Institutional aggression is a significant problem; as a result of this various explanations have been proposed in an attempt to combat this. For example, the Importation model and the Deprivation model.
Firstly, the Importation Model suggests that the prisoners themselves become violent, as they bring to prison their own social traits, which results in the subsequent aggressive behaviour. For example, Mills, Kroner and Weekes found that higher levels of misconduct in prison were associated with severe levels of alcohol dependence – which supports the theory that the prisoners are the aggressors, not their environment. Additionally, Kane and Janus found that lack of education and greater periods of unemployment were also connected with higher levels of aggression, however, this is a correlation so a distinct cause and effect cannot be established. Furthermore, Irwin and Cressey recognised the importance of subcultures in prison, identifying repeat offenders as members of subcultures such as ‘The Convict subculture’ who are more likely to be aggressive, whereas one time offenders (‘The Straight subculture’) are less likely to be aggressive. Again, this supports the theory that it is the prisoners themselves that choose to be aggressive or not, therefore the Important Model supports free will as opposed to determinism. The model has been criticised for having little practical use; meaning that it does not shed much light into possible solutions to the institutional aggression problem.
