Explain correctional officer deviance. Include in your response at least one of the three categories as discussed.

Explain correctional officer deviance. Include in your response
at least one of the three categories as discussed. Additionally, you should
provide at least three examples of the category you selected and one solution
for each of the examples (three solutions total). Your response must be at
least 400 words in length.

Three Categories from textbook:
Ian, R. J. (2016). Key Issues in Corrections (2nd Edition).
Bristol University Press. https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781447318750

Types of CO deviance
Based on multiple sources,7 15 primary types of deviance engaged
in by correctional workers can be identified. This type of behavior includes
but is not limited to: improper use of agency equipment and property; failure
to fulfill the required duties of the job; mishandling/theft of inmate
property; drinking alcohol on the job; accepting gifts from inmates and
contractors; discrimination; abuse of authority; sexual relationships with
inmates; smuggling contraband; theft; unnecessary violence against prisoners;
general boundary violations; and sexual harassment of fellow COs. Most of these
deviant behaviors are interrelated and self-explanatory, but the following
section reviews each activity in detail. The processes can be further broken
down into three categories depending on the target of the deviance (that is,
the institution, inmates, and fellow COs). Although in reality all three groups
of behavior are interrelated, for clarity’s sake, this outline will leave the
categories separate.

Deviance against the institution
Improper use/misuse of agency equipment and property. Multiple
opportunities exist for COs and administrators to take advantage of their organizations’
resources for personal benefit and/or use. This includes acts as simple as
using photocopy machines (for birthday party invitations, recipes,
school-related texts, and so on), stealing office supplies and equipment (for a
part-time business, home use, and so on), and borrowing equipment (such as
vehicles when theirs is in the shop). At other times, because of boredom,
anger, or frustration, COs may break equipment, or they may use equipment
against other COs as a practical joke (for example, pepper spraying someone in
the bathroom).

Using corrections equipment (or machines, for example, walkie
talkies, metal detectors, and so on) in a manner in which it was not intended
(including “monkey-wrenching” or purposely breaking equipment/machines) is a frequent
occurrence in factories and the industrial sector (Abbey, 1975). Many of these
instances are acts of low-scale, uncollectivized rebellion, a reflection of
frustration with poorly functioning or maintained equipment/machines, or of
difficulties with the management of an institution. Additionally, if
equipment/machines do not work properly, there may be a tendency among workers
to further damage them, either as a demonstration of their discontent or as a
means to compel the administrators to finally replace the faulty
equipment/machines.

Purposely shirking one’s duties. Periodically COs fail to
perform their duties for other reasons than incompetence or an inability to
remember. Such deliberate behavior could extend to: falsifying log entries when
failing to do their rounds and/or when coming in late or leaving early; playing
cards and/or computer games; using smart phones for personal business; watching
television and/or listening to the radio (for example, during a sporting event
broadcast); recreational reading; sleeping; leaving an assigned area without
authorization; refusing to respond to prisoners’ and/or fellow officers’
requests because of general laziness; and taking longer breaks and lunch hours
than given. In addition to ripping off a facility by not enhancing its value
through one’s labor, this can effectively compromise the security and safety of
other officers.

Theft of correctional facility property. Institutional food is
typically not only of poor quality, but some of it may also disappear even
before being served in the mess hall. In some penitentiaries, staff may
occasionally eat or steal the better food. They may take it home to feed their
farm animals or their pets, or they may sell it to others. Additional items of
value may also mysteriously disappear and make their way into the correctional
workers’ possession (Ross and Richards, 2002: chapter 12).

Abusing sick time. Although correctional employees are allowed
to use sick time when they have a legitimate reason, as in many other institutions,
reports of abuse of sick time periodically surface. Part of this deviance
depends on the documentation personnel are required to submit to their
supervisors and the diligence of supervisors in reviewing this kind of behavior
(Worley and Worley, 2011).

Accepting gifts from inmates and contractors. Occasionally,
inmates (or their friends, families, and associates), because of camaraderie or
in hopes of ensuring a future favor, try to give COs gifts. Likewise,
contractors and suppliers to the facility or department of corrections (DOC)
may give COs gratuities or discounts on goods or services. The hope is that if
their products or services are needed, these vendors will be favored. These
gratuities are typically frowned upon by the senior administrators and
accrediting bodies. Accepting gratuities may eventually (depending on the
situation) lead to corruption and/or the preferential treatment of inmates and
contractors. This prevents the institution from dealing with the vendors in an
unbiased fashion. Decisions regarding possible contracts may be made based on
personal relationships rather than the contractor/vendor who can give the
best-quality service at a reasonable cost. And, during the lifetime of the
contract, personal relationships may mitigate a CO complaining when there is
poor service.

Deviance against inmates
Abuse of authority. COs have a considerable amount of power
while on the job (Clemmer, 1958). They can write up (submit negative reports
about) inmates they do not like, or they can humiliate convicts in front of
others. Other kinds of abuse include confiscating inmates’ possessions,
destroying their belongings, playing with the thermostat settings, arbitrarily
denying privileges, placing inmates who hate each other in the same cell,
repeatedly tossing (searching) cells, repetitively strip-searching inmates, and
frequently transferring inmates to different correctional facilities.
Alternatively, COs can give some inmates housing or jobs that are more
desirable, or more access to entertainment (for example, television) and sports
privileges. All combined, these kinds of actions are often referred to
collectively as the abuse of authority. “[This] frequently involves one, or
all, of the following activities: the acceptance of inmate payoffs for special
consideration in receiving legitimate prison privileges … ; the acceptance of
inmate payoffs for special consideration in obtaining or protecting illicit
activities … and extortion” (Freeman, 1999: 350).

Mishandling/theft of inmate property. Inmates’ possessions come
in and out of a facility either when convicts are transferred to an institution
or when friends and family mail or bring items to the prison. Inmates routinely
complain that COs steal or damage their items. One recurring reason for this
behavior is connected with the fact that, in the normal course of doing their
jobs, officers must ensure the safety of the institution and prevent contraband
from coming into the jail or prison. That is why, for example, COs are
typically required to remove the covers of hardcover books and search inmates’
personal effects at intake and during cell searches (Worley and Cheeseman,
2006).

Discrimination toward inmates. The U.S. jail and prison system
has experienced a long history of discriminatory behavior directed toward
certain racial and ethnic minority inmates (especially African American and
Hispanics), and toward those who are homosexual, lesbian, and transgender
(Souryal, 2009). This can range from the kinds of amenities they are provided
to being singled out for violence/excessive force.

Violence/excessive force against prisoners. The prison staff can
and do use violence against convicts. They are allowed by law to use force when
life and property are in peril. Nonetheless, two major concerns arise from the
use of force: How frequently is force used, and is it done in an indiscriminate
manner? Most often, officers will avoid using violence if possible, since it
creates ill-will that the prisoners are not likely to forget. Instead, correctional
workers rely on threats and humor to motivate inmates to comply with
directives. When officers beat inmates (not to be confused with excessive
force), this is often precipitated by the latter having initiated or followed
through on an attack or instigating work strikes, riots, or escape attempts
(Kerness and Ehehosi, 2001; Pratt et al., 1999).

Unlike the deadly violence that convicts inflict on one another,
most acts of violence committed by COs are psychological. If the officers want
to remind a prisoner about who is in charge, they might destroy that convict’s
mail, refuse to turn up the heat, deny telephone privileges, or toss the
prisoner’s cell more frequently than normal. In the middle of the night, while
a convict is sleeping, COs may overturn a bed, dumping them onto the floor. COs
do not usually take the time to politely wake up an inmate; rather, the
officers might drag them to the floor, handcuff them, and rummage through their
personal items to search for weapons, drugs, or other contraband items. An
officer who wants to particularly anger an inmate might confiscate pictures of
loved ones, sheets, clothing, food, and legal papers.

Strip searches, ostensibly used to detect drugs and weapons, are
another form of intimidation and violence. COs can order an arrestee to go
through this humiliating act numerous times a day on the cellblock, in the
cafeteria, outdoors, or when entering or exiting the visitation room. A
prisoner may be forced to stand naked outside in a snowstorm, regardless of the
danger of frostbite. This might even happen below the gun tower, with M-16 or
AR-15 rifles and shotguns pointed in the prisoner’s direction.

Sometimes, in medium and maximum security prisons, when the COs
think an inmate may have contraband hidden inside his or her rectum, a strip
search will include a finger wave. Similar to a doctor conducting a prostate
examination, the CO or medical professional (for example, nurse) will insert a
gloved finger in the rectum – but the correctional worker is much less likely
to be as gentle as a doctor. It must also be remembered that staff do not
necessarily have to inflict violence on an inmate themselves; they can often
convince another prisoner to do it on their behalf (Cohen et al., 1976; Hemmens
and Atherton, 2000; Hemmens and Stohr, 2001).

Sexual relations with or assault of inmate.8 Over the years, a
long history of the sexual abuse of female convicts by male staff members at
the women’s prisons has been documented (Marquart et al., 2001; Worley and
Worley, 2011). In most states, sexual relations or inappropriateness between
prison staff and convicts is considered by law to constitute sexual assault or
rape. Consensual sex between the keepers and the kept does not exist. Over the
past two decades, hundreds of COs have been fired and/or indicted and convicted
on sexual assault charges (Human Rights Watch, 1996; Moss, 2008; Stewart,
1998).

Some state prison systems, like Georgia’s, have implemented
tough “no touch, no contact” policies. In these situations, men are not allowed
to supervise female convicts. If a male enters the unit, COs are instructed to
announce “man [or male] on range.” At some federal prisons for women,
administrators have installed hotlines through which female prisoners can make
complaints if they have been sexually abused. Sometimes this is a public
relations exercise designed to garner support from the wider public by
publicizing that something is being done about this problem. Nonetheless,
several states have still not outlawed staff–inmate sex to date.

Although female sexual relations with inmates occur (for
example, Worley et al., 2010), historically sexual relations with prisoners
have been more of a problem with male correctional employees than with female
correctional workers (Beck et al., 2007). However, news stories of male-on-male
and female-on-female sexual relations are occasionally reported. For example,
in 2000, Garrett Cunningham, while incarcerated at the Luther Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, was repeatedly raped, not by a fellow inmate
but by a CO. Stories about female officers abusing male inmates are rare, as it
is often perceived that male prisoners are the beneficiaries in this kind of
behavior.

Deviance against other COs
Drinking on the job. COs who come to work under the influence of
alcohol, drink on the job, use prescription or over-the-counter drugs in a
manner in which they are not prescribed or illegal drugs that impair their
judgment, are unable to properly respond to the demands of their work. They
threaten not only their own safety, but also that of their fellow COs. Alcohol
use is often part of the CO subculture. Drinking is usually done for
camaraderie, social bonding, and stress relief. Using illegal drugs, or using
prescription drugs in a manner in which they were not intended, may set COs up
for charges of corruption (that is, they are the first to be suspected of
smuggling contraband into the facility), regardless of the means by which the
substances were obtained.

General boundary violations. Boundary violations include
“actions that blur, minimize, or disrupt the professional distance between
correctional staff members and prisoners” (Marquart et al., 2001: 878). This
type of conduct, including inappropriate relationships, disregards the typical
roles of COs as supervisors and guardians, and inmates as individuals who are
to follow orders. This kind of deviance can be further demarcated into general
boundary violations which are “‘unserious’ framebreaks committed by employees
who accepted from inmates, or exchanged with inmates, … drinks, food, craft
work or materials, or wrote letters to prisoners” (883). Boundary violations
upset the power relations between COs and the inmates.

Discrimination. Correctional workers and organizations, like
most people, should be cognizant about discriminating based on age, race,
ethnicity, sexual preference, and national origin. This kind of discrimination
can occur in the hiring of potential COs and the treatment of inmates. Starting
in the 1960s, a series of lawsuits were brought on behalf of women who applied
to be COs. This coincided with massive changes due to the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. These steps helped pave the way for the increased hiring and promotion of
women in the corrections field (for example, Zupan, 1992). Discrimination
against women as COs does not simply end with hiring and promotion, but it can
also be detected in “tokenism, differential treatment by male supervisors and
administrators, and opposition by male co-workers” (330). Discrimination also
takes on particularly ugly forms in the occasional news media story about COs
being members of radical right wing organizations, such as Aryan Nations or the
Ku Klux Klan (Camp et al., 2001).

Sexual harassment of fellow correctional workers. Both male and
female officers and administrators may engage in sexual harassment directed
toward each other. This may include repeatedly asking fellow workers for dates,
inappropriate touching, and stalking. Sexual harassment can also be exhibited
in the creation of a hostile work environment by bringing pornographic
magazines to work, displaying pornographic materials on the job, objectifying
other individuals, and making comments about body parts (Britton, 1997; Savicki
et al., 2003; Stohr et al., 1998; Worley and Cheeseman, 2006).

Smuggling contraband. Contraband is brought into prisons with
the help of a variety of individuals, including COs (Kalinich, 1986; Lankenau,
2001). These items vary from institution to institution, from state to state,
and typically include alcohol, cell phones, cigarettes, condoms, currency,
drugs, nicotine patches, tobacco, and tattooing materials. These are often
components of the “inmate economy” and are frequently used for exchange.
Correctional workers who bring in such items may have been compromised (for
example, an inmate or group of convicts may have damaging information on a CO
that can be used against them), or they may see these opportunities as
additional ways to supplement their income.

Last Completed Projects