Inmate Misconduct
Inmate Misconduct
The central thesis of this article ultimately suggests that major measures of misconduct and violations in prison are due to the direct subjugation of inmate population and the institution capacity of its confined inmates. More so it is suggested that the larger the prison population, the larger the quantity and instances of “violence and various alternate disciplinary infractions” (Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R., 2013). The study hypotheses presented here proclaims the rise of social order within a prison, conveys direct combinational culmination of the particular prisons institutional capacity. Furthermore, following prior research, empirical evidence and the study of fifty various state prisons (for men) directly supported the hypothesized argument by further revealing that these findings were also crucially weighted by means of the particular prison’s environmental management, institutional workmanship and ethics towards inmates and also variations of methodized capacity control (Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R., 2013).
Other primary results based directly off of the National Institute of Justice suggested that social control is indeed the principal goal of prison management. When speaking of social control and effectiveness; research greatly amplifies concepts such as prison security levels and of course the inmate population and its criminogenic characteristics (Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R., 2013). I believe that the author has provided a somewhat persuasive argument, in saying so the research was conducted under state prison. However this does not knowingly include that of federal prisons which I feel would hold a much distinction in terms of administrative management, policies and control, as opposed to that of state prison. Implications for correctional policy include a strong promotion of potent security levels and disciplinary consistency in order to severely reduce various levels risks. Another is the prison environment itself, which if composed properly with high standard, better reflects the prison administration itself and the institutes’ inmates. Lastly, it is important to understand that the capacity for control is the composition and size of the inmate population (Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R., 2013).
References:
Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2013). Inmate Misconduct and the Institutional Capacity for Control. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 40(3), 270-288. Retrieved March 26, 2016.
