Discretion in the Prison Justice System

• Published date: 01 July 1982
• Date: 01 July 1982
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/002242788201900206
• Subject Matter: Articles

216

DISCRETION

IN

THE

PRISON

JUSTICE

SYSTEM

A

Study

of

Sentencing

in

Institutional

Disciplinary

Proceedings

TIMOTHY

J.

FLANAGAN

Much

research

in

the

past

decade

has

focused

on

decision

making

at

various

stages

of

the

criminal

justice

process,

but

decisions

made

within

prisons

have

been

examined

relatively

little.

This

study

investigates

dispositional

decisions

in

disciplinary

infraction

proceedings

in

a

state

prison

system.

It

examines

the

distribution

of

types

of

infractions

committed

and

dispositions

received,

and

identifies

variables

related

to

different

disposition

outcomes.

Four

variables

are

significantly

related

to

dispositional

outcome:

the

inmate’s

age

and

marital

status

at

admission,

the

inmate’s

overall

disciplinary

record,

and

the

type

of

infraction

charged.

Although

the

findings

varied

across

infraction

categories,

inmates

who

were

young,

never

married,

or

had

six

or

more

infractions

during

the

current

sentence

received

more

severe

dispositions.

The

relationship

be-

tween

seriousness

of

the

infraction

and

severity

of

disposition

was

significant

but

not

strong

enough

to

imply

a

scaling

of

penalties

relative

to

the

harm

pre-

sented

by

the

offender’s

conduct.

Implications

for

future

research

are

dis-

cussed.

In

the

field

of

correction,

key

decisions

such

as

sentencing,

parole

release,

and

parole

revocation

have

been

the

subject

of

intense

research

interest.

However,

low-visibility

decisions

made

within

prisons

have

re-

ceived

far

less

attention.

Although

several

standard-setting

bodies

have

addressed

the

issue

of

inmate

classification

(ACA,

1969),

decision

mak-

ing

in

institutional

disciplinary

proceedings

has

been

largely

ignored.

Yet

decisions

made

within

the

prison

justice

system

have

important

implications

for

the

correctional

system

as

well

as

the

inmate,

and

can

have

secondary

ramifications

if

the

inmate’s

record

of

misconduct

and

punishment

within

the

prison

influences

the

parole

release

determina-

tion

(O’Leary

and

Glaser,

1972).

TIMOTHY

J.

FLANAGAN:

Director,

Criminal

Justice

Research

Center,

Albany,

New

York.

Support

for

this

project

was

provided,

in

part,

by

Grant

No.

76SS-99-6038

awarded

to

the

Criminal

Justice

Research

Center

by

the

Bureau

of

Justice

Statistics,

U.S.

De-

partment

of Justice.

I

am

grateful

to

Lowell

Tanglerd,

David

van

Alstyne,

and

James

Nelson

of

the

Criminal

Justice

Research

Center

for

their

assistance

in

this

study.

This

is

a

revised

version

of

a

paper

presented

at

the

32nd

Annual

Meeting

of

the

American

Society

of

Criminology,

San

Francisco,

Nov.

6,

1980.

217

THE

PRISON

JUSTICE

SYSTEM

The

operation

of

large

correctional

facilities

requires

a

system

for

maintaining

and

enforcing

order.

In

many

respects

the

prison

justice

system

mirrors

the

characteristics

of

the

larger

criminal

justice

system.

The

uniformed

correctional

staff

serve

a

policing

function

(in

many

prisons,

correctional

officers

are

routinely

referred

to

as

&dquo;police&dquo;

by

the

inmates).

The

inmate

rule

book

and

disciplinary

procedure

manual

are

the

penal

code

and

the

criminal

procedure

law

of

the

institution.

Like

police

officers,

correctional

staff

are

entrusted

with

broad

discretion

in

determining

when

to

charge

an

inmate

with

institutional

misconduct

(Poole

and

Regoli,

1980).

The

categories

of

behavior

that

are

proscribed

in

most

institutional

rule

books

are

broad;

hence,

the

officer’s

charac-

terization

of

the

offense

may

depend

on

the

context

in

which

the

behav-

ior

occurred.

An

American

Bar

Association

survey

of

institutional

regu-

lations

in

forty-four

jurisdictions

concluded

that

the

written

rules

are

&dquo;so

vague

and

indefinite

that

it

is

difficult

to

differentiate

between

what

might

be

permissible

conduct

and

what

might

constitute

a

violation&dquo;

(ABA,

1974:12). Moreover,

prison

rule

books

include

offense

classi-

fications

of

the

type

that

Johnson

(1966)

referred

to

as

&dquo;wastebasket

categories,&dquo;

such

as

disrespect

toward

staff,

in

which

the

offender’s

de-

meanor

may

play a

critical

role

in

the

charging

decision.

When

an

inmate

is

charged

with

a

rule

violation,

many

facilities

provide

for

prehearing

detention

before

adjudication

of

the

case

in

the

institutional

&dquo;court.&dquo;

The

prison

court

is

referred

to

as

an

adjustment

committee,

superintendent’s

proceeding,

or

disciplinary

hearing.

It

is

through

such

proceedings

that

the

adjudicatory

and

dispositional

de-

cisions

regarding

inmate

misconduct

are

made.

In

the

larger

criminal

justice

system,

numerous

studies

have

documented

the

attrition

of

cases

passing

through

the

various

stages

of

the

court

system.

Yet

it

has

been

observed

that

the

prison

justice

system,

in

sharp

contrast,

is

pri-

marily

dispositional

in

nature

(Harvard

Center

for

Criminal

Justice,

1972).

Few

infraction

charges

are

dismissed

after

an

officer

has

decided

formally

to

&dquo;write

up&dquo;

an

inmate.

This

phenomenon

may

be

at-

tributable

to

the

fact

that

officers

are

highly

selective

in

their

charging

decisions,

choosing

only

the

&dquo;best&dquo;

cases

for

formal

treatment.

An

alter-

native

explanation

may

be

that

institutional

courts

are

reluctant

to

dis-

miss

charges

because

of

the

belief

that

the

inmate

&dquo;must

have

done

something&dquo;

to

warrant

the

officer’s

intervention.

Finally,

reluctance

to

dismiss

charges

may

reflect

a

perception

that

dismissal

will

have

ad-

verse

effects

on

prison

discipline.

Kassebaum,

Ward,

and

Wilner

ob-

served

that

the

dismissal

of

a

disciplinary

charge

&dquo;implies

that

the

re-

porting

staff

was

wrong.

For

the

morale

of

the

rank and

file

correction

officers,

such

inferences

cannot

be

permitted&dquo;

(1971:53).

Regardless

of

the

reasons

underlying

the

extraordinary

conviction

rate,

it

is

clear

that