VIOLATING THE CODE:
INMATES‟ JUSTIFICATIONS FOR FAILING TO UPHOLD THE CODE
by
ANASTASIA BROWN
HEITH COPES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
ANDY HOCHSTETLER
KENT R. KERLEY
A THESIS
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2011
VIOLATING THE CODE:
INMATES‟ JUSTIFICATIONS FOR FAILING TO UPHOLD THE CODE
ANASTASIA BROWN
M.S.C.J.
ABSTRACT
Many theories have been created in hope of explaining why people deviate from
societal norms to commit crimes. However, Elijah Anderson‟s Code of the Streets has
recently grown in popularity as an explanation for street crime that construes criminal
behavior more adequately than previous theories. Recent empirical evidence of
researchers such as Anderson suggests the existence of an insidious street culture whose
members identify themselves not with conventional norms, but instead with the standards
of the street culture. To violate this street code would be to jeopardize self esteem and
risk ostracism, further victimization, and often physical safety. However, people also
judge themselves and others by the code and its rules and values. Identity, self respect,
and honor is tied up with how one performs on the streets according to the norms
established by the code. Topalli recently conducted research of neutralization theory that
supports and expands this aspect of Anderson‟s theory. Topalli‟s research on active street
offenders suggests that offenders must neutralize or justify actions that are inconsistent
with the code. In other words, followers of street codes must neutralize good behavior to
assert and maintain their belief and dedication to the street code. Although Topalli
intended his study to explore neutralization theory, Scott and Lyman‟s theory of
accounts, which occur after the behavior as an explanation to outsiders for deviant
behavior and a means of maintaining one‟s identity, may better bring these theories
together to explain behavior and how individuals explain their actions. I propose that
ii
ABSTRACT
Anderson‟s code of the streets and Scott and Lyman‟s accounts theory can be applied to
the prison context. In the present study I intend to investigate norms and behavior at the
prison setting to determine if these theories can be used to explain behavior of prisoners
as well as active offenders on the street, keeping in mind the suggestions of Topalli‟s
findings, that offenders do not always explain their behavior in the manner expected or
predicted by the majority of prior research.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my parents, Charles and Sandra Brown, for guiding me through my
life and providing unconditional support in all my endeavors. I would not have achieved
what I have today without your endless love and support. I would also like to thank
Joshua Slaton for always being willing to lend a helping hand with any task, however
inconsequential or insurmountable that task may be. You are my rock. Last but not least,
I would like to thank Dr. Heith Copes for all of his assistance and for having enough faith
in me to allow me to work with him on many projects. I have learned so much from you
and you have provided me with an avenue to jumpstart my publishing career. For that I
will be forever grateful. Without any of these people, my life and career might not be
where it is today, and I am eternally thankful for all of your assistance, encouragement,
and love.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................10
Code of the Streets ................................................................................................10
Code of the Streets Research ....................................................................11
Retaliation Research ..................................................................................16
Accounts and Justifications ...................................................................................18
Accounts and Justifications Research .......................................................23
METHODS .......................................................................................................................29
IS THERE A CODE? ........................................................................................................33
Self Reliance .........................................................................................................34
Retaliation: Responding to Disrespect ..................................................................35
No Snitching ..........................................................................................................37
Reputation and Preventing Victimization ..............................................................39
FORMS OF DISRESPECT ...............................................................................................43
Rudeness ................................................................................................................43
Cutting Line ..............................................................................................44
Disrespecting Common and Personal Space..............................................45
Staring ........................................................................................................47
Stealing ..................................................................................................................48
Violence .................................................................................................................51
Perversion/Homosexuality .....................................................................................52
VIOLATING THE CODE: NON-RETALIATION AND SNITCHING ..........................56
Justifications for Non-retaliation ...........................................................................57
Consequences .............................................................................................58
Don‟t Believe in the Code/Exempt from the Code ....................................62
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Minimize Transgressions ...........................................................................68
Never Disrespected ....................................................................................70
Justifications for Snitching ....................................................................................72
Minimization ..............................................................................................73
Consequences/Personal Responsibility.....................................................75
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................78
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................87
IRB APPROVAL FORM ..................................................................................................90
6
INTRODUCTION
When individuals deviate from social norms they often defend their behavior to
sustain the image and to protect their social position. Decades of research supports the
claim that individuals seek to make sense of or justify behaviors that violate expectations.
Perhaps one of the most well-known explanations of this process is Scott and Lyman‟s
(1968) theory of accounts. Scott and Lyman maintain that individuals use verbal accounts
to justify or excuse the incongruity between their actions and cultural expectations.
Accounts are especially useful when actions are subject to social evaluation and
judgment.
The majority of research on the use of accounts has focused on the linguistic
devices actors call forth when violating mainstream norms. Scholars have examined the
ways actors make sense of such norm violations as white collar crime, rape, child
molestation, drug addiction, drug use of college students, and domestic violence
(Klenowski, Copes, & Mullins, 2010; Scully & Marolla, 1994; DeLong &
Hundersmarck, 2010; Shinebourne & Smith, 2010; Desantis & Hane, 2010; Bograd,
1988). Despite the diversity in behaviors and types of accounts provided, research shows
that accounts are structured. Accounts are not created or invented by actors. Instead, they
are culturally formed and learned and vary according to the social context in which the
act is being evaluated. If the account is accepted by social audience, the balance between
actions and expectation is restored, and the actor avoids the consequences of his or her
7
actions. In this way, accounts are used as a means to present a positively perceived image
and to negotiate social identities.
Those who study accounts primarily focus on how people use them to make sense
of violations of mainstream, accepted norms (e.g., deviant and/or criminal behavior).
However, recent research has begun to extend the theory of accounts to violations of
subcutlural beliefs (Garot, 2009; Topalli, 2005). For example, in a critique of
neutralization theory (a close cousin to accounts), Topalli (2005) suggested that hardcore
offenders are so uncommitted to conventional society that they feel no obligation to
account for their norm violations (p.806). Instead, these persistent offenders justify or
excuse their violations of subcultural norms. Specifically, Topalli argued that hardcore
offenders live by a code that demands them to meet disrespect with strong challenges
(usually violence) and that they do not speak with police about the behaviors of others
(even if they are the victim). However, many adherents of this street code do speak with
police and do not always retaliate when disrespected. In short, these actors violate
subcultural expectations. Topalli showed that offenders who violated these subcultural
norms tended to provide excuses and/or justifications for why they violated the code,
indicating that neutralization theory‟s focus only on the violation of mainstream norms
was exceedingly narrow. Although these findings illustrate the narrow constraints of the
theory, the street offenders in Topalli‟s study often justified their behavior using
neutralization techniques such as denial of injury or denial of victim. For example, many
of the offenders claimed that the information given to police was incorrect and therefore
harmless. Topalli‟s findings suggest that the use of accounts (or neutralizations) extends
beyond just violating conventional norms.
8
Topalli‟s study has moved the understanding of accounts and neutralizations
forward, but much is still unknown about the generalizability of his findings and how
one‟s social position constrains actors‟ abilities to use accounts to excuse or justify their
subcultural norm violations. To shed light on this subject I investigate how being prison
structures the use of accounts when violating prison norms (i.e., the inmate code).
Specifically, I intend to apply his study to the prison setting to explore whether inmates
provide accounts for deviations from the prison code of behavior as well. My research
seeks to determine whether this code exists in prisons, the elements of the code, and how
those who violate the code make sense of their actions. In what follows, I review the
relevant literature on code of the streets and accounts to provide a backdrop for my
research. After describing my methods, I discuss how inmates‟ perceived such behavioral
codes and how they justified or excused behavior that violated these codes.
9
LITERATURE REVIEW
Code of the Streets
Some researchers believe that the desolate conditions of inner-city life have
spawned an oppositional culture and behavioral code that is in stark contrast with
mainstream societal norms (Anderson, 1999). This behavioral code is a “cultural
adaptation” to the desperate nature of many urban environments (Anderson, 1994, p. 84).
It provides a way to protect oneself from danger and violence, which is common in this
setting and is exacerbated by a lack of faith in police and the justice system (Brunson
2007). Because inner-city residents believe they have been abandoned and condemned by
a group that has pledged to protect them, the atmosphere of disrespect for the police
strengthens the subculture that underlies the code of behavior, especially as regards self
reliance. (Jacobs, 2004). According to Elijah Anderson (1994), this oppositional culture
is governed by an informal set of rules about interpersonal behavior (i.e., the code of the
streets). The code, though enforced primarily by the “street-oriented,” applies to all who
expect to survive inner-city life because it functions largely as a regulator of violence
(Anderson, 1994, p. 82). The code depicts expectations of appropriate behavior, including
acceptable responses and retaliations to challenges.
Respect is the foremost concern of those who follow the code of the street.
However, in the inner-city respect is often loosely defined, and thus, the source of intense
negotiation. According to Anderson, inner-city residents who follow this street code
10
believe establishing respect will protect them from future victimization. The code hinges
on presentation of self, providing a “framework for negotiating respect” to present an
image of one who is revered because he is capable of defending himself and willing to
use violence if necessary (Anderson, 1994, p. 82). Although an individual‟s behavior can
be used to display an appropriate image, physical attributes, and appearance (e.g., facial
expression, posture and comportment, clothing, and possessions) can also achieve the
desired effect. The street code allows individuals an array of choices as to how to
establish a tough image, all geared toward deterring violence and aggression.
Although self-sufficiency and the ability to defend one‟s self is imperative in
presenting a tough, respected image, inner-city residents are likely to become victims,
especially since others are constantly seeking to gain respect themselves (Stewart,
Schreck, & Simmons, 2006). Those who live by the street code believe that becoming a
victim signifies weakness, which inevitably leads others to exploit these weaknesses.
According to Anderson (1994), one‟s identity, self-respect, and honor are intertwined
with how individuals respond to such transgressions. Consequently, as per the code,
individuals are expected by their challenger, their friends, and others in the community to
retaliate harshly upon any transgression, however slight these insults may appear. Failing
to do so can lead to losing hard-won respect and becoming a target for others who are
looking to gain respect and a reputation (Anderson, 1994; Jacobs, 2004).
Code of the Streets Research
Since the introduction of Anderson‟s code of the streets many researchers have
investigated the theory, usually acquiring support for its tenets. Recent ethnographic
11
research on persistent street offenders (e.g., robbers, burglars, car thieves, and drug
dealers) is supportive of Anderson‟s claims (Copes, 2003; Jacobs & Wright, 1999;
Shover, 1996; Shover & Honaker, 1992; Wright & Decker, 1994, 1997). Jacobs and
Wright (1999) examined armed robbers‟ thoughts and actions before, during, and after
the commission of the crime to investigate motivation and decision-making in its relation
to street culture. They found that the robbers were primarily motivated by economic gain.
However, this desire for economic gain was based on the street code in that the offenders
sought to purchase items to fund their street lifestyle and maintain their images. For
example, the robbers described needing quick access to cash to fund drug and partying
binges. The authors, labeling this mentality “life as a party,” found that offenders sought
to present an image of a dangerous, edgy person, but also as someone with enough funds
to support this lifestyle (Jacobs and Wright, 1999, p.155; see also Shover, 1996). The
offenders maintained this carefree image through such expensive drug habits, but also
through the purchase of status enhancing items such as jewelry, cars, and clothing.
According to Jacobs and Wright, the offenders wanted to prove their membership in a
type of “mythic street aristocracy” (p.156).
Jacobs and Wright also found support for Anderson‟s code of the streets in the
offenders‟ explanation of why they chose robbery to support this lifestyle and identity.
The offenders explained that their circumstances often damaged their chances for gainful
employment. The robbers were mostly uneducated and poor, making it unlikely that they
would qualify for a job that could support such a cash intensive lifestyle. In addition, a
legitimate job is not conducive to the street image of an autonomous carefree tough guy.
The offenders often described such careers as too restrictive to accommodate the street
12
lifestyle because it would interfere with partying, drug use, and their need to be
considered independent. Therefore, although the crimes appeared to be economically
motivated, the results indicate that financial hardship was not the driving force behind the
decision to commit robbery. Instead, the crimes are economically motivated in that
offenders attempted to maintain an image proscribed by the street culture that often
involves expensive habits and is not conducive to the time and behavioral restraints
involved in legitimate employment. Jacobs and Wright‟s study suggests that offenders
follow a set of cultural beliefs similar to those of Anderson‟s street code.
Wright, Brookman, and Bennet (2006) expand the scope of Anderson‟s theory by
focusing on an under-researched population and setting, interviewing twenty-seven
incarcerated offenders in England and Wales. According to the authors, research
conducted in the United States suggests a strong allegiance to street culture and the
accompanying “self-indulgent lifestyle” as per Anderson‟s code of the streets. A
substantial amount of research also suggests that this commitment to street culture is an
important causal factor in several violent offenses. Wright et al.‟s study applies the code
of the streets to one type of violent offender, street robbers, investigating how the lives,
behavior, and beliefs of these individuals grow out of the street context. According to
Wright et al., the drive for robbery stems only partially from monetary gain. The decision
to commit robbery is also conditioned by the British street culture, similar to findings by
researchers regarding American street culture.
Although monetary gain is undoubtedly one aspect of the decision to commit
robbery, research indicates other contributing factors that stem mainly from street culture.
According to Wright et al., the risky lifestyle associated with street culture (e.g.,
13
drug/alcohol abuse, violence, aggression) becomes a part of the offender‟s identity and
self-perception. In order for individuals to maintain this identity they must constantly
prove their status against expectations of street culture regarding: appearance, financial
success, violent displays, and dominance. Wright et al. found that the presentation of self
or projected image is vital to street robbers in gaining and maintaining status, which in
turn insulates them from victimization. Therefore, street robbery was motivated not only
by economic gain, but also by the potential for building or solidifying a tough street
image that served as a defensive identity, which is viewed by the street culture as the only
means to protect one‟s self.
The majority of research related to street codes is conducted using active criminal
populations. However, it is important to discover if these tenets hold for other
populations, such as law abiding citizens and prisoners. Morris (2010) applied aspects of
Anderson‟s code of the streets to the high school setting. Additionally, the authors‟
research further expands the theory because they conducted this comparative ethnography
of two low-income high schools: a primarily Black, urban high school and a mostly
White, rural school, allowing researchers a window into the relationship between race,
environment, and street codes. The study provided evidence that there is a pervasive code
against snitching amongst high school students. Some students even likened the
atmosphere of their school to a prison in that respect gained from physical prowess or
toughness was vital to ensure protection from future victimization (Morris, 2010). As
seen in similar studies of active criminal populations, respect, independent conflict
resolution, and retaliation were important facets of the high school code of the streets.
14
Another study further expands Anderson‟s code of the streets by focusing on
young African American women, as most street code based research focuses on samples
of young Black males. Brunson and Stewart‟s (2006) study garnered support for
Anderson‟s theory in that the code of the street was used by many women in
disadvantaged neighborhoods as a means to establish respect through violence,
subsequently protecting them from future victimization. Another study by Butler and
Maruna (2009) examined a sample of 89 inactive, incarcerated offenders in England.
Results provided support for Anderson‟s theory in that prisoners who recounted instances
of disrespect were more likely to express beliefs in accordance with code of the streets
about violence and retaliation. However, the results were based on analysis of both
qualitative and quantitative data derived from semi-structured interviews and a series of
questionnaires to assess the relationship between disrespect and tendency toward violent
or disruptive behavior. This study expands the scope and validity of code of the streets
research in its use of multiple methods while also focusing on an under researched
population (e.g., inactive criminals outside the United States).
Little research has been conducted on the street code outside the United States. A
study by Brookman, Bennett, Hochstetler, and Copes (2011) expands research of the
street code by exploring the motivations and personal beliefs of offenders in other
countries. The authors interviewed convicted violent offenders in British prisons. The
results of Brookman et al. support the theory, suggesting that the prisoners‟ accounts
appear to have similar characteristics to the street code found in the United States and
described by Anderson. This study provides important knowledge about the pervasive
far-reaching existence of this sub-cultural behavioral code. Because the article suggests
15
that the code exists and influences criminality outside the United States, across cultures
and geographic locations, there is stronger evidence supporting Anderson‟s theory
(Brookman et al., 2011).
Retaliation Research
Retaliation has also garnered a significant amount of criminological research.
Though not directly concerned with Anderson‟s street code, most of this research
supports Anderson‟s theory, indicating that retaliation is an important facet of inner-city
culture. Although there is an abundance of research related to retaliation, surprisingly
little is known about how retaliation is perceived and instigated by offenders. A
retaliation study by Topalli, Wright, and Fornango (2002) addressed this issue, lending
support to Anderson‟s theory as well. The authors interviewed 20 recently victimized,
active drug dealers in St. Louis, Missouri. The majority of the participants supported
direct retaliation as a source of informal control and justice. Direct retaliation allows
offenders to achieve retribution through vengeance, ensure deterrence through reputation
maintenance, and obtain compensation through loss recovery. According to Topalli et al.
(2002), vengeance allows the shamed individuals to restore “reciprocal balance.”
Reputation maintenance serves to deter future victimization through a violent
presentation of self that discourages persecution. Retaliation also serves as a means to
recover lost property or money.
A similar study by Jacobs (2004) identified the important aspects of retaliation,
creating a typology of common retaliatory behavior. Jacobs interviewed active offenders
recruited from the streets of St. Louis, Missouri. Jacobs found two pivotal factors in
16
understanding retaliation: whether retaliation occurs immediately after the incident and
whether the retaliation is committed in person. However, above all, Jacobs discovered
that there is a pervasive retaliatory culture among these inner city residents. The
participants feel a ubiquitous need to retaliate against even the slightest affronts to
establish a defensive reputation and a street identity, but also to uphold the set of beliefs
that prescribe this type of behavior, as per Anderson‟s code of the streets (Jacobs, 2004).
Criminology focuses primarily on causes of crime and violence, but devotes scant
attention to individuals who refrain from deviant or violent behavior despite having
similar characteristics and circumstances to those that choose deviant paths. Substantial
research regarding Anderson‟s code of the streets indicates that there is widespread belief
in a street code and the need for retaliation among inner city residents. However,
retaliation and code of the streets research has not been able to explain the high
percentage of variance indicating that individuals are as likely not to retaliate as they are
to retaliate. Therefore, it is doubly important that researchers investigate why people
choose not to become deviant. A study by Garot (2009) addresses this oversight. Through
intensive analysis of the accounts of forty-six inner-city young men across the United
States, Garot investigates “emotive dissonance and ambivalence” associated with young
men‟s failure to retaliate (Garot, 2009, p.64). Garot found that each participant felt
compelled to seek retaliation but was prevented from doing so by various factors.
According to Garot, there are three primary issues surrounding those who avoid
retaliation: whether retaliation could injure family or friends, the emotive dissonance
caused by non-retaliation, and the eventual acceptance of their “ambivalent positions”
(Garot, 2009, p.64).
17
The primary justification for non-retaliation used by Garot‟s participants was
related to the perceived effect retaliation would have on friends and family. For instance,
several participants mentioned failing to retaliate because the original offense was
committed by a close family member or friend. Although each participant expressed a
compulsion to seek retaliation, certain extenuating circumstances such as these were
often cited as immutable barriers to retaliation. According to Garot, the resulting disparity
between actions, beliefs, and social expectations causes negative emotions stemming
from the threat to one‟s identity, in this case, one‟s street identity or reputation. These
findings are in accordance with Anderson‟s code of the street in that retaliation is
supported and expected by the inner city community and is linked with one‟s identity.
However, Garot‟s results depart from the code of the streets in that participants
eventually came to accept their “ambivalent positions” associated with non-retaliation,
whereas Anderson assumed that individuals would be shamed and humiliated for
violating the code. The study provides partial support for the code of the streets
indicating that inner-city youths believe in the code and are especially inclined to
retaliation. However, the study also builds on Anderson‟s theory, expanding the scope to
include a wider, more diverse sample, those who violate the code by choosing not to
retaliate.
Accounts and Justifications
When individuals‟ behavior belies societal expectations, they must account for
their behavior if they want to sustain their social identities and positions in society. Scott
and Lyman (1968) believe that individuals are able to maintain this delicate balance
18
through the use of accounts, which are linguistic devices used to justify the discrepancy
between actions and expectations when actions are subject to the “valuative inquiry” of
others. However, accounts are not simple explanations of behavior. According to Scott
and Lyman, accounts are only necessary when others take issue with the behavior and the
actor‟s social relationships are thus threatened. Verbal accounts are used to neutralize the
consequences of that act when one‟s actions are questioned and must be of a socially
approved vocabulary. Consequently, accounts vary according to the social context in
which the act is being evaluated. If the account is accepted by the social audience, the
balance between actions and expectation is restored, and the actor avoids the negative
social consequences of his or her actions. In this way, accounts are used as a means to
present a positively perceived image and negotiate social identities.
Scott and Lyman (1968) identify two main types of accounts, excuses and
justifications. Although Scott and Lyman distinguish between these types of accounts,
they acknowledge that both types are often used in tandem when one is accused of
violating social expectations. Excuses involve admitting the iniquitous quality of the
behavior while denying personal responsibility. Conversely, justifications involve
denying the pejorative nature of the behavior while accepting responsibility for the act in
question. For example, a soldier might use an excuse or a justification in response to
questions about killing his enemies. His excuse might acknowledge the immorality of
murder, but claim that he is not liable for this act because he was forced to act by his
superiors. A justification for the same behavior might entail admitting he is responsible
for the murder but denying the negative connotation associated with such an act because
he only killed enemy soldiers.
19
Excuses are socially approved linguistic devices implemented to deny
responsibility for suspected deviant behavior. According to Scott and Lyman, there are
four types of excuses: appeal to accidents, appeal to defeasibility, appeal to biological
drives, and scapegoating. Excuses involving appeal to accidents serve to diminish
responsibility by allowing the individual to blame an accident for the behavior in
question. However, all excuses are contrived within the social context. If an accident
excuse is given too frequently or in the wrong context, its veracity is threatened because
such excuses rely on generally recognized concepts such as: environmental hazards,
inefficiency of human body, imperfect control over motor responses, and the irregular
and infrequent rate of such accidents.
The second type of excuse, defeasibility, is based on social truths about the idea
that all actions contain some type of “mental element” or criminal intent. There are two
components of the mental element, knowledge and will. The defeasibility excuse
concerning knowledge applies to situations in which the actor claims to have no
knowledge of information that, if known, would have altered the behavior. These excuses
involve claims of misinformation or misrepresentation of facts by others, successfully
displacing blame and denying responsibility. Excuses claiming lack of will suggest that
the actor‟s will was not completely free during commission of the accused act. Actors
often displace blame or responsibility in these situations by claiming to have committed
the act while under duress or undue influence. In some socially approved conditions, such
as intoxication and mental illness, both will and knowledge are widely considered to be
impaired. When these conditions are invoked by the actor, knowledge and will are
assumed to be absent and responsibility is thus relieved.
20
Scott and Lyman also describe defeasibility excuses involving intent. This form of
excuse is based on social norms and laws that suggest the importance of intent in
determining a person‟s level of accountability. Social norms distinguish between
intentions, actions, and consequences. Accordingly, lack of criminal or negative
intentions and ignorance of probable consequences become possible accounts for
deviants. The third type of excuse described by Scott and Lyman invokes biological
drives as a reprieve from responsibility. Excuses based on biological drives are grounded
in the idea that fatalistic forces control one‟s behavior and life events. Recent studies
suggest that certain individuals and groups are predisposed to this fatalistic approach.
Results suggest that individuals in disadvantaged positions are more likely to take this
fatalistic viewpoint. One common subtype of fatalistic excuses invokes sex–linked
biological drives and factors as an excuse for deviant behavior. The final type of excuse
involves scapegoating, another form of fatalistic reasoning. Scapegoating allows accused
individuals to escape the burden of responsibility for their actions and shift it to another
person. This excuse involves blaming the behavior on a necessary response to the
behavior actions of others. These types of excuses credit fatalistic forces with influencing
behavior to an extent beyond the will of the actor.
Justifications, though still socially approved vocabularies used to neutralize
consequences of deviant behavior, are different from excuses in that justifications accept
responsibility but assert the positive nature of the act, while excuses recognize the
immoral nature of the act but deny responsibility. Justifications suggest that the
individual recognizes the immoral nature of the behavior in general, but claim to have
acted under some exceptional situation or circumstances that required the deviant act,
21
absolving responsibility. An example of such a justification would be claiming selfdefense when accused of murder. Sykes and Matza (1957) explained several socially
approved justification techniques such as: Denial of injury, denial of victim,
condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to loyalties. Denial of injury justifications
acknowledge guilt but deny responsibility because the actor perceives no significant
consequences. Denial of victim justifications suggest that the action was permissible
because the victim deserved the injury. The victims in this situation are viewed as foes,
those with socially discrepant roles, or of racial and ethnic minority. Condemnation of the
condemners involves claiming that the act is irrelevant because others, often the accusers
themselves, commit the same or worse acts and go unpunished. Appeal to loyalties
suggests that the act is not immoral because it serves a purpose to someone who the
individual pledges loyalty.
If an account is honored, the individual is able to escape responsibility for his
behavior and restore the state of his former social relationships. Inappropriate accounts
will fail to excuse the individual of responsibility, and the individual may suffer socially
approved consequences such as punishment, loss of status, or other detriment to social
relationships. Successful and appropriate accounts vary according to social context and
social status. Each account is a “manifestation of the underlying negotiation of identities”
(Scott & Lyman, 1968). Therefore, individuals must practice impression management to
offer situationally appropriate accounts.
22
Accounts and Justifications Research
Decades of research supports the claim that deviants of all types rely on accounts
to align their actions with mainstream cultural expectations. A study of accounts made by
sex offenders, specifically men arrested in internet sex stings, provides support for Scott
and Lyman‟s theory of accounts. DeLong and Hundersmarck (2010) analyzed the
accounts of 18 men who attempted to meet children online with the eventual goal of
meeting the children in person and soliciting sex from them. According to the authors,
these men accounted for their behavior in several ways, through either outright refutation
of the conduct, minimization of injury or harm, or through the use of justifications and
rationalizations. However, most subjects did not deny the behavior, instead choosing to
minimize or justify their actions.
Desantis and Hane (2010) provided support for accounts theory. This study
involves in-depth interviews conducted in 2007 with 175 undergraduate students of a
large, urban, public, south-eastern research university. The goal of the study was to
identify how students felt about ADHD stimulants and the illegal use of such prescription
medicine by college students. The students justified the illegal use of stimulants in
several ways, claiming that illegal use of the drug is physically harmless or morally
acceptable. According to the authors, there were four prominent recurring themes in the
students‟ justifications for stimulant use including: “comparison/contrast, all things in
moderation, self-medicating,” and several minimization arguments (Desantis & Hane,
2010, p.62). Comparison and contrast justifications involved the argument that compared
to other drugs or other illicit activities stimulant use is less harmful and more socially
acceptable. The second justification type, “all things in moderation,” included accounts
23
claiming that stimulant use was acceptable because students were able to use restraint and
self-control to temper stimulant use. The third account type involved claims of “selfmedicating.” In this type of account, students claimed that they needed the drug either to
study, concentrate, or stay awake to get work done. The final type of account,
minimization arguments, involved the minimization of harm or injury. These accounts
included arguments claiming that no one was harmed or injured by the students‟
stimulant use, so the behavior should be considered acceptable. This study provides
support for accounts theory, indicating that even samples of normal mostly law-abiding
citizens will account for deviant behavior.
In another study of drug users involving accounts by addicts, Shinebourne and
Smith (2010) found that addicts also use accounts to present “experiences of suffering in
a particularly harrowing manner” suggesting their desire to “arouse empathy in the
listener, the need to justify and explain, make sense of experience or seek validation by
others” (Shinebourne & Smith, 2010, p.66). Therefore, as Scott and Lyman predict, those
who deviate from societal norms, including addicts, feel a need to defend their behavior
through verbal accounts in order to sustain their image and protect their position in
society.
Scully and Marolla (1994) garnered support for accounts theory studying a
sample of convicted rapists. The authors found that the rapists attempt to account for their
actions utilizing both justifications and excuses. The participants justified their actions by
denying that a “rape” occurred or by denying that the act should be considered rape.
Scully and Marolla found five common themes in rapists‟ justifications including:
“women are seductresses, women mean yes when they say no, women eventually relax
24
and enjoy the experience, nice girls do not get raped,” and rape is only a “minor
wrongdoing.” All of these justification techniques imply that the act in questions was not
rape because the women consented to the sexual act, enjoyed the event, or provoked or
deserved the behavior in some way.
Conversely, those who attempted to account for their behavior through the use of
excuses admitted that the rape occurred but denied their own culpability for the events in
question. Those that admitted to committing rape conceded that rape is immoral but
denied responsibility for the behavior blaming “forces beyond their control” (p.270). The
most prominent excuses for rape entailed emotional problems that lead to such behavior
and acute alcohol or drug intoxication that inhibited judgment (Scully & Marolla, 1994).
The study by Scully and Marolla provided support for account theory, suggesting that
offenders provide accounts in the form of excuses and justifications in order to situate
their behavior into a more socially acceptable position, which serves to insulate their
identity and social standing from scrutiny.
A study of domestic violence by Bograd (1988) obtained similar results,
providing added support for account theory. Bograd conducted interviews with fifteen
abused women and fifteen abusive men who were married or living together at the time
of the interview. The women were more likely to view the domestic violence as
intentionally injurious behavior, while the abusive men accounted for the domestic
violence explaining that the violence was a product of various uncontrollable factors such
as intoxication and stress. The men also justified their behavior in part by blaming the
wife. Many stated that their wife‟s words or behavior drove them to violence. Therefore,
the men accounted for their behavior using excuses and justifications which were
25
strikingly similar to the accounts of rapists in Scully and Marolla‟s study. Similar to the
rapists, when the abusive men admitted to immoral behavior, they denied culpability
because of outside factors, specifically intoxication. Also similar to the rapists, the
batterers justified behavior by claiming that the women deserved the treatment or
provoked the men in some way. Both studies provide support for account theory.
According to Klenowski, Copes, and Mullins (2010), when behavior is
questioned, offenders primarily describe themselves as “decent” people, but they must
account for their behavior to reconcile their actions with this “decent” image (p.53). For
such an account to be effective it must seem sincere and plausible to the social audience,
so, accounts often vary by the social position of the actor. However, if such individual
characteristics affect the use of accounts, then other individual traits (e.g. gender) might
also affect how offenders account for deviant behavior, a facet of the theory that has been
disregarded in most research to date. The study by Klenowski et al. was based on analysis
of accounts made during semi-structured interviews with 20 men and 20 women who had
been convicted of white collar crimes. The authors‟ findings supported account theory in
that every participant attempted to account for his or her crime through the use of excuses
or justifications. However, the study expands the scope of accounts theory in finding that
the language and content of accounts varied by gender. However, the findings suggest
that, comparable to themes from the literature, the most common account techniques
employed by these white collar criminals were: appeal to higher loyalties, denial of
injury, claim of normality, claim of entitlement, condemnation of the condemners, and
denial of responsibility (Klenowski et al., 2010, p.54).
26
It is clear that those who violate conventional norms attempt to avoid the negative
consequences of their actions by accounting for their indiscretions. However, recent
research suggests that those who violate subcultural norms also try to account for their
actions so that they can maintain respectable subcultural identities. For example, a recent
qualitative study by Topalli (2005) analyzed the accounts of various types of street
offenders in an attempt to expand neutralization theory. However, contrary to the tenets
of the theory, Topalli found that street offenders do not neutralize deviation from
conventional norms. Instead, the results suggest that street offenders consider themselves
part of a deviant subculture, which upholds its own standard of behavior. This street
subculture requires individuals to excuse traditionally “good” behavior, which often
deviates from subcultural norms, while encouraging traditionally “bad” behavior. Though
Topalli‟s study was intended to expand neutralization theory, the results are pertinent to
other theories such as code of the streets and accounts.
To date, very little research attends to the idea of how the code of the streets is
understood or implemented by its advocates. Given the perceived importance of aspects
of the street code, such as retaliation and respect, in establishing offenders‟ identities and
insulating them from victimization, it is imperative and perhaps even more informative to
investigate why offenders occasionally choose to violate the code, a topic that has rarely
been explored in research (Jacobs, 2004). It will also broaden our understanding of street
codes to investigate the actions offenders must take to maintain these protective identities
when they violate the code by failing to retaliate or by snitching. Topalli‟s study provides
a model for investigating these phenomena.
27
In line with Topalli‟s criticisms of neutralization theory, Scott and Lyman‟s
theory of accounts has also focused largely on deviation from traditional norms and
expectations of conventional society, ignoring deviation from subcultural norms
altogether. The results of Topalli‟s study indicate that both code of the streets and
account theories have taken a narrow perspective that fails to fully explain the concepts
and excludes many types of offenders. More research of this nature is required to
understand better the implementation of the street code and widen the scope of these
theories to include offenders who do not consider their behavior to be deviations from
conventional norms or account for their behavior in such terms. Additionally, most
research on code of the streets has focused entirely on active populations. However, it is
important to deduce whether the prison environment constrains behaviors proscribed by
the street code and if so, how the prisoners deal with being forced to violate their belief
system. The present study addresses some of the aforementioned gaps in the research. I
apply Anderson‟s code of the streets, Scott and Lyman‟s account theory, and Topalli‟s
study of deviant subcultures to the prison setting to investigate whether inmates articulate
an “inmate code” similar to Anderson‟s street code and whether the inmates account for
deviations from this prison behavioral code.
28
METHODS
The current study is based on the accounts of 40 male inmates gathered in semistructured interviews. All participants were incarcerated at an Alabama prison at the time
of the interviews. The participants were incarcerated for various types of offenses and
lengths of sentences. Similar to most prisons, the population at the prison was
disproportionately young and African American. The sample reflects this unequal
distribution in the population.
A random sample of inmates was obtained using the prison‟s alpha roster, which
lists every inmate in the prison. Although the study is based on a sample of 40, a random
sample of 60 participants was originally drawn to guarantee that an acceptable sample
size could be recruited. The participants ranged in age from 24 to 61; the mean age was
38.5. Reflective of the wider population, 70 percent of the sample was African American.
Most participants were chronic offenders, indicating persistent criminal behavior and
lifestyle allowing researcher an effective insight into the experiences and opinions of a
seasoned prisoner. Half of participants had sentences of life or life without parole.
Because inmates are considered a special population who are in a disadvantaged
position and can be manipulated easily, it is important to ensure that inmates are not
exposed to harm or coerced to participate. To shield them from harm, the interviewer
warned participants not to reveal any legally compromising information due to the
unlikely possibility that the court could subpoena the results. The researcher guaranteed
29
that participants were not unduly influenced by explaining that participation would not
influence parole decisions, alter their status in the prison system, or induce any other
legal benefit. The researcher also emphasized that participation is completely confidential
and voluntary. To further ensure that participants were not coerced, they were asked why
they agreed to participate. Responses included: talking to a girl, helping others, and
boredom, suggesting a lack of coercion and a willingness to participate.
The goal of the present study is to examine the participants‟ observations and
beliefs about normative behavior within the prison system. The interviews focused on
themes of prisoners‟ beliefs about respect and retaliation. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted to cultivate a more in-depth understanding of subject matter, allowing
inmates the freedom to expand on topics introduced by the interviewer and to introduce
new themes into the research. The interviews, which lasted from 30 to 90 minutes, were
conducted by a female interviewer in private areas of the prison, but always with a
correctional officer nearby to ensure safety. The interviews were digitally recorded with
the permission of the warden and participant and transcribed verbatim.
Although semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to understand the topic
better, there are several limitations to this type of research. For instance, the race and
gender of the researcher can affect the outcome of the study. According to Decker (2005),
matching the gender and race of the researcher and participant is “desirable” though not
described as necessary. Although matching gender and race can provide a more
comfortable atmosphere for the participant to divulge sensitive information, prior
research indicates that this does not necessarily alter the nature of participants‟ accounts
(Miller, 2010). In fact, Miller (2010) suggests that gender does affect the interview but
30
not in easily predictable ways. What is most important is the rapport that is generated
between the interviewer and participants.
The presence of correctional staff can also affect the responses of participants.
Inmates may not think they can speak freely about their behavior or the state of the prison
system with a correctional officer present. Some may fear reprimand from officers, and
therefore, participants are dissuaded from giving accurate and truthful responses. A final
limitation of the study is that it is a secondary analysis of interviews conducted by
another researcher. A secondary analysis lacks acuity of initial impressions, judgments,
and observations. Social cues such as facial expressions and body language are also lost
in a secondary analysis.
The interviewer employed several validity checks to ensure the veracity of the
results. At the time of the interview, vague or inconsistent statements and concepts were
explored with participants, and subject matter that appeared divergent from the responses
of other inmates and prior research results was expanded in the course of the interview.
The interviewer discussed the general nature of the prison and prisoners with correctional
officers and deemed their accounts consistent with those given by a typical prisoner.
Although some initial observations are lost in this type of study, the audio recording and
verbatim transcriptions of the in-depth interviews allow for an effective secondary
analysis of the data. As I analyzed the dialogue between the interviewer and participant,
verbal cues provided insight into the sincerity and significance of inmates‟ statements.
After the interviews were conducted, the audio files were transcribed verbatim
and analyzed using grounded theory to determine patterns and trends in the responses.
Grounded theory involves generation of a theory that is inductively derived from the
31
phenomenon it represents (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory is a systematic
method of grounding the knowledge derived from research, relating it back to the
phenomenon. This method involves a systematic process of analysis including: open
coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Open coding involves identifying major
themes and variables that describe the general nature of the phenomenon. Open codes
were identified and used as the basis for further coding. The main themes identified by
the open coding process included: the existence of the inmate code of behavior, aspects
of the code, forms of disrespect, justifications for non-retaliation, and justifications for
snitching. Axial coding allowed for a supplementary analysis of the data to define and
expand themes and categories identified in the open coding process, and ascertain
relationships among these concepts. The final selective coding stage of the grounded
theory method allowed the researcher to tie the results back to the data, substantiating the
theory with examples and quotes from the inmates‟ direct accounts (Glaser & Strauss,
1967).
32
IS THERE A CODE?
Almost every inmate described the existence of a set of expectations or a code of
behavior in prison; however, not all claimed to follow this set of beliefs. Although there
was some disagreement as to whether the code was still widely followed or applicable to
the modern prison environment, the inmates all described several common expectations
of the convict code, which paralleled criminal behavioral codes commonly described in
the literature. A middle-aged African American inmate serving a life sentence described
the existence of a convict code, but went on to indicate that the tenets of the convict code
were similar those of the street code witnessed by the inmate and also described by
Anderson (1994):
Well, if somebody disrespect you, you expected to fight. When I was younger,
when I was about the convict code, I acted the same here as I did on the streets.
It‟s just taking care of yourself. Watching your ass. Somebody disrespect you,
you gotta do something about it or it‟s gonna be worse next time. Somebody see
that, they be waiting to get you next time.
Although the inmates described a complicated, often inter-related set of beliefs, several
recurrent themes about the behavioral code emerged in their discussions: defending one‟s
reputation, becoming self-reliant, responding to disrespect, abstaining from snitching, and
avoiding victimization. The accounts of the following inmates not only suggest the
33
existence of a convict code, but also illuminate the aspects of the behavioral code, which
were found to be quite similar to those of the street code.
Self-Reliance
The prisoners thought that becoming independent and self-sufficient, would not
only protect them from the dangers of prison but also assist them in building a reputation
or identity as a respectable inmate, which ultimately served the same purpose. The
subsequent quotes reflect this theme. An older prisoner who had served almost 30 years
in prison described the need for self-sufficiency and independence in prison:
Can‟t take the word of somebody else cuz it might be this person want this person
to go down, so I gotta use my head. You have to think for yourself like I always
do. You can‟t let no one else think for you here cuz you‟ll come up short. You
have to take care of your own business and think for yourself. You have to be able
to handle you own issues with other inmates because no one else in here is gonna
tell you the truth or help you.
One 49 year old man who had served 25 years of a life without parole sentence described
the existence of a behavioral code and the need to retaliate against infractions of the code.
Upon being questioned about the existence and nature of behavioral expectations in
prison, the inmate replied:
There‟s a lot of em. A person raised mainly in prison has to be aggressive. [For
example] If a person is in the shower, he raised mainly in prison or is aggressive
and he get looked at, that person has to get in a fight. That‟s a don‟t. He has to be
34
violent if somebody disrespect him like that. It‟s like that because everybody in
here mostly, they feel like in here they have to act that way to be somebody.
Retaliation: Responding to Disrespect
One of the most important tenets of the convict code was to respond harshly to
infractions by other prisoner. Retaliation was a vital aspect of the convict code because it
was perceived as a means to build or maintain a reputation and also to ensure protection
from future victimization. A Caucasian man in his late thirties described the existence of
the convict code and some of its main tenets, respect and retaliation, as well:
Everybody‟s got boundaries and a lot of boundaries when you come to prison are
unspoken boundaries. We‟ll have boundaries that we carry around the we expect.
We have expectations on people, respect. And we don‟t ever get into discussion.
Guys think it‟s kind of weak to get into…to sit down and say, “These are my
boundaries and I‟d appreciate it if you‟d respect them.” They don‟t do that, so
when you come into prison you got expectations on how somebody‟s gonna treat
you, and they got expectations on how you gonna treat them even though they are
unspoken boundaries that you gotta learn as you go. But when you put
expectations on people you gonna get let down and people in here expect you to
do something about it when your boundaries get crossed.
Another middle aged inmate who had spent most of his life in prison described the
prevalence of disrespect and the perceived need to respond to it. When asked about the
state of relationships between inmates he replied:
35
Probably worse than with the officers, to be truthful with you because you have to
live in here with fellow inmates but the correctional officers, they go home. So
you have, inmates will have more time to do whatever he want to do to disrespect
you. Most inmates feel like they got to be a tough guy and do something about it.
Many prisoners illuminated aspects of the code through descriptions of their own
behavior. A middle aged inmate with a life sentence implies his adherence to the convict
code and willingness to retaliate by describing a fight that began as a trivial argument but
escalated quickly to a physical altercation:
Well, I had a few fights but it was just stuff I said. I had one fight we just, I
stabbed a fella in the kneecap, but he had his knife and I took it from him, and
when I took it from him, I stabbed him in the kneecap. [We got in a fight over]
some chicken. They was serving chicken. I got three pieces and wouldn‟t give
him a piece and he got mad. He stepped up about it so I had to put him in his
place. We got to fight. We took it outside. We didn‟t do it in the chow hall. He
took it outside. He was waiting on me. He was there. He swung at me and I
ducked and I got him. He had a knife. I knocked him down, he pulled it out, I
kicked him in the face, and he dropped it. So I grabbed the knife and stabbed him
in the leg. I told him, “If I wanted to kill you, I‟d do it. I don‟t want to kill you
man, but I got to let you know you ain‟t gonna hit me in the head with that mop
no more.”I wasn‟t mad or anything like that, I was just trying to figure out why he
was doing it and let him know it wasn‟t ok. He never did tell me, so I left it alone
and then he come over here messing with my meal so I had to take care of it.
36
Although retaliation and responding to disrespect were one of the most important aspects
of the convict code, the next form of disrespect described by the prisoners, abstaining
from snitching as well as punishing snitches, was described as the ultimate creed of the
convict code.
No Snitching
The inmate behavioral code was based on a strong demand for privacy, leading
inmates to dwell on the idea of minding one‟s own business. Almost all inmates
discussed the taboo nature of involving authorities in another inmate‟s affairs, also
known as snitching. The following passages support this idea. A middle aged prisoner
serving a life sentence explained the gravity of becoming a snitch in prison:
See, in society, you can‟t gain respect through fear cause all they got to do is the
old saying, drop a dime, call the police, “Hey this guy is over here threatening
me,” or, “This guy is riding by my house.” If you feel intimidated then there‟s
other ways and means to handle it. But, in here you just can‟t really run to the
authorities with every little problem, so you get labeled a snitch. It‟s like
categories of people, you‟ll see this little group there into this, kinda like out there
[in society] it would be like communities. Being a snitch in here is not the
category you want to be in.
A thirty year old first time inmate serving a life sentence scoffed at the idea that he would
ever snitch. Upon being asked if he had ever told on another inmate he replied:
Tell, I got life without plus twenty. Guilty by association they say. I ain‟t never
told nothing in my life. For what? Tell? (laughs). Well, I look at it, tell (laughs
37
again), if I was gonna tell something I‟d a had me a twenty year sentence instead
of coming to prison with life without plus twenty. I‟d be out running wild. There
ain‟t no way in hell I done come to prison and talking about tell anything. That
ain‟t no code. That‟s smart. What the hell you gonna tell something in prison for
when you could have saved your freedom out there in the streets. Is that crazy or
what?
Another inmate in his thirties serving a twenty year sentence described a similar
viewpoint. This inmate described having witnessed many thefts while in prison. Upon
queries of his reaction to these situations, he replied:
Nothing. It‟s not my problem. [Q: You didn‟t tell the guy?] No. They wouldn‟t
tell you if it were the other way around so you wouldn‟t tell them. People don‟t
tell. I guess they are obeying by the code, that code you were talking about.
However, this preoccupation with privacy lead many inmates to a loose
interpretation of snitching, expanded to include a variety of situations, such as speaking
to other inmates about the actions of a fellow prisoner. After serving over 20 years of a
life without parole sentence, a 48 year old prisoner was well versed on the behavioral
expectations of his peers. This prisoner‟s accounts indicated the magnitude of snitching
through his violent response to a fellow prisoner, suggesting that it was also unacceptable
to speak to other prisoners about a fellow inmate. However, the depravity of snitching is
illuminated further when the same inmate continued to keep the thief‟s secrets even after
he indicated that the middle aged man was involved in the theft as well:
Yeah, they told on me. Well, a guy took all his belongings and I knew about it,
and I wouldn‟t tell him. So I was caught in it too. So he went to the sergeant and
38
told on me and the other guy. I said, “It‟s not my place to tell what somebody else
do. That‟s not my business.” This guy that stole from another inmate, he tried to
make me look like I was involved too. It worked because I didn‟t tell anyone that
it was him. The guy that did it, I tried to stab him and then some other guys just
grabbed me and stopped me from stabbing him. I tried to stab him because he
tried to put it on me too. I know he did it but it wasn‟t my place to tell. See he did
it all the time and I knew but I never did tell on him.
Although the themes seem straightforward, the inmates described an
interconnected code of behavior. Most of the aforementioned themes including: the need
for retaliation and reputations, abstaining from snitching, and dealing violently with
snitches, stem from the need to prevent future victimization. The accounts in the
following section address how the aforementioned themes assist the prisoners in
preventing future victimization.
Reputation and Preventing Victimization
Most inmates suggested that there was a code of behavior based on respect, and
often, fear and violence. Inmates claimed that building a reputation was achieved by
adhering to the other themes of the convict code. However, when explaining why this
reputation was necessary the inmates cited the power of reputation and respect to prevent
further victimization. When questioned about norms and behavioral codes in prison this
middle-aged African American inmate who had been incarcerated most of his life
39
described the existence of the convict code and the need for a reputation:
Yeah [there is a convict code]. Everybody everywhere expected to act some way.
Here the stakes are a little higher. If you don‟t act right, if you don‟t fit in here,
it‟s life or death. You got to learn to play the system in here. It‟s different in some
prisons. But they all expect you to be hard, and play by the rules. If you don‟t be
hard in this place people will take your life. One way or another, they‟ll get you.
In the following passage, a 50 year old long term prisoner who was looking
forward to an upcoming parole hearing described the need to create a reputation and
demand respect in prison to prevent future victimization:
Yeah, more people demand respect in here than probably out there. Out there you
know you [are] not really in a confined area where you have to deal with people
that you normally wouldn‟t deal with, in society you can avoid, by avoidance you
can, you wouldn‟t have to, but in here sometimes you know, you just have to, you
have to realize the type environment you‟re in; it can be real abusive, wild so to
speak. So a lot of people they‟ll try and demand respect, you know, or maybe try
and get „em a reputation or something, but like I said, the main ingredient to
respect in prison is fear. If they fear you they respect you, “Well I got to worry
about this man chopping my ear off, I believe I‟m gonna think twice about
stealing his little cookies and candies outta his box while he‟s at work or
something.”
The seasoned prisoner went on to describe similar themes about the need for a reputation
based on fear in order to prevent future victimization:
40
Basically like I said, you just doing a survey on respect, the best thing I can tell
you, the only thing that‟s really respected out there is fear. Those are the ones that
really, people you know, they got that little look or feel like [that projects], “I
don‟t believe I wanna mess with him cause that‟s the one who cut ole boys head
off.”
Many inmates suggested that fear and respect were gained through retaliation
against even the most minor forms of disrespect. These notions were centered on the
ultimate goal of preventing future victimization; the inmates believed that their
willingness to retaliate swiftly and viciously to even minor forms of disrespect would
allow them to construct a tough reputation or identity that would lead to reluctance on the
part of other prisoners to target the inmate for some future crime or victimization. Several
inmates described these themes. A younger inmate in his early thirties, who at the time of
the interview had served only a couple years of his first prison sentence, described how
retaliation could protect an inmate from future victimization:
Used to they‟d just, somebody liable to step to you and say, “Hey I like that
watch,” and just, gorilla style, take it. Whatcha gonna do? You gonna try and keep
it cause if not the next day somebody else come wantin‟ your shoes or whatever.
The inmates described several ways that the themes of the convict code could
protect them from future victimization including: becoming self-reliant and inducing
respect and fear in peers to create an image or reputation, and then continuing a cycle of
violence, retaliating harshly to uphold this reputation. The convict code provided several
informal guidelines as to what behaviors merited a response or retaliation from a convict.
41
The following chapter includes accounts that illuminate some of these behaviors deemed
offensive by convicts.
42
FORMS OF DISRESPECT
Given the prisoners‟ aforementioned preoccupation with disrespect, the most
crucial aspect of building a reputation in prison seemed to be retaliation to such
infractions. Therefore, it was imperative to investigate exactly what actions were
considered disrespectful under the convict code. Analysis of these interviews unearthed
several common themes about such forms of disrespect. Every inmate mentioned the
depravity of a multitude of minor acts that would likely be dismissed as simply impolite
by members of mainstream society. The most common forms of disrespect cited were
these acts of rudeness, of which breaking line was introduced repeatedly by the majority
of inmates. However, prisoners described several other rude behaviors that were
considered disrespectful under the convict code. Stealing was also a common form of
disrespect, as were violence, perversion, and often, the simple act of being homosexual.
Another common form of disrespect involved snitching. However, as the inmates‟
accounts previously indicated, snitching was loosely defined and included not only telling
officers of other prisoners‟ behavior but also telling other inmates about the acts of a
fellow prisoner.
Rudeness
One of the key forms of disrespect detailed by the inmates was rude behavior.
Several of the inmates described a general atmosphere of rudeness in the prison. When
43
asked to explain more about this disrespectful behavior the inmates described a variety of
actions that could be considered rude by followers of the convict code. The most
commonly described rude behavior involved cutting line.
Cutting Line
Prisoners have to stand in line for almost every activity in prison, such as getting
food, medication, supplies, and mail. Accordingly, one of the most prominently
introduced topics about rude behavior centered on inmates who break line. The following
excerpts indicate that inmates found cutting in line to be of particular import and
prevalence as a form of disrespect in prison. The sheer number of times that the inmate in
the following excerpt returned to the issue of cutting line upon being asked to describe
other forms of disrespect suggests that he finds this form of rudeness especially
distressing. “I think the main thing is standing in line for things. It‟s just disrespect all
day long; everything from people cutting in line to the way they talk to you.” The same
inmate, upon being asked to describe other forms of disrespect again focused on the
depravity and significance of cutting line in prison:
It‟s a chore each time you go to the pill call line or the chow line or anything else
just to keep your cool because you get dozens cut in front of you. It‟s a constant
thing. It might seem small to somebody not in here, but it gets to be quite a big
thing you know.
However, this preoccupation with line breaking was also exposed during many
other interviews, indicating that this is an extremely prevalent behavior that is considered
particularly disrespectful by many inmates. A middle-aged African American inmate,
44
upon being asked about his opinion of disrespect in prison, described breaking line as the
most constant form of disrespect:
Breaking line when you going to eat. People walk from the end and try to get in
the front. We gonna get the same thing regardless if we first or last. It‟s just a
waste of time. I guess we can go on and on with this here because we spend all
day long in line for something. Any time we want to do something we got to stand
in line and somebody gonna be breaking the rules, breaking line. It happens
constantly. Most of the time that‟s just something people get put in their place for,
get a talking to, but I‟ve seen violence done to somebody for [lesser
transgressions].
Although breaking line was one of the most commonly described rude behaviors, the
inmates also described several more forms of disrespect, the next most common being
disrespecting common and personal space.
Disrespecting Common and Personal Space
According to the inmates, disrespecting common or personal space was carried
out in a variety of ways. In this particular example the inmate mentioned cutting in line
again, supporting the prior claim surrounding this inmate‟s intense feelings about this
form of disrespect. However, in this example he also described several other ways in
which one was often disrespected in prison related to being ill mannered in a way that
threatens others‟ physical spaces. This prisoner declared disrespect of common areas a
primary issue with rudeness in prison, citing being loud and soiling the bathroom as two
ways of being rude in shared areas of the prison:
45
Their answer is, if you say anything to them about cutting in line, well this is
prison I can do this. I can be loud, this is prison. Same thing in the dorms, when
you‟ve got the same crowd that‟s always making a lot of noise and everything, it
doesn‟t matter what you say to „em. Like, I stay in the medical dorm because I‟m
a hemophiliac, I‟m a bleeder, so I‟m in a 58 person medical dorm, which is close
to the hospital, but they have some “catch outs” that they‟ve moved in there, some
mental patients that‟ve been in there and just some younger medical patients.
They have no concern for anything, from not lifting up the seat before they take a
leak to being loud and boisterous though the dorm.
Though behavior in shared spaces was an issue with prisoners, personal space was
also a key source of disagreement that prisoners mentioned often:
I just went through a thing like that. I have a hobby craft card; it costs me fifty
dollars every two or three months, that I have to order product to keep my hobby
craft, plus you have to keep a perfect record; you can‟t get no write-ups or
anything if you want to be on hobby craft. So I‟m in hobby craft part of the room
out there working, and I work industry during the days, so I only have an hour and
a half to two hours at night to work out there. We‟ve got several projects going,
plus I‟ve taken on other jobs from other people to finish for „em and you get
disrespectful people that sometimes they just bang themselves right into the room
and they want to use it for their dope room. There‟s just no respect or they don‟t
care. I always say, “Hey let me get out of here,” and I go stand someplace else for
a while, but you just wouldn‟t have that back in the old days in prison [according
to] talking to some of the older guys. The way I would carry myself, you wouldn‟t
46
think I‟m in to that and somebody that does that has no care about you, if you lose
your hobby craft box, if the officer should bust in right then and you‟re in their
presence of what they‟re doing. That‟s just one small thing that happened tonight.
And today a couple of different times during the pill call line you just stand there
and you want to grab these people up and throw them out of the way; it‟s just, day
after day it‟s that.
Prisoners definitely coveted their privacy, which extended from viciously guarding their
personal space to retaliating for someone who stares too long or gets involved in their
business through gossip or snitching. The next form of disrespect indicates how closely
inmates guard their privacy through the harsh opinions about and responses to a simple
glance or a fleeting look.
Staring
Inmates also described disrespectful behavior as possible to convey through
something so slight as a mere glance. The following account of a middle-aged African
American inmate supports the idea that the convict code can be used to interpret negative
intent through facial expressions and body language, “There‟s a lot of ways you can
disrespect someone in prison. Some people can be just the way you look at them they feel
like you‟re disrespecting them.” Another middle aged Caucasian inmate serving a life
sentence described his view of such negative means of communication:
A guy can just look at you wrong in here and something get started. That‟s how it
is. You don‟t need to say nothing or touch nobody. You can walk down the chow
line and look in somebody‟s eyes too long and they get mad. People in here, they
47
got too much time on they hands, they read into a look or a movement and will
react real quick.
A 44 year old inmate serving a 20 year sentence depicted his disdain for such disrespect
in the next account:
Some guys just look at you wrong. They be staring like they want to say or start
something. When a guy stare at you, he‟s challenging you. He‟s saying he can get
over on you, that‟ he‟s better than you. You can‟t let people disrespect you like
that.
The inmates tended to expect harsh responses to behaviors that would simply be
considered rude by individuals in mainstream society. However, the inmates also
described several forms of disrespect that would be considered much more serious by
inmates and members of the free-world alike, such as stealing, violence, and acts of
perversion.
Stealing
Stealing was also a highly cited form of disrespect. Almost all the inmates had
been stolen from or witnessed the theft of a fellow inmate‟s belongings. Box-breaking
was a common form of theft described by the inmates. This entailed the theft of the
personal contents of an inmate‟s lock-box, which was often the inmates‟ only means of
protecting their belongings. The following accounts illustrate the prisoners‟ thoughts on
theft. A middle aged African American inmate who had served over twenty years of a life
sentence described theft through box-breaking as one of the most prevalent and offensive
forms of disrespect:
48
Well, it‟s just a lot of minor stuff. What the worst thing is, actually, the boxbreaking was at West Jefferson. I got into it with a guy over that. Now the thing
about that is that these people [correctional officers or other prison officials] can
stop that. All they got to do is just get the key locks, but naturally they gonna say,
“Well, we supply the combination locks.” The combination locks, a little lady like
you could kick em off. Anybody could pick em. They easy to pick. They put the
lock back and you don‟t even know it‟s been broke off. All they [prison officials]
got to do is like they do at West Jefferson, they sell key locks in the store instead
of combination locks we got here. We been trying to get this warden here to do
that. Why not do that. It would eliminate a problem man. But since the warden
won‟t help us out it‟s a big problem in here. Box-breaking is a huge problem. It
happens to everybody here.
Another middle-aged African American inmate who had served most of his life in prison
outlined a narrative revealing his disgust with stealing and thieves in prison:
I seen one of the saddest things I seen though at west Jefferson. When I came
through that last time in 97 or 98, there was this old man, he was about
80something years old and I don‟t know what the hell he was doing there. Now
it‟s like bed space more or less; you may not have but a three year sentence but
they may not have a bed for you at one of the lower facilities. He‟ll be alright 90
days, you know, he‟ll get on through the system. There‟s this old man, he‟s like
80 something years old and the ole weddin‟ band was just wore all the way thin
and he‟d had it on for I don‟t know, he told me how many years. I felt bad about
it. I did tell the guy that tricked him outta it, “Man you need to give that ole man‟s
49
ring.” Anyway, he came up to this old man, this black dude did to this old white
man, said, “Look, I fixin‟ to get married in the chapel but I don‟t have a ring.
Could I please borrow your ring to go and get married?” The old man he‟s like,
“Well you know, I‟ve been married 50 60 years. I‟ve had this ring for so long, I
don‟t you know.” You know, “Please?” The old man took the weddin‟ band off
give it to him. A few hours later he‟s running around, “I don‟t know where that
guys at that got my ring.” I mean just stuff like that. I would say that would be
pretty disrespectful. You‟re wanting to know little things, little incidents and stuff,
but, I felt bad for that old man.
Several inmates mentioned many different themes when discussing disrespect.
The following passage suggests that inmates consider a variety of previously mentioned
behaviors disrespectful, such as: stealing, being loud, invading physical space, and the
most commonly mentioned disrespectful behavior, breaking line:
There‟s a lot of ways to disrespect like stealing, taking things from people, being
loud, obnoxious, basically like in the free world. Breaking in front of someone
going to the store or to chow, [it would] be the same thing basically if you was
standing in line at McDonalds [and] somebody just come up and got in front of
you. Wouldn‟t you feel like they was disrespecting you in some type of way,
maybe physical boundaries?
Although many prisoners were plagued by theft, the form of disrespect that seemed
impossible to ignore by all inmates was violence. Many inmates described an
environment beset with violence, possibly provoking the creation or sustaining the use of
the convict code.
50
Violence
Inmates were always expected to respond to disrespect. However, using violence
against another inmate was considered especially disrespectful. Confronting another with
violent behavior was tantamount to challenging that prisoner‟s reputation outright. To
preserve their reputation, prisoners were required to respond harshly to acts of violence
committed against them. A middle aged African American man who had spent most of
his life in prison attested to the violent nature of the prison environment, suggesting that
violence and physical altercations were forms of disrespect that the inmates were
frequently forced to respond to:
This place, like most state institutions, is a lot of mental things that happen, and a
lot of bad interaction because a lot of people here are miserable. They want to
start fights and take out that aggression. Sometimes they do really bad stuff, like
stabbing, cutting. People get these hostilities and resentments and biases and stuff
and sometime they just look for targets. “Well I don‟t like this guy.” I would say,
“Why don‟t you like him?” and he can‟t even tell you. Say why. The reasons be
so minute like, maybe you can remind that person of somebody that they hate, but
if they try to be starting stuff with you, you got to defend yourself. You got to be
prepared.
The following Caucasian 41 year old inmate‟s account served to support the idea that
violence was a key issue in prison. Accordingly, this inmate, who had served 15 years of
a life sentence, described physical provocation or violence as the only form of disrespect
that he considered worthy of retaliation:
51
I like to control my environment around me so if it‟s just something small I deal
with it however. I blow it off, walk off. But like I said, I haven‟t been in anything
since I been here, so hopefully I don‟t get in anything. If it‟s not physical, words
can solve anything. That‟s my opinion. The only thing that you have to deal with
is a fight, violence. In here sometimes you can‟t avoid violence and you got to
take care of yourself, defend yourself. Violence is a way of life in here.
Violence was clearly one of the most prevalent problems that almost all inmates
claimed required some form of response or retaliation. Violence was also mentioned by
inmates in several accounts related to other themes in this research. For example, the next
form of disrespect, which includes displays of perversion and homosexuality, was often
coupled with an account of the inmates‟ desire to generate a violent response to such
disrespect. Although the next form of disrespect was less common, it provoked strong
emotional responses in the inmates who discussed this form of disrespect.
Perversion/Homosexuality
Some inmates described several acts that were considered perverted and thus,
required retaliation if committed in the presence of another prisoner. Many of the
prisoners considered public masturbation and exposing one‟s self to be personally
disrespectful. However, sometimes just the act of being homosexual was considered
disrespectful, even if the prisoner did not publicly exhibit the perverted or homosexual
acts. The following responses to inquiries about disrespect in prison revealed the inmates‟
concern with forms of disrespect associated with sexuality and homosexuality. One 41
52
year old African American inmate who was serving a life sentence described various sex
acts or perversion as prominent forms of disrespect found in prison:
Some of the guys like masturbating right, and they‟ll kind of use you for cover or
wanna use your cell and if you‟re not a part of that, they shouldn‟t try to initiate
you in some form cause some people ain‟t like that. There‟s perverts in here all
over. You got to be looking over your shoulder for that shit. It‟s like that in the
shower too. We have six shower heads and people come in there and you got guys
that, I guess they think they girls or whatever, they might want to masturbate in
the shower while you in there. I be like, “Hey, hold up, let me do what I‟m fixing
to do and I‟m gonna get out of ya‟ll way,” cuz they in a hurry with themselves.
They in a hurry to get in there with their so-called girlfriends.
A Caucasian inmate in his late thirties serving a life sentence also described several acts
of disrespect that he considered to be of a perverted nature such as “gunning someone
down” and committing homosexual acts in his presence:
In prison, they be gunnin down to TVs. What I mean by gunning down is
masturbate, gunnin down to women, and they don‟t care who‟s around when
they‟re doing it. There‟s a guy down there that just come into prison for the first
time, thirty years old but he looks like he‟s eighteen. He‟s got two years. He goes
to the chow hall. He comes down and tells me about this situation he ran into
„cause he needs somebody to talk to. I wasn‟t up there. What he told me is that he
goes and sits down with some new correctional officer sitting at the computer. He
sits down at the table and doesn‟t realize what this other guy‟s doin til he‟s been
sitting there for a minute. This other guy‟s been gunning that female down since
53
he sat there. He tells him, “look here man, don‟t do that with me here at the
table.” The other guy said, “look here, it‟s been years for me, you gonna have to
get on somewhere.” Majority of anybody, if he wasn‟t so green and so young
would have hit him in the face but the guy that was doing it wasn‟t carin. He
come down there and talk to me and I said, “Look, if you wanna go find the guy
and get it straight, well, it‟s a little late for that. If you wanted to get some
straight, your best bet would‟ve been doing it then and getting away with it to
where DOC wasn‟t gonna lock you up. If you had did it then when they come and
got you you coulda explained the situation but now you done come down here and
talked to me and think about goin and getting some straight [retaliation].” I told
him that disrespect‟s a way of life. Pay attention to where you‟re sitting next time.
I bet you‟ll learn that. Next time when you sit down you‟ll pay better attention.
The inmate went on to describe even more instances of disrespect about sexuality and
homosexuality in prison, indicating the depravity these particular forms of disrespect
represented to this inmate:
In prison, I mean out there in the free world there‟s a lot of disrespect too, but
these guys in here really don‟t know the boundaries. There‟s a lot of
homosexuality in prison. When I was down there in the dorm, I was just two beds
over and they were building up a hump. A hump is when they take the top bunk
and fold it over and make it kind of like a canopy, like a tent where you can‟t see
inside. Anyways, they‟re making up a hump and there‟s a homosexual down there
that hadn‟t been down there so a bunch of guys are wantin to do their thing with
the homosexual. They‟re two beds down from me and I‟m sitting here trying to
54
read and I know what‟s goin on. Although I can‟t see, it‟s still disrespectful to me
cuz I know what‟s goin on.
The aforementioned acts that inmates described as perverted and sordid were also
seen as extremely disrespectful. These types of acts were particularly expected to warrant
some type of retaliation because it represented a challenge to an inmate‟s reputation and
his manhood, which could also endanger his life. However, the preceding quotes suggest
that all the forms of disrespect were interpreted as some type of threat to the inmates‟
reputations, hence, their livelihood, and worthy of retaliation as per the code. Considering
the harsh reality of the prison environment and the unforgiving nature of the convict
code, if inmates failed to uphold the tenets of the code, especially those regarding
retaliation and respect, they were required to provide accounts to justify or excuse this
treachery, which could allow them to maintain an image as loyal to the inmate way of life
and prevent them becoming targets for future retaliation or victimization. The following
chapter investigates inmates‟ failure to uphold the tenets of the convict code and their
subsequent accounts.
55
VIOLATING THE CODE: NON-RETALIATION AND SNITCHING
Although almost all the inmates described the existence of a prison behavioral
code, many chose to violate this code. The inmates who violated the convict code often
did so by choosing not to retaliate when disrespected or to snitch on fellow inmates. The
following passages illustrate prisoners‟ failure to honor the inmate code. A first time
inmate in his early thirties serving a life sentence described his refusal to follow the
inmate code of behavior. Upon inquiries about his response to disrespect he stated:
I ain‟t gonna lie, that ain‟t for me. I just let everything go. That‟s over there, I‟m
over here. I‟m gonna continue to know you. I gonna always know you till the day
I die, but as far as putting myself in whatever problem you got, it ain‟t me.
If somebody brings a problem to me, I gotta handle that. I gotta handle that.
That‟s my life in danger, if it go to that, but if it don‟t we‟re not pushing it. We‟re
not pursuing it no further. I confirm it.
A 48 year old inmate with a life sentence admitted to failing to retaliate against snitching
when the interviewer inquired of instances in which someone had snitched or retaliated
against him. He claimed, “Well, they didn‟t really retaliate. They went and told on me.”
The interviewer responded with, “Did you retaliate against the guy that told on you?”
The middle aged prisoner simply stated, “No, I didn‟t.” A 32 year old inmate with a life
without parole sentence claimed that he would not retaliate against disrespect or
56
violations of the code. Upon inquiries about how he would respond to theft of his
personal belongings he replied vehemently:
No, no, not so, I wouldn‟t fight. If something did happen like that, I haven‟t seen
something like that happen, but if something did we‟re not fixing to go fight. Get
together and talk about it instead of, “Let‟s go fight. Let‟s go attack somebody.
Let‟s go kill somebody.” It‟s not that. We gotta move on.
While these inmates chose not to follow one of the most important aspects of the code,
this did not negate the fact that prison norms required the maintenance of a tough
reputation if individuals wanted to avoid victimization and other persecution for their
deviation from prison norms and the convict code. Since the inmates violated these
expectations, they were required to account for their behavior to maintain their identity as
a tough prisoner who should be respected. The next section investigates how the
prisoners accounted and justified their failure to uphold the convict code.
Justifications for Non-Retaliation
Most prisoners in this study justified any behavior that violated the code,
especially failure to retaliate against disrespect. Prisoners were required to respond to
such infractions if they expected to maintain their identity as a tough prisoner who
demands respect. Accordingly, if prisoners failed to respond as per the behavioral code,
they had to employ linguistic devices to justify such behavior to maintain their identity or
reputation and avoid the informal sanctions of their peers associated with breaching the
code of behavior. The most common way inmates explained failure to retaliate relied on
illuminating negative legal, social, and personal consequences associated with following
57
the inmate code of behavior. Another common justification involved minimizing harm
and differentiating between one‟s self and common inmates who follow the code.
Consequences
The most common justification employed by inmates to explain failure to retaliate
against disrespect related to the legal consequences of unlawful behavior. However,
many inmates also mentioned other consequences of retaliatory behavior such as legal,
social, and physical consequences that prevented their adherence to the code. A middle
aged inmate serving his first prison sentence cited legal consequences as justification for
failing to retaliate against disrespectful transgressions:
I fixin to go home. I don‟t care what they do. I kinda put myself over here in a
bubble. I could care less cause anything that could happen, I‟m already in my
mind, “Okay what do I value most here?”
A middle aged prisoner who had spent his entire adult life in prison serving a life without
parole sentence also justified his failure to follow the convict code with the fear of legal
consequences. Upon being asked why he failed to fight a man over a disrespectful action
he said:
It wasn‟t a thing that I‟m afraid; I just didn‟t want to get no deeper in trouble than
I am. I got life without. Next move for me is on death row. I ain‟t trying to go
there. I‟m not gonna go there.
Although legal consequence was the most common justification for nonretaliation, inmates also alluded to the personal and social consequences of following the
convict code. In the subsequent passage, A 50 year old inmate who had served ten years
58
of his sentence described a personal responsibility to his own moral beliefs that surpassed
the code and challenged its tenets. In this passage the inmate justified his lack of response
by claiming that if he were to follow the code he would have to violate his own personal
beliefs:
What‟s preventing me? Knowing the consequences. For every action there‟s a
reaction. There‟s gonna be something. Their ain‟t nothing in this life that‟s free,
you know what I‟m saying. Everything you do, I believe in karma; what you put
on the wheel‟s gonna come back around, so, if I do something even though,
there‟s no right way to do wrong but there‟s more than one way to do things right,
so even if you do me wrong and I do you wrong then I‟m just as wrong as you are
cause I done put this on the wheel. I know it‟s gonna come back around and slap
me in the face one day so I try to, I guess, hell, I don‟t know, that just my
thinking, you know, I don‟t think the way I used to.
A 50 year old inmate who had served 11 years and was coming up for parole soon used
both legal and social consequences as a justification to explain why he chose to violate
the convict code:
Just look at it really rationally, like, “Okay now, the things I value most are what
I‟m gonna seek out, so what am I seeking here, what has more value to me, not
monetary value but my freedom, you know, or even my, when you get your
respect, what do I care more about, what you think about me or my family that‟s
trying to get me outta prison?” So when I get in a situation, I just think it through.
Now it‟s not, I know I got a choice. It ain‟t, it‟s either fight or flight. I‟d rather
flight cause in the long run it‟s gonna be better. I‟m trying to get outta prison.
59
When queried about his reaction to a theft the following middle-aged African
American inmate also justified his failure to uphold the convict code by describing his
apprehension about reaping further legal, social, and physical consequences:
So I found out who it is and I‟m really thinking about doing some damage to this
guy because I didn‟t like him anyway and then he turned out to be a little petty
piece of crap that stole my stuff, broke in my box. It really wasn‟t a whole lot of
stuff but it was stuff that I needed. Stuff that I had, that was mine. But fortunately
for me, one of my close associates was able to kind of talk me out of it, basically
talked some sense into me and tried to stop me from doing anything. A lot of
times you come to the point that if you do some damage to these guys, you really
just hurting yourself. You always on the bad side of the administration anyway,
and they always want to do something to me too. By me being maybe a little bit
older and a little bit wiser, I‟ve learned I don‟t want to give them the opportunity
to blame me for anything. The correctional officers, no matter what happened,
will be like, “Oh yeah, well, you busted this guy in the head. Oh, well, you did
this and you did that so we gonna lock you up for a few years,” cause that‟s what
I know they would like to do. They tell me this all the time. I was fortunate at that
particular time because they talked me out of it. I done got me a life without
sentence, and I had a good woman, good church girl. Unfortunately, I don‟t have
her no more. She not with me no more because you become just a phone call or a
visit. Just a phone call and a visit to a lady friend, you see what I‟m saying. You
lose everything. If I don‟t act right in here I‟ll just lose my chance to ever get out
of here. I probably won‟t anyway but I don‟t want to lose what little freedoms and
60
happiness they let me have in here. I don‟t want to lose the small chance that I
might get out of here one day so I don‟t do that shit no more. I‟m over that.
Some inmates used a variety of justifications within one account. In the following
response to questioning of his choice to not retaliate the same African American inmate
used a combination of justifications: fear of legal consequences, but also superior
maturity levels and validation of a convict image through violent declarations and claims,
less common accounts described in the next section:
Just really maturing and growing older and starting to get all my values and
everything right. Respecting, I used to think differently but other people would
say, “Man why did you do that,” and I‟d say, “Man I wasn‟t thinking.” But then
they‟d tell me, “Yeah you was thinking you just weren‟t thinking of the
consequences or whatever.” But really, you thought about it cause all actions born
in thought, so you thought about it before you did it but now I take time to think
through a situation before I act on it. Just weigh it out, “Hey what mean more to
me right here, my freedom or what you think about me?” A lot of people
somebody might get advantage take on „em and its like, “Man if I was you I‟d do
something to his ass ain‟t no way I‟d let him get away with that.” And they‟d just
go off, but you got to be able to think, “Hey what‟s more important right here,
what he thinks of me or my wife or my son or my daughter or my grandma,
somebody that loves you.” My thinking‟s different. Where I used to not, I didn‟t
really, I thought but I didn‟t think it through, now I‟m older, more mature I think,
“Hey it ain‟t worth all this right here.” But I still, sometimes I entertain those
thoughts. Think it would be easy to just go up and knock him in his head.
61
Although the most common justification involved legal, social, or physical consequences
such as: increased sentences, social isolation, persecution, and other physical barriers to
upholding the code, it was also common for inmates to deny their involvement in the
convict code or suggest their exemption from the sanctions associated with the code
through similar accounts to those of the prior inmate, which are explored more
thoroughly in the next section.
Don’t Believe in the Code/Exempt from the Code
Inmates provided several justifications that suggested that they either did not
follow the code or believe in it. However, when inmates used this justification, they often
felt the need to justify why they chose to violate the convict code. It is in these
justifications that we can infer different degrees or levels of commitment to the convict
code and its tenets. A few inmates remained staunchly loyal to the convict code and were
reluctant to describe situations in which they had failed to follow its constraints,
indicating a total or significant commitment to the code. A middle aged Caucasian inmate
serving a twenty year sentence indicated that there was often no other recourse than
retaliation stating, “You can try dealing with the people, but like I say, that doesn‟t get
you anywhere. Sometimes you just have to do something about it.”
However, most inmates mentioned at least minimal instances of defection from
the principles of the convict code, suggesting a lesser level of commitment. When these
inmates mentioned such instances of disloyalty to the code their words illuminated to
what degree they followed or believed the code. Some inmates‟ confessions were
suggestive of a partial faithfulness to the code. These inmates often admitted to minor or
62
recent behavioral lapses but offset this defection, indicating their violent or callous nature
by describing past violent encounters. These portrayals were often delivered in a flippant
manner, further qualifying the inmates‟ tough image in the face of evidence that the
inmate was unable or unwilling to follow the code. In other words, they claimed to be
exempt from the negative sanctions, such as violence and shaming, that stem from failing
to uphold the convict code because of their past allegiance. A 46 year old African
American inmate who had served over twenty years of a life sentence described several
reasons he chose not to retaliate against disrespect in prison including maturity and
minimization of disrespectful transgressions. However, this inmate also validated his
identity as a reputable convict by describing his former allegiance to the convict code:
Well, I try not to bring anything down on me, but like I say, I‟m not really
following the old convict code „cause I done got a little bit older and a little bit
wiser, and as long as a person don‟t cross the line and put their hands on me I
don‟t do anything to them. Although, I‟ve had some fights. I got into it with a
couple of guys at West Jefferson. I used to do all that fighting and stabbing and
retaliation stuff. I just can‟t do it no more. I‟m too old for it now.
Another middle-aged African American inmate also justified his more recent failure to
uphold the convict code by citing previous faithfulness to the tenets of the code. In this
account, the inmate responded to the interviewer‟s inquiries regarding his history of
retaliation or failing to retaliate:
I sure have [retaliated]. I‟ve fought plenty of times. I‟ve had my fair share of
retaliation and violence. I used to be into all that retaliation bullshit but then I
learned there was a better way. Like I said, if a person knows how to
63
communicate they should be able to deal with whatever comes up. It shouldn‟t
have to be physical. That‟s how I think now but I used to follow all that stuff. I
used to be knocking heads and causing problems, so I was a part of all that. I was
just like all these other young guys running around.
Other inmates indicated a partial or minor commitment to the code by
acknowledging the existence of a code but denying any personal commitment to that
code. Many inmates reinforced this claim with descriptions of an alternate belief system
to which they owed allegiance. This alternate belief system was often described simply as
a higher allegiance to the wellbeing of one‟s self, family members, or religious status.
However, the prisoners also indicated that some therapeutic or cognitive behavioral
programs had helped them to form these alternative beliefs. The following African
American inmate in his thirties who had spent most of his life in prison indicated that he
was aware of the convict code but was personally loyal to an alternate set of beliefs:
It really is up to the individual. Some people may have more to think with than
others and some don‟t. Some, they may not have the coping skills that I‟ve got so
they may not know how to deal with the situation so they fall back on what‟s
expected of them. They only know how to deal with a situation through violence
or physical confrontation. I can be more like y‟all. I can sit here and talk and see
things and look more for my wrong in a situation. I can see, “OK, I could have
helped that. I could have done something different. That was wrong. I didn‟t have
to bust him in his head.” I can see a lot of things now that when I was younger I
couldn‟t. Or I guess I didn‟t care. But now I care. I could tell you some war
stories, but basically, like I said, the best thing I can tell you is the only thing that
64
matters in here to a lot of people is respect, and you get that through fear. Those
are the ones that really, people [think], “I don‟t want to mess with him cause
that‟s the one that cut ole‟ boy‟s head off.”
Conversely, some inmates indicated an even more minor commitment to the
convict code or no commitment at all. For example, upon inquiries of their response to
disrespect, inmates often described the pointlessness of retaliation. These inmates
believed that responding to disrespect violently, as per the code, was a pointless endeavor
because it would not alter their circumstances in any way. These inmates did not believe
the tenets of the inmate code such as those regarding gaining respect through violence.
This is one type of justification that suggests that the prisoners either did not believe in
the fundamental aspects of the prison code or that they simply chose not to follow it.
Either way, the descriptions of these inmates suggest a very low or nonexistent level of
commitment to the code, which is demonstrated in the subsequent passages. In the
following passage an older inmate who had served 16 years of a 25 year sentence
indicates that he does not retaliate because he does not follow the code by describing how
pointless retaliation is:
In [the prison] situation you have to learn to put up with it, and that‟s the hardest
thing I think, is biting your tongue or learning after while this is not going to do
any good saying anything. That you‟re not gonna change it. You‟re not gonna be
able to do anything. Just try to ignore it.
However, a small number of inmates staunchly refused any allegiance to the convict code
or the existence of the code. An inmate in his thirties serving a 20 year sentence voiced
similar claims. Upon inquiries of whether he had ever retaliated against another prisoner
65
he stated, “No. I haven‟t.” He went on to describe why he did not feel the need to
retaliate saying, “There ain‟t no code. There ain‟t no code. I‟m talking about me. No.
They ain‟t no code. That‟s what make me different. I don‟t live by no code.” However,
even this inmate seems torn, first suggesting that there is no code at all and later
indicating that there is a code but denying any personal allegiance to it. This suggests that
although we can infer a degree of commitment to the code by analyzing inmates‟
statements, we cannot be sure that this adequately represents their actual level of
dedication because many inmates are themselves ambivalent about their interpretations
and perceptions of the code.
Another way inmates suggested a very low level of loyalty to the parameters of
the code was to claim that they were exempt from it for various reasons. For example,
upon being asked if they deliberately tried not to disrespect others or become involved in
conflict, prisoners often justified behavior that defies the code by claiming that they were
somehow different from other inmates, and hence, exempt from the parameters of the
convict code. These prisoners often used this justification by describing their superior
intelligence and emotional maturity in comparison to other inmates. A 58 year old inmate
who had been denied parole several times described his superiority to other inmates as a
justification for failing to follow the behavioral code:
Oh, I feel that I‟m very respectful of other people. I don‟t, I just try and leave
everybody alone and let them do their own thing, like I would expect to be, but its
ah, a lot of the younger crowd just doesn‟t ah, then again, they don‟t look back on
the way they were raised or just because.
66
The following middle aged Caucasian inmate also cited emotional or intellectual maturity
as a justification for lack of retaliation:
It really is up to the individual. Some people, you know, this guy may have more
to think with than others, you know. And some they don‟t, they may not have
coping skills that I‟ve got so they may not know how to deal with a situation
except through violence or physical confrontations. Now I can be more like, more
like y‟all and sit here and talk about it and I can see things and I look more for my
wrong in a situation and, “Ok, I could have helped it; I could have done that
situation different. I didn‟t have to, you know, bust him in his head.”
Some prisoners cited superior emotional maturity and intelligence due to participation in
therapy and other rehabilitation programs to excuse them from inclusion in the convict
code. The same inmate went on to describe his relative superiority to other inmates due to
his participation in such programs:
My thought process isn‟t really like somebody that‟s been locked up twenty
somethin‟ years, like “I‟m ready to just kill this some.” My thought process isn‟t
like that but I mean, I‟ve been through classes and stuff down at the therapeutic
community. I lived four years in what you call a real ah, behavior modification
program, so I learned a lot about respect.
Another common justification that involved claims of exemption from the convict
code manifested itself in a comparison of the mental states of prisoners. The following
accounts rely on claims of superior mental health or level of social functioning as a
justification for non-retaliation. A 50 year old inmate who was coming up for parole
stated, “I mean you have all types of people…some other people‟s real paranoid like,
67
„What the hell is he watching me for‟ you know.” The following 32 year old Caucasian
inmate who was serving a life sentence also cited a different mental state than most
inmates as a justification for violating the code of behavior. “You really lose me when
you go talk about disrespecting somebody. I just try and stay to myself, see I‟m in a
different frame of mind than a lot of these dudes in here.”
Minimize Transgression
Another common justification for failure to retaliate against violations to the code
involved minimizing the importance of the transgression. Some inmates minimized
transgression involving disrespect by claiming that the situation did not warrant a
reaction for some reason. These inmates often suggested that the act was not important or
offensive because the code was no longer applicable to most situations. These inmates
also minimized the importance of disrespect by claiming that the code was no longer
necessary due to a change in the prison system leading to a less dangerous retaliatory
environment or less serious regard for the type of disrespect in question. However, many
inmates employed a mixture of these justifications, minimizing transgressions of others
while also using previously described justifications, claiming that they were able to avoid
most forms of disrespect. The following passage of a middle aged man serving life
without parole uses this mixture of justifications:
I‟ve been on both sides, you know, far as I‟ve assaulted people, I‟ve been
assaulted in prison. I‟ve been in fights, prison scraps. Like I said over the years I
done learned that sometimes you just gotta stand your ground, but its changed
over the years. It ain‟t like it was, you know, [it] used to be they‟d just, somebody
68
liable to step to you and say, “Hey I like that watch and just gorilla style, take it.”
And what ya gonna do? You gonna try and keep it, cause if not the next day
somebody else come wantin‟ your shoes or whatever. But I‟m an old man at this
so I really I can‟t really tell you, no off the top of my head any incidents cause,
like I said, I‟ve seen it all over the years. Far as you got a choice, I feel like today
I got a choice. You know I have certain things I do. Like I can see things I can
avoid cause I can see what‟s going on. I know they‟re over there doing their drugs
so I‟m not, I don‟t do drugs so I‟m not gonna be in that area, that way if the police
run in, “Well he seen us, he went and told it.” I don‟t put myself in situations like
that and like I said, I got a choice what I do today.
The following passage also combined the use of two different justifications, minimization
of transgressions and fear of legal consequences. The following passage of a middle aged
African American inmate serving a life sentence used these dual justifications:
Hmm, it‟s been a long time. I can‟t remember. Its back in ah, I got a radio stolen,
like a Walkman radio one time. But I rationalized it with myself and said, “Well if
you hadn‟t left it out…you gotta realize where you‟re at. You left it laying there
for somebody to get it.” And, I walked around for two or three days with a knife
looking for the…This was back in 98 in West Jefferson. It‟s crazy over there. I
was like, “Yeah, I see this dude right here, I‟m a, I‟m fixin‟ to get my shit back,”
but after I walked and thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it,
and then I was talking to my brother on the phone one night and he said, “Man
you‟re all worked up over, how much one of them radios cost?” I said, “Twentytwo dollars.” He said, “Man I‟ll send you twenty-two dollars to get another
69
radio.” Then I got to thinkin‟ about it, “Yeah, you trying to get you another life
sentence.”
The subsequent accounts illustrate the offenders‟ minimization of the importance of code
violations. Another middle-aged African American inmate also minimized the
importance of disrespect and transgressions:
Right off the top of my head I can‟t think of anything cause I kinda go through
daily life in here as like everybody‟s drunk but me, you know what I‟m saying, on
the highway. So in order to avoid a wreck I steer around them, you know what
I‟m saying, so I really don‟t get myself in high-risk situations. Like I told you,
when I came in I‟m up for parole at the end of May. I did eleven years this time.
I‟m a repeat offender, I did like three the first time, five, seven, eleven, I‟ve been
locked up over 20 years of my life, so I pretty well know the ropes about how to
avoid problems.
Never Disrespected
Another justification commonly used by the inmates was similar to minimizing
transgressions; however, these inmates, instead of minimizing the severity or importance
of disrespectful situations, claimed that such situations had never occurred. These
inmates explained their failure to follow the convict code by claiming that they had never
been disrespected in prison. Several inmates repeatedly brought up this theme, suggesting
the importance of this concept as a common justification for failure to follow the convict
code of behavior. A middle aged inmate who was awaiting an upcoming parole hearing
justified his failure to retaliate in this manner:
70
Like I said, I‟m kinda to that point where, you know, it‟s not new to me. I can tell,
“Well they sitting over there smokin‟ the weed or they are over there doing this or
they are over there gambling,” so I know how to stay clear and then I‟ve just seen
it. It‟s not like, like being in society, you got, it‟s going so fast. This is kinda like
I‟m caught in a time warp or something. It‟s the same day in and out routine every
day of my life. Really it hasn‟t changed that much over the last 10 years. I mean,
I‟ve growed emotionally, mentally and all, but as far as just my daily routine so
therefore I kinda know how to just steer around that type of stuff so I don‟t really
get in positions where I‟m being disrespected. And far as respect, I try and respect
everyone; like I said earlier, probably physical boundaries is one of the main
things you don‟t wanna. You don‟t know who you dealing with so I kinda keep
people at bay. I don‟t have a lotta what you call close associates. I‟m not a loner. I
have a few people that I associate with, but not that many because I‟ve just
learned.
The following 46 year old African American inmate who had spent almost 30 years of his
life incarcerated indicated that his own failure to retaliate was justified because he was
never presented with the appropriate provocation for retaliatory behavior:
The point is, see, my daughter sent me a key lock „cause I wear glasses and I have
a hard time reading the numbers, especially at night time, so I got the permission
from the doctor. Since I done had that lock, I don‟t worry about it now. I could go
out of there, go out of that cell and leave my cell wide open and as long as the
stuff is in my box it‟s secure, like Fort Knox.
71
Justification for Snitching
It was far less common for inmates to justify snitching, suggesting that there is a
much higher level of commitment to certain aspects of the code, especially snitching.
This indicates that this aspect of the convict code was more pervasive or enforced more
efficiently. Accordingly, almost no inmates mentioned snitching on other inmates or tried
to justify that it was acceptable to snitch on other inmates. Only a couple inmates implied
that they would ever be willing to snitch on a fellow inmate and very few inmates
actually admitted to snitching outright. One of the only inmates who divulged such
behavior, a Caucasian inmate in his thirties, described his decision to snitch on fellow
inmates for homosexual behavior as related to his personal responsibilities and beliefs:
I‟m a part of this environment, this program down here where I‟m supposed to be
a role model. If something‟s going on like that that‟s wrong, I should confront it.
So, I did that. I told on them because it was my duty and it was wrong, what they
were doing.
Although it was uncommon for inmates to admit snitching, some inmates did
discuss the behavior and openly admitted to such code violations. When inmates did
admit to snitching they were forced to account for their behavior to maintain their image
as an inmate loyal to the most important aspects of the convict code and avoid negative
sanctions and punishment from fellow inmates.
However, the inmates that did admit to snitching provided a few different
justifications and explanations for their failure to uphold the convict code including
minimization of harm, denial of the code, allegiance to a higher loyalty, and claiming to
have undergone punishment for the behavior.
72
Minimization
These inmates accounted for their violation of the code by using a common
justification used in the accounts of prisoners who chose not to retaliate, minimization.
However, in justifying non-retaliation, the inmates minimize the transgressions of others,
but inmates who justify snitching minimize their own behavior. One of the few inmates
that justified snitching did so by minimizing the behavior, claiming that snitching was no
longer against the inmates‟ convict code. The middle-aged African American inmate who
had served most of his life in prison described the erosion of this aspect of the convict
code, which resulted in the decline of inmates‟ traditional punishment for snitching and
the rise in popularity and acceptability of the practice with the inmate population.
Therefore, this inmate used his account not only to justify the acceptable nature of his
behavior but to absolve himself of any guilt that would require retaliation:
I got robbed a few times. Once, somebody broke in my box. I went in the cell and
that‟s when I found out. I was in the law library when it happened. I always spent
a lot of time in the law library. At first I didn‟t know who it was but you can
always find out stuff in prison. Somebody is always on the block. With about a
hundred or so guys talking about everything, somebody saw something. It was
just a matter of finding the right person to talk to and you gonna find whatever.
Talking about people‟s business ain‟t no thing now. Everybody does it. They
don‟t nothing come behind telling who stole what or telling on other prisoners to
the officers. Nobody does anything about it anymore.
Another inmate also minimized snitching by claiming that it was no longer considered a
violation of the prison code of behavior. The following Caucasian 48 year old convicted
73
murderer who was serving two life sentences without possibility of parole suggested that
snitching was no longer such a taboo behavior:
Snitching is common. They just accept that now. When I first came they used to
kill guys about it but now they just accept it. They think that that‟s the way to do
it, so don‟t be anything behind it.
Although some inmates admitted to snitching, it was more common for inmates to
provide accounts describing behavior indirectly related to snitching, i.e., telling other
inmates who stole their belongings. These accounts also used minimization excuses
suggesting that they did not actually snitch because they never went to the correctional
officers with the information. However, even in these situations the inmates were
reluctant to get involved in the business of other inmates, as the next account suggests.
The following inmate who was serving a 20 year sentence justified his behavior in this
manner following questions about snitching:
Yeah, just the other day there‟s a guy that sleeps a couple beds down from me.
We‟re standing up here by the store and he‟d just bought some stuff. The door
was locked and we couldn‟t get through so another guy come up and said, “Hey
don‟t you live in so and so?”Dude said, “Yeah, I just moved in there.” [The other
inmate said,] “How about letting me get a bag of coffee and cigarettes till I come
down there and I‟ll give it to you?” And the guy don‟t even live down there and
the little boy‟s just give him his stuff. And what are you to do? It ain‟t my
business. My mother used to tell me when I was younger, “You let them ole boys
fight their own fights, you don‟t be getting involved,” and so, if I had the
opportunity without what ya‟ll calling disrespecting this dude, even though he‟s
74
trying to take this younger guys stuff that don‟t know no better, instead to
stepping up and saying, “Hey that ain‟t nothin‟ but game there,” he gonna‟ learn
on his own, but if I had the opportunity without starting anything, no disrespect, I
would try to help little dude get his stuff back.
The aforementioned justifications indicate that there are competing forms of the
convict code. As Anderson (1999) claims, the fluid or indistinct nature of the tenets of the
street code often lead to conflict due to misinterpretation of its ideas. The findings of the
present study suggest that the vague nature of the similar convict code might also lead to
misinterpretation of the tenets, and therefore, a number of competing codes come to exist.
In addition, it seems that some inmates employ a subjective interpretation of the code,
applying or denying it to situations to gain the maximum benefit or personal gain. This
might be a contributing factor in the low levels of commitment regarding retaliation and
the high levels of commitment surrounding snitching.
Consequence/Personal Responsibilities
Another justification for snitching was derived from an interview with a
Caucasian inmate serving a life sentence. Unlike the former inmate, this inmate
acknowledged that snitching was strongly criticized by the majority of his peers and
recognized the shame imposed by other inmates for this violation of the convict code.
However, the inmate accounts for his behavior by claiming higher allegiance to
alternative personal beliefs that defy this aspect of the code, justifying his actions.
As described in the retaliation justifications, these inmates indicated a partial
commitment to the convict code. However, this finding also illuminates the competing
75
codes inherent within the prison system. The findings of the current study suggest that
not only are inmates forced to interpret a vague subcultural belief system, but they are
also required to choose between these competing subcultural codes and the conventional
belief system. However, many inmates chose to follow tenets from each of the competing
belief systems, indicating only a partial belief in the convict code. In this way the inmate
does not entirely refute the convict code and is able to protect himself and his image by
maintaining his overall loyalty to the inmate way of life. However, he also accounts for
his behavior by describing how he suffered after he snitched on the other inmates,
indicating that he has been appropriately punished and hence, excused for his failure to
uphold the convict code:
I‟m a part of this environment, this program down here where I‟m supposed to be
a role model. If something‟s going on like that that‟s wrong, I should confront it.
So, I did that. They didn‟t like it. I got a lot of heat behind it. I didn‟t get in a
fight. I got a lot of heat behind it, like I was the police, and all for confronting
something wrong that happened. In my younger days, that would have bothered
me, calling me the police or saying I‟m doing the DOCs job, but as I‟ve gotten
older I realized I did the right thing. It doesn‟t affect me „cause I‟m alright with
who I am now. Those are just labels that people put on you. But, yeah, I had a lot
of fear after it at first. It could have been real bad, but I did what was right. A lot
of these guys, and I believe a lot of guys in prison and in the free world probably
as well, are dealing with shame issues from doing things like that that are the right
thing to do. That‟s what I suffer from, years of toxic shame, and I didn‟t even
know what that was. I do today. I realize that the toxic shame that I‟ve suffered
76
from was my big downfall and spirituality, not having a relationship with God.
That was my big downfall and I believe a lot of these guys suffer from the same
thing and they don‟t even have an idea.
77
DISCUSSION
Topalli‟s (2005) study of active street criminals suggested that aspects of
Anderson‟s (1994 & 1999) street code such as weakness, violence, and retaliation were a
large aspect of the criminal‟s lives. According to these criminals, weakness was scorned
and quickly taken advantage of in the street atmosphere. Therefore, it was very important
for the “hardcore” criminals to show no weaknesses (Topalli, 2005, p.809). The offenders
could further ensure that they were not considered weak and sought after as potential
victims by obtaining a reputation as a tough individual who is vicious and self-reliant.
The individuals were able to gain such a reputation by following the edicts of the street
code, being violent, responding harshly even to minor disrespect, and being self-reliant,
which often manifested itself as abstaining from snitching.
The present study has several similarities to the findings of Topalli, but also
expands the scope of the research by applying it to prisoners. As in Topalli‟s research, the
majority of participants in the present study spoke of the existence of a prison code of
behavior, whether those participants believed in following the code or not. Although, the
prisoners described several variations of the accepted code of behavior, several themes
remained constant in almost every description: avoiding victimization, defending one‟s
reputation, responding to disrespect, becoming self-reliant, and abstaining from snitching.
When describing how and why a prisoner must defend his reputation, become
self-reliant, or why he must refrain from snitching, the participants in the present study
often cited preventing victimization and responding to disrespect. As Anderson (1994 &
78
1999) suggested and Topalli (2005) discovered in his study, because one must obtain a
tough reputation to deter future victimization, building and defending a reputation
frequently involved retaliating harshly to even minor forms of disrespect. Extremely
disproportionately violent means of retaliation were often described by the prisoners. One
man described trying to stab another inmate over some chicken at lunch. Taking care of
one‟s self and becoming self-reliant was also repeatedly described. As Anderson
predicted and Topalli‟s street criminals indicated, the prisoners were reluctant to go to
formal avenues of assistance when victimized. They were expected to defend themselves,
learning how to respond to each type of disrespect, and keep their mouths shut. Both
Topalli‟s and the present study‟s findings support the idea that street criminals and
prisoners follow a code of behavior similar to that described by Anderson.
However, although street offenders and prisoners adhere to this unconventional
code of ethics, either circumstances or lack of will often leads them to fail to honor this
behavioral code. It is in these situations, in which individuals fail to commit deviant
behavior proscribed by the code, that the offenders are required to account for their
behavior to their peers. According to Scott and Lyman (1968) individuals are required to
account for their behavior in situations where there is risk of judgment by one‟s peers.
However, Scott and Lyman only refer to violation of conventional beliefs. According to
Topalli (2005), individuals who maintain a subcultural set of beliefs must also justify any
behavior that defies such beliefs if they want to maintain their identity and avoid
persecution from fellow offenders. As Topalli found with his street criminals, prisoners in
the current study who failed to follow this behavioral code all justified their behavior.
Topalli chose to focus on such justifications, examining the accounts of street criminals
79
when questioned about instances in which they showed mercy or chose to snitch on a
fellow criminal. The current study expands the research by Scott and Lyman and Topalli
by focusing on similar justifications provided by inmates.
Topalli (2005) deemed that the criminals often fail to retaliate either because they
are unwilling or unable to get revenge. Likewise, the present study found that prisoners
were often physically unable to enact their revenge or simply unwilling. However, as
Topalli suggested, the inmates must justify behavior that violates the inmate behavior
code if they wish to retain their protective reputations. Accordingly, Topalli found several
common explanations for failing to retaliate among the street criminal similar to those
described by the prisoners in the present study. According to Topalli, street criminals
often claimed that they failed to retaliate because they were physically prevented from it.
Some prisoners also expressed that they were prevented from retaliation because of the
intervention of their friends or the restraints of the prison environment. Topalli (2005)
also described justifications in which street criminals cast off guilt and accountability for
failing to retaliate by denying the seriousness of the original offense. This was quite
common with prisoners in the present study as well. It was common for prisoners to
minimize transgressions or deny that they had ever been disrespected at all. This
justification is similar to Sykes and Matza‟s (1957) neutralization, denial of injury and
minimization.
However, while Topalli (2005) found that the most common justifications for
non-retaliation were often related to showing mercy to family or friends, the present
study found that the most common justification for prisoners involved highlighting the
legal and social consequences. However, both of these themes are similar to Sykes and
80
Matza‟s (1957) appeal to higher loyalties. The present study discovered similar
justifications that were not directly described by Topalli‟s participants. Many of the
prisoners described a loyalty to a completely different set of beliefs than the inmate code.
According to these inmates, it was not important to maintain a violent destructive
reputation. However, the previously described justifications are all similar to Sykes and
Matza‟s (1957) appeal to higher loyalties, in which the individual claims a higher
allegiance to explain his or her deviant behavior.
As in the present study, Topalli (2005) also examined justifications for snitching,
a behavior that is strongly criticized by the code. According to Topalli, street offenders
were particularly obsessed with snitching. Abstaining from snitching was reinforced by
the belief that snitching was the ultimate form of disrespect, and hence, would incur a
particularly harsh response from other members of the street culture. Therefore, it was
particularly important for street criminals to justify snitching. While Topalli found a
variety of justifications for snitching, it seemed so taboo in the prison environment that
most inmates would not admit to snitching behavior themselves, though many deplored
the state of the prison because of the frequency of snitching in prisons today. Perhaps this
is due to the fact that prisoners have a heightened risk of victimization, which is
compounded if they so heinously violate the code. However, with both street criminals
and inmates, snitching related back to defending one‟s reputation, taking care of one‟s
self, and ultimately the prevention of victimization.
Topalli described many justifications for snitching, the most common being
justification techniques that redefine the snitching act as aligned with the street code. The
inmates also provided justifications for snitching that redefined the behavior as honoring
81
the convict code. According to Topalli, many street criminals denied that their behavior
was actually snitching because they gave the cops misleading information, which actually
undermined and harmed investigations by police. The street criminals also redefined
snitching by denying the victims status of the person they had snitched on. This is also
similar to Sykes and Matza‟s (1957) denial of victim. The street criminals also redefined
the behavior by claiming that the cops beat the information out of them, which focuses on
the individual‟s bravery while highlighting the cops‟ inappropriate, but expected,
behavior. Redefining snitching as aligned with the code was also established by
claiming that snitching was a form of street justice. These criminals defined snitching as
a way to victimize a targeted member of the street culture. Similar to Topalli‟s street
criminals, the inmates in the present study redefined their behavior as honoring the
convict code by claiming that the information they spoke to correctional officers about
did not qualify as snitching. The inmates also claimed that going to the officer for help in
some instances should not be considered snitching. The street criminals and inmates in
both studies also justified snitching by claiming allegiance to higher loyalties, similar to
Sykes and Matza‟s (1957) neutralization. In both studies the participants claimed that
they chose to snitch because of the involvement of a friend or family member.
Inmates also provided justifications for snitching that were different than those
provided by Topalli‟s street criminals. Although it was far less common for inmates to
admit to snitching or justify such behavior, the primary justification of snitching involved
a denial of the behavioral code. These inmates, similar to Sykes and Matza‟s (1957)
appeal to higher loyalties, often claimed that they were more loyal to another person or
belief set than the prison code of behavior. Similar to Sykes and Matza‟s (1957) denial of
82
injury, some inmates claimed that snitching was not wrong because it was no longer
prohibited by the behavioral code. Some inmates did not justify snitching, but instead
justified failing to retaliate against snitching. These inmates used similar explanations to
those previously described such as denial of injury (e.g. it‟s no longer against the code)
and appeal to higher loyalties (e.g. the snitch was a friend). However, it was less common
for inmates to justify snitching in any form.
Both the current study and Topalli‟s (2005) study found parallels to Scott and
Lyman‟s (1968) description of accounts. When explaining why the offenders chose not to
retaliate or to snitch, both studies recorded the use of excuses and justifications.
Justifications, which involve denying the immorality of the act but admitting the
commission of the act itself, can be observed in the current study when the prisoners
described failing to retaliate or snitching, while simultaneously denying that they had
violated the code. For example, many street members and inmates admitted to snitching
but attempted to redefine the code to qualify their behavior as in line with its parameters.
Both studies also indicate that street members and inmates both use excuses to explain
their behavior. In these instances, the street members and inmates would accept that their
act was in violation of the code but deny their own culpability. This was often
accomplished by minimizing their own behavior, citing that it was not worthy of reaction
by peers.
However, the present study suggests that the constraints inherent in the prison
system affect the salience of the convict code. Excuses were prevalent in the prison
environment largely due to the added constraints that could limit such behavior. As Scott
and Lyman (1968) suggest, the social context in which the account is made affects the
83
believability and suitability of the linguistic device used. For example, in the prison
environment, it is very likely that the inmates will be observed by correctional officers
while committing the violent behavior required by the code but proscribed by prison
regulations. Therefore, other prisoners are likely to accept or believe that a fellow inmate
was physically prevented from carrying out intentions that align with the code.
Accordingly, the prison environment affects what types of excuses and justifications are
used by inmates.
The prison environment was also found to affect the level of commitment to the
code. The present study indicated varying levels of devotion to the convict code by
prisoners. Some prisoners indicated that they were staunchly dedicated to the code, while
others admitted to only a partial or very low commitment level. The consequences of
following the code in a prison environment are not only more likely to occur, but also
seem more severe due to the prisoners‟ state of confinement. Because the prisoners long
to be a part of the “free world” many who are either new to the prison environment or are
close to their release date are probably more likely to follow a conventional belief set. In
this way, the prison environment also constrains the likelihood that prisoners will accept
the subcultural belief system. The presence of rehabilitative programs that emphasize the
importance of mainstream beliefs coupled with the strong incentive to accept the
conventional belief system also play into the relatively high rate of defection from the
convict code compared to members of the street code.
However, the fluid nature of subcultural belief systems described by Anderson
(1994 & 1999) is observed in the present study and probably affects the rate at which the
prisoners accepted and defected from the convict code as well. Because the tenets of the
84
code are not absolute or clearly defined, the prisoners are allowed to adapt the ideals of
the code to achieve the greatest personal benefit. In the present study, this often involved
the arbitrary selection of beliefs and partial commitment to conflicting forms of the
convict code as well as the conventional beliefs system. While some of the members of
the street code described by Topalli (2005) did admit to violating the code, almost all of
the prisoners in the current study discussed failing to retaliate. Perhaps this is due to the
prison environment and the presence of so many conflicting belief sets.
Although the justifications provided by the inmates were similar to those
described by Sykes and Matza (1957), the inmates did not seem to justify their behavior
in an attempt to continue such behavior while remaining loyal to their belief set, as
believed by these authors. Instead, the inmates appeared to justify their behavior in an
attempt to maintain their identities and avoid persecution by other inmates, which is in
line with Scott and Lyman‟s (1968) account theory. According to Scott and Lyman
(1968), individuals must justify behavior that defies their belief set, especially when at
risk of inquiries by their peers. Similarly, Anderson (1994) believes that individuals who
follow the street code, which is similar to the prison behavioral code described in the
present research, must present a certain image if they wish to avoid being targeted as a
weak, easy mark. The inmates described this phenomena, claiming that presenting a
tough image and being self-reliant would assist them in protecting themselves from future
victimization. Scott and Lyman (1968) also hold that individuals must tailor their
justifications according to their social positions. The present research supports this idea in
that the inmates provided much different justifications than those described by
85
mainstream members of society in the aforementioned literature. The present research
validates the tenets of Scott and Lyman (1968) and Anderson (1994).
The current study provides support for the theories of Anderson, Scott and
Lyman, and Topalli. The prison behavioral code described by the inmates was very
similar to the street code described by Anderson. The accounts of the inmates were also
in line with themes described by Scott and Lyman and Anderson. However, the current
study provides an important addition to the body of research in that it focuses on an
inactive population of inmates rather than the active street offenders that most code of the
streets research focuses on. The current study is also important in that it adds to the
limited amount of research regarding the accounts and neutralizations of members of
subcultural groups. Topalli remains one of the only researchers to focus on this aspect of
neutralizations and accounts. Therefore, the present findings provide valuable insight
into the behavior and thought processes of inmates.
86
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. (1994). Code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly, 273(5): 81-94.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the
inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.
Bograd, M. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic
violence: Excuses, justifications, or explanations? In G.T. hoteling, D. Finkelhor,
J.T. Kirkpatrick, & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research
and policy perspectives. (p60-77). Newburyport Park, CA: Sage.
Brunson, R. K., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). Young African-American women, the street
code, and violence: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 29(1),
1-19.
Butler, M., & Maruna, S. (2009). The Impact of Disrespect on Prisoners‟ Aggression:
Outcomes of Experimentally Inducing Violence-Supportive Cognitions.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 235-250.
DeLong R., Durkin, K., & Hundersmarck, S. (2010). An exploratory analysis of the
cognitive distortions of a sample of men arrested in internet sex stings. Journal of
Sexual Aggression, 1(16):59 – 70.
DeSantis, A. D., & Hane, A. (2010). “Adderall is definitely not a drug”: Justifications for
the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance Use & Misuse.
87
REFERENCES
Garot, R. (2009). Reconsidering retaliation: Structural inhibitions, emotive dissonance,
and the acceptance of ambivalence among inner-city young men. Ethnography
10(1):63-90.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Jacobs, B.A. (2004). A typology of street criminal retaliation. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency. 41: 295-323.
Klenowski, P.M., Copes, H., & Mullins, C.W. (2010). Gender, identity, and accounts:
How white collar offenders do gender when making sense of their crimes. Justice
Quarterly. 1(46): 46-69.
Morris, R. (2010). “Snitches end up in ditches‟ and other cautionary tales. Journal of
contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3): 254-274.
Scott, M.B., and Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review. 33:46–62.
Scully, D. & Marolla, J. (1984). Convicted rapists‟ vocabulary of motive: Excuses and
justifications. Social Problems. 31: 530-544.
Shinebourne, P. & Smith, J. A. (2010). The communicative power of metaphors: An
analysis and interpretation of metaphors in accounts of the experience of
addiction. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 83:
59-73.
Sykes, G., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. American Sociological
Review. 22:664–70.
88
REFERENCES
Topalli, V. (2005). When being good is bad: An expansion of neutralization theory.
Criminology. 43: 797-836.
Topalli, V., Wright, R. and Fornango, R. (2002). Drug dealers, robbery, and retaliation:
Vulnerability, deterrence, and the contagion of violence. The British Journal of
Criminology. 42: 337–351.
Wright, R., Brookman, F., and Bennett, T (2006). The foreground dynamics of street
robbery in Britain. British Journal of Criminology. 46: 1-15.
89
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL FORM
90
APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL FORM (Ctd.)
91