4.3.8 - Aggression in prisons

The prison aggression question

Two people in the same prison may behave differently, and the same person may behave differently after a transfer. Dispositional and situational explanations use these contrasts to ask how individual histories and prison conditions contribute to aggression.

This topic is not asking for every explanation of aggression from the whole aggression unit. It is focused on prison settings and on two families of explanation.

The two explanations point to different solutions. If aggression is mainly dispositional, the prison system needs better risk assessment, treatment for high-risk individuals and careful decisions about where prisoners are placed. If aggression is mainly situational, the system needs better living conditions, fairer rules, safer staffing and more constructive regimes.

A useful way to hold the distinction is:

The importation model

The main dispositional explanation is the importation model, associated with Irwin and Cressey (1962). The model argues that prisons are not sealed off from the outside world. Prisoners arrive with existing values, habits, status concerns and histories. These are then imported into prison life.

Here, dispositional does not mean genetic or unchangeable: a learned norm from life outside prison is imported too. Trauma is a possible risk factor rather than a label for dangerousness, and a trauma history does not imply that a person will be violent.

The model does not claim that every prisoner is violent. It claims that some prisoners enter prison with higher risk factors for aggression, and these factors continue to shape behaviour inside the institution. Relevant imported factors may include:

The AO1 chain is:

1. Prisoners are not blank slates when they enter prison.
2. They bring personal histories, attitudes and learned behaviours into the institution.
3. Some imported norms make aggression seem useful or acceptable.
4. Prison aggression therefore reflects pre-existing dispositions as much as, or more than, prison conditions.

DeLisi et al. (2010) support the importation approach. They studied 813 confined juvenile delinquents selected from the California Youth Authority. The researchers used the Traumatic Experiences scale from the MAYSI-2 and examined three forms of institutional misconduct. After controlling for demographic, delinquency, offence and psychiatric variables, young people with greater early-life trauma showed more sexual misconduct, suicidal activity and total misconduct reviewed by the parole board. This supports importation because a pre-institutional experience, trauma, predicted later behaviour inside confinement. However, sexual misconduct, suicidal activity and total misconduct are not identical to interpersonal aggression; the outcome measure limits the conclusion about violence.

Camp and Gaes (2005) provide another strong piece of evidence. They analysed 561 male inmates in California whose classification scores suggested the same level of risk for institutional misconduct. About half were randomly assigned to Level I prisons and half to Level III prisons. Serious misconduct was very similar in the two conditions: 33% for those housed in Level I prisons and 36% for those housed in Level III prisons. The researchers concluded that inmates with similar propensities were equally likely to engage in serious misconduct across these different security environments. This is consistent with importation because the assigned security level made little difference among similarly classified inmates. It does not prove that imported traits caused the misconduct or that all prison conditions are irrelevant; security level is only one situational comparison.

AO2 example: Sergio is imprisoned for serious violence. Before prison he had a long record of fighting, gang involvement and threats towards others. Within six months he has assaulted another prisoner after a dispute over status on the wing. The importation model would explain Sergio's behaviour through the violent norms, reputation concerns and learned aggression he brought with him into prison.

The deprivation model

The main situational explanation is the deprivation model, usually linked to Sykes (1958) and the "pains of imprisonment". This model argues that prison aggression is caused by what imprisonment takes away from people.

Sykes described several central deprivations or pains of imprisonment. His historical category “heterosexual relationships” reflects the male-prison setting of his account; contemporary application should recognise wider deprivation of intimate relationships and support.

The deprivation model also includes the prison regime. Long lock-ups, overcrowding, inconsistent rules, few meaningful activities, poor staff relationships and weak safety can increase frustration and threat. In this explanation, aggression is a response to the environment: prisoners may fight because they feel unsafe, bored, humiliated, controlled or forced to compete for limited resources.

The AO1 chain is:

1. Prison removes freedom, autonomy, security, goods and relationships.
2. These losses create stress, frustration, fear and competition.
3. Aggression can become a way to cope, gain control, protect oneself or access resources.
4. Therefore the prison situation, not just prisoner personality, helps cause institutional aggression.