What are the main points in the article?
The origins of convict criminology were derived from studying the society that had been framed by the convicts within the confines of prison. The behavior inside a penitentiary that degrades the quality of life drastically from the outside world has the potential to change inmates towards potentially negative roles. Yet, this population has come up with its own social structure and codes to follow during their stay in prison. This social structure includes its own laws governing the population and staying focused on the unilateral goal of going back home.
The convict codes were possibly established during the 1960s to increase the possibility of getting released earlier without repercussions for action of the convicts when they are incarcerated. There were two convict codes that came into existence during different decades. The old code probably came into existence when prisoners were isolated and spent most of their sentences alone in cells. The new code had cropped up in the 1990s and it professes harsher times based on the society’s fear of incarcerated convicts. This new code has been pushed down by politicians and administrator who want to make successful careers by trading on the convict population a barrage of new laws and restrictions.
Opinions on the mass incarcerations differ from different generations. The 1960s paved the way for the belief that only the minority races were responsible for violent crimes and hence the juveniles from those communities were tried as adults and sentenced among adult penitentiaries. The misplaced fear of society for crime desecrated the lives of thousands of Hispanics and African Americans. Nowadays the opinion varies when it comes to long jail terms. Most of the society believes that they are better served if the convicted inmates are rehabilitated and serve shorter sentences, crime rates will drop.
Factors that undermine the convict code were commenced as soon as the construction of new prisons emerged. There was also the option of for-profit prisons run by contractors that hosted appalling living conditions when compared to the formal prisons. This has allowed authorities to transfer convict leaders and disorganize societies inside prison. The practice of increased anonymity has bolstered the number of snitches and informants inside the prison complex.
Do you agree/disagree with those points?
The concept of prisoners looking to bond themselves into self-styled communities might appear to appeal towards civility however; there is no reason to encourage it. There is no particular reason to find out why to aid this behavior. The basic factor that is missed while the article was written is that the incarcerated population committed crimes against the society. They misread the morals of their environment and acted only on the motive for profit. Instead of trying to preserve their so-called convict communities, the focus should be on how to influence the convict population that they could actually be valuable assets to society legitimately and help them with their defects; for example a high school diploma.
The criticism of stricter laws or living conditions within prisons is unfounded. The basic functions of the prison system are to rehabilitate and deter the individual from recidivism. If there are no doors for toilets and if the population proves to be too tough for a first time offender, he might never look towards crime as a profitable venture anymore. The deterrence to crime is only achievable through tapping of emotions and nothing convinces the convict more than the harsh reality of incarceration.
What did you think about the article in general?
The article in general looks to defend the rights of prisoners against harsh living conditions, fear of informants and the stricter laws that are rolled out by every new politician to add to this over burdened society. It wants to speak on the prisoners’ side of the story by giving emphasis on how they develop psychologically inside the confines of prisons. It also speaks about the different social structures that inmates have adopted to prove that even in isolation from the regular society, it is human nature to live as a group and not designed for living alone. The article calls for a balance in the measures meted out to the prison population especially in the form of informants that violate the old code.
The concept of informants has always been part of incarcerated populations. They provide valuable input to prison authorities and police that help solve crimes, prevent future crimes and even to foil terrorist attacks. The romanticism of the old code of “no snitches” might be appropriate for Hollywood productions however in reality, they even out the odds for the less provisioned prison that is also facing severe workforce shortages.
Was it missing something and/or did it cover a topic really well?
The article covered the topic of “Garbage In. Garbage Out” reasonably. Yet it failed to focus on one of the primary functions that a prison is supposed to provide for its inhabitants; rehabilitation. There is practically no mention of rehabilitation programs or halfway houses that correctional facilities use for rehabilitating drug addicts and other substance abuse among inmates. It is almost as if this aspect of prison does not exist. The authors probably decided that the inclusion of this subject might void much of the direction that they had pointed in terms of convict criminology.
The data on how many prisoners reform due to involvement in religious groups within the prison complex has also been left out. There is no mention of nonviolent gangs. However, prisoner radicalization is a burning topic among lawmakers and much of the prison transfers are directed to prevent a domestic breed of terrorism. Deriving a new concept of criminology should cover all aspects of the prison society. If the authors have chosen to leave out important portions of this society, how do they propose to come up with a complete criminology for convicted convicts; let alone counsel inmates in the right direction?
