Abstract
During a time when mass incarceration is a large concern in the United States, very little research has focused on an experience that impacts thousands of citizens each year. In the literature that has studied the prison experience, the focus is typically on inmates, despite the many other populations involved in the experience. In her book The Modern Prison Paradox, Amy E. Lerman argues that the prison shift from rehabilitation to punishment has had detrimental effects on inmates, prison staff, and society more broadly.
Although her background is in political science and she currently works as the PhD program faculty chair and assistant professor of public policy at the University of California—Berkeley, Lerman has a strong interest in the field of criminal justice. After volunteering as a tutor at the San Quentin State Prison, Lerman began to develop questions regarding the corrections system, some of which she attempts to answer in this book. These questions include (1) how has the shift in correctional goals impacted the prison experience, (2) how does the security level of the prison impact the prison experience, and (3) how does the prison experience of inmates and staff impact society? In response to these questions’ answers, Lerman provides her recommendations.
Lerman begins by discussing the recent history of the correctional system. Her main focus is on punishment within prisons. She argues that politics and select academic publications have led to the decrease in correctional rehabilitation programs and the increase in prison punishment. She feels that this shift has significantly altered the formal and informal prison cultures, in terms of policies and inmate and staff relations. She further argues that these impacts will be more apparent in higher security prisons where the shift has been the greatest. To test these predictions, Lerman devises two quasi-experiments that focus on the inmate and staff experience within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In the inmate quasi-experiment, Lerman surveys those who received a classification score close to the cutoff between Level II and Level III facilities. She finds that inmates in the higher security facility are less likely to report social isolation but are more likely to report increased antisocial attitudes and are more likely to recidivate upon release. In the staff quasi-experiment, Lerman surveys apprentice correctional officers. Officers assigned to higher security facilities reported more negative feelings toward and interactions with inmates. In addition, they reported lower support for rehabilitation programs and were less likely to report problems to their supervisor. These results appear to support Lerman’s prediction that the negative effects of punitivism will be more apparent in higher security facilities.
Lerman attempts to connect the experience of inmates and staff to the community. Her main arguments are that the experience of inmates lessens community cohesion and social trust, while increasing social disorder and crime rates. In terms of staff experience, she argues that it results in higher rates of divorce, as well as more physical and mental health issues for prison staff. In sum, she argues that the impact of punitivism extends beyond the prison walls and into the community.
From her findings, Lerman concludes that the emphasis of punishment within U.S. prisons negatively impacts inmates, staff, and the community. As a result, Lerman makes recommendations that she thinks will lessen the negative effects of incarceration, specifically in harsher facilities. Her two recommendations are to reduce the prison population and to address situational factors that contribute to the negative prison culture. Lerman suggests that these goals can be accomplished through sentencing reforms and by incorporating outside groups and professionals into prisons and promoting positive social ties with incentives. By implementing these policy changes, Lerman feels that the negative effects of prison will be lessened and, as a result, the incarceration cycle will eventually cease.
While Lerman is able to demonstrate how the shift from rehabilitation to punishment in correctional goals may negatively impact inmates, staff, and the community, her argument is lacking in several areas. The main drawback is her use of quasi-experiments. By not utilizing an experimental design, no definite conclusions can be reached regarding staff and inmate experiences. In addition, without randomization, the internal validity of the findings is threatened. Lastly, the narrow focus on California state prisons, inmates with certain classification scores, and apprentice officers limits the generalizability of Lerman’s findings. In sum, these quasi-experiments do not provide substantial support for Lerman’s argument.
The other area that Lerman’s argument is lacking are her recommendations. With regard to decreasing incarceration rates, Lerman overlooks the fact that sentencing reforms will not eliminate the problem but will rather displace it onto jails and probation. Furthermore, it appears unlikely that her second recommendation can be achieved. By providing no evidence, Lerman fails to show that incorporating the general public, outsiders, and incentives and prison programs will change the prison culture from negative to positive. Overall, Lerman’s two recommendations leave the reader with much to be desired.
Through her writing of The Modern Prison Paradox, Lerman focuses on areas that most previous correctional literature has overlooked: the impact of the prison experience on staff and the community. With her background in political science, Lerman also takes a policy-based approach to this issue which provides a different perspective from most criminal justice scholars. However, despite these strengths, Lerman’s work is only a start to uncovering the effects of prison on inmates, staff, and the community. Her argument would benefit from further studies that utilize a randomized experimental design, as well as a range of recommendations that are feasible and have been supported by research. Due to these limitations, this book is only a starting point to uncovering the effects of correctional punitivism. In order for Lerman’s argument to be fully supported, further work needs to be done.