In the mid-20th century, around the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, radical inmate gangs appeared in state prisons in California and Texas. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the existence of six major prison gangs in the California Department of Corrections: Mexican Mafia, Nuestra Familia, Black Guerrilla Family, Aryan Brotherhood, Nazi Low Riders, and Texas Syndicate (TS). The Court cited (vs. street gang members in prison) the virtual absence of noncriminal, nondeviant activities by its members as a distinguishing feature of prison gangs. The Court wrote that prison gang members are violent zealots devoted to acting out as prison gangsters while proclaiming and advocating a separatist, racist creed and that prison gang members are violent, racist murderers who lie, cheat, and steal.
In December 2014, the United States had approximately 1,800 state and federal prisons. Federal and state prisons held 1.5 million convicted felons from among the 317 million people in the United States. There are approximately 3,200 local and county jails. Federal prisons confine inmates convicted of offenses that violate the U.S. Constitution. State prisons confine felons convicted of offenses under state jurisdiction. These include, among numerous others, homicide, assault and battery, and burglary. In 2011, the National Gang Intelligence Center estimated that up to 15% of prison inmates are gang members, which include prison gangs, street gangs, and motorcycle gangs.
Prison gangs have had a profound effect on the U.S. state and federal prisons. Yet they are hidden behind high walls and razor wire fences. The public’s knowledge of prison gangs’ criminal behavior inside prisons depends on outside investigators’ access to official prison records and opportunities to interview prison staff and prison gang members. To grasp the complexity of conducting prison research necessary to describe accurately prison gangs as a disruptive force in state and federal prisons, this article elucidates social researchers’ difficulties studying prison gangs inside prisons, pressures of social life among prison inmates and how it contributes to gang affiliation, and the TS’s criminal behavior, inside and outside prison.
Barriers on Prison Gang Research
Social researchers’ opportunities to study prison gangs operating inside prisons have been limited by strict correctional systems’ policies limiting nonemployees’ access. Prisons are law enforcement agencies, which must protect the confidentiality of official records and inmate privacy. Social researchers cannot walk into a police department and request confidential criminal or administrative records.
Prison inmates are outside public view and vulnerable to researchers’ abuse and exploitation. Social research inside U.S. prisons requires strict scrutiny of the nature of research; researchers’ proposed methods of data collection; the nature of the data collected, such as inmate and staff interviews or a review of prison records; a description of data analysis procedures; a statement of the ways research results will be disseminated; and assurance that research subjects’ anonymity and confidentiality will be protected.
Researchers must pass two levels of strict review. First, researchers must submit a detailed research application to a correctional agency. Upon receipt, the prison research committee can quickly read the proposal and deny it without explanation. If the research committee reviews and approves the application, there are additional levels of scrutiny. An approved research application must then be further approved by the seniormost administrative official, a director, or a commission of corrections. If researchers obtain approval, the warden of the prison where research will be conducted must then consent, as well. Then researchers must pass through another level of scrutiny imposed by their university.
Next, researchers must comply with research regulations governed by the U.S. Office of Human Research Protections, a federal agency that stipulates guidelines and requirements that protect research with human subjects. These regulations are implemented and monitored by a university’s Institutional Review Board, a panel of experts convened to ensure that research complies with federal regulations. These regulations ensure that human subjects’ rights, welfare, and well-being are protected. Even if researchers pass a research review by a corrections agency’s and their university’s Institutional Review Board and obtain permission from a director or commissioner of a state corrections agency, the warden of a prison where research was intended to occur can refuse to permit researchers from entering the prison. If that occurs, there are no appeal procedures. If a warden grants researchers access, prison staff and inmates can refuse to be interviewed. If inmates or staff agree to be interviewed, they have the right to terminate an interview at any time and refuse to answer questions without an explanation.
It can be uncertain whether inmates with or without a prison gang affiliation will agree to be interviewed. If prison gang members comply, they might be subject to injury later if fellow gang members believe they have divulged information on their gang’s involvement in violent and nonviolent misconduct (e.g., drug distribution, murder, or assault on inmates and staff). Revealing that information (known as snitching) to researchers can violate a prison gang rule, resulting in an inmate snitch’s death.
Prison Life: Stress of Inmate Social Relations
Prisons have an intense social environment. Lonely, scared, intimidated, newly admitted inmates are novices to prison life who must quickly learn the rules of social interaction among inmates and between inmates and staff. New inmates often seek companionship to quell feelings of loneliness and gain a sense of safety. In prison, safety in numbers can quiet feelings of fear. An inexperienced inmate might seek companionship with members of a prison gang, and this can ultimately lead a new inmate to commit acts of violence ordered by prison gang leaders.
Inexperienced inmates find themselves caged in an environment under never-ending visual scrutiny by staff and fellow inmates. Inmates can be subject to body pat searchers by staff at any time for any reason. Constitutional rights that protect free citizens from unlawful search and seizure do not apply in prison. If inmates are housed in cells, they live behind steel bars in cramped quarters shared by another inmate, who is a stranger until they meet face to face.
New inmates must learn that what they say and how they say it can have adverse consequences. Their facial expressions when speaking and demeanor when approaching other inmates and staff are forms of communication inside (vs. outside) prison, and these can send the wrong signal. How inmates wear their clothing, stride among other inmates, and look at other inmates can violate unwritten rules of inmate social interaction. Outside prison, the greeting good morning can bring a smile. Inside prison, however, that same greeting can signal a new inmate’s weakness and vulnerability and convey to veterans of prison life that a new inmate can be manipulated or is an easy mark for the theft, for example, of new sneakers or a radio.
In men’s prisons, social relationships have terms, such as tips, cars, homeboys, crime partners, and yardies. In women’s prisons, social relationships have different terms. Tips are two or three inmates who regularly hang out, chat, and sit together at mealtime. County cars comprise inmates who resided in the same county before they were imprisoned. A county car can include dozens of inmates, some of whom form tips within the car. In prisons where staff have cracked down on prison gangs, car affiliations can serve a similar purpose, conveying a sense of safety and protection in the event of interracial hostility.
Homeboys are inmates who knew one another on the street or resided in the same neighborhood before they were imprisoned. Homeboys can be members of the same car. Crime partners are inmates who committed crimes together. Crime partners can be homeboys and/or members of the same car. Outdoor recreation areas are termed yards. Yardies, therefore, are inmates who spend time together on the yard, jogging, weightlifting, walking, playing basketball, or just hanging out. Inmates in tips or cars who were crime partners or homeboys might also have been members of the same street gang and continue their gang association inside prison.
These relational terms identify instrumental social ties, which afford inmates companionship and a sense of safety in numbers. Researchers have reported that inmates who were not gang members outside prison oftentimes seek protection in a prison gang. An increase in a prison gang’s membership creates double bind for its members. As a gang’s membership increases, so does its members’ sense of safety, but increasing membership can lead to more scrutiny by prison staff or a need to defend the gang from competing gang members who feel threatened by the expanding membership of a rival gang.
Texas Syndicate (TS): Inside a Violent Prison Gang
Origins
The Texas Syndicate (TS) appeared in 1958 at Deuel Vocational Institute in California. A tattoo, the letter T superimposed on an S (for TS), inked into individuals’ forearm identified its members. Several decades later, in response to harassment from racial and ethnic gangs, prison authorities recognized the TS’s appearance at California’s Folsom State Prison in the early 1970s and at San Quentin State Prison in 1976. In California prisons, TS members have attacked, killed, and severely injured inmates and staff. The California Department of Corrections reported that the TS was one of several prison gangs, namely, the Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Texas Mafia, Self-Defense Family, Pistoleros Latinos, Nuestro Carnales, Crips, and Mandingo Warriors, responsible for prison murders and armed and unarmed assaults.
All TS members were not Texans. The TS admitted individuals of Mexican background, even if they were Californians. Over years of imprisonment, TS members native to Texas and California formed alliances. Upon release, C alifornia members chose to move away from home communities, where they had trouble, to start again in another area. Texas members returned home. In Texas, they reaffirmed mutual affiliation and continued criminal activities. Texas state and federal law enforcement agencies were aware of TS members’ extremely violent behavior.
Organization
A Texas Gang Threat Assessment in August 2015 by the Texas Department of Public Safety reported that the TS had an estimated 3,400 members. Prison gang investigators have testified in court that the TS is the most highly structured, aggressive, and violent prison gang. Its members adhere to a strict constitution of 22 rules that offer members protection inside prison and promise wealth and brotherhood outside prison. In exchange, members are obligated to return a share of their criminal proceeds to the gang. Its members have shown strong loyalty. TS ethos requires that the gang come before family, church, and everyone else. Rule violations can result in the gang issuing a death warrant calling for a rule violator.
The TS has a hierarchical structure, with a president and vice president, as well as an appointed chairman in each local area (in a prison or in the community). The chairman watches over that area’s vice chairman, captain, lieutenants, sergeant at arms, and soldiers. Lower ranking members perform the gang’s criminal activity. When members outside prison are arrested and convicted and returned to prison or when imprisoned members are transferred between prisons, the president and vice president retain their rank; others lose their rank and function as soldiers.
Crime Outside Prison
TS members have criminal convictions predating their gang affiliation inside prison, which can include murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery. In the community, the TS had been engaged in human trafficking, including forced labor trafficking and commercial sex trafficking (i.e., forced prostitution among adults and minors).
TS branches have been reported in Austin, Corpus Christi, the Dallas Fort Worth area, and Rio Grande Valley. Branches are called cells and have a strict internal hierarchy and generally act independently of one another. Members in one branch can request members of another branch to commit murder. A federal indictment described a Dallas branch ordering a member of the Rio Grande Branch to murder a member of that branch who mishandled a drug deal. Federal prosecutors charged TS members under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which forbids any person associated with any enterprise from associating with activities that affect interstate or foreign commerce. Federal prosecutors successfully proved that the TS had a hierarchical structure, a chain of command, fixed roles for group members, rules and regulations, and disciplinary procedures. TS members found guilty were subject to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act penalties that vary depending on the facts of the crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported on TS’s association with Mexican drug cartels, which indicates a continuation of TS Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act activities.
Crime and Punishment Inside Prison
Rarely are crimes committed inside prison adjudicated under state or federal criminal code. Prison-based crimes, even murder, are given a ruling under a prison system’s disciplinary policies. Minor prison infractions can result in restrictions on recreation or access to a prison commissary (a store that sells, among other commodities, chips, powdered soup, and coffee). Serious misconduct, such as murder and drug distribution, can warrant severe sanctions, including an enhanced prison sentence and many years locked down 24 hr a day in a supermaximum security prison, which state and federal correctional agencies use to manage violent gang members.
Security Threat Groups (STGs) Management
The TS has continued its prison drug dealing and killings and its assault on staff and inmates and has expanded its criminal activities into the community. The TS and other prison gangs threaten inmate and staff safety and erode prison security. The label STGs has been applied to prison gangs’ persistent threat to prison management and quality of life by instigating and engaging in violence, drug selling, extortion, and murder. In the mid1980s, STGs were responsible for 50% of prison management problems. Management problems go beyond responding to violence. In federal prisons, inmates, including prison gang members, are assigned to work assignments, ranging from meal preparation to electrical and plumbing repairs to sweeping and mopping floors to furniture manufacture. In a prison with 1,500 inmates, for example, inmate cooks must prepare close to 5,000 meals every day. If an inmate assigned to food preparation has a fight and then spends 2 weeks in disciplinary segregation, other inmates’ workload increases and food preparation efficiency slows.
Monitoring STG members’ behavior, investigating prison misconduct (crime), and sanctioning those found guilty of misconduct belong to the members of the custody department. Custody personnel act as the prison’s police department with a chief, lieutenants, sergeants, and patrol officers (often called guards), who are known as line staff. Custody departments’ data systems store photographs of prison gang members, along with their history of prison misconduct and criminal court convictions. Custody line staff are trained institution security officers, who are experts in monitoring inmates, especially the most potentially violent inmates.
Line officers work among inmates, enforce inmate misconduct rules, keep a close watch on inmates in cell blocks and dormitories, and conduct body pat downs searching for weapons and contraband (drugs). Sergeants and lieutenants ensure that line officers who work day-to-day among inmates are familiar with prison gang members’ identity and aware of the danger they pose to the safety of prison personnel and inmates. Custody personnel can embolden gang members to leave gang life behind. Withdrawing from gang activity, however, can be dangerous. Those who choose to withdraw reside in special, hypersecure housing quarters and are subject to monitoring systems that keep them safe.
Senior custody officials include investigators, trained personnel (prison detectives) who specialize in prison gangs and investigate violent b ehavior committed by gang and nongang members. Investigators verify inmates’ gang affiliation and compile information on gang members obtained from state and federal law enforcement agencies. They also notify local police departments when prison gang members are scheduled to be released and returned to the jurisdiction where they were convicted.
Family-Based Prison Gang Prevention and Intervention
Texas prisons identify 12 STGs: Aryan B rotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Barrio Azteca, Bloods, Crips, Hermanos De Pistoleros Latinos, Mexican Mafia, Partido Revolucionario Mexicanos, Raza Unida, Texas Chicano Brotherhoods, Texas Mafia, and TS. A document published by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice implores the friends and families of inmates to advise their imprisoned loved ones to stay away from STGs. The document explains the dangers of gang involvement and restrictions placed on gang members. STG members are disallowed from participating in academic and vocational activities and holding an inmate job. This restriction limits social interaction and, in turn, limits possible intergang hostility. STG members are assigned to administrative detention cell blocks where they live locked down 24 hr a day. STG members are denied a full range of privileges, including noncontact visitation with family and friends. Contact with fellow inmates is limited as are opportunities for participating in recreation programs and outdoor recreation (e.g., walking the prison yard). These are small, but important, pleasures inmates enjoy. Sanctions on known STG members remove those small pleasures and make a difficult life in prison even worse.
References:
- Beaird, L. H. (1986). Prison gangs: Texas. Corrections Today, 18, 12.
- Boyd, S. E. (2007). Implementing the missing peace: Reconsidering prison gang membership. Quinnipiac Law Review, 28,
- Fleisher, M. S. (1989). Warehousing violence. Walnut Creek, CA: Sage.
- Fleisher, M. S., & Decker, S. H. (2001). An overview of the challenge of prison gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 1–9.
- Jacobs, J. (1978). Stateville: The penitentiary in mass society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.