NCJ Number
196947
Journal
Crime & Delinquency Volume: 48 Issue: 4 Dated: October 2002 Pages: 499-525
Editor(s)
Ronald E. Vogel
Date Published
October 2002
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This article discusses a research project that compared the degree of citizen opposition to prison amenities as a function of perceptions regarding who pays for such amenities.
Abstract
In addition to the report on a research project, this article also includes a literature review concerning the campaign against prison amenities during the 1990's by politicians and government officials, which resulted in reduced prison amenities. The arguments used were that citizens did not want tax dollars used to finance inmate privileges and that such "frills" did not deter crime. This was a reversal of previous decades when rehabilitation and humane treatment were endorsed for prisoners. Additionally, it was argued that stripping prisoner's amenities would create specific deterrent effects, a claim not supported by empirical evidence, and also that it saved the States' money. The reality uncovered in this study was that money was not saved and, in fact, this new approach may be more costly. Questionnaires were completed in August 1998 and February 1999 by 181 citizens, of Pinellas County, Florida, and divided into 3 groups. The three groups were give three different types of information: the first, that all privileges were paid for through an Inmate Fund of money earned by the inmates themselves; the second group was told that prisoner privileges are paid for with tax dollars; and the third group was given no special information. It was found that respondents who were informed that prisoners paid for their privileges were more supportive of inmate access to all of the amenities, except air conditioning, than those told that tax dollars paid for privileges. It is emphasized that legislation that addresses the realities of a congested penal system will better serve all citizens, as it has been found in previous studies that prisons that use a system of rewards, including amenities, had fewer escapes, homicides, suicides, or sexual assaults. In conclusion, it is recommended that future research survey larger and more diverse samples and incorporate respondent knowledge of amenity funding as a variable. Appendices, references