Prison gangs: descriptions and selected intervention

Forensic Examiner, The, Spring, 2005 by Terri Compton, Mike Meacham

ABSTRACT

The number of gangs and gang members is increasing just as rapidly in prisons as on the streets. This article provides an overview of the literature, gives basic statistics on incidence, describes the process an inmate generally follows to become a prison gang member, and reviews selected interventions that have been attempted. We conclude that interventions need to be flexible enough for use under the unique circumstances of each prison and designed with specified and measurable goals so that progress may be effectively measured. We also suggest that communication among prison systems on such programs is important to the development of effective interventions that may be adapted to individual circumstances.

KEY WORDS: gangs, prisons, interventions, corrections

**********

Although gangs have been a problem in many societies throughout history, a new wave of gang activity became a central societal focus in the United States during the 1980s. Gangs have risen to a level of power beyond the control of local or even state authorities, and many experts believe that the problem has international connections.

During the 1920s and 1930s it was discovered that prisons were breeding grounds for gangs, such as those headed by Dillinger, Floyd, Barrow. Today gangs flourish behind prison walls and grow stronger both in prisons and in the community. The purpose of this article is to give a summary of prison gangs and to suggest interventions that may be helpful. To begin, researchers outside the prison system should be warned: the difficulties in any particular prison are much more complex and dangerous than many outsiders realize. It is necessary to include officials within each particular institution when developing strategies to control gang activity. Furthermore, research focusing on the progress of interventions is necessary for the continued effectiveness of such a program.

THE PROBLEM

The word "gang" has many meanings and should be defined. To do so, the criteria for a group must first be examined. Longres (1995) defined a group as a system in which two or more individuals interact and influence one another. These interactions can take place through direct face-to-face contact or through indirect contact transmitted by gang representatives. Longres explained that groups, as systems, are collections of unique individuals who are all interdependent, who must interact with their environment, and who cannot exist without their environment. Each group has an internal structure, with members who define those in the group as "us" and those outside the group as "them." He further explained that "every system is a holon; it is a whole--a unit unto itself--and a part of a whole, both at the same time" (Longres, 1995, p. 46). Each group has physical, psychological, and social boundaries that give the group further definition.

Prison gangs meet group criteria and have many common features. Fong et al. (1996) described several common elements that define a gang: racial and ethnic boundaries, pre-prison gang experience among members, life-long membership, and structured leadership. Gang members often see themselves as political prisoners and therefore may seek to legitimize their actions as political violence against a perceived enemy.

What causes prison gangs to arise? One reason is clear. Within prisons, survival becomes a dominant motivation. Citing other sources, Buentello, Fong, and Vogel (1991) asserted that when prison officials were restrained in their control of inmates, coupled with a lack of support for reforms, the prisoners found themselves in more danger from fellow inmates than before and began to organize self-defense groups.

Another reason for the growth of these gangs is their secretive nature. Many gangs exist undiscovered until a crisis occurs (Fong & Buentello, 1991). Reforms intended to protect prisoner rights have inadvertently resulted in inhibiting the discovery and control of prison gangs. These reforms were necessary because prior rulings (i.e., Ruffian v. Commonwealth, 1871; Price v. Johnson, 1948) resulted in allowing unfettered treatment of prisoners by officials, which many officials abused. The ruling, which allowed excessive punishment by prison officials, endangered prisoners at the discretion of individual correctional employees.

Some of these reforms began in the Monroe v. Pape (1961) ruling. In this case, it was ruled that inmates could seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights by prison officials. This decision was expanded in 1964 in the Cooper v. Pate ruling. While these decisions improved many aspects of prison life, they unintentionally undermined prison officials' authority, which had once served to suppress violence. In many respects, the system became even more dangerous for prisoners as a result (Fong & Vogel, 1995). An example of this process may be found in Ruiz v. Estelle (1980). This case was brought to court because Texas Department of Corrections officials had been controlling illegal activities through a system known as the "building tender system." In this system, trusted prisoners were used to monitor the activities of other inmates, providing intelligence to prison officials on potential or growing problems. Ruiz v. Estelle eliminated this system; as a result, the intelligence provided from this source was lost and prison violence increased.