Books
Media Diversified
Sexuality Policy Watch
The Disorder of Things
Women's eNews

Bad Behavior has blocked 1854 access attempts in the last 7 days.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Essay on prison violence (from prison violence in america, p 7-17, 1985, michael braswell et al, ed. - see ncj-97435), additional details.

2035 Reading Road , Cincinnati , OH 45202 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Urban Health
v.83(5); 2006 Sep

Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization

Nancy wolff.

Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research, Rutgers University, 30 College Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA

People in prison are exposed to and experience sexual violence inside prisons, further exposing them to communicable diseases and trauma. The consequences of sexual violence follow the individual into the community upon release. This paper estimates the prevalence of sexual victimization within a state prison system. A total of 6,964 men and 564 women participated in a survey administered using audio-CASI. Weighted estimates of prevalence were constructed by gender and facility size. Rates of sexual victimization varied significantly by gender, age, perpetrator, question wording, and facility. Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in the previous 6 months were highest for female inmates (212 per 1,000), more than four times higher than male rates (43 per 1,000). Abusive sexual conduct was more likely between inmates and between staff and inmates than nonconsensual sexual acts. Sexual violence inside prison is an urgent public health issue needing targeted interventions to prevent and ameliorate its health and social consequences, which spatially concentrate in poor inner-city areas where these individuals ultimately return.

Introduction

Prison is a violent place. One type of violence that is often attributed to prison settings is sexual victimization. 1 , 2 Sexual victimization includes a range of behaviors from sexually abusive conduct to nonconsensual sexual assaults 3 and has a variety of severe public health consequences. 4 Rape provides an opportunity for spreading sexually transmitted diseases, 5 a matter of particular concern in prisons, where HIV infection rates are higher than in the general population. Sexual victimization can foment rage, leading to future violence either inside or outside prison, 6 , 7 as well as depression and acts of self violence, such as drug use or suicidal ideation and gestures. 5 , 8 , 9

Lawsuits by former prisoners who experienced rape and sexual abuse behind bars compelled Human Rights Watch to investigate the issue; they obtained testimony from over 200 prisoners in 37 states and published their findings in a graphic account of the reality of rape in prison. 10 This report, entitled “No Escape: Male Rape in Prison,” was the primary impetus for Congress to pass legislation called The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, 11 which was structured to measure the rate of sexual assault inside state prisons as well as to develop interventions for treating those who were raped and preventing future incidents of sexual victimization. The current study was funded as part of the PREA and was designed to measure the prevalence of sexual victimization inside a statewide prison system.

Research suggests that rates of sexual victimization in prison may be as high as 41% or as low as less than 1%. 12 A recent meta-analysis estimates a conservative “average” prevalence estimate of prison sexual assault at 1.9%. 12 While the estimated rate of victimization varies significantly across studies, the characteristics of the victims reported in these studies are more similar. First, rates of sexual coercion are higher than rates of sexual assault or rape, independent of gender. 13 – 17 More specifically, unwanted and sexually suggestive touching of breasts, genitals, or buttocks is more typical inside prison than the act of rape itself. Second, in the vast majority of studies, male facilities have been found to have higher rates of sexual assault compared to female facilities. 15 – 18 Yet the perpetrators of sexual assaults against female inmates, compared to male inmates, are less likely to involve staff. Third, younger inmates are at greater risk of sexual victimization, particularly if they are new arrivals to a facility and are serving their first convictions. 13 – 15 , 20 This may explain in part why rates of sexual victimizations vary across facilities within the same prison system. Facilities with a younger population would be expected to have higher rates of victimization than those facilities with a more mature and acculturated prison population. Fourth, inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization has an interracial bias, with victims most likely being White and sexual aggressors most likely being Black. 2 , 21 This interracial pattern of victimization has been attributed to revenge for historical oppression 20 and the reversal of racial dominance inside prison. 2

While these patterns of sexual victimization inform interventions to prevent such violence inside prisons, they do not reliably provide evidence on the prevalence of the problem, which was one of the major objectives of the PREA legislation. What is known is that the estimates of the prevalence of sexual victimization inside correctional settings are sensitive to methodology. Extant studies are based on different definitions of sexual victimization and diverse sampling designs. Estimates of the prevalence or incidence of sexual violence are extremely sensitive to methodology, with larger estimates derived from more specific questions about sexual victimization. 22 The current study provides more accurate estimates of the prevalence of sexual victimization within a prison population based on the following advantages:

Representativeness: Sample selection, differing facility types, and inmate levels of non-response severely limit the generalizability of published estimates. Previous studies have focused largely on a single prison and/or small numbers of inmates (less than 15% of the population). 13 , 14 , 19 – 21 , 23 – 27 Hensley et al. 19 employed a design in which 100 inmates were randomly selected from three facilities, with an average refusal rate of 42%. Struckman-Johnson et al. 15 , 16 sampled more facilities and had larger samples but had large (70%) non-response rates. Evidence also suggests that prison environments are heterogeneous and the management and operation of prisons, even with similar custody levels, affect inmates' behavior differently. 28
Validity: The phrasing of survey questions affects the extent to which victimization is uncovered. The wording of questions used in previous studies to elicit information about sexual victimization varies significantly, with some questions focusing on “being coerced to engage in a sex act or have sexual contact,” while others have used questions relying on labels such as “being raped or sexually assaulted.” Contemporary rape research has documented that questions using behavior and context specific terminology generally produce more valid responses. 22 , 29 – 31
Reliability: Inquiring about sexual victimization invokes feelings of stigma and shame. Previous studies have relied on face-to-face interviewing or, more commonly, self-administered pencil and paper surveys to inquire about sexual victimization in prisons. The literature indicates that computer-assisted self-administered interviews (CASI), with audio added to assist with literacy problems, are the most reliable method for eliciting information about potentially stigmatizing behavior. 12 , 32 – 39

To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the prevalence of sexual victimization within a state prison system. It is also the first to use (1) a full population sampling design of approximately 20,000 inmates at 13 prisons; (2) multiple general and specific questions to measure sexual victimization; and (3) audio-CASI to administer the survey.

The current study's population was all inmates housed at 12 adult male prisons and one female prison operated by a single state ( N = 22,231). Excluded from this group were inmates younger than 18 or in administrative (pre-hearing) custody, detention, death row, a sex offender treatment facility, or otherwise too sick to participate in the survey. Also excluded were inmates residing in halfway houses or off-site at the time of the survey. In all, 19,788 inmates (89% of the entire population) were eligible to participate.

Respondents were sampled in one of two ways. In all facilities, inmates housed in the general population ( n = 18,956) were invited by the researchers to participate in a survey about the quality of life inside the prison. Response rates across all facilities ranged from 26 to 53%, with a mean response rate of 39% (SD: 0.068). Non-respondents at six facilities reported their reasons for not participating in the survey. The three most common reasons reported by 848 inmates declining participation were: “I believe nothing will ever change here”; “I am leaving here soon”; and “This is prison. Our quality of life doesn't matter.” Four facilities have specialized administrative segregation units, separating inmates with behavioral infractions from the general population. These individuals had limited movement privileges and could only be interviewed face-to-face in a secure but confidential setting. Of the 832 inmates housed in these units, 10% of the sample was invited to participate, and 100% agreed to complete the survey through a face-to-face interview.

The surveys were conducted at the female facility during the first week of June 2005 and at male facilities from June through August of 2005. The survey was administered using audio-CASI and was available in English and Spanish. Inmates responded to a computer-administered questionnaire by using a mouse and following audio instructions delivered via headphones. Thirty computer stations were available, and researchers were there to assist participants as needed. The English version of the CASI survey was generally completed within 60 min while the Spanish version took approximately 90 min. Of those participating in the survey, 112 men (1.6%) and 18 (3.2%) women were interviewed directly. The majority of these respondents (65%) were housed in administrative segregation. The other face-to-face interviews (35%) were conducted because participants were intimidated by the computer or were in the infirmary or specialized mental health unit. Five interviewers conducted the interviews, with the majority (61%) conducted by two interviewers. All interviewers were trained and followed a scripted protocol. Face-to-face interviews, conducted only in English, were completed in roughly 45 min.

Variables and Measures

The questions regarding sexual victimization were adapted from the National Violence Against Women and Men Surveys 40 and appear in the Appendix . Sexual violence was measured using two general questions for each type of perpetrator (inmate or staff member). The questions were “Have you been sexually assaulted by (an inmate or staff member) within the past 6 months?” and “Have you ever been sexually assaulted by (an inmate or staff member) on this bid [conviction]?” Ten additional questions about specific types of sexual victimization were used [e.g., during the past 6 months, has (another inmate or staff member) ever...touched you, felt you or grabbed you in a way that you felt was sexually threatening or made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you].

The specific sexual assault questions were clustered to reflect definitions of sexual violence developed by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 41 Sexual violence was defined as nonconsensual sexual acts, which consisted of forced sex acts, including oral and anal sex, and abusive sexual contacts, which included intentional touching of specified areas of the body. 3 Seven of the specific questions involving penetration or sexual acts were included in the category for nonconsensual sexual acts [e.g., has (another inmate or staff member) ever...made you have oral sex by using force...]. Three questions were used to construct abusive sexual contacts [e.g., has (another inmate or staff member) ever touched you, felt you or grabbed you in a way that felt sexually threatening]. Inmates who responded affirmatively to any one of the ten questions were considered sexual victims. The survey did not ask questions about consensual sex between inmates or between staff and inmates.

Six-month prevalence of sexual victimization measures the number of people in the population experiencing sexual victimization within a 6-month period and is calculated using general and specific questions. Bid-time prevalence of sexual victimization measures the number of people in the population experiencing a sexual assault while incarcerated on the current conviction, which is based on the general question only.

Weights were constructed to adjust the characteristics of the sampled population to the full population of inmates at each facility. A two-step weighting strategy was used. 42 The first step (relative weight) adjusted for the sampling design (i.e., the exclusion of some units within a facility, the variation in the probability of selection, and proportional representation by facility). The second step (post-stratification weight) adjusted the data on the basis of time at facility, race/ethnicity, and age. The final weight for each strata is the relative weight multiplied by the post-stratification weight.

Both weighted and unweighted analyses were conducted. As unweighted results are not dissimilar to weighted results, only weighted results are presented. Unless otherwise indicated, the significance level used to assess the validity of the null hypotheses is p < 0.05.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents

The characteristics of the sample, by gender, appear in Table 1 . Female inmates participating in this study ( n = 564) had a mean age of 35.5 years and were mostly African American (56.5%). By contrast, male inmates ( n = 6,964) were a year younger on average (34.0) and were significantly more likely to be African American or Hispanic (63.7 and 15.7%, respectively). A greater percentage of males than females were serving life sentences (7.8% compared to 4.0%, respectively), and, on average, males had one additional year left on their current sentence than females (4.0 years compared to 2.8 years, respectively). On average, male inmates had served more time in prison since the age of 18 than females (8.1 years compared to 4.2 years, respectively). Female inmates, compared to their male counterparts, were significantly more likely to report having mental health problems (65.6 vs. 30.0%, respectively), a substance abuse disorder (43.3 vs. 27.1%, respectively), and a chronic physical condition (58.1 vs. 30.8%, respectively).

Table 1

Characteristics of survey respondents, inmates in statewide correctional system, by gender, 2005

	Female ( = 564)	Male ( = 6,964)
Age*, y
Mean (SD)	35.5 (6.8)	34.0 (7.9)
Race*, %
White	32.6	19.5
Black	56.5	63.7
Other	10.9	16.8
Ethnicity, %
Latino*	9.1	15.7
Incarceration characteristics
Time at current facility, mean (SD)	2.3 (3.4)	2.5 (4.5)
Life sentence*, %	4.0	7.8
Time left on current sentence *, mean (SD)	2.8 (5.4)	4.0 (5.7)
Time incarcerated from age 18*, mean (SD)	4.2 (3.7)	8.1 (7.1)
Clinical characteristics, %
Mental health problem*	65.6	30.0
Substance abuse*	43.3	27.1
Head trauma	6.6	7.5
Chronic physical condition*	58.1	30.8

All estimates are weighted. Mean differences were tested using t -tests and differences in percentages were tested using chi-square.

a Time left on current sentence excludes those with a life sentence.

*Statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05)

Bid-Time Prevalence Rates

Prevalence estimates are based on the reporting of any sexual victimization while serving time on the current sentence at any facility within the statewide system. Bid-time prevalence rates are calculated using responses from the general assault question and are delineated by perpetrator (inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate). The prevalence rate for inmate-on-inmate sexual assault was two times higher for inmates in female facilities than male facilities (39 per 1,000 vs. 16 per 1,000, with 95% CI 28–50 vs. 13–19), and the comparable staff-on-inmate rate is 1.6 times higher (53 per 1,000 vs. 34 per 1,000, with 95% CI 41–68 vs. 30–38). Rates of reported sexual assault by staff were higher than assaults by inmates for both female and male inmates but still within the range of a rare event. Inmates aged 25 or younger, compared to inmates older than 25, were significantly more likely to report a sexual assault during incarceration by a staff member (54 per 1,000 vs. 30 per 1,000, with 95% CI 43–65 vs. 26–34).

Six-Month Prevalence Rates

The proportion of inmates reporting an incident of sexual victimization within the 6-month period varied by the way the survey question was worded. The prevalence rates for both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization were lower for the (general) question that referred to an incident of “sexual assault,” compared to the (specific) questions describing specific types of sexual misconduct for both female and male inmates (females: 23 vs. 210 per 1,000 (inmate-on-inmate), 25 vs. 75 per 1,000 (staff-on-inmate); males: 16 vs. 38 per 1,000 (inmate-on-inmate), 26 vs. 69 per 1,000 (staff-on-inmate). There were, however, unduplicated positive responses to the general and specific questions of sexual victimization (i.e., individuals may have responded ‘yes’ to the general question but ‘no’ to the specific questions, ‘no’ to the general question but ‘yes’ to the specific questions, or ‘yes’ to both the general and specific questions). Unduplicated positive responses to both questions, when combined, yielded slightly higher incidence rates for inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization than those based solely on the specific questions for both female (212 vs. 210 per 1,000; 76 vs. 75 per 1,000, respectively) and male (43 vs. 38 per 1,000; 76 vs. 69 per 1,000, respectively) inmates. For this reason, in this section we report unduplicated 6-month prevalence rates based on the combined responses to the general and specific questions.

Table 2 provides estimates of weighted 6-month prevalence rates of sexual violence in a statewide prison system by gender based on the number of inmates in the sample who reported experiencing sexual victimization in the 6-month period preceding data collection. Gender-based incidence rates per 1,000 inmates are distinguished for two general categories of perpetrators (inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate) and are further broken down by two types of sexual violence: abusive sexual contacts and nonconsensual sexual acts.

Table 2

Six-month prevalence of sexual victimization in statewide correctional system, by gender, 2005; rates per 1,000 and 95% confidence intervals

	Female ( = 564) rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)	Male ( = 6,964) rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)
Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
Any incidents*	212 (188–237)	43 (39–47)
Any abusive sexual contact*	201 (178–224)	35 (31–38)
Any nonconsensual sex acts*	32 (23–42)	15 (12–17)
Staff-on-inmate sexual victimization
Any incidents	76 (62–91)	76 (70–81)
Any abusive sexual contact	66 (52–80)	66 (61–71)
Any nonconsensual sex acts	17 (10–25)	19 (16–21)

a The estimates of ‘Rate per 1,000 inmates’ are based on weighted valid numbers.

*Statistically significant difference between males and females ( p < 0.05)

Prevalence rates were highest for female inmates, with 21.2% (212 per 1,000) reporting an incident of some type of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in the previous 6 months. This rate was four and a half times higher than that estimated for male inmates (4.3%). Incidents of abusive sexual contact contributed most of the difference in inmate-on-inmate prevalence rates by gender. Female inmates were roughly six times more likely to report an incident of abusive sexual contact than their male counterparts (20.1 vs. 3.5%), while only being twice as likely to report an incident of a nonconsensual sex act (3.2 vs. 1.5%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between males and females in rates of experiencing staff-on-inmate sexual violence. While female inmates were more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than by staff (21.2 vs. 7.6%), male inmates were more likely to report an incident of sexual victimization perpetrated by staff (7.6 vs. 4.3%).

Table 3 displays male prevalence rates for inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization by facility size, categorized by inmate population (up to 1,100 inmates, 1,101–1,900 inmates, and more than 1,901 inmates). Prevalence rates vary by facility, ranging from 30 to 64 per 1,000 for inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and 37 to 118 per 1,000 for staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. No discernible pattern exists by size of facility. Independent of facility size, staff-on-inmate rates of sexual victimization were higher than inmate-on-inmate rates and were significantly higher for four of these facilities (#5,6,10,11).

Table 3

Six-month prevalence of sexual victimization reported by male respondents in statewide correctional system, 2005, n = 6,964; rates per 1,000 and 95% confidence intervals

	Inmate-on-inmate rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)	Staff-on-inmate rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)
General question ( = 6,736)	16(13–18)	26(23–29)
Specific question ( = 6821)	38(34–41)	69(64–75)
Combined questions ( = 6824)	43 (39–47)	76 (70–81)
Facilities with populations to 1,100
1	64 (45–82)	69 (50–90)
2	47 (21–68)	64 (38–94)
3	31 (10–52)	42 (21–68)
Facilities with populations from 1,101 to 1,900
4	49 (31–67)	71 (50–94)
5	38 (23–52)	118 (91–146)
6	38 (22–56)	84 (61–104)
Facilities with populations over 1,901
7	50 (34–68)	90 (66–112)
8	52 (39–65)	74 (60–88)
9	32 (23–42)	47 (35–57)
10	41 (33–49)	82 (71–93)
11	46 (28–62)	116 (94–138)
12	30 (19–39)	37 (27–49)

a The estimates of ‘rate per 1,000 inmates’ are based on weighted valid numbers.

As can be seen in Table 4 , abusive sexual conduct perpetrated by both inmates and staff was more common than nonconsensual sexual acts. Between inmates, the rates of abusive sexual conduct were 1.2 to 7 times higher than rates of nonconsensual sexual acts. The variation in 6-month prevalence rates for staff-on-inmate abusive sexual conduct compared to nonconsensual sexual acts was also higher, with abusive sexual conduct more than 1.8 to 10.9 times higher than nonconsensual sexual acts. As in Table 3 , no discernible pattern exists by size of facility.

Table 4

Six-month prevalence of sexual victimization in statewide male correctional system grouped by population size, 2005, n = 6,964; rates per 1,000 and 95% confidence intervals

	Inmate-on-inmate rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)		Staff-on-inmate rate per 1,000 inmates (95% CI)
	Abusive sexual conduct	Nonconsensual sexual acts	Abusive sexual conduct	Nonconsensual sexual acts
Facilities with populations from 500 to 1,100
1	53 (34–72)	21 (10–32)	61 (43–80)	13 (5–24)
2	43 (21–60)	8 (0–21)	52 (30–73)	8 (0–17)
3	31 (10–52)	26 (10–47)	42 (21–68)	26 (10–47)
Facilities with populations from 1,101 to 1,900
4	37 (21–53)	18 (7–31)	50(31–69)	26 (13–39)
5	29 (17–41)	16 (7–26)	109(82–133)	31 (19–43)
6	31 (18–41)	25 (10–38)	69(48–89)	22 (10–33)
Facilities with populations over 1,901
7	38 (22–52)	8 (2–16)	87 (64–109)	8 (2–14)
8	43 (32–55)	32 (21–43)	65 (51–78)	22 (14–31)
9	24 (17–33)	5 (2–10)	36 (27–47)	20 (11–27)
10	34 (27–42)	14 (9–18)	70 (60–80)	22 (16–28)
11	42 (26–60)	6 (0–14)	106 (84–126)	14 (6–22)
12	21 (13–28)	7 (3–13)	28 (19–38)	13 (6–19)

Considerable anecdotal and empirical speculation exists about the extent to which inmates are at risk for sexual victimization inside prisons. Methodological limitations, ranging from biased sampling designs and survey methodology to selective definitions of sexual victimization and perpetrators, have led to extreme equivocation in the extant literature. The PREA legislation directed attention to the potential problem of sexual victimization inside American prisons and provided the means to rigorously estimate its rate of occurrence. This study, part of the PREA initiative, measured sexual victimization inside a prison system for a single state using state-of-the-art methodology that minimized common problems limiting generalizability, validity, and reliability.

Several limitations are noteworthy. The first concerns sample bias. Our samples ranged from 26 to 53% of the general population among 13 facilities. This representation of the inmate population is significant in absolute number but may not generalize to the full population. While we tested for non-representativeness in terms of age, race/ethnicity, and length of incarceration and adjusted for any deviations in the weighting strategy, the characteristics that predict variation in sexual victimization may not be fully represented by these attributes. To the extent that inmates who have characteristics that make them targets for sexual victimization were systematically over- or under-represented in our samples, the rates reported herein would either, respectively, over- or underestimate sexual victimization within these facilities. One way to account for such uncertainty is to estimate confidence intervals. The reported confidence intervals around each of the estimated rates in this study provide a reasonable (95%) approximation of the range of variation in rates of sexual victimization.

The second limitation concerns biased reporting. Audio-CASI, while the most reliable method for collecting information about activities or events that are shaming or stigmatizing, does not correct for bias motivated by revenge against custody officers or the prison system itself. Relations between inmates and custody staff are complex, often fraught with tension and hostility. This survey provided inmates with the rare opportunity to report anonymously on the conditions inside prison, including how they are treated by custody staff. To guard against false reporting, as part of the consent process, the importance of accurate reporting was discussed in terms of its impact on the legitimacy of the data and survey. We explained that misinformation was as useless as no information at all. As mentioned earlier, many of those who chose not to participate in the survey were antagonistic to the “system” or demoralized to the point of disinterest. Those who participated, by and large, deliberated over questions about their interactions with the custody staff. They frequently asked the research staff for assistance on how to answer questions about the custody staff when most were reasonable and fair but some were abusive and cruel. Their questions during the survey and the distributions of the responses to the questions are not suggestive of false reporting. Also, given that the survey instruments were read and completed in real time, involved hundreds of questions, and were completed by hundreds of inmates per day over a 2 to 4 day period, systematic strategies for reporting against the facility were minimized. If there was systematic false reporting of events or behaviors by custody staff, we would have expected much higher and clustered rates, which were not detected in the data.

Overall, rates of sexual victimization were found to vary significantly by gender, age, perpetrator (inmate or staff), question wording, and facility. These rates also varied if delimited to nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual conduct. On average, rates of sexual victimization were lowest for males, inmate-on-inmate victimizations, and nonconsensual sexual acts. Thus, studies focusing solely on inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts (particularly, rape) in male prisons will provide very conservative estimates of sexual victimization overall. In our study, the percentage of the male inmate population experiencing such incidents over a 6-month period was 1.5%, on average, and at any point since incarcerated, 1.6%. For male prisons, the highest rate of sexual victimization (76 per 1,000) is associated with staff perpetrators.

These rates, based on averaging, mask considerable variation among prisons housing men. The literature clearly demonstrates that prison environments are heterogeneous. 28 , 43 Our research is consistent with this literature. An individual's risk of sexual victimization is not equivalent across prisons even within a single prison system. Depending on facility, a male inmate might be housed in a prison where the risk of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization is as high as 6.4% or as low as 3.0%. Likewise, he might be in a facility where the risk of sexual victimization by a staff person ranges from 3.7 to 11.8% . More research is needed to identify the factors that predict variation in risk across male facilities. The literature suggests that violence levels inside prisons are associated with overcrowding, management style, and availability of programming, 28 , 44 , 45 but the definition of violence in prior research focused on physical violence, not sexual. This is an important area for future exploration.

Sexual victimization rates in the female facility were significantly higher than those for male facilities, especially with respect to abusive sexual contact between inmates. On average, 21.2% of female inmates reported experiencing some form of sexual victimization by other inmates, while 7.6% reported experiencing that behavior by staff. Nonconsensual sex acts were reported at considerably lower rates, with 3.2% of inmates reporting a sexual assault by an inmate over a 6-month period and 1.7% by a staff member. The percent of inmate-on-inmate rape is over ten times higher than rape rates of adult women in the total population, and the rate for staff perpetrated rape is almost six times higher. Compared to other studies of sexual violence in prisons, our estimate of prevalence (3.2%) is less than half of the 7.0% reported by Struckman-Johnson et al. 15 , 16 and roughly two-thirds of the 4.5% sexual coercion rate reported by Hensley et al. 18 In a subsequent study of three female facilities located in Midwestern states, the Struckman-Johnson team 17 estimated rates of sexual coercion of 8, 9, and 27%, with one-fifth of these events defined as “rape” and roughly half involving staff. The blending of types of perpetrator (inmate vs. staff) and the types of sexual victimization (rape or nonconsensual sex acts with abusive sexual contact) explains part of the variation in rates among these studies, along with the different sampling designs and methods for collecting responses. While it is customary to attribute violence to men, it may be that the rage that motivates violence and the desire to dominant that motivates rape are traversing the gender divide. Rates of aggravated assault, murder, and use of weapons among arrested female juveniles increased dramatically between 1980 and 2003 46 and may be foreshadowing a change in the character of the female inmate. Both the variation and increased risk of sexual victimization that female inmates face and the rising violence among female offenders underscores the need for more research that includes female facilities. Sexual victimization in female prisons has been understudied, with only four published studies, 15 – 18 compared to well-over a dozen studies of male prisons. 12 Future research also needs to explore the profiles of sexual victims and sexual aggressors within male and female facilities to better understand why and in what ways sexual victimization varies within male and female facilities.

From a public health perspective, the number of potential victims susceptible to HIV and other health and mental health consequences as a consequence of a sexual victimization inside prison is staggering. In 2003, there were 1,368,866 males being housed in federal and state prisons; extrapolating from our data, this would translate into almost 22,000 male inmates experiencing a forced sexual act, the comparable number for the 101,179 female inmates in federal and state prisons is over 3,200. The experience of unwanted sexual touching or forced sex and the concomitant fear of sexual victimization have nontrivial physical, emotional, and psychological implications for current and future behavior inside and outside prison. 5

The vast majority of people in prison eventually return to the community. In general, they relocate to communities where they committed their crimes or where they have familial or interpersonal connections. Research clearly shows that relocation patterns after prison are not random. People leaving prison are more likely to return to socially disadvantaged urban communities, where rates of criminal behavior and drug use are high and opportunities for healthy and prosocial living are low. 47 – 49 To these communities, the victims of sexual violence arrive with elevated needs for physical and mental health treatment, furthering the spatial concentration of poor health.

Research on the risk of sexual victimization inside prison and its variation across facilities provides the rationale for studying the characteristics of the individual and the environment that elevate or lower risk levels in order to better classify inmates for placement and to alter environments inside prison to promote safe and humane prisons. It has been said that prisons are jungles, but this is a truism only if we fail to act rationally and humanely.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Office of Justice Programs (Grant #0JP-2004-RP-BX-0012) and the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant #P20 MH66170).

Survey questions regarding sexual violence (male version)

General sexual assault questions, INMATE:

Have you been sexually assaulted by an inmate within the past 6 months here?
Have you ever been sexually assaulted by an inmate on this bid?

Specific sexual violence questions*, INMATE

During the past 6 months, has another inmate ever....
1.	Touched you, felt you, or grabbed you in a way that you felt was sexually threatening?
2.	Tried or succeeded in touching your genitals or sex organs?
3.	Tried or succeeded in getting you to touch someone else's genitals when you didn't want to?
4.	Made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you?
5.	Made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force?
6.	Made you have anal sex by using force or threat of force?
7.	Put fingers or objects in your anus against your will or by using force or threat of force?
8.	Made you put fingers or objects in someone else's anus against your will or by using force or threats?
9.	Attempted to make you have oral or anal sex against your will but penetration did not occur?
10.	Required you to perform sexual acts as a way to protect yourself from future harm?

General sexual assault questions, STAFF MEMBER:

Have you been sexually assaulted by a staff member within the past 6 months here?
Have you ever been sexually assaulted by a staff member on this bid?

Specific sexual violence questions*, STAFF MEMBER

During the past 6 months, has ever....
1.	Touched you, felt you, or grabbed you in a way that you felt was sexually threatening?
2.	Tried or succeeded in touching your genitals or sex organs?
3.	Tried or succeeded in getting you to touch someone else's genitals when you didn't want to?
4.	Made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you?
5.	Made you have oral sex by using force or threat of force?
6.	Made you have anal sex by using force or threat of force?
7.	Put fingers or objects in your anus against your will or by using force or threat of force?
8.	Made you put fingers or objects in someone else's anus against your will or by using force or threats?
9.	Attempted to make you have oral or anal sex against your will but penetration did not occur?
10.	Required you to perform sexual acts as a way to protect yourself from future harm?

*Questions #1, 2, and 3 were combined to create a variable indicating an abusive sexual contact . Questions 4–10 were combined to create a variable indicating a nonconsensual sexual act .

Wolff, Blitz, and Shi are with the Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; Bachman is with the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA; Siegel is with the Department of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Prison — The Problem of Prison Violence and the Solutions to It

The Problem of Prison Violence and The Solutions to It

Categories: Prison Prison Violence

About this sample

Words: 1957 |

10 min read

Published: May 24, 2022

Words: 1957 | Pages: 4 | 10 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1505 words

10 pages / 4571 words

1 pages / 499 words

1 pages / 639 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Prison

Cross cultural interaction has become increasingly common in today's globalized world. With the advancement of technology and the ease of travel, people from different cultural backgrounds come into contact more frequently than [...]

Imagine being confined to a small, isolated cell, surrounded by the most dangerous criminals in the country, with no hope of escape. This is the reality for inmates at the Alcatraz Super Max Prison, one of the most secure and [...]

Located in Rwanda, Gitarama Central Prison has garnered international attention for its overcrowded conditions, human rights violations, and the role it played during the Rwandan Genocide. This essay will analyze the various [...]

The Wasco State Prison, located in Kern County, California, has been the subject of much scrutiny and controversy in recent years. This case study aims to examine the various issues that have arisen at the prison, including [...]

The first juvenile court in the United States did not open until 1899. Prior to then, children over seven years old that broke the law were sent to adult prisons. There is a juvenile justice system now but there are still a lot [...]

Burkhardt, B., 2014. Private Prisons in Public Discourse: Measuring Moral Legitimacy. Sociological Focus, 47(4), pp.279-298.Garland, D. (2001) The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Student information
Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Researchers surveyed 650 women serving sentences for murder and manslaughter in two California prisons.
Nearly three-fourths of respondents reported experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) in the year before their offense took place. Of these, two-thirds were in “extreme danger” of being killed by their intimate partner.
Nearly a third said that in the year before their offense, they had been strangled or choked more than once or felt dizzy, confused or blacked out after being choked—injuries that can cause a traumatic brain injury.
The report urges the criminal legal system to take measures to more consistently screen for IPV and to better take into account how traumatic brain injuries as a result of intimate partner violence can affect survivor-defendants’ ability to remember and communicate details relating to their abuse and alleged crimes.

A groundbreaking new study provides extensive documentation of the “IPV-to-Prison Pipeline”—the pathways through which women who are survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) find themselves serving long prison sentences for acts of survival.

The report, Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence , is the product of a multi-year study by the Regilla Project , a research initiative of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center that focuses on women incarcerated for homicide offenses growing out of their own abuse.

Groundbreaking SLS Study Documents the Pathways to Prison for Those Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence 2

Fatal Peril gives voice to approximately 650 people serving time for murder and manslaughter in two California prisons, the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla and the California Institution for Women in Chino. Through surveys proctored at the prisons in July and November 2023, the researchers sought to better understand how people experiencing IPV are criminalized for actions they took to survive abuse. Stanford students contributed to the proctoring, data analysis, and drafting of the report.

A first-ever approach to IPV research

The study represents the first time the Composite Abuse Scale and Danger Assessment, two validated instruments used to assess intimate partner violence and intimate partner homicide, have been used in the study of a population who is incarcerated. In addition to quantitative results, the report presents qualitative data collected from hundreds of study respondents who shared their experiences of abuse, the circumstances of the offenses, their experiences of the criminal legal system, and their feelings of regret, remorse, and healing.

Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC) - Debbie Mukamal, Executive Director

The women’s self-reported testimonies of surviving abuse are remarkably similar, according to Debbie Mukamal , executive director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, who led the study with Dr. Andrea N. Cimino, an expert in gender-based violence research. Cimino serves as research director and Mukamal is co-director of the Regilla Project, along with David Sklansky , Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and the faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, which released a companion report in 2023 . “The stories of these women reflect a persistent belief that their lives were in danger,” Mukamal said, “often from an accumulation of their intimate partner’s threats and attempts to kill them, their children, or other loved ones.”

“These are a group of forgotten women,” Cimino said. “Their experiences of violence were silenced in the courtroom and they have been neglected in IPV research which focuses on non-incarcerated populations.” She hopes the study amplifies survivor’s voices and creates change in the criminal legal system.

“Our practices of criminal blaming and punishment have long failed to take adequate account of the realities of intimate partner violence, and of the ways in which abused women can be driven to violence by their own victimization," Sklansky said. "This new report, by giving long overdue attention to the accounts of women serving prison sentences for homicide—and the high rate at which these women report extreme levels of IPV in the year prior to their offenses—underscores the pressing need for comprehensive reform in this area. It deserves urgent study from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, correctional officials, and policymakers.”

Our practices of criminal blaming and punishment have long failed to take adequate account of the realities of intimate partner violence, and of the ways in which abused women can be driven to violence by their own victimization.” David Sklansky Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center

The women’s stories reflect lives lived in constant fear: “I was three days at the hospital because I lost my voice because he strangled me and my neck and throat was purple with bruises. And I couldn’t talk for three days,” reported one respondent. Another said: “He had us scared, both [my children] and me, that if I told anything to the police and they arrested him, he was going to get out and kill us.”

“As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this month, this new study should embolden us to do more to prevent victimization and to help those who find themselves in abusive relationships,” said retired U.S. Representative Jackie Speier, who represented California’s 14th Congressional District until 2023. “The findings—while based in California—have broad national implications for how we treat some of the most vulnerable women in our communities. Our work is far from done.”

Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, agreed: “This is an urgent report, and it is well timed as we mark the 30th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act,” he said. “Most incarcerated women are survivors of sexual violence. We must do more as a society to prevent that violence and to help the survivors. Prisons cannot be substitutes for our failures to keep people safe. And for those who enter our prisons and jails, they must be places that do not compound trauma but help people heal from it. I am proud that VAWA Reauthorization includes provisions to address the specific needs of incarcerated women, many of which are highlighted through the study’s stories of women incarcerated for crimes stemming from their histories of abuse. There is a moral imperative to address the issues in this report. To fail to do so harms and implicates us all.”

‘Stark and troubling’ findings

Groundbreaking SLS Study Documents the Pathways to Prison for Those Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence

Nearly three-fourths of respondents reported experiencing IPV in the year before their offense took place, a rate that is 10 times higher than women in the United States , according to the report. Fatal Peril acknowledges that while IPV exists for people of all genders, the researchers focused on women given their disproportionate rates of severe and lethal intimate partner abuse.

The respondents recounted physical, psychological and sexual abuse, including being hit, threatened with weapons, having partners who controlled all or most of their daily activities, and having to perform unwanted sex acts. Nearly a third of all respondents said that in the year before their offense, they had been strangled or choked more than once or felt dizzy, confused or blacked out after being choked—injuries that can cause a traumatic brain injury , according to the report.

Among the 464 respondents who were experiencing IPV, two-thirds of them were in “extreme danger” of being killed by their intimate partner , according to their Danger Assessment scores. It didn’t matter who was killed – stranger, intimate partner, child, family member, acquaintance, or friend – they all were at risk for intimate partner homicide. The data suggests that the risk of being killed due to IPV tragically extends to all of those around the survivor.

About half of respondents believed they were treated unfairly at trial due to gender, racial, and socioeconomic bias , according to the report. “Respondents who experienced IPV were more likely to perceive gender and income bias compared to those who were not abused,” said Cimino. “Harmful courtroom stereotypes like being called masterminds, femme fatales, gang members, and bad mothers triggered beliefs about the survivor-defendants’ culpability.”

“Our findings are stark and troubling, and have implications for the entire criminal legal system, from policing to parole,” Mukamal said. “It is particularly critical that the system considers the potential lethality of abuse suffered by these women and how traumatic brain injury from hits to the head and strangulation may affect survivor-defendants’ testimony and experiences in prison.”

Recommendations and IPV prevention

Kelly Savage-Rodriguez, who advocates for ending life-without-parole sentences through the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, said she “was not surprised by the findings” and was “grateful to see this new data being published.”

“The results affirm my own experiences and those of too many others who have been criminalized for surviving abuse here in California and across the nation,” Savage-Rodriguez said. “These survivors need support, not long prison sentences.”

The report makes recommendations for addressing the impact of IPV on survivor-defendants, including urging the criminal legal system to take measures to more consistently screen for IPV and to better take into account how traumatic brain injuries as a result of intimate partner violence can affect survivor-defendants’ ability to remember and communicate details relating to their abuse and alleged crimes .

The study also calls for enhanced attention to programs and policies that can prevent IPV in the first place , including strengthening access to mental health and substance use treatment to address cumulative trauma for survivors, their children, and their partners. “Cross-sector collaboration between the criminal legal system, the domestic violence response system, and child welfare systems are critical to violence prevention,” said Cimino.

The Regilla Project plans to convene a diverse set of stakeholders this Fall to identify concrete and viable legal and policy solutions to respond to the report’s findings.

Read the Full Report

Learn More About the Regilla Project

For more information

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. Stanford Law School has established a model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service, spearheading a movement for change.

share this!

September 5, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

Report documents paths to prison for those experiencing intimate partner violence

by Monica Schreiber, Stanford University

A new study provides extensive documentation of the "IPV-to-Prison Pipeline"—the pathways through which women who are survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) find themselves serving long prison sentences for acts of survival.

The report , "Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence," is the product of a multi-year study by the Regilla Project, a research initiative of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center that focuses on women incarcerated for homicide offenses growing out of their own abuse.

"Fatal Peril" gives voice to approximately 650 people serving time for murder and manslaughter in two California prisons, the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla and the California Institution for Women in Chino.

Through surveys proctored at the prisons in July and November 2023, the researchers sought to better understand how people experiencing IPV are criminalized for actions they took to survive abuse. Stanford students contributed to the proctoring, data analysis, and drafting of the report.

A first-ever approach to IPV research

In addition to quantitative results, the report presents qualitative data collected from hundreds of study respondents who shared their experiences of abuse, the circumstances of the offenses, their experiences of the criminal legal system, and their feelings of regret, remorse, and healing.

The women's self-reported testimonies of surviving abuse are remarkably similar, according to Debbie Mukamal, executive director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, who led the study with Dr. Andrea N. Cimino, an expert in gender-based violence research. Mukamal and Cimino serve as directors of the Regilla Project, which released a companion report in 2023.

"The stories of these women reflect a persistent belief that their lives were in danger," Mukamal said, "often from an accumulation of their intimate partner's threats and attempts to kill them, their children, or other loved ones."

"These are a group of forgotten women," Cimino said. "Their experiences of violence were silenced in the courtroom and they have been neglected in IPV research which focuses on non-incarcerated populations." She hopes the study amplifies survivor's voices and creates change in the criminal legal system.

David Sklansky, Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and the faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said, "Our practices of criminal blaming and punishment have long failed to take adequate account of the realities of intimate partner violence, and of the ways in which abused women can be driven to violence by their own victimization.

"This new report, by giving long overdue attention to the accounts of women serving prison sentences for homicide—and the high rate at which these women report extreme levels of IPV in the year prior to their offenses—underscores the pressing need for comprehensive reform in this area.

"It deserves urgent study from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, correctional officials, and policymakers."

The women's stories reflect lives lived in constant fear: "I was three days at the hospital because I lost my voice because he strangled me and my neck and throat was purple with bruises. And I couldn't talk for three days," reported one respondent. Another said, "He had us scared, both [my children] and me, that if I told anything to the police and they arrested him, he was going to get out and kill us."

"As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this month, this new study should embolden us to do more to prevent victimization and to help those who find themselves in abusive relationships," said retired U.S. Representative Jackie Speier, who represented California's 14th Congressional District until 2023.

"The findings—while based in California—have broad national implications for how we treat some of the most vulnerable women in our communities. Our work is far from done."

Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, agreed: "This is an urgent report, and it is well timed as we mark the 30th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act," he said. "Most incarcerated women are survivors of sexual violence. We must do more as a society to prevent that violence and to help the survivors.

"Prisons cannot be substitutes for our failures to keep people safe. And for those who enter our prisons and jails, they must be places that do not compound trauma but help people heal from it.

"I am proud that VAWA Reauthorization includes provisions to address the specific needs of incarcerated women, many of which are highlighted through the study's stories of women incarcerated for crimes stemming from their histories of abuse. There is a moral imperative to address the issues in this report. To fail to do so harms and implicates us all."

'Stark and troubling' findings

Nearly three-fourths of respondents reported experiencing IPV in the year before their offense took place, a rate that is 10 times higher than women in the United States, according to the report. Fatal Peril acknowledges that while IPV exists for people of all genders, the researchers focused on women given their disproportionate rates of severe and lethal intimate partner abuse.

Nearly a third of all respondents said that in the year before their offense, they had been strangled or choked more than once or felt dizzy, confused or blacked out after being choked—injuries that can cause a traumatic brain injury, according to the report.

Among the 464 respondents who were experiencing IPV, two-thirds of them were in "extreme danger" of being killed by their intimate partner, according to their Danger Assessment scores. It didn't matter who was killed—stranger, intimate partner, child, family member, acquaintance, or friend—they all were at risk for intimate partner homicide. The data suggests that the risk of being killed due to IPV tragically extends to all of those around the survivor.

About half of respondents believed they were treated unfairly at trial due to gender, racial, and socioeconomic bias, according to the report. "Respondents who experienced IPV were more likely to perceive gender and income bias compared to those who were not abused," said Cimino. "Harmful courtroom stereotypes like being called masterminds, femme fatales, gang members, and bad mothers triggered beliefs about the survivor-defendants' culpability."

"Our findings are stark and troubling, and have implications for the entire criminal legal system, from policing to parole," Mukamal said. "It is particularly critical that the system considers the potential lethality of abuse suffered by these women and how traumatic brain injury from hits to the head and strangulation may affect survivor-defendants' testimony and experiences in prison."

Recommendations and IPV prevention

Kelly Savage-Rodriguez, who advocates for ending life-without-parole sentences through the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, said she "was not surprised by the findings" and was "grateful to see this new data being published."

"The results affirm my own experiences and those of too many others who have been criminalized for surviving abuse here in California and across the nation," Savage-Rodriguez said. "These survivors need support, not long prison sentences."

The report makes recommendations for addressing the impact of IPV on survivor-defendants, including urging the criminal legal system to take measures to more consistently screen for IPV and to better take into account how traumatic brain injuries as a result of intimate partner violence can affect survivor-defendants' ability to remember and communicate details relating to their abuse and alleged crimes.

"Cross-sector collaboration between the criminal legal system, the domestic violence response system, and child welfare systems are critical to violence prevention," said Cimino.

The Regilla Project plans to convene a diverse set of stakeholders this Fall to identify concrete and viable legal and policy solutions to respond to the report's findings.

Provided by Stanford University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Massive merger: Study reveals evidence for origin of supermassive black hole at galaxy's center

15 hours ago

Neolithic bones reveal isolated Yersinia pestis infections, not pandemics

New quantum error correction method uses 'many-hypercube codes' while exhibiting beautiful geometry

Solving the side effect problem of siRNA drugs for genetic disease treatment

Researchers advance new class of quantum critical metal that could advance electronic devices

16 hours ago

Protecting just 0.7% of world's land could help save a third of unique and endangered species

17 hours ago

Crystallized alternative DNA structure sheds light on insulin and diabetes

Researchers propose mechanistic framework to explain complex microbe-host symbioses

Low-cost nanomaterial technology can detect cancer genes with ultra-high sensitivity

Scientists uncover mechanism preserving centromere during cell division

Relevant physicsforums posts, basques, some of the diaspora, how's and why's, more.

2 hours ago

Talent Worthy of Wider Recognition

5 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

Biographies, history, personal accounts.

Sep 4, 2024

Why are ABBA so popular?

Definition of maoil.

Sep 3, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Report reveals billion-dollar toll of domestic violence in California

Jun 4, 2024

New statewide research reveals the economic cost of intimate partner violence in Louisiana

Apr 16, 2024

Transgender, gender-diverse adults face higher risk for experiencing violence, finds study

Jul 2, 2024

Prison is a disaster for women—here's what could work instead

Aug 19, 2024

Domestic violence survivor elder abuse risk

Feb 24, 2021

Economic abuse affects 1 in 7 Kiwi women, research finds

Mar 5, 2024

Recommended for you

Privileged parents who believe in economic upward mobility are more likely to hoard resources: Study

Simulation study explores how gift giving drives social change

How new words arise in social media

The right to be wrong: How context or human rationality may influence our decisions

Warning labels from fact checkers work—even if you don't trust them—says study

Early exposure to diverse faces helps babies overcome prejudices later in life, study suggests

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Content Search

Ofer prison: ips conducted a 3-day campaign of unrestrained violence against palestinian detainees [en/ar], attachments.

Preview of سلطات الاحتلال تنفذ حملة اعتداء بالضرب ...عتقلين ويدعو لإعمال المسائلة والمحاسبة.pdf

Gaza, 5 September 2024 — As the genocide in Gaza continues, the Israeli authorities’ relentless violations against Palestinian detainees taken from Gaza are escalating. Starting on 25 August 2024, the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) launched a three-day campaign of unrestrained violence against Palestinian detainees in Section 23 of Ofer Prison after discovering they had copies of the Quran. When the detainees refused to surrender the holy books, special Israeli units were deployed to violently assault them with batons, fists, and attack dogs, while subjecting them to degrading verbal abuse. The brutal assault led to seven Palestinian detainees sustaining head and back injuries. They were left bleeding without receiving any medical treatment or being transferred to a medical facility.

Al Mezan views these violations as a clear breach of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Rule 66 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules ) guarantees prisoners access to religious practices and materials, mandating that “[s]o far as practicable, every prisoner shall be allowed to satisfy the needs of his or her religious life by attending the services provided in the prison and having in his or her possession the books of religious observance and instruction of his or her denomination.” The conduct adopted by the Israeli authorities also violates Article 93 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which ensures detainees can freely practice their religion, and constitutes grave breaches under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention due to the violent assaults on detainees.

In response to this three-day assault and the ongoing daily violations they face while in Israeli custody—including various forms of physical and psychological torture, inhumane living conditions, and denial of basic fair trial guarantees—Palestinian detainees have informed Al Mezan's lawyer of their decision to commence an open-ended hunger strike and to boycott court sessions as a protest against the Israeli breaches of their rights under international law.

Al Mezan strongly condemns the Israeli brutal practices against Palestinian detainees in Ofer Prison and other prisons and military-run detention centers, where Palestinians are held in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Al Mezan also underscores that Israel's continued violations and heinous crimes persist largely because the international community fails to hold Israel accountable and bring those responsible to justice. This lack of accountability is likely to worsen the situation for Palestinian prisoners and detainees, as the violations become more systematic and organized, further endangering their lives and already leading to several ‘deaths’.

Finally, we renew our call for the international community to fulfill its legal and moral obligations towards the Palestinian people by taking immediate action to halt Israel's genocidal military campaign in Gaza and address the grave violations of international law perpetrated by Israeli authorities and military forces in prisons and detention centers. We urge international accountability mechanisms to act swiftly and effectively to hold those responsible for international crimes accountable. It is essential that these mechanisms not only bring perpetrators to justice but also provide reparations to the victims. Immediate and decisive action is necessary to uphold the rule of law, restore the rights of those affected, and prevent further violations.

Reported impact snapshot | Gaza Strip, 4 September 2024 at 15:00

Un human rights office - opt: israeli security forces have killed 36 palestinians, including eight children, in 10 days during an operation in northern west bank, while settler violence intensifies, humanitarian situation update #214 | gaza strip.

IMAGES

Crime and Violence
Prisons as a Response to Crimes
Prisons and Jails: Learning the Difference
An Essay on Prison Violence
Violence Essay
Prisons as a Response to Crimes

VIDEO

Most Violent Prisons in the US
A New Kind of Supplement: to reduce prison violence
Unveiling the Truth: Violence in California Prisons
Violence inside UK Prisons. High Security Prisons. #prisonlife #prison #hmp
prison talk about the.violence in UK prisons
Surviving Prison: Confronting Fights In Prison #prisonlife #crimestory #behindbars #lockedup #viral

COMMENTS

How Atrocious Prisons Conditions Make Us All Less Safe
The American prison system fails to prepare people for a law-abiding and successful life after release, and exposes them to violence, isolation, and dehumanization. This essay argues that mass incarceration and punitive excess are harmful for both prisoners and society, and calls for reforms to reduce recidivism and improve public safety.
The Violence Against People Behind Bars That We Don't See
Research from the Brennan Center for Justice shows that in 2016, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population — 576,000 people — were behind bars for no compelling public safety reason. Our ...
Making Prisons Safe: Strategies for Reducing Violence
The Supreme Court recently stated that "[p]risons are dangerous places."2 The Court implied that prisons are dangerous because prisoners are violent.3 Some prisoners are violent and will be violent no matter what the circumstances, but the degree of institutional violence is not dependent on the prisoners.
No escape: The trauma of witnessing violence in prison
A recent study of recently incarcerated people finds that witnessing violence is a frequent and traumatizing experience in prison. The web page provides data on the prevalence of violence in prisons and jails, and describes the symptoms and impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder among witnesses.
Making Sense of Prison Violence
Slant whispers and looming stares pass through the prison yard around 3:30 p.m. It's July, and hotter than usual on Michigan's upper peninsula. Gatherings of inmates begin to form: eight by the pull-up bars, four on the basketball court, nine behind the phones. The air is barely breathable with all the tension, which has built up ever since ...
(PDF) Causes and Prevention of Violence in Prisons NOTE: A shorter
This essay provides a brief overview of what is known about what causes prison violence, and how it can be prevented or reduced. The focus is interpersonal violence rather than collective disorder ...
How Can Prisons Eliminate Violence? One Researcher ...
There were reports about sexual violence, mandated by the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, and those on homicides. But there was no uniform metric that detailed all violence in all prisons across the United States. " As a researcher, not being able to say, ' This is what we can do' — that was tremendously frustrating," Rodriguez said.
Prison Culture, Management, and In-Prison Violence
Academic attention to violence and other forms of in-prison misconduct is on the rise, although most research continues to be framed within now stale perspectives. A broader framework is needed that builds on the more contemporary aspects of these perspectives and incorporates other elements of prison culture and management that potentially influence violent offending and victimization in prison.
A better path forward for criminal justice: Changing prisons to help
This chapter proposes cognitive behavioral therapy as a strategy to promote behavior change in prison and reduce recidivism. It also discusses the challenges and opportunities for implementing ...
Violence in Incarcerated Populations: a Review of the Literature
Purpose of Review To provide an overview of the current research surrounding violence in prison populations. Recent Findings It has been a long-held misconception that race plays a factor in the propensity to commit violence leading to the higher rates of incarceration. On review of recent data, exposure to violence and socioeconomic status play a big part in not only how a person's path ...
Do Overcrowding and Turnover Cause Violence in Prison?
Introduction. Prison overcrowding, when the number of prisoners exceeds the prison capacity, is an important concern worldwide. In 2018, overcrowding remained one of the most important issues in prison (), with 27 countries operating at 150% to 200% ().Turnover, the rate at which the prison population is renewed, has been less extensively studied (3, 4), but may also have detrimental ...
Prison Conditions
EJI exposes how millions of Americans are incarcerated in overcrowded, violent, and inhumane jails and prisons that do not provide treatment, education, or rehabilitation. Learn about the escalating violence, denying treatment, tolerating abuse, and enriching corporations that plague the U.S. prison system.
PDF Understanding Prison Violence: A Rapid Evidence Assessment
Professor James McGuire Liverpool University. The occurrence of violent assault in prison is a challenging problem. This Analytical Summary reports the findings of a rapid evidence assessment (REA) into the causes of physically violent assaults by male adult prisoners. The REA reviewed 97 research studies published since 1st January 2000.
Prison Overcrowding and Harsh Conditions: Health and Human Rights
Prison overcrowding puts pressure on limited resources, compromises the quality of services delivered in a prison facility (Baffour, 2021; Guetzkow & Schoon, 2015), and increases the risk of violence and unrest in prisons (Nkosi & Maweni, 2020; Spencer, 2012). These consequences can lead to disregard for fundamental human rights, health ...
The mental health of prisoners: a review of prevalence, adverse
Some studies have estimated the rates of physical assault are 13 to 27 times higher than the general population. 33, 35 Non-lethal prisoner-on-prisoner physical assault is the most frequently seen form of violence in prison, though homicides are reported. 36 One recent study involving 7,528 US prisoners found a six-month prevalence rate of 205 ...
Dismantling Prisons: Abolitionist Feminism, Women, Incarceration and #
This blog post explores the intersection of abolitionist feminism, women, incarceration and #MeToo movement in the UK and US contexts. It critiques the carceral system's failure to address the gendered violence and trauma experienced by women prisoners and advocates for alternative approaches to justice.
Essay on Prison Violence
Prison Journal Volume: 63 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring/Summer 1983) Pages: 24-31. Author (s) L H Bowker. Date Published. 1983. Length. 8 pages. Annotation. This essay discusses the nature of prison violence using a typological approach to categorize violent phenomena in correctional institutions according to their controls, participants, and goals.
Essay on Prison Violence (From Prison Violence in America, P 7-17, 1985
This essay analyzes prison violence using a typology for such violence that incorporates various forms of behavioral control, the interplay of instrumental and expressive violence, and inmate-staff roles and power relationships. Abstract. Prison violence is distinguished from violence in free society, followed by an outline of the reasons that ...
Essays on Prison Violence
A Study of Gangs and How They Influence Violence in Jails. 5 pages / 2082 words. Correctional facilities are experiencing the affect of gangs and their influence on violence. Most of prison violence has been made up of folklore blaming guards. Inmate to inmate assaults are calculated to 28 attacks per 1,000 (Clear, Cole, Reisig pg.281).
Essay on Prison Violence
Essay on Prison Violence. Better Essays. 2678 Words. 11 Pages. Open Document. When we do research on daily prison life, we come across two typical but less than ideal situations: either social imaginaries cloud our judgment or information provided by the prisons themselves hide certain weak or bad aspects that they do not want to make public.
Issue of Prisoner-on-prisoner Violence
Issue of Prisoner-on-prisoner Violence. A briefing paper focusing on prisoner-on-prisoner violence in prisons in England and Wales. Prisons should be a safe environment with a focus on reform and keeping people safe, not only the public but other inmates and staff that are present in the prisons (Ministry of Justice, 2016).
Violence, overcrowding, self-harm: Inside HMP Pentonville, one of ...
The prison's governor, Simon Drysdale, says that will alleviate some of the pressure and mean more people who've been sent to Pentonville - a reception prison serving all London courts - can ...
Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization
Introduction. Prison is a violent place. One type of violence that is often attributed to prison settings is sexual victimization. 1, 2 Sexual victimization includes a range of behaviors from sexually abusive conduct to nonconsensual sexual assaults 3 and has a variety of severe public health consequences. 4 Rape provides an opportunity for spreading sexually transmitted diseases, 5 a matter ...
The Problem of Prison Violence and The Solutions to It
Technology can also be incorporated into the prison system to help with reducing or eliminating the challenge of prison violence. CCTVs can be used to monitor prisoners both in their cells and within the prison compounds. The use of biometrics and facial recognition can also help to reduce the problem of prison violence (Turner, 2019).
What should criminal justice look like for women who have killed their
The report, Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence, is the product of a multi-year study by the Regilla Project, a research initiative ...
DR Congo: Investigate Prison Deaths, Sexual Violence
"The deaths of prisoners and sexual violence at Makala prison has shined a light on the horrendous, persistent, and systemic problems of Congo's prison system," Mudge said.
Danelo Cavalcante: Escaped inmate has history of abuse and violence
Cavalcante, 34, escaped from a Pennsylvania prison on 31 August, just a week after being sentenced to life for the violent murder of his girlfriend, Deborah Brandão.
Report documents paths to prison for those experiencing intimate
The report, "Fatal Peril: Unheard Stories from the IPV-to-Prison Pipeline and Other Stories Touched by Violence," is the product of a multi-year study by the Regilla Project, a research initiative ...
1.2% of prison places in England and Wales free
As of Friday, there were only 1,098 places left in the prison system in England and Wales - 1.2% of available space. The government's temporary early release scheme will see about 3,000 prisoners ...
Ofer Prison: IPS Conducted a 3-Day Campaign of Unrestrained Violence
Starting on 25 August 2024, the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) launched a three-day campaign of unrestrained violence against Palestinian detainees in Section 23 of Ofer Prison after discovering ...