Corrections is a challenging occupation. In the past few years, correctional officers and leaders have dealt with overcrowding, mentally ill inmates, special populations, gangs, escape, inmate manipulation and short staffing. We see demonstrations demanding we be defunded by people who know little about what we do and the duties we must perform.
These issues can take their toll on staff competency, effectiveness and morale. As a correctional employee (sworn or civilian), you take pride in your work and believe in the mission of your agency. How do you feel when you check the news and see headlines such as:
Nearly all the personnel who work inside our prisons, jails, juvenile centers and community corrections facilities are professional, dedicated and believe in the public safety mission of their agencies. However, headlines like these attract the attention of the public, who wonder what is going on inside these facilities—facilities paid for by taxpayers.
There are “bad apples” in all occupations, and corrections is no different. We call them rogue corrections officers, and it’s essential we be able to identify them, understand what causes their behavior, and manage them effectively to reduce and hopefully eliminate the harm they can bring on themselves, inmates and the facility.
The rogue officer is the loose cannon on the deck. While we can’t always predict how and when they will cause damage, we can learn to identify behavioral signs that may indicate an officer has gone rogue.
There are different degrees of rogue behavior. The most serious includes engaging in excessive force, harassing inmates, smuggling contraband, taking bribes and aiding in inmate escapes. Examples include the Baltimore City Detention Center scandal in 2013 and the 2015 escape of two inmates doing life from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York. In both cases, rogue staff aided the inmates. Another example includes a District of Columbia jail officer arrested by the FBI for smuggling a cellphone, cigarettes and other contraband to an inmate.
Excessive force is probably the clearest trait of rogue behavior. For example, an inmate in a Mississippi jail was beaten to death by several jail deputies in 2006.[1] He was arrested for simple assault and disturbing the peace. During booking, he stepped away from the wall. What followed next could be described as torture. Video recording showed no aggression by the inmate, yet officers repeatedly punched and kicked the detainee in the chest, head and back. They used a TASER device several times in his back. While handcuffed and hog tied, the detainee was dropped headfirst on the concrete floor, blood dripping from his mouth. A spit mask was applied to his face, and a sergeant sprayed pepper spray through the mask. The sergeant then wrapped a sheet around the detainee’s head, cinched it tight and poured water over it in a crude waterboarding procedure.
The victim died two days later in a local hospital, after being declared brain dead and having life support removed. His family received a payment of $3.5 million. The sergeant—the apparent ringleader of the rogue deputies—received two life sentences; nine other deputies received terms of incarceration ranging from four months’ house arrest to four years in prison. While this incident shocks the conscience, there were numerous other incidents of lesser degree at the facility that hinted at extensive rogue officer behavior. Hundreds of inmates had complained of mistreatment. The investigation after this incident revealed multiple incidences of violating civil rights, falsifying reports and assaulting inmates—behavior that dated back years before this incident.
Other rogue behavior may not seem as serious—but it is. Whenever a corrections officer ignores inmate complaints, medical conditions or concerns, the safety and security of the facility and all who live and work inside is compromised. In 2015, an Oregon family received $5 million in the case of an inmate who, after being beaten by two other inmates, suffered kidney lacerations, severe internal bleeding, a skull contusion, a brain injury and a fracture to his clavicle.[2] For five hours, the inmate used the cell intercom to try to get staff to help him. But these calls for help, as well as numerous other signs of the inmate’s distress, were ignored. The medical technician left after he could not get a blood pressure. After the inmate urinated blood, the sergeant on duty said he thought the red water in the cell’s toilet was fruit juice or something from the jail canteen. A deputy said it was a common practice to shut off the intercom if an inmate was judged to be “too needy.” The inmate died of his injuries. Investigators concluded that jail staff relied too much on video checks instead of personal checks.
Other behavioral clues of a rogue corrections officer include not taking training seriously, complaining about the job and alienating other staff. These behaviors can lead to the officer being susceptible to inmate manipulation, which further chips away at their ethical code.
Rogue officers also make mistakes in social media. They may post opinions criticizing their agencies or take shots at minority groups. Or they may use social media as a tool. In one 2019 case, a jail officer was charged with burglarizing or attempting to burglarize the homes of citizens who were attending funerals. The accusations listed at least six incidents. When caught, she said she was trying to complete market transactions on Facebook or was hired to perform cleaning services through Facebook and did not think anyone was supposed to be home.[3]
There are many reasons why a corrections officer may forget professionalism, training, the ethics he or she learned in the academy, and the advice of training officers, mentors and supervisors. Some may not handle the stress of the job well and overcompensate their anxiety by acting tough, harassing inmates or getting too physical in controlling them. They may look up to heavy-handed, abrasive, rough officers and think that is the best way to handle offenders.
Rogue officers may also subscribe to common myths about law enforcement, including:[5]
These start the corrections officer down a slippery slope of poor ethics, condescension, disrespect of the job and forgetting their training. Bad habits form—roughing inmates up, not wanting to be bothered with inmate concerns, and thinking their way is the only way. These beliefs tear down the agency. Corrections professionals who notice these negative behaviors should speak up—to the officer and to supervisors, if necessary.
There is no magic formula to prevent corrections officers from going rogue, but there are some commonsense measures you can take, both at the line and supervisory levels.
Facilities that invest resources into building and developing a professional staff insulate themselves against rogue behavior. Bad behavior will not be tolerated by good staff people. I’ve identified three “stairways” to a professional staff:[5]
Supervisors in corrections play a critical role in reducing the chance a corrections officer will go rogue. Rogue officers are like a type of cancer, spreading negativity throughout the staff. Therefore, it’s essential that supervisors put a stop to rogue behavior as soon as it’s observed. Taking a “wait and see” approach or assuming the officer will improve on their own sends the message that the behavior is acceptable. Some rogue officers can be turned around if you act early.[6] Consider the following strategies:
Rogue corrections officers can cause serious harm to inmates, other staff and the facility. Fortunately, supervisors and all staff members can send a strong message that rogue behavior won’t be tolerated. We all have a responsibility to speak up, demand ethical behavior and model the highest level of safety and professionalism.
[strategem_author]
