Prisoners’ Perception of Legitimacy of the Prison Staff: A Qualitative Study in Slovene Prisons

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff and examine the compliance of prisoners with the authority of prison staff to highlight the differences between instrumental and normative compliance of prisoners. This study draws on data collected from a random sample of 193 prisoners in all Slovene prisons. Using a qualitative approach based on structured interviews, our findings suggest that distributive justice, procedural justice, the quality of relations with prison staff, and the effectiveness of prison staff influence prisoners’ perception of legitimacy in a prison environment. Several prisoners comply with prison rules because they fear sanctions, which indicates their instrumental compliance, while normative compliance was reported by prisoners who perceived the legitimacy of prison staff in a more positive manner. Overall findings indicate that both instrumental and normative compliance of prisoners can be observed in Slovene prisons.

Keywords

compliance legitimacy prisoners Slovenia

Introduction

The perception of legitimacy in the enforcement of prison sentences is considered as a crucial element in the functioning of prisons, as prisoners’ voluntary compliance with prison rules deter prison staff¹ from using force against prisoners and gives them the “time” to meet prisoners’ needs (Tyler, Braga, Fagan, Meares, & Sampson, 2008). The foundation of legitimacy constitutes prisoners’ normative compliance with prison rules and decisions taken by prison staff. Several penological studies (e.g., Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, van der Laan, & Nieuwbeerta, 2015; Liebling, 2000; Tyler, 2010) focused on building and maintaining legitimacy in prisons. Prisoners’ positive perception of legitimacy of prison staff, who represent the prison system as such, is significant for the (voluntary) compliance of prisoners with prison rules, thus enabling prison workers to perform their work (Reisig & Meško, 2009), that is, a smooth implementation of daily tasks in prison (Liebling & Price, 1999, 2001).

At present, there is a limited number of studies (Reisig & Meško, 2009) dedicated to the way in which prisoners perceive the legitimacy of prison staff in postsocialist prison environments. Studying legitimacy from a different sociocultural, postsocialist, and economic context in Slovenia, rather than in the usual Anglo-Saxon countries, is important due to the development of “concepts and generalizations at a level between what is true in all societies and what is true of one society at one point in time and space” (Akoensi, as cited in Bendix, 1963, p. 532). The purpose of this article is twofold. First, prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff will be explored. Second, the compliance of prisoners with the authority of prison staff will be examined to highlight the differences between instrumental and normative compliance. The following sections present the theoretical aspects of prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff. Furthermore, the specifics related to the treatment of prisoners in the Slovene prison system will be highlighted. Results of the qualitative study on prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff in Slovene prisons will also be presented, whereas the findings will be discussed in the final part of this article.

Prisoners’ Perception of Legitimacy of Prison Workers

Theoretical definitions of legitimacy in prisons (Liebling, 2004; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler, 2010) assume that prisoners’ perception of prison workers, as the legitimate power-holders, is a crucial element for maintaining order in prisons and good behaviour of prisoners. Sparks, Bottoms, and Hay (1996) stated that it is possible to achieve a certain degree of internal legitimacy within the prison through fair and respectful attitudes toward prisoners, but only if it does not significantly differ from other social domains. Tyler and Jackson (2013) claimed that the idea of legitimacy of authority or power-holders derives from an individual’s voluntary compliance. Such compliance depends on the legality of the authority and the moral values of the governed and the power-holders. Kelman and Hamilton (1989) defined legitimacy as an individual’s authorisation of appropriate behaviour, which is dictated by the authority, and their sense of duty to comply with the instructions and rules imposed by the authority. Bottoms (1999) defined three groups of reasons underpinning the social and legal compliance of the audience (prisoners) with the authority (prison workers) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Reasons for Social and Legal Compliance.

A. Instrumental/prudential	1. Incentives
	2. Disincentives
B. Normative	1. Normative consensus/acceptance
	2. Legitimacy
C. Constraint-based	1. Physical restrictions on individual
	2. Restrictions on access to target
	3. Structural constraints

Source. Bottoms (1999).

Prisoners’ fear of sanctions is associated with the traditional way of maintaining order in prisons through coercion. Kelman (1961) defined instrumental motives to compliance as a reaction initiated by the desire to avoid punishment or to receive positive rewards; Reisig and Meško (2009) identified instrumental motives as the fundamental reason for prisoners’ compliance with prison rules. However, the internalised sense of obligation to obey points to alternative strategies of maintaining order in prisons. The majority of prison staff strive to achieve the recognition of legitimacy from prisoners, despite the solidity of their position, as they are aware of its importance for prisoners’ voluntary compliance with the rules dictated by the authority. Sparks and Bottoms (1995) described the representative dimensions of interactions and treatment as situations that have an impact on prisoners’ perception of procedural fairness. Meško and Eman (2016) stated that legitimacy is a broader concept than justice, as it also covers the moral eligibility and normative effectiveness of power-holders. In normative compliance, the main idea of achieving legitimacy through fairness is achieved as a result of prisoners’ rational choice, which is more stable over longer periods of time than instrumental compliance (Tyler, 2010). Normative motives are described as the internalisation of attitudes that are coherent with the individual’s general system of values and beliefs (Kelman, 1961). Prisoners’ normative compliance can be achieved by building trust between them and prison staff (Tyler, 2011). Such a soft power approach is defined as process involving those aspects of treatment and regulations that are achieved through a direct interaction between prisoners and prison staff, and indirect policies enforced by prison workers. These policies encourage prisoners to monitor their own behaviour, resolve aggressive behaviour, interact with prison staff, and take responsibility for their own mistakes (Crewe, 2011a, 2011b). However, prisoners who do not perceive prison workers as legitimate power-holders will not accept their help and will play the “treatment game,” where everyone pretends to be something different, with the controller pretending not to be in control and the controlled behaving in a way that will satisfy the controller (Petrovec & Meško, 2006).

Treatment of Prisoners in Slovene Prisons

The Slovene Prison Administration is an independent body within the Ministry of Justice and is responsible for the execution of prison sentences in Slovene prisons and the correctional home. The prison system consists of six prisons, which operate in 14 different locations, and the juvenile correctional facility in Radeče. Prisons are organised 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) remand prisons (Celje, Ig, Koper, Ljubljana, Maribor, Murska Sobota, Nova Gorica, and Novo mesto), and (e) the correctional home Radeče (Aebi, Burkhardt, Hacin, & Tiago, 2016; Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS], 2017). Persons imprisoned in Slovenia serve their sentences in different types of prisons according to the following criteria:

gender (separation of male and female prisoners; in some cases, they are separated within the same prison);

the nature of the sentence (separation of remand prisoners from sentenced prisoners);

duration of the sentence (prisons for serving long and short prison sentences);

age of prisoners (separation of juvenile prisoners and prisoners; in some cases, they are separated within the same prison); and

the degree of security (closed, semi-open, and open institutions and departments; (Meško, Fields, & Smole, 2011).

Slovene prisons implement rehabilitation programmes for prisoners and programmes for improving their quality of life during imprisonment. Work in public economic operators or within a prison (housework that entails work in the kitchen, laundry, maintenance work, etc.) is provided for prisoners, whereas prisoners in more liberal prison regimes have the possibility to work outside the prison. Educational opportunities depend on the capacities of individual prisons and are provided for prisoners (basic education is carried out within prisons, while prisoners have the right to participate in education programmes outside prisons). Moreover, prison workers, in cooperation with local communities, organise numerous leisure activities for prisoners inside and outside prisons (URSIKS, 2017).

Upon a prisoner’s arrival to the prison, prison staff prepare an individual personal plan in cooperation with the prisoner, which defines (a) specific types of professional treatment, (b) programmes in which the prisoner will participate (education, leisure activities, etc.), (c) the specification of a workplace, and (d) other activities that are important for the prisoner’s rehabilitation during imprisonment. The personal plan may be complemented and changed during an individual’s imprisonment due to the prisoner’s compliance with agreed arrangements, their respect of prison rules, or changes in their personal circumstances (URSIKS, 2017).

The Current Study

As discussed, prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison workers in postsocialist prison environments differs from those in Anglo-Saxon countries (Reisig & Meško, 2009). Given the increasing number of prisoners and, consequently, high costs of prisons, the aim of this study is to explore prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of authority in Slovene prisons. Prisoners’ perception of prison workers as the legitimate power-holders in prison is important for their voluntary compliance with the rules imposed by the authority, as the use of (coercive) force is “expensive” (Tyler et al., 2008). Prisoners’ positive perception of legitimacy of prison staff also has a favourable impact on prison staff–prisoner relations (Liebling, Arnold, & Straub, 2012); positive and sometimes informal relationships between prison workers and prisoners, which are based on trust, represent a precondition for cooperation and the effective implementation of prisoners’ treatment (Bradford, Quinton, Myhill, & Porter, 2014). Moreover, the phenomenon of prisoners’ compliance with the authority of prison staff will also be explored, as normative compliance constitutes the foundation of legitimacy. Our research questions focus on the following:

Research Question 1: What influences prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff in Slovene prisons?

Research Question 2: Why prisoners comply with prison authority?

We examined what influences prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff and why prisoners comply with the authority of prison workers. Specifically, we focused on instrumental and normative compliance.

Method

Data Collection Procedures

To conduct the study, it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Director General of the Slovene Prison Administration, directors of individual prisons, heads of departments, and prisoners, who decided to take part in the study. The data collection took place from October 2015 to March 2016. Structured interviews were conducted in all six Slovene prisons (Celje, Dob, Ig, Koper, Ljubljana, and Maribor) and their departments (Ig, Murska Sobota, Nova Gorica, Novo mesto, Puščava, Rogoza, and Slovenska vas), as well as in the juvenile correctional home (Radeče). Before conducting the interviews, the context of the study was presented to prisoners. Face-to-face structured interviews were conducted in a private room with individuals who decided to take part in the study; this was the only way of guaranteeing the respondents’ anonymity. Interviews lasted approximately 30 min on average, while the answers of interviewees were recorded on paper.

Inclusion criteria

Participation in interviews was voluntary. All prisoners were invited to participate in the study; all respondents were older than 18 years of age, as the relevant Slovene legislation (Marriage and Family Relations Act) stipulates that a person is granted full legal capacity after reaching the age of majority (Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih, 2004).

Measures

The structured interview comprised modified questions used in studies exploring social climate (Brinc, 2011) and relations between prisoners and prison staff (Liebling & Price, 1999); parts of the questionnaires that referred to prison staff–prisoner relationship, prisoners’ attitudes toward prison staff, rule enforcement by prison staff, relationships with fellow prisoners, prisoners’ trust in prison staff, and prison subculture were used. The questions elicited information on prisoners’ perception of (a) the legitimacy of prison staff and obligation to obey, (b) distributive justice, (c) procedural justice, (d) relations with fellow prisoners and the presence of prison subculture, (e) relations with prison staff, (f) the effectiveness of prison staff, and (g) trust in authority.

Legitimacy and obligation to obey

The following five questions were used to explore prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff: (a) Do prison workers follow prison rules? (b) Do you feel obliged to follow rules and instructions imposed by prison workers? (c) Would you accept decisions taken by prison workers, even if you thought they were wrong? (d) Would you do what prison workers tell you to do, even if you disagreed? and (e) Would you do what prison workers tell you to do, even if you did not like the way they treated you?

Distributive justice

The following two questions were related to prisoners’ perception of equality of decisions taken by prison staff: (a) Do you feel that prison workers provide the same quality of services to all prisoners? and (b) Do prison workers provide privileges to certain prisoners?

Procedural justice

The following two questions were about prisoners’ perception of fairness of decisions taken by prison staff: (a) Do you feel that prison workers treat you with respect? and (b) Do you feel that decisions taken by prison workers are fair and impartial?

Relations with prisoners and prison subculture

The following four questions were used to discuss the quality of relations and the presence of subculture among prisoners: (a) How would you describe your relationships with prisoners? and (b) Would you help a prisoner, if he was in trouble or he asked you for help? (c) Do you feel that certain values or codes of behaviour are present among prisoners? and (d) Do these values differ from values of prison staff?

Relations with the prison staff

The following two questions were about the quality of relations between prison workers and prisoners: (a) How would you describe relations between prisoners and prison workers? and (b) How do you address prison workers?

Effectiveness of the prison staff

The following two questions were related to prisoners’ perception of the effectiveness of prison staff: (a) What is your opinion about the quality of work conducted by prison workers? and (b) Do prison workers maintain order and organisation in the prison?

Trust in authority

The following three questions were used to explore prisoner’s trust in authority: (a) Can you tell me whom do you trust in prison? (b) Do you feel that you can trust prison workers with your problems? and (c) Do you trust prison workers with respect to the safety and security in prison?

Participants

The sample comprises 193 prisoners (172 male prisoners, 16 female prisoners, and five adult prisoners in the juvenile correctional home) and represents 16.5% of the average number of Slovene prisoners in 2015. Demographic characteristics of prisoners are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Prisoners.

Variable	Prisoners
Variable	n	%
Gender
Male	177	91.7
Female	16	8.3
Age (years)
18-24	23	11.9
25-29	27	14.0
30-34	27	14.0
35-39	33	17.1
40-44	29	15.0
45<	54	28.0
Education
Elementary school	43	22.3
Vocational school	109	56.5
High school	21	10.8
Vocational college	9	4.7
University/MA/PhD	11	5.7
Length of sentence (in months)
1-12	56	29.0
13-36	75	38.9
37-60	22	11.4
61<	39	20.2
No answer	1	0.5
Sentenced for criminal offences
. . . against human health	32	16.6
. . . against public law and order	9	4.7
. . . against life and limb	19	9.8
. . . against property	88	45.6
. . . against economy	15	7.8
. . . against the safety of public traffic	7	3.6
. . . against marriage, family, and children	10	5.2
. . . against official duties and public authorisations	5	2.6
. . . against sexual integrity	5	2.6
. . . against employment and social security	1	0.5
No answer	2	1.0
Length of sentence served (in months)
<6	71	36.8
7-12	37	19.2
13-24	41	21.2
25-36	14	7.3
37<	30	15.5
Recidivism
Yes	119	61.7
No	74	38.3
Prison regime
Open	30	15.6
Semiopen	76	39.4
Closed	87	45.0

Analysis

The use of structured interviews ensured consistency regarding content and format. Interviews were transcribed, translated from Slovene to English and analysed using the four-step analysis, as described by Mesec (1998), (a) editing the materials, (b) determining the coding units, (c) open coding, and (d) selecting relevant concepts and categories. The phase of editing the materials refers to a systematic and chronological scheduling of notes, which, in our case, meant the transcription of interviews. Moreover, transcripts were adequately equipped (place, time, date, etc.) and classified in the register chronologically and systematically. In the second phase, which refers to determining the coding units, summarised texts of the interviews were broken down adequately and analysed. This enabled us to determine the coding units in the form of key phrases and sentences. In the third phase of the analysis, open coding was used to determine the concepts from empirical descriptions (text units acquired in the process of breakdown). Texts with the same meaning were collected and separated from texts, which belonged to other concepts or had a different meaning. This enabled us to categorise the data obtained by conducting structured interviews. In the final phase of the analysis, those concepts that were relevant for our research were selected from a large number of concepts and categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Mesec, 1998).

Findings

The following section presents the results of the analysis of structured interviews. The analysis included the transcriptions of responses provided by prisoners, female prisoners, and juvenile prisoners, which illustrate their perspectives on (a) the legitimacy of prison staff, (b) their obligation to obey, (c) distributive justice and procedural justice of prison workers, (d) relations with fellow prisoners and the presence of prison subculture, (e) relations with prison staff, (f) the effectiveness of prison staff, and (g) trust in authority.

Legitimacy and Obligation to Obey

Prisoners associated the legitimacy of the enforcement of prison sanctions with the legality and fairness of procedures against them. They saw the cause of the [il]legitimacy of the prison system in the very nature of the criminal justice system and not in prison staff; they felt that legislators and judges, who are responsible for defining prison sentences and sentencing, were not aware of the negative impact that the deprivation of liberty had on an individual.

The execution of prison sentences is a disaster. The whole system does not work. This is done in a way that people are writing laws, but when you have to use them in practice, there are a hundred problems. So, I take my hat down to the employees who are able to make everything work in practice. Those who are writing laws do not know anything about what is going on in prison. (Prisoner, closed department)

Mixed feelings were present among prisoners regarding their recognition of legitimacy to prison staff. Most prisoners (91.7%) felt that prison workers respect prison rules. Moreover, they expressed their satisfaction with the consistency of prison staff because they knew exactly what kind of behaviour was acceptable and where the boundaries of [un]acceptable behaviour were set. Consequently, each prisoner is expected to take responsibility for their own behaviour and the violation of prison rules. We assume that coherence and consistency of prison workers’ behaviour affect the stability of prisoners’ lives and makes their imprisonment more manageable.

Yes, it is normal for me to comply with the rules. There has to be order, otherwise, this would be a slaughterhouse. (Prisoner, closed department)

Look, I have accepted that you have to respect some form of order. We are not at home, this is a prison. (Female prisoner, semiopen department)

The majority of prisoners (60.5%) stated that they felt obliged to obey prison workers and comply with prison rules. Most of them accepted the subordinated position of a prisoner in prison or the position of “a guest in a foreign house.” Moreover, prisoners felt that prison workers did not abuse their power and did not give commands without a solid reason. Prisoners’ willingness to comply with commands and instructions given by prison staff is considered as an indicator of order and organisation in a prison.

Yes. I am obliged to obey their rules. For me, it is clear that I came here to serve my sentence. I am in a foreign environment, where I have to obey their rules. (Prisoner, closed department)

More than 50% of all prisoners highlighted the fact that they have to accept decisions and orders imposed by prison staff, even though they considered them wrong, disagreed with them, or did not like the way they were treated by prison staff. We assume that prisoners comply with instructions and orders given by prison staff because they fear sanctions and not because of their internalised belief that prison workers are legitimate power-holders; such forms of maintaining prison order indicate that prisons are functioning on the basis of coercion through which prisoners are subordinated to the established rules (presence of fear of sanctioning).

Yes, I have to follow the instructions. This is absolute. As long as I am here, I have to follow . . . they are my superiors. Otherwise, you are sanctioned. (Prisoner, closed department)

Distributive Justice

Prisoners believed that prison workers made differences between them. However, prisoners’ opinions about their unequal treatment varied. The majority of prisoners (65.3%) were satisfied with the established treatment in prison, because they did not want to be treated the same as other prisoners. For instance, those who were sentenced for petty crimes did not want to be treated the same as “tough criminals.”

They do discriminate, but that is the right thing to do. Prisoners who committed different criminal offences do not belong together. (Prisoner, open department)

I do not agree with equal treatment. Here, there are a lot of differences. I committed business fraud, but I did not take anyone’s life. (Female prisoner, closed department)

Prisoners stressed that granting privileges and benefits was an area most strongly characterised by discrimination and inequalities in the treatment of prisoners; approximately 50% of all interviewees reported differences with respect to granting benefits and sanctions. Prisoners have a strong sense of [in]equality among them. This is evident in the area of granting privileges and benefits, that is, an objective that most prisoners aspire to achieve; prisoners are very sensitive to privileges or benefits granted to fellow prisoners who, in their opinion, did not deserve them.

Yes, they provide privileges to rats (informants). They get conditional release and live more easily. (Prisoner, closed department)

Some are allowed to go for a walk, while others are not. These benefits are obvious. We, who are in the closed regime, are very sensitive about that because we are imprisoned. We are limited. And we perceive any such thing as a terrible thing. (Prisoner, closed department)

Procedural Justice

The development of quality relationships between prisoners and prison staff is based on (a) the respectful behaviour of prison staff toward prisoners and (b) the fairness of procedures exercised by prison staff. Most prisoners (91.2%) believed that prison workers treated them with respect in terms of their professionalism. However, less than two thirds of prisoners perceived prison workers’ procedures as just and fair. They associated the fairness of prison staff with the legality of decisions and their humane attitude toward solving prisoners’ troubles, for which they attempted to find practical solutions. Prisoners who believed that procedures and decisions were not just, emphasised that prison workers, similarly to other individuals, make mistakes. Moreover, they emphasised that prison workers were always trying to correct their mistakes and provide assistance to prisoners.

They behave respectfully. Well, it depends on what you understand as respectful behaviour. I think that they behave respectfully or officially, professionally, like it is prescribed. It happens sometimes that they react angrily to certain wishes of some prisoners. (Prisoner, closed department)

Sometimes they are just and other times they are not (decisions). You cannot do anything. You cannot piss towards the state. Sometimes employees see that they are making mistakes and are trying to correct them. (Prisoner, closed department)

Relations With Prisoners and Prison Subculture

Relationships between prisoners in Slovene prisons are very diverse and most prisoners (76.2%) believe that relations are either average or good. The prison regime and departments, in which prisoners are serving their sentences, do not significantly affect the quality of relations between prisoners. Despite the relatively good relations between prisoners, they do not enter into friendships and rarely trust fellow prisoners; prisoners maintain proper and polite relations with fellow prisoners because they do not want to be sanctioned or lose benefits granted to them in terms of different advantages, work, exits, and so on.

Relations are relatively good. There are no big problems. Somehow, everyone is trying to obtain these benefits. If you get a disciplinary procedure for hitting someone you are put in isolation . . . you are talking to visitors through the glass . . . it is not worth it. (Prisoner, closed department)

I have good relations with others. But it is true that I keep to myself. If you hang out with other prisoners, prison workers immediately think that you are up to something. (Prisoner, closed department)

Prisoners exposed problems arising as a result of their life in prison, where a large number of people with different personalities are imprisoned in a relatively small area. They drew attention to the unrelaxed climate in prison, the presence of a prison subculture (reception of newcomers—fish, hatred toward informants—rats, rapists, and paedophiles, gathering of prisoners into groups, etc.), and illegal activities (drug trafficking, money lending, etc.) inside the prison, which had a negative impact on interpersonal relations. Prisoners believed that the capability of predicting crisis situations and ingenuity are the key elements of “surviving” in prison.

If you are a rat (informant), junkie or a troublemaker, you have problems. But otherwise, relations are good. (Prisoner, closed department)

Fish (newcomers) always get screwed. Other prisoners always want something from them. Other prisoners want to fight with them or demand goods from them. Older guys are always trying to prove something. (Juvenile prisoner, closed department)

The prison subculture influences prisoners’ adaptation to prison life. More than half of all prisoners (55.4%), most of whom were imprisoned in closed regimes, noted that prisons were characterised by the existence of internal rules, which dictated their everyday behaviour in prison, that is, prison subculture. The presence of the prison subculture is more intense in closed departments, where prisoners pointed to (a) the presence of hierarchy among prisoners, which depended on the length of the sentence and the type of criminal offence; (b) the law of silence; and (c) the law of power. More than half of all prisoners (52.3%) stated that their values differed from the values of prison workers.

We have a boss. Here, it is like being in a wolf pit. There is always someone in charge. The boss is usually a senior prisoner, who is physically strong. The prison staff know about it, but they tolerate the situation until it comes to the critical point. Sometimes, we classify ourselves on the basis of criminal offences. Robbers are popular, but everyone hates paedophiles. We have one in each wing. (Prisoner, closed department)

Yes, there are values. Shut up and mind your own business . . . (Prisoner, closed department)

Someone may sometimes be more respected due to his status. Senior prisoners are more respected than younger ones. Five years ago, newcomers were not even allowed to speak. Definitely, some are in a disadvantaged position. Some are hanging out with certain prisoners out of fear. But it also depends who you know on the outside. (Prisoner, semiopen department)

Relations With the Prison Staff

Most prisoners (92.7%) believed that relations with prison staff were relatively good. They emphasised the professionalism of prison staff and their patience with prisoners who were causing trouble. Prisoners expressed a better opinion about prison officers than about specialised staff; prisoners expressed highly negative opinions about specialised workers, as they perceived them as incompetent and manipulators with benefits. Moreover, certain prisoners pointed out that they had been in a situation where prison workers had disregarded prison rules. Despite the [in]formal relationships that exist between prisoners and prison staff, there is a boundary which none of the groups crosses.

It depends on the individual. Some take it as a joke altogether. There is a lack of respect toward prison staff. I wonder who is more punished, us or prison workers. (Prisoner, closed department)

It depends on the person. If you are polite, respectful and normal, there is no reason for you having problems with them. I try to resolve everything with the person with whom I have a problem. I do not bother the director, mentors . . . regarding prison officers, I do not have any complaints. They are respectful and professional with me, and I am the same with them. I do not get into debates or conflicts with them. (Female prisoner, semiopen department)

For the most part, they are pretty good. But there are individuals who do not respect the rules. Deviations occur on both sides, they are carried out either by employees or by prisoners. (Prisoner, semiopen department)

Effectiveness of Prison Staff

The effectiveness of prison staff in the provision of safety, security, and the performance of other tasks in a prison is a prerequisite to ensure prisoners’ cooperation. Most prisoners (85.5%) stated that prison workers carried out their tasks effectively and noted that prison workers could not prevent every violation of prison rules despite their efforts.

They work alright. They cannot prevent everything. If you would want to prevent everything, each prisoner would need its own prison officer. (Prisoner, closed department)

Prisoners who expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of prison workers pointed to their failure to meet promises (the principal rule in prison is that you meet your promises), the excessive self-esteem of prison workers and the lack of interest demonstrated by certain prison workers in the work they perform.

Sometimes they promise too much, but then nothing happens. They should not give promises that they cannot meet. (Prisoner, closed department)

Trust in Authority

The presence of trust is a rare occurrence in prison, and most prisoners considered their fellow prisoners as criminals who are not trustworthy. Consequently, they only trusted one or two fellow prisoners, with whom they spent most of their time and were usually accommodated in the same room; approximately 20% of interviewees trusted certain prisoners who were close to them. Moreover, more than 50% of all prisoners did not trust prison staff, as they perceived them as the representatives of the prison system who want to harm them. They highlighted the differences in trust with regard to specialised workers and prison officers. Less than 50% of all prisoners were willing to share their problems with prison staff; prisoners do not trust specialised workers (pedagogues, psychologists, social workers, etc.) who are responsible for providing assistance with their personal crises. However, most prisoners (69.4%) trusted prison officers to provide safety and security in prison. Prisoners stated that their fear of losing benefits had the greatest impact on the provision of safety and security in prison.

I trust two or three prisoners, whom I know from before. Otherwise, you cannot trust anyone here. We are criminals here. There are a lot of rats (informants). (Prisoner, closed department)

Security is taken care of to some extent, but if someone wanted to harm you, they could. I have never been in such a situation, so I do not want to comment. In general, security is taken care of . . . there are regular checks and everything. (Prisoner, closed department)

Discussion

A prison may be described as a living organism characterised by the simultaneous presence of numerous processes that affect prisoners’ life and their perception of prison workers as the legitimate power-holders. The unstable nature of legitimacy is even more pronounced in a prison environment, where a large number of people are held against their will in a relatively small area. Prison staff’s decisions that are based on justice have a positive impact on prisoners’ perception of prison workers. Prisoners’ recognition of prison staff’s legitimacy is formed as a result of everyday interactions between prisoners and prison staff.

The results of the analysis of interviews reveal that prisoners associate the fairness of prison staff with respectful behaviour, dignified treatment, and the legality of decisions; they associate quality relationships with prison staff not only with prison workers’ formal and professional attitude toward them but also with their willingness to establish good informal relations. Liebling (2004) stated that these relations represent the beating heart of the entire prison, as they influence prisoners’ respect of power, individuality, and the form of the moral power (legitimacy) of prison staff. Equal treatment in procedures and formal matters was to be expected, albeit with certain exceptions (problematic prisoners, the nature of the sentence, etc.). Prisoners’ perception of prison officers’ effectiveness differs significantly in comparison with their perception of specialised staff. Prisoners associate the effectiveness of prison officers with the provision of security and safety in prison; more than two thirds of prisoners recognise the effectiveness of prison officers in ensuring safety and security in prison, which is also reflected in a low number of emergency situations, suicides, and escapes in Slovene prisons (URSIKS, 2017). However, they consider specialised workers as manipulators with benefits; hence, more than 50% of all prisoners are not prepared to trust them with their problems. Petrovec and Meško (2006) came to similar conclusions in their exploration of relations in the Dob prison; specialised workers are in a disadvantaged position, as they decide on privileges and sanctions. On the contrary, prison officers’ role in prison is far more regulated. Consequently, the level of prisoners’ trust in prison officers and specialised workers differs significantly. The fact that the quality of interprisoner relationships has a relatively weak influence on prisoners’ perception of legitimacy could be considered as a result of insincere relations between them; relations are not based on friendship, but on self-interest, exploitation, and speculation. Findings reveal a limited influence of prison subculture on prisoners’ behaviour; prisoners in larger prisons pointed to the hierarchy that is established between them as a result of group dynamics. We assume that the prison subculture in Slovene prisons, similarly to the majority of prisons in Europe and Canada, is declining (Crewe, 2005; Ricciardelli, 2014). Weinrath (2016) argued that prison subculture is declining due to the lack of social cohesion in the prison population and the progression in the quality of prison staff–prisoner relations, which enable cooperation and a “peaceful” cohabitation.

Prisoners comply with the authorities in prison due to their fear of losing benefits and sanctioning, which points to the instrumental compliance to authorities (prison staff). Petrovec and Meško (2006) highlighted that prisoners comply with prison rules to obtain privileges and avoid sanctions. However, normative compliance to prison rules and prison staff that represents the foundation of legitimacy was detected in several prisoners. These prisoners comply with prison rules and prison workers’ orders due to their internalised sense of obligation; prisoners emphasised the normality of compliance to prison workers, as they compared their situation in prison with the situation of a guest in a stranger’s house, where individuals must comply with different rules. Moreover, they pointed to the professionalism, honesty, fairness, and humanity of prison workers. Reisig and Meško (2009) noted that fair and respectful treatment by prison workers promotes prisoners’ compliance with the rules. An internalised sense of obligation and a positive perception of prison staff constitutes prisoners’ normative compliance, which represents the foundation of legitimacy in a prison environment. Our findings suggest that both instrumental and normative compliance of prisoners are present in Slovene prisons. Instrumental compliance is considered as the first step toward establishing legitimacy in a prison environment. It is unreasonable to expect that prisoners, who are defined by their fundamental conflict with the state, would internalise the norms of prison workers, whom they consider the direct representatives of the criminal justice system, immediately upon their arrival to prison.

Conclusion

The specifics of Slovene prisons are observed in the approximation to the prison systems of Western (Anglo-Saxon) countries that were founded on the respect for prisoners’ rights, while preserving the elements of prisoners’ treatment from the past; the treatment of prisoners was essential in the process of resocialisation, which should enable prisoners’ reintegration into society. Flander and Meško (2016) described Slovene prisons as an outstanding example of prisons in a postsocialist society, which are comparable with prisons in the Nordic countries with respect to imprisonment rates and the provision of prisoners’ treatment.

This study confirms the findings of Lombardo (1981), as well as by Reisig and Meško (2009), who stressed that the fair and equitable treatment of prisoners represented the basis for establishing relations between prison staff and prisoners, which have a positive effect on prisoners’ compliance with prison rules and maintaining order in prison. We assume that there is a correlation between prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff and their rehabilitation. The resocialisation of prisoners is based on correcting their behaviour, while changes in their values and norms are necessary to achieve the successful correction of individuals’ behaviour (Petrovec, 2015). Prisoners, with whom prison workers were (at least partially) successful in correcting their behaviour (values and norms), perceive prison workers as the legitimate holders of authority, whom they must obey—normative compliance; the transition from prisoners’ instrumental compliance to normative compliance is possible when relations between prison staff and prisoners are based on respect, legality, and fairness.

This study indicates that prison workers’ efforts to establish good (sometimes informal) relations with prisoners do not go unnoticed. The results reveal that several prisoners perceive prison workers as the legitimate power-holders in an illegitimate system. They pointed to the correctness of prison workers who received orders of “their superiors” (e.g., prison wardens, prison administration) lacking knowledge about the prison environment and human interactions in prisons. These findings imply the differences in prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison workers (who are mainly perceived as professionals) and the prison, as a total institution.

The following practical implications derive from the study. A democratic style of management (enabling prisoners to have a “voice” in decision-making), a differentiation between “problematic” prisoners and the general population, and the treatment of prisoners should be promoted at the level of the entire prison system. Moreover, prison workers should treat all prisoners equally and fairly, and try to establish positive informal relations with them that would still remain within the boundaries of prison rules and legal regulations.

Limitations

The main limitation of researching legitimacy in prisons stems from the issue of prisoners’ socially desirable responses due to their fear of sanctions. We attempted to alleviate such behaviour by providing anonymity and conducting face-to-face interviews. Furthermore, some prisoners expressed excessively negative opinions about prison staff due to their temporary conflict with specialised prison workers. Certain ethical dilemmas in terms of revealing the answers of interviewees arose, as prisoners confessed to certain breaches of prison rules during their interviews. We must emphasise that none of the participants expressed an intention to break prison rules. Moreover, none of the participants reported a serious breach of prison rules, which would involve the use of physical force against individuals or property resulting in injuries or/and damage.

Future Research

Future research should focus on exploring the process of transformation from prisoners’ instrumental compliance to normative compliance. Differences in prisoners’ perception of legitimacy of prison staff and prisons, as a form of total institutions dedicated to the enforcement of prison sanctions, should be researched in greater depth. Moreover, a study of relations between prisoners and prison staff, which constitute the fundamental element defining the life and work in a prison environment, should also be conducted.

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, authorship, and/or publication 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

ORCID iD

Gorazd Meško

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.

Akoensi

T. D.

(2016). Perceptions of self-legitimacy and audience legitimacy among prison officers in Ghana. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 40, 245-261. doi:10.1080/01924036.2016.1165712

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Molleman

van der Laan

P. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice in prison: The importance of staff characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 337-358. doi:10.1177/0306624X13512767

Bendix

(1963). Concepts and generalizations in comparative sociological studies. American Sociological Review, 28, 532-539. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2090069?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205-281. doi:10.1086/449298

Bradford

Quinton

Myhill

Porter

(2014). Why do “the law” comply? Procedural justice, group identification and officer motivation in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology, 11, 110-131. doi:10.1177/1477370813491898

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.

Crewe

(2005). Codes and conventions: The terms and conditions of contemporary inmate values. In Liebling

Maruna

(Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 177-208). New York, NY: Willan.

Crewe

(2011a). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13, 509-529. doi:10.1177/1462474511422172

10.

Crewe

(2011b). Soft Power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 455-468. doi:10.1177/1477370811413805

11.

Flander

Meško

(2016). Penal and prison policy on the “Sunny side of the Alps”: The swan song of Slovenian exceptionalism? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21, 425-446. doi:10.1007/s10610-015-9299-1

12.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

13.

Hacin

(2016). Prison officers’ training in Slovenia. In Meško

Lobnikar

(Eds.), Criminal justice and security in Central and Eastern Europe: Safety, security, and social control in local communities—Conference proceedings (pp. 148-159). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Fakulteta za varnostne vede.

14.

Kelman

H. C.

(1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78. doi:10.1086/266996

15.

Kelman

H. C.

Hamilton

V. L.

(1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

16.

Liebling

(2000). Prison officers, policing and the use of discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 333-357. doi:10.1177/1362480600004003005

17.

Liebling

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

18.

Liebling

Arnold

Straub

(2012). An exploration of staff-prisoner relationships at HMP Whitemoor: Twelve years on. London, England: National Offender Management Service.

19.

Liebling

Price

(1999). An exploration of staff-prisoners relationships at HMP Whitemoor (Prison Service Research Report, No. 6). London, England: Ministry of Justice.

20.

Liebling

Price

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

21.

Lombardo

(1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. New York, NY: Elsevier.

22.

Mesec

(1998). Uvod v kvalitativno raziskovanje v socialnem delu [Introduction to qualitative research in social work]. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Visoka šola za socialno delo.

23.

Meško

Eman

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

Eman

Flander

(Eds.), Oblast, legitimnost in družbeno nadzorstvo [Power, legitimacy and social control] (pp. 123-158). Ljubljana, Slovenia: Fakulteta za varnostne vede.

24.

Meško

Fields

C. B.

Smole

(2011). A concise overview of penology and penal practice in Slovenia: The unchanged capacity, new standards and prison overcrowding. The Prison Journal, 91, 398–42.

25.

Petrovec

(2015). Penologija. In Šelih

Filipčič

(Eds.), Kriminologija [Criminology] (pp. 183-209). Ljubljana, Slovenia: GV založba.

26.

Petrovec

Meško

(2006). Back to the future: Slovenia’s penological heritage. Varstvoslovje, 8, 356-376.

27.

Reisig

M. D.

Meško

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41-59. doi:10.1080/10683160802089768

28.

Ricciardelli

(2014). An examination of the inmate code in Canadian penitentiaries. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 234-255. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.746012

29.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45-62. doi:10.2307/591622

30.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

31.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x

32.

Tyler

T. R.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: Policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 127-134. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00615.x

33.

Tyler

T. R.

(2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 254-266. doi:10.1177/1477370811411462

34.

Tyler

T. R.

Braga

Fagan

Meares

Sampson

(2008). Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspectives. In Tyler

T. R.

(Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice (pp. 9-29). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

35.

Tyler

T. R.

Jackson

(2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1909569/Future_Challenges_in_the_Study_of_Legitimacy_and_Criminal_Justice

36.

Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij. (2017). Letno poročilo 2016 [Annual report 2016]. Ljubljana, Slovenia: URSIKS.

37.

Weinrath

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

38.

Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih [Marriage and Family Relations Act]. (2004). Official Gazette, (69/04), Ljubljana: Uradni list.