Correctional Officer Training and the Secure Containment of Risk and Dangerousness in a Canadian Provincial Jurisdiction by Amy Lynn Klassen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sociology University of Toronto © Copyright by Amy Lynn Klassen 2018 Correctional Officer Training and the Secure Containment of Risk and Dangerousness in a Canadian Provincial Jurisdiction Amy Lynn Klassen Doctor of Philosophy Sociology University of Toronto 2018 Abstract Researchers argue that prison systems have become increasingly punitive since the 1970s. However, the literature on Canadian provincial prisons has yet to document how punitiveness characterized by the rise of risk and concerns about dangerousness has been incorporated into penal practice. Using data collected during a 9-week participant observation study of provincial correctional officer (CO) training and semi-structured interviews with COs, this dissertation argues that CO training depicts prisoners as risky and dangerous by characterizing prisoner misconduct as antagonistic. This conceptualization helps to legitimize the use of physical forms of control. The use of force is positioned as the most important mechanism that COs use to manage antagonistic behaviour. The development of a security orientation premised on the use of force is achieved within a masculinized training regime designed to produce competent officers. I argue that competency is a gendered process where male and female recruits are differentially sanctioned when they fail to show toughness and emotionally stoicism. The amount and type of force used must be reasonable. Reasonableness is tied to how well COs document use of ii force incidents and how they use force in camera friendly ways. These are positioned as accountability measures designed to reduce excessive force. However, I suggest that these accountability measures actually shield COs from being responsible for the force they use. Force is conceptualized as a legitimate response to prisoner behaviour and COs are taught how to administer high levels of pain without being caught for using force. So long as a CO can justify and document his or her actions, the institution and the officer are absolved of liability associated with the use of physical force. This creates the environmental conditions necessary to keep COs in control by ignoring the social and contextual causes of antagonistic behaviour. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation was not possible without the support of my family. I want to specifically acknowledge my parents, Dora and Gerry, who even in spite of different setbacks along the way they always encouraged me never to give up and to finish what I started. I know this process has not been easy on anyone, but I cannot express my gratitude enough for the support my parents gave me along the way. To my sister, Kristy, I want to specifically thank her for pushing me to come to Toronto in the first place. She knew well before I did that coming to the University of Toronto was the best career decision I could ever make. Lastly, I would not be able to do these acknowledgements without the tireless support of the love of my life and husband to be Alex. Thank you for being my rock, for having more faith in me than I had in myself, for loving me unconditionally, and for suffering with me through the writing phase. I love you and I cannot wait to share all of life’s adventures with you. I want to sincerely thank and recognize my supervisor, Dr. Kelly Hannah-Moffat for her mentorship, advice, and always making sure that she ‘told me so’ every time I doubted my abilities. Thank you Kelly for guiding me, for pushing me to be better, and for always reassuring me that everything will be fine. In my humble opinion, the best decision the Sociology department ever made was introducing me to you. Moreover, I want to thank Dr. Philip Goodman for not letting me settle for less than the best I could do. I value your advice and sincerely appreciate the time you took to read and engage with me as I finished this dissertation. I wish to also thank Dr. Paula Maurutto for your positivity and encouragement. Finally I would like to acknowledge Dr. Joshua Page and Dr. Gail Super for joining me on the defense journey. Finally, I want to thank my dear friend Paula for your endless support, my future in-laws Nadia and Serge Spendik for welcoming me into their family and for always checking on me as I hid in my office working on this dissertation, and to my future step-son Nikolas for tolerating my writing grumblings by drowning them out with his amazing guitar skills. I would also like to recognize all the correctional officers who generously gave up their time to participate in this study and to the training class who accepted me as one of the crew. This research would not be possible without your efforts. iv Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Canadian Provincial Penal Environments .................................................................... 3 1.3 Research Questions and Central Arguments ............................................................... 5 1.3.1 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Central Arguments ................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Literature Review ........................................................................................................7 1.4.1 Correctional Officers’ Attitudes and Orientations ................................................ 8 1.4.2 Perceptions of Risk and Harm: Locating the Dangers of the Job ....................... 10 1.4.3 Moving Beyond Perceptions to Identifying Behaviour ...................................... 12 1.4.4 Context Matters: Penal Spaces are Criminogenic ............................................... 15 1.5 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16 1.5.1 Correctional Officer Training – Embedded Participant Observation ................. 16 1.5.2 In-Depth Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................. 20 1.6 Data Analysis Strategy ............................................................................................... 22 1.7 Chapter Overviews ..................................................................................................... 22 1.8 Chapter Summaries .................................................................................................... 23 1.9 Aims of This Dissertation .......................................................................................... 25 Chapter 2 -- It's "Us vs. Them": Conceptualizing Prisoners' Antagonistic Behaviour as a Security Threat ........................................................................ 26 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 26 v 2.2 Conceptualizing Prisoners’ Disruptive Behaviour as Antagonism ............................ 28 2.2.1 Framing Prisoners’ Misconduct as Resistance and Friction ............................... 28 2.2.2 Conceptualizing Prisoners’ Misconduct from the COs’ Perspective: Moving Away From Friction Toward Antagonism .......................................................... 30 2.3 Criminology of the Other: Institutionalizing the Us vs. Them Dichotomy ............... 31 2.3.1 Positioning Prisoners as the “Dangerous Other” ................................................ 32 2.4 Typologies of Antagonistic Behaviour ...................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Everyday Annoyances: Disrespectful and Immature Behaviour ........................ 35 2.4.2 Verbal Threats and Altercations ......................................................................... 37 2.4.3 Property Damage: The “Dirty” Job of Being a CO ............................................ 38 2.4.3.1 Shit Bombing as "Dirty Work .....................................................................39 2.4.3.2 Shit Bombing and CO Contamination ......................................................... 41 2.4.4 Physical Altercations .......................................................................................... 43 2.5 The Complication of Mental Health and FASD Within the Security Paradigm ........ 45 2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter