Correctional Professionals: Misconduct and Responses (Chapter 13)
several typologies that define the ways in which correctional officers’ abuse or otherwise mistreat inmates. One typology divides the bad behavior into three categories: malicious or purposeful abuse (beating, rape, theft, harassment, humiliation), negligent abuse (negligent denial of care, failure to protect, etc), and systemic or budgetary abuse (system-wide issues such as overcrowding, use of isolation, inadequate medical care, etc).
Sexual abuse in correctional facilities is a most serious problem, and aggressors are both officers and inmates. Female officers initiate sexual encounters with inmates at the same rate as male officers, though the study cited does not indicate how often each gender’s encounters were consensual or coercive. Even consensual encounters between officers and inmates are unethical and a violation of prison rules (as well as illegal in some states). Inmates are presumed not able to give full consent due to the dependent relationship.
Throughout much of American correctional history, the sexes were kept apart, but in the 1970’s, female officers challenged the rules that barred them from working in men’s institutions. The result was that men could also work in women’s institutions. Today, male officers are assigned to all areas of women’s prisons, putting them in a position of power over the inmates and making abuses possible.
The chapter documents other types of correctional officer misconduct, including smuggling items in and out of the facility for inmates. Low salaries, high turnover, and low hiring standards (due to the need to fill positions) are cited as factors that contribute to misconduct. Other instances of abuse mirror some of the tactics seen at Abu Ghraib.
Misconduct is not limited to the correctional officers. Treatment professionals may withhold needed services, even intentionally. Some subscribe to the philosophy of “penal harm,” believing the inmates deserve to suffer. Parole boards and probation offices have also been known to be home to bribery and other misconduct.
How do correctional employees become abusers? Factors resemble those found in law enforcement. Some employees come to the job already corrupt; others are influenced by a lack of organizational support for ethical behavior. Stress and burnout are occupational hazards and can leave one susceptible to the temptation for misconduct. Failure of leadership and less than adequate training and discipline have also been cited as factors. A correlation exists between age and the willingness to tolerate misconduct (older officers are less likely to support the use of force) but race and sex had no effect. Unions have also been criticized for defending abusive officers and being concerned with individual employee rights rather than what is best for the institution or system.
Stanford University researcher Philip Zimbardo conducted a famous study, where he used student volunteers to simulate a prison environment. Students designated to be prisoners were “arrested” and taken to a makeshift prison, where other volunteers were playing the part of correctional officers. As Zimbardo wrote, “Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.”
The author suggests that good treatment from administration has the effect of influencing good treatment from the officers. This “trickle down” effect can pass along bad treatment as well. Managers should implement policies designed to prevent corruption and misconduct, including measures to investigate wrongdoing, psychological screening of employees, and improved working conditions. Souryal cites positive factors such as in-service training, monitoring by professional associations, and educational requirements for new hires.
An interesting factor to consider is the fact that many employees plan to seek promotion and a continued career within their institution. This kind of career ambition is not consistent with whistle blowing or resisting the organizational culture. Thus, ambitions of advancement might cause an otherwise ethical employee to turn a blind eye to corruption and misconduct.
The chapter ends with a look at restorative justice and “peacekeeping,” both of which are recent and current trends in corrections. In some cases, particularly those involving juveniles and nonviolent offenders, a restorative process benefits both the offender and the victim. These “reintegrative” efforts are meant to bring the offender back into the good graces of the community. The relationship to the topic of abuse is simply that restorative processes do not create the adversarial subculture that other correctional processes do.
Sexual abuse in correctional facilities is a most serious problem, and aggressors are both officers and inmates. Female officers initiate sexual encounters with inmates at the same rate as male officers, though the study cited does not indicate how often each gender’s encounters were consensual or coercive. Even consensual encounters between officers and inmates are unethical and a violation of prison rules (as well as illegal in some states). Inmates are presumed not able to give full consent due to the dependent relationship.
Throughout much of American correctional history, the sexes were kept apart, but in the 1970’s, female officers challenged the rules that barred them from working in men’s institutions. The result was that men could also work in women’s institutions. Today, male officers are assigned to all areas of women’s prisons, putting them in a position of power over the inmates and making abuses possible.
The chapter documents other types of correctional officer misconduct, including smuggling items in and out of the facility for inmates. Low salaries, high turnover, and low hiring standards (due to the need to fill positions) are cited as factors that contribute to misconduct. Other instances of abuse mirror some of the tactics seen at Abu Ghraib.
Misconduct is not limited to the correctional officers. Treatment professionals may withhold needed services, even intentionally. Some subscribe to the philosophy of “penal harm,” believing the inmates deserve to suffer. Parole boards and probation offices have also been known to be home to bribery and other misconduct.
How do correctional employees become abusers? Factors resemble those found in law enforcement. Some employees come to the job already corrupt; others are influenced by a lack of organizational support for ethical behavior. Stress and burnout are occupational hazards and can leave one susceptible to the temptation for misconduct. Failure of leadership and less than adequate training and discipline have also been cited as factors. A correlation exists between age and the willingness to tolerate misconduct (older officers are less likely to support the use of force) but race and sex had no effect. Unions have also been criticized for defending abusive officers and being concerned with individual employee rights rather than what is best for the institution or system.
Stanford University researcher Philip Zimbardo conducted a famous study, where he used student volunteers to simulate a prison environment. Students designated to be prisoners were “arrested” and taken to a makeshift prison, where other volunteers were playing the part of correctional officers. As Zimbardo wrote, “Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.”
The author suggests that good treatment from administration has the effect of influencing good treatment from the officers. This “trickle down” effect can pass along bad treatment as well. Managers should implement policies designed to prevent corruption and misconduct, including measures to investigate wrongdoing, psychological screening of employees, and improved working conditions. Souryal cites positive factors such as in-service training, monitoring by professional associations, and educational requirements for new hires.
An interesting factor to consider is the fact that many employees plan to seek promotion and a continued career within their institution. This kind of career ambition is not consistent with whistle blowing or resisting the organizational culture. Thus, ambitions of advancement might cause an otherwise ethical employee to turn a blind eye to corruption and misconduct.
The chapter ends with a look at restorative justice and “peacekeeping,” both of which are recent and current trends in corrections. In some cases, particularly those involving juveniles and nonviolent offenders, a restorative process benefits both the offender and the victim. These “reintegrative” efforts are meant to bring the offender back into the good graces of the community. The relationship to the topic of abuse is simply that restorative processes do not create the adversarial subculture that other correctional processes do.
| pollock_ethics_8e_ch13.ppt |
The Zimbardo Experiment
Can a normal, or otherwise person who is strong in personal beliefs and will usually do the right thing, violate ethical and moral boundaries when placed in a position to follow authority? Watch the youtube video below, be prepared to either write a paper, or voice your point of view of what your thoughts of the video and this experiment.
Think about the following questions:
When you are in power of authority and a person fails to do what you ask of them, is a person (or you) likely to up the power you were given? If you were given a unlawful order, would you be able to recognize it, or just follow orders? Does power corrupt? When is it time to recognize unethical behavior, and when to report it?
(Subject to instructions) Provide any historical situation in law enforcement or the military, where you can identify any of these situation identified in this experiment?
Think about the following questions:
When you are in power of authority and a person fails to do what you ask of them, is a person (or you) likely to up the power you were given? If you were given a unlawful order, would you be able to recognize it, or just follow orders? Does power corrupt? When is it time to recognize unethical behavior, and when to report it?
(Subject to instructions) Provide any historical situation in law enforcement or the military, where you can identify any of these situation identified in this experiment?