The Neuroscience of the Prison System

Humans possess inherently good qualities, yet the expectations of others can influence people to do bad things. If people anticipate selfishness, they may tend to behave selfishly. Conversely, when humanity is seen as virtuous, it fosters an environment of respect, trust, and dignity, promoting kindness and compassion among one another (Bregman, 2020). As I sat in a coffee shop recently, I noticed people readily helping each other to fix a problem, sparking contemplation on whether actions stemmed from a genuine desire to do good or from their self-interest. This raised the question: were they motivated by a desire to alleviate the disturbance or driven by a genuine inclination to resolve the problem and lend a hand? 

The Hobbesian view on human nature argues that people are predetermined to choose the wrong or lousy option when given two options in front of them. Bregman (2020) argues that if society were less insistent on the notion that humans are inherently lazy, there might be less resistance to implementing initiatives for widespread access to basic needs. But, are we predetermined to be lousy or can we be inherently good? Are we as human beings just a product of our past, genetics, and experiences or can we be something different and find ways out of these conditions? The Hobbesian perspective was evident in the tough-on-crime rhetoric that was prominent during the Nixon era and continued to perpetuate the belief that individuals with mental illness are inherently dangerous and must be confined to prevent harm to others (Roth, 2021). 

After Reagan's presidency, many mental health institutions were deinstitutionalized, resulting in the closure of many state facilities and the displacement of individuals, often onto the streets. Subsequently, individuals grappling with mental illness found themselves incarcerated within correctional institutions lacking adequate resources for safe and empathetic management of their mental health conditions (Jones, 2015). In 2013, the percentage of people with severe mental illness in prisons and jails was generally estimated to be 16% of the total population, or roughly 378,000 of the total 2,361,123 incarcerated people in U.S. prisons and jails (Yohanna, 2013). Prisoners with mental illness, while they are incarcerated, pose significant challenges, and it is important to acknowledge the presence of various mental health issues among individuals before they enter prison, as well as the difficulties when reintegrating into society after release. Given the inherent cognitive hurdles in decision-making, there is a need for a better treatment approach within correctional facilities. The neuroscience perspective can be involved in prisons in a variety of ways. This essay will investigate how brain development, decision-making systems, mental health, social interaction, and choiceless worlds impact prisoners.

Legal Classification

From the Thompson vs. Oklahoma case in 1988 came the decision that the death penalty could not be applied to individuals aged sixteen or younger. This was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on the impact of developmental factors on individuals’ capacity for free will and autonomy (Goodman, 1998). From this perspective emerges the question of how cognitively and emotionally developed an individual has to be to have free will. Can a juvenile debate between different choices independent of previous conditions? If there is an interaction between the deliberation of the mind, it suggests humans should have free will. The brain is a decision-making machine and we are all physical brains. To be a physical being means there is the freedom to choose between options. 

There is an imbalance between the deliberative and the instinctual systems, as the instinctual system often works in overdrive. However, in conditions where the deliberative system is the only choice, adolescents will choose to use their deliberative system. In certain instances, children demonstrate the effectiveness of their instinctual system. Caravita et al. (2017) looked at the Trolley Problem in adolescents and found that moral domains increase with age. Early adolescents exhibited a greater tendency to perceive social-conventional rules as more flexible compared to moral rules, in comparison to children, and adolescents displayed this tendency more than younger age groups. Children and teenagers, like adults, tend to think it's more okay to harm someone when there's no direct physical force involved, compared to when there is. This finding suggests that as people grow older, their moral judgments become more consistent, likely because their thinking skills related to moral reasoning improve. This suggests that as people age, they become better at thinking about different perspectives in moral situations (p. 597).

Contrary to common belief, adolescents often display a capacity for complex behaviors and planning, supported by some development of the amygdala occurring before the age of 25. During adolescence, individuals exhibit a higher interest in risk-taking behavior, attributed to their increased autonomy and the process of learning to manage newfound independence. Smith et al. (2012) used the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) to see how children's decision-making and risk-taking behavior might develop in early adolescence. Children aged 10 to 13 years generally exhibited worse decision-making performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), whereas 17-year-olds typically demonstrated better performance. As kids got older, their brains got better at controlling their impulses, so they made better choices. Children who made worse decisions on the IGT tended to make faster choices, showing that they might be more impulsive and therefore might use their instinctual system more. Across the age span studied, there was a notable improvement in decision-making speed (pp. 1180–1187). 

As adolescents age, they tend to become less risk-seeking. Umbach et al. (2019) observed differences in the behavioral responses of violent and nonviolent offenders during a cognitive task, implying potential variations in the responsiveness of distinct cohorts of juvenile offenders to punitive measures. Their findings indicate that both violent and nonviolent incarcerated adolescents displayed a greater propensity towards reward-oriented behavior rather than being deterred by the frequency of punishments administered. This inclination towards seeking rewards aligns with typical adolescent behavior and is associated with heightened risk-taking tendencies. Within the study framework, despite one option leading to severe penalties, the young offenders demonstrated a preference for it, with some degree of attention to the frequency of punitive actions (pp. 1611–1629). 

World Experiences

There are a range of possibilities for exploring the state of the world. Humans' capacity to adapt and absorb information about the world over extended learning periods makes them varied in their interactions with their environment. The range of experiences in the world makes individuals more or less risk-averse. People who end up in prison may be individuals who are willing to engage in riskier behavior and hence able to risk prison. Every individual, whether in adolescence or adulthood, holds a unique perspective on the extent of risk they're willing to undertake for new solutions. As a result, each person has a unique level of risk-taking and over-exuberance, as well as their threshold for what they’re willing to take and their ability to estimate risk accurately. Navigating risk and reward can ultimately determine the outcome between success and failure, yet pinpointing the ideal balance proves to be difficult.

According to Gummerman (2014), there is a belief that criminal activity is linked with risk-taking. People who have previously been in prison report a higher likelihood of engaging in risk-taking activities. Regardless of the length of time in jail, the financial risk remains the same, as financial worries remain one of the top reasons for repeat offenses. This is compounded by limited employment prospects and inadequate support systems, heightening their financial anxieties (pp. 1870–1881). In addition, research by Pachur et al. (2010) suggests that prisoners exhibit a heightened inclination for risk-taking behavior when potential losses are foreseeable. Also, Gummerman (2014) argues that both prisoners and ex-prisoners evaluate risk, however, the perceived benefits of risky behavior exert a greater influence on the decision-making among individuals with a history of incarceration (pp. 1870–1881).

There are many reasons for the difference in risk-taking behavior among prisoners and non-detainees. The race-to-threshold model provides insight into the human decision-making process. The decision-making process is streamlined by evaluating two options and stopping at the better option. However, real-world decisions are often more complex, involving neural systems processing numerous possibilities, each racing to its threshold as it integrates information. Individuals with higher levels of impulsivity typically prioritize speed over accuracy, resulting in decreased integration with the decision threshold. As a result, individuals with low impulse control require minimal evidence before making a decision and taking action. Cherek et al. (1997) conducted a study revealing that both violent and nonviolent parolees exhibited a heightened tendency towards impulsive decision-making. This finding contrasted with a study involving college students, where the majority consistently opted for the self-control option across various trials. Violent parolees showed a slight inclination towards selecting the impulsive option to obtain a small, immediate reward compared to their nonviolent counterparts (pp. 523–529).

Mental Health

Prison reduces the various stimuli entering the n-dimensional space, altering the basins of attraction and changing the range and diversity of stimuli individuals are exposed to. In extreme isolation, individuals may lack the variety of experiences necessary to continuously develop understandings and classifications of people, situations, and concepts. This can lead to oversimplified or distorted categorization, as the richness of social interactions and environmental inputs that typically form are limited. 

The prison experience varies among individuals contingent upon their pre-incarceration background and psychological state. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (2024), mental health issues are common among inmates, but unfortunately, they do not receive treatment during incarceration, which further confounds the issue. Approximately 63% of individuals with a prior history of mental illness do not receive mental health treatment during their time in state and federal prisons. Psychiatric disorders can be thought of as failure modes of the system. These vulnerabilities can make an individual susceptible to the failure modes. The failure modes are the systems where your ordinary decision systems break down in situations that do not work. Wright et al. (2023) argue that being confined to a cell for twenty-three hours a day is believed to strip individuals of their humanity and can lead to a range of health issues, including depression and psychotic episodes. Individuals kept in solitary confinement tend to experience more mental issues than those in less severe confinement due to individual differences such as personality, emotional stability, relationships with others, and coping mechanisms for stress. 

Prison results in fewer basins of attraction as fewer inputs go to the brain. To gain expertise means it is easier to categorize and attend to things. Being an expert means an individual has basins for different things they are attending to. According to DoingTime (2024), prisoners spend a significant amount of time locked in their cells, only have access to the necessities, electronic gadgets are not allowed, and often they are likely to share their cell with another person. Prisoners become experts of their cells because they can more easily determine the correct responses from the available inputs; they have identified good categories for the tasks. Prisoners might develop expertise within their cells through consistent observation and interaction with their environment. This familiarity could lead to quicker recognition of changes or disturbances, allowing for prompt and adaptive responses. 

Experts have trained their perceptual system to recognize the gestures about the task better and they have trained their habit system to cache the most reliable choice of what to do. Experts have learned how to represent the task in a way that makes it easier to determine the correct responses from the available inputs; they have identified good categories for the task. When an individual is in prison they will initially search through possibilities to find a path from a starting point to a goal. 

Social Interaction

All moral codes are attempts to create cooperative groups.  The neuroscience of moral questions started with the Milgram experiment. Milgram conducted a compelling experiment in which participants were deceived into believing they were part of a memory study. They were assigned roles as either "teacher" or "learner," with the teacher administering shocks to the learner for incorrect responses. Despite the absence of real shocks, participants believed they were inflicting pain. Sixty-five percent of the participants completed the shock sequence to the end even though many showed tension, conflict, and concern throughout the experiment.

When the subjects got close to the victim they were less willing to shock the victim, showing that it is harder to punish someone as familiarity with the individual increases. Caravita et al. (2017) reveal that moral dilemmas like the Milgram Experiment and those seen in the Trolley Problem, reveal a human tendency to tolerate moral rule violations more readily in impersonal situations. Studies, including fMRI research, consistently show heightened emotional brain activation when facing personal dilemmas, indicating a distinction in our moral processing based on the personal or impersonal nature of the scenario (p. 597). Hepper et al. (2013) state that Narcissistic Personality Disorder, characterized by the belief that an individual deserves more than another, appears to be a key factor in empathy deficits. High narcissism is correlated with low empathy and serves as a significant predictor of engagement in criminal acts. 

The Milgram experiments were Rawlsian, the Rawlsian perspective states that laws ought to be formulated without foreknowledge of one's future position within society. Research done by Reeder et al. (2008) emphasizes that when individuals receive information about situational factors influencing aggression, they consider and integrate this information when forming judgments about the motives of alleged aggressors. In such cases of limited information, our findings indicate that people are inclined to perceive the aggressors as predominantly bad rather than good. A parallel is often drawn between the perceptions of prisoner abuse and the perceptions of Milgram’s teachers. In both cases, situational forces played at least some role in provoking the aggression that occurred (pp. 1–17). Most societies are not hellscapes. The more dangerous a situation is, the more likely people are likely to dive in and help.  (Bregman, 2020). 

Our instinctual system, which encompasses basic drives and behaviors necessary for survival and a limited set of actions an individual can take, includes a strong inclination toward helping others. The brain areas that activate for individual benefit, such as the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, also become active when talking about other people. This demonstrates empathy. The temporal parietal junction activates over and over again whenever talking about society. Within a community, selfish tendencies may flourish, yet cooperation between communities often yields superior outcomes. To mitigate the impact of self-serving behavior, fostering shared experiences becomes imperative. Residing within a cooperative community significantly enhances the likelihood of cooperative behavior. Prison systems that are built on rehabilitation are successful as they are built on community connection. According to Dahl & Magne (2020), the benefits of rehabilitative incarceration can be seen in many ways. The Norwegian system, characterized by increased job training, heightened employment rates, and decreased crime rates, particularly benefits individuals previously unemployed. 

Social capital refers to the resources, like trust and networks, gained through relationships and shared values within a community. Pageau et al. (2022) found that forming friendships and meaningful relationships in prison was challenging but crucial for reducing isolation and loneliness. While some incarcerated individuals felt able to connect with others, many faced barriers such as frequent rule changes or difficulty maintaining relationships after release. Loneliness was common in prison due to distrust or mismatched preferences. Making friends was difficult, and friendships often ended abruptly upon release. Improving access to communication with family and friends could help. Trust is vital for forming relationships, but it's fragile in secure institutions where interactions with staff are often transactional (p. 90).

According to Allahyari & Moshtagh (2021), social isolation means that individuals lack meaningful contact or interaction with others, which leads to feelings of loneliness and a sense of being cut off from society. Social support encompasses a network of individuals who offer various forms of assistance, including financial, emotional, mental, or practical support when needed. Prisoners who are aware of having such a support system are more inclined to address challenges and stressors, including mental health issues, effectively (pp. 26-33). Güler Aksu et al. (2022) investigated the risk of recidivism among youth who were first-time incarcerated, re-incarcerated, and repeat offenders. They found that more than half of the youth in the sample reported that their reason for re-offending was due to the effects of their peers. The desire to belong can compel individuals to conform to peer influence.

Individuals who have experienced social isolation are prone to perceiving others as potential threats, which can lead to increased stress levels and a lack of social trust. Cacioppo et al. (2009) examined facial recognition and loneliness. Lonely individuals exhibited diminished activation in the visual cortex when observing people yet showed heightened activation when viewing objects. In contrast, non-lonely individuals displayed increased visual cortex activation when encountering people, indicating a more robust reward response to social stimuli. Furthermore, lonely individuals demonstrated amplified visual cortex activation when witnessing others in distress, whereas non-lonely individuals exhibited greater empathy toward those in distress. In this experiment, individuals would have to train themselves not to see others as threats. To conduct this training, an individual could examine two distinct faces to stretch the basin of attraction and create a boundary between them. 

Categorizing people into groups is vital in the search for meaningful relationships and familiarity. Familiarity breeds social trust. Limited social interactions can lead to a lack of trust. Siegel et al. (2019) found that those who have been exposed to violence may have trouble forming accurate impressions of others' intentions. This difficulty in forming impressions leads them to trust others less. This lack of trust can result in more problems in prison, like rule-breaking. Even though prisoners can still learn about harm, they have trouble using that knowledge to make good decisions about whom to trust. This could be because exposure to violence affects parts of the brain responsible for translating what we learn into actions. This difficulty in trusting others can have serious consequences as it may make it harder for them to form healthy relationships and improve their lives after leaving prison.

Relearning

Prisoners endure cramped cells, lack exercise, and face penalties for infractions. These strict rules hinder convicts from adjusting to life outside prison, which is less punitive and more unstructured (Bregman, 2020). People emerge from prison and other types of confinement and must relearn things. The strict environment of prisons heavily drives the procedural system which makes it difficult for individuals to learn to do things differently. In prison settings, recurring situation-action sequences are prevalent, leading inmates to revert to established behavioral patterns frequently. This cycle occurs when incoming stimuli resemble familiar content, triggering specific neural pathways that guide individuals toward predefined outcomes, akin to falling into a basin of attraction within the neural space. Once we identify the basin of attraction, neurons connect to it to select the action. 

The procedural system requires substantial time for learning, yet once acquired, it executes tasks rapidly. While it is adaptable during the learning phase, its execution tends to be inflexible. The instinctual system, which prompts immediate actions based on instinct, is often inhibited within prison environments. In contrast to a true choices world, where actions are influenced by the situation, environments like the military or prison follow specific procedures. Military life is built to build people up. In military settings, a clear hierarchy dictates authority, and individuals strive to earn respect from their superiors and peers. Prisons are not designed like the military, as they are not meant to build up people’s strengths. Prison guards or correctional officers wear uniforms. This uniform is a sign that distinguishes officers from inmates, it displays the power that officers have over prisoners (Stohr, 2012). 

Individuals in both cases may struggle with the newfound need to independently make choices, such as selecting their attire and adjusting to the absence of the structured routines they were accustomed to. Military life's highly optimized decision-making processes may contrast starkly with the broader choices and uncertainties encountered in civilian environments. They find that many people in the military go through a loss in their sense of self and purpose (Sachdev & Dixit, 2023). Military culture is high in power, collectivism, restraint, and uncertainty avoidance. Whereas, civilian life is low on the power index and high on individualism and indulgence (pp. 1–14). 

Halfway houses could provide a structured environment for individuals transitioning from prison. According to Kras et al. (2016), they offer a safe space to learn and practice crucial life skills. They also address the fundamental need for housing, which can be a significant stressor upon reentry into society and is vital in reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Providing opportunities for learning within a supportive and safe environment is essential, as individuals may need such opportunities to acquire new skills. 

Conclusion

Examining the prison system reveals information about brain development, decision-making systems, mental health, social interaction, and constrained environments. Despite the prevalent belief in innate goodness, peer pressures can compel individuals towards harmful actions. The legal classification of offenders, particularly juveniles, requires a nuanced understanding of cognitive development and decision-making processes. Furthermore, the prison experience is marked by isolation and limited stimuli, which can shape an individual’s perceptions and behaviors. Social interaction within the prison environment is important for building community and fostering trust. As individuals reintegrate into society post-incarceration, they must relearn and adapt. Ultimately, the brain is a decision-making machine, and learning what makes us human is vital. Therefore, it is important to apply neuroscience findings to improve and understand the prison system.

References:

Allahyari, E., Moshtagh, M. (2021). Predicting mental health of prisoners by artificial neural network. Biomedicine; 11(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.37796/2211-8039.1031 

Bregman, R. (2020). Humankind : A Hopeful History. Little, Brown and Company.

Cacioppo, J., Norris, C., Decety, J., Monteleone, G., & Nusbaum, H. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: individual differences in perceived social isolation predict regional brain activation to social stimuli. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 21(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21007

Caravita, S., De Silva, L., Pagani, V., Colombo, B., & Antonietti, A. (2017). Age-Related Differences in Contribution of Rule-Based Thinking toward Moral Evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 597. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00597

Cherek, D., Moeller, F., Dougherty, D., & Rhoades, H. (1997). Studies of violent and nonviolent male parolees: II. Laboratory and psychometric measurements of impulsivity. Biological psychiatry, 41(5), 523–529. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1016/s0006-3223(96)00426-x

Dahl, G., Magne, M. (2020). The benefits of rehabilitative incarceration. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration

DoingTime. (2024). Cell life. https://doingtime.co.uk/how-prisons-work/life-behind-the-wall-doingtime/cell-life/ 

Goodman, G. (1998). Kleinian guilt, determinism, and free will: implications for clinical theory and treatment. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 26(1), 137–163. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1521/jaap.1.1998.26.1.137

Gummerum, M., Hanoch, Y., & Rolison, J. (2014). Offenders' risk-taking attitude inside and outside the prison walls. Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 34(10), 1870–1881. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1111/risa.12222

Güler Aksu, G., Kütük, M., Tufan, A., Sanberk, S., Güzel, E., Dağ, P., Tan, M. E., Akyol, B., & Toros, F. (2022). Correlates and predictors of re-incarceration among Turkish adolescent male offenders: A single-center, cross-sectional study. International journal of law and psychiatry, 80, 101726. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1016/j.ijlp.2021.101726

Hepper, E., Hart, C., Meek, R., Cisek, S., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Narcissism and empathy in young offenders and non-offenders. Eur. J. Pers, 28, 201-210. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1002/per.1939

Jones, M. (2015). Creating a science of homelessness during the Reagan era. The Milbank Quarterly, 93(1), 139–178. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1111/1468-0009.12108

Kras, K., Pleggenkuhle, B., & Huebner, B. (2016). A new way of doing time on the outside: sex offenders' pathways in and out of a transitional housing facility. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 60(5), 512–534. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1177/0306624X14554194

National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2024). Criminalization of people with mental illness. https://www.nami.org/advocacy/policy-priorities/stopping-harmful-practices/criminalization-of-people-with-mental-illness/

Pachur, T., Hanoch, Y., & Gemmerum, M. (2010). Prospects behind bars: Analyzing decisions under risk in a prison population, 17(5), 630-636. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.630

Pageau, F., Seaward, H., Habermeyer, E., Elger, B., & Wangmo, T. (2022). Loneliness and social isolation among the older person in a Swiss secure institution: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatrics. 22(1), 90. 10.1186/s12877-022-02764-7. 

Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Pryor, J. B. (2008). Impressions of Milgram's obedient teachers: situational cues inform inferences about motives and traits. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(1), 1–17. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.1

Roth, A. (2021). The truth about deinstitutionalization. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/truth-about-deinstitutionalization/618986/

Sachdev, S., & Dixit, S. (2023). Military to civilian cultural transition experiences: A systematic meta-synthesis. Military psychology: the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association, 1–14. Advance online publication. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1080/08995605.2023.2237835

Siegel, J., Estrada, S., Crockett, M., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2019). Exposure to violence affects the development of moral impressions and trust behavior in incarcerated males. Nature communications, 10(1), 1942. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1038/s41467-019-09962-9

Smith, D., Xiao, L., & Bechara, A. (2012). Decision making in children and adolescents: impaired Iowa Gambling Task performance in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1180–1187. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1037/a0026342

Stohr, M., Hemmens, C., Collins, P., Iannacchione, B., Hudson, M., & Johnson, H. (2012). Assessing the organizational culture in a jail setting. The Prison Journal, 92(3), 358-387. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1177/0032885512448614

Umbach, R., Leonard, N., Luciana, M., Ling, S., & Laitner, C. (2019). The Iowa gambling task in violent and nonviolent incarcerated male adolescents. Criminal justice and behavior, 46(11), 1611–1629. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1177/0093854819847707

Wright, K., Young, J., Matekel, C., Infante, A., Gifford, F., Meyers, T., & Morse, S. (2023). Solitary confinement and the well-being of people in prison. Social Science & Medicine, 335, 116224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116224

Yohanna, D. (2013). Deinstitutionalization of people with mental illness: causes and consequences. AMA Journal of Ethics, 15(10), 886–891. https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.10.mhst1-1310