Victimization Experiences Associated with Factors before and after Entering Prison in Inmates in Spanish Prisons

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to know the characteristics and traits of people who enter prison. Specific variables for each subject are used before entering prison and how they influence victimization before and after admission is analyzed. The sample is made up of 509 subjects, from five Penitentiary Centers and two Social Integration Centers (CIS), of the Autonomous Community of Galicia-Spain. The majority of them are men, and the age ranges between 21 and 63 years. This is a quantitative study, with the questionnaire as an instrument for collecting information, which was developed ad hoc and requested sociodemographic data and data on the types of victimization suffered before and after admission to prison. The results indicate that there is a lot of victimization both before and after and that women are the most exposed to sexual assaults outside of prison. Their status as victims increases once inside, as happens with men. To the types of victimization that they already suffer on the streets (ethnicity, low economic resources, age, or drug use), those coming from confinement are added. The lack of freedom and living with strangers, following rules that if not followed lead to sanctions, cause victimization to increase.

1. Introduction

The victimization of people deprived of liberty is a topic that is little exploited in specialized literature. The difficulty of accessing the centers and having a stable sample (some are finishing their sentence, others are recent arrivals, being isolated, have a visitor that day or be in the infirmary, among other circumstances), complicates the work of collecting information.

The custodial sentences and security measures will be oriented toward reeducation and social reintegration and may not consist of forced labor (Article 25.2 Spanish Constitution) and included in all international treaties. But the question is what is happening inside the prisons? What factors are influencing situations of violence, robberies, fights, people getting sick due to alcohol or drug addictions, and even suicides?

Life in prison is a topic that has always aroused a lot of interest on the part of those who research the subject; but it has been done considering victimization outside (before entering prison), and much less when they are deprived of liberty. Works such as [1, 2, 3, 4] do come close to this.

An identification and understanding of risk factors for victimization during the serving of sentences can be useful to create prevention strategies based on reducing opportunities for violence. This is where this work focuses knowing what factors make one person more vulnerable than another and, therefore, more likely to suffer abuse and be a victim of their peers.

There are minimal studies carried out in recent years, which focus on the characteristics of people who enter prison and those who acquire prison. There are also few that provide information about the extent to which these variables influence the victimization of the person who enters prison or who is already there.

2. Concept of victimization associated with the prison context

The analysis of victimization in penitentiary centers necessarily leads to a prior conceptualization of the term. Therefore, it is about reaching a shared definition that facilitates the comparison between research and progress in this field of knowledge [2, 3, 5, 6].

As pointed out [6], “Victimization is a complex phenomenon and a process that has its beginnings in the manifestation of harmful actions so that the result is precisely victimization. Victimization and its effects are not limited to the victim of the crime, and this action can also affect the perpetrator, causing damage to that subject who is deprived of liberty for violating criminal regulations.” (page 2).

In general, the concept of victimization is defined, by most authors, as the number of events reported by people in which they claim to be victims or harmed by some criminal offense [4, 7].

From the research consulted on victimization, it is concluded that there are a series of common factors that affect it. The activities carried out in prison may have something to do with whether they have money, whether earned in prison or provided by family or friends -, treatments, visits, work done, age, race, physical and mental health, years of compliance, conviction, substance use, or too much leisure time, among others [2, 3, 8].

There are authors who point out that routine activities affect victimization [1, 4, 9] among others. Regarding physical victimization [4], there are three types of victimization that explain it and, for this, the concept of “objective congruence” has been used, that is. that the personal characteristics of the victims coincide with the possible motivations of the offenders.

A wide variety of facts or personal characteristics can cause violence to increase. We can talk about the time dedicated to recreation that makes them idle and causes fights and unnecessary violence. This aspect is clear in studies by [10, 11, 12], but, however, is not classified as a factor that affects victimization in other work [13]. This data speaks of the great variety of results depending on the prison and the existing regulations within them.

The study carried out by [14] has revealed that at least 50% of the inmate population has suffered some type of victimization experience within the penitentiary center, and the most common form being suffering insults or threats from other inmates and/or center officials.

In the research carried out by [3], it is concluded that it is the presence of aggressiveness in people, which is behind the adoption of a code of conduct or subculture within the prison, followed by the subjective evaluation of permanence in prison and the relationship they have with their module mates.

All victimization affects one’s own self-esteem, interest in doing activities, consumption of harmful substances, as well as social and professional reintegration, which is the final objective of the stay in prison, as has already been pointed out previously [2, 3, 11, 15].

A study carried out with the LGTBI community concludes that they suffered at least one discrimination throughout their lives and none of them reported the latest discrimination to the authorities. Most of the discrimination occurred on public roads and in leisure places, the aggressors were men, and in half of the cases, they were unknown to the respondent. This is not foreign to prison since it reflects society, and where these behaviors should be penalized. The fear of being a victim of an anti-LGTBI hate crime since the beginning of the pandemic was associated with having suffered some discrimination during the same period.

The theme of women in prison is having a lot of presence in literature. All the works analyzed in the last 5 years conclude that they suffer double victimization for being in prison and for being a woman [16, 17, 18], and they conclude.

(…) the rate of sexual victimization reports higher prevalence rates in women (21.2%), four and a half times higher than that of men (4.3%). Regarding physical victimization, the values are higher, with studies indicating values between 32% and 66%, as well as when it involves material victimization, with rates (e.g. theft) between 18% and the 48%. (p.2)

The effect of previous beliefs on violence in prison has also been analyzed, finding a link between the two, especially in those people with less family support, previous sanctions, and who belonged to a gang [19]. Like the racial issue, where several studies have shown that there are differences in the factors that increase the risk of suffering violence [13, 18].

When considering variables prior to entering prison, the literatura atura has shown that young people, with a lower educational level, with drug addiction, less self-control, belonging to a gang, who come from disadvantaged contexts and with a greater criminal history present worse behavior during their sentence [11, 20].

Finally, the adaptation of inmates to the penitentiary environment and the assimilation of the formal and informal norms that are generated there is one of the unknown phenomena now, and that has focused most of the efforts of the professionals and theorists of criminology [21]. After the global pandemic, many of the processes have been computerized, and this has caused double victimization of inmates by having to assume situations that violate their rights. In short, although there are many studies carried out on people deprived of liberty, not enough work has been done on before and after entering prison.

There are few publications on intervention with people victimized in prison and those that exist do not focus in detail on intervention in this type of victimization. There is consensus regarding the need to adopt empirically validated intervention models, referring to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), trauma informed treatment (TIT) [21], and mentoring among internal people, with the figure of a counselor to guide the intervention.

The objective of this work focuses on knowing the characteristics, situations, and factors that affect victimization that occurs within prison. To do this, both external characteristics — prior to entering prison — and internal factors that encourage this victimization are considered. It is understood that knowing them is the first step to prevent them, and thereby achieve the purpose of the prison stay.

If being in prison is a way to reeducate inmates so that they can leave with an attitude and behavior that is far from the life they led before entering prison, the necessary steps must be taken to make that happen.

Below is an investigation carried out to better understand what happens before and after entering prison, investigating which traits are most conducive to victimization outside and inside it and trying to see which ones best predict certain types of crimes occurring in prison. Victimization that little or nothing helps with the expected improvement in time in prison. What this achieves is people resentful of the system, forgotten and despised by the society that will have to welcome them and, perhaps, more eager to commit crimes because that is what they learn in prison to handle it as best they can.

We know that a healing system contributes to the prevention of violence and victimization and knowing what these traits are will help authorities and treatment teams know how to channel their work inside prison to achieve conscious and responsible free citizens once they are released on the street.

We begin by commenting on the process followed, which is long and with great difficulties, and then proceed to analyze the sample as a whole and by sex. In a second moment, the correlations of traits prior to admission with the types of victimization analyzed, and finally, the traits within the prison are analyzed to see if any variation has occurred.

3. Methodology

A quantitative and qualitative methodology has been used, although this chapter focuses on the quantitative part. This is a descriptive, correlational, and predictive study that seeks to know the degree of influence between variables, internal or external, that affect victimization.

3.1 Population and sample

The population is made up of all the inmates in the different Penitentiary Centers of Galicia (Spain) which, according to the latest statistics managed (General Council of the Judiciary, 2023), is made up of 3010 people, of which 2767 are men (92%) and 243 are women (8%).

The participating sample in this study is 509 subjects, the majority of which belong to the two large centers of Galicia: Teixeiro (A Coruña) and A Lama (Pontevedra). The sample represents 15.97% of the prison population of Galicia; 449 (92%) are men and 60 (8%) are women.

Here are collected all the people who have been able to complete all the data requested, leaving out some who did not manage to answer everything because they were on leave on the day of the survey, for having a vis-a-vis, for having had bad behavior, among other reasons.

The truth is that the population fluctuates so much that the sample is affected. The age is between 21 and 63 years, which represents an average of 40.05 years and a standard deviation of 9.454.

3.2 Instrument

The instrument applied is an ad hoc victimization scale that consists of two parts: sociodemographic data and victimization scale.

The victimization scale asked about the following facts: If you have been a victim of any conflictive situation at the center, if you have been robbed, physically harmed, assaulted, insulted, threatened, or sexually assaulted, where it happened, time period in which it occurred, number of times the victim has been a victim, number of people involved, whether the incident has been witnessed by an official, whether they have reported what happened to the authorities, whether they know an inmate who has been a victim, have been robbed, physically injured, assaulted, insulted, threatened, or sexually assaulted.

The answers are binary Yes or No.

3.3 Procedure

The procedure followed to carry out the collection of information was as follows:

1. The person responsible for training at the Penitentiary Centers of Galicia was contacted and provided, for dissemination, with a cover letter with the objectives of the study, the data to be collected and the informed consent model to be completed by those people who, voluntarily, would like to collaborate.

2. Informed consents were collected and a discussion group was held with six inmates in each center to get closer to their reality, their own vocabulary, and to convey confidence and security that everything discussed would be confidential.

3. Depending on the participants and the availability of the centers, several sessions were scheduled to complete surveys and conduct interviews.

The surveys were applied once the training activities with the inmates had finished (July and August) and respecting the hours of access to the centers.

It was carried out in small groups, following at all times the instructions of those responsible for training, who called on the different modules to allow access, and sending the inmates to the room provided for this.

The initial research design contemplated the massive application of the questionnaire for self-completion. In practice, it was more of a structured interview than a survey since many inmates constantly required our help to answer it. This made the application difficult, increased the time dedicated to it, and, therefore, increased the travel of the members of the research team responsible at each center. This effort made it possible to collect rigorous and reliable information.

The centers visited are 100% of those existing in the Autonomous Community of Galicia-Spain: five penitentiary centers and two social integration centers (CIS), as shown in Table 1.

	Penitentiary center	Men	Women	Total
A Coruña	Teixeiro	76 (34,6%)	5 (1%)	181 (35,6%)
	SIC Carmela Arias y Díaz de Rábago	41 (8,1%)	3 (0,6%)	44 (8,6%)
Lugo	Bonxe	20 (3,9%)	10 (2%)	30 (5,9%)
	Monterroso	22 (4,3%)	0 (0%)	22 (4,3%)
Orense	Pereiro de Aguiar	60 (11,8%)	5 (1%)	65 (12,8%)
Pontevedra	A Lama	113 (22,2%)	37 (7,3%)	150 (29,5%)
	SIC Carmen Avendaño	17 (3,3%)	0 (0%)	17 (3,3%)
	TOTAL	449 (88,2%)	60 (11,8%)	509 (100%)

Table 1.

Population and sample.

3.4 Analysis of data

Descriptive and inferential statistics have been used to analyze the data. Nonparametric statistics were used because the data did not follow a normal distribution. Overall mean scores and by subgroups of interest, Kolgomorov-Smirnof (K_S) test, correlation analysis and logistic regression are used to know which variables prior to prison and already there, best predict victimization and what victimization it is.

The analyzes were carried out with the IBM Statistics 29.0 package.

4. Results

The first result is the one obtained with the Kolgomorov-Smirnof (K-S) test, which yields a data of .876, which entails the use of nonparametric tests.

It begins by exposing the results of the total sample according to the type of victimization suffered (Table 2).

		n	% by rows
You have been robbed	NO	332	65,2%
	YES	177	34,8%
You have been assaulted	NO	489	96,1%
	YES	20	3,9%
They have caused you physical injuries	NO	406	79,8%
	YES	103	20,2%
They have insulted you	NO	281	55,2%
	YES	228	44,8%
They have threatened you	NO	329	64,6%
	YES	180	35,4%
You have been sexually assaulted	NO	503	98,8%
	YES	6	1,2%

Table 2.

Descriptive of the total sample according to the type of victimization suffered.

From the table, it can be deduced that there are many people who feel victimized, mainly of insults (44.8%), have been robbed (39.1%), have received threats (35.4%), have assaulted (4.9%), and finally, they have felt sexually assaulted (1.2%).

High levels of victimization are observed for a place that, in theory, is there to reeducate. Looking at sex, some changes are observed in relation to the victimization of men and women. The first thing that is observed is the lower number of responses due to fear of reprisals. It is difficult for them to recognize certain types of actions since it makes them think that they may be sanctioned, although they are reminded that only people on the research team will see it.

4.1 Victimization linked to variables prior to entering prison

The variables analyzed before entering prison, or independent variables (VI), are:

1. Sex

2. Age

3. Marital status

4. Ethnicity

5. Frequency of contact with family in the last year

6. Employment status prior to entry

7. I studied before entering prison

8. He used amphetamines before entering prison

9. He consumed Cannabis before entering prison

10. He used cocaine before entering prison

11. He consumed crack before entering prison

12. He consumed alcohol before entering prison

13. He consumed tranquilizers before entering prison

14. He used heroin before entering prison

15. He used methadone before entering prison

It begins by exposing the results of the types of victimization experienced by inmates prior to entering prison considering sex (Table 3). The results by sex are presented for greater clarification of the situation.

	Sex
	Men		Women		Total
	n	% by rows	n	% by rows
You have been robbed	150	33,5%	27	45,0%	177
You have been assaulted	20	4,5%	0	0,0%	20
They have caused you physical injuries	95	21,2%	8	13,3%	103
They have insulted you	198	44,2%	30	50,0%	228
They have threatened you	157	35,0%	23	38,3%	40
You have been sexually assaulted	3	0,7%	3	5,0%	6

Table 3.

Types of victimization according to sex outside of prison considering sex.

Regarding the item “You have been sexually assaulted”, although in absolute values, it gives the same data in men and women (n = 3), the correlation is only significant in men with a Spearman’s Rho of .829, p = 0.02 < 0.05.

Age is a variable that means that as you get older you have more consideration and, therefore, victimization decreases. The correlation is not significant in either men or women in any of the types of victimization analyzed.

Marital status, however, is a variable that is significant in women when crossed with all the variables analyzed. It is single people who correlate more than married people with DV, with values that range between .765 and .888.

Ethnicity (payos and gypsies in this context) gives an average correlation of .589, but which is statistically significant (p = 0.03 < 0.05) in all the DV analyzed and whose values range between .589 and .832 if it is about assaults by gypsies on payos (p = 0.04 < 0.05). Finally, .690 if it is about insults, which is more common from payos to gypsies (p = 0.01 < 0.05).

Neither the fact of having a partner before entering prison, nor having children influences when it comes to being victimized, as occurs with the employment situation.

The frequency of contact with family is an important factor in avoiding conflict. Those who acknowledge having constant contacts with the family reduce the risk of victimization (p = 0.02 < .05).

They also asked about drug use before entering prison and the results varied depending on the type of drugs they consumed. The most experienced (they used amphetamines, cannabis, or crack) are the ones who victimize others the most since being able to consume often depends on them.

In addition, logistic regressions (Table 4) have been carried out to know to what extent any input variable predicts subsequent behavior in prison. Specifically, the Cox test was performed, considering the dependent variables (DV) separately. Here, we collect the summary of the model by the length of the text.

Steps	Logarithm of likelihood −2	Cox and Shell R
1	265,920	0,71

Table 4.

Summary of the model with the variables prior to entering prison.

In view of the results obtained by observing the summary of the model (Table 5), carried out with all the variables, it is seen that there is a Cox R2 of 0.71, which indicates that 71% of the independent variables used explain the victimization suffered before entering prison, which represents a high value.

	Sex
	Men		Women		Total
	n	% by rows	n	% by rows
You have been robbed	160	80,8%	38	19,2,0%	198
You have been assaulted	99	96,1%	4	3,9%	103
They have caused you physical injuries	157	92,2%	11	6,5%	40
They have insulted you	213	88,7%	27	11,2	240
They have threatened you	162	95,8%	7	4,1%	169
You have been sexually assaulted	3	0,7%	0	0%	3

Table 5.

Types of victimization according to sex in prison.

4.2 Victimization linked to variables in prison

The variables analyzed before entering prison, or independent variables (VI), are:

1. Sex

2. Age

3. Marital status

4. Ethnicity

5. Economic income from work in the penitentiary center

6. Study now

7. Judicial situation

8. Time served

9. Do you currently use amphetamines?

10. Do you currently consume cannabis?

11. Do you currently use cocaine?

12. Do you currently consume crack?

13. Do you currently consume alcohol?

14. Do you currently consume tranquilizers?

15. Do you currently use heroin?

16. Do you currently use methadone?

17. Has a recognized disability?

It begins by exposing the results considering the type of victimization suffered in prison (Table 6). The results by sex are presented for greater clarification of the situation.

		n	% by rows
You have been robbed	NO	322	65,2%
	YES	187	70%
You have been assaulted	NO	484	96,1%
	YES	15	3,3%
They have caused you physical injuries	NO	396	79,8%
	YES	113	22,2%
They have insulted you	NO	251	55,2%
	YES	258	50,7%
They have threatened you	NO	319	64,6%
	YES	190	37,3%
You have been sexually assaulted	NO	503	98,8%
	YES	3	0,59%

Table 6.

Descriptive of the total sample considering the type of victimization suffered in prison.

The first thing that stands out is the slight increase in victimization that inmates say they have once they enter prison. As mentioned in the “procedure” section, it was necessary to conduct an interview instead of a questionnaire, and we saw people’s reluctance to answer what they were capable of doing while in prison, but they expressed their fear of the sanctions imposed by the officials.

In the prison context, victimization follows a different pattern than outside of it in those identification variables that are shared. Regarding the “sex” variable, it is no longer a cause of victimization in prison for women, perhaps it is because in Galicia women occupy a single module (Table 5). They all live together regardless of the crime committed. And with age, the same thing happens as before entering prison: older women are less victimized, with a Spearman’s Rho of .898 (p = 0.02 < .05).

Descriptive of the total sample considering the type of victimization suffered in prison. There is an increase in acts of victimization such as robberies, insults, and assaults, especially among men. The women recognize that they are victims of robberies and insults from their fellow module members correlation analysis was carried out using Spearman’s Rho between these variables (VI) and the victimization variables analyzed that act as dependent variables (DV) (6 in total).

Marital status does not correlate significantly with any type of victimization analyzed.

Ethnicity is a variable that, while in prison, continues to correlate significantly with victimization in all types analyzed, although with lower correlations that range between .599 and .865. Only the sex variable is left out as we mentioned before.

Regarding the economic income they receive for work done in prison, it is a highly valued asset, and these people are the result of threats from those who do not have it (Rho = .645; (p = 0.02 < 0, 05). and assaults (Rho = 773; (p = 0.04 < 0.05). This data has to do with routines in prison, when one does nothing, it causes conflicts and victimizes others.

Currently, there are few that carry out studies, but those that do are less victims than the others in most of the types of victimization analyzed except for insults where the correlation is high and significant (Rho = 873; (p = 0.04 < 0.05).

The judicial situation, whether they are preventive or punished, is a variable that does not affect victimization; However, if the time served does the opposite, as seems logical; the longer the time already served, the less victimization, because experience works in favor.

Drugs in all their forms circulate in prison. It is understood that when they go on leave or when they have a visit, they are introduced, and then inside they trade or threaten (Rho = 373; (p = 0.00 < 0.05), or assault (Rho = 673; (p = 0.01 < 0.05) with them, these two types of victimization being those suffered by those who do not have easy access to them.

Finally, depending on the type of drugs, the behavior worsens once in prison because confinement makes them more excited and consumption increases, whenever there is a possibility of it. Everyone is capable of stealing, robbing, insulting, assaulting, etc., to get a little bit of drugs. Only those who “do not control anything” are easy victims for the rest. As is the case with those who have some type of recognized disability, depending on whether it is physical or mental; but they are easy victims, although they do not give high or significant correlations with DV.

The logistic regression (Table 7) carried out to find out if any IV predicts any of the DV or victimization, the summary of the model is presented and some cases that seem significant are clarified.

Steps	Logarithm of likelihood −2	Cox and Shell R
1	265,939	,560

Table 7.

Summary of the model with the variables prior to entering prison.

As can be seen, in general, there is less explanation for the victimization behaviors coming from the variables analyzed in prison. The profile of the victim is no longer female, as already mentioned; this is a man with a job inside the prison, who receives money for it, with few studying while serving their sentence, fewer being victims of their peers; and the variable judicial situation also enters, with the convicted being the ones who suffer the greatest victimization in the form of threats, harassment, and insults.

5. Conclusions and discussion

Staying in prison does not seem to be the best method to educate inmates in the social and labor reintegration. There is a lack of effective actions to be taken so that they can take advantage of the time spent there in more productive activities. Encouraging study, physical activity, and self-knowledge could be some examples.

Some of the data collected in this work coincide with those carried out by other authors. The issue of victimization among women seems the most evident, perhaps because in other prisons, where there are a greater number of them, they live in modules shared with men, which can further encourage this type of abuse. This is reflected in different works [18, 22, 23], among others.

Differences by ethnicity or race are also present in other studies [10, 18, 24, 25], being a victimization variable especially physical.

The literature has shown that young people, with a lower educational level, with drug addiction, less self-control, belonging to a gang, who come from disadvantaged contexts, and with a longer criminal history present worse behavior during their sentence [20].

Another conclusion is that people’s past is very important, especially if we consider the type of victimization they carry out, which is more conducive to sanctions by officials. This acts as a vicious circle in which the greater the number of sanctions, the greater the number of victims. In this sense, Mears et al. [19] express themselves when they analyzed the effect of previous beliefs on violence in prison, finding a link between the two, especially in those people with less family support, previous sanctions, and who belonged to a gang.

The limitations of this work are motivated by the sample that had to be broader and more equitable in terms of gender, to delve deeper into a victimization that seems evident. Another aspect to keep in mind is that this work is only quantitative (although it helped to complete it by resembling more of an interview than a self-administered questionnaire). It would be necessary to triangulate the information with other more qualitative methodologies, such as in-depth interviews, life stories, etc.

Despite these limitations, we consider that it is a good contribution to the study of what happens in prison because even the traits that they bring when they enter and those that they show once inside, and, most importantly, it is seen as the variables within prison predict victimization less than the variables with which the subjects enter, even though the levels of victimization are higher in some types of this: robberies, insults, and muggings.

If life in prison is about leaving all that behind, it cannot be accepted that it becomes a place of empowerment of said victimizing behaviors. Something is wrong in the system for this to be the case. It is a fact that gives a line of investigation to follow to see if something similar happens in other prisons or not; or if with a larger sample, the results are maintained; but it is the first time that a before-after analysis has been carried out with these victimization variables and with their prediction at both moments.

Acknowledgments

Thank you for the interest shown by Penitentiary Institutions, specifically the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions, Ministry of the Interior, Government of Spain); the trust placed in the research team and the support provided in the different Centers of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, as well as the training managers and treatment assistants for their help in data collection, without which this study it could not have been carried out.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.