Stanford Prison Experiment

What was the Stanford Prison Experiment? Why was it important? As a student of criminal justice the Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most interesting and important topics you will cover.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was an exploratory study.  “Exploratory research in criminal justice can be simple or complex, using a variety of methods.”  (Maxfield and Babbie 2005, p.19) The experiment was conducted to attempt to explain what happens when you put ordinary people in a prison environment and give some authority and take away the rights of others. Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, conductor of the Quiet Rage experiment said, “Prison situations are examples of enormous power differentials… Guards have total power over prisoners who are powerless. Unless there is strict leadership and transparent oversight that prevent the abuse of power, that power will foster abuse.” (Zimbardo, Pelham and Breckler, American Psychological Association: How Psychology Can Help Explain The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse 2004)

The experiment was designed under the rules of Quasi-Experimental design and it’s subgroup of Nonequivalent Dependent Variables design or  NEDV. “A quasi-experimental design is one that looks a bit like an experimental design but lacks the key ingredient — random assignment… With respect to internal validity, they often appear to be inferior to randomized experiments. But there is something compelling about these designs; taken as a group, they are easily more frequently implemented than their randomized cousins.” (Trochim 2006)

The two hypotheses of the study were: “What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions we posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.” (Zimbardo 1999-2009) The main goals of the study were to see if participants turned evil and to see whether the level of humanity of the participants increased or decreased through the experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was utilized to provide answers to two general explanations of where the problems within prisons stem from. “The first was the dispositional hypothesis- prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of the types of people who run them and are incarcerated in them… The second was the situational hypothesis- the prison environment itself creates brutal dehumanizing conditions independent of the kinds of people who live and work in the institutions.” (Maxfield & Babbie, 2005, p.70) After viewing the experiment it is easy to see how horrific it must have been for those involved, which some would deem it as a failure. However, the experiment was successful in answering where the problems in prisons rise from. The situational hypothesis was verified because all participants were ‘normal’ going in and transformed because of their situation. In some cases the dispositional hypothesis may be true but in this case the prison was being run by average, middle class men of similar intelligence. The prisoners were not real criminals yet they began to act as real prisoners would. The guards were not real corrections officers yet the power and authority associated with their position overpowered their good judgment leading to the maltreatment of the prisoner volunteers.

The important variables in the study were the groupings voluntary participants in the experiment that were derived through strategic subject selection. “We wanted to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or guard.”  (Zimbardo, The Stanford Prison Experiment Website 1999-2009) Therefore, the variables of the guards and prisoners would play the most important role in exploring the hypotheses. “Ultimately, we were left with a sample of 24 college students from the U.S. and Canada who happened to be in the Stanford area and wanted to earn $15/day by participating in a study. On all dimensions that we were able to test or observe, they reacted normally.”  (Zimbardo, The Stanford Prison Experiment Website 1999-2009) This factor was crucial in order to properly evaluate the effects of simulating a prison environment on the participants. If one of the guards varied greatly from the others it would be difficult to calculate whether or not it was the situation the caused their behaviors to change or if they were that way all along and they were carrying out their normal beliefs and actions on the prisoners.

The variables were operationalized through extensive preliminary evaluation exams to weed out those volunteers that were not on par with the mental states of the rest of the volunteers. After this the degradation process began with the guards taking steps to dehumanize the prisoners. “It should be clear that we were trying to create a functional simulation of a prison — not a literal prison… Our goal was to produce similar effects quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes. Indeed, as soon as some of our prisoners were put in these uniforms they began to walk and to sit differently, and to hold themselves differently — more like a woman than like a man.”  (Zimbardo, The Stanford Prison Experiment Website 1999-2009)

From this point on the prisoners and guards were no longer the equivalent volunteers they were in the beginning of the study.  The rights and self-respect of the prisoners were slowly stripping away as the power and control was manifesting on the guards’ behalf.  “The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards.  Instead they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners.  The guards made up their own set of rules… They were warned, however, of the potential seriousness of their mission and of the possible dangers in the situation they were about to enter, as, of course, are real guards who voluntarily take such a dangerous job.”  (Zimbardo, The Stanford Prison Experiment Website 1999-2009) Through this process of operationalization the observer was able to see how quickly the personalities of the prisoners disintergrated and resembled those of actual inmates. He was also able to evaluate how each guard escalated their abuse of power or attempted abuse of power and authority.

In this study the independent variable was the group of men acting as prison guards which means the dependent variable would be the men acting as prisoners for the simulation. The guards were the independent variable because it was their conduct and behavior that forced the study to end early. They were the ones in the position of power which left the prisoners as the dependent variable because their behavior and conduct was dependent upon the conduct of the prison guards. If they were being abused they might act out in a psychotic manner or request to leave, but if they were being treated properly they may act in the proper manner.

A major threat to the validity of this study would be the lack of a control study.  “The problem of threats to internal validity refers to the possibility that conclusions drawn from experimental results may not accurately reflect what went on in the experiment itself.” (Maxfield and Babbie 2005, p.181) In this study the end results showed that in the given circumstances the participants in the role of the guard acted out in an evil manner whereas the prisoner participants lost their sense of self.  This does not accurately depict what happened in the study or what led up to these results.  It would be important to include the extent of the abuse and maltreatment occuring as a result of the study in order to truly understand the ramifications of the guard/prisoner relationship.

The role of the observer in this study was compromised. This is because Zimbardo who was conducting the study was also an active participant in the study through serving as the ‘prison’ superintendent.  The researcher was very honest in the analyzing and reporting of his data. It takes a lot of courage to admit when you have made a mistake and this researcher was able to do just that. The directors of the experiment did an excellent job preparing everyone for what was to come. They did not sugarcoat the situation but unfortunately, the participants had not been in this sort of situation and did not know what to expect. None of them expected to be physically harmed or emotionally ravaged as they were. They were aware that this type of situation could have effects afterward but it seemed they were not concerned about that all that much. I would imagine some of the participants suffered from PTSD after the experiment was through in addition to trouble readjusting to ‘real’ life. A transitioning period back into society would have been helpful. Workshops on how to deal with their experiences even though they were ‘fake’ would be important. The prisoners would need to feel validated because even though it was a simulation, they were living it and experiencing the emotions in full force.

This experiment showed that even the most stable of humans have the capacity to cross the line and commit evil acts. It also showed that people are creatures of habit as in the case of the prisoners who after being put in their new environment adapted to the changes and developed new habits. A cause and effect statement could be constructed from the experiment results. This statement could say that if people are put in a situation where they have full control of other people and the freedom to make their own rules and decisions they will grow to abuse that power and in turn abuse the other people.

The experiment was very informative and interesting yet it was not ethically and legally sound. The participants were volunteers for the job but when they wanted to leave by faking illness or insanity, they were pressured into staying. A few prisoners were released for health reasons but initially I believe they should have been released the minute they asked to be because they were there as volunteers. The conductors of the experiment legally had no right to detain them there against their will. This experiment was an extreme case conducted many years ago. When the public caught wind of what had happened they were outraged.  The research was necessary and important but these days more attention is paid to the comfort and rights of study participants than originally shown in the Quiet Rage movie.

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2005). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Trochim, W. M. (2006). Social Research Methods: Knowledege Base. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.php
Zimbardo, P. G. (1999-2009). The Stanford Prison Experiment Website. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://www.prisonexp.org/
Zimbardo, P. G., Pelham, B., & Breckler, S. J. (2004, May). American Psychological Association: How Psychology Can Help Explain The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/topics/iraqiabuse.html
Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6935924833200591885

The “Boston Model” – Boston Police Department

The keys components of the Boston Model are: Intervention, Enforcement, and Prevention. The Boston Police Department is convinced that through the use of each of these components they have and will be able to lower crime rates and keep their city streets safer.

The first component of the Boston Model is Intervention. Boston has put together numerous programs that are used to intervene with at-risk or probationary juveniles. The ‘Operation Cease Fire’ program allows law enforcement to swiftly deal with the use of firearms in gang ridden areas. This in turn aids in the disruption of trafficking firearms to youths, especially those involved in gangs. This is a great effort because if the juveniles do not have guns, they cannot commit acts of violence with them.

‘Operation Nightlight’ is another effective program used by the Boston Police and Probation officers. “By pooling knowledge and intelligence, the officers use the restrictions as targeted curfews. Every youngster may not be at rick of offending or becoming a victim, but the program targets those from whom hurting or getting hurt are high probabilities.” (BPD) This program allows the officers to intervene in a positive way to ensure the safety of all youth in the area.

The second component of the Boston Model is Enforcement. “Cease Fire and Nightlight, while primarily interventionist in nature, are also important enforcement tactics. The most dangerous and recalcitrant offenders are subjected to intensive law enforcement and prosecution.” (BPD)  The ATIN or Alternatives to Incarceration Network allows officials to enforce the laws while giving alternative areas of incarceration. In Boston offenders do not just go into custody and serve their time. They have numerous services available to them such as: ‘substance abuse counseling, educational programs, individual and group counseling, job skills training and placement , intensive community monitoring, residential place, life skills counseling and violence prevention programs.’ This is quite effective as it allows offenders to rehabilitate themselves and get the help that they need to live a lawful and productive life.

Boston’s Youth Violence Strike Force or YVSF is another effective program in the intervention and enforcement of laws. The YVSF, ‘in cooperation with the city of Boston and the Department of Justice, has used criminal and civil forfeiture laws to help secure the safety of the community by taking over drug dens and renovating them as new homes.’ (Siegel 2006) This program shows a real positive turn around for communities on the track to becoming safer.

The final component of the Boston Model is Prevention.  Through the use of youth service officers Boston is able to have a visual presence to prevent and deter possible offenders. These officers work with the schools and youth agencies to interact with the youth through events and activities. To be preventative you need to be out there interacting with the kids in their environment and on their level. Another successful program is the Boston Police Student/Youth Athlete Program. This program is excellent because it gets the youth involved with college athletes as mentors and friends. A lot of juveniles just need a little push in the right direction to keep them on track. This program is a positive way for youth to see that if they apply themselves in the correct manner they could one day serve as a role model for some other at-risk youth. This has potential to motivate juveniles to write their own success stories.

“The best intervention and enforcement efforts are also preventative… In the same way the best prevention programs also produce intervention effects. While the intervention/enforcement/prevention strategy is seen as providing a continuum of services, effects overlap. The strategy has evolved in this way because of the complexity of the overall problem.” (BPD)

The Boston Model itself is a positive step forward for the relationship between law enforcement and the juvenile justice system. The city of Boston has put a lot of time and effort towards a good cause that is having an impact. It would be interesting to see the Boston Model in place in other cities across the nation to see the affect it would have on national youth crime rates.

Boston Police Department. The Boston Strategy on Youth Violence: Intervention, Enforcement, Prevention. Office of Strategic Planning and Resource Development. Accessed March 27, 2008.

Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law. 9th Ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Community Policing

Proponents of community policing believe that this approach holds much promise in effectively dealing with youth crime.  The idea of community policing, also known as neighborhood policing, is based upon interaction between the police and the community. Community policing is a “police strategy that emphasizes reducing fear, organizing the community, and maintaining order rather then fighting crime”.  (Siegel, 2006, pp.395)

Community policing is a philosophy that makes perfect sense.  Police officials tend to live in or nearby the communities in which they work.  It is a very positive notion for these officers to be involved with the very members of the community that they protect. A key characteristic of community policing is the ongoing interaction between the police and the neighborhoods.  A common sight in these areas are police officers who do not ride around in patrol cars, but rather “walk the beat” getting to know the people in their neighborhood and establishing relationships.  They want shopkeepers and locals to feel comfortable with their presence and if a problem should arise, they will feel more comfortable bringing it to an officer’s attention. This is very important because trust of the people is something that can be earned by a daily presence and not merely won by making arrests. Another key characteristic is using officers who are completely unbiased, who leaves their personal beliefs and feelings at the door.  The officers need to be able to connect with the people of the neighborhood and if they have biased opinions, the relationship process could be hindered.  A major use of community policing is to deter juvenile crime. Their responsibilities include “being a visible and accessible component of the community and working with residents to address delinquency problems”.  (Siegel, 2006, pp. 395)

The police departments who use community policing are involved with more community based work than departments that follow the traditional method of policing.  Community policing differs from traditional policing in a few key ways.  One philosophy of community policing is that “freeing officers from the emergency response system permits them to engage more directly in proactive crime prevention”.  (Siegel, 2006, pp. 396) Instead of responding to emergencies as in the traditional model, the officers are already out there on the streets ready to take action.  Another difference is that in “moving decision making to patrol officers places more authority in the hands of the people who know what is best for the community”.  (Siegel, 2006, pp. 396)  In moving this power to the officers on the beat instead of the headquarters actions are more likely going to be in the best interests of the neighborhood because it is the officers on the beat who are more informed of the problems and expectations. “Decentralizing operations allows officers to develop

Another successful program is the Boston Police Student/Youth Athlete Program. This program is excellent because it gets the youth involved with college athletes as mentors and friends. A lot of juveniles just need a little push in the right direction to keep them on track. This program is a positive way for youth to see that if they apply themselves in the correct manner they could one day serve as a role model for some other at-risk youth. This has potential to motivate juveniles to write their own success stories.

Boston Police Department. The Boston Strategy on Youth Violence: Intervention, Enforcement, Prevention. Office of Strategic Planning and Resource Development. Accessed March 27, 2008.

Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law. 9th Ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Women and the System

Women Behind Bars

When the image of a criminal comes to mind, it is most often that people will picture a scruffy faced, unkempt man, not a woman.  Women are equally as capable of committing crimes as their male counterparts are.

“As women became more liberated, they would have equal access to the kinds of crimes that men were already committing.”  (Women’s Review, 1997)  It is interesting that as we developed into an equal society, that women became involved in not just the jobs men worked, but also the routes of crime.

“There has been a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerations among women over the past three decades.”  (Ruiz, 2002)  The number of women incarcerated for a broad range of crimes has been steadily increasing over the years.  “In 1970, only 5,635 women were incarcerated in federal and state prisons.  By 1985, however, this number increased to 21,296, and was as high as 74,730 by the latter part of 1996.  Presently, there are over 90,000 women in U.S. prisons.”  (Ruiz, 2002)

More recently in 2002, there were 113 women in state or federal prisons and local jails per every 100,000 residents.  The total amount of women behind bars that year was 165,800; which when broken down was 68,800 Caucasian women, 65,600 African-American women and 25,400 Hispanic women.  (Banks, 2004)  A common misconception is that the minorities that are committing the most crimes.  The statistics prove that in the year 2002, more Caucasian women were serving behind bars than the minority groups of African-Americans and Hispanics.

“Female inmates largely resemble male inmates in terms of race, ethnic background, and age.  However, women are substantially more likely than men to be serving time for a drug offense and less likely to have been sentenced for a violent crime.  Nearly 6 in 10 female inmates grew up in a household with at least one parent absent, and about half reported that an immediate family member had also served time.  More than 4 in 10 reported prior physical or sexual abuse.”  (Dept. Justice, 1994)

Women are usually housed in different facilities than men, ranging from minimum to maximum security prisons.  The level of security they are placed in is decided upon after review of the offender, the charges they are convicted of and where they would most likely fit in best with the current prison population.

“Unpleasantness should be an essential part of what is intended.”  (Banks, 2004)  Prison must be a humane place, but not a place for free pleasures and relaxation.  When sentenced to a prison term that is short or with parole it is the job of the inmate to work on reforming themselves so that when they are granted parole they would live a righteous life and steer away from crime.  Inmates must comply to rehabilitate themselves or else the odds are against them; continuing a life of crime would most likely land them back in a courtroom and then behind bars for a longer sentence since they did not learn their lesson the first time around.

A women’s prison in California named the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) is the largest institution of its kind in the world.  Typically, these facilities consisted of different sections in order to separate prisoners of different criminal degrees from each other.  There is usually at least general population housing, security housing, Administrative Segregation and ultimately death row even though not all states carried out capital punishment.  (Banks, 2004)

Delinquency in the Juvenile Female Population

Current trends in female delinquency show that it is increasing in frequency and seriousness.  “While males are still very disproportionately represented in youth crime statistics, females now seem to be engaging in more frequent and more serious illegal behavior” (Carney, 2008).  Over a thirty-year period female delinquency rates have doubled, “In 1967, females accounted for 5% of violent crime arrests, and today they represent 10%” (Carney, 2008).

Girls become delinquent for different reasons than boys.  “Gender differences in cognition, socialization, and behavior may exist as early as infancy, when boys are able to express emotions at higher rates” (Siegel, 2006, p.174).  Even at the earliest stage of life, males and females differ in their development.  It is shown that “girls show greater control over their emotions, whereas boys are more easily angered” (Siegel, 2006, p.174).  It is almost as though boys act out without thinking and the girls think before acting.

According to Gisela Konopka’s theory, “male delinquents were portrayed as rebels who esteemed ‘toughness,’ ‘excitement,’ and other lower-class values” (Siegel, 2006, p.185).  Conversely, she believes that “female delinquency has its roots in feelings of uncertainty and loneliness” (Siegel, 2006, p.185).  Male delinquents will act out in order to be seen as tough or hard.  Female delinquents usually act out because of some for of abuse they have suffered.

Girls are much more sexualized in our society and fall victim to more sexual abuse than boys are.  Female delinquents “are likely to be in their early to mid teens; have a personal as well as a family history of drug and/or alcohol use; be sexually active, usually with multiple partners; have been physically and sexually abused; and sexually revictimized; and have problems in school” (Weisheit, 2000, p.78).  For males, being delinquent is sometimes an act to prove themselves to others whereas for girls it tends to be brought on by unfortunate experiences they have had to deal with at a young age.

“There are indications that gender differences in socialization and development do exist and that they may have an effect on juvenile offending patterns” (Siegel, 2006, p.174).  Males and females differ psychologically in the way their brains process information.  Young females “process information differently than males and have different cognitive and physical strengths.  These differences may, in part, explain gender differences in delinquency” (Siegel, 2006, p.195).

Additionally, “females are more left brain-oriented and males are more right-brain oriented” (Siegel, 2006, p.), which can account for differences in biological makeup.  Culturally in our society, “girls are socialized differently, which causes them to internalize rather than externalize anger and aggression” (Siegel, 2006, p.195), which is the opposite of what males do.

Understanding juvenile delinquency in females is crucial to understanding women and the criminal justice system.  Female criminals did not emerge out of thin air they too were once juveniles.  By addressing the issues with juvenile female delinquency, it is hopeful that a reduction in adult female crime could be seen.

Abuse Inside the Walls

A major area of corruption within female detention facilities is the incidence of abuse.  “Female inmates were more than three times as likely as incarcerated men to report having experienced physical or sexual abuse at some time prior to incarceration” (Ruiz, 2002).

“As we know, many more women are now being incarcerated.  You have more and more women in overcrowded conditions, with inadequate supervision, largely being overseen by male officers who are not well-trained.  In virtually every prison system that we investigated, male officers outnumber female officers by somewhere between two and three to one.  It is an accident waiting to happen.  You have a highly sexualized, very hostile environment, and it is creating a context in which all forms of sexual misconduct occur” (Women’s Review, July 1997).

The types of abuse women behind bars usually face are both physical and mental.  Most often, the abusers are in a position of authority.  “We heard about pervasive sexual harassment of women by male officers–from constant commentary on their bodies and propositioning them, to inappropriate touching, on to sexual contact between the officers and the prisoners, sometimes all the way to the level of rape and sexual assault” (Women’s Review, July 1997).

The stigma against prisoners sometimes makes them feel as though others believe they lack credibility.  This may lead a woman who is already ashamed and distraught about the abuse she has endured to become discouraged from reporting the incident or incidents.  Intimidation by their abuser could also scare them out of rightfully reporting what has happened to them.  There is no way to justify abusing any man or woman.

“Women in prison are really caught between a rock and a hard place.  If you are being subjected to sexual abuse, you do not have any way out of it, or, if you seek a way out of it, you are likely to be harassed and even penalized.  The system in fact is designed to keep the problem hidden.  There are no adequate complaint procedures or investigatory procedures.  There is very little, if any, independent oversight.  In that context, it is very dangerous for women to speak to outside investigators about what they’re experiencing, because they are potentially exposing themselves to retribution on the part of the prison authorities”  (Women’s Review, July 1997).

Pregnancy and Health Under Lock and Key

Female prison inmates can have a serious health related problems.  “Any number of health problems may accompany a woman to prison, including drug addiction, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases.  It is reported that rates of HIV among the female inmate population is much higher than that which is found in the general population” (Ruiz, 2002).

“One in four women is either pregnant or postpartum at the time of imprisonment” (Ruiz, 2002) Women who are pregnant at the time of their sentencing often find themselves in a difficult situation.  It is especially hard for those mothers-to-be who are facing long terms sentences and the realization that they may never see their child grow up.  These women have to deal with a constant worry that they may pick up one of the numerous diseases there and then pass it on to their child.

Visitations with newborn children as well as other children are very common in women’s facilities.  In one prison “Two-thirds of the women had at least one child younger than 18; altogether, they were mothers to more than 56,000 minor children.”  (Dept. Justice, 1994)

In addition to visitations with their mothers, the children had other forms of contact to utilize.  “An estimated 46% of women with minor children said they talked with those children on the phone at least once a week; 45% had contact by mail at least once a week; and 9% were visited by their children.”  (Dept. Justice, 1994)

When a woman leaves prison, a completely new hardship of custody begins.  “Women prisoners have to go through an incredible bureaucratic process in order to regain custody of their children, even from their own relatives, once they’re released.  They have to have a formal reunification plan.  Part of the reunification requirement is that they have to have contact with their children” (Women’s Review, 1997).

Controversial Issues

“Battered Woman Syndrome” is a real life condition that some women who commit crimes under the law suffer from.  It is believed in these situations that had the woman not suffered the abuse, she would not have committed the crime.  This is a hard pill to swallow for those who strictly believe in the saying “You do the crime, you do the time.”  In some extenuating circumstances, women who commit violent crimes will not be heavily sentenced as they were acting out of suppressed self-defense against their abuser or attacker.

“Police selectivity in enforcing laws may have the effect of discriminating against certain groups in society… police treatment of domestic violence cases has historically involved a pattern of noninterference by police based on the assumption that such violence was not a proper subject of crime control unless it involved injury that could be defined as felony assault.”  (Banks, 2004, p.45)  This attitude of the police was incredibly unethical.  It does not matter if it is not a felony; no one is legally allowed to be beat against his or her own will in our society.

“Thus, women who were battered by their partners received discriminatory treatment by police because whether or not action was taken against the batterer depended on whether the crime was considered a felony or misdemeanor.”  (Banks, 2004, p.45)  This issue is a contributing factor why some women are reluctant to report abuse; they feel as though the authorities do not care to know what goes on within their homes.

Chivalry and the notion that women are innocent and gentle in society often cloud the courtroom during trials of women.  Female defendants and their lawyers sometimes use this common defense tactic.  For instance, if the defendant is a mother of three small children the lawyer will try to promote her role as a mother.  Everyone has a mother and for the most part people have a fond feeling about mothers.  A woman’s role in society can have significant influence on how she is viewed.  While the court is sworn to uphold the law, it is difficult for some people to differentiate the fact that the woman is a mother and a criminal.

“Punishment is a sanction imposed for a criminal offense.”  (Banks, 2004)  In 1994, “Female inmates generally had not been sentenced to incarceration or probation as often as male inmates, and their record of past convictions was generally less violent than that of male inmates.  About 28% of the women reported no previous sentences to incarceration or probation, compared to 19% of the men.  Four in ten women had a history of violence, compared to more than 6 in 10 men.”  (Dept. of Justice, 1994)

–
Women are a permanent staple in the criminal justice system.  Society is still in an adjustment phase in developing the correct ethical treatment plan for these women.  The increase in women being incarcerated in the last few decades was something for which the government was not ready.  There is hope that in time women will be treated as human beings who have rights to not be mistreated and abused.  “Women in prison aren’t who people think they are.  When the public becomes aware of the real faces and stories of incarcerated women, they begin to develop an approach to public policy that addresses a broader range of issues.  That’s the only way we’ll ever get decent criminal justice or social justice legislation.”  (Jacobs, 1997)
Banks, C. (2004). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Inc., W. R. (1997). In the Lost World: Women in Prison Must Not Only Endure their Sentences but also the Complete Degradation of their Personhood. Women’s Review of Books .

Inc., W. R. (1997). Population Explosion. Women’s Review of Books .

Jacobs, A. (1997). More than Halfway: The Women’s Prison Association and Home Inc is an Organization that Assists Women Prisoners and Ex-prisoners in New York City and State. Women’s Review .

Justice, U. D. (1994, March). Retrieved April 11, 2008, from U.S. Department of Justice Website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wopris.txt

Nolan, T. (Spring 2008). MET CJ 701- Online Lecture Notes. Boston, MA, USA.

Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Ninth Edition. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Weisheit, R. A., & Culbertson, R. G. (2000). Juvenile Delinquency: A Justice Perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Habitual Felony Laws – Mass Incarceration

When implementing habitual felony laws that mandate sentencing and mass incarceration there are going to be implications. The “three-strikes legislation began in 1993 when an initiative was placed on the ballot in Washington State mandating the punishment of life imprisonment without parole for offenders convicted for a third time of specified violent or serious felonies”. (Banks, 2004) It has been argued that this legislation is ‘an unrealistic expectation and bad policy making.’ This is because it relies on the notion that offenders will be informed of the possible consequences of future crimes, ‘but also on a high probability of their arrest and conviction’. (Banks, 2004)  In order for this policy to work correctly offenders must be educated members of society who are capable of making ‘rational, calculating decisions… carefully weighing risks and making choices in an informed and measured manner’. (Banks, 2004) In a perfect society that may happen but in reality most offenders committed their acts with no respect for their victims. If they had respect and a straight head on their shoulders they might not have become an offender to begin with.

It is a challenging obstacle to determine if an offender is that much of a threat to society that they must be ‘permanently isolated from society’. There is no way to predict what future offenses an offender might commit. Science has come a long way in determining which offenders will ‘most likely’ offend again, but it cannot be set in stone. With the ‘three-strikes’ legislation there is a risk that someone could be put away for life who may have been reformed to not commit offenses again.

“Another criticism at the legislation is its reinforcement of the race bias in punishment by its concentration on street crimes and drug offenses.” (Banks, 2004) People of color are more likely to receive a third strike because of racial bias in the system. These laws demonstrate disproportionate sentencing by omitting white collar crimes and demonstrate “the strong and ugly strains of race, class, and ethnic bias that have produced these laws”. (Banks, 2004) Women, especially those of color are also more likely to face steeper sentences.

It has been shown that a number of states have dramatically increased their holding capacities in prisons by adding thousands of more beds. This is a strange phenomenon because it is almost as though they are expecting an influx of new inmates. “When incarceration becomes prevalent in a community, it loses its ‘mystery’, and thereby loses some of its deterring power.” (Lynch & Sabol, 2004) By the prisons increasing their capacity they are losing their mystique. Usually prison is seen as a place that you would not want to end up. High levels of incarceration in a community will lose its deterrent power because the population will be less intimidated.

Banks, C. (2004). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lynch, J.P.; Sabol, W.J.; Assessing the Affects of Mass Incarceration on Informal Social Control in Communities. HeinOnline — 3 Criminology & Pub. Pol’y 294 2003-2004

What is a Forensic Psychologist?

A forensic psychologist is one who applies psychology to law and criminal investigations. They practice psychology as a science in their evaluations of offenders, custody disputes, lawsuits, psychotherapy and more. Forensic psychologists typically hold a PhD in their field.

The role of the forensic psychologist is one that bridges the fields of law and psychology. When working in the criminal justice system the forensic psychologist faces many obstacles, the most difficult of these would be the ethical implications of the position. A major ethical implication one would face would be dealing with defendants who must be evaluated yet may be reluctant to do so. This would be difficult for the forensic psychologist because essentially the defendant has all the power because they possess the information needed for evaluation with no incentive to give it up. This is because the defendant has no control over information once it has been revealed; this information could later come back to haunt them at trial.

The forensic psychologist is a neutral entity as they can be acting as an expert witness for the defense or prosecution. When asked to whom does the forensic psychologist owe allegiance the answer should be all and none. These experts are there to serve the court, police, defendant, victims and the community all with equal allegiance. At the same time the forensic psychologist does not owe moral allegiance to any of these groups as they should save their sole allegiance for the science itself. It is the science within which a forensic psychologist develops their behavioral analysis of a defendant and develops theories pertaining to a suspect’s motivation to commit a particular act. The dangers lie in the fact that as humans, forensic psychologists are compassionate by nature and must be sure to maintain their professionalism as to not let their emotions dictate their findings.

Bartol, A. & Bartol, C. (2008). Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behavior (2nd ed.).California: Sage Publications, Inc.

How Does a Criminal Move Through the System?

(San Diego County District Attorney http://www.sdcda.org/office/criminal-justice-system.html)

Structure of the Criminal Justice System

In the United States our system for criminal justice is comprised of three basic parts: law enforcement, the court (judiciary) system, and the correctional system. Each of these systems play a crucial role.

Law enforcement is often the first point of contact for an offender’s entry into the system. Police officers on the local, state and federal level are the eyes and ears of the system. They make the arrest, gather evidence, conduct investigations and relay pertinent information to the prosecuting attorneys.

The court system in the United States follows the adversarial model. In this model both sides of the table are allowed to present their own version of the events for the judge and jury. However, one can only be declared guilty or not guilty based on the evidence and testimony provided. A defendant will not be declared innocent by the courts. The main players in this section are the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.

The correctional system is the end of the line for those convicted in the courts. This system is compromised of correctional officers, correctional facility personnel, and parole officers. Prisons are where the convicted are housed; jail is where the accused are housed. Probation, house arrest and capital punishment are also related to the correctional system.

 

Hello Criminal Justice World!

This blog was created to be a source of information pertaining to the field of criminal justice for students, those employed in the field and the public alike. Please check back soon for informative data on the different facets of the system.

Thank you for visiting…

–Noelle