Regulating prison life: a case study of the inmate disciplinary system

In "Limits of the Law (Introduction)", the editors identify and outline four functions of the law: the regulatory function; the symbolic representation of the norms and values of a group of people (or, broader, of society); the dispute resolution function (i.e. the law as a way to solve disputes); and the legal protection of citizens2. These functions are in constant interaction with each other, thereby calibrating one another and bringing forth new accentuations and shifting equilibriums. On top of that, each function is constituted of different factors and/or vectors, giving individual direction and weight to the particular function. Amidst this complexity, I set out on the modest task of limiting the discussion to one function of the law, namely its regulatory function. This boils down to society's expectations vis'-vis the law; that is, how the law serves to regulate social relations. In the light of a number of societal developments, the authors of the first chapter write: [l]atemodern societies [...] are in a need of both flexible and far reaching regulation; flexible, because the progressive dynamics of our society cannot be paralysed, and far-reaching, "because at the same time the fundamental problems and challenges of our risk society have to be addressed". On this view, the law emerges as a panacea for societal problems. Although the authors immediately add that" for one reason or another, the far"reaching regulatory expectations regarding law cannot be fully met"3, what can be derived is that the law enjoys high"flung expectations. Such expectations of the law seem to flow from, or at least evidence, an imperative conception of law: the law as an imperative for what can and should be done, how and by whom. This understanding of the law implies a top-down perspective. Rules, regulations, and by extension, policies, are being voted on, enacted and implemented and social actors, be they institutions or individuals, should conform their actions to the rules, regulations, and policies put in place. A logical consequence of such a hierarchical conception law4. In this chapter, I will assess these high set expectations in a particular example. One aspect of the Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) will be looked at: the inmate disciplinary system in place in federal correctional institutions. In the last few years, CSC has embraced a relatively new corporate management strategy where controls on officials' actions are directed through strict adherence to policy (in a broad sense, comprising rules, regulations and organisational policy): "100 % compliance with 100 % of the policies 100 % of the time"5. This indicates a high belief in the rules, regulations, and policies in place, thereby offering evidence of the above mentioned high expectations. Such a position, if applied to the inmate disciplinary system, would result in a disciplinary reaction to any type of behaviour identified as constituting a disciplinary infraction. Rule-enforcers in this particular setting, in first instance correctional officers ('COs'), accordingly are expected to operate in full compliance with the laws governing the prison system. In this chapter, I will look at the ways in which correctional officers enforce the formal disciplinary regulations. Research data collected during an exploratory study of the disciplinary process in a Canadian medium'security prison, Mission Institution, will be presented6. First, the formal disciplinary rules in force in federal Canadian prisons (and, more concretely, in Mission Institution) will be outlined (section 2). Subsequently, I will draw attention to prisons as a social setting with particular characteristics (section 3). In order to assess the imperative, hierarchical conception of the law, I will then introduce research data on the functioning and use of the inmate disciplinary system (section 4). © 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

ISBN:9783540798552

Jaar van publicatie:2009