ADVANCED TOPICS IN CORRECTIONAL ETHICS
"The world is but a large prison" (Sir Walter Raleigh)

    While the last lecture on correctional ethics was a bit abstract, this lecture promises to be more specific with the details of ethical misconduct by corrections professionals, primarily the custodial (security) staff.  Treatment professionals also face ethical dilemmas in prison, but more has been written about correctional officers, the group we will focus on.  Correctional officers are similar and dissimilar to police officers in specific ways, and we will examine those ways.   For example, Kauffmann (1988) writes that both C.O.s and police undergo the same "working personality" change when putting on the uniform, but that C.O.s are much more likely to misperceive the bounds of their authority.  The great challenge of being a correctional officer is the challenge of using personal resources -- respect and reputation -- as the basis of one's authority.  Correctional ethics, however, involves much more than just personal trait psychology, as there are significant sociological forces at work.  Character is not a good predictor of who will engage in correctional forms of misconduct.  An ethical boss does not mean that everyone in the organization will be a moral exemplar; and the fact that the boss is corrupt does not mean that everyone in the organization will be infected with some ethical disease.  Rather, it is the very nature of the captor-captive situation that begets ethical misconduct.

    In a sociological sense, all who work in corrections are captives (Lombardo 1989), and both inmates and staff constitute an "orphan group" in society.  Neither group, inmates and staff, are significant enough to constitute a pressure group by themselves (both are transient groups in society), and it is amazing that more staff don't associate or identify with inmate causes.  Strict rules against fraternization probably account for keeping this tendency in check.  A wide variety of ethical misconduct occurs in prisons, and I don't know if we'll be able to cover all of them.  First, let's look at the variety.  A list of the most frequently encountered unethical situations in corrections has been provided by del Carmen (2004) and includes the following:

    PATTERNS OF PRISON CORRUPTION

    Several of the above activities, especially abuse, are involved in what can be called prison "corruption," defined as violations of organizational rules and regulations for personal gain (McCarthy 1996).  Corruption is perhaps the oldest ethical problem in corrections (Sykes 1956).  Wide-ranging acts of corruption are to be expected in prisons, if only because prisons are depressing places frequently afflicted with stress, low morale, and lack of job satisfaction.  Yet, this hypothesis is impossible to prove or disprove because of the closed nature of correctional institutions.  The superintendent, or director, of a Department of Corrections (sometimes along with the Governor) usually takes the lead in denying any ethics problem when an ethical scandal hits the news.  Like the pattern followed by most organizational leadership, if denial doesn't work, the leader will develop and engage in some kind of "slogan ethics" (Souryal 2003).  Such slogans, like "Your Corrections Dept.: Doing It All For You" are unlikely to be of any substance (see Mistake #6 at Mistakes in Teaching Ethics).      

    McCorkle (1970) says there are three (3) kinds of corruption in corrections: (1) corruption through friendship; (2) corruption through reciprocity; and (3) corruption through default.  Each of these will be discussed in turn.

    1. Corruption through friendship occurs when the traditional devices fail that separate staff from inmates.  The staff member finds themselves in a situation where they cannot withdraw physically (without quitting the job), cannot act through intermediaries (the inmate has seen to it that the "favor" must be done directly), and there is no way to back down from the "favor" without losing dignity.  The employee becomes caught in a conflict of loyalties, and often the low-pay and poor working conditions make the employee susceptible to this kind of corruption because it is "honorable" to be associated with notorious criminals.
    2. Corruption through reciprocity occurs when staff ignore minor infractions in return for what seems like good behavior on behalf of a group of inmates, especially at a time when the employee is up for promotion or a performance review.  Inmates know that staff are evaluated on how well they control inmates, so they put on a "show" to make the employee look good, but only if that employee overlooks some other infractions.  A variation on this is when the inmate warns an employee to earn good will among inmates because they will be looked out for, and kept safe as a hostage, when the next riot occurs.
    3. Corruption through default occurs because of indifference, laziness, or naiveté on the employee's part.  The inmate slowly and gradually works their way up to "trustee" status in the eyes of such an employee, innocuously encroaching upon the employee's responsibilities.  In other words, the inmate starts doing some of the employee's work for them.  For awhile, it seems as if a trusted inmate is helping out with clerical duties and so forth, but soon it is discovered that the same inmate is running a loan shark operation, a prostitution ring, or some other illegal enterprise within the prison.

    McCarthy (1996) says there are five (5) types of corruption in prison: (1) theft; (2) trafficking in contraband; (3) embezzlement; (4) misuse of authority; and (5) a residual or miscellaneous category.  Each of these will be examined in turn.

    1. Theft usually involves items stolen from inmates during frisks and searches.  Visitors and staff also are sometimes the frequent victims of theft.  Most theft is believed to be of minor, personal items, and carried out sporadically by low-level staff.  Most prisons have extensive controls which prevent instances of scandalous, widespread, institutionalized theft.
    2. Trafficking in contraband can involve drugs, alcohol, money, weapons, or a variety of other things. There are a variety of motives for why an employee would engage in this kind of behavior, but the usual pattern is for the employee to do it in return for some services in return by the inmate(s).  Sometimes, these services involve sexual favors.
    3. Embezzlement in a government job is the converting of state property to one's own use.  Prison systems produce a lot of surplus property as well as partially damaged property, and it is considered relatively easy in many places to procure such property for one's own use.  Larger-scale scandals have been known to exist involving the systematic stealing of money from inmate accounts or prison property located off-site.
    4. Misuse of authority typically involves guards "on the take" in some sort of bribery scheme run by inmates.  Other staff may be involved, too, as when, for example, payoffs are taken to receive choice cell or work assignments.
    5. Residual corruption is a category for things which don't "fit" in other categories, and here might be placed examples of "nonfeasance," or overlooking illegal inmate activity, like gambling, or the more bizarre forms of rackets and conspiracies hatched between inmate(s) and staff, like counterfeiting, or running a criminal enterprise from within prison.

    Most prison corruption is probably caused by opportunity.  There are lots of opportunities, indeed a surplus of opportunities, within prisons for engaging in ethical misconduct.  Another explanation might be that formally, prisons are operated almost entirely on the basis of coercive power, which organizational theorists say have known limits for producing conformity (Etzioni 1964).  However, Cloward (1960) most likely hit the nail on the head when he said that it's not just the formal control apparatus, but the informal development of various accommodations between keepers and the kept.  The need for inmates and staff to constantly make power accommodations in keeping prison life running smoothly (and make both parties look good) seems to be the main cause of prison corruption.  There is, of course, always the hope that better training programs and anti-corruption policies might help.  This is a topic to which we now turn.

THE PROBLEM OF PRISONER/STAFF FRATERNIZATION

    Fraternization, which can be defined as illegal or inappropriate familiarity in a prisoner/staff relationship (Escandell 2004), may very well be the central issue behind most ethical problems in corrections.  At least the training literature recognizes the importance of fraternization (as in "fraternizing with the enemy"), while the academic literature seems to prefer the concept of "favoritism" (Souryal 2003).  The issue allows for the study of some time-tested techniques at recognizing and avoiding the manipulations and "con games" by inmates (Allen & Bosta 1981).  Many state prison systems have made fraternization an important part of their anti-corruption policies, and at the extreme end, serious felonies exist making some forms of fraternization, such as sexual contact, a crime, punishable by 20 years of imprisonment or more (e.g., North Carolina statute N.C. 14-27-7).  Less extreme forms of fraternization (such as meeting with an inmate when they get out) usually result in dismissals or resignations, frequently accompanied by requiring the ex-employee sign a form stating they will never work in a Department of Corrections again.  The problem is quite prevalent, as the following numbers indicate:

    There are some technical differences between familiarity, favoritism, and undue familiarity, but it's all a matter of degree.  Familiarity is something that one would want correctional employees to be good at, since familiarity means knowing the inmates' habits, demeanor, behavior, etc.  Familiarity makes for better supervision.  Favoritism is somewhat more questionable, as almost every correctional employee has their "favorite" inmates; ones they talk to the most, hang out on prison grounds with the most, give special or favored assignments to, or try to protect from harm or tickets by other inmates or staff.  The "snitch" system that exists in correctional environments seems to reinforce favoritism, and it can further be argued that the promotional system for employees is based, in part, on developing a set of "favorite" inmates who help the employee look good at job performance.  It's important to understand that none of these things occur because two or more people "like each other."  The process, at base, is an integral part of the mutual need for respect, trust, and cooperation. 

    Undue familiarity is familiarity of a different degree.  It occurs when inmates know the employee's personal business.  It is the prisoner's familiarity with an employee's personal habits, demeanor, behavior, or problems.  It is a breakdown in the professional and ethical boundaries between prisoners and staff.  Correctional employees are highly vulnerable to certain "divide and conquer" games by inmates in this regard (Allen & Bosta 1981).  This occurs when inmates try to use the personal differences among staff as a way to elicit the discussion of personal issues.  They will use age, race, gender, religion, marital status, health, or background as "breech points" to get on a personal level of relationship.  They will exploit any sense of inadequacy among staff, and will make up lies about any employee who doesn't seem to have any inadequacies.  They will also exploit any job dissatisfaction among employees.  They will do anything which detracts from the professional environment, including slang, stereotypes, flattering or flirtatious comments, and a highly-charged corruptive or sexualized atmosphere.  Many inmate types exist in this regard, some of which are discussed below:

    The above doesn't exhaust all the inmate types, but gives a good sampling.  It may be better if more attention were focused on staff types, and the patterns which evolve among staff.  Two patterns come readily to mind:  the Stockholm Syndrome and the Rescuer Syndrome.  The Stockholm Syndrome is usually discussed only in the context of hostage negotiation, but it must be remembered that if staff can be considered captives too, then this syndrome should exist in less extreme circumstances.  In any event, most correctional officers are real persons to the inmates, not anonymous, unknown symbols of authority.  Some "emotional transference" is bound to occur, according to social psychology.  If two antagonistic groups are placed in a close proximity and required to accomplish a cooperative task cooperatively, the differential roles and antagonism will almost always break down (Sherif 1967).

    Another staff pattern which results primarily from close proximity has been called the "poor devil syndrome" (Gilmartin & Davis 2004).  With this syndrome, officers begin believing that the inmate is a "victim" and begin feeling sorry for him. One officer stated, 'I just wanted to keep seeing him because I realized he might get the death sentence and I felt so bad about it.”  A related variation is the Rescuer Syndrome (Escandell 2004), which describes why the employee became interested in corrections work in the first place, because they want to help poor, unfortunate people who just happen to have gotten into trouble with the law.  All caregiver occupational groups are likely subject to vulnerability with this syndrome.

    While there certain things that training can accomplish to prevent fraternization (e.g., no first name basis; no giving out personal information), and there are certain things that an Employee Assistance Program can accomplish (e.g., getting help for a "crisis" or problem), the problem seems to call for a "team" approach, but not in the usual management sense which treats all employees as equals.  First of all, all female employees of a correctional center face specific vulnerabilities, and some way to encourage these females to support one another may be needed.  Likewise with race, as all employees belonging to one race have issues which are easily exploited.  It is difficult to think of an ethical system, other than a Virtue Ethics (Platonic or Aristotelian) which would help accomplish the justice of "differences among differences."  A utilitarian or Rawlsian ethical system would be no help, since looking out for the most disadvantaged would likely increase the problem.  The bottom line may very well be that correctional institutions are places doomed to be without a workable ethical system, and as dismal as that prospect sounds, it is likely to remain true until some re-examination of the whole arrangement takes place.

INTERNET RESOURCES
Correctional Officers: Good, Bad, & Indifferent
Behind the Wire
Prison Activist Resource Center
Prisoner Abuse
The Correctional Officer Stockholm Syndrome
The Evolution of Decisionmaking Among Prison Executives (pdf)
The Real Public Enemies
Yahoo News: Prison Issues

PRINTED RESOURCES
Allen, B. & Bosta, D. (1981). Games Criminals Play: How You Can Profit by Knowing Them. NY: Rae John.
Carroll, L. (1998). Lawful Order: A Case Study of Correctional Crisis and Reform. NY: Garland.
Cloward, R. (1960). Theoretical Studies in the Social Organization of the Prison. NY: Social Science Research Council.
Crouch, B. (Ed.) (1980). The Keepers: Prison Guards and Contemporary Corrections. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
del Carmen, A. (2004). Corrections, 2e. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog.
Duffee, D. (1974). "The Correctional Officer Subculture and Organizational Change," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2: 155-172.
Escandell, V. (2004). "Professional Boundaries in Corrections." PowerPoint Presentation archived at National Institute of Corrections. Longmont, CO: NIC/DOJ.
Etzioni, E. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. (1999). Correctional Organization & Management. NY: Butterworth Heinemann.
Gilmartin, K. & Davis, R. (2004). "The Correctional Officer Stockholm Syndrome." Online at Gilmartin & Associates. Published by the national Institute of Corrections, 1st Annual Symposium on Now Generation Jails.
Henry, M. (1999). Making Ethical Choices: A Guide for Staff. Greenbelt, MD: ACA.
Jones, J. & Carlson, D. (2003). Reputable Conduct: Ethical Issues in Policing and Corrections, 2e. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kauffman, K. (1988). Prison Officers and Their World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Kleinig, J. & Smith, M. (2001). Discretion, Community, and Correctional Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lombardo, L. (1989). Guards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work, 2e. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Martin, T. (2003). Behind Prison Walls: The Real World of Working in Today's Prisons. Boulder, CO: Paladin. [sample excerpt]
McCarthy, B. (1996). "Keeping an Eye on the Keeper: Prison Corruption and its Control." Pp. 229-42 in M. Braswell, B. McCarthy & B. McCarthy (eds), Justice, Crime and Ethics, 2e. Cincinnati: Anderson.
McCorkle, L. (1970). The Sociology of Punishment & Corrections, 2e. NY: Wiley.
Pollock, J. (2004). Ethics in Crime and Justice, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sherif, M. (1967). Social Interaction: Processes and Products. Chicago, Aldine.
Souryal, S. (2003). Ethics in Criminal Justice, 3e. Cincinnati: Anderson LexisNexis.
Sykes, G. (1956). "The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation," Social Forces 34: 157-162.
Wynn, J. (2001). Inside Rikers: Stories from the World's Largest Penal Colony. NY: St. Martins.
Wortley, R., Blumstein, A. & Farrington, D. (Eds.) (2002). Situational Prison Control. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Last updated: Sept. 30, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.