LIFE IN PRISON Female Inmates’ Adaptation and/or Subscription to Inmate Code (prisionization)

PRISIONIZATION: “the taking on, in greater or lesser degree, of the folkways, mores, customs and general culture of the penitentiary.” – Donald Clemmer

The Invisible Criminal Historical implications  Gender was secondary Imprisonment followed male guidelines Different type of care than male convicts  Imprisoned and then forgotten  No programs No medical attention No supervision Few opportunities to work  Today there is more parity in policy but is there equality?

PRISON CULTURE Subjugation Institutionally paternalistic Systematically repressive/arbitrary Symbolizes oppressive authority Intensifies powerlessness Strips away identity Dysfunctional environment

PAINS OF IMPRISONMENT Separation from family Freedom of choice and activity limited Apprehension Stigma Lack of experience Ward & Kassebaum, 1964

FOUR RESPONSES TO PAINS OF IMPRISIONMENT DEATH INSTITUTIONALIZATION SELF-MUTILATION MADNESS

INSTITUTION EFFECTS Below quality of men’s prisons Provide fewer programs/reinforce traditional roles Less access to lawyers & outside contacts Unspecialized prison More severe impact Experience two emotions  Surprise  Fear Look to staff  Information  Material goods

INSTITUTION EFFECTS (cont) Inmate Code  Not as salient for females as for male prisoners Reaction to deprivation Identity as women Internalization of delinquent subcultures  Importation vs. deprivation: direct effect on subscription to code Importation: criminal history and personal characteristics Deprivation: situational or prison-specific variables  Low subscription  End of term ???  1 st arrest after age 25  High subscription  Middle of sentence ???  Younger and urban inmates  Prior imprisonments  More serious convictions (verbally)  Married  Short-timers/early phase  End of term???

INSTITUTION EFFECTS (cont) Also…  Low subscription indicated by little role playing  Merchants  Politicians  Gorilla  Reflects male needs for status, independence, and masculine self-image  Less predatory inmate population More like medium security men’s prison Less tense Less violent  Subculture: Men vs Women Men’s exist to protect from each other Neutralize rejection Emotional support

Gender Women experience incarceration differently  Likely to be rule-breakers  Gender-based frameworks  Less social capital  Subverts mother-child bond  Do not maintain group solidarity Informing on others characteristic Not relevant for women  Roles differentiated along sexual lines  Emotional/ manipulative coping strategies Dramatically different from men’s Perpetuate gender stereotypes inside Engage in self-aggression  Suicide  Self-mutilation Seen as less respectful to authority  Willing to argue  Written up twice as much as men  For less serious infraction

OTHER OBSERVATIONS Jenson and Jones  Examines prisonization during 1970s Studies career phase No issue of overcrowing addressed Did not consider “other” impact of “public institutions”  Social services experiences  Foster care  Welfare recipients  Continue to use male oriented questions Women’s need’s not considered

McCorkel’s article suggests  View of women prisoners have changed Redefining of dependency Marriage of welfare and criminal justice policies- maybe more to come Reform efforts replaced with punishment  Different internal and external pressure for change Solution to overcrowding Replace penal paternalism  Made prisonlike  Treat women like men – masculine  More punitive

CONCLUSION Inmates tend to undergo some degree of prisonization irrespective of race, education, urban-nonurban status, prior prison experience, legal status and offense. (Jensen & Jones, 1976) However, the deceptive nature of women’s prisons… while subtle, is stronger than in men’s institutions. (Chapter 1, p.20)