Maximum security prisons present particular institutions of legal punishment established in the United States. They are designed for “the worst of the worst”; the system is based on practically constant “lockdown” and control (Rhodes, 2018). Despite the continued use of such a system in the United States, the author challenges the reasonableness of maximum security prisons or control units and promotes an idea of its inherent irrationality.
The paper aims to analyze the internal design of control units and the conditions upon which they are built. Subsequently, the author’s purpose is to consider how confinement in such institutions affects inmates and the staff. Overall, the paper applies qualitative analysis methods; particularly, the author appeals to primary sources of data, providing observations over and partly interviews with particular prisoners. However, the scope of a paper is relatively limited because the author visits only one control unit; it is regarded as a typical one, so the results of observations and data collection are generalized over the entire system.
Paper provides a few portraits of inmates; the first one is presented in the beginning and characterizes the general impression of imprisonment. This inmate is called Jeremy Roland, and he has a life sentence. Nevertheless, he regrets his crimes and is ready to be punished; thus, he can be characterized as a rational actor, although he denies it himself. Also, Roland divides inmates of maximum security prisons into two categories: “bad” and “sick.” (Rhodes, 2018). Overall, given Roland’s rationality, he can be assigned to the first group, but the next portrait drawn by the author represents a second one.
This prisoner is Thomas Vincent; he is sick, and mad psychologically; the author notes that he has destroyed all his property and continues to harm himself. The central paradox is that Vincent should be released because his sentence is close to the end. However, he still has psychologically deviant, and even the staff that has controlled him question the adequacy of his release and what they should do with him. Therefore, these two contradictory examples illustrate a problem of the system’s reasonableness set by the author because while rational prisoners are forced to serve severe sentences (Roland’s life imprisonment), irrational ones are released (Vincent’s “madness”) (Rhodes, 2018).
Further, the author provides a more profound analysis of a system’s design, describing conditions in which prisoners are forced to live. Mainly, she refers to total, whether visible or symbolical, control over inmates, established through the electrified perimeter, efficient surveillance, found forms of body restraints, and access of the staff to the entire biography of every prisoner. Such conditions differ radically compared to general population units, in which inmates can experience a greater extent of autonomy. Anyway, the accumulation of infractions in the general population can transfer a prisoner to a control unit.
Thus, such institutions include especially dangerous criminals and psychologically adequate inmates who failed to adapt to the rules of the general population. However, such control does not fix the criminal’s behavior but breaks his identity, leading to severe mental issues. Such a phenomenon is represented by portraits of Stephen Tillich and William Kramer, whose presence in control units resulted in depression, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia.
In conclusion, the paper demonstrates that maximum-security prisons do not correct the behavior of criminals, but, by contrast, such institutions can psychologically suppress them, breaking a person. However, this research is still limited by the scope of analysis and methods. Notably, it can be continued by applying other methods (besides quantitative ones, numerical data can also be analyzed) and being provided on other units of studied type.
Reference
Rhodes A. L. Total Confinement; Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison. University of California Press; 1st edition (2004).