The Inmate Code

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Umea University Library]On: 12 January 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 781079107]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Deviant BehaviorPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713394036

Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace: How Men Describe Order and theInmate Code in California PrisonsRebecca Trammell a

a University of Nebraska, Omaha School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Omaha, Nebraska, USA

To cite this Article Trammell, Rebecca(2009) 'Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace: How Men Describe Order and theInmate Code in California Prisons', Deviant Behavior, 30: 8, 746 — 771To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01639620902854662URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620902854662

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713394036

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620902854662

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

values, rules, and keeping thepeace: how men describeorder and the inmate code inCalifornia prisons

Rebecca TrammellUniversity of Nebraska, Omaha School ofCriminology & Criminal Justice, Omaha,Nebraska, USA

For this article, I use interview data to examinehow former male inmates describe how and whythey follow the inmate code. Previous work showsthat convicts use the code to structure and defineinformal rules (Bronson 2006). I attempt to explorethis issue from the other direction. I focus on howinmates describe informal rules and how the codemay or may not fit into these rules. As HowardBecker (1963) points out, people in any societyform groups and subcultures who create their ownset of rules and norms. The men in my studydescribe leaders, called shot-callers, who focus onillegal businesses such as the drug trade. They useviolence to control their own gangs in order toreduce the chance of riots. In short, they valuepeace and profit. This differs from previous workthat focuses on the inmate identity and howconvicts value the code. The men in my studyvalue safety and the underground economy as wellas maintaining a solid convict identity.

Received 30 June 2008; accepted 14 November 2008.Address correspondence to Rebecca Trammell, University of Nebraska, Omaha School

of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6001 Dodge St., CPACS Building 218T, Omaha, NE68182-0149, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Deviant Behavior, 30: 746–771, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-9625 print=1521-0456 online

DOI: 10.1080/01639620902854662

746

Downloaded By: [Umea University Library] At: 13:04 12 January 2010

INTRODUCTION

Scholars describe prison culture and how prisoners create an‘‘inmate code’’ (Cloward 1960; Irwin and Cressey 1962;Jacobs 1977; Ohlin 1956; Sykes and Messinger 1960; Terry1997). As defined by Bronson (2006), ‘‘The code representsan organization of criminal values in clearcut opposition tothe values of conventional society, and to prison officialsas representatives of that society’’ (62). Prisoners createand reinforce these norms as a way to defy the goals of theinstitution and categorize other inmates. Those who usethe code identify as ‘‘convicts’’ while those who do not arecalled ‘‘inmates.’’ Furthermore, the convict identity is pre-ferred over the inmate identity as solid convicts reign atthe top of the prison hierarchy (Terry 1997). At the sametime, there is no official written code and norms differdepending on the institution (Pollock 1997; Sykes andMessinger 1960).

Hassine (2007) goes so far as to argue that there is noinmate code. Prisoners simply import their own norms andvalues into prison:

Convicts coming to prison bring with them a moral and ethi-cal code of conduct that they learned and developed fromtheir individual street experiences. For example, membersof the Mafia bring with them a Mafioso’s code, street-gangmembers bring their own gang code, and drug addicts bringa junkie’s code of conduct. (175)

Hassine, an inmate who recently died in prison (Finley 2008),describes his own experience and states that the ‘‘code’’is simply a term used by inmates to describe prison norms.It seems clear that there is no codified standard of conductthat dictates the behavior of all American prisoners. At thesame time, there are norms and rules that organize prisonlife and some inmates value these rules more so than others.Furthermore, some inmates use this code to defy prisonrules by forbidding inmates to collaborate with prison staff(Bronson 2006).

For this article, I use interview data to examine how formermale inmates describe how and why they follow the inmatecode. As Howard Becker (1963) points out, people in any

Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace 747


society form groups and subcultures who create their own setof rules and norms. He outlines how personal values guidebehavior:

Since values can furnish only a general guide to action andare not useful in deciding on courses of action in concretesituations, people develop specific rules more closely tiedto the realities of everyday life. (131)

Convicts use the code to structure and define informal rules(Bronson 2006). I attempt to explore this issue from the otherdirection. I focus on how inmates describe informal rules andhow the code may or may not fit into these rules. Previousresearch focuses on the inmate code as a set of values thathelp control inmate behavior. However, as Becker pointsout, this is problematic because the reality of daily life mayinfluence behavior in a way that does not coincide withpersonal values (Becker 1963).

There may very well be an inmate code; however, theremay simply be norms that coincide with the code whereasothers do not. It seems problematic to label prisoners asinmates or convicts without exploring exactly what the pris-oner values. Moreover, previous scholars focus how convictsidentify with the ideology of the code (Terry 1997). How-ever, prisoners may pick and choose their actions based onfactors such as gang affiliation, the underground economyand loyalty to friends and gang leaders. To be sure, prisonchanged drastically since Sykes and Messinger (1960; Sykes1958) first discussed the inmate code. American prisons nowhold ten times more inmates than they did in 1974 and thisincarceration trend is unprecedented in the history of theUnited States (Parenti 1999; Pollock 2004; Wacquant2001). This being said, I seek to examine how currentinmates describe the inmate code.

For this article, I interviewed former male inmates (n¼ 40)and six correctional officers living in California and allowedthem to describe current prison norms and how inmates rein-force these norms. I specifically examined how rules are tiedto the underground economy and the inmate code. Intervie-wees described leaders, called shot-callers, who control ille-gal businesses such as the drug trade. They use violence tocontrol their own gangs in order to reduce the chance of

748 R. Trammell


riots. They want to keep peace as a way to maintain thesebusinesses. Therefore, they value peace and profit. At thesame time, interviewees explained how these rules may ormay not connect with the inmate code. This differs fromprevious work that focuses on the inmate identity andhow convicts value the code. The men in my study valuesafety and the underground economy as well as maintaininga solid convict identity. They described a flexible, fluid setof norms that serve to keep the peace so that the prison staffstays out of their business. However, the goal of ‘‘keepingthe peace’’ coincides nicely with the official goal of theprison administration.

Although inmates and prison staff maintain order fordifferent reasons, no one wants chaos. Therefore, the old‘‘inmate code’’ as discussed by Sykes and Messenger(1960) has evolved. At one time, inmates used the code todefy the goals of the prison staff. Now, mostly due to under-ground economies, they want to keep peace in order to selltheir contraband. While not generalizable to all prisoninmates, my study offers a new understanding into howinmates understand informal prison norms, which updatesour current knowledge on the inmate code as well as inmateculture.

THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND VALUES

Some of the earliest scholarly work found that prisonsare isolated institutions with their own norms and rules(Clemmer 1940; Hayner and Ash 1940). Inmates are socia-lized to follow a standard inmate code in which they mustact tough, not interfere with other inmates, and not socializewith the guards. Sykes (1958) argues that inmate cultureresults from the deprivations of the prison world. Under-ground markets (narcotics, etc.) emerge due to a lack ofsocial freedom and sex (consensual or not) between inmatesstems from the lack of available women, rather than homo-sexual urges (Cloward 1960; Tittle and Tittle 1964). Further-more, prison staff control the inmates by makingcompromises about privileges or living conditions (Cloward1960; Irwin and Cressey 1962; Jacobs 1977; Sykes andMessinger 1960).



Other studies found that prison culture is sometimesimported from the outside world (Irwin 1970; Schrag1954). Irwin and Cressey (1962) found that inmates bringtheir own norms into prison. Research finds a direct linkbetween the street culture and prison culture, particularlywith regard to drug use and distribution (Irwin 1970).Scholars now agree that prison culture is a combination ofstreet culture and social deprivation; these hypotheses arenot mutually exclusive (Akers et al. 1977; Pollock 1997;Winfree et al. 2002). A good deal of research focuses onthe ‘‘inmate code’’ that influences prison norms. Thosewho follow the inmate code act tough and are not allowedto collaborate with correctional officers (Cloward 1960;Irwin and Cressey 1962; Jacobs 1977; Sykes and Messinger1960; Terry 1997).

Terry (1997) discusses how the public identity of theprisoner is shaped by the code. The ‘‘convict’’ identity ispreferred and these men generally live their lives in accor-dance with the rules of the code (Terry 1997); however,the code differs from prison to prison (Pollock 1997; Sykesand Messinger 1960). Victor Hassine (2007) discussed therules in his Pennsylvania prison and argued that there is noinmate code. Instead, inmates import their own norms intoprison and just call these rules ‘‘the code.’’ For this article,I examine how inmates describe informal rules as connectedto the code. To do this, I use the model set up by HowardBecker (1963) and Edwin Lemert (1951) on rules and rulemaking. In doing so, I expand on our current knowledge ofthe inmate code by examining the rules of the code. Becker(1963) argues that there are general norms and rules fol-lowed by many members of society. However, people formgroups based on religious, economic, or racial identity andthey create their own set of rules. As Lemert (1951) pointsout, rules are enforced by the reaction of peers. When thedeviant is caught and labeled, this could push him or her intosecondary deviance where he or she accepts the deviantidentity (Lemert 1951). However, I focus on the relationshipbetween values and rules. Lemert argues that it is difficult todefine values as clearly connected to, or different from, therules. The term value is ‘‘spurious or tautological and addsnothing to the explanation of behavior’’ (Lemert 2000:64).He reconciles this issue by stating that, ‘‘Value is defined

750 R. Trammell


in terms of opportunity costs: that is, we know the value of athing when we know what we will sacrifice to achieve it’’(64). Becker (1963) explains that:

It is possible for us to hold conflicting values without beingaware of the conflict. We become aware of their inadequacyas a basis for action when, in a moment of crisis, we realizethat we cannot decide which of the conflicting courses ofactions recommended to us we should take. (130)

For example, we create sexual harassment laws because wevalue equality. Some corporations may not allow employ-ees to date one another in order to comply with sexual har-assment laws. Corporate leaders may not value the rulesabout fraternization. In fact, they may not place value onsexual harassment laws either. In this sense, value is placedon reducing liability and workplace conflict. Personalvalues may serve as a guide to action; however, new rulesemerge that serve to help maintain other rules (Becker1963).

Previous work on the inmate code defines the code as apersonal value (Bronson 2006) held by solid convicts. Theconvict must act tough and stay out of business of otherinmates. He must not work with prison staff (snitching) andhe should not interfere with other inmates (Sykes andMessinger 1960). Inmates create rules in order to maintainthis code of conduct. At the same time, there are no universalrules that dictate the behavior of all American inmates andthese ‘‘rules’’ may be few (Pollock 2004). Using this as astarting point, I aim to focus on the connection between rulemaking and values. If, as Lemert suggests, values are definedby what we are willing to sacrifice, then rules directly linkedto personal values will be strictly enforced.

New rules are likely to emerge that, according to Becker,could ‘‘make peace’’ between rules already in place. Theprison is a total institution (Goffman 1961) in which officialrules are created and enforced from the top down. Prisonadministrations create rules and correctional officers enforcerules. If Becker and Lemert are correct, inmates will createtheir own set of rules or norms that are regulated by theinmates themselves. However, there are no guarantees thatrules only function to maintain the code.



DATA AND METHODS

As part of a larger research project, I interviewed seventy-three men and women previously incarcerated in Californiaprisons. In addition, I interviewed six correctional officerswho worked in California prisons. Interviews took place in2005–06. Originally, parolees were recruited from reentryprograms and parolee meetings in San Diego, Riverside,and Orange counties. They were released from prison withintwo months prior to the interview. They were asked to parti-cipate in a project that focuses on prison and prison vio-lence. Thirty-one people agreed to be included in thisstudy. I informed them that participation was voluntary andthey could refuse to answer any question that makes themuncomfortable. Using a snowball sampling technique, origi-nal participants referred another fifty-eight parolees. Out ofthis pool, forty-two agreed to be interviewed.

In total, forty men and thirty-three women agreed to takepart in the study. The mean age was 34 years old and theirprison sentences ranged from 18 months to 15 years inmedium to maximum security prisons in California. Asper IRB protocol, verbal consent was obtained and pseudo-nyms were used in all papers and reports. Parolees andformer inmates are protected populations and those of usworking with them take special precautions to assure con-fidentiality. This means working with them in public placesand private homes and insisting that they not use anynames during the interview process. I assured them thattheir responses had nothing to do with their current or for-mer parole status. I also interviewed six male correctionalofficers who described the organization of prison gangsand inmate norms. These men agreed to be interviewedas long as I never disclose their specific prison. For the lar-ger project, I interviewed both men and women. However,the women in my study explained that, in prison, they donot join gangs and physical violence is rare. The men inmy study described the inmate code and how they usedviolence to regulate inmate behavior. Women can, anddo, assault each other but the men in my study describedhow they work to organize prison gangs and create rulesto maintain order. Also, the correctional officers in thisstudy work in prisons housing men. Therefore, I use data

752 R. Trammell


TABLE 1 Male Interviewees

Pseudonym Age Race Offenses Time served

Marty 28 Hispanic Aggravated Assault, ParoleViolation

3 Years

Jose 32 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 7 YearsAnthony 39 Hispanic Robbery 5 YearsCarlos 36 Hispanic Attempted Murder 5 YearsJohn 32 Hispanic Domestic Violence=Battery 3 YearsOscar 22 Hispanic Drug Possession 18 MtsJames 34 Black Manslaughter 8 YearsRobert 35 Hispanic Grand Theft Auto, Assault,

Robbery8 Years

Pedro 32 Hispanic Grand Theft Auto, DrugPossession

2 Years

Jimmy 33 White Drug Possession, ParoleViolation

3 Years

Mike 36 White Drug Possession andburglary

16 Mts

Justin 40 White Parole Violation 9 MtsCarl 38 White Drug Possession, Assault,

Robbery4 Years

Jessie 30 White Assault With A DeadlyWeapon, Sexual BatteryAnd Robbery

5 Years

Jake 45 Black Robbery, Drugs 13 YearsVincent 32 White Drunk Driving, Absconding 1 YearAntonio 24 Hispanic Robbery and Grand Theft

Auto8 Years

Jack 28 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 6 YearsMyles 46 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 5 YearsRichard 29 White Robbery, Rape One—Adult 10 YearsPat 33 White Assault, Attempted Murder 10 YearsTim 37 White GTA, Sexual Assault, Car

Jacking15 Years

Bruce 29 White Assault, Sexual Assault 11 YearsJosh 30 White Robbery 8 YearsBen 40 Hispanic Robbery 5 YearsChris 35 Hispanic Drug Trafficking and

Attempted Murder9 Years

Kelly 35 Hispanic Manslaughter 15 YearsKirk 29 White Parole Violation, Assault 2 YearsMac 42 Black Drugs, Assault, Attempted

Murder6 Years

(Continued )



from my male interviewees for this article. Demographicsfor interviewees are listed in Table 1.

The data presented in this article are part of a larger projectthat focuses on: informal social control, prison rape, under-ground economies, gang violence, retaliation, and racializedviolence. My interviews lasted one to two hours using open-ended=semi-structured interview questions (Denzin andLincoln 1998) that allowed my interviewees to deconstructthe social setting of prison and thoroughly explain inmatebehavior. Specifically, I asked them to describe informalrules, the inmate code, and how they control each other inprison. I coded responses into two categories: the inmatecode, rules=gang leaders and underground economies andviolence.

Currently, there are approximately 160,000 inmates livingin California prisons (California Department of Correctionsand Rehabilitation 2008) and I do not use a randomized sam-ple. Instead, I created a case study developed through snow-ball sampling. This being said, it is not possible to generalize

TABLE 1 Continued

Pseudonym Age Race Offenses Time served

Logan 30 Black Robbery 5 YearsDonald 36 Black Robbery 4 YearsHoward 30 White Robbery, Sexual Assault 7 YearsDoug 26 White Robbery 4 YearsJoseph 36 Black Drug Trafficking, Robbery 7 YearsHarold 35 White Robbery and Assault 8 YearsFred 29 White Aggravated Assault,

Attempted Murder5 Years

Roger 40 Black Drug Trafficking, Assault 6 YearsSam 39 Black Aggravated Assault,

Kidnapping12 Years

Scott 41 Hispanic Drugs, Burglary 2 YearsRamon 32 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 6 YearsBobby Black Correctional OfficerLeo White Correctional OfficerWesley White Correctional OfficerTom White Correctional OfficerRonald Black Correctional OfficerParker Black Correctional Officer

754 R. Trammell


these data to the entire California prison population. More-over, quantitative research is best for examining trends inprison violence such as riots (Useem and Piehl 2006). How-ever, I focus on how interviewees describe rules and ruleenforcement. Qualitative research is more fluid and high-lights the subjective reality of the research subject. Thismethod allows an interviewee to deconstruct the socialsetting to shed light on how he interprets his social world.Specifically, this allows him to describe the importance ofinformal rules in prison.

THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND GANG LEADERS

Out of the forty men I interviewed, forty-eight percent(n¼ 19) told me they belonged to a prison gang. In California,inmates racially segregate and form gangs by race (Goodman2006; Hunt et al. 1993; Irwin 1980). Gang affiliation is apunishable offense in California prisons; therefore, men arecareful about discussing this issue. Some talk about their‘‘homeboys’’ or their ‘‘cars,’’ which are terms describingfriends or fellow gang members in prison. My interviewees(gang and non-gang members) described rules and theinmate code. Those who admitted to being in a gang toldme about the rules:

You go to prison and you toughen up. You get with the codeand you do good time. There are ways to do hard time and ifyou don’t follow the rules, you are not considered solid. Youdon’t snitch, you don’t owe anyone money and you act like aman. If you don’t, then you do hard time. (Joseph)

The boys inside, they follow the rules and that means youwork with your own boys and do what they say. Look, thereis a lot of problems caused by the gangs, no doubt. The thingis, they solve problems too. You want a structure and youwant someone to organize the businesses so the gangs havetheir rules. You don’t run up a drug debt, you don’t start afight in the yard and stuff. Gangs are a problem but we tookcare of business. There is a code of silence, you don’t talkabout all the stuff with others, the cops split up gangs ifthere’s a big problem so we keep to ourselves and mindour own business. (Jack)



Both men describe the code as a set of rules that help regu-late inmate behavior. In accordance with the code, mentoughen up, refuse to snitch, and follow the rules set up bygang leaders. Hard time means having a difficult time inprison and those doing ‘‘solid time’’ are following the rulesand avoiding problems. Jack explained that gangs ‘‘organizebusiness’’ by making rules. Interviewees who were not in agang told me that they also follow the code:

You learn the code and you stick by the code. I thought thatmost of the stuff, especially about race and stuff, it’s stupid. Ijust want to do my time and get out. That’s easier said thandone, you have to follow the code even if you know it’sstupid. (Donald)

There are so many rules about who goes first in line for mealsand who gets the TV first. If you follow all these rules, youend up doing easy time. I was a con which means I followthe code so you have to know the rules and you have to teachthe new guys how to be a con and follow the rules. (Carl)

I didn’t know shit going into prison. I was totally clueless. Iwas strung out on drugs, sick and dumb and the brothers tellme right off the bat where to go, what to do. I thought theywere joking at first. I knew prison was hard but I neverthought I’d have to know rules about who uses the showerfirst and who sits with who and who the leaders are. I thinkthat’s why there are fights, the dumb guys don’t know thecode going in and they screw up. (Mac)

The races don’t officially mix. That’s true but you can buydrugs from whoever and the leaders control that stuff. I’vehad a cigarette with some white guys and the Mexicans,the Southerners are mostly good guys, their leaders are, wellsome of them are flexible with their boys. It’s not as cut anddry as you think. (James)

Donald explained that the rules are sometimes arbitrary andpointless but you still follow them. Mac told me that menfight because they do not know the rules of the inmate code.He stated that the ‘‘brothers’’ or other African-American mentold him how to act and what to do in prison. He thought this

756 R. Trammell


was strange but he followed the code. These men describedprison life as organized and they place the leaders at the cen-ter of this organization. This is especially interesting becausesome of these men (Carl, Mac, and James) told me they werenot gang members. They may have lied about their gangaffiliation; however, they argued that everyone follows therules set up by gang leaders. They depend on these leadersto make decisions and enforce rules.

Furthermore, they described the ‘‘rules’’ as connected toboth the code and to businesses. They need to control eachother in order to sell their drugs. In order to do this, they mustkeep prison officials at bay. Thus, the code is described as away to keep peace. Terry (1997) discussed this code as ‘‘thesocial system of male prisons revolves around the inmatecode and the need to project invulnerability’’ (38). He statedthat prisoners identify as ‘‘inmates’’ or ‘‘convicts’’ and theconvict identity is preferred. He built on previous work thatdescribes convicts, not inmates, who live by the inmate codeand take care of conflict without getting help from correc-tional officers or other staff (Irwin 1970; Schmid andJones 1991; Sykes and Messinger 1960). Terry argued that,‘‘Convicts see their world from the perspective of the code.Consequently, the rules they follow, the actions they takeand the humor they use are all reflections of that outlook’’(Terry 1997:25). It is a set of norms that are directly tied tomaintaining the convict identity, which means doing solidtime and acting tough. If you follow the ‘‘code’’ you embracethe solid convict identity (Terry 1997).

However, the rules discussed by my interviewees involvedroutine, daily activities that are typically followed by every-one. James described them as flexible and set by the leaders.Jack told me that they follow rules to organize illegal busi-nesses. As outlined in Figure 1, convicts who adapt the codeidentify as a solid convict. The code guides the inmate andhelps identify those who do good or solid time in prison.Throughout this process, impression management is neces-sary to maintain the public perception of a convict who actstough and follows the code. Previous researchers outlinedthis process and detailed how inmates classify one another(Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykes and Messinger1960; Terry 1997). However, some interviewees describedthis as ‘‘stupid’’ but necessary. They told me that they do



not necessarily believe in the code but follow the rules. Inother words, they do not value the code or the convict iden-tity but they conform. Previous research shows that inmatesgenerally accept or reject the code (Terry 1997). Intervie-wees explained that they sometimes place value on some-thing else that forces them to align their actions withthe inmate code. Organization is the key to this process. Cor-rectional officers discuss how prisoners organize and followleaders:

Now I worked up north for a while and I know that theMexican gangs are more inclined to be picky about who theylet in. They check references on the outside and make sureyou’re not lying about where you come from or who you rollwith. They used to make up these booklets that had rules inthem. They’d pass them around and we’d confiscate themand they’d make more. They were very dedicated to makingsure that everyone in the gang knows their own rules. It’s likethe military with their lieutenants and stuff. (CorrectionalOfficer Leo)

In the 1980s it all changed, suddenly every prison was over-crowded and the Latinos became the top dogs in the prisonsin California. That’s mostly because they outnumbered every-one else. That’s when they started forming the gangs and itwas totally organized and stuff. You see the Mexicans orga-nize and strategize. They work smart, they form these gangsand are totally organized. The black guys just worked, theywere always volunteering for some kind of job in the kitchenor the laundry and stuff. They just wanted to stay out of mix.

FIGURE 1 The inmate code and the convict identity.

758 R. Trammell


The white guys just started the skin-head shit. You know, thewhite power stuff. It’s all about power now, who’s got it andwho doesn’t. (Correctional Officer Wesley)

We try to break them up, we’ll move the shot-callers to Peli-can Bay, we split up the gangs and they just continue whatthey’re doing in their new prison. The gang problem is big.These guys know where blind spots are, they work closelytogether and they are tight. They will go to the hole beforethey snitch. They know that I’ll send them to the hole buttheir brothers, they will do worse. These guys mean businessand I really see no way to eliminate the gangs altogether.(Correctional Officer Ronald)

The term shot-caller was originally used by members of theMexican Mafia prison gang, founded in juvenile detentionfacilities in California in the 1950s. Currently, the termshot-caller (sometimes called key-holder) is common to mostprison gangs and some street gangs. The second-in-command is called a lieutenant. He works with soldierswho smuggle drugs or work for the gang. There are associ-ates who are not members but show support by fighting ina race-riot. A prospect is someone who carries out low-levelgrunt work to become a member of the gang.

Interviewees told me that gangs control drug, prostitution,pornography, and, most recently, the cigarette trade inprison. The shot-caller is someone who rises through theranks and proves his loyalty to the gang; men call this ‘‘put-ting in your time.’’ Antonio described his shot-caller:

A shot-caller is someone that runs the whole tank or module.Pretty much, people that know a lot about incarceration cuzthey’ve been in prison for a while. They run it and they runthe section, they talk about what’s going on. That environ-ment, it’s negative, it’s politics. If an argument breaks out,the shot-caller will go over there and say ‘‘What’s the situa-tion that happened with the race and stuff?’’ They then talkand see if they can solve it. If they can’t solve it then theysay ‘‘You know what man? You better, do something. Thatguy that started something he better get out of the module’’or they fight. (Antonio)



I asked the men to explain how the shot-caller controls theinmates and Mike outlined how minor disagreements aresettled:

Mike: Well, people fight over stupid shit. Sometimes youfight just because someone pissed you off. If some-one pisses me off, you know starts trouble with me,he has to answer to his own people. They decide ifit’s worth fighting over you know? If they decidethat he’s just a big dick and he needs to apologizeto me for being a dick then he will tell me he’ssorry. That’s how it usually ends. Nothing toodramatic.

Question: Is it a real consensus or does one guy, the shot-caller, decide?

Mike: Um, it’s a consensus but the shot-caller is the maindecision maker. You know, he’ll talk to everyonebut he’s really getting them to see things his wayand he gets final say and shit.

Question: What if the shot-caller decides they fight?Mike: Then they fight. You can tell that something is going

to happen, people start getting into position andgetting ready for the fight and so it’s all about tim-ing. And the fights and stuff, it didn’t happen likeI thought. I thought we’d be fighting all the timeand stuff. That’s not true. We fought but it wasnot all the time. I think I had maybe three or fourreal fights. The leaders, they control most of theproblems and keep the peace. It’s not like theyshow on TV, we don’t fight hardly ever. We controlthe yard and keep the boys in check. (Carlos)

The men explained how prisoners frequently check in withshot-callers. If two men argue or if an inmate disses (disre-spects) another inmate, they check with their leader. If theshot-caller approves, the men told me they ‘‘take it to thecell,’’ which means they have a cell-fight. Eight-threepercent (n¼33) of the men in this study admitted to havingat least one cell-fight. This is done to avoid a fight in the yard:

Usually, you settle the dumb stuff there. If someone disses meor someone takes my stuff then the leaders tell us to take it to

760 R. Trammell


the cell. We slug it out and get things taken care of. I probablyhad seven or eight fights in prison. (Marty)

Well we do a lot of cell-fights. I may have words with some-one, someone may piss me off so we take it to the cell andhave a cell fight. No one sees us and we don’t get writtenup. (Jose)

Two or three men fighting in the yard or other common areacauses a riot or gang fight. They have some privacy in theircells and violence is controlled. What is particularly interest-ing is how men describe the organization of minor fights.They state that men fight over drugs, disrespect, or theft.Many times, one man insults another and this increasestension and the probability of a fight.

Gangs and friends provide protection and human contact.At the same time, this arrangement breeds loyalty to the gangand the shot-caller. In fact, men described how informalrules conflict with official prison rules. In these cases, menfollow the rules outlined by the gang leaders:

I was brought in and they try to put me in a cell with a blackguy. I said no way, they say it’s this or they have a cell with aMexican guy. I know they try to make us mix but I can’t dothat. I tell the guard that this won’t happen and he shovesme in. I know at that point that I’m going to the hole so Ishove the cop back and then they threw me down and tookme to the hole. That’s the part that sucks, they know we can’tdo that and they force us and then we end up in ad seg. It’s apain in the ass. (Bruce)

I’m not listening to the cops. Screw those guys. One guy tellsme to clean up the TV room after some NLR pricks are inthere. I tell him that’s not my job and I’m PENI so no wayI’m cleaning up after them. He threatens me with a 115 orworse and I just laugh, what the hell is he going to do tome? (Josh)

Bruce argues that the rules of segregation means he cannotcell up with someone of another race. He was sent to admin-istrative segregation for not complying with the correctionalofficer. Typically, this means they receive a written violation



(CDCR 115 Violation) and a loss of good time credit. Joshargues that, as a member of the Public Enemy NumberOne skinhead gang, he does not socialize or clean up aftera rival skinhead gang. In both cases, these men risk formalreprimands by breaking the formal rules.

The rules about segregation force men to break officialdepartment of corrections standards about racial integration.They may or may not want segregation. However, to keeppeace between inmates, they face official reprimands anddefy official rules. These men place value on these friend-ships and gang leaders and the informal rules set up by thesemen. They risk their good time credit and what little socialfreedom they have to remain loyal to the rules.

UNDERGROUND ECONOMIES AND VIOLENCE

When I asked them why they avoid riots, they offered tworeasons. First, riots are dangerous and secondly, they resultin a prison lockdown. The prison administration uses thismethod to stop violence and prevent escape. Wardens andother administrators decide whether or not to lock down aprison and when to lift the lockdown (California Departmentof Corrections and Rehabilitation 2003). If this happens,inmates are confined to their cells and separated from otherinmates. They lose their yard time and, according to intervie-wees, underground economies are curbed. Men cannot selldrugs or other contraband if they are locked in their cells.Therefore, they avoid a riot because it is dangerous andbad for business. Marty explains:

Well, we don’t fight in a riot and stuff unless we have to, it’stoo dangerous. We’ll go into lockdown which sucks and peo-ple get killed and stuff. If I’m locked down, then I’m not work-ing. You can make some serious bank in prison andshot-callers hate it when you’re in lockdown. And I’ve seenlockdown happen for eight, nine months. We all go crazyafter a while, no one wants that. (Marty)

Others described underground businesses:

So here’s the deal, you got old guys like me who have been inprison forever and have shot-callers do their job, keep peace

762 R. Trammell


and run the action. That’s why we have shot-callers so whena couple of idiots get into it in the yard, instead of letting themkill themselves, the shot-caller goes out and works it out. Hetalks to these guys and finds out what happened, who didwhat to who it’s very simple. If we didn’t have these guys,the businesses would stop. (Myles)

The gangs can’t sell their stuff, drugs and stuff. They don’twant a lockdown, that’s true. I was in a lockdown for twomonths once. Leaders get pissed if there’s a lockdown andwe don’t get yard time, I hated it. I was in a serious riot onceand it went on for twenty minutes or so. As soon as westopped, it started in the dorm, it’s like a virus, it spreadsand people are killed or hurt bad. It’s best to handle thingslow-key. No one needs a riot. (Donald)

These men explained that people get hurt in riots. Also, a riotis hard to stop, even by the inmates. Therefore, it is easier towork with leaders to control the violence. This means usingcell-fights to prevent riots or apologizing for disrespectingother inmates. This is interesting for several reasons. First,men describe an informal way to avoid serious violence. Tobe sure, two men fighting in cell is dangerous. However, thisis a way for men to take care of the daily problems. All toooften, men in prison fight over minor disagreements. Some-one disrespects someone else or someone steals propertyand if they rioted over all of these issues, there would bechaos. These men want structure and control over their lives.

However, they do not discuss the formal rules and regula-tions. Nor do they discuss reporting problems to the prison staff.The inmate code forces them to work outside the formal systemto take care of these problems. The shot-caller is especiallyimportant as a leader and decision maker. They posit theshot-caller as a negotiator. They often force men to apologizeor make them take it to the cell. This also means using violenceto control others. Anthony tells me how he had to ‘‘turn over’’one of his own men to a rival gang in order to avoid a riot:

We need to keep the boys in line. If one of our guys is a hot-head or something and is always shooting off his mouth it canget everyone into trouble. We don’t want a lockdown, wedon’t want a riot so I’ve had to beat down my own guys to



control the bigger picture. If one of my guys is messing upthen we either offer him up to the other guys or we takehim down ourselves. Like I had a guy that ran up a big drugdebt, he owed money to the woods [peckerwood skin-headgang] and I had to turn him over to them. They took him toa cell and really beat the shit out of him. We had to do it.If not, then everyone fights which is bad for business andbad for us. (Anthony)

In this instance, Anthony’s friend was causing trouble byrunning up a drug debt. Gangs will fight over money anddrugs so he, as the shot-caller, had to make a hard decision.He sacrificed one of his own men to avoid problemsbetween the gangs. Harold explained the importance ofkeeping the men in line:

The shot-caller is important here, he tells his lieutenantswhat’s what and then they work with their soldiers to takecare of business. I knew this guy that ran his mouth a lot,made lots of problems, called people names and stuff. Hecalled these Mexican guys a bunch of greasy wetbacks.He’s a loose cannon, he’s going to cause trouble you knowwhat I mean, we work hard to keep that race shit calm andhere is this prick causing trouble, no one wants that so wehad to check him. We took him down a peg or two, it cameright from the top, the asshole needs a lesson. (Harold)

In this story, Harold, a member of the PENI skin-head gang,had to beat up a fellow gang member as a good-faith gestureto the Mexican gangs. Again, they value racial segregationand informal rules so they physically punished a trouble-maker. This is especially interesting because Harold is askin-head and American skin-heads are typically xenophobicand racist. John Irwin (1980) detailed how the most racistwhite men in California prisons formed skin-head gangs inthe 1970s. However, Harold argued that they now negotiateto keep the peace. He and his fellow gang members beat upone of their own to maintain order. Others told me thatcorrectional officers work with the shot-caller:

The C.O.s, they know when something’s happening, we alldo. They will ask us to calm down or ask us to wait on a fight.

764 R. Trammell


I knew of a cop that asked us to wait until he was off duty tofight, he didn’t want to fill out the paperwork and break up ariot. My leader told us to wait until after the shift changed sothe next guys would take care of it. Really, no one is surprisedwhen shit goes down. (Kirk)

Pretty much the cops know who to talk to. Are your peoplecalmed down now? Are they going to be good? You know,and then they’ll be like okay, yeah, we will and a lot of timesthey’ll just say yeah, and then they’ll go at it again. Just so thatcops can let them out. (Pedro)

These men describe an ongoing process of negotiationbetween inmates and the correctional officers. Obviously,there is not way of knowing exactly how much time officerswork with the inmates. However, from the perspective of themen in my study, they all work outside the formal system tomaintain peace in prison. They remain loyal to these rulesand depend on leaders to control the violence. Several intervie-wees described what happened to them when they broke rules:

Mac: The problem is that the incident, it’s not even a realfight is now going to turn the blacks against theMexicans. There’s going to be big trouble, a riotor something so they can’t have that. So two dayslater, the blacks come after me. Three guys suckerpunched me and knocked me down and beat medown.

Question: Were you hurt?Mac: Broke three fingers and my nose, I thought I might

lose an eye cuz I couldn’t see anything when itstarted but it was just blood and stuff in my eyes.They had to do it, it was for the greater good, soto speak.

Question: Why?Mac: If they didn’t do it then there’s trouble between the

blacks and the Mexicans. I can’t have that over myhead. I mean [laughs] am I glad I got my ass beat?No. But it probably saved lives or at the very least,stopped a lockdown. They had to show the Mexi-cans that the problem is solved and that I learned alesson.



Mac explained that he was beaten ‘‘for the greater good.’’He took responsibility for his actions (disrespecting theMexicans) and accepted his punishment. Mac did not trivia-lize his beating but instead, accepted punishment from hisown gang.

When I first got to prison, I said some shit to this white guyand the next thing I know, I’m told to make it right withhim. I have to man up and take care of my shit. At first Ithought, you gotta be kidding me. No way am I going to tellthis guy that I’m sorry. Then they told me that I have nochoice. That’s the rule, you do what you’re told. They madea very good argument about how I need to fall in line. Okay,so I made things right. (Logan)

Logan did not want to apologize to a white man; however,he eventually complied with the rules. The gang leadersmake the rules and the Lieutenants and Soldiers enforcethese rules and sometimes use violence to do so. The norma-tive order described by these men is grounded in a mutuallyaccepted idea about keeping the peace. They value safetyand underground economies, which means following therules. In this sense, they depend on leaders to negotiateconflict, which is common in the daily lives in inmates.

Clearly, they described the inmate code in these narra-tives. The men in this study described how they act toughand maintain a hyper-masculine identity. They want todo ‘‘good time’’ and are loyal to fellow gang members andleaders.

In Figure 2, I outline their motivations for avoiding a riot.Overall, they want to structure their lives in order to run theirbusinesses. Therefore, leaders must negotiate between

FIGURE 2 Motivations for keeping the peace.

766 R. Trammell


inmates and enforce the rules. The inmate code is importantto maintain a convict identity (Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones1991; Sykes and Messinger 1960; Terry 1997). However,they create rules to maintain order, which, to a some degree,coincides with the goals of the institution. The rules are putin place to appease prison staff and avoid formal interferencein their businesses. They do not value the formal prison rulesyet must do what they can to avoid formal reprimands.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although not generalizable to the entire prison system, mycase study offers a qualitative approach to examine informalprison norms and the inmate code. Those who study thecode describe how prisoners use this code to maintain a con-vict identity (Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykes andMessinger 1960; Terry 1997). They act tough, refuse tosnitch, and maintain a social distance from the prison staff.Sykes and Messinger (1960) were the first to describe howprisoners remain independent and tough in prison. They donot interfere with the work of the guards or other inmates.Furthermore, they do not take advantage of weaker inmates(Sykes and Messinger 1960). Almost forty years later, Terry(1997) argues that prisoners maintain their identity as sepa-rate from their non-prison identity. They use humor as amethod of expressing feelings and remain connected to their‘‘normal’’ non-prison identity (Terry 1997). Moreover, thosewho promote and enforce the code identify as ‘‘convicts’’and these men are at the top of the prison pecking order.

I used the model proposed by Lemert (2000) and Becker(1963) to reexamine and update this model. The men inmy study described the inmate code and what it means todo ‘‘solid time’’ as a convict. This is nothing new. However,my findings also show that the influx of gangs and the under-ground economies now influence the code in an interestingway. It appears that the recent mass incarceration phase ofAmerican criminal justice changed the inmate code. Themen in this study explained how, to some degree, theyidentify as convicts. However, they defer to gang leadersas a way to maintain order and sell drugs.

As Edwin Lemert points out, ‘‘Value is defined in terms ofopportunity costs: that is, we know the value of a thing when



we know what we will sacrifice to achieve it’’ (64). My inter-viewees explained that they value gangs and prison friendsbut they will not sacrifice illegal businesses by allowingmen to do what they please. They may value racial segrega-tion and fight with correctional officers attempting to inte-grate the cells but they will sell their drugs to anyone ofany race. More interestingly, they will sacrifice one of theirown men if he runs up a drug debt or refuses to follow therules about maintaining order. This is especially interestingbecause the men in this study described their efforts to keepthe peace. At the same time, the prison staff also wants toavoid riots. The tactics described by my interviewees actu-ally help maintain order in prison. Clearly, this is a latenteffect of their informal rules. However, the men in my studydo not want chaos and disorder. They simply want to be leftalone.

So where does the code fit into their narratives? Theydescribe a ‘‘code,’’ which means doing ‘‘good time’’ and fol-lowing the rules. Living by the code means you act tough,keep to yourself, and defy the institution. Intervieweesclearly described this code and how they seek to do ‘‘solid’’time. This is, as others point out, tied to their identity as aconvict (Terry 1997). However, the rules serve many pur-poses and may or may not coincide with the code. For exam-ple, interviewees explain that correctional officers know theshot-callers and ask for their help after a riot. Furthermore,they describe informal punishment used against those whointentionally cause trouble. Becker (1963) described rulesas ‘‘Quite technical and may really be said to have theirbase, not in some general value, but rather in an effort tomake peace between other and earlier rules’’ (133). Themen in this study do not value the goals of this institution.However, they value their businesses and they value safety.Therefore, they keep the peace.

This ties the code to their rules in an interesting way.As others point out, the inmate code dictates that convictsnever work with correctional officers or other prison staff(Bronson 2006; Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykesand Messinger 1960; Terry 1997). In the recent mass incar-ceration era, gangs and underground businesses became aserious problem in California prisons (Hunt et al. 1993; Irwin1980). Therefore, the formal response is to increase the

768 R. Trammell


number of correctional officers and gang units to formallycontrol gang activity. However, interviewees explained thatthey organize and strategize to reduce formal reprimandsand lockdowns. With the rise of illegal businesses, men mustcreate even more rules. They may or may not place value onthe code or informal rules but they do place value on sellingtheir product. So much so that non-gang members describedhow they fell into line and followed the informal rules.

According to the men in this study, doing good time meansfollowing the code and the rules set up by leaders. They‘‘offer up’’ fellow gang members for beatings to avoid a gangfight. They attempt to control racism among the inmates.They beat up their own gang members to make a good faithgesture to rival gangs. Throughout this process, they checkwith gang leaders to determine the best course of action.In short, the inmate code is now a general part of the inmateexperience but gangs and the illegal businesses redirect thepersonal values of the inmates because they are not willingto give up these businesses. They will sell their drugs to any-one and avoid a lockdown by working together. The convictidentity is important to a large degree; however, organizingsocial life is more important. Theoretically, this offers anew and deeper understanding of the meaning behind theinmate code. The forces of capitalism make them negotiateand coordinate action in a way that coincides with the goalsof the institution. Keeping the peace and reducing formalreprimands force men to regulate each other and sometimesuse violence to do so.

REFERENCES

Akers, Ronald L., Norman S. Hayner, and Werner Gruninger. 1977.‘‘Prisonization in Five Countries: Type of Prison and Inmate Character-istics.’’ Criminology 14(4):527–554.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology ofDeviance. New York: The Free Press.

Bronson, Eric. 2006. ‘‘Medium Security Prisons and Inmate Subcultures:The ‘Normal Prison’.’’ The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice3(2):61–86.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2003. CaliforniaCode of Regulations: Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections.Sacramento.



———. 2008. ‘‘Inmate Demographics.’’ California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation.

Clemmer, Donald. 1940. The Prison Community. Boston: ChristopherPublishing.

Cloward, Richard A. 1960. ‘‘Social Control in Prison.’’ Pp. 20–48. InTheoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison, edited byR. A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Glosser, R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin,G. M. Sykes, and S. Messinger. New York: Social Science ResearchCouncil.

Denzin, Norman and Yvonna Lincoln. 1998. ‘‘Entering the Field of Qua-litative Research.’’ Pp. 1–34. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edi-ted by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, S. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.

Finley, Ben. 2008. ‘‘Inmate and Author Hangs Himself.’’ P. B1.In BucksCounty Courier Times. Levittown.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of MentalPatients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday.

Goodman, Philip. 2006. ‘‘It’s Just Black, White or Hispanic: AnEthnographic Examination of Racializing Moves in California’s Segre-gated Reception Centers.’’ Pp. 1–50. In Presented at the Pacific Socio-logical Association Conference: March 2006: Pacific SociologicalAssociation.

Hassine, Victor. 2007. Life Without Parole: Living in Prison Today,edited by R. Johnson and A. Dobrzanska. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hayner, Norman S. and Ellis Ash. 1940. ‘‘The Prison as a Community.’’American Sociological Review 5(4):577–583.

Hunt, Geoffrey, Stephanie Reigel, Thomas Morales, and Dan Waldorf.1993. ‘‘Changes in Prison Culture: Prison Gangs and the Case of the‘Pepsi Generation’.’’ Social Problems 40(3):398–409.

Irwin, John. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.———. 1980. Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Irwin, John and Donald R. Cressey. 1962. ‘‘Thieves, Convicts and the

Inmate Culture.’’ Social Problems 10(2):142–155.Jacobs, James B. 1977. Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Lemert, Edwin M. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the

Theory of Sociopathic Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.Lemert, Edwin and Michael Winter. 2000. Crime and Deviance: Essays

and Innovations of Edwin M. Lemert. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Ohlin, Lloyd E. 1956. Sociology and the Field of Corrections. New York:Social Science Research Council.

Parenti, Christian. 1999. Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in theAge of Crisis. London: Verso.

770 R. Trammell


Pollock, Joycelyn M. 1997. Prison: Today and Tomorrow. Gaithersburg:Aspen Press.

———. 2004. Prisons and Prison Life: Costs and Consequences. LosAngeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Schmid, Thomas and Richard Jones. 1991. ‘‘Suspended Identity: IdentityTransformation in a Maximum Security Prison.’’ Symbolic Interaction14(4):415–432.

Schrag, Clarence. 1954. ‘‘Leadership Among Prison Inmates.’’ AmericanSociological Review 19(1):37–42.

Sykes, Gresham M. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of aMaximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sykes, Gresham M. and Sheldon L. Messinger. 1960. ‘‘The Inmate SocialSystem.’’ Pp. 5–19. In Theoretical Studies in Social Organization ofthe Prison, edited by R. A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Glosser,R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin, G. M. Sykes and S. Messinger. New York:Social Science Research Council.

Terry, Charles. 1997. ‘‘The Function of Humor for Prison Inmates.’’Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 13(1):23–40.

Tittle, Charles R. and Drollene P. Tittle. 1964. ‘‘Social Organization ofPrisoners: An Empirical Test.’’ Social Forces 43(2):216–221.

Useem, Bert and Anne M. Piehl. 2006. ‘‘Prison Buildup and Disorder.’’Punishment and Society 8(1):87–115.

Wacquant, Loı̈c. 2001. ‘‘Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and PrisonMeet and Mesh.’’ Pp. 82–120. In Mass Imprisonment: Social Causesand Consequences, edited by D. Garland. London: Sage Publishers.

Winfree, Tom, Greg Newbold, and Huston Tubb. 2002. ‘‘Prisoner Per-spectives on Inmate Culture in New Mexico and New Zealand.’’The Prison Journal 82(2):213–233.

REBECCA TRAMMELL, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology &Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. Her research interests includeviolence, incarceration, genocide, and law and society.



Documents

The Inmate Code