hydrarchist submits "

What
is The New School of Convict Criminology?

"That's
the reality, and to hell with what the class-room
bred, degree toting, grant-hustling 'experts' say
from their well-funded, air-conditioned offices far
removed from the grubby realities of the prisoners'
lives."

Rideau
and Wikberg, 1992: 59

Dr Jeffery Ian Ross and Stephen C. Richards •
FedCURE Newsletter. Winter: 6, 14.

[Introduction,
"What is the New School of Convict Criminology?"]

The
correctional system in the United States, and most
other countries, is unquestionably flawed. Efforts
to reform jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities
have largely failed and the number of individuals
incarcerated is at its highest historic level. There
is also something wrong when criminology/criminal
justice research is dominated by government funding,
conducted by academics or consultants who have had
minimal contact with the criminal justice system,
or by former employees of the law enforcement establishment
(ex- police, correctional, probation, or parole officers).
These individuals appear content to conduct research
from the safety and comfort of their offices, often
in an effort to simply increase the revenue of their
firms, improve their status inside their companies,
enhance their chances of tenure and promotion, or
improve the working conditions in correctional institutions.
Much of this "managerial research" routinely
disregards the harm perpetrated by criminal justice
processing of on individuals arrested, charged, and
convicted of crimes (Clear, 1994; Cullen, 1995).

If
legislators, practitioners, researchers, and scholars
are serious about addressing the corrections crisis
(e.g., Clear, 1994; Welch, 1996, 1999; Austin et al.,
2001; Austin and Irwin, 2001; Ross and Richards, 2002;
Richards, 2003), we need to be more honest and creative
with respect to the research we conduct and the policies
we advocate, implement, and evaluate. In an effort
to promote this objective, this chapter introduces
what we are calling "Convict Criminology,"
and reviews the theoretical and historical grounding,
current initiatives, and dominant themes of this emerging
school of social thought and movement.

Theoretical
and Historical Grounding

In
order to appreciate the context of convict criminology,
we need to understand the steps taken to arrive at
this juncture. Six interrelated movements, factors,
and methodologies led to the birth of convict criminology:
theoretical developments in criminology, writings
of in victimology and constitutive criminology, the
failure of prisons, the prisoners' rights movement,
the authenticity of insider perspectives, and the
centrality of ethnography.

Theoretical
Developments in Criminology

The
history of criminological theory consists of a series
of reform movements (Vold and Bernard, 1996). As early
as the 1920s, biologically based arguments of criminal
causation were being replaced by environmental, social-economic,
and behavioral explanations. Even in the field of
radical and critical criminology there have been a
series of divisions (Lynch, 1996). Since the 1970s,
critical criminology has splintered into complementary
perspectives including feminism (e.g., Chesney-Lind,
1991; Faith, 1993; Daly, 1994; Owen, 1998), postmodernism
(e.g., Arrigo, 1998a, 1998b: 109-127; Ferrell, 1998),
left realism (e.g., Young and Matthews, 1992), peacemaking
(e.g., Pepinsky and Quinney, 1991; Quinney, 1998),
and cultural criminology (e.g., Ferrell and Sanders,
1995a; Ferrell, 1996). This multiplicity of perspectives
suggests that radical and critical criminology has
broadened its intellectual endeavorscope. While although
these diverse discourses and "metanarratives...
open up some new conceptual and political space"
(Ferrell, 1998: 64), they too often remain the intellectual
products of the well meaning yet privileged, with
only minimal reference and relevance to the victims
of the criminal justice machine.

Victimology
and Constitutive Criminology

In
the 1960s and 1970s, criminologists realized that
victims' voices were almost totally ignored as casualties
of criminal justice processing. This initiated a subtle
paradigm shift and resulting in a fledgling social
movement and subdiscipline in criminology called "victimology"
(Karmen, 2001). In appreciation of victims' voices,
a new branch of criminology began to develop. Constitutive
criminology advocates "replacement discourses";
which suggest that researchers need to listen to the
messages of the oppressed who are seeking expression
(Henry and Milovanovic, 1996: 6; Milovanovic, 1996;
Richards and Jones, 1997; Richards, 1998). These are
"directed toward the dual process of deconstructing
prevailing structures of meaning and displacing them
with new conceptions, distinctions, words, and phrases,
which convey alternative meanings" (Henry and
Milovanovic, 1996: 204). This method helps to give
"voice to personal everyday experiences... of...
marginalized groups" (Renzetti, 1997: 133). Perhaps
in the new millennium criminologists and other social
scientists might also realize that convict1 voices,
in many instances, have been forgotten, marginalized,
or simply ignored (Gaucher, 1998: 2-16).

The Failure of Prisons



Many prominent criminologists have discussed the failure
of prisons to correct criminal behavior. The differential
effects of incarceration are well known. According
to Sutherland et al. Cressey, and Luckenbill (1992:
524), "Some prisoners apparently become 'reformed'
or 'rehabilitated,' while others become 'confirmed'
or 'hardened' criminals. For still others, prison
life has no discernible effect on subsequent criminality
or noncriminality." Johnson (1996: xi) suggested
that "prisoners serve hard time, as they are
meant to, but typically learn little of value during
their stint behind bars. They adapt to prison in immature
and often destructive ways. As a result, they leave
prison no better, and sometimes considerably worse,
then when they went in." Similarly, Reiman (1995:
2) argued that the correctional system was designed
to "maintain and encourage the existence of a
stable and visible 'class' of criminals."

Needless
to say, we should not assume all prisoners are criminals,
or that committing crime has anything to do with going
to prison the first time, and even less the second
or third. Considering the dramatic growth in prison
populations (Austin and Irwin, 2001: 1-16; Richards,
1998: 125-126), the numbers of "innocent"
victims will also continue to grow.

The
first failure of correctional institutions is that
they hold hundreds of thousands of prisoners who,
while although they were convicted of a crime, are
not violent felons and pose little if any threat to
the community. The second is that they hold people
too long; as Austin and Irwin (2001: 143-146) demonstrated,
it is about time, not just "hard time" (Johnson,
1996), but "long time" and "repeated
time" in prison. The third tragedy of prisons
is that they do not rehabilitate, "they don't
do more to rehabilitate those confined in them"
(Rideau, 1994: 80). Instead, prison systems function
as vast depositories for drug offenders, minorities,
and petty offenders. (J.G. Miller, 1996: 10-47; Austin
and Irwin, 2001: 17-62). One cursory look at the gun
towers, walls, and razor wire is evidence that prisons
were built to warehouse and punish and not to rehabilitate.

Prisoners' Rights Movement

At
several points in history, well-meaning individuals
and organizations (e.g., American Civil Liberties
Union; American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, International Conference
on Penal Abolition, etc.) have advocated improvements
in prison conditions through both conventional and
unconventional political participation. As a result
of the prisoners' rights movement, "correctional
institutions have been forced to rely less on coercive
mechanisms to control inmates and to resort to bureaucratic
measures instead. Today, prison officials must formally
respond to grievances and lawsuits by producing their
own reports concerning the alleged violations"
(Welch, 1996: 370). "Inmates themselves also
are affected by the prisoners' rights movement; they
have become acutely aware of their constitutional
rights and other legal safeguards. This movement has
promoted a higher level of political and legal consciousness
among prisoners" (Welch, 1996: 370).

Inside
Perspective

The
existing literature that provides an "inside
perspective" on crime and convicts can be divided
into six groups. The first group are edited anthologies
by prison reform activists (e.g., Rosenblatt, 1996;
Burton-Rose, with Pens, and Wright, 1998). Embedded
in these works are chapters or short pieces written
by political activists, lawyers, journalists, and
prisoners. The second collection of writings are journalist's'
accounts of life inside prison (e.g., Mitford, 1973;
Wicker, 1975; Earley, 1993; Bergner, 1998; C. Parenti,
1999; Conover, 2000; Hallinan, 2001; Abramsky, 2002).
Third, prison journalism (J. Morris, 1998), written
by convicts, appears in prison newspapers, like The
Angolite, or in narrowly focused academic journals
(e.g., The Journal of Prisoners on Prisons).
The fourth group includes edited collections of authentic
convict writing (e.g., Martin, with Sussman, 1995;
Franklin; 1998; J. Morris, 1998; R. Johnson and Toch,
1999; Leder, 1999; Chevigny, 2000). The fifth collection
group includes are sole-authored books or edited works
by academics that may employ observation and/or interviews
of criminal offenders or convicts (e.g., E. Miller,
1986; Fleisher, 1989; Schultz, 1991; Churchill and
Vanderwall, 1992; R. Johnson, 1996; Cromwell, 1996;
Johnson, 1996; Walens, 1997,; May, 2000). The last,
and most prominent category, is composed of monographs
written by convicts about life in prison (e.g., Jenet,
1949a, 1949b; Chessman, 1954, 1955, 1957; Cleaver,
1968; G. Jackson, 1970, 1972; Abbott, 1981; Rideau
and Wikberg, 1992; Abu-Jamal, 1995; Hassine, 1996;
Peltier, 1999).

The
first four groups of writers, be they convicts, activists,
journalists, or academic editors, write "stories"
or investigative reports, rarely connecting their
discussion to the debates found in the scholarly literature.
The fifth collection of authors are academics, who,
while though they support their research with excerpts
from prisoner interviews, and may themselves at one
time have been employed inside prisons, are still
writing from a privileged perspective as compared
to the lived experience of convicts. The last final
group of authors write authentic and compelling accounts
of prison life, but are generally unable todo not
ground their discussion in academic research (Gaucher,
1999). Missing or underutilized are the research accounts
by academics who themselves have served prison time.

Centrality
of Ethnography

Convict
criminology is also the logical result of criminologists
(e.g., Newbold, 1982/1985, 1987; Fleisher, 1989; Ferrell,
1993; Richards, 1995a; Ferrell and Hamm, 1998) using
ethnographic methods in order to better understand
their subject matter. Clearly, the use of ethnographic
methods is not new in the field of penology or corrections
(e.g., Sutherland, 1937; Sykes 1956, 1958; Sykes and
Messinger, 1960; J. Jacobs, 1977; Peak, 1985; Lombardo,
1989; Farkas, 1992). For example, during the 1930s
Clemmer (1940/1958), while employed as a sociologist
on the prison mental health staff of Menard Penitentiary
(Illinois), collected extensive information on the
convict social system. More recently, Fleisher (1989)
spent a year working as a "mainline" (guard
assigned to cell blocks and housing units) federal
correctional officer (a guard assigned to cell blocks
and housing units) as a means to compile observation
and interview data about both "cons" and
"hacks."

Exconvict
academics have also carried out a number of significant
ethnographic studies. Irwin, who served prison time
in California, drew upon his experience as a convict
to interview prisoners and analyze jail admissions
and subtle processes in prison in a series of articles
and monographs (Irwin and Cressey 1962, ; Irwin, 1970,
1980, 1985a; Austin and Irwin, 2001), drew upon his
experience as a convict to interview prisoners and
analyze jail admissions and subtle processes in prison.
McCleary (1978/1992), who did both state and federal
time, wrote his classic "sociology of parole"
through participant observation of parole officers
at work and on the street. Terry (1997), a former
California and Oregon state convict, wrote about how
prisoners used humor to mitigate the managerial domination
of penitentiary authorities. Newbold (1982/1985, 1989,
2000), having served prison time in New Zealand, used
both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze
crime and corrections in his country. Richards and
Jones (1997), both former prisoners, used "inside
experience" to inform their observation and interviews
of Iowa convicts upon their transfer to community
work release centers. Finally, Richards, Terry, and
Murphy (2002) wrote about the relationship between
male prisoners and female correctional officers. Each
of these studies of benefited from the inside experience
of the investigators.

The
previously reviewed movements, factors, and methodologies
suggests that while academic criminology has flourished
intellectually, and has made serious efforts to extend
theoretical ideas, there remains a disjuncture, and
serious distance, between the critical empirical literature
and the real world of convicts. Our remoteness from
our subject might be considered as a crisis best remedied
by utilizing the emerging research we are introducing
as convict criminology.

Current
Initiatives

Having
outlined the factors contributing towards the formation
of the New School of Convict Criminology, we are in
a better position to consider the initiatives that
our collective effort has taken to date. The subjects
covered include defining the NewSchool of Convict
Criminology, and then discuss

1. 
   the collaborative nature of our project,


2. 
   inclusion criteria,
3. 
   understanding who these peoplethe convict authors
   are,


4. 
   the preeminence of John Irwin, remembering that


5. 
   the little-recognized fact that criminologists also
   commit crimes, its


6. the
   field's objectives, and issues


7. 
   the schoolfield's issue-oriented nature, and, finally
   
8. the
   specific questions addressed by the authors in this
   book.

Defining
the New School of Convict Criminology

The emerging field of convict criminology is consists
primarily of essays and empirical research written
by convicts or exconvicts, on their way to completing
or already in possession of a Ph.D., or by enlightened
academics who critique existing literature, policies,
and practices, thus contributing to a new perspective
on prisons, criminology, criminal justice, corrections,
and community corrections. This is a "new criminology"
(I. Taylor, Walton, and Young, 1973) led by exconvicts
who are now academic faculty. These men and women,
who have worn both prison uniforms and academic regalia,
served years behind prisons walls, and now, as academics,
are the primary architects of the movement. The convict
scholars are able to do what most previous writers
could not: merge their past with their present and
provide a provocative approach to the academic study
of criminology, criminal justice, and corrections.
These authors, as a collective, are the future of
a realistic paradigm that promises to challenge the
conventional research findings of the past

.

The exconvict professors have endured years of lockup
in penitentiaries and correctional institutions, lived
in crowded, noisy, violent cell blocks, and emerged
to complete graduate degrees and become professors
of sociology, criminology, criminal justice, and related
disciplines. They have an intimate knowledge of "penal
harm" (Clear, 1994), that which they carry in
their heads and hearts, and in some cases wear as
scars and tattoos upon their skin. They are like Steinbeck's
character Tom Joad (portrayed by Henry Fonda in the
movie) in The Grapes of Wrath; they are people with
something to say, with an anger that will not betray
them. They do not write merely for vitae lines, promotions,
or tenure. They write so that one day the ghosts will
sleep.

Together,
exconvict graduate students and professors are now
working together to build their expertise in both
subject and methodology.

The
editors of this book assembled the current cohort,
through an elaborate network of contacts, numerous
phone calls, e-mails, and faxes. We now number over
a dozen excon professors of sociology, criminology,
and criminal justice, from Anglo-American democracies.
To this we add a growing number of exconvict graduate
students that are joining us as they complete their
dissertations, and as well as established criminologists
without criminal records, who are well known for their
critical orientation toward managerial criminology,
criminal justice, and corrections.

The
dramatic expansion in arrests, convictions, and the
rate of incarceration guarantees that the number of

professors with profound and traumatic firsthand experience
with the criminal justice system will continue to
increase. In addition, some of the most important
members of our growing group are prominent critical
criminologists, who, while though not excons, have
contributed to both the content and context of our
new school. This growing pool of talent, with its
remarkable insight and resources, is the foundation
of our effort.

Collaborative
Nature

This
school is a collaborative effort of enthusiastic participants.
Over the last few years, most of these convict criminologists
have met, socialized together, and participated in
a number of panels and roundtables (e.g., "Convicts
Critique Criminology" and "Convict Criminology"),
at the American Society of Criminology (ASC;: 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), and the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS: ; 2000, 2001), and
the American Correctional Association (2001, 2002)
annual conferences. This provided us with a means
to get to know one another, become familiar with our
published work, and current projects, and discuss
future initiatives.

One
of our first group decisions was concerned with the
proper direction and title of the project that eventually
yielded the present book. Two choices emerged: "Convicts
Critique Criminology," with all the authors having
served time, or the preferred choice, "Convict
Criminology," a perspective that emerges not
only from prisoners' experience, but also from efforts
to control state criminality (e.g., Barak, 1991; J.
Ross, 1995/2000, 2000b), the radical/critical literature
(e.g., Taylor, Walton, and Young, 1973; L. Ross, 1998),
and the input of enlightened academics. Thus, we agreed,
a person does not have to be a convict to write convict
criminology. Nevertheless, the majority of contributors
are exconvicts.

Inclusion
Criteria

Those
writing in the convict criminology tradition are at
various points in their academic careers. Some of
them are established scholars, while whereas others
are just completing their graduate studies. Many of
them, are accomplished researchers and writers; some
are just beginning. Convict experience and a terminal
degree were not the only criteria for inclusion. As
we know, there are plenty of folks who are part of
our club (the Ph.D. one) who are poor researchers
and/or do not write well. Conversely, there are lots
of individuals who have not gotten past their B.A.
who can write circles around the best of us. Additionally,
only including persons with Ph.D.'s would be elitist,
something that we would not tolerate given our personal
and political dispositions., something that we would
not tolerate. In order to master our craft, experienced
contributors have encouraged, and mentored, emerging
talent.

Who
Are These People?

We
now number some two dozen exconvict graduate students
and professors working at universities, including
five former federal prisoners. Add to this convicts
still in prison that we correspond with and publish
in different venues. We also have a growing group
of “non-con” convict criminologists that
co-author with the excons and participate in our activities.

In terms of academic experience, The the convict authors
can be described, in terms of academic experience,
as three distinct cohorts. The first are the more
senior members, full and associate professors, some
with distinguished research records. A second group
of assistant professors is just beginning to contribute
to the field. The third, only some of whom have been
identified, are the graduate student exconvicts. As
this process continues, some of these former prisoners
will complete their graduate educations and become
the future cohorts of the new school.

Regardless
of academic status, we can understand the exconvicts
as belong to two distinct groups with different personal
dispositions towards our collective project, with
considerable overlap. The first group supported the
"new school" with little if any hesitation.
Some of these members are known excon academics (e.g.,
Robert Gaucher, John Irwin, Richard Jones, Charles
Lanier, Greg Newbold, Stephen Richards, Chuck Terry,
Edward Tromanhauser). The second group are excon professors
and graduate students who share our perspective correspondence,
and provide those of us who are "out" with
encouragement, but who for a number of personal and
professional reasons, have elected to remain anonymous,
"in" the closet, where only their trusted
friends know of their past. Some of their personal
reasons include their reluctance to revisit a painful
time in life, and a wish to put the past behind them.
Professionally, a number of the convict professors
have expressed concerns that by appearing in this
book they might be denied fair access to government
research grants. A few of the graduate students are
were concerned about "coming out" while
still in graduate school, and before they have tested
the job market. All the contributors respect their
these decisions.

The
excons undoubtedly provide convict criminology with
unique and original experiential resources, but some
of the most important contributors may yet prove to
be scholars, who while though having never served
prison time, and are contributing to our efforts.

The
Purpose of Convict Criminology

Our
first goal is to impact the academic knowledge base
on prisons. As exconvict professors of sociology,
criminology, and criminal justice we are deeply disappointed
in the academic literature published on prisons. With
some exception, most of the existing literature is
written from a managerial viewpoint, that of prison
administrators, and does not reflect the experience
and insights of prisoners and their families. As written,
most academic studies and textbooks used in college
classrooms fail to truthfully describe conditions
of confinement and the damage done to prisoners.

Our
second goal is to use our dual roles as excons and
professors to challenge the public perception of prisoners.
We represent the potential of people now warehoused
in our nation’s prison systems. There are many
men and women wasting away in penitentiaries and correctional
institutions that need immediate access to college
courses and advanced training, may have or will, at
some time in the future, be arrested, charged, and
or convicted of crimes. This situation may lead them
to be reasonably empathetic.

Some
of the early nonconvict recruits to the new school,
as either supporters or contributors, include William
Archambeault, Bruce Arrigo, James Austin, Michael
Brooks, Preston Elrod, Jeff Ferrell, Marianne Fisher-Giorlando,
Barbara Owen, Jeffrey Ian Ross, Randy Shelden, Jim
Thomas, Bill Tregea, and Michael Welch. The inclusion
of non-excons in the new school's original cohort
provides the means to extend the influence of the
new schoolthis emerging perspective, while also supporting
existing critical criminology perspectives.

Our
third goal, implied by the first two, it should be
noted, that while that although the sample is too
small to draw significant conclusions, the majority
of excon scholars are educated in sociology and criminology,
with a smaller number in criminal justice, and a few
more in social work, public administration, and education.
This may indicate the relative acceptance and level
of support provided excons as students in different
disciplines, or how graduate programs may be struggling
to recruit new students. Of course, there may be other
excon academics whom we have failed to count in disciplines
unrelated to criminology or criminal justice, for
example chemistry or math, who would have little professional
interest in our projects. Finally, three departments
should be recognized for producing a handful of exconvict
professors over the years and have having a few more
in the pipeline: are the Department of Sociology at
the University of California, Berkeley (Irwin); the
Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the
University of California, Irvine (Mobley, Terry);
the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University
(Jones, Murphy, Richards); and the School of Criminal
Justice of the State University of New York at Albany
(Lanier, LeBel, Lockwood).

The
outlines of the new school of convict criminology's
mission and purpose emerged as writers shared their
experiences they have had with prison and academia.
This represents an effort to revitalize the criminological
literature with research validated by personal experience.
Together, these academic authors critique existing
theory and present new research from a convict or
insider perspective. In short, they "tell it
like it is." In doing so, they hope to illuminate
convey the message that "it's about time"
(Austin and Irwin, 2001) --time served, time lost,
and time that taught us the lessons we share. In demarcating
the field of study for this new school approach to
criminology, the contributors recognize that they
are not the first to criticize the prison and correctional
practices. They pay their respects to those that have
raised critical questions about prisons and suggested
realistic humane reforms. The problem is that, as
Clear wrote in the foreword to McCleary's (1978/1992:
ix) Dangerous Men, "Why does it seem that
all good efforts to build reform systems seems inevitably
to disadvantage the offender?" The answer is
that, despite the best of intentions, reform systems
were never intended to help convicts. The real problem
is that the reformers rarely even bothered to ask
the convicts what reforms they desired. The new school
of convict criminology corrects this oversight because
its scholars are primarily educated "con-sultants"
(Mitford, 1973: 15).

The
Preeminence of John Irwin

The
most prominent exconvict criminologist is John Irwin.
His work and professional conduct over the years has
inspired the group. In 1997, in San Diego, we had
our first panel (organized by Chuck Terry) at an ASC
annual meeting. That evening, over dinner, Irwin,
along with James Austin, Stephen Richards, and Chuck
Terry, discussed the potential of convict criminology.
Irwin (Irwin and Cressey, 1962: ; Irwin, 1970, 1980,
1985a; Austin and Irwin, 2001) recalled how he had
always wanted to assemble a group of excon scholars
to write criminology from a convict perspective. The
problem was, over the last forty years, there have
only been a few exconvicts that held academic positions.
Ironically, the drug war, and the concomitant dramatic
increase in prison populations in the last two decades,
has added to our numbers, and provided the opportunity
to assemble this group.

Irwin
has mentored and supported the group from the beginning.
We have held long informal meetings, at ASC and ACJS
conferences, with Irwin generously spending time getting
to know each member of the group. He would ask each
one of us about our criminal past, academic status,
and future plans. Irwin's counsel has been for us
to honestly declare who we are, to articulate what
we experienced and observed, and to do ethnography
that tells the truth (Ferrell and Hamm, 1998; J.M.
Miller and Tewksbury, 2000).

Criminologists
Commit Crime Too

In
the past five years, some criminologists have reaffirmed
the idea that the commission of crime is widespread,
and that what separates most individuals from becoming
so-called "criminals" is the fact that the
latter were have been detected and processed by the
criminal justice system while whereas the former were
have never been caught (Gabor, 1995). Moreover, Robinson
and Zaitzow's (1999) recent study indicates that academic
criminologists have engaged in a variety of "criminal,
deviant, and unethical behaviors," with varying

levels of commitment based on their age and type of
behavior. These findings demonstrate that many people
in our profession have a more intimate relationship
with deviance and crime than they would care to admit,
and or that they would want the public to know. The
fact is there may be a fine line between who is a
criminal and who is not. The truth being that many
criminologists may be more than just curious or fascinated
by crime. They may even reflect on, or remember, their
occasional, be it past or present, flirtations with
criminal violation.

Objectives
of Convict Criminology

Convict
criminology challenges managerial criminology, criminal
justice, and corrections. Research and publication
by this group (e.g., Richards and Jones, 1997; Terry,
1997; Richards, 1998 ; Richards and Avey, 2000; Newbold,
2000; Austin and Irwin, 2001; Richars, Terry and Murphy,
2002; Ross and Richards, 2002) should be viewed as
a dramatic attempt to critique, update, and improve
the critical literature in the field. We have two
goals. First, to transform the way research on prisons
is conducted. Second, to insist that our professional
associations (e.g., ASC, ACJS) begin to articulate
policy reforms that makes will make the criminal justice
system humane.

Issue-Based
Nature of Convict Criminology

Convict
criminology is issue based and not necessarily structured
by the traditional disciplinary divisions assumed
by criminology, criminal justice, or corrections.
These subjects generally provide description ofdescribe
the etiology of crime, stages of the criminal justice
system, or and correctional control as separate entities.
Unfortunately, too often this approach has too often
resulted in piecemeal research and analysis conducted
by armchair technicians and theorists with precious
little practical understanding of crime, criminals,
and corrections (Austin, this volume).

Most
academic criminologists fail to penetrate and comprehend
the lived experience of defendants and prisoners,
or are simply misinformed. In comparison, convict
criminology is research carried out by our "felonious
friends," who have both personal and abstract
knowledge of the criminal justice machinery. Our work
is held together by a number of themes, including,
but not limited to,: understanding the convict experience,
foregrounding forming convict identity, issues of
survival in the convict world, transforming academic
criminology/criminal justice, and proposing realistic
policy alternatives.

Questions
Asked and Answered by This Book

A
series of questions are answered by the convict criminology
authors in this book. What is wrong with the criminology,
criminal justice, and corrections literature? What
is missing from the literature and discipline? How
do the views of excon academics differ from those
without insider status? What is it like for exprisoners
to read academic material about crime, criminals,
and corrections? What did the writers learn about
the criminal justice system from being processed through
arrest, court, jail, prison, and release? What unique
research methods did the convict authors employ in
their research? Why do authors need to be honest and
truthful about themselves as they approach their research
and writing? Did the prisoners' views on crime and
corrections change when they became scholars? What
obstacles did these excons experience as university
employees? As exconvict professors, how do colleagues
perceive them? What suggestions do former prisoners
have for the reform of criminology, criminal justice,
and prisons? Needless to say, in editing an endeavor
like this one, we could not cover every possible subject
imaginable, connected to corrections and incarceration.
Our hope is that we have covered the most important
issues.

The
structure of this book reflects the three core themes
of convict criminology: critiquing corrections; foregrounding
forming the convict experience and identity; and understanding
special populations in jails, prisons, and other correctional
facilities. The chapters critique existing theory
and present new research from a convict or insider
perspective. In short, they "tell it like it
is." The book is divided into three parts: "What's
Wrong with Corrections" (Austin; Ross; Fisher-Giorlando),
"Convict Experience and Identity" (Tromanhauser;
Terry; Richards; Newbold; Lanier; Jones; Mobley),
and "Special Populations" (Owen; Murphy;
Arrigo; Archambeault; Tregea; Elrod and Brooks).

Part
I opens with Austin's chapter, which outlines how
government-funded research studies were used to justify
the dramatic increase in prison admissions. Ross explores
how important cultural industries have misrepresented
prison and prisoners as a means to increase corporate
profits. Finally, Fisher-Giorlando, who teaches in
the criminal justice department at Grambling State
University, underscores the importance of personal
contact with the prison world. "In this day and
age of a 'get tough' mentality and the public fear
of criminals," she writes, "it is important
to expose criminal justice students and the lay public
to the prisoner as a person, not the horrible monster
that the press paints." She relates how the study
of prison became her life's work.

Part II examines the closely linked issues of convict
experience and identity. The most dominant theme in
convict criminology is the study of personal transformation
and self-concept, which is the central issue in understanding
corrections. Tromanhauser talked talks about the problems
of defining crime and understanding recidivism, and
in passing,also told tells the story of his 40 years
of experience with the criminal justice system as
armed robber, convict, and professor. Terry, perhaps
more than any other writer in this volume, documented
relates his the personal dimension in his journey
changes from west coast surfer and occasional drug
user to habitual offender, convict, university student,
and now professor. He highlighted highlights his own
self-discovery and the way he found new reference
groups as a cushion against social alienation. Then,
Richards shared shares his incarceration experiences
and took takes the reader on a journey through the
federal prison system. His chapter introduced introduces
a new convict typology and emphasized emphasizes the
active resistance of prisoners to long-term incarceration.
Newbold discussed discusses his time served in a New
Zealand penitentiary, and how it contrasts with what
we know about U.S. prisons. Lanier addressed addresses
the very painful subject of convict fathers. Jones
looked looks at the problems of managing the disclosure
of having a prison record, especially in light of
his own experience as a graduate student and professor.
Last, Mobley described describes his personal dilemma
of being an exconvict while entering a private prison
to conduct research. In short, the convict criminologist
contributors emphasized how their life experience
transformed their self-concept and identity.

Part III looks at some of the special populations
in prison. This research demonstrates the vulnerability
of prisoners. Owen starts off the examination of special
populations with her discussion of discussed how women
do time. Her study illustrates the need for ethnographic
studies of women in prison. Murphy reviews how he
and other prisoners with serious health concerns,
despite inadequate medical services, managed to survive
and maintain their dignity in federal medical prisons.
Arrigo shares stories about how he, as a mental health
caseworker, visited homeless people, many of whom
had prison records, as they struggled to survive after
being shifted from one institutional environment to
another (transcarceration). He also documented documents
how he tried to help his clients cope with the personal
damage they had sustained and interpret that experience.
Archambeault educates us about human diversity and
the experience of Native Americans in prison. Tregea
relates his experience teaching in a variety of correctional
settings. He outlined how he, and a number of other
college instructors, although starting their jobs
out of economic necessity, were transformed by the
experience and became advocates for higher education
programs in prisons. Elrod and Brooks discuss how
they learned by observing and interviewing in jail
that children were being socialized to become future
adult prisoners. They recommend that children and
adolescents be immediately removed from adult jails.

The
tone of the discussion may be somewhat more dramatic
than what is expected in an academic text. All the
contributors in this book are profoundly disappointed
with most of what passes for respectable scholarship
in this field. Unfortunately, the discipline is rarely
grounded in reality and continues to be dominated
by researchers that serve political masters rather
than the needs of prisoners. The contributions in
this book, we hope, will serve as a wake-up call to
criminologists, policy makers, and the public.

Conclusion:
Development and Support of Critical Criminological
Perspectives

As
the field of critical criminology matures, it will
continue to incorporate new voices, ostensibly challenge
established hypotheses and theories, and develop new
ones. Critical criminology, in particular continues
to contribute many of the most innovative theoretical
and developments. It is our hope that the new school
of convict criminology will encourage critical criminologists
to "ground" their theory in ethnographic
accounts. This, in turn, will inform specific policy
recommendations that will encourage academics, policy
makers, and correctional administrators.

As
the prison population continues to grow, so too will
the number of individuals released back to the community.
Many of these persons, as they reenter conventional
society, will attend universities and study criminology,
criminal justice, and corrections. Stanley Cohen (1988/1992:
299) suggested this scenario in "The Last Seminar":

"