The literature has no emotional appeal or rhetorical charge, but appears to be quite objective. The author clearly states that the prison system has only a minute number of gangs and other groups that, despite the numbers, cause a great deal of disruption in the prison system. The article focuses on the states that have great gang membership in the prisons. It also touches upon such things as racketeering, murder and drug deals that are carried on in the prison system. The relationship between the theoretical and the research orientation is very integrated.
One can see that the politics of the prison system leads to a very lucrative environment that will not be disrupted by those that have nothing to lose. There are no consequences to maintaining the politics since the prisoners are already incarcerated. This gives the political environment power and creates a feeling of camaraderie amongst prisoners. All they have is each other because they are social misfits. They do not fit in nor wish to conform to society. Therefore, the politics of prison is a never ending cycle.
The economical situation is reinforced by society not willing to give a second chance to many who have a record and so they must depend upon each other to survive in and out of the prison cell. The structure of the argument has some fallacies, however. The first one is that of racial integration. It states that racial integration is minimizing the gang issue, yet states that race is second to gang membership. It also goes on to give the example of robbers cave and states that the boys start fighting and stealing from each other.
This has nothing to do with race. It also speaks about other divisions within the prison system, but is entitled gang suppression. If the issue is gang suppression, then gang suppression should be throughout, not other strata, such as zip codes, that are not elaborated upon. It is mentioned quite often throughout the article that gangs do not make up the majority of the prison population, yet it uses the prison system in which gangs make up at least seventy percent of the population, as an example.
Herein lies the question, would such a strategy be effective at a prison in which gang members make up a small portion of the population? Despite this, the article does touch upon an issue that has prevalence in disruption to an already uncivilized population. It enumerates the vast majority of problems in this population and deciphers some of the causes of such problems. It provides insight to and illuminates the cause of many issues in the prison system.
This alludes to such things as repeat offenders, impaired judgment of such inmates and insight into violence and deaths amongst prisoners. It enables us to learn that prison is not necessarily taking someone away from his troubles, but may be enhancing or maintaining them and that the person may come out, carrying out orders given in prison. It gives us insight as to why many employers are apprehensive about hiring people with jaded backgrounds and how it becomes difficult for the prison population to integrate into society.
The strengths of this article are such insight, but it is limited in scope because it only gives examples for a population in a prison whose ratio is not reflective of a typical prison population. Despite this, it gives us a lot to think about. The article is informative, interesting, non-emotive and intriguing. However, it leaves one to wonder about its effects in a typical prison population and because of this, I have some reservations about its validity, but find the results astounding and perhaps reliable.