The very existence of prison gangs threatens the safety of almost every prison in our nation. In response, almost every state has a system in place to combat this threat.
One such system, popular in a variety of states, encourages the use of high ranking gang members to “keep the peace” or to otherwise control the inmate population.
These “shot-callers”, once identified by officers, are cataloged and - depending on the prison system in which you work - they are either removed from the prison’s general population, or they are watched by a gang task force and used as an intelligence tool. The latter is the focus of my article this month.
Leveraging the leaders
All too often, I have seen officers and supervisors use the influence of the “shot-caller” to settle a dispute with another inmate or somehow exert influence over other sectors of the inmate population.
The school of thought is that we can let the inmates “regulate” themselves by allowing gang “shot-callers” to keep the peace.
Many believe that this system is the most effective way to achieve our goal of security, and, quite often, the method has proved successful. So if it works, why shouldn’t we use it?
Well, let’s review our job duties:
1. Prevent Escapes
2. Prevent Violence
3. Protect the public
Simple enough, right? These are the straight forward guidelines towards achieving success in a correctional officer career.
Now let’s review the inmates’ goals:
1. Escape custody if possible
2. Use violence to get what you want
3. Do what you have to do to win “the game” no matter who you hurt
Putting this list of goals side by side, we see an obvious conflict of interest.
Can you imagine the feeling the “shot-caller” must have when he realizes even the people charged with his security recognize his power?
Feeding the beast
Even if the “shot-caller” can “help” us maintain peace, this school of thought misses a major piece of the larger security puzzle.
How do you think the “shot-caller” achieved his status within his gang? The obvious answer here is that he achieved it through brute violence and intimidation.
Thus, in turn, how do you think he achieves his goal of “peace?” Again, he achieves it through threats of violence and intimidation.
By allowing ourselves to “use” the gangs, we are enabling them to become more powerful.
California no longer uses this type of system. The state recognized many years ago that the best way to deal with these “shot-callers” - or any member of a prison gang - is to isolate them from the general population.
Many states, however, have not followed this model. And I have received numerous e-mails from readers in other states asking me how they can best leverage gang leaders to achieve their goals.
When “using” gang leaders, many come to feel that they are manipulating the gang culture to their advantage. In reality, however, they have done nothing more than allow themselves to become pawns in a dangerous game. I am not suggesting that they become part of the gang by participating in this behavior, just that they empower the gang by recognizing them as a force in their unit.
This behavior can start a chain of events that can end in favoritism of certain inmates. This is completely unacceptable. We cannot ever favor an inmate for any reason, especially because he has some influence in a prison gang.
Some of you may be scratching your head right now - agreeing with what I am writing, but not able to comprehend that this happens anywhere. Let me give you a paraphrased example of what I am talking about that one reader from the mid-west wrote to me:
“We are having a lot of incidents of violence in my prison. Our supervisors have told us to identify the leaders of our gangs. Once identified, the supervisors are speaking with the inmates, trying to get them to cut down on the violence. I searched one of those inmate’s cells and took some minor contraband and now the supervisor tells me I am interfering with the peace-keeping process.”
This is a prime example of how trying to “manipulate” the gangs has actually caused us to compromise our safety. The supervisors in this case probably feel they are doing the right thing by using the prison gang culture “against itself.” In reality they are enabling the culture.
We have to keep this in mind as we go down the road to safer prisons: It is never okay to try to manipulate gangs to work towards our goals of safety and security.
Can gangs be great intelligence tools? Yes. Can we learn from conversations with them? Yes. Can we allow them to perform our jobs for us in any way? No.
You are the defender of the law and. in many states, the peace officer. We do not rely on criminals to complete our tasks of safety and security for us. If we do, we are setting ourselves up for failure later on.
Do you really think that the “shot-caller” will have second thoughts of hurting you because you worked so hard with him to “keep the peace?”
A hypothetical situation
Imagine this line of questioning in this “for instance” scenario:
Inmate Smith is suing the Department of Corrections for millions of dollars, claiming he was extorted for money by the officers at your institution. You are subpoenaed to testify. You go in feeling confident that these charges are fabricated and this is just a nice day off your regular assignment. You take the stand:
Attorney for the inmate: “Officer, have you ever tried to extort money out of Inmate Smith, who was a model inmate?
You: No, Sir
Attorney: Really, I beg to differ. Do you know an inmate Jones?
You: Yes, Sir
Attorney: Is there anything special about inmate Jones?
You: He is the leader of a prison gang.
Attorney: You know this for sure?
You: Yes, Sir
Attorney: Did you also know that my client was a member of that gang?
You: Yes, Sir
Attorney: Did you ask inmate Jones to help keep the unit running smoothly because you did not want any troubles in your building from his gang?
You: Errr… yes, sir, this is common practice
Attorney: Really? It is common for you to charge inmates with the duty of keeping the peace?
You: Not quite, Sir, it is just a tool we use.
Attorney: Well, this “tool” – inmate Jones - came to my client and told him that he would be targeted for assault because of a mistake he made in prison. But due to your discussion with inmate Jones, Jones decided that instead of authorizing the assault, he would instead extort my client and his family out of thousands of dollars of “rent” every month.
You: I did not do that!
Attorney: It seems to us that you encouraged the behavior, and even enabled him by publicly recognizing him as the leader. You see, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is proof that the officer was complicit in extorting money from my client. He did not take any money directly, but benefited from the practice by having an easy place to work at the expense of my client and many like him.
How do you think the Jury would find in this case?
As always, be safe, vest up, and watch your six!