Corruption between inmates and correction officers - Term Paper Example

Corruption between Inmates and Correction Officers The occurrence of corruption between inmates and correctional officers has been around for a long time. However, it is only recently that it has gotten attention given the ravaging effects it has on both the inmates and the prison officers. It is hard to account for correctional system corruption; hence, no one actually knows its magnitude, that is, if it has increased or decreased over time. In the case of reduction, one may ponder if the decrease in corruption can be attributed to anti-corruption measures. Interestingly, there is no formal definition of correctional corruption. However, the penal codes define corrupt acts to be: acceptance of honorarium, bribery, accepting sexual favors and improper influence; but, they do not authoritatively describe what constitutes corrupt. Corruption is always evident as an abuse of power, whereby individuals presume that the use of power leads to the achievement of a purpose other than what it granted. In correctional facilities, there are instances of promotion or hiring of a less qualified staff based on their relation with the supervisor. Some of the inmates may receive preferential treatment from the security personnel on the grounds that they serve as house trustees. A group of inmates may be denied their civil rights or privileges because of their faith or religion (Souryal, 28). On the other hand, use of oppression is also a form of corruption that is evident in correctional facilities. A warden may pile up charges on an inmate or an officer, which they did not commit, because of ethnicity or race. In some instances, officers and inmates may experience physical abuses, which are permitted by others, due to their different lifestyles. In the prison context, there are three metrics which generally define corruption, that is, Acts of Misfeasance, Acts of Malfeasance and Acts of Nonfeasance. Acts of misfeasance are the illicit acts, which the correction officers are supposed to undertake, nonetheless, they willingly contravene for personal gain. These acts are more often than not committed by high-ranking officers in the correctional hierarchy or by outsiders, who are linked to the prison facility through professional or political appointment. Generally, acts of malfeasance are committed by prison officers at the middle or lower management levels. These acts involve acts of misconduct or criminal acts, which the officers intentionally commit in violation of agency rules and regulations and/or state laws (Souryal 29). Acts that are in this category are trafficking of contraband, embezzlement, extortion, official oppression and the exploitation of inmates or their families for goods, money or services. Lastly, acts of nonfeasance involve avoidance or omission knowingly committed by prison officers who are responsible for undertaking such acts. These acts are common in the correctional facility despite an officer’s rank. There are two types of nonfeasance: an officer ignoring a prisoner’s violations of the institutional laws and the failure to report other officers of misconduct as a repayment of an earlier favor or personal loyalty. Additionally, there are other metrics that can be used to measure corruption in correctional facilities, which are drawn from the Path-Driven Taxonomy of Corruption Metrics. It is composed of four metrics, which are: Political-Economic-Social (PES) metrics; Public Administration (PA) metrics; Citizen Engagement (CE) metrics and Cultural (CU) metrics. In the correctional facilities context, the PES metrics will examine the general conditions and draw a parallel between situations or events, which make the occurrence of corruption to be very high in the prevention stage. In addition, it will also measure the existence or insight of existence of corruption in the correctional facilities; its different units and partners in the detection stage of corruption. Furthermore, the metrics will also focus on the perceived or existent actions to fight corruption by the correctional agency and its various units, which include anticorruption institutions and oversight and monitoring bodies at the control stage. The PA metrics will measure the extent and existence of corruption among the prison officials and the inmates, particularly with respect to the interactions between the correctional officers and the inmates. The metrics of the PA Legal-Institutional sub-category assess the information, accountability and transparency rules, laws and regulations, which are present in the prevention stage. At the control stage, this metric evaluates the regulations, laws and rules of the corruption oversight, monitoring and anticorruption entities. On the other hand, the PA administrative-organizational metrics evaluate the bureaucratic quality, effectiveness and existence of coordination techniques in the prevention stage (Blind 29). The CE metrics will assess the confidence and freedom that inmates and the officers possess in reporting corruption. It also measures the access of both the prison officers and the inmates to the relevant anticorruption bodies that are present in the correctional facility. Generally, CE metrics assess an individual access to information rather than their participation in detection, prevention and control of corruption (Blind 30). Lastly, the CU metrics concentrate on the occurrence and ratings of customer-oriented service, tolerance of corruption and trust in the society. Incarceration that is, being in prison denies an individual access to things that he or she was accustomed to when they were free. This means that inmates would want to continue using the products or services, which are not present in prison and this is what fuels corruption. Inmates desire contraband goods, such as, alcohol, cigarettes and cell phones and narcotics, which have to be smuggled into the prison facility by the inmates’ gangs or families or prison officers. This is the main cause of corruption within the correctional facilities worldwide. Worldwide, there is presence of corruption in prisons, whereby either the inmates or the correction officers propagate its existence. Corruption in the prison system is not dependant on the Corruption index of the country (Cockcroft 23). This implies that countries with a higher corruption index still experience the issue of corruption in their correctional facilities. In the United States, corruption between the inmates and prisoners spans a wider web, which also includes gangs that are outside the prison. A gang member who is in prison may coordinate the activities of his or her gang with the full knowledge of the correction officials, who are bribed to overlook the act. In the case of private prisons, the private contractor may liaise with judges to give petty offenders longer sentences in order for the prison to operate at full capacity. In the same private prisons, there is a high increase in the number of violations by the inmates, which are written up by the prison officers. This is aimed at finding other offenses that would attract lengthy sentences. Hence, the corruption in prisons in the United States has grown to a level higher than in other countries. Prison officers work in an environment that is not under public scrutiny, since these work environments are closed to the public. Consequently, it becomes easier to commit acts of corruption and suppress the evidence that is linked to those acts. Moreover, the pay salary of correctional officers is continually low, especially for the officers at the lower ranks (Souryal 38). This acts as an incentive for the correctional officers to engage in corrupt dealings, which may be too alluring for them to ignore. In the course of time, the correction officers may become financially dependent on the monies obtained from the contraband trade. For instance, a tobacco cigarette is sold at $5 in American prisons. A prison officer working 25 days a month may make up to $ 2,500 if he or she sells one packet of cigarettes per day. It has been argued that the correctional personnel are different from other public agencies personnel; thus, their corruption is also different. This is primarily due to the uniqueness of their work environment and functions and the oddity of their social relationships with other co-workers and the inmates. Criminal justice institutions appear to have accepted prison corruption as secondary to their institutional uniqueness. Therefore, correctional institutions have basically been left alone without the incidence of implying the corruption guilty on anyone. This has become a norm to a point that correctional facilities have always objected the monitoring of activities within their systems. The effects of prisonization cause both the correction officers and the inmates to acclimatize to conspiratorial-survivalist set of standards and behavioral expectations, which are dictated by the extremely structured nature of the prison setting. In turn, both the inmates and the officers may react erratically; are easily disturbed; are likely to exaggerate issues and are less inclined to employ balanced thinking. These conditions are aggravated whenever the correctional officers are threatened by an external law enforcement agency investigation, and they have to pacify their overseers or face scandalous acts, which will tarnish their reputation. As a result, the prison officials regress into a survivalist mode, which indulges them in covering violations, cheating, cooking up of books and fabricating of evidence. This results in the alteration of the truth about a situation or an event, which would otherwise find the institution or leadership culpable. Consequently, it becomes futile for another law enforcement agency to monitor the correctional agency, which will go to all lengths to cover up its activities. This clearly shows that the prison officials may justify their actions against an inmate even in cases where the inmate was right. In the correctional system’s view, the prisoner is always wrong whereas the officer is right, regardless of the situation or the event. Corruption between prison officers and inmates is beneficial to both of them; however, the prison warden benefits the most. There are instances in which an inmate may violate the institutional rules, such as, possession of narcotics and contraband goods in the prison facility. Under normal circumstances, this inmate has to be punished by the correctional officer. Conversely, the inmate will offer the officer a bride to escape the punishment. The officer having knowledge of the inmate’s illicit activities will constantly harsh or intimidate the inmate, who will, in turn, be giving brides. Consequently, the inmate continues to carry out his/her illegal activities, whereas the officers knowingly avoid or omit punishing the inmate, as long as the inmate pays the bribe. In most cases, it is always the inmate who is at the mercies of the correctional officer; hence, will engage in any form of corruption deals to maintain peace. Failure to do so results in brutality from the correctional officers, which is instigated by the officers themselves or through inmates commissioned by the officers. Some correctional officers allege that they get involved in corruption deals, for the reason that their pay salaries are meager. Therefore, the corrupt deals give them an extra income, which allows them to make ends meet. Any opportunity that presents itself to generate a corrupt deal to benefit an officer is taken up and exploited. It is the correctional officers who also bear the most consequences of the corruption activities. Majority of the correctional officers found guilty in engaging in corruption are more often than not interdicted and face trial, and subsequently, they face jail term. The main reason that they usually give for their actions is the poor pay. For example, in April 2013, thirteen correction officers were indicted in Maryland in a corruption case in which they were accused of helping to smuggle contraband goods, such as cell phones, and drugs into the correctional facility by the members of Black Guerilla Family. It was also found out that their salaries were ranging between $28,000 and $47,000 in 2012. There are several methods that can be implemented, which will curb the levels of corruption in correctional facilities. However, many prisoner wardens are not ready to adopt the anticorruption programs for some unclear reasons. Some of the reasons given are: maintenance of the officers’ morale; sustenance of support from the private or public groups in the prison facility; avoidance of disputes from prison officers’ unions and prevention from being exposed by the media. However, implementation of the anticorruption programs in the correctional facilities can be done without receiving unfavorable publicity. One of the key measures of combating corruption in the correctional facilities is advancing the quality of the prison officers. The educational level of the officers should be made competitive, which will also impact the entry-level pay of the correctional officers. The stressful conditions of working as a prisoner officer decrease the turnout rate, which causes a shortage in the number of officers (Souryal 41). Thirdly, there is institutional compromise that arises from the political pressure, which demands improvement on the prison management techniques. This results in prison managers tolerating occupational corruption, in order to keep more correctional officers on the job. It is, therefore, important for the prison institutions to develop high standards of hiring, which are competitive to draw qualified applicants, and at the same time, repel high-risk applicants (those prone to corruption) away from employment. Majority acts of prison corruption entail the illicit possession of money, which is an asset that is present in most correctional institutions, and does not face a shortage. Therefore, it is imperative to establish a robust system of financial controls. Recently, the number of public accountants and auditors deployed to correctional facilities has increased. In addition, the correctional facilities should encourage and embed the practice of whistle-blowing in the prison system. This will uncover the illegal financial dealings that occur between the correctional officers and the inmates. The protection of the identity of the whistle-blower has to be upheld, which will encourage the practice. The correction officers have to be involved in ethical trainings that transverse all levels: managerial, executive and basic, among other specialized areas (Souryal 43). These ethical courses have to cover and discuss sexual harassment; cultural diversity; classification techniques; stress reduction and job satisfaction. Certain individuals may feel guilty during these trainings, which promote civility especially if they engage in the illicit practices; however, they serve to motivate the personnel to consider the utilization of restorative justice and rehabilitation in correctional facilities. Therefore, it is crucial for the correctional managers to increase and support the training in order to pursue professionalism, obligation, integrity and fidelity among the subordinates. Oversight may be a solution to this problem, since it will act as the disciplinarian, arbitrator and the conscience of both the inmates and the officers. However, the oddity and uniqueness of the correctional settings may be a challenge to the Oversight. For the Oversight to be successful it has to be seen as credible, otherwise it will not be taken seriously and will be presumed to be ineffective or even an accomplice to corruption. Therefore, Oversight has to establish a business-like work atmosphere, which is favorable to the ethics of fidelity, honesty and obligation. Honesty, which is a virtue of transparency, requires that every officer, despite the rank, is anticipated to be truthful at all times, expect in instances where concealment is warranted for a higher good. For example, when protecting classified data and an officer is working undercover assignments. Fidelity is the attribute of upholding all the promises whether to outsides, inmates or personnel linked to the correctional enterprise. Hence, if Oversight alleges that it treats the prison officers justly and fairly, then the fairness has to be evident in every step of an officer’s career, which includes: promotion, assignments, discipline and demotion. Failure of Oversight to do so may create suspicion concerning its intentions, which may encourage the officers to engage in corruption in order to survive. On the other hand, obligation is the attribute of treating each policy, directive or rule seriously and never consciously acting in bad faith. For example, if the Oversight declares searching at checkpoints, everyone including the correctional personnel have to be stopped and be searched. This means that Oversight can indeed solve corruption within the prison systems if it institutes and upholds professionalism, policies and directives that it puts in place. The creation of an open environment by Oversight provides a means through which both the inmates and officers can gauge the intentions of Oversight, what it means and the reasons behind it. This implies that Oversight has to seek professionalism for every individual and not to provide an appearance of professionalism, which opens the doors of corruption for some individuals and not others. An effective Oversight that can be successful in combating corruption has to transcend the corruption practices, and commit the correctional facilities in denouncing the illegal practices. In conclusion, corruption is a shameful fact, which pulls the prison personnel into disrepute. Corruption that occurs in correctional facilities is no different from the corruption, which takes place in other public agencies. Nonetheless, the conventional negative thought attached to correctional facilities demands a new wave of notion, which aims to develop correctional facilities as civil institutions. Moreover, as long as the prison systems remain a fundamental element in the directive to institute justice and guarantee domestic serenity, prison mangers must determinedly foster work environments, which are favorable to moral principles, fidelity, honesty and obligation. In order to attain these objectives, correctional managers seriously express their facility’s mission in well-stated policy declarations, including an explanation of corrupt acts and the penalties that would follow. In addition, they should institute a robust anticorruption program, which is based on: the quality-based supervision; the quality of correctional personnel; true ethical training and the fiscal controls. Work Cited Blind, Peride. Perspective on Corruption Metrics. 2011. Available from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan047377.pdf Cockcroft, L. “Global Corruption: An Untamed Hydra,” World Policy Journal; 27, 1: 21-28. 2010. Souryal, Sam. “Deterring Corruption by Prison Personnel: A Principle-Based Perspective”. The Prison Journal, 89; 21-45. 2009. Read More