Advertisement

Truth in Sentencing and Prison Infractions

  • James J. Collins
  • Donna L. Spencer
  • George H. Dunteman
  • Peter H. Siegel
Chapter

Abstract

Marvin E. Wolfgang was at the cutting edge of the major criminological issues of the day over his entire career. In 1961, he published an article titled “Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the Prison Community” (Wolfgang, 1961). The research reported in the article followed a sample of the homicide offenders he studied in his seminal Patterns in Criminal Homicide during their imprisonment (Wolfgang, 1958). During the period from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the study of prison organization and culture, and the responses of inmates to prison, were major foci for criminologists. Major criminological thinkers of the time, such as Richard Cloward, Donald Cressey, Lloyd McCorkle, Lloyd Ohlin, Gresham Sykes, and Stanton Wheeler, were studying American prisons and inmates’ responses to prison. Characteristically, Marvin Wolfgang focused his attention on the topic as well and brought a quantitative research perspective to bear on it. His 1961 article is a quantitative study of the correlates of adjustment to prison that broke new conceptual and empirical ground in its development of a multidimensional prison adjustment index. Specific findings are discussed below.

Keywords

Infraction Rate Research Triangle Institute Crime Category Structure Sentencing Homicide Offender 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan E. Martin, and Michael H. Tonry (eds.). (1983). Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, Barry S. and John D. Spevacek. (1971). “Disciplinary Offenses and Offenders at Two Differing Correctional Institutions.” Correctional Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 17: 48–56.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, James J., Donna L. Spencer, George H. Dunteman, Harlene C. Gogan, Peter H. Siegel, Brad A. Lessler, Kenneth Parker, and Thomas Sutton. (1999). Evaluation of North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Law: Final Report. National Institute of Justice Grant No. 96-CE-VX-0013; RTI/6780–006. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Craddock, Amy. (1996). “A Comparative Study of Male and Female Prison Misconduct Careers.” The Prison Journal 76 (I): 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekland-Olson, Sheldon, Dennis M. Barrick, and Lawrence E. Cohen. (1983). “Prison Overcrowding and Disciplinary Problems: An Analysis of the Texas Prison System.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19: 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis, Desmond. (1984). “Crowding and Prison Violence: Integration of Research and Theory.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 11: 277–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, Desmond, Harold G. Grasmick, and Bernard Gilman. (1974). “Violence in Prisons: A Sociological Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 80 (1): 16–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagan, Timothy J. (1983). “Correlates of Institutional Misconduct among State Prisoners: A Research Note.” Criminology 21 (1): 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goetting, Ann and Roy M. Howsen. (1986). “Correlations of Prisoner Misconduct” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2 (1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacKenzie, Doris L. (1987). “Age and Adjustment to Prison: Interactions with Attitudes and Anxiety.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 14: 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Memory, J.M., G. Guo, Kenneth Parker, Thomas Sutton, D. Thompson, J. Klapovic, and K. Herrin. (1998). Comparing Disciplinary Infraction Rates of North Carolina Fair Sentencing and Structured Sentencing Inmates: A Natural Experiment. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of the Governor’s Crime Commission.Google Scholar
  12. North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. (1996a). A Citizen’s Guide to Structured Sentencing (rev. ed.). Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  13. North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. (1996b). Progress Report on Structured Sentencing. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Poole, Eric D. and Robert M. Regoli. (1980). “Race, Institutional Rule Breaking, and Disciplinary Response: A Study of Discretionary Decision Making in Prison.” Law and Society Review 14: 931–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stokes, M.E., C.S. Davis, and G.G. Koch. (1995). Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Wicharaya, Tamasak. (1995). Simple Theory, Hard Reality: The Impact of Sentencing Reforms on Courts, Prisons, and Crime. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wolfgang, Marvin E. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wolfgang, Marvin E. (1961). “Quantitative Analysis of Adjustment to the Prison Community.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 51: 607–618.Google Scholar
  19. Wooldredge, J.D. (1991). “Correlates of Deviant Behavior among Inmates of U.S. Correctional Facilities.” Journal of Crime and Justice 14 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wright, Kevin N. (1989). “Race and economic marginality in explaining prison adjustment.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (1): 67–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • James J. Collins
    • 1
  • Donna L. Spencer
    • 1
  • George H. Dunteman
    • 1
  • Peter H. Siegel
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Triangle InstituteResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations