Less Than Utopian: Sex Offender Treatment in a Milieu of Power Struggles, Status Positioning, And Inmate Manipulation in State Correctional Institutions
| Author | Michael S. Vaughn,Allen D. Sapp |
| Date | 01 October 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/003288558906900210 |
| Published date | 01 October 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
73
Less
Than
Utopian:
Sex
Offender
Treatment
in
a
Milieu
of
Power
Struggles,
Status
Positioning,
And
Inmate
Manipulation
in
State
Correctional
Institutions
Michael
S.
Vaughn
and
Allen
D.
Sapp*
When
a
prisoner
enters
a
penal
institution,
an
enormous
adjustment
process
follows.
State
prisons
possess
the
elements
of
Goffman’s
(1961,
1962)
total
institution:
stripping
inmates
of
self-esteem
and
subjecting
them
to
inhumane
degradation
(Garfinkel,
1956).
Incoming
prisoners
are
exposed
to
a
normative
system
requiring
adaptation
to
the
inmate
social
code
(Kalinich, 1980).
Initially,
learning
to
live
according
to
the
inmate
culture
is
arduous;
however,
the
inmate
quickly
realizes
the
prison
culture
facilitates
existence
and
relieves
hardships
attendant
within
total
institutions
(Sykes,
1958).
Besides
the
social
code,
inmates
encounter
an
informal
hierarchical
organization
in
which
certain
prisoners
obtain
institutional
privileges
(Garabedian,
1963).
The
correc-
tional
pecking
order
is
firmly
established
when
new
inmates
arrive;
nonetheless,
how
prisoners
manipulate
the
status
hierarchy
has
consequences
for
inmates’
physical
and
emotional
health.
Prisoners
high
in
the
status
hierarchy
are
targeted
by
others
attempting
to
acquire
prestige.
Likewise,
inmates
with
little
status
are
vulnerable
to
victimization,
being
perceived
as
weak.
The
emotional
toll
of
perpetually
being
on
guard
from
an
attack
wears
at
fragile
mental
stability
and
challenges
survival
within
correctional
institutions.
Pressures
are
also
introduced
by
correctional
and
treatment
staff.
Contradictory
messages
from
authorities
concerning
expectations
for
release
further
burden
inmates’
adjustment
to
the
prison
culture,
which
demands
absolute
resistance
to
the
establishment.
Presently,
custody
is
taking
precedence
over
rehabilitation,
leaving
treatment
providers
with
little
moral
or
financial
support.
Due
to
budget
restraints
and
burden-
some
overcrowding
issues,
treatment
modalities
are
not
receiving
high
priority
from
lawmakers.
For
example,
incertainty
hovers
over
treatment
programs
due
to
the
level
and
stability
of
monetary
sources,
negatively
affecting
rehabilitation
(Babcock,
1988).
Perhaps
out
of
fiscal
constraints,
treatment
alternatives
purported
to
be
optimal,
even
though
costly,
are
eliminated
since
little
or
no
conclusive
data
exists
to
validate
the
success
of
a
specific
rehabilitative
strategy.
With
increasingly
conservative
views
of
crime
and
criminality,
incapacitation
is
more
appealing
to
policymakers
and
corrections
officials
than
expensive
rehabilitative
programs
(Fogel,
1975;
Irwin,
1988).
As
we
enter
the
last
decade
of
the
twentieth
century,
the
custody/treatment
pendulum
is
swinging
toward
acceptance
of
Robert
Martinson’s
(1974)
hypothesis
of
&dquo;nothing
works.&dquo;
In
the
general
inmate
population,
the
&dquo;nothing
works&dquo;
philosophy
has
levied
a
severe
blow
to
the
rehabilitative
movement;
however,
contrary
to
the
general
inmate
population’s
treatment
decline,
sex
offenders
are
receiving
a
considerable
amount
of
rehabilitative
attention
(Babcock,
1988).
Mysterious
as
it
seems,
even
though
sex
offenders
are
not
perceived
as
worthy
of
tax
dollars,
the
public
continues
to
focus
attention
on
sex
crimes
and
rehabilitative
efforts
toward
the
sex
offender,
often
to
the
neglect
of
other
offenders
(Erikson, 1966;
McKenna,
1988).
*Michael
S.
Vaughn
is
a
graduate
teaching
assistant
in
the
Department
of
Criminal
Justice
Administration,
Central
Missouri
State
University,
Warrensburg.
Allen
D.
Sapp
is
associate
professor
of
criminal
justice,
Central
Missouri
State
University.
74
Research
indicates
the
general
public
supports
utilitarian
rehabilitative
efforts;
however,
questions
remain
concerning
the
generalization
of
those
results
to
wider
society
(Gottfredson
et
al.
1988).
Usually,
society
is
content
believing
that
inmates
are
serving
time
for their
crimes.
Social
indignation
and
condemnation
reach
high
levels
when
dealing
with
sex
offenders.
For
example,
a
capacity
crowd
at
a
public
hearing
gave
a
police
officer
a
standing
ovation
when
he
testified,
&dquo;the
only
cured
sex
offender ...
was
the
rapist...
shot
to
death&dquo;
(&dquo;Bill
Targets,&dquo;
1989:6).
It
is
difficult
to
imagine
society
expressing
a
collective
hatred
with
more
conviction
than
the
one
toward
sex
offenders.
Societal
rejection
of
sex
offenders,
child
molesters,
and
sex
deviants
create
both
a
low
social
status
for
such
offenders
and
a
negative
treatment
environment
in
the
prison.
Although
rehabilitation
programs
for
sexual
criminals
are
receiving
funding,
society
is
reluctant
to
appropriate
resources
for
sufficient
sex
offender
treatment
programs
(Cox,
1984).
Nevertheless,
there
is
an
increase
in
treatment
alternatives
for
sex
offenders.
The
majority
of
the
increase
is
accounted
for
by
private
community-based
programs
(Knopp
and
Stevenson,
1988).
Indeed,
a
significant
proportion
of
dangerous
sex
offenders
are
incarcerated,
although
treatment
providers
admit
community-based
facilities
provide
the
most
appropriate
rehabilitative
environment
(Knopp,
1984).
Managerial,
ethical,
and
political
issues
divide
the
correctional
bureaucracy
regarding
satisfactory
levels
of
sex
offender
treatment.
Administrators
encounter
logistical
problems
when
housing
vast
numbers
of
sex
offenders.
Due
to
the
sex
offender’s
lack
of
status,
many
are
prone
to
victimization.
Fear
for
personal
safety
forces
deviants
to
request
administrative
segregation
from
the
general
prison
population.
The
vast
majority
of
offenders
inside
protective
custody
are
sex
offenders.
Administrative
segregation
further
isolates
sex
offenders,
limits
treatment
participation,
and
curtails
movement
to
a
minimum
(Cotton
&
Groth,
1982).
Ethical
issues
also
cloud
treatment
alternatives
available
to
persons
incarcerated
for
sex
crimes.
Castration
and
neurosurgery
are
appealing
to
the
punitive
public,
but
are
opposed
by
human
rights
activists,
inasmuch
as
civil
libertarians
fear
the
abuses
portrayed
in
the
1971
film
CLockwork
Orange.
Research
has
documented
that
under
Dangerous
Sexual
Offender
(DSO)
statutes,
nonthreatening
sex
offenders
were
institu-
tionalized
for
unreasonable
and
lengthy
time
periods
(Greenland,
1977).
As
a
result,
states
with
DSO
laws
have
repealed
them.
Furthermore,
politically
it
is
not
acceptable
to
cater
to
the
sex
offender’s
needs.
Lawrence
Singleton,
the
man
who
raped
and
cut
off
his
victim’s
arms,
is
a case
in
point.
Singleton
illustrates
the
politically
explosive
situation
California’s
paroling
authority
encountered
when
it
could
not
find
a
community
to
parole
the
attempted
murderer/rapist
(&dquo;Not
in
My
Town,&dquo;
1987).
Within
the
institution,
treatment
professionals
face
multiple
problems.
On
one
hand,
sex
offenders
deliberately
manipulate
rehabilitative
processes
and
undermine
treatment
efforts.
On
the
other
hand,
prison
administrators
are
shifting
emphasis
away
from
rehabilitative
services
to
custody-oriented
institutions
(Irwin,
1977;
Babcock,
1988).
This
results
in
treatment
providers
facing
higher
expectations
of
success
from
correctional
administrators
while
noncooperative
clients
hinder
effective
treatment.
The
lack
of
a
rehabilitative
mandate
and
administrative
support
leads
to
a
whole
host
of
contradictory
objectives,
clouding
modality
direction
and
inhibiting
staff
morale.
Problems
identified
by
Lipton,
Martinson,
and
Wilks
(1975)
in
their
thorough
review
of
the
literature
are
manifest
today.
Are
sex
offender
rehabilitative
strategies
wholly
insufficient
in
conception?
Do
they
lack
the
capacity
to
surmount
the
philo-
sophical
orientation?
Are
the
programs
conceptually
intact
but
nevertheless
fail
due
to
incompetent
implementation,
insufficient
funding,
and
inadequate
staffing?
Rhetoric
is
abundant;
however,
little
sound
empirical
evidence
exists
testing
the
validity
of
treatment
effectiveness
for
sex
offenders
(West,1983).
That
does
not
mean,
however,
that
To continue reading
Request your trial