Examining the Use of Disciplinary Segregation within and across Prisons

H. Daniel Butler, Benjamin M Steiner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Prison officials have historically been afforded considerable discretion to administer sanctions designed to maintain order and security within a prison. Such discretion can generate disparate treatment of offender groups, but few studies have investigated whether sanction disparities exist within prisons, despite considerable research on sanctioning decisions made by other criminal justice actors. We use data collected from a nationally representative sample of inmates housed in state operated confinement facilities to examine potential influences of prison officials’ decisions to impose one type of sanction—disciplinary segregation. Multi-level analyses reveal that both legally relevant criteria such as prior misconduct history and extralegal factors such as age and holding a prison job affected whether an inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation for a rule violation. Also, prisons in which a greater proportion of the inmate population is involved in prison work and prisons with a higher density of inmates classified minimum-security use disciplinary segregation less frequently.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)248-271
Number of pages24
JournalJustice Quarterly
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 23 2017

Fingerprint

Prisons
segregation
correctional institution
sanction
Criminal Law
offender
History
justice
history
Research
Population

Keywords

  • decision making
  • disciplinary segregation
  • focal concerns
  • prisons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Law

Cite this

Examining the Use of Disciplinary Segregation within and across Prisons. / Butler, H. Daniel; Steiner, Benjamin M.

In: Justice Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2, 23.02.2017, p. 248-271.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{35d19d9a642149d9934a93f33cc1b2c8,
title = "Examining the Use of Disciplinary Segregation within and across Prisons",
abstract = "Prison officials have historically been afforded considerable discretion to administer sanctions designed to maintain order and security within a prison. Such discretion can generate disparate treatment of offender groups, but few studies have investigated whether sanction disparities exist within prisons, despite considerable research on sanctioning decisions made by other criminal justice actors. We use data collected from a nationally representative sample of inmates housed in state operated confinement facilities to examine potential influences of prison officials’ decisions to impose one type of sanction—disciplinary segregation. Multi-level analyses reveal that both legally relevant criteria such as prior misconduct history and extralegal factors such as age and holding a prison job affected whether an inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation for a rule violation. Also, prisons in which a greater proportion of the inmate population is involved in prison work and prisons with a higher density of inmates classified minimum-security use disciplinary segregation less frequently.",
keywords = "decision making, disciplinary segregation, focal concerns, prisons",
author = "Butler, {H. Daniel} and Steiner, {Benjamin M}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1080/07418825.2016.1162319",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "248--271",
journal = "Justice Quarterly",
issn = "0741-8825",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining the Use of Disciplinary Segregation within and across Prisons

AU - Butler, H. Daniel

AU - Steiner, Benjamin M

PY - 2017/2/23

Y1 - 2017/2/23

N2 - Prison officials have historically been afforded considerable discretion to administer sanctions designed to maintain order and security within a prison. Such discretion can generate disparate treatment of offender groups, but few studies have investigated whether sanction disparities exist within prisons, despite considerable research on sanctioning decisions made by other criminal justice actors. We use data collected from a nationally representative sample of inmates housed in state operated confinement facilities to examine potential influences of prison officials’ decisions to impose one type of sanction—disciplinary segregation. Multi-level analyses reveal that both legally relevant criteria such as prior misconduct history and extralegal factors such as age and holding a prison job affected whether an inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation for a rule violation. Also, prisons in which a greater proportion of the inmate population is involved in prison work and prisons with a higher density of inmates classified minimum-security use disciplinary segregation less frequently.

AB - Prison officials have historically been afforded considerable discretion to administer sanctions designed to maintain order and security within a prison. Such discretion can generate disparate treatment of offender groups, but few studies have investigated whether sanction disparities exist within prisons, despite considerable research on sanctioning decisions made by other criminal justice actors. We use data collected from a nationally representative sample of inmates housed in state operated confinement facilities to examine potential influences of prison officials’ decisions to impose one type of sanction—disciplinary segregation. Multi-level analyses reveal that both legally relevant criteria such as prior misconduct history and extralegal factors such as age and holding a prison job affected whether an inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation for a rule violation. Also, prisons in which a greater proportion of the inmate population is involved in prison work and prisons with a higher density of inmates classified minimum-security use disciplinary segregation less frequently.

KW - decision making

KW - disciplinary segregation

KW - focal concerns

KW - prisons

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961958125&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961958125&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/07418825.2016.1162319

DO - 10.1080/07418825.2016.1162319

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 248

EP - 271

JO - Justice Quarterly

JF - Justice Quarterly

SN - 0741-8825

IS - 2

ER -