Tattoo prohibition behind bars: the case for repeal.

Summary

---

Report

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Tattoo prohibition behind bars: the case for repeal.

Abstract

Performing or receiving tattoos is forbidden in American prisons. What are the intentions behind this prohibition? Does the policy meet its intentions? Does it promote the broader ends of prison institutions: to protect justice, provide efficient correctional services, rehabilitate criminals, and deter crime? I argue that repealing the prohibition of inmate tattooing would achieve outcomes more in line with the intentions of prison management than does the current prohibition policy.

I. Introduction

Correctional institutions in the United States prohibit inmates from giving and receiving tattoos. (1) According to most correctional code of conduct manuals, tattooing is formally a "minor violation." (2) When inmates violate these rules, they are subject to informal punishments. They lose recreation time and visitation privileges, the tattoo equipment is confiscated and destroyed, and charges count against parole possibilities in the future. De facto punishment for tattooing can be more severe when tattooing is considered "gang-related." If authorities judge an inmate to be a gang member, the inmate's sentence can be converted to a solitary housing facility. (3) In effect, tattooing is more strictly prohibited than the explicit regulations would lead a casual observer to infer.

The mission statements and inmate codes of conduct for state correction agencies do not specifically explain the intentions behind tattoo prohibitions. (4) Instead, inmate code of conduct manuals describe the protocol of tattoo prohibition, correctional department mission statements list the broad intentions of prisons, and correctional managers, health researchers, and crime experts point out the negative consequences of prison tattoos. Prohibition and enforcement against tattooing is the default policy from the established perspective that tattooing is harmful.

Current policies and enforcements are meant to be in line with the general mission statements of correctional departments. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice describes its mission thus: "to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society and assist victims of crime" (2004, p.5). The Michigan Department of Corrections (2008), another high prison population state, states on its website that its goal is "to provide the greatest amount of public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's resources." How does the prohibition on prison tattooing aim to ...

See the full content of this document

---