|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study by Eisikovits and Baizerman was to provide a qualitative examination of how youth, given indeterminate sentences, did their time in either a juvenile facility or in an adult prison.
METHODOLOGY:
The researchers employed a non-experimental ethnographic study of a non-probability sample of all of the 43 youth who were given indeterminate sentences to either a juvenile facility or to an adult prison in a large midwestern state. A "violent youth" was defined as an individual who had committed at least one of the following crimes: homicide, manslaughter or attempted homicide; assault; armed robbery; or criminal sexual conduct or rape. Serious injury may or may not have been inflicted upon the victim, but the offender must have been under the age of 18 and under State Department of Corrections supervision at the time of the study. Data collection involved intensive, face-to-face interviews with the subjects over the four-month study period.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors found that for youth in the adult prison, most of their time was spent trying to survive from day to day. Survival involved becoming part of the inmate culture, by learning about the norms, language and people that were all part of the group. Information about what was happening inside the prison was considered a source of power; however, contact with outside sources, such as social workers, was looked upon as a violation of the inmate code. The youth had to come to terms not only with the authority of the correctional staff, but also with the authoritative hierarchy that existed amongst the inmates. They had to learn about the physical confines of space within the prison, and about the more abstract notion of bargaining space with other people. Youth had to find their own place, their own role within the inmate society, and had to learn to fit in with the others. This entailed competition on physical or intellectual levels, to gain power through sheer size or through being smart. To fit in, individuals had to stay within their own racial groups - there was no interracial socialization within the prison walls. The authors conclude that for youths to settle down within an adult prison, they must become violent youth. For individuals who had been sentenced to a juvenile facility, the concern with daily survival was not as prevalent. Life was not perceived as dangerous in this facility, and all offenders were about the same age. Committment offense was not used as an identifying factor - behavior within the facility was of primary concern, so youth concentrated upon being released as soon as possible. These efforts included learning how to respond to treatment, to appear as though change had taken place. By appearing to respond favorably to their treatment, individuals could shorten their indeterminate sentences. It was within the peer group that one's changed behavior was identified and assessed for validity - the better one could play the treatment game within the group, the fewer the external controls that were exercised to try to induce change. The authors suggested that youth in the juvenile facilities spent most of their time trying to make time short and determinate, and to achieve an early release. For those in the adult prison, life was concerned with physical survival to the point that the goal of release was often forgotten, and life consisted only of the present. For those in the juvenile facility, becoming more cynical and manipulating might have lowered the perceived likelihood of future capture so that they would be likely to recidivate. For the youth in the adult prison, violence had become a way of life, the individuals had become violent youth, and recidivism would be likely because the youth had little to lose. The authors concluded that both sets of youth were punished, but in different ways. Those in the adult prison learned that fear and power were important; youth in the juvenile facility learned that manipulation was of primary use. The mundane life in the institution prevented any treatment success, and turned the inmates into the very type of people that society did not want them to be. The authors finished with the observation that neither the adult prison nor the juvenile facility punished the youth well or was successful at treating them.
EVALUATION:
This paper represents an informative insight into the thoughts and feelings of the violent adolescent doing time in either a juvenile facility or in an adult prison. The small sample size precludes much generalization, but the qualitative nature of the study provides some in-depth and interesting findings. A section on the nature of the interviews would have been helpful, as would have a more thorough discussion of the implications of the findings for policy and treatment planning. The authors seemed to be have won the trust of the youth - it is a shame that they did not report further upon the inmates' thoughts and feelings about life within institution walls. The number of youths in the study needs to be clarified - at first we are told of 43 subjects, but only 36 are said to be in either facility. There is definitely a mistake somewhere here. Despite these limitations, the study provides an excellent basis for further research, whilst acting as an important stepping stone in the re-examination of policy in the area of the young offender. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Language: en |