Sociology within Prisons and Penitentiaries - Essay Example

Sociology within Prisons and Penitentiaries Sociology within Prisons and Penitentiaries Introduction Prisons are looked at as organizations and institutes that contain people thus a number of incidents are likely to happen inside. They can also be looked at as small social units by considering their economical, culture, behavioral, social and pathology dimensions. Looking at the same from the sociological perspective, the tendency of prison towards the existing policies putting into consideration their current conditions, the management has totally lost its renovation and remedial motives and functions. Despite the fact that the act of imprisoning and punishment has been viewed as a responding means towards declining crime rates, the initiative has left behind many social, economic and cultural expenses thus failing in its role of reducing crime (Chiricos & Delone, 1999).Over the years, several factors including political, social and economic factors have had remaking facet on the social life without interest being in the justice and crime patterns. In addition, most of the theories related to criminology have been centered on individual crime etiology causation or on failures in institutions especially the local-level ones with the best example being the prisons. The failures addressed in these theories include the little attention given to the sociological forces (Garland, 2000). A number of authors have come up with several methodological and theoretical approaches with an aim of capturing the structural changes effects on justice and crime patterns. These authors and thinkers suggest theories that are structural accumulative providing models that are useful in the incorporation of existing macro-social changes in criminology. To achieve, the writers and thinkers have come up with different arguments which the paper is going to look at such as labor regime changes and balance shifts of control strategies effects in shaping the crime patterns and problems (Philips, 2002). Russell’s Theory Russell’s theory was aimed at explaining the offending patterns of black people in the US who have over the years been convicted, disproportionally arrested and incarcerated. In her argument, she believed that the criminology has to move beyond the commonly witnesses’ abundant description and analysis of the existing relationship between official offending and race so as to come up with critical theoretical approach that will go outside the framework of examining of the current criminological theories. According to Russell, a black criminology that is subfield would include theoretical perspectives formed at both the macro and micro analysis levels and straddling the political spectrum (Pfohl, 1999). Though to some extent her argument can be considered as being true, it is leaves room for criticism. In is almost impossible to envisage any given minority criminology perspective that are orientation conservative like the approaches normally used to locate crime causes on cultural and individual levels. Despite the fact that there exists a number of conservative approaches adopted by minority criminologists, a minority perspective cannot include conservative positions that do not challenge or criticize the empirical ethnic difference basis in official participation in crime as suggested by Russell (Reiman, 1998). The same is not applicable in the location of minorities’ lived experience within structural contexts (Pfohl, 1999) Georg Rusche (Theory of Punishment and Social Structure) Georg Rusche views criminology theories as those which are concentrated more on physical and biological science and thus ignoring sociology. He argued that sociology areas were equally important now that punishment and crime remain social phenomena and suggested further inclusion of historical analysis and economic theory in the examination of crime. Georg Rusche further preached that it was important to do away with the bond existing between punishment and crime so as to have a clear insight into the origin of punishment. He proposed that criminal law should be directed towards the lower class as well as having the penal sanctions daunts crime (Platt & Takagi, 1998). Dario Melossi Melossi contribution was a critique of Rusche’s works, especially of his argument that labor markets were the main contributors to the introduction of punishment and imprisonment in the period where feudalism was being transformed to capitalism. His argument was that the discipline idea consisted of an argument that was stronger for imprisonment. Melossi further criticized the labor market single concept to minimize the complex punishment social phenomenon. He believed that although this idea was useful, it was not sufficient. His idea was that punishment structure changes could be best explained using the prisons institutions inner structure. Ivan Jankovic Jankovic also criticized Rusche’s work especially his writing on labor market and imprisonment. He claimed that Rusche’s theory did not provide any explanation on the continued prison use and also it overemphasized the application of fines as a form of capital punishment. Jankovic’s theory stated that probation and incarceration are the main forms of punishment in capitalists’ communities. Steven Spitzer Spitzer theory mainly focused on the need of the dominant class to have control of the lower class. He points out that the labor supply effect were endemic to a capitalist community and undermined the capitalist state ideology (Reiman, 1998). Such labor surplus resulted to two major problem populations; social dynamite and social junk. Members of such groups were mostly the youth, politically volatile and alienated giving the cause the need of the major class to have control of these groups Theodore Chiricos Theodore Chiricos theory was developed around the punishment and labor surplus theoretical linkages. According to Theodore Chiricos, the three types of principles that offer explanation for the existing link between punishment and labor surplus include; labor economic value and economic crime motivation, political capital needs such as control and legitimating, and ideological agency components (Philips, 2002). The theory has it that there is a significant and consistency relationship between labor surplus and punishment. This relationship remains independent of the rate of crime hence implying that penal practices of the state controlled surplus labor directly. He refers specifically to the violence moral panics and drugs in an effort to justify the state’s punitive apparatus even in situations were crimes rates are low. He demonstrated this by showing the state is expected to have full control of the surplus population especially the minorities (Crewe, 2011). Jeffrey Reiman Jeffrey Reiman came up with the ‘pyrrhic defeat theory. The theory states that prison systems function the way they do now that they maintain a given crime image. The image in question is that it threatens the poor (Reiman, 1998). The theory states that the criminal justice system on the other hand has been designed in such away that it fails so as to benefit the powerful with power. Reiman has stood out strongly to defend his theory as not being a conspiracy theory (Philips, 2002). He goes further to argue that the failure of the charged systems to cut down on crime is a clear message that the systems protect and benefit the privileged and powerful in the society through legitimating the current social order considering its privilege and wealth disparities and by diverting opposition and public discontent away from the powerful and rich onto the powerless and poor (Philips 2002) He supports the theory by proving how the rich get preferential treatment while at the same time the poor have been demonized thus the need to have control. Remain also comes up with a relationship between economics, crime and social structure in his theory as the main assumption. His work can be argued as to have been developed from Rusche’s theory but has had more influence in the present compared to Rusche’s work (Crewe, 2007). Tarde’s Theory He believes that the behavior of a person is the interaction result of environmental and recognition factors. Tarde’s theory is based on the process of criminal misbehavior imitation that is normally learned through the act of observation. In his theory, he argues that, the imitation of people is dependant on their imitation and friendliness to each other, the inferior people in the society tend to imitate those that are superior, and the insertion law is dominantly applied in the society. Labeling theory supports the above theory by stating that the social deviance should be looked at as a social definition of humanity behaviors (Reiman, 1998). Conclusion Several theories and works have been published by different writers and thinkers on sociology within penitentiaries and prisons. A number of scholars have come up with different works and theories in an effort to examine and explain the different factors impacting the social life and institutions in prisons and criminology. Most of these theories have been developed on the forms of punishment, the social phenomenon associated with the punishment, the organization of such systems, criminal etiology and the institutions failures. Most of the theories have been developed from the already existing theories on the same subject while others were developed to criticize the existing theories. These theories are relevant as they bring out the sociology aspect of penitentiaries and prisons as well as the role it plays now that criminology is basically a social phenomenon. References Alexander, C. (2000). The Asian gang: Ethnicity, identity and masculinity. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Philips, C. (2002). Racism, crime and justice. Harlow: Longman. Chiricos, T. & Delone, M. (1999). Labor surplus and punishment: A review and Assessment of Theory and Evidence. Social Problems 39 (4), 421-446. Crewe, B. (2007). Power, resistance and adaptation in the late modern prison. British Journal of Criminology. 47(2):256-275. Crewe, B. (2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff-prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology. 8: 455-468. Garland, D. (2000). Punishment and modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago. Pfohl, S. (1999). Images of deviance and social control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Platt T., & Takagi, P. (1998). Punishment and penal discipline. Berkeley: Crime and Social Justice Associates. Reiman, J. (1998). The rich get richer and poor get prison. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. . Read More