Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) was created in 1989, having evolved from Texas Department of Corrections (1957-1989); Texas Prison System (1866-1957) and Texas State Penitentiary (1848-1866). The Texas Prison System began as a single institution, located in Huntsville (known as the Huntsville Penitentiary). A major penal reform program in 1947 introduced modern agricultural production; encouraged Offenders to initiate industrial production and made for improvements in the physical facilities of the Jail Units. A Construction Division was created in 1948 to utilize labor services of Offenders for production of bricks and concrete for new building projects. It has been observed that prisons in Texas are authorized to engage in Industrial Programs for production of the materials needed in TDCJ Jail Units and for sale to outside agencies in Texas. It obviously provided Offenders with occupational skills training, which together with other TDCJ Rehabilitation Programs such as vocational training, work furlough programs and community services could assist Offenders secure job upon release and, thus, adjust effectively on entry into society. Other services available to TDCJ Offenders include legal services (through the Office of the General Counsel); education, recreation, religion, physiological and psychological health care. The Windham School District created in 1969 offers GED Certificates or high school diplomas to Offenders. Junior College and Senior College classes are available in TDCJ Jail Units.

Correction Officers are the immediate supervisors of the Offenders (prisoners) as they are the closest custodians of the Offenders. They are at the bottom-rung of the stratification structure of security staff in TDCJ.

It has been observed that Correction Officers receive a 6-Week Pre-Employment Training at designated venues, during which they are engaged in classroom and field instructions for effective performance. They are among others trained for physical agility (the Physical Agility Tests [PAT_S]), Use of chemical agents (particularly Oleoresin Capsicum [OC], popularly called “Pepper Spray” and Orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile [CS], popularly called “Tear Gas”). On graduation, each of them is deployed to a Facility (Prison) where s/he receives 2 - 4 weeks On-the-Job Training (OJT) and later 1 - 2 weeks work shadowing as pre-requisite for effective performance as a Correction Officer.

There was absence of an exact population of Correction Officers in TDCJ Jail Units as at the time of this Study, due perhaps to huge turnover of Correction Officers. The job is fraught with poor prospect for career growth and personal advancement; high level of exposure to insults and vulgar comments from Offenders; intrinsic risk of physical injury from Offenders and job insecurity. The Officers are easily sacked and or asked to resign. In similar vein, recruitment is done almost every 2 weeks. Information was obtained from 292 Correction Officers who came to the Rosharon Training Academy for Refresher Training on “Use of Weapons” in March-May, 2025. This is considered adequate based on constraints in finance, time and insufficient field-assistants for an extensive study of more population of the Correction Officers. All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.

Five Facilities that sent Officers were the surveyed population. These were Clemens, Terrell, Stringfellow, Ramsey and Darrington Facilities. A Sampling Frame, which in this context, was the Facility List containing Names of Officers for the Training was obtained. Eight Officers were selected from each Facility in a Cycle, through simple random method. For 8 Cycles (times the study was done), a total of 320 Officers were drawn into the survey population. Incidentally, 292 Officers obliged responses from the researcher, resulting to 91.3 percent response rate. The Officers attend the course once in a year, therefore, the likelihood of any Officer being sampled more than once is zero.

A pre-coded questionnaire informed by the objectives of the study and specific hypothesis was developed by the researcher and pretested on 4 Correction Officers to ensure the reliability of the research instrument and the validity of the responses. It was administered on 292 Correction Officers in 5 Selected Facilities in TDCJ Houston Region III. The closed-ended questions restricted the Officers to a checklist of alternative responses to questions, while the open-ended gave them sufficient leeway to express themselves in some detail. The latter enabled the researcher to tease out significant information not quite visible in existing scholarly works. This assisted to bridge gaps in knowledge as they became the serendipity component of this research. The questionnaire consisted four Sections. Section A was on Personal Data of the Correction Officer concerned; Section B dwelt on Perception of Offenders by Correction Officers; Section C enquired about perceived Factors that influenced Offenders’ Deviant Behavior; and Section D concentrated on Treatment of Offenders. Three (3) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with the Correction Officers. Each group consisted of 6 Officers, who were not given the questionnaire to enable comparison of the responses from the respondents with the discussion from the discussants. The researcher introduced the topic to the discussants, gave them sufficient latitude to express themselves and moderated the discussion. Significant statements were reported verbatim by the researcher.

Table 1 shows that out of the total population of Correction Officer respondents in Houston Region III, with mean age 36.4 years, three-quarters (74.0%) were of African-American racial group. A preponderant 38.7 percent were married, but not living together with their spouse. An overwhelming proportion (79.0%), comprised 36.2 percent with High School Diploma as their highest level of educational attainment, and 42.8 person with a College Diploma. Most of them (92.1%) had 1 - 5 years work experience in Corrections.

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, correction officers (N = 292).

Statistics in Table 2 show that a preponderant 32.1 percent of the Correction Officer respondents perceived the prison inmates (Offenders) as persons that deliberately learnt deviant behavior; 26.1 percent perceived Offenders as feeble-minded fellows; 20.4 percent perceived them as persons with deep-seated emotional disturbance; 13.0 percent perceived them as “born criminals” that cannot be reformed; while 8.4 percent perceived Offenders as individuals responding to social values of their group. In brief, 59.5 percent of the Officers perceived the Offenders as having bio-psychological problem, while 40.5 percent perceived the Offenders as responding to social forces.

Cesare Lombroso and the Neo-Lombrosians ([1]; [16]; [6]; [10]) described a criminal as a biological freak: a throwback to an earlier and more primitive form of man, with at least 5 of certain identifiable features (called Stigmata) that include deviation in head size from the type common to race and region from where one came; symmetry of face; excessive dimension of the jaw and cheek bones; eye defects and peculiarities; abnormal dentition; ear of unusual size and occasionally very small or standing out from the head like that of the chimpanzee; nose twisted, upturned or flattened; lips fleshy, swollen or protruding; punches in the cheek; anomalies of hair, marked by characteristics of the hair of opposite sex. In contrast, [17] after an extensive study found no distinction between several long criminals and non-criminals. Also, theoretical arguments on mesomorph and its predisposition to criminal behavior have been debunked accordingly. [30] have explained that mesomorph is a factor of physical activities not gene (biology), citing that lower-working class children are by virtue of their diet, continual manual labor, physical fitness and strength more likely to be mesomorphic.

Table 2. Perception of offenders by correction officers (N = 292).

Psychological theorists (involving learning theories; intelligence theories; personality theories; theories of psychopathy; and cognitive & social development theories) have assumptions that focus on the individual or internal processes or both ([26]) Antisocial and criminal behaviors are explained by the blunted functioning of physiological measure of heart rate and skin conductance ([4]; [27]). Specifically, as the physical and mental state is disturbed by the blunted physiology, the individual feels extremely uncomfortable and desires to do something (notwithstanding whither legal or illegal) to relieve himself from the state of discomfort. Put simply, indulging in criminal behavior leads to higher arousal level that reduces the discomfort. Also, [6] have argued that a particular genotype, DRD₂ (Dopamine genes) when combined with having a criminogenic father increases the risk for serious delinquency and violent behaviors. Goddard’s thesis on “feeble-mindedness”, with premise that the mentally retarded is unable to appreciate the consequences of his behavior or the meaning of the law ([7]) has no attractive appeal, particularly as the invention and use of Intelligent Quotient (IQ) Test showed that criminals are very intelligent. In brief, Marshall Clinard as well as Sociologists criticize psychological theories for ignoring social and cultural factors in the explanation of crime, but rather focus on childhood experiences.

Human behavior, such as crime, has been reported by several scholars (that included [33]; [12]; [25]) to be caused by internal or external forces acting on individuals. Correspondingly, the social environment is crucial in both the development of criminal behavior and its control, such that criminalization is a “learning process”: a criminal learns crime, just like others learn a trade through training and association with others. It has its “School”, its special idioms, techniques and even professional relationships². In support, [32] and [14] explained that a social environment that was un-healthy or abnormal or criminalistic may lead to crime, as it ultimately produces “Character defects” and “maladjusted personality”. This is typified in early adversity and childhood maltreatment, which could result to neurobiological and behavioral problems in the individuals. As summarized by a Correction Officer,

Someoftheseinmatesarefrombrokenhomes. Theywerebroughtupbytheiruselessmothersanddon’tknowtheirfathers, That’sthereasontheymisbehaveandrespectnobody.

(FGD, MaleCorrectionOfficer, Aged 35 - 39 yrs).

According to [19], Thorstein Sellin observed that the difference between a criminal and a non-criminal is that they are responding to different conduct norms. Explicitly, [29] remarked that “the criminal underworld gang is dependent upon a normal upper world (that is, without the normal upperworld, the underworld gang cannot operate) and some of its values reflect those approved in normal social groups”. Typically, crime in America has been observed to be a form of exploitation resulting from other forms of exploitation not defined as crime. As a result, crime could be interpreted as “retaliation”. Merton³ had espoused that there are symptoms of failure and disorganization of the society as well as of the individual Offender. These failures are seen as depriving Offenders of contact with the institutions responsible for assuring development of law-abiding conduct, such as sound family life, good schools, employment, recreational opportunities, desirable companions among others.

It has been observed that 20^th Century Scholars underscored that the South (that is, Southern part of United States, that include Texas) has a tendency for personal and societal violence; they enjoyed soldiering and regularly resolved inter-personal disputes with violence in unusual degree ([23]). The South has often been celebrated as a region that stressed so-called masculinity traits; a region demarcated by violence, hard-nosed football … a proclivity toward the military⁴. Nevertheless, the circumstance that pre-empted such traits is largely over-looked in analysis. The introduction of Jim Crow Laws to Southern United States in late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries to enforce racial segregation ([23]), in defiance to the 14^th Amendment that granted African-Americans equality with the White alongside the associated lynching, used as an extra-legal form of punishment ([15]; [9]) most likely toughened individuals in the South to resist torture, humiliation and in-human treatment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, together with the widespread myth of “Criminals are different kinds of people than we are” projected by the stereotypical images from mass media describing an Offender as abnormal, insane, immoral, sub-human and with other unprinted adjectives, there is a growing consensus among sociology scholars that deviant behavior is determined by the political elites ([31]; [3]) and has no biological or psychological undertone.

On whether there is “One Law for the Rich” and another for the Poor, a preponderant 65.6 percent said “No”, compared with 26.4 percent that said “Yes” and 8 percent that were undecided. Those that negated difference in the Law pointed at the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the country rooted on the “Rule of Law”. On the other hand, respondents that affirmed difference in Law drew attention to omnibus laws (Federal and State Laws, Common [Case] Laws and Administrative Regulations) with selective applications to persons in the United States.

[5] have argued that it is well known that African-American men are unfairly treated when encountering the United States’ Criminal Justice System, due to systemic racial and class biases that foster frameworks of inequality from arrest to sentencing. Correspondingly, [21] reiterates that race remains a divisive issue in the United States and feigning ignorance over its existence by presenting the façade of racial blindness, invariably blocks attempts to right the wrongs. In support, [26] wrote that Columbia University was being defined by some students as a “White Space”. It was not only a racialized space where non-Whites were perceived as intruders and unwelcome, but also an institutional space where White privilege was reproduced. Explicitly⁵, Native American teens are twice as likely to be subjected to bullying in School as compared to “White” teens. They have the lowest graduation rates than any ethnic group; they are more likely to be killed and injured by the Police, compared to any other ethnic group. Native American teens are twice as likely to be incarcerated after minor crimes as compared to teenagers of any other ethnicity. Their propensity to commit suicide is higher than that of any other ethnic group. They appear to be targeted for discrimination by law enforcement.

The foregoing is an apt description of systemic racism and reveals, unequivocally, racial/ethnic groups relations in the United States. Significantly, Merton⁶ espoused that the American Society specifies a Value (Materialism), which is the “American Dream” and conventional means to achieve the American Dream (that includes acquisition of education, requisite skills and competencies for work, creativity among others), but closes the vocational gateway against some people. This certainly makes it difficult/frustrates efforts of those people to achieve the “American Dream”, therefore, creating avenue for a deviant action of selecting either or a combination of “Innovation”, “Ritualism”, “Retreatism” or “Rebellion”.

In Table 3, all the respondents affirmed having heard, “Offenders are not your Friend”. An overwhelming proportion said this made them avoid intimacy with the Offenders. Almost all (94.9%) said Offenders had used derogatory words, such as “fuck yeah”, “mother fucker”, “nigga” against them, compared to 5.1 percent that said such words have not been used against them. In response to such vulgar words, a discussant commented as thus:

Aninmatewascursingmeoutanddemonstratingwithobscenities—sexualpose. IusedmyOConhimandimmediatelyinitiatedICS (InstantCommandSystem).

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 35 - 39 years).

Also, another discussant retorted thus:

Lieu (Lieutenant) oftendealswiththeseinmates. Theotherday, aninmatecursedhismother, hehittheinmatewithhisfistandlatersprayedOConhim.

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 30 - 34 years).

In terms of whether locking-up of offenders in Refractory Cells (such as Administrative Segregation [AD-SEG]) and use of restraints could harden the offenders, about three-quarters (73.3%) said “No”, compared to 24.0 percent that responded “Yes” and 2.7 percent that were ambivalent. The preponderant reason for the use of restraints is to ensure security of offenders. This is widely known to the offenders and scarcely hardens them towards criminal tendencies/behavior. Statistics show 64.7 percent have used reasonable force (including chemical agent—Oleoresin Capsicum [OC]) to elicit compliance of an offender to an Order, while 35.3 percent have not used OC. Among those that have Used Force, 60.8 percent used it occasionally, while 39.2 percent regularly use force. According to a discussant,

IwouldexhaustmyOConanyinmatethatmessesup. Theyarecriminalsandthat’swhytheyareinprison.

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 35 - 40 years).

In English Prisons (that include United States), despite the ostensible efforts to improve prison life, …staff—prisoner relationships are more detached, and staff members seem more unresponsive and more inclined to punish ([8]). This contrasts with data above that showed that the Correction Officers (COs) gravitated towards retribution, deterrence and incapacitation of the Offenders. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) regularly aoolies the appropriate section in PD: General Rules of Conduct and Disciplinary Action Guidelines for Employees and PD; 24: Administrative Separation to discipline COs that deviate from the policies and procedures.

[18] argues that the perception of COs has been linked to an inmate’s willingness to participate in rehabilitation. Also, [11] explained that COs no longer express a punitive attitude toward inmates and generally support rehabilitation programs, notwithstanding the more punitive sentiment among the public. Whereas the foregoing may be a “safety measure” adopted by the COs to avoid loss of their job, it creates a pseudo-impression of negligence to promote public safety and safeguard victims’ rights, while transitioning offenders to a successful reentry into the society. This is typified in instances where the victims and their relatives expect the offender to be severely punished and incarcerated for a long prison term. The corollary may be an increase in criminal behavior and acceptance of prison as haven.

Statistics showed that in Kentucky, offenders preferred serving a One-year imprisonment than accepting alternative sanction outside prison ([13]). Also, a study of 1031 adult male subjects convicted in Texas in 1993 showed that most of them did not feel they would be stigmatized as a result of their convictions ([2]). Data showed that 92.1 percent of the respondents got the desired result of eliciting compliance from the offenders, while 7.7percent did not get. As explained by a discussant:

ThereisthisinmateinourRestrictedHousingUnitthatalwayspourhisexcretaonofficers. HeloudlycomplainsagainstbeingintheRestrictedHousing (deprivedofhispropertyandwearinga “SuicideGown”). TheOChasbeenusedonhimtwicewithinaWeek, yethetargetsofficerswithhisexcretaandurine. TheproblemisthatO1 (SeniorWarden) instructedagainstouruseoftheOCforsuchact. Theinmateshouldbeapsychepatient.

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 30 - 34 years).

The Agency (TDCJ) warned Correction Officers not to be “Offender-Friendly”, in terms of getting too intimate with offenders by discussing their personal issues with offenders; discussing offenders’ friends and relatives with them. Table 3 reveals that almost all (96.9%) of the respondents have heard about Correction Officer(s) in their respective Facilities being intimate with offenders. As summarized by a Correction Officer discussant:

TherearefemaleCorrectionOfficersinmyUnit (Facility) thatareOffender-Friendly. TheybringoutinmatesoftheirchoicefromtheCellandstayclosewithhimdiscussingforprettylongtime. TheyeveninformtheinmatesabouttheOfficersthatdislikethem—theOffenders. Thismakestheconcernedinmatestoexhibit “attitude” towardstheOfficersreported.

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 30 - 34 years).

Among Correction Officer respondents that confirmed existence of “Offender-Friendly” Officers, 64.0 percent have an unfavorable attitude towards the behavior, while 36.0 percent were ambivalent. According to a discussant,

Beinginprisonisnobigdealhere. Someoftheofficershaverelative(s) whohadbeeninprison, therefore, “OffenderisnotyourFriend” doesn’tmeanmuchtothem. Theybringstufffortheinmates, whichmayincludeContraband.

(FGD, CorrectionOfficer, Male, Aged 34 - 34 years).

Table 3. Treatment of offenders.

Table 4 shows a 5-point Linkert Scale analysis of respondents’ perception on the influence of certain factors on offender’s deviant behavior.

Emotional disturbance, possibly during Childhood; Conflict of conduct norms (the value system of the Offender’s society being at odds with that of United States); and Disjunction between society’s aspiration (goals) and society’s avenue (means) for getting the goals were statistically significant factors (Mean > 3:00). Correspondingly, the existence of “abnormal experience” resulting to maladjusted personalities ([14]), bitter experiences of enslavement and “the black codes” of Jim Crow Laws fossilized in memories via story-telling and History books ([28]) as well as personal experience resonate segregation, discrimination and social injustice that should be resisted.

Merton’s exposition on the inherent structural inability of the specified aspect of the American Culture (Norm) to effectively direct human conduct in the attainment of “American Dream”, cannot be over-emphasized. The worrisome concern, rather, is on the conflict of conduct norms. Are the Offenders largely immigrants? Even at that, are they ignorant of the laws and practices in the United States? This may appear heuristic. Given that peer effects on individuals predisposed toward a given behavior tend to be larger than peer effects on individuals without such a predisposition ([20]) and the fact that many offenders express guilt and shame about their criminal activities ([22]), prima facie suggests their commitment to the dominant social order. This relatively obviates their ignorance of the requirements of law in the United States.

Statistics in Table 5 show a 5-point Linkert Scale analysis of respondents’ perception on how certain factors are important in effective Offender management. Use of reasonable Force; Informal resolution of grievance; physical punishment; Writing Offenders up for a disciplinary action; Hand and leg restraint (handcuffing and leg cuffing); Denial of privileges; and Denial of Parole were statistically significant factors (Mean > 3:00). Reduction of Diet (reduced meal) and subjection of offenders to hard manual labor were statistically not significant (Mean < 3:00). In support, it is clearly established under the 8^th Amendment of the United States Constitution that prison officials are obligated to provide inmates with nutritionally adequate meals on a regular basis⁷ as proper nutrition in prisons is a human right⁸.

Descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation were used to provide answers to Table 4 and Table 5 while one sample t-test statistics (population t-test or t-test of significant difference between sample and population mean) was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.

Decision Rule: A mean score of 3.00 and above indicates agree, while below 3.00 indicates disagree.

Table 4. (12) To what extent would you agree that Offender’s deviant behavior was influenced by the following items.

Sample Size (n), Summation (∑X), Mean Score ( X ¯ ), Standard Deviation (S), Variance (S²); An asterisk (*) indicates that respondents’ perceptions are above average, as their mean scores are greater than the criterion value of 3.00 on a 5-point scale.

This implies that emotional disturbance, possibly during Childhood; Conflict of Conduct Norms; and Disjunction between Societal Goals and Avenues for getting the Goals were agreed by the respondents as factors influencing Offender’s deviant behavior.

Table 5. (21) To what extent would you agree each of the following items as an important element of effective Offender Management?

Sample Size (n), Summation (∑X), Mean Score ( X ¯ ), Standard Deviation (S), Variance (S²); An asterisk (*) indicates that respondents’ perceptions are above average, as their mean scores are greater than the criterion value of 3.00 on a 5-point scale.

This implies that with the exception of reduction of diet (reduced meal) and subjection of Offenders to hard manual labor, all the measures stated in Table 5 above were agreed by the respondents as important elements of effective offender management.

Offenders in the TDCJ Facilities have access to televisions. They watch programs of their choice; enjoy regular access to in-door games (Scrabble, Chess, Dominos among others provided by TDCJ) and out-door games (Basket Ball, Volley Ball and Hand Ball provided by TDCJ); enjoy free nutritious Meals; free laundry of their Prison Clothes; not subjected to tedious manual labor; and do not pay taxes. The foregoing makes the offenders relaxed and comfortable. Table 6 shows that 48.2 percent of the respondents think the relaxed environment of the offenders could make them become “Jail Birds” (Recidivists), compared to 37.0 percent with a contrary view and 14.8 percent that were ambivalent to the question. However, 43.8 percent think the Offenders could be rehabilitated. The preponderant reason given by the respondents is that the unanticipated bitter lessons of being incarcerated, together with participation in education programs and skills acquisition, a moral behavior has been grafted upon the, otherwise, criminal lifestyle of some of the offenders. According to [24], offenders in prisons are subjected to severe curtailment of their liberties, solitary confinement, sometimes severely restricted from contact with spouse, children, relatives and friends; sometimes exposed to assault and rape among others that altogether humble, humiliate and deprive the prisoner of his/her individuality in the prison system.

A slightly larger proportion (50.4%) of the respondents are pessimistic that the offenders could be rehabilitated. The overwhelming reason given was that criminality was ingrained in the offenders. Correspondingly, there is considerable evidence that prison may amplify criminal behavior rather than limiting it. Put simply, there is agreement that prison experience breeds crime itself. Evidence shows that incarceration increases the probability of further engagement in criminal behavior, particularly as it is analogous to a Child in family and peer group, with capacity to shape attitudes, values, behavior, and patterns among others.

Table 6. Prospect of recidivism of the offenders.