Informing Correctional Officer Discretion: A Co-Response Model and the Legal Vulnerabilities Inherent in Prison Work

• Author: Rosemary Ricciardelli
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221136195
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Informing Correctional

Off‌icer Discretion: A

Co-Response Model and

the Legal Vulnerabilities

Inherent in Prison Work

Rosemary Ricciardelli

1

Abstract

I draw data from an ethnographic experience of participating in correctional

off‌icer training at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to explore the

position of prisoner health in informing correctional off‌icer discretion. I

unpack how through training CSC holds recruits accountable for their

actions, reactions, and discretionary behaviors, while also structuring recruit

decision-making by enforcing a model that promotes a co-response between

health care and security actors in prison. I speak to correctional off‌icer legal

vulnerabilities, the value of documentation as a means to rationalize actions,

and make recommendations for future research, policy,and training practices.

Keywords

correctional off‌icer training, co-response model, discretion

Introduction

Correctional off‌icers (CO s) are legally and institutionally he ld accountable

for their actions, which are infor med by discretion, when following polic y

and when acting outside o f the parameters of policy. In Ca nada, examples

1

Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Rosemary Ricciardelli, Memorial University of Newfoundland Safety, Security and Wellness

Fisheries and Marine Institute, 155 Ridge Road, St. John’s, NL A1C 5R3, Canada.

Email: rricciadell@mun.ca

Article

The Prison Journal

2022, Vol. 102(6) 651–672

© 2022 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855221136195

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

of COs legally defending their actions after a dea th in custody or other such

adverse events are too comm on and reinforce that COs are vulnerabl e—

physically and legally. Fo r instance, after the in-custody death of As hley

Smith, on October 25, 2007, t hree COs and the supervisor on shift we re

charged with criminal neg ligence causing death (the warden ’sanddeputy

warden’s employment were terminat ed); later, they were all were cleare d

of the charges (The Canadian Press, 2013; Vincent, 2013 ). In the 2015

case of Matthew Hynes’in custody death, two off‌icers were charged with

manslaughter and criminal ne gligence, charges that Judge LeBlanc dis-

missed after a preliminary hear ing (The Canadian Press, 2019). In

Newfoundland and Labra dor, 10 COs faced charges, including m anslaugh-

ter, failure to provide necessities of life, and negligence causing death, in

the case of Jonathan Henoc he’s2019incustodydeath(Cooke,2021).

These charges were eventually dropped. Similarities across these cases

remain that the prisoner s who died in custody had health-rel ated needs and

that the off‌icers responded based on thei r training and instructions recei ved.

These cases bring to the fore the vulnerabilities of COs who must assume the

risk of decision making whi le being held accountable for their actions.

After the death of Matthew Hynes, the Correctional Service of Canada

(CSC) introduced the Engagement and Intervention Model (EIM); a

co-response modelthat encourages a collaborative response between institu-

tional health care and security that informs the assessments and responses of

COs to situations. The EIM is not just for COs. All CSC employees train in

the EIM, learning to use the EIM as a means to assess and reassess unfolding

incidents, with the intention of promoting responses that encourage safety and

security whilecentralizing health. The modelis to structure employee decision-

making, and thus discretion, while providing a documentation trail (e.g., the

writing of Statement/ObservationReports (SOR)) that explainsthe thought pro-

cesses behind staff actions and serves as both a defense for the off‌icer and a

space for management to review their actions. In the current immersive ethno-

graphic study, I draw from the data to explore the training received by correc-

tional off‌icer recruits (CORs)at CSC’s national training academy to understand

how COs are preparedfor their occupational responsibilities, particularly in the

realm of use of force, off‌icer decision making and discretion, and when

responding to adverse and potentially psychologically traumatic events.

Off‌icer Discretion and Decision Making

In the context of correctional work, I def‌ine discretion as put forth by

Haggerty and Bucerius (2020, p. np); involving “personal judgment by off‌i-

cials who have leeway to decide how vigorously they will enforce the laws,

652 The Prison Journal 102(6)