How do Racial and Ethnic Disparities Emerge in the Use of Restrictive Housing for Prison Rule Violations?

Journal of Quantitative Criminology - Tập 39 - Trang 769-803 - 2022
John Wooldredge1, Joshua Cochran1
1School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA

Tóm tắt

In light of empirical findings suggesting no substantive main effects of an incarcerated person’s (IP’s) race or ethnicity on the odds of placement in restrictive housing (RH) for rule violations, we investigated whether these effects are dependent on offense severity and context, including characteristics of facilities that could theoretically increase stakeholder reliance on biased stereotypes and also prison staff members’ perceptions of danger and order in a facility. Multilevel analyses of race and ethnicity effects on RH decisions, both at the time of the incident (pre-trial) and after the rule infraction hearing, were conducted for all persons admitted to Ohio’s prisons between 2007 and 2016 and found guilty of prison rule violations (N1 = 81,673; N2 = 33). We found no significant main effects of an IP’s race or ethnicity on the odds of RH placement for rule infractions, either at the time of the incident or as punishment after a hearing, once the types of violations were controlled. Upon further investigation, we found that African American and Latinx IPs were more likely to receive RH for certain insubordination-related violations, which may invoke greater punitive discretion. Race effects were also stronger in prisons with tighter security, where officers generally relied less on IPs’ acknowledgements of their formal authority for rule enforcement, and in facilities for men. Variance in the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparities in the use of RH for rule violations makes sense across prison settings and, as opposed to general race and ethnicity effects, should guide our understanding of the sources of these disparities with the goal of reducing their impacts.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams K (1986) The disciplinary experiences of mentally disordered inmates. Crim Justice Behav 13:297–316 Arrigo B, Bullock J (2008) The psychological effects of solitary confinement on prisoners in supermax units. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 52:622–640 Berg M (2014) Accounting for racial disparities in the nature of violent victimization. J Quant Criminol 30:629–650 Bottoms A, Tankebe J (2012) Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J Crim Law Criminol 102:119–170 Butler H, Steiner B (2017) Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Q 34:248–271 Clemmer D (1940) The prison community. Christopher, Boston Cochran J (2014) Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. J Res Crime Delinq 51:200–229 Cochran J, Toman E, Mears D, Bales W (2017) Solitary confinement as punishment: examining in-prison sanctioning disparities. Justice Q 35:381–411 Crawford C, Chiricos T, Kleck G (1998) Race, racial threat, and sentencing of habitual offenders. Criminology 36:481–511 Crouch B (1985) The significance of minority status to discipline severity in prison. Sociol Focus 18:221–233 Demuth S (2003) Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: a comparison of Hispanic, black, and white felony arrestees. Criminology 41:873–907 Dobbie W, Goldin J, Yang C (2018) The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. Am Econ Rev 108:201–240 Drakulich K (2015) The hidden role of racial bias in support for policies related to inequality and crime. Punishment Soc 17:541–574 Farrell R, Holmes M (1993) The social and cognitive structure of legal decision making. Sociol Q 32:529–542 Flanagan T (1982) Discretion in the prison justice system: a study of sentencing in institutional disciplinary proceedings. J Res Crime Delinq 19:216–237 Fox J (2016) Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage, New York Haney C (2009) The social psychology of isolation: why solitary confinement is psychologically harmful. Prison Service J 181:12–20 Hepburn J (1985) The exercise of power in coercive organizations: a study of prison guards. Criminology 23:145–164 Howard C, Winfree L, Mays G, Stohr M, Clason D (1994) Processing inmate disciplinary infractions in a federal correctional institution: legal and extralegal correlates of prison-based legal decisions. Prison J 74:5–31 Hox J (2010) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York Institute of Behavioral Research (2007) Texas christian university drug screen II. Texas Christian University, Institute of Behavioral Research, Fort Worth Johnson B (2006) The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: integrating judge and county level influences in the study of courtroom decision making. Criminology 44:259–298 Kalven H Jr, Zeisel H (1966) The American jury. Little, Brown, Boston Karlson K, Holm A, Breen R (2012) Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit: a new method. Sociol Methodol 42:286–313 Kramer J, Ulmer J (2002) Downward departures for serious violent offenders: local court ‘corrections’ to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology 40:897–932 Kutateladze B, Andiloro N, Johnson B, Spohn C (2014) Cumulative disadvantage: examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology 52:514–551 Liebling A (2004) Prisons and their moral performance: a study of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford University Press, New York, NY Lindquist C (1980) Prison discipline and the female offender. J Offender Couns Serv Rehabil 4:305–318 Logan M, Dulisse B, Peterson S, Morgan M, Olma T, Paré P (2017) Correctional shorthands: focal concerns and the decision to administer solitary confinement. J Crim Just 52:90–100 Long J, Wooldredge J, Cochran J, Anderson C (2019) Collateral impacts of a restrictive housing stay. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA Mears D (2012) The prison experience: introduction to the special issue. J Crim Just 40:345–347 Mears D, Bales W (2010) Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time to reentry. J Crim Just 38:545–554 Mears D, Reisig M (2006) The theory and practice of supermax prisons. Punishment Soc 8:33–57 Morris R (2016) Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. J Quant Criminol 32:1–22 Myers M, Talarico S (1987) The social contexts of criminal sentencing. Springer-Verlag, New York O’Keefe M (2008) Administrative segregation from within: A corrections perspective. The Prison J 88:123–143 Schafer N (1986) Discretion, due process, and the prison discipline committee. Crim Justice Rev 112:37–46 Skarbek D (2014) The social order of the underworld. Oxford University Press, New York Smith P (2008) The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime Justice 34:441–528 Spohn C (2006) How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Sage, New York Spohn C, DeLone M (2000) When does race matter? An analysis of the conditions under which race affects sentence severity. Sociol Crime Law Deviance 2:3–37 Spohn C, Spears J (2000) Sentencing of drug offenders in three cities: Does race/ethnicity make a difference? In Crime control and social justice: A delicate balance, edited by Hawkins D, Myers Jr S, and Stone R. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J, Kramer J (1998) The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36:763–798 Steiner B, Cain C (2016) The relationship between inmate misconduct, institutional violence, and administrative segregation: a systematic review of the evidence. In Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions. National Institute of Justice, Washington, pp 165–97 Steiner B, Wooldredge J (2020) Understanding and reducing prison violence. Taylor and Francis, New York Wildeman C, Fitzpatrick M, Goldman A (2018) Conditions of confinement in American prisons and jails. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 14:29–47 Wooldredge J, Steiner B (2016a) Assessing the need for gender-specific explanations of prisoner victimization. Justice Q 33:209–238 Wooldredge J, Steiner B (2016b) The exercise of power in prison organizations and implications for legitimacy. J Crim Law Criminol 106:125–166 Wright E, Salisbury E, VanVoorhis P, Bauman A (2012) Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: a review. Crim Justice Behav 39:1612–1632