UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Prisoner attitudes toward crime, politics, and the socioeconomic system : the politicized prisoner phenomenon Cartwright, Barry Edward 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 C37_4.pdf [ 10.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095840.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095840-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095840-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095840-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095840-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095840-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095840-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095840-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095840.ris

Full Text

PRISONER ATTITUDES TOWARD CRIME, POLITICS, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM: THE POLITICIZED PRISONER PHENOMENON By BARRY EDWARD CARTWRIGHT •A. (honours), Simon Fraser University, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRE-MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1983 fc^Barry Edward Cartwright, 1983 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Anthropology & Semiology The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1WS Date 14 October 1983 ABSTRACT This study was designed to measure the degree of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n federal prisons i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and to measure the association between prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the criminal justice system. A random sample of s i x t y prisoners was obtained at three federal prisons i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The interview results were codified, analyzed by an SPSS computer program, and then reviewed extensively by the writer and the thesis supervisor before making a f i n a l de-termination of the degree of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Seventeen (28 percent) of the prisoners were found to be either moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d . There also was evidence of nascent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among some prisoners who were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o l i t i c i z e d . There was sup-port for the hypothesis that prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s related to exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, although not as strong as expected. P o l i t i c i z a t i o n appears to be related to both quantity of exposure (as measured by frequency of incar-ceration) and q u a l i t y of exposure (as measured by usual l e v e l of security and length of sentence). - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 2. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW A. Introduction 14 B. Property Relations and Crime 19 C. The New Sociology of Law 22 D. The State and the Criminal Justice System 25 E. A Brief C r i t i c a l Perspective 28 Chapter 3. THE POLITICIZED PRISONER PHENOMENON: A BRIEF SOCIO-HISTORICAL ACCOUNT 43 A. The P o l i t i c i z e d Prisoner: A Brief History 43 B. Racism and Prisoner P o l i t i c i z a t i o n 51 C. The Current Situation 54 D. P o l i t i c i z a t i o n and the Prison Environment 58 E. Summary 62 Chapter 4. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY AND THE POLITICIZED PRISONER 67 A. Introduction 67 B. Attitudes Toward the Socioeconomic System 69 C. Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System 73 D. Attitudes Toward Predominant Cultural Values 75 E. Attitudes Toward the Power Structure 84 F. Attitudes Toward the Sociology of Law 87 G. Prisoner Programs for Change 93 H. Summary 99 Chapter 5. METHODOLOGY 107 A. Introduction 107 B. Studies on Prisoner Attitudes 108 [ - i v -C. The F a i r c h i l d Study 112 D. Entry to the F i e l d 118 E. Sampling Procedures 122 F. The Interview Schedule 129 G. Interviewing Techniques 139 H. Interpreting the Results 143 I. Summary 148 Chapter 6. SURVEY FINDINGS 154 A. The Sample 154 B. Prisoner Perspectives on Crime, P o l i t i c s and the Socioeconomic System 163 C. Overall Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n 181 D. P o l i t i c i z a t i o n and Exposure to the Criminal Justice System 190 E. Summary 197 Chapter 7. CONCLUSION 200 A. Introduction 200 B. The Significance of the Findings 201 C. The Future Impact on Prisons 210 D. Other Related issues 215 E. Summary 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY 228 Appendix A - Interview Schedule 236 i - v -LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 6.15 Offence Categories for Prisoners i n the P a c i f i c Region Between the Ages of 20 and 30 Present Offence(s) P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Indicators Age of Prisoners Present Offence(s) Length of Current Sentence Estimated Total Time Served i n Prison Usual l e v e l of Security Education l e v e l Attained Prisoners 1 Socioeconomic Status Parents 1 Socioeconomic Status Overall Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Prisoner Programs for Social Change Prisoner Methods for Achieving Change Degree of Exposure to the Criminal Justice System Degree of Exposure vs. Overall Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Length of Sentence vs. Overall Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Usual I n s t i t u t i o n a l Placement vs. Overall Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Page 127 128 145 155 156 157 158 159 159 161 162 182 187 188 193 194 195 196 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor R.S. Ratner, for a l l the time and energy he dedicated to t h i s the-s i s . Without his constant encouragement and constructive ideas, t h i s thesis would never have been completed. The other members of my graduate committee were also instrumental in t h i s regard. Professor David Schweitzer introduced me to c r i t i c a l criminology, and was the f i r s t to encourage my intere s t in po l -i t i c i z e d prisoners. Professor J.R. 0'Conner showed a keen i n -terest in the project, and made many valuable suggestions which were incorporated into the thes i s . It i s impossible to mention a l l the people i n the Penitentiary Service (now known as the Correctional Service of Canada) who helped with t h i s study. The entire service was ex-tremely cooperative. I was given permission to conduct the re-search, allowed to interview prisoners i n conjunction with my work-related a c t i v i t i e s , and given time o f f with pay to com-plete some of the research. I s p e c i f i c a l l y wish to thank Brian Murphy, the Chairman of the Regional Research Committee, whose advice and assistance were greatly appreciated. I must also thank my Aunt, Ruth Fisher, who typed the preliminary drafts of the thesis, and Edda Vick, who typed the thesis into the word processor at my o f f i c e . Without t h e i r as-sistance, the thesis would have been unmanageable. F i n a l l y , I must thank my wife, Rosa Cartwright, for a l l her patience, un-derstanding, and encouragement. - 1 -CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION During the l a s t decade, the phenomenon of the r a d i -c a l i z a t i o n or p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of prisoners i n the United States has attracted the attention of an increasing number of crimin-ologists and s o c i o l o g i s t s . Interest i n thi s topic has gained impetus through the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of relevant publications by so c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , the publication of the writings of we l l -known " p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners" such as Eldridge Cleaver and George Jackson, the findings of the New York State's Commission on A t t i c a ( 1 ) , and the development of left-wing criminology, known as the "new criminology" or " c r i t i c a l criminology." The intention of thi s thesis i s to provide an h i s t o r i c a l and con-ceptual review of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon, and to present the findings of my recent study, which was designed to assess the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among a sample of Canadian federal prisoners, and to determine to what extent t h i s p o l i t -i c i z a t i o n i s related to recurring exposure to the criminal jus-t i c e system. My attention was drawn to thi s subject by Erika F a i r -child's paper e n t i t l e d " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offen-der." On the basis of her d i s s e r t a t i o n research i n three Wash-ington State prisons, she found that prisoners were becoming increasingly p o l i t i c i z e d , seeing themselves more as victims of an exploitive s o c i a l order than as deviants, and that t h i s p o i -- 2 -i t i c i z a t i o n resulted largely from the prisoners' exposure to various aspects of the criminal justice system (2). Her f i n d -ings lend support to the claims made by Pallas and Barber i n "From Riot to Revolution," wherein they argue that prisoner un-rest i n the United States i s becoming more p o l i t i c a l l y motivat-ed (3). Being a correctional caseworker in a Canadian maximum security prison at the time of reading F a i r c h i l d ' s paper, I was somewhat surprised by her statements about the perceptions of the U.S. prisoners regarding the p o l i t i c a l and socioeconomic system. My opinion, formed through extensive contact with Can-adian prisoners, was that prisoners generally tended to be a-p o l i t i c a l , or c e r t a i n l y not as p o l i t i c i z e d as she was suggest-ing. At the same time I had started reading some of the wri-tings of the new criminologists, although t h i s was at that time unrelated to either my employment or my interest i n the p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n of the criminal offender. With further study of c r i t -t i c a l criminolgy and examination of writings by, or on, p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoners, the research began to take shape, eventually r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s present thesis. It i s important to note that the thesis topic i n -volves " p o l i t i c i z e d " prisoners, rather than " p o l i t i c a l " p r i s -oners. There are various d e f i n i t i o n s of a p o l i t i c a l prisoner or p o l i t i c a l criminal. Two r e l a t i v e l y recent a r t i c l e s , one by Minor and the other by Schafer, o f f e r some useful d e f i n i t i o n s . Minor emphasizes that a p o l i t i c a l crime must be "motivated by - 3 -p o l i t i c a l intent", and that i t must be directed toward a l t e r i n g either the power relations or the public p o l i c y of the society (4). Schafer refers to p o l i t i c a l criminals as "convictional criminals," who are convinced of the correctness of t h e i r p o l -i t i c a l convictions, and are w i l l i n g to transform those convic-tions into s o c i a l action, regardless of the consequences i n terms of criminal sanctioning (5 ) . Most d e f i n i t i o n s of p o l i t -i c a l criminals include the elements of public dissent, s o c i a l action, appeals to a higher ideal or morality, lack of desire for personal gain, and a view of p o l i t i c a l crime only as a means to a p o l i t i c a l end (6 ) . One might suggest that these d e f i n i t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l crime are not s u f f i c i e n t l y concise. In "Offences Against the State," Packer points out that defining a l l crimes as "crimes against the State" would be quite meaningless ( 7 ) . He argues that only those crimes defined by law as p o l i t i c a l crimes or offences against the state should be regarded as such, and goes on to l i s t various examples, including treason, sedition, es-pionage, and advocating the overthrow of the government ( 8 ) . The problem with such a narrow d e f i n i t i o n i s that many criminal acts committed for purely p o l i t i c a l reasons could be excluded from th i s category simply because the government chooses not to recognize them as p o l i t i c a l crimes. In any event, the subject of t h i s thesis i s " p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoners" rather than " p o l i t i c a l prisoners". The "pol-i t i c i z e d prisoner" i s one who has undergone r a d i c a l i z a t i o n or - 4 -p o l i t i c i z a t i o n following his incarceration for a conventional crime. As F a i r c h i l d puts i t in her doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , "we have here what i s e s s e n t i a l l y the case of the p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oner who did not commit a p o l i t i c a l crime but who has become a potent force because of h i s developing p o l i t i c a l consciousness" (9). B a s i c a l l y , the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process involves a conven-t i o n a l offender who, through his exposure to p o l i t i c a l prison-ers and/or already p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, comes to see himself as a p o l i t i c a l prisoner, and who believes that he i s i n prison because of his v i c t i m i z a t i o n by an exploitive p o l i t i c a l and socioeconomic system (10). This present thesis addresses i t -s e l f to t h i s category of prisoner, and i s concerned with the type of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n whereby the prisoner adopts r a d i c a l i z e d attitudes about crime, p o l i t i c s , and the socioeconomic system. Later chapters are aimed s p e c i f i c a l l y at reaching a more com-prehensive d e f i n i t i o n of a " p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner." As mentioned e a r l i e r , many writers are keenly i n -terested i n the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner topic. They are too num-erous to mention, but some of the more recent and prominent works are those of James Jacobs, Charles Reasons, John Irwin, Stuart Brody, Martin Haskell and Lewis Yablonsky, and Gordon Hawkins (11). However, with a few exceptions, such as John Davis 1 study on the attitudes of 150 black inmates (12), and the F a i r c h i l d study which was discussed previously, there has been a r e l a t i v e lack of empirical research on the topic. The majority of those who have an in t e r e s t in p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners appear content either to discuss the writings of p o l i t i c i z e d - 5 -prisoners or to approach the subject from a th e o r e t i c a l per-spective. Given the absence of s u f f i c i e n t empirical work i n t h i s area, t h i s present study seems worthwhile, p a r t i c u l a r l y considering that there i s very l i t t l e information on the Cana-dian experience with the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner syndrome. Hopefully the present research w i l l add a new dimen-sion to the study of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, not only because i t i s empirical and Canadian, but also because there are some i n -dications that the phenomenon i s experienced intensely by p r i s -oners i n the United States. From t h e i r experiences as teachers i n a maximum security prison i n the United Kingdom, Stanley Co-hen and Laurie Taylor concluded that the prisoners with whom they had contact did not exhibit p o l i t i c i z a t i o n comparable to that of U.S. prisoners (13). Mike Fitzgerald l a t e r observed that U.K. prisoners were becoming more p o l i t i c i z e d (14), but there i s s t i l l no conclusive proof that they are as p o l i t i c i z e d as t h e i r counterparts i n the United States. Similar observa-tions have been reported i n Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland (15), but again, i t i s hard to equate the experiences of those coun-t r i e s with those of the United States. This subject w i l l be dealt with more extensively i n Chapter 3. There i s evidence to suggest that prisoner p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n i n the United States i s a d i r e c t function of racism, both in the society and in i t s prisons, whereby blacks as a group begin to develop the consciousness of an exploited class, and whereby t h i s consciousness s p i l l s over into other ethnic - 6 -groups (16). I f t h i s i s t r u e , then i t c o u l d be unwise to gen-e r a l i z e from the experiences o f U.S. p r i s o n s , because o f the country's unique s i t u a t i o n with r e s p e c t to a l a r g e b l a c k popu-l a t i o n and the a s s o c i a t e d problems of racism. However, my r e -search r e s u l t s c o n t r a d i c t t h i s n o t i o n t h a t p r i s o n e r p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n i s unique to the United S t a t e s , as w i l l be seen l a t e r i n t h i s t h e s i s . The suggestion t h a t p r i s o n e r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n the United S t a t e s i s a f u n c t i o n of r a c i s m w i l l be reviewed i n much g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n Chapter 3. The p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r phenomenon should be of cen-t r a l concern to c r i m i n o l o g i s t s or p e n o l o g i s t s who are i n t e r e s t -ed i n p r i s o n e r a t t i t u d e s and p r i s o n e r u n r e s t . As Reasons puts i t , "the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of inmates and t h e i r subsequent organ-i z a t i o n and a c t i v i t i e s portend to be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c e t of c o r r e c t i o n s i n the f u t u r e " (17). T h i s phenomenon has had an a p p r e c i a b l e impact on U.S. p r i s o n s to date, as witnessed by the numerous p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d r i o t s and movements w i t h i n the p r i s o n w a l l s . A l s o noteworthy from a c o r r e c t i o n a l i s t perspec-t i v e i s t h a t t h i s p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r syndrome may p r o v i d e p r i s o n e r s with a technique of n e u t r a l i z a t i o n (18), whereby they are able to i m a g i n a t i v e l y r a t i o n a l i z e or j u s t i f y t h e i r c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s problem i s of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t t o S t u a r t Bro-dy, when he expresses concern about the c o n v e n t i o n a l o f f e n d e r beginning to see h i s p r o p e r t y o f f e n c e s as "a program of econo-mic r e d i s t r i b u t i o n " and to regard h i m s e l f as "not the agressor but the v i c t i m " (19). T h i s t o p i c w i l l be d i s c u s s e d again i n the c o n c l u d i n g chapter of t h i s t h e s i s , when the s i g n i f i c a n c e of - 7 -the study's r e s u l t s are evaluated. The p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r i s s u e a l s o f i t s w e l l i n t o the s u b j e c t area of the s o c i o l o g y o f deviance, and e s p e c i a l l y i n t o the r a d i c a l or c o n f l i c t - o r i e n t e d t r a d i t i o n s w i t h i n t h a t s u b j e c t area, as t h e r e i s a tendency among r a d i c a l c r i m i n o l o -g i s t s t o regard p r i s o n s both as a microcosm of s o c i e t y and a b a t t l e g r o u n d f o r the c o n f l i c t s o f the s o c i e t y . P a l l a s and Bar-ber suggest t h a t "/American p r i s o n s are not onl y a microcosm of American s o c i e t y , with i t s o p p r e s s i o n and e x p l o i t a t i o n , but a l -so o f the movement to tran s f o r m t h a t s o c i e t y " ( 2 0 ) . P o l i t i -c i z e d p r i s o n e r s appear t o view p r i s o n s i n a s i m i l a r l i g h t . A l -f r e d Hassan, whose views are comparable to those o f other p o l i -t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s , says t h a t While p r i s o n i s u n f i t f o r human s h e l t e r and a c r u e l mockery of the human c o n d i t i o n , i t nonetheless p r o v i d e s an i d e a l atmosphere f o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y education. Nowhere i n the so-c i e t y are the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f the Govern-ment's system of j u s t i c e so g l a r i n g as they are i n p r i s o n . In p r i s o n , o p p r e s s i o n and b r u t a l i t y are not camouflaged by the s u b t l e t r a p p i n g s o f p o l i t i c a l d i s s e n t and s o c i a l c o n c e s s i o n s . (21) Angela Davis summarizes the f e e l i n g s o f most p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners and new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s when she says t h a t the p r i s o n s y s -tem may be seen as "a prominent t e r r a i n o f s t r u g g l e , both f o r the c a p t i v e s i n s i d e and the masses o u t s i d e " ( 2 2 ) . R a d i c a l c r i m i n o l o g i s t s , then, see the p r i s o n as one of the p r i n c i p a l areas i n which s o c i a l c o n f l i c t i s worked out. - 8 -The p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner i s of i n t e r e s t to a r a d i c a l sociology of deviance because he i s developing a r a d i c a l i z e d p o l i t i c a l awareness or class consciousness, coming to see himself as a victim of socioeconomic inequality and to see the criminal jus-t i c e system as a coercive apparatus i n the hands of the wealthy and powerful. In other words, r a d i c a l criminologists see p o l -i t i c i z e d prisoners as an embryonic revolutionary movement, a force whose potential i s being developed by the stark r e a l i t y of prison, where the b a t t l e l i n e s between the r i c h and the poor are drawn more c l e a r l y . Although my findings indicate an ap-preciable degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among B r i t i s h Columbia p r i s -oners, they do not support the notion that prisoners are l i k e l y to become a powerful revolutionary force. In The Sociology of Criminal Law, Robert Rich points out that "the sociology of criminal law i s currently preoccu-pied with c o n f l i c t theory. This i s probably due to the fact that criminology has taken a r a d i c a l or c r i t i c a l turn in theory b u i l d i n g since the 1960s" (23). " C r i t i c a l criminology," also referred to as the "new criminology," has been a motivating force behind these recent developments, so i t seems important to grasp some of the essential features of t h i s new school of criminological thought, p a r t i c u l a r l y considering that c r i t i c a l criminology has evolved to a certain extent from the writings of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, and that the new criminologists have been a c t i v e l y engaged i n stimulating prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (24) . - 9 -Chapter 2 offers a b r i e f overview of c r i t i c a l crimin-ology, to set the stage for the following chapters. As men-tioned above, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to consider the p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oner issue without r e f e r r i n g to i t s impact on c r i t i c a l crimin-ology, and vice versa. F a i r c h i l d ' s study evolved from t h i s r a d i c a l criminology background, as did mine to a certain ex-tent. Certainly the new criminologists are more active than others i n defining and studying t h i s topic area. Furthermore, some of the comments of the new criminologists are used i n Chapter 4 to develop i d e a l typologies of r a d i c a l i z e d or p o l i t i -cized responses to the questions asked of the prisoners. Chapter 3 , The P o l i t i c i z e d Prisoner Phenomenon: A Brief S o c i o - H i s t o r i c a l Perspective, places t h i s subject i n a s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l context. Apart from a b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l account, consideration w i l l be given to the racism issue in the United States, and information w i l l be provided on the s i t u a -t i o n i n other countries, including Canada. At the end of the chapter, the views of the new criminologists and recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on the p o l i t i c i z i n g e f f e c t of prisons w i l l be reviewed. Chapter 4 deals with the perspectives of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on a variety of topics, such as the ef-fects of s o c i a l class on crime, the fairness of the criminal j u s t i c e system, the ac c e p t a b i l i t y of the p o l i t i c a l system, the makeup of the power structure, the sociology of law, and the types of s o c i a l changes required. These perspectives then are - 10 -compared to those of the new criminologists, to establish the kinds of statements one should expect from a p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oner. The t o p i c a l areas considered correspond to the a t t i t u -d i n a l areas tested i n my study, and therefore provide a yard-st i c k by which to measure the responses of the prisoners I i n -terviewed . In Chapter 5, an account i s given of the methodology employed i n my study. 60 randomly sampled prisoners at three federal prisons i n B r i t i s h Columbia were asked a series of pre-pared questions regarding t h e i r attitudes toward crime, p o l i -t i c s , and the socioeconomic system. The data col l e c t e d were analyzed by computer, and then reviewed several times by myself and the thesis supervisor before a r r i v i n g at any f i n a l deter-mination of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n l e v e l s . It w i l l be seen that the present study i s unique i n terms of i t s subject matter, scope, and national o r i g i n , and that i t can be read i l y distinguished from previous studies on p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners or prisoner at-titudes i n general. Chapter 6 reports the results of my study. S i g n i f -icant levels of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n were found, although perhaps not s i g n i f i c a n t enough to j u s t i f y c r i t i c a l criminol-ogy's expectation that the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners w i l l become a revolutionary force. The results also supported the second hypothesis, that p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s related to exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, although conclusions i n th i s area are more tentative. Overall, the findings are somewhat similar to - 11 -those of Fair-child's study, and lend credence to some of the statements of the new criminologists regarding the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner syndrome. In Chapter 7, the significance and accuracy of the findings, are assessed, and th e i r implications for c r i t i c a l criminology considered. Prisoner response patterns are com-pared to response patterns of the general public in a recent study on public attitudes toward the law i n B r i t i s h Columbia (25). Consideration i s given to other related issues touched on in my study, such as the relat i o n s h i p between crime and so-c i a l class, and crime and s o c i a l skidding. F i n a l l y , areas re-quiring further research are i d e n t i f i e d . FOOTNOTES 1. Eg. Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice. (New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1968); George Jackson, Soledad Brother: The Prison  Letters of George Jackson (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970); A t t i c a : The O f f i c i a l Report of the New York State Special  Commission on A t t i c a (New York: Bantam Books, 1972). 2. Erika S. F a i r c h i l d , " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Of-fender: Prisoner Perceptions of Crime and P o l i t i c s , " Criminology: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Journal, v o l . 15, no. 3, Nov. 77, pp. 290-311. 3. John Pallas and Bob Barber, "From Riot to Revolution," Issues i n Criminology, vol, 7, no. 2, F a l l 72, pp. 1-16. 4. W. William Minor, " P o l i t i c a l Crime, P o l i t i c a l Justice, and P o l i t i c i z e d Prisoners," Criminology, v o l . 12, no. 4, Feb. 75, p. 390, p. 395. 5. Stephen Schafer, "The Concept of the P o l i t i c a l Criminal," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, vo l . 62, no. 3, 1971, pp. 384-5. 6. Cf. Marshall B. Clinard and Richard Quinney, Criminal Be-haviour Systems: A Typology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. 179; Charles E. Reasons, "The P o l i t i c i -zing of Crime, the Criminal, and the Criminologist," The - 12 -Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v o l . 64, no. 4, Dec. 73, p. 474; Richard Quinney, The Social Reality of  Crime (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co., 1970), pp. 256-7. 7. Herbert L. Packer, "Offences Against the State," The An-nals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and Social S c i -ence , v o l . 339, Jan. 62, p. 78. 8. Ibid., pp. 78-84. 9. Erika S. F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three Prisons," doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Washington, 1974, p. 51. 10. Cf. Martin Haskell and Lewis Yablonsky, Criminology;  Crime and Criminality, second edition (Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally, 1978), p. 538; also c f . Reasons, op. c i t . , p. 474. 11. James B. Jacobs, " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and C o n f l i c t Among P r i s -on Inmates," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v o l . 66, no. 4, 1976; Reasons, op. c i t . ; John Irwin, Prisons i n  Turmoil (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1980); Stuart A. Brody, "The P o l i t i c a l Prisoner Syndrome: Latest Problem of the American Penal System," Crime and Delinquency, v o l . 20, no. 2, A p r i l 74; Haskell and Yablonsky, op. c i t . ; Gor-don Hawkins, The Prison: Policy and Practice (Chicago: Un-i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1976). 12. John A. Davis, " J u s t i f i c a t i o n for No Obligation: Views of Black Males toward Crime and the Criminal Law," Issues i n  Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 2, F a l l 74. 13. Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor, Pyschological Survival:  The Experience of Long Term Imprisonment (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 122, p. 146. 14. Mike Fitzgerald, Prisoners i n Revolt (Harmondsworth: Pen-quin, 1977), pp. 119-20. 15. Cf. David A. Ward, "Inmate Rights and Prison Reform i n Sweden and Denmark," The Journal of Criminal Law, Crimin- ology and Police Science, v o l . 63, no. 2, 1972, pp. 240-49; Tim Pat Coogan, On the Blanket: The H Block Story (Dublin: Ward River Press), p. 177, p. 238, p. 240. 16. Cf. A t t i c a , op. c i t . , p. 16, p. 106, p. 141; Cohen and Taylor, op. c i t . , p. 145, p. 165. 17. Reasons, op. c i t . , p. 477. 18. Cf. Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Techniques of Neu-t r a l i z a t i o n : A Theory of Delinquency," American Sociolog-i c a l Review, v o l . 22, no. 6, Dec. 57, p. 666-69. 19. Brody, op. c i t . , pp. 100-01. - 13 -20. Pallas and Barber, op. c i t . , p. 1. Cf. Barry Krisberg, Crime and P r i v i l e g e : Toward a New Criminology (Eng1ewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 24; also c f . Reasons, op. c i t . , p. 475. 21. Al f r e d Hassan, Maximum Security: Letters from C a l i f o r n i a ' s  Prisons, ed. Eve P e l l (New York: Dutton, 1972.), p.229. 22. Angela Y. Davis, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance, ed. Angela Y". Davis (New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971), p. 26. 23. Robert M. Rich, The Sociology of Criminal Law: Evolution  of Deviance in Anglo-American Society (Toronto: Butter-worths, 1979), p. 53. 24. Cf. Robert Mintz, "Interview with Ian Taylor, Paul Wal-ton, and Jock Young," Issues in Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 1, Spring 74, pp. 35-6; Krisberg, op. c i t . , p. 2. 25. Andy Wachtel, Carol Pitcher-LaPrairie, and Brian E. Bur-tch, "Public Images of Law i n B r i t i s h Columbia: An Explor-atory Study of Views on Law Touching on the Family, Juven-i l e Delinquency, and Livelihood," unpublished. - 14 -CHAPTER 2. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY: AN OVERVIEW A. INTRODUCTION The goals of t h i s chapter are to discuss the develop-ment of the new criminology,.paying attention to i t s r e l a t i o n -ship to the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the criminal offender, and to re-view some of i t s tenets, i n order to allow for a l a t e r assess-ment of the degree to which the attitudes of p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners conform to those tenets. The scope of the new criminol-ogy i s wide, and there are many contributors, so i t w i l l not be possible i n t h i s one chapter to o f f e r an exhaustive account of the issues, problems or disagreements within the f i e l d . Simi-l a r l y , there w i l l be no attempt to o f f e r a thorough c r i t i q u e of c r i t i c a l criminology, as others are presently occupied with t h i s problematic (1), and such a c r i t i q u e would be of limited importance to the task at hand. However, a b r i e f c r i t i c a l per-spective w i l l be given toward the end of the chapter. The new criminology (often referred to as c r i t i c a l criminology or r a d i c a l criminology) has i t s roots in the Na-t i o n a l Deviancy Conference held i n the United Kingdom in 1968; i t was there that Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, Jock Young, Laurie Taylor, Stan Cohen, and Mary Mcintosh began t h e i r r e b e l l i o n against what they perceived to be the c o r r e c t i o n a l i s t attitude of orthodox criminologists, and began to explore alternative - 15 -explanations of criminal a c t i v i t y (2). Ian Taylor, Paul Wal-ton, and Jock Young spearheaded the attack of the new crimin-ology with the publication of The New Criminology (1973), which provides an extensive review and c r i t i q u e of the more orthodox trends i n criminology, and with the publication of C r i t i c a l Criminology (1975), which presents various essays i n a way that defines the parameters, objectives, and p o s i t i o n of c r i t i c a l criminology. They have been joined i n t h e i r e f f o r t s by many others, some of the more noteworthy being Richard Quin-ney, William Chambliss, Steven Spitzer, Tony Piatt, Barry K r i s -berg, and Charles Reasons. To define the objectives of c r i t i c a l criminology, i t i s necessary to examine several of i t s c r i t i c i s m s of mainstream criminology to allow for an accurate portrayal of i t s academic and p o l i t i c a l stance. To begin, the new criminologists unani-mously reject positivism, pointing out that p o s i t i v i s t s (and orthodox criminologists i n general) concern themselves only with those individuals who are o f f i c i a l l y defined by the state as being deviant; thus the criminal a c t i v i t i e s of the powerful are played down or ignored, while the criminal a c t i v i t i e s of the lower classes are emphasized (3). P o s i t i v i s t s assume the existence of a general consensus regarding acceptable s o c i a l behaviour, and then defend the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of s o c i a l control aimed at ensuring adherence to the assumed consensus (4). Es-s e n t i a l l y , the new criminologists say that positivism should be rejected because i t does not challenge o f f i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n s of c r i m i n a l i t y , and because i t does l i t t l e more than measure the - 16 -c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of members of the lower classes. C r i t i c a l criminology also asserts that because main-stream criminology has usually accepted the goals and p o l i c i e s defined by the state, i t has f a i l e d to develop any s i g n i f i c a n t or unique theories to explain the existence of deviance. In-stead, mainstream criminologists have preferred to avoid epis-temological or ontological questions, by concentrating on mea-surement and improvement of existing p o l i c i e s . In other words, the fundamental issues and values underlying the topic of dev-iance are ignored in favour of proposed solutions to short-term problems (5). As a re s u l t , the more orthodox trends i n crimin-ology have adopted a c o r r e c t i o n a l i s t position, locating devi-ance i n in d i v i d u a l pathology, and addressing the problems of the i n d i v i d u a l , rather than the larger problems of s o c i a l structure (6). Above a l l , c r i t i c a l criminology i s c r i t i c a l of main-stream criminology's f a i l u r e to examine deviance within an h i s -t o r i c a l , socio-economic perspective, because the importance of group intere s t s , economic power, and class c o n f l i c t are over-looked to a large extent (7). The New Criminology i d e n t i f i e s various p o s i t i v e aspects of previous approaches to criminology, but these approaches—including d i f f e r e n t i a l association theo-ry, s o c i a l reaction theory, naturalism, phenomenology, and eth-nomethodology—are a l l considered unsatisfactory due to t h e i r omission of an examination of the wider, s o c i a l origins of the deviant act (8). - 17 -In the conclusion of The New Criminology, Taylor, Walton, and Young outline what they consider to be the formal requirements of a " f u l l y s o c i a l theory of deviance." Essen-t i a l l y , they reject i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c explanations of deviance (based on b i o l o g i c a l or psychological explanations of why i n d i -viduals deviate), and opt instead for what they consider to be a f u l l y s o c i a l , h i s t o r i c a l sociology, which i s able to "explain the forms assumed by s o c i a l control and deviant action in de-veloped s o c i e t i e s " (9). Their requirements include a " p o l i t i -c a l economy of crime," a " s o c i a l psychology of crime," an ac-counting of the s o c i a l dynamics that allow the in d i v i d u a l to transform his b e l i e f s or desires into action, a " s o c i a l psy-chology of s o c i a l reaction," and an understanding of the dev-iant's " reaction. . .to re j e c t i o n or stigmatization" (10). They modify t h i s p o sition to a certain extent i n C r i t i c a l Crim-inology and place greater emphasis on a p o l i t i c a l economy of crime, by stating that " i t i s now our pos i t i o n not only that these processes are f u l l y s o c i a l in nature, but also that they are paramountly conditioned by the facts.of material r e a l i t y " (11). There appears to be considerable agreement regarding the prerequisites for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c r i t i c a l criminology. B a s i c a l l y , there i s a requirement to engage i n praxis, a need to be a c t i v e l y involved i n a s s i s t i n g those who are r e s i s t i n g the system "to move from resistance to l i b e r a t i o n , " and a de-mand for a commitment to the abolishment of socioeconomic i n -- 18 -equality (12). Also important to mention i s that c r i t i c a l criminology has become progressively involved i n the develop-ment of a Marxist theory of deviance, employing Marxist method-ology to examine the production of deviance i n c a p i t a l i s t s o c i -e t ies (13). In summary, c r i t i c a l criminology requires i t s mem-bers to be committed to s o c i a l change (preferably toward a soc-i a l i s t society), c r i t i c a l of a s o c i a l system which i s regarded as criminogenic, and active i n the class struggle. In Crime and P r i v i l e g e , Krisberg points out that the new criminology i s rooted i n the writings of such p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners as George Jackson and Eldridge Cleaver (14). As Tay-l o r , Walton, and Young put i t , "the s h i f t i n deviancy theory towards a more r a d i c a l or c r i t i c a l p o s ition was occasioned by a change i n the p o l i t i c a l orientation of both middle-class prac-t i t i o n e r s and deviants themselves" (15). In keeping with t h e i r commitment to praxis, some of the new criminologists i n the Un-i t e d Kingdom "formed an umbrella organization which would give a platform to the squatters, to Case-Con (the r a d i c a l s o c i a l workers), and, very importantly, to PROP, the prisoner's union" (16). Working under the assumption that prisons were becoming a weak l i n k i n the apparatus of s o c i a l control, they started coordinating and supporting p o l i t i c a l movements within the prison walls, i n hope of exposing the p o l i t i c a l nature of soc-i a l control i n the Western societ i e s (17). C r i t i c a l criminology's primary inte r e s t i n the p o l i t -i c i z a t i o n of prisoners i s connected to the p r i o r i t y which i t - 19 -accords to the development of consciousness. According to Col-in Sumner, the new criminologists f e e l "that a deviation i s a p o l i t i c a l l y conscious act or a form of p r e - p o l i t i c a l r e b e l l i o n " (18). Ignoring the t r a d i t i o n a l Marxian position that criminals are members of the lumpenproletariat and are of l i t t l e value to a revolutionary movement, they have, as Jacobs describes i t , placed the prison "at the center of r a d i c a l p o l i t i c s " (19). For the new criminologists, then, the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner i s an i n d i v i d u a l who i s shedding his "false consciousness," be-cause of his f r o n t l i n e position i n the class struggle and h i s growing awareness of the expl o i t i v e nature of c a p i t a l i s t s o c i -ety. If the new criminologists are correct i n t h i s assumption, then we should f i n d that the attitudes of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners w i l l correspond to at least some degree to the tenets of c r i t i -c a l criminology. B. PROPERTY RELATIONS AND CRIME In keeping with t h e i r s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective, the new criminologists stress that the production of crime i s l o -cated in the socioeconomic structure. Emphasis i s placed on a c o n f l i c t view of crime, with the c o n f l i c t occurring between those with property and those without (20). Chambliss sum-marizes the position of c r i t i c a l criminology succinctly when he states that "criminal behaviour i s . . .the inevitable expres-sion of class c o n f l i c t r e s u l t i n g from the inherently exploita-t i v e nature of the economic r e l a t i o n s " (21). In the class struggle between the propertied and the propertyless, the prop-- 20 -ertyless turn to criminal a c t i v i t y i n order to gain property which i s unavailable to them through legitimate channels, or simply i n order to survive. The general position of the new criminologists i s that "members of the lower class. . .have the greatest proba-b i l i t y of being arrested and convicted" (22). E s s e n t i a l l y , they c i t e two main reasons: f i r s t l y , the propertyless members of the lower class are more l i k e l y to commit crimes against property, and secondly, they are more l i k e l y to be criminal-ized, because they wield l i t t l e economic or p o l i t i c a l power and t h e i r v i s i b i l i t y lends i t s e l f to t h e i r easy arrest and convic-t i o n . While the new criminologists stress the existence of criminal a c t i v i t y among the wealthy, they point out that the wealthy are able to avoid prosecution, because t h e i r crimes are less v i s i b l e and t h e i r economic power allows them to influence the outcome of any criminal proceedings brought against them. As Chambliss puts i t , "crime i s a matter of who can pin the l a -bel on whom, and underlying t h i s s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l process i s the structure of s o c i a l r e l ations determined by the p o l i t i c a l econ-omy" (23). From t h i s perspective, property crimes are a re-f l e c t i o n of the inequitable d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s o c i a l wealth, and of the struggle for economic survival by the impoverished segment of the society. In Class, State, and Crime, Quinney presents a graph to show the relationship between impoverish-ment and criminal a c t i v i t y . The graph indicates that prison - 21 -admissions increase and decrease c o r r e l a t i v e l y with the unem-ployment rate (24). Further evidence from a recent study of incarceration patterns i n Manitoba, again coming from a r a d i c a l criminology perspective, suggests that the incarceration rate increased by 74 per cent between 1919 and 1939, apparently as a res u l t of the depression (25). Not only do property-related crimes far outnumber a l l the other categories of crime put to-gether, but the goods stolen i n most of these crimes are i n d i c -ative of the marginal existence of the perpetrators (26). According to the new criminologists, the property r e-lations i n c a p i t a l i s t society are criminogenic, because those relations have created an impoverished class i n an affl u e n t society. To follow the argument through to i t s l o g i c a l conclu-sion, the new criminologists would say that i f property were dis t r i b u t e d on an e g a l i t a r i a n basis, there would no longer be an economic need for involvement i n criminal a c t i v i t y . The ob-vious answer ( i f we follow t h i s l i n e of reasoning) i s s o c i a l -ism, with i t s promised c l a s s l e s s society (27). Taylor, Walton, and Young summarize the position of c r i t i c a l criminology suc-c i n c t l y : With Marx, we have been concerned with the so c i a l arrangements that have obstructed, and the s o c i a l contradictions that enhance man's chances of achieving f u l l s o c i a l i t y — a state of freedom from material necessity and (therefore) of material incentive, a re-lease from the constraints of forced produc-tion , an a b o l i t i o n of the forced d i v i s i o n of labour, and a set of s o c i a l arrangements, therefore, i n which there would be no p o l i -t i c a l l y , economically, and s o c i a l l y induced need to criminalize deviance. (28) - 22 -C. THE NEW SOCIOLOGY OF LAW The sociology of law that stems from c r i t i c a l crimin-ology i s opposed to the consensus model of law accepted by most mainstream criminologists. Instead of assuming that criminal law i s a r e f l e c t i o n of universal morals or wishes, the new criminologists stress the importance of c o n f l i c t , power, and group interests as e t i o l o g i c a l factors in the formation of laws. In fact, the new criminologists assert that law i s a powerful force i n determining consensus, not that consensus i s a force i n determining law. As Carson says, "the enactment and enforcement of criminal law contributes substantially to s o c i a l order through i t s powerful e f f e c t upon the operating consensus of r e a l i t y i n society" (29). C r i t i c a l criminology's main problematic with respect to the sociology of law i s described concisely by Taylor, Wal-ton, and Young i n The New Criminology, when they write that a Marxist theory of deviance should "develop explanations of the ways i n which h i s t o r i c a l periods, characterized by p a r t i c u l a r sets of s o c i a l relationships and means of production, give r i s e to attempts by the economically and p o l i t i c a l l y powerful to or-der society i n p a r t i c u l a r ways"—in other words, "who makes the rules and why?" (30). The solution to the problematic i s con-tained within the above quotation: i f we know who makes the rules (that i s , "the economically and p o l i t i c a l l y powerful"), then we should also know why those rules are made. - 23 -According to Krisberg, Criminal laws and systems of law enforce-ment exist to promote and protect a system based upon the conception of property, and these laws and systems of organized violence or coercion are thus linked intimately with those persons who possess the most private property. (31) Quinney puts i t more bluntly when he says that "the r u l i n g class formulates criminal p o l i c y for the preservation of dom-es t i c order, an order that assures the s o c i a l and economic heg-emony of the c a p i t a l i s t system" (32). If we follow the argu-ment of the new criminologists, a picture develops of a s o c i a l order i n which access to the formulation of criminal law i s re-s t r i c t e d to those with the wealth and power, and i n which those i n that position are able to formulate laws that protect t h e i r own interests (those being the ownership and control of private property). The new criminologists have amassed a substantial a-mount of evidence to demonstrate the existence of unequal ac-cess to the formulation and interpretation of criminal law. In Law, Order, and Power, Chambliss and Seidman point out that "one f i f t h of the members of the United States senate are said to be m i l l i o n a i r e s . " They go on to show that judges tend to be selected from the ranks of the economic e l i t e (33). Quinney, i n Critique of Legal Order, reveals that the President's Crime Commission i n the 1960s was composed of wealthy lawyers and - 24 -businessmen; i n fact, twelve of the nineteen members of the crime Commission had d e f i n i t e business and corporate connec-tions, with f i f t e e n of them being lawyers (34). In "The Law of Vagrancy," Chambliss offers an i n t e r -esting h i s t o r i c a l application of t h i s sociology of law. He submits that vagrancy laws developed in Fourteenth Century England due to "changes i n other parts of the s o c i a l struc-ture." The plague had struck, causing a depletion i n the cheap labour force, and t h i s created problems, because "the economy was highly dependent upon a ready supply of cheap labour" (35). From his analysis of the si t u a t i o n , he concludes that the va-grancy laws "were designed for one express purpose: to force labourers. . .to accept employment at a low wage i n order to ensure the landowner an adequate supply of labour at a price he could afford to pay" (36). E.P. Thompson exposes a similar s i t u a t i o n i n Whigs and Hunters, by showing how the p o l i t i c a l and economic e l i t e i n Eighteenth Century England were able to create and enforce laws ( s p e c i f i c a l l y the Black Act) i n order to advance t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l careers and to secure t h e i r rights to property (37). In both these cases, s o c i a l c o n f l i c t and socioeconomic forces were factors i n the formulation of law, and members of the economic or p o l i t i c a l e l i t e were able to introduce and employ these laws to protect t h e i r own i n t e r -ests . - 25 -D. THE STATE AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Another task of the new criminologists i s to examine the role of the State i n preserving the existing socio-economic order. In essence, the State i s regarded as the primary a r b i -t r a t o r of the class struggle, "maintaining s o c i a l peace while promoting the c a p i t a l i s t s o c i a l order" (38). By virtu e of i t s underpinning i n universal sufferage, the State appears to be both a product of s o c i e t a l consensus and an impartial mediator of class c o n f l i c t (39), thereby masking i t s inherent i n t e r e s t in securing the hegemony of the c a p i t a l i s t system. Generally, the State attempts to secure that hegemony by depicting a s i t -uation of consensus or common s o c i a l i n t e r e s t , but when t h i s f a i l s , the State provides the necessary "legitimate" coercion to keep the system i n t a c t ; i t i s the State's implementation of coercion which i s of p a r t i c u l a r importance to the new criminol-ogists, and to t h i s study. In " P o l i t i c a l Repression and the Li b e r a l Democratic State," Wolfe predicts that "the more unequal the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the economic rewards of the society, the greater w i l l be the chance that challenges w i l l arise, which means that the use of state violence w i l l be that much more frequent" (40). At a l a t -er point i n his analysis, he warns that "the r u l i n g class i s armed and dangerous" (41). This position i s similar to Quin-ney' s, who asserts that the government, supported by i t s armed forces, "can now launch a f u l l - s c a l e war against i t s own peo-- 26 -pie," adding that "to protect the system from i t s own victims, a war on crime i s being waged" (42). The sentiments of both writers are comparable to those of Pi a t t and Cooper i n Policing  America, wherein the authors argue that the p r i n c i p a l purposes of the police and the criminal j u s t i c e system are to protect the wealth of the c a p i t a l i s t s , and to suppress any insurgency which threatens the property relations of c a p i t a l i s t society (43) . In Policing the C r i s i s , Stuart Hall et. a l . argue that the State, through i t s legal apparatus, i s charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d i s c i p l i n i n g the labour force, both by ensuring respect for private property, and by c o n t r o l l i n g the i n d u s t r i a l reserve army (44). This i s similar to Spitzer's ob-servation that one of the most important functions of the State i s "the regulation and management of problem populations" (45). A group joins the ranks of the problem population by refusing to submit to wage labour, the existing d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth, the r u l i n g ideology, or the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process. By crimin-a l i z i n g labour movements, p o l i t i c a l groups, and the non-disci-plined acts of the surplus labour pool, the State ensures the existence of conditions which favour the survival of c a p i t a l -ism (46) . An argument could be advanced—based on f a i r l y sub-s t a n t i a l evidence—that t h i s v i s i o n of the State and i t s s o c i a l control function i s somewhat one-sided or monolithic, because i t ignores the role of the State i n c o n t r o l l i n g the a c t i v i t i e s - 27 -of the c a p i t a l i s t class (47). However, the new criminologists contend that while a n t i t r u s t , labour, or p o l l u t i o n laws appear to regulate the a c t i v i t i e s of the c a p i t a l i s t s , they are actual-l y designed to reproduce the necessary conditions for the exis-tence of capitalism, by masking the glaring contradictions of an i n e g a l i t a r i a n economic system, and by staving o f f mass d i s -content (48). Furthermore, the new criminologists draw atten-t i o n to the many loopholes i n these laws, and the r e l a t i v e l y few prosecutions. Carson warns that "the emergence of criminal laws apparently a n t i t h e t i c a l to the interests of powerful groups i s something which should be interpreted with consider-able caution" (49). An example of thi s concern i s cited by Clinard in The  Sociology of Deviant Behaviour: The losses to the public of one crime of i l -l e gal price f i x i n g . . .committed by 29 lead-ing e l e c t r i c a l companies i n 1961 involved hundreds of mi l l i o n s of d o l l a r s , a loss far greater than the money taken i n a l l burglar-ies i n the country during that year. Yet for t h i s crime 7 executives at the policymak-ing l e v e l were sentenced to only 30 days i n j a i l ; 24 others received suspended sentences. (50) At the other end of society, however, i t i s not uncommon that a lower class i n d i v i d u a l w i l l receive a lengthy sentence for com-mitting a crime involving less than two hundred d o l l a r s . The basic message i s that the State tends to gloss over the crimes of capitalism (despite the fact that these crimes contravene legal statutes), preferring to concentrate on the criminal ac-- 28 -t i v i t i e s of the lower classes. As Krisberg describes i t , "the businessman indicted for tax evasion or embezzlement i s l i k e l y to be merely fined, given a suspended sentence, or placed on probation; poor defendants. . .are sent to j a i l or prison for crimes that involve considerably less s o c i a l harm" (51). E. A BRIEF CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE As mentioned i n the Introduction to the chapter, a thorough c r i t i q u e of c r i t i c a l criminology i s not essential to the goals of t h i s t h e s i s . However, a few b r i e f comments are i n order, as c r i t i c a l criminology i s not without unresolved prob-lems, nor have the new criminologists f a i l e d to recognize and attempt to resolve these problems. C r i t i c s often question the tendency of the new crim-i n o l o g i s t s to assume that crime would be abolished or greatly reduced under a s o c i a l i s t system. Schichor says that "many new criminologists seem to pay l i t t l e or no attention to the analy-s i s of s o c i a l control i n socie t i e s which have embraced s o c i a l -i s t or Marxist ideology" (52). He goes on to argue that "the law and i t s enforcement i n these regimes seem to be helping the r u l i n g class to maintain and increase i t s power even more than in c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s " (53), and adds that "the d e f i n i t i o n of deviance and crime remains i n the hands of a small, closed r u l -ing class which has an exclusive grasp on the p o l i t i c a l power" (54). As Downes puts i t , " c r i t i c a l criminologists too often write as i f imperialism was monopolized by c a p i t a l i s t socie-- 29 -t i e s , as i f the tanks had never r o l l e d into Prague or Budapest, as i f people i n c a p i t a l i s t societies were u t t e r l y dehumanised" (55) . There c e r t a i n l y i s evidence to suggest that crime exists i n s o c i a l i s t countries. In Revolutionary Law and Order, Peter J u v i l e r says that even i n contemporary Moscow thieves plague wealthier residents with well-planned bur-g l a r i e s . It i s not uncommon for people l i v i n g i n an apartment house to have keys to the elevator, equip apartment doors with peepholes and double locks, chip in for some-one to run the elevator and lock and guard the door by 1:00 A.M. (56) Although twice as many property crimes are reported i n the U-nited States, there s t i l l were 245,300 convictions for property crimes i n the Soviet Union i n 1971 (57). Similar problems are faced i n East Germany, where criminologists are concerned about the incidence of property crimes (58). While East German crim-i n o l o g i s t s a ttribute t h i s to West German "imperialism" or im-proper indoctrination, they are forced to admit that underlying crimes against property " i s a subjective desire of the i n d i v i d -ual to enrich himself contrary to the law of d i s t r i b u t i o n ac-cording to performance" (59). Such evidence indicates that crime i s not unique to capitalism. In a postscript to a recent a r t i c l e , Jock Young re-p l i e s b r i e f l y to Downes' accusation that the new criminologists seem unaware of the problems i n s o c i a l i s t countries. He as-- 30 -sures Dowries that new criminologists are aware of "the human-i s t i c achievement of Western societ i e s ('under capitalism')" and the problems associated with socialism, and offers h i s a r t -i c l e as proof that the matter i s under consideration (60). Es-s e n t i a l l y , h i s a r t i c l e rejects the notion that crime would au-tomatically disappear with the overthrow of capitalism and re-commends instead the transcendence of capitalism through a pro-cess which would preserve i t s humanistic achievements and other a t t r a c t i v e features (61). It i s not clear, however, whether hi s colleagues agree with h i s p o s i t i o n (62). Whether or not most new criminologists agree with Young's position, the question of why crime would be abolished or greatly reduced under socialism remains moot. As discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, the majority of new criminologists do di r e c t t h e i r attention toward the criminogenic nature of capi-i t a l i s m and the anticipated improvements under socialism. More information i s required from the new criminologists on t h i s point, unless they intend to discard the assumption that so-c i a l i s m i s a desirable a l t e r n a t i v e . While they may argue that the countries usually associated with socialism are either not true s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t i e s or are not f u l l y developed (63), t h i s does not obviate the necessity of a f u l l account of the type of s o c i a l i s t society which would dramatically reduce crime and cr i m i n a l i z a t i o n . Another area open to question i s the assumption that crime i s related to s o c i a l class (64). As seen e a r l i e r , two of - 31 -of the tenets of c r i t i c a l criminology are that crime results from the inequitable property d i s t r i b u t i o n under capitalism, and that law enforcement i s concerned mostly with c r i m i n a l i z i n g members of the lower classes. There i s a current debate on t h i s subject, instigated by T i t t l e et. al.'s study which con-cluded that crime i s not related to s o c i a l class, or at least not to the extent suggested by the new criminologists (65). The study showed only a s l i g h t relationship between class and crime, a relationship which i s becoming progressively less s i g -n i f i c a n t through the years (66). While elements of t h e i r study have been c r i t i c i z e d by Braithwaite (67), the issue s t i l l re-mains unresolved. This subject w i l l be considered more thoroughly i n the concluding chapter of t h i s thesis, but i t i s worth mention-ing at this point that the results of my study and of F a i r -c h i l d ' s study question the existence of a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between crime and socioeconomic status, although i t should be kept i n mind that neither study was designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to test t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Moreover, there are other studies which also challenge t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y accepted assumption (68). If t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to remain a cornerstone of r a d i -c a l criminology theory, then further analysis and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of i t by the new criminologists i s indicated. Also related to t h i s issue i s the notion that the law enforcement system i s concerned lar g e l y with the c r i m i n a l i z a -t i o n of the lower classes. This too requires some modification - 32 -in l i g h t of recent reports on law enforcement actions against corporations. Clinard and Yeager, for example, report that the number of prosecutions of large corporations i s increasing, and that penalties are becoming more severe (69). Posner points out that there were 1,162 a n t i t r u s t suits f i l e d i n 1974 alone, whereas there were only 1,874 between 1937 and 1954 (79). He also shows that maximum fines and sentences have been i n -creased, and that prison sentences are being imposed more f r e -quently (71) . Snider observes that i n the case of Canada, the dra-matic increase i n the number of f i l e s opened under the Combines Investigation Act has not resulted i n a concomitant r i s e i n the number of convictions (72). However, she does concede that penalties are more stringent i n the United States, and that en-forcement i s becoming more rigorous i n certain areas of Canada (73). Clinard and Yeager claim that r a d i c a l criminologists are p a r t i a l l y responsible for the increased enforcement action a-gainst the wealthy and powerful (74). Cutting through a l l of these observations and claims, the evidence appears to suggest that the criminal j u s t i c e system i n North America i s concerned with more than simply c r i m i n a l i z i n g the lower classes. This entire issue relates d i r e c t l y to c r i t i c a l crim-inology's view of the class nature of the law and i t s enforce-ment agencies. As noted previously, the tendency i s to see the law as a product of c a p i t a l i s t ideology, and the enforcement system as the legal means to preserve conditions favourable to - 33 -capitalism. Whether i t i s unintended or not, a picture emerges of a monolithic l e g a l order designed to protect the upper c l a s -ses at the expense of the lower classes. This picture tends to overlook the prosecutions of members of the upper classes, the evidence challenging the relat i o n s h i p between crime and s o c i a l class, and the fact that the police spend most of t h e i r time di r e c t i n g t r a f f i c , s e t t l i n g family quarrels, or finding missing people (75). While not a l l r a d i c a l criminologists subscribe to t h i s monolithic perspective, many appear to. Beirne attempts to dispe l t h i s image of r a d i c a l crim-inology i n his recent response to the various c r i t i c s of t h i s school. Beirne agrees that some "instrumental Marxists" see law as a r e f l e c t i o n of ru l i n g class i n t e r e s t s , but adds that the majority of "str u c t u r a l Marxists" do not (76). In fact, he i n s i s t s that structural Marxists see the law as r e l a t i v e l y au-tonomous of the r u l i n g class, and are quick to admit that leg-i s l a t i o n and law enforcement are routinely "at variance with the interests or wishes of certain fractions of c a p i t a l " (77). He concludes that In order to acquire a modicum of l e g i t i -macy for i t s economic position i n produc-ti o n , the c a p i t a l i s t class i s best served by a legal system which i s constrained to present i t s e l f as the embodiment of the universal i n t e r e s t of the s o c i a l formation rather than of p a r t i c u l a r interests within i t . (78) Issac Balbus takes a similar position i n his a r t i c l e "Commodity Form and Legal Form," where he rejects - 34 -both an instrumentalist or reductionist approach which denies that the legal order possesses any autonomy from the demands posed on i t by actors of the c a p i t a l i s t so-c i e t y . . .and a formalist approach, which > asserts an absolute, unqualified autonomy of the legal order from t h i s society. (79) Like Beirne, he sees the law as r e l a t i v e l y autonomous (80), but he goes a step further i n l i n k i n g the law to "the commodity form" (81). He argues that both the "commodity form" and the " l e g a l form" function independently of "the w i l l of the sub-jects who set i t i n motion" (82), and that the legal form "cre-ates a f e t i s h i z e d relationship between individuals and the Law in which individuals attribute s u b j e c t i v i t y to the Law and con-ceive themselves as i t s objects or creations" (83). In his ar-gument the legal form preserves capitalism by producing and re-i n f o r c i n g such i l l u s i o n s as equality or i n d i v i d u a l i t y (84), and any inequality before the law results because "the systemic ap-p l i c a t i o n of an equal scale to systemically unequal individuals necessarily tends to reinforce systemic i n e q u a l i t i e s " (85). More e f f o r t s such as the above would be welcome. Again, i t appears that not a l l new criminologists subscribe to these refinements or modifications. Young, for example, at-tacks Balbus 1 a r t i c l e by saying that he ignores cer t a i n facts, works under fal s e assumptions, and "oversimplifies the nature of legal categorization" (86). A u n i f i e d perspective on a f u l -l y a r t i c u l a t e d and refined sociology of law i s yet to be formu-lated . - 35 -Schichor's statement that the new criminologists "have made mainly pragmatic statements and generated l i t t l e substantive empirical work" (87) may be p a r t i a l l y true, but i t i s also somewhat u n j u s t i f i e d . It should be kept i n mind that c r i t i c a l criminology was in an embryonic stage i n 1972. Des-pi t e i t s r e l a t i v e newness, various e f f o r t s have been made with-i n t h i s genre to substantiate i t s tenets. Chambliss' t r e a t i s e on "The Law of Vagrancy" and Thompson's Whigs and Hunters apply a r a d i c a l sociology of law to s p e c i f i c h i s t o r i c a l situations (88). S i m i l a r l y , Chambliss' comparative study of crime i n Ni-geria and the United States, Hall et al.s examination of the role of the media and the legal apparatus in Pol i c i n g the C r i -s i s , and Kellough et al . ' s analysis of incarceration patterns in Manitoba, a l l attempt to empirically validate certain claims of c r i t i c a l criminology (89). For that matter, F a i r c h i l d ' s study (90) and t h i s present study could be seen as empirical e f f o r t s to evaluate c r i t i c a l criminology's understanding of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner issue. This b r i e f c r i t i c a l perspective does not do jus t i c e to either c r i t i c a l criminology or i t s c r i t i c s . The issues are more complex, and have only been highlighted here. The views presented i n the preceding sections of thi s chapter are a rough summary of opinions within c r i t i c a l criminology, and should not be regarded as representative of a l l new criminologists. In fact, the parameters of the f i e l d lack d e f i n i t i o n . In The New  Criminology, for example, Taylor, Walton, and Young exclude - 36 -Richard Quinney from the ranks of the new criminologists (91). In a recent a r t i c l e , Young includes Richard Quinney, but re-jects the l e f t idealism of Quinney, Taylor, and Walton (92). Positions within the f i e l d are evidently quite diverse, so any c r i t i c i s m s do not necessarily apply equally to a l l new crimin-ol o g i s t s . Returning to the claim of the new criminologists that they have cul t i v a t e d some of the i r ideas from the writings of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, we should then expect some noticeable s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e i r respective positions. In Chapter 4, an ideal typology i s developed through comparison and synthesis of the writings of both groups. This typology i s then u t i l i z e d i n assessing the prisoners' responses i n my study. FOOTNOTES 1. Cf. David Schichor, "The New Criminology: Some C r i t i c a l Issues," The B r i t i s h Journal of Criminology, Vol. 20, no. 2, Jan. 80. This a r t i c l e reviews some of the tenets of c r i t i c a l criminology, and offers an excellent overview of many of the c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d against c r i t i c a l crim-i n o l o g i s t s . The reader i s also referred to Deviant Inter-pretations: Problems i n Criminological Theory, eds. David Downes and Paul Rock (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979). The a r t i c l e s i n thi s text provide some excellent c r i t i c a l perspectives on the new criminology. 2. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, " C r i t i c a l Crim-inology in B r i t a i n : Review and Prospects," C r i t i c a l Crim- inology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), pp. 6-7. Cf. Rob-ert Mintz, "Interview with Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 1, Spring 74, pp. 33-4. 3. Stuart H a l l , "Deviance, P o l i t i c s , and the Media,"Deviance  and Social Control, eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh (Lon-don: Tavistock, 1974), p. 262; Tony P i a t t , "Prospects for a Radical C r i t i c a l Criminology i n the USA," " C r i t i c a l  Criminology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young - 37 -(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 96, p. 103; Barry Krisberg, Crime and Social P r i v i l e g e : Toward a New  Criminology (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), p. 13, p. 25. 4. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, The New Crimin- ology: For a Social Theory of Deviance (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), pp. 31-5; Charles E. Reasons, "The P o l i t i c i z i n g of Crime, the Criminal, and the Criminolo-g i s t , " The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v o l . 64, No. 4, Dec. 73, p. 471; Jock Young, "Working Class Criminology," C r i t i c a l Criminology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 64. 5. Stanley Cohen, "Criminology and the Sociology of Deviance in B r i t a i n : A Recent History and a Current Report," Dev- iance and Social Control, eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh (London: Tavistock, 1974), p. 35; Richard Quinney, "Crime Control i n C a p i t a l i s t Society: A C r i t i c a l Philosophy of Legal Order," C r i t i c a l Criminology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 182; Anthony Pi a t t and Lynn Cooper, Policing Am-erica , eds. Anthony Pi a t t and Lynn Cooper (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 2; Taylor, Walton, and Young, The New Criminology, pp. 19-21. 6. Taylor, Walton, and Young, " C r i t i c a l Criminology in B r i -t a i n , " pp. 7-13. 7. Taylor, Walton, and Young, The New Criminology, p. 255, p. 261; Cf. Steven Spitzer, "Toward a Marxian Theory of Dev-iance," Social Problems, v o l . 22, no. 5, June 75, pp. 638-9, and W. G. Carson, "The Sociology of Crime and the Emer-gence of Criminal Laws: A Review of Some Excursions into the Sociology of Law," Deviance and Social Control, eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh (London: Tavistock, 1974), p. 69, p. 71. 8. Taylor, Walton, and Young, The New Criminology, p. 130, 154, 169-70, 192, 205, 208. 9. Ibid., pp. 268-9. 10. Ibid,. pp. 270-76. They also state that i t i s not necess-ary for a l l of these requirements to be present for the theory to be f u l l y s o c i a l . (p. 277). 11. " C r i t i c a l Criminology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 20. 12. Ibid., p. 23, 24, 28, 29. Cf. Jock Young, "Working Class Criminology," p. 86, 87, 90, 91, and Tony P i a t t , op. c i t . , p. 105. 13. Cf. " C r i t i c a l Criminology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 45, pp. 47-52; - 38 -S p i t z e r , op. c i t . , pp. 641-43; Richard Quinney, C r i t i q u e  of Legal Order: Crime C o n t r o l i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t y (Bos-ton! L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1974), p. v, 15. 14. K r i s b e r g , op. c i t • , p. 2. 15. " C r i t i c a l C r i minology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 18. 16. Mintz, op. c i t . , p. 35. 17. I b i d . , p. 36. Cf. " C r i t i c a l C r i minology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 18. 18. C o l i n Sumner, "Marxism and Deviance Theory," The S o c i o l - ogy of Crime and Delinquency: The New C r i m i n o l o g i e s , ed. Paul Wiles (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1977), p. 162. 19. James Jacobs, " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and C o n f l i c t Amongst P r i s o n Inmates," The J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n a l Law and Criminology, V o l . 66, no. 4, 1976, p. 480. 20. Cf. " C r i t i c a l C r i minology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 26, p. 36, and S p i t z e r , op. c i t . , p. 639. This p e r s p e c t i v e adheres q u i t e c l o s e l y to the d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p a r t i c u l a t e d by Marx, wherein the c a p i t a l i s t s and the p r o l e t a r i a t (the p r o p e r t i e d and the p r o p e r t y l e s s ) are i n v o l v e d i n an on-going s t r u g g l e over scarce r e s o u r c e s . 21. W i l l i a m J . Chambliss, "Toward a P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime," The S o c i o l o g y o f Law: A C o n f l i c t P e r s p e c t i v e , eds. Charles E. Reasons and Robert M. Rich (Toronto: B u t t e r -worth's, 1978), p. 193. 22. Richard Quinney, The S o c i a l R e a l i t y o f Crime (Boston: L i t -t l e , Brown & Co., 1970), p. 217. Cf. Anthony M. P i a t t , The C h i l d Savers: The In v e n t i o n o f Delinquency (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1969, 1977). P i a t t a s s e r t s t h a t d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e numbers of imprisoned youth come from workin g - c l a s s and m i n o r i t y backgrounds" (p. 190). 23. Chambliss, op. c i t . , p. 206. 24. Richard Quinney, C l a s s , S t a t e , and Crime: On the Theory  and P r a c t i c e of C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e (New York: McKay, 1977), p. 135. 25. D.G. Kellough, S.L. B r i c k e y , and W.K. Greenaway, "The P o l i t i c s o f I n c a r c e r a t i o n : Manitoba, 1918-1939," The Cana-di a n J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , v o l . 5, no. 3, Summer 1980, p. 264. 26. Cf. M a r s h a l l B. C l i n a r d , S o c i o l o g y o f Deviant Behaviour (New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1974), p. 48; on the b a s i s of 1971 s t a t i s t i c s on crime i n the USA, he shows t h a t there are 6,768.7 p r o p e r t y - r e l a t e d o f f e n c e s per - 39 -100,000 people, while there are o n l y 419.4 other o f f e n c e s ( i n c l u d i n g rape, murder, or a s s a u l t ) per 100,000 people. 27. For example, see Richard Quinney, C r i t i q u e o f Legal Order:  Crime C o n t r o l i n C a p i t a l i s t S o c i e t y , p. 16; he a s s e r t s t h a t "only with the b u i l d i n g of a s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y w i l l t h ere be a world without the need f o r crime c o n t r o l . " Chambliss, i n "Toward a P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime," a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t the crime r a t e can be expected to be much lower i n a s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y (p. 194). 28. The New Criminology, p. 270. 29. Carson, op. c i t . , p. 71. Cf. Quinney, C r i t i q u e of Legal  Order, p. 154. 30. The New Criminology, p. 220. 31. K r i s b e r g , op. c i t . , p. 13. 32. Quinney, C r i t i q u e of Legal Order, p. 59. 33. W i l l i a m J . Chambliss and Robert B. Seidman, Law, Order, and Power (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1971). p. 67, p. 96. Cf. P i a t t , The C h i l d Savers, p. 77, pp. 92-8. P i a t t i s able to s u b s t a n t i a t e the e l i t e backgrounds of those who became i n v o l v e d i n the " c h i l d s a v i n g " movement. 34. C r i t i q u e of Legal Order, pp. 61-6. 35. W i l l i a m J . Chambliss, "The Law o f Vagrancy," Crime and the  Legal Process (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), p. 53. 36. I b i d . , p. 54. 37. E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The O r i g i n of the Black  Act (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975, 1977), pp. 261-3. 38. Quinney, C l a s s , S t a t e , and Crime, p. 82. Cf. S t u a r t H a l l , Chas. C r i t c h e r , Tony J e f f e r s o n , John C l a r k e , and B r i a n Roberts, P o l i c i n g the C r i s i s : Mugging, the S t a t e , and Law  and Order (London: MacMillan, 1978), p. 197. 39. H a l l e t . a l . , op. c i t . , p. 206. 40. Alan Wolfe, " P o l i t i c a l Repression and the L i b e r a l Demo-c r a t i c S t a t e , " Monthly Review, v o l . 23, no. 7, Dec. 71, p. 23. 41. I b i d . , p. 34. 42. Quinney, C r i t i q u e of Legal Order, pp. 131-2. 43. P i a t t and Cooper, op. c i t . , pp. 91-2, p. 120. - 40 -44. Hall et. a l . , op. c i t . , p. 202. 45. Spitzer, p. 642, p. 644. Cf. Quinney, Class, State, and  Crime, p. 131. 46. Cf. Hall et. a l . , op. c i t . , p. 224, p. 264, pp. 284-5. 47. For example, see Marshall B. Clinard and Peter C. Yeager, "Corporate Crime: Issues i n Research," Criminology: An  I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Journal, v o l . 16, no. 2, Aug. 78; pp. 255-6. For t h e o r e t i c a l exegeses of the s t r u c t u r a l i s t ar-gument, see Nicos Poulantzas, P o l i t i c a l Power and Social  Classes (London: New Left Books^ 1983). 48. Cf. Chambliss and Seidman, Law, Order, and Power, p. 96; Carson, op. c i t . , pp. 73-5; Quinney, The Social Reality of  Crime, pp. 74-7. 49. Carson, op. c i t . , p. 75. Cf. D. Laureen Snider, "Corporate Crime i n Canada: A Preliminary Report," Canadian Journal  of Criminology, v o l . 20, no. 2, A p r i l 78, p. 149. 50. Clinard, The Sociology of Deviant Behaviour, p. 350. Cf. Snider, op~. c i t . , pp . 156-57. 51. Krisberg, op. c i t . , p. 25. Cf. Joan Smith and William Fried, The Uses of the American Prison: P o l i t i c a l Theory  and Penal Practice (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1974). They state that "a Presidential Commission has estimated annual losses at more than $1.5 b i l l i o n for fraud and embezzle-ment, or f i v e times as much as i s l o s t i n conventional robberies" (p. 36). In 1965, white c o l l a r crimes cost $1,730 m i l l i o n , whereas crimes of the poor cost only $608 m i l l i o n ; Erik Olin Wright, The P o l i t i c s of Punishment: A  C r i t i c a l Analysis of Prisons i n America (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 29. 52. Schichor, op. c i t . , p. 10. 53. Ibid., p. 10. 54. Ibid., p. 11. 55. David Downes, "Praxis Makes Perfect: A Critique of C r i t -i c a l Criminology," Deviant Interpretations: Problems i n  Criminological Theory, eds. David Downes and Paul Rock (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979), p. 9. 56. Peter H. J u v i l e r , Revolutionary Law and Order: P o l i t i c s  and Social Change "in the USSR (New York: Free Press, 1976), p. 136. 5 7. Ibid., pp. 13 6-7. 58. Erich Buchholz, Richard Hartmann, John Leckschas, and Ger-- 41 -hard S t i l l e r , S o c i a l i s t C r i minology: T h e o r e t i c a l and Meth-o d o l o g i c a l Foundations, t r a n s . Ewald Osers (England: Sax-on, 1974), p. 31, p. 159, p. 293. 59. I b i d . , p. 293. 60. Downes, op. c i t . , p. 9; Jock Young, " L e f t Idealism, Re-formism and Beyond: From New Criminology to Marxism," Cap-i t a l i s m and the Rule o f Law: From Deviancy Theory t o Marx-ism, eds. Bob Fine e t . a l . (London: Hutchinson, 1979), pT 28. 61. Young, op. c i t . , p. 18, p. 26., p. 28. 62. I b i d . , p. 19, p. 26. In f a c t , he r e j e c t s the " l e f t i d e a l -ism p o s i t i o n , " which he a s s o c i a t e s w i t h Quinney, T a y l o r , Walton, and h i m s e l f . 63. Cf. Schichor, op. c i t . , pp. 11-12. 64. I b i d . , p. 3. 65. Charles R. T i t t l e , Wayne J . V i l l i m e z , and Douglas A. Smith, "The Myth of S o c i a l C l a s s and C r i m i n a l i t y : An Em-p i r i c a l Assessment o f the E m p i r i c a l Evidence," American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 43, Oct. 78, p. 647. 66. I b i d . , p. 647, pp. 648-9. 67. John B r a i t h w a i t e , "The Myth of S o c i a l C l a s s and C r i m i n a l -i t y Reconsidered," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 46, no. 1, Feb. 81, pp. 36-47. 68. Cf. Samuel Yochelson and Stanton E. Samenow, The C r i m i n a l  P e r s o n a l i t y , V o l . 1: A P r o f i l e f o r Change (New York: Aron-son 1976), p. 16, p. 128, p. 143. 69. C l i n a r d and Yeager, op. c i t . , pp. 255-56. 70. Richard A. Posner, A n t i t r u s t Law: An Economic P e r s p e c t i v e (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1976) , p~. 34. 71. I b i d . , p. 28, pp. 32-3. 72. Snider, op. c i t . , pp. 148-49. 73. I b i d . , pp. 156-7, p. 163. 74. C l i n a r d and Yeager, op. c i t . , p. 259. 75. Cf. C l i n a r d , S o c i o l o g y o f Deviant Behaviour, p. 354. 76. P i e r s B e i r n e , "Empiricism and the C r i t i q u e o f Marxism on Law and Crime," S o c i a l Problems, v o l . 26, no. 4, A p r i l 79, - 42 -77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. p. 378. I b i d . , P. 379. I b i d . , p. 382-3. Isaac D. Balbus, "Commodity Form and Legal Form: an essay on the ' R e l a t i v e Autonomy' of the Law," The S o c i o l o g y of  Law: A C o n f l i c t P e r s p e c t i v e , eds. Charles E. Reasons and ronto: Butterworth's, 1978), p. 74. Robert M. Rich ( I b i d . , P- 75, p. I b i d . , P- 75. I b i d . , P- 76. I b i d . , P- 83. I b i d . , P- 81. I b i d . , P- 79. Young, op . c i t . , Schichor, op. c i t . , Chambliss, op. c i t 25. p. 12. r Thompson, op. c i t . W i l l i a m J . Chambliss, "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime: A Comparative Study of N i g e r i a and the USA," C r i t i c a l Crim- i n o l o g y ; eds. Ian T a y l o r , Paul Walton, and Jock Young (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), H a l l e t . a l . , op. c i t . r K e l l o u g h e t . a l • , op. c i t . E r i k a S. F a i r c h i l d , " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f the C r i m i n a l Offend-er: P r i s o n e r P e r c e p t i o n s of Crime and P o l i t i c s , " C r i m i n - ology: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y J o u r n a l , v o l . 15, no. 3, Nov. 777 E r i k a S. F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three P r i s o n s , " d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Wash-ington, 1974. T a y l o r , e t . a l . , The New Criminology, pp. 253-57. Young, op. c i t . , p. 19. - 43 -CHAPTER 3. THE POLITICIZED PRISONER PHEN-OMENON: A BRIEF SOCIO-HISTORICAL ACCOUNT This chapter w i l l investigate b r i e f l y the his t o r y of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process i n prisons, i n order to demonstrate the r e l a t i v e newness of t h i s phenomenon, and to place i t within a s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l perspective. This w i l l include an account of the U.S. experience and the experiences of other countries. In addition, consideration w i l l be given to the opinions of recog-nized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and outside observers regarding the impact of incarceration on the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process, since th i s i s d i r e c t l y concerned with the second hypothesis being tested by t h i s research, that p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s related to ex-posure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. A. THE POLITICIZED PRISONER: A BRIEF HISTORY Observers appear to agree that the p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oner syndrome and the p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d upheavals i n United States prisons are a f a i r l y recent occurrence. While there were prison movements i n the 1950s, prisoners s t i l l accepted the l e -gitimacy of the s o c i a l order and t h e i r incarceration (1). Black Muslims were active i n r e c r u i t i n g members for t h e i r organiza-tio n , but t h e i r p o l i t i c a l stance was separatist and nonviolent; they were concerned mostly with r e l i g i o u s freedoms and r a c i a l issues (2). Like prison movements and prison r i o t s in the past, then, prisoner concerns continued to be centred around - 44 -small freedoms or better l i v i n g conditions. As Mike Fitzgerald describes i t , "an important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of prison revolts p r i o r to the 1970s was the focus on prisoners' demands on g r i e -vances within the prison system" (3). By the late 1960s, Black leaders i n United States prisons became interested i n Marxism, and began to interact with White r a d i c a l s ; at the same time, the Chicanos were s t a r t -ing to develop a strong ethnic i d e n t i t y (4). This was t i e d to the C i v i l Rights Movement and the s o c i a l upheaval experienced in those years (for example, the student protests, the demon-strations, and the Black Power Movement) (5). Inspired by the paradigms of revolutions taking place i n colleges around the world, and bolstered by the a r r i v a l of already r a d i c a l i z e d prisoners drawn from the ranks of war r e s i s t e r s or minority ethnic groups, the shape of prisoner protest began to change (6). The uprisings at San Quentin i n 1967 and at Folsom Prison in 1970 ref l e c t e d these changes, and are generally regarded as representative of the new, more p o l i t i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d prison movements (7). By 1972, when The O f f i c i a l Report of the New York  State Special Commission on A t t i c a was published, the p o l i t i -cized prisoner phenomenon was a fact of l i f e i n many U.S. p r i s -ons. While the Commission concluded that "the A t t i c a uprising was neither a long-planned revolutionary plot nor a proletarian revolution against the c a p i t a l i s t system," (8) i t also observed that younger prisoners appeared to be more p o l i t i c a l l y aware, - 45 -and that many of these prisoners regarded themselves as " p o l i t -i c a l prisoners," as victims rather than criminals (9). In the words of the Commission: "many inmates came to believe that they were ' p o l i t i c a l prisoners,' even though they had been con-victed of crimes having no p o l i t i c a l motive or significance" (10) . Although much attention was given to notorious p r i s -ons such as Folsom, A t t i c a , San Quentin, or Soledad, the p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon was experienced on a more universal scale. In "Unionization Behind Bars," C. Ronald Huff describes the Ohio experience i n similar terms: The b e l i e f that they are ' p o l i t i c a l p r i s -oners' characterizes the conclusion drawn by an increasing number of our inmates. They are aware that the attributes which disproportionately distinguish them from the free c i t i z e n s outside the walls are race, income l e v e l , and s o c i a l s t a t u s — not behaviour or mens rea (11). Huff notes that other states, such as Massachusetts, North Car-o l i n a , and New England, had comparable experiences, as e v i -denced by the formation of prisoners' unions (12). F a i r c h i l d ' s paper, which was the i n s p i r a t i o n for t h i s present study, con-firms the existence of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n three Washington State prisons (13). Across the A t l a n t i c , Great B r i t a i n was witnessing a somewhat similar phenomenon. In 1972, the organization PROP (Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners), spurred on by some - 46 -of the new criminologists, began campaigning for improved p r i s -oners' rights (14). On 4 August, 1972, PROP organized a nation-wide st r i k e at twenty-three prisons, l a s t i n g for a twenty-four hour period (15). Among the prisoner demands were such p o l i t -i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d items as a prisoner charter of rights (16). However, i t seems doubtful that t h i s prisoner p o l i t -i c i z a t i o n i n the United Kingdom ever reached the proportions or i n t e n s i t y experienced i n the United States. Certainly U.K. prisons have not produced a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner of the stature of a Cleaver or Jackson, or at least not one who has received the same international recognition. Cohen and Taylor, who spent considerable time teaching i n an i s o l a t i o n unit of a max-imum security prison i n B r i t a i n , noted that unlike the s i t u a -ation i n United States prisons, "there are few common ideolo-g i c a l t i e s among the E-Wing type of prisoner and c e r t a i n l y nothing l i k e a common l i t e r a t u r e to provide c o l l e c t i v e motiv-ations and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s " (17). They observed that only a small group of Blacks were even p a r t i a l l y p o l i t i c i z e d , and only to the extent where they f e l t that sentencing judges discrimin-ated against them on a r a c i a l basis (18). While i s o l a t i o n units in the United States prisons had been the breeding grounds of Soul on Ice and Soledad Brother well before the publication of Cohen and Taylor's book, i t seems that i s o l a t i o n units i n Uni-ted Kingdom prisons were s t i l l much less affected by the p o l i t -i c i z a t i o n phenomenon. In Sweden, on the other hand, leve l s of p o l i t i c a l a-- 47 -wareness and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y were higher i n some ways than in the United States. According to David Ward's study of p r i s -ons i n Sweden, the prisoners i n Osteraker prison were surpris-ed at the demands of the A t t i c a prisoners, because most of the areas of contention had been resolved in Sweden p r i o r to the At t i c a uprising (19). Ward explains that i n Sweden, "reform i s kept a national issue by KRUM, a well-organized group of some 5,000 ex-inmates, students, and i n t e l l e c t u a l s " (20). As in the United States and the United Kingdom, outside r a d i c a l s were taking a leading role i n the prison movement, often using i t as a platform from which to confront the p o l i t i c a l system: Prison reform i s an issue i n Sweden be-cause important elements of the leader-ship of the national prison reform organ-i z a t i o n KRUM, contend that improvement of prison 'conditions' and inmate rights i s of secondary importance to using prison reform as a means of forcing confrontations with the p o l i t i c a l power structure (21). The Danish experience i s comparable to a certain de-gree to that of the Swedish. Like t h e i r Swedish counterparts, the Danish prisoners have a prison reform organization c a l l e d KRIM, which aligns prisoners and outside agitators against the power structure (22). However, KRIM's impact on the prison s i t u a t i o n i s quite marginal, because the l i b e r a l attitudes of prison o f f i c i a l s and p o l i t i c a l leaders toward prison reform tend to defuse any prisoner unrest (23). Although the strength of Scandinavian prisoners' un-ions may be ind i c a t i v e of some degree of p o l i t i c a l awareness - 48 -and p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the part of the prisoners (24), actual evidence of the type of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n exhibited by prisoners i n the United States i s missing. KRUM and KRIM may i n fact be dedicated to confrontations with the p o l i t i c a l power structure over prison-related issues, but the concerns of the prisoners may not extend much past demands for improved or more l i b e r a l conditions i n prisons. Scandinavian prisons appear to lack a few of the more c r u c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of prisoner p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n , such as r i o t s accompanied by a l i s t of p o l i t i c a l l y -oriented demands, re a d i l y observable r a d i c a l i z a t i o n among the prisoner population, or r a d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e produced by p o l i t i -cized prisoners. This might be attributable to a more advanced or sophisticated l e v e l of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , but more studies are required before reaching any d e f i n i t i v e conclu-sions . There are certain s i m i l a r i t i e s between the Canadian experience and those of the nations discussed above. Canada does have some outside agitators, such as C l a i r e Culhane, who campaign a c t i v e l y for prisoners' rights (25). Furthermore, Canadian prisons have had a few r a d i c a l l y aware prisoners l i k e Rosie Douglas, who demonstrates h i s p o l i t i c a l leanings by h i s assertion that "ninety percent of those incarcerated come from low income families and communities with many of the standard c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of neo-colonial underdevelopment. There i s therefore a d i r e c t co-relationship between s o c i a l class and penal incarceration" (26). - 49 -Canada also has had i t s share of prison r i o t s , par-t i c u l a r l y i n the 1970's, when Kingston Penitentiary, the B.C. Penitentiary, and Millhaven exploded. Caution should be ex-ercised, however, i n equating the r i o t s i n Canadian prisons with more p o l i t i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d disturbances i n U.S. prisons. Prisoner a c t i v i t y during the Kingston r i o t , which included the torture and execution of protective custody prisoners (inform-ers, sexual offenders, and others who require segregation from the main prisoner population), could not be regarded as i n d i c a -t i v e of p o l i t i c a l awareness (27). Furthermore, my personal ob-servations during two r i o t s at the B.C. Penitentiary i n the 1970s were that the l i s t of demands submitted by the prisoners tended to be related to personal comfort items such as trans-fers, p s y c h i a t r i c care, or drugs, rather than to such items as amnesty or p o l i t i c a l freedoms, and that the demands usually a-rose after the uprising, once negotiations with prison admin-i s t r a t o r s were under way. Desroches makes a similar observa-ti o n i n his a r t i c l e on prison r i o t s i n Canada, noting that " i n -mate demands arise only after the r i o t has begun and are there-fore not the cause of the r i o t , but rather function to help leaders j u s t i f y and maintain power" (28). However, while e v i -dence suggests that the p o s t - r i o t demands of Canadian prisoners are contrived, again more research i s necessary before making conclusive statements on the subject. Similar caution should be exercised i n equating Can-ada's more famous prisoners with recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prison-ers i n the United States. Andrew Bruce, for example, i s a well - 50 -known Canadian prisoner who has received much p u b l i c i t y as a r e s u l t of h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n several hostage-takings. Howev-er, his demands and the demands of others during the negotia-tions, such as drugs, transfers, or improved p r i v i l e g e s , have been c l e a r l y s e l f - s e r v i n g ; these demands cannot be said to dem-onstrate any substantial degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . On the oth-er hand, prisoner demands for "amnesty" at A t t i c a or for the right to organize unions at Folsom were c l e a r l y p o l i t i c i z e d (29). Roger Caron, who i s probably Canada's most well known prisoner/author, exemplifies t h i s lack of r a d i c a l awareness i n h i s statement: "that i s why I write l e t t e r s to you, Judge, hop-ing to win your respect and your tru s t , for you are the people, and the people are the judge" (30). Information i n the next chapter w i l l demonstrate that a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner would ar-gue that the criminal j u s t i c e system represents the interests of the r u l i n g c l a s s — n o t the interests of the people. Andreas Schroeder, another Canadian prisoner/author, seems more con-cerned with describing the prison environment and i t s impact on him than with a c r i t i q u e of the society and i t s prisons (31). Canada has yet to produce a George Jackson or an Eldridge Clea-v e r — p r i s o n e r s who were both notorious and p o l i t i c i z e d . While prisons i n various countries have experienced the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner syndrome, i t appears that none have had experiences comparable to those of the United States. Oth-ers have had prison disturbances, outside agitators, some p r i s -- 51 -oner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and some p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d demands, but not on the same scale as i n the United States. This i s not to say that prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s unique to the United States. The evidence to the contrary, including the results of my research, i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore. What thi s means quite simply i s that prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n in Canada has not reach-ed the same magnitude as i n the United States. B. RACISM AND PRISONER POLITICIZATION One explanation for these divergences i s that the large number of Blacks incarcerated i n U.S. prisons have devel-oped a unique p o l i t i c a l consciousness as a consequence of t h e i r perceived exploitation by the White system. David Ward, i n his study on Scandinavian prisons., observes that "charges of racism which prompt Blacks, Chicanos, and Indians i n American prisons to contend that they are ' p o l i t i c a l ' prisoners are not heard i n Sweden's all-white prison population" (32). As mentioned prev-iously, Cohen and Taylor arrived at similar observations re-specting the prisons in the United Kingdom, finding that only a small group of Blacks at Eccleston exhibited any vestiges of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (33), although t h i s i s possibly changing since the Brixton r i o t s and subsequent outbursts of Black protest a-gainst ghetto squalor. According to the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-tration's report on l o c a l j a i l s , Blacks constitute approximate-l y forty-two per cent of the prisoner/population of the United - 52 -States (34). Regarding c a p i t a l punishment, Quinney states that through the years, f i f t y - f o u r percent of those executed were Black (35). To say that t h i s i s overrepresentative i s somewhat of an understatement. In addition, Quinney points out another discrepancy i n treatment: only forty-four percent of Whites were executed in keeping with t h e i r death sentences (the re-mainder had the i r sentences commuted), while i n the case of Blacks, f u l l y sixty-two percent had t h e i r death sentences car-r i e d out (36). These s t a t i s t i c s suggest that Black prisoners in the United States well might have some reasons to see them-selves as members of an exploited class. Some might argue that the p l i g h t of the Canadian Na-t i v e Indian i s similar to that of the American Black. Lane et. a l . , i n t h e i r a r t i c l e "The Incarcerted Native," assert that "Native People represent the largest single ethnic minority i n Canadian prisons, both p r o v i n c i a l and federal" (37). Their survey conducted i n 1977 demonstrated that incarcerated Natives ( l i k e many Blacks i n the United States) came from more impover-ished backgrounds than the Whites, and that Natives were "gen-e r a l l y less l i k e l y to receive probationary sentences" from the criminal justice system (38). However, they also found that at the time of the survey, only 800 Natives were incarcerated i n Canadian federal prisons (39). It i s not surprising, then, that t h i s small group of Natives has become neither as p o l i t i c i z e d nor as p o l i t i c a l l y active as the Blacks. There i s a tangible difference between constituting eight percent as opposed to forty-two percent of the prison population. - 53 -John Davis, in his research on attitudes of Blacks toward the criminal j u s t i c e system, found that there was a higher crime rate among Blacks because: the h i s t o r i c a l i n j u s t i c e s i n f l i c t e d upon blacks under the law i n t h i s country have produced a black consciousness which views the law as simply another instrument for upholding white supremacy. The law i s not seen as an instrument for j u s t i c e , and l i t -t l e i f any stigma i s attached to law v i o l a -t i o n (40). After interviewing a s t r a t i f i e d sample of 150 Blacks, he con-cluded that they f e l t that the system was set up to protect White rather than Black i n t e r e s t s , that there was unequal ac-cess to advancement, and that Blacks were discriminated against by the criminal j u s t i c e system (41). It i s not d i f f i c u l t to see why Blacks have become a potent force inside the criminal j u s t i c e system, seeing themselves as a uniquely exploited c l a s s . The importance of the Black influence i n U.S. prisons cannot be overemphasized: to appreciate t h i s , one has only to observe that v i r t u a l l y a l l well known p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners (for example, Eldridge Cleaver, George Jackson, or John Clu-chette) are Black. The Black Muslims, the Black Panthers, and the Black Power Movement were a l l contributing factors to p r i s -oner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n the United States (42). In fact, i t seems that Blacks were the f i r s t prisoners to develop a c o l l e c -t i v e p o l i t i c a l consciousness, and that through t h e i r interac-- 54 -tion with Blacks, other prisoners, such as the Chicanos and White ra d i c a l s , began to develop along similar l i n e s (43). Not surprisi n g l y , F a i r c h i l d ' s research on p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n three Washington State prisons revealed that Black respondents were much more p o l i t i c i z e d than t h e i r White counterparts (44). This does not mean that we should ignore the i n d i c -ations of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n the primarily White prison popula-tions i n Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, or Canada. As seen e a r l i e r , they too have produced some p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. It i s a question of degree more than anything else. There were similar features, such as outside agitators, p o l i t i c i z e d de-mands, or prisoner organization, but these were more pronounced in the United States. C. THE CURRENT SITUATION To bring t h i s b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l account of the p o l i t i -cized prisoner to a close, i t seems appropriate to consider the current status of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon. This i s par-t i c u l a r l y true i n l i g h t of statements by some observers indi c a -ting that t h i s aspect of prison l i f e i s disappearing. Writing in 1980, John Irwin announced that prison administrators had made measurable progress i n repressing p o l i t i c a l leaders and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s , r e s u l t i n g i n a decline i n p o l i t i c a l par-t i c i p a t i o n on the part of U.S. prisoners (45). Currently, ac-cording to Irwin, "violence-oriented gangs dominate many, i f not most, large men's prisons" (46). Both Irwin and Jacobs - 55 -have observed that prisoners are subdividing increasingly into gangs, and that they are involved i n inter-gang warfare centred around gaining control of the prison economy (47). If t h i s i s in fact the case, then one must question the relevance of t h i s present study. The obvious questions are: why examine and write about something which may have been nothing more than a passing fashion? What significance should be attached to a phenomenon which emerged and was nurtured by a C i v i l Rights Movement born i n the optimistic 1960s and now de-c l i n i n g in the more pragmatically-oriented late 1970s? Without foreshadowing too much, I would submit that the results of my research in three Canadian prisons confirms the existence of a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the sampled prisoners. In my findings, seventeen of the sixty prisoners sampled were judged to be either moderately or ex-tremely p o l i t i c i z e d on the basis of t h e i r response patterns. It must be admitted that the Canadian prisoners lack the p o l -i t i c a l organizations and the eloquent p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n the United States, but nonetheless, the apparent r a d i c a l p o l i t i c a l awareness of the Canadian sample cannot be overlooked. Given that my survey was conducted i n late 1979 and early 1980, i t would seem to be a hasty conclusion that the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon i s dead, at least as far as Canada i s concerned. At least two p o s s i b i l i t i e s come to mind to explain - 56 -the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of Canadian prisoners i n the face of the os-tensible decline of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n in the United States. One explanation—the type which i n my experience i s commonly band-ied about by Canadian prison employees—is that Canadian p r i s -ons t y p i c a l l y lag behind U.S. prisons, both i n programs for prisoners and prisoner awareness. This explanation cannot be discounted t o t a l l y , as i t i s conceivable that the p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n revealed by my research i s a late-blooming by-product of the e a r l i e r s i t u a t i o n i n the United States. In t h i s scenario, p o l i t i c i z a t i o n in Canadian prisons would be the r e s u l t of a s p i l l o v e r from the United States, wherein Canadian prisoners have been affected by either d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t exposure to U. S. prisoners, or i t would be giving expression to s o c i e t a l con-f l i c t s that are i n i t i a l l y and more strongly experienced i n the United States. The other explanation, which I fi n d equally p l a u s i -ble, i s that while v i s i b l e p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s of U.S. p r i s -oners have now been more e f f e c t i v e l y repressed, i t may be that p o l i t i c i z e d attitudes are s t i l l prevalent among elements of the prisoner population. Unless we accept the idea that those at-titudes were extremely s u p e r f i c i a l , and therefore subject to rapid conversion, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that they could be t o t a l l y erased. In other words, i t i s possible that a s i g n i f i -cant portion of U.S. prisoners s t i l l retain a number of p o l i t i -cized attitudes. Of course t h i s i s purely speculative, as the lack of current research on the p o l i t i c a l opinions of U.S. prisoners makes i t d i f f i c u l t to arrive at any substantive con-- 57 -elusions. If t h i s i s the case, however, then i t explains why some Canadian prisoners are responding to survey questions i n a p o l i t i c i z e d manner while p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s ostensibly d e c l i n -ing in U.S. prisons. Also in a speculative vein, i t could be suggested that the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n issue may be far from dead in the Uni-ted Kingdom, due to the a c t i v i t i e s of incarcerated members of the I r i s h Republican Army.. With IRA members demanding " p o l i t -i c a l prisoner" status, i t i s feasible that the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon w i l l be r e v i v e d — i f i t actually requires r e v i v a l — b y conventional offenders who w i l l again come to view themselves as p o l i t i c a l prisoners. Investigation of the a t t i -tudes of IRA members, and any dispersion of those attitudes a-mongst the general prisoner population, i s an area of study that should not be neglected, p a r t i c u l a r l y since i t permits an-a l y s i s of the ways in which p o l i t i c a l attitudes spread through-out the prison. Needless-to-say, only time w i l l t e l l whether or not IRA demands for p o l i t i c a l prisoner status w i l l have any appreciable impact on the manner in which conventional offend-ers see t h e i r incarceration (48) . The future of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon, then, seems uncertain, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of evidence which suggests that i t may have run i t s course i n the United States, where i t originated. It i s conceivable that the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner was nothing more than a product of a s o c i a l movement—charac-terized by C i v i l Rights a c t i v i t i e s , campus reb e l l i o n s , demon-- 58 -strations, and left-wing ideology—which also has disappeared to a certain extent i n the late 1970s and early 1980s. Despite these indications, though, i t i s s t i l l too early to declare the issue passe. While 1972 was the year when p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d prisoner a c t i v i t i e s were at a peak, there i s no conclusive e v i -dence that prisoners have abandoned r a d i c a l i z e d ideation (in fact, my findings suggest that the opposite i s true), or that there i s no p o s s i b i l i t y for r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of the movement. D. POLITICIZATION AND THE PRISON ENVIRONMENT The new criminologists tend to see the prison as a po t e n t i a l "cauldron of revolutionary i n s p i r a t i o n to those i n the 'outside world'" (49). As discussed in the Introduction to the thesis, t h i s tendency i s linked to t h e i r view of the prison as a microcosm of society, a place where—because of the close q u a r t e r s — t h e class c o n f l i c t s of capitalism are l a i d bare for the exploited to inspect (50). Once behind bars, the incarcer-ated proletarian can ( i f we follow t h i s argument) re a d i l y d i s -cern the way i n which the system controls the p r o l e t a r i a t and protects the wealthy. The new criminologists emphasize that many of the well known p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners (Cleaver and Jack-son, for example) developed t h e i r r a d i c a l perspectives as a d i -rect r e s u l t of t h e i r experience with the prison system (51). Like the new criminologists, F a i r c h i l d also refers to the prison as " microcosm of p o l i t i c a l change" (52). Her opin-ion i s that prisoners become p o l i t i c i z e d while i n prison - 59 -through several channels, including the influence of other prisoners, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in educational programs provided by the prisons, and exposure to or organization by, such groups as the Black Muslims (52). However, while her description of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process seems plausible enough, there should be some hesitancy i n accepting i t completely, as she appears to have neglected an investigation of the process and i t s compo-nents. Instead, she assumes that prisons are the cause of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and that the above-mentioned conduits are in fact the main components of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process. In the preceding h i s t o r y of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phen-omenon, i t was seen that the new criminologists and other rad-i c a l outside groups (for example, such organizations as PROP and KRUM) were involved i n t e g r a l l y i n heightening the i n t e n s i t y of prison c o n f l i c t . As Irwin points out, these groups had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n convincing conventional offenders that they were p o l i t i c a l p r i s o n e r s — w a r r i o r s against socioeconomic inequality (54). The influence of outside groups, then, i s an important part of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process, yet t h i s part i s not i n t r i n s i c to the actual prison environment; rather, i t i s implanted i n the prison by outside agitators. This does not mean that the prison environment i s incapable of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n on i t s own, but rather i t suggests that i t may require other contributory factors to achieve s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s of p o l i t i c i -zation . In any event, recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners appear - 60 -to agree with the notion that prisons are large l y responsible for t h e i r r a d i c a l i z a t i o n . Wendall Wade, who was both a prison-er and a member of the Black Panther Party, says that "the prisons hold a wealth of resources for the struggle to l i b e r a t e our communities; i t [ s i c ] i s the tra i n i n g ground for the lum-penproletarians" (55). The "training ground" image i s repeated by other p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, including George Jackson, who states: "I met Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, and Mao when I en-tered prison," (56) and Eldridge Cleaver, who declares that " i t was not u n t i l I went to prison that I r e a l l y began to expand my perspective" (57). The basic message i s presented c l e a r l y by Alfred Hassan: Prison i s where my education began i n earnest, where I learned about the source of my (our) c o n f l i c t s ; and i t is where I began to look at my h i s -tory and the h i s t o r y of other oppres-sed people i n the world and how they set out to resolve t h e i r c o n f l i c t s through the process of resistant strug-gle and revolutionary wars. (58) Also apparent among the ranks of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i s some consensus regarding the factors i n the po l -i t i c i z a t i o n process. One prisoner at Folsom Prison writes: P o l i t i c a l awareness pervades the very a i r here. P o l i t i c a l d i a l e c t i c s are the common topics of conversation, replacing pimping, robbing, and hust l i n g as the main i n t e r e s t . Frantz Faron, Mao Tse-Tung, Regis Debray and and Marx have replaced Louis La'mour and Max Brand. (59) Cleaver's claims that his r a d i c a l i z a t i o n came i n prison, "from - 61 -reading and talking to other convicts" (60), lend support to the above account of the process. It seems, therefore, that informal factors such as reading and d a i l y i n t e r a c t i o n with other prisoners are as important as formal factors, such as ed-ucation or the influence of external groups, i n r a i s i n g the p o l i t i c a l consciousness of the prisoners. Despite minor divergences i n opinion, the view of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners correspond with those of the new crimin-ologists regarding the r a d i c a l i z i n g effects of prisons. As An-gela Davis explains i t , the prison experience i s causing the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner to see prisons and the criminal j u s t i c e system i n general as "Key weapons i n the state's f i g h t to pre-serve the existing conditions of class domination" (61). George Jackson epitomizes c r i t i c a l criminology's typology of a prisoner r a d i c a l i z e d by the prison experience when he says that: very few men imprisoned for economic crimes of passion against the oppres-sor f e e l that they are r e a l l y g u i l t y . Most of today's black convicts have come to understand that they are the most abused victims of an unrighteous order. (62) In the accounts, then, of both the new criminologists and the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, we f i n d the idea that incarceration i s l i k e l y to make the "exploited" i n d i v i d u a l more conscious of h i s or her v i c t i m i z a t i o n by an unfair socioeconomic system. - 62 -E. SUMMARY As seen in t h i s b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l account, the p o l i t i -cized prisoner phenomenon i s r e l a t i v e l y new, but widespread nonetheless. While prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s more evident i n the United States, i t also exists in the United Kingdom, Swed-en, Denmark, and Canada. Reports on the situations i n coun-t r i e s other than these are presently unavailable. Some obser-vers now talk about a decline i n prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , but i n s u f f i c i e n t proof has been presented to lay the issue to rest. In sum, the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and the new crimin-ologists seem to agree that incarceration contributes to p r i s -oner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Although the prisoners are less l i k e l y than the new criminologists to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n to the impact of outside groups, the analysis offered by t h e i r leading figures suggest that the r i s e of c r i t i c a l criminology and the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon are i n t e r r e l a t e d . FOOTNOTES 1. Cf. Mike Fitzgerald, Prisoners i n Revolt (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), p. 199. 2. Cf. John Irwin, Prisons i n Turmoil (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1980) pp. 68-9. 3. Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 213. 4. Cf. Irwin, op. c i t . , pp. 76-7. 5. Cf. Irwin, op. c i t . , p. 66, and Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 199, p. 216, pp. 217-19. 6. Cf. John Pallas and Bob Barber, "From Riot to Revolution," Issues in Criminology, v o l . 7, no. 2, F a l l 72, pp. 10-11. - 63 -7. Irwin, op. c i t . , pp. 84-8, Fi t z g e r a l d . op. c i t . , pp. 206-9. 8. A t t i c a : The O f f i c i a l Report of the New York State Spe-c i a l Commission on A t t i c a (New York: Bantam Books, 1972), p. 105. 9. Ibid., pp. 105-06. 10. Ibid., p. 117. 11. C. Ronald Huff, "Unionization Behind v o l . 12, no. 2, Aug. 74, p. 177. 12. Ibid., pp. 184-5. 13. Erika Schmid F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three Prisons," doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Wash-ington, 1974, pp. 195-8, 199, 273-82. 14. Cf. Robert Mintz, "Interview with Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 1, Spring 74, p. 36, Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , pp. 136-40. 15. Mintz, op. c i t . , p. 36. 16. Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 152. 17. Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor, Psychological Survival:  The Experience of Long Term Imprisonment (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 122. 18. Ibid., p. 146 19. David A. Ward, "Inmate Rights and Prison Reform i n Sweden and Denmark," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and  Police Science, Vol. 63, no. 2, 1972, pp. 240-1. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Cf. C l a i r e Culhane, "The B.C. Pen: A Microcosm," Makara, vol. 2, no. 3, and C l a i r e Culhane, "The B.C. Pen: A Re-s p o n s i b i l i t y , " Makara, v o l . 2, no. 4. Ibid., P- 241. Ibid., P- 251. Ibid., P- 249. Ibid., P- 249. Ibid., P- 249.. 26. Rosie Douglas, Penal Reform, Community Development, and Social Change: Overview from a Canadian Perspective (Mon-- 64 -t r e a l : Mondiale, 1975), pp. 1-2. 27. Cf. Fred Desroches, "Patterns i n Prison Riots," Canadian  Journal of Criminology and Corrections, v o l . 16, 1974, p. 338. 28. Ibid., p. 344. Cf. Catherine Douglas, Joan Drummond, and C.H.S. Jayewardine, "Administrative Contributions to P r i -son Disturbances," Canadian Journal of Criminology, v o l . 22, no. 2, A p r i l 80. The authors note that the r i o t at Kingston was sparked by a n o n - p o l i t i c a l incident, and that i t occurred spontaneously, pp. 199-200. 29. Cf. Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 211, p. 206-09. 30. Roger Caron, Go Boy; Memories of a L i f e Behind Bars (Tor-onto: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p. 260. 31. Andreas Schroeder, Shaking i t Rough: A Prison Memoir (Tor-onto: Doubleday, 1976), p. 12, 22, 29, pp. 44-5. 32. Ward, op. c i t . , p. 243. 33. Cohen and Taylor, op. c i t . , p. 146. 34. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, A Survey of In-mates of Local J a i l s 1972: Advance Report (U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Information and Sta-t i s t i c s Service, Washington, D.C), p. 3. 35. Richard Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime (Boston: L i t -t l e , Brown and Co., 1970), p. 186. 36. Ibid., p. 188. 37. E. B. Lane, H. W. Daniels, J. D. Blyan, and R. Royer, "The Incarcerated Native," Canadian Journal of Criminology, v o l . 20, no. 3, July 78, p. 308. 38. Ibid., pp. 312-13. 39. Ibid., p. 310. 40. John A. Davis, " J u s t i f i c a t i o n of No Obligation: Views of Black Males toward Crime and the Criminal Law," Issues i n  Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 2, F a l l 74, p. 70. 41. Ibid., pp. 75-8. 42. Cf. Fitzgerald, op. c i t . , p. 217, pp. 218-19, and Irwin, op. c i t . , p. 68, p. 76. 43. Irwin, op. c i t . , pp. 76-9. 44. F a i r c h i l d , op. c i t . , p. 118, 120, 123, 124, 136. - 65 -45. Irwin, op. c i t . , p. 147, pp. 151-2. 46. Ibid., p. 192. 47. Ibid., pp. 206-11; James B. Jacobs, " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and Co n f l i c t Among Prison Inmates," Journal of Criminal Law  Criminology, vo. 66, no. 4, 1976, p. 478. 48. Cf. Tim Pat Coogan, On the Blanket: the H Block Story (Dublin: Ward River Press, 1980), p. 177, p. 238, p. 240. He i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with prisoner p o l i t i c i -zation, but certain inferences may be drawn from his re-port. More w i l l be said on thi s in the concluding chap-ter . 49. Terry L. Huston, "Prisons: A Marxist Position," Monthly  Review, v o l . 25, no. 6, Nov. 73, p. 33; Pallas and Barber, op. c i t . , p. 16. 50. Cf. Pallas and Barber, op. c i t . , p. 1, 16. 51. Cf. Krisberg, op. c i t . , pp. 82-3, and Charles E. Reasons, "The P o l i t i c i z i n g of Crime, the Criminal and the Criminol-ogist," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v o l . 64, no. 4, Dec. 73, p. 375. 52. F a i r c h i l d , op. c i t . , p. 327. 53. Ibid., pp. 273-82, p. 173-4. Cf. Irwin, op. c i t . , p. 64; Irwin also states that formal education i n prison had an impact on the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process. 54. Irwin, op. c i t . , p. 96. 55. Wendall Wade, "The P o l i t i c s of Prisons," The Black Schol- ar, April-May 71, p. 18. 56. George Jackson, Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of  George Jackson (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970), p~. 16. 57. Lee Lockwood, Conversation with Eldridge Cleaver (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 79. 58. Al f r e d Hassan, Maximum Security: Letters from C a l i f o r n i a ' s  Prisons, ed. Eve P e l l (New York: Dutton, 1972), p. 232. 59. Comrade Robert, Maximum Security, p. 223. 60. Lockwood, op. c i t . , p. 79. 61. Angela Y. Davis, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of  Resistance, ed. Angela Y. Davis. (New York: Joseph Okpa-ker, 1971), p. 25, p. 29. - 66 -62. George Jackson, Soledad Brother: The P r i s o n L e t t e r s o f  George Jackson (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970), p. 26. - 67 -CHAPTER 4. CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY AND THE POLITICIZED PRISONER A. INTRODUCTION To assess the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n e x h i b i t e d by the respondents i n my sample, i t i s necessary t o a r r i v e at a d e f i n i t i o n and i d e a l typology o f a p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r . To accomplish t h i s I have examined the p u b l i s h e d w r i t i n g s o f r e c -ognized p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s such as E l d r i d g e Cleaver, George Jackson, Huey Newton, or Angela Davis, because these w r i t i n g s are regarded by the new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s as exemplars of the a t -t i t u d e s or o p i n i o n s o f most p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s . In other words, i t would be expected t h a t a p r i s o n e r who i s e i t h e r p o l -i t i c i z e d or i n the process o f becoming p o l i t i c i z e d would have i n t e r n a l i z e d some o f the r a d i c a l a t t i t u d e s or p e r s p e c t i v e s es-poused by those above-mentioned p r i s o n e r s who are recognized as being p o l i t i c i z e d ( 1 ) . During t h i s examination o f the w r i t i n g s o f p o l i t i -c i z e d p r i s o n e r s , some excerpts from w r i t i n g s o f the new c r i m i n -o l o g i s t s w i l l a l s o be o f f e r e d , t o compare t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e s on crime, p o l i t i c s , and the socioeconomic system. T h i s approach should enable us to e s t a b l i s h whether or not the a t t i t u d e s o f p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s do c o i n c i d e w i t h the r a d i c a l statements o f c r i t i c a l c r i m i n o l o g y , and i f so, t o what extent t h i s process of p r i s o n e r r a d i c a l i z a t i o n has gone. - 68 -It must again be emphasized that t h i s study s p e c i f i c -a l l y refers to those prisoners who are r a d i c a l l y p o l i t i c i z e d . While there may be prisoners who are p o l i t i c a l l y aware or po l -i t i c a l l y active within more orthodox p o l i t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s , they are not the object of th i s study. This does not mean that i n -dividuals who are concerned with less r a d i c a l p o l i t i c s are not at a l l p o l i t i c i z e d ; there may be an appreciable number as com-mitted to one or more p o l i t i c a l ideologies as the r a d i c a l i z e d prisoners who are the object of t h i s study. This study, how-ever, i s r e s t r i c t e d to an analysis of the views of those i n d i -viduals to whom the " r a d i c a l " label i s usually applied; i e . , who have views similar to those of George Jackson or Eldridge Cleaver. Furthermore, since the purpose of t h i s study i s to test the assumptions of the new criminologists regarding the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon, i t i s essential to subscribe to th e i r d e f i n i t i o n of a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner. This chapter w i l l deal with the attitudes of p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoners toward the socioeconomic system, the criminal j u s t i c e system, the prevalent c u l t u r a l values, the power struc-ture, the sociology of law, desirable s o c i a l changes, and the methods for achieving those changes. The a t t i t u d i n a l areas un-der consideration correspond to the t o p i c a l rubrics of my re-search, and therefore should serve as a useful reference when determining the levels of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n exhibited by the re-spondents i n my sample. The areas are treated here in the same order as i n my interview schedule, and i n Chapter 6, which re-- 69 -ports the results of t h i s study. Apart from maintaining con-t i n u i t y between chapters of t h i s thesis, t h i s arrangement should f a c i l i t a t e the comparison of statements made by recog-nized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and by the prisoners i n my sample. B. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM As w i l l be seen i n the following chapter on methodol-ogy, questions regarding the socioeconomic system were designed to evoke responses indicating levels of "class consciousness" among the prisoners i n my sample. The term "class conscious-ness" i s defined here as a r a d i c a l i z e d awareness of the impact of the socioeconomic system, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the lower classes, who—in th i s r a d i c a l i z e d p e r s p e c t i v e — a r e disproportionately represented in the prison population. The purpose at t h i s point i s to i d e n t i f y the types of responses one might expect from a class-conscious prisoner. The prisoner's a b i l i t y to relate his personal s i t u a -t i o n (educatonal attainment or family background, for example) to his incarceration was dealt with i n Part II of the interview schedule (see Chapter 5 for further d e t a i l s on the structuring of the interview). The respondent was questioned regarding his feelings about his future prospects, i n an attempt to uncover any nascent class consciousness which might not be evident i n responses to l a t e r , more detailed questions ( 2 ) . Jackson of-fers an excellent example of a p o l i t i c i z e d outlook toward the future, when he says that "for us i t i s always tomorrow; tomor-- 70 -row we'11 have enough money to eat better; tomorrow we 111 be able to buy a necessary a r t i c l e of clothing, to pay that debt. Tomorrow, i t never r e a l l y gets here" (3 ) . The important ele-ments are that the prisoner recognizes that socioeconomic prob-lems never seem to resolve themselves, and that i n l i g h t of th i s the future appears bleak. The second set of questions (Part III of the i n t e r -view schedule) pertained and dealt with the respondent's a b i l i -ty to locate his position i n the class structure. In describ-ing t h e i r position in the class structure of capitalism, par-t i c i p a n t s i n C a l i f o r n i a ' s United Prisoners Union say that: We as members of the convicted working class are twisted and mangled i n the vise of a cruel system that cares l i t t l e for human l i f e . We are the l a s t to be hired, the f i r s t to be f i r e d . . . .In the widening class struggle i n America, prisoners are the lowest of the low. We are wage slaves inside and out. ( 4 ) The fundamental points here are that the prisoners recognize the existence of a class structure, and that they are able to i d e n t i f y t h e i r own position i n that structure i n very emphatic terms. A c o r o l l a r y of t h i s recognition i s t h e i r perception of themselves as a part of a larger class struggle. Such a t t r i -butes should be regarded as evidence of a r a d i c a l i z e d p o l i t i c a l awareness of the class system of capitalism. Black prisoners seem p a r t i c u l a r l y cognizant of t h e i r position i n the socioeconomic hierarchy of the United States. - 71 -Wendall Wade expresses the sentiments of many when he says that "the overwhelming majority of the black prisoners ar r i v e at the i r position because of the socioeconomic s i t u a t i o n into which they find they have been born" (5). George Jackson brings the p l i g h t of Blacks into even sharper focus by stressing that they must cope with both r a c i a l discrimination and low socio-economic status: We are a caste at the bottom of a class society, the only group that has b u i l t -i n factors (physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) that prohibit any form of socioeconomic mobility. We are the t o t a l l y disenfran-chised, the whipping boy, the scapegoat, the fl o o r mat of the nation. (6) Although one would not expect similar responses from the p r i -marily Caucasian prison population i n Canada, these expressions of class consciousness by Black prisoners are nonetheless symp-tomatic of p o l i t i c i z e d perspectives on the class system. The f i n a l question i n the a t t i t u d i n a l area dealing with class consciousness s o l i c i t e d information pertaining to the respondent's understanding of the l i n k between property re-lations and crime. In Blood i n My Eye, Jackson i l l u s t r a t e s the the type of statement one might expect from a p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oner on thi s topic in his assertion that "crime i s simply the re s u l t of a grossly disproportionate d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth and p r i v i l e g e " (7). This i s comparable to Davis' opinion that "the occurrence of crime i s inevitable i n a society i n which wealth i s unequally d i s t r i b u t e d " (8). According to her, "the majority - 72 -of criminal offences bear a d i r e c t r elationship to property" (9). From the above quotations i t appears that p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners believe that crime i s caused or accentuated by large d i s p a r i t i e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth. Perspectives of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on the socio-economic system and i t s e f f e c t on members of the working class are e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l to those of the new criminologists. In Class, State, and Crime, for example, Quinney announces that 15 m i l l i o n people are "pauperized" in the United States, and adds that i t i s t h i s pauperized "segment of the working class that r e a d i l y turns to crime i n the struggle for s u r v i v a l " (10). He goes on to show the vast differences between the s o c i a l classes, and points out that while the 15 m i l l i o n are strug-gling to survive, "1.6 percent of the population owns 80 per-cent of a l l corporate stocks and government bonds" (11). P i a t t makes a similar observation with respect to juvenile delinquen-cy, saying that "disproportionate numbers of imprisoned youth come from working-class and minority backgrounds" (12). Quin-ney summarizes one facet of c r i t i c a l criminology's p o s i t i o n well when he says that "members of the lower classes. . .have the greatest p r o b a b i l i t y of being arrested and convicted" (13). Considering the apparent agreement between the new criminologists and p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on t h i s topic, i t seems reasonable to expect that for responses to questions on the socioeconomic system to be regarded as p o l i t i c i z e d , they should conform to an appreciable extent to the above comments. - 73 -In other words, a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner should be aware of the impact of s o c i a l class on future prospects such as the poten-t i a l for upward mobility, and should be able to i d e n t i f y his p o s i t i o n i n the s o c i a l structure with some accuracy. A t r u l y r a d i c a l i z e d prisoner should see h i s criminal a c t i v i t i e s as linked i n some way to the property relations of capitalism. Unless these elements are present i n the response pattern, the respondent cannot be judged to be p o l i t i c i z e d i n the sense that Jackson or Cleaver would be seen to be p o l i t i c i z e d . C. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM The next series of questions (Part IV of the i n t e r -view schedule) s o l i c i t e d prisoner opinions on the fairness or i m p a r t i a l i t y of the criminal j u s t i c e system. The questions were designed to obtain information pertaining to perceptions of e-qu a l i t y before the law, with p a r t i c u l a r reference to any per-ceived class bias i n the j u s t i c e system. Once again, there i s appreciable uniformity between the views of the new criminol-ogists and the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on t h i s t o p i c . Davis 1 position on prisons and the o v e r a l l justice system i s that they are "key weapons in the state's fight to preserve the existing conditions of class domination" (14). This i s much l i k e Jackson's description of the police as "the l o c a l representatives of the oppressors," (15) or the assertion of the Marion Prison C o l l e c t i v e that "the main function of prisons i s to serve as the apex of s o c i a l coercion within the - 74 -c a p i t a l i s t economy" (16). It seems that a r a d i c a l i z e d p r i s -oner regards the criminal justice system as a weapon i n the hands of the dominant class of society, used to oppress or con-t r o l the dominated classes. This sentiment i s summarized well i n the statement: "The pigs are not protecting you, your home, and i t s contents. The pig i s protecting the right of a few private individuals to own public p r o p e r t y l i " (17). Apart from feeling that the criminal j u s t i c e system i s a tool of the ru l i n g class, p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners also b e l -ieve that members of the lower classes are treated u n f a i r l y by the system. Jackson exemplifies t h i s when he notes that "50 percent of a l l the people ever executed i n the country. . . were black and 100 percent were lower-class poor" (18). Like others of the Black p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, he also emphasizes that Blacks i n the United States are treated more u n f a i r l y by the law than White members of the lower c l a s s . As he puts i t , "Blacks who attack property relations are slated for the grave-yard or the prison camp" (19). While th i s type of attitude to-ward the legal system may stem from r a c i a l problems i n the U-nited States, the fact remains that p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners c l e a r l y recognize the class bias i n the system. In Critique of Legal Order, Quinney makes similar comments on this subject, saying that "the legal system i s an apparatus created to secure the interests of the dominant cl a s s " (20). He reiterates t h i s viewpoint more bluntly i n Class, State, and Crime, when he says that " c a p i t a l i s t j u s t i c e - 75 -i s by the c a p i t a l i s t class, for the c a p i t a l i s t class, and a-gainst the working class" (21). While Quinney's statement i s perhaps more fo r c e f u l than those of most c r i t i c a l criminolo-g i s t s , v i r t u a l l y a l l of them share th i s view to a greater or lesser extent (22). Like the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, they f e e l that the purpose of the criminal j u s t i c e system i s to secure and preserve the exploitative socioeconomic system. Chambliss, too, sounds much l i k e the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners when considering the question of equality before the law. He asserts that r i c h and poor a l i k e commit crimes, but that only "members of the r u l i n g class" can v i o l a t e the law with impunity (23). As he puts i t : It i s in the enforcement of the law that the lower classes are subject to the eff e c t s of r u l i n g class domination over the l egal system, and which r e s u l t i n the appearance of a concentration of criminal acts among the lower classes in the o f f i c i a l records. Although i t could be argued that his perspectives are somewhat more developed than those of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, the ba-si c message of socioeconomic inequality before the law remains the same. D. ATTITUDES TOWARD PREDOMINANT CULTURAL VALUES The t h i r d dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (Part V of the interview schedule) dealt with opinions regarding the - 76 -predominant c u l t u r a l values. In the context of t h i s thesis, the term "predominant c u l t u r a l values" refers to components of the b e l i e f system or ideology which are attached to our type of society. The questions sought information on the degree to which respondents accepted concepts such as freedom, democracy, s o c i a l equality, and s o c i a l mobility. In other words, there was an attempt to guage the acceptance of "appropriate" ideolo-g y — t h e extent to which the prisoners agreed with or rejected what some might label "bourgeois ideology." Descriptions offered by the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners re-garding the North American p o l i t i c a l system p l a i n l y reject the notion of democracy. Cleaver describes the p o l i t i c a l system by saying that: In the United States, we have what you c a l l representative democracy, but i t ' s pretty clear that the system i s a rigged system. Even though i t i s c a l l e d 'a gov-ernment of the people and by the people,' the people are not r e a l l y i n a po s i t i o n to determine what i s going to happen. They do not control the decision making process. (25) Jackson carries t h i s r e j e c t i o n one step further, by comparing the American system to fascism: "the d e f i n i t i o n of fascism i s ; a police state wherein the p o l i t i c a l ascendency i s t i e d into and protects the interests of the upper c l a s s — c h a r -acterized by militarism, racism, and imperialism" (26). Both examples demonstrate the authors' feelings that the p o l i t i c a l system i s not democratic, because i t only represents the i n t e r -- 77 -e s t s of a s m a l l segment of s o c i e t y . Jackson's stance on the s u b j e c t o f freedom i l l u s -t r a t e s what a p o l i t i c i z e d p e r s p e c t i v e might be: "you are f r e e — to s t a r v e . The sense and meaning of s l a v e r y comes through as a r e s u l t of our t i e s to the wage. You must have i t , without i t you would s t a r v e or expose y o u r s e l f to the elements" (27). He e v i d e n t l y d i s m i s s e s the idea t h a t we have f r e e access to i n f o r -mation, when he says t h a t "'freedom of the press i s f o r those who own one.' Even they are kept i n l i n e by economic pressure from above" (28). In each o f these statements he adopts the p o s i t i o n t h a t any freedoms which we t h i n k we have are e i t h e r l i m i t e d or i l l u s o r y , as e v e r y t h i n g u l t i m a t e l y i s c o n t r o l l e d by the economic e l i t e . Jackson's assessment o f the e x i s t e n c e of socioeconom-i c e q u a l i t y (or i n e q u a l i t y ) i s e q u a l l y i n s t r u c t i v e i n determin-ing how a p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r might t h i n k . In d i s c u s s i n g the a l l o c a t i o n of h i s s t e p - f a t h e r ' s tax money, he says t h a t i t i s not being used to h e l p you or o t h e r s . You are g e t t i n g no r e t u r n on your i n v e s t -ment. . . i t f o l l o w s t h a t i f everyone pays, everyone should get proper r e t u r n s . The s t r e e t l i g h t s should be the same i n Watts and B e l A i r . I t seems t h a t some d e r e l i c -t i o n o f duty has indeed taken p l a c e . (29) Despite the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t h i s a t t i t u d e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the unique p o s i t i o n of Blacks i n American s o c i e t y , i t i s ap-parent t h a t f o r Jackson, e q u a l i t y i s l i t t l e more than a s o c i a l - 78 -myth. P o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s a l s o r e j e c t the n o t i o n o f soc-i a l m o b i l i t y . Wendall Wade, f o r i n s t a n c e , observes t h a t "the economic s i t u a t i o n . .keeps m i n o r i t i e s on the bottom as a mat t e r of h i s t o r i c a l course" (30). He develops h i s p o i n t f u r t h e r by posing what he e v i d e n t l y c o n s i d e r s t o be r h e t o r i c a l ques-t i o n s : What are we g u i l t y o f , 'economic crimes' or ' s u r v i v i n g ? ' In America they appear synonymous. What would one expect from a system t h a t produces so much, but pro-v i d e s no l e g a l way f o r so many to o b t a i n the r i g h t f u l f r u i t s of t h e i r labour? (31) I t seems t h a t one reasonably might expect a p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n er to i d e n t i f y l a c k o f m o b i l i t y as one of the primary causes o pr o p e r t y crime. More e x p l i c i t i s an excerpt from one o f Jackson's p r i s o n l e t t e r s to h i s mother, when he t e l l s her t h a t I don't blame you f o r not tea c h i n g me how to get what I want without g e t t i n g put i n j a i l , nor do I blame myself. I was born knowing nothing and am a product o f my t o t a l surroundings. I blame the c a p i t a l -i s t i c dog, the i m p e r i a l i s t i c , c a v e-dwelling brute t h a t kidnapped us, p u l l e d the rug from under us, made us a ca s t e w i t h i n h i s s o c i e t y with no v e r t i c a l economic m o b i l i t y . (32) Again, i t could be argued t h a t Jackson's views on the t o p i c o f s o c i a l m o b i l i t y s p r i n g from s p e c i f i c problems connected with - 79 -being a Black i n the United States. Nonetheless, h i s statement that there i s "no v e r t i c a l economic mobility" c l e a r l y demon-strates h i s awareness of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r i s i n g from the lower into the middle or upper classes, p a r t i c u l a r l y for a Black i n the United States. While not a l l prisoners have had th e i r class consciousness heightened as much as the Blacks, a reasonable c r i t e r i a for categorizing any prisoner (White or Black) as p o l i t i c i z e d would be that they are cognizant of the struggle involved i n achieving s o c i a l mobility. The views of the new criminologists regarding e l e -ments of the b e l i e f system associated with capitalism are somewhat similar, but much more developed than those of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e i n th e i r a b i l i t y to a r t i c u l a t e the prisoners' more basic rejec t i o n of the predominant c u l t u r a l values, and to achieve an o v e r a l l c r i t i q u e of the role of ideology i n maintaining the existence of the s o c i a l order. (However, i t i s possible that t h i s great-er concern with an understanding of b e l i e f systems or c u l t u r a l values i n a l l t h e i r complexity i s to an extent a product of the role expectations placed on academicians. In fact, i t could be suggested that t h e i r detailed concern with the subject i s a product of t h e i r awareness of t h e i r own role i n the production and dissemination of ideology). A b r i e f examination of a few excerpts from the writ-ings of new criminologists seems i n order, to arrive at an un-derstanding of t h e i r views on the general role of ideology i n - 80 -s o c i a l control before moving on to the question of t h e i r accep-tance or r e j e c t i o n of such c u l t u r a l values as s o c i a l mobility or equality. Taylor, Walton, and Young offe r an insight into the function of ideology i n t h e i r comparison of the opposing versions of right and l e f t wing factions: Conservatives. . . w i l l treat the b e l i e f i n hierarchy and dominance as a consen-sus, where radicals w i l l i d e n t i f y i n that moral bind the f a l s e consciousness which i s necessary to legitimate what i s i n r e a l i t y an inequitable set of s o c i a l arrangements. (33) Their i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "false consciousness" as a legitimating force i n capitalism resembles Spitzer's observation that "popu-lations become generally e l i g i b l e for management as deviant when they. . . c a l l into question. . .the ideology which sup-ports the functioning of c a p i t a l i s t society" (34). Both exam-ples emphasize the importance of ideology i n l e g i t i m i z i n g the s o c i a l order. In h i s a r t i c l e "The Production of Criminology," Quin-ney expands upon t h i s by arguing that criminologists themselves are one of the major transmitters of "bourgeois ideology": Our work i s i n the sphere of the ideo-l o g i c a l reproduction of capitalism. We are the workers in the colleges and the u n i v e r s i t i e s , i n the criminal j u s t i c e research agencies, and in the schools of criminal j u s t i c e . The ob-j e c t i v e task of the criminologist i s to transmit bourgeois ideology to the working class as a whole, to ensure harmonious relations between the work-ing class and the c a p i t a l i s t class ac-- 81 -cording to the interests of the l a t t e r . (35) He contends that he and his colleagues "have a choice" between "l e g i t i m i z i n g the c a p i t a l i s t system" or engaging " i n the class struggle for socialism" (36) leaving no doubt that he favours the l a t t e r a l ternative (37). His recognition of criminology's role i n transmitting bourgeois ideology, and his r e j e c t i o n of that role, i s sharply expressed and exceeds the levels of a-wareness demonstrated even by p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. The new criminologists concur with the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners' dismissal of the idea that capitalism implies dem-ocracy, a l b e i t i n a more elaborate fashion. In h i s contribu-t i o n to Taylor, Walton, and Young's C r i t i c a l Criminology, Quinney asserts that Contrary to the dominant view, the state is' created by that class of society that has the power to enforce i t s w i l l on the rest of society. The State i s thus a r e a l , but a r t i f i c i a l , p o l i t i c a l organization cre-ated out of force and coercion. The State i s established by those who desire to pro-tect t h e i r material basis and have the pow-er (because of material means) to maintain the State. The law in c a p i t a l i s t society gives p o l i t i c a l recognition to powerful p r i -vate i n t e r e s t s . (38) The basic message here i s akin to S p i t z e r 1 s suggestion that "e-mergence of state capitalism and the growing interpenetration of the p o l i t i c a l and economic spheres have had a number of im-pl i c a t i o n s for the organization and administration of class rule" (39). Both quotations emphasize the partisan role of the - 82 -State, describe the system as "capitalism", underline the im-pact of economic power on the p o l i t i c a l system, and portray class r u l e . These perspectives show that new criminologists generally reject the notion that there i s an a f f i n i t y between capitalism and democracy. The above statements also indicate c r i t i c a l criminol-ogy's po s i t i o n on the notion of freedom. When the new crimin-ologists t a l k about "class rule" or a " p o l i t i c a l organization created out of force and coercion," i t suggests they see any "freedom" as being circumscribed by the r e a l i t i e s of the capi-t a l i s t s o c i a l order. In fact, some of the new criminologists would say that our freedom i s limited or shaped by idea con-t r o l . Cohen and Young, for example, state that the mass media "provide the guiding myths which shape our conception of the world and serve as important instruments of s o c i a l control" (40) . Again, the stress placed on the importance of s o c i a l control i l l u s t r a t e s c r i t i c a l criminology's skeptical attitude towards the s o c i a l "myth" of freedom. During Mintz's interview with Taylor, Walton and Young, Walton rejects the idea of equality when he discusses the "unequally d i s t r i b u t e d " property rights under capitalism (41) , and Young expands upon th i s shortly thereafter, saying that "In a c a p i t a l i s t society, the establishment of one man's rights and decency w i l l usually mean another man's degredation" (42) . In "Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance," Spitzer goes even further, asserting that "victimization i s permitted and - 83 -even encouraged, as long as the victims are members of an ex-p l o i t a b l e c l a s s " (43). A l l of the above observers, therefore, are unreservedly skeptical about the existence of equality un-der capitalism. The new criminologists are equally dubious about the potential for s o c i a l mobility. As P i a t t and Takagi put i t , "the r e a l value of workers' wages has declined severely. . .and the ranks of the unemployed and under-employed have grown by the m i l l i o n s " (44). They elaborate upon t h i s , quoting Marx in t h e i r statement that With soaring unemployment rates and welfare r o l l s , a p e r s i s t e n t l y high l e v e l of i n f l a t i o n and a general at-tack on the wages. . .of the working class, there can be l i t t l e doubt about the proposition that the 'accumulation of wealth at one pole i s , therefore, at the same time accumulation of mis-ery. . . at the opposite pole.' (45) Taylor, Walton, and Young comment s i m i l a r l y , i n a succinct f a -shion: "More and more members of the 'proletariat' are being forced to l i v e more and more on welfare" (46). None of these above statements off e r a picture of widespread s o c i a l mobility. If anything, i t seems that any mobility envisioned by c r i t i c a l criminology i s of the downward variety. In summary, the new criminologists side with the p o l -i t i c i z e d prisoners i n t h e i r denial of the ideology of c a p i t a l -ism. Ideas such as "democracy" or " s o c i a l equality" are re-- 84 -garded by both groups as s o c i a l f i c t i o n s . The difference be-tween the new criminologists and the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i s one of degree more than anything else, with the former more concerned about the role of ideology i n reproducing capitalism, and t h e i r own role i n producing that ideology. Consequently, for prisoners i n my study to be c l a s s i f i e d as p o l i t i c i z e d , they should unambiguously reject some of the predominant c u l t u r a l values. E. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POWER STRUCTURE Part VI of the interview schedule i s concerned with prisoner perceptions of the power structure. The respondent was asked to i d e n t i f y the power-wielders i n the society, and to consider his own position i n the power structure. The purpose was to find out whether or not the respondent viewed the power structure i n a ra d i c a l i z e d way. For a view to be judged as rad i c a l i z e d i n th i s case, there should be recognition of the existence of a "power e l i t e , " and a conception of the degree of power exercised by that e l i t e . In Marxist terminology, p o l i t i -cized prisoners should be aware of a "ruling c l a s s . " Well-known p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners are d e f i n i t e l y aware of t h i s "power e l i t e " or "ruling class." As Jackson describes i t , "The r u l i n g class in the U.S. i s composed of one m i l l i o n men and th e i r f a m i l i e s . . . . They rule with i r o n precision through the m i l i t a r y , the C.I.A., the F.B.I., private founda-tions and f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s " (47). Jackson not only be-- 85 -lieves that there i s a r u l i n g c l a s s — h e also has ideas about i t s approximate size, the power i t possesses, and how i t a-chieves control. P o l i t i c i z e d prisoners generally seem to have ideas about how the power e l i t e exercises control. In Soul on Ice, for example, Cleaver says that "the police department and the armed forces are the two arms of the power structure, the mus-cles of control and enforcement" (48). He adds to t h i s l i s t i n a l a t e r interview when he says that "the press i s controlled by the exploiters, by the r u l i n g class" (49). In the words of Ro-sie Douglas, a Canadian p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner, the ru l i n g class i s composed of "those who control the means of production, d i s -t r i b u t i o n , exchange and the media" (50). The word "control" appears in a l l of the above statements. Above a l l , these prisoners remark on the influence of the r u l i n g class i n creating prisons, and on how the powerful always seem able to elude the grip of the criminal j u s t i c e sys-tem. In "Towards the United Front," for instance, Jackson com-ments upon the ru l i n g c l a s s 1 need for prisons: Throughout the cen t r a l i z i n g - a u t h o r i -t a r i a n process of American history, the r u l i n g classes have found i t ex-pedient, a c t u a l l y necessary to i n s i n -uate upon the people instrumentalities designed to discourage and punish any genuine opposition to hierarchy. (51) John Cluchette observes that "ninety-eight percent of a l l the - 86 -people in concentration camps [prisons] are members of the op-pressed cla s s , " and adds that "you won't fi n d members of the ruling - c l i q u e in places l i k e t h i s " (52). This sentiment i s shared by Jackson, who says that "there are no wealthy men on death row, and so very few i n the general prison population that we can discount them a l l together" (53). Like these prisoners, the new criminologists believe in the existence of a r u l i n g class (although various q u a l i f i c a -tions are introduced, depending on the s p e c i f i c t h e o r e t i c a l or-ien t a t i o n ) . In "Crime Control i n C a p i t a l i s t Society," for ex-ample, Quinney announces that "the major portions of the wealth and nearly a l l the power i n American society are concentrated i n the hands of a few large corporations" (54). He expands u-pon t h i s theme in a l a t e r publication, stating that "1.6 per-cent of the population owns 80 percent of a l l the corporate stocks and government bonds" (55). The resemblance between these statements and those of the prisoners i s s t r i k i n g . Quinney shows a similar concern about the manner in which the rul i n g class uses the criminal justice system to maintain t h e i r power. In Critique of Legal Order, he says that "the r u l i n g class formulates criminal policy for the preserva-tion of domestic order, an order that assures the s o c i a l and economic hegemony of the c a p i t a l i s t system" (56). He then laun-ches into an account of how the powerful are able to exploit the criminal j u s t i c e system for t h e i r own ends,by demonstrating that the President's Crime Commission i n the 1960's was com-- 87 -posed primarily of wealthy lawyers and directors of corpora-tions, and that many o f f i c e holders i n what he refers to as the "crime control bureaucracies" have d e f i n i t e t i e s with the f i -nancial e l i t e (57). In addition, the new criminologists share the prison-ers 1 opinion that members of the power e l i t e can avoid prosecu-ti o n . When Taylor, Walton, and Young argue that "rule-breaking i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d , regular and widespread amongst the power-f u l , " and that " i t i s a given r e s u l t of the structural position occupied by powerful men," (58) they underscore the i n v i o l a b i l -i t y of the powerful. Their point i s that the powerful not only can but do break rules on a regular basis, and that, aside from token sanctions, they are v i r t u a l l y immune to prosecution. To be regarded as p o l i t i c i z e d , then, prisoner respon-ses i n my study should resemble some of the foregoing comments on the power structure. As seen above, p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists a l i k e believe i n the existence of an h i -erarchical f r a c t i o n tantamount to a "ruling c l a s s . " Both are able to describe i t s composition and methods for exercising control. In addition, they quite predictably share the same concern about that class' a b i l i t y to manipulate the criminal ju s t i c e system i n i t s own favour. F. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW The l a s t a t t i t u d i n a l area used to assess the ov e r a l l - 88 -degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (part VII of the interview schedule) dealt with the sociology of law. Respondents were asked to i -dentify both the law makers and those whose interests the law protects. This topic i s of special interest to the new crimin-o l o g i s t s , given t h e i r d i s c i p l i n a r y focus on the analysis of l e -gal r e l a t i o n s . On the other hand, most p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners are r e l a t i v e l y s i l e n t on the subject, possibly because i t i s more obscure or esoteric than other issues available to t h e i r scrutiny. Again, t h i s i s not t o t a l l y surprising, since one reason for s o l i c i t i n g opinions on the sociology of law during the interview was my expectation that answers would be more d i f f i c u l t to formulate, and therefore would demand a higher de-gree of r a d i c a l i z e d insight. Cleaver's view on the subject i s emphatically clear when he states that "which laws get enforced depends on who i s i n power. If the c a p i t a l i s t s are i n power, they enforce laws designed to protect t h e i r system, t h e i r way of l i f e . They have a p a r t i c u l a r abhorrence for crimes against property" (59). While Cleaver i s t a l k i n g about "enforcing" rather than "making" laws, i t i s nevertheless clear from h i s statement that he be-lieves the c a p i t a l i s t class to be i n de facto control of the law, and that laws are designed to protect the property r e l a -tions of capitalism. Jackson writes e s s e n t i a l l y the same thing i n Blood i n  my Eye; "bourgeois law protects property re l a t i o n s , and not so-c i a l r elationships" (60). This i s a theme developed e a r l i e r i n - 89 -Soledad Brother, when he ponders the question: What i s i t that r e a l l y t i e s that fat rat with a chain of department stores to a uniformed pig? The fat rat wants the country and the world policed, made safe for his business to expand. . .Money i s the bond I think. (61) What he appears to recognize i n the above statement (in a less d i r e c t manner than in the previous one) i s that the wealthy are able to ensure that the country i s policed i n a way that guar-antees the continued existence of t h e i r economic well-being. i Another example of a p o l i t i c i z e d perspective on the law-making process i s contained i n a speech made by Cleaver at Stanford University. He begins by noting that "some very i n -teresting laws are being passed," and adds that they are cre-ated to control s o c i a l dissent (62). He continues by assert-ing that: What they're [the power structure] saying i s that they have white people in t h i s country who are dissenting, and they have some black people who are dissenting, and that these people are a threat to the game that's being run on people, and they have to be isolat e d , exterminated, confined to concentration camps, or have t h e i r paroles revoked. (63) However, Cleaver refers to such figureheads as Hubert Humphrey or J. Edgar Hoover as the power-wielders, (64) whereas a more ra d i c a l i z e d thinker would be more apt to mention such in d i v i d u -als as owners of large corporations or high l e v e l financeers. - 90 -Unfortunately, neither Cleaver nor Jackson are part-i c u l a r l y revealing on the topic of "who makes the laws and why?," although both do o f f e r some insights into t h e i r perspec-t i v e s . For that matter—as mentioned previously—most p o l i t i -cized prisoners do not address the subject at a l l . We must turn to c r i t i c a l criminology for a clearer picture of a r a d i c a l i z e d perspective on t h i s topic. Unlike the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, the new criminolo-g i s t s are quite elaborate in t h e i r comments on the sociology of law. Without needing to forage for t h e i r opinions, the reader w i l l e a s i l y discover a growing l i t e r a t u r e by the new criminolo-g i s t s which attempts to discuss, define, and c r i t i c i z e the law-making process and how i t represents the interests of a small but powerful socioeconomic group. This i s not unexpected, g i v -en that a sociology of law should be a cornerstone for any so-c i a l science claiming "crime" as i t s object of study. The f i r s t area to consider, then, i s who the new criminologists i d e n t i f y as having control over the legal deci-sion making process. According to Spitzer, If we assume that class s o c i e t i e s are based on fundamental c o n f l i c t s between groups, and that harmony i s achieved through the dominance of a s p e c i f i c class, i t makes sense to argue that de-viants are c u l l e d from groups who create s p e c i f i c problems for those who r u l e . (65) - 91 -In other words, Spitzer i s arguing that the r u l i n g class i s able to manage s o c i a l c o n f l i c t by c o n t r o l l i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of deviance and the types of people who are selected for deviant status. Krisberg's thinking on the subject i s quite s i m i l a r : Criminal laws and systems of law enforce-ment exist to promote and protect a system based on the conception (private ownership) of property, and these laws and systems of / organized violence or coercion are thus linked intimately with those persons who possess the most private property (66). Quinney also deals extensively with t h i s topic. He points out that i n the United States "only a few groups are ever able to be represented in the formulation of law," due to i n e q u a l i t i e s of power (67). He develops t h i s further, saying that "although law i s supposed to protect a l l c i t i z e n s , i t starts as a tool of the dominant class and ends up by maintaining the dominance of that c l a s s " (68). Like Krisberg and Spitzer, then, he believes that "the r u l i n g class formulates criminal p o l i c y , " (69) and leaves no doubt that he believes the c a p i t a l i s t s are the r u l i n g class (70). The new criminologists are equally clear on whose interests are protected by the law. Krisberg says that "laws that protect the sanctity of private property primarily benefit those who have the most property" (71). Quinney's comments i n The Social Reality of Crime are comparable when he asserts f i r s t that "the very emergence of criminal law i s h i s t o r i c a l l y a p o l i t i c a l phenomenon. Because of the interests of p a r t i c u l a r - 92 -s o c i a l segments, criminal law was created," (72) and adds l a t e r that "the legal protection of property has always been to the in t e r e s t of the propertied segments of society" (73). In es-sence, the new criminologists believe that criminal law i s de-fined by, and i n favour of, the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s — t h e "one per-cent" whom Quinney describes as the owners of "40 percent of the nation's wealth" (74). These excerpts from the writings of p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners and new criminologists suggest that a p o l i t i c i z e d prison-er would be of the opinion that law i s formulated by the capi-t a l i s t class, for the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s . While the statements of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners on t h i s topic were less clear or systematic than those of the new criminologists, the prisoners did appear to make—albeit i n a cruder manner—similar observa-tions. However, given the general i n a b i l i t y of recognized p o l -i t i c i z e d prisoners to a r t i c u l a t e a r a d i c a l sociology of law, excessive expectations should not be placed on the respondents in my study when assessing t h e i r degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n th i s a t t i t u d i n a l category. At t h i s point, we have reviewed the perspectives of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists with respect to the f i v e main a t t i t u d i n a l areas tested i n my re-search. B r i e f l y , those areas were class consciousness, percep-tions of the criminal j u s t i c e system, acceptance (or rejection) of appropriate ideology, perceptions of the power structure, and the sociology of law. The above-mentioned categories were - 93 -the only ones included in the assessment of the ov e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . From th i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e , i t appears that recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners adhere to a ra d i c a l i z e d i d e o l -ogy, and see themselves as victims of an exploitative s o c i a l order (capitalism) that protects the r i c h at the expense of the poor. It seems a safe conclusion that there are some remark-able s i m i l a r i t i e s between the perspectives of the prisoners and those of the new criminologists, although i t must be noted that there are some divergences. The views of both groups d e f i n i t e -l y resonate with a Marxist explanation of c r i m i n a l i t y . Overall, by comparing and blending the statements of the two groups, we should have a f a i r l y clear picture of the types of responses one might expect from a p o l i t i c i z e d prison-er. In other words, there i s now a rough yardstick by which we can judge whether or not prisoner responses are indeed p o l i t i -cized i n terms of a p o l i t i c i z a t i o n scale. The l a s t a t t i t u d i n a l area considered i n the study—one not included i n the p o l i t i c i -zation score, but used as a cross-check for each respondent's score i n the category of ove r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n — i s considered below. G. PRISONER PROGRAMS FOR CHANGE The sixth and f i n a l a t t i t u d i n a l area addressed i n the interview schedule related to the types of s o c i a l change de-- 94 -sired by the prisoners, and the methods advocated for achieving those changes. The purpose was to determine i f those prisoners who answered other questions in a p o l i t i c i z e d manner would be able to go one step further by making concrete suggestions for improved s o c i a l conditions, and by indicating how those changes might be achieved. As w i l l be seen i n the discussion of my re-search r e s u l t s , t h i s topic proved—as was a n t i c i p a t e d — t o be d i f f i c u l t for many of the prisoners. Radicalized prisoners have numerous s p e c i f i c propo-sals for s o c i a l change. In Soul on Ice, Cleaver announces that The world c a p i t a l i s t system has come to a decisive fork i n the road. . . The road to the l e f t i s the way of re-c o n c i l i a t i o n with the exploited people of the world, the l i b e r a t i o n of a l l peoples, the dismantling of a l l econom-i c relations based upon the exploita-t i o n of man by man. (75) At a l a t e r date, Cleaver express t h i s view more vehemently: "the United States as i t exists has to be t o t a l l y obliterated and has to be r e b u i l t and re-structured, and the wealth, the means of production, the entire system, has to be re-arranged" (76). E s s e n t i a l l y , he c a l l s for sweeping s o c i a l changes and a s o c i a l i s t p o l i t i c a l system. Others place emphasis on the notion that "the people" must gain control of the government, Jackson, for example, as-serts that - 95 -i f a government t r u l y r e f l e c t e d the wishes of the people, i f i t t r u l y represented a f a i r cross-section of the populace, i t would follow that i f the means of production and d i s -t r i b u t i o n were placed i n the hands of the government they would be con-t r o l l e d by the people. The central point i s that the government must be t r u l y representative. (77) Wendell Wade agrees that " i f we are ever to gain power and s e l f determination the people must control not only production but d i s t r i b u t i o n " (78). Recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners make other sugges-tions for s o c i a l change, including n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of a l l i n -dustries (79) and developing a more r a t i o n a l approach to the ecology (80). A l l desired changes e n t a i l an e x p l i c i t r e j e c t i o n of capitalism i n favour of socialism. In other words, the p r i s -oners see s o c i a l problems as a manifestation of capitalism rather than as immutable phenomena that w i l l remain regardless of changes i n circumstances. This r e j e c t i o n of capitalism i s evidenced further i n the methods advocated by the prisoners for achieving s o c i a l changes. Jackson's stance on the issue i s evident i n h i s dec-l a r a t i o n that "Pure non-violence as a p o l i t i c a l i d e a l . . . i s absurd. P o l i t i c s i s violence" (81). According to him, there must be a latent threat of erup-ti o n , a dormant p o s s i b i l i t y of sudden and v i o l e n t action i f concessions are to be won, respect gained, and the es-tablished order altered. . .a look at - 96 -European h i s t o r y shows that anything of great value that ever changed hands was taken by force of arms. (82) He returns to t h i s point i n Blood i n My Eye, saying that "rev-olution within a modern i n d u s t r i a l c a p i t a l i s t society can only mean the overthrow of a l l existing property relations and the destruction of a l l i n s t i t u t i o n s that. . .support existing pro-perty r e l a t i o n s " (83). His comments are comparable to Cleaver's, who announ-ces that "we need to develop a concept of urban geography, be-cause the only models of revolutionary behaviour that we have are those taken from r u r a l geography and r u r a l t e r r a i n , " (84) and adds that "we have to fight a revolutionary struggle for the v i o l e n t overthrow of the United States government and the t o t a l destruction of the r a c i s t , c a p i t a l i s t , i m p e r i a l i s t , neo-c o l o n i a l i s t power structure" (85). In both cases, the authors advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government through violent revolution. The Marion Prison C o l l e c t i v e offers a well a r t i c u -lated description of t h e i r proposed revolutionary methodology in a statement on t h e i r objectives, which reads as follows: "Primary short-term objective: elevation of p o l i t i c a l con-sciousness. . .Method: one-on-one p o l i t i c a l education; i n f i l -t r a t i o n and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Long Range Objective: Liberation of oppressed classes of t h i s society. Method: Armed struggle and r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n " (86). Like Jackson and Cleaver, then, - 97 -they suggest armed struggle (revolution) as the appropriate means for changing the society. In the previous chapter on c r i t i c a l criminology i t was noted that the new criminologists regard the c a p i t a l i s t system as criminogenic. As well, they generally favour so-c i a l i s m as a panacea to the i l l s of capitalism. However, they are more reluctant than the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners to advocate extreme measures for achieving s o c i a l change, and i n fact, ap-pear to be almost s i l e n t on the subject of revolution. In most instances, the new criminologists are concerned primarily with the prospects for decreased c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n under socialism. In C r i t i c a l Criminology, Taylor, Walton, and Young submit that A s o c i a l i s t conception of man would i n s i s t on the unlimited nature of human potential in a human society, and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n a society i n which man was freed from having to engage only i n the e s s e n t i a l l y ani-m a l i s t i c pursuit of material pro-duction i n order to feed, consume, and e x i s t . (87) This t i e s i n d i r e c t l y with t h e i r v i s i o n of a society wherein the material needs of the people would be met without some individuals having to resort to crime as a means of s u r v i v a l . Furthermore, the statement i s linked to t h e i r main objective: "a criminology which i s normatively committed to the a b o l i t i o n of i n e q u a l i t i e s i n wealth and power" (88). - 98 -As usual, Quinney i s more straight-forward i n his ap-proach. He announces that "capitalism has produced crime as we know i t today i n America" (89) and argues that "only with the building of a s o c i a l i s t society w i l l there be a world without the need for crime control" (90). Chambliss echoes t h i s s e n t i -ment i n a more subdued manner when he predicts that there w i l l be "much lower rates of crime" i n s o c i a l i s t nations (91). In both instances, there i s a normative commitment to s o c i a l i s t ideology. We can only speculate as to why the new criminolo-g i s t s are less vocal than the prisoners in supporting the idea of violent revolution. It may be that the criminologists have a much greater stake in the present society than prisoners, who have nothing to lose; as well, criminologists are probably un-der more pressure (peer group and State influence, for example) to conform to at least some of the norms (such as "democratic" change) of capitalism. In any event, the two groups appear to agree that capitalism should be replaced by socialism. Therefore, i n cross-checking the responses of the interviewed prisoners i n th i s a t t i t u d i n a l area to determine whether they are able to carry t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d consciousness into the realm of "prax-i s , " i t seems r e a l i s t i c to expect that they should favour so-c i a l i s t goals and r a d i c a l measures for achieving s o c i a l change. However, i t should be kept i n mind that the Canadian prisoners, - 99 -who lack the exposure to such r a d i c a l groups as the Black Pan-thers, might be less i n c l i n e d toward dramatic changes and ex-treme measures than t h e i r counterparts i n the United States. H. SUMMARY In examining the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas tested i n my study to determine levels of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , plus the other areas used as a cross-check, i t appears that there are remark-able s i m i l a r i t i e s between the comments of the p o l i t i c i z e d p r i -soners and those of the new criminologists. While there are some minor divergences, by and large they a l l blame crime on the class structure of c a p i t a l i s t society, view criminal law as a tool created by the r i c h and powerful (in t h e i r own i n t e r -ests), and c a l l for p o l i t i c a l change from capitalism to s o c i a l -ism. E s s e n t i a l l y , each group advocates what could be l a b e l l e d as a " r a d i c a l " or "left-wing" philosophical stance, accompanied by a s p e c i f i c concern with the topic of crime. At the same time, by comparing the comments of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners to those of the new criminologists on these topics, we should have a f a i r idea of what constitutes a r a d i c a l i z e d view of crime and society. We have seen what the new criminologists would expect a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner to think, and what some of the more l i o n i z e d p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners themselves think about key issues i n s o c i a l control. As discussed e a r l i e r , the new criminologists attach - 100 -appreciable significance to prison r i o t s and regard them as p o l i t i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d events rather than as spontaneous up-r i s i n g s aimed at wanton destruction or personal g r a t i f i c a t i o n (92). It i s clear that p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners also believe that t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are p o l i t i c a l i n nature (93). Newton summar-izes t h e i r p osition best when he asserts that during a l l the rebellions across the country, the prisoners have indicated that t h e i r oppression i s not simply a matter of overcrowded prisons, f i l t h y conditions and guard b r u t a l i t y : but that i t i s centred i n the i n s t i t u t i o n -a l i z e d racism and class discrimination of the j u d i c i a l system i t s e l f . Behind t h e i r concrete demands for r e l i e f there i s a r a d i c a l p o l i t i c a l consciousness. (94) In "Prospects for a Radical Criminology in the U. S. A.," P i a t t writes that "the most imaginative criminology has been written by 'criminals,'" r e f e r r i n g to such notables as Jackson, Davis, and Cleaver (95). Having looked at the writ-ings of such prisoners, we therefore have constructed a picture by which to guage p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . By compiling examples of p o l -l i t i c i z e d responses for each of the categories examined in the f i e l d research, i t i s possible to develop an ideal typology which can be u t i l i z e d to provide a measurement of prisoner p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n . Before closing t h i s chapter and going on to discuss methodological approaches to the study, i t seems worthwhile to turn again to Huey Newton for one l a s t d e f i n i t i o n of a p o l i t i -cized prisoner. He states that "there are two types of p r i s -- 101 -oners. The largest number are those who accept the legitimacy of the assumptions upon which the society i s based" (96), and The second type of prisoner, i s the one who rejects the legitimacy of the assump-tions upon which the society i s based. . . the second type of prisoner says that the society i s corrupt and must be overthrown. This second type of prisoner i s the p o l i t -i c a l prisoner. (97) While one might look askance at his use of the term " p o l i t i c a l prisoner," h i s comments nevertheless are most applicable to a d e f i n i t i o n of a " p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner" (98). In i d e n t i f y i n g p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, then, we should look for those who chal-lenge the fundamental legitimating precepts of the society. FOOTNOTES 1. Clearly, most p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners would not be expected to be as a r t i c u l a t e or systematic as George Jackson or Angela Davis. Cf. Barry Krisberg, Crime and P r i v i l e g e :  Toward a New Criminology (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prent-i c e - H a l l , 1975), pp. 82-3. 2. This area was not taken into consideration i n determining p o l i t i c i z a t i o n l e v e l s , but was used instead as a predictor of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . See Chapter 5 for further de-t a i l s . 3. George Jackson, Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of  George Jackson (New York: Coward-McCann, 1970), pp. 72-3. 4. Frank Browning, "Organizing Behind Bars," Ramparts, Feb. 72, v o l . 10, no. 8, p. 44. 5. Wendall Wade, "The P o l i t i c s of Prison," The Black Scholar, April-May 71, p. 12. 6. Jackson, op. c i t . , p. 184. 7. George Jackson, Blood i n My Eye (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 106. - 102 -8. Angela Y. Davis, If They Come in the Morning: Voices of  Resistance, ed. Angela Y. Davis (New York: Joseph Okpak-er, 1971), p. 27. 9. Ibid., p. 27. 10. Richard Quinney, Class, State, and Crime: On the Theory  and Practice of Criminal Justice (New York: McKay, 1977), p. 71. 11. Ibid., p. 74. 12. Anthony M. P i a t t , The Child Savers: The Invention of  Delinquency (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1969, 1977), p. 190. 13. Richard Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime (Boston: L i t -t l e , Brown & Co., 1970), p. 217. 14. Davis, op. c i t . , p. 25. 15. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 194. 16. Marion Prison C o l l e c t i v e , "Network Building: Notes of a Prison C o l l e c t i v e , " Crime and Social Justice: A Journal  of Radical Criminology, Spring-Summer 76, p. 53. 17. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 165. 18. Ibid., p. 265 19. Jackson, Blood i n My Eye, p. 78. Cf. Robert Chrisman, "Black Prisoners, White Law," The Black Scholar, April-May 71, p. 45. 20. Richard Quinney, Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control i n  C a p i t a l i s t Society (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1974), pT 52. 21. Quinney, Class, State, and Crime, p. 3. 22. As seen c l e a r l y i n Chapter 2. 23. William J. Chambliss, "Toward a P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime," The Sociology of Law: A C o n f l i c t Perspective, eds. Charles E~. Reasons and Robert M. Rich (Toronto: Butter-worth's, 1978), p. 174, p. 206. 24. Ibid., p. 206. 25. Lee Lockwood, Conversation with Eldridge Cleaver (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 71. 26. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 18. 27. Ibid., p. 251. - 103 -28. Ibid., p. 175. 29. Ibid., p. 163. 30. Wade, op. c i t . , p. 13. 31. Ibid., p. 18. 32. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 111. 33. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, " C r i t i c a l Crimin-ology i n B r i t a i n : Review and Prospects," C r i t i c a l Crimin- ology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (Lon-don: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 21. 34. Steven Spitzer, "Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance," So-c i a l Problems, v o l . 22, no. 5, June 75, p. 642. 35. Richard Quinney, "The Production of Criminology," Crimin- ology, v o l . 16, no. 4, Feb. 79, p. 450. 36. Ibid., p. 451. 37. Ibid., p. 450, p. 451, p. 453, p. 455. 38. Richard Quinney, "Crime Control i n C a p i t a l i s t Society: A C r i t i c a l Philosophy of Legal order," C r i t i c a l Criminology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 192. 39. Spitzer, op. c i t . , p. 647. 40. Stanley Cohen and Jock Young, The Manufacture of News: So-c i a l Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media, eds. Stanley Cohen and Jock Young (London: Constable, 1973), p.9. 41. Robert Mintz, "Interview with Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 1, Spring 74, p. 50. 42. Ibid., p. 50. 43. Spitzer, op. c i t . , p. 645. 44. Tony Pi a t t and Paul Takagi, " I n t e l l e c t u a l s for Law and Or-der: A Critique of the New 1 R e a l i s t s , ' " Crime and Social  Justice, Fall-Winter 77, p. 3. 45. Ibid., p. 4. 46. Mintz, op. c i t . , p. 51. 47. Jackson, Blood i n My Eye, pp. 169-70; Cf. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 73. - 104 -48. Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), p. 128. 49. Lockwood, op. c i t . , p. 45. 50. Rosie Douglas, Penal Reform, Community Development, and  Social Change: Overview from a Canadian Perspective (Mon-t r e a l : Mondiale, 1975), p. T~. 51. George Jackson, "Towards the United Front," If They Come  in the Morning: Voices of Resistance, ed. Angela Y. Davis (New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971), p. 141. 52. John Cluchette, "On Prison Reform," If They Come i n the  Morning: Voices of Resistance, ed. Angela Y. Davis (New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971), pp. 138-39. 53. Jackson, "Towards the United Front," p. 142. 54. Quinney, "Crime Control i n C a p i t a l i s t Society," p. 193. 55. Quinney, Class, State, and Crime, p. 74. 56. Quinney, Critique of Legal Order, p. 59. 57. Ibid., pp. 61-5, pp. 87-91. 58. Taylor et a l . , " C r i t i c a l Criminology i n B r i t a i n , " p. 30. 59. Cleaver, Soul on Ice, p. 129. 60. Jackson, Blood in My Eye, p. 100. 61. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 31. 62. Eldridge Cleaver, Post-Prison Writings and Speeches, ed. Robert Scheer (New York: Random House, 1967), p. 131. 63. Ibid., p. 131. 64. Ibid., p. 131. 65. Spitzer, op. c i t . , p. 640. 66. Krisberg, op. c i t . , p. 13. 67. Quinney, Critique of Legal Order, p. 24. 68. Ibid., p. 24. 69. Ibid., p. 59. 70. Ibid, p. 52, pp. 61-5, p. 139. - 105 -71. Krisberg, op. c i t . , p. 62. 72. Quinney, The Social Reality of Crime, p. 44. 73. Ibid., p. 73. 74. Quinney, Critique of Legal Order, p. 52. 75. Cleaver, Soul on Ice, p. 119. 76. Lockwood, op. c i t . , p. 56. 77. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 169. 78. Wade, op. c i t . , p. 17. 79. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 169. 80. Erik H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton, In Search of Common  Ground (New York: Norton, 1973), p. 76. 81. Jackson, Soledad Brother, p. 225. 82. Ibid., p. 106. 83. Jackson, Blood i n My Eye, p. 7. 84. Lockwood, op. c i t . , p. 52. 85. Ibid., p. 54. 86. Marion Prison C o l l e c t i v e , op. c i t . , p. 50. 87. Taylor, Walton, and Young, C r i t i c a l Criminology, p. 23. 88. Ibid., p. 44. 89. Quinney, Critique of Legal Order, p. 168. 90. Ibid., p. 16. 91. Chambliss, op. c i t . , p. 194. 92. John Pallas and Bob Barber, "From Riot to Revolution," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 7, no. 2, F a l l 72, p. 2, p. 16. 93. Cf. Davis, op. c i t . , p. 26; C. Ronald Huff, "Unionization Behind Bars," Criminology, v o l . 12, no. 2, Aug. 74, p. 192. 94. Huey P. Newton, "Prison, Where i s Thy Victory?," If They  Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance, ed. Angela Y. Davis (New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971), p. 54. - 106 -95. Tony P i a t t , "Prospects for a Radical Criminology in the U. S.A.," C r i t i c a l Criminology, eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 98. 96. Newton, op. c i t . , p. 52. 97. Ibid., p. 52. 98. A prisoner who "rejects the legitimacy of the assumptions upon which the society i s based" i s not necessarily a "po-l i t i c a l prisoner," unless he has been convicted of an of-fence which was committed for purely p o l i t i c a l reasons. - 107 -CHAPTER 5. METHODOLOGY A. INTRODUCTION A discussion of the methodology employed in thi s re-search includes consideration of problems i n gaining entry to the f i e l d , sampling procedures, survey design, interviewing techniques, and interpretation of data. Before doing t h i s , however, we w i l l examine some of the forays of other research-ers into the f i e l d , i n an attempt to gain a perspective on what has taken place to date, and on the extent to which the present research d i f f e r s from previous e f f o r t s . In the beginning of t h i s paper, i t was mentioned that my i n i t i a l i nterest i n the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner topic was a-roused by F a i r c h i l d ' s a r t i c l e , " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offender." While her study also dealt with prisoners' a t t i -tudes, and therefore could be reviewed at the same time as the ef f o r t s of the other researchers, i t w i l l receive special at-tention in l i g h t of i t s contribution to my research, both i n terms of i n s p i r a t i o n and methodological ideas. The l a s t segment of the chapter, apart from providing a b r i e f summary of the methodological approach, w i l l address the issue of whether or not the responses of the surveyed p r i s -oners should be regarded as r e f l e c t i v e of "attitudes" or simply of "opinions." It also w i l l o f f e r a short c r i t i q u e of the - 108 -methodological shortcomings of my own study, for few research designs are without problems of some description. B. STUDIES ON PRISONER ATTITUDES The r e l a t i v e lack of empirical research on prisoners 1 attitudes was discussed b r i e f l y i n the Introduction to t h i s thesis. It was not and i s not my intention to suggest that there has been no s i g n i f i c a n t work on t h i s topic, but rather to point out that including F a i r c h i l d ' s study, there have been, as far as can be ascertained, only f i v e e f f o r t s i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Of those f i v e , only F a i r c h i l d ' s c l e a r l y addresses the subject of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner. This i s a l i t t l e surprising, i n that i t suggests somewhat of an imbalance between the small number of studies aimed at acquiring firsthand information a-bout the attitudes of prisoners, and the numerous a r t i c l e s or books about prisoners and prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , most writ-ten as though the authors f e l t confident that they were de-scribing accurately the thoughts and feelings of prisoners. In 1958, Watt and Maher published an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Prisoners' Attitudes Toward Home and the J u d i c i a l system," i n which they reported the results of t h e i r survey of 74 adult male prisoners i n a U.S. penitentiary (1). Unfortunately, by t h e i r own admission they f a i l e d to c o l l e c t any relevant i n f o r -mation, and were unable to attach any significance to t h e i r findings (2). Shortly thereafter, i n 1963, Mylonas and Reck-less conducted a similar study aimed at measuring "favourable - 109 -or unfavourable attitudes toward law and legal i n s t i t u t i o n s " (3). After interviewing 300 prisoners, a l l of whom were prop-erty offenders (hardly o f f e r i n g a random sample of the prison population) (4), they concluded that Blacks were "less favour-able" than Whites in th e i r attitudes toward the legal system (5). Neither a r t i c l e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l i n c l a r i f y i n g either what prisoners believe or how to go about plumbing the attitudes of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. Nothing was added to the f i e l d u n t i l 1974, when John A. Davis researched the attitudes of Black prisoners toward crime and criminal law. The basic themes which emerged from his interviews with a s t r a t i f i e d sample of 150 Blacks were that Black prisoners f e l t that the system i s set up to protect White interests (6), that there i s "unequal access" to s o c i a l mobil-i t y (7), and that the law discriminates against them (8). He explains that as a re s u l t of these perceptions Black prisoners attach l i t t l e significance to law v i o l a t i o n , because they view the law "as simply another instrument for upholding white su-premacy," rather than "as an instrument for j u s t i c e " (9), and concludes that these awarenesses could lead to criminal a c t i v -i t y under certain circumstances (10). In some ways, the Davis study bears resemblance to the present one. There i s no doubt that i t deals with prison-ers' views, and that some of those views which he discovered among his respondents were i n d i c a t i v e of a degree of p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n . However, while he did uncover some information simi-- 110 -l a r to that s o l i c i t e d from the prisoners i n my study, he did not address himself s p e c i f i c a l l y to the topic of p o l i t i c i z a -tion, and as a r e s u l t did not attempt to measure the r a d i c a l i -zation l e v e l s i n the prisoner population. The most recent a r t i c l e i n this f i e l d , other than F a i r c h i l d ' s , was published by Alpert and Hicks i n 1977. They preface t h e i r paper, "Prisoners' Attitudes Toward Components of the Legal and J u d i c i a l Systems," by noting that there are a limited number of studies on prisoners' attitudes toward the law (11). They go on to describe t h e i r methodology, reporting that they interviewed a random sample of 241 male prisoners at the Washington Corrections Reception Centre, and that they ad-ministered a test with three scales, designed to test attitudes "towards the p o l i c e , lawyers, and the legal system" (12). They found that 73 percent of the respondents had negative attitudes toward the p o l i c e , that the attitudes toward the law and the legal system were evenly d i s t r i b u t e d , and that attitudes to-ward lawyers tended to be more po s i t i v e (13). Like other re-searchers, they also discovered that nonwhites were more l i k e l y than Whites to have negative feelings about the police (14). As in the case of Davis, i t could be suggested that Alpert and Hicks' research i s somewhat similar to mine, a l -though again there are some strong d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s . They did address themselves to the issue of prisoners' attitudes toward the criminal j u s t i c e system, but t h i s comprised only a small part of my survey, which instead sought information i n several d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d i n a l areas. Furthermore, my methodology was designed with the intention of accumulating enough information to permit some inference regarding degrees of r a d i c a l i z a t i o n , rather than simply to arrive at a picture of prisoners' a t t i -tudes i n one a t t i t u d i n a l area. One might be tempted to include Yochelson and Samen-ow's work i n th i s synopsis of research on the attitudes of prisoners, although th e i r methodological approach had i t s roots in psychiatry rather than i n s o c i a l science or criminology. Certainly t h e i r study was very ambitious, involving thousands of hours of interviewing at a forensic unit over a fourteen year period (15). However, while they did amass unsystematic but substantial records of prisoners' attitudes towards many facets of l i f e i n general, t h e i r main purpose was to develop a psychological p r o f i l e of a t y p i c a l criminal, to determine why people become criminals and to discover a "cure" for that "criminal personality." None of the above-mentioned studies could be said to deal with the topic of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n ; while the researchers may unintentionally have collected information relevant to this subject, they were not concerned with i d e n t i f y i n g or measuring prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . In addition, i t i s f a i r to say that they had l i t t l e , i f any, impact upon either the concept or the methodology of my research. However, the F a i r c h i l d study served to f i l l t h i s gap i n many ways. - 112 -C. THE FAIRCHILD STUDY i As mentioned at various points i n t h i s thesis, my i n -i t i a l i n t e r e s t in the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner topic was aroused by F a i r c h i l d ' s paper, " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offender." Apart from i d e n t i f y i n g an i n t e r e s t i n g area for scholastic en-deavour, the methodology she chose provided some excellent ex-amples of how to (and how not to) approach the f i e l d . Before going on to examine the findings and methodology of her study, however, we w i l l consider b r i e f l y her relationship to c r i t i c a l criminology. At the beginning of her dissertation--which served as the basis for her a r t i c l e — s h e acknowledges that many of her perspectives on the " p o l i t i c a l model of crime" are drawn from Quinney's work (16). She also makes bi b l i o g r a p h i c a l references to P i a t t and Pallas and Barber. Her relationship to the new criminologists can be seen c l e a r l y i n her statement that the prison i s "a microcosm for p o l i t i c a l change" (17), which i s merely a shortened version of Pallas and Barber's assertion that "American prisons are not only a microcosm of American so-cie t y , with i t s oppression and exploitation, but also of the movement to transform that society" (18). If t h i s i s not e v i -dence enough, then her frequent discussions of "alienation" (19) and the " p o l i t i c a l model of crime" (20) (which bears a remarkable resemblance to the explanation of crime and crimin-a l i t y offered by the new criminologists) o f f e r further support for t h i s observation. In many ways i t appears that she regards - 113 -her work as a research-oriented affirmation of some of the ten-ets of c r i t i c a l criminology. In her paper, " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offend-er," F a i r c h i l d announced that prisoners were developing a r a d i -c a l i z e d set of attitudes regarding crime, p o l i t i c s , and the socioeconomic system. She demonstrated that an appreciable number of prisoners i d e n t i f i e d a small, nonelected e l i t e as the wielders of power, that prisoners were aware of the economic bias of the criminal justice system, and that prisoners f e l t powerless because they believed that powerful, corrupt i n d i v i d -uals were governing the nation i n an arbitrary, self-aggrandiz-ing manner (21). F a i r c h i l d concluded that "the offender i s re-jecting the notion that he i s sick or deviant and i s i n need of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and claims that i t i s the society i t s e l f which i s sick or deviant and in need of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n " (22). A sec-ondary conclusion—based more on inference than on evidence— was that the prison experience was an important ingredient i n the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process (23). F a i r c h i l d addressed h e r s e l f to six main a t t i t u d i n a l areas to determine how prisoners f e l t about themselves and U.S. society: 1) Had they internalized "acceptable" p o l i t i c a l ideo-logy? 2) Did they regard the p o l i t i c a l system as democratic? 3) How did they perceive the power structure? 4) Did they f e e l competent i n dealing with the s o c i a l system? 5) Did they have strong feelings of community? and 6) What was t h e i r view of the criminal j u s t i c e system? (24). Some of these areas sur-- 114 -vived to a certain extent i n the methodology employed in my re-search. On the other hand, there were some weaknesses i n her methodology which hopefully were avoided i n my study. Her sample, which consisted of only twenty-four respondents, was selected by caseworkers i n three Washington State prisons, with each prisoner receiving $10.00 for p a r t i c i p a t i n g (25). Without knowing the selection c r i t e r i a applied by each of the casework-ers, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether or not the views ex-pressed by the sampled prisoners were representative of those of the prisoner population. It i s possible that the p a r t i c i -pants were chosen on the basis of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s or t h e i r readiness to speak f r e e l y i n an interview s i t u a t i o n , or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , because they would be more l i k e l y to express o-pinions consistent with those of the administration. At the same time, one might question her i n c l i n a t i o n to draw strong inferences from such a small sample. Her sample represents only one percent of the prisoners i n Washington State, whereas mine represents almost f i v e percent of the p r i s -oners in B r i t i s h Columbia. Furthermore, although the ethnic blend of her sample appears to be representative enough inas-much as there were six Blacks, three Indians, one Mexican, and fourteen Whites, with four being women respondents, i t has to be noted that there was only one prisoner over the age of forty (26). Considering that my research revealed that younger p r i s -oners tend to be more p o l i t i c i z e d , i t could be suggested that - 115 -her sample was biased in favour of p o l i t i c i z e d responses. F a i r c h i l d ' s questioning procedures also are open to some c r i t i c i s m . Rather than following a defined questionnaire on interview schedule, she prepared some basic questions i n advance, and r e l i e d heavily upon follow-up questions based on prisoner responses (27). She interviewed each prisoner four times, and did not follow the same format for every prisoner, so we must wonder what types of questions were asked, and whether or not those questions could be described as "leading." When she did follow a pre-arranged pattern of ques-tions, her approach was s t i l l somewhat disquieting. For ex-ample, instead of asking the respondents i f they thought that the United States had a democratic p o l i t i c a l system, she f i r s t gave a formal description of an ideal-type democracy, saying that "democracy usually means that the people i n a country have the chance to help decide what the government does," and then asking "do you think that we have a democracy in t h i s country?" (28). Needless-to-say, t h i s type of questioning would make i t possible for a l l respondents to reject the notion that the Uni-ted States i s a democracy, regardless of t h e i r knowledge about, or i n t e r e s t i n , p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s . In other words, i t would make i t d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y those prisoners who normally would be unable to discuss the p o l i t i c a l system at a l l , and who therefore should be viewed as n o n - p o l i t i c i z e d . Another example i s quoted in f u l l from F a i r c h i l d ' s - 1 1 6 -doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n : Each respondent was asked who had the most power and influence i n making de-cisions for the government. If the re-spondent seemed hesitant, the suggestion was made that i t might be the President, the Congress, labour unions, big indus-t r i a l i s t s , a small group of i n f l u e n t i a l people, or the m i l i t a r y . (29) It has to be noted that F a i r c h i l d starts with the assumption that government decision-making i s influenced by powerful or i n f l u e n t i a l people, and that she does not of f e r the respondent the choice of saying that "the people" or "the voters" have an impact on p o l i t i c a l decisions. Again, t h i s approach l i k e l y would skew the results of her survey i n favour of p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n , given that she made suggestions for responses to p r i s -oners who otherwise might have been unable to formulate any response at a l l . This does not exhaust a l l of the examples which might bear closer inspection. One could look askance, for instance, at her decision to ask respondents d i r e c t l y i f they believed themselves to be p o l i t i c a l prisoners (30). Considering that she interviewed them four times, t h i s approach could make the respondents more aware of the nature of her survey during the la t e r interviews, and hence more in c l i n e d to formulate th e i r responses upon that basis. Without c i t i n g various other i l l u s -t r a t i o n s — a s t h i s would be time-consuming and probably unprod-u c t i v e — i t seems to be a f a i r conclusion that o v e r a l l , there are reasonable grounds upon which to speculate that her basic - 117 -interview schedule and her interviewing techniques might have biased her research findings in favour of discovering p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n . The results of her study suggest an appreciable de-gree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the sampled prisoners. She found that many of the prisoners believed that: 1) money controls p o l i t i c a l decision-making (31); 2) the power e l i t e i s composed of a small group of i n f l u e n t i a l people with money (32); 3) enough money for a good lawyer can buy freedom, regardless of the seriousness of the crime (33); and 4) prisoners are victims "of oppression and repression" (34). From t h i s she concludes that the prisoner i s seeing the society (rather than himself) as sick (35), that he feels a sense of " p o l i t i c a l a l i e n a t i o n " and "alienation from the criminal j u s t i c e system" (36), and that "the i l l e g i t i m a c y of the p o l i t i c a l order i s related i n [his] mind to his b e l i e f that the state i s a lawless agency" (37). Unfortunately, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to follow how she ar-rives at some of these conclusions. A point i n fact i s her recurring claim that prisoners f e e l "alienated" (38), despite the problem that just one prisoner mentioned the term "aliena-t i o n , " and then only i n the context of loneliness (39). An-other area of c o n c e r n — p a r t i c u l a r l y considering her d i r e c t questioning on thi s t o p i c — i s that only a single respondent described himself as a " p o l i t i c a l prisoner" (40). In her anal-y s i s of the evidence, i t sometimes seems that she finds s i g n i f -- 118 -icant examples of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n where the actual responses of the prisoners are not consistent with those findings. This i s not to suggest that F a i r c h i l d ' s study i s lacking i n value or that the conclusions are t o t a l l y without foundation, but rather to point out some of the more noticeable weaknesses. Her paper, " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offend-er," c e r t a i n l y had an impact on the present research, both i n terms of i n s p i r a t i o n and of ideas upon which to structure the methodology. Indeed, of a l l the studies on prisoners' a t t i -tudes, hers had the most to contribute to my e f f o r t s , as we s h a l l see i n the following sections. D. ENTRY TO THE FIELD In their book e n t i t l e d F i e l d Research, Schatzman and Strauss point out that problems involved i n gaining entry to the f i e l d are of major concern to s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s (41). Fur-thermore, they note that r e l a t i v e l y few attempts are made to document successful or unsuccessful strategies for gaining en-try, hence making i t d i f f i c u l t for future researchers to learn through the experience of others (42). Hopefully t h i s account of my experience w i l l o f f e r some concrete suggestions for ap-propriate methods of approaching prison authorities regarding research. Fortunately, I was i n a rather advantageous position when applying for entry, due to my position as a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n - 119 -O f f i c e r at the Regional Reception Centre. On the basis of my three years' experience with the Penitentiary Service, i t was f a i r l y easy to convince those responsible for approving or re-jecting research applications that my t o t a l f a m i l i a r i t y with i n s t i t u t i o n a l rules and regulations would obviate the l i k e l i -hood of disruptions to the good order of the i n s t i t u t i o n . To add to t h i s , the nature of my employment was such that i t rou-t i n e l y involved extensive and intensive interviewing of p r i s -oners. Needless-to-say, i t was evident that the envisioned methodology would not involve any substantial change i n i n s t i -t u t i o n a l routine, as the research-oriented interviews could be conducted at the same time as regular c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t e r -views . Apart from these advantages, however, the proposed research was subjected to the same scrutiny as any other re-search proposal. It was necessary to submit a formal proposal to the Regional Research Committee, which i s a group composed of representatives from various i n s t i t u t i o n s and branches with-in the federal penitentiary system i n B r i t i s h Columbia, en-trusted with the task of reviewing a l l applications for permis-sion to conduct research i n federal penitentiaries i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Research Committee's requirements for the propo-sal included a statement of the purpose of the research, an outline of the questions to be asked, a description of the techniques of interpretation, and an account of the uses to which the research would be put. The main concerns of the Com-mittee appeared to be that the research should have clear goals - 120 -or objectives, that i t should be conducted i n a professional and objective manner, and that the derivative uses of the re-search should be defined i n advance. It i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the impact of my employment posi t i o n on how the f i n a l decision was reached. One assumes that the Committee members reject what they consider to be poor or inappropriate research and approve what they see as d e s i r -able, regardless of who the applicant i s . There i s no doubt that the Chairman of the Regional Research Committee was very h e l p f u l i n expediting the processing of my application. He also made several useful suggestions, which were taken into consideration i n the preparation of t h i s project. With his assistance, and the coopertion of the other Committee members (some of whom knew me), the research proposal was approved i n about a month. It seems l i k e a short time, but i t i s possible that a l l proposals are dealt with t h i s quickly. Once approval was granted, the Penitentiary Service assisted s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the completion of the research. They allowed interviewing during normal working hours at the two prisons I worked at during that period, and gave me two days' leave with pay while conducting research at another i n s t i t u -t i o n . They also offered reasonable access to any available f a c i l i t i e s which could be of assistance. As a res u l t , i t was possible to f i n i s h the research with minimal d i f f i c u l t i e s . Each prison exercised some degree of control, i n the - 1 2 1 -sense that they i n s i s t e d upon seeing the research design as an advance condition of t h e i r cooperation. This proved easy to comply with at the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary and Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n — i n both places my d i r e c t supervisor (The Supervisor of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) took less than two days to review the project, possibly discuss i t with someone in a more senior position, and grant approval. At Mission Medium Secur-i t y I n s t i t u t i o n , on the other hand, i t was necessary to discuss the research with the Director, and then with a group of repre-sentatives from the Inmate Program Division, and f i n a l l y with the i n s t i t u t i o n a l Psychologist. A probable explanation for the more formal procedures at Mission i s that I was not one of t h e i r employees, and therefore they were more cautious. In summary, gaining entry to the f i e l d was r e l a t i v e l y easy, and accomplished more quickly than anticipated. The three major obstacles were the submission of a proposal o u t l i n -ing the project i n d e t a i l , then obtaining the approval of the Regional Research Committee, and f i n a l l y submitting the propo-sal to the same scrutiny by senior representatives at each i n -s t i t u t i o n . After these obstacles were overcome, the Penitenti-ary Service proved to be very h e l p f u l in the completion of the research, and i n fact i t could be said that the project would have been most d i f f i c u l t without the Service's cooperation and assistance. A l l of the senior penitentiary o f f i c i a l s who were contacted regarding my study expressed inte r e s t i n hearing a-bout the r e s u l t s , as they f e l t that prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n could have a d e f i n i t e influence on the smooth functioning of - 122 -p e n i t e n t i a r i e s . E. SAMPLING PROCEDURES The sample was drawn from three federal prisons l o -cated in the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. Thirty p r i s -oners were interviewed between June and July of 1979 while working as a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r at the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary. Following that, f i f t e e n were survey-ed between August and September of the same year, during a tour of duty at Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n . F i n a l l y , f i f t e e n more were sampled at Mission Medium Security I n s t i t u t i o n during the month of January 1980. There were sixty respondents i n a l l . The Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary, which has since been permanently closed, was an old maximum se-c u r i t y f a c i l i t y i n New Westminster. New Westminster i s near Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, and has a population of approxi-mately 40,000 (43). Parts of the prison were i n existence be-fore the turn of the Century. The prison was designed to ac-commodate over 600 prisoners, although there were only around 350 at the time of the research. Fortunately, apart,from pro-viding the only maximum security f a c i l i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia at that time, the prison was acting as a reception centre for a l l new a r r i v a l s i n the federal system. This made i t possible to obtain a mixed sample of f i r s t offenders, r e c i d i v i s t s , par-ole v i o l a t o r s , and returnees from lesser security i n s t i t u t i o n s . - 123 -Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n i s a small medium security p r i s -on with a holding capacity of 200, located on the outskirts of the small r u r a l town of Agassiz, which has an approximate area population of 4,000, including the surrounding municipalities, and i s around 120 kilometers from the heavily populated area surrounding Vancouver (44). The prison was seen by many as a minimum/medium f a c i l i t y , as i t had only one r e l a t i v e l y low fence and a relaxed atmosphere, although the security has been upgraded since then. The prison was opened i n response to the a c t i v i t i e s of the Doukhobors during the late 1950s. The Douk-hobors were a sect of dissident Russian peasants, whose numbers in B r i t i s h Columbia were approximately 12,000 at that time. They opposed formal education, taxes, and land ownership laws through protests involving nudity, arson, and dynamiting, and as a r e s u l t were frequently imprisoned for criminal offences (45). At the time of the research, the prisoners placed i n Mountain generally were those regarded as unlike l y to escape and/or constituting a minimal r i s k to the community. The pop-ulation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the prison were somewhat unusual, however, due to a heavy concentration of older prisoners and protective custody prisoners (eg. sexual offenders or suspected informers). Mission Medium Security I n s t i t u t i o n i s situated near the town of Mission, which has a population of around 15,000, and i s about 80 kilometers from Vancouver (46). Mission I n s t i -tution i s the newest of the three prisons, and i s quite d i f -ferent from the others i n i t s physical layout and prisoner pro-- 124 -grams. It opened i n the late 1970s, and operated under the p r i n c i p l e s of the Living Unit Program, which emphasized the role of security o f f i c e r s as counsellors, and placed consider-able importance on the idea of program planning for prisoners. Unlike the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary, which housed i t s prisoners i n two large areas (each in a separate c e l l ) , or Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n , where inmates were accommodated in several large, shared dormitories, Mission was divided into six separate units, each with 36 c e l l s , giving i t a t o t a l capa-c i t y of 180. It had a work-oriented program b u i l t around a furniture-making factory, with the expressed purpose of teach-ing acceptable work habits to prisoners, whereas the other two prisons featured such courses as barbering, automobile mechan-i c s , carpentry, and formal education. The population of Mis-sion was composed mainly of younger offenders, most serving r e l a t i v e l y short sentences for less serious crimes l i k e theft, fraud, or t r a f f i c k i n g i n soft drugs. Prisoners at the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Peni-tentiary were surveyed during the course of routine C l a s s i f i c a -t i o n interviews. The sample was f e l t to be f a i r l y representa-tive i n the sense that cases were assigned to C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r s by a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Clerk as the prisoners came into the system, with each C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r receiving addi-t i o n a l prisoners commensurate with the size of his or her case-load, rather than on the basis of any unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the prisoners. In other words, cases were assigned impartial-l y , with each o f f i c e r receiving a normal mixture, including to-- 125 -t a l newcomers, r e c i d i v i s t s , escapees, sexual offenders, proper-ty offenders, and so forth. An e f f o r t was made to survey each of the prisoners on my caseload as they went through the Class-i f i c a t i o n process ( i e . , i n i t i a l documentation, program plan-ning, transfers to lesser security i n s t i t u t i o n s , etc.), a l -though t h i s was not always possible due to time constraints im-posed by work requirements. The research was conducted over a period of s l i g h t l y more than one month, because i t was done i n conjunction with my employment. The sample at Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n was drawn from an already established caseload which had been assigned to a prev-ious C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r who was no longer with the service. The respondents were selected by going through the caseload i n alphabetical order, u n t i l a t o t a l of 15 were interviewed. This was accomplished i n only three days, as i t was much easier to arrange for interviews at Mountain, and as the workload there was much l i g h t e r than at the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary. Unlike the research at the Regional Reception Centre/B.C. Penitentiary, which was conducted at the same time as regular C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interviews, the prisoners sampled at Mountain were scheduled for interviews primarily for research purposes. The sampling procedures were quite d i f f e r e n t at Mis-sion Medium Security I n s t i t u t i o n , because I was not an employee there. Instead of interviewing prisoners from an existing caseload, the I n s t i t u t i o n a l Psychologist provided me with a - 126 -l i s t of prisoners he had obtained from the computer at the prison. The l i s t was drawn at random by asking the computer to id e n t i f y a l l prisoners who had a p a r t i c u l a r l e t t e r i n the spel -l i n g of th e i r l a s t names. Fifteen prisoners were surveyed at Mission over a two day period, as th e i r names appeared i n num-e r i c a l order on the l i s t , and subject to a v a i l a b i l i t y . It was possible to complete the work at Mission very quickly, as there were no employment requirements to hinder or delay the process. Each prisoner was informed p r i o r to the interview that p a r t i c i p a t i o n was s t r i c t l y voluntary. Only f i v e prisoners refused to pa r t i c i p a t e i n the survey—one at the Reception Cen-tre, another at Mountain, and three at Mission. The higher i n -cidence of refusals at Mission probably r e f l e c t s the fact that the prisoners there were not as acquainted with me as were those at the other prisons. This subject w i l l be considered i n more d e t a i l i n a l a t e r section of t h i s chapter dealing with i n -terviewing techniques. There are various reasons for regarding t h i s sample as r e l a t i v e l y representative of federal prisoners in B r i t i s h Columbia. The interviews at the Reception Centre provided a good variety in terms of age, types of offence, and frequency of exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. Mountain offered a sample composed predominantly of older and/or protective cus-tody prisoners, most of whom had a minimum or minimum-medium security rating. The prisoners at Mission were mostly property offenders, usually selected on the basis of th e i r potential for - 127 -r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , and o f t e n having had minimal exposure to the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. As we s h a l l see i n the next chapter, the sample c o n s i s t e d o f p r i s o n e r s ranging i n age from under 20 to over 50, coming from d i v e r s e s o c i a l backgrounds, and s e r v -i n g sentences from two years to l i f e f o r v a r i o u s o f f e n c e s . In f a c t , the composition o f my sample i s q u i t e com-pa r a b l e to t h a t o f the f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r p o p u l a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Table 5.1, condensed from the S o l i c i t o r General's TABLE 5.1 OFFENCE CATEGORIES FOR PRISONERS IN THE PACIFIC REGION BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20 AND 30 (47). Type of Offence Frequency Percentage P r o p e r t y - r e l a t e d 260 53 Sexual 50 10 D r u g - r e l a t e d 74 15 V i o l e n c e - r e l a t e d 56 11 Murder 47 10 TOTAL 487 100 Annual Report 1980 - 1981, shows a breakdown of o f f e n c e c a t e -g o r i e s f o r f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia between twenty and t h i r t y years o f age. Table 5.2 shows a breakdown of the o f -fence c a t e g o r i e s f o r the p r i s o n e r s i n my sample. With the ex-c e p t i o n s of a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e i n the frequency of p r o p e r t y o f f e n c e s , and a r e l a t i v e l y n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the f r e -- 128 -TABLE 5.2 PRESENT OFFENCES Type of Offence Frequency Percentage Property-related 29 48 Sexual 11 18 Drug-related 8 13 Violence-related 6 10 Murder 6 10 TOTAL 60 100 quency of sexual offences (which i s attributable to the large protective custody units i n Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n and the Recep-tion Centre/B.C. Penitentiary), the two tables resemble each other in most repects. S i m i l a r l y , the age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s comparable. Ap-proximately 40 percent of the federal prisoners in B r i t i s h Co-lumbia are between twenty and t h i r t y years of age, (48) whereas 43 percent are i n t h i s age category i n my sample (see Chapter 6, Table 6.1). There was only one prisoner under the age of twenty i n my sample, but t h i s i s explained by the fact that there are only twelve federal prisoners under the age of twenty in B r i t i s h Columbia (49). Anderson and Z e l d i t i c h define a random sample as one - 129 -"drawn in such a way that each and every object i n the popula-tion has an equal chance of appearing in the sample" (51). If the parameters of the prisoner population were set to encompass a l l incarcerated offenders, including those in p r o v i n c i a l or juvenile i n s t i t u t i o n s , then the sample u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study would not conform to the above d e f i n i t i o n of a random sample, as i t did not allow for the p o s s i b i l i t y of interviewing of-fenders under the age of 18 or those serving sentences of less than two years. However, with the possible exceptions of a minor over-representation of protective custody prisoners due to the large protective custody units at the Reception Centre and Mountain, and the s l i g h t under-representation of minimum security prisoners owing to the fact that no interviews were conducted at f a c i l i t i e s s t r i c t l y designated as minimum secur-i t y , i t i s f e l t that the sampling procedures afforded an equal opportunity for a l l types of federal offenders to be represent-ed. F. THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE The interview schedule evolved over a period of ap-proximately two years of study and development, with input from several sources. After reading F a i r c h i l d ' s a r t i c l e , I prepared a set of questions designed to s o l i c i t information r e l a t i n g to the a t t i t u d i n a l areas addressed in her research. I then i n t e r -viewed twenty prisoners from my caseload at the Reception Cen-tre/B.C. Penitentiary with the intention of reporting the f i n d -ings to a team meeting of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r s , although the - 130 -r e p o r t was not made, due to v a r i o u s reasons u n r e l a t e d to the present r e s e a r c h . T h i s i n i t i a l survey d i d , however, uncover some i n t e r e s t i n g response p a t t e r n s i n d i c a t i v e of an a p p r e c i a b l e degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o r l a t e r d i s -c u s s i o n s with my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r l e a d i n g to m o d i f i c a t i o n s and refinement of the q u e s t i o n format. F o l l o w i n g another p r e - t e s t i n v o l v i n g e i g h t more respondents, the i n t e r v i e w schedule under-went f u r t h e r minor r e v i s i o n s i n order t o a r r i v e a t the f i n a l format, a copy of which i s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s t h e s i s as Appendix A. E a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter I noted t h a t F a i r c h i l d t e s t e d s i x areas, those being acceptance o f " a p p r o p r i a t e " i d e o l o g y , o p i n i o n s on whether or not the p o l i t i c a l system i s democratic, p e r c e p t i o n s of the power s t r u c t u r e , f e e l i n g s of competence i n d e a l i n g with the system, f e e l i n g s of community, and a t t i t u d e s toward the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. A l l s i x o f these c a t e g o r -i e s were i n c l u d e d i n my f i r s t e f f o r t . However, the area con-cerned with a l i e n a t i o n ( i e . , f e e l i n g s of community) was d e l e t e d i n subsequent e f f o r t s , because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n a r r i v i n g a t a p r a c t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n of a l i e n a t i o n (51), and because demon-s t r a t i n g t h a t a p r i s o n e r f e e l s a l i e n a t e d would not n e c e s s a r i l y bear on p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Questions r e g a r d i n g f e e l i n g s o f compe-tence i n d e a l i n g with the system were dropped f o r much the same reasons, inasmuch as p r o v i n g t h a t a person does (or does not) f e e l competent would be o n l y t a n g e n t i a l l y r e l a t e d to h i s degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . In any event, responses to questions i n both c a t e g o r i e s d u r i n g my f i r s t study were so vague and confus-- 131 -ing t h a t i t q u i c k l y became evident t h a t the c a t e g o r i e s were of dubious v a l u e . In a d d i t i o n to d e l e t i n g these two c a t e g o r i e s , the questions i n my survey were s t r u c t u r e d q u i t e d i f f e r e n t l y from those of F a i r c h i l d . While she d i d prepare some p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n s , her approach allowed u n s t r u c t u r e d follow-up ques-t i o n i n g based on i n i t i a l responses (52). The problem with t h a t approach i s t h a t t h e r e i s no way of knowing what was asked, how i t was asked, and what i n f l u e n c e those f a c t o r s had on the r e -sponses. My i n t e r v i e w schedule, on the other hand, c o n s i s t e d of p r e - d e f i n e d q u e s t i o n s , and was followed s t r i c t l y i n each i n -terview. A f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t departure from F a i r c h i l d ' s meth-odology was the a d d i t i o n of questions designed to t e s t the c o r -r e l a t i o n between degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. While she d i s c u s s e d the impact o f i n -c a r c e r a t i o n on the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n process (53), the r e l a t i o n -s h i p was assumed. As we s h a l l see, however, s u b s t a n t i a t i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was an important p a r t of my study, second on l y t o the matter of a s s e s s i n g p r i s o n e r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . The balance of t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l d e a l f i r s t l y w i t h an in-depth c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n s i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r -view schedule, and secondly with an assessment o f the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of the schedule. As mentioned e a r l i e r , a copy o f the schedule i s i n c l u d e d at the end of t h i s t h e s i s as Ap-- 132 -pendix A, so t h a t i t may be r e f e r r e d t o more e a s i l y . Although most of the questions are reviewed i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the main i n t e n t i o n here i s to e x p l a i n the reasoning behind the i n t e r v i e w schedule design and the c h o i c e of s p e c i f i c items. Part I of the i n t e r v i e w schedule was concerned with c o l l e c t i n g b a s i c data, such as present o f f e n c e ( s ) , l e n g t h of sentence, p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , p r e v i o u s p e r i o d s o f i n c a r c e r -a t i o n , usual i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement ( i e . , maximum, medium, or minimum), age of the p r i s o n e r , e t h n i c o r i g i n , parent's income, parent's occupation, and p r i s o n e r ' s income and occupation. A-p a r t from p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l background i n f o r m a t i o n on the i n d i -v i d u a l p r i s o n e r , responses to these questions p r o v i d e d some i n -formation r e g a r d i n g the p r i s o n e r ' s socioeconomic s t a t u s and helped i n a s s e s s i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n between the degree of p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. Need-l e s s - t o - s a y , the questions r e l a t i n g to l e n g t h of sentence, p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , and p r e v i o u s p e r i o d s o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n were designed with t h i s l a t t e r problematique i n mind. The q u e s t i o n s i n Part II were addressed to those p r i s o n e r s who might be i n the process of becoming p o l i t i c i z e d , but who would p o s s i b l y have d i f f i c u l t y i n e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r em-b r y o n i c r a d i c a l views when confronted with demanding q u e s t i o n s . In other words, they were d i r e c t e d more toward p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n or p h i l o s o p h y than toward such t o p i c s as the s o c i o l o g y of law. The q u e s t i o n s were: 1) Do you f e e l t h a t you have good p r o s p e c t s f o r the f u t u r e ? 2) Do you f e e l t h a t your f a m i l y background i s - 133 -one of the causes of your criminal behaviour? and 3) Why do you get into trouble with the law, when most of the people i n the country do not? Prisoner responses allowed for a tentative prediction of potential for p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and for a l a t e r examination of whether or not a respondent f a l l i n g into a p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n category could relate his r a d i c a l i z e d attitudes to his own l i f e s i t u a t i o n . Part III of the interview schedule again asked the prisoner to contemplate the relationship between crime and so-c i a l class, but t h i s time with more di r e c t reference to the question of s o c i a l class. Again there were three questions: 1) Do you f e e l that Canadian society has a system of s o c i a l c l a s -ses? 2) Where do you f i t into the class structure? and 3) Do you f e e l that the class you belong to has any influence on your criminal a c t i v i t i e s ? The purpose of these questions was to detect what r a d i c a l scholars might refer to as "class con-sciousness," which i n the context of th i s paper w i l l be defined as an awareness of the class structure, an a b i l i t y on the part of the respondent to i d e n t i f y his position in that structure, and an a b i l i t y to assess the impact of that structure and the position occupied on his developmental patterns and l i f e chanc-es . This a t t i t u d i n a l area has i t s roots i n the writings of the c r i t i c a l criminologists and p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, both of whom claim that s o c i a l inequality i n the class structure i s one of the primary causes of crime i n c a p i t a l i s t society. In Part IV the respondent was asked: 1) Do you think - 134 -that the criminal j u s t i c e system i s f a i r ? and 2) Are a l l people treated equally by the law? The intention i n t h i s part of the questionnaire was to assess prisoner perspectives on equality in the criminal j u s t i c e system. The reader w i l l remember F a i r -c h i l d ' s contention that prisoners were becoming aware of an ec-onomic bias in the system. Part V was directed at basic ideology, with the i n -tention of e l i c i t i n g the respondent's acceptance or re j e c t i o n of some of the more predominant c u l t u r a l values (eg., that we have a democracy, or that we have freedom). Prisoners were asked: 1) What type of p o l i t i c a l system do we have i n t h i s country? 2) Do we have equal rights and equal opportunities? and 3) Is i t possible for a poor person to become r i c h , or for a r i c h person to become poor? It was expected that a p o l i t i -cized prisoner would lean toward rejection of such s o c i a l " f i c -t ions" as equality or mobility. One of the conclusions of the F a i r c h i l d study, as we saw e a r l i e r , was that prisoners f e e l manipulated by a small "power e l i t e . " On the basis of the evidence examined i n Chap-ters 2 and 4 of t h i s thesis, i t appears that the power struc-ture i s of great i n t e r e s t to c r i t i c a l criminologists and p o l -i t i c i z e d prisoners a l i k e . The three questions i n Part VI of the survey a l l dealt with the power structure, and were as f o l -lows: 1) Who do you think has the power in t h i s country? 2) How much power do you have in r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l power structure? and 3) If you wanted to, do you think that you would - 135 -be able to change the society to make i t better? The main thrust here was not to e l i c i t feelings of powerlessness (which seemed to be one of F a i r c h i l d ' s major concerns), although the questions evoked this type of response to a certain extent. In-stead, the purpose was to see i f the prisoners had a r a d i c a l -ized perspective on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power. The l a s t section of the interview schedule used i n determining levels of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n was Part VII. Questions here were intended to encourage the prisoner to speculate about the origins and purposes of the law. The prisoner was asked: 1) Who decides what w i l l be a crime and what w i l l not be a crime? and 2) Whose interests do those decisions protect? It seems r e a l i s t i c to expect that a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner such as Cleaver or Davis would o f f e r a c l e a r l y r a d i c a l i z e d response to these questions. While most offenders would not be expected to be as a r t i c u l a t e or systematic as Cleaver or Davis, i t was f e l t that for a prisoner to be scored as p o l i t i c i z e d in thi s cate-gory, he should be able to offer a rudimentary and c r i t i c a l ac-count of how and why laws are made. Part VIII, which was not u t i l i z e d in determining lev-els of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , was addressed to prisoners' suggestions for s o c i a l change. The respondents were asked: 1) What changes, i f any, would you l i k e to see in the society? and 2) How would you go about making those changes? Responses to these questions were used for comparison, to see i f those prisoners who answered the e a r l i e r questions i n a p o l i t i c i z e d manner - 136 -would be able to make concrete recommendations for desirable s o c i a l changes, and to outline possible methods for achieving those changes. It was expected that doing t h i s would be more d i f f i c u l t than simply making r a d i c a l i z e d observations on var-ious topics, but at the same time i t was f e l t that even a mod-erately p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner would be able to do t h i s to some extent. Part IX involved two questions which were asked to-ward the close of the interview, but only of those prisoners who appeared to be making p o l i t i c i z e d statements. The f i r s t question was: 1) You appear to have given a l o t of thought to the subject of economics, p o l i t i c s , and crime. You also appear to have picked up quite a b i t of knowledge. Where did you do t h i s thinking, and where did you get t h i s knowledge? The se-cond question, which was asked only i f the respondent did not mention the prison experience, was: 2) Is i t a r e s u l t of being in prison? The purpose of these questions was to s o l i c i t f i r s t -hand information from the prisoners, either supporting or re-jecting the second hypothesis that p o l i t i c i z a t i o n came as a r e s u l t of exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. Part X of the interview schedule was a short, ten item quiz on subjects related to general p o l i t i c a l awareness. The idea came from F a i r c h i l d , who asked prisoners to define po-l i t i c a l bodies, remember important events, and name p o l i t i c a l leaders (54). The quiz involved such questions as What does the term SALT mean to you?, Who wrote Soul on Ice?, and Who was - 137 -Che Gueverra? The p r i s o n e r 1 s score on t h i s quiz was compared to the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n each case, f i r s t l y to deter-mine whether or not prisoners f a l l i n g into a p o l i t i c i z e d cate-gory were also p o l i t i c a l l y aware i n a more general sense, and secondly to see i f there was an association between general po-l i t i c a l awareness and degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . In general, there i s an advantage to the type of format employed i n t h i s research over that used by F a i r c h i l d . Each respondent was required to answer exactly the same ques-tions, with the exception of those prisoners who were asked to provide extra information i n Part IX because of t h e i r apparent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . In the case of F a i r c h i l d ' s study, we have no way of knowing exactly what was asked, and how or of whom i t was asked. There may be advantages to her more open-ended, intensive approach, but consistency would not be one of them. In my study, an e f f o r t was made to impart a sense of structure to the interview schedule. It started with biograph-i c a l questions employed with the dual purpose of c o l l e c t i n g the necessary background information and of putting the respondent at ease during the i n i t i a l phases of the interview, and then went through a sequence of questions designed to be progress-i v e l y more d i f f i c u l t and demanding. Above a l l , there was an attempt i n the o v e r a l l structure to avoid hinting at the nature of the subject matter of the research or foreshadowing the types of questions to come. - 138 -This i s not to say there are no drawbacks to struc-tured interviews. As Schatzman and Strauss point out i n t h e i r argument for a "natural sociology," the interview creates a si t u a t i o n of i t s own, outside of the s i t u a t i o n being researched (55). In addition, there i s l i t t l e doubt that interview sched-ule construction can tend to exclude nuances which might other-wise be noticed through another approach such as in-depth ob-servation and recording (56). These points are worth keeping i n mind, but they apply to a l l studies which employ a formal questionnaire. In the present case, i t was f e l t that the cho-sen methodology was most appropriate, since.an alternative methodology of observation would have to be carried out on a long-term basis, under extremely d i f f i c u l t circumstances, with limited prospects even at that for c o l l e c t i n g substantive i n -formation on prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . One of the main concerns with p o l i t i c a l attitude sur-veys i s that the p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d questions may encourage similar responses. Bishop, Olendick, and Tuckfarber report on th i s i n "Effects of Question Wording and Format on P o l i t i c a l Atitude Consistency," revealing that the indicators of p o l i t i -c a l sophistication have continued to r i s e i n public opinion p o l l s , without appreciable evidence of a commensurate increase in educational attainment or inte r e s t i n p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s (57). In the opinion of the authors, the " i n f l a t e d p o l i t i c a l attitude consistency" could be attributed to "changes in ques-tio n wording and format" (58). While the questions i n my study aimed at avoiding t h i s problem as much as possible, there i s no, - 139 -way to avoid i t completely, short of asking questions t o t a l l y unrelated to p o l i t i c a l attitudes. Almost a l l of the questions were p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d , but they were not framed in such a way as to induce p a r t i c u l a r expressions of p o l i t i c a l opinion. Overall, the structure of the interview schedule proved to be adequate under the circumstances. As we s h a l l see in the next chapter, i t s o l i c i t e d the desired information with-i n the context of r e l a t i v e l y short interviews, and i t apparent-l y was objective enough to encourage a wide spectrum of re-sponses, ranging from non-politicized to extremely p o l i t i c i z e d . While a few of the questions might have been modified or d i s -carded i f the survey had been ambitious enough to permit a larger sample for the pre-test, most appear to have been f a i r l y well designed in retrospect, and should be he l p f u l as a s t a r t -ing point for future studies of t h i s nature. G. INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES Interviews were conducted i n a manner as similar as possible to a normal C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interview. This was done f i r s t l y for the sake of convenience, because the procedure meshed well with my employment-related a c t i v i t i e s , secondly to minimize disruption of the prison routine, and t h i r d l y to cre-ate an environment which would be reasonably familiar to the prisoner. It could be argued that t h i s would have a negative e f f e c t in that prisoners might be less candid i n a s i t u a t i o n which they associate with authority, but again, the wide range - 140 -of responses (especially those in the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d category) are i n d i c a t i v e of the apparent openness on the part of the respondents. Interviews at a l l three prisons were held i n o f f i c e s used by C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r s for that purpose, and with the exception of Mission I n s t i t u t i o n , where they were c a l l e d s o l e l y for research purposes, prisoners were asked to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the survey after they had completed a regular C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interview. The environment was almost i d e n t i c a l to that of a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interview, with the interviewer on one side of the desk, asking questions and recording answers i n longhand on a pad of paper, and the prisoner on the other, giving the an-swers. The idea of using a tape recorder was suggested by the Chairman of the Regional Research Committee, but was rejected after some consideration because of the concern that prisoners might be more reluctant to have t h e i r responses recorded i n that fashion, and because i t was a departure from usual pro-cedures . As mentioned previously, prisoners were t o l d that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the survey was s t r i c t l y voluntary, and they were advised that neither punishment nor reward would be at-tached to t h e i r decision i n the matter. They also were assured that a l l responses would be treated i n s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , and that none of the information would find i t s way onto the i n s t i t u t i o n a l f i l e s . Judging by the number who did p a r t i c i -pate, i t would appear that most prisoners either believed that - 141 -the survey was unrelated to my prison duties, or that they did not care i f i t was. Of the f i v e prisoners who did refuse to par t i c i p a t e , three were at Mission, where I was not known to the prisoner population. The one at Mountain was an older prisoner who had a reputation for being uncooperative with everybody, and the other at the Reception Centre was a f i r s t -timer who was quite anxious and understandably suspicious. Needless-to-say, prisoners frequently demanded to know what the survey was about as a precondition to t h e i r par-t i c i p a t i o n . They were told that i f they knew the s p e c i f i c pur-pose of the study, i t would bias the results irreparably. Most seemed s a t i s f i e d with t h i s explanation. Those who persisted were given very general explanations at the close of the i n t e r -view. At no time were the s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of the study re-vealed, since t h i s information might have affected the re-sponses of future interviewees. Word travels quickly through the "prison grapevine," and there i s no doubt that once reveal-ed, the nature of my study would be known throughout the p r i s -oner population. However, interested prisoners were to l d that a copy of the thesis would be made available i f requested. In "Of Sociology and the Interview," Benney and Hughes point out that parties i n an interview s i t u a t i o n should at least appear to be equal i n status ( 5 9 ) . Of course t h i s i s d i f f i c u l t i n a prison, where s t a f f and prisoner roles are c l e a r l y distinguished. For that matter i t i s d i f f i c u l t to a-chieve equality i n any interview s i t u a t i o n , i n that there are, - 142 -by d e f i n i t i o n , at least two parties with d i f f e r e n t roles, ob-jec t i v e s , and statuses. As e f f o r t was made i n th i s study to minimize the implications of status d i f f e r e n t i a l as much as possible. Prisoners, for example, were given complete freedom to choose whether or not to p a r t i c i p a t e . They also were to l d that there were no "right" or "wrong" responses—that a l l opin-ions were important. The questions were posed i n as noncommital a manner as possible. Every e f f o r t was made to adhere to the interview schedule format, and to avoid leading questions. If a prisoner did not understand a question, i t was asked again, but i t was not explained to him. There were no unscheduled follow-up ques-tions, regardless of the nature of the responses. The design of the interview schedule proved h e l p f u l in putting the prisoners at ease. The f i r s t series of ques-tions dealing with basic data were comparable to those asked at any i n i t i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interview, and hence were familiar to the respondent. The next two parts of the schedule were concerned with s o c i a l class and cr i m e — a common topic i n a ses-sion between a prisoner and his C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r . By the time the more challenging questions came up, the prisoner us-ua l l y was more comfortable with the way things were proceeding. As mentioned previously, answers were recorded i n longhand on writing paper—again similar to routine C l a s s i f i -cation procedures. However, only relevant comments were re-- 143 -corded; no notes were made unless the prisoner was addressing himself to the topic. This may have given some hint as to the type of information sought, but i t must be said that a l l per-tinent responses were noted, regardless of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l ten-or. In any event, i t would have been impossible to write down every remark, as many of the respondents talked extensively about marginally relevant or unrelated subjects. In summary, interviews were conducted l i k e routine C l a s s i f i c a t i o n sessions, except that prisoners were given a choice regarding p a r t i c i p a t i o n . This proved to be a very work-able format, which i s not surprising considering the circum-stances involved. While i t may have imposed certain l i m i t a -tions, the fact remains that the survey obtained the desired information and allowed for diverse response patterns ranging from no n - p o l i t i c i z e d to extremely p o l i t i c i z e d . Given the high percentage of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the range of responses, and the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s , i t may be concluded that the interviewing techniques were acceptable. H. INTERPRETING THE RESULTS At the conclusion of the study, there were si x t y sets of responses, giving the interview p r o f i l e s of each respondent, and these responses were then categorized for coding purposes. Categorization proved r e l a t i v e l y easy i n cases where the response belonged in a d e f i n i t e group, such as " l i f e sen-- 144 -tence" or "high school graduate." On the other hand, responses to questions aimed at uncovering p o l i t i c a l attitudes required careful attention, as they sometimes were borderline and open to interpretation. To ensure a degree of standardization, the responses were categorized once by me, then by the thesis su-pervisor, and again by the two of us together. The scoring conventions described in Table 5.3 were followed cl o s e l y i n as-sessing the prisoner responses. The few divergences in i n t e r -pretation which did occur were reviewed, leading to a common scoring decision. For each a t t i t u d i n a l area tested, the response pat-tern of every respondent was analyzed and assigned a numerical score according to the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n exhibited. If the response showed no signs of r a d i c a l p o l i t i c a l awareness, i t was placed i n the "non-politicized" category and given a numer-i c a l score of 1. When the response indicated some r a d i c a l i z a -t i o n , but not to any s i g n i f i c a n t extent, i t was assigned a score of 2, and placed in the "mildly p o l i t i c i z e d " category. Any response exhibiting an appreciable degree of ra d i c a l p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n was categorized as "moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , " and scored as a 3. Generally speaking, responses f a l l i n g into t h i s l a t t e r category bore some resemblance to the comments of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners whose writings were reviewed i n the prev-ious chapter. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "extremely p o l i t i c i z e d " p r i s -oners was l e f t out of thi s i n i t i a l process, because i t was f e l t TABLE 5.3 POLITICIZATION INDICATORS P o l i t i c i z a t i o n I n d i c a t o r s Q u e s t i o n s N o n - p o l i t i c i z e d M i l d l y P o l i t i c i z e d Moderately P o l i t i c i z e d 1. C l a s s Consciousness 1. Do you f e e l t h a t Cana-d i a n s o c i e t y has a system of s o c i a l c l a s s e s ? 2. Where do you f i t i n t o the c l a s s system? 3. Do you f e e l the c l a s s you b e l o n g to has any i n -f l u e n c e on your c r i m i n a l b ehaviour? No c l a s s system, unable to l o c a t e own s o c i a l c l a s s , no awareness of i n f l u e n c e of c l a s s background on b e h a v i o u r Acknowledges c l a s s system; can l o c a t e own c l a s s p o s i t i o n ; denies i n f l u e n c e of c l a s s background on own be-h a v i o u r . Recognizes c l a s s system; l o c a t e s own s o c i a l c l a s s Acknowledges i n f l u e n c e of c l a s s background on own b e h a v i o u r . I I . P e r c e p t i o n s of the C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e System 1. Do you t h i n k t h a t the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s f a i r ? 2. Are a l l people t r e a t e d e q u a l l y by the law? B e l i e v e s that the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s f a i r ; f e e l s that a l l people are t r e a t e d e q u a l l y by the law. B e l i e v e s the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i s b a s i -c a l l y f a i r , but c i t e s e x c e p t i o n s ; f e e l s that a l l people are not a l -ways t r e a t e d e q u a l l y by the law. B e l i e v e s that the c r i m -i n a l j u s t i c e system i s b a s i c a l l y u n f a i r ; a law f o r the r i c h and a law f o r the poor. I I I . Acceptance of A p p r o p r i a t e I d e o l o g y 1. . What type of p o l i t i c a l system do we have i n t h i s country? 2. Do we have e q u a l r i g h t s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? 3. Is i t p o s s i b l e f o r a poor person to become r i c h or a r i c h p e r s o n to become poor? D e m o c r a t i c / E g a l i t a r i a n system w i t h freedom, e q u a l r i g h t s , and' e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; upward and downward m o b i l i t y e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e . B a s i c a l l y democratic, but doesn't always f u n c t i o n as i t should; e qual r i g h t s i f not e qual o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; h a r d e r f o r a poor man to become r i c h , but p o s s i b l e . C a p i t a l i s t system f u n c t i o n i n g on b e h a l f of b i g b u s i n e s s ; unequal o p p o r t u n i t i e s a b a s i c f e a t u r e ; upward m o b i l i -ty v e r y d i f f i c u l t though not i m p o s s i b l e . IV. P e r c e p t i o n s of the Power S t r u c t u r e 1. Who do you t h i n k has the power i n t h i s c o u n t r y ? 2. How much power do you have i n r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l power s t r u c t u r e ? 3. I f you wanted t o , do you t h i n k you would be a b l e to change the s o c i e t y and make i t b e t t e r ? The "people" have the power; acknowledges some p e r s o n a l power; some i n f l u e n c e on s o c i a l p rocess p o s s i b l e . Government o f f i c i a l s and e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e s have the power; acknowledges minimal p e r s o n a l power, s l i g h t a b i l i t y to i n f l u e n c e s o c i a l p r o c e s s . Power i n the hands of b i g b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s and government o f f i c i a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g them; no p e r s o n a l power; no a b i l i t y to change pr o c e s s . V. B e l i e f s about the law 1. Who d e c i d e s what w i l l be a crime and what w i l l not be a crime? 2. Whose i n t e r e s t s do these d e c i s i o n s p r o t e c t ? The "people" and t h e i r e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ; p r o t e c t s i n t e r e s t s of the "people". Government o f f i c i a l s and e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a -t i v e s ; but sometimes d e c i d i n g on b a s i s of own i n t e r e s t s . Government o f f i c i a l s and b i g b u s i n e s s , r e p r e -s e n t i n g the i n t e r e s t s of b i g b u s i n e s s . - 146 -that q u a l i f i c a t i o n for t h i s group should be based on an o v e r a l l response pattern, rather than on responses to individual items. Scoring assessments for t h i s category took place once the cate-gorization of a l l the responses i n the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas had been completed. This allowed for a determination of the consistency of r a d i c a l i z e d responses. After the responses were categorized, the f i v e dimen-sions of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n were integrated, to arrive at an ov e r a l l measure of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . There were 17 prisoners in the "moderately p o l i t i c i z e d " category following t h i s pro-cess, 10 of whom were judged l a t e r to be "extremely p o l i t i -cized" on the basis of the consistency and q u a l i t y of t h e i r re-sponses. Overall, those regarded as "extremely p o l i t i c i z e d " exhibited d e f i n i t e signs of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n at least four and in some cases a l l f i v e of the a t t i t u d i n a l areas. On the other hand, those seen as "moderately p o l i t i c i z e d " showed s l i g h t l y less a b i l i t y either to express r a d i c a l views or to be consis-tent in t h e i r responses, usually responding i n a p o l i t i c i z e d manner in three or at the most four of the areas. Respondents in both the "extremely p o l i t i c i z e d " and "moderately p o l i t i -cized" groups scored the maximum 3 points in at least three of the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas, which distinguished them from the other respondents, who did not. Non-politicized prisoners give non-politicized responses i n three or more categories, and mod-erately p o l i t i c i z e d responses i n no more than one category. Those categorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d gave moderately p o l i t i -cized responses i n less than three categories, or mildly p o l i t -- 147 -i c i z e d responses throughout. During the categorization process the information was entered onto code sheets, and transferred to key punch cards which were then fed to an SPSS computer programme. This re-sulted i n a lengthy computer printout, which yielded the quan-t i t a t i v e information presented in the following chapter in the form of tables and s t a t i s t i c a l associations. The advantage to th i s approach was that the need to categorize and assign scores to responses on a r e l i a b l e basis ensured that the data would be analyzed as "objectively" as the methods permitted. In those cases where subjective interpreta-t i o n was required, such as with marginal responses or the sep-aration of the "extremely p o l i t i c i z e d " from the "moderately p o l i t i c i z e d " prisoners, the decisions were made only after careful comparison to other respondents, detailed examination of o v e r a l l p r o f i l e s , and comparison to the comments of recog-nized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners (see Chapter 4). Tau B and Tau C are the measures of association used in t h i s t h e s i s . The Tau measure of association (eg., between p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system) was selected for several reasons: 1. Tau i s one of the more widely accepted measures of association i n the s o c i a l sciences. 2. Tau i s unaffected by the size of the sample. 3. Tau C i s unaffected by uneven rows and columns, of - 148 -which there were a number in my study. Tau = . 2 or greater was regarded as evidence of a r e l a t i v e l y moderate strength of association. Although .2 i s an a r b i t r a r y cut-off point, i t i s generally considered acceptable by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . I. SUMMARY At the beginning of t h i s chapter I noted that there are few other studies on prisoners' attitudes, and only one dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with the topic of p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners, that being F a i r c h i l d ' s . The main problems with her study were the small sample and the apparently subjective c o l l e c t i o n and analysis of the data. The present study attempted to avoid those problems as much as possible, by sampling a greater num-ber of prisoners, and by adopting a more d i s c i p l i n e d approach to interviewing techniques and the interpretation of the res-ponses . I surveyed 60 prisoners at three d i s s i m i l a r federal i n s t i t u t i o n s , always trying to ensure a randomized sample. A questionnaire was prepared i n advance, and with the exception of some minor modifications following the pre-test, i t was ad-hered to r i g i d l y . The data were interpreted by myself and the research supervisor separately and then conjointly. This i s not to suggest that my approach was without flaws. The number of respondents could have been greater, and - 149 -the universe somewhat larger. It would have been desirable to increase the sample size by interviewing prisoners at a minimum security i n s t i t u t i o n and a p r o v i n c i a l prison. Both would have changed the population p r o f i l e somewhat, as the former accommo-dates "low r i s k " prisoners while the l a t t e r accommodates those serving sentences of less than two years. However, the sam-plin g procedures were dictated to an extent by a c c e s s i b i l i t y and compatibility with my employment; gaining entry to a prov-i n c i a l prison would have been d i f f i c u l t , as I was not a provin-c i a l employee, while arranging interviews at a minimum security f a c i l i t y would have been d i f f i c u l t because of the work program for prisoners, which often involves long hours away from the prison. Under the circumstances, the sampling procedures em-ployed seemed to be s a t i s f a c t o r y . The interviewing techniques were aimed at d i s p e l l i n g as much as possible the a r t i f i c i a l s i t u a t i o n always created by structured interviewing. By using the same format as routine C l a s s i f i c a t i o n interviews, the prisoner was presented with a fa m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n . Although structured questioning necessar-i l y l i m i t s the possible responses, the interview s i t u a t i o n i t -s e l f was very "natural" within the prison context. An important point to consider before going on to ex-amine the findings i s whether or not this present study should properly be c a l l e d an " a t t i t u d i n a l survey." Milton Rokeach po-s i t s that "an attitude i s a r e l a t i v e l y enduring organization of b e l i e f s around an object or s i t u a t i o n predisposing one to re-- 150 -spond i n some p r e f e r e n t i a l manner" (60). One might suggest that the research described i n t h i s study i s more accurately an "o-pinion survey," an "opinion" being defined here as "a verbal expression of some b e l i e f , attitude, or value" (61), since there i s uncertainty regarding the d u r a b i l i t y of prisoners' "attitudes" on such matters as are investigated i n t h i s re-search. In response, I would point out that Watt and Maher, Mylonas and Reckless, and Alpert and Hicks, whose studies were reviewed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, a l l f e l t comfortable with the term "attitude" when reporting t h e i r findings. While th i s i s hardly a s u f f i c i e n t rationale, I want to argue that the o v e r a l l response p r o f i l e s which characterize individual respondents i n -terviewed in t h i s study r e f l e c t more than i n c i d e n t a l , unrelated "opinions," but tap i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotionally linked con-cepts that y i e l d a consistent pattern more akin to the d i s p o s i -t i o n a l orientations s i g n i f i e d by "attitudes." This issue w i l l be discussed further i n Chapter 7, when the significance of the findings are reviewed. FOOTNOTES 1. Norman Watt and Brendan Maher, "Prisoners' Attitudes To-ward Home and the J u d i c i a l System," Journal of Criminal  Law and Criminology, v o l . 49, no. 4, 1958, p. 327. 2. Ibid., p. 330. 3. Anastassios D. Mylonas and Walter C. Reckless, "Prisoners' Attitudes Toward Law and Legal I n s t i t u t i o n s , " Journal of  Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, v o l . 54, no. 4, Dec. 63, p. 479. 4. Ibid., p. 480. 5. Ibid., p. 481. - 151 -6. John A. Davis, " J u s t i f i c a t i o n for No Obligation Views of Black Males Toward Crime and the Criminal Law," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 9, no. 2, F a l l 74, p. 75. 7. Ibid., p. 76. 8. Ibid., p. 78. 9. Ibid., p. 70. 10. Ibid., p. 83. 11. Geoffrey P. Alpert and Donald A. Hicks, "Prisoners' A t t i -tudes Towards Components of the Legal and J u d i c i a l Sys-tems," Criminology, v o l . 14, no. 4, Feb. 77, p. 461. 12. Ibid., pp. 462-3. 13. Ibid., pp. 464-6. 14. Ibid., p. 467. 15. Samuel Yochelson & Stanton E. Samenow, The Criminal Per- sonality, Vol. I: A P r o f i l e for Change (New York: Aronson, 1976), p. 118, p. 251. 16. Erika Schmid F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three Prisons," doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Wash-ington, 1974, p. 25. 17. Ibid., 310. 18. John Pallas and Bob Barber, "From Riot to Revolution," Issues i n Criminology, v o l . 7, no. 2, F a l l 72, p. 1. 19. F a i r c h i l d , op. c i t . , p. 250, 251, 314. 20. Ibid., p. 38, 50. 21. Erika S. F a i r c h i l d , " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offen-der: Prisoner Perceptions of Crime and P o l i t i c s , " Crimin- ology: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Journal, v o l . 15, no. 3, Nov. 77, pp. 290-311. 22. Ibid., p. 311. 23. Ibid., pp. 303-4. 24. Ibid., p. 294. 25. F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s , " pp. 66-7. 26. Ibid., p. 77. - 152 -27. Ibid., PP . 68-70. 28. Ibid., P- 371. 29. Ibid., P- 179. 30. Ibid., P- 195. 31. Ibid., PP . 178-9. 32. Ibid., PP . 179-81. 33. Ibid., P- 226. 34. Ibid., PP . 195-8. 35. Ibid., P- 199. 36. Ibid., P- 176, 237 37. Ibid., P- 310. 38. Ibid., P- 150, 176 39. Ibid., P- 150. 40. Ibid., P- 162. 41. Leonard Schatzman Strategies for a Natural Sociology (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), p. 19. 42. Ibid., pp. 21-2. 43. Canadian Gazatteer Atlas, Supply and Services Canada 1980, p. 129. 44. A. L. Farley, Atlas of B r i t i s h Columbia: People, Environ-ment and Use (University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979), p. 5. 45. Harry B. Hawthorn, The Doukhobors of B r i t i s h Columbia , (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1955), p~. 1~, p^ 9~7 p. 16, p. 213. 46. Canadian Gazatteer Atlas, p. 128. 47. S o l i c i t o r General Canada, Annual Report 1980 - 1981 (Min-i s t e r of Supply and Services Canada, 1981) , p~. 84. The information i n Table 5.1 i s condensed from a much larger table with more sub-categories of offences and data for the entire federal prisoner population i n Canada. It does not include a small number of prisoners between the ages of 20 and 30, because t h e i r offence categorization was not included i n my offence categories. - 153 -48. Ibid., p. 84. 49. Ibid., p. 85. 50. Theodore R. Anderson and Morris Z e l d i t i c h J r . , A Basic  Course i n S t a t i s t i c s : With Sociological Applications (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968), p. 195. 51. Cf. Richard Schacht, Alienation (New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 124-5, pp. 140-7, and Joachim Is r a e l , Aliena-t i o n : From Marx to Modern Sociology (Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1971) , p~. 259. Both argue against the tendency of some writers to use the term alienation to describe es-trangement, powerlessness, aloneness, etc., as i t often renders the term so vague as to be meaningless. 52. F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s , " pp. 68-70. 53. F a i r c h i l d , " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offender," pp. 303-4. 54. F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s , " pp. 369-70. 55. Schatzman and Strauss, op. c i t . , p. 6. 56. Ibid., p. 72. 57. George F. Bishop, Robert W. Olendick, and Al f r e d J. Tuch-barber, "Effects of Question Wording and Format on P o l i t i -c a l Attitude Consistency," Public Opinion Quarterly, v o l . 42, no. 1, Spring 78, pp. 81-2. 58. Ibid., p. 82. 59. Mark Benney and Everett C. Hughes, "Of Sociology and the Interview," Soc i o l o g i c a l Methods: A Source Book, ed. Norman K. Denzin (Chicago: Aldine, 1970), p. T95. 60. Milton Rokeach, B e l i e f s , Attitudes, and Values (San Fran-cisc o : Jossey Bass , 1968 ), p~. 112 . 61. Ibid., p. 125. - 154 -CHAPTER 6. SURVEY FINDINGS This chapter reports the findings of my survey, which was designed to measure prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and to deter-mine the extent to which prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s related to exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. The f i r s t part of the chapter w i l l concern i t s e l f with a description of the survey sample, while the l a t t e r w i l l examine the response patterns of the prisoners, to determine the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Apart from providing an assessment of the degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n exhibited by the sample, th i s l a t t e r section also w i l l offer actual responses of the surveyed prisoners, to f a c i l i t a t e com-parison between t h e i r views and those of the recognized p o l i t i -cized prisoners whose writings we considered i n Chapter 4. F i n a l l y , we w i l l examine the c o r r e l a t i o n between degree of p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. A. THE SAMPLE Of the sixty prisoners interviewed, 55 were Cauca-sian, 3 were Native Indian, and 2 were of other ethnic o r i g i n s . One might be surprised by the r e l a t i v e l y small number of Native Indians in the sample, considering the widely held view that there i s a "heavy over-representation of Native people" i n Can-adian prisons (1). As Lane et. a l . point out, "Native people represent the largest single ethnic minority i n Canadian p r i s -- 155 -ons, both p r o v i n c i a l and federal" (2). However, they also re-port that i n 1977 there were only 800 Natives i n federal p r i s -ons i n Canada (3). If Native Indians are the "largest single ethnic minority" with only 800 i n federal prisons, then the present sample i s probably quite representative i n terms of the ethnic origins of prisoners. Forty-three of the 60 prisoners f e l l into the twenty to forty age group. The fact that only one was under twenty i s not unusual, considering that most youthful offenders (who often are experiencing t h e i r f i r s t exposure to the criminal ju s t i c e system) are either given shorter sentences, re s u l t i n g TABLE 6.1 AGE OF PRISONERS Age Frequency Percentage Under 20 1 2 20 to under 30 26 43 30 to under 40 17 28 40 to under 50 12 20 50 or over 4 7 TOTAL 60 100 in their incarceration in p r o v i n c i a l prisons, or are placed on probation. Overall, the age range of the sample was f a i r l y broad, ranging from nineteen to sixty-eight years of age. This approximates favourably to the actual age d i s t r i b u t i o n of fed-- 156 -eral prisoners in B r i t i s h Columbia as described in the S o l i c i -tor General 1s Annual Report, which was reviewed i n Chapter 5 (4). Almost h a l f of the prisoners i n the sample were serv-ing sentences for property-related offences such as theft, rob-bery, or fraud (see Table 6.2). Some might consider the number of property offenders to be r e l a t i v e l y low, considering the ubiquity of property crime, but there are three plausible ex-planations for the offence d i s t r i b u t i o n . F i r s t l y , the Recep-TABLE 6.2 PRESENT OFFENCE(S) Type of Offence Frequency Percentage Property-related 29 48 Sexual 11 18 Drug-related 8 13 Violence-related 6 10 Murder 6 10 TOTAL 60 100 tion Centre/B.C. Penitentiary and Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n had d i s -proportionate sexual offender populations, due to the large Protective Custody Units i n both prisons. Secondly, federal prisoners often are convicted of more serious offences such as murder or drug t r a f f i c k i n g , and hence sent to federal prisons - 157 -to serve t h e i r longer sentences, whereas property offenders often receive l i g h t e r sentences, r e s u l t i n g i n t h e i r placement in p r o v i n c i a l prisons. F i n a l l y , i t i s an established fact that B r i t i s h Columbia leads a l l other provinces i n murders, wound-ings, assaults, and rapes (5). In any event, the offence d i s -t r i b u t i o n i s similar to that i n the federal prisoner population in B r i t i s h Columbia (6). Forty-one of the 60 prisoners were serving current sentences in excess of fi v e years, again i n d i c a t i v e of the fact that t h i s study was conducted exclusively i n federal prisons. Had the research been done i n pr o v i n c i a l prisons, almost a l l would have been serving sentences of less than two years. It TABLE 6.3 LENGTH OF CURRENT SENTENCE Sentence Frequency Percentage L i f e 11 18 10 years or over 16 27 Over 5 years, less than 10 years 14 23 2 years to 5 years 19 32 TOTAL 60 100 should be clear, however, that the two major prisoner p o l i t i c i -zation hypotheses of t h i s research would not be nearly as ger-mane for p r o v i n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , where incarceration periods - 158 -are normally limited to two years. In order to test the second hypothesis, information was collected regarding each prisoner's degree of exposure to the criminal justice system. Fortunately, the d i s t r i b u t i o n was f a i r l y even i n t h i s regard, making i t possible to draw inferen-ces about the relationship between exposure and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . The 9 prisoners who claimed no previous exposure were those i n -terviewed at the Regional Reception Centre, who were commencing th e i r f i r s t period of incarceration. TABLE 6.4 ESTIMATED TOTAL TIME SERVED IN PRISON Length of time Frequency Percentage 10 years or over 11 18 Over 5 years, less than 10 years 12 20 2 years to 5 years 15 25 Less than 2 years 13 22 None 9 15 TOTAL 60 100 Table 6.5 shows that the majority of the prisoners usually served the bulk of t h e i r sentences i n medium security prisons. This i s not unexpected, as one ha l f of the interviews were conducted i n medium or medium-minimum security prisons. In any event, the actual d i s t r i b u t i o n i s similar to that i n the - 159 -federal prison system, where the greatest number of the prison-ers are in medium security and the fewest i n minimum. TABLE 6.5 USUAL LEVEL OF SECURITY Type of prison Frequency Percentage Maximum 22 37 Medium 35 58 Minimum 3 5 TOTAL 60 100 While s l i g h t l y more than h a l f (31) of the prisoners TABLE 6.6 EDUCATION LEVEL ATTAINED Education Level Frequency Percentage No formal education 1 2 Elementary school 5 8 Some secondary school 25 42 Secondary school graduate 14 23 Some college or university 10 17 University graduate 2 3 Specialized vocation school 3 5 TOTAL 60 100 - 160 -had not completed high school, the balance had either graduated from high school and/or received post-secondary education. The r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l s of educational attainment could be ac-counted for, at least in part, by the educational programs i n federal prisons, which make i t possible for a prisoner to enter the system with no formal education whatsoever, and leave with a university education (assuming that he has the time, i n c l i n a -tion, and a b i l i t y ) . In my experience, many federal prisoners take advantage of these programs, as going to school can be a d i s t r a c t i o n from lengthy sentences and prison l i f e i n general. Certainly the data i n Table 6.6 tend to dispel the stereotype image of the i n a r t i c u l a t e or i l l i t e r a t e prisoner. Analysis of the prisoners' socioeconomic status was done on the basis of th e i r usual occupation and income, using a scale which blended elements of the Blishen and Hollingshead socioeconomic indices (7). The results seen in table 6.7 chal-lenge the conventional association of crime with the lower classes. Thirty-seven of the prisoners (62 per cent of the sample) had incomes i n excess of $15,000 per annum, and usually were employed in semi-skilled, s k i l l e d , or professional occupa-tions . Of course i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say to what extent the prisoners have over-reported t h e i r socioeconomic status as a re s u l t of th e i r preference to be viewed as "middle class" i n a society which i s commonly regarded as a "middle class society." However, i t i s worth noting that I personally was aware of the so c i a l background of many of the prisoners, and where I was not, the prisoners would know that I could access t h e i r f i l e s . - 161 -Therefore, most probably were not i n c l i n e d to l i e about e a s i l y v e r i f i a b l e d e t a i l s . TABLE 6.7 PRISONERS' SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Socioeconomic status Frequency Percentage Lower (income under $15,000 p.a.; unskilled labour or h a b i t u a l l y unemployed). 23 38 Lower-Middle (income from $15,000-25,000 p.a.; semi-s k i l l e d labour, o f f i c e / c l e r i c a l ) . 27 45 Middle (income from $25,000-40,000 p.a.; s k i l l e d labour, small business, semi- profes-sional ) . 9 15 Upper-Middle (over $40,000 p.a.; managerial, profes-si o n a l , private business). 0 0 Upper (direct ownership of i n d u s t r i a l firms, resources, or real estate). 1 1 TOTAL 60 100 With the exception of using a s l i g h t l y lower income index to compensate for the effects of i n f l a t i o n i n more recent years on annual earnings, the socioeconomic status of the p r i s -oners' parents was calculated i n the same manner. It i s i n t e r -esting to note that the majority of the prisoners claim to have come from middle or upper-middle socioeconomic backgrounds. To the extent that they are r e l i a b l e , these s t a t i s t i c s appear to - 162 -suggest a degree of s o c i a l skidding among the prisoner popula-ti o n (8). TABLE 6.8 PARENTS' SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Socioeconomic Status Frequency Percentage Lower (under $10,000 p.a.; 6 10 unski l l e d labour or habitually unemployed). Lower-middle ($10,-20,000 p.a.; 19 32 semi-skilled labour, o f f i c e / c l e r i c a l ) . Middle ($20-30,000 p.a.; 18 30 s k i l l e d labour, small business, semi-professional, private business). Upper-middle ($30,000 or more; 14 23 managerial, professional, private business). Upper (direct ownership of 1 2 i n d u s t r i a l firms, resources, or re a l estate). TOTAL 60 100 Overall, the sample appeared f a i r l y representative of federal prisoners i n Canada. This estimate i s premised p a r t l y on the wide ranges i n such variables as age, length of sen-tence, types of offences, or degrees of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and p a r t l y on the comparison made i n Chapter 5 to the federal p r i s -oner d i s t r i b u t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia as reported by the S o l i -c i t o r General i n his Annual Report (9). - 163 -B. PRISONER PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME, POLITICS, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM This section w i l l examine both the actual responses of the prisoners i n my sample, and present the findings regard-ing t h e i r degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n in each of the f i v e a t t i t u -dinal areas tested i n the study. A l l verbatim responses of the prisoners i n my sample are i n quotation marks, and come from various prisoners, rather than from a select few. At the end of the discussion of each of the a t t i t u d i n a l areas there w i l l be a b r i e f summary of the position of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists on the a t t i t u d i n a l area i n question, to f a c i l i t a t e comparison between t h e i r statements and those of the prisoners i n my sample. For more detailed i n f o r -mation on the position of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists i n these a t t i t u d i n a l areas, the reader i s referred to Chapter 4 of t h i s thesis, where the matter was treated at some length. The f i r s t dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (Part III of the interview schedule) was related to prisoner perspec-tives on the s o c i a l structure and the relationship between crime and s o c i a l class. The three questions asked were: 1) Do you f e e l that Canadian society has a system of s o c i a l classes? 2) Where do you f i t into the class structure? and 3) Do you f e e l that the class you belong to has any influence on your criminal a c t i v i t i e s ? It was hoped that any r a d i c a l i z e d "class consciousness" would become apparent through the prisoners' - 164 -responses. When asked: "Do you f e e l that Canadian society has a system of s o c i a l classes?," 55 said yes, 3 said yes with q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and 2 said no. When asked about t h e i r position in the class structure, 24 f e l t that they belonged in the lower or lower-middle classes, 23 stated that they were i n the middle class, and 6 i d e n t i f i e d themselves as upper-middle class. In response to the question "Do you feel that the class you belong to has any influence on your criminal a c t i v i t i e s ? , " 14 answered that i t had d e f i n i t e influence, 12 that i t had some influence, and 2 didn't know; 32 indicated that t h e i r s o c i a l class had nothing to do with t h e i r criminal involvement. On the basis of t h e i r responses in t h i s category of class consciousness, 18 prisoners were categorizeed as moder-ately p o l i t i c i z e d , 32 as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and 10 as non-pol-i t i c i z e d . In the previous chapter on methodology i t was seen that only three categories of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n were distinguished at f i r s t , those being non-politicized, mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . Extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners were categorized afterwards, on the basis of t h e i r consistency i n responding i n a r a d i c a l i z e d manner throughout the interview. Table 5.3 (which describes the scoring conventions) in Chapter 5 shows that prisoners who said there was no class system, were unable to locate t h e i r position i n the class structure, and had no awareness of the influence of t h e i r class background on t h e i r criminal behaviour, were categorized as non-po l i t i c i z e d . Those prisoners who acknowledged the ex i s t -- 165 -ence of a class system and were able to locate t h e i r position in the class structure, but denied the influence of t h e i r class background on t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s , were categorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who immediately recognized the class system, located t h e i r own s o c i a l class, and acknowledged the influence of t h e i r class backgrounds on t h e i r criminal a c t i v -i t i e s , were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . One prisoner l a t e r placed i n the extremely p o l i t i -cized category (on the basis of h i s consistently r a d i c a l i z e d responses i n a l l a t t i t u d i n a l areas) said that we have s o c i a l classes, and that i t i s " d i f f i c u l t for upward progression." He f e l t that others would see him as lower class, but that "I've never thought of myself as lower class. . .1 have thought of myself as impoverished." When questioned about s o c i a l class as a cause of crime, he said that "If I had a better f i n a n c i a l po-s i t i o n . . .1 wouldn't have been t h i s way at a l l , but the dismal poverty made i t more than I could handle." Another extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner placed himself "very low down i n the class structure - one step from the bottom. I had a pretty rough childhood." He also f e l t that his class position was a factor in his criminal behaviour, because his property offences were "done because I wanted to eat." A t h i r d extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner described himself as "lower income," and said that s o c i a l class had a d e f i n i t e influence on his criminal a c t i v i -t i e s due to peer group, environment, and "limited opportunity for someone who i s poor." - 166 -Chapter 4 examined the views of recognized p o l i t i -cized prisoners and new criminologists toward the f i v e a t t i t u -udinal areas tested i n my study. As indicated in Chapter 4, on the dimension of "class consciousness," a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner would 1) be aware of the impact of s o c i a l class on upward mo-b i l i t y , 2) be. able to i d e n t i f y his position i n the class struc-ture, and 3) be aware of the relationship between s o c i a l class and crime. The responses of the three prisoners considered above meet these c r i t e r i a . On the other hand, the responses of the prisoners categorized as non-politicized or mildly p o l i t i c i z e d d e f i n i t e l y did not meet these c r i t e r i a . While almost a l l agreed that Can-adian society has a system of s o c i a l classes, most placed them-selves i n the "middle class" (regardless of t h e i r actual class p o s i t i o n ) , and most f e l t that t h e i r s o c i a l class had l i t t l e or no influence on the i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s . One prisoner who was l a t e r categorized as non- p o l i t i c i z e d on the basis of his responses i n a l l f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas said that Canada has s o c i a l classes "to a limited extent, by income." Another non-p o l i t i c i z e d respondent said that s o c i a l class i s "created by the person himself. . . . The class you're i n depends upon yourself." Neither of these prisoners mentioned the r i g i d i t y of the class structure or the barriers to upward mobility. Typical answers to the question regarding the relationship be-tween crime and s o c i a l class were "I don't believe t h i s envir-onment s t u f f " or "No. . .1 know too many people who are not i n trouble who have the same f i n a n c i a l background and status as I - 167 -do. " As can be seen from the statements of those prisoners judged to be non-politicized or only mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , they did not express views i n d i c a t i v e of a r a d i c a l i z e d "class con-sciousness." Prisoners in these categories who were able to formulate any a r t i c u l a t e d response at a l l usually emphasized the role of "the i n d i v i d u a l " i n determining his own s o c i a l class, and played down the relationship between crime and so-c i a l c l ass. In other words, they subscribed to the c u l t u r a l notions of unlimited s o c i a l mobility and i n d i v i d u a l responsi-b i l i t y . This i s i n d i s t i n c t contrast to the prisoners cate-gorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , who tended to adopt a c l a s s -based explanation of crime. The second dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (Part IV of the schedule) related to perceptions of the fairness of the criminal j u s t i c e system. The prisoners were asked: 1) Do you think the criminal j u s t i c e system i s f a i r ? and 2) Are a l l people treated equally by the law? The purpose of questions i n th i s a t t i t u d i n a l area was to determine whether prisoners f e e l that the law i s administered on the basis of s o c i a l class. Ta-ble 5.3 i n Chapter 5 shows that prisoners who believed that the criminal j u s t i c e system i s f a i r and f e l t that a l l people are treated equally by the law were categorized as n o n - p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who believed that the criminal j u s t i c e system i s b a s i c a l -l y f a i r , but cited exceptions, and f e l t that a l l people are not always treated equally by the law, were categorized as mildly - 168 -p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who believed that the criminal justice sys-tem i s b a s i c a l l y unfair, and that there i s a law for the r i c h and a law for the poor, were categorized as moderately p o l i t i -cized . Seventeen of the interviewees f e l t that the criminal j u s t i c e system was f a i r , 40 f e l t that i t was unfair, and 3 were uncertain. When asked about equal treatment before the law, 5 said that everybody was treated equally, 53 f e l t that people were treated unequally, and 2 were uncertain. In th i s a t t i t u -d i n a l area, 33 prisoners were categorized as moderately p o l i t i -cized, 21 as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and only 6 as non - p o l i t i c i z e d . The higher incidence of p o l i t i c i z e d responses i n th i s a t t i t u d i n a l area was not unexpected, as prisoners are familiar with the criminal j u s t i c e system, and because of t h e i r incar-ceration, are l i k e l y to f e e l disappointed with the administra-t i o n of j u s t i c e . To be categorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d i n the f i n a l determination of o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , prisoners were required to respond i n a consis-t e n t l y p o l i t i c i z e d manner in most or a l l f i v e of the a t t i t u d i n -a l areas. Only 17 of the 60 prisoners met th i s requirement i n the f i n a l analysis, so higher incidences of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n in indi v i d u a l areas evidently had limited impact on the o v e r a l l findings. A prisoner at the B.C. Penitentiary serving an inde-terminate sentence for rape, gave c l e a r l y r a d i c a l i z e d answers - 169 -in t h i s a t t i t u d i n a l area: "I don't think i t ' s [the criminal j u s t i c e system] i s f a i r . That's where the class system comes i n . If you're upper class, i f you have the money and the rep-utation, y o u ' l l get a d i f f e r e n t type of ju s t i c e than people on the lower end of the scale." This prisoner was eventually cat-egorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , as his responses to almost a l l of the questions in the interview schedule were comparable to the above statement i n terms of class awareness and r a d i c a l -ized outlook. A similar statement, made by an extremely p o l i -t i c i z e d prisoner serving a three-and-a-half year sentence for manslaughter, was that "guys with the bucks seem to draw ex-tremely l i g h t sentences or walk on th e i r beefs whereas the guys in the lower class of society that can't afford these big ex-pensive lawyers seem to get the shaft." One respondent eventually placed in the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d category said that there i s "law for the r i c h , law for the poor. . . . Steal a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , you get a l i t t l e pat on the back. If you need to steal a loaf of bread, you probably get hung." The common theme i s encapsulated well i n the statement by another moderately p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner that "If you've got money, you can wiggle your way out." There i s considerable consensus among both the moderately and extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n my survey that "money i s a l l that counts." As was the case with prisoner responses i n the prev-ious a t t i t u d i n a l area, the above comments are comparable to - 170 -those examined i n Chapter 4 , where recognized p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners and new criminologists were in agreement that the crimin-a l j u s t i c e system operates i n favour of "the wealthy." The primary difference between the i r comments and those of the prisoners i n my study was that the former frequently mentioned that apart from treating "the wealthy" in a d i f f e r e n t way, the system i s designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to protect "the wealthy." Again, those prisoners categorized as non-politicized or mildly p o l i t i c i z e d could r e a d i l y be distinguished from the moderately and extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. For example, a non-politicized prisoner convicted of robbery with violence said that "they give you a f a i r t r i a l , " and said "sure" when asked i f a l l people are treated equally by the law. Another non-politicized prisoner asserted that there i s "nothing wrong with our system," except that some of the people running i t "are more conscious of getting ahead and using the system" for t h e i r own purposes. None of these statements demonstrate r a d i -cal awareness of s o c i a l inequality i n the administration of criminal j u s t i c e . The t h i r d dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (Part V of the interview schedule), dealt with prisoner attitudes to-ward the p o l i t i c a l system, s o c i a l equality, and s o c i a l mobili-ty. Prisoners were asked: 1) What type of p o l i t i c a l system do we have in t h i s country? 2) Do we have equal rights and equal opportunities? and 3) Is i t possible for a poor person to be-come r i c h , or a r i c h person to become poor? The purpose was to - 171 -encourage the respondent to indicate acceptance or rejection of some of the more predominant c u l t u r a l values (eg., that we have a democracy, or that we have freedom). Following the scoring conventions (see Table 5.3 i n Chapter 5), prisoners who said that we have a democratic/egalitarian system with freedom, e-qual rights, and equal opportunities, and that upward and down-ward mobility were equally possible, were categorized as non-p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said that the system i s b a s i c a l l y demo-c r a t i c , but doesn't always function as i t should, that we have equal rights i f not equal opportunities, and that i t i s harder for a poor man to become r i c h , though possible, were categor-ized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said we have a c a p i t a l -i s t system functioning on behalf of big business, with unequal opportunities as a basic feature, and that upward mobility i s extremely d i f f i c u l t , but not impossible, were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . When asked what type of p o l i t i c a l system we have i n th i s country, 17 said majority rule, 11 said minority rule, 15 were uncertain, 13 didn't know, and 4 were unable to o f f e r a response which could be categorized. Nineteen f e l t that we have s o c i a l equality, another 19 that we have equality but men-tioned some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and 21 that we do not have s o c i a l equality; i n t h i s case, only one respondent was uncertain. Forty-six subscribed to the notion of s o c i a l mobility, with an additional 9 subscribing with certain reservations. Four said that mobility was only possible through luck, while one f l a t l y denied the existence of s o c i a l mobility. Given th e i r o v e r a l l - 172 -response patterns to questions i n this a t t i t u d i n a l area, only 7 prisoners were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , whereas 25 were categorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d and 28 as non-polit-i c i z e d . Generally speaking, the prisoners i n my study accept-ed the predominant c u l t u r a l values. The lack of r a d i c a l aware-ness i n t h i s a t t i t u d i n a l area i s i n sharp contrast to that i n the preceding area dealing with perspectives on the criminal j u s t i c e system. It could be suggested that predominant c u l t u r -a l values are one of the l a s t areas to be penetrated by a dev-eloping r a d i c a l consciousness. Many prisoners who have a r a d i -cal outlook on the more familiar and rea d i l y observable aspects of the society, such as the criminal j u s t i c e system and the power structure, probably have not yet begun to challenge the very i d e o l o g i c a l cornerstones upon which the society i s prem-ised . Those who did score highly i n t h i s a t t i t u d i n a l area were c l e a r l y r a d i c a l i z e d . One response rated as highly p o l i t -i c i z e d was that our p o l i t i c a l system i s a "bourgeoisie o l i g a r -chy with s l i g h t overtones of democracy." This prisoner went on to say that class structure affects access to equal opportuni-t i e s , pointing out that "someone in the East End of Vancouver doesn't have the same opportunities as someone who comes from Point Grey." A second example of a p o l i t i c i z e d response to the question on the p o l i t i c a l system was that i t i s "supposedly democratic. . .but i t seems l i k e big business runs i t — I m p e r -- 173 -i a l O i l , a few others, can dictate what goes on." Another p o l -i t i c i z e d response on the question of whether we have s o c i a l equality was that "they say we do but we r e a l l y don't. . . Geared for the middle and upper classes of the society, not for the lower class. . . .These big businesses are always trying to overrun smaller b u s i n e s s e s — i f we had equal rights, the govern-ment would step i n . " When asked about the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of so-c i a l mobility, t h i s respondent said that i t was possible by winning Loto Canada, but "no other ways unless [the person] has a r i c h family member who dies." The above remarks a l l suggest re j e c t i o n of the no-tions of democracy, s o c i a l equality, and s o c i a l mobility. They are also very similar to the remarks of the recognized p o l i t i -cized prisoners and new criminologists which were examined i n Chapter 4 . The remarks of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n my study and those examined i n Chapter 4 a l l demonstrate r a d i c a l awareness of the influence of the class structure on access to p o l i t i c a l power, equal rights and opportunities, and upward so-c i a l mobility. On the other hand, the responses of prisoners cate-gorized as no n - p o l i t i c i z e d d e f i n i t e l y demonstrated acceptance of the notions of democracy, s o c i a l equality, and s o c i a l mo-b i l i t y . When questioned about the type of p o l i t i c a l system we have, those who were able to formulate an answer at a l l almost invariably said "a democracy," whereas many had no knowledge about the p o l i t i c a l system, and therefore were unable to say - 174 -anything of relevance. When asked whether we have s o c i a l mo-b i l i t y and s o c i a l equality, most gave a f l a t "yes" as an an-swer. One s l i g h t l y more verbose prisoner, l a t e r categorized as non-politicized, said the p o l i t i c a l system i s "more for the working c l a s s , " that people have "equal rights to express them-selves," and that upward mobility " a l l depends on the man's i n i t i a t i v e . " These respondents c l e a r l y accept the predominant c u l t u r a l values. The fourth dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (Part VI of the schedule) related to prisoner perceptions of the pow-er structure. Prisoners were asked: 1) Who do you think has the power i n t h i s country? 2) How much power do you have i n r e l a t i o n to the power structure? and 3) If you wanted to, do you think that you would be able to change the society and make i t better? The purpose of t h i s a t t i t u d i n a l area was1 to see i f prisoners had r a d i c a l i z e d perspectives on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power. Following the scoring conventions (see Table 5.3 i n Chapter 5), prisoners who said that "the people" have the pow-er, acknowledged some personal power, and f e l t that they could have some personal influence on s o c i a l process, were categor-ized as n o n - p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said that government o f f i -c i a l s and elected representatives have the power, acknowledged only minimal personal power, and f e l t that they could have only a s l i g h t influence on s o c i a l process, were categorized as mild-l y p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said that power i s i n the hands of big business interests and government o f f i c i a l s representing business i n t e r e s t s , and that they had no personal power and no - 175 -a b i l i t y to influence the s o c i a l process, were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . Responses to questions on the power structure tended to be quite r a d i c a l i z e d . Thirty of the prisoners believed that the economic e l i t e were the primary wielders of power, while 27 i d e n t i f i e d the law makers or law enforcers as the powerful; only 3 said that i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s have the power. Most saw themselves as r e l a t i v e l y powerless: 37 said that they had no power, 18 that they had limited power, and just 4 that they had p o t e n t i a l l y unlimited power. Forty-two f e l t that they had l i t -t l e or no power to change the society; 14 f e l t they had some power, and 4 were uncertain. With regard to perceptions of the power structure, 29 prisoners were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , 25 as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and only 6 as non-polit-i c i z e d . The high incidence of r a d i c a l responses i n t h i s a t t i -tudinal area i s probably explained by the prisoners' unique po-s i t i o n i n the power structure. Prisoners are p a r t i c u l a r l y pow-erless, in that they have l o s t t h e i r l i b e r t y and the concomi-tant benefits. They have no control over when they wake up i n the morning, when they go to bed at night, or what they eat. They f i n d themselves sent to prison while the powerful are ap-parently able to avoid similar punishment for more serious transgressions. Again, i t should be noted that those prisoners categorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d in the over-a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n gave consistently r a d i c a l i z e d re-- 176 -sponses over most or a l l of the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas. A high incidence of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n one or two categories did not a f f e c t the o v e r a l l findings, as evidenced by the fact that only 17 of the 60 prisoners were categorized as s i g n i f i -cantly p o l i t i c i z e d . In the opinion of an armed robber eventually cate-gorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , "three percent of the people" have the power. He elaborated, saying that "ninety percent of the wealth i s held by three percent of the people—money i s power." This i s a recurring theme among the extremely p o l i t i -cized prisoners i n the sample. Typical comments were that the powerful are "the people with the c a p i t a l to invest i n the country," "financeers—people with the money," or "top indus-t r i a l i s t s — t h e y control your newspapers, they control every-thing." Moderately p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners also described the power e l i t e as "the people who control the money flow" or "cor-porations, presidents of corporations, foreign investors, or multinationals." Those prisoners categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d recognized the l i m i t a t i o n s on personal power, p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to changing the society. Most suggested that c o l l e c t i v e action was necessary to achieve s o c i a l change. When asked about the i r personal a b i l i t y to change the society, t y p i c a l re-sponses from the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners were "not on my own—it would take a very large group of people and a l o t of dissension to change the country," or "Revolution i s the only - 177 -change for our country—a people's uprising." The same elements which were observed in the writings of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists i n Chapter 4 are i n evidence here. The interviewed prisoners cat-egorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d i d e n t i f i e d the components of the power e l i t e in a manner consonant with r a d i -c a l interpretations, and made accurate appraisals of t h e i r per-sonal position in the o v e r a l l power structure. Some suggested revolution as the best method for changing the power structure. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n response to these questions i s that the interviewed prisoners did not mention the rule-breaking and i n v i o l a b i l i t y of the powerful—a topic of p a r t i c u l a r concern to the new criminologists. The responses of the non-politicized prisoners were very d i f f e r e n t from those of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prison-ers. When asked who has the power, a sexual offender at Moun-tai n I n s t i t u t i o n announced that "the people have i t — t h e y ' r e the ones that vote." This prisoner thought that he had "as much power as anyone that can cast a b a l l o t . " A similar re-sponse was that "the government has the power," but "only i f they're supported by the people," and that personal power can be summarized by the phrase: "you have your vote." These re-marks are evidently not c r i t i c a l of the s o c i a l system or the power structure. The f i f t h and l a s t dimension of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a -- 178 -tion (part VII of the schedule) dealt with prisoner perspec-tives on the o r i g i n and purpose of law. Prisoners were asked: 1) Who decides what w i l l be a crime and what w i l l not be a crime? and 2) Whose interests do those decisions protect? These questions were designed to see whether the prisoners could offer a rudimentary yet c r i t i c a l account of how and why laws are made. Following the scoring conventions (see Table 5.3 i n Chapter 5), prisoners who said that "the people" and the i r elected representatives made the law, and that the law protects the interests of "the people," were categorized as non- p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said that laws are made by gov-ernment o f f i c i a l s and elected representatives, but sometimes on the basis of th e i r own intere s t s , were categorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d . Those who said that the laws are made by gov-ernment o f f i c i a l s and big business, representing the interests of big business, were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . When asked who defines crime, 40 said that crime i s defined by p o l i t i c i a n s representing the electorate, and 8 iden-t i f i e d p o l i t i c i a n s representing themselves. Only 4 f e l t that crime was defined by powerful s e l f - i n t e r e s t groups, although 7 did mention that crime was defined by p o l i t i c i a n s representing vested i n t e r e s t s . When asked whose interests were protected by those d e f i n i t i o n s , 39 said the interests of the electorate, 4 the interests of the p o l i t i c i a n s , and 13 the interests of econ-omic groups; 4 were uncertain. In thi s a t t i t u d i n a l area, 11 prisoners were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , 13 as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and 36 as non - p o l i t i c i z e d . The lower incidence of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i n t h i s area was predictable. In Chapter 4, i t was seen that most recog-nized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners are r e l a t i v e l y s i l e n t on the sub-ject of "who makes the rules and why?" This a t t i t u d i n a l area was d e l i b e r a t e l y placed l a s t i n the questionnaire, as i t was expected to pose more d i f f i c u l t i e s for the prisoners. In Chap ter 5 on methodology, i t was seen that the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l ar eas in the survey were intended to be progressively d i f f i c u l t . In fact, with the exception of the fourth area concerning per-ceptions of the power structure, t h i s proved to be the c a s e — the incidence of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n was higher i n the f i r s t two areas, and lower in two of the l a s t three areas. When asked who defines crime, a 50 year old heroin t r a f f i c k e r at Mountain I n s t i t u t i o n responded: "Ever see a law that was made for a poor man—you never w i l l . . . . Two stan-dards of j u s t i c e — o n e for the r i c h , none for the poor. . . . Supposed to be done by the people but [the law] i s made by a select few—the r i c h ; i t s made to keep them in power." This prisoner was l a t e r categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d on the basis of his consistently r a d i c a l i z e d responses throughout the interview. Another extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner, a 45 year old heroin t r a f f i c k e r at the Reception Centre/B.C. Peniten-t i a r y , said that "big money i s making the laws," "to protect th e i r property and t h e i r power." A 29 year old marijuana im-porter also incarcerated in the RRC/BCP answered that " i t s money" that defines crime, and that crime i s defined i n "mon-- 180 -ey's i n t e r e s t s — t h e 1,000 people." In Chapter 4, which dealt with attitudes of recog-nized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and new criminologists toward the areas tested in my study, i t was decided that a p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner would express the opinion that law i s formulated by the c a p i t a l i s t class, and for the c a p i t a l i s t c l a s s . The above comments of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n my survey c l e a r l y conform to t h i s description. On the other hand, the responses of those prisoners categorized as non-politicized were at the other end of the spectrum. The non-politicized prisoners generally said that laws were made by "those i n the government who represent the people" or "ordinary working people"; one said that " i n the end i t comes back to the i n d i v i d u a l — t h e people make the laws." They also f e l t that laws were made i n "the interests of s o c i -ety" or the interests of "the people of the country." Such statements are evidently not r a d i c a l i z e d . Results i n these f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas were used to calculate the ov e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Again, the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas were class consciousness, perceptions of the criminal j u s t i c e system, acceptance of appropriate i d e o l -ogy, perceptions of the power structure, and b e l i e f s about the law. Part I of the interview schedule was designed to c o l l e c t basic biographical information, which was reported i n the f i r s t section of t h i s chapter. Part II tested the prisoners' a b i l i t y - 181 -to relate t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d perspectives to t h e i r personal c i r -cumstances; Part VIII tested the capacity of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners to make recommendations for s o c i a l changes and means to achieve those changes; Part X was a p o l i t i c a l knowledge quiz, used to determine whether p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners were po-l i t i c a l l y aware. Parts, II, VIII, and X were intended as cross-checks for prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and t h e i r results are re-ported in the next section on o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Part IX e l i c i t e d information on the causes of prisoner p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n , and the results are reported i n the l a s t section of t h i s chapter, which deals with the effects of exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. C. OVERALL DEGREE OF POLITICIZATION After categorizing a l l of the responses i n each of the fi v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas in accordance with the scoring con-ventions described i n Table 5.3 i n Chapter 5, there was a f i n a l assessment regarding the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . This assessment was made on the basis of the prisoner's consistency in responding i n a r a d i c a l i z e d manner to questions i n a l l f i v e of the a t t i t u d i n a l areas tested. The more r a d i c a l i z e d the an-swers were, and the more areas i n which answers were r a d i c a l -ized, the higher the prisoner's placement i n the f i n a l analy-sis . The o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n was determined in a manner similar to the i n i t i a l categorization of responses - 182 -in the five a t t i t u d i n a l areas. Each prisoner's response pat-tern was assessed f i r s t by myself, then by the thesis supervi-sor, and then together. Those prisoners who gave n o n - p o l i t i -cized responses i n three or more a t t i t u d i n a l areas, and who gave no more than one moderately p o l i t i c i z e d response, were placed i n the non-politicized category. Those who answered i n a mildly p o l i t i c i z e d manner throughout the interview, or who answered i n a moderately p o l i t i c i z e d manner i n less than three TABLE 6.9 OVERALL DEGREE OF POLITICIZATION Degree of P o l i t i c i z a t i o n Frequency Percentage Moderately p o l i t i c i z e d 17 28 Mildly p o l i t i c i z e d 31 52 Non-politicized 12 20 TOTAL 60 100 of the a t t i t u d i n a l areas, were categorized as mildly p o l i t i -cized. Those who gave moderately p o l i t i c i z e d responses i n three or more a t t i t u d i n a l areas were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . In the f i n a l analysis of the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , 17 were categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , 31 as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and 12 as non-politicized (see Table 6.9) . Of the 17 categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , 10 - 183 -were re-categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d a f t e r further study. Those re-categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d either gave moderately p o l i t i c i z e d responses in three of the fi v e are-as and mildly p o l i t i c i z e d responses i n the others, or were scored as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d in four of the areas. Their o v e r a l l response patterns were also compared to the statements of the recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n Chapter 4, to ensure that those categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d met a common d e f i n i t i o n of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . A few moderately p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoners who might otherwise have q u a l i f i e d for cate-gorization as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d on the basis of th e i r scor-ing i n each of the a t t i t u d i n a l areas were l e f t i n the moderate-l y p o l i t i c i z e d category because the i r answers lacked the q u a l i -ty and consistency of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners. Af-ter re-study, then, there were four groups of prisoners, 10 of whom were extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , 7 moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , 31 mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , and 12 non - p o l i t i c i z e d . The number in the non-politicized group (12) was r e l -a t i v e l y small, because t h i s designation was reserved for those who gave consistently non-radicalized responses. Prisoners i n this group said that Canada i s a middle class society with a democratic government, featuring equality, s o c i a l mobility, and just i c e for a l l . S l i g h t l y more than one-half (31) were cate-gorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d , because th i s was a broad cate-gory which encompassed a l l those who were not c l e a r l y non-pol-i t i c i z e d , but who could not be seen as r a d i c a l i z e d . Some mem-bers of th i s group, gave evidence of nascent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , - 184 -but were unable to apply t h e i r growing r a d i c a l awareness on a consistent and thorough basis. While the number categorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d (17) was not great, i t nonetheless represents 28 percent of the respondents, and i s therefore i n d i c a t i v e of a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the sampled prisoners. More w i l l be said on t h i s matter in the concluding chapter. As seen i n Chapter 5 on methodology, responses to questions i n Part II of the interview schedule were not used i n determining the degree of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . The ques-tions were: 1) Do you f e e l that you have good prospects for the future? 2) Do you f e e l that your family background i s one of the causes of your criminal behaviour? and 3) Why do you get into trouble with the law, when most of the people i n the coun-tr y do not? The purpose of these questions was to see whether a prisoner categorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d in the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n could relate his r a d i -c a l i z e d attitudes to his own l i f e s i t u a t i o n . Responses to these questions proved to be an accurate predictor of o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , with Tau B = .48 (10). Of the 10 respondents categorized as extremely p o l i t i -cized, 8 responded to the questions i n Part II i n a manner which indicated that they were able to apply t h e i r r a d i c a l per-spectives to th e i r own l i f e s i tuations. One of the remaining 2 extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners could not be expected to answer in a p o l i t i c i z e d manner to these questions, because he had a - 185 -middle class family background, a good trade, a respectable ed-ucation, and was serving his f i r s t period of incarceration. On the other hand, 42 of the prisoners f e l t that they had good prospects for t h e i r future, 40 f e l t that family was not a fac-tor i n t h e i r criminal behaviour, and 32 blamed only themselves for t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s . Only 9 d e f i n i t e l y i d e n t i f i e d society or the environment as causal factors. Therefore, while the results show that the majority of those giving p o l i t i c i z e d answers to l a t e r questions could relate t h i s r a d i c a l outlook to t h e i r own l i f e circumstances, most of the prisoners did not view t h e i r l i f e circumstances and t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s i n a r a d i c a l i z e d manner. The implications of this finding w i l l be discussed in the f i n a l chapter. Those whose response patterns were i n d i c a t i v e of some degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n were unsure about t h e i r prospects for the future. One said that his l i f e chances were "tenuous—de-pendent upon a l o t of factors," while another placed his pros-pects "on a scale of one to ten, edging towards si x . " Most tended to see t h e i r family background as a factor in t h e i r l i f e circumstances, saying such things as " d e f i n i t e l y . . .1 didn't have a f a m i l y — f i g h t i n g , divorce when I was young, generally emotionally deprived upbringing." A heroin t r a f f i c k e r serving a 20 year sentence r e c a l l e d the " r e l i e f l i n e s " during the de-pression, and concluded that h i s "background had quite a bear-ing." When asked why they got i n trouble with the law when most people did not, respondents t y p i c a l l y mentioned socioec-onomic inequality or c o n f l i c t with the goals of the system. A - 186 -common observation was that "everybody has a l i t t l e b i t of l a r -ceny i n them, but most people don't come to j a i l . " A large-scale marijuana t r a f f i c k e r stated that he "couldn't find a more reputable business to be i n , " p a r t i c u l a r l y because he "couldn't stand s e l l i n g people s t u f f they didn't need or didn't want," l i k e his father did. Another prisoner said that he got into trouble because he became t i r e d of working three jobs; as he put i t , he was "always after that mother-fucking money." A l l of these comments suggest a r e j e c t i o n of the system and i t s values, and a tendency to appreciate the e f f e c t of external factors on an individual's development. The answers of those seen as non-politicized were at the opposite end of the spectrum. When asked i f they had good prospects for the future, these prisoners usually would say simply "yes" or "most d e f i n i t e l y . " When asked i f t h e i r family background was to blame, they would answer "no, just myself" or "just s t u p i d i t y on my part." One went so far as to say that "I don't believe in that crap. . .the home situ a t i o n i s not l i k e a b a l l and chain." Generally speaking, they blamed themselves for t h e i r l i f e s i t u a t i o n ; for example, one said that he had a "bad hand for writing cheques," while another remarked that he was a "high energy person" who l i k e d "sensationalism" and "im-mediate g r a t i f i c a t i o n . " Many were unable to formulate any re-sponse at a l l to some of these questions. Part VIII of the interview schedule asked the prison-ers to outline the types of changes they would l i k e to see i n - 187 -society, and to suggest means of achieving those changes. The responses in Part VIII again were not used i n assessing the prisoners' o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Instead, they were intended to assess the degree to which prisoners could trans-late c r i t i c i s m into p r a c t i c a l suggestions, esp e c i a l l y among those prisoners who were scored as highly p o l i t i c i z e d . When asked what s o c i a l changes they would l i k e to see, only 10 of the 60 prisoners made r a d i c a l suggestions (see Table 6.10). Simi l a r l y , only 9 subscribed to r a d i c a l methods TABLE 6.10 PRISONER PROGRAMS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE Desired Changes Frequency Percentage Concrete Radical Suggestions 10 17 Concrete Reformist Suggestions 30 50 Vague Suggestions 15 25 No Suggestions 5 8 TOTAL 60 100 for achieving those changes (see Table 6.11). Most prisoners were unable to relate t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d thinking to concrete programs for r a d i c a l change, as demonstrated by the lack of cor r e l a t i o n between the ove r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and desired changes (Tau C = .17) and between the ove r a l l degree of - 188 -p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and the proposed methods for achieving change (Tau C = .15). On the other hand, 6 of the 10 extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners did o f f e r r a d i c a l i z e d answers. One of the members of TABLE 6.11 PRISONER METHODS FOR ACHIEVING CHANGE Method of Change Frequency Percentage Radical Method 9 15 Conservative or Lib e r a l Method 35 58 Combination of Above 1 2 Don 11 Know 9 15 Not Applicable 6 10 TOTAL 60 100 the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d group suggested that we need "com-plete reconstruction of the d i v i s i o n of the wealth, taxation of large corporations, reconstruction of the courts, better t r e a t -raent of minorities." He proposed to achieve these changes through "a worker's revolution, but I don't mean with guns—an economic revolution. . .taking some of the power away from the big corporations." A second suggested that "nobody should ever have to need—opportunities should be there" and f e l t that the only way to accomplish this i s "to have a t o t a l revolution-- 189 --there's no other way you could do i t . " A t h i r d said that he would l i k e to "see someone l i k e Castro take the country over," and said that t h i s would have to be done "with v i o l e n c e — g e t the students behind you, change the p o l i t i c a l system." In Chapter 4 we saw that recognized p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s oners recommended "restructuring" of the society along the li n e s of socialism or communism, and advocated "revolution" or "violence" as the appropriate means to achieve t h e i r goal. There i s l i t t l e difference between t h e i r statements and those of 6 of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n the present study. While almost a l l of the moderately and mildly p o l i t -i c i z e d prisoners were unable to make ra d i c a l suggestions for change, most of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners were able to apply t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d thinking to suggestions for s o c i a l change. Part X of the schedule was a short, ten item quiz on subjects related to general p o l i t i c a l awareness. The results were used to determine whether those prisoners categorized as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d i n the assessment of the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n were also more p o l i t i c a l l y a-ware i n a general sense. A l l but one of the extremely p o l i t i -cized prisoners had scores greater than 6 out of a possible 10 and 7 had scores of 8 or greater. There was a reportable leve of association between o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and general p o l i t i c a l awareness, with Tau C = .23. - 190 -E s s e n t i a l l y , most of the p r i s o n e r s who were c a t e g o r -i z e d as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s gave p o l i t -i c i z e d accounts of t h e i r l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , suggested s o c i a l changes and means f o r a c h i e v i n g s o c i a l change consonant wi t h the suggestions or r e c o g n i z e d p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s , and scored w e l l on the g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l knowledge q u i z . S i m i l a r l y , with the e x c e p t i o n of P a r t V I I I of the schedule, d e a l i n g with sug-g e s t i o n s f o r s o c i a l change (where o n l y the extremely p o l i t i -c i z e d p r i s o n e r s scored h i g h ) , the Tau measurements i n d i c a t e a d e f i n i t e a s s o c i a t i o n between o v e r a l l degree o f p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and other r e l a t e d f a c t o r s such as r a d i c a l i z e d accounts of per-sonal l i f e circumstances (Tau B = .48) and general p o l i t i c a l knowledge (Tau C = .23). In a d d i t i o n , there was a d e f i n i t e c o r r e l a t i o n between the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and the s c o r i n g i n the f i v e a t t i t u d i n a l areas, with a Tau of over .50 i n each case. T h i s suggests r e l i a b i l i t y i n the determina-t i o n of the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . D. POLITICIZATION AND EXPOSURE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM In Part IX of the i n t e r v i e w schedule, p r i s o n e r s who appeared to e x h i b i t signs of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n during the i n t e r -view were asked a d d i t i o n a l questions which probed f o r the sources of t h e i r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . The f i r s t q u e s t i o n was: 1) You appear to have gi v e n a l o t o f thought to the s u b j e c t of ec-onomics, p o l i t i c s , and crime. You a l s o appear to have p i c k e d up q u i t e a b i t of knowledge. Where d i d you do t h i s t h i n k i n g , and where d i d you get t h i s knowledge? The second q u e s t i o n , - 191 -asked only i f the respondent did not mention prison as a source, was: 2) Is i t a re s u l t of being i n prison? Responses to these questions were used to provide prisoner opinions on the association between prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, which was the second hypothesis tested in my study. Twenty-five of the 60 prisoners were asked where they had acquired t h e i r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . This included a l l of those who were eventually c l a s s i f i e d as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , a l l but one of the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d group, as well as 8 of the mildly p o l i t i c i z e d group. The one moderately p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner was not (in my opinion) answering questions i n a rad-i c a l i z e d manner during the interview, and therefore was not asked about the source of his r a d i c a l knowledge. The 8 mildly p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners who were questioned about the source of th e i r r a d i c a l knowledge exhibited d e f i n i t e signs of nascent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , but were not consistent enough i n the i r over-a l l response patterns to be categorized as moderately p o l i t i -cized in the f i n a l analysis. Of the 25 who were questioned, 9 said that they had acquired t h e i r views i n prison, 5 mentioned sources other than prison, and 11 f e l t that their p o l i t i c i z a t i o n came from a com-bination of sources including prison. The statments of the 25 who were questioned demonstrate that for them, incarceration has been a p o l i t i c i z i n g experience. A member of the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d group said that he had become ra d i c a l i z e d through - 192 -experience "both i n and out," but mostly through d e a l i n g with the system and observing how poor people "get s h a f t e d " ; as he put i t , "cons come from busted f a m i l i e s , f a m i l i e s with prob-lems ." A member of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d group s a i d t h a t h i s r a d i c a l i z a t i o n came e n t i r e l y through exposure to the cr i m -i n a l j u s t i c e system and growing up d u r i n g the Depression, and went on to say t h a t " I f I was a young man, I would go i n t o the overthrowing of the government." Another extremely p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s t a t e d f l a t l y t h a t he "became aware through experience with the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system." As one extremely p o l i t i -c i z e d p r i s o n e r put i t , " P r i s o n i s a h e l l o f an education f o r anybody." E s s e n t i a l l y , the p r i s o n e r s i d e n t i f i e d two main p o l i t -i c i z i n g f a c t o r s i n i n c a r c e r a t i o n . F i r s t l y , they s a i d t h a t be-ing imprisoned i l l u s t r a t e s s t a r k l y the u n f a i r n e s s o f the sy s -tem, p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to the way i t t r e a t s i t s l e s s f o r t u n a t e members. One p r i s o n e r s a i d t h a t by p u t t i n g him i n p r i s o n , they had "thrown i t i n my face—made i t stand out." Secondly, many a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n t o the media, and to the time they had f o r read i n g , watching, l i s t e n i n g , and t h i n k i n g while i n p r i s o n . To a r r i v e at a more accurate assessment of the c o r -r e l a t i o n between degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system, i t was necessary t o estimate the l e n g t h o f time served by the p r i s o n e r s i n the sample, using b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n provided by the p r i s o n e r s i n Part I of - 193 -the survey. Many of the prisoners were unable to remember ex-a c t l y how many j a i l or prison terms they had served, or the length of those terms, so the data presented i n Table 6.12 i s only an estimate. The sample was di s t r i b u t e d quite evenly i n t h i s regard, with the exception of the s l i g h t l y smaller showing TABLE 6.12 DEGREE OF EXPOSURE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Degree of Exposure Frequency Percentage No previous exposure 9 15 Minimal exposure (up to two p r o v i n c i a l terms) 15 25 Moderate exposure (up to four p r o v i n c i a l or two federal terms) 17 28 Extreme exposure (more than four p r o v i n c i a l or two federal terms) 19 32 TOTAL 60 100 in the "no previous exposure" group, which would be expected i n any case because of the tendency of the j u s t i c e system to send r e c i d i v i s t s to federal rather than p r o v i n c i a l prisons. It w i l l be seen that several of the 9 prisoners who had no previous ex-posure to the criminal j u s t i c e system were also highly p o l i t i -cized, and therefore challenged the v a l i d i t y of t h i s second hy-pothesis . In the i n t i a l comparison between the o v e r a l l degree - 194 -of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and the degree of exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, no reportable association was indicated (Tau C = .02). However, th i s was due primarily to the fact that 5 of the 9 prisoners with no previous exposure were scored as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d . Table 6.13 c l e a r l y demonstrates that with the exception of the no previous exposure group, the re-sults conformed to expectations. Most noteworthy i s that only TABLE 6.13 DEGREE OF EXPOSURE VS OVERALL DEGREE OF POLITICIZATION Degree of Non-exposure p o l i t i c i z e d M i l d ly p o l i t i c i z e d Moderately p o l i t i c i z e d No previous exposure 1 3 5 Mild exposure (up to two pr o v i n c i a l terms) 5 9 1 Moderate exposure (up to four p r o v i n c i a l or two federal terms) 2 11 4 Extreme exposure (more than four p r o v i n c i a l or two federal terms) 4 8 7 one from the mild exposure group was categorized as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , whereas 4 from the moderate exposure and 7 from the extreme exposure groups were categorized as moderately p o l -i t i c i z e d . - 195 -After noting the lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l r e l a -tionship between exposure and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and after i d e n t i -fying the "no previous exposure" prisoners as the probable cause for in v a l i d a t i o n , a second analysis was conducted omit-ting that category. The results changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y , now i n -dicating a r e l a t i v e l y moderate relationship between p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n and exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system (Tau B = .23). The impact of these highly p o l i t i c i z e d f i r s t offenders w i l l be discussed i n greater d e t a i l in the concluding chapter. Two other f a c t o r s — r e l a t e d more to quality than to quantity of exposure—were shown to have impact on the overall degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . F i r s t l y , the length of the current sentence appears to be an important factor (Tau C = .24). This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y noticeable with those prisoners serving either l i f e sentences or sentences of ten years or more. Table 6.14 TABLE 6.14 LENGTH OF SENTENCE VS OVERALL DEGREE OF POLITICIZATION Sentence Non- Mildly Moderately Period p o l i t i c i z e d p o l i t i c i z e d p o l i t i c i z e d L i f e 3 2 6 10 years or over 2 7 7 5 to 10 years 2 11 1 2 to 5 years 5 11 3 - 196 -shows that prisoners facing lengthy periods of incarceration are more prone to p o l i t i c i z a t i o n than those facing much shorter periods. 13 of the 17 prisoners c l a s s i f i e d as moderately p o l -i t i c i z e d in the i n i t i a l analysis were serving sentences of ten years or more; only 4 of the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d group were serving less than ten years. Secondly, the usual type of i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement seems to have a limited e f f e c t on p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Although the Tau C of .18 i s not regarded as a reportable l e v e l of associa-tion, Table 6.15 shows that over h a l f of those f a l l i n g into the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d category were usually placed i n maximum security prisons. Again, t h i s i s related more to the qual i t y of exposure (eg., maximum security) than i t i s to frequency of exposure. TABLE 6.15 USUAL INSTITUTION PLACEMENT VS OVERALL DEGREE OF POLITICIZATION I n s t i t u t i o n a l placement Non-p o l i t i c i z e d Mildly p o l i t i c i z e d Moderately p o l i t i c i z e d Maximum security 4 9 9 Medium security 7 20 8 Minimum security 1 2 0 Coming back to the relationship between frequency of - 197 -exposure and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , i t must be noted that while Tau B approached s t a t i s t i c a l significance after dropping the "no previous exposure" group from the analysis, the degree of p o l i -t i c i z a t i o n exhibited by those serving t h e i r f i r s t sentence s t i l l requires some explanation. If th i s groups was represen-t a t i v e of the degree of r a d i c a l i z a t i o n i n the general public, then the r a d i c a l i z a t i o n exhibited by others i n the sample would not seem that remarkable. However, of the 9 who had no prev-ious exposure, 4 were serving l i f e sentences, 2 were serving sentences of 10 years of over, and 2 were serving sentences of over 5 years. As seen above, the length of sentence i s an im-portant variable (Tau C = .24). Therefore, a reasonable ex-planation of th i s anomaly can be advanced on the basis of the p o l i t i c i z i n g effect of lengthy sentences. Overall, i t appears that there i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n -ship between degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the crim-i n a l j u s t i c e system. This i s substantiated both by the re-sponses to questions i n Part IX of the interview schedule and by the measure of c o r r e l a t i o n obtained following the deletion of the "no previous exposure" group. In addition, i t seems that qu a l i t y of exposure, such as length of sentence or usual i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement, must be accounted for in q u a l i f y i n g the factor of frequency of exposure. E. SUMMARY The sample of 60 prisoners was f a i r l y well d i s t r i b u -- 198 -te d . The p r i s o n e r s ranged i n age from nineteen to s i x t y - e i g h t , and were s e r v i n g sentences ranging from two years to l i f e f o r a v a r i e t y of o f f e n c e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f t , rape, a s s a u l t , murder, t r a f f i c k i n g , e t c . Some claimed to come from lower c l a s s back-grounds and others from upper c l a s s backgrounds, although the m a j o r i t y i d e n t i f i e d themselves as lower-middle or middle c l a s s . They had served time i n maximum, medium, and minimum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s . Of the 60 p r i s o n e r s , 17 were c a t e g o r i z e d as moderate-l y p o l i t i c i z e d , and 10 of these as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d . Many of the o p i n i o n s o f f e r r e d by those i n the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d group were roughly s i m i l a r to those o f the recognized p o l i t i -c i z e d p r i s o n e r s whose w r i t i n g s were reviewed i n Chapter 4. Again, there was a complete range of response p a t t e r n s , from n o n - p o l i t i c i z e d to extremely p o l i t i c i z e d . There appears to be support f o r the h y p o t h e s i s o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the c r i m i n -a l j u s t i c e system. However, t h i s support i s weakened by the h i g h l y p o l i t i c i z e d f i r s t o f f e n d e r s , who skewed the r e s u l t s somewhat. The f i n d i n g s a l s o showed t h a t q u a l i t y of exposure, as measured by l e n g t h of sentence and u s u a l type of i n s t i t u -t i o n a l placement, may be as important as q u a n t i t y of exposure, as measured by frequency o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n . I t i s time now to c o n s i d e r these f i n d i n g s w i t h i n the context of c r i t i c a l c r i m i n o l o g y , and to adjudge the s i g n i f i -- 199 -cance which should be attached to them. FOOTNOTES 1. Rosie Douglas, Penal Reform, Community Development, and  Social Change: Overview from a Canadian Perspective (Mon-t r e a l : Mondiale, 1975), p. 2~. 2. E.B. Lane, H.W. Daniels, J.D. Blyan, and R. Royer, "The Incarcerated Native," Canadian Journal of Criminology, vo l . 20, no. 3, July 78, p. 308. 3. Ibid., p. 310. The Regional Research O f f i c e r also advised me that the majority of incarcerated Native Indians are found in the P r a i r i e Provinces and Ontario. 4. S o l i c i t o r General Canada, Annual Report 1980-1981 (Minis-ter of Supply and Services Canada, 1981), pp. 84-5. 5. Cf. Ezzatt Abdul Fattah, A Study of the Deterrent Ef f e c t  of Capital Punishment with S p e c i f i c Reference to the Cana-dian Situation (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972), pp. 96-8, p. 165. 6. See Table 5.1 i n Chapter 5. 7. Bernard R. Blishen and Hugh A. Roberts, "A Revised Socio-economic Index for Occupations i n Canada," Canadian Review  of Sociology and Anthropology, v o l . 13, no. 1, 1976, pp. 71-3. August B. Hollingshead, Two Factor Index of Social  Position (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Station 1965). 8. While there i s not s u f f i c i e n t data to offer any d e f i n i t e conclusions, i t seems that further research on this topic i s indicated, as i t i s possible that some criminal i n v o l -vement i s related to perceptions (real or imaged) of so-c i a l skidding. More w i l l be said on t h i s matter i n Chap-ter 7. 9. Cf. Chapter 5, Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Also c f . S o l i c i t o r General, op. c i t . , pp. 84-5. 10. For an explanation of the Tau measurement of association, see Chapter 5, Section G. Tau B = .2 i s generally accept-ed as a reportable l e v e l of association. 11. This topic i s reviewed i n Chapter 7, where evidence i s presented to suggest that such r a d i c a l i z a t i o n i s not typ-i c a l in the general public. - 200 -CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION A. INTRODUCTION The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between c r i t i c a l criminology and the concept of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner has been emphasiz-ed throughout t h i s study. The new criminologists were the f i r s t to show serious interest in t h i s subject; indeed, they were a c t i v e l y involved i n r a i s i n g the p o l i t i c a l consciousness of prisoners. F a i r c h i l d ' s pioneering study on p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners evolved from t h i s r a d i c a l criminology background, as did mine to a certain extent. There i s no doubt that the present study i s influenced by c r i t i c a l criminology, or for that mat-ter, that i t would not have taken place i f i t were not for the preliminary e f f o r t s of F a i r c h i l d and others of the new crimin-o l o g i s t i l k . The results of my study tend to support the observa-tions made by F a i r c h i l d and other researchers from the ranks of the new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s — t h e r e does appear to be a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the respondents i n my sample. Of the 60 prisoners sampled, 17 were scored as moderately or extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , and of those 17, almost a l l made state-ments comparable to those of recognized p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners such as George Jackson, or Eldridge Cleaver. As an aside, i t i s worth noting that several of the prisoners categorized as mildly p o l i t i c i z e d could have been scored higher i f more l i b -- 201 -e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n techniques had been employed, which would have i n c r e a s e d the number of p r i s o n e r s regarded as being s i g -n i f i c a n t l y p o l i t i c i z e d . As i t i s , f u l l y 28 percent o f the r e -spondents met or exceeded the s t r i n g e n t p o l i t i c i z a t i o n r e q u i r e -ments, demonstrating c l e a r l y t h a t i n terms of the c r i t e r i a em-ployed i n t h i s study, they deserved the t i t l e of " p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s o n e r s . " The balance of t h i s chapter w i l l concern i t s e l f w i t h an assessment of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the f i n d i n g s , and of the p o s s i b l e f u t u r e impact of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon on p r i -sons. Various s i d e i s s u e s and p o t e n t i a l areas f o r f u t u r e r e -search a l s o w i l l be e x p l o r e d . B. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS In The P r i s o n : P o l i c y and P r a c t i c e , George Hawkins quest i o n s the n o v e l t y of the r a d i c a l i z a t i o n process i n p r i -sons, and asks whether or not t h i s p r i s o n e r p o l i t i c i z a t i o n " i s a g e n u i n e l y r e v o l u t i o n a r y movement" ( 1 ) . He p o i n t s out t h a t the a c t u a l demands o f the p r i s o n e r s d u r i n g the A t t i c a u p r i s i n g were "remarkably innocuous," c o n t r a r y t o the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f -f e r e d by the media and the new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s o f the r e v o l u -t i o n a r y nature of the p r i s o n r e v o l t ( 2 ) . When l o o k i n g at the l i s t of demands prepared by the p r i s o n e r s of A t t i c a , he obser-ves t h a t "most of i t c o u l d e a s i l y have been compiled by a group of white Anglo-Saxon P r o t e s t a n t p r i s o n reformers" (3). - 202 -To some degree, Hawkins' observation also applies to the results of my study. While there i s d e f i n i t e evidence of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the sampled prisoners, most were unable to apply t h e i r r a d i c a l set of attitudes to suggestions for so-c i a l change. Only 10 prisoners made ra d i c a l suggestions for s o c i a l change, and only 9 espoused ra d i c a l methods for achiev-ing change. As seen i n the previous chapter, there was no s i g -n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n and either prisoner programs for change (Tau C = .17) or prisoner methods for achieving change (Tau C = .15), although most of the prisoners f a l l i n g into the extremely p o l i t i c z e d category scored high i n t h i s area. Similarly, only 11 prisoners offered r a d i c a l i z e d ac-counts of the development and function of criminal law. The questions on the sociology of law were expected to present d i f -f i c u l t i e s , because to be scored as moderately p o l i t i c i z e d , re-spondents were required to provide a r a d i c a l analysis of a so-c i a l phenomenon which i s seen by many people as an embodiment of the expressed consensus of the majority. Again, those cate-gorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d tended to answer i n a r a d i c a l -ized fashion, but the number who were unable to do t h i s (49) demonstrates c l e a r l y that most are a considerable distance from the type of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n exhibited by Cleaver of Jackson. The implications for c r i t i c a l criminology are s e l f -evident. If most prisoners are i n fact unable to appreciate the class nature of law, or to have r a d i c a l ideas for s o c i a l - 203 -change, then the expectation of some c r i t i c a l criminologists that the prisoner movement w i l l be transformed into a revolu-tionary force may be overly o p t i m i s t i c . While an appreciable number of the sampled prisoners showed evidence of some nascent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , only the 10 extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners answered a l l or most of the questions i n a consistently r a d i -c a l i z e d manner. As promised i n the methodology chapter, we w i l l now reconsider the d u r a b i l i t y of these prisoner "attitudes" toward crime, p o l i t i c s , and the socioeconomic system, and for that matter, the appropriateness of c a l l i n g them "attitudes." Why should these expressions of r a d i c a l i z a t i o n be seen as anything more than b i t s of shallow rhetoric or products of a fad which might disappear tomorrow? Chapter 2 on C r i t i c a l Criminology and the P o l i t i c i z e d Prisoner, included a discussion of the i n -dependent observations made by Irwin and Jacobs that prisoner a c t i v i t y i s s h i f t i n g from r a d i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d disturbances to intergang warfare for control of the prison economy (4). As-suming that t h e i r observations are accurate, then the depth and d u r a b i l i t y of these prisoner "attitudes" or "opinions" must be questioned. In Belie f s and Values, 1970, Karl Schiebe says that " i t i s incorrect to view b e l i e f s and values as constant person-al e n t i t i e s . When a person enters a behavioural setting, oper-ative b e l i e f s and values emerge which depend upon both personal dispositions and the s o c i a l (public) d e f i n i t i o n of that set-- 204 -ti n g " (5). Certainly the prison could be described as such a setting, where the environment i t s e l f could have a strong ef-fect upon the b e l i e f s , attitudes, or values of the incarcera-ted. Rokeach says much the same in B e l i e f s , Attitudes and  Values, 1968, when he starts with the assumptions that b e l i e f s vary i n importance to the in d i v i d u a l , and that the c e n t r a l i t y of the b e l i e f determines i t s f l e x i b i l i t y and d u r a b i l i t y (6). He goes on to make valuable d i s t i n c t i o n s between an "opinion," which he describes as "a verbal expression of some b e l i e f , at-titude, or value," (7) " b e l i e f s , " which are defined as " i n f e r -ences made by an observer about underlying states of expectan-cy, " (8) an "attitude," described as "a r e l a t i v e l y enduring or-ganization of b e l i e f s , " (9) and a "value," which "unlike an at-titude, i s an imperative to action, not only a b e l i e f about the preferable but a preference for the preferable" (10). There i s a hierarchy i n Rokeach's d i s t i n c t i o n s , ranging from opinion, which may be shallow and f l e x i b l e , to values, which are ex-tremely durable. As he puts i t , "an adult possesses thousands of attitudes toward s p e c i f i c objects and situations, but only several dozens of instrumental values and perhaps only a few handfuls of terminal values" (11). Within the context of these d e f i n i t i o n s provided by Shiebe and Rokeach, i t seems f a i r to say that the remarks of the prisoners may be in d i c a t i v e of "attitudes" toward crime, p o l i t i c s , and the socioeconomic system. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y - 205 -true in the case of those prisoners who responded to questions in a consistently r a d i c a l i z e d manner, and who made r a d i c a l sug-gestions for s o c i a l change. That t h e i r attitudes were acquired in prison, and may change following release, does not diminish the appropriateness of designating them as such. Both Schiebe and Rokeach allow for the p o s s i b i l i t y of a t t i t u d i n a l change, especially under s t r e s s f u l circumstances. On the other hand, i t would be inappropriate to designate these attitudes as " v a l -ues," as thi s would require s i g n i f i c a n t l y more substantiation. Nevertheless, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to believe that any of the prisoners categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d would soon forget t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d i n s i g h t s . Judging by t h e i r response patterns, they would not unlearn t h e i r perspectives on socio-economic inequality, the p o l i t i c a l system, the power structure, or the sociology of law. A prisoner who believes that the pow-er i s i n the hands of 1000 " c a p i t a l i s t s , " or that criminal law i s a tool of the "ruling class" i s not l i k e l y to suddenly change his mind and decide that power i s shared equally, or that law i s i n the interests of "the people." A l l of the ex-tremely p o l i t i c i z e d and most of the moderately p o l i t i c i z e d p r i -soners showed c l e a r l y that t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d perspectives were well thought out, and not s u p e r f i c i a l , during both the i n t e r -views and the interpretation of the re s u l t s . This brings us back to Irwin's observation that p r i -soners in the United States are s h i f t i n g away from p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . While they may be losing interest i n active con-- 206 -frontation due to repressive measures on the part of prison aut h o r i t i e s , t h i s does not s i g n i f y that the p o l i t i c i z e d p r i s -oners of the 1970s have simply forgotten t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d per-spectives. More l i k e l y they have retained t h e i r attitudes, but have either become d i s i l l u s i o n e d with the f u t i l i t y of t h e i r ef-forts to change the system, or decided that the present prison climate i s not conducive to revolutionary a c t i v i t y . The issue i s central to c r i t i c a l criminology's i n t e r -est i n the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner. With most prisoners unable to apply any r a d i c a l attitudes which they might have to a r a d i c a l program for change, and those with the a b i l i t y unwilling to promote revolutionary a c t i v i t y behind bars, c r i t i c a l c r iminol-ogy 's hope for the development of a revolutionary force from the ranks of the prisoners may be thwarted. That some prison-ers have become more p o l i t i c a l l y aware does not necessarily s i g n i f y a continuing growth i n revolutionary consciousness. At t h i s juncture, a consideration of whether or not these prisoner attitudes might better be described as "tech-niques of n e u t r a l i z a i t o n " i s e s s e n t i a l . Sykes and Matza define "techniques of n e u t r a l i z a t i o n " as "defenses to crimes, i n the form of j u s t i f i c a t i o n s for deviance that are seen as v a l i d by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large" (12). Among the examples cited are "denial of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " by blaming s o c i a l conditions, or saying that property crime i s acceptable because the r i c h can afford i t (13). Both examples could be used to describe the response patterns of the p o l i t -- 207 -i c i z e d prisoners i n my study. Indeed, Brody argues i n his a r t i c l e on "The P o l i t i c a l Prisoner Syndrome" that a prisoner adopts t h i s " p o l i t i c a l p r i s -oner" role because " i t absolves [him] of a l l blame for his pre-dicament" (14). According to Brody, the prisoner r a t i o n a l i z e s his property offences by saying that they are "a program of ec-onomic r e d i s t r i b u t i o n , " by projecting the blame in such a way that "he then becomes not the agressor but the victim" (15). In talking to prisoners, he became aware of t h e i r b e l i e f that "those inside were the victims and those outside (society and 'the system') were the r e a l criminals" (16). Of course one must keep i n mind Brody's own p o s i t i o n on this subject. In the s u b t i t l e to his a r t i c l e he refers to the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon as the "Latest Problem of the American Penal System," and i n h i s conclusions he attempts to i d e n t i f y possible methods for c o n t r o l l i n g or d i f f u s i n g p r i s -oner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n (17). Evidently he has decided that t h i s i s a "problem" in need of a solution. Nowhere, however, does he demonstrate that these prisoner attitudes are s u p e r f i c i a l , or that prisoners adopt them only because of t h e i r advantages in j u s t i f y i n g deviance. F a i r c h i l d also mentions that the prisoners i n her study had adopted the p o l i t i c a l model of crime after incarcer-ation, and speculates that for some the model was adopted as a rationale for t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s (18). Again, there i s - 208 -no proof offered to support t h i s assumption. To make a proper assessment one way or the other, i t would require in-depth testing to determine the c e n t r a l i t y of the prisoners' b e l i e f s and the extent to which they used t h e i r r a d i c a l rhetoric to j u s t i f y t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s . F a i r c h i l d ' s methodology did not encompass such te s t i n g . The present study made no attempt to evaluate the ex-tent to which r a d i c a l i z e d prisoner attitudes might be regarded as techniques of ne u t r a l i z a t i o n . Therefore, no evidence can be offered one way or the other. However, i t i s noteworthy that of the 17 prisoners categorized as moderately or extremely p o l -i t i c i z e d , 4 did not blame either the class system or t h e i r family background for the i r involvement with the law, while 8 were w i l l i n g to accept p a r t i a l personal blame; only 5 blamed th e i r troubles s o l e l y on the socioeconomic system. Most gave accounts involving some degree of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , re-gardless of how tough t h e i r socioeconomic background was. If these prisoners are adopting r a d i c a l i z e d attitudes for the pur-pose of j u s t i f y i n g t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s , then i t seems reasonable to expect that they would reject any notion of per-sonal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Furthermore, i t i s noteworthy that of the 10 p r i s -oners categorized as extremely p o l i t i c i z e d , a l l but one had scores greater than six out of a possible ten on the p o l i t i c a l knowledge quiz at the end of the questionnaire. In fact 7 had scores of eight or higher. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -- 209 -ship between o v e r a l l degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and general p o l -i t i c a l awareness, with Tau C = .23. While the quiz was not p a r t i c u l a r l y demanding, the results s t i l l suggest that the i n -terest of the extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners in p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s goes past a simple explanation of t h e i r own predica-ment. It seems that t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c s — b o t h at home and around the w o r l d — i s quite keen, and that they have gather-ed more than a l i t t l e information along the way. Again, t h i s i s not the type of behaviour one might expect from a prisoner who i s interested in r a d i c a l p o l i t i c s only as an excuse for h i s criminal a c t i v i t i e s . Before going on to consider the impact of the p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n phenomenon on prisons, i t i s worthwhile to compare the response patterns of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners to those of mem-bers of the general public. In "Public Images of Law i n B r i -t i s h Columbia," Wachtel et. a l . interviewed 93 people in d i f -ferent areas of B r i t i s h Columbia regarding th e i r views on the law and juvenile delinquency (19). Their sample was f a i r l y ex-tensive despite rather purposive sampling procedures: they i n -terviewed r e t i r e d people, housewives, blue c o l l a r workers, paraprofessionals, professionals, and managers, ranging i n age from 19 to 76 (20). Most respondents blamed family problems or delinquency on "individual f a i l i n g s " or "family pathology" (21). Wachtel et. a l . "were surprised at the refusal of [ t h e i r ] respondents to see delinquency . . . as a cla s s - r e l a t e d problem" (22). They concluded that with respect to the views of members of the general public on laws and juvenile d e l i n -- 210 -quency, "rad i c a l perspectives have not penetrated very deeply (23) . This i s i n sharp contrast to the response patterns the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners i n my study, who c l e a r l y had devel-oped r a d i c a l attitudes towards the law and delinquency. This cannot be overlooked i n assessing the significance of my fin d ings. While neither the present study nor the Wachtel study are necessarily conclusive, the evidence c e r t a i n l y suggests that some prisoners tend to be more p o l i t i c i z e d than most mem bers of the general public, at least with respect to subjects such as the law and delinquency. C. THE FUTURE IMPACT ON PRISONS As seen i n the previous chapter, there i s some sup-port for the notion that exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, and incarceration i n p a r t i c u l a r , has an eff e c t upon prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Twenty of the 25 prisoners who were questioned about the development of t h e i r r a d i c a l i z e d con-sciousness mentioned prison as either the sole factor or one the major factors. After dropping the f i r s t - t i m e r s from the cal c u l a t i o n , there was s t a t i s t i c a l proof of an association between prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system (Tau C = .23). Also important was the qual i t y of the exposure, as determined by length of sentence (Tau C - 211 -Given t h i s apparent relationship, one might wonder about the long term impact of the p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon on the criminal j u s t i c e system in general, and on prisons i n par-t i c u l a r . While there may be some merit to Irwin's observation that p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s one the decline i n United States prisons, (24) one should question whether or not prisoner p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n i s simply submerged i n the face of increasingly repressive measures by prison a u t h o r i t i e s . The p o l i t i c a l ac-t i v i t i e s may re-emerge at some time i n the future, given the right conditions or impetus. In any case, the results of my study confirm that there i s a reportable l e v e l of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n among the sample population. In addition, the incidence of prisoner unrest i n B r i t i s h Columbia has remained unchanged at the very least, i f i t has not increased. For example, the r i o t i n Matsqui I n s t i -tution at Abbotsford, B.C. i n 1982 resulted in extensive damage to the l i v i n g units of the p r i s o n — s o extensive, i n fact, that prisoners were quartered i n tents in the exercise yard for a considerable period of time. Another example i s the r i o t at the Prince George Correctional Centre i n A p r i l 1983, which i n -volved damage to the f a c i l i t y i n excess of $2.5 m i l l i o n . While there i s no proof that these r i o t s were influenced by " r a d i c a l " elements i n the prisoner populations, i t i s nonetheless evident that wholesale destruction of t h i s magnitude would require some degree of prisoner organization and commonality i n objec-t i v e s . Apparently prisoners have not forgotten the e f f i c a c y of organized, large-scale insurrection. - 212 -Robert Martinson, i n his paper on "Collective Behav-iour at A t t i c a , " describes the contemporary prison disturbance as an "expressive mutiny," intended to make the public aware of the prisoner's p l i g h t (25). He goes on to say that " i t i s a new form of disturbance, not merely a temporary r e f l e c t i o n of new l e f t influence among a group of p o l i t i c i z e d black convicts" (26). Ursala Kasperowski's assessment of the prisoners' rights movement i n Canada i s much the same: "Until the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l factors contributing to crime are p u b l i c l y acknowledged, v i o -lence i n Canadian prisons w i l l continue" (27). Given my f i n d -ings, and the ongoing prisoner unrest i n recent years, there might be more than a l i t t l e truth in t h e i r predictions, at least where Canada i s concerned. Prison authorities may experience problems with p r i s -oner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n for some time to come. So too may authori-t i e s throughout the entire criminal j u s t i c e system. As sug-gested previously, offenders are not l i k e l y to lose these rad-i c a l perspectives once they have acquired them. There i s e v i -dence of problems now. With a sudden and/or substantial i n -crease i n p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , the problems could grow to unmanage-able proportions. This potential problem area i s complicated by the fact that exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system, and espe-c i a l l y to the prison system, i s p o l i t i c i z i n g i n i t s e l f . Fre-quency of exposure, length of sentence, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l - 213 -placement a l l are factors. In other words, the system may be reinforcing or actually producing prisoner r a d i c a l i z a t i o n . To complicate matters further, there i s evidence to suggest that some of the recent f i r s t timers are already r a d i c a l i z e d before coming to prison (28). These two factors could sustain the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon i n d e f i n i t e l y . In Chapter 2, on " C r i t i c a l Criminology and the P o l i t -i c i z e d Prisoner," we speculated about the potential of I r i s h prisons to breed a new p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner movement. In his book On the Blanket, Coogan describes the I r i s h prisoner pro-test aimed at obtaining " p o l i t i c a l prisoner" status for incar-cerated members of the IRA (29). The prisoners wanted t h e i r special status recognized through rights such as wearing per-sonal a t t i r e , abstaining from penal labour, or associating f r e e l y with other prisoners (30). The protest consisted of nu-dity , passive resistance, refusing a l l orders, and d i r t y i n g of c e l l s with everything imaginable, including excrement (31). Retaliatory measures taken by the prison authorities apparently ranged from denial of such small p r i v i l e g e s as books and c i g -arettes, to beatings, unnecessary gassings, and threats against the prisoners' families (32). According to Coogan, support for the IRA has i n -creased as a r e s u l t of these protests, both inside and outside of prison (33). He also says that because of the problems and protests, conventional prisoners are beginning to f e e l "an ever-growing alienation from 'the system,' from 'their' notion - 214 -of 'law' and 'their' order" (34). He predicts more large-scale prison disturbances i n the future as a r e s u l t of t h i s growing p o l i t i c a l awareness (35). A s p i l l o v e r e f f e c t i s suggested, whereby conventional offenders are supporting and i d e n t i f y i n g with the p o l i t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d r e b e l l i o n of the IRA prisoners. Unfortunately, Coogan does not address the topic of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n d i r e c t l y , so inferences cannot be drawn e a s i l y from h i s report. The s i t u a t i o n he describes, however, bears remarkable resemblance to that i n the United States i n the 1970s, wherein a small group of p o l i t i c a l l y active prison-ers (the Black Panthers) were successful i n promoting r a d i c a l ideation behind the prison walls. If the IRA are successful i n t h e i r endeavours, then I r i s h prison authorities may f i n d that conventional offenders are becoming p o l i t i c i z e d . Certainly a l l the elements are i n place for the development of a strong, rad-i c a l i z e d prisoners' movement. The foregoing assessment indicates that prisoner p o l -i t i c i z a t i o n may continue to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n prisons in Canada, Ireland, and the United States. The phenomenon w i l l not vanish simply because prison authorities, penologists, and the more orthodox criminologists want i t to. Needless-to-say, i f an increasing number of criminals come to believe that they are the "victims" rather than the predators, they could become a potent threat to the "good order" of the entire justice sys-tem. Prison authorities and other representatives of the crim-i n a l j u s t i c e system w i l l have to develop strategies to cope - 215 -with these p o l i t i c i z e d o f f e n d e r s . These p r e d i c t i o n s r e q u i r e some q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Ear-l i e r i n t h i s chapter i t was seen t h a t most of the respondents i n my study were unable to a r t i c u l a t e a program f o r s o c i a l change. T h i s suggests t h a t the new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s should not expect a f u l l - s c a l e r e v o l u t i o n a r y movement behind bars, at l e a s t not i n the near f u t u r e . The f u t u r e i s more l i k e l y t o be one of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s and c r i s e s than one of rev-o l u t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y , unless the new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s or some o t h -er p r i s o n e r s ' r i g h t s o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a b l e to r e k i n d l e t h a t r e v -o l u t i o n a r y f e r v o u r which was so n o t i c e a b l e i n p r i s o n s d u r i n g the l a t e 1960s and e a r l y 1970s. D. OTHER RELATED ISSUES Four secondary i s s u e s which arose dur i n g t h i s study m e r i t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Those i s s u e s , i n the order o f d i s c u s s i o n , are the r e l a t i o n s h i p between socioeconomic s t a t u s and crime, the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s o c i a l s k i d d i n g c o n t r i b u t e s t o c r i m i n a l i t y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between socioeconomic s t a t u s and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and the y o u t h f u l f i r s t o f f e n d e r s who a p p a r e n t l y were p o l i t i c i z e d b e f o r e i n c a r c e r a t i o n . In Chapter VI i t was seen t h a t on the b a s i s of r e -sponses to q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g socioeconomic s t a t u s , 27 of the 60 p r i s o n e r s sampled were c a t e g o r i z e d as lower-middle c l a s s , 9 as middle c l a s s , and one as upper c l a s s . The socioeconomic - 216 -status of the parents was higher yet, with 18 categorized as middle class, 14 as upper-middle class, and one as upper class. It must be kept i n mind that the scale approximated a socio-economic index rather than a thorough analysis of s o c i a l class, and that information was gleaned s t r i c t l y from the s e l f reports of prisoners. Nevertheless, i t seems appropriate to make some comments on these findings, p a r t i c u l a r l y considering that c r i t -i c a l criminology emphasizes the relationship between crime and s o c i a l c l a s s . F a i r c h i l d made similar observations i n her study. She discovered that 15 of the 24 prisoners sampled came from lower-middle to upper-middle income brackets (36). She de-cided that the family backgrounds of her respondents did not support the notion that offenders come from poverty-stricken backgrounds, and concluded that the composition of prison pop-ulations i s becoming more middle class (37). T i t t l e et. a l . raise t h i s issue i n t h e i r paper c a l -led "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality." They argue that "There i s good reason to question whether the evidence does i n fact demonstrate that the s o c i a l status of individuals i s related inversely to criminal or delinquent behaviour" (38). Examining what they say are the r e l a t i v e l y few studies a v a i l -able on s o c i a l class and crime, they found that "the data as a whole show only a very s l i g h t negative relationship between so c i a l class and crime/delinquency," with an o v e r a l l gamma of -.09 (39). In fact, they claim that any relationship that once - 217 -existed i s disappearing quickly (the gamma drops from -.31 i n 1950-59 to -.13 in 1960-69 to -.03 i n 1970) (40). They con-clude that "numerous theories developed on the assumption of class differences appear to be based on false premises" (41). Yet i n "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Re-considered," Braithwite attacks the findings of T i t t l e et. a l . , saying that there have been 203 studies on the r e l a t i o n s h i p be- , tween crime and s o c i a l class, not only 35, as claimed by T i t t l e et. a l . (42). He points out that studies on crime i n develop-ing countries consistently l i n k crime with the lower classes, and in his analysis shows that an overwhelming number of stud-ies on a l l types of socie t i e s support the notion of t h i s r e l a -tionship (43) : The conclusion i s . . .inescapable from the voluminous. . .evidence available at t h i s time that lower class people do com-mit those d i r e c t interpersonal types of crime which are normally handled by the police at a higher rate than middle class people. (44) Braithwaite i s forced to admit, however, that " i f . . we are talking about those less interpersonal forms of crime which involve the abuse of the power inherent i n occupational roles. . .then, of course, the reverse i s true" (45). Unfor-tunately, i t seems that his d e f i n i t i o n of crime eliminates a l l offence groups l i k e p r i c e - f i x i n g , commercial fraud, or victim-less acts from the study (46). In other words, he systemati-c a l l y excludes the categories of offences which those people of - 218 -h i g h e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s a r e l i k e l y t o be i n v o l v e d i n and p r o s e c u t e d f o r , and t h e n f i n d s t h a t c r i m e i s r e l a t e d t o l o w e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s . I t must be k e p t i n m ind t h a t none o f t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e d e f i n i t i v e . T h o s e o f F a i r c h i l d and m y s e l f w e r e n o t i n t e n d -ed t o be s t u d i e s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c r i m e and s o c i a l c l a s s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e v i e w s t u d i e s b y b o t h T i t t l e e t . a l . and B r a i t h w a i t e s u g g e s t u n r e s o l v e d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n -t r o v e r s i e s . The p o i n t i s t h a t t h e u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n v e r s e r e -l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c l a s s and c r i m e p o s e s some p r o b l e m s f o r c r i t i c a l c r i m i n o l o g y , b e c a u s e most o f t h e new c r i m i n o l o g i s t s assume t h a t c r i m e i s c a u s e d b y t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c i n e q u a l i t i e s e n g e n d e r e d b y t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode o f p r o d u c t i o n . In s u p p o r t o f t h e o r i e s l i n k i n g c r i m e t o s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , i t must be n o t e d t h a t m e r e l y 9 o f t h e 60 p r i s o n e r s i n my s t u d y were c a t e g o r i z e d as m i d d l e c l a s s , and o n l y one as u p -p e r c l a s s ; t h e r e m a i n i n g 50 w e r e e i t h e r i n t h e l o w e r o r l o w e r -m i d d l e c l a s s . B u t 45 p e r c e n t o f t h e p r i s o n e r s w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d as l o w e r - m i d d l e c l a s s , t h e c r i t e r i a b e i n g a n n u a l e a r n i n g s b e -t w e e n $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 and $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 , and g a i n f u l emp loyment i n v o l v i n g more t h a n u n s k i l l e d l a b o u r . In o t h e r w o r d s , a l m o s t h a l f o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e g a i n f u l l y e m p l o y e d i n o c c u p a t i o n s d e m a n d i n g d e f i n i t e w o r k s k i l l s , and w e r e e a r n i n g more t h a n e n o u g h money t o s u r v i v e w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s . W h i l e t h e a n a l y s i s h e r e l a c k s s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , and a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r number o f o f f e n d e r s s t i l l a r e members o f t h e l o w e r o r l o w e r -- 219 -middle class, these results do seem to challenge the image of the criminal as a lumpenproletarian. The lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p i s more pronounced when i t comes to the s o c i a l class of the prisoners' parents, where 18 were categorized as middle class, 14 as upper-middle class, and one as upper class. It seems that 55 percent of the prisoners come from econmically secure family backgrounds—not deprived backgrounds, as one might expect. Assuming that these findings are f a i r l y accurate, then i t must be agreed f i r s t l y that neith-er the majority of the prisoners nor t h e i r parents come from seriously deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, and secondly that there i s a d e f i n i t e d i s p a r i t y between the socioeconomic status of the prisoners and that of t h e i r parents. While my study was not intended to measure either the degree of s o c i a l skidding or i t s influence upon criminal a c t i v -i t e s , t h i s very noticeable d i s p a r i t y between the socioeconomic status of the prisoners and that of t h e i r parents does indicate that some so c i a l skidding i s occurring where s o c i a l skidding i s defined simply as the act of dropping from a higher socioecono-mic status to a lower. Apart from the above-mentioned d i s p a r i t y , several prisoners answered the questions on s o c i a l class and crime in a manner suggesting that t h e i r criminal a c t i v i t i e s were actually a response to a perceived s o c i a l skidding. One prisoner, whose parents owned two hotels and had an annual income of $80,000, - 220 -said that the high standard of l i v i n g during his childhood got him accustomed to expensive material comforts, which he could not afford on a cook's wages of $20,000 per year. As a r e s u l t , he turned to robbery, theft, and fraud. He explained his crim-i n a l a c t i v i t i e s by saying that "nobody l i k e s to go downhill." Another prisoner, who earned $12,000 a year as a salesman and as a bus driver, came from a family background where his father had a steel business and yearly earnings of approximately $70,000. The prisoner said "I'd l i k e to think that I f i t into the upper class, but r e a l l y I f i t into the lower cla s s . " He went on to say that "I want that higher class s t u f f , but I don't have the money, so I tend to look for the easy road to getting i t . " In both cases a relationship between s o c i a l skidding and c r i m i n a l i t y i s strongly suggested. Of course there i s nothing conclusive i n these obser-vations. Dealing with the issue of s o c i a l skidding properly would require s i g n i f i c a n t l y more data on socioeconomic status and a l i s t of questions directed almost exclusively at prison-ers' opinions on the e f f e c t of s o c i a l skidding upon themselves. The issue i s raised here only to indicate that there i s some evidence to suggest a relationship, and to recommend more sys-tematic investigation. Another area where the prisoners' socioeconomic status appears to have an e f f e c t i s i n degree of p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n . 8 of the 10 extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners and 5 of the 7 moderately p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners were of lower or lower-mid-- 221 -die socioeconomic status. Keeping i n mind that the status des-ignations may not be t o t a l l y accurate, and that t h i s was not an area s p e c i f i c a l l y examined i n the study, i t s t i l l seems that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between socioeconomic status and p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n deserves further investigation. One further issue deserving further attention i s the relationship between age and/or exposure to the criminal jus-t i c e system and degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . Three of the 10 ex-tremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners had no previous exposure, and one had only minimal previous exposure; 3 of the 4 were under 30 years of age. In Chapter 6, i t was seen that these prisoners skewed the reults of the cross tabulation of degree of exposure vs. degree of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . After the "no previous exposure" group was dropped from the ca l c u l a t i o n , however, a clear r e l a -tionship between exposure and p o l i t i c i z a t i o n emerged. While t h i s lent some support to the hypothesis that exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system has an e f f e c t on prisoner p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n , i t did not explain the presence of these young f i r s t of-fenders who were already p o l i t i c i z e d . The p o s s i b i l i t y might be raised that the p o l i t i c i -zation levels of these f i r s t offenders r e f l e c t those of the general public. E a r l i e r i n th i s chapter, though, a b r i e f syn-opsis of the Wachtel et. a l . study of "Public Images of the Law" was offered, which e s s e n t i a l l y found that r a d i c a l a t t i -tudes toward the law and other s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s "have not penetrated very deeply" into the general public of B r i t i s h Co-- 222 -lumbia ( 4 7 ) . Unless these findings are discounted, i t i s more probable that the attitudes of these f i r s t offenders are not representative of those held by the general public. It may be that length of sentence—quality of expo-sure—was a factor in the r e l a t i v e l y high degree of p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n of t h i s age group. The 4 extremely p o l i t i c i z e d prisoners who had no previous exposure or minimal previous exposure were serving sentences of three-and-a-half years, f i v e years, ten years, and l i f e . They may have been very b i t t e r toward a so-ciety which imprisoned them for so long, for what would be th e i r f i r s t or second conviction. If t h i s explanation i s ac-cepted, then i t seems that any trend i n the criminal j u s t i c e system toward longer sentences could increase prisoner p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n levels perceptibly. Other explanations do not appear to apply. The edu-cational l e v e l s , family background, and socioeconomic status do not seem to be factors, at least as far as t h i s small sample of of four prisoners i s concerned. Perhaps trends would emerge i f the sample was larger. Certainly the apparent p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of young f i r s t offenders requires further investigation, with a much larger sample and an interview schedule aimed at obtaining more s p e c i f i c information on the issue. E. SUMMARY As mentioned i n the introductory remarks to t h i s - 223 -chapter, the results of my study lend support to c r i t i c a l crim-inology's assertions that there are s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of po l -i t i c i z e d prisoners, at least i n the case of B r i t i s h Columbia prisons. On the other hand, the l i k e l i h o o d of these prisoners becoming the type of revolutionary force envisioned by some of the new criminologists appears remote. Despite t h i s q u a l i f i c a -t i o n , however, i t seems that t h i s p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phenomenon i s s t i l l a l i v e , and that i t may continue to create problems for prison administrators. In " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offender," F a i r -c h i l d makes reference to the "increasing p o l i t i c i z a t i o n of prisoners," (48) and predicts that "a growing proportion of to-day's offenders i s l i k e l y to find a p o l i t i c a l model of crime and punishment. . .more i n keeping with i t s perceptions" (49). While th i s may be true, she offers no evidence to substantiate either that p o l i t i c i z a t i o n l e v e l s are higher now than they were before, or that they w i l l continue to increase. To esta b l i s h that she'is correct, a number of longitudinal studies would be required. The present study might be regarded as support for the notion that prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n i s increasing, but un-fortunately, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine exactly what leve l s of p o l i t i c i z a t i o n she found, and therefore exactly how much p o l i t i c i z a t i o n has increased, i f i t has increased at a l l . It would be interesting to replicate my study with a much larger sample, some revisions i n the interview schedule format, and a more thorough approach to the issues of socioec-- 224 -onomic status and c r i m i n a l i t y , socioeconomic status and prison-er p o l i t i c i z a t i o n , and the younger f i r s t offenders. This would provide answers to some of the unanswered questions raised i n the study, assess the d u r a b i l i t y of the p o l i t i c i z e d prisoner phenomenon, and determine whether or not prisoner p o l i t i c i z a -t i o n i s increasing. Overall, the study accomplished i t s objectives. The i n i t i a l plan was to test the hypotheses that there are s i g n i f -icant levels of prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n and that t h i s p o l i t i -c i z a t i o n i s related to exposure to the criminal j u s t i c e system. This was done, although the findings should be regarded as ten-t a t i v e due to the r e l a t i v e l y small sample and some minor imper-fections. Under the circumstances, i t was an informative re-search endeavour which produced some insights into prisoner at-titudes that can serve as the basis for more detailed and theo-r e t i c a l l y s p e c i f i c studies of the prisoner p o l i t i c i z a t i o n phen-omenon . FOOTNOTES 1. Gordon Hawkins, The Prison: Policy and Practice (Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1976), p. 74. 2. Ibid., pp. 75-6. 3. Ibid., p. 76. 4. John Irwin, Prisons i n Turmoil (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1980), p. 147, pp. 151-2, p. 192, pp. 206-11; James B. Jacobs, " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and C o n f l i c t Among Prison In-mates," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 66, no. 4, 1976, p. 478. 5. Karl E. Scheibe, B e l i e f s and Values (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970 ), p~. 86. - 225 -6. Milton Rokeach, B e l i e f s , Attitudes, and Values (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968), p. 3^  7. Ibid., P- 125. 8. Ibid., P- 1. 9. Ibid., P- 112. 10. Ibid., P- 160. 11. Ibid., p. 162. 12. Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Techniques of Neutral-i z a t i o n : A Theory of Delinquency," American Soci o l o g i c a l  Review, Vol. 22, no. 6, Dec. 75, p. 666. 13. Ibid., p. 667. 14. Stuart A. Brody, "The P o l i t i c a l Prisoner Syndrome: Latest Problem of the American Penal System," Crime and Delin-quency, v o l . 20, no. 2, A p r i l 74, p. 99. 15. Ibid., p. 100, p. 101. 16. Ibid., p. 103. 17. Ibid., pp. 105-6. 18. Erika Schmid F a i r c h i l d , "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three Prisons," doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Wash-ington, 1974, p. 50. 19. Andy Wachtel, Carol Pitcher-LaPrairie, and Brian E. Burtch, "Public Images of Law in B r i t i s h Columbia: An Ex-ploratory Study of Views on Law Touching on the Family, Juvenile Delinquency, and Livelihood," unpublished, p. XIV. 20. Ibid. , P- 17. 21. Ibid., P- 123, p. 169. 22. Ibid. , P- 172. 23. Ibid., pp. 217 -18. 24. Irwin, p. 192 op. c i t ., p. 112, 25. Robert Martinson, "Co l l e c t i v e Behaviour at A t t i c a , " Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy  and Practice, Sept. 73, Vol. 36, no. 3, p. 3. - 226 -26. Ibid., p. 3. 27. Ursala Kasperowski, "Prisoners' Rights: A P o l i t i c a l Pur-s u i t , " M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1978, p. 32. 28. Cf. Irwin, op. c i t . , pp. 103-4. More w i l l be said on t h i s subject l a t e r . 29. Tim Pat Coogan, On the Blanket: The H Block Story (Dublin: Ward River Press, 1980), p. 4, 6, 9, 48. 30. Ibid., P- 48. 31. Ibid., PP . 6-7. 32. Ibid., PP . 9-12. 33. Ibid., P- 177. 34. Ibid., P- 238. 35. Ibid., P- 240. 36. F a i r c h i l d , op. c i t . , p. 78. 37. Ibid., p. 78. 38. Charles R. T i t t l e , Wayne J. Villemez, and Douglas A. Smith, "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Em-p i r i c a l Assessment of the Empirical Evidence," American  Sociological Review, v o l . 43, Oct. 78, p. 644. 39. Ibid., p. 647. 40. Ibid., pp. 648-9. 41. Ibid., p. 654. 42. John Braithwaite, "The Myth of Social Class and Criminal-i t y Reconsidered," American Sociological Review, Vol. 46, no. 1, Feb. 81, pp. 36-7. 43. Ibid., p. 38, p. 41. 44. Ibid., p. 49. 45. Ibid., p. 49. 46. Ibid., pp. 37-8. 47. Wachtel et. a l . op. c i t . , pp. 217-18. 48. Erika S. F a r i c h i l d , " P o l t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offen-der: Prisoner Perceptions of Crime and P o l i t i c s , " Crimin-ology, v o l . 15, no. 3, Nov. 77, p. 301. - 227 -49. Ibid., p. 313. - 228 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Alpert, Geoffrey P. and Donald A. Hicks. "Prisoners' Attitudes Towards Components of the Legal and J u d i c i a l System." Criminology. Vol. 14, no. 4, Feb. 77. Anderson, Theodore R. and Morris Zelditch J r . A Basic Course i n S t a t i s t i c s ; With Sociological Applications. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. A t t i c a : The O f f i c i a l Report of the New York State Special Com-missions on A t t i c a . New York: Bantam Books, 1972. Balbus, Issac D. "Commodity Form and Legal Form: an essay on the 'Relative Autonomy' of the Law." The Sociology of  Law: A C o n f l i c t Perspective. Eds. Charles E. Reasons and Robert M. Rich. Toronto: Butterworth's, 1978. Beirne, Piers. "Empiricism and the Critique of Marxism on Law and Crime." Social Problems• Vol. 26, no. 4, A p r i l 79. Benney, Mark and Everett C. Hughes. "Of Sociology and the In-terview." Sociological Methods: A Source Book. Ed. Norman K. Denzin. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. Bishop, George F., Robert W. Olendick and A l f r e d J. Tuchbarber. "Effects of Question Wording and Format on P o l i t i c a l A t t i -tude Consistency." Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 42, no. 1, Spring 79. Blishen, Bernard R. and Hugh A. Roberts. "A Revised Socioecon-omic Index for Occupations in Canada." Canadian Review of  Sociology and Anthropology. Vol. 13, no. 1, 1976. Braithwaite, John. "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered." American Sociological Review. Vol. 46, no. 1, Feb. 81. Brody, Stuart A. "The P o l i t i c a l Prisoner Syndrome: Latest Problem of the American Penal System." Crime and Delin-quency. Vol. 20, no. 2, A p r i l 74. Browning, Frank. "Organizing Behind Bars." Ramparts. Vol. 10, no. 8, Feb. 72. Bucholz, Erich, Richard Hartmann, John Leckschas, and Gerhard S t i l l e r . S o c i a l i s t Criminology: Theoretical and Methodol-ogical Foundations. Trans. Ewald Osers. England: Saxon, 1974. Canadian Gazatteer Atlas. Supply and Services Canada, 1980. - 229 -Caron, Roger. Go Boy: Memories of a L i f e Behind Bars. Toron-to: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Carson, W. G. "The Sociology of Crime and the Emergence of Criminal Laws: A Review of Some Excursions into the So-ciology of Law." Deviance and Social Control. Eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh. London: Tavistock, 1974. Chambliss, William J. "The Law of Vagrancy." Crime and the  Legal Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Chambliss, William J . "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime: A Com-parative Study of Nigeria and the U.S.A." C r i t i c a l Crim-inology. Eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975. Chambliss, William J. "Toward A P o l i t i c a l Economy of Crime." The Sociology of Law: A C o n f l i c t Perspective. Eds. Charles E. Reasons and Robert M. Rich. Toronto: Butterworth 1s, 1978. Chambliss, William J. and Robert B. Seidman. Law, Order, and  Power. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1971. Chrisman, Robert. "Black Prisoners, White Law." The Black  Scholar. A p r i l - May 71. Cleaver, Eldridge. Post-Prison Writings and Speeches. Ed. Rob-ert Scheer. New York: Random House, 1967. Cleaver, Eldridge. Soul on Ice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Clinard, Marshall B. Sociology of Deviant Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1974. Clinard, Marshall B. and Richard Quinney. Criminal Behaviour  Systems: A Typology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Win-ston, 1967. Clinard, Marshall B. and Peter C. Yeager. "Corporate Crime: Issues i n Research." Criminology: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y  Journal. Vol. 16, no. 2, Aug. 78. Cluchette, John. "On Prison Reform." If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance. Ed. Angela Y. Davis. New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971. Cohen, Stanley. "Criminology and the Sociology of Deviance i n B r i t a i n : A Recent History and a Current Report." Deviance  and Social Control. Eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh. London: Tavistock, 1974. Cohen, Stanley and Laurie Taylor. Psychological Survival: The  Experience of Long Term Imprisonment. Harmondsworth: Pen-- 230 -guin, 1972. Cohen, Stanley and Jock Young. The Manufacture of News: So-c i a l Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media. Eds. Stanley Cohen and Jock Young. London: Constable, 1973. Comrade Robert. Maximum Security: Letters from C a l i f o r n i a ' s  Prisons. Ed. Eve P e l l . New York: Dutton, 1972. Coogan, Tim Pat. On the Blanket: The H Block Story. Dublin: Ward River Press, 1980. Culhane, C l a i r e . "The B.C. Pen: A Microcosm." Makara. Vol. 2, no. 3. Culhane, C l a i r e . "The B.C. Pen: A Responsibility." Makara. Vol. 2, no. 4. Davis, Angela Y. If They Come i n the Morning: Voices of Re-sistance . Ed. Angela Y. Davis. New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971. Davis, John A. " J u s t i f i c a t i o n of No Obligation: Views of Black Males toward Crime and the Criminal Law." Issues i n Crim-inology. Vol. 9, no. 2, F a l l 74. Desroches, Fred. "Patterns i n Prison Riots." Canadian Journal  of Criminology and Corrections. Vol. 16, 1974. Douglas, Catherine, Joan Drummond, and C.H.S. Jayewardene. "Adminstrative Contributions to Prison Disturbances." Canadian Journal of Criminology. Vol. 22, no. 2, A p r i l 80. Douglas, Rosie. Penal Reform, Community Development, and So-c i a l Change: Overview from a Canadian Perspective. Mon-t r e a l : Mondiale, 1975. Downes, David. "Praxis Makes Perfect: A Critique of C r i t i c a l Criminology." Deviant Interpretations: Problems i n Crim-i n o l o g i c a l Theory. Eds. David Downes and Paul Rock. Ox-ford: Martin Robertson, 1979. Erikson, Erik H. and Huey P. Newton. In Search of Common  Ground. New York: Norton, 1973. F a i r c h i l d , Erika S. "Crime and P o l i t i c s : A Study i n Three Prisons." Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . University of Washing-ton, 1974. F a i r c h i l d , Erika S. " P o l i t i c i z a t i o n of the Criminal Offender: Prisoner Perceptions of Crime and P o l i t i c s . " Criminology. Vol. 15, no. 3, Nov. 77. Farley, A.L. Atlas of B r i t i s h Columbia: People, Environment and  Use. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979. - 231 -Fattah, Ezzatt Abdul. A Study of the Deterrent Ef f e c t of Capi-t a l Punishment with S p e c i f i c Reference to the Canadian  Situation. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972. Fit z g e r a l d , Mike. Prisoners i n Revolt. Harmondsworth: Pen-quin, 1977. Ha l l , Stuart. "Deviance, P o l i t i c s , and the Media." Deviance  and Social Control. Eds. Paul Rock and Mary Mcintosh. London: Tavistock, 1974. Ha l l , Stuart, Chas. Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts. P o l i c i n g the C r i s i s : Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: McMillan, 1978. Haskell, Martin and Lewis Yablonsky. Criminology; Crime and  Criminality. Second ed i t i o n . Chicago: Rand McNalley, 1978. Hassan, A l f r e d . Maximum Security; Letters from C a l i f o r n i a ' s  Prisons. Ed. Eve P e l l . New York: Dutton, 1972. Hawkins, Gordon. The Prison: Policy and Practice. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1976. Hawthorn, Harry B. The Doukhobors of B r i t i s h Columbia. West-port, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1955. Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Station, 1965. Huff, Ronald. "Unionization Behind Bars." Criminology. Vol. 12, no. 2, Aug. 74. Huston, Terry L. "Prisons: A Marxist Position." Monthly Re-view . Vol. 25, no. 6, Nov. 73. Irwin, John. Prisons i n Turmoil. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1980. : Is r a e l , Joachim. Alienation: From Marx to Modern Sociology. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1971. Jackson, George. Blood in My Eye• New York: Random House, 1972. Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George  Jackson. New York: Coward-McCann, 1970. Jackson, George. "Towards the United Front." If They Come i n the Morning: Voices of Resistance, Ed. Angela Y. Davis. New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971. Jacobs, James B. " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n and C o n f l i c t Among Prison In-- 232 -mates." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 66, no. 4, 1976. J u v i l e r , Peter H. Revolutionary Law and Order: P o l i t i c s and  Social Change i n the USSR. New York: Free Press, 1976. Kasperowski, Ursala. "Prisoners' Rights: A P o l i t i c a l Pursuit," M.A. thesis. University of Toronto, 1978. Kellough, D.G., S.L. Brickley, and W.K. Greenaway. "The P o l i -t i c s Of Incarceration: Manitoba, 1918-1939." The Canadian  Journal of Sociology. Vol. 5, no. 3, Summer 80. Krisberg, Barry. Crime and Social P r i v i l e g e : Toward a New Criminology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Lane, E.B., H.W. Daniels, J.D. Blyan, and R. Royer. "The In-carcerated Native." Canadian Journal of Criminology. Vol. 20, no. 3, July 78. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. A Survey of Inmates  of Local J a i l s 1972: Advance Report. U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Information and S t a t i s -t i c s Service, Washington, D.C. Lockwood, Lee. Conversation with Eldridge Cleaver. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Marion Prison C o l l e c t i v e . "Network Building: Notes of a Prison C o l l e c t i v e . " Crime and Social J u s t i c e : A Journal of Radi-c a l Criminology. Spring-Summer 76. Martinson, Robert. " C o l l e c t i v e Behaviour at A t t i c a . " Federal  Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Prac-t i c e . Vol. 36, no. 3, Sept. 73. Minor, W. William. " P o l i t i c a l Crime, P o l i t i c a l J u stice, and P o l i t i c i z e d Prisoners." Criminology. Vol. 12, no. 4, Feb. 75. Mintz, Robert. "Interview with Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young." Issues i n Criminology. Vol. 9, no. 1, Spring 74. Mylonas, Anastassios and Walter C. Reckless. "Prisoners' At-titudes Toward Law and Legal I n s t i t u t i o n s . " Journal of  Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. Vol. 54, no. 4, Dec. 63. Newton, Huey P. "Prison, Where i s Thy Victory?" If They Come  in the Morning. Ed. Angela Y. Davis. New York: Joseph Okpaker, 1971. Packer, Herbert L. "Offences Against the State." The Annals  of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and Social Science. - 233 -Vol. 339, Jan. 62. Pallas, John, and Bob Barber. "From Riot to Revolution." Is-sues i n Criminology. Vol. 7, no. 2, F a l l 72. P i a t t , /Anthony M. The Child Savers: The Invention of Delin-quency. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1969, 1977. P i a t t , Anthony M. and Lynn Cooper. Policing America. Eds. An-thony Pi a t t and Lynn Cooper. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974. P i a t t , Tony. "Prospects for a Radical Criminology i n the U.S. A." C r i t i c a l Criminology. Eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975. P i a t t , Tony and Paul Takayi. " I n t e l l e c t u a l s for Law and Order: A Critique of the new 'Realists'." Crime and Social Jus-t i c e . Fall-Winter 77. Posner, Richard A. Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1976. Quinney, Richard. Class, State, and Crime: On the Theory and  Practice of Criminal Justice. New York: McKay, 1977. Quinney, Richard. "Crime Control i n C a p i t a l i s t Society: A C r i t i c a l Philosophy of Legal Order." C r i t i c a l Criminolo-gy. Eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. Lon-don: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975. Quinney, Richard. Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control i n  C a p i t a l i s t Society. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1974. Quinney, Richard. "The Production of Criminology." Criminolo-gy . Vol. 16, no. 4, Feb. 79. Quinney, Richard. The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: L i t -t l e , Brown & Co., 1970. Reasons, Charles E. "The P o l i t i c i z i n g of Crime, the Criminal, and the Criminologist." The Journal of Criminal Law and  Criminology. Vol. 64, no. 4, Dec. 73. Rich, Robert M. The Sociology of Criminal Law: Evolution of  Deviance i n Anglo-American Society. Toronto: Butter-worth's, 1979. Rokeach, Milton. B e l i e f s , Attitudes, and Values. San Francis-co: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Schact, Richard. Alienation. New York: Doubleday, 1971. Schafer, Stephen. "The Concept of the P o l i t i c a l Criminal." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. - 234 -Vol. 62, no. 3, 1971. Schatzman, Leonard and Anselm L. Strauss. F i e l d Research;  Strategies for a Natural Sociology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Scheibe, Karl E. Bel i e f s and Values. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Schichor, David. "The New Criminology: Some C r i t i c a l Issues." The B r i t i s h Journal of Criminology. Vol. 20, no. 2, Jan. 80. Schroeder, /Andreas. Shaking i t Rough: A Prison Memoir. Tor-onto: Doubleday, 1976. Smith, Joan and William Fried. The Uses of the American P r i s -on: P o l i t i c a l Theory and Penal Practice. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1974. Snider, Laureen D. "Corporate Crime i n Canada: A Preliminary Report." Canadian Journal of Criminology. Vol. 20, no. 2, A p r i l 78. S o l i c i t o r General Canada. Annual Report 1980-1981. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1981. Spitzer, Stephen. "Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance." So-c i a l Problems. Vol. 22, no. 5, June 75. Sumner, Colin. "Marxism and Deviance Theory." The Sociology  of Crime and Delinquency: The New Criminologies. Ed. Paul Wiles. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1977. Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. "Techniques of Neutraliza-t i o n : A Theory of Delinquency." American Sociological Re-view. Vol. 22, no. 6, Dec. 75. Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton and Jock Young. " C r i t i c a l Criminology in B r i t a i n : Review and Prospects." C r i t i c a l Criminology. Eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975. Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton and Jock Young. The New Criminology:  For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge & Ke-gan Paul, 1973. T i t t l e , Charles R., Wayne J. Willemez, and Douglas A. Smith. "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence." American Socio-l o g i c a l Review. Vol. 43, Oct. 78. Wachtel, Andy, Carol Pitcher-LaPrairie, and Brian E. Burtch. "Public Images of Law i n B r i t i s h Columbia: An Exploratory Study of Views on Law Touching on the Family, Juvenile - 235 -Delinquency, and Livelihood." Unpublished. Wade, Wendall. "The P o l i t i c s of Prison." The Black Scholar. April-May 71. Ward, David A. "Inmate Rights and Prison Reform i n Sweden and Denmark." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and  Police Science. Vol. 63, no. 2, 1972. Watt, Norman and Brendan Maher. "Prisoners' Attitudes Toward Home and the J u d i c i a l system." Journal of Criminal Law  and Criminology. Vol. 49, no. 4, 1958. Wolfe, Alan. " P o l i t i c a l Repression and the L i b e r a l Democratic State." Monthly Review. Vol. 23, no. 7, Dec. 71. Wright, Erik O l i n . The P o l i t i c s of Punishment; A C r i t i c a l An-a l y s i s of Prisons i n America. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Yochelson, Samuel and Stanton E. Samenow. The Criminal Person-a l i t y , Vol. I: A P r o f i l e for Change. New York: Aronson, 1976. Young, Jock. "Left Idealism, Reformism and Beyond: From New Criminology to Marxism." Capitalism and the Rule of Law:  From Deviancy Theory to Marxism. Eds. Bob Fine et. a l . London: Hutchinson, 1979. Young, Jock. "Working Class Criminology." C r i t i c a l Criminol-ogy. Eds. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. Lon-don: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975. - 236 -Appendix A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1) Present offence(s) 2) Sentence 3) Previous Convictions (number, types) 4) Length of sentence 5) Usual i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement 6) Age of prisoner 7) Ethnic Origin 8) Parent's income 9) Parent's occupation 10) Prisoner's income 11) Prisoner's occupation 12) Prisoner's education II. 1) Do you f e e l that you have good prospects for your future? 2) Do you f e e l that your family background i s one of the causes of your criminal behaviour? 3) Why do you get into trouble with the law, when most of the people i n the country do not? III. 1) Do you f e e l that Canadian society has a system of so-c i a l classes? 2) Where do you f i t into the class structure? 3) Do you f e e l that the class you belong to has any i n -fluence on your criminal a c t i v i t i e s ? IV. 1) Do you think that the criminal j u s t i c e system i s f a i r ? 2) Are a l l people treated equally by the law? V. 1) What type of p o l i t i c a l system do we have i n t h i s coun-try? 2) Do we have equal rights and equal opportunities? 3) Is i t possible for a poor person to become r i c h , or a r i c h person to become poor? VI. 1) Who do you think has the power in t h i s country? 2) How much power do you have i n r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l power structure? - 237 -3) If you wanted to, do you think that you would be able to change society to make i t better? VII. 1) Who decides what w i l l be a crime and what w i l l not be a crime? 2) Whose interests do those decisions protect? VIII. . 1) What changes, i f any, would you l i k e to see in the so-ciety? 2) How could you go about making those changes? IX. 1) You appear to have given a l o t of thought to the sub-ject of economics, p o l i t i c s , and crime. You also ap-pear to have picked up quite a b i t of knowledge. Where did you do thi s thinking, and where did you get the knowledge? 2) (Is i s a re s u l t of being i n prison?) X. 1) Who i s the Prime Minister of Canada? 2) Who i s Ralph Nader? 3) Prior to the recent federal election, what was Jean-Jacques B l a i s ' position in the federal government? 4) What does the term SALT mean to you? 5) Who i s the leader of the o f f i c i a l opposition i n the federal government i n Canada? 6) Who wrote Soul on Ice? 7) Who is-the Ayatollah Khomeini? 8) What do you know about the si t u a t i o n i n Uganda at t h i s time? 9) Which p o l i t i c a l party i s i n power in B.C. at the pre-sent time? i o : Who was Che Gueverra? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095840/manifest

Comment

Related Items