In Kilroy’s (2004:5) study of prions in Australia, she found that women prisoners did not have adequate programs, both educational and skill based. She agrees with Chesney-Lind and Pasko and Shover and Einstadter and states that women are penalised for the fact that they make-up a small percentage of Australia’s prison population. She further states that it is clear the programs provided to women prisoners are not comparable in “quantity, quality, or variety” to those provided to male prisoners.
A female inmate from a maximum-security prison, Mulawa in New South Wales states, “There should be equality for women and men. We know that the male inmates get more than us women and it doesn’t seem right. I know a few women who have been in prison in other states and it’s the same there. The men get more than the women.” (Hampton 1993:4). In the United States, the work assignments that are available to women in prison are numerous but tend to be trivial in nature. Programs on offer are things such as cosmetology, office skills, sewing, and horticulture. Few prisons train women in skills to help them become independent on their release. There is instead emphasised training for traditional women's low skilled jobs because of traditional definitions of gender roles. (Zaitzow 2003:33)
Byrne and Howells as cited in Mitchell (2005:18) hold a different opinion and states that in Australia, prisons have a number of core programs that people in prison undergo and these programs rarely differ in availability for male and female offenders. The National Institute of corrections supports this opinion and states, “there is equality in the deliverance of and general availability of educational and vocational programs at both men and women’s prisons in the United States.” (NIC 2006) This last comment must be treated critically however as it is in the best interest of the corrections that they be held in the best light possible and it may be a possibility that in policy may not reflect practice.
Educational and vocational programs in women’s prisons are not as adequate, varied or as functional, compared to that of male prisons. It is clear, based on evidence presented that there is a discrepancy as to what is on offer at a male penal institution compared to that of a female institution. Educational programming in women’s prions is often inadequate and lacking in suitable and useable content. Reasons for this have been identified as their lack of statistical power in the prison system. As a result, women are indeed punished differently to men, as they do not have the same access to educational or vocational programs that men do. If women were punished as if they were men they would have the same access to the same sort of programs that men would and this would not include “traditional low skilled jobs” that are a result of traditional gender roles.
In the world of prison discipline, there are inconsistencies between the inner custodial regimes of women and men in prison. Women are disciplined more than men for petty unnecessary breaches of rules that would not usually be tolerated at a men’s prison (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 2004:163). A study conducted in 1994, which examined disciplinary practices at men and women’s prisons in Texas put together two samples of inmates and followed them for a 1-year period. After the year had passed most men in the sample, 63.5% had no or only one citation for a rule violation and only 17.1% of the women in the sample had similar results. It was found in the study that women prisoners were much more likely to receive many more citations than men were and for drastically different sorts of offences. Most commonly women were cited for violation of rules, as well as this, women were more likely to receive the most severe sanctions including solitary confinement. (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 163:2004). The women in the study were cited for breaking rules that including having “too many photographs on display”, “failing to eat all the food on their plates” and “talking in the pill line” (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 163:2004). Women in the study were also known to be disciplined for possession of contraband, which could include such things as an extra bra or pillowcase peppermint sticks or a borrowed comb or hat. Trafficking and trading instances of sharing shampoo in a shower and lighting another inmate’s cigarette were also met with citations and punishment (163:2004 Chesney-Lind Pasko).
The author of the study concluded that there existed two very different forms of surveillance and control operating in the male and female prisons the female being the much stricter of the two. Research such as this shows clear evidence than women in prison are over policed and over controlled in institutional settings and if men were controlled to the extent that women were, they would probably riot. (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 164:2004).
Braithwaite, Treadwell & Arriola (2005:1678) offer supporting opinions and state that in comparison to prisons for men, rules within women’s prisons tend to be greater in number and pettier in nature. Women prisoners are commonly cited for disciplinary offences that are typically ignored within male institutions and while women are less violent than the men, they appear to receive a greater number of disciplinary citations for less serious infractions. In Mulawa, a New South Wales women’s prison a similar study was done, the study indicated that petty sentences for petty offences were being given out and there was unnecessary interference with women prisoner’s daily lives. The number of similar charges to that of the women’s, at Long Bay the main male prison in NSW was not significant enough to appear separately in statistical research. (Hampton 1993:32)
In reference to the discipline conditions in men’s prisons Little affirms (1994:182) that “In men’s prisons the difference between the severity of the punishment and the triviality of the offence is often extraordinary.” He states that men in prison can be disciplined for petty offences as well, “It all depends on how the custodial staff are feeling that day.” This unpredictability and discrepancy between punishment and crime can be parallelled to the experience of women in prison but one of the major differences in discipline between men and women can be seen as the frequent disciplining for mostly trivial offences, which does not seem to occur as frequently in the men’s prison as the women’s as noted by the study in Texas and New South Wales.
Disciplinary procedures at women’s prisons in both the United States and Australia reflect a much harsher and pettier regime than that of men’s prisons. Women are more likely to be cited for infractions that would scarcely be tolerated at a male prison. Because of this, it can be noted that women are not punished as if they were men as the day-to-day regime of rules and regulations is more strict and infantile in nature. If women were punished as if they were men, they would be served with less infractions of a pettier nature and instead live under a prison regime that is not as strict in nature or practice.
As stated in the a previous paragraph historical views of male and female criminality have shaped the way women's and men’s prisons have been architecturally designed in regards to look, feel and purpose. The architectural design of the male prison has been traditionally based upon the belief that the male criminal is aggressive and dangerous (Giallombardo 1966:6). High retaining walls and looming gun towers were a norm at many male prisons and still are today (Weiss & South 1998:76). The woman’s prison however, was distinctively different. Giallombardo (1966:8) describes the women’s prison as a place that surrounded the inmates, with many of the so-called good influences of domesticity, these included small home like residencies, individual rooms and decentralized kitchens.
Giallombardo (1966:7) states that the goals of reforming women back into society as good mothers and housekeepers had important consequences for the formal organisation of the prison and the task, which was to train women to occupy roles in society as mothers and homemakers, was best accomplished under conditions, which approach home life. Chesney-Lind and Pasko (2004:159) agree and state that even today, women’s prisons have architectural differences compared to men’s, such as smaller living units and decentralized kitchens in recognition of traditional gender roles.
Zaitzow (2003:23) points out that on the surface, most women’s prisons are more attractive than men’s are. Some have been converted from country mansions, children’s homes and farms and the obvious aspect of security (such as gun towers) are often lacking. An example of this is the architecture The Federal Reformatory for Women in the United States in keeping with the principles of reformatories for women, the cottages there are built to operate as an independent unit with complete kitchen equipment, dinning room, living room, library and individual rooms for every inmate.” (Weiss & South 1998:76) An inmates perspective of The Federal Reformatory for Women, “When I came through the gate, I said to myself “this is a prison” all the trees and flowers I couldn’t believe it, it looked like a college with the buildings the trees and all the flowers” (Weiss & South 1998:76).
In Victoria the Dame Phyllis Frost women’s prison accommodation is explained as “cottage accommodation each unit has individual kitchen and dining facilities, prisoners are required to cook and prepare their own meals do their washing ironing and general house work. Compare this to the Marngoneet Correctional Centre for men also in Victoria, “ Accommodation,…forty beds cellular style… all meals supplied cell cleanliness inmates responsibility…clean clothes provided during morning muster.” (Victorian Department of Justice 2006) Even though this is one comparison of two prisons out of many in Australia currently in the system, it does serve to note that there is a distinct difference in the design of these two prisons present in today’s prison system and that the design of women’s prisons to promote domesticity is not just as thing of the past.
Most women’s prisons in Australia and the United States have distinct difference in architecture and style compared to men’s prisons. This is a result of how women offenders were seen traditionally, and especially how it was understood to best reform a female offender. In regards to prison architecture women are not punished as if they are men, as their accommodation in most parts differs especially in living arrangements, most women prisons opting for the cottage or dormitory type accommodation over the cellblock. Most women’s prisons also have self-sustaining units were women are required to cook and clean for themselves something of a rarity in the male prison system. This again can be brought back to the traditional views of domesticity instilled from times past in the reformation process of female offenders.
In the prisons of the United States and Australia, women are punished differently to men. In most regards, women are not punished as if they were men they are in fact punished as if they are women. This is a result of the social constructs evident in the early nineteenth century about the female offender’s deviancy and the need to be protected and cured by being brought back into domesticity not punished. It can be seen that women are punished differently to men through the availability and validity of educational programs in men and women’s prisons. Men have a greater variety and relevancy of programs available to them whilst in prison. Women on the other hand have inadequate access to programs that instil them in gender roles and have the potential to be irrelevant to their rehabilitation once released. It can also be seen that women are punished differently to men through a scrutiny of their disciplinary procedures. Unlike men, women are more likely to be incited more times and for pettier infractions than men are. You can even go as far to say that if the same disciplinary procedures were applied to men they would surely riot. Lastly, it can be seen that women are punished as women not men in regards to prison architecture. There are noticeable differences in a way a women’s prison is constructed and set out most of the time opting for self-sustaining cottages over cellblocks, which are a normative feature of the male penitentiary.
References
Barton. A (2005), Fragile Moralities and Dangerous Sexualities, Two centuries of Semi – Penal Institutionalization for women, Ashgate Publishing Limited, England
Braithwaite. R.L, Teadwell. H.M, Arriola. K.R.J (2005) Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women: A Population Ignored, American Journal of Public Health; Oct 2005; 95, 10; Academic Research Library.
Chensey–Lind. M, Pasko. L (2004), The Female Offender Girls Women and Crime [2nd Ed] Sage Publications, London
Giallombardo. R (1966), Society of Women a Study of Women’s Prisons, John Wiley & Sons Inc, London
Hampton. B (1993), Prisons and Women, New South Wales University Press, Kensington NSW
Kilroy. D (2004), Submission of Sisters Inside to the Anti Discrimination Commissioner for the Inquiry into the Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Race and Disability Experienced by Women Prisoners In Queensland, Sisters Inside, Brisbane, QLD
Little. M, (1990) Young Men in Prison: The Criminal Identity Explored Through the Rules of Behaivour, Aldershot Hants, Dartmouth England
(NIC) National Institute of Corrections (2006) < > US Department of Justice, Washington DC. Accessed 8th April 2006
Shover. N, Einstadter. W.J (1988), Analyzing American Corrections, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California
Victorian Department of Justice, (2006) Prisons and community corrections Department of Justice, Victoria. Accessed 8th April
Weiss.P, South. N, (ed) (1998) Comparing prison systems: toward a comparative and international penology. Gordon and Breach Publishers Australia
Wahidin. A (2004), Older Women in the Criminal Justice System, Running Out of Time, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
Zaitzow. B.H, (2003), Doing Gender in a Women’s prison in Women in prison gender and social control, Lynne Reinner Publishers, Boulder London
