Idle Time in Prison: The Emotional, Social, and Practical Impacts of Incapacitation

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241272332
• Author: Kathryn J. Fox,Abigail M. Crocker
• Date: 01 November 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241272332

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2024, Vol. 40(4) 696 –715

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10439862241272332

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Original Article

Idle Time in Prison:

The Emotional, Social,

and Practical Impacts

of Incapacitation

Kathryn J. Fox1 and Abigail M. Crocker1

Abstract

The existing research on the prevalence and impact of boredom in prison is

extensive. The passing of time and its unique meaning in a prison context has

been documented. Missing from the research is an analysis of the ways in which

“warehouse” prisons do not prioritize meaningful activity, even when there is

agreement between correctional staff and incarcerated individuals about the

negative impacts of idle time in prison. Based upon research in a Vermont men’s

prison, we use data involving incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, including

focus groups and interviews, surveys, and qualitative feedback on the meaning of

the survey results. Synthesizing these various data forms, this article focuses on

the relationship between incarcerated persons’ perceptions of how they are able

to spend their time in the facility, how prepared they feel for release, lack of

opportunities to earn money, and the impacts on their wellbeing. “Warehousing,”

as it is known in prison terms, contributes to the sense of hopelessness that

incarcerated people feel, and acknowledgment by staff that the prison function is

incapacitation. As this project is aimed at improving prison climate, addressing idle

time in prison emerged as a high priority.

Keywords

prison climate, prison reform, warehouse prisons, participatory research,

incapacitation, prison activities

1The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kathryn J. Fox, Department of Sociology, The University of Vermont, 31 S. Prospect Street, Burlington,

VT 05405-0176, USA.

Email: kfox@uvm.edu

1272332CCJXXX10.1177/10439862241272332Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice XX(X)Fox and Crocker

research-article2024

Fox and Crocker 697

Introduction

The purpose of incarceration in the United States is a shifting and controversial con-

cept. Especially since the 1990s, correctional systems have become more focused on

security and safety; more restrictive conditions became normalized in the United

States (Phelps, 2011; Rothman, 2003; Ward & Maruna, 2007). At the same time, there

was a rise in rehabilitative programming in some places (Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1995; Garland, 2001; Visher & Eason, 2021). Beginning in the mid-1970s, after

Martinson’s (1974) influential essay asserting that “nothing works” in correctional

programming, states began to divest from activities that were designed to help those

incarcerated (Garland, 2013). Warehousing—a concept that has become more preva-

lent since the 1980s in the United States—supports the goal of prison as incapacitation

and retribution, as opposed to rehabilitation (Phelps, 2011). Incapacitating those who

commit crimes has become normalized, even as rehabilitation has started to find its

way back into prisons. In other words, while there is some programming that occurs in

most prisons, “warehousing” people is also common. Schoenfeld and Everly (2023)

found that even in this late stage of mass incarceration, officers often default to a

“security mind-set,” which mitigates against some rehabilitative impulses.

With reduced emphasis on rehabilitation, and consequently, less focus on improv-

ing the daily experience and future prospects of confined individuals, prisons/prison-

ers experienced increased idle time (Feeley & Simon, 1992). Many researchers have

documented boredom as one of the lesser known “pains of imprisonment” (Irwin,

2004; Johnson & Toch, 1982; Rocheleau, 2013, 2014 See Sykes, 1958). The existing

literature demonstrates that “engagement in structured and prosocial activities pro-

motes positive behavioral and emotional outcomes, while idleness has a negative

impact on inmate behavior and well being” (Vuk & Doležal, 2020, p. 1347). Yet, pris-

ons and correctional systems vary greatly in the kinds and amounts of activities they

provide for those they house. Prison culture is notoriously difficult to change, for a

host of reasons (Bennett, 2016). As is often the case in bureaucracies, the edicts to

change are perceived by staff as top-down managerial decisions that can lead to cyni-

cism; sometimes the mandates are inserted into environments with tight budget con-

straints (Bennett, 2016). At the same time, as Rothman (2003) and others describe,

insofar as prisons have become more attentive to security over the past few decades,

the role of rehabilitation has become less clear or consistent. However, there is some

indication that the pendulum is swinging back toward incorporating some rehabilita-

tive expectations into the culture and practice of prisons (Visher & Eason, 2021).

A prison environment that focuses on incapacitation (i.e., warehousing) makes cer-

tain features inevitable: idle time and its attendant boredom, inadequate facility employ-

ment or money-earning opportunities, unmet needs from commissary, and mental

health impacts from “hard-timing it” (Walker, 2022, p. 175). In this article, we describe

such an environment through data collected from incarcerated individuals and staff at a

350-bed men’s prison in Vermont. After a brief review of the salient literature, and a

discussion of our mixed-methods approach, we will demonstrate the intersection and

impact of boredom, frustration, lack of release preparation, dissatisfaction with