Inmate Code

Origins

There are two general schools of thought as to how and why inmate subculture develops. Some scholars have suggested that the subculture present in any institution is of indigenous origin and develops in response to the specific conditions of confinement and the problems of adjustment posed by the pains of imprisonment. Sociologist Gresham Sykes (1958) outlined five major pains of imprisonment: rejection by the free community, lack of goods and services available in the outside world (and often replacement with inferior products), deprivation of sexual intimacy, deprivation of autonomy or a nearly complete lack of independence, and the loss of physical security. Sykes and others have argued that the inmate subculture and the corresponding inmate code developed as an adaptation to these pains of imprisonment and to the particular problems and challenges of life as an inmate.

Alternatively, John Irwin and Donald Cressey (1962) argued that the inmate subculture is not unique to prisons at all. They claimed “it seems rather obvious that the ‘prison code’—don't inform on or exploit another inmate, don't lose your head, be weak, or be a sucker, etc.—is also part of a criminal code, existing outside of prison” (p. 145). This position is referred to as the direct importation model, which suggests that the personal identities, values, and loyalties that inmates bring into the institution from the outside give shape to the subculture. In this view, the inmate code is a version of the criminal code that many inmates had adopted and lived by for most of their lives before entering prison. As such, they come into the institutions valuing toughness, respect, and the ability to “take it.” They have faced adversity in their lives and they have learned to keep their eyes open and their mouths shut. They understand, above all else, the importance of doing their own time and letting others do theirs.

...