Shifting correctional philosophies and institutional policies have contributed to what psychiatrist Humphry Osmond calls the “model muddle.” The present article, based on analysis and speculation of a few investigations in the field of sexually integrated prisons (co-corrections), finds that co-correctional institutions suffer from a unique muddle of programmatic and nonprogrammatic models that clash over institutional goals to value the male-female relationship on the one hand and to serve system needs on the other.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, C.Co-corrections—FCI Fort Worth after three years. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, mimeo, 1974.
2.
Crawford, J.Two losers don't make a winner . Paper presented to the American Correctional Association annual meeting, 1975.
3.
National Advisory Commission . Corrections. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1973.
4.
Osmond, H. , & Siegler, M.Models of madness, models of medicine. New York: Macmillan.
5.
Ross, J. , & Heffernan, E.Women in a coed joint. Quarterly Journal of Corrections, 1977, 1, 24-28.
6.
Ross, J. , Heffernan, E., Sevick, J., & Johnson, F.Assessment of coeducational corrections. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1978.
7.
Smykla, J. O. (Ed.). Coed prison. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980.
8.
Smykla, J. O.The impact of co-corrections. In Sherwood E. Zimmerman & Harold D. Miller (Eds.), Corrections at the crossroads: Designing policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.
