The People Prisons MakeEffects of Incarceration onEffects of Incarceration on

Criminal Psychology

Amy E. LermanAssistant Professor

of Politics and Public Affairso o cs a d ub c a sPrinceton University

Introduction

“People react to and are affected by environment. Where greater opportunity exists, more creativity and success blossoms. And unrelenting violence andsuccess blossoms. And unrelenting violence and oppression breed bitterness.”

- CA Prison Inmate, Age 38

“A i i ff d b h l f h i“An inmate is affected by the culture of each prison, and by the events that take place. Every prison has a different atmosphere.”

- CA Prison Inmate, Age 32

Introduction

I t t b k t T ill d B tInterest back to Tocqueville and Beaumont“In locking up the criminals nobody thinks of rendering them better, but only taming their malice; they are put in chains like ferociousbut only taming their malice; they are put in chains like ferocious beasts; and instead of being corrected, they are rendered brutal”

Mental Health (Krestev 2000; Gorski 2005)

SocializationSocialization(Sykes 1958; Irwin 1985; Zimbardo 1973)

Memoirs, Movies, and Popular Press(Bunker 1981; King 1982; Kluger 2007)

Introduction

Th i f P i Eff tTheories of Prison EffectsLess Criminal: Deterrent

(Andenaus 1968; Nagin 1998; von Hirsch et al. 1999)

More Criminal: Schools for Crime (Jaman et al. 1972; Bukstel and Kilmann 1980; Walker 1987)

No Effect: Psychological Deep FreezeNo Effect: Psychological Deep Freeze(Zamble and Porporino 1988)

Introduction

New Penology and Changing Prison CultureNew Penology and Changing Prison CultureDecreased funding for programs

• Lower availability and participation rates• Lower availability and participation rates

Growth of gangs and related violenceGrowth of gangs and related violence

I i l l d itiIncreasingly closed communities• Restrictions on Researchers • Limitations on Media Access• Limitations on Media Access• Scrutiny of Visitation

Introduction

State of existing researchState of existing research

Primarily “anecdotal, qualitative and y , qphenomenological”

A few notable exceptions (eg Berk and Rauma 1983; Katz et al 2003; Chen and Shapiro 2004)

Generally find increased recidivismyBut little leverage on why

Introduction

More punitive prisons increase criminogenic attitudesby building and reinforcing social groups.

Incarceration is– a socializing experience.g p– a social experience.

Introduction

Social groups are primordial.The Minimal Group Paradigmg

Introduction

S i l t k ( ft ) d i blSocial networks are (often) desirable.Reducing social isolation can reduce crime.

Source: Putnam 2000

Introduction

But (clearly) all social ties aren’t the sameBut (clearly) all social ties aren t the same.Exclude others (Waldinger 1995)

R t i t f dRestrict freedoms (Boisevain 1974)

Produce downward leveling norms (Fernandez-Kelly 1995)

I li tiImplications:Prisonization is a social process;rehabilitation can provide a psocial solution.

Data and Methods

CA Department of Corrections andCA Department of Corrections and RehabilitationL t t t tLargest state system

297,406 total population168 830 i tit ti l168,830 institutional

33 adult state prisons33 adult state prisons

Budget fiscal year 07/08$9,776,618,000

Data and Methods

Security ClassificationLevel I (minimum security)

open dormitories with a low security perimeter

Security Classification

Level II (medium security)open dormitories with a secure perimeter, which may include armed coveragewhich may include armed coverage

Level III (close custody)secure perimeter with armed coverage, and housing units withsecure perimeter with armed coverage, and housing units with cells adjacent to exterior walls

Level IV (maximum security)i t ith i t l d t l d dsecure perimeter with internal and external armed coverage, and

housing units or cell block housing with cells non-adjacent to exterior walls

Data and Methods

Custody Violence ProgramsLevel I Outside work Minimal Full programs

Level II Monitored Moderate Full programs

Level III Monitored and High SomeLevel III Monitored and restricted

High Some restrictions

Level IV Monitored, Highest Limited Level IV o o ed,restricted,

early lockup

g es edaccess

Data and Methods

S it Cl ifi ti SBackground factors + Prior incarceration behavior

Security Classification Score =

age at first arrestage at receptionterm in years

serious disciplinary historybattery or attempted on a non-prisonerbattery or attempted on an inmatey

gang involvement type of gang, method of verification prior jail or county juvenile sentence

y pdistribution of drugspossession of a deadly weapon inciting a disturbanceprior jail or county juvenile sentence

prior incarcerationinciting a disturbancebattery causing serious injury

I II III IV0 18 27 51I II III IV

Data and Methods

Assignment to Security LevelAssignment to Security LevelCutoff Point

Pre-existingPre existingDifferences

19 27 28 51

Level IIILevel IIa b19 27 28 51Classification Score

Data and Methods

Local IndependenceLocal IndependenceCutoff Point

Pre-existingPre existingDifferences

19 27 28 51-2 +2

Level IIILevel II19 27 28 51

Classification Score

Data and Methods

A “Natural Experiment”A Natural ExperimentCutoff Point

CriminalCriminalPsychology

-2 +226 27 28 29

Level IIILevel II

Classification Score26 27 28 29

Data and Methods

St ti ti ll E i l t G !Statistically Equivalent Groups!

Below AboveBelow AboveCutoff Cutoff

Education (years) 10 6 10 8Education (years) 10.6 10.8Previous Arrests (#) 2.6 2.6Term (years) 5 2 5 2Term (years) 5.2 5.2History of Violence 4.6 4.8History of Poverty 4 5 5 0History of Poverty 4.5 5.0Substance Abuse 3.2 3.9

Data and Methods

Correctional Offender Management ProfilingCorrectional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)

Administered prior to paroleAdministered prior to paroleIncorporates MMPI tests for veracityS b l f l tiSub-sample of population

• No serious mental health• Low criminal history

Results

Criminal Cognitions

# of Items Dimension Sample Q ti

Criminal Cognitions

# of Items Dimension QuestionWhen people do minor offenses or

6 Justifications for breaking the law

minor offenses or use drugs, they

don’t hurt anyone except themselvesexcept themselves.

Justifications for Some people must be treated roughly

5 doing harm to others

or beaten up just to send them a clear

message.

Results

Effect on Criminal CognitionsEffect on Criminal Cognitions

Scale 1 8***Scale 1.8Deciles .72**N 1,207

Results

Criminal Personality

# of Items Dimension Sample Question

Criminal Personality

Question

5 Anger/ViolenceI have a short temper

and can get angry i klquickly.

4 Boredom I am often restless and bored.

2 Manipulation I’m really good at talking my way out of things.

The trouble with getting

3 Self-isolation close to people is that they start making demands on you.

Results

Effect on Criminal Personality

Mean Mean Difference

Effect on Criminal Personality

Mean Below Cutoff

Mean Above Cutoff

Difference

Cutoff CutoffCriminal PersonalityPersonality

Scale 31.7 34.0 +2.3**Deciles 5 1 5 8 + 7*Deciles 5.1 5.8 +.7

Results

Effect on Social Networks

Mean Below Mean Above Difference

Effect on Social Networks

Cutoff Cutoff Difference

Criminal Associates 7.67 8.55 +.88*Associates

Arrested 2.02 2.27 +.25*Jailed 1.89 2.12 +.23*Do drugs 1.94 2.09 +.15In Gangs 1.82 2.07 +.25*

Family Contact 1.47 1.50 +.03

Results

Effect on Gang MembershipFor those who enter with no gang ties:

43% b l t ff l b

Effect on Gang Membership

• 43% below cutoff leave gang members• 57% above cutoff leave gang members

For those who enter with gang ties:• 25% below cutoff self identify as gang members• 25% below cutoff self-identify as gang members• 46% above cutoff self-identify as gang members

Results

Social Isolation

Sample

Social Isolation

# of Items Dimension Sample Question

I have friends

5 Supporting Networks

I have friends who help me when I have troubles.

3 Feelings of Belonging

I often feel left out of thingsBelonging out of things.

Results

Effect on Social Isolation

24

Effect on Social Isolation

22

20

cale

18

16

ocia

l Iso

latio

n Sc

Scale -1 2**14

12

So

Scale 1.2Decile -.98N 1,207

2520151050-5-10

Classification Score (Centered on Zero)

10

Results

Effect on Criminal Cognitions (Gang Members)Effect on Criminal Cognitions (Gang Members)

Abstainersno effect

MaintainersMaintainers.73* deciles

Joiners2.63# deciles

Discussion

Implications for research and practiceImplications for research and practice

Prison is not a black boxThere’s no such thing as “the prison” environmentg p

Discussion

Implications for research and practiceImplications for research and practicePrison is not a deep-freezePrison is not a deep freeze

Incarceration is a profoundly socializing experienceN d t dd d i i k f t• Need to address dynamic risk factors

Incarceration is a profoundly social experience• Need to (re)consider the group dynamics of prison life• Rehabilitation programs do more than provide skills to

i di id lindividuals.– They can also foster social identities.

Discussion

DecategorizationDecategorizationReduce salience of group identity by

emphasizing the individualemphasizing the individual.Not surprisingly, this yields weak results.

Discussion

RecategorizationRecategorization

Overlapping Identity Superordinate Identity

Recovering AddictAfrican -

American

Drugs AlcoholFrom the

Bronx

Robbery Possession Vehicular HomicideGED Student

Discussion

Community-based SanctionsCommunity-based Sanctions

Alternative Identity

FamilyCitizen

Criminal

Family Member

Criminal

Questions or Comments:

Amy E. LermanPrinceton UniversityPrinceton University

alerman@princeton.edu