Blog 17 Lockup- Inside North Carolina Women's Prison

My initial reaction to the video Lockup-Inside North Carolina Women’s Prison, was honestly loathing for the American prison system. It was shocking to hear about inmates kept in segregation and confined in eight by eight foot cells for twenty-three hours a day. It seemed so unjust to only be allowed two 15 minute showers per week along with one roll of toilet paper. Rationing toilet paper seemed almost as bad as having to work for only 40 cents a day.

Then the reality of the situation set in for me when I heard an interesting comment from the woman who used to be an officer but was imprisoned for killing her husband. She explained that the sympathy I felt for those inmates was based on a common misinterpretation of womanhood. People view woman inmates as being provoked into breaking the law; either in self defense because they were abused or for stealing because they couldn’t feed their kids. She aptly states that women commit crimes without reason just like men do. She goes on to say that she intentionally killed her husband and tried to make it look like a suicide. I can’t believe I fell for the paradox of white femininity with all my background in justice and psychology.

The differences between the North Carolina prison documentary and the Britton readings concern the aspects of working with inmates that can potentially form bonds. A woman in the documentary described lesbianism behind bars as a way to survive in a rough. One couple described how they came together to help each other financially though lending loans to other inmates. Others discussed how fellow “bull-diggers” help each other by playing 10-4 and keep a look out when other women want to have a private moment with their lady.

The correction officers discuss how these bonds can potentially become a security issue and detrimental not only to individual but to the community at large. She says the inmates end up in prison because they made bad choices out in the real world. Women start making bad choices within prisons when they make their partner more important than their own fate. This kind of interaction with inmates was not discussed at all in the text.

The similarities between the officers in the documentary and the officers in the text were that they both had the same perception of inmates as being human regardless of their past actions. The officer who gets her hair done as cosmo feels that she is not taking a risk by letting an inmate do her hair. She feels that she could run the risk of being attacked with shears, for example, by any other stylist outside the prison. Her stylist just happens to be serving time, but she is still human.

Building relationships with the inmates present dangers for prison officers. First, if they become too close a sexual relationship may take place and this puts their careers on the line. Second, officers can be coerced or blackmailed into bringing in contraband. Third, they put themselves emotionally at risk because if they get too attached, the officer will suffer when the inmate suffers. To balance social distance and just treatment, an officer must always keep in mind the differences between officers and inmates. This will also help them make sense of and properly address bad behavior and also it will keep them from sympathizing and having empathy for them when they show goodwill.

Prison officers who build relationships with inmates place themselves of danger of getting black-mailed and fired. One inmate said that before she began to be a “loan shark” to other inmates, she would hustle the weak staff for money by seducing them and then threatening to tell about their relations. To avoid these dangers the male officer makes it clear that “he’s there to set standards” not to be their friends to avoid any problems.

The essentialized assumptions that officers in the documentary felt came down to the notion of “guilty until proven innocent” in my opinion. Officers generally follow the rules by the book and enforce them accordingly as to avoid bringing problems on themselves. One officer says, “I give them a change to explain first” which implies that they have already done something wrong. For example the girl with the “ketchup contraband” gets called out and it seems like she’s exaggerating she has to do her job based on her gut and her assumptions. The male officer also adopts the essentialized assumption that all inmates are possible threats to him because he also follows and enforces the rules, especially when going into the dormitories, to avoid getting accused alleged misconduct.

African American and Latino officers face different issues than their white coworkers. The prison system is disproportionately filled with people of color and this puts officers in a difficult position of having to side with the system that is oppressing their people. They deal with this issue by learning to speak “language of the overseer”. This requires officers’ of color to demonstrate their loyalty to their white co-workers and supervisors by disengaging and un-identifying with other inmates of color. Officers do this to assure the “overseer”, the supervisors and managers, that they do not sympathize with them or feel that they are locked up unjustly.

The male and female officers in the text had similar perceptions of inmates. The first is the understanding that although they have done wrong, they are still human. The second perception is that inmates are too privileged within the prison systems. One officer jokes than when she retires she wants to rob a bank and go to jail so the federal government can pay for her housing, food, utilities and cable. Other perceptions that they had were based on the media’s sensationalized portrayals of prisons and the genuine realities of working behind bars. Officers and the general population perceive prison life as a violent and gender-stereotyped environment. They imagined brawls and riots would be the norm and aggressive, power-hungry male guards would have to step in to control predatory lesbians along with other scum. They found that the realities of working with inmates are quite the opposite; some women even describe their work like baby-sitting adults.

The humanistic attitude toward inmates tends to objectify or infantilize them for several reasons. If an officer shows a humanistic attitude of being a positive role model and encourages open communication, this creates a parent-child relationship that ends up infantilizing them. Another humanistic attitude that officers show is the need to maintain order to protect inmates and themselves. The act of restraining inmates makes officers view them as animals that need to be controlled, which objectifies them.

The first form of social control was punishment though solitary confinement. The were kept in eight by eight cells for twenty three hours a day and were only allowed out for 45 minutes to “exercise” while shackled at the wrists and ankles in the outdoor “K-9 cages”, as one inmate describes them. Other less severe forms of social control were various degrees of punishments and “mini-trials” for misbehaving which acted as a deterrent for future violence. Inmates not in solitary confinement were allowed to socialize in the yard, under close supervision of course because here was where loans were repaid and friends and lovers convened. Another for of social control was the implementation of maternity, education and vocational services available in order inmates to stay healthy: physically, mentally and financially.