Situational Prison Control

Abstract

This book examines the control of problem behaviour in prison from a situational crime prevention perspective. Following the success of situational crime prevention in community settings, Richard Wortley argues that the same principles can be used to help reduce the levels of assault, rape, self-harm, drug use, escape and collective violence in our prison systems. This pioneering new study proposes a two-stage model of situational prevention that moves beyond traditional opportunity-reduction: it attempts to reconcile the contradictory urges to control prison disorder by 'tightening-up' and hardening the prison environment on the one hand, and 'loosening-off' and normalising it on the other. Combining a comprehensive synthesis and evaluation of existing research with original investigation and ground-breaking conclusions, Situational Prison Control will be of great interest to academics and practitioners both in the areas of correction and crime prevention more generally.

Market Testing and Prison Riots: How Public‐sector Commercialization Contributed to a Prison Riot

“…At the Woodford Correctional Centre, the prisoners' "test" was facilitated by the four remaining factors of the state-centered theory of prison riots included under the institutional breakdown category of the threshold theory. That is, external demands converted into internal situational pressures (Wortley, 2002). New and inexperienced officers were confronted by situations they could not control, experienced prisoners had new policies and procedures forced on them, and faulty infrastructure and overstretched resources could not cope with the excessive fill rate.…”

“…Prison riot research has developed through two broad approaches: a deprivation or inmate-balance theory and disorganization or administrative control models (Carrabine, 2004;Useem and Kimball, 1989;Useem and Reisig, 1999;Useem and Piehl, 2005;Wortley, 2002). The deprivation, or closely related inmate-balance theory, proposes that prison riots result from poor conditions and overly punitive internal controls (e.g., administrative discipline processes) (Goldstone and Useem, 1999;Reid, 1994;Useem and Goldstone, 2002;Useem and Piehl, 2005;Useem and Reisig, 1999;Wortley, 2002). In this approach, oppressive regimes and poor conditions combined with a volatile population prime a constant state of readiness for a major disruption; all that is required to trigger a rebellion is an opportunity.…”

Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (2000–2007).

“…But time varying features may still generate bias. In terms of spuriousness, the most important are likely staffing levels and experience (Clark & Felson, 1993; Wortley, 2002), overcrowding (Gaes, 1994; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008) 4 , and risk/needs of inmates (Harer & Langan, 2001; Diulio, 1989; 5 Petersilia, 2009; Shermer et al, 2012). In each case, the literature suggests these features may correspond to violence in prison, and they are plausibly related to workload or ability of staff to do administrative work.…”

Freedom within bars: maximum security prisoners’ negotiations of identity through rap

“…i According to the dispersal model the most dangerous, escape-prone, or difficult to control prisoners are 'spread around a number of maximum security facilities so that their impact on the system is dissipated' (Wortley 2002)…”