Abstract
Findings of the study on the dual nature of legitimacy in the post-socialist prison environment revealed that prison staff–prisoners relations present the linking factor between both types of internal legitimacy. To achieve the normative compliance of prisoners, prison workers must establish good and sincere relations with them. Two forms of compliance were identified as being important—instrumental and normative compliance. Findings also suggest that Tyler’s model of studying legitimacy is not entirely suitable for the Slovenian prison environment. Prison workers, from good relations with prisoners, receive much-needed confirmation of their work that reassures their role in the prison setting. In general, prison workers perceive their legitimacy positively, and are generally rather confident in performing their duties in the context of implementing authority. Moreover, positive perception of self-legitimacy influences their work performance and their willingness to establish and maintain the legitimacy relationship to prisoners through good maintaining good relations. However, the relative vagueness of their mission and the quite high recidivism among prisoners (approximately 50%) cause noteworthy frustration and confusion to prison workers that in some cases may lead to a professional identity crisis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The main obstacles for achieving good [informal] relations between prison workers and prisoners are seen in: (1) the hostility and distrust of prisoners toward prison workers; and (2) the disinterest of prison staff to enter into informal relations with prisoners. Tait (2011) argued that not all prison workers are interested in helping prisoners.
- 2.
Due to the high level of instrumental compliance, a question arises how genuine is prisoners’ trust in the prison staff. Smith (2010) drew attention to strategic trust, where individuals have eligible motives and intentions of acting in our favor in various situations.
- 3.
Rus (2011) argued that prisoners are subjected to both social learning (rules among prisoners) and social influencing (internalization of the norms of the prison subculture).
- 4.
Most of the older prisoners were recidivists who have expressed hostility towards the whole criminal justice system.
- 5.
A majority of prisoners in open and semi-open regimes progressed from closed departments based on their good conduct. This sort of progression excludes the possibility of an individual’s instrumental compliance, as it is unstable over a longer term.
- 6.
Prison workers who perceive supervisors as: (1) individuals who make fair and equitable decisions; (2) offer a model of behavior that they wish to follow; and (3) provide support in time of crises, cultivate positive emotions toward them receive a positive impact on their self-esteem, gain confidence in their abilities, and heighten their self-legitimacy.
- 7.
Weinrath (2016) exposed social distance between prison workers and prisoners as a constant in prison, which is presented as: (1) the reluctance of prison workers for establishing “too” friendly relations with prisoners; and (2) maintaining “appropriate” boundaries with prisoners.
- 8.
In recent years, austerity measures were introduced in the Slovenian public sector, the effects of which were also felt by prison workers (prohibition of employment of additional staff, freezing of promotions, reduced wages, activities of trade unions, etc.).
References
Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime & Justice, 26, 205–281.
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.
Brinc, F. (2011). Družbeno vzdušje v zavodih za prestajanje kazni zapora in v prevzgojnem domu Radeče leta 2010. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 62(4), 295–311.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Costa, J. P. (2016). A matter of degree: A justice framework for penal legitimacy. Punishment & Society, 18(4), 389–399.
Flander, B., & Meško, G. (2016). Penal and prison policy on the “Sunny side of the Alps”: The swan song of Slovenian exceptionalism? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(3), 425–446.
Gilbert, M. J. (1997). The illusion of structure: A critique of the classical model of organisation and the discretionary power of correctional officers. Criminal Justice Review, 22(1), 49–64.
Liebling, A. (2011). Distinctions and distinctiveness in the work of prison officers: Legitimacy and authority revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 484–499.
Meško, G., Frangež, D., Rep, M., & Sečnik, K. (2006). Zapor: Družba znotraj družbe – pogled obsojencev na odnose in življenje v zaporu. Socialna pedagogika, 10(3), 261–286.
Meško, G., Hacin, R., Tankebe, J., & Fields, C. (2017). Self-legitimacy, organisational commitment and commitment to fair treatment of prisoners: An empirical study of prison officers in Slovenia. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 25(1), 11–30.
Meško, G., Tankebe, J., Čuvan, B., & Šifrer, J. (2014). Samozaznava legitimnosti policistov in pravosodnih policistov v Sloveniji: Perspektive postopkovne pravičnosti nadrejenih, odnosov s sodelavci in zaznane legitimnosti policije v javnosti. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 65(3), 221–231.
Petrovec, D. (2015). Penologija. In A. Šelih & K. Filipčič (Eds.), Kriminologija (pp. 183–209). Ljubljana: GV založba.
Rus, V. S. (2011). Socialna in socio-psihologija: Izbrana poglavja. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Smith, S. S. (2010). Race and trust. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 226–256.
Sparks, J. R., & Bottoms, A. E. (1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 45–62.
Tait, S. (2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 440–454.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
Tyler, T. R. (2010). Legitimacy in corrections: Policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 127–134.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2006). Letno poročilo 2005. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2007). Letno poročilo 2006. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2008). Letno poročilo 2007. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2009). Letno poročilo 2008. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2010). Letno poročilo 2009. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2011). Letno poročilo 2010. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2012). Letno poročilo 2011. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2013). Letno poročilo 2012. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2014). Letno poročilo 2013. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2015). Letno poročilo 2014. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2016). Letno poročilo 2015. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2017). Letno poročilo 2016. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij [URSIKS]. (2018). Letno poročilo 2017. Ljubljana: Uprava Republike Slovenije za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (1996). Letno poročilo 1995. http://www.varuh-rs.si/publikacije-gradiva-izjave/letna-porocila/letno-porocilo-1995/.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (1997). Letno poročilo 1996. http://www.varuh-rs.si/publikacije-gradiva-izjave/letna-porocila/letno-porocilo-1997/.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (1998). Letno poročilo 1997. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_1998_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (1999). Letno poročilo 1998. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_1999_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2000). Letno poročilo 1999. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_1999_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2001). Letno poročilo 2000. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_1999_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2002). Letno poročilo 2001. http://www.varuh-rs.si/publikacije-gradiva-izjave/letna-porocila/letno-porocilo-2001/.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2003). Letno poročilo 2002. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_2003_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2004). Letno poročilo 2003. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_2003_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2005). Letno poročilo 2004. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_2004_slo.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2006). Letno poročilo 2005. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Varuh_LP_2005.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2007). Letno poročilo 2006. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Varuh_LP_2006_SLO.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2008). Letno poročilo 2007. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/VCP-LP07-splet.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2009). Letno poročilo 2008. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Varuh_LP-2008.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2010). Letno poročilo 2009. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Letno_porocilo_Varuha_za_2009.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2011). Letno poročilo 2010. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/LP10.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2012). Letno poročilo 2011. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Letno_porocilo_Varuha_za_leto_2011.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2013). Letno poročilo 2012. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Letno_porocilo_Varuha_2012.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2014). Letno poročilo 2013. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Devetnajsto_redno_letno_porocilo_Varuha_CP_RS_za_leto_2013.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2015). Letno poročilo 2014. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/LP_2014_-_SLO_-_dvostr_-_web.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2016). Letno poročilo 2015. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/LP2015_VARUH.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2017). Letno poročilo 2016. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Porocilo_VCP_2016_koncno_za_www.pdf.
Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije. (2018). Letno poročilo 2017. http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/Porocilo_VCP_2017_koncno_za_www.pdf.
Weinrath, M. (2016). Behind the walls: Inmates and correctional officers on the state of Canadian prisons. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hacin, R., Meško, G. (2020). Discussion and Conclusion. In: The Dual Nature of Legitimacy in the Prison Environment. SpringerBriefs in Criminology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32843-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32843-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32842-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32843-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)