Evaluation institutional Flashcards
Importation vs deprivation eval
The importation model of prison aggression is supported by well-controlled experimental evidence. For example, DeLisi et al.’s (2011) study was a natural experiment with a control group. This meant they could make a direct comparison between inmates with a ‘negative’ disposition and those without. Those with negative features were significantly more aggressive, as predicted by the model. Also Camp and Gaes’ (2005) study used random allocation of inmates. This meant they could compare aggressive behaviour across prison environments, finding that inmate characteristics were more important.
However, the deprivation model is supported by evidence that has other strengths. For example, Steiner (2009) looked at aggression in a wide range 512 US prisons. This meant his conclusions could be generalised across prison types, linking aggression with several features of the prison environment (e.g. staffing). Cunningham et al. (2010) studied all the prisons in Texas over nine years. This allowed them to conclude that inmate homicides were due to deprivation-related factors.
Therefore the dispositional explanation is more valid because it is supported by causal evidence that is methodologically superior (e.g. control groups and random allocation).
Eval research support
One strength is reach support for the importation model
Scott Camp and Gerald Goes studied 561 male inmates with similar crimnal histories and predispositions to aggression. Hold were randly placed in low securing califrioan prisons and half randomly placed in high security prisons. Within 2 years there was no sighicnat difference between prisons in the number os prisoners involved in aggressive miscount 33% and 36%. The researchers concluded that features of the prison environment are less important predictors of aggressive behaviour than charatersticsts of inmates. This is strong evidence for importation because of random allocation of inmates
Ignore key factors?
one limitation is that the importation model ignore key factors
John Diluilo claims that the importation model ignore other factors that influence prisoners behaviour such as the way the prison is run. Instead he proposed an ACM which states that poorly managed prison are more likely to have inmate violence. Poor management includes weak leadership a thriving culture of unofficial rules.Staff who remain distant from inmates and few oppturniuters for education. Therefore importation is an inadequate explanation because institutional factors are problem more important than inmate chartersticts
Eval determinism and free will
The importation model may be determinist. Prisoners are aggressive because of negative dispositions they import into prisons. They have little or no control over their dispositions. For example, a history of aggressive learning experiences and personal characteristics such as ethnicity. This implies that prison aggression is inevitable and that it is in a sense not the ‘fault’ of prisoners. The view that aggression is almost bound to happen is reflected in the quotation from Thomas and McManimon (2005): ‘…people who prey on others on the streets also prey on others in the prison’. Prisoners cannot be held responsible for their aggressive behaviour if it is determined by uncontrollable dispositional factors.
However, it could be argued that aggression in prisons is the outcome of prisoners exercising their free will. This implies that being aggressive is a matter of choice – prisoners decide whether or not to behave aggressively. Cognitive factors also play a role. Prisoners are able to think about the consequences of their behaviour and avoid aggression. Aggression in prisons is therefore not inevitable and is the responsibility of individual prisoners.
Therefore, on balance, the model is ‘soft determinist’. Prisoners may be predisposed to aggression but aggressive behaviour ultimately depends on other factors.
Eval research support deprivation model
One strength is research support for teh deprivation model.
Mark Cunningham et al 2010 analysed 35 inmates homicides in Texas prisoners between 2000 and 2008. They found that the predators motivations for their violent behaviour were linked to some of the deprivations identified in Clemmers model. Many of the homcides filled arguments between cell sharing inmates where boudoir’s were judged to have been crossed. Particular important were arguments over drugs, sexual activity and personal possessions. These factors are identified by the deprivation model supporting the models validity
Contradictory research
One limitation is research contradicting the deprivation model.
The model predicts that a lack of heterosexual contact should lead to high levels of aggressive behaviour in prisons. However Hensley et al studied 256 male and females inmates of two prisons in Mississippi a state of US which allows conjugal visits. There was no link between involvement in these vistas and reduced aggressive behaviour. This suggests that situational factors do not substantially affect prison violence.
John diliuo
Therefore importation is an inadequate explanation because institutional factors are problem more important than inmate chartersticts
