World Health Organisation in their World Report on Violence (2002) defines violence as the use physical force or power to threaten oneself or others. It can also be a threat that results in psychological harm or even death. In order to be included in the definition, an individual or a group must have intended to use power or force against another. Wolff et.al., (2007) assert that violence in prisons is on the increase, in particular violent assaults by prisoners and staff. Keller Wang (2005) added that it was not surprising to see violence as a common feature of prisons due to hundreds of people being housed in close proximity, some of whom have antisocial behaviours. Recent research has concentrated on the understanding of prison misconduct and assaults. The Importation and Deprivation models are two of the most widely used. Austin and Irwin (2002) noted, however, that prison violence is promoted in the public. They called this sociological phenomenon – whereby someone “predicts” or expects a person to behave a certain manner – a’selffulfilling prophecy. Scheider and colleagues (2012) concluded that prison violence was caused by external expectations of violence, regardless the crime committed by an inmate. These expectations are a part of the self-fulfilling prophecy that increases violence in prison. King et.al., (2008) stated that prison officers must respect inmates by promoting a positive and helpful environment. This will reduce violence in prison.
UK Government Statistics show that in 2019, assaults increased by an alarming 5%. In just one year, assaults also rose by 10%. Penologists offer a number of explanations to inmate aggression, even though these statistics are alarming. Clemmer (in 1940), Sykes (in 1958) and Wheeler (in 1961) framed prisons in a way that portrayed them as a distinct social group with a unique culture and code. Explanations about prison violence or other types of misconduct are often dominated by two competing Models.
The sociological process is the basis of traditional theories about violence in prisons (Wolff and others, 2007). Sykes’ (1958) Deprivation Model is based in the belief, that while prisoners may interpret their prison conditions differently, they are all in agreement on how degrading it is. Hilinski-Rosick & Freiburger (2018) have suggested that prison violence is increased when stricter rules and a larger inmate population is implemented. Magargee argued that research in the past failed to show that prison officers had an impact on violence in prison. Recent literature, however, has revealed that policies and prison officers have negative impacts on prison life. Magaregee suggests in 1976 that programs be developed to compensate for a potential feeling of depravity due to overcrowding. The inmates would then have the opportunity to learn pro-social ways to react to negative feelings.
Thomas (1970), who suggested that Sykes’s Deprivation theory is a closed paradigm that does not consider the past experiences of inmates, Teague et.al., (2008), and Wright and Wrightetal., (2008), suggest that there exists substantial evidence to support the idea that violence can occur in prisons as a result of various forms abuse, deprivation or suffering in early life, antisocial behaviours and other types of violence. Irwin, Cressey and others (1962) believed that inmates didn’t arrive at prisons as blank canvases to be molded. Inmate conduct was seen as reflecting the values and behavior offenders had brought with them to prison. Damboeanu (2016), further argues that the model fails to fully explain violence within prison due to Reductionist position, the Deprivation model ignores the influence of biological influences and instead predominantly focused on external factors as the only cause for violence and aggression which in turn neglects the internal (psychological) factors. Damboeanu argues, that the Reductionist model is not able to explain the violence in prison, because it ignores biological influences. This model focuses more on external causes of violence, while neglecting the psychological factors. Individuals who have deficiencies in biological functioning struggle to maintain anti-social behaviours and violence in a regular environment. Eysneck’s 1964 theory is called condition-ability. The idea highlights the fact that anti-social and violent behaviours are intrinsically rewarding. These behaviours tend to occur naturally, unless they are punished. Raine (1981), Raine, and Venables, (1981), proposed that prison officers must break the traditional conditioning of rewards and violence. They should punish inmates with swift and consistent punishments and provide programs to help them regulate their behavior in a positive manner.
Rain and Venables (1981) stated that Eynesck’s Biosocial Theory has not been empirically tested. Rain Venables conducted an Empirical Analysis. The study results are in agreement with Eyenseck’s concepts of antisocialization. Horn et.al. (2014) confirm Eysenck’s (1964) notion that psychological functions and criminogenic surroundings influence violence. This is especially true in prison. Biosocial theory may offer an explanation of prison violence. However, it has limitations. Eysneck’s (1964), theory is out-dated, subjective, and unable to accurately measure a criminalogenic environment. In addition, other factors can influence violence such as brain function, neurotransmitters, or upbringing. These factors vary between inmates. Genetic factors do influence prison violent behavior, but there are still gaps in research that demonstrate how genes and the environment can explain prison violence.
Irwin-Cressey’s Importation Model from 1962 is a popular theory used to explain prison violence. Irwin & Cressey (1962), suggested that violence in prison is not caused solely by the prison’s environment. Importation models assume that prisoners’ pre-existing traits determine their reaction to prison (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Offenders are different from one another in terms of their backgrounds, experiences, and attitude, all of which affect how they adapt to life behind bars. Irwin, Cressey and others (1962) concluded that prison violence was the result of inmate characteristics as well as their experiences before they entered prison. Penological policy and research continue to be influenced by Importation models.
Irwin, Cressey and others (1962) did not measure specific variables that would have predicted the likelihood of violent behavior in prison. Penologist and correctional officers focused on multiple factors of risk prison present which were empirically linked with misconduct and violence (DeLisi and colleagues, 2010). Byrne (2008, for example) suggested that different inmate qualities have been associated with prison violence. Based upon these connections, prison classifications systems were developed in order to identify certain inmate behaviors. In order to reduce violence in prison, it is important to consider factors such as age, gender, race, criminal history, mental health, etc.
The Importation model is usually tested on individuals, looking at the relationship between inmate behavior and variables like age, gender and education. Other factors include race, relationship status and history of mental illness. Importation models (Irwin-Cressey,1962) assume that criminal and demographic variables are indicative to inmate propensity. This is because individuals with poor social-economic backgrounds have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior within the community.
Blevins (2010) also argued that traditional Criminological theories are not always applied to prisons violence. Steiner argues for a deeper understanding. Blevins’ et.al. (2010) integrated Agnew’s General Strain Theory, (2009) which integrated Sykes (1985) Deprivation, Importation, and Tochs (1977), less prominent Coping Model to emphasize that theories could be collaborative. Blevins et.al., (2010) suggested GST provides a theoretical frame that incorporates all three models. Toch (1977), a psychologist, suggested that prisoners have a mature or immature way of coping with prison. Inmates who use an immature strategy to cope are more likely than others to commit violence in prison. GST explains prison adjustment in a way that is in line with Deprivation Model. Inmates are required to adapt to the environment and this can bring out deviant behavior and attitudes. The Importation Model of Prison Adaption is consistent in that reactions to deprivation or strain are related to individual attributes. GST offers a holistic view of prison violence. This helps us to better understand the causes and types of violence in prison, and what treatment and programs are required. Belvins et.al., (2010) is a good resource for understanding violence. However, because funding for rehabilitation programmes isn’t readily available, not all prisoners can take part in the programme.
Mitjan et.al.(2018) suggest that a reductionist approach to prison violence would be assigning blame on one aspect, such as an individual’s character, past experiences or personality. However, the reality is that prison violence stems from multiple factors, both internal and outside influences. Despite the fact that theories can explain prison violent, Keller and Wang (2005) suggest that prisons are a priority of HM Prison and Probation Services and Ministry of Justice. They also recommend prison officers be trained effectively and provide interventions and rehab programmes to help inmates. To improve the explanation of prison violence, it is necessary to have a better understanding of how prisoners adapt to the deprivation they experience within prisons and their individual characteristics.
