Violence: The Prison Experience

The prison experience has traditionally been explained through the notion of ‘hierarchy’, that there exists some form of ranking system within the prison. This is demonstrated with the well-known tensions between prisoners and prison officials, and sometimes between the prisoners themselves. For example, prison authorities use violence towards prisoners as a method to demonstrate power, to detain, and prevent and deter the furtherance of violence. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Prison Project and the South California ACLU (2011) details a story in their report where a deputy slammed the face of an inmate against the wall because it was alleged that the prisoner had called them “gay”. The same report also dictates prisoner-on-prisoner

Violence is a normalised and inherent within prisons due to the prison culture. However, rather than seeing violence being the result of a psychopathic prisoner gone rouge, violence can be explained through the masculine culture that is just ‘there’, the idea of being a ‘man’. The application of masculinity varies between different prisons. In an adult, male, long-term prison, violence is more arguably more prominent between each other. While there is a natural hierarchy in these prisons (i.e. professional criminals at one end of the spectrum and child sex offender at the other), this hierarchy is attributable to the masculinity of the crime. What is meant by this is that prisoners who commit masculine crime such as violent assaults present a ‘hard-man image’ will sit on top, whilst sex offenders are cursed to suffer brutal treatment by others (Scraton et all. 1991: 66). It is almost ironic how in the wider community violence is condemn, but prison culture condones it and views it as masculine. Robert Dumond (1992) also observed this irony in American prisoners where the term ‘fag’, ‘kid’, and ‘daddy’ is consistently used within a masculine setting. In contrast, a youth detention centre comprising of younger offenders, violence is arguably more likely perpetrated by authority to break down their spirits. If a prisoner uses violence, they will ‘get it

It often explained and commonly believe it is because of prisoners being ‘violent’ ‘mindless’ or ‘hysterical’ (Scarton, Sim & Skidmore 1991). Again, the hierarchy of credibility comes into play as we are more likely to believe claims of government officials as opposed to prisoners. Prisoner accounts have demonstrated that it not always the case, which conflicts with official claims. Reasons for resistance and riots is a result of prisoners wanting better living conditions, essentially asking for better human rights. Forms of resistance include being self-protective, campaigning, escaping, striking and confronting prison officials (Cohen & Taylor 1977). One example of prisoner resistance is the Northern Ireland campaign for political status (1976 – 1982). It went on for six years. It began with prisoners refusing to wear clothes and instead wear prison blanks, ‘the blanket protest.’ Later, after poor treatment from prison officials, prisoners refused to wash and smeared their faeces on their walls, the ‘dirty strike’. From this, a hunger strike and as the years went on, accumulated with a series of death. As a result, the prisoners revealed the harsh conditions of the prison environment and sparked the need for prison