Going to Jail Sucks (And It Really Doesn’t MatterWho You Ask)

David C. May & Brandon K. Applegate &

Rick Ruddell & Peter B. Wood

Received: 16 April 2013 /Accepted: 16 July 2013# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2013

Abstract A growing body of research suggests that, according to both offenders andcriminal justice practitioners, jails and correctional boot camps are viewed andexperienced as significantly more punitive than prison. Nevertheless, limited researchexists examining the perceptions of the public regarding jail conditions and opera-tions. Using responses from 1,183 Kentucky adults, we examine public opinionregarding the punitiveness of jail when compared to prison. We determine that, withthe exception of boot camp, respondents feel that jail is the most punitive noncapitalsanction. Additionally, respondents who had been convicted of a felony at some pointin their lives and respondents with lower household income indicated that they wouldserve significantly less time in jail to avoid prison than their counterparts if given theoption. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.

Keywords Jail . Prison . Exchange rates . Punishment

Am J Crim JustDOI 10.1007/s12103-013-9215-5

The authors would like to thank the Eastern Kentucky University College of Justice and Safety forproviding funding for this project. Any views or opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of theauthors and are not necessarily the views of the funding agency.

D. C. May (*)Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box C, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USAe-mail: dmay@soc.msstate.edu

B. K. ApplegateDepartment of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 110 Currell College,1305 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

R. RuddellDepartment of Justice Studies, University of Regina, Classroom Building CL 343,Regina, SK S4S 0A2, USA

P. B. WoodDepartment of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, Eastern Michigan University,712 Pray Harrol, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA

Introduction

Each year, some 12 million arrestees (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013; Minton,2013) pass through American jails yet little is known about the nature of jailoperations, the characteristics of those jailed, or the effectiveness of jail as a correc-tional sanction. Recent work by May, Wood, and colleagues has suggested that jailsare viewed as the most punitive form of incarceration and this finding is consistent nomatter what population is queried (May & Wood, 2010; May, Wood, & Eades, 2008).It is difficult to make broad generalizations about jails because there were 3,283 ofthese operations that held over three-quarters of a million inmates in 2006 (Stephan &Walsh, 2011). Nevertheless, there has been comparatively little scholarship about jailoperations, jail inmates, or staff who live and work in jails and even less researchregarding what the public thinks about jails. Given the importance of jails to justicesystems, this represents a significant gap in the literature and is one we hope to helpfill in this research.

Originally intended for the short-term detention of arrestees or defendants awaitingcourt dates, jails have gradually transformed into institutions that hold a diverse rangeof inmates either temporarily or longer for other elements of justice systems. Thisincludes growing numbers of sentenced offenders bound for state prisons and personswho do not seem to fit into other places or systems. California’s Criminal JusticeRealignment Act is a prime example of how jails house a changing population. Infact, less than 2 years after the Act went into effect California jails now house nearly1,200 inmates serving prison sentences of 5 years or longer (Thompson, 2013). Jailhas been described as an institution designed to control the “rabble” or “underclass,”and a tour through a local jail shows that inmates are overwhelmingly mentally ill,drug and alcohol-addicted, homeless, and poor (Irwin, 1985). Yet, the number ofserious offenders held in jail has also increased, and in some jurisdictions mostinmates are felons. A review of California’s average daily jail population at the endof 2012, for example, revealed that 84.4 % of jail inmates were felons (CaliforniaBoard of State and Community Corrections, 2013).

Jail operations vary considerably, from local detention facilities in rural Americathat hold three or four inmates to the jail systems of Chicago, Los Angeles, or NewYork that hold upwards of 20,000 inmates and employ thousands of correctionalofficers and staff. Regardless of facility size, a consistent theme in the extant literatureis that jails have always been characterized by overcrowding, resource limitations,litigation, suicide and violence, staff turnover, or the influence of local politics. Oneproblem is that most American jails are operated by elected sheriffs and funded bylocal counties and many county administrators or boards of supervisors would ratherspend their scarce budget dollars on anything but the jail (May, Minor, Ruddell, &Matthews, 2007).

While a number of explanations for these conditions have been offered, fewtheoretical arguments have been applied to jails in general or the punitive nature ofjails, specifically. Furthermore, scant research has examined public opinion regardingthe punitiveness of jail and no research of which we are aware has used publicopinion to compare the punitiveness of jail with the punitiveness of prison. Althoughthe terms jails and prisons are often used interchangeably by the media and the public,we still anticipate that members of the public will recognize that incarceration in jail

Am J Crim Just

is often worse than incarceration in prison. In this paper, we explore whether thepublic believes that jails are more onerous places to serve time than prisons. We thenprovide context for their opinions based on their own experience with the criminaljustice system and their vicarious experience with the criminal justice system due totheir socioeconomic status. Understanding how the public perceives jails whencompared to prisons, and understanding the context for those perceptions, is animportant step in assisting policymakers in making informed decisions about theoperations of jails throughout the United States.

Jail as a Hostile Environment

There is a long history of scholarship that has identified the dysfunction that defines theoperations within many American jails. This condition is a function of both localpolitical priorities (e.g., a reluctance to invest in local corrections) and the changingprofile of jail inmates. Fishman (1923) and Robinson (1945) drew attention to the dismalconditions in American jails and the impact of these conditions on all who passedthrough these places. Scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s continued to identify jails as aneglected dimension of the criminal justice system. Jail scholars and commentatorsportrayed jails as chaotic places, with high victimization rates and unsafe conditions forinmates and staff, and increasingly called for reform (Goldfarb, 1975; Irwin, 1985;Mattick, 1974). The contrasts between jails and prisons, summarized in Table 1, high-light that jail is a more hostile and punitive place to be incarcerated.

Table 1 Contrasting characteristics of jails and prisons1

Jail Prison

Idleness Programming if desired

Limited mobility Some mobility

Little collective efficacy among inmates Some collective efficacy among inmates

Limited separation of inmates Some separation of inmates

Rapid turnover among inmates Limited turnover among inmates

Relatively unknown neighbors Known neighbors

Limited predictability of residents Predictability of residents

Heterogeneous inmate population Somewhat homogenous inmate population

High degree of unpredictability and apprehensionin daily routine

Structured and predictable daily routine

Unstable funding sources Stable funding sources

Poorly trained staff Better trained staff

1 The majority of the contrasting characteristics outlined in this table are derived from a report about thechallenges facing inmates reentering society from jail written by Solomon, Osborne, LoBuglio, Mellow,and Mukamal (2008). The characteristics included in the table but not specifically outlined by Solomonet al. (2008) are derived from the authors’ combined experiences of visiting jails, interviewing inmates bothincarcerated in jail at the time of the interview and having previously served time in jail throughout theirresearch careers. We suggest that these characteristics are a direct result of the organizational structure andrapid turnover described in Solomon et al. (2008)

Am J Crim Just

A review of current federal government research shows jails continue to bedangerous and unpleasant places to live. Noonan (2012) reported that the homicidemortality rate was 5 murders per 100,000 jail inmates compared with 4 per 100,000state prisoners in 2006, the year in which this study was conducted (see Tables 3 and14). Rates of sexual violence are high and Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar and Krebs (2013)found that 3.2 % of jail inmates had experienced at least one incident of sexualvictimization. Despite the fact that rates of jail violence and suicide have actuallydecreased since the 1980s (Mumola, 2005), rates of jail suicide were twice that ofstate prisoners in 2006 (Noonan, 2012).

Incarceration may be more difficult when much of an inmate’s time is idle (May& Wood, 2010). Historically, jails have not been tasked to provide programming,either for offender reform or to provide productive activity while incarcerated(Moynahan & Stewart, 1980). While recent attention to reentry following jailincarceration promises greater commitment to rehabilitation, jail programming isstill relatively scarce. A national assessment of medium-sized jails reported that23 % of jails offered no programming, even when programming was construedliberally (e.g., laundry, janitorial service, and food preparation within the facility)(Miller, Applegate, & King, 2013). Ruddell and Mays (2007) found that adminis-trators of small jails identified a lack of programs for offenders among their mostserious problems.

In addition to places of violence and idleness, jail staff are challenged by the broadrange of offenders they must supervise. Jails hold a varied inmate population, whichranges from material witnesses held temporarily to ensure their attendance at court tocondemned offenders awaiting transfers to death row (see Harrison & Beck, 2006 foran overview). Nationally, over half of all jail inmates have not been convicted of acriminal offense but are awaiting court appearances, from initial arraignment tosentencing (Minton, 2013). Thompson and Mays (1991) observed that jails are oftenused when community-based mental health or social services fail. Because noalternative residential placement exists—such as mental health facilities for personswith mental illness, detention centers for juveniles, or sobering centers for chronicsubstance abusers—these persons are incarcerated in the local jail. These specialneeds populations pose particular challenges for jail officers and administrators asthey increase disruptive behaviors, medical care costs, criminal behaviors and self-harm or suicide (Kerle, 1998; Tartaro, 2013).

These population changes are one result of mission creep, where the tasksexpected of jails have evolved to the point where the roles and functions of theseoperations today bear little resemblance to jails of the past. This is a function of boththe changing profile of jail inmates and longer periods of incarceration for jailinmates. Jails were intended to house pretrial detainees for relatively short periodsof time and misdemeanants sentenced to terms of incarceration less than 1 year.Historically, most jail inmates were misdemeanants arrested for relatively minorpublic order offenses such as trespassing, disorderly conduct, or being drunk inpublic (Cahalan & Parsons, 1986). While these populations still represent a percent-age of jail inmates, there have been some long-term changes in the characteristics ofjail populations. A national profile of jail inmates in 2002 showed that only one-quarter were held for public order offenses and the portion of inmates held for violentcrimes had climbed to 25 percent (James, 2004).

Am J Crim Just

A growing number of jail inmates are also being held for other jurisdictions inorder to generate revenue. Many facilities hold immigration detainees for the federalgovernment and some have actually expanded their operations to hold these popula-tions (Ruddell & Mays, 2011). A more problematic population, however, is holdingfederal and state prisoners for extended periods of time. Harrison and Beck (2006)reported that nearly 10 % of all U.S. jail inmates were state or federal prisoners. Insome states, such as Louisiana, a state prisoner might serve their entire sentence in thelocal jail. Moreover, an increasing number of those inmates are gang-involved andRuddell, Decker and Egley (2006) found that the proportion of jail and prison inmateswho were gang-involved was similar. Thus, while the distinctions between jail andprison populations are becoming increasingly blurred, jails are hamstrung by theirlack of programs and resources to accommodate these changing populations. Weknow that the demographic and offense composition of inmate population in prisonsaffects misconduct (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009). By extension, it is likely that thesechanges in jails have made them more dangerous and unpleasant places.

One stark difference between jail and prison inmates is that jail inmates are admitteddirectly from the “street” following arrest. A challenge of admitting arrestees is thatmany are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and some are at-risk of overdose (AbtAssociates 2012). Moreover, many arrestees suffer from unintentional injuries, havebeen assaulted or injured while being arrested, or suffer from chronic health conditions.Last, James and Glaze (2006) found that 64 % of jail inmates had mental healthdisorders, and this group was perceived to be more likely to be involved in disruptivebehaviors, including violence, self-harm and suicide (Ruddell, 2006).

Altogether, the long history of scholarship and federal investigations highlightingthe dismal conditions, victimization and mortality in U.S. jails suggests that the jailenvironment is both unpleasant and dangerous. While these characteristics are well-known to practitioners there has been relatively little academic or media interest inwhat occurs in jails. As a result, we can only speculate on what the public thinksabout jails. Consequently, one of the goals of the present study is to shed light on howthe public perceives jails and the severity of serving a sanction in one of these places.

Using Punishment Exchange Rates to Measure Relative Severity

Legislators and policymakers who develop alternative sanctions and judges whosentence offenders using those sanctions typically do not base their decisions onexperiential data, or even evidentiary studies that suggest those sentences are effec-tive. Instead, both groups rely on two perspectives: (1) public opinion and (2) theirown personal assumptions and experiences (Morris & Tonry, 1990). As a result, animportant first step in the policy development process is to better understand publicopinion and how the public perceives different elements of justice systems. For manyyears, prison was thought to be the most punitive noncapital sanction available.However, a number of recent works with offenders have challenged this longaccepted axiom that prison is the most punitive sanction.

Much of the work challenging the notion of prison as the most punitive sanctionhas been developed through the use of “exchange rates” provided by offendersserving time under institutional or community supervision. In calculating exchange

Am J Crim Just

rates, the researcher simply asks respondents to provide the duration of an alternativesanction they would serve to avoid specific amounts of actual time in prison (May &Wood, 2010). The respondent is given a description of a series of sanctions and isasked to indicate how many months of each sanction they would be willing to serveto avoid 12 months in a medium-security correctional facility. Through this method,May and Wood have developed a series of exchange rates that allow them to comparethe perceived punitiveness of various correctional alternatives with the punitivenessof prison.

Exchange rates have been used to examine perceptions of sanction severity among awide variety of offender groups (including prisoners, probationers and parolees),probation/parole officers, judges, and the general public (May & Wood, 2010). Thisresearch consistently finds that jail is viewed as significantly more onerous than prisonacross each of these populations. In fact, along with boot camp, these populationsgenerally find that jail is the most onerous punishment available to judges andpolicymakers in noncapital crimes. The current study contributes to this body of workby presenting evidence from a random sample of the general public that examines (a)how jail ranks in comparison to prison and other alternative sanctions and (b) how theserankings vary by household income and previous criminal experience.

In conducting this research, we hypothesize that:

H1 Members of the public will perceive that jail is significantly more punitive thanprison.

H2 Individuals who have been convicted of a felony will agree to serve significant-ly less time in jail to avoid prison than their counterparts who have not beenconvicted of a felony.

H3 Members of lower social classes will agree to serve significantly less time in jail(in order to avoid prison) than their higher status counterparts.

While the first hypothesis is relatively straightforward, the subsequent hypothesesmerit some additional explanation. We realize that all individuals who have beenconvicted of a felony may not have been incarcerated in jail as part of that conviction.Nevertheless, we believe that a felony conviction serves as an adequate proxy todistinguish those with direct experience with jail from those without direct experiencewith jail. Although we were unable to find any research that directly addressed whatproportion of those convicted of a felony spent time in jail during that convictionprocess, Perez (1994) determined that 80 % of convicted felons that were arrested in1990 in five states received a sentence to state prison or local jail. Additionally, intheir national study of large urban courts, Cohen and Kyckelhahn (2010, p. 1)reported that 42 % of felony defendants were held in jail until the final casedisposition. Thus, we suggest that most respondents convicted of felonies spent atleast some time in jail as part of that conviction.

In respect to the third hypothesis, we believed that respondents with lowersocioeconomic status (SES) would have more direct or vicarious experiences witheither jail or prison based on a large body of research that indicates that people fromlower socioeconomic strata have much greater experience with the criminal justicesystem in general and jail and prison, particularly (Reiman & Leighton, 2012). Wespeculated that members of the lowest economic strata would be more likely thantheir richer counterparts to have friends, family members, co-workers, or other peers

Am J Crim Just

with direct experience with jails or prisons. We base this assumption on the fact thatmost jail inmates are poor. James’ (2004, p. 9) national-level study of the character-istics of inmates residing in jail in 2002, for example, revealed that almost three-fifths(59.1 %) reported income of less than $1,000 in the month prior to their arrest. Thereare a number of difficulties in assessing SES from self-reported survey data, includingthe fact that SES is a broadly defined concept and some respondents might notaccurately define their status (Shavers, 2007). In order to increase precision, medianannual household income was used as a proxy indicator for SES. Galloway andSkardhamar (2010, p. 425) noted that “SES may be operationalized in many ways,but is usually measured as family income.”

Method

May and Wood (2010) provide an extensive discussion of the benefits of usingexchange rates to estimate the punitiveness of various correctional sanctions. Useof this method allows respondents to choose the amount (in months) of an alternativesanction they would endure to avoid a specified length of actual imprisonment. Thepunishment equivalency between imprisonment and the alternative sanction in ques-tion has come to be known as that sanction’s exchange rate.

To determine exchange rates, respondents are presented with descriptions of anumber of alternative sanctions. After reading the description of the alternative, respon-dents are asked to consider a set time of medium security imprisonment (12 months) andare asked to indicate how many months of the alternative they were willing to do toavoid serving 12 months of actual imprisonment. Thus, if a respondent is willing toendure only nine months of an alternative sanction to avoid 12 months of imprisonment,then prison is viewed as less punitive than that alternative sanction. If the respondent iswilling to serve more than 12 months of the alternative to avoid 12 months ofimprisonment, then imprisonment is viewed as more punitive. Consequently, respon-dents provide their own perceptions of the punitiveness of alternatives compared to12 months imprisonment. This allows a crude ranking of sanctions (including prison)along a continuum of punitiveness/onerousness.

Sample and Procedures

In February 2006, the lead author developed a potential sample for this study with arandom selection of 4,000 Kentucky adults using addresses obtained from a directmailing firm. Given the important impact of race on exchange rates among offenderpopulations revealed in previous studies, the two most populated counties in the statewere oversampled because these counties contained high proportions of AfricanAmerican residents. The remaining 3,000 addresses were randomly selected fromthe other 118 counties throughout the state.

Following the method prescribed by Dillman (2006), potential respondents were senta postcard describing the purpose of the study. In the 380 cases where postcards werereturned as undeliverable those addresses were removed from the sample. As a result,the questionnaire was sent to 3,620 potential participants. We followed that mailing witha postcard reminder 2 weeks later. Four weeks after the original mailing another packet

Am J Crim Just

containing a second copy of the original questionnaire was sent, including a revisedcover letter. Finally, 8 weeks after the initial pre-notice postcard, a third questionnaire(with revised cover letter) was sent to all who had not yet returned a survey.

Of the 3,620 potential participants, 1,313 usable questionnaires were returned,yielding a 36.3 % response rate. Comparisons of respondent demographic character-istics with those of adults from the 2000 Census indicate that the sample was largelyrepresentative of the state population although our sample was slightly more educatedand male. Almost all (97.3 %) of the sample indicated they were either White orBlack, and as race has been such an important variable to consider in this area, onlyBlack and White respondents were included in the analysis. Additionally, because thefocus of this paper is the severity of jail in comparison to prison, we removed 89respondents who did not provide information regarding the number of months of jailthey were willing to serve to avoid 12 months in prison. Thus, the final sample forthis analysis was 1,183 respondents.

Kentucky is distinctive in the nation as jails are operated by elected jailers rather thansheriffs. Despite this difference in management, however, a review of the data reported inStephan and Walsh’s (2011, Tables 8, 11 and 13) national jail census showed thatcharacteristics of Kentucky jails are similar to those in other states. In respect to facilitysize, for instance, while 79.2 % of all U.S. jails in 2006 held fewer than 250 inmates,73.3 % of Kentucky jails were of similar capacity. The jail incarceration rate was higherin Kentucky (393 per 100,000 residents) than the national rate of 261 jail inmates per100,000 residents although only slightly higher than the average for all of the Southernstates (336 inmates). In terms of the number of confined jail inmates per staff member, theratio was again higher in Kentucky with 4.4 inmates per employee, which compared to3.3 for the nation but was only slightly higher than the rate for all Southern states (4.1).

Survey Instrument

The instrument used to collect the data for this study was an eight-page questionnaireadapted from one used in several other studies (see May & Wood, 2010). Minormodifications were made to the demographic section of the questionnaire to make theinstrument appropriate for participants not under correctional supervision. The orig-inal survey instrument from which our instrument was adapted was developed byWood and his colleagues in the mid-1990s through an extensive focus group and pilottesting process with inmates incarcerated in Oklahoma. The instrument has proven tobe both valid and reliable across both clients and practitioners in criminal justice(May & Wood, 2010).

Respondents were given brief descriptions of county jail and nine alternativesanctions (e.g., boot camp, electronic monitoring, and regular probation). The de-scriptions for each of the alternative sanctions are included in Appendix. Respondentswere then asked to consider 12 months of medium-security imprisonment and toindicate how many months of the alternative they were willing to serve to avoid12 months imprisonment. Through this method, respondents developed exchangerates that allowed them to rank the severity of each of the sanctions.

We begin by describing the demographic characteristics of the sample in Table 2.Respondents’ exchange rates are then ranked for each of the alternative sanctions inTable 3. We close by examining how exchange rates vary (1) by whether respondents

Am J Crim Just

have been convicted of a felony in their lifetime and (2) by household income (ourproxy indicator for social class) in Table 4.

Results

Descriptive characteristics of the sample are provided in Table 2. Of the 1,183respondents, slightly over half (55 %) were male and almost all (93.9 %) wereWhite. The majority (71.3 %) of the respondents were married or cohabitating. Theaverage age of respondents was 51.40 years and they averaged 13.33 years of formaleducation. Respondents were also fairly evenly distributed across income categoriesalthough one in five respondents (21.1 %) had an annual income of over $75,000.Thirty-four (2.9 %) of the respondents indicated that they had been convicted of afelony at some point in their lifetime.

In Table 3, a ranking of the perceived severity of correctional sanctions based onthe exchange rates generated by respondents is presented. As mentioned earlier,

Table 2 Demographic character-istics of sample respondents(N=1183)

Demographic variable Frequency (%)

Gender

Male 651 (55.0)

Female 527 (44.5)

Missing data 5 (.5)

Race

White 1111 (93.9)

Black 72 (6.1)

Marital status

Married/Cohabitating 843 (71.3)

Unmarried 330 (27.9)

Missing data 10 (0.8)

Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Yes 34 (2.9)

No 1143 (96.6)

Missing data 6 (0.5)

Income

Less than $10,000 100 (9.0)

$10,001-$20,000 165 (14.9)

$20,001-$30,000 110 (9.3)

$30,001-$40,000 158 (13.4)

$40,001-$50,000 143 (12.1)

$50,001-$75,000 182 (15.4)

Over $75,000 250 (21.1)

Missing data 75 (6.3)

Age Mean=51.40; sd=14.99

Education Mean=13.33; sd- 2.67

Am J Crim Just

respondents were provided with descriptions of county jail and nine alternativesanctions included in the Appendix. By indicating how many months of the alterna-tive they were willing to serve to avoid 12 months imprisonment, respondentsdeveloped exchange rates that showed the perceived severity of each of the sanctionsin comparison to 12 months imprisonment (and, in effect, in comparison to oneanother based on that methodology).

The results in Table 3 reflect several important findings. First, prison is not viewedas the most punitive of the correctional sanctions; boot camp has that distinction.Respondents were willing to serve slightly more than 6 months of boot camp and8.37 months in jail to avoid 12 months in prison. Second, consistent with expecta-tions, respondents indicated they would be willing to serve more than 12 months ofseven different community-based sanctions to avoid 12 months in prison, thus ratingeach of these alternatives as less punitive than prison. Electronic monitoring, place-ment in a halfway house, intermittent incarceration, and day fines were thought to beslightly less punitive than prison; respondents were willing to serve between 15.98and16.84 months on these sanctions to avoid 12 months in prison. Finally, respon-dents ranked regular probation as the least punitive sanction, indicating they wouldserve 26.59 months on probation to avoid a year-long prison sentence.

In Table 4, we test the second and third hypotheses by comparing jail exchangerates for (1) respondents who had been convicted of a felony with those respondentswho had not and (2) respondents whose annual household income was above $20,000with those whose annual household income was below that number. After dividingthe sample into groups based on the above comparisons, we calculated the average

Table 4 Mean comparisons injail exchange rates by income andfelony conviction

*p<.05 (one-tailed test)

Variable Average jail exchange rate

Household income

$20,000 or less 7.63

More than $20,000 8.50*

Ever been convicted of a felony?

Yes 6.55

No 8.44*

Table 3 Comparison of meanexchange rates among kentuckyrespondents

Alternative sanction N Mean St.D.

Mostsevere

Boot Camp 1154 6.79 5.87

County Jail 1183 8.37 5.77

Electronic Monitoring 1171 15.98 13.23

Halfway House 1155 16.14 11.14

Int. Incarceration 1155 16.70 12.58

Day Fines 1135 16.84 20.51

Intensive Supervision Probation 1153 17.42 13.59

Leastsevere

Day Reporting 1150 20.71 16.15

Probation 1155 26.59 21.75

Am J Crim Just

number of months respondents were willing to serve in jail to avoid 12 months inmedium-security prison (the jail exchange rates) for each group. Consistent withexpectations, the results show that respondents whose household income was above$20,000 were willing to serve significantly more time in jail to avoid prison (8.50 and7.63 months respectively) than their counterparts with lower household incomes.Additionally, respondents who had not been convicted of a felony were also willingto serve significantly more time in jail to avoid prison (8.44 versus 6.55 months)compared to those who had been convicted of a felony.1

Discussion and Conclusions

At the outset, we noted that some unique features of jails may make them morepunitive than prison, and recent research has reported that offenders and law enforce-ment personnel perceive jail to be more punitive than prison. We then tested theprediction that members of the general public would also perceive jail to be morepunitive than prison. Two aspects of our results are particularly noteworthy.

First, the results from this research reveal that the opinion of the general publicregarding jail (and, for that matter, other alternative sanctions) mirrors the opinions ofjudges, probation and parole officers, and both incarcerated offenders and offendersunder supervision in the community—jail is viewed as significantly more punitivethan prison (May &Wood, 2010). The general public agrees with both the clients andpractitioners in the criminal justice system that boot camp (no matter where that campis located) is approximately twice as punitive as medium security prison, followedclosely by jail in punitiveness.

A second key finding from this research is that both those who have beenconvicted of a felony and respondents with lower household incomes feel that jailis a more punitive sanction than their counterparts. Because these groups are morelikely to have experienced jail both directly (respondents convicted of a felony) andvicariously (respondents with lower household incomes are arguably more likely tohave neighbors and relatives that have been arrested and incarcerated), these findingsshow that jail is universally viewed as more severe than prison, particularly by thosemost likely to have experienced it.

Limitations

Despite the important findings highlighted in this research, there are a number oflimitations to this study that should be acknowledged. First, the ability to generalizefrom the findings of this study is a function of the composition of the sample. Wesought to gather a sample of the general public in Kentucky and were able to survey a

1 Jail exchange rate differences by gender and race were examined in a parallel series of analyses althoughneither of those differences were statistically significant. We attribute the lack of significant differences tothe fact that, regardless of gender or race, there is a universal dislike for jail when compared to prison andonly contextual variables such as those presented in this study partially explain the degree to whichindividuals are willing to serve jail time to avoid prison. The finding that the exchange rates of Blacksand Whites between prison and jail are equivalent is consistent with the findings reported in a recent studyby Applegate (2013).

Am J Crim Just

large sample of adults from that state. The strength of the sample is that it includes alarge group of respondents whose opinion regarding the punitiveness of jail had beenlargely ignored prior to this study. Nevertheless, the nature of the sample limits itsgeneralizability. Our response rate of slightly less than 40 percent was not optimaland we have no way of knowing how representative this sample is of even Kentuckyresidents, let alone adults throughout the United States. Additionally, Kentucky haselected jailers, a position not found in most states. Thus, it could be that the findingspresented here would not be replicated in research using samples of adults from otherstates. Additionally, although we feel that asking respondents whether they have beenconvicted of a felony is an adequate proxy for direct experience with jail, inretrospect, a better question would have directly asked respondents whether theyhad ever been incarcerated in jail and/or prison. Nevertheless, we believe the resultspresented here can serve as a foundation for future research to continue theseexplorations. Improving the representativeness of the sample and refining and intro-ducing additional measures that might predict public opinion of the punitiveness ofjails are important considerations as research in this area continues.

The ubiquitous opinion that jail is a particularly onerous punishment has policyimplications. Acknowledgement of this opinion by legislators and judges mightreduce the extent to which jail is used for both (a) individuals not yet convicted ofa crime and (b) state or federal prisoners housed in jail instead of prison for longperiods of time. Undoubtedly, jail has its place in the criminal justice system. Thisresearch would suggest that, ethically, it should be used for its original, intendedpurpose of short-term detention of offenders that present a risk to the community.Other usage may create more problems than it solves.

As Bonta and Andrews (2007) have suggested, mixing low and high risk offenderstogether actually increases the risk of recidivism in the low risk population. Latessa (2011,p. 973) observed that “low risk offenders have a low probability of recidivism and, assuch, generally have few risk factors,” and questioned, “Why waste our scarce correc-tional programs on offenders who do not need them?” Thus, the use of jails to houseinmates whose longer sentence is designed to be served in state or federal prison isproblematic on a number of levels, but particularly in the area of reducing recidivismamong offenders. Such sentiments are likely to be expressed more widely as local budgetscontinue to grapple with the economic crisis (Byers, 2011).

The fact that jail is perceived to be harsher than prison might also motivate effortsto improve jail conditions. Some of the characteristics we noted at the outset of thispaper are relatively immutable as they result from the realities of what jails do withincriminal justice. Other aspects, however, could be improved through directed policyactions. Solomon and her colleagues, for example, observe that jail programmingcould be enhanced as part of an effort to improve reentry outcomes (Solomon,Osborne, LoBuglio, Mellow & Mukamal, 2008). Although they recognize that jailsmay need to “focus more intensive and longer term interventions on a specific subsetof the population, such as sentenced inmates with mental illness or chronic offenderswho cycle in and out of jails,” Solomon et al. (2008) also acknowledge that “evenshort-term detainees may benefit from a less intensive intervention” (p. 30). Similarly,Stinchcomb, Applegate, Kerle, and Stojkovic (2012) suggest that jails can, as a partof reconceptualizing their role, expand efforts to connect inmates with external supportservices. Both avenues could alleviate idleness among other benefits.

Am J Crim Just

Alongwith new awareness of the challenges and opportunities for improvement in jailconditions, a growing body of work highlights that for many reasons jail time is regardedas more difficult than prison time.Within a continuum of sanctions, then, the place of jailsshould be revised because a specified jail sentence is both perceived and experienced assignificantly more severe than the same duration in prison. The accumulated evidencedemonstrates that offenders, criminal justice officials, and the general public all agree thatjail is significantly more punitive than prison, and that jails are more chaotic andpotentially more dangerous than prison. As jails traditionally have housed inmates boundfor prison, the reversal of this flow through the increased transfer of prisoners from stateprisons to jails (as in the California Criminal Justice Realignment Act) may not provideoffenders with the best preparation for release back into the community.Many states haveplaced prison inmates in jails to serve out their sentences, driven by a shortage in prisonbeds and a need to reduce prison populations. One might question whether recidivismand/or success on reentry might be impacted by being released from jail as opposed toprison. Should research indicate that offenders fare more poorly in the community whenreleased from jails this would be a good reason to rethink the prison-to-jail strategy.

Appendix

Below we have included the language used to gather the exchange rates data for thisstudy. For each of the programs listed, we asked the respondent to “Think about12 months actual time in a medium security prison.” We then asked “What is themaximum number of months of county jail you would take to avoid serving 12monthsactual time in prison?”

Below we have listed a number of programs that people may receive instead of asentence to incarceration in a medium-security prison. A medium security prisontypically holds less dangerous offenders than those in maximum-security prisons(which are highly secure and highly controlled). Typically, inmates have somefreedom of movement within the prison but stay in barred cells (with or without acellmate) within a fenced or walled perimeter. In these prisons, some inmates areallowed to work or be involved in programs on the prison grounds.

For each of the following programs, please read the description of the program,and then answer the question that follows.

County Jail If you are sent to a county jail, you may spend less time there than youwould in prison. However, living conditions are more restrictive in a jail than theygenerally are in a large prison. Unless assigned to work, you may spend more time inyour housing unit, and there are not as many opportunities for sports, school, etc. Jailtime is generally viewed as more boring and more restrictive than prison time.

Boot Camp. Boot camp is for a shorter time than you would have been sent to prison.But boot camp can be more unpleasant than living in prison in many ways. Bootcamp is like basic training in the army. You live with about a hundred other people inone big room. There is regular drill instruction like in the military and you are pushedphysically and psychologically to perform beyond your capabilities. You experienceloss of sleep. You are required to become physically active and fit. You are constantly

Am J Crim Just

supervised by drill instructors that watch you closely. You are generally required toparticipate in an education program. Virtually all your time and activities are con-trolled. You are subject to random urinalysis tests and can be sent back to prison ifyou fail to obey the rules.

Electronic Monitoring On electronic monitoring, you live at home, but your freedomis greatly reduced. You wear an electronic device on your ankle. If you get more than200 ft from the base unit, the device sends an alarm to a computer. Then an officerwho is supervising you knows that you are not where you are supposed to be. Onelectronic monitoring you are being followed by the computer 24 h a day. There arestrict curfews and rules about when you must stay in your house. If you break theserules, you can be sent to prison. You are subject to random urinalysis tests and can besent back to prison if you fail to obey the rules.

Regular Probation On probation, you do not spend time in prison, but the amount oftime on probation usually lasts much longer than whatever prison sentence you mighthave gotten. You must see your probation officer at least once a month, but it can beevery week if ordered. Youmust get permission from that probation officer to travel or tomove. Your probation officer can require that you stay away from certain people. Yourhome or car can be searched at any time without a search warrant. If you do not followthe rules you can be sent to prison. You are also subject to random urinalysis tests.

Community Service When you are sentenced to community service, you live at homeand can have a job. However, you must work some time without pay to make up forthe crime for which you were convicted. You work for a government agency or somelocal non-profit organization, and you do not have any choice about where or whatthe job is. The judge decides the number of days and hours you must work. If you failto work the required days and hours, you can be sent back to prison. You are alsosubject to random urinalysis testing.

Day Reporting If you are sentenced today reporting, you can stay home at night, butyou must check in at a parole office every day. During the day you must have a job oryou must go to some center in the community and be involved in activities all day.These activities might include working for no pay in the community, looking for ajob, counseling, job training, and education programs. At the end of the day you getto go home. You may be required to work, and if you do you must check in every dayduring non-work hours. Failure to abide by the rules can result in you going back toprison. You are also subject to random urinalysis testing.

Intermittent Incarceration With this punishment, you must spend weekends or eve-nings in the county jail, which typically is much more unpleasant than prison. But,since you are not in prison, you can have a job and be involved with your family andcommunity when you are not spending time in jail. However, failure to report to jail,or failure to pass a random urinalysis test can result in you returning to prison.

Halfway House A halfway house is a place where several people convicted of crimeslive. There is no strict security like there is in prison, but there are firm rules that you

Am J Crim Just

must follow. Halfway houses have rehabilitative programs, and if your behaviorimproves you are treated better and given more freedom. Break the rules and youcan be placed back in prison. As always, you are subject to random urinalysis andsearches, and constant observation. You are not allowed to have visitors.

Day Fine A day fine is based on the amount of money you make each day. You areallowed to subtract some money for your rent, transportation, food, utilities, etc., butwhatever is left over you have to pay as a day fine. For example, if you had $20 lefteach day after expenses, your day fine would be $20 for every day the judge says youhave to pay. If the judge gives you a day fine of 90 days, and your day fine rate is $20,you would have to pay a total of $1800. Failure to pay your fines can result in youbeing sent back to prison.

Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) Intensive supervision is much stricter thanregular probation. You do not go to prison and can live at home. However, theprobation officer is checking up on you– sometimes everyday– and you are requiredto be in some kind of treatment program to improve yourself. All parts of your life,including what you do at home and at work are watched. Probation officers can cometo your workplace or your home to check on you at any time of day or night.Sometimes you are required to report to the probation officer everyday on yourown time. Failure to report to the officer or other violations can result in you goingback to prison. You are also subject to random urinalysis testing.

References

Abt Associates, Inc. (2012). ADAM II 2011 annual report. Washington, DC: Office of National DrugControl Policy.

Applegate, B. K. (2013). Of race, prison, and perception: seeking to account for racially divergent views on therelative severity of sanctions. American Journal of Criminal Justice. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9204-8.

Beck, A., Berzofsky, M., Caspar, & Krebs, C. (2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported byinmates, 2011–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabili-tation. Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety Canada.

Byers, J. (2011). Coping with the new normal: An economic status survey of counties. Washington, DC:National Association of Counties.

Cahalan, M. W., & Parsons, L. A. (1986). Historical corrections statistics in the United States, 1850–1984.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

California Board of State and Community Corrections. (2013). Jail profile 2012 3rd quarter survey results.Sacramento, CA: California Board of State and Community Corrections.

Cohen, T. H., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2010). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2006. Washington, DC:Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Dillman, D. T. (2006). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored-design method- 2007 update with newinternet, visual, and mixed mode guide. New York: Wiley.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Crime in the United States- 2011- Table 29. Retrieved April 11, 2013from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-29

Fishman, J. F. (1923).Crucibles of crime: The shocking story of the American jail. Monclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.Galloway, T. A., & Skardhamar, T. (2010). Does parental income matter for onset of offending? European

Journal of Criminology, 7(6), 424–441.Goldfarb, R. (1975). Jails: The ultimate ghetto of the criminal justice system. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington D.C: United

States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 213133.

Am J Crim Just

Irwin, J. (1985). The jail: Managing the underclass in American Society. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

James, D. J. (2004). Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.Kerle, K. (1998). American jails. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Latessa, E. J. (2011). Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional programs (even to

employment programs). Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 973–977.Mattick, H. (1974). The contemporary jails of the United States: An unknown and neglected area of justice.

In D. Glaser (Ed.), Handbook of criminology (pp. 777–848). Chicago: Rand McNally.May, D. C., Minor, K. I., Ruddell, R., & Matthews, B. A. (2007). Corrections and the criminal justice

system. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.May, D. C., &Wood, P. B. (2010). Ranking correctional punishments. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.May, D. C., Wood, P. B., & Eades, A. (2008). Lessons learned from punishment exchange rates:

implications for research, theory, and correctional policy. The Journal of Behavior Analysis ofOffender and Victim - Treatment and Prevention, 1(2), 187–201.

Miller, R. N., Applegate, B. K., & King, W. R. (2013).May we help you? Applying organizational theory topredict jails’ human service orientation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of CriminalJustice Sciences, Dallas, TX.

Minton, T. D. (2013). Jail inmates at midyear 2012- Statistical tables. Washington D.C: United StatesDepartment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 237961.

Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation. New York: Oxford University Press.Moynahan, J. M., & Stewart, E. K. (1980). The American jail: Its development and growth. Chicago:

Nelson-Hall.Mumola, C. J. (2005). Suicide and homicide in state prisons and local jails. Washington, DC: Bureau of

Justice Statistics.Noonan, M. E. (2012). Mortality in local jails and state prisons, 2000–2010 – statistical tables.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Perez, J. (1994). Tracking Offenders, 1990. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, NCJ 148200.Reiman, J. L., & Leighton, P. (2012). The rich get richer, the poor get prison (10th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson.Robinson, L. N. (1945). The perennial jail problem. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 35, 369–374.Ruddell, R. (2006). Jail interventions for inmates with mental illnesses. Journal of Correctional Health

Care, 12(1), 118–131.Ruddell, R., Decker, S. H., & Egley, A. (2006). Gang interventions in jails: a national analysis. Criminal

Justice Review, 31, 33–46.Ruddell, R., & Mays, G. L. (2007). Rural jails: problematic inmates, overcrowded cells, and cash-strapped

counties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 251–260.Ruddell, R., & Mays, G. L. (2011). Trouble in the heartland: challenges confronting rural jails.

International Journal of Rural Criminology, 1, 105–131.Shavers, V. L. (2007). Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. Journal of the

National Medical Association, 99(9), 1013–1023.Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J. W. L., LoBuglio, S. F., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. A. (2008). Life after

lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009). Implications of different outcome measures for an understanding of

inmate misconduct. Crime & Delinquency. doi:10.1177/0011128709335151.Stephan, J., & Walsh, G. (2011). Census of jail facilities, 2006. Washington D.C: United States Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 230188.Stinchcomb, J. B., Applegate, B. K., Kerle, K., & Stojkovic, S. (2012). Moving toward Utopia: visions of

progress for American jails. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 23–41.Tartaro, C. (2013). Federal civil law suits concerning custodial suicide: Is the individual specific rule still alive

and well? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Dallas, TX.Thompson, D. (2013, February 28). Jails house 1,100 long-term inmates. San Jose Mercury News.

Retrieved April 11, 2013 from http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_22686232/ap-exclusive-jails-house-1-100-long-term.

Thompson, J. A., & Mays, G. L. (1991). American jails: Public policy issues. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

Am J Crim Just

David C. May is an Associate Professor and Criminology Program Coordinator in the Department ofSociology and Social Work at Mississippi State University. He has published numerous articles and booksin the areas of responses to school violence, perceptions of the severity of correctional punishments, fear ofcriminal victimization, and weapon possession and use among adolescents.

Brandon K. Applegate is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice atthe University of South Carolina. His primary research interests include perceptions of correctionalpolicies, jail operations and populations, conceptions of juvenile justice, and offenders’ views of theirsanctions. He is currently Second Vice President of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences andpreviously served as President of the Southern Criminal Justice Association.

Rick Ruddell is the Law Foundation of Saskatchewan Chair in Police Studies at the University of Regina.Prior to this appointment he served as Director of Operational Research with the Correctional Service ofCanada. He has published over 60 peer reviewed articles, technical reports, encyclopedia entries, andarticles in professional journals, and written, edited, or co-authored eight books in the areas of corrections,juvenile justice, and policing.

Peter B. Wood is a Professor of Sociology and Criminology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology,and Criminology at Eastern Michigan University. His work has appeared in many refereed outlets, including;Justice Quarterly, Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, among others. He has gathereddata from offenders in several states to better understand criminal decision-making processes, and is currentlyworking with colleagues on projects investigating race differences in criminal victimization, the associationbetween mental illness and return to incarceration, the use of military enlistment in lieu of imprisonment, andthe role of emotions in the reinforcement of habitual criminal conduct.

Am J Crim Just