The Inmate Code PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Umea University Library]
On: 12 January 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 781079107]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Deviant Behavior
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713394036
Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace: How Men Describe Order and the
Inmate Code in California Prisons
Rebecca Trammell a
a
University of Nebraska, Omaha School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
To cite this Article Trammell, Rebecca(2009) 'Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace: How Men Describe Order and the
Inmate Code in California Prisons', Deviant Behavior, 30: 8, 746 771
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01639620902854662
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620902854662
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Deviant Behavior, 30: 746771, 2009
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print=1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639620902854662
values, rules, and keeping the

peace: how men describe
order and the inmate code in
California prisons
Downloaded By: [Umea University Library] At: 13:04 12 January 2010
Rebecca Trammell
University of Nebraska, Omaha School of
Criminology & Criminal Justice, Omaha,
Nebraska, USA
For this article, I use interview data to examine
how former male inmates describe how and why
they follow the inmate code. Previous work shows
that convicts use the code to structure and define
informal rules (Bronson 2006). I attempt to explore
this issue from the other direction. I focus on how
inmates describe informal rules and how the code
may or may not fit into these rules. As Howard
Becker (1963) points out, people in any society
form groups and subcultures who create their own
set of rules and norms. The men in my study
describe leaders, called shot-callers, who focus on
illegal businesses such as the drug trade. They use
violence to control their own gangs in order to
reduce the chance of riots. In short, they value
peace and profit. This differs from previous work
that focuses on the inmate identity and how
convicts value the code. The men in my study
value safety and the underground economy as well
as maintaining a solid convict identity.
Received 30 June 2008; accepted 14 November 2008.

Address correspondence to Rebecca Trammell, University of Nebraska, Omaha School
of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6001 Dodge St., CPACS Building 218T, Omaha, NE
68182-0149, USA. E-mail: rtrammell@mail.unomaha.edu
746
Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace 747
INTRODUCTION
Scholars describe prison culture and how prisoners create an
inmate code (Cloward 1960; Irwin and Cressey 1962;
Jacobs 1977; Ohlin 1956; Sykes and Messinger 1960; Terry
1997). As defined by Bronson (2006), The code represents
an organization of criminal values in clearcut opposition to
the values of conventional society, and to prison officials
as representatives of that society (62). Prisoners create
and reinforce these norms as a way to defy the goals of the
institution and categorize other inmates. Those who use
the code identify as convicts while those who do not are
called inmates. Furthermore, the convict identity is pre-

ferred over the inmate identity as solid convicts reign at
the top of the prison hierarchy (Terry 1997). At the same
time, there is no official written code and norms differ
depending on the institution (Pollock 1997; Sykes and
Messinger 1960).
Hassine (2007) goes so far as to argue that there is no
inmate code. Prisoners simply import their own norms and
values into prison:
Convicts coming to prison bring with them a moral and ethi-

cal code of conduct that they learned and developed from
their individual street experiences. For example, members
of the Mafia bring with them a Mafiosos code, street-gang
members bring their own gang code, and drug addicts bring
a junkies code of conduct. (175)
Hassine, an inmate who recently died in prison (Finley 2008),

describes his own experience and states that the code
is simply a term used by inmates to describe prison norms.
It seems clear that there is no codified standard of conduct
that dictates the behavior of all American prisoners. At the
same time, there are norms and rules that organize prison
life and some inmates value these rules more so than others.
Furthermore, some inmates use this code to defy prison
rules by forbidding inmates to collaborate with prison staff
(Bronson 2006).
For this article, I use interview data to examine how former
male inmates describe how and why they follow the inmate
code. As Howard Becker (1963) points out, people in any
748 R. Trammell
society form groups and subcultures who create their own set
of rules and norms. He outlines how personal values guide
behavior:
Since values can furnish only a general guide to action and

are not useful in deciding on courses of action in concrete
situations, people develop specific rules more closely tied
to the realities of everyday life. (131)
Convicts use the code to structure and define informal rules

(Bronson 2006). I attempt to explore this issue from the other
direction. I focus on how inmates describe informal rules and
how the code may or may not fit into these rules. Previous
research focuses on the inmate code as a set of values that
help control inmate behavior. However, as Becker points
out, this is problematic because the reality of daily life may
influence behavior in a way that does not coincide with
personal values (Becker 1963).
There may very well be an inmate code; however, there
may simply be norms that coincide with the code whereas
others do not. It seems problematic to label prisoners as
inmates or convicts without exploring exactly what the pris-
oner values. Moreover, previous scholars focus how convicts
identify with the ideology of the code (Terry 1997). How-
ever, prisoners may pick and choose their actions based on
factors such as gang affiliation, the underground economy
and loyalty to friends and gang leaders. To be sure, prison
changed drastically since Sykes and Messinger (1960; Sykes
1958) first discussed the inmate code. American prisons now
hold ten times more inmates than they did in 1974 and this
incarceration trend is unprecedented in the history of the
United States (Parenti 1999; Pollock 2004; Wacquant
2001). This being said, I seek to examine how current
inmates describe the inmate code.
For this article, I interviewed former male inmates (n 40)
and six correctional officers living in California and allowed
them to describe current prison norms and how inmates rein-
force these norms. I specifically examined how rules are tied
to the underground economy and the inmate code. Intervie-
wees described leaders, called shot-callers, who control ille-
gal businesses such as the drug trade. They use violence to
control their own gangs in order to reduce the chance of
riots. They want to keep peace as a way to maintain these

businesses. Therefore, they value peace and profit. At the
same time, interviewees explained how these rules may or
may not connect with the inmate code. This differs from
previous work that focuses on the inmate identity and
how convicts value the code. The men in my study value
safety and the underground economy as well as maintaining
a solid convict identity. They described a flexible, fluid set
of norms that serve to keep the peace so that the prison staff
stays out of their business. However, the goal of keeping
the peace coincides nicely with the official goal of the
prison administration.
Although inmates and prison staff maintain order for

different reasons, no one wants chaos. Therefore, the old
inmate code as discussed by Sykes and Messenger
(1960) has evolved. At one time, inmates used the code to
defy the goals of the prison staff. Now, mostly due to under-
ground economies, they want to keep peace in order to sell
their contraband. While not generalizable to all prison
inmates, my study offers a new understanding into how
inmates understand informal prison norms, which updates
our current knowledge on the inmate code as well as inmate
culture.
THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND VALUES

Some of the earliest scholarly work found that prisons
are isolated institutions with their own norms and rules
(Clemmer 1940; Hayner and Ash 1940). Inmates are socia-
lized to follow a standard inmate code in which they must
act tough, not interfere with other inmates, and not socialize
with the guards. Sykes (1958) argues that inmate culture
results from the deprivations of the prison world. Under-
ground markets (narcotics, etc.) emerge due to a lack of
social freedom and sex (consensual or not) between inmates
stems from the lack of available women, rather than homo-
sexual urges (Cloward 1960; Tittle and Tittle 1964). Further-
more, prison staff control the inmates by making
compromises about privileges or living conditions (Cloward
1960; Irwin and Cressey 1962; Jacobs 1977; Sykes and
Messinger 1960).
750 R. Trammell
Other studies found that prison culture is sometimes

imported from the outside world (Irwin 1970; Schrag
1954). Irwin and Cressey (1962) found that inmates bring
their own norms into prison. Research finds a direct link
between the street culture and prison culture, particularly
with regard to drug use and distribution (Irwin 1970).
Scholars now agree that prison culture is a combination of
street culture and social deprivation; these hypotheses are
not mutually exclusive (Akers et al. 1977; Pollock 1997;
Winfree et al. 2002). A good deal of research focuses on
the inmate code that influences prison norms. Those
who follow the inmate code act tough and are not allowed
to collaborate with correctional officers (Cloward 1960;

Irwin and Cressey 1962; Jacobs 1977; Sykes and Messinger
1960; Terry 1997).
Terry (1997) discusses how the public identity of the
prisoner is shaped by the code. The convict identity is
preferred and these men generally live their lives in accor-
dance with the rules of the code (Terry 1997); however,
the code differs from prison to prison (Pollock 1997; Sykes
and Messinger 1960). Victor Hassine (2007) discussed the
rules in his Pennsylvania prison and argued that there is no
inmate code. Instead, inmates import their own norms into
prison and just call these rules the code. For this article,
I examine how inmates describe informal rules as connected
to the code. To do this, I use the model set up by Howard
Becker (1963) and Edwin Lemert (1951) on rules and rule
making. In doing so, I expand on our current knowledge of
the inmate code by examining the rules of the code. Becker
(1963) argues that there are general norms and rules fol-
lowed by many members of society. However, people form
groups based on religious, economic, or racial identity and
they create their own set of rules. As Lemert (1951) points
out, rules are enforced by the reaction of peers. When the
deviant is caught and labeled, this could push him or her into
secondary deviance where he or she accepts the deviant
identity (Lemert 1951). However, I focus on the relationship
between values and rules. Lemert argues that it is difficult to
define values as clearly connected to, or different from, the
rules. The term value is spurious or tautological and adds
nothing to the explanation of behavior (Lemert 2000:64).
He reconciles this issue by stating that, Value is defined
in terms of opportunity costs: that is, we know the value of a

thing when we know what we will sacrifice to achieve it
(64). Becker (1963) explains that:
It is possible for us to hold conflicting values without being

aware of the conflict. We become aware of their inadequacy
as a basis for action when, in a moment of crisis, we realize
that we cannot decide which of the conflicting courses of
actions recommended to us we should take. (130)
For example, we create sexual harassment laws because we

value equality. Some corporations may not allow employ-
ees to date one another in order to comply with sexual har-

assment laws. Corporate leaders may not value the rules
about fraternization. In fact, they may not place value on
sexual harassment laws either. In this sense, value is placed
on reducing liability and workplace conflict. Personal
values may serve as a guide to action; however, new rules
emerge that serve to help maintain other rules (Becker
1963).
Previous work on the inmate code defines the code as a
personal value (Bronson 2006) held by solid convicts. The
convict must act tough and stay out of business of other
inmates. He must not work with prison staff (snitching) and
he should not interfere with other inmates (Sykes and
Messinger 1960). Inmates create rules in order to maintain
this code of conduct. At the same time, there are no universal
rules that dictate the behavior of all American inmates and
these rules may be few (Pollock 2004). Using this as a
starting point, I aim to focus on the connection between rule
making and values. If, as Lemert suggests, values are defined
by what we are willing to sacrifice, then rules directly linked
to personal values will be strictly enforced.
New rules are likely to emerge that, according to Becker,
could make peace between rules already in place. The
prison is a total institution (Goffman 1961) in which official
rules are created and enforced from the top down. Prison
administrations create rules and correctional officers enforce
rules. If Becker and Lemert are correct, inmates will create
their own set of rules or norms that are regulated by the
inmates themselves. However, there are no guarantees that
rules only function to maintain the code.
752 R. Trammell
DATA AND METHODS

As part of a larger research project, I interviewed seventy-
three men and women previously incarcerated in California
prisons. In addition, I interviewed six correctional officers
who worked in California prisons. Interviews took place in
200506. Originally, parolees were recruited from reentry
programs and parolee meetings in San Diego, Riverside,
and Orange counties. They were released from prison within
two months prior to the interview. They were asked to parti-
cipate in a project that focuses on prison and prison vio-
lence. Thirty-one people agreed to be included in this
study. I informed them that participation was voluntary and

they could refuse to answer any question that makes them
uncomfortable. Using a snowball sampling technique, origi-
nal participants referred another fifty-eight parolees. Out of
this pool, forty-two agreed to be interviewed.
In total, forty men and thirty-three women agreed to take
part in the study. The mean age was 34 years old and their
prison sentences ranged from 18 months to 15 years in
medium to maximum security prisons in California. As
per IRB protocol, verbal consent was obtained and pseudo-
nyms were used in all papers and reports. Parolees and
former inmates are protected populations and those of us
working with them take special precautions to assure con-
fidentiality. This means working with them in public places
and private homes and insisting that they not use any
names during the interview process. I assured them that
their responses had nothing to do with their current or for-
mer parole status. I also interviewed six male correctional
officers who described the organization of prison gangs
and inmate norms. These men agreed to be interviewed
as long as I never disclose their specific prison. For the lar-
ger project, I interviewed both men and women. However,
the women in my study explained that, in prison, they do
not join gangs and physical violence is rare. The men in
my study described the inmate code and how they used
violence to regulate inmate behavior. Women can, and
do, assault each other but the men in my study described
how they work to organize prison gangs and create rules
to maintain order. Also, the correctional officers in this
study work in prisons housing men. Therefore, I use data
TABLE 1 Male Interviewees

Pseudonym Age Race Offenses Time served
Marty 28 Hispanic Aggravated Assault, Parole 3 Years

Violation
Jose 32 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 7 Years
Anthony 39 Hispanic Robbery 5 Years
Carlos 36 Hispanic Attempted Murder 5 Years
John 32 Hispanic Domestic Violence=Battery 3 Years
Oscar 22 Hispanic Drug Possession 18 Mts
James 34 Black Manslaughter 8 Years
Robert 35 Hispanic Grand Theft Auto, Assault, 8 Years
Robbery
Pedro 32 Hispanic Grand Theft Auto, Drug 2 Years
Possession
Jimmy 33 White Drug Possession, Parole 3 Years
Violation
Mike 36 White Drug Possession and 16 Mts
burglary
Justin 40 White Parole Violation 9 Mts
Carl 38 White Drug Possession, Assault, 4 Years
Robbery
Jessie 30 White Assault With A Deadly 5 Years
Weapon, Sexual Battery
And Robbery
Jake 45 Black Robbery, Drugs 13 Years
Vincent 32 White Drunk Driving, Absconding 1 Year
Antonio 24 Hispanic Robbery and Grand Theft 8 Years
Auto
Jack 28 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 6 Years
Myles 46 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 5 Years
Richard 29 White Robbery, Rape OneAdult 10 Years
Pat 33 White Assault, Attempted Murder 10 Years
Tim 37 White GTA, Sexual Assault, Car 15 Years
Jacking
Bruce 29 White Assault, Sexual Assault 11 Years
Josh 30 White Robbery 8 Years
Ben 40 Hispanic Robbery 5 Years
Chris 35 Hispanic Drug Trafficking and 9 Years
Attempted Murder
Kelly 35 Hispanic Manslaughter 15 Years
Kirk 29 White Parole Violation, Assault 2 Years
Mac 42 Black Drugs, Assault, Attempted 6 Years
Murder
(Continued )
754 R. Trammell
TABLE 1 Continued
Pseudonym Age Race Offenses Time served
Logan 30 Black Robbery 5 Years

Donald 36 Black Robbery 4 Years
Howard 30 White Robbery, Sexual Assault 7 Years
Doug 26 White Robbery 4 Years
Joseph 36 Black Drug Trafficking, Robbery 7 Years
Harold 35 White Robbery and Assault 8 Years
Fred 29 White Aggravated Assault, 5 Years
Attempted Murder
Roger 40 Black Drug Trafficking, Assault 6 Years
Sam 39 Black Aggravated Assault, 12 Years

Kidnapping
Scott 41 Hispanic Drugs, Burglary 2 Years
Ramon 32 Hispanic Robbery and Assault 6 Years
Bobby Black Correctional Officer
Leo White Correctional Officer
Wesley White Correctional Officer
Tom White Correctional Officer
Ronald Black Correctional Officer
Parker Black Correctional Officer
from my male interviewees for this article. Demographics

for interviewees are listed in Table 1.
The data presented in this article are part of a larger project
that focuses on: informal social control, prison rape, under-
ground economies, gang violence, retaliation, and racialized
violence. My interviews lasted one to two hours using open-
ended=semi-structured interview questions (Denzin and
Lincoln 1998) that allowed my interviewees to deconstruct
the social setting of prison and thoroughly explain inmate
behavior. Specifically, I asked them to describe informal
rules, the inmate code, and how they control each other in
prison. I coded responses into two categories: the inmate
code, rules=gang leaders and underground economies and
violence.
Currently, there are approximately 160,000 inmates living
in California prisons (California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation 2008) and I do not use a randomized sam-
ple. Instead, I created a case study developed through snow-
ball sampling. This being said, it is not possible to generalize
these data to the entire California prison population. More-

over, quantitative research is best for examining trends in
prison violence such as riots (Useem and Piehl 2006). How-
ever, I focus on how interviewees describe rules and rule
enforcement. Qualitative research is more fluid and high-
lights the subjective reality of the research subject. This
method allows an interviewee to deconstruct the social
setting to shed light on how he interprets his social world.
Specifically, this allows him to describe the importance of
informal rules in prison.
THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND GANG LEADERS

Out of the forty men I interviewed, forty-eight percent
(n 19) told me they belonged to a prison gang. In California,
inmates racially segregate and form gangs by race (Goodman
2006; Hunt et al. 1993; Irwin 1980). Gang affiliation is a
punishable offense in California prisons; therefore, men are
careful about discussing this issue. Some talk about their
homeboys or their cars, which are terms describing
friends or fellow gang members in prison. My interviewees
(gang and non-gang members) described rules and the
inmate code. Those who admitted to being in a gang told
me about the rules:
You go to prison and you toughen up. You get with the code
and you do good time. There are ways to do hard time and if
you dont follow the rules, you are not considered solid. You
dont snitch, you dont owe anyone money and you act like a
man. If you dont, then you do hard time. (Joseph)
The boys inside, they follow the rules and that means you
work with your own boys and do what they say. Look, there
is a lot of problems caused by the gangs, no doubt. The thing
is, they solve problems too. You want a structure and you
want someone to organize the businesses so the gangs have
their rules. You dont run up a drug debt, you dont start a
fight in the yard and stuff. Gangs are a problem but we took
care of business. There is a code of silence, you dont talk
about all the stuff with others, the cops split up gangs if
theres a big problem so we keep to ourselves and mind
our own business. (Jack)
756 R. Trammell
Both men describe the code as a set of rules that help regu-
late inmate behavior. In accordance with the code, men
toughen up, refuse to snitch, and follow the rules set up by
gang leaders. Hard time means having a difficult time in
prison and those doing solid time are following the rules
and avoiding problems. Jack explained that gangs organize
business by making rules. Interviewees who were not in a
gang told me that they also follow the code:
You learn the code and you stick by the code. I thought that
most of the stuff, especially about race and stuff, its stupid. I
just want to do my time and get out. Thats easier said than
done, you have to follow the code even if you know its
stupid. (Donald)
There are so many rules about who goes first in line for meals
and who gets the TV first. If you follow all these rules, you
end up doing easy time. I was a con which means I follow
the code so you have to know the rules and you have to teach
the new guys how to be a con and follow the rules. (Carl)
I didnt know shit going into prison. I was totally clueless. I

was strung out on drugs, sick and dumb and the brothers tell
me right off the bat where to go, what to do. I thought they
were joking at first. I knew prison was hard but I never
thought Id have to know rules about who uses the shower
first and who sits with who and who the leaders are. I think
thats why there are fights, the dumb guys dont know the
code going in and they screw up. (Mac)
The races dont officially mix. Thats true but you can buy
drugs from whoever and the leaders control that stuff. Ive
had a cigarette with some white guys and the Mexicans,
the Southerners are mostly good guys, their leaders are, well
some of them are flexible with their boys. Its not as cut and
dry as you think. (James)
Donald explained that the rules are sometimes arbitrary and

pointless but you still follow them. Mac told me that men
fight because they do not know the rules of the inmate code.
He stated that the brothers or other African-American men
told him how to act and what to do in prison. He thought this
was strange but he followed the code. These men described

prison life as organized and they place the leaders at the cen-
ter of this organization. This is especially interesting because
some of these men (Carl, Mac, and James) told me they were
not gang members. They may have lied about their gang
affiliation; however, they argued that everyone follows the
rules set up by gang leaders. They depend on these leaders
to make decisions and enforce rules.
Furthermore, they described the rules as connected to
both the code and to businesses. They need to control each
other in order to sell their drugs. In order to do this, they must
keep prison officials at bay. Thus, the code is described as a
way to keep peace. Terry (1997) discussed this code as the

social system of male prisons revolves around the inmate
code and the need to project invulnerability (38). He stated
that prisoners identify as inmates or convicts and the
convict identity is preferred. He built on previous work that
describes convicts, not inmates, who live by the inmate code
and take care of conflict without getting help from correc-
tional officers or other staff (Irwin 1970; Schmid and
Jones 1991; Sykes and Messinger 1960). Terry argued that,
Convicts see their world from the perspective of the code.
Consequently, the rules they follow, the actions they take
and the humor they use are all reflections of that outlook
(Terry 1997:25). It is a set of norms that are directly tied to
maintaining the convict identity, which means doing solid
time and acting tough. If you follow the code you embrace
the solid convict identity (Terry 1997).
However, the rules discussed by my interviewees involved
routine, daily activities that are typically followed by every-
one. James described them as flexible and set by the leaders.
Jack told me that they follow rules to organize illegal busi-
nesses. As outlined in Figure 1, convicts who adapt the code
identify as a solid convict. The code guides the inmate and
helps identify those who do good or solid time in prison.
Throughout this process, impression management is neces-
sary to maintain the public perception of a convict who acts
tough and follows the code. Previous researchers outlined
this process and detailed how inmates classify one another
(Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykes and Messinger
1960; Terry 1997). However, some interviewees described
this as stupid but necessary. They told me that they do
758 R. Trammell
FIGURE 1 The inmate code and the convict identity.

not necessarily believe in the code but follow the rules. In

other words, they do not value the code or the convict iden-
tity but they conform. Previous research shows that inmates
generally accept or reject the code (Terry 1997). Intervie-
wees explained that they sometimes place value on some-
thing else that forces them to align their actions with
the inmate code. Organization is the key to this process. Cor-
rectional officers discuss how prisoners organize and follow
leaders:
Now I worked up north for a while and I know that the

Mexican gangs are more inclined to be picky about who they
let in. They check references on the outside and make sure
youre not lying about where you come from or who you roll
with. They used to make up these booklets that had rules in
them. Theyd pass them around and wed confiscate them
and theyd make more. They were very dedicated to making
sure that everyone in the gang knows their own rules. Its like
the military with their lieutenants and stuff. (Correctional
Officer Leo)
In the 1980s it all changed, suddenly every prison was over-

crowded and the Latinos became the top dogs in the prisons
in California. Thats mostly because they outnumbered every-
one else. Thats when they started forming the gangs and it
was totally organized and stuff. You see the Mexicans orga-
nize and strategize. They work smart, they form these gangs
and are totally organized. The black guys just worked, they
were always volunteering for some kind of job in the kitchen
or the laundry and stuff. They just wanted to stay out of mix.
The white guys just started the skin-head shit. You know, the
white power stuff. Its all about power now, whos got it and
who doesnt. (Correctional Officer Wesley)
We try to break them up, well move the shot-callers to Peli-

can Bay, we split up the gangs and they just continue what
theyre doing in their new prison. The gang problem is big.
These guys know where blind spots are, they work closely
together and they are tight. They will go to the hole before
they snitch. They know that Ill send them to the hole but
their brothers, they will do worse. These guys mean business
and I really see no way to eliminate the gangs altogether.
(Correctional Officer Ronald)
The term shot-caller was originally used by members of the

Mexican Mafia prison gang, founded in juvenile detention
facilities in California in the 1950s. Currently, the term
shot-caller (sometimes called key-holder) is common to most
prison gangs and some street gangs. The second-in-
command is called a lieutenant. He works with soldiers
who smuggle drugs or work for the gang. There are associ-
ates who are not members but show support by fighting in
a race-riot. A prospect is someone who carries out low-level
grunt work to become a member of the gang.
Interviewees told me that gangs control drug, prostitution,
pornography, and, most recently, the cigarette trade in
prison. The shot-caller is someone who rises through the
ranks and proves his loyalty to the gang; men call this put-
ting in your time. Antonio described his shot-caller:
A shot-caller is someone that runs the whole tank or module.

Pretty much, people that know a lot about incarceration cuz
theyve been in prison for a while. They run it and they run
the section, they talk about whats going on. That environ-
ment, its negative, its politics. If an argument breaks out,
the shot-caller will go over there and say Whats the situa-
tion that happened with the race and stuff? They then talk
and see if they can solve it. If they cant solve it then they
say You know what man? You better, do something. That
guy that started something he better get out of the module
or they fight. (Antonio)
760 R. Trammell
I asked the men to explain how the shot-caller controls the

inmates and Mike outlined how minor disagreements are
settled:
Mike: Well, people fight over stupid shit. Sometimes you

fight just because someone pissed you off. If some-
one pisses me off, you know starts trouble with me,
he has to answer to his own people. They decide if
its worth fighting over you know? If they decide
that hes just a big dick and he needs to apologize
to me for being a dick then he will tell me hes
sorry. Thats how it usually ends. Nothing too
dramatic.
Question: Is it a real consensus or does one guy, the shot-
caller, decide?
Mike: Um, its a consensus but the shot-caller is the main
decision maker. You know, hell talk to everyone
but hes really getting them to see things his way
and he gets final say and shit.
Question: What if the shot-caller decides they fight?
Mike: Then they fight. You can tell that something is going
to happen, people start getting into position and
getting ready for the fight and so its all about tim-
ing. And the fights and stuff, it didnt happen like
I thought. I thought wed be fighting all the time
and stuff. Thats not true. We fought but it was
not all the time. I think I had maybe three or four
real fights. The leaders, they control most of the
problems and keep the peace. Its not like they
show on TV, we dont fight hardly ever. We control
the yard and keep the boys in check. (Carlos)
The men explained how prisoners frequently check in with

shot-callers. If two men argue or if an inmate disses (disre-
spects) another inmate, they check with their leader. If the
shot-caller approves, the men told me they take it to the
cell, which means they have a cell-fight. Eight-three
percent (n 33) of the men in this study admitted to having
at least one cell-fight. This is done to avoid a fight in the yard:
Usually, you settle the dumb stuff there. If someone disses me
or someone takes my stuff then the leaders tell us to take it to
the cell. We slug it out and get things taken care of. I probably
had seven or eight fights in prison. (Marty)
Well we do a lot of cell-fights. I may have words with some-

one, someone may piss me off so we take it to the cell and
have a cell fight. No one sees us and we dont get written
up. (Jose)
Two or three men fighting in the yard or other common area

causes a riot or gang fight. They have some privacy in their
cells and violence is controlled. What is particularly interest-
ing is how men describe the organization of minor fights.
They state that men fight over drugs, disrespect, or theft.

Many times, one man insults another and this increases
tension and the probability of a fight.
Gangs and friends provide protection and human contact.
At the same time, this arrangement breeds loyalty to the gang
and the shot-caller. In fact, men described how informal
rules conflict with official prison rules. In these cases, men
follow the rules outlined by the gang leaders:
I was brought in and they try to put me in a cell with a black

guy. I said no way, they say its this or they have a cell with a
Mexican guy. I know they try to make us mix but I cant do
that. I tell the guard that this wont happen and he shoves
me in. I know at that point that Im going to the hole so I
shove the cop back and then they threw me down and took
me to the hole. Thats the part that sucks, they know we cant
do that and they force us and then we end up in ad seg. Its a
pain in the ass. (Bruce)
Im not listening to the cops. Screw those guys. One guy tells
me to clean up the TV room after some NLR pricks are in
there. I tell him thats not my job and Im PENI so no way
Im cleaning up after them. He threatens me with a 115 or
worse and I just laugh, what the hell is he going to do to
me? (Josh)
Bruce argues that the rules of segregation means he cannot

cell up with someone of another race. He was sent to admin-
istrative segregation for not complying with the correctional
officer. Typically, this means they receive a written violation
762 R. Trammell
(CDCR 115 Violation) and a loss of good time credit. Josh

argues that, as a member of the Public Enemy Number
One skinhead gang, he does not socialize or clean up after
a rival skinhead gang. In both cases, these men risk formal
reprimands by breaking the formal rules.
The rules about segregation force men to break official
department of corrections standards about racial integration.
They may or may not want segregation. However, to keep
peace between inmates, they face official reprimands and
defy official rules. These men place value on these friend-
ships and gang leaders and the informal rules set up by these
men. They risk their good time credit and what little social
freedom they have to remain loyal to the rules.
UNDERGROUND ECONOMIES AND VIOLENCE

When I asked them why they avoid riots, they offered two
reasons. First, riots are dangerous and secondly, they result
in a prison lockdown. The prison administration uses this
method to stop violence and prevent escape. Wardens and
other administrators decide whether or not to lock down a
prison and when to lift the lockdown (California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2003). If this happens,
inmates are confined to their cells and separated from other
inmates. They lose their yard time and, according to intervie-
wees, underground economies are curbed. Men cannot sell
drugs or other contraband if they are locked in their cells.
Therefore, they avoid a riot because it is dangerous and
bad for business. Marty explains:
Well, we dont fight in a riot and stuff unless we have to, its
too dangerous. Well go into lockdown which sucks and peo-
ple get killed and stuff. If Im locked down, then Im not work-
ing. You can make some serious bank in prison and
shot-callers hate it when youre in lockdown. And Ive seen
lockdown happen for eight, nine months. We all go crazy
after a while, no one wants that. (Marty)
Others described underground businesses:

So heres the deal, you got old guys like me who have been in
prison forever and have shot-callers do their job, keep peace
and run the action. Thats why we have shot-callers so when

a couple of idiots get into it in the yard, instead of letting them
kill themselves, the shot-caller goes out and works it out. He
talks to these guys and finds out what happened, who did
what to who its very simple. If we didnt have these guys,
the businesses would stop. (Myles)
The gangs cant sell their stuff, drugs and stuff. They dont
want a lockdown, thats true. I was in a lockdown for two
months once. Leaders get pissed if theres a lockdown and
we dont get yard time, I hated it. I was in a serious riot once
and it went on for twenty minutes or so. As soon as we
stopped, it started in the dorm, its like a virus, it spreads

and people are killed or hurt bad. Its best to handle things
low-key. No one needs a riot. (Donald)
These men explained that people get hurt in riots. Also, a riot
is hard to stop, even by the inmates. Therefore, it is easier to
work with leaders to control the violence. This means using
cell-fights to prevent riots or apologizing for disrespecting
other inmates. This is interesting for several reasons. First,
men describe an informal way to avoid serious violence. To
be sure, two men fighting in cell is dangerous. However, this
is a way for men to take care of the daily problems. All too
often, men in prison fight over minor disagreements. Some-
one disrespects someone else or someone steals property
and if they rioted over all of these issues, there would be
chaos. These men want structure and control over their lives.
However, they do not discuss the formal rules and regula-
tions. Nor do they discuss reporting problems to the prison staff.
The inmate code forces them to work outside the formal system
to take care of these problems. The shot-caller is especially
important as a leader and decision maker. They posit the
shot-caller as a negotiator. They often force men to apologize
or make them take it to the cell. This also means using violence
to control others. Anthony tells me how he had to turn over
one of his own men to a rival gang in order to avoid a riot:
We need to keep the boys in line. If one of our guys is a hot-

head or something and is always shooting off his mouth it can
get everyone into trouble. We dont want a lockdown, we
dont want a riot so Ive had to beat down my own guys to
764 R. Trammell
control the bigger picture. If one of my guys is messing up

then we either offer him up to the other guys or we take
him down ourselves. Like I had a guy that ran up a big drug
debt, he owed money to the woods [peckerwood skin-head
gang] and I had to turn him over to them. They took him to
a cell and really beat the shit out of him. We had to do it.
If not, then everyone fights which is bad for business and
bad for us. (Anthony)
In this instance, Anthonys friend was causing trouble by

running up a drug debt. Gangs will fight over money and
drugs so he, as the shot-caller, had to make a hard decision.
He sacrificed one of his own men to avoid problems

between the gangs. Harold explained the importance of
keeping the men in line:
The shot-caller is important here, he tells his lieutenants
whats what and then they work with their soldiers to take
care of business. I knew this guy that ran his mouth a lot,
made lots of problems, called people names and stuff. He
called these Mexican guys a bunch of greasy wetbacks.
Hes a loose cannon, hes going to cause trouble you know
what I mean, we work hard to keep that race shit calm and
here is this prick causing trouble, no one wants that so we
had to check him. We took him down a peg or two, it came
right from the top, the asshole needs a lesson. (Harold)
In this story, Harold, a member of the PENI skin-head gang,

had to beat up a fellow gang member as a good-faith gesture
to the Mexican gangs. Again, they value racial segregation
and informal rules so they physically punished a trouble-
maker. This is especially interesting because Harold is a
skin-head and American skin-heads are typically xenophobic
and racist. John Irwin (1980) detailed how the most racist
white men in California prisons formed skin-head gangs in
the 1970s. However, Harold argued that they now negotiate
to keep the peace. He and his fellow gang members beat up
one of their own to maintain order. Others told me that
correctional officers work with the shot-caller:
The C.O.s, they know when somethings happening, we all
do. They will ask us to calm down or ask us to wait on a fight.
I knew of a cop that asked us to wait until he was off duty to

fight, he didnt want to fill out the paperwork and break up a
riot. My leader told us to wait until after the shift changed so
the next guys would take care of it. Really, no one is surprised
when shit goes down. (Kirk)
Pretty much the cops know who to talk to. Are your people
calmed down now? Are they going to be good? You know,
and then theyll be like okay, yeah, we will and a lot of times
theyll just say yeah, and then theyll go at it again. Just so that
cops can let them out. (Pedro)
These men describe an ongoing process of negotiation

between inmates and the correctional officers. Obviously,
there is not way of knowing exactly how much time officers
work with the inmates. However, from the perspective of the
men in my study, they all work outside the formal system to
maintain peace in prison. They remain loyal to these rules
and depend on leaders to control the violence. Several intervie-
wees described what happened to them when they broke rules:
Mac: The problem is that the incident, its not even a real
fight is now going to turn the blacks against the
Mexicans. Theres going to be big trouble, a riot
or something so they cant have that. So two days
later, the blacks come after me. Three guys sucker
punched me and knocked me down and beat me
down.
Question: Were you hurt?
Mac: Broke three fingers and my nose, I thought I might
lose an eye cuz I couldnt see anything when it
started but it was just blood and stuff in my eyes.
They had to do it, it was for the greater good, so
to speak.
Question: Why?
Mac: If they didnt do it then theres trouble between the
blacks and the Mexicans. I cant have that over my
head. I mean [laughs] am I glad I got my ass beat?
No. But it probably saved lives or at the very least,
stopped a lockdown. They had to show the Mexi-
cans that the problem is solved and that I learned a
lesson.
766 R. Trammell
Mac explained that he was beaten for the greater good.

He took responsibility for his actions (disrespecting the
Mexicans) and accepted his punishment. Mac did not trivia-
lize his beating but instead, accepted punishment from his
own gang.
When I first got to prison, I said some shit to this white guy
and the next thing I know, Im told to make it right with
him. I have to man up and take care of my shit. At first I
thought, you gotta be kidding me. No way am I going to tell
this guy that Im sorry. Then they told me that I have no
choice. Thats the rule, you do what youre told. They made
a very good argument about how I need to fall in line. Okay,

so I made things right. (Logan)
Logan did not want to apologize to a white man; however,

he eventually complied with the rules. The gang leaders
make the rules and the Lieutenants and Soldiers enforce
these rules and sometimes use violence to do so. The norma-
tive order described by these men is grounded in a mutually
accepted idea about keeping the peace. They value safety
and underground economies, which means following the
rules. In this sense, they depend on leaders to negotiate
conflict, which is common in the daily lives in inmates.
Clearly, they described the inmate code in these narra-
tives. The men in this study described how they act tough
and maintain a hyper-masculine identity. They want to
do good time and are loyal to fellow gang members and
leaders.
In Figure 2, I outline their motivations for avoiding a riot.
Overall, they want to structure their lives in order to run their
businesses. Therefore, leaders must negotiate between
FIGURE 2 Motivations for keeping the peace.

inmates and enforce the rules. The inmate code is important

to maintain a convict identity (Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones
1991; Sykes and Messinger 1960; Terry 1997). However,
they create rules to maintain order, which, to a some degree,
coincides with the goals of the institution. The rules are put
in place to appease prison staff and avoid formal interference
in their businesses. They do not value the formal prison rules
yet must do what they can to avoid formal reprimands.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Although not generalizable to the entire prison system, my
case study offers a qualitative approach to examine informal

prison norms and the inmate code. Those who study the
code describe how prisoners use this code to maintain a con-
vict identity (Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykes and
Messinger 1960; Terry 1997). They act tough, refuse to
snitch, and maintain a social distance from the prison staff.
Sykes and Messinger (1960) were the first to describe how
prisoners remain independent and tough in prison. They do
not interfere with the work of the guards or other inmates.
Furthermore, they do not take advantage of weaker inmates
(Sykes and Messinger 1960). Almost forty years later, Terry
(1997) argues that prisoners maintain their identity as sepa-
rate from their non-prison identity. They use humor as a
method of expressing feelings and remain connected to their
normal non-prison identity (Terry 1997). Moreover, those
who promote and enforce the code identify as convicts
and these men are at the top of the prison pecking order.
I used the model proposed by Lemert (2000) and Becker
(1963) to reexamine and update this model. The men in
my study described the inmate code and what it means to
do solid time as a convict. This is nothing new. However,
my findings also show that the influx of gangs and the under-
ground economies now influence the code in an interesting
way. It appears that the recent mass incarceration phase of
American criminal justice changed the inmate code. The
men in this study explained how, to some degree, they
identify as convicts. However, they defer to gang leaders
as a way to maintain order and sell drugs.
As Edwin Lemert points out, Value is defined in terms of
opportunity costs: that is, we know the value of a thing when
768 R. Trammell
we know what we will sacrifice to achieve it (64). My inter-

viewees explained that they value gangs and prison friends
but they will not sacrifice illegal businesses by allowing
men to do what they please. They may value racial segrega-
tion and fight with correctional officers attempting to inte-
grate the cells but they will sell their drugs to anyone of
any race. More interestingly, they will sacrifice one of their
own men if he runs up a drug debt or refuses to follow the
rules about maintaining order. This is especially interesting
because the men in this study described their efforts to keep
the peace. At the same time, the prison staff also wants to
avoid riots. The tactics described by my interviewees actu-
ally help maintain order in prison. Clearly, this is a latent

effect of their informal rules. However, the men in my study
do not want chaos and disorder. They simply want to be left
alone.
So where does the code fit into their narratives? They
describe a code, which means doing good time and fol-
lowing the rules. Living by the code means you act tough,
keep to yourself, and defy the institution. Interviewees
clearly described this code and how they seek to do solid
time. This is, as others point out, tied to their identity as a
convict (Terry 1997). However, the rules serve many pur-
poses and may or may not coincide with the code. For exam-
ple, interviewees explain that correctional officers know the
shot-callers and ask for their help after a riot. Furthermore,
they describe informal punishment used against those who
intentionally cause trouble. Becker (1963) described rules
as Quite technical and may really be said to have their
base, not in some general value, but rather in an effort to
make peace between other and earlier rules (133). The
men in this study do not value the goals of this institution.
However, they value their businesses and they value safety.
Therefore, they keep the peace.
This ties the code to their rules in an interesting way.
As others point out, the inmate code dictates that convicts
never work with correctional officers or other prison staff
(Bronson 2006; Irwin 1970; Schmid and Jones 1991; Sykes
and Messinger 1960; Terry 1997). In the recent mass incar-
ceration era, gangs and underground businesses became a
serious problem in California prisons (Hunt et al. 1993; Irwin
1980). Therefore, the formal response is to increase the
number of correctional officers and gang units to formally

control gang activity. However, interviewees explained that
they organize and strategize to reduce formal reprimands
and lockdowns. With the rise of illegal businesses, men must
create even more rules. They may or may not place value on
the code or informal rules but they do place value on selling
their product. So much so that non-gang members described
how they fell into line and followed the informal rules.
According to the men in this study, doing good time means
following the code and the rules set up by leaders. They
offer up fellow gang members for beatings to avoid a gang
fight. They attempt to control racism among the inmates.
They beat up their own gang members to make a good faith

gesture to rival gangs. Throughout this process, they check
with gang leaders to determine the best course of action.
In short, the inmate code is now a general part of the inmate
experience but gangs and the illegal businesses redirect the
personal values of the inmates because they are not willing
to give up these businesses. They will sell their drugs to any-
one and avoid a lockdown by working together. The convict
identity is important to a large degree; however, organizing
social life is more important. Theoretically, this offers a
new and deeper understanding of the meaning behind the
inmate code. The forces of capitalism make them negotiate
and coordinate action in a way that coincides with the goals
of the institution. Keeping the peace and reducing formal
reprimands force men to regulate each other and sometimes
use violence to do so.
REFERENCES
Akers, Ronald L., Norman S. Hayner, and Werner Gruninger. 1977.
Prisonization in Five Countries: Type of Prison and Inmate Character-
istics. Criminology 14(4):527554.
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of
Deviance. New York: The Free Press.
Bronson, Eric. 2006. Medium Security Prisons and Inmate Subcultures:
The Normal Prison. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice
3(2):6186.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2003. California
Code of Regulations: Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections.
Sacramento.
770 R. Trammell
. 2008. Inmate Demographics. California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Clemmer, Donald. 1940. The Prison Community. Boston: Christopher
Publishing.
Cloward, Richard A. 1960. Social Control in Prison. Pp. 2048. In
Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison, edited by
R. A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Glosser, R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin,
G. M. Sykes, and S. Messinger. New York: Social Science Research
Council.
Denzin, Norman and Yvonna Lincoln. 1998. Entering the Field of Qua-
litative Research. Pp. 134. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edi-
ted by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, S. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.
Finley, Ben. 2008. Inmate and Author Hangs Himself. P. B1.In Bucks
County Courier Times. Levittown.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental
Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday.
Goodman, Philip. 2006. Its Just Black, White or Hispanic: An
Ethnographic Examination of Racializing Moves in Californias Segre-
gated Reception Centers. Pp. 150. In Presented at the Pacific Socio-
logical Association Conference: March 2006: Pacific Sociological
Association.
Hassine, Victor. 2007. Life Without Parole: Living in Prison Today,
edited by R. Johnson and A. Dobrzanska. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hayner, Norman S. and Ellis Ash. 1940. The Prison as a Community.
American Sociological Review 5(4):577583.
Hunt, Geoffrey, Stephanie Reigel, Thomas Morales, and Dan Waldorf.
1993. Changes in Prison Culture: Prison Gangs and the Case of the
Pepsi Generation. Social Problems 40(3):398409.
Irwin, John. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
. 1980. Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Irwin, John and Donald R. Cressey. 1962. Thieves, Convicts and the
Inmate Culture. Social Problems 10(2):142155.
Jacobs, James B. 1977. Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lemert, Edwin M. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the
Theory of Sociopathic Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Lemert, Edwin and Michael Winter. 2000. Crime and Deviance: Essays
and Innovations of Edwin M. Lemert. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Ohlin, Lloyd E. 1956. Sociology and the Field of Corrections. New York:
Social Science Research Council.
Parenti, Christian. 1999. Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the
Age of Crisis. London: Verso.
Pollock, Joycelyn M. 1997. Prison: Today and Tomorrow. Gaithersburg:

Aspen Press.
. 2004. Prisons and Prison Life: Costs and Consequences. Los
Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Schmid, Thomas and Richard Jones. 1991. Suspended Identity: Identity
Transformation in a Maximum Security Prison. Symbolic Interaction
14(4):415432.
Schrag, Clarence. 1954. Leadership Among Prison Inmates. American
Sociological Review 19(1):3742.
Sykes, Gresham M. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a
Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sykes, Gresham M. and Sheldon L. Messinger. 1960. The Inmate Social
System. Pp. 519. In Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of
the Prison, edited by R. A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Glosser,

R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin, G. M. Sykes and S. Messinger. New York:
Social Science Research Council.
Terry, Charles. 1997. The Function of Humor for Prison Inmates.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 13(1):2340.
Tittle, Charles R. and Drollene P. Tittle. 1964. Social Organization of
Prisoners: An Empirical Test. Social Forces 43(2):216221.
Useem, Bert and Anne M. Piehl. 2006. Prison Buildup and Disorder.
Punishment and Society 8(1):87115.
Wacquant, Loc. 2001. Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison
Meet and Mesh. Pp. 82120. In Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes
and Consequences, edited by D. Garland. London: Sage Publishers.
Winfree, Tom, Greg Newbold, and Huston Tubb. 2002. Prisoner Per-
spectives on Inmate Culture in New Mexico and New Zealand.
The Prison Journal 82(2):213233.
REBECCA TRAMMELL, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology &

Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. Her research interests include
violence, incarceration, genocide, and law and society.

The Inmate Code PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Inmate Code PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [Umea University Library]

On: 12 January 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

values, rules, and keeping the

Received 30 June 2008; accepted 14 November 2008.

called inmates. Furthermore, the convict identity is pre-

Convicts coming to prison bring with them a moral and ethi-

Hassine, an inmate who recently died in prison (Finley 2008),

Since values can furnish only a general guide to action and

Convicts use the code to structure and define informal rules

riots. They want to keep peace as a way to maintain these

Although inmates and prison staff maintain order for

THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND VALUES

Other studies found that prison culture is sometimes

to collaborate with correctional officers (Cloward 1960;

in terms of opportunity costs: that is, we know the value of a

It is possible for us to hold conflicting values without being

For example, we create sexual harassment laws because we

ees to date one another in order to comply with sexual har-

DATA AND METHODS

study. I informed them that participation was voluntary and

TABLE 1 Male Interviewees

Marty 28 Hispanic Aggravated Assault, Parole 3 Years

Logan 30 Black Robbery 5 Years

Sam 39 Black Aggravated Assault, 12 Years

from my male interviewees for this article. Demographics

these data to the entire California prison population. More-

THE INMATE CODE, RULES AND GANG LEADERS

I didnt know shit going into prison. I was totally clueless. I

Donald explained that the rules are sometimes arbitrary and

was strange but he followed the code. These men described

way to keep peace. Terry (1997) discussed this code as the

FIGURE 1 The inmate code and the convict identity.

not necessarily believe in the code but follow the rules. In

Now I worked up north for a while and I know that the

In the 1980s it all changed, suddenly every prison was over-

We try to break them up, well move the shot-callers to Peli-

(Correctional Officer Ronald)

The term shot-caller was originally used by members of the

A shot-caller is someone that runs the whole tank or module.

I asked the men to explain how the shot-caller controls the

Mike: Well, people fight over stupid shit. Sometimes you

The men explained how prisoners frequently check in with

Well we do a lot of cell-fights. I may have words with some-

Two or three men fighting in the yard or other common area

They state that men fight over drugs, disrespect, or theft.

I was brought in and they try to put me in a cell with a black

Bruce argues that the rules of segregation means he cannot

(CDCR 115 Violation) and a loss of good time credit. Josh

freedom they have to remain loyal to the rules.

UNDERGROUND ECONOMIES AND VIOLENCE

Others described underground businesses:

and run the action. Thats why we have shot-callers so when

stopped, it started in the dorm, its like a virus, it spreads

We need to keep the boys in line. If one of our guys is a hot-

control the bigger picture. If one of my guys is messing up

In this instance, Anthonys friend was causing trouble by

He sacrificed one of his own men to avoid problems

In this story, Harold, a member of the PENI skin-head gang,

I knew of a cop that asked us to wait until he was off duty to

These men describe an ongoing process of negotiation

Mac explained that he was beaten for the greater good.