Research has shown that large segments of the public will only support shorter sentences for offenders if longer sentences are exchanged for harsh, intensive correctional experiences. An exchange of time for intensity has raised concerns about the purpose of correctional boot camp and the potential for abuse in programs intentionally designed to be severe. This article compares common forms of discipline used in shock incarceration programs with legal findings regarding what is cruel and unusual punishment. It concludes that practices commonly used at boot camp may be considered cruel and unusual and may give rise to costly inmate litigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acorn, Linda
. 1991. “Working in a Boot Camp.”Corrections Today53:110, 112, 114-115.
2.
Bonnie, Richard
. 1988. “The Dignity of the Condemned.”Virginia Law Review74:1363-1391.
3.
Burnside, Scott
. 1994. “His Choice: Hell or Jail.”The Toronto Sun, March 6, p. 47.
4.
Caldas, Stephen
. 1990. “Intensive Incarceration Programs Offer Hope of Rehabilitation to a Fortunate Few: Orleans Parish Prison Does an `About Face.' ”International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology34:67-76.
5.
Clear, Todd
. 1994. Harm in American Penology: Offenders, Victims, and Their Communities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
6.
Correia, Mark
. 1997. “Boot Camps, Exercise, and Delinquency: An Analytical Critique of the Use of Physical Exercise to Facilitate Decreases in Delinquent Behavior.”Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice13:94-113.
DiIulio, John Jr.
1990. Courts, Corrections, and the Constitution: The Impact of Judicial Intervention on Prisons and Jails. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
10.
Frazier v. Ward, 426 F.Supp. 1354 (NDNY 1977).
11.
Holley, Phillip
and Michael Connelly. 1994. “Oklahoma's Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program for Males: Preliminary Evaluation and Assessment.”Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium1:107-116.
12.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992).
13.
Irwin, John
and James Austin. 1997. It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge, 2d ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
14.
Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1973).
15.
Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1993).
16.
Lutze, Faith
. 1996. “Does Shock Incarceration Differ From a Traditional Minimum Security Institution in the Rehabilitation of Offenders? A Comparison of Inmate Attitudinal Change and Institutional Environments.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, NV.
17.
Lutze, Faith
. 1998. “Are Shock Incarceration Programs More Rehabilitative Than Traditional Prison? A Survey of Inmates.”Justice Quarterly15:547-566.
MacKenzie, Doris
. 1991. “The Parole Performance of Offenders Released From Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prison): A Survival Analysis.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology7:213-236.
20.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Holly Donaldson. 1996. “Boot Camp for Women Offenders.”Criminal Justice Review21:21-43.
21.
MacKenzie, Doris
, Larry Gould, Lisa Riechers, and James Shaw. 1989. “Shock Incarceration: Rehabilitation or Retribution?”Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation14:25-40.
22.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Eugene Hebert. 1996. Correctional Boot Camps: A Tough Intermediate Sanction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
23.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Dale Parent. 1991. “Shock Incarceration and Prison Crowding in Louisiana.”Journal of Criminal Justice19:225-237.
24.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Alex Piquero. 1994. “The Impact of Shock Incarceration Programs on Prison Crowding.”Crime & Delinquency40:222-249.
25.
MacKenzie, Doris
and James Shaw. 1990. “Inmate Adjustment and Change During Shock Incarceration: The Impact of Correctional Boot Camp Programs.”Justice Quarterly7:125-150.
26.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Claire Souryal. 1991. “Rehabilitation, Recidivism Reduction Outrank Punishment as Main Goals.”Corrections Today53:90-96.
27.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Claire Souryal. 1994. Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration: Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; National Institute of Justice.
28.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Claire Souryal. 1995a. “A `Machiavellian' Perspective on the Development of Boot Camp Prisons: A Debate.”University of Chicago Law School Roundtable2:435-453.
29.
MacKenzie, Doris
and Claire Souryal. 1995b. “Inmates' Attitude Change During Incarceration: A Comparison of Boot Camp With Traditional Prison.”Justice Quarterly12:324-353.
30.
Marcus-Mendoza
, Susan, Jody Klein-Saffran and Faith Lutze. 1998. “A Feminist Examination of Boot Camp Prison Programs for Women.”Women and Therapy21:173-185.
31.
Mathlas, Rudolf
and James Mathews. 1991. “The Boot Camp Program for Offenders: Does the Shoe Fit?”International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology35:322-327.
32.
McCord v. Maggio, 927 F.2d. 844 (5th Cir. 1991).
33.
McCorkle, Richard
. 1995. “Correctional Boot Camps and Change in Attitude: Is all This Shouting Necessary? A Research Note.”Justice Quarterly12:365-375.
34.
Morash, Merry
and Lila Rucker. 1990. “A Critical Look at the Idea of Boot Camp as a Correctional Reform.”Crime & Delinquency36:204-222.
35.
Murphy, David
and Faith Lutze. 1997. “Ultra-Masculine Prison Environments and Inmate Adjustment: It Isn't Just About Boot Camp Prison.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.
36.
Osler, Mark
. 1991. “Shock Incarceration: Hard Realities and Real Possibilities.”Federal Probation55:34-42.
37.
Palmer, Ted
. 1992. The Re-emergence of Correctional Intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Parent, Dale
. 1989. Shock Incarceration: An Overview of Existing Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
39.
Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
40.
Reichel, Phillip
and Angela Gauthier. 1990. “Boot Camp Corrections: A Public Reaction.” Pp. 73-96 in Issues in Justice: Exploring Policy Issues in the Criminal Justice System, edited by R. Muraskin. Briston, IN: Wyndham Hall.
41.
Sechrest, Dale
. 1989. “Prison `Boot Camps' do not Measure up.”Federal Probation53:15-20.
42.
State v. Brown, 284 S.C. 407, 326 S.E.2d 410 (1985).
43.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
44.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
45.
Welch, M.1997. “A Critical Interpretation of Correctional Bootcamps as Normalizing Institutions: Discipline, Punishment, and the Military Model.”Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice13:184-205.
