Shock Incarceration

Shock incarceration (SI) is a correctional alternative to traditional incarceration that seeks to shock individuals convicted of crimes away from engaging in further criminal activity. The programs, also known as correctional boot camps, have a regime of military basic training–style discipline and rigorous physical activity as their centerpiece, which is often complemented by educational, counseling, and occupational training opportunities. SI programs, which are typically located in facilities that are separate from prisons or jails, allow individuals who successfully complete the program to serve less time than they would if sentenced to traditional prison or jail confinement. Originating in the early 1980s, SI programs marked an important innovation in corrections strategy, combining punitive and therapeutic interventions targeting individuals typically convicted of less serious criminal offenses seeking to shock them into behaving in a disciplined and respectful manner and away from additional involvement with the criminal justice system. This article surveys the early history of SI programs, details of the correctional methods they employ, program goals, and research conducted on the effects of SI.

Early History

SI originated in the wake of two related innovations in corrections. The first was Scared Straight, a strategy targeting juvenile offenders who gained fame as the result of a documentary film released in 1978. The program was developed for at-risk juveniles who had engaged in antisocial activity but had not yet committed crimes that were worthy of longer term incarceration. As part of their treatment, individuals spent a brief period of time in a hostile prison environment, where they were exposed to verbal abuse from inmates and learned firsthand of the hardships of prison life, an experience designed to scare them away from engaging in criminal misconduct upon their release. The second innovation, Shock Probation, featured a 90- to 120-day program where an offender would be detained in the general prison population to get a true taste of prison life. After serving the 90- to 120-day term, the offender served the remainder of his or her sentence in the community on probation and would remain out of prison absent violation of his or her probation conditions.

SI debuted in 1983, first in Oklahoma and 1 month later in Georgia. Louisiana opened the first SI program targeting juveniles alone in 1985. SI gained popularity very quickly. Like other intermediate sanctions popular in the 1980s, it appealed both to policy makers favoring a get tough orientation, which did not coddle individuals, and those favoring rehabilitative treatment and programming. By 1995, states operated 75 programs for adults and 30 for juveniles, and counties operated 18 programs.

Program Details

To begin with, SI programs differ in their programmatic details. Typically modeled after military boot camps, SI programs emphasize discipline and obedience to authority. Participants address the correctional officers and other inmates by military titles, punishment for misbehavior comes in some form of physical activity, like pushups, and inmates and correctional officers alike wear military-style uniforms. Military drills and demanding physical training dominate, complemented by hard physical labor such as ditch digging, clearing land, and constructing walkways, all with hand tools to maximize physical effort among participants. Inmates must also undergo an entry ceremony and a head shaving requirement, stand at attention in drill lines, and participate in graduation ceremonies upon the successful completion of the program.

Along with programmatic details, programs also vary in their emphasis on rehabilitation. For instance, Illinois dedicates 3 hours a day to rehabilitation-related activities, with half of that time occupied by some form of counseling and the other half education. Elsewhere, such as in New York, participants spend up to 6 hr on such activities, including alcohol and drug counseling, vocational training, decision-making classes, and educational instruction.

In addition, SI programs contrast from one another in their eligibility criteria. Most often, with adult populations, participation is limited to young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 years, whereas Louisiana allows participants up to the age of 39. Some states, such as Oklahoma, New York, and South Carolina, require that participants’ offenses be nonviolent in nature, and most programs require that participants have not been previously incarcerated in prison; a minority of programs bar participation if an individual has been convicted of a felony. However, a few states, such as Florida, accept participants as long as their crime is not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Some states will only admit participants whose crime is only punishable by probation, while other states require maximum sentences not to exceed 5 years, and other states allow up to 10 years.

Finally, SI programs are distinguishable from one another in their duration. Some states, such as Georgia, have a 90-day program, while others, such as Missouri and Georgia, have a 120- and 180-day program, respectively.

A key commonality among the programs is that participants have an incentive to successfully complete program requirements because doing so provides sentence relief. Although programs vary, the most common result upon graduation from an SI program is release on parole or probation, whereby the offender will continue to be supervised by the corrections system. In New York, for instance, program graduates are reviewed by the parole board, which decides whether release on parole is warranted, which permits the individual to avoid serving their full sentence. Predictably, failure to complete the program carries adverse consequences—the individual faces detention in a traditional prison or jail where they will serve a much lengthier sentence—compared to what would have been the mere length of the particular SI program.

Goals

The chief goal of SI is crime reduction, and it seeks to do so by two principle means: deterrence and rehabilitation. As for deterrence, SI is considered more severe than serving a probation term in the community and less severe than long-term incarceration. Originally, SI programs were to be located in prisons but separate from general population. This view of prison from the inside, combined with physical activity, strict discipline, and hard labor, was deigned to discourage future criminal behavior. SI seeks rehabilitation in two ways. First, the strict discipline entailed in the program seeks to instill self-discipline in participants after the program and improve participants’ self-esteem, self-control, and ability to handle stressful environments they might encounter in life outside. Second, while as noted programs can vary in their content, those emphasizing counseling and education do so to provide the tools needed to succeed in work and school after release.

SI is thought to have other benefits as well. Most important, SI can channel eligible offenders away from incarceration in prison and jail and result in shorter periods of detention overall, allowing jurisdictions to reduce corrections costs and reduce reliance on often already overcrowded institutions.

Research Results and Use

Over time, interest in SI waned in the United States. In significant part, this was due to research suggesting that SI did not secure the reductions in recidivism touted by advocates. Some studies found no benefit while others found a marginal reduction in recidivism, compared to regular forms of punishment, but that the reduction tended to diminish over time. In addition, some studies found that juveniles who participated in SI programs were more likely to commit future crimes more quickly than individuals in control groups. Although research reveals that SI programs succeed in instilling better skills, attitude, and behavior into participants, this success simply does not translate into a reduction in recidivism. Part of that failure can be described as a low dosage problem. Although a lofty goal, it is not realistic to expect a program that only spans 180 days at most to have such a large change in offenders who have had an antisocial lifestyle instilled in them over a span of years. Furthermore, there is no incarceration boot-camp model. Thus, an analysis of boot camps across different states shows a lack in consistency on how much programs focus on offender reentry into the community. This failure is reflected in the overall failure in reducing recidivism.

In addition, research indicated that SI programs are far too small on a national scale to have a major effect on the cost savings that were once expected. This is 2-fold: Firstly, there are not enough SI programs to house a large enough amount of prisoners to create the savings that would be expected by reducing operation costs and construction costs of new jails and prisons. Secondly, SI programs require more staff than traditional incarceration facilities, and because SI programs provide much more rehabilitative services than traditional incarceration facilities, the negligible cost savings are negated.

Meanwhile, concern arose over the safety of the programs. In a Florida SI program, for instance, 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson collapsed and eventually died after correctional officers tried to awaken him with smelling salts, which resulted in his suffocation. Anderson’s death eventually resulted in Florida’s ban on state-run boot camps in 2006.

In response, nationwide many states have ceased their SI programs. As of 2000, close to one third of state-run SI programs had closed, and total boot-camp population fell by over 30%. This trend continued, and it even extended to New York, a state that has long boasted prison boot camps. At one time, New York ran five SI programs; however, in 2011, the state closed two of its five boot camps, and another in 2013, leaving just two remaining programs. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Prison discontinued operation of its SI programs in 2005. As of 2017, the exact number of SI programs in operation is not recorded; however, the downward trend in SI leaves the impression that new programs will not be opened.

References:

1. Criminal Justice Newsletter. (1994, December 1). Shock incarceration in New York: Focus on treatment. New York, NY: Pace.
2. Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Trager, J. S., & Gendreau, P. (2005). The rise and fall of boot camps. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 53–70. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v40n03_03
3. MacKenize, D., Wilson, D., & Kider, S. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 126–143. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1049871
4. Meade, D., & Steiner, B. (2010). The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841–853.
5. National Institute of Justice (U.S.) & United States. Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2003). Correctional boot camps: Lessons from a decade of research. Washington, DC: Author.
6. Osler, M. W. (1991, March 1). Federal probation: Shock incarceration: Hard realities and real possibilities. Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
7. Parent, D. G. (1989). Shock incarceration: An overview of existing programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
8. Ramey, C. (2016, August 1). As boot-camp prisons fade, New York inmates march on. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1807827259?accountid=4840
9. Schembri, A. J. (2006). Scared Straight Programs: Jail and detention tours. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.
10. Stinchcomb, J. B. (1999). Recovering from the shocking reality of shock incarceration—What correctional administrators can learn from boot camp failures. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 43. Retrieved from https://login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/214570 696?accountid=4840
11. Yefet, A. (2016, March 22). Brooklyn law review: Shock incarceration and parole: A process without process. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Law School.