View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Making Prisons Safe Dr Kimmett Edgar
May, 2014
There were nearly 11,000 recorded assaults by prisoners on
other prisoners in 2013; between 2010 and 2013, serious
assaults increased by 14% (Prison Reform Trust, 2014).
Prison managers have a serious commitment to ensuring that
prisons are safe. I firmly believe that prisons can be safer,
and I hope this paper provides some ideas about how to
achieve that.
Most prisoners feel safe most of the time. No one is violent
all of the time. And every day, prison officers prevent dozens,
perhaps hundreds of fights and assaults. They observe signs
of trouble and know when and how to intervene.
However, violence reduction strategies and staff interventions
are hampered by a lack of information about the
circumstances that lead to violence. Much of what is known
about prison violence is gleaned from officers who respond
after violence has erupted.
I will say more about how we did our research in a moment,
but our interviews with officers demonstrated that in two-
thirds of the incidents they responded to, they did not have
2
a good grasp of what led to the fight or assault. Less than
one in five said that they had any security intelligence that
could have helped them to predict that it would happen. Only
three per cent felt that there had been anything they could
have done to prevent it.
The premise for a conflict-based strategy to reduce violence
is that violent incidents can be studied as the culmination of
conflicts between prisoners. Knowing how and why conflicts
escalate into violence is an essential foundation for
preventing fights and assaults.
Central questions explored by conflict-centred strategies are:
How do prisoners handle it when trouble arises with another
prisoner?
What factors determine whether a dispute is resolved or
results in a fight?
What skills do prisoners use when in disputes; and how likely
are those tactics to resolve the situation or drive it towards
a fight or assault?
Why do prisoners decide to use force?
Research
Research conducted by Edgar, O’Donnell and Martin at the
University of Oxford Centre for Criminology gathered data on
violent incidents in prisons in England and Wales (Edgar, et
al. 2003).
3
Prisoners who were directly involved in a fight or assault
clearly have a privileged perspective. They were personally
involved in the problem that led up to the violence. The
knowledge they had about the incident is indispensable to an
explanation of why it occurred – and, hence how it might
have been prevented.
The Escalator: a diagram of conflict
We began by asking the prisoner to describe the problem
with the other person from the first sign of trouble, in a
sequence of steps.
Susan
Through questions about the options available at points
along the way, the escalator presented the possibility that
the violence could have been averted. Indeed, some of the
disputes presented behaviour that opened up possibilities for
a peaceful resolution.
I came in the prison and was confronted by three women who demanded drugs.
They asked, ‘Are you frightened to show you have drugs?’ I said, ‘Nothing frightens me.’
I then heard them talking about assaulting me, so I prepared for a confrontation.
They were intimidating on association, so I said to the leader, ‘Come into the toilets with me’.
She went in, all happy. I punched her in the face, just once.
Q What did you hope to achieve? It wasn’t pre-meditated, but I knew I had to take action. No way you can run to the officers.
4
Conflict Resulting in Violence
Conflicts are
Situations in which there are competing interests which the
parties pursue in uncompromising ways.
Analysing the incident as a conflict means looking at the
parties involved, the clash of interests between them, the
tactics they used to achieve their goals, the relationship
between them – before, during and after the conflict – and
the social environment in which the conflict developed.
How people handle disputes can aggravate the situation and
make it more likely that one or both would resort to physical
force. Such tactics include verbal abuse, threats, and hostile
gestures.
Interests are what the person wants out of the situation,
which might relate to an object, such as a newspaper, or
values, such as loyalty.
The social context refers to policies and conditions that
generate conflicts. For example, a wing might tolerate one of
the phones being out of action. But combine that with two or
three nights of association being cancelled, and the
atmosphere will be very tense: violent conflicts are far more
likely to arise.
5
The conflict pyramid
These diverse elements - relationships, interests, tactics, and
the social context - can be illustrated by following the course
of one dispute.
Ballard's account
tactics
interests
relationships
interpretations
purposes of force
social context
I'm in the food queue. I get a smashed ice cream.
I ask the servery lad, ‘Could you change this for me please, bro?’ He just stares. I look for a reply.
Jenkins shouts ‘No!’ still staring at me. I say, ‘I ain’t no dickhead.’ I walk away.
When I come out for breakfast, go to the servery. Jenkins is in front of the servery, looking for trouble.
I laugh and walk away. Jenkins hits me in the back of the head. I turn round and we start rucking.
Q. Why did you think he was staring at you? A. He was trying to intimidate or frighten me.’
6
Jenkins’ account
The stares, accusations and challenges show how poor
conflict resolution skills escalated this dispute. Banter is
commonplace, but in disputes, verbal abuse is used to
belittle an opponent and win a war of words.
Another narrative shows how people with learning disabilities
can be at a disadvantage in disputes.
Shawn scalded Phil with boiled water. When I interviewed them,
an officer said Shawn had a learning disability. Shawn explained
that he loaned Phil some tobacco. The first time, it was a gift.
The fourth time, Shawn said he wanted to be repaid and Phil
agreed. When Phil got paid, Shawn asked for a smoke, but Phil
offered him a chocolate bar. Shawn persisted about their
agreement, but when Phil turned his back and walked away
Shawn threw the water. Although Phil’s interview does not suggest
any wrongdoing towards Shawn, it is likely that Phil was taking
advantage and exploiting Shawn.
I am not suggesting that people with learning disabilities are
inherently poor at resolving conflict. They might have a good
understanding of how to resolve a dispute, but be unable to
I'm on the servery. A new guy demands a different ice lolly.
I say no; the officer says no. The new guy says to the other servery worker, “Tell that boy to do as I tell him.”
In the morning, I am on the hot plate. Ballard comes in and gives me a dirty look.
I say, “Why are you running off your mouth?” He is mouthy back.
I start to walk away, but then I turned and hit him. Officers come in and break it up.
Q. Why did Ballard say this to the other worker? A. He was trying to put me down, like he was higher than me.
7
explain the solution. However they might find it difficult to
process information or believe they have very few options,
and this can have an effect on how they respond to conflict.
No One Knows, a study by Jenny Talbot at the Prison
Reform Trust, defined learning disability as:
A significantly reduced ability to understand complex
information or learn new skills (impaired intelligence)
A reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social
functioning)
A condition which started before adulthood . . . and has
a lasting effect
Learning disabilities
Limited language ability, comprehension and communication skills:
– Difficulty understanding certain words
– Difficulty understanding and responding to questions
– Difficulty reading body language and following social cues
Limited memory capacity:
– Difficulty recalling information
– Take longer to process information
– Difficulty ordering and sequencing
Can be acquiescent and suggestible; under pressure, might try to
appease others
Frequently unable to read and write very well, or at all.
If undetected, they are often left to manage conflicts alone.
Even when they are involved in an incident, their disability
may not come to light. No One Knows found that people
8
with learning disabilities and difficulties were five times more
likely to say they had been subject to control and restraint.
Prisoners with learning disabilities who are not helped when
they complain about being victimised find other ways of
coping, which include staying in their cells – at greater risk
of self harm – or lashing out. Shawn’s story illustrates the
complexity of the links to violent incidents as he filled both
victim and perpetrator roles.
Lessons from conflict
What lessons can we gain from conflict to help prisons
prevent violence? Three important themes arise.
The high risk of being victimised exacerbates prison
conflicts
Tactics used in prison disputes tend to escalate rather
than resolve conflicts
Anti-social behaviour, such as threats or accusations, was
often reciprocal
The first theme is that the high risk of being victimised - for
example through theft or exploitation - exacerbates conflicts
in prison, creating conditions in which prisoners might be led
to use force.
9
When officers ensure the safety of all prisoners from
victimisation, they are preventing conflicts which might
otherwise result in assaults or fights. When exploitation is not
confronted by staff, there is an incentive to prisoners to
protect their interests with force.
The second theme is that the tactics prisoners use tend to
escalate rather than resolve the conflict. For example,
challenges are common, such as ‘Who are you looking at?’
or ‘What do you think you’re doing?’
In 46% of the incidents, prior to the fights or assault, one or
both had accused or threatened the other; verbal challenges
were used in 42%; invasions of personal space, insults or
commands in about a third. Appearing in combination, these
Cycle One – an eye for an eye
The risk of assault is increased by the belief that being
wronged or exploited requires physical retaliation.
Actual risks of
being cheated,
exploited, or
defrauded Material
deprivations
increase the
urgency to
defend property
Theft, fraud,
bad debts are
seen as signs
of disrespect
Norm: wrong-
doing merits
physical
punishment
Prisoners react to
perceived wrongs
with violence
10
behaviours become reliable predictors that physical violence
is imminent.
The risk of being assaulted escalates disputes. Our studies
found that 89 per cent of prisoners believed that violence in
prison was inevitable. When threats of violence are made
credible by a high risk of assault, each party to a dispute
believes that the other could use force and it becomes
harder to resolve a conflict.
The third theme is that anti-social behaviour was often
reciprocal. This aspect of prison violence should inform our
approach to ‘victims’.
Cycle Two – force begets force
Prisoners' responses to their fears for physical safety
increase the likelihood that violence will result.
actual risk of
assault: rates vary
across prisons
feelings of
intimidation,
psychological
preparation for
violent self-defence
defensive reactions:
hostility, deception,
suspicion, challenges,
accusations
perceived need
to demonstrate
toughness by
using force to
deter others
11
The role of victim
The concepts victim and perpetrator imply unilateral
responsibility: the perpetrator causes the problem; the victim
plays a passive role. Violent incidents such as robbery and
punishment beatings tend to follow this pattern. We found
very little overlap between victims and perpetrators of
robbery. People who robbed others were very unlikely to be
robbed. The same applied to cell theft.
However, there was a significant overlap between victims and
perpetrators of assault, insults and threats. People who
threatened others tended to have been threatened.
The conflicts study showed the prevalence of reciprocal harm
in conflicts that led to violence:
78% described mutual victimisation prior to the use of force
31% described mutual insults
41% described mutual threats
The type of population influenced the likelihood of mutual harm.
Reciprocal threats prior to the fight or assault were described by
45% in the young offender institution
50% in the local prison
36% in the women’s prison
23% in the high secure prison
In the 1950s, Marvin Wolfgang investigated 588 homicides in
Philadelphia. In a quarter of the murders, the victim was the
first to use force or produce a weapon. If we focus on
victims, then precipitation appears to be totally irrational. Why
would someone kick off a series of events in which they are
12
killed? The answer is not to analyse the personality traits of
victims. Rather, the logical explanation is that in these
situations, it is not clear in advance who will be the victim
and who, the perpetrator.
That is a good foundation for understanding the role of
victims of assaults. To be clear: no one deserves to be
assaulted. That someone on the receiving end of harmful
behaviour is a victim isn’t hard to grasp. What might be
difficult is that in a majority of violent incidents in prison,
both parties are victims and perpetrators.
When there is reciprocal victimisation, or when officers do
not have enough information to judge which person is at
fault, they will be most effective if they are even-handed in
confronting the aggressive tactics that they can observe:
threats, verbal abuse, ultimatums and accusations. In other
words, to prevent violence arising from disputes, officers
should be focusing on behaviour, not individuals.
The conflict-centred analysis shows that:
Risk is dynamic
- Lifestyle can expose someone to higher risks of being
assaulted
- Skills at managing conflict provide options that reduce the
risk of becoming violent
- Having no previous experience of violence does not mean
the person will never become violent
13
Risk is influenced by the situation
- The victimisation that causes disputes to escalate into
violence is – often – reciprocal
- Fear of being dominated by a particular opponent
exacerbates disputes
- Tactics such as accusations, threats and ultimatums narrow
the parties’ options, restricting opportunities for resolution
- Suspicions that the other intends to take advantage, or use
force, give ‘permission’ to resort to injurious force
Risk is social
- Escalation can be influenced by others, e.g., spurred on by
other prisoners, interrupted (temporarily or finally) by an
officer, and restrained by incentives
- A setting where violence is prevalent gives ‘permission’ to
prepare to use force
- Alliances can transfer conflict to other parties
- A victim in one setting can become an aggressor in
another
- The ethos of prisons is more or less tolerant of violence
(e.g., staff view fights as inevitable or preventable; other
prisoners justify, condone, or condemn injurious force)
Functions of Violence
Why do people decide to use violence? What were fights and
assaults about? What motivated those who used force?
Drugs were involved in just over one in ten incidents (slightly
higher among women prisoners).
Bullying, in the sense of one prisoner abusing his or her
power over another to exploit them, was not a common
14
factor leading up to fights. Fewer than one in six had
anything at all to do with bullying, and less than five per
cent were between a bully and their victim.
A third of fights/assaults were punishment beatings, for
example, on a suspected cell thief or an informant. Barry and
Will, below, is typical.
Will
Someone I know outside comes to this jail and
starts to spread rumours.
Barry – he’s the one who set it up – he’s got a
big mouth. He took this story up. He’s the A
wing bully. I offered him in the showers and he
wouldn’t.
Saturday morning I go to the gym as usual – I
was even in the shower with Barry. I went out
on exercise – it felt strange. Five minutes before the end of exercise one bloke goes off
the yard and goes to the toilet. Staff wait in the
corridor for him to come out.
Barry calls me over – I had a feeling it would go
off. Another bloke hit me from behind – I went
down and they started beating me. One was
jumping on me and one was kicking me – I
managed to pull myself up and I was going to
hit one of them, but I noticed the blood so I
went to the screws. I was numb. There was
pain to start with but then it just went numb.
I was taken to healthcare. When I came back I
was kicking off about the screws not being in
the yard. The SO questioned me but I wouldn’t
say who it was. They can’t take action if I won’t
proceed. I think they have an idea who it was.
Barry
Will and me both get transferred from [HMP].
We get on ok together.
I’m on A wing and someone I know is on B
wing. He told me he had a newspaper cutting
about the case. He passed me the cutting on
exercise and I decided he needed to be sorted
out. The next day on exercise, me and the lads
from B wing gave him a beating.
He went to a screw and got taken to healthcare. He came back on the wing – he
was going to stand his ground. My mate was
going to jug him and the screws knew about it
so they moved him down the block on
protection.
15
Intentions and Consequences: Will
At what point do you think the situation
actually became violent?
In the yard.
At what point could you have done something
that might have prevented the violence?
Couldn’t have prevented it. I knew I was going to
get a kicking. It was either take a PP9 [battery]
out on the yard or take a kicking and I want to get
my bird over as quickly as possible.
Intentions and Consequences: Barry
What were you trying to achieve? Nothing really – straightforward punishment.
At what point do you think the situation
actually became violent?
I don’t think it was violent.
Could he have done something to prevent it?
If he’d told us straight away what he’d done it
would have been ok. He lied as well.
At what point do you think violence had to
happen?
When I got the newspaper cutting.
In about a quarter of incidents, prisoners used violence to
project a tough image to others, not involved in the dispute.
Darren slapped Ben at kit change because he feared that
Ben would humiliate him in front of others.
Darren
I come down to kit change and asked for two
towels because I’d left one in the shower the
day before. Bloke on kit change says no, only
one towel, one for one. I explain that the
officer said ok, you can have one, but kit
change still argues.
He then threw the towel over and the other
kit change bloke leans over towards me – I
knew he was going to say something – swear
or something.
I don’t know where it came from but I just
smacked him on the side of the face with my
open hand. That’s not like me and I was
surprised that I did it.
The officer told me to go back to my cell.
Ben
I’m doing kit change with Johnny. An inmate
comes up who I don’t know and asks for an
extra towel.
He and Johnny have an argument about the
towel. I’m handing out the clean kit and I
intervened on Johnny’s behalf. I asked the
officer if he could have another one and he said
no.
I leaned forward to tell the inmate to bugger
off and as I did he slapped me and took me
completely by surprise. Then he ran off and the
officer ran after him and grabbed him and took
him down the block.
16
Intentions and consequences: Darren
What did you expect the kit change guy to do
when he leaned forward?
I was intimidated by the way he leant towards me
– I knew he was going to say something smart – it
was nerves, too. It happened so quick.
What were you trying to stop by slapping him?
Being a big man and embarrassing me. I didn’t
want him to put me down. I don’t like that. You
can’t allow it in here – you really can’t. It causes
bullying and everything.
Intentions and consequences: Ben
What do you think he wanted to achieve by
slapping you?
Nothing. It got him nicked. Maybe the way Johnny
talked to him wound him up.
What might you have done to prevent the
slap?
Give him another towel.
In a quarter of incidents, prisoners used force when faced
with an imminent threat to their safety. Fitzpatrick said that
he used force to restrain Gibson, who had attacked him.
17
Fitzpatrick
I was in my cell, ten at night. I shouted out to a
mate for a magazine. Someone shouted out
‘Get your head down, nigger.’
I shouted out, ‘Do you know who you’re
talking to?’ I told him to get his head down. He
said, ‘I’ll see you in the morning.’
And then, in the morning, he says, ‘Yeah, I ain’t
forgot.’ I’ve gone downstairs, sitting in my
mate’s cell. I looked out and seen Gibson. He
is gesticulating at me to come out of the cell. I
just turned my back on him and carried on
talking.
A couple of seconds later, the cell door is
banged open. And Gibson come in and
punched me on the head. I jumped up and
pushed him. He slipped and fell sideways out
the door. I stepped over him and went out into
the middle of the landing cos I knew the
officers were still feeding people. I thought it
would stop him.
He came towards me. I started backing round
the table tennis table. The officers were
coming down. Just before they got there he
threw a punch. I grabbed hold of his arms and
we both fell on the table. Officers got there
and got in between us. They took me to my
cell and took him to the block.
Gibson
Every night he was making noise by ways of
shouting out the window, or music playing loud
until midnight gone. I shouted out on the
Sunday night, ‘Shut up, you dickhead.’
I’ve got damaged tendons in my hand. And he
shouted, ‘Shut up and get your claw in.’ What I
said next was what caused the problem. I said,
‘Shut up, you nigger. I’ll see you in the
morning.’
And I did see him in the morning. Then there
was a bit of a scuffle in the morning which
started in someone’s cell. Both got nicked. I
ran in there like Mike Tyson, throwing
haymakers.
He said - in the morning – he said, ‘I’ll see you
tonight.’ I thought, ‘I can’t wait.’ Cos I felt
threatened he’d have his mates.
18
Intentions and consequences: Fitzpatrick
When he used the n-word, what do you think
he was trying to achieve?
Probably wanted me to say nothing, close my
window. I don’t think he expected me to say, ‘Get
your head down.’
What were you feeling when he used the n-
word?
Wondering – what did he say that for? He showed
his true colours. But by morning, I’d forgot about it.
If I’d have been angry I would have gone straight
for him.
How did you interpret his promise, ‘See you in
the morning’?
I’ve heard that every day. He says it now, in the
morning he will probably say nothing.
When you were in the cell and he gestured for you to come out – what did he have in mind?
He had his jumper round his waist and the way he
was stood was like he wanted a fight.
Was there a time you might have done
something to prevent it?
If someone’s got it in their head that they’re going
to fight you, it is quite hard to change it. I don’t
think I could, unless I just stayed in my cell all
morning and didn’t come out for breakfast.
What might he have done to prevent it?
If he shouted, ‘Fitzpatrick, I was just a bit wound
up. I didn’t mean to call you that.’ I’d have
respected him for that.
Intentions and consequences: Gibson
When you said him, ‘Shut up you dickhead,’
what did you hope that would do?
I just needed quiet.
[Why call him a dickhead?]
That was just a figure of speech. I wasn’t going to
say, ‘Can you be quiet?’
What was the result?
It brought things to a head. It would have had the
same effect no matter what I said.
What did you mean to achieve when you used
the n-word?
I didn’t mean nothing by it. Not racially
motivated – it wasn’t.
You then said, ‘See you in the morning.’ What
was meant by that?
‘I don’t want to argue. Don’t get mouthy. I’ll argue with you face to face.’ Not inviting him to fight.
What did he mean by he’d ‘see you tonight?’
With his tone, I thought, ‘There’s gonna be
some violence.’
After breakfast you sought him out – what
were you trying to do?
I was looking to sort it out so it don’t
escalate into weapons.
What was the result?
It was stupid. I felt threatened. I felt I had to
confront him straightaway. Why, ‘I’ll see you
tonight?’ I’ll see you now.
Was there a time you could have prevented the
violence?
No. Well, I could have had me toast, carried on
eating me breakfast. But what would happen
on the night? All right saying, ‘Tell the screws.’
You can’t do that in the real world.
19
Many young offenders turned to violence because they
believed it was the best way to resolve their differences. But
women and long-term male prisoners were far less likely to
believe that violence could resolve anything.
Power Contests
Mary Bosworth has written:
“Prison life is characterised by ongoing negotiations of power.”
(Bosworth, M and Carrabine E, 2001)
The most common situation resulting in violence were power
contests. Ballard and Jenkins was a typical example. A
conflict that begins with a clash over some material object
becomes a test of who will dominate whom. In response,
each person insults, threatens, challenges, verbally abuses or
physically intimidates the other.
Concerns about intimidation are widespread in all types of
prison. When people fight over a seemingly trivial object, like
a pot of yoghurt, or access to the pool table, they are likely
to be defending their honour and self-respect. As a prisoner
explained:
“It sounds silly fighting over tobacco, but you can’t let it go
without losing your respect. You wouldn’t fight about it on the
out, but we are not on the out. We’re in jail.”
Sandy assaulted Barbara after Barbara made a disparaging
remark about Sandy's cell-mate. Sandy explained: This girl was sat behind me, talking to her friends about
me and my padmate. I turned round. I was saying, 'Who do
20
you think you are to say anything about us?' We
exchanged words. I told her to shut up and leave it alone.
She carried on. We squared up.
When Sandy confronted Barbara she introduced a power
dimension to the dispute. The phrase 'who do you think you
are?' was a direct challenge to Barbara, a test of whether she
was equal to Sandy. Barbara retaliated in kind.
They told each other to shut up. This exchange of commands
was a turning point, as both felt belittled by being told what to
do. Their interpretations of the other's intentions match.
Barbara: She was trying to intimidate me. She thought I would
just sit down and shut my mouth.
Sandy: She felt she could intimidate me. She thought she could
push me about.
When their dispute became a power contest, Barbara and Sandy
changed the meaning of the conflict from a question about what
language was acceptable to a test of who could control the
other.
Characteristics of power contests
Sizing up – gauging the opponent’s strength of character
Narrow focus – on one other prisoner/opponent
Respect – being dominated is the central concern
Win/lose – compromise is considered a weakness
Power values – force determine the outcome; and
Precedent – losing this dispute will fix them in an inferior position
Tactics like challenges, threats, and hostile gestures indicate
that a dispute is becoming a power contest. Those involved
try to settle the conflict first through coercion and then
through physical violence. Not only is respect the central
21
motivation, but a boost in self-respect for one can only be
gained by a loss in self-respect for the other. Mutually
acceptable resolutions are ruled out when the desired
outcome is defined in this way.
Solutions
What does a conflict analysis mean for effective violence
reduction strategies?
First, the huge variety in prison environments and the
multiple factors that influence violent outcomes show that
each prison has to gather evidence and analyse how conflict
management could help enhance safety.
Having said that, there is little here to support strategies
based on identifying dangerous individuals and targeting
them. Our data do not support a targeted strategy as the
primary method of achieving safety; data from prisons in
England and Wales do not support such a strategy, either.
Professor A. E. Bottoms commented in his literature review on
prison violence:
In a context where the vast majority of violent acts are
apparently undetected, it should be clear that those who are
formally identified as repeat offenders may well be atypical of
the larger universe of those who are prepared, when occasion
demands, to resort to violence to achieve their own ends.
(Bottoms, 1999: page 231)
22
NOMS data show that 80% of assault or fights are
committed by people who have not previously been charged
with an assault in prison. As Professor Bottoms observed, the
80% who are detected committing assault for the first time
represent a much larger group of people who would use
force if the situational stresses required it.
I visited a prison holding about 1200 men. Counting every
time aggressive force was used, there would be about 100 to
120 violent incidents per month, of which 20-30 resulted in
officers’ taking official action. This prison had four people on
its anti-bullying scheme. Targeting individuals was not making
a significant impact in reducing violence.
Similarly, separating victims from perpetrators has limited
value in reducing violence, except as a short-term cooling off
period. Separating a perceived victim may:
• identify the wrong person as the victim and protect
someone who had been bullying the one who
assaulted them
• create opportunities for a ‘victim’ to victimise others
(locating them on a vulnerable prisoner wing)
• lead a victim to enlist allies to carry out retaliation
• imply to others that the victim provided information,
thereby increasing the risk of further assaults.
23
Before prison authorities separate prisoners who are
assaulted for their protection, they should ask whether they
know enough about the dispute to distinguish reliably
between a guilty perpetrator and an innocent victim.
Violence reduction strategies must take a broad perspective.
All prisons should operate a range of measures, each of
which makes a distinct contribution to preventing situations
from escalating to the point of serious injury.
Effective prevention
The officers’ role
Early intervention by officers, challenging the harmful
behaviour that leads to, or escalates, conflict is far more
effective in reducing the costs of running prisons than staff
reacting with force to violent incidents after they occur. When
officers consistently confront victimisation, this removes the
causes of violence and gives prisoners confidence that
problems can be solved without using force.
But officers’ roles should also encompass a broader sense of
peacekeeping as conflict resolution. Peacekeeping includes:
- early intervention to manage inmates’ disputes by focusing on
the interests, values and needs at stake
- improving communication between the parties
- searching for options for win-win outcomes
In 2000, in the prisons of England and Wales, there were 2.9
prisoners for every prison officer. In 2013, following cost-
24
cutting measures, that ratio had risen to 4.8 prisoners for
every officer (Prison Reform Trust, 2014).
Dynamic security is undermined by low staffing levels. Peace-
keeping requires sufficient numbers of officers, with enough
consistency to enable them to intervene. The president of the
Prison Governors Association in England and Wales, Eoin
McLennan-Murray, reflected on the impact of staff numbers
and the size of prisons:
"It is the relationships we build with prisoners that is how we
control. ... Other jurisdictions use coercion and force, we tend to
use personal relationships. For that to happen, you need
sufficient staff facing prisoners. While we are reducing the
number of staff and increasing the number of prisoners, you're
getting prisoners who feel that they are anonymous and no-one
cares about them. That has a psychological impact and changes
the culture in prisons. It will make them inherently more risky.”
(House of Commons, 2014)
Working with prisoners
Consulting prisoners about how to achieve safety provides
important information about the causes of violent incidents,
the resources among prisoners to help prevent it, and how to
be more effective in managing conflicts.
The use of aggressive tactics in disputes shows the benefits
of programmes which develop skills in responding to conflict.
Examples include the Alternatives to Violence Project; Silence
the Violence (Khulisa); Nonviolent Communication; and others.
25
Violence reduction reps can mediate to resolve conflicts on
the wing; and they can attend safer custody meetings to
feed back the sources of conflict throughout the prison.
What options exist for prisoners who seek nonviolent ways of
resolving differences? Prisons that provide wing forums,
trained, impartial mediators, or formal opportunities to
negotiate, are better equipped to resolve conflicts before they
result in a fight or assault. It is about creating a space in
which non-violent methods are credible, respected, and
workable.
Prison Managers
Conflicts are endemic in prisons – between managers and
staff, between prisoners and staff, and among prisoners. Most
managers have well-developed skills of working with conflicts
constructively.
It makes sense to promote social order by promoting
objectives that address the underlying causes of conflict;
namely:
fulfilling prisoners’ basic human needs
protecting prisoners’ personal safety
providing opportunities to exercise personal autonomy
building in mechanisms for prisoners to resolve conflicts
26
Safety is an essential requirement of an effective and
humane penal system. Reducing violence is a huge and
complex challenge. Understanding conflict sheds light on the
underlying causes of fights and assaults, and provides
dynamic and effective tools for managing prisons. Thus
conflict resolution can refine violence reduction strategies
and empower governors, officers and prisoners in their efforts
to make prisons safer.
Dr Kimmett Edgar
Head of Research
Prison Reform Trust
kimmett.edgar@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
27
SOURCES
Bosworth, M and Carrabine, E (2001) ‘Reassessing resistance: race, gender
and sexuality in prison’, Punishment and Society, 3: 501-515.
Bottoms, A E (1999) (1999) ‘Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in
Prison,’ Crime and Justice, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 205-281.
Edgar, K, O’Donnell, I, and Martin, C (2003) Prison Violence: The dynamics of
conflict, fear, and power, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
House of Commons Oral Evidence, taken before the Justice Committee:
Crime Reduction: A Co-ordinated Approach? Tuesday, 4 February, 2014, Q
395.
Prison Reform Trust (2008) Prisoners’ Voices: Experiences of the criminal
justice system by prisoners with learning disabilities and learning difficulties,
by Jenny Talbot, London: The Prison Reform Trust
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/No%20One%20Kno
ws%20report-2.pdf
Prison Reform Trust (2014) Prison: The Facts – Bromley Briefings, Summer
2014
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20fa
cts%20May%202014.pdf
Wolfgang, M E (1957) ‘Victim Precipitated Criminal Homicide,’ Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 48: 1-11.
28
Prison Checklist for Preventing Violence
• Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among prisoners are
easily accessed by all prisoners
• All prisoners are protected from victimisation
• Officers are alert to any aggressive behaviours
• Risk assessments are based on dynamic factors and are
regularly updated
• Dynamic security enables staff to recognise signs of
trouble early
• Regular wing meetings discuss causes of tensions
• Prisoners’ basic human needs are met
• Racial and or ethnic tensions are managed
• Prisoners’ skills in responding to conflict are developed
• Prisoners are consulted about how to reduce violence
• Mediation is widely available
• Regular prisoner surveys about victimisation provide
knowledge about underlying factors contributing to
violence
• Rules against drugs, weapons, and other contraband are
rigorously enforced
• Better supervision of ‘high-crime’ areas within the prison
• Good relationships are fostered
• Non-violent responses to conflict are rewarded
Recommended