Prison Violence UK

Question: Critically discuss the reasons given for violence in UK prisons. Answer: Prison Violence in UK Prisons Prisons do not possess a normal environment as all the criminals are kept there. So, it is not wise to confuse a prison environment with the normal environment. According to Bottoms, a prison is qualitatively greater than any other social institutions, it is actually a physical place which consists of a history and ethos of punishment. People with a history of violence are kept in prison for punishment and behavioral change. Prison is a place where people with a scarred history of violence attributes gathered in a place organized by staffs greatly outnumbered. The main aim of these staffs is to maintain discipline and peaceful environment. In recent years, the amount of violent incidents took place in UK prisons has increased gradually (Earle and Phillips, 2012). Violent acts include, suicides, self-harm incidents, attacks on prison staffs and sexual assaults are predominant. In the year of 2014, total number of 84 people committed suicide in comparison with 75 people in 2013. This i s the highest amount of suicide case in last seven years. A survey carried out by MoJ statistics show that there is an increase of 5 percent rise in self-harming cases. Fights in prisons increased nearly about 11 percent. Sexual assault cases were noted to be 170. These statistical data portraits the fact that prison violence is continuously in the UK. One of the theories behind the causes of this increase suggests that an increasing amount of prisoner in a single prison can cause psychological violent attributes among the prisoners. There is a total number of 84,865 prisoners in England only (Earle and Phillips, 2012). The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick stated that the number increased population prisons are one of the major reasons behind the rising of suicide rates. The number of self harm incidents rose up to 24,748 incidents (Earle and Phillips, 2012). It is a concerning issue and the authorities should demonstrate some urgency to deal with this issue. The aim of thi s report is to highlight the major reasons which directly or indirectly influences prison violence incidents and design or suggest suitable interventions to overcome the issues. Some recent articles suggest that there are several reasons behind the rising rate of prison violence. Lahm concluded that, the theory of importation is applicable as both age and aggressiveness are Co related. These two aspects play a robust predictor of assault across all types of prison contexts. The theory of deprivation also plays a vital role as non-white prisoners engaged more in prison violence incidents. He also concluded that, rate of violence for aggressive prisoners are higher than other inmates. He also found that inmates under 25 participate in violent acts more than more aged prisoners (Earle and Phillips, 2012). Bottoms proposed that speculative and interactive model consisting good order and discipline in prisons comprising of a central role of legitimation. He supported to conceptualize the fairness of staffs, distributive fairness that is quality of discipline and complaints and fairness of the authority. He also agrees with the conceptual theory by referencing the Woolf inquiry and Ahmads study of inmates. The actual definition of prison violence is any which consists abuse, threat or assault of a person (Schenk and Fremouw, 2012). The explicit and implicit aspects of the prisoners safety, well-being and is also to be considered. The harm caused by violence can be physical, emotional or psychological. There are several cases of violence recorded in UK prisons. The murder of an Asian origin teenager named Zahid Mubarak is one of the most discussed cases. He was an inmate in the Feltham Young Offenders institution. The incident took place in the year of 2000 (Worrall and Morris, 2012). Another incident which can be highlighted is the attack on Peter Sutcliffe. The incident took place in F2. Also known as the hospital wing of the Parkhurst Prison. The attack took place on 10th of January, 1983.The attack was very severe and brutal. Peter suffered from such injury that he had thirty stitches. The attacker used a broken coffee jar as a tool. Another case which is famous is the murder of chi ld rapist Mitchell Harrison. The murder took place at the Durhams Frankland prison in the year of 2012. There are several other reports every year of similar sort of cases taking place in the UK prisons (Bennett, Crewe and Wahidin, 2013). Violence activities in the prisons can be categorized in several domains. Violence activities include verbal abuse, cell thefts, Exclusions, Robbery, threats, assaults, sexual assaults, bullying trading etc. Verbal abuses are considered as verbally cursing or using abusive language against someone. Cell thefts are stealing someone elses property (Crewe, Warr, Bennett and Smith, 2013). This kind of violence occurs between inmates only. Exclusion is forcing another prisoner to do something which he does not approve of. For example, one prisoner is forcing another prisoner to claim the privilege of T.V. Channels. Robbery is robbing prison property for own privilege. Threats are one of the most concerning prison violence lately. Threats are mainly given due to debts for money or drugs. Assaults are the most predominant violence in prisons in the UK. Though the rate of prison assaults is lower in number by comparison with the USA. Bullying is also regular incidents in the prisons. Sexual assaults are also increasing in the prisons. Trading includes sharing and lending in order to acquire profit. Lending often leads to extortion and robbery (Mulcahy, Merrington and Bell, 2013). Through the data mentioned above, it can be stated that violence in UK prisons is becoming a major concerning issue. To overcome this situation, one has to identify the causes of violent acts. Through the broad line researches, some causes are identified (Ginn, 2012). The effect of prison violence is found to be highly proactive in the regions of the United Kingdom. Various researches have been conducted within the country which focuses towards the exploration of prison violence and the ways to minimize its consequences. Moreover, exploring the staff violence against the prisoners is considered equally viable for these researchers. According to the latest information regarding Prison Violence, it can be analyzed that this issue is not only prevalent within the premises of United Kingdom, but also prevailed in other countries. Thus, an international concern regarding the situation was highlighted by most of the researchers, which stated to be one of the most serious affairs in the contemporary world (Wulf-Ludden, 2013). The environment and social nature of prisons are identified as the major reason behind the rising rate of violence in the prison. If the environment is not social and friendly, then the inmates become more aggressive towards co-inmates (Walsh, Davies, Bagshaw and Payne, 2012). Research evidence shows that the number of prison violence acts depends on the vulnerability of victimization. It is also suggested that violence in prisons is directly related to some factors such as young age, race or community, homosexuality, transexuality, severness of the offense, etc. racial discrimination and institutional also plays a vital role in the case of prison violence in the UK. There is also a theory that that victimization of prisoner by some co-prisoners are actually an opposite act as they were also victims of prison violence (Mason, 2012). Another aspect of the causes of rising prison violence is confining a large number of prisoners in a single prison. When a large number of persons are kept in a small place, it is natural that they will engage in violent acts (Earle and Phillips, 2012). One of the basic issues highlighted by the researchers focus towards the over crowdedness of the prisons. It had been observed that the prison population was doubled since 1994. Counting on the figure, it can be analyzed that the total population of the prisoners was estimated to be around 48,631. Doubling of the prison population had a huge effect on the level of prison violence within the premises. Focusing on the Howard League for Penal Reforms, one can easily identify the rate of prison over crowdedness within the United Kingdom (Earle and Phillips, 2012). In Kennet (HMPS) the Certified Normal Accommodation was estimated to be around 175. However, it was estimated that the population, which was sustained within the premises of Kennet, was 317. Thus, there was a total surplus of 142 more prisoners accommodated within the space of 175 (which accounted to 181% surplus content). Focusing to the second prison name; Leeds (HMPS), it can be accounted that the prison has an accommodation for 669 prisoners (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). However, due to the growing number of prisoners in the United Kingdom, this increased to 1,166. Thus, there was an excess of 497 (accounting to be 174% surplus content) within the premises. Highlighting towards the third case associated to Wandsworth (HMPS), it can be estimated that the prison has an accommodation for 943 prisoners. But, the survey result tinted towards the evidence of 1,577 existing prisoners within the premises. In the Swansea (HMPS) prison, the total accommodation of 271 get s overshot by 163%, as there is an evidence for 442 prisoners residing within the prison. Finally, the case of Exeter (HMPS) highlights towards the CNA of 318 prisoners. However, like the other case studies, it can be estimated that this prison also has the evidence for enrolling 511 prisoners within their premises and thereby overshooting the net prison population by 161% (Baillot, Cowan and Munro, 2012). Another cause, which can be pointed out, is the prison authority. Behavior of prison authority can raise a significant amount of frustration, powerlessness, deprivation. Feeling like this can provoke a rebellion mind state, which will result in prison violence (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). Theoretical models suggest that management practices should be maintained critically in order to control prison violence. Through studies, it is proven that prison management in UK prisons are not up to the mark. In a study carried out by McCorkel, suggests that correctional staffs of juvenile institutions promote and induce juveniles to use force on other co-inmates (Cole, 2012). Several studies suggest that, architectural designs such as prison cell structure also affect the prisoners psychologically. In the United Kingdom, many of the prison cells are common, that is, in one cell, a numerous amount of prisoners reside. It is proven that, keeping more prisoners in a single cell increases the rate of violence. If the prisoners are kept separately, then there is a decrease in prison violence (Sudbury, 2014). In 2012, it was estimated that nearly 12,000 prisoners faced the issue of over-crowdedness. It was estimated that the accommodation was nearly half of the total number of prisoners residing within the various prisons of the United Kingdom (Sudbury, 2014). Reflecting towards the consequences of overcrowding, it can be analyzed that there was a record of 15,000 acts of violence associated with a single year. Thus, from the figures provided by the Howard League for Penal Reforms, it can be easily analyzed that there is an effective interconnection between overcrowding of the prisoners along with the increase in the rate of violence associated to a prison (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). Ethically, it can be stated that every move of a prisoner should be efficiently and effectively monitored through CCTV footages. Complete surveillance based on this protocol is highly recommendable, as it is one of the most accepted protocols accepted in the worldwide. Apart from the CCTV footages, the Office-In-Charge of the prisons need to monitor the prisoners and keep a track of their daily moves. However, 15,000 reports of violence have been estimated which occurs mainly due to the surveillance protocol of the officers associated with the prison (Gilligan and Pratt, 2013). One of the most effective consequences associated to prison violence is Child Death (Langbein, 2012). Due to improper environment and ineffective administration system associated with the prisons of the United Kingdom, it was estimated that nearly 34 children died in the custody since 1990. Focusing more towards the evidences, it can be analyzed that two children died within a single month (January, 2012), which resulting in severe catastrophe within the country. Issues regarding safety and lifestyle were at stake. However, it was observed that there was never been a large scale public inquiry regarding the prevention of these death consequences (Mears, 2012). Based on these evidences, one can reflect towards a case study of Adam Rickwood. He was considered as the youngest prisoner to die within the prison (Scott and Gosling, 2015). He hanged himself after being restrained by four adult care providers situated in Hassockfield Secure Training Centre. He was retained within this prison for a month on the charge of wounding. The care givers implied nose distraction as the restraint, which was similar to a karate like a chopper. He was wounded on his nose and thereby bled for 1 hour. After six hours, he committed suicide within the premises of the cell (Shaffer et al. 2015). Apart from the consequence of Adam Rickwood, there are other brutal references associated with this context. Based on the recent survey reports, it can be analyzed that 20% of the investigations associated with self-inflicted deaths occurred due to the mistreatments from the other prisoners. Responding towards such violence was concerned as the prime factor of the investigation department of the country. In 2008, the Secretary of State committed the National Offender Management Services (NOMS) for the policy of Zero Tolerance, which was against the violence practices within the custody. The Prison Service Order (PSO) 2750: Violence Reduction highlighted towards the public sector prisons to involve local violence reduction strategy. This would be helpful in minimizing the torture level to some extent within the custody. From mid-2007, this policy was also enforced to the contracted estates, to maximize its effects throughout the country (Scott and Gosling, 2015). The PPO local strategies target towards minimizing the violence by several means. The commonly followed sectors involved; conflict resolutions, presenting dynamic securities, problem solving approaches, effective risk management, addressing towards the organization and environmental factors, behavioral management for the individuals and the offender management processes. The provision for the prisoners to consult their viewpoint regarding the reduction of violence is implemented within the prisons of the United Kingdom (Langbein, 2012). There is also an aspect where staff experience plays an important role in rising of prison violences in the United Kingdom Liebling and Arnold, 2012). Inexperience staffs are victims of violence by prisoners. According to Kratcoski, trainee prison officers faced numerous amount of prison violence in the past several years. In a study carried out by Munroe suggests that, the inexperience prison officer has a tendency to engage themselves in numerous prison violence cases as they are often perceived but the aggressiveness of prisoners. One of the major reasons behind this phenomenon can be pointed out as the jail staffs are not provided with an adequate amount of training. Due to lack of training, they have no experience and presence of mind to handle situations which are found in prisons (Coyle, 2013). Another aspect which can be highlighted is amount corruption level. It is very much clear no government administration is completely corruption free. Due to corruption, jail staff tends to be biased or favorable towards one particular prisoner or a group of prisoner. As a result a level of discrimination is created among the jail staffs. These kind of acts actually disrupts the normal balance among a particular jail prisoners. The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) introduced in 2004 by the Ministry of Justice states plays a vital role in setting strategic policies to keep control over the custodial services and the prison capacity. Primarily all the public sector prisons in the UK are by the agency (Trammell, 2012). The agency is solely responsible for managing the overall custodial service to promote proper support and assistance to the prisoners (Mullins, 2013). It is in the same year that the NOMS formulated an agreement termed as zero tolerance about violence reduction in prisons (Edgar and ODonell, 2014). The zero tolerance policy is a primary component of criminology and is commonly used as a formal and informal policing around the world (Mullins, 2013). The zero tolerance policy primarily imposes a decision regarding the automatic punishment regarding eliminating intolerable conducts. In other words, zero tolerance policies forbid the persons in authority from exercising any discretion or changing punishments to fit the situation respectively (Bierie, 2013). The authorities have only the power to apply the predetermined sentences regardless of the situation or individual. The authorities are also advised not to implement any severe punishment regarding the zero tolerance policy (Bierie, 2013). By the fact of responding to violence in prisons, apart from the zero-tolerance agreement, a set of rules, regulations and guidelines have also been established which are primarily outlined by the Prison Service Orders (PSOs) and Prison Service Instructions (PSIs) (Berman and Dar, 2013). The PSOs was issued on 31st July 2009. The central vision of the PSOs is to provide a set of terms and conditions that need stop be implemented to reduce the violence within the prisons. Thus, the PSO's helped in introducing certain laws and amendments that provided strict restrictions on the severe punishments that are primarily imposed on the prisoners. Thus, the prime target was to eliminate or reduce the violence inside the jail, which are faced on a large extent by the prisoners. The prison Service Order is guided by a set of PSO Prison numbers, which represents various kinds of rules and regulations. From the several sets of PSO numbers, PSO 2750 represents violence reduction for the prisoners (Berman and Dar, 2013). The law is primarily supplemented by a series of administrative regulations and guidelines. The orders also provided the management instructions and are primarily issued by the headquarters to offer a detailing about the prisoner documents, which includes the letters and visits, prison discipline (Liebling and Arnold, 2012). The orders seem to serve as a strategy, which tends to operate in an appropriate framework supported by a set of precise rules and guidelines. The 2011 PPO report suggested certain recommendations for the staffs, which include Recording and sharing of information regarding the bullying incidents Updating the regular entries Focusing on providing safety to a particular prison regarding information Use of other relevant methods to identify any bullying activity associated with any activity of the jail. Thus, the implementation of the effective strategies, which mainly includes the zero tolerance agreement and the PSO violent reduction act helped in providing the necessary guidelines to resolve the problem associated with violence in prisons. These strategies can be applied in prisons across the United Kingdom to overcome the current situation and reduce the amount of violent acts in prisons (Liebling and Arnold, 2012). The main aspect of this study is to highlight the current scenario of prisons situated in the United Kingdom. As, we all know, every proposal should be backed with proper references and statistical data. From the statistical data provided, it can be concluded that the current scenario is worse. For the past decade, the situation is gradually decreasing, resulting in an increase of violent acts such as suicides, self-harm incidents, attacks on prison staffs and sexual assaults. It can be also highlighted that the corruption is also affecting the situation, making it worse. For the last ten years, The Government of United Kingdom has implemented many steps and strategies to overcome this situation (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). But according to current statistical data, thos strategies are doing no good. Overcorwedness in prisons is highlighted as the most predominant factor giving rise to prison violences. The amount of prisoner in the United Kingdom jails is greater than the total amount of spectators can fit in the Wembley stadium. To make things better, the United Kingdom Government should take steps to reduce the population density of jails. Building new coreectional centres is the only way through which the aim can be achieved. The Government of United Kingdom should act straightaway in order to manage the current scenario. Juvenile prisoners are committing suicide, which is not a good sign for the government administrators and the society as well (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). Monitoring each and every prisoner, profiling each prisoner according to the committed crime can be implemented to make the situation better. It is clear that, only the government can make the situation better. Thinking prisoners as a normal human being and providing them care and comfort which also affect their current behavior. Prisoners who often engage in violent acts should be provided with CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) in order for the b etterment of their mental condition (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). It is clear that, violent acts are increasing day by day, which is also affecting the social-structure of the United Kingdom. As, a result proper steps should be implemented for the betterment of all parties involved (Badger, Vaughan, Woodward, and Williams, 2014). References: Badger, D., Vaughan, P., Woodward, M. and Williams, P., 2014. Planning to meet the needs of offenders with mental disorders in the United Kingdom.Psychiatric Services. Baillot, H., Cowan, S. and Munro, V.E., 2012. Hearing the Right Gaps Enabling and Responding to Disclosures of Sexual Violence within the UK Asylum Process.Social Legal Studies,21(3), pp.269-296. Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. eds., 2013.Understanding prison staff. Willan. Berman, G. and Dar, A., 2013. Prison population statistics.London: House of Commons Library. Bierie, D.M., 2013. Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (20002007).Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,19(1), p.15. Cole, S., 2012.At the Violet Hour: Modernism and Violence in England and Ireland. Oxford University Press. Coyle, A., 2013. Change management in prisons1.Understanding Prison Staff, p.231. Crewe, B., Warr, J., Bennett, P. and Smith, A., 2013. The emotional geography of prison life.Theoretical Criminology, p.1362480613497778. Earle, R. and Phillips, C., 2012. Digesting men? Ethnicity, gender and food: Perspectives from a prison ethnography.Theoretical Criminology,16(2), pp.141-156. Edgar, K. and O'Donnell, I., 2014. 4 Tracking the pathways to violence in prison.Researching Violence: Methodology and Measurement, p.69. Gilligan, G. and Pratt, J. eds., 2013.Crime, Truth and Justice. Routledge. Ginn, S., 2012. Prison environment and health.BMJ,345. Langbein, J.H., 2012.Torture and the law of proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Rgime. University of Chicago Press. Liebling, A. and Arnold, H., 2012. Social relationships between prisoners in a maximum security prison: Violence, faith, and the declining nature of trust.Journal of Criminal Justice,40(5), pp.413-424. Mason, P. ed., 2012.Criminal visions. Routledge. Mears, D.P., 2012. The prison experience: Introduction to the special issue.Journal of Criminal Justice,40(5), pp.345-347. Mulcahy, E., Merrington, S. and Bell, P.J., 2013. The radicalisation of prison inmates: a review of the literature on recruitment, religion and prisoner vulnerability.Journal of human security,9(1), pp.4-14. Mullins, J., 2013. Safeguarding in prisons.Mental Health Practice,17(3). Schenk, A.M. and Fremouw, W.J., 2012. Individual characteristics related to prison violence: A critical review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior,17(5), pp.430-442. Scott, D. and Gosling, H.J., 2015. Before prison, instead of prison, better than prison: therapeutic communities as an abolitionist real utopia.International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,4(3). Shaffer, C., McCuish, E., Corrado, R.R., Behnken, M.P. and DeLisi, M., 2015. Psychopathy and violent misconduct in a sample of violent young offenders.Journal of Criminal Justice,43(4), pp.321-326. Sudbury, J., 2014.Global lockdown: Race, gender, and the prison-industrial complex. Routledge. Trammell, R., 2012.Enforcing the convict code: Violence and prison culture. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Walsh, J.L., Davies, J., Bagshaw, R. and Payne, E., 2012. Staff Beliefs About the Negotiation of Serious Prison Incidents.Criminal Justice and Behavior,39(1), pp.59-70. Worrall, J.L. and Morris, R.G., 2012. Prison gang integration and inmate violence.Journal of Criminal Justice,40(5), pp.425-432. Wulf-Ludden, T., 2013. Interpersonal relationships among inmates and prison violence.Journal of Crime and Justice,36(1), pp.116-136.