The 2015 article under review for this paper, “How state officials enabled the Skaw-skank’ prison escape,” written by Patrick Dunleavy for the New York Post, discusses the corruption at the Clinton Correctional Facility in upstate New York that made the planned escape of two convicted killers, Richard Matt and David Sweat, possible. Apparently, Matt and Sweat had made close friends with several of the correctional guards employed by the Clinton Correctional Facility, and were able to figure out escape routes by asking probing questions.
How did these two violent felons become so chummy with men whose employment rested on their ability to uphold the law? An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation following the escape of Matt and Sweat uncovered a long history of corruption at the facility, particularly in regards to collusion between inmates and correctional guards to run a heroin trafficking ring inside the prison walls (Dunleavy, 2015). The business relationships thus fostered between guards who were conspirators in the drug trafficking and inmates led to a toxic social environment within the correctional facility in which the guards trusted the convicts and openly spoke about possible means of escape from the facility, which Matt and Sweat were able to take advantage of (Perez & Prokupecz, 2015).
Sweat was eventually apprehended and sent back to prison, and Matt was killed in a shootout with authorities, but the entire incident raised compelling questions about corruption not only in the Clinton Correctional Facility, but in the entire corrections system, and it further raises issues about appropriate social boundaries between correctional facility employees and the convicts whom they are charged with ensuring behave themselves and do not escape.
The central issue in this instance of corruption at a correctional facility is the inappropriate relationships between prison guards and inmates. When one considers the social dynamics at a maximum security facility such as the Clinton Correctional Facility, where inmates are often “lifers,” or sentenced to exceptionally long periods of time, friendly relationships between guards who have been employed at a single prison for a significant length of time, and between prisoners who have been incarcerated at the facility for a similar length of time, can develop. After all, if corrections officers had to play a detached, authoritarian role at all times with all inmates, that could make for an unbearable working environment for the guards.
However, corrections officers must always be cognizant that the inmates are, after all, convicted criminals, and are thus quite expert at “gaming the system,” and should be suspicious of any inmate who seems especially chatty or charming. The inmates can sometimes be genuine in their kind mannerisms; however, corrections officers must always keep in mind that the inmates most likely have an agenda, and remain mindful that it is imperative that they always maintain the upper hand. Additionally, the perception that corrections officers are “nice” and “friendly,” or “cool,” can lead to a breakdown in authority, and the respect thereof, at the facility. Even for strict purposes of social control and containment, corrections officers should not become too friendly with inmates.
The warden at the Clinton Corrections Facility should devise a policy of monitoring the relationships between corrections officers and inmates at the prison on a regular basis, and subject employees who have been found to engaged in inappropriate relationships to appropriate disciplinary action (Antonuccio, 2008). Additionally, new hires at the Clinton Correctional Facility should be required to undergo onsite training in appropriate boundary setting within the prison context. If the new hires did not receive any such training at previous places of employment, or at the schools at which they received their degrees, then it is incumbent upon leadership at the Clinton Correctional Facility to provide such training, so that situations that led to the heroin trafficking ring and the subsequent escape of Richard Matt and David Sweat do not happen again.
Another major issue that seems to be at stake in this instance of correctional facility corruption appears to be what is colloquially referred to in law enforcement circles as “the blue wall of silence,” or a “no-snitching” code among corrections officers that can sometimes allow for unethical behavior and institutional corruption to flourish (Nolan, 2009). For an extensive drug trafficking ring to go on for so long at the Clinton Correctional Facility, as well as the development of close friendships between facility inmates and corrections guards to occur, suggests that there was a powerful “don’t ask, don’t tell” code of silence among the corrections officers at the facility. While the development of these codes of silence is sometimes inevitable in a profession where employees view one another as “brothers in arms,” and feel the need to look out for another each day, these unwritten rules of professional conduct among prison guards can often lead to a toxic social atmosphere in a prison, in which situations such as the one that developed at Clinton Correctional Facility, are able to develop.
The leadership at this facility should have instated an “open door” policy with the administration by which individual guards who witnessed inappropriate or unethical behavior on the part of their coworkers would feel comfortable approaching members of prison administration with this information. Additionally, corrections officers need to feel reassurance that their concerns will not be broadcast to other officers, and that they will not need to fear workplace retaliation. Only when corrections officers who hold themselves and their fellow guards to a high ethical standard feel comfortable reporting bad behavior, can corrupt situations be abruptly ended before they develop into a more serious situation.
- Antonuccio, R.C.B. (2008). “Prisons for Profit: Do the Social and Political Problems Have a Legal Solution?” Journal of Corporation Law 33 (2), 577-597.
- Dunleavy, P. (2015). “How state officials enabled the ‘Skaw-skank’ prison escape.” New York Post Aug 18, 2015. Retrieved from http://nypost.com
- Nolan, T. (2009). “Behind the Blue Wall of Silence.” Men and Masculinities 12 (2), 250-257.
