The prisoner’s dilemma: How male prisoners experience and respond to penal threat while incarcerated
| Author | Rosemary Ricciardelli,Katharina H Maier |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474518757091 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Punishment & Society
The prisoner’s dilemma:
2019, Vol. 21(2) 231–250
! The Author(s) 2018
How male prisoners
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474518757091
experience and respond
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
to penal threat while
incarcerated
Katharina H Maier
University of Toronto, Canada
Rosemary Ricciardelli
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Abstract
Drawing on interview data with 56 former prisoners in Canada, we examine how male
prisoners understand, experience, and respond to threat while incarcerated. We show
that prisoners face a variety of different and often competing threats, resulting from
prisoner interactions (e.g. threat of physical violence for being a “snitch”) on the one
side, and institutional powers and procedures on the other side (e.g. threat of delayed
release from prison). These threats are competing insofar as countering a prisoner
threat opens the door to threat on the institutional level (i.e. administrative uncertain-
ties) and vice versa. As a consequence, we show how feeling threatened for prisoners
becomes paramount and in many cases unavoidable as the different threats in prison are
difficult, if not impossible, to handle in unison. However, in an effort to stay physically
safe and work toward their release, prisoners must find viable strategies to navigate
different prison environments, particularly as they move between prisons of differing
security classifications. We draw on Giddens’ notion of “ontological insecurity” to draw
attention to prisoners’ feelings of perpetual vulnerability and insecurity. In addition,
we build on Luhmann’s conceptualization of risk and danger to explain how male
prisoners experience and respond to moments of “danger” when they are faced
with competing threats and must decide how to best navigate them.
Corresponding author:
Katharina H Maier, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, 14 Queen’s Park
Crescent West, Toronto, ON M5S3K9, Canada.
Email: katharina.maier@mail.utoronto.ca
232
Punishment & Society 21(2)
Keywords
prison, risk strategies, safety, security, threat
Introduction
Prison constitutes a high risk, low safety environment (Bottoms, 1999; Bowker,
1980; Crewe, 2011; Jewkes, 2005; Toch, 1977), where threat can be physical, psy-
chological (e.g. emotional, verbal), or administrative in form, impacting prisoners’
wellbeing and thus their parole eligibility. Researchers have long unveiled the
‘pains’ of incarceration (Irwin and Cressey, 1961; Sykes, 1958); select others
have examined the ways prisoners first adapt to the deprivations of incarceration
and then seek to create some semblance of safety while incarcerated
(e.g. McCorkle, 1992; Ricciardelli, 2014a). De Viggiani (2012: 277), in his ethno-
graphic research with male prisoners, argued that prisoners adopt a range of
“fronts” in an effort to fit into the prison community and avoid exploitation;
such “fronts” include engaging in public banter, projecting a tough persona, and
working on a muscular self. He also noted that prisoners may withdraw from their
peers and opt to spend their time alone in their cell as a way to avoid exploitation.
McCorkle (1992: 164–166) similarly found that prisoners, in an effort to reduce
their risk of violence, engage in two broad styles of protection, namely “keeping to
themselves” and “getting tough” (see also Bottoms, 1999). In this article, we aim to
augment this small body of work by asking two new questions, notably: (i) How
does the prison environment affect prisoners’ strategies of protection, or how do
prisoners’ strategies of protection shift between prisons of different security clas-
sifications? (ii) What resources do prisoners’ draw on when assessing and deliber-
ating how to “best” stay safe in prison?
Analyzing data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with former male
federal prisoners released into an urban center in Ontario, Canada, we approach
these questions by focusing on discussions of threats present in higher-security
versus lower-security prisons. We distinguish between two kinds of threats: (i)
prisoner threats, referring to threats that result from prisoner interactions, such
as the threat of physical violence for being a “snitch” and (ii) administrative uncer-
tainties, referring to institutional powers and procedures that can pose a threat to a
prisoners’ legal future, such as the threat of a delayed release from prison. While
extant research has focused largely on prisoners’ responses to what we term prison-
ers threats (e.g. McCorkle, 1992), we demonstrate, more concretely, the ways
prisoners must handle both, threats that derive from other prisoners and those
that derive from the demands of the prison institution. We emphasize that instead
of disappearing or fading, perceived threat takes new forms in institutions of dif-
ferent security classifications and culture. We build on Giddens’ (1991) notion of
“ontological insecurity” to demonstrate how for incarcerated men, feeling threat-
ened becomes paramount and in many cases unavoidable as the different prisoner
Maier and Ricciardelli
233
and administrative threats in prison remain difficult, if not impossible, to handle in
unison. Using ex-prisoners’ narratives, specifically releasees who, at the time of
interview, were under the supervision of Correctional Service Canada (CSC),
we illuminate what we refer to, –building on Niklas Luhmann’s (1993) conception
of risk–, as moments of “danger.” Said moments are situations when prisoner
threats and administrative threats meet, and prisoners must decide how to best
navigate the particular risk situation. In this context, we examine how male prison-
ers rethink and modify their strategies of protection and “safekeeping” (Stanko,
1997) as they move between prisons of different security classifications. We reveal
the relative nature of penal threat, demonstrating how some threats may be pri-
oritized because they are defined by the individual as more pressing (e.g. Rhodes,
1977). We argue that male prisoners must constantly counteract perceived threat
by adjusting their behaviors in response to the various, often competing, threats
they encounter.
“Prisoner codes”, safety, and victimization
The “prisoner code” denotes informal rules and guidelines that prescribe certain
behaviors (e.g. staying true to your word), while prohibiting or discouraging others
(e.g. supporting prison staff) (Sykes, 1958; Trammell, 2009a; Ricciardelli, 2014b).
Internationally, “prisoner codes” that serve to govern prison living are docu-
mented in correctional institutions in the United States (e.g. Trammell, 2009a),
Britain (e.g. Crewe, 2009; Jewkes, 2005), Nigeria (Onojeharho and Bloom, 1986),
Israel (Einat and Einat, 2000), and India (Bandyopadhyay, 2006), among others.
Canadian prisons are not an exception. Ricciardelli (2014b), in her study of fed-
erally incarcerated Canadian men, outlines five central tenants of the “inmate
code.” Her interviewees placed an emphasis on being dependable, self-focused,
and fearless (at least in self-presentation) to survive in prison, as well as to mind
their own affairs, adhere to rules of etiquette and hygiene, and to refrain from
talking to staff. Researchers have shown that while compliance with the “prisoner
code” may gain the solidarity of one’s peers, its violations merit exclusion from the
prisoner community and an increased potential for prisoner interpersonal victim-
ization (e.g. Tew et al., 2015). The “prisoner code” itself in many cases constitutes a
threat to prisoners’ sense of safety (Ricciardelli, 2014b), particularly if the informal
rules guiding prison living stand in opposition to the prison’s official rules and
procedures, and prisoners find themselves in a position where complying with both
types of rules or guidelines (i.e. “prisoner codes” versus official rules) may seem
almost impossible.
In his essay on interpersonal violence in prison, Bottoms (1999: 269) points out
an important contradiction between the “pervasiveness of the rule of force”
demanded by the “code” among prisoners and research findings that suggest
prisoners feel relatively safe despite the “code’s” dominance—with its engrained
potential for victimization. Bottoms (1999: 269) uses the term “safety paradox” to
draw attention to the contradiction between studies of prisoners’ feelings of safety
234
Punishment & Society 21(2)
and other accounts of prison life “that paint a picture of inmate society very close
to Hobbes’s nightmarish vision.” Scholars have largely relied on quantitative
measures, either self-reported or as documented in institutional statistics, to
explain prisoners’ feelings of safety or specific experiences of victimization (e.g.
Hemmens and Marquart, 1999; Kellar and Wang, 2005; Wolff et al., 2007; Wolff
and Shi, 2011). For example, Wolff and Shi (2009) examined how at risk male
prisoners felt of different types of victimization (physical, sexual, or property
theft). The majority of their sample had not experienced recent victimization in
prison and as a consequence, the authors conclude, felt safe. Prisoners who felt the
least safe had experienced recent victimization, leading Wolff and Shi (2009: 812)
to conclude that feeling insecure is positively correlated with prisoners’ actual
experiences of victimization and that “prisons are differentially safe from the
inmate perspective” (see also Camp, 1999).
Existing studies of prisoners’ feelings of safety also highlight the relative nature
of prison threat (e.g. McCorkle, 1992)....
To continue reading
Request your trial