U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE OF MAJOR VIOLATORS IN MASSACHUSETTS

NCJ Number
58645
Author(s)
E CHAYET
Date Published
1979
Length
38 pages
Annotation
INMATES TERMED MAJOR VIOLATORS IN MASSACHUSETTS, PRIMARILY IN THE STATE'S MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY, WERE COMPARED WITH CONTROLS IN TERMS OF SENTENCING AND THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF LABELING THEM AS MAJOR VIOLATORS.
Abstract
THE IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR VIOLATORS OR CAREER CRIMINALS AS A CONCEPTUALLY DISTINCT OFFENDER TYPE IS EMERGING AS A FOCUS OF NATIONAL CONCERN. IN MASSACHUSETTS, A SAMPLE OF 92 MAJOR VIOLATORS WAS COMPARED WITH 152 CONTEMPORARY CONTROLS SENTENCED IN 1975, WHO WERE NOT CLASSIFIED AS MAJOR VIOLATORS, AND WITH 54 HISTORICAL CONTROLS SENTENCED IN 1974, BEFORE THE MAJOR VIOLATORS DIVISION OF THE MASS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION HAD BECOME OPERATIONAL. A 6-MONTH TRACKING PROCESS WAS EMPLOYED TO EVALUATE ALL THREE SAMPLES. THREE MAJOR NEED AREAS WERE EXPLORED: (1) WHETHER MAJOR VIOLATORS EXPERIENCE MORE DIFFICULTIES THAN NONMAJOR VIOLATORS IN ADJUSTING TO RESIDENCE IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; (2) WHETHER THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN TYPES OF PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED FOR MAJOR VIOLATORS AND NONMAJOR VIOLATORS; AND (3) WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DIFFERENTIATE MAJOR VIOLATORS FROM NONMAJOR VIOLATORS ON THE BASIS OF DEMONSTRATED NEED AT THE TIME OF COMMITMENT AND DURING THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF RESIDENCE IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. INMATE FOLDERS AND MASTER CARDS MAINTAINED BY THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE MASS. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION WERE SOURCES OF DATA FOR COMPARISON. TWO MAJOR CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED FROM THE ANALYSIS OF DATA. FIRST THE IMPACT OF SENTENCING MAJOR VIOLATORS ON THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM APPEARED TO DERIVE SPECIFICALLY FROM PRACTICES OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I.E., DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR VIOLATORS ALONE WERE OFTEN ATTRIBUTABLE TO PROSECUTION (MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCE, OFFENSE, AND OUTSTANDING WARRANTS). SECOND, IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT OR BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED BY MAJOR VIOLATORS WHILE INCARCERATED AND INTERPRETED AS TROUBLESOME BY INSTITUTIONAL STAFF, NO CLEAR DIFFERENCES EMERGED BETWEEN MAJOR VIOLATORS AND CONTROLS. CAUTION IS RECOMMENDED IN USING THE POTENTIALLY DAMAGING LABEL OF MAJOR VIOLATORS IN THE CONDUCT OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS UNTIL FURTHER AND MORE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS FOR CORRECTIONAL PLANNING AND POLICY FORMULATION ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES LIST VARIABLES ANALYZED IN THE STUDY AND AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH. (DEP)