Examining the functions of prison critical incidents: a preliminary qualitative analysis of public reporting
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-12-2017-0040 |
| Pages | 101-110 |
| Published date | 11 June 2018 |
| Date | 11 June 2018 |
| Author | Cameron Hughes,Jane L. Ireland,Carol A. Ireland |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Examining the functions of prison critical
incidents: a preliminary qualitative
analysis of public reporting
Cameron Hughes, Jane L. Ireland and Carol A. Ireland
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the function of crisis incidents in prisons within the UK and
USA. The incidents reviewed included riots and hostage incidents, focusing only on information that was
available publically. It did not intend to capture official reports not in the public domain.
Design/methodology/approach –Publically available information on incidents were systematically
reviewed. Functional assessment and grounded theory were employed to examine background factors,
triggers and maintaining factors. In total, 25 crisis incidents were analysed (UK ¼10 and USA ¼15) from the
past 30 years. It was predicted that crisis incidents would be motivated by negative and positive
reinforcement, with negative more evidenced than positive. Precipitating factors (i.e. triggers) were predicted
to include negative emotions, such as frustration and anger.
Findings –Similarities in triggers and background factors were noted between hostage taking and riot
incidents. Positive reinforcement was primarily indicated. Riots appeared driven by a need to communicate,
to secure power, rights, control and/or freedom, whereas for hostage taking these functions extended to
capture the removal of negative emotions, to inflict pain, to punish/gain revenge, to effect a release, to
manage boredom and to promote positive emotions.
Research limitations/implications –The study is preliminary and focused on the reporting of incidents in
publically available sources; consequently, the data are secondary in nature and further limited by sample
size. Nevertheless, it highlights evidence for similarities between types of crisis incidents but also some
important potential differences. The need to understand the protective factors preventing incidents and
minimising harm during incidents is recommended.
Practical implications –It highlights evidence for similarities between types of critical incidents but also
some important potential differences. Understanding differences between incidents is important in the
tailoring of specific policies to address these areas. Understanding motivation and reinforcement is valuable
in working towards the prevention of critical incidents. Understanding the protective factors preventing
incidents and minimising harm during incidents is recommended.
Originality/value –This is an under-researched area. The study contributes to the field not only by focusing
on providing a detailed analysis of an under-used source (public reporting) but by also identifying where gaps
in research remain. The results demonstrate the value in understanding incidents through their motivation,
particularly in distinguishing between negative and positive reinforcement.
Keywords Critical incidents, Riots, Hostage taking, Prison aggression, Public reporting, SORC
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Crisis incidents in secure settings include riots, rooftop protests, barricades and hostage taking,
thought usually triggered by a non-rational, over-emotional state (Vecchi et al., 2005). During
such a state, individuals feel unable to resolve their crisis, resulting in them using extreme
problem-solving methods (Ireland et al., 2015; Hatcher et al., 1998; McMains, 1993). However,
our understanding as to why these incidents occur remains limited, particularly regarding the
functions they serve (Cooke et al., 1990; Ireland et al., 2015), including the role of the
environment (Boin and Rattray, 2004). This is a product of limited research.
Received 17 December 2017
Revised 16 February 2018
Accepted 19 February 2018
Cameron Hughes is based at
the School of Psychology,
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Jane L. Ireland and Carol A.
Ireland both based at the
School of Psychology, the
Ashworth Research Centre,
Mersey Care NHS Trust,
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-12-2017-0040 VOL. 4 NO. 2 2018, pp.101-110, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
PAGE101
To continue reading
Request your trial