A General Strain Theory of Prison Violence and Misconduct: An Integrated Model of Inmate Behavior

Abstract

Explanations of prison violence and other forms of misconduct have been dominated by three competing models: (a) the deprivation model, (b) the importation model, and (c) the coping model. We propose that these three seemingly competing models can be integrated within Agnew's general strain theory (GST). GST enriches the deprivation model by revealing three distinctive categories of strain. GST encompasses the importation model in hypothesizing that criminal cultural values and affiliations will structure the response to the strains of imprisonment. And GST incorporates the coping model in its emphasis on how social support, social capital, and human capital can blunt the effects of potentially criminogenic strains. Finally, GST is sufficiently broad to include factors (e.g., emotions, self-control) in the explanation of prison maladjustment not covered by the three main models of prison inmate behavior. In short, GST offers a general integrated framework for reconceptualizing our understanding of prison violence and misconduct. Keywords general strain theory, prison misconduct, corrections, inmate rule violationsTraditional criminological theories have not often been systematically applied to the explanation of inmate misconduct. This omission represents a missed opportunity to

The Effect of Victimization, Mental Health, and Protective Factors on Crime and Illicit Drug Use Among Homeless Young Adults

“…Victimization experiences in particular are connected with PTSD (Kilpatrick et al, 2003), although few studies have considered PTSD in a GST framework. PTSD may increase the likelihood of criminal coping, especially among populations at risk for continued victimization (Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Jonson, 2010).…”

Adaptación del Inventario de Estrategias de Afrontamiento (CSI) a la población penitenciaria de Mexico

“…La aplicación de las EA en ambientes penitenciarios se realiza sobre la base de considerar, al menos, la prisión como un suceso traumático para una persona (S. D. Phillips, 2010;Rodríguez Díaz, Álvarez Fresno, García Zapico, Longoria, & Noriega Carro, 2013;Rodríguez Díaz et al, 2011), que impacta y genera una cadena de estresores -difi cultades de pareja, disminución de ingresos, comunicación con los seres queridos (hijos, padres, pareja, …), alejamiento familiar, drogodependencia, … (Degobbi & Rezende, 2011;Mikulic & Crespi, 2004;Moreno & Mellizo, 2006), así como límites para manejar difi cultades y generar cambios en la conducta (French & Gendreau, 2006) y pensamientos (Giordano, Cernkovick, & Rudolph, 2002), así como para mantenerlas estables a lo largo de la intervención con el interno para adaptarse a diferentes contextos (Blevins, Johnson, Cullen, & Lero, 2010;Johnson, Colvin, Hanley, & Flannery, 2010), dando lugar a nuevas pautas comportamentales, de roles y modalidades relacionales como forma de adaptarse a sus demandas y requerimientos (Pereira, Scheffer, & Martins de Almeida, 2012;Rodríguez Díaz, Álvarez Fresno, García Zapico, Longoria, & Noriega Carro, en prensa). Es decir, las EA son básicas a la hora de lograr construir una nueva historia de vida para el individuo que necesita de una nueva oportunidad, si cabe todavía más para aquellos que se refi eren en el ámbito de la inadaptación social.…”

Punitiveness in Australia: electronic monitoring vs the prison

“…While some research shows that increasing the prison population reduces crime through incapacitation [116,178], 22 other research indicates that the effect is modest [212], that this inverse relationship between crime and imprisonment diminishes as imprisonment rates increase [117], 23 and that the crime-reducing benefits of incapacitation may be offset by the crime-promoting effects associated with a high number of ex-prisoners in the community [62]. 24 Accordingly, additional crime committed by EM monitorees (compared to incapacitated inmates) is likely to be more than offset by reductions in post-release crime of prisoners if EM proves to be a more effective rehabilitator, and avoids the other social costs associated with high rates of imprisonment that may contribute to crime. For example, a study of offenders placed on home confinement in Florida found that there was an almost 95% reduction in the likelihood of revocation for a new offence for offenders subject to EM compared to those not [138].…”

“…23 In fact, the effect may even become positive with high imprisonment rates [117]. 24 While selectively incapacitating high-risk offenders is likely to be more successful in reducing crime, in practice this can be difficult to implement due to challenges in accurately predicting the likelihood of reoffending [146]. It also raises concerns over differential treatment of offenders [157], and the associated increase in prison costs may exceed any benefit of reduced crime [25].…”

“…Monitorees, for example, 28 That is, some offenders who have been sanctioned consider that such a relatively rare event is unlikely to occur again, and thus "reset" their "sanction-certainty estimate". 29 The so-called "pains of imprisonment" [183]-deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy, and security-have been well documented [see also 24]. report negative experiences based on the constraints placed upon them by the conditions of their sentence, and the associated loss of liberty [141].…”