Social Distance Between Prisoners and Prison Staff

Abstract

This article focuses on social distance and explores possible differences between factors that influence social distance in a variety of prison environments. Results from multiple regression analyses show that the perception of procedural justice and legitimacy of prison staff, the presence of violent subculture, and age are the best predictors of social distance. These findings highlight the unstable nature of social distance. Moreover, the presence of social distance varies over time and across different prison settings. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

legitimacy prison procedural justice Slovenia social distance

Introduction

Traditional approaches to maintaining order in prisons were based on control strategies (rewards and sanctions; Colvin, 1992; DiIulio, 1987; Kantrowitz, 1996). Such “carrot and stick” approaches eventually lead to prisoners’ disapproval, as the ratio between rewards and sanctions is disproportionate (Reisig & Meško, 2009). Order maintenance based on coercion in prison leads to hostility between prisoners and the prison staff and deepens the social distance between them. The establishment of legitimacy in prison, which prison staff develop through respectful and dignified relations with inmates based on justice, represents an alternative to traditional control strategies. Bottoms (1999) observed that prison workers present a mediation factor to prisoners, which influences good or bad behavior, that is, respect and compliance with the prison rules and authority.

Relations between inmates and correctional staff advanced significantly since the 1980s when McDermott and King (1988) described them as the culture of contempt and interpersonal hostility. Research of recent decades has documented a “reconstruction of penal power” based on the concept of “soft power” (Crewe, 2011a, 2011b). Soft power is a fundamental component of a broader form of “neo-paternalism.” It is the sphere of power in which the use of coercion or direct commands or “hard power” is unnecessary (Crewe, 2009; Nye, 2004). Genders and Player (1995) wrote that relations between prisoners and the prison staff are based on (a) individualism, (b) permissiveness, and (c) trust. In the forced environment of a total institution such as prison, relationships are shaped with great effort—the ability of one actor to influence the behavior of other actors. Liebling (2004) found that distrust and social distance between incarcerated persons and correctional staff can be reduced only by the use of mutual coercion. Pilling (1992) wrote that an orderly and safe environment is dependent on open and relaxed relations and mutual respect between inmates and the prison staff.

The importance of interactions between inmates and prison officers is reflected in instrumental motives (obtaining benefits and avoiding sanctions) and normative motives (good relations influencing prison life; Costa, 2016; Jacobs, 1977; Liebling & Price, 2001; Scraton, Sim, & Skidmore, 1991). Weinrath (2016) pointed to the social distance between correctional officers and inmates, which is always present, due to (a) the reluctance of prison staff to establish “too” friendly relations with prisoners, and (b) the maintenance of positioned “appropriate” boundaries between prison actors as dictated by official rules and subcultures.

The social distance between prisoners and prison staff is perceived as a direct result of (poor) relations between them—similar to other relationships in the prison environment, this social distance is unstable and can be easily disrupted. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, the factors that influence social distance in Slovenia’s Dob prison are compared in two different time periods to identify possible differences and confirm the instability of social distance in prison that can be influenced by [in]appropriate measures. Second, factors that influence social distance in Dob prison are contrasted with Slovenia’s entire prison system, as Dob prison is the largest and most secure prison in Slovenia. In the following sections, social distance and factors contributing to social distance between inmates and prison staff will be described. The results of the social distance study in Dob prison and other Slovenian prisons will be presented next, followed by a discussion of the findings.

Social Distance in the Prison Environment

“One of the most amazing things about prisons is that they ‘work’ at all . . .” (Cressey in Liebling, 2004, p. 285). Fox (1971) described the prison as an institution comparable to a gun barrel, where inhumane conditions transform it into a time bomb that can be triggered by a relatively trivial incident. A prison is a (closed) social environment in which two unequal groups of individuals, inmates and prison workers, are living and working. Prison staff as power-holders act as direct decision-makers affecting the lives of prisoners, while prisoners are in a disadvantaged position, as they have no “voice” or opportunities to participate in the decision-making process.

Sykes (1958) noted the irony of modern prisons, in the sense of autocratic functioning in a democratic society. Organizational objectives that guide work in prisons influence relations between prison workers and inmates (Street, Vintner, & Perrow, 1966). According to Moos’ (1970) investigation measuring prison social climate (a) the greater presence of spontaneity, sense of belonging, inclusion, diversity of prison staff, and autonomy impacts inmates’ self-esteem and their relations with the prison staff in a positive manner, and (b) inmates in those prisons, where sense of belonging, inclusion, and autonomy are present, more often take the initiative for autonomous operation and interactions with correctional officers, reducing the social distance between them. Brinc (2011) measured the social climate in Slovenian prisons and came to similar conclusions as Moos (1970). The social climate was better in prisons with more liberal regimes and where inmates and prison workers perceive the social climate more positively. Moreover, in these prisons, relaxed and informal relations between incarcerated persons and correctional staff prevail.

Social distance is an enduring condition of the prison environment—the common element of all prisoners is their dispute with the state that influences their mistrust of staff and culminates in social distance. This inmate–staff social distance has serious implications for inmate misconduct (compliance with prison rules) and implementation of treatment. The so-called “problem of order” which causes the social distance between correctional officers and inmates in modern prisons is influenced by the lack of legitimacy (Bosworth, 1996; Cavadino & Dignan, 1992; Sparks, 1994; Vagg, 1994; Woolf & Tumim, 1991).

The perception of prison workers by inmates as legitimate power-holders has a positive influence in reducing the social distance between them, as legitimacy derives from the acceptability of power-holders, appropriate attitudes and relations with recipients, as well as the fair treatment of recipients. Prison workers create the bond between prisoners and the prison and present an important element of legitimacy (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Legitimacy in a correctional environment as a particular social environment is a demanding process because it represents a structural and bureaucratically closed setting (Reiter, 2014). Research has shown that legitimacy in prison is not a fixed phenomenon, but depends on eternal discussions and continuous dialogue between the power-holders and recipients (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Liebling, 2011; Meško & Eman, 2016). McNeill and Robinson (2012) defined the dynamic nature of legitimacy as liquid and unstable, due to recipients’ evaluations of treatment by authorities and the validity of their claims. Bosworth (1996) defined prison as the site of constant negotiations where inmates and representatives of the institution possess some degree of power. This concept of legitimacy, which can be called a dialogue, dynamic or conditional, explains the importance of relationships between inmates and correctional officers for living and working in prison (Liebling, 2011).

Legitimacy in prison is based on the belief that (a) authorities are trustworthy, honest, and concerned about the welfare of the people with whom they interact and (b) it is necessary to accept the power of authority and voluntarily comply with their decisions (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Bradford, Jackson, & Hough, 2014; Tyler, 2011). Tyler (2006) argued that people who consider actions against them by those in authority as just possess positive emotions toward authority, regardless of the final outcome. He assumed that the relationship between procedural justice and compliance with rules is influenced by the perception of legitimacy.

The experience of imprisonment can be positive (or at least neutral) if prisoners perceive actions of authorities as just (Franke, Bierie, & Mackenzie, 2010; Smoyer, Kershaw, & Blankenship, 2015). Tyler (2010) highlighted four components of procedural justice in correctional institutions (prisons) (a) voice (inmates should be allowed to express their views), (b) neutrality of decisions (decision are made in accordance with rules and are not based on personal bias of the prison staff), (c) respectful and dignified treatment of prisoners (prison workers must refute negative stereotypes about prisoners and acknowledge them certain rights), and (d) trust in authority (authorities are concerned about the welfare of inmates). In addition to justice, the legality of prison workers’ decisions and procedures and the effectiveness of prison workers influence a prisoner’s perception of legitimacy of the prison staff and reduce the social distance between them.

Procedural justice represents not only the normative element of legitimacy in prison but also the instrumental element in ensuring inmates’ compliance with prison rules—through the use of force or threat of direct or indirect coercion or inmates’ voluntary compliance. Moreover, perceptions of procedural justice affect the quality of inmate–prison staff relationships and inmate willingness to violate prison rules. Incarcerated persons who perceive decisions of prison staff as fair are less likely to violate prison rules and are more willing to establish (good) relationships with them, mediating the social distance between them (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, Van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015; Reisig & Meško, 2009).

Sykes (1958) highlighted the fact that prison workers do not possess total power within the prison. Consequently, in the areas where their power is diminished, inmate social systems—prison subcultures—are created (Bottoms, 1999; Liebling & Price, 2001; McDermott & King, 1988). Goffman (1961) wrote that the prison’s institutional environment leads to the formation of the “prison code”—rules and values that are developed by inmates and which confront the institution’s formal rules. Kaminski (2003) argued that the prison subculture dictates a prisoner’s behavior in almost all aspects of everyday life. Furthermore, prison subculture values support the situational use of violence, especially in cases of physical threat or attacks on an inmate’s honor (Reisig & Meško, 2009).

Joining an inmate group or gang that is under the influence of a prison subculture represents the rejection of prison staff power and conventional values. Hostility toward authority keeps prisoners from entering into relationships with correctional officers that would promote trust and cooperation and reduce the social distance between them. Moreover, the perception of procedural justice is seriously compromised, as inmates who are under the influence of the prison subculture often defy commands and do not comply with prison rules. Such defiance leads to staff–inmate conflicts and deepens the social distance between them (Ritzer, 1996). In the following section, the Slovenian prison system is discussed.

The Slovenian Prison System

The Prison Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenian Prison Administration), headed by the Director General, is an independent administrative unit within the Ministry of Justice. Its creation in 1995 was the result of merging eight institutions into one single central body (Meško, Fields, & Smole, 2011). The Slovenian Prison Administration is responsible for (a) the enforcement of prison sanctions; (b) the organization and management of prisons and a correctional home; (c) the insurance of financial, material, personnel, technical, and other requirements necessary for the functioning of prisons and a correctional home; (d) the training of prison workers in accordance with the needs of the enforcement of penal sanctions; and (e) the enforcement of prisoners’ rights and obligations (Aebi, Burkhardt, Hacin, & Tiago, 2016).

The Slovenian prison system consists of six prisons and the correctional home, which operates in 14 different locations. Prisons are organized into (a) central prisons (Celje, Dob, and Ig); (b) regional prisons (Ljubljana, Koper, and Maribor); (c) dislocated departments (Ig, Murska Sobota, Nova Gorica, Novo mesto, Puščava, Rogoza, and Slovenska vas), (d) detention departments (Celje, Ig, Koper, Ljubljana, Maribor, Murska Sobota, Nova Gorica, and Novo mesto), and (e) the correctional home (Radeče; Kotnik et al., 2017).

In Slovenia, imprisoned persons serve their sentences in different types of prisons according to the following criteria: (a) gender (separation of male and female prisoners; in some cases, they are separated within the same prison), (b) the nature of the sentence (separation of remand prisoners from sentenced prisoners), (c) duration of the sentence (prisons for serving long and short prison sentences), (d) age of the prisoner (separation of juvenile prisoners and adults; in some cases, they are separated within the same prison), and (e) the degree of security (closed, semi-open, and open institutions and departments; Meško, Fields, & Smole, 2011).

Dob prison is the largest Slovenian prison and houses adult males serving sentences of 18 months and beyond. The current design capacity is 449 prisoners, but the inmate population in May 2017 was 473. It was established in 1957, but the construction was not finished until 1963. During this period, it operated as a correctional institution for male offenders. The closed department, in its current form, comprises 90.000 m² and is divided into economic and residential sections. The physical construction of the prison is characterized by five periods:

Period from 1957 to 1963, when most of the buildings were constructed.

Period from 1974 to 1975, when a modern administrative building and visitation building were constructed.

Period from 1979 to 1986, when a large investment in the economic unit of the prison was made.

Period after 1991, when intensive modernization of the prison took place.

Period from 2009 to 2011, when two new buildings were built that increased the capacity of the prison by almost 187 places for prisoners (Remic, Udovč, Prevolšek, & Hacin, 2017).

Research Methodology

The present research focusing on social distance between prisoners and prison workers in Slovenia utilized a questionnaire developed by Reisig and Meško (2009) and approved by the Slovenian prison administration. Participation of inmates in the study was voluntary, with the data obtained in 2008 and 2016.

The sample from 2008 is based on data obtained from structured interviews with 103 (34%) of 303 prisoners housed in the closed section of Dob prison. The sample represented 10.1% of all prisoners in the country (1,002) in 2008 (Carli et al., 2009) and comprised male respondents, among whom 30 (29%) were younger than 30 years of age, 35 (34%) were between 30 and 39 years of age, 26 (25.3%) were between 40 and 49 years of age, and 12 (11.7%) were older than 50. The majority (62.1%) had completed elementary school, while 23.3% completed high school, and 14.6% obtained some form of higher education.

The sample from 2016 is based on data obtained from surveying 330 prisoners in all Slovenian prisons, departments, and a correctional home.¹ The sample represented 30% of all prisoners in the country (1,110) in 2016 (Kotnik et al., 2017), of which 293 (88.8%) were male prisoners, 21 (6.4%) female prisoners, and 16 (4.8%) juveniles. Seventy-two (21.8%) respondents were younger than 30 years of age, 111 (33.6%) were between 30 and 39 years of age, 53 (16.1%) were between 40 and 49 years of age, while 49 (14.8%) respondents were older than 50, and 45 (13.6%) respondents refused to answer. The majority (83.3%) of respondents had completed elementary or high school, while 13.4% obtained some form of higher education, and 11 respondents refused to answer.

The specifics on the sampling in Dob prison in 2016 are as follows. Data for the study were collected from a sample comprising 100 (20.1%) out of 498 prisoners housed in the closed section of Dob prison, representing 9% of all prisoners in the country (1,110) in 2016 (Kotnik et al., 2017). The sample consists of male respondents, among whom 15 prisoners were younger than 30 years of age, 37 were between 30 and 39 years of age, 18 were between 40 and 49 years of age, while 18 were older than 50 years, and 12 prisoners refused to answer. The majority (83%) of prisoners had completed elementary or high school, while 12% obtained some form of higher education, and five prisoners refused to answer. The following section describes the variables examined, which were subjected to factor analyses (principal component method; rotation Promax) and further analyzed using regression analysis.

Measures

This section describes the variables included in the analysis.

Social Distance

The following four statements were used to measure inmates’ perception of social distance: (a) I have more in common with the prison staff than I do with most of the prisoners, (b) I regularly share my thoughts and concerns with the prison staff, (c) I look for ways to help the prison staff, and (d) I spend more time talking with the prison staff than most prisoners. These statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1—“Strongly disagree” to 4—“Strongly agree.” The Factor “Social distance” is a summation of responses to the four statements.

Procedural Justice

The following six statements were used to measure respondents’ perception of fairness of decisions of the prison staff: (a) the guards treat prisoners with respect, (b) the guards treat prisoners fairly, (c) the guards are courteous to prisoners, (d) the guards explain their decisions to the prisoners, (e) the guards make decisions to handle problems involving prisoners fairly, and (f) the guards take time to listen to prisoners. These statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1—“Strongly disagree” to 4—“Strongly agree.” The Factor “Procedural justice” is a summation of responses to the six statements.

Legitimacy

The following three statements were used to measure inmates’ perception of legitimacy of the prison staff: (a) you should accept the guards’ decisions even if you think they are wrong, (b) you should do what the guards tell you to do even if you disagree, and (c) you should do what the guards tell you to do even if you do not like the way you are treated. These statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1—“Strongly disagree” to 4—“Strongly agree.” The Factor “Legitimacy” is a summation of responses to the three statements.

Violent Subculture

The following five statements were used to measure the presence of violent subculture among prisoners: (a) it is alright to assault another prisoner if they start a fight; (b) if another prisoner makes me really mad, they deserve to be assaulted; (c) it is sometimes necessary to fight to protect my honor; (d) I am always ready to fight if someone tries to take advantage of me; and (e) if someone tries to hurt me, I will try to get even. These statements were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1—“Strongly disagree” to 4—“Strongly agree.” The Factor “Violent subculture” is a summation of responses to the five statements. A detailed description of the variables (mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha), which were included in factor analyses, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Description of Variables Included in the Factor Analysis.

Variable	Dob (2008)^a		Dob (2016)^a		Slovenia (2016)^a
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Social distance	3.49	0.58	2.31	1.07	2.26	1.01
I have more in common with the prison staff than I do with most of the prisoners.^b	3.42	0.82	2.83	1.02	2.91	0.99
I regularly share my thoughts and concerns with the prison staff.^b	3.63	0.70	3.00	0.96	2.93	0.94
I look for ways to help the prison staff.^b	3.24	0.89	3.10	0.97	2.38	0.94
I spend more time talking with the prison staff than most prisoners.^b	3.67	0.63	2.51	0.98	3.23	0.86
	Cronbach’sα = .74		Cronbach’sα = .76		Cronbach’sα = .80
Procedural justice	2.54	0.58	1.74	1.03	1.77	0.97
The guards treat prisoners with respect.	2.64	0.80	2.57	1.02	2.67	0.93
Guards treat prisoners fairly.	2.55	0.80	2.32	1.00	2.42	0.98
The guards are courteous to prisoners.	2.81	0.63	2.64	0.98	2.71	0.89
Guards explain their decisions to the prisoners.	2.25	0.92	2.26	0.97	2.45	0.94
The guards make decisions to handle problems involving prisoners fairly.	2.63	0.71	2.20	0.94	2.27	0.93
Guards take time to listen to prisoners.	2.33	0.89	2.25	1.02	2.30	1.00
	Cronbach’sα = .83		Cronbach’sα = .97		Cronbach’sα = .97
Legitimacy	2.68	0.97	2.40	1.17	2.42	1.05
You should accept the guards’ decisions even if you think they are wrong.	2.49	1.07	2.81	1.12	2.75	1.03
You should do what the guards tell you to do even if you disagree.	2.84	1.07	2.79	1.14	2.90	0.99
You should do what the guards tell you to do even if you do not like the way you are treated.	2.72	1.06	2.58	1.08	2.69	0.99
	Cronbach’sα = .90		Cronbach’sα = .91		Cronbach’sα = .88
Violent subculture	2.12	0.68	1.59	0.84	1.53	0.77
It is alright to assault another prisoner if they start a fight.	2.05	0.91	1.81	1.06	1.81	0.94
If another prisoner makes me really mad, they deserve to be assaulted.	2.00	0.93	1.72	0.88	1.76	0.95
It is sometimes necessary to fight to protect my honor.	2.39	0.94	1.99	1.11	1.82	0.98
I am always ready to fight if someone tries to take advantage of me.	2.16	1.05	1.88	1.04	1.82	0.97
If someone tries to hurt me, I will try to get even.	2.01	0.95	1.96	1.00	1.89	0.95
	Cronbach’sα = .75		Cronbach’sα = .90		Cronbach’sα = .89

Note. Principal components. Promax.

Response set ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.”

Reverse scored.

Findings

Prior to the regression analyses, factors that influenced prisoner’s perception of social distance in Dob prison and other Slovenian prisons were identified, and Pearson’s r correlation tests were conducted. These tests were run for two reasons: (a) as a preliminary assessment of the predictors that influence prisoner’s perception of social distance and (b) as a correlation analysis to establish whether any of the variables are highly correlated—the problem of multicollinearity.

Results of the test, based on data obtained in Dob prison in 2008, showed that significant correlations exist between prisoners’ perception of social distance and (a) procedural justice (r = −.46; p < .01) and (b) age (r = .24; p < .05). The strongest correlation was identified between prisoner’s perception of social distance and procedural justice (Table 2). Results of the test, based on data obtained in Dob prison in 2016, showed that significant correlations exist between prisoners’ perception of social distance and (a) procedural justice (r = −.39; p < .01), and (b) violent subculture (r = .26; p < .01). The strongest correlation was identified between prisoner’s perception of social distance and procedural justice (Table 3). Results of the test, based on data obtained in all Slovenian prisons in 2016, showed that significant correlations exist between prisoners’ perception of social distance and (a) procedural justice (r = −.44; p < .01), (b) violent subculture (r = .17; p < .01), and (c) education (r = −.13; p < .05). The strongest correlation was noted between prisoner’s perception of social distance and procedural justice (Table 4).

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix—Prisoners in Dob Prison 2008.

	1	2	3	4	5
Social distance	—
Procedural justice	−.46**	—
Legitimacy	−.02	.02	—
Violent subculture	.16	−.20*	−.32**	—
Age	.24*	−.32**	−.18	.29**	—
Education	.09	−.12	−.01	.02	.40**

Note. N = 101.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix—Prisoners in Dob Prison 2016.

	1	2	3	4	5
Social distance	—
Procedural justice	−.39**	—
Legitimacy	−.15	−.17	—
Violent subculture	.26**	.02	−.20*	—
Age	−.04	.21*	−.18	−.22*	—
Education	−.13	.06	.08	−.08	.22*

Note. N = 100.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4.

Correlation Matrix—Prisoners in Slovenian Prisons 2016.

	1	2	3	4	5
Social distance	—
Procedural justice	−.44**	—
Legitimacy	.00	−.25**	—
Violent subculture	.17**	−.09	−.06	—
Age	−.08	.12*	−.10	−.22**	—
Education	−.13*	.06	.01	−.16**	.34**

Note. N = 330.

p < .05. **p < .01.

With Pearson’s test, the problem of multicollinearity was reviewed, examining high correlations between independent variables. Correlations higher than 0.80 are deemed problematic, as they make it impossible to obtain unique estimates of the regression coefficients because there are an infinite number of combinations of coefficients that would work equally well (Field, 2009). Results of the tests rule out threats of multicollinearity. Further diagnostic tests confirmed the initial assessment of absence of multicollinearity; the variance inflation factor (VIF) for variables was less than 2.0.

In Table 5, results of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses for predicting prisoner’s perceptions of social distance are presented. Three analyses were conducted. In the first, we tested which factors influenced prisoner’s perception of social distance in Dob prison in 2008 and found that (a) legitimacy, (b) violent subculture, (c) age, and (d) education have no influence on perceptions of social distance. However, procedural justice (β = −0.42; p < .001) has an impact on inmates who believe that prison staff’s procedures against them are fair, perceive them more positively, and are more willing to establish good relationships with them, which mediates the social distance between them. Overall, the model explained 18.0% of the variance in perception of social distance of prisoners sampled.

Table 5.

OLS Regression Analysis: Predicting Social Distance of Prisoners.

Social distance	Dob 2008			Dob 2016			Slovenia 2016
Social distance	SE	β	t	SE	β	t	SE	β	t
Procedural justice	0.10	−0.42	−4.35****	0.09	−0.44	−4.78****	0.05	−0.46	−9.01***
Legitimacy	0.10	0.02	0.18	0.09	−0.15	−1.57	0.05	−0.10	−2.01**
Violent subculture	0.10	0.06	0.59	0.09	0.25	2.69***	0.05	0.12	2.31**
Age	0.11	0.09	0.81	0.10	0.10	1.05	0.05	0.02	0.31
Education	0.12	0.01	0.08	0.12	−0.09	−1.03	0.07	−0.09	−1.67*
F	5.48****			6.81****			19.60****
R² (adjusted)	18.0%			22.7%			23.2%
N	101			100			330

Note. *p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001

In the second analysis, we tested which factors influenced prisoner’s perceptions of social distance in Dob prison in 2016. We found that (a) legitimacy, (b) age, and (c) education have no influence on prisoner’s perception of social distance. At the same time, procedural justice (β = −0.44; p < .001) and violent subculture (β = 0.25; p < .01) have an impact on an inmate’s perception of social distance, and three key findings emerged: (a) once again procedural justice mediated the feelings of social distance between prisoners and prison workers; (b) violent subcultures arose as a new factor that influences prisoner’s perception of social distance, which points to the more intensive prison subculture in Dob prison in comparison to the year 2008; and (c) the presence of a violent subculture among prisoners has a negative impact on relationships between prisoners and the prison staff and deepens the social distance between them. Procedural justice had the highest effect on prisoner’s perception of social distance. Overall, the model explained 22.7% of the variance in perception of social distance of inmates sampled.

In the final analysis, we tested which factors influenced respondents’ perception of social distance in Slovenian prisons in general in 2016. We found that age has no influence on their perception of social distance and that (a) procedural justice, (b) legitimacy, (c) violent subculture, and (d) education do have an impact. The following key findings emerged: (a) similar to the situation in Dob prison, procedural justice has the highest effect on an inmate’s perceptions of social distance; (b) an inmate’s perception of the prison staff as a legitimate power-holder mediates the social distance between them; (c) in comparison to Dob prison, the effect of violent subculture on an inmate’s perception of social distance is lower at the level of the entire Slovenian prison system than in Dob prison; and (d) more educated inmates are more willing to break the social distance with the prison staff and enter into more intensive relations with them. Overall, the model explained 23.2% of the variance in perception of social distance of prisoners sampled.

Discussion

The current study focused on factors that influence social distance between inmates and prison staff and tested the question of the instability of social distance in a prison environment in Slovenia. Overall, the findings revealed the dominant role of procedural justice as a mediator of social distance in all Slovenian prisons. Tyler (2010) argued that prison staff decisions that are based on justice have a positive impact on inmate’s perceptions of prison workers. Just procedures fill the gap between the groups that derives from a prisoner’s basic dispute with the state; most of whom possess feelings of mistrust of staff that result in social distance. Fairness of the prison staff’s decisions is seen as the basic element on which good relations with incarcerated persons are established and that prevent the occurrence of social distance between inmates and correctional officers. Liebling (2004) stated that these relations represent the “beating heart” of the entire prison.

The unstable nature of social distance was tested via replication of the study conducted by Reisig and Meško (2009) in Dob prison. Results revealed procedural justice as the predominant factor influencing social distance in Dob prison in both periods (2008 and 2016). However, when compared to 2008, violent subculture is a factor that has also influenced social distance in 2016. These findings highlight the fact that (a) the influence of procedural justice on prisoners’ perception of social distance remained basically the same, which indicates that their perceptions of decision-making (based on justice) of prison staff have not changed since 2008, and (b) prisoners’ violent subculture has a far greater influence on social distance between them and prison staff than in 2008. Kaminski (2003) reported that prison subculture represents the main obstacle for incarcerees’ cooperation with prison workers, as it dictates their behavior. The findings indicate that inmates perceived decisions of prison staff as being less fair than they did in 2008. We assume the added capacity to Dob prison for almost 200 more prisoners since 2008 had a negative impact on the perception of staff fairness, as prison workers have become responsible for an additional 200 prisoners. Moreover, we estimate that the increased prison capacity and reduced occupancy levels that followed have influenced the emergence of a violent subculture, as respondents had not felt such a strong presence of a violent subculture in 2016 as in 2008. This also confirms Weinrath’s (2016) claim that prison subcultures in European prisons are declining. The fact remains that inmates’ perception of social distance has decreased since 2008, based on which we assume that the relations between them and the prison staff have progressed.

Data gathered in all Slovenian prisons in 2016 enabled the comparison of social distance in Dob prison, the largest maximum-security prison in Slovenia, with the entire Slovenian prison system. Results document that besides procedural justice and violent subcultures, prisoners’ perceptions of legitimacy of the prison staff and age have an impact on the social distance between themselves and the prison officers. The impact of procedural justice on social distance was basically the same in Dob prison and the entire prison system, while violent subcultures had significantly stronger influences in Dob prison. That is, the effect of the severity of the prison regime increases deprivations imposed upon inmates which, in turn, impact their adaptation to prison life (Reisig, 2001). We assume that the nature of the prison population in Dob (prisoners serving sentences of 18 months or longer) and the size of the prison (almost half of the male prison population in 2016 served their sentences in Dob) creates conditions favorable to the development of prison subcultures, where they are more noticeable than in other Slovenian prisons. Moreover, legitimacy and age were identified as factors that influence social distance at the level of the entire Slovenian prison system. Based on these findings, we argue that more educated prisoners and those who perceive prison staff as the legitimate power-holders are more willing to ease the social distance between themselves and staff and enter into more intensive relations with them. This is based on mutual respect and sometimes even trust. Comparing Dob prison to the Slovenian prison system (a) confirmed the dominant influence of procedural justice on social distance; (b) exposed the differences in influence of the prison subculture on social distance in different prisons, explained by the size of the prison, prison regime, and nature of the prison population; and (c) revealed that different factors influence social distance in different prisons, deriving from specific attributes of an individual prison.

This research confirmed the unstable nature of inmate-prison staff social distance that can be influenced by appropriate measures. Moreover, findings supported that factors that influence social distance are not constant; they depend on the prison environment and are changing over time. The dynamic nature of social distance can be compared to the liquid nature of legitimacy, as it is very unstable and can be easily be disrupted (McNeill & Robinson, 2012). We see social distance as a clear indicator of poor relations between the prison staff and inmates. We acknowledge the fact that a certain level of social distance will always be present in correctional institutions, but at the same time, we argue that social distance obstructs the normal everyday operation of the prison and prevents the successful implementation of treatment of imprisoned people.

A limitation of the study can be seen in the degree of sincerity of participants. It is possible that respondents gave socially desirable answers to surveys due to fear of sanctions. Furthermore, the small amount of variance explained points to the need for further research of social distance in the prison environment.

Specifically, future research should focus on (a) an in-depth exploration of relations between prison workers and inmates and their influence on social distance, (b) the influence of social distance on a prisoner’s everyday life, (c) the limits of procedurally just practices in mediating the social distance, and (d) the means to suppress the violent subculture among inmates because of its influence on social distance in the correctional workplace.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The study was conducted as a part of the project Legitimacy and Legality of Policing, Criminal Justice and Execution of Penal Sanction (2013-2016) that was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency.

Notes

Author Biographies

Gorazd Meško, PhD, is a professor of criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Slovenia. His research interests include legitimacy of criminal justice, policy and prison studies, and comparative criminology. He has recently published papers on legitimacy, self-legitimacy, and procedural justice in prisons.

Rok Hacin, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Slovenia. He has conducted research in the Slovenian prisons since 2014. He has published papers on legitimacy, self legitimacy, and procedural justice in prisons.

References

Aebi

M. F.

Burkhardt

Hacin

Tiago

M. M.

(2016). A comparative perspective of imprisonment trends in Slovenia and Europe from 2005 to 2014. Revija Za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo, 67, 430-442.

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 196-218.

Bosworth

(1996). Resistance and compliance in women’s prisons: Towards a critique of legitimacy. Critical Criminology, 7(2), 5-19.

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119-170.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime & Justice, 26, 205-281.

Bradford

Jackson

Hough

(2014). Police futures and legitimacy: Redefining good policing. In Brown

J. M.

(Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 79-100). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Brinc

(2011). Družbeno vzdušje v zavodih za prestajanje kazni zapora in v prevzgojnem domu Radeče leta 2010 [Social climate in correctional institutions and the Juvenile detention centre Radeče in 2010]. Revija Za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo, 62, 295-311.

Carli

Kotnik

Zdešar Vochl

Peteh

Požar

Černetič

. . . Peteh Volf

(2009). Letno poročilo 2008 (Annual report 2008). Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.

Cavadino

Dignan

(1992). The penal system: An introduction. London, England: SAGE.

10.

Colvin

(1992). The penitentiary in crisis: From accommodation to riot in New Mexico. Albany: State University of New York Press.

11.

Costa

J. P.

(2016). A matter of degree: A justice framework for penal legitimacy. Punishment & Society, 18, 389-399.

12.

Crewe

(2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

13.

Crewe

(2011a). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13, 509-529.

14.

Crewe

(2011b). Soft Power in prison: Implications for staff-prisoner relationships liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455-468.

15.

DiIulio

(1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York, NY: Free Press.

16.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Fox

(1971). Why prisoners riot. Federal Probation, 35(1), 9-14.

18.

Franke

Bierie

Mackenzie

D. L.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 89-117.

19.

Genders

Player

(1995). Grendon: A study of a therapeutic prison. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

20.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York, NY: Anchor books.

21.

Jacobs

(1977). Stateville: The penitentiary in modern society. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

22.

Kaminski

M. M.

(2003). Games prisoners play: Allocation of social roles in a total Institution. Rationality and Society, 15, 189-218.

23.

Kantrowitz

(1996). Close control: Managing a maximum security prison. Guilderland, NY: Harrow & Heston.

24.

Kotnik

Peteh

Požar

Salecl Božič

Pahor Mohorič

Musić

. . .Wolf

(2017). Letno poročilo 2016 (Annual report 2016). Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.

25.

Liebling

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality and prison life. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

26.

Liebling

(2011). Distinctions and distinctiveness in the work of prison officers: Legitimacy and authority revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 484-499.

27.

Liebling

Price

(2001). The prison officer. Cambridge, UK: Waterside.

28.

McDermott

King

R. D.

(1988). Mind games: Where the action is in prison. British Journal of Criminology, 28, 357-375.

29.

McNeill

Robinson

(2012). Liquid legitimacy and community sanctions. In Crawford

Hucklesby

(Eds.), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice (pp. 116-137). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

30.

Meško

Eman

(2016). Zaznavanje legitimnosti policijske dejavnosti v srednji in vzhodni Evropi - študija med študenti prava [Perception of police legitimacy in Central and Eastern Europe—Study among law students]. In Meško

Eman

Flander

Filipčič

Završnik

(Eds.), Oblast legitimnost in družbeno nadzorstvo (pp. 123-158). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Fakulteta za varnostne vede.

31.

Meško

Fields

Smole

(2011). A concise overview of penology and penal practice in Slovenia: The unchanged capacity, new standards, and prison overcrowding. The Prison Journal, 91, 398-424.

32.

Moos

R. H.

(1970). Differential effects of the social climates of correctional institutions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 7(1), 71-82.

33.

Nye

(2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

34.

Pilling

(1992). Back to basics: Relationships in the prison service, Eve Saville memorial lecture. London, England: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency.

35.

Reisig

M. D.

(2001). The champion, contender and challenger: Top ranked books in prison studies. The Prison Journal, 81, 389-407.

36.

Reisig

M. D.

Meško

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 37-54.

37.

Reiter

(2014). Making windows in walls: Strategies for prison research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 417-428.

38.

Remic

Udovč

Prevolšek

Hacin

(2017). Delo, vključevanje in usposabljanje obsojencev v ZPKZ Dob [Work, inclusion and training of prisoners in Dob prison]. Varstvoslovje, 19(1), 41-57.

39.

Ritzer

(1996). Sociological theory. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

40.

Scraton

Sim

Skidmore

(1991). Prisons under protest. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

41.

Smoyer

A. B.

Kershaw

T. S.

Blankenship

K. M.

(2015). Confining legitimacy: The impact of prison experiences on perceptions of criminal justice legitimacy. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 5, 258-270.

42.

Sparks

J. R.

(1994). Can prisons be legitimate? Penal politics, privatization, and the timeliness of an old idea. British Journal of Criminology, 34(S1), 14-28.

43.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2015). Examining the sources of correctional officer legitimacy. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 105, 679-704.

44.

Street

Vintner

R. D.

Perrow

(1966). Organization for treatment: A comparative study of institutions for delinquents. New York, NY: Free Press.

45.

Sykes

G. M.

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

46.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

47.

Tyler

T. R.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: Policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 127-134.

48.

Tyler

T. R.

(2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 254-266.

49.

Vagg

(1994). Prison systems: A comparative study of accountability in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

50.

Weinrath

(2016). Behind the walls: Inmates and correctional officers on the state of Canadian prisons. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

51.

Woolf

L. J.

Tumim

(1991). Prison disturbances. London, England: HMSO.