Differences in Following Smrs by U S And Russia Prison Systems

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN THE U.S. AND RUSSIA

How Does the United States Compare to Russia in Following the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners?

There are nearly 9 million people under certain forms of incarceration or supervision across the globe. The United States has the highest number of prisoners or individuals under some of supervision since approximately 25% of the world's prisoners are held in the country (U.S. Department of State, 2012). Prisoners across the globe are subjected to varying treatment because of differences in circumstances, nature of incarceration facilities, cultures, and available resources. Nonetheless, prisoners are a vulnerable population regardless where they are being held. As the government is mandated with the responsibility of catering for prisoners' needs and welfare, the treatment of prisoners has attracted considerable attention over the years.

Following a special congress in 1955, the United Nations adopted Standard Minimum Rules (SMRs) for the treatment of prisoners (U.S. Department of State, 2012). These rules are one of the most significant international agreements on how prisoners should be treated across the globe. Recent studies have indicated that most of prison systems worldwide do not treat prisoners based on standards recommended by this agreement. Many nations blatantly disregard international agreements on the treatment of prisoners and this research studies this issue with a special focus on the American and Russian prison systems.

According to the Standard Minimum Rules, prison authorities have to treat prisoners with human dignity and respect. The authorities should subject inmates to any form of treatment that could be classified as inhuman, cruel or degrading. Research has indicated that public authorities in-charge of maximum security prisons are operating them in ways that basically violate human rights (Human Rights Watch, 2000). The confinement conditions are unnecessarily severe and are not proportionate to actual security concerns. Given that the conditions impose undue suffering and humiliation on the prisoners, maximum security prisoners are treated with the least respect and in an inhumane way (Human Rights Watch, 2000).

Literature Review

Prison Systems in the United States and Russia

The United States has the highest population of prisoners across the globe, which has contributed to the establishment of a prison system that focuses on enforcing rules, punishing or rehabilitating offenders, and maintaining public safety. Incarceration facilities are regarded as institutions for detaining criminals against their will (Barnes, 2011, p.35). The American prison system is structured in a way in which prisoners are incarcerated in different facilities depending on the severity and impact of their offense. The highest type of prisons in the United States is special super-maximum facilities that currently house approximately 2% of the country's prison population (U.S. Department of State, 2012). The American prison system is based on the technique of solitary confinement, which has been utilized as a means of prison management and rehabilitation for a long period of time (Vasiliades, 2005, p.73). This technique is currently known as segregation that is adopted as a standard operating procedure, punitive measure, protective measure, and as a means of ensuring mental stability of prisoners. Through this technique, prison systems in the United States comprise some segregation units like specific prison areas or secure housing facilities for different kinds of offenses.

Bobrik et al. (2005) state that Russia has one of the highest imprisonment rates worldwide regardless of the recent legal reforms that have been carried out (p.1). Similar to the United States, Russia prison authorities have started using segregation or differentiation as a technique for incarcerating offenders. Inmates in Russia are no longer housed in communal barracks but through differentiation depending on the severity of the offense. In essence, the Russian prison system differentiates incarceration facilities depending on the severity of the offense through which prisoners are grouped in different facilities in order to cater for the whole spectrum of prisoners. Given this difference, prisoners in Russia negotiate and engage with surveilled penal spaces differently (Moran, Pallot & Piacentini, 2013, p.138).

UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners

The nature of prison facilities and conditions of prisoners vary throughout the world just like cultural differences and variations in the resources available to every nation (U.S. Department of State, 2012). However, prisoners continue to be a vulnerable population that has to depend on the government to meet their needs and ensure their welfare. Governments across the globe are required to comply with standards and obligations that promote the establishment of safe, humane, transparent, and secure prison environments. The UN Standard Minimum Rules (SMRs) is one of the international agreements that governments should comply with in creation of such environments. The rules, which were adopted in a special UN Congress in 1955, provide guidelines for prevention of crime and treatment of criminals (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2011). The rules require prison authorities to treat prisoners with human dignity and respect as well as avoiding degrading or cruel treatment.

Treatment of Prisoners in the U.S. Prison System

Prison systems in the United States are based on solitary confinement technique, which was adopted after prison authorities abandoned penitentiaries, which were created by the Quakers to promote self-reflection and repentance of offenders (Vasiliades, 2005, p.73). Through this technique, prisoners, especially those in maximum security prisons, have been subjected to harsh treatment. The prevalent practice of solitary confinement not only shows disregard for imprisoned offenders but also acts as a feasible way for torturing foreign nationals in the American prison system. Moreover, this technique that is commonly used in the U.S. prison system is associated with several psychological problems or consequences. Some of these problems include emotional damage, near permanent mental damage, increased violent tendencies, and extraordinary malaise (Vasiliades, 2005, p.77).

Listwan et al. (2013) argue that the U.S. prison system needs reform because of the seemingly inhumane treatment of offenders (p.144). Prisons across the United States usually results in increased subsequent levels of offending because of antagonistic relationships with prison officers and direct victimization. Actually, prisoners are subjected to harsh treatment in the United States in attempts to reduce recidivism though the end result is increased levels of crime. Moreover, prisoners in the United States are housed in overcrowded facilities given the country's huge incarceration rate per capita. This is a major problem for correctional officers, especially among the aging population whose imprisonment has increased significantly in recent years (Maschi & Aday, 2014, p.16). The increased overcrowding makes it difficult for prison authorities to provide necessary care, especially healthcare services to the aging population.

In his analysis of California's Pelican Bay Hunger Strike, Reiter (2014) states that the American prison system can subject prisoners to conditions of severe sensory deprivation because of solitary confinement (p.579). The solitary confinement technique generated torturous conditions because of the prolonged isolation of inmates in this prison. During the isolation, some inmates were denied adequate and nutritious food as well as constructive privileges. Inmates in this prison responded to the constraints through a sustained hunger strike to advocate for better treatment. Preferential treatment of prisoners is also evident in the American prison system, especially among adult inmates. Incarcerated African America young adults are excluded from national estimates of the prevalence of cigarette smoking despite accounting for a huge proportion of smokers in this population (Kennedy et al., 2015, p.S73). This exclusion shows how prisoners in the U.S. are discriminated against with regards to health and stress.

Treatment of Prisoners in the Russian Prison System

The Russian prison system is faced with the problem of overcrowding just like the United States prison system. However, the Russian prison system subject inmates to poor conditions that generate several health concerns. For instance, Russian prisons have acted as a source to tuberculosis because of poor prevention, treatment, and management of the disease (Sarang et al., 2016, p.45). Apart from poor management of tuberculosis infection, the Russian prison system poorly manages HIV infection. Prisoners in the Russian prison system experience poor living conditions, malnutrition, chaotic lifestyles, and insufficient access to healthcare services (Bobrik et al., 2005, p.2).

Inmates in the Russian prison system are subjected to strictest protocols, which results in harsh treatment such as total lack of privacy, lack of exercise, poor food quality, and lack of outdoor time (Moran, Piacentini & Pallot, 2011, p.448). These conditions emerge from the concept of disciplined mobility in which inmates are subjected to punitive power. According to Moran, Pallot & Piacentini (2013), prisons in Russia, especially those housing female inmates, generate ineffective Foucauldian disciplinary measures (p.138). Piacentini & Slade (2015) concur by stating that the concept of carceral collectivism, which is used in the Russian prison system, is punitive, especially when applied during prisoner transportation. Public places in prisons in Russia do not promote or encourage the docility of inmates.

The Russian prison system does not provide adequate resources and support to prisoners after they are released in order to promote reintegration. Even though there is stigma, prisoners released from incarceration in Russia do not receive support and experience increased stigmatization as compared to the U.S. (Moran, 2012, p.564). This demonstrates the need for a universal expression in which everyone is treated in the same way (Aleinikoff, 2014, p.110).

Theory

The treatment of prisoners is an issue that has attracted considerable attention from governments, policymakers, human rights agencies, and the public. This considerable attention is demonstrated in the existence of numerous studies and discussion regarding this issue. There are several theories that have been utilized to examine this issue including developmental theory, integrative theory, and general strain theory. This study seeks to examine the treatment of offenders using General Strain Theory, which was introduced by Robert Agnew. This theory war developed from the initial Strain Theory in criminology and was largely influenced by recent developments in the criminal justice field.

The use of the General Strain Theory is influenced by the fact that it defines measurements of strain, the various kinds of strains, coping strategies, the association between strain and crime, and determinants of criminal behavior (Agnew, 2001, p.319). The theory postulates that strains or stressors enhance the probability of negative emotions such as frustration and anger. The author states that the negative emotions generate pressure for corrective action in which crime is one probable response. In essence, crime could be a means through which an individual lessens strain, seeks revenge or alleviate the negative emotions.

The treatment of inmates determines whether criminals are likely to develop negative emotions because prison conditions can be avenues of strain or stressors (Listwan et al., 2013, p.144). According to Agnew (2001), there are several new categories of strain or stressors include the loss of positive stimuli, expression of negative stimuli, and new categories of goal blockage such as the failure to achieve objectives of justice (p.319). Treatment of offenders in correctional facilities determine whether they develop negative stimuli or fail to achieve objectives of justice through the various conditions that can produce strain or act as stressors.

Methods

Research Design

The research design for this study is qualitative data analysis since the raw data to be evaluated is text rather than numbers. The nature of the research issue shows that the unit of analysis for this study is text or words instead of numbers. Therefore, qualitative data analysis is the most suitable research methodology or design since it involves analysis of text or words unlike quantitative data analysis that evaluates numbers (Chambliss & Schutt, 2012, p.250). In essence, the main difference between qualitative and quantitative studies is the unit of analysis i.e. text and numbers respectively. This research does not contain numbers to be analyzed, which implies that quantitative data analysis will not be suitable for it.

During the qualitative data analysis in this study, the researcher will employ techniques that help identify textual or pictorial data relating to the phenomenon under investigation. Data obtained through interviews will be utilized to develop a textual or pictorial data on how the United States compares to Russia in following the UN Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of prisoners. Once the data is obtained, the researcher will explore the relationships among the various categories relating to the research issue. Generally, the text or words that are analyzed in a qualitative study are transcripts of interviews or notes obtained from participants. For this study, the researcher will primarily rely on information from interviewed prisoners in the American and Russian prison systems.

Through the qualitative data analysis, the researcher will focus on examining the richness of actual social experience of prisoners in relation to prevailing conditions in their correctional facilities. The prisoners' real social experiences in correctional facilities will illuminate how their prison system treats incarcerated offenders.

The research design will involve iterative and reflexive process that commences as data is being collected during the interviews. The researcher will read and examine the data while making interpretations on how these two prison systems treat their prisoners. The interpretation will involve comparing prevailing conditions in the prisons with the standards established by the UN Standard Minim Rules for treatment of prisoners. The comparison will be geared towards determining how these two countries compare in treatment of prisoners. In this case, the researcher will explore relationships or links between the current conditions and standards established by SMRs. If additional concepts or new relationships emerge during the analysis, they will be explored to generate accurate findings.

Since the text or data obtained in this study has many probable interpretations, the interpretations will be based on UN Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of prisoners. This implies that SMRs will be used as the validation of prisoners' experience in their respective prison system. The use of SMRs as the basis of interpreting data is fueled by the fact that the research focuses on determining which country is increasingly likely to adhere to these rules. The use of SMRs as the basis of consensual validation of text also helps in identifying which prison system is developed in a manner that complies with the rules in this international treaty.

Sampling

Purposive sampling is regarded as the most suitable research methodology for examining how the United States compares to Russia in following the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique in which elements for analysis are chosen for a purpose, especially because of their unique position (Chambliss & Schutt, 2012, p.123). This sampling method may involve examining the whole population of some limited group or selecting a subset of a population. For this study, the researcher will select a subset of the prison population in the American and Russian prison systems. The subset will be used as the representative sample of the entire prison population or system in the two countries. This is primarily because purposive sampling can be exactly what is required in a case study of a specific group, community or organization (Chambliss & Schutt, 2012, p.123).

Through the use of this methodology, the researcher or investigator will utilize a specific sample within a population to obtain information regarding the treatment of prisoners. This implies that the researcher will primarily focus on individuals in the American and Russian prison systems. Similar to other types of sampling, purposive sampling enables the investigator to use different data collection methods in order to obtain necessary volumes of data regarding the phenomenon being examined.

The researcher will purposively sample prisoners in the American and Russian prison systems. This is primarily because the focus of this study is to obtain information on treatment of prisoners in the prison systems of these two countries. Therefore, purposively sampling prisoners from these two countries will provide insights on the potential differences in compliance with the UN Standard Minimum Rules by both countries. Sampling inmates from these countries using this approach is also suitable since the participants will provide their firsthand experiences with their country's prison system.

Purposive sampling will be used to select prisoners that the researcher will utilize in this study to obtain relevant information. The use of this approach will facilitate qualitative research on the phenomenon under investigation. Once purposive sampling has been carried out, the researcher will then utilize random sampling to choose the prisoners to interview. In essence, purposive sampling will help in choosing American and Russian prisons to include in the study while random sampling will help in identifying prisoners to interview. Random sampling is a sampling method that is dependent on random selection of research participants so that every element of the sampling frame has equal probability of being selected for the study (Chambliss & Schutt, 2012, p.113). The use of this sampling procedure in selecting prisoners to be interviewed implies that inmates in the selected prisons have equal chances of being included in the study. The researcher will interview prisoners since they act as key informants with knowledge regarding the phenomenon or issue under investigation.

Research Question

The research question to be examined in this study is, "How does the United States compare to Russia in following the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners?

Research Hypothesis

In addition to examining the research question, the researcher has determined a hypothesis that will be tested in the analysis. The hypothesis to be tested is, "The United States will follow the UN Standard Minimum Rules for treatment of prisoners better than Russia."

Variables

As evident in the hypothesis, the researcher will examine some variables in this study. According to Chambliss & Schutt (2012), a hypothesis is a temporary statement regarding an empirical reality with two or more variables (p.26). There are two variables in the research hypothesis i.e. independent variable and dependent variable. The independent variable is United States compliance with UN Standard Minimum Rules whereas the dependent variable is Russia's compliance with these rules.

Data Collection Technique

Given that the researcher seeks to conduct a qualitative data analysis on the research topic, the research process will involve obtaining relevant data for analysis. As previously mentioned, the researcher will target prisoners in the American and Russian prison systems. For the researcher to effectively examine how America compares to Russia in following SMRs for the treatment of prisoners, he will need to use prisoners in these systems. The prisoners that will be utilized will be identified to random sampling, which enhances the likelihood of each element in the sampling frame to be selected (Chambliss & Schutt, 2012, p.113).

The data collection technique to be employed in the study is interviews through which the researcher will obtain information regarding treatment of prisoners in the two prison systems under investigation. Once participants are selected through random sampling, they will be interviewed on existing policies and practices in the correctional facility. During the interviews, the researcher will obtain insights on how inmates are treated in their respective prisons. The interviews will help prisoners to express their views on whether or not they are subjected to humane and dignified treatment while in prison.