Naturally, the free world person might wonder what could be so antagonistic about being told to do something that should have been done in the first place. Why should an Officer have to tell an inmate to stay in uniform, neat dress practices? If an inmate were to remove himself from such "antagonism," then wouldn’t it be a simple matter of being properly dressed in the first place? What could an Officer say then? But it’s not that simple; it’s not a matter of conventional logic. It’s symptomatic, in my opinion.

The inmate may pull his shirttail out and leave his shirt unbuttoned for any number of reasons; mostly unconscious ones. I say unconscious ones because usually an inmate is at a loss as to why he would invite trouble with an Officer by not complying with the dress code. Some avoid the complexity of discerning real reasons when it is much easier to simply say, "I don’t give a fuck; fuck the ‘Man’ (Officer)." My impression is that this is one of the few methods (usually inadvertent) of a form of "rebellion" that an inmate may exhibit without severe consequences. An inmate tries to wrest as much control over his life as he can without being "squashed" for his effort.

Oscar Wilde said once that prison was a dreamer’s paradise. Because of the abject dependency encouraged in that setting, the only "self" an inmate might successfully preserve would be in and through his fantasies. This can be worked through the media of books, television, radio (music), and conversations with peers holding congruent--if not similar or even identical value. The inmate usually gets into trouble when he tries to act out his fantasies. This is an interesting psychological process when an inmate can create a sort of courage inside himself to act beyond his true character. The inmates have called the process, "Japping themselves up (to a frenzy as displayed by the Japanese military in WW II)," or simply "pumping up (psychological

Over periods of time, there seems to be a pendulum effect in the way prisons are operated, ranging from highly structured oppressive control of the inmates to the extreme of liberal practices where the inmate is subjected to humanizing processes of caring and concern by the public and thereby the prison authorities (prison authorities understandably try to mimic the prevalent or pronounced public attitude as a matter of political correctness). When the "Human Rights" push came about in the early ‘60’s, after the shocking impression Attica left on the public, prison conditions began to change from barbaric practices to more rational methods of operation. A large part of this interest in change came about in a new type of inmate who began to be sent to prison by the criminal courts. When the less glamorous "War on Drugs" began in the late ‘50’s, a new element of the public was caught up in the criminal justice snare. The shaping of public attitude toward the evils of Marijuana use had many young people from "decent" and even prominent families being arrested and put in jail. The thinking was that if you smoked marijuana you would end up using heroine; you would become a "dope fiend." Prosecutors encouraged the influential parents (Professionals--Doctors, lawyers, etc.) not to bail their kids out of the scrape. The encouragement was that if these "good" offenders got a taste of prison life, they would turn away from using drugs altogether.

When these prim and somewhat socially-polished young men came to prison, they were immediately brutalized by the "regular" prison elements (hardcore criminals; violent offenders). When a doctor’s son was placed in the cell with a street-tough inmate, it was a lot like putting a lamb in the cell with a wolf. These new type inmates were beaten, extorted, raped and sometimes even killed in the prison setting. Many of the parents of the "decent" kids would come to visit and see their sons bruised and terrified from their prison experiences. Many begged their parents to "save" them from this horror, but the parents were helpless to do so because of the tangled web of criminal justice system practices. Big money and big influence could save only the privileged few. Most of the "decent" kids who survived became like the predators who preyed on them.

This method of survival was delved from the realization that although rapists couldn’t stand anyone raping them, etc., that rapists were very seldom raped. The same of thieves being stolen from, bullies being bullied, etc. This was mostly because of the unholy "alliances" or "identification-of-same-species" for the commonality of values and behaviors that such inmates avoided victimizing each other. So the wise thing would appear to try to adapt to as many of the maladaptive behaviors as you possibly could to avoid being a victim somewhere down the line. The facade of such "evil" ways usually worked pretty well, because not too many other sociopaths/psychopaths would challenge a person’s authenticity, unless the individual "over-acted" his "evilness" so that it would be perceived as a challenge to other sociopaths/psychopaths.

An example would be that if you were to see a weaker inmate being made fun of or being sized-up for a victim, you could join in with something as simple as an approving nod, grin, or sleazy comment of your own, in support of the predator's advances toward the potential victim. You wouldn’t actually have to take part for whatever form of victimization was about to be perpetrated on the weaker inmate by acting as though you had some victims of your own lined up and that you didn’t have time for this particular "mark" yourself. Sooner or later, you would be expected to do something atrocious to someone to authenticate your predator status; you couldn’t always behave well and follow the rules with impunity from other predators unless you could lead them to the thinking that you were just putting on an act so that you could get close enough to rip something off from the system or other inmates--this made you a "cool dude," to the evil ones around you. Sometimes the victim’s terror would be very appealing for the real....

Let’s take a peek at the parole board from this side of the fence. After all my years of incarceration with indefinite sentences ranging from 10 to 25 years to Life, I have had ample opportunity to study the parole board from this angle; subjectively in my own personal encounters, and objectively from observing other inmate’s experiences with parole hearings. Over all, it has been my impression that the parole board member teams are usually set up in pairs. One of those two persons will usually direct questions to the inmate about his crime. It seems logical and appropriate that the parole board is primarily interested in the inmate’s attitude about his crime, concerning his acceptance of guilt and responsibility, as well as his remorse for having committed the crime. The board wants to know if the inmate realizes the ramifications of his criminal behavior; not only the harm to the victim(s), their families, and the community in general, but also the family and community of the offender.

Inmates at their parole hearings tend generally to attempt to diminish the severity of their crimes and their responsibility in the matter. In fact, it is not uncommon for some inmates to actually refuse guilt and responsibility for their criminal behavior because of a form of denial generated by the inmate’s desire to avoid blame and punishment. Some inmates will pursue this course even after serving many years of imprisonment. A theory for this behavior is that the inmate comes to believe his own innocence through the ability to place blame for his actions on any number of other people. This reinforces the denial and allows the inmate to remain blind to his own responsibility for having committed the crime.

An example of inmate thinking in such matters is so blatantly distorted that it is difficult for rational people to believe that the inmate, could actually believe their own excuses for their criminal behavior. A rapist’s favorite rationalization seems to be thinking such as, "She (the victim) wanted it (sex), because she was wearing tight, sexy clothes; she knew what I wanted when she went out with me; she made suggestive body movements on the dance floors etc.

Some really try to get deep in their reasoning, laying out elaborate psychological interplay settings between himself and his victim. One such offender told me, when we were celling together, that women wanted sex as much as men do, but that had been forced by our patriarchal society to repress, depress, and deny her sexual desires. He therefore felt it was necessary to take away the burden of guilt the female felt in wanting and enjoying sex as much as he did by raping her; by taking the decision out of her hands and absorbing the guilt and responsibility himself. This way, the female could submit to his desires while satisfying her own, and no one would ever know that she had really wanted it (sex).

I told him that I thought he had an interesting philosophy about hidden or repressed sexuality for women, and that I found it to be especially so as I had a similar philosophy about men like him who liked to take other people’s sexuality under his control. I told him that I believed inmates like him would really like to suck my dick or to let me fuck him in his ass, but that he would probably be in denial because of cultural pressures against such behaviors. He started looking nervous, with a sickly grin pasted on his face. I told him that if I forced him to do these things, he wouldn’t have to feel any guilt, blame or responsibility for the behaviors. I could get my nuts off and he could be liberated from his "patriarchal" sex repressions. He was quick to point out my faulty logic, and I was just as quick to point out his own where women were concerned. He knew then that he needed therapy to get some of his thinking straightened out, and I think his conscience actually woke up. (No, I didn’t force any sex acts on him).

The problem for many inmates at their parole hearings is that they will actually make some such horribly irrational explanations to the board for having committed their crimes. The board is naturally dismayed at such senseless prattle from the inmate, and yet they usually won’t generally attempt to correct the faulty thinking on the inmate’s part. Here again, the parole board members are not trained as therapists or counselors, so they leave such concerns alone at the hearing. They may give the inmate a "tip" after they have given him his "flop" (continuance--more time to serve), and tell him to get into therapy; talk with counselors and try to get his thinking straightened out. The inmate is usually confused and angry for his added failure in life’s unfolding drama that his last thought at that point in time is seeking therapy or counseling. He is usually so steeped in self-pity, rage, disappointment and an overpowering sense of helplessness that he usually plays the "blame game" and gets pissed at the wrong people again.

The parole board member has usually been led to believe that inmates may avail themselves of endless amounts of help in coming to terms with their criminal thinking and behaviors through various agencies in the prison setting. The parole board member is further led to believe that the inmate ignores these resources and opportunities because of his lack of remorse, his laziness, and his choice for continuing to behave in a deviant manner.

The sad part of this thinking is that it is highly accurate concerning many inmates. There are resources and opportunities for inmates to change and grow, but these inmates usually get lost in the "rehabilitation game," and become "actors" rather than invoking the discipline necessary to internalize new values and to practice the changes in behavior which will turn them away from previous deviance in their personalities. Some inmates do avail themselves of these rehabilitation tools and are successful in their endeavors to change and grow as real people who lead law-abiding, productive lives and never return to prison. The problem with these success stories is that most inmates who choose this path to change usually shy away from parading an unsavory past simply to announce their return to normalcy. Many such people prefer to leave the past in the past where it belongs in their thinking.