To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That adage perfectly encapsulates the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) approach to inmate management—punishment as the universal solution. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is not just a cynical joke; it’s an accurate depiction of the BOP's disciplinary philosophy. But before delving into why this strategy is fundamentally flawed, it’s worth understanding why the BOP leans so heavily on it.
The reality is that the BOP doesn’t know what else to do. No one has provided them with modern psychological research, no one has systematically studied the challenges within federal prisons, and no one in the agency is applying data science to optimize correctional outcomes. The result? Staff members walk into work each day, quickly become disillusioned, and simply try to get through their shifts with minimal incident. Meaningful reform and proactive problem-solving are rarely on the agenda.
The Ineffectiveness of Punishment: A Spectrum of Inmates
To illustrate the failure of punitive discipline, consider two distinct types of inmates. While every individual is different, these scenarios highlight why BOP’s sanctions fail to achieve their intended effect.
Scenario A: The Addict
Doug is a third-generation drug addict. Raised in poverty, with parents who prioritized substances over basic necessities, Doug never finished high school and has never held steady employment. His life has been defined by a single pursuit: chasing the next high, regardless of the cost.
Now incarcerated, Doug continues to do what he has always done. He borrows money he’ll never repay, steals to support his habit, and trades anything of value for drugs. Inevitably, he faces disciplinary action, but the BOP’s available sanctions mean nothing to him:
- Loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT): Doug doesn’t care about release dates. He lives in the present, often unaware of when he’s even scheduled to get out. The difference between serving 87% or 100% of his sentence is irrelevant.
- Loss of Commissary Privileges: Doug doesn’t have money to shop at the commissary, so revoking access is meaningless.
- Loss of Email/Messaging: He has no funds to use these services anyway.
- Loss of Phone Privileges: He can’t afford calls, and even if he could, the monitored nature of BOP phones prevents him from using them to sustain his drug habit.
- Loss of Visitation: His family has long since abandoned him, and travel costs would prevent visits even if they hadn’t.
- Disciplinary Segregation (SHU): Theoretically, SHU should be a deterrent, but drugs are still available there—at a premium. Some inmates even smuggle in drugs intentionally to sell them at higher prices.
Doug has no reason to care about BOP rules. No available punishment changes his circumstances or behavior.
Scenario B: The Career Criminal
Scott, on the other hand, is a career drug dealer with significant financial resources. He owns properties, maintains outside connections, and continues running criminal enterprises from prison. His situation differs greatly from Doug’s, but BOP’s sanctions are just as ineffective against him.
- Loss of Good Conduct Time (GCT): While Scott values an earlier release, the profits from his continued drug trade outweigh the downside of serving extra time.
- Loss of Commissary Privileges: He simply funnels money through another inmate’s account and pays them a small fee to make purchases on his behalf.
- Loss of Email/Messaging: Scott can rent a contraband cell phone for under $20 an hour or buy one outright for a few thousand dollars, allowing him to communicate freely without oversight.
- Loss of Phone Privileges: He circumvents this sanction the same way, using illicit cell phones.
- Loss of Visitation: Even if BOP fully implemented video visitation (which it has failed to do), Scott would simply use a smartphone to FaceTime friends and family.
- Disciplinary Segregation (SHU): While more of a hardship than for Doug, it can also be a business opportunity—concentrated inmate populations mean more customers for his trade.
In short, BOP’s disciplinary system lacks real leverage over inmates like Scott. He has the resources to work around every restriction.
A System That Encourages Hopelessness
The federal prison system was not always defined by despair. Decades ago, correctional facilities provided inmates with meaningful incentives to maintain good behavior. Weightlifting equipment, pool tables, and microwaves were common in prison recreation areas. Some facilities even had bowling alleys and movie theaters. Local bands were invited to perform, and special events like car and bike shows were organized on prison yards. Ice cream socials in the chow hall offered a rare but powerful reminder of normalcy. These privileges weren’t just luxuries—they were tools for instilling a sense of purpose and discipline.
Many inmates once embraced bodybuilding as a means of personal growth, focusing on their health and self-discipline. Others found solace in music or took pride in small but meaningful community events. These activities provided a reason to comply with institutional rules. They reinforced the idea that good behavior could lead to positive experiences, however limited they might be within the confines of incarceration.
But today, nearly all of these opportunities have been stripped away. The BOP has systematically removed every positive incentive, replacing them with a one-size-fits-all system of punitive sanctions that fail to deter misconduct. The result? A prison environment where general population units are barely distinguishable from the Special Housing Unit (SHU), where inmates are locked away in near isolation. Without anything to lose, many inmates simply resign themselves to a future of recidivism, knowing that their time in prison offers nothing but punishment.
By eliminating every constructive outlet, the BOP has robbed itself of its most effective tool—leverage. Instead of encouraging rehabilitation, the system fosters resentment, disengagement, and a sense of inevitability that inmates will return to crime upon release. In doing so, it virtually guarantees failure, both for the individual and for society as a whole.
A Path Forward
There is a better way. FixingBOP.org is dedicated to outlining evidence-based reforms that can break this cycle, improve inmate outcomes, and enhance public safety. Solutions exist—even within the BOP’s current budget constraints—but they require a shift in mindset. Until the Bureau moves beyond its punitive-only approach, it will continue to fail both inmates and society at large.