Incapacitation theory of imprisonment postulates that confinement functions in isolating inmates from the free world community. Institutional escapes thwart this objective and undermine the relationship between prisons and their surrounding communities. Few published studies have examined the correlates of escape behavior. Fewer researchers have examined the connection between institutional escapes and structural conditions ofprisons. In this study, youthfulness of the inmate population, prison resources, adequacy of treatment personnel, and prison supervision levels are observed to explain 70% of the total variance in Georgia prison escape levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, S.Evaluating correctional treatments: Toward a new perspective
. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1977, 4, 323-339.
2.
Akers, R.L.
, Hayner, N.S., & Gruninger, W.Homosexual and drug behavior in prison: A test of the functional and importation models of the inmate system. Social Problems, 1974, 21, 410-422.
3.
Allen, H.E.
, & Simonsen, C.E.Corrections in America. An introduction (2d ed.). Encino, Calif.: Glencoe, 1978.
4.
Blalock, H.M.Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
5.
Carney, L.P.Introduction to correctional science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
6.
Ellis, E.
, Grasmick, H., & Gilman, B.Violence in prisons: A sociological analysis. American Journal of Sociolog', 1974, 80, 16-43.
7.
Flanagan, T.Time served and institutional misconduct: Patterns of involvement in disciplinary infractions among long and short term inmates
. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1980, 8, 357-367.
8.
Fogel, D.We are the living proof: The justice model for corrections. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1971.
9.
Georgia State Crime Commission
. The Georgia criminal justice book. Author: Atlanta, 1980.
10.
Jan, L.Overcrowding and inmate behavior: Some preliminary findings
. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1980, 7, 293-301.
11.
Jensen, G.F.Age and rule breaking in prison: A test of sociocultural interpretations
. Criminology, 1977, 14, 555-568.
12.
Kittrie, N.
, & Zenoff, E.Sanctions, sentencing and corrections. New York: Foundation Press, 1981.
13.
Krantz, S.The law of corrections and prisoners' rights. St. Paul: West, 1981.
14.
Lipton, D.
, Martinson, R.M., & Wilks, J.The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger, 1975.
15.
Mabli, J.
, Holley, C., Patrick, J., & Walls, J.Age and prison violence: Increasing age heterogeneity as a violence-reducing strategy in prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1979, 6, 175-186.
16.
Martinson, R.M.What works - Questions and answers about prison reform
. Public Interest, 1974, 35, 22-54.
17.
Megaree, E.Population density and disruptive behavior in a prison setting. In A.K. Cohen, G.F. Cole, & R.G. Bailey (Eds.), Prison violence. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1976.
18.
Mitford, J.Kind and usual punishment. New York: Knopf, 1973.
19.
Morris, N.The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
20.
Murton, T.The dilemma of prison reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.
21.
Myers, L.B.
, & Levy, G.W.Description and prediction of the intractable inmate. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1978, 15, 214-226.
22.
Nacci, P.
, Teitelbaum, H., & Prather, J.Population density and misconduct rates in the federal prison system. Federal Probation, 1977, 41 (2), 26-31.
23.
Scott, N.
, Mount, M., & Duffy, P.M.M.P.I. and demographic correlates as predictors of female prison escape. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1977, 4, 285-301.
24.
Sommer, R.The end of imprisonment. New York: Oxford, 1976.
