Punishment within Prison: An Examination of the Influences of Prison Officials’ Decisions to Remove Sentencing Credits

• Published date: 01 March 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12250
• Date: 01 March 2017

Punishment within Prison: An Examination of the

Influences of Prison Officials’ Decisions to Remove

Sentencing Credits

Benjamin Steiner Calli M. Cain

Despite considerable research directed toward understanding the factors that

affect punishment decision-making leading to imprisonment, few studies have

examined the influences of punishment decisions within prisons. Punishment

decisions made within prisons can affect an individual’s liberty during their

imprisonment and/or the timing of their release from prison if the punish-

ment results in the loss of sentencing credits or influences parole decision-

making. Moreover, if punishment disparities result from these decisions, then

some offender groups may endure a greater loss of liberty relative to others.

In this study, we examine the factors that influence prison officials’ decisions

to remove sentencing credits in response to prison rule violations. Analysis of

collected data from a Midwestern state prison system reveal that prison offi-

cials are primarily influenced by the seriousness and type of the rule violation,

along with an inmate’s violation history. Other relevant factors include those

proximately connected to an inmate’s risk of subsequent misbehavior such as

gang membership and those that are linked to practical consequences and

constraints associated with the organizational environment and particular

inmates such as the proportion of their sentence an inmate has served and

whether an inmate has mental health problems.

Aconsiderable amount of research has been directed toward

understanding justice system actors’ decision-making concerning

criminal punishment. Most of this research has centered on deter-

mining the influences of judicial decisions regarding imprisonment

or parole officials’ decisions related to re-imprisonment (e.g.,

Baumer 2013; Feldmeyer and Ulmer 2011; Huebner and Bynum

2006; Kutateladze et al. 2014; Lin, Grattet, and Petersilia 2010; Pat-

terson 2015; Spohn and Holleran 2000; Steiner et al. 2011; Ulmer

2012; Warren, Chiricos, and Bales 2012; Wooldredge 2010;

This project was supported by the Nebraska Center for Justice Research, a research

unit of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska Oma-

ha. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the publica-

tion are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of

Nebraska, Omaha. The authors wish to thank Dr. Abby Vandenberg and Dr. Robert Lytle

for their assistance with the collection of the data for this study.

Please direct all correspondence to Benjamin Steiner, School of Criminology and Crim-

inal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE

68182-0149; e-mail: bmsteiner@unomaha.edu.

Law & Society Review, Volume 51, Number 1 (2017)

V

C2017 Law and Society Association. All rights reserved.

70

Wooldredge, Griffin, and Rauschenberg 2005). Few studies have

focused on punishment decisions made within prisons (e.g., Flana-

gan 1982; Thomas et al. 1991).

An examination of decision-making pertaining to punish-

ment administered within prisons is important, however, because

these decisions can restrict an individual’s liberty during their

imprisonment (e.g., segregation), and also affect the timing of an

individual’s release from prison if the punishment results in the

loss of sentencing credits or influences parole decision-making

(Babcock 1981; Flanagan 1982; Glaser 1969). Punishment deci-

sions made within prison are also subjected to little oversight,

and prison officials enjoy considerable discretion when meting

out punishments (Crouch 1985; Harvard Center for Criminal

Justice 1972; Thomas et al. 1991). If punishment disparities

result from this situation, then some offender groups may

endure a greater loss of liberty relative to others. Unfair or dis-

parate treatment of offender groups can also undermine the

legitimacy of a prison organization, which could influence

inmates’ willingness to defy the prison rules and other legal

authorities (Liebling 2004; Sparks , Bottoms, and Hay 1996;

Useem and Kimball 1989). To better understand these issues, we

examine punishment decisions made by prison officials in a Mid-

western state. Specifically, we assess the factors that influence

prison officials’ decisions to remove sentencing credits in

response to prison rule violations.

Sentencing Credit Laws, a Midwestern State, and Prison

Discipline

Sentencing credit laws provide opportunities for inmates to

gain a reduction in their prison sentence (Lawrence and Lyons

2011; Weisburd and Chayet 1989), and such laws generally

assume one of two forms—good time or earned time laws (Law-

rence and Lyons 2011). Under good time laws, sentencing credits

are typically awarded to inmates automatically if they follow pris-

on rules and participate in required activities, whereas earned

time laws generally only permit sentencing credits to be awarded

to inmates who participate in or complete designated programs

(e.g., rehabilitative treatment) (Lawrence 2009). Inmates can earn

good time credits in 32 states, while 37 states have laws that

afford inmates earned time credits; many states permit inmates to

be awarded both types of sentencing credits (Lawrence and

Lyons 2011).

The Midwestern state under study here has a sentencing

credit law that automatically awards inmates six months of good

Steiner & Cain 71