Home | Industry Information | Business News | Browse by Publication | J | Journal of Private Enterprise

Tattoo prohibition behind bars: the case for repeal.(Report)

Publication: Journal of Private Enterprise
Publication Date: 22-MAR-08
Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access

Article Excerpt
Abstract

Performing or receiving tattoos is forbidden in American prisons. What are the intentions behind this prohibition? Does the policy meet its intentions? Does it promote the broader ends of prison institutions: to protect justice, provide efficient correctional services, criminals,...

View more below

You can view this article PLUS...

  • Hundreds of the most trusted magazines, newspapers, newswires, and journals (see list)
  • Business news from North America and around the World
  • More than 10 years of article archives
  • Unlimited Access at any time - ONLINE and all in ONE place

Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News - Free for 7 Days!
Tell Me More   Terms and Conditions
Already a subscriber?
Log in to view full article
Purchase this article for $4.95

...rehabilitate and deter crime? I argue that repealing the prohibition of inmate tattooing would achieve outcomes more in line with the intentions of prison management than does the current prohibition policy.

I. Introduction

Correctional institutions in the United States prohibit inmates from giving and receiving tattoos. (1) According to most correctional code of conduct manuals, tattooing is formally a "minor violation." (2) When inmates violate these rules, they are subject to informal punishments. They lose recreation time and visitation privileges, the tattoo equipment is confiscated and destroyed, and charges count against parole possibilities in the future. De facto punishment for tattooing can be more severe when tattooing is considered "gang-related." If authorities judge an inmate to be a gang member, the inmate's sentence can be converted to a solitary housing facility. (3) In effect, tattooing is more strictly prohibited than the explicit regulations would lead a casual observer to infer.

The mission statements and inmate codes of conduct for state correction agencies do not specifically explain the intentions behind tattoo prohibitions. (4) Instead, inmate code of conduct manuals describe the protocol of tattoo prohibition, correctional department mission statements list the broad intentions of prisons, and correctional managers, health researchers, and crime experts point out the negative consequences of prison tattoos. Prohibition and enforcement against tattooing is the default policy from the established perspective that tattooing is harmful.

Current policies and enforcements are meant to be in line with the general mission statements of correctional departments. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice describes its mission thus: "to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society and assist victims of crime" (2004, p.5). The Michigan Department of Corrections (2008), another high prison population state, states on its website that its goal is "to provide the greatest amount of public protection while making the most efficient use of the State's resources." How does the prohibition on prison tattooing aim to comply with these intentions? (1) Tattooing carries a risk of transmitting infectious diseases. (5) Presumably, prohibiting tattoos avoids health risks. (2) Prisons function by maintaining a strict level of control and authority over inmates. (6) Tattoos are a communication tool used by inmates and gangs. Presumably, prohibiting tattoos counters gang power in prisons. (3) Tattooing is a vestige of criminal culture. Its permanent and recognizable qualities (7) inhibit released inmates from rehabilitating and reentering traditional society. (8) Presumably, prohibiting tattoos assists rehabilitation efforts.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge each of the presumptions in the previous paragraph. Is tattoo prohibition in line with the broad intentions of prison management: to avoid the spread of infectious diseases, to maintain authority inside of prisons, and to promote the rehabilitation of inmates? The economics of prohibition and signaling suggest that current prison tattoo policy works against these intentions. A repeal of tattoo prohibition in American prisons would be more in line with the ends of the criminal justice system.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, the economics of prohibition are explained. A repeal of tattoo prohibition could help avoid rather than spread infectious diseases. The negative health effects of prison tattooing are an unintended consequence of prohibition policies and not inherent to the practice of tattooing. In Section III, tattoos are explained as a signal device. The economics of signaling means that tattoos communicate reputations amongst inmates to avoid violent conflict. Less violence indirectly lowers the transmission of infectious diseases and the management costs of prisons. Section IV discusses how repealing tattoo prohibition can reduce recidivism and deter crime. Prison conditions are well-suited for tattooing to be a profitable enterprise, so inmate artists can increase their human capital. Finally, Section V presents conclusions.

II. Allowing Inmate Tattoos Would Reduce the Spread of Infectious Diseases

Health conditions and medical costs are major concerns for prison management. Tattooing uses a vibrating or hand-held needle to inject ink under the top layer of skin to create permanent markings. Because tattooing involves puncturing the skin with needles, handling exposed blood, and treating scar tissue, it carries a risk of spreading infectious diseases (See Winslow, 1998; Braithwaite et al., 1999; Long, 1994; Nishioka and Gyorkos, 2001; and Nishioka et al., 2003). The Bureau of Justice Statistics tracks the top 23 medical causes of death amongst inmates. Six (AIDS, septicemia, influenza, homicide, viral hepatitis, and anemias) relate to tattooing because they can be transmitted through tattooing or influenced indirectly by the practice of tattooing. (9) These causes made up 13.8 percent of the deaths inside American prisons between 2001 and 2004 (Mumola, 2007).

Inmate health conditions and their costs are not completely captured in death statistics. The consequences of an ineffective policy are felt before deaths are observed. AIDS and HIV are the biggest tattoo-related causes of death, but their frequency among inmates has fallen recently. As of 2004, more than 23,000 inmates were infected with HIV, almost 2 percent of the prison population, concentrated in the Northeast (Maruschak, 2006). "Spending on medical care for State prisoners totaled 3.3 billion dollars, or 12 percent of operating expenditures in 2001" (Stephan, 2004, p.1). Because prison populations hold disproportionately high amounts of infectious diseases, inappropriate tattoo techniques carry more serious consequences than on the outside. Inmate deaths, the quality of health care, and the financial costs of prisons are influenced by tattooing policy.

Repealing tattoo prohibition in prisons can directly and indirectly reduce the spread of infectious diseases in American prisons. In a market, quality tattoo standards could rise as sellers competed with one another for customers by devoting resources currently used to evade punishment to enhance the health conditions of tattoo processes. When tattoos serve as a signaling device they threaten retaliation against violent conflict. By raising the perceived costs of violence to inmates, signals reduce the amount of violence. Less violence indirectly lowers the spread of infectious diseases.

The low quality/high health risks of prison tattooing are a result of the prohibition rather than an inherent quality of tattooing. Tattoos in prison carry greater health risks than ordinary tattooing in legitimate society. The health risks for legitimate tattooing are commonly overstated. Any activity involving injections and scar tissue risks infection, but it is important to understand those risks in an empirical context. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has been tracking tattoo-related disease data in the private sector since 1985 and has not documented a single case of HIV transmission; "[b]y comparison there have been 7 cases of HIV transmission associated with dentists and dental workers." Similarly, "[o]f the 13,387 annual cases of...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Journal of Private Enterprise
On the monopoly of rule enforcement.(Essay), March 22, 2008
Economics works! Experiments in high school classrooms.(Report), March 22, 2008
Teaching private enterprise through tunes: an abecedarium of music for..., March 22, 2008
Can students learn economics in U.S. history?(Report), March 22, 2008

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.