Prison misconduct among mentally retarded inmates

Abstract

This article examines prison misconduct of inmates who tested as mentally retarded, borderline intellectual functioning, and intellectually normal. The sample is drawn from a cohort of inmates released from the New York State correctional system. Misconduct is measured by examining official documents and is divided into two types: non‐violent and violent incidents. Analysis of variance suggests that the mentally retarded had significantly higher reported mean annual rates of involvement in both non‐violent and violent incidents. However, results of multiple regression analysis indicate that, when controlling for the effects of several social and criminal history factors, IQ score has a significant effect on the violent, but not the non‐violent, incident rate. Age and employment status at time of arrest have the strongest influence on an inmate’s disciplinary incident rate, while IQ score has the smallest influence of the variables examined in this study.

Rate and characteristics of men with an intellectual disability in pre‐trial detention

“…They tend not to adapt well to the prison environment and do not fit in with the general prison population or with the population of individuals with mental health problems (Smith, Algozzine, Schmid, & Hennly, 1990). They also tend to exhibit conduct problems in detention facilities (Finn, 1992(Finn, , 1993 and as a result are often put in segregation (Kirby & Keon, 2006). In addition, their communication and comprehension difficulties may compromise their ability to access to various services and programs.…”

Beyond specialist programmes: a study of the needs of offenders with intellectual disability requiring psychiatric attention

“…1995), Scandinavia (Hodgins 1992) and Australia (New South Wales Law Reform Commission 1996). The ‘typical’ offender with an ID is disadvantaged by a wide range of psychological and social difficulties: nearly always a young male, he is more likely than his nondisabled counterpart to be single, belong to a minority group, have been imprisoned previously, have experienced institutionalization, abuse and neglect as a child, have come from a disrupted family, have been segregated in a special school, have needed supported accommodation and generally lead a somewhat chaotic lifestyle (Day 1988; Garcia & Steele 1988; Finn 1992; Noble & Conley 1992; Hayes 1995; Glaser & Deane 1999). Once involved in the criminal justice system, there are additional major problems: it is more likely that the offender with ID will be arrested, confess, be refused bail, be found incompetent (unfit) to stand trial, plead guilty, receive a custodial sentence, be denied parole and experience abuse and harassment in prison (Noble & Conley 1992; Glaser 1996).…”

Normalisation in an Abnormal World: A Study of Prisoners with an Intellectual Disability

“…Realistically, however, they remain burdened with multiple personal and social disadvantages that significantly increase their vulnerability in the criminal justice system. Offenders with an intellectual disability are more likely to be uneducated, unemployed, poor, members of an indigenous minority, have suffered from childhood neglect or abuse, have deficits in social and communications skills, and suffer from a behaviour or psychiatric disorder (Day, 1988;Finn, 1992;Garcia & Steele, 1988;Hayes, 1995;Lund, 1990;MacEachron, 1979;Noble & Conley, 1992). They are also more likely to have their crimes detected and, once apprehended, be ignorant of, or unwilling to, exercise their rights, being therefore more likely to confess, plead guilty, be defended by publicly funded lawyers, receive longer sentences, be denied parole, and be victimised in the prison system (Denkowski & Denkowski, 1985;Fabrycki Reed, 1989;Hayes & Craddock, 1992;McAfee & Gural, 1988;Santamour, 1986;Smith, Algozzine, Schmid, & Hennly, 1990).…”