Blog

You’ve got jail: Reflecting on the twentieth anniversary of BEHIND BARS: SURVIVING PRISON

Twenty years ago Stephen C. Richards, Ph.D. and I co-authored Behind Bars: Surviving Prison.

The book, divided into thirteen chapters, plus two appendixes, provided realistic, practical and helpful information, and advice to men and women who were facing a jail or prison sentence, or currently doing time in an American correctional facility. It covered all sorts of predictable things like the kinds of food, housing, work, vocational training, and educational opportunities (or lack thereof) that someone behind bars might experience. Behind Bars also reviewed the types of convicts, correctional officers, and formerly incarcerated people might encounter in their journey into and out of the American prison gulag.

Now that a significant amount of time has passed since Behind Bars’ release, it might be interesting to explore how this book came about, and review some of the reactions to it.

Origin Story

In the Spring of 2001, shortly after I submitted the completed chapters of Convict Criminology to the publisher, I stumbled upon a news item that mentioned that Gary Goldstein, a well-known and respected NYC editor had agreed to publish Jerry Capeci’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Mafia. The idiot’s book series (just like the Dummies guides that were popular at the time) explain in simple terms a subject or process that the average educated person may have difficulty grasping.

It just so happens that for some time, Richards and I had discussed the possibility of writing a book targeted at a general audience, that explained American jails and prisons, and what correctional custody was like.

Why?

We believed that there was an abundance of myths and misconceptions about jails, prisons, and what it’s like to be incarcerated. Many of these flawed messages are communicated via the mass media and/or spread as war stories by individuals who were formerly incarcerated and those who worked in or for carceral facilities. On the other hand, the general public either has difficulty understanding scholarly research on correctional institutions, or lacks the patience to consult it. Thus, the average person is seriously misinformed about American jails, prisons, and the people who are incarcerated or work there.

When we looked for appropriate popular resources that people could consult about corrections and the carceral experience, there were only a couple of basic books about doing time, but they were either seriously out of date or did not appear to be too helpful. Thus what was needed was an engaging book that laid out in simple terms what it was like to be arrested, processed, sentenced and do time in American correctional facilities.

Figuring that it could not hurt to ask, I contacted Goldstein and pitched him on our idea.

Almost immediately he liked the book project. The fact that Richards had spent eleven years under federal correctional custody (with five of them behind bars), that I had worked in a carceral facility as front line staff for close to four years, and that we were both professors of Criminology/Criminal Justice appealed to the Goldstein. He believed that both of our writing credits, and our “practitioner/lived experiences” would give us enhanced credibility with the readers.

Goldstein encouraged us to write up a book proposal. After a week or so of back and forth with Richards, the proposal was complete and I forwarded it to Goldstein.

With few exceptions, he liked what we wrote and the direction we were taking and then encouraged us to find a literary agent. Finding a literary agent, however, is like a Catch 22 situation (i.e., in this case few literary agents want to represent you unless you have a big reputation, but you can’t get a reputation unless you have a literary agent). Until that point in time in my career I was unsuccessful in securing someone who could work on my behalf in this capacity.

I asked Goldstein for some suggestions. He gave me the names and contact info of three literary agents that he thought would be good matches for us. I reached out to all of them, and we went with the agent that was the most excited about the project.

Somewhere between my initial pitch to do a complete idiots guide, and publication of Richards and my book, Alpha, the publisher of the complete idiots guides, thought that the book would garner more sales in their Alpha imprint series. This also necessitated a name change from The Complete Idiots Guide to Prison. We initially considered, building on the American On-line (you’ve got mail idea that was in the ether at the time) You’ve Got Jail, and then the more straightforward title that we finally went with Behind Bars: Surviving Prison.

The path to publication

Almost immediately we went to work on the actual writing of the book. The collaboration was challenging. It was not like these romantic stories you may have heard of where co-authors both go to one of their summer homes and through the course of long leisurely walks in the leafy woods, or whisky infused conversations during the evening on the dock, they talk about the subtle nuances of the direction of the book.

I had a young family, Richards and I lived in separate states, and there was an hour time difference. Behind Bars was primarily researched and written after my wife and children were asleep, and in the wee hours of the morning. It was written by electronically sharing draft paragraphs sections of chapters and entire chapters and reading through parts to each other over the phone while the other took notes or edited.

Fueled by a sense of purpose and urgency, adrenaline, and coffee, lots of coffee, the actual writing of the book was done over the course of a handful of months. Sometimes the writing went fast and at other times it was an incredible grind. Nevertheless we made our deadlines and Behind Bars was put into production relatively quickly and released shortly thereafter.

Reactions to the book

On the downside, soon after the release of Behind Bars, we learned that it was banned in a number of state prison systems (e.g., Texas Department of Corrections, Washington State Prison system, etc.).

Stephen and I saw this as a badge of honor and thought if anything that this kind of censorship might lead to increased awareness of the book.

Another good thing was that Alpha subcontracted the marketing for the book to a public relations firm that specialized in bringing attention to newly published books. Thus shortly after Behind Bars was in print, we received a number of interviews with well-established news media outlets.

Moreover, the fact that the price of the book was relatively cheap, meant that Alpha, Stephen and I could send out more review copies than we traditionally could with the scholarly books we had written where the retail price of the books are quite prohibitive.

Also, since Alpha was a division of Pearson’s, and at the time not only did Pearson’s have a strong presence in the Criminology/Criminal Justice textbook market, had a publishers display at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, and we were on good terms with the editors, for a few years we were able to get Behind Bars displayed at their booth.

Additionally, some years later, I was approached to write a follow up book which turned into Beyond Bars: Rejoining Society after Prison.
Most importantly, we got numerous phone calls, letters, and e-mails from inmates, members of their family, and friends, telling us how useful the book was for them.

Although the rest was history, and by now some of the content (e.g., the Appendix where helpful resources are listed) is a little outdated, the core information still holds, as do many of the so-called lessons and advice. This, including the numerous people Behind Bars helped gives me great pleasure.

Photo credit
Cover/Book Design: Trina Wurst

Why are people and organizations unable or unwilling to use experts?

We live in a complicated world. It’s often hard to know what to believe and whose advice to trust. One way we make sense out of the confusion and improve our lot in life is by depending upon experts, and the advice they give.

These individuals (and organizations) typically have domain knowledge, experience, and relevant skills that they can use to assist people and organizations on whose behalf they work.

When thinking about experts, we can ask at least eight interrelated questions.

• What is an expert?
• How does one become an expert?
• How do we evaluate experts?
• Are some experts better than others?
• Does domain expertise carry from one situation to another?
• Why do individuals and organizations use experts?
• What types of advice do experts give?
• Once experts give advice, is it adopted, and how is it used?

That being said, many of us know or have experienced individuals and entities that are frequently unable or unwilling to identify or use the services of experts. It might even be us. (For example, almost everyone knows someone, a relative, co-worker, or boss, who is all too willing to play amateur skilled tradesman and with predictable results). Not only can this situation can frustrate people who take this kind of approach, but it can have ramifications for those who are close to the entity (e.g., family members, employees, etc.), and the customers and clientele that the person or organization is supposed to serve.

More commonly the projects and initiatives end up operating at a suboptimal levels or even failing, resources (e.g., money, time, loyalty, trust in the leadership and organization, etc.) are wasted, and people involved get exhausted and become cynical.

Sometimes failure to enlist the services of experts can lead harmful and negative consequences too (e.g., buildings falling down, spread of disease, etc.).

In extreme cases people may be injured or die, and communities decimated if experts are not consulted and the advice they give is not accepted and acted upon in a timely manner.

Why people and organizations don’t use experts when they truly should?

Similar to above, there are a numerous logical, scientifically sound, and interrelated reasons why people and organizations don’t use experts when they truly should. And just because a person has a university education, from a respected institution of higher education, does not prevent them from failing to seek out expert advice.

First, the entity may be suffer from the Dunning-Krueger effect (i.e., overestimating one’s knowledge and/or one’s skills), through.

Second, they suffer from the illusion of explanatory knowledge (i.e., when people think they know the causes of something but really don’t). (Similar to people who assume that their lived experience is sufficient to understand a problem or situation).

Third, they are lazy. They can’t be bothered with doing the hard work of identifying and vetting possible experts.

Fourth they are cheap. The person/organization may go as far as to identify one or more experts, but when they find out how much they charge they experience sticker shock, and either creatively ignore the problem or challenge, hope that it goes away, and do the job themselves.

Fifth, they don’t know how to go about finding and evaluating experts.

Sixth, they may not be aware of the expert’s credentials or expertise on a particular topic. (This can be tied to not understanding or appreciate the expert’s field thus may not appreciate the value of their insights).

Seventh, even if the entity knows about the expert’s qualifications, they may not agree with the person’s opinion or advice and thus not utilize their abilities.

Eighth, their biases or preconceived notions prevent them from considering the expert’s perspective.

Ninth, they may be overwhelmed by the amount of information and advice they receive, and as a result, they may not have the resources to carefully consider all of it.

Tenth, they may have a conflict of interest with the expert.

Eleventh, they may influenced by misinformation or propaganda, and may be more likely to ignore experts who provide evidence or facts that contradict their beliefs.

Twelfth, experts may be seen as a threat to the power or authority of people or organizations, and may be ignored or dismissed as a result.

Thirteenth, they don’t know how to identify or judge the quality of experts.

Finally, they may also be under a time crunch. For example, when a person is choking and turning blue in the face, they don’t have the time to go on the internet to chose an appropriate medical professional. In this moment of distress they need someone immediately and anyone will do.

How do we get people and organizations to use and implement the advice of experts?

There are no universal or widely accepted methods to get people and organizations to use the services of experts, and use varies from one situation to another and one recipient of the information to another.

But there are some general guidelines that “experts” have suggested to encourage adoption of their services. These include:

Build trust: Provide important assistance over a significant period of time.

Communicate effectively: Package the information in a manner that is easy for the audience to understand.

Address concerns and objections: Predict possible negative reactions to your advice and respond in a timely fashion when these crop up.

Provide support and resources: Similar to the role of mentors, assist individuals and organizations implement the expert advice you provide them.

Show the benefits: Don’t be content with outlining how failure to take expert advice will negatively impact the individual or organization, but carefully explain how the advantages that your expertise will positively impact the entity.

Use incentives: Give the individuals and organizations some sort of a benefit (e.g., discounted rate over time), or positive attention (e.g., list them on your website as one of your success stories) ; and

Lead by example: Explain and show the entity how you and your organization have benefitted by following your advice.

Convincing people and individuals that they need to go beyond folk explanations and remedies, and consult one or more experts (and take their advice) is not easy. And in many respects this is the harder task.

In the future, it may be helpful to identify situations that are more likely to require the use of experts (i.e., how to best respond to the COVID-19 pandemic), and one’s that are less necessary (i.e., what to eat for breakfast).

In this context we might want to create rubrics or heuristics that we can implement very quickly. To minimize poor decision-making in this context.

Photo Credit

Title: The Three Stooges

Does earning a degree in Criminology/Criminal Justice help someone get away with murder?

The recent arrest of Criminology graduate student Bryan Kohberger as the suspected murderer of four University of Idaho students prompted some people, including members of the news media, to ask if earning a degree in Criminology (the study of the causes and effects of crime) or Criminal Justice (the analysis of the dynamics of law enforcement, courts, corrections, and juvenile justice) motivates someone to “commit a crime and/or believe that they can get away with murder/homicide.”

Although there’s some logic to this question, the short answer is maybe, but not likely.

Why? There are about four interrelated reasons that cast doubt on this kind of reasoning.

First, earning a degree in a particular academic field doesn’t mean that the recipient of said achievement is going to use the knowledge they acquired or skills they mastered to engage in deviant or criminal behavior. If this was the case, then more pharmacy students would become drug manufacturers and dealers, structural engineering students would intentionally build inferior bridges, etc.

Second, every year lots of students earn undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees in the fields of Criminology/Criminal Justice. Very few of them, however, commit crimes, not to mention murder. If the pursuit of or earning of a degree in Criminology/Criminal Justice enabled students or graduates to get away with murder, then we would probably see a lot more people fitting this description arrested and charged with homicide (or other types of newsworthy crimes). (Which is not the case). I would also argue that the average Criminology/Criminal justice student is more interested catching bad guys (and women) and assisting victims of crime, then using this knowledge to “commit the perfect murder.”

Third, there are many reasons why people commit murder, and an even smaller number of them who believe that they are smart enough or have the appropriate knowledge or skills to outwit homicide investigators, judges and juries. I’d even speculate that there is an even smaller number of people who think or believe that they can get away with murder because of their knowledge or mastery of forensic science (i.e., the collection and scientific analysis of legal evidence).

Fourth, almost all people who engage in murder and believe that they will get away with the crime, are NOT in the process of earning an advanced degree in criminology/criminal justice.

Where does this leave us?

Although it’s important and interesting to ask provocative questions about perpetrators’ motivations, the public, especially the news media, need to move beyond simplistic thinking and assume that there is some deeper complex rationale why people engage is extreme kinds of human behavior like murder.

Photo Credit
Title: Crime Scene Investigations 990 / North Las Vegas Police CSI
Photographer: TDelCoro