Nefarious and Disconcerting Motivations for Choosing a Correctional Officer Position: A Deviant Case Analysis

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187415
• Author: Alexander L. Burton,Cheryl Lero Jonson,Damon M. Petrich,William T. Miller
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 10, October 2023, 1506 –1525.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231187415

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1506

NEFARIOUS AND DISCONCERTING

MOTIVATIONS FOR CHOOSING A

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POSITION

A Deviant Case Analysis

ALEXANDER L. BURTON

The University of Texas at Dallas

CHERYL LERO JONSON

Xavier University

DAMON M. PETRICH

Loyola University Chicago

WILLIAM T. MILLER

University of Cincinnati

Most research finds that individuals are drawn to the correctional officer occupation for the pay and benefits or because it

provides a new and exciting opportunity. However, these are not the only interests for choosing a correctional officer position.

The current study draws on a sample of pre-service correctional officers surveyed prior to beginning their jobs (N = 673). In

the spirit of the deviant case method, we focus on a subset of our sample who provided problematic motivations for becom-

ing officers (n = 38). Using a thematic analytic approach, we identified five broad themes within this nefariously/disconcert-

ingly motivated sample: use of force, punitive focus, power and control, cavalier ulterior motives, and problematic social

boundaries. We theorize, based on prior research, that these individuals could constitute a meaningful minority that may

contribute to the detriment of both their organizations and those they are overseeing. Future research should explore this

possibility.

Keywords: career motivations; corrections officers; prisons; deviant case analysis

Individuals who choose to work as a correctional officer often face many challenges on

the job. Notwithstanding the fact that they perform a job that carries with it an increased

risk of physical assault, contracting transmissible diseases, and developing psychological

maladies, they are often portrayed as “hacks” who do “dirty work” (Freeman, 1998; Konda

et al., 2013; Maruschak et al., 2016; Vickovic et al., 2013). Due to the difficulties of the

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alexander L. Burton,

Criminology and Criminal Justice Program, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080-3021;

e-mail: alexander.burton@utdallas.edu.

1187415CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231187415Criminal Justice and BehaviorBurton et al. / Nefarious and Disconcerting Motivations

research-article2023

Burton et al. / NEFARIOUS AND DISCONCERTING MOTIVATIONS 1507

work, and often negative depiction of their occupation, a key question is: “Why do indi-

viduals choose to become correctional officers?”

Studying career motivations for this occupation is not new or unique. Several studies

have specifically explored the factors that motivate individuals to choose correctional offi-

cer careers. These studies generally report that “pay and benefits,” “job status,” and a “new

opportunity” are the main draws for choosing a correctional officer position (Burton,

Jonson, Miller, Petrich, & Burton, 2022; Ricciardelli et al., 2022; Ricciardelli & Martin,

2017; Schlosser et al., 2010). However, not all individuals are motivated by these prospects.

Given the relative power that correctional officers are afforded over those serving time in

prisons, a small but meaningful number of individuals are motivated to take these positions

for what we label as “nefarious or disconcerting reasons.” We define these interests as ones

that are, on their face, disturbing or potentially problematic for the safety or well-being of

all those living and working in the prison.

In the spirit of the deviant case method (Molnar, 1967; Sullivan, 2011), the current study

examines the ~6% of our sample that provided nefarious or disconcerting interests for

choosing a correctional officer career. Note that a defining characteristic of the deviant case

method is “to acknowledge the existence of outliers and reflect on their theoretical implica-

tions” (Gibbert et al., 2021, p. 179). Although our study reflects on the potential implica-

tions of these individuals on their organizations, it is important to interpret our findings and

theorizations with caution. In other words, what we present here is not the norm in the

occupation. In the case of our overall sample, approximately 94% of the officers reported

what we consider to be either neutral or favorable reasons for taking a correctional officer

position, such as “the pay and benefits,” “to protect society,” and “to help offenders turn

their lives around.”

Drawing on data from newly hired corrections officers collected in three states, we focus

specifically on the nefarious/disconcerting reasons officers gave for pursuing a position as

a correctional officer. We then theorize how this group might constitute a meaningful minor-

ity that could potentially contribute to the detriment of departments of correction as well as

those serving time in prisons. Below, we review the correctional officer career motivations

literature examining the linkage between motivations/interests and related outcomes, and

then the literature on correctional officer deviance. The working theory posits that those

whose motivations and interests for entering the occupation are nefarious or disconcerting

might be more likely to commit deviant acts while on the job. Prior to discussing the meth-

ods used to carry out our work, we also explain a “bad apple” argument outlining the poten-

tial ramifications of these officers both on those they oversee and work with.

CHOOSING THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PROFESSION

Regardless of the challenges faced by correctional officers at work and the bravery that is

required to do the job, correctional officers are generally depicted negatively and labeled as

“hacks” (Vickovic et al., 2013). In this context, the “hack” correctional officer is regarded as

incompetent, performing a low-skill job that is mostly custodial in nature, with little care for the

suffering of people incarcerated; in other words, the “hack” correctional officer is someone

who simply performs “dirty work” (Toch, 1978; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Newspaper media per-

petuates this image. For example, analyzing approximately 1,500 newspaper articles, Freeman

(1998) uncovered that about 60% of articles perpetuate the stereotype that correctional officers