From Procedural Justice to Procedural Injustice: Understanding Prison Staff and Inmate Conflict
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12285 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12285
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 537–555
From Procedural Justice to
Procedural Injustice: Understanding
Prison Staff and Inmate Conflict
REBECCA TRAMMELL, ANTHONY ROGER COOK,
MARIA VICTORIA DELEON MARQUEZ, PAUL HINKLE,
LUCY MARIE PROTZE and NATHALY RODRIGUEZ
Rebecca Trammell is Interim Associate Dean, Metropolitan State University of
Denver; Anthony Roger Cook is a Police Officer, City of Sheridan; Maria
Victoria Deleon Marquez is a self-employed contract interpreter; Paul Hinkle is
Owner, Dreamscape Piercing and Tattoo; Lucy Marie Protze is a 6th Grade
ELA Teacher, Gateway Elementary School; Nathaly Rodriguez is a student,
Metropolitan State University of Denver, USA
Abstract: This article focuses on the idea of procedural justice in prison. Prison employees
in our case study explain that using respectful language improves their interactions with
the inmates. However, some interviewees describe harsh language and threats used against
the inmates. Weidentify this as procedural injustice where they force the inmates to comply
by threatening them with harsh punishment. The choice to use respectful behaviour is
dependent on whether or not inmates question their authority. Training needs to focus
on helping prison workers present themselves as legitimate authority figures rather than
authoritarians.
Keywords: prison employees; prison violence; procedural justice; respect
For this article, we examine the use of ‘procedural justice’ in prison. To
do this, we use in-depth interviews with prison employees (n =43) to ex-
amine how they describe interactions with inmates. Specifically, we focus
on respectful behaviour, a key component of procedural justice, as a way
to increase compliance (Tyler 2006). The use of procedural justice is tied
to prosocial behaviour as people come to identify with those in power,
‘because they are interested in securing compliance with the law, legal au-
thorities want to establish and maintain conditions that lead the public
generally to accept their decisions and policies’ (Tyler 2006, p.19). Con-
versely, those using procedurally unjust procedures (Engle 2005; McLean
and Wolfe 2016; Slocum, Wiley and Esbensen 2016) use disrespectful lan-
guage and make demands in order to force others to comply.
537
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 537–555
In theory, those who can effectively communicate these ideas with peo-
ple in a subordinated position are less likely to receive complaints or other
types of blowback against their decisions. For those working in prison, it
would seem obvious that this kind of communication could make their job
easier.Therefore, our research questions are: Do prison staff members use
the basic principles of procedural justice by showing inmates respect? If
not, why do they choose to disrespect inmates?
Specifically, we allow prison staff members to contextualise their inter-
actions with inmates to explore how the use of procedurally just techniques
(respectful language, fair enforcement of the rules, etc.) are used, or not
used. Those in our case study argue that it is very important to explain
their position in a calm manner.While they do not use the term ‘procedural
justice’, they carefully describe the benefits of positive social interactions.
However, once inmates question their authority or refuse an order, they
believe that this gives them permission to pull rank and make demands.
Our findings focus on what triggers an authority figure to use disrespectful
behaviours to control an inmate population. This broadens the literature
on procedural justice by showing the conditions under which prison em-
ployees disrespect the inmates. While it is important to understand the
outcomes of unjust behaviours, it is beneficial to understand what triggers
this type of interaction.
We argue that this highlights a key difference between the correctional
staff member and police officers or judges. They work in a closed en-
vironment where their behaviours are less scrutinised. Correctional staff
members are allowed to punish prisoners with little or no due process
(Reiter 2016). Inmates can file complaints, but they do not have members
of the public, lawyers, or judges evaluating their situation. This gives them
more latitude regarding how to enforce the rules.
More importantly,it allows them to shorten interactions with the inmates
and demand compliance. We call this, ‘procedural injustice’ as outlined in
the literature on policing tactics (Engle 2005; McLean and Wolfe 2016;
Slocum, Wiley and Esbensen 2016). Disrespectful behaviours present au-
thority figures as authoritarians who do not need to explain themselves
(Slocum, Wiley and Esbensen 2016). As others show: ‘the empirical evi-
dence reveals that individual perceptions of procedural injustice are asso-
ciated with higher levels of criminal offending’ (McLean and Wolfe 2016,
p.38). In sum, those using appropriate communication skills are less likely
to face criticisms or harsh responses to their actions.
As defined by Liebling (Liebling assisted by Arnold 2004), respect refers
to: ‘an attitude of consideration; to pay proper attention to and not violate.
Regard for the inherent dignity and value of the human person’ (p.212).
There is evidence that inmate violence is an outcome of disrespectful be-
haviour (Butler and Maruna 2009). Disrespectful behaviour is especially
problematic, since the lives of inmates are filled with reminders that they
are devalued and unwanted (Butler and Drake 2007). Respect is also a
key component of procedural justice (Tyler 2006) so, we focus on proce-
dural justice in general, and respect in particular,for this article. Although
inmate-on-staff assaults are much less frequent than inmate-on-inmate
538
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial