CHAPTER 1 5nnKeeping an Eye on the Keeper: Prison Corruption and its ControlnnBernard J. McCarthynnIn the introduction to this book, Michael Braswell states, “ethics is the study of right and wrong, good and evil.” This chapter focuses on a troublesome and damaging prob­lem in the administration of justice involving conduct that is both wrong and evil in Amer­ican prison systems. It involves a personal choice by employees to engage in behavior that is clearly wrong and damaging.nnCorrupt practices within the criminal jus­ tice system undermine and neutralize the administration of justice as well as destroy public confidence in the system. Corruption serves to negate the goals and processes of cor­ rections and breeds disrespect for the process and the aims of justice. The purposes of pun­ ishment are also undermined.nnThe prison system is one of the most vis­ible and symbolic aspects of the coercive nature of criminal justice, yet at the same time it is one that is most closed to the public. As Supreme Court Justice William Kennedy (2003) stated to the American Bar Association, “Even those of us who have spe­ cific professional responsibilities for the crim­inal justice system can be neglectful when it comes to the subject of corrections. The focus of the legal profession, perhaps even the obsessive focus, has been on the process fornnAdapted from Bernard J. McCarthy, “Keeping an Eye on the Keeper: Prison Corruption and Its Control,” The Prison Journal, 64(2):113­125.nnKEY CONCEPTS:nncorruption corruption through default corruption through friendship corruption through reciprocity malfeasance material accommodations misfeasance nonfeasancenn”pains of imprisonment” power accommodations status accommodationsnn265nnJUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnndetermining guilt or innocence. When someone has been judged guilty and the appellate and collateral review process has ended, the legal profession seems to lose all interest. When the prisoner is taken way, our attention turns to the next case. When the door is locked against the prisoner, we do not think about what is behind it.” This chapter takes a glimpse of what goes on behind the door—and exposes the student to a little known area of ethical misconduct.nnWith the exception of the imposition of death, the deprivation of liberty is the most serious action society takes against an offender. The prison rep­ resents society’s ultimate penalty. By being sent to prison, offenders are invol­ untarily removed from the community through a legal process and placed in a confinement facility where their liberties are circumscribed. In the United States, prison systems are a huge and expensive enterprise. The 50 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia all operate prisons. More than 1.5 million people are confined in prisons, with terms ranging in length of time from one year to life without parole. In addition, based upon the threat the individual poses to society and the crime committed, inmates are confined in conditions that severely restrict their freedom, and they are deprived of goods, services, and liberties from which nonincarcerated citizens are free to choose. More recently, prisons in America have become more punitive in their outlook and operating philosophy, and conditions of confinement have become more severe. A book (Harsh Justice) by James Q. Whitman, a Yale law professor, makes the controversial suggestion that the goals of the American prison system have shifted from rehabilitation to purposes that degrade and demean prisoners.nnIn this chapter, the problem of corruption and its control are examined as one form of ethical misconduct in state correctional systems. Historically, prison corruption has been a persistent and pervasive feature of corrections, periodically erupting in the form of scandals that are usually brought to our attention by the press. No prison system is immune from this problem; in recent years, major prison scandals have been reported in Alabama, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Politi­ cal payoffs, organized crime, large­scale street gangs, and the general avarice of people who have been hired to work in prisons have contributed or played a role in a number of these scandals. Other than media reports and the occa­ sional state investigation, little is known about the problem. Prison systems are not open to the public, and much of what goes on inside is hidden from the public view. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, in a speech to the American Bar Association, described the prison as “the hidden world of punishment; [and] we would be startled by what we see” if we were to look.nnPeriodically the prison becomes exposed to the general public when extreme abuses make their way to the public eye, as in the case of the charges of torture and sexual abuse occurring in the military prison in Abu Grahib.nn266nnTHE ROLE OF STAFF IN PRISON MISCONDUCTnnOne of the most critical elements in any correctional system is the quality of the staff hired to work in prisons. The critical role played by employees in the correctional enterprise has long been noted by correctional practitioners and prison reformers;nn[It] is obvious, too, that the best security which society can have, that suitable punishments will be inflicted in a suitable manner, must arise from the character of the men to whom the government of the prison is entrusted (Boston Prison Discipline Society, 1827 :18 ) .nnIn 1870, the Reverend James Woodworth, Secretary of the California Prison Commission, stated;nnUntil it [prison guard reform] is accomplished, nothing is accom­ plished. When this work is done, everything will be done, for all the details of a reformed prison discipline are wrapped up in this supreme effort, as oak is in the acorn (Fogel, 1979 :69 ) .nnJessica Mitford reported in a critical study of prisons:nnThe character and mentality of the keepers may be of more impor­tance in understanding prisons than the character and mentality of the kept (Reid 1981 :211 ) .nnGenerally, in the area of public service, the integrity of government workers has been viewed as a significant factor in the effective and efficient operation of government. The most visible forms of corruption occur in the front end of the criminal justice system and involve the police. In criminal justice, a voluminous literature exists on police corruption, yet this subject represents one of the least understood areas in corrections. This chapter shifts the focus to prisons and the types of corrupt practices occurring behind the walls (both figuratively and literally). We will examine the forms, functions, and impact of corrupt practices on the correctional process.nnCorrupt practices in prison range from simple acts of theft and pilfer­age to large­scale criminal conspiracies (e.g., drug trafficking, counterfeiting rings, sale of paroles, etc.). These forms of correctional malpractice may be directed at inmates and their families, other employees, the state, and the general community.nnThe impact of such practices cannot be underestimated. They are destruc­ tive and dangerous. In terms of their impact on the criminal justice system, corrupt practices undermine and erode respect for the justice system by both offenders and the general public and lead to the selective nullification of the punishment and the “pains of imprisonment” (i.e., the correctional processnnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 267nnJUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnfor certain offenders). For example, offenders may be able to arrange the pur­ chase of paroles and pardons, arrange for confinement in a less secure setting, or drastically improve their standard of living in custody. Corrupt practices may also lead to a breakdown in the control structure of the organization and to the demoralization of correctional workers. It also dramatically increases the threat to their safety when drugs, cell phones, or weapons are smuggled into prison. The existence of corrupt practices also undermines the impact of correctional programs designed to change offenders. For example, the importation of drugs into a prison may completely undo the efforts of maintaining a drug­free facility.nnThe pernicious effects of employee misconduct were pointed out by the Massachusetts Public Safety Director Edward A. Flynn when commenting upon the injust treatment suffered by a prison inmate that lead to his death. Flynn said, “if nothing else, inmates must leave our custody with a belief that there is a moral order in the world . . . If they leave our care and control believing that rules and regulations do not mean what they say they mean, that rules and regulations can be applied artibitrarily or capriciously for personal interest then we fail society. We fail them and we will unleash people more dangerous than when they went in” (Belluck, 2004).nnAs one might expect, the incentives and opportunities for corrupt behav­ ior for employees engaged in low­visibility discretionary actions in prison sys­ tems are many. From the offenders’ perspective, they have everything to gain to persuade staff to make decisions that benefit them personally (i.e., the so­ called pains of imprisonment may be neutralized or their release from custody secured) and very little to lose. Some inmates seek to exploit any weaknesses they may find in the system, including those of the staff. From the employees’ perspective, corrupt practices represent a lucrative, albeit illicit, way to supplement one’s income (and, in some systems, usually without significant risk). In one investigation nicknamed “Operation Bad Fellas,” U.S. Bureau of Prison correctional officers where charged with smuggling heroin, marijuana, steroids, Italian food, vodka, wine, vitamins, clothing, and electronic equipment into a federal correctional facility in New York City. Bribes received by staff ranged from $100 to $1,000 per delivery (Suro, 1997).nnIn examining staff corruption within a prison system, three basic ques­ tions are raised: First, what is corruption, and what forms does it take in a prison setting? Second, what factors appear to be associated with it? Third, what steps should be taken to control the problem?nnDEFINING CORRUPTION IN A CORRECTIONAL ENVIRONMENTnnIn the correctional literature, the concept of corruption has been used fre­ quently, usually referring to a general adulteration of the formal goals of the correctional process (Rothman, 1971; Sykes, 1956, 1958). The literature onnn2 6 8nncorruption, particularly police corruption, provides a much narrower defi­ nition, which aids researchers interested in studying the more specific problem (see Kleinig, 1996). For the purposes of this paper, corruption is defined as the intentional violation of organizational norms (i.e., laws, rules, and regulations) by public employees for personal material gain.nnThis definition was formulated on the basis of a review of the corrup­ tion literature—particularly the literature on police corruption—and guides our discussion of the issue. As one might expect, varying definitions and cor­ responding approaches to the study of corruption exist (Heidenheimer, 1970). In the research on police corruption, most studies appear to use what has been referred to as a public office—centered definition of corruption (Simpson, 1978). The public office—centered definition views corruption as essentially a violation of organizational norms by a public employee for personal gain (Heidenheimer, 1970). Examples of this approach may be found in the writings of Sherman (1974), Meyer (1976), Goldstein (1977), Barker (1977), and Kleinig (1996), and the approach has been adopted in this paper. Corruption occurs when a public servant (prison employee) violates organizational rules and regulations for his or her own personal material gain.nnIn operationalizing this definition of corruption for research purposes, certain conditions must be satisfied before an act can be defined as corrupt. First, the action must involve individuals who function as employees. Sec­ ond, the offense must be in violation of the formal rules of the organization. Third, the offense must involve an employee receiving some personal mate­ rial gain (something of value) for the misuse of one’s office. These condi­ tions are used to distinguish corrupt behavior clearly from other forms of staff misconduct, such as excessive use of force. A standard definition of cor­ ruption, consistent with the general literature, is critical in building an information base regarding corrupt practices in corrections and for com­ parative purposes with the larger criminal justice system.nnTYPES OF PRISON CORRUPTIONnnUnlike the literature on police corruption, very little is known regarding the types of corrupt practices experienced by correctional agencies. One way to study this problem is to examine the internal affairs records of a state correctional agency (see McCarthy, 1981).nnAn internal affairs unit has the responsibility for investigating all alle­ gations of misconduct by staff or inmates. The cases during a specific time period were reviewed first to identify those that fit the above definition of corruption and, second, to identify and analyze the range and types of cor­ rupt practices experienced by this agency. Admittedly, this information source provides a limited view of the problem because it is based on offi­ cial statistics. However, as researchers in the field of police corruptionnnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING A N EYE O N THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 269nnJUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnhave suggested, the records of the internal affairs unit represent one of the best available sources of information for examining this topic (Myer, 1976; Sherman, 1979).nnA content analysis of the case files identified several types of corrupt conduct: theft, trafficking in contraband, embezzlement, misuse of authority, and a residual or miscellaneous category.nnTheft generally involved accounts of items reported as stolen from inmates during frisks and cell searches (drugs, money, jewelry), visitors who were being processed for visiting, and staff members. This form of mis­ conduct was generally committed by low­level staff (e.g., correctional offi­ cers) and was opportunistic in nature.nnTrafficking in contraband involved staff members conspiring with inmates and civilians to smuggle contraband (drugs, alcohol, money, steroids, food, and weapons) into correctional facilities for money, drugs, or services (usually of a sexual nature). The organization of this activity varied con­ siderably. Some were large­scale conspiracies involving street gangs or organized crime officials on both the inside and the outside. Others were indi­ viduals acting on their own. As part of their sentence, inmates are deprived of access to many things that are accorded to free­world citizens. The items smuggled into prisons range from items such as food, makeup, and cigarettes to much more serious items such as drugs, guns, bullets, and explosive devices. In recent years, dozens of staff and inmates across the country have been arrested for smuggling in cell phones to inmates. These phones have been used to continue outside criminal activities (organized crime), intim­ idate witnesses, and engage in criminal activities such as drug smuggling. According to one recent report in Philadelphia, guards were indicted for smuggling drugs, cigarettes, and cell phones. One guard made up to $10,000 for bringing in cigarettes and a phone before being caught (Butterfield, 2004).nnActs of embezzlement were defined as systematically converting state property for one’s own use. This offense was differentiated from theft. Theft tended to occur in single events that were opportunistic in nature. Embezzlement involved employees, sometimes with the help of inmates, sys­ tematically stealing money or materials from state accounts (inmate canteens or employee credit unions), state property, and warehouses.nnMisuse of authority is a general category involving the intentional misuse of discretion for personal material gain. This form of corruption consisted of three basic offenses directed against inmates: the acceptance of gratuities from inmates for special consideration in obtaining legitimate prison priv­ ileges (e.g., payoffs to receive choice cells or job assignments); the accep­ tance of gratuities for special consideration in obtaining or protecting illicit prison activities (e.g., allowing illegal drug sales or gambling); and the mistreatment or extortion of inmates by staff for personal material gain (e.g., threatening to punish or otherwise harm an inmate if a payment is not forthcoming).nn2 7 0nnAn additional form of misuse of authority is the taking of bribes by cor­ rectional administrators to award contracts to private vendors for services needed by the correctional system. As the privatization movement continues to grow in corrections, we can expect more reports of this form of mis­ conduct as some companies vie for an unfair advantage. The use of an open bidding process for contracts helps to minimize this problem.nnAnother form of misuse of authority that is getting attention in the media is sexual misconduct involving staff and inmates, staff against staff, and staff and offender family members/friends. A National Institute of Cor­ rections (2000) study found roughly one­half of the agencies in the Depart­ ment of Corrections have been involved in litigation related to sexual misconduct. At least 22 state correctional agencies were facing class action or damage suits as a result of sexual misconduct by staff. One major reason for this upswing in allegations and charges is the use of cross­gender assign­ ments in prisons, that is, male officers assigned to supervise females and female officers assigned to supervise male offenders. Several recent studies have concluded that this is a major problem in corrections (see, for example, Buell et al., 2003).nnStaff sexual misconduct with other employees usually involves a super­ visory relationship and exploits the imbalance in power. Sexual exploitation of family members and friends of inmates occurs when a staff member either accepts an offer of sexual favors and or takes advantage of the power relationship he or she has over the inmate and his or her family by extort­ ing sexual services.nnTHE ROLE OF DISCRETIONnnAll forms of corruption involve the misuse of discretion by public employees. The role played by discretion in corrections is significant. Cor­rectional officials are provided with a broad mandate by law to develop and administer correctional agencies. This broad authority extends to devising rules, regulations, and procedures designed to control and otherwise handle offenders under custody. Corruption occurs when officials misuse this dis­ cretionary power for personal material gain.nnAt a general level, three forms of discretionary misconduct can be identified: misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. For the purpose of understanding the relationship between corrupt practices and the misuse of authority, the different forms of corruption have been sorted into three cat­ egories of discretionary misconduct (see Table 15.1). Misfeasance refers to the improper performance of some act that an officialnnmay lawfully do (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1968). Offenses in corrections that fall into this category include the acceptance of gratuities for special privileges or preferential treatment (e.g., assignment to honor blocks, access tonnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 271nn2 7 2 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnphone calls), the selective application of formal rewards and punishments to inmates for a fee, the sale of paroles or other forms of releases, and the misuse or misappropriation of state resources for one’s own personal gain. All these acts involve an employee misusing the lawful authority vested in his or her office for personal gain.nnCorrupt practices falling into the category of misfeasance are directed at improving the living conditions of inmates and, as a result, they reduce the depri­ vations associated with imprisonment. The misuse of lawful authority appears to be in an area in which line staff have the greatest opportunities to maximize their personal gain (especially in supplementing their income through the commission of illicit acts), because the nature of their work permits them the greatest influence over routine prisoner conditions. These acts are also con­ sidered tow­visibility ones with little oversight at the lowest levels.nnMalfeasance refers to direct misconduct or wrongful conduct by a public official or employee, as opposed to the improper use of legitimate power or authority (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1968). Corrupt practices that fall in this category involve primarily criminal acts and include theft; embezzlement; trafficking in contraband; extortion; exploitation of inmates or their families for money, goods, and services; protection rackets; assisting escapes (as opposed to arranging paroles or sentence communications); running pros­ titution rings; and engaging in criminal conspiracies with inmates for such purposes as forgery, drug sales, and counterfeiting.nnActs of malfeasance appear to represent more aggressive and serious acts by staff to supplement their incomes. This type of offense is similar to the grass­ eater/meat­eater distinction found in studies of police corruption (Knapp Commission, 1973). Meat­eaters are viewed as aggressively exploiting every possible situation for personal gain. Grass­eaters, on the other hand, take whatever comes their way. For instance, a meat­eater might sell drugs in prison, while a grass­eater might respond to an inmate’s request for drugs. This type of behavior is destructive to the correctional environment and in a very real way poses a danger to inmates and staff.nnThe last category is nonfeasance. Nonfeasance refers to the failure to act according to one’s responsibilities, or the omission of an act that an official ought to perform (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1968). McKorkle (1970) has suggested that nonfeasance is more responsible for corrupting correctional officers than malfeasance. Two types of corrupt practices appear to be involved in this type of decision: (I) selectively ignoring inmate violations of institutional rules, such as permitting inmates to engage in sexual activities with visitors or looking the other way when marijuana or other drugs are smuggled into the facility by visitors in return for payment; and (2) the failure to report or stop other employees involved in misconduct. This second practice might typically consist of a low­level employee not informing on a fellow officer or superior because of an implied or direct promise of personal gain, such as promotion, transfer, or time off or reduced duties. In other cases, an administrator may fail to stop staff misconduct for fear of public scandal and possible loss of position.nnTable 15.1 Pattern of Corruption by Type of DecisionnnAs Braswell aptly points out in this book’s introductory chapter, “our beliefs and values regarding right and wrong are shaped by many forces . . . being unethical is not simply committing an evil or wrong act (commission), it is also a matter of being an indirect accomplice to evil by silently standing by when evil occurs (omission).” In prisons this might occur when mis­ conduct is committed and you know about it and don’t do anything about it. For instance, recent revelations of torture in the U.S. prions in Iraq were brought forward by individuals who were working there and bore witness to the actions of their fellow soldiers. The conduct is wrong and involves both action and witness: commission and omission.nnFACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRUPTIONnnResearch has shown certain factors are associated with varying levels of corruption in an agency. In a U.S. Department of Justice study on municipal corruption (1978), two factors were identified as having a major influence on the level and degree of corruption experienced by a particular governmental agency. These factors were: (1) the opportunities for cor­nnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 273nnCorrupt Acts by Discretionary Decisions Officials InvolvednnMisfeasance Provide preferential treatment and special privilegesnnSelective application of rewards and punishmentsnnForms of legitimate release Misappropriation of resourcesnnMalfeasance Trafficking (cell phones, drugs, alcohol, weapons, and money)nnExtortion/exploitation Protection rackets Embezzlement/theft Criminal conspiracies Facilitation of escapesnnNonfeasance Failure to enforce regulations CoverupsnnLine StaffnnLine Staff Administrators AdministratorsnnLine Staff Line Staff Line Staff Line Staff & Administrators Line Staff Line StaffnnLine Staff Administrators & Line Staffnn2 7 4 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnruption, and (2) the incentives within the workplace to make use of those opportunities (Gardiner & Lyman, 1978). In the following section, these two factors will be examined within the context of a prison environment.nnA third driving force identified by other studies of public corruption was the influence of politics (Gardiner, 1970; Sherman, 1978). Sherman suggests that a leading explanation for police corruption was the capture of the department by the political environment. Prison systems come under the exec­ utive branch of government, and its leaders are political appointees. As such, corrections is not immune from the power of politics. Correctional pro­grams at the state and local levels are influenced by the political process, particularly in terms of the appointment of administrative staff and the allocation of resources.nnTHE ROLE OF OPPORTUNITIESnnThree external forces influence prison systems and directly affect the incentives and opportunities for corruption. One is the continuing trend to incarcerate criminals. This has led to unprecedented levels of crowding in state and federal prison systems. Second, career criminals are receiving longer sentences as the public sentiment toward punishment continues to harden (e.g., “three strikes and you’re out” laws), and these long­term offenders are making up a larger percentage of the inmate population. A third is that citizen attitudes toward the treatment of prisoners have led to a toughening of programs directed at prison inmates (e.g., chain gangs, the introduction of tobacco­free prisons, and the elimination of amenities such as college­level educational programs and recreation). These forces increase the deprivations associated with imprisonment and provide extra incentive to inmates to attempt to mitigate or neutralize the pains of imprisonment.nnThe opportunities for corruption arise from the tremendous amounts of dis­ cretionary authority allocated by the legislature to correctional officials. As Costikyan has noted, “Corruption is always where the discretionary power resides” (1974). In the prison, employees—particularly low­level ones (e.g., correction officers, counselors, and other line workers)—are responsible for monitoring and controlling virtually all inmate behavior. These officials con­ stantly make low­visibility discretionary decisions that reward positive behav­ ior and penalize negative behavior. These decisions directly affect the day­ to­day living conditions experienced by inmates in custody.nnIn a prison environment, staff members, armed with a limited arsenal of formal rewards and punishments, are given the task of controlling a reluc­ tant, resistant, and sometimes hostile inmate population. Special privileges in the form of extra television time, phone calls, job assignments, cell changes, conjugal visits, transfers, and furloughs may be used to reward positive behavior. Punishments, in the form of withdrawal of privileges, trans­nnfers, or various forms of deprivation (from restriction of calls to solitary con­ finement and loss of good time), are used to control inmates.nnThe way that staff members apply these rewards and punishments has both short­term and long­term consequences for inmates and their experiences in the correctional system. Accordingly, when one considers the conditions of confinement, one recognizes the many incentives and pressures for inmates to attempt to corrupt staff as one means of improving their living conditions or for staff to exploit their power. Individuals sentenced to prison are subjected to various levels of deprivations, commonly referred to as “pains of imprisonment,” that affect both the physical and psychological stated of the individuals. Sykes defined these pains of imprisonment as the deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relations, autonomy, and security (Sykes, 1958). In dealing with these “pains” associated with confinement, inmates make various adaptations to their immediate environment to help soften its psychological and physical impact. One of the techniques they use is the corruption of correctional employees as a means of neutralizing or improving their conditions of confinement (for example, through the smuggling of drugs, food, radios, or money, or the purchase of privileges).nnIn her journalistic study of an inmate incarcerated in a maximum­security prison, Sheehan made the following comment regarding the motivation of inmates in prison:nnMost men in the prison are in prison precisely because they were not willing to go without on the street. They are no more willing to go without in prison, so they hustle to afford what they cannot afford to buy (1978:9).nnHustling usually brings the inmates and/or confederates into situations in which they need the cooperation of a staff member, either to overlook an infraction, perform a favor, or smuggle in some item. As such, the incentives or pressures for inmates to influence the reward and punishment structure through corruption are enormous. Gardiner and Lyman underscore this point when they state: “Corruption can only occur when officials have an opportunity to exercise their authority in ways which would lead others to want to pay for favorable treatment” (1978:141). When it comes to the prison, nowhere in society are deprivations found that exceed the harsh conditions of confinement found in the deep end of confinement facilities.nnINCENTIVES FOR CORRUPTIONnnThere are many incentives for employees to take advantage of the power associated with their position in an institutional setting. They range from struc­ tural and organizational characteristics of prison management to individual factors (e.g., honesty of staff, the financial needs of employees, etc.).nnCHAPTER 1 5 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 275nn2 7 6 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnA major incentive for corrupt practices results from defects in the prison organization’s control structure. The prison, which is essentially a coercive organization, formally bases its control on the use of coercive power (Etzioni, 1964:59). However, correctional employees, particularly line staff, find that there are limits to the degree of compliance achieved through the use of coercive power (Cloward, 1960; Sykes, 1958). In order to do the job successfully, coercive power must be supplemented with informal exchange relations with inmates. These informal control practices are utilized by staff for control purposes and are responsible for the smooth functioning of the institution and for maintaining an uneasy peace (Cloward, 1960; Irwin, 1980; Sykes, 1958). As Sykes pointed out more than 50 years ago:nnThe custodians (guards) … are under strong pressure to compro­ mise with their captives for it is a paradox that they can insure their dominance only by allowing it to be corrupted. Only by tolerating violations of minor rules and regulations can the guard secure compliance in the major areas of the custodial regime (1956:158).nnAccording to Sykes, three factors are responsible for undermining the formal control structure of the prison: (I) friendships with inmates, (2) reciprocal relationships, and (3) defaults. Each of these factors develops at the line­staff level as a function of long­term and close working associations between guards and inmates in a close setting. Irwin (1980), in a contemporary update, cited corrupt favoritism as a significant factor in the day­to­day management of the prison.nnCorruption through friendship evolves from the close contact that pris­ oners and guards share in their daily interactions. In many cases, they get to know one another as individuals, and friendships may develop. These friend­ ships may, in turn, affect how staff members use their authority. Corruption through reciprocity occurs as an indirect consequence of the exchange rela­ tions that develop between inmates and staff: “You do something for me, I’ll do something for you.” Corruption through default occurs when staff mem­ bers (e.g., cellblock officers) begin to rely on inmates to assist them with their duties, such as report writing and cell checks. In time, the employee depends on the inmates for their assistance in satisfactorily performing his or her duties.nnCloward (1960) also pointed out how defects in the prison organization’s control apparatus lead staff members to develop informal means of control through the development of various accommodations between the keepers and the kept. Material accommodations occur when staff provide certain inmates with access to forbidden goods and services or contraband in return for their cooperation. Cloward provides an example of this when he quotes an inmate explaining how he makes home brew:nnYou go to make arrangements with the mess sergeant. He gets the ingredients and when we’re in business . . . it’s one of those you do this for me and 1’11 do this for you sort of thing. . . . Thennsergeant has to feed 1,500 men. It don’t look good if he goofs. He wants the job done right. Now we’re the ones who do the work, the cooking and all of that. So the sergeant, he says, okay you can make a little drink. But see to it that you get that food on the lines or the deal’s off (1960:7).nnPower accommodations occur when selected inmates are provided with access to restricted information, such as the date and time of an impending shakedown (search of cells) or access to key correctional personnel. Frequently, these take the form of reciprocal relationships in which valuable information is exchanged by both staff and inmates. Inmates inform on one another, and staff in turn may disclose administration plans regarding such activities as the time and place of cell searches.nnStatus accommodations result when staff provide special deference to certain inmates. According to Cloward:nnThe right guy … seems to be left alone (by staff) in spite of con­ spicuous deviance from official values, and this mark of untouch­ ability results in high status among his peers (1960:40).nnThe cumulative effect of these accommodations may predispose certain correctional employees to take advantage of their situation and attempt to materially benefit from their working relationships with inmates, staff, and contractors.nnAnother factor that complicates matters is the type and quality of per­sons recruited and hired to work in correctional facilities. Frequently the quality of the work force is uneven and sometimes substandard because of low pay and poor working conditions. These individuals are placed in situations in which they are given considerable discretionary authority (without much training in its use) in a setting in which the visibility of their actions is quite low. When this occurs, the probability of corrupt practices increases. Another factor that provides an incentive for corruption is the impact of politics. If the selection and promotion of employees are influenced by politics, employee decisions may benefit the political party in power.nnCONTROLLING CORRUPTION First of all, it must be recognized that corruption is a regular feature of gov­nnernment processes. The problem of corruption will always be hovering in the background and can probably never be eradicated; however, certain steps may be taken to reduce and control the problem (Gardiner, 1970:93). In this section, we will examine several strategies that a correctional administrator may adopt to address the problem of corruption within a correctional agency.nnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 277nn278 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnA first step in dealing with the problem of corruption is to develop and enforce a strict, zero­tolerance policy on corruption, and implement and com­ municate a strong and forceful anticorruption policy. This policy should define specifically what the agency means by corruption as well as specify the penalties associated with such practices. (See Ward and McCormack, 1978, for an example of developing an anti­corruption policy for police departments). Once this policy has been formulated, it needs to be dissem­ inated to all workers. Training should also be provided to employees regarding the nature, causes, impact, and consequences of corrupt practices. This training should be integrated into both pre­service and in­service training modules. Without enforcement, these policies will have no impact. For deterrence to work, these policies must be enforced. Employees charged with corruption should be investigated and prosecuted if warranted—not merely asked to resign.nnSecond, the correctional agency should develop a proactive mechanism to detect and investigate corrupt practices. This includes the establishment of an internal affairs unit and processes that encourage employees, inmates, and civilians to report allegations of staff misconduct. A whistle­blower hotline is used by many states to deal with governmental misconduct, and this can be extended to prison systems. In addition, the use of routine and special audit procedures on a random basis will ensure the proper expenditure of funds. In one state, state­level investigators randomly target prisons and conduct interdiction investigations to search for contraband. Inmates, staff, and civilians are subject to searches and drug testing, including a drug­detection system known as Ionscan. In one year these searches resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of drugs (powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana) and weapons, including 13 firearms and 280 rounds of ammunition in one state system (Florida Department of Corrections, 1997). Drug testing of employees and the screening of correctional employees as they enter and leave institutions should also be considered.nnThird, correctional administrators should attempt to improve manage­ ment of material practices in the prison. This internal reform is directed at improving the control of the organization. In prior studies of corruption, where it was shown that leadership and control of persons were weak, the potential for corruption increased (Gardiner, 1970). Management must take affirmative steps toward reducing the opportunities for corruption. One step in this direction is to structure the use of discretion and make the visibility of low­level decisionmakers more public and subject to review. Guidelines for the use of discretionary rewards and punishments should be public. For example, specific criteria and a review process should be established to review cell changes, job assignments, and transfers or temporary releases. In addition, the disciplinary process should be opened up to review. These decisions should be periodically reviewed by supervisors to ensure the accountability of decisionmakers. An example of the misuse and abuse of the disciplinary process occurred a few years ago in the state of Massa­nnFigure 15.1 Zero­ Tolerance MemonnState of California Youth and Adult Correctional AgencynnMemorandum Date February 17, 2004nn’fo All California Department of Corrections EmployeesnnSubject­ ZERO TOLERANCE REGARDING THE “CODE OF SILENCE”nnThe California Department of Corrections (CDC) is only as strong as the values held by each of its employees, sworn and non­sworn. How we conduct oursel v es inside our institutions and in the Central Office is a reflection of those values.nnThe “Code of Silence” operates to conceal wrongdoing. One employee, operating alone. can foster a Code of Silence. The Code of Silence also arises because of a conspiracy among staff to fail to report violations of policy, or to retaliate against those employees who report wrongdoing. Fostering the Code of Silence includes the failure to act when there is an ethical and professional obligation to do so.nnEvery time a correctional employee decides not to report wrongdoing, he or she harms our Department and each one of us by violating the public’s trust. As members of law enforcement, all Correctional Officers must remain beyond reproach. The public ‘ s trust in this Department is also violated by retaliating against, ostracizing, or in anyway undermining those employees who report wrongdoing and/or cooperate during i n v estigations. There is no excuse for fostering a Code of Silence.nnYour hard fought efforts to protect the public deserve recognition. Recently, however, the public’s trust has been undermined by the operation of a Code of Silence within the CDC. To correct this problem we are taking steps to ensure the Department exemplifies integrity and instills pride. Part of this effort is the immediate implementation of a zero tolerance policy concerning the Code of Silence. We will not tolerate any form of silence as it pertains to misconduct, unethical. or illegal behavior. We also will ­ not tolerate any form of reprisal against employees who report misconduct or unethical behavior, including their stigmatization or isolation.nnEach employee is responsible for reporting conduct that violates Department policy. Each supervisor and manager is responsible for creating an environment conducive to these goals. Supervisors are responsible for acquiring information and immediately conveying it to managers. Managers are responsible for taking all appropriate steps upon receipt of such information, including initiating investigations and promptly disciplining all employees who violate departmental policy.nnAny employee, regardless of rank. sworn or non.­sworn. who fails to report violations of policy or who acts in a manner that fosters the Code of Silence. shall be subject to discipline up to and includin g terminatioon.nn! ü E JnnRI HARD RIMMER to RICR (~­ HlCKIvIAN Director (A) A g ency Secretary California Department of Cor r ections Youth and Adult Correctional AgencynnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 279nnSource: http:llwww.corr.ca.gov/CDC/PDFslCodeofSilenceMemo.pdfnn28 0 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnnchusetts, where John Geoghan, a defrocked priest convicted of molesting dozens of children, was falsely accused on disciplinary infractions by guards so that he would be transferred to a more punitive and restrictive set­ ting. Geoghan was later killed by an inmate in a supposedly more secure but more punitive correctional facility. Internal reform should also include screening of employees in order to improve their overall quality.nnAnother management enhancement practice would be to upgrade employee selection procedures to include psychological testing and formal pre­service training designed to screen out questionable employees. In addition, simple police checks of an individual’s background should be expanded to include in­depth background investigations of prospective employees. Some states are finding that members of street gangs are applying for jobs as correctional officers to assist in the expansion of the gang’s power inside prisons. Routine investigations have also found that individuals with felony convictions and even escapees have been hired as correctional employees. Another step would entail improving the working conditions of employees so that the quality of correctional worker is raised. Employees making just barely above the minimum wage might be attracted to sup­ plement their incomes through illicit behavior. Improving wage scales, enlarging job responsibilities, and broadening employee participation in deci­ sionmaking, as well as increasing efforts toward professionalism, all will help address the issue of staff commitment to the mission of the agency.nnA fourth and final recommendation addresses the political environment of prisons. Prisons are located in the executive branch of government, and top administrators serve at the pleasure of the state governor or President. Correctional administrators have little control over political and community attitudes toward prisons and prisoners, but they should take steps to insulate their employees from external pressure placed on them to act in a way that benefits some constituent or campaign donor who seeks to intervene on behalf of an inmate. By requiring merit selection and promotion of employees, a correctional administrator reduces the impact of political interference in the operation of the agency.nnIn sum, controlling corruption requires a commitment by correctional administrators to provide leadership in setting high standards of ethical conduct, communicating and upholding standards of ethical behavior, and holding people accountable for their actions. This includes improving and upgrading the general correctional environment (particularly the working con­ ditions for staff) to protect employees from political pressures and to replace a tendency toward complacency with a concern for accountability. Oppor­ tunities for corruption must be identified and addressed, and the risks taken by persons predisposed to misconduct must be increased. It is doubtful that corrupt practices can be eliminated, but they can be reduced and con­ trolled. It is important to keep in mind the words of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy when he addressed the American Bar Association:nnWe have a greater responsibility, as a profession, and as a people, we should know what happens after the prisoner is taken away. To be sure the prisoner has violated the social contract; to be sure he must be punished to vindicate the law, to acknowledge the suffering of the vic­ tim, and to deter future crimes. Still, the prisoner is a person; he or she is part of the family of humankind. It is no defense if our current prison system is more the product of neglect than of purpose. Out of sight, out of mind is an unacceptable excuse for a prison system that incarcerates over two million human beings in the United States.nnTo upgrade and improve the prison in a democracy we must make sure that the prison be opened to the publ i c and its workings exposed to ci t i zens . The light of day shined on prison pract i ces will ensure that our expecta t ions for ethical conduct will be met.nnREFERENCESnnBarker, T. (1977). “Social Definitions of Police Corruption,” Criminal Justice Review, 1 (Fall):101­110.nnBlacks Law Dictionary (1968). St. Paul, MN: West.nnBelluck, P. (2004). “Inquiry Lists Prison System Errors in Case of Slain Priest.” New York Times, February 4, A16.nnBraswell, M.C. (2005). Chapter 1, this volume.nnBoston Prison Discipline Society (1826­1854) (1972). Reprint of 1st­29th Annual Report: An Introductory Report. Montclair, NJ: Patterson­Smith.nnBuell, M., E. Layman, S. McCampbell & B. Smith (2003). “Addressing Sexual Misconduct in Community Corrections.” Perspectives. The Journal of the American Probation and Parole Association, (27)2: 26­37.nnButterfield, F. (2004). “Inmates Use Smuggled Cellphones To Maintain a Foot on the Out­ side” New York Times, June 21:1, 18.nnClark, J.P & R.C. Hollinger (1981). “Theft by Employees in Work Organizations.” Min­ neapolis: University of Minnesota. Cited in Criminal Justice Abstracts, 1(March):19.nnCloward, R. (1960). Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council.nnCostikyan, E.N. (1974). “The Locus of Corruption. ” In J.A. Gardiner & D. J. Olsen (eds.), Theft of the City: Readings on Conuption in Urban America. Bloomington: Indiana Uni­ versity Press.nnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 281nn282 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND E THICSnnCrouch, B. (ed.) ( 198 0) . The Keepers: Prison Guards and Contemporary Corrections. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.nnDavis, K.C. ( 1960) . Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.nnDuchaine, N. (1979). The Literature of Police Corruption, Vol. II. New York: John Jay Press.nnDuffee, D. (1974). “The Correction Officer Subculture and Organizational Change” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2:155­172.nnEtzioni, A. (1964). Modem Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.nnFlorida Department of Corrections ( 1997) . Office of the Inspector General Annual Report.nnFogel, D. (1979) . “We Are the Living Proof”: The Justice Model for Corrections. Cincinnati: Anderson.nnGardiner, J.A. (1970). The Politics of Corruption. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.nnGardiner, J.A. & T.R. Lyman (1978). Decisions for Sale, Corruption and Reform in Land Use and Building Regulations. New York: Praeger.nnGoldstein, H. (1977), Policing in a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.nnHeidenheimer, A. (1970) . Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.nnIrwin, I. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.nnKennedy, A.M. (2003). “An Address to the American Bar Association Annual Meeting.” Asso­ ciate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, August 9 .nnKleinig, I . (1996). The Ethics of Policing. New York: Cambridge University Press.nnKnapp, W ( 1 9 73) . Knapp Commission on Police Corruption. New York: Brazilier.nnLombardo, L.X. ( 1989) . Guards Imprisoned.. Correctional Officers at Work. Cincinnati: Anderson.nnLyman, T., Fletcher & J. Gardiner (1978). Prevention, Detection and Correction of Corruption ed. in Local Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.nnMcCarthy, B.J. (1981) . “Exploratory Study in Corruption in Corrections.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Florida State University.nnMcKorkle, L. (1970). “Guard­Inmate Relationships.” In Johnston et al. (eds.), The Sociology of Punishment and Control. New York: John Wiley and Sons.nnMeyer, J.D. (1976) . “Definitional and Etiological Issues in Police Corruption: An Assessment and Synthesis of Competing Perspectives:” Journal of Police Science and Police Admin­ istration, 4:46­55.nnMitford, J. (1973). Kind and Usual Punishment: The Prison Business. New York: Knopf.nnNational Institute of Corrections (2000). “Sexual Misconduct in Prisons: Law, Remedies, and Incidence.” In Special Issues in Corrections. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice.nnReid, S.T. (1981). The Correctional System. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.nnRothman, D. (1971). The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown.nnSheehan, S. (1978). A Prison and a Prisoner Boston: Houghton Mifflin.nnSherman, L. (1974). Police Corruption: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Anchor Books.nnSherman, L. (1978). Scandal and Reform, Controlling Police Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.nnSherman, L. (1979). “Obtaining Access to Police Internal Affairs Files.” Criminal Law Bul­ letin, 15 (September­October):449­461.nnSimpson, A. (1978). The Literature of Police Corruption. New York: John Jay Press.nnSuro, R. (1997). “Officials Wonder if Bribery Arrests at Federal Prison are Isolated or Trend:” The Washington Post, June 1:A08.nnSykes, G. (1956). “The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation.” Social Forces, 34:157­ 162.nnSykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Prince­ ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.nnWard, R. & R. McCormack (1979). An Anti­Corruption Manual for Administrators in Law Enforcement. New York: John Jay Press.nnWhitman, J.Q. (2003). Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.nnDISCUSSION QUESTIONSnn1. What kinds of motivations might a correctional officer have for engag­ ing in corruption? Are some forms of corruption worse than others? Explain.nn2. If you were an inmate serving time in a punitive prison would you attempt to curry favor with staff to obtain extra privileges? Would you pay for those privileges?nnCHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 283nn2 8 4 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICSnn3. Is corruption an unavoidable result of discretion? Discuss your response in detail.nn4. Working in corrections can be morally challenging for employees. What does this mean? What are some of the temptations that might exist?nn5. Should the goals of the prison system include degrading and demeaning prisoners?nn6. What implications would this have for staff working in prison?nn7. You have been serving as a prison commissioner for several months with­out any political pressure placed on you. During a friendly conversation with the Governor’s Chief of Staff, the Chief mentioned that a former political ally doing time for bribery would like to be transferred to a minimum­custody classification facility close to his family’s hometown. The Chief said he would really appreciate your assistance in this matter. As an aside, he mentioned your performance review was coming up. How should you respond?