The average Texas inmate was able to afford one five minute phone call every three months, yet this is only one example of severely limited interactions (Worely et al., 2010). The inmate population and eventually society are adversely impacted by the lack of contact or freedom in prison. Additional concerns include the impact elected isolation, inappropriate relationships, and snitching. It is hypothesized that limited amenities, lack of quality relationships, and institutionalization effect creates psychological issues for those who must re-enter society. Allowing some level of enjoyment and outside contact may be enough to encourage inmates to refrain from joining prison groups or disrupting the prison facilities. Other improvements can range from allowing the use of tobacco or increasing contact with outside contacts. If inmates fail to receive simple pleasures and freedoms while incarcerated, it is unrealistic to expect that inmates to maintain civil attitudes while incarcerated, or once released.
The two additional readings used the same data set from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which had high levels of superfluous relationships between inmates and staff (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). The research initially contacted 508 prisoners who had committed boundary violations between 1995 and 1998, but there were only 82 positive responses (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). Ultimately, 32 inmates were chosen to participate in an unstructured interview that included 11 general questions about the relationships (Worley et al., 2003; Worley et al., 2010). Worley, Marquart, and Mullings (2003) used the data to develop an understanding of who initiates inappropriate contact, the profile of the initiator, and why certain staff members are targeted. The goal of the research was to increase the understanding about why inmates and staff took part in the relationships (Worley et al., 2003). As Worley et al. (2003) had speculated, lonesome inmates were the ones who initiated the relationships with receptive staff who did not intend to open a relationship. Worley, Tewksbury, and Frantzen (2010) went on to investigate the consequences of these inappropriate relationships (Worley et al., 2010). Based on the inmates’ responses, it was revealed that there were a number of negative impacts, specifically regarding the staff-on-inmate relationships and inmate populations (Worley et al., 2010). Each article increased the understanding of ways in which inmates coped with their prison experience and ways in which it could be made better for them. Before the proposals are explored, it will be beneficial to understand how inmate populations deal with incarceration.
A subordinate status is not the only thing forced upon an inmate, the prison value, culture, and codes are quickly adopted (Clemmer, 2011). This prisonization process takes places at least to some degree for all inmates, yet the extent...