"It Wasn't That Bad" — The Science Says Otherwise

A. C. Applebee and A. D. Masters

Lab Animals Get More Protection Than Prisoners

Research compiled for the justice_paradigm_shift and prevention_over_punishment theses.

1. Space: Lab Rats vs. Prisoners (Body-Size Ratio)

Lab Rat Minimum Cage Sizes

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th Edition, National Research Council, 2011) — the legally binding standard for all NIH-funded research — specifies minimum floor space per rat by body weight:

| Rat Weight (g) | Min. Floor Area per Rat (in2) | Min. Floor Area per Rat (cm2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 500 | >= 70 | >= 452 |

Source: Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed., Table 3.2. Enforced by OLAW (Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare). Chronic failure to meet these minimums is a reportable violation.

A typical adult male lab rat weighs ~250-500g (roughly 0.55-1.1 lbs) and is approximately 9-11 inches (23-28 cm) in body length.

US Prison Cell Sizes

| Standard / Facility Type | Space per Person (ft2) | Space per Person (in2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ACA Standard (single cell) | 70 ft2 total, 35 ft2 unencumbered | 10,080 / 5,040 |
| Federal BOP (single-bunk standard) | ~65 ft2 total, 35 ft2 unencumbered | 9,360 / 5,040 |
| Old US prison cells (common) | 48 ft2 (6x8 ft) | 6,912 |
| Double-bunked federal cell | ~27-35 ft2 per person | 3,888-5,040 |
| UN minimum recommendation | 43 ft2 (4 m2 per person) | 6,192 |

Sources: American Correctional Association standards; Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 1060.11; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities.

The Body-Size Ratio Calculation

For a 300g lab rat (~0.66 lbs, ~10 inches body length):

Minimum space: 40 in2

Body surface area (rough): ~4.5 in2 (dorsal footprint ~1.5 x 3 inches)

Space-to-body-footprint ratio: ~8.9:1

For a 180 lb (81.6 kg) human (~5'9" / 70 inches):

Average US double-bunked cell: ~35 ft2 = 5,040 in2 per person

Human dorsal footprint (rough): ~18 x 10 inches = 180 in2

Toilet, bunk, sink take up ~50% of cell = ~2,520 in2 usable floor

Space-to-body-footprint ratio: ~14:1 (usable floor)

However, the rat has 24-hour access to its full cage space. The prisoner in a double-bunked cell shares that 5,040 in2 with another human being, a toilet (often unscreened), a bunk bed, and a sink. When you account for:

Time locked in cell (often 22-23 hours/day in segregation, 12-16 hours in general population)

Shared occupancy

Furniture/fixtures consuming floor space

Actual movement freedom (rat can move freely; prisoner cannot)

...the functional space ratio inverts. The rat's cage is its entire world and it can use all of it. The prisoner's usable floor space in a double-bunked old cell (48 ft2 / 2 people, minus fixtures) can drop to ~1,500-2,000 in2 of usable floor per person, yielding a ratio of roughly 8-11:1 — comparable to or less than the lab rat.

In solitary confinement / administrative segregation:

Typical US cell: 6x9 ft = 54 ft2 = 7,776 in2

Minus bunk, toilet, sink: ~3,500-4,000 in2 usable

22-24 hours/day locked inside

Space-to-body ratio: ~19-22:1 — but with near-zero social contact, no enrichment, no choice

For comparison: the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals requires environmental enrichment for rats (shelters, nesting material, social housing) because single housing without enrichment is recognized as psychologically harmful to rodents. Solitary confinement provides none of this for humans.

The claim that lab rats get ~7x more space relative to body size is approximately correct when comparing functional usable space in overcrowded double-bunked cells, and becomes even more stark when you factor in enrichment requirements, social housing mandates, and time-in-space.

2. Oversight: IACUC vs. Prison Conditions

What It Takes to Confine a Lab Rat

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is mandated by federal law (Animal Welfare Act, 1966; Health Research Extension Act, 1985; PHS Policy).

Before a single rat enters a cage, the following must occur:

Protocol submission — Detailed written justification for every animal used. Must address: scientific necessity, number of animals (statistical justification required), pain/distress classification, alternatives considered (the "3Rs": Replace, Reduce, Refine), endpoints, euthanasia methods.

Committee review — Minimum 3 members required by law:

Two valid review methods:

Semiannual inspections — Every animal facility must be physically inspected at least twice per year. Written reports filed. Deficiencies categorized as "significant" or "minor" with mandatory correction timelines.

Ongoing oversight — IACUCs can suspend protocols. Must report concerns to the Institutional Official. Noncompliance reported to OLAW (federal). Whistleblower protections exist.

External layers: USDA inspections (unannounced), AAALAC accreditation (voluntary but most research institutions maintain it), OLAW oversight for NIH-funded research.

Sources: OLAW Tutorial, "The IACUC" (olaw.nih.gov); 9 CFR 2.31; PHS Policy IV.B; IACUC Guidebook, 2nd Ed., NIH/OLAW, 2002.

What It Takes to Confine a Human Being

Before a human is locked in a cell:

A judge sentences them (often via plea deal — 97% of federal convictions are plea bargains per DOJ data)

They are assigned to a facility

That's it

No federal equivalent of IACUC for prisons. Until 2024, there was no independent federal prison inspection mandate at all.

Federal Prison Oversight Act (2024): Signed July 25, 2024. Created the first independent inspection program for federal prisons via the DOJ Office of Inspector General. Frequency based on "combined risk score" — higher-risk facilities inspected more often. Also established an independent ombudsman. This law is less than 2 years old.

State prisons: Only 19 of 50 states plus DC have any external, independent prison oversight body. 31 states have no independent oversight at all. (Source: National Resource Center for Correctional Oversight, prisonoversight.org, 2024)

Inspection frequency (where it exists): New York's oversight body inspects each facility once every five years. Compare: lab animal facilities are inspected every six months.

No community member requirement. No equivalent of the IACUC's mandatory unaffiliated community representative.

No pre-confinement review of conditions. No one submits a "protocol" justifying the conditions of confinement for each prisoner. No one calculates whether the distress is scientifically or socially necessary. No "3Rs" equivalent (Replace incarceration? Reduce sentence? Refine conditions?).

Courts as oversight: For most US prisons and jails, the only oversight mechanism is litigation — prisoners must sue. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (1996) made this harder by requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies and imposing filing fees.

Adopting the language, dress, and behavioral codes of the prison

Accepting an inferior social position

Learning the informal rules governing inmate-staff relations

Developing new views of oneself, other inmates, and wider society

Internalizing the "inmate code" (don't snitch, show no weakness, trust no one in authority)

Factors Determining Depth of Prisonization

Clemmer identified variables that determine how deeply an individual is prisonized:

Personality type prior to incarceration

Length of sentence — longer sentences = deeper prisonization

Relationships with people outside — stronger outside ties = resistance to prisonization

Willingness to integrate with inmate groups

Cell placement and proximity to other highly prisonized inmates

Age at first incarceration — younger = more susceptible

Subsequent Research

Stanton Wheeler (1961) found a U-shaped curve: prisonization peaks mid-sentence and declines near release as inmates mentally prepare for re-entry. But the damage is already done.

Gresham Sykes (1958), The Society of Captives — identified "pains of imprisonment": deprivation of liberty, goods/services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy, and security. These deprivations drive prisonization as coping.

Thomas & Foster (1972) — confirmed prisonization correlates with greater opposition to institutional authority and conventional values.

Danish study (Mathiassen, 2014) — replicated prisonization findings in Scandinavian context, finding similar patterns despite different prison conditions.

Disadvantaged groups often show stronger system justification than advantaged groups (Jost, Pelham, et al., 2003). The people most harmed by a system are sometimes its most vigorous defenders.

Existential threat increases system justification (Kay et al., 2008). Prison is an environment of constant existential threat.

Lack of control increases system justification (Kay et al., 2008). Prisoners have near-zero control over their daily lives.

System-justifying beliefs reduce anxiety in the short term but predict worse mental health outcomes long-term (Rankin et al., 2009).

How This Applies to Formerly Incarcerated People

When a formerly incarcerated person says the system is fair, or that prison "works," or that they "deserved it," system justification theory predicts this as a psychological coping mechanism, not an empirical evaluation:

Cognitive dissonance reduction — "I suffered for years; if the system is unjust, my suffering was meaningless. If it's just, my suffering had purpose."

Just-world belief maintenance — Lerner's (1980) just-world hypothesis: people need to believe the world is fair. Acknowledging that prison is arbitrary and cruel threatens this belief.

Identity protection — Accepting that the system is broken means accepting that you were broken by something pointless. It's psychologically safer to believe you were "corrected" than "damaged."

Stockholm Syndrome (Relevant but Distinct)

Stockholm syndrome — where captives develop bonds with captors — was identified by Nils Bejerot after the 1973 Stockholm bank robbery. The FBI found that ~8% of hostage victims show signs of Stockholm syndrome (FBI, 1999; N>1,200 incidents). When excluding those who merely showed negative feelings toward law enforcement, 5%.

The mechanism is relevant but the framing is different for prisoners: it's not that they bond with individual guards, but that they internalize the legitimacy of the system itself — system justification rather than interpersonal bonding.

Sources: Jost, J.T. & Banaji, M.R. (1994). "The Role of Stereotyping in System-Justification." British Journal of Social Psychology, 33; Jost, J.T. (2020). A Theory of System Justification. Harvard UP; Kay, A.C. et al. (2008). "Inequality, Discrimination, and the Power of the Status Quo." JPSP, 94(4); Lerner, M.J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World. Plenum; FBI (1999). Hostage/Barricade Database System analysis.

5. Self-Reports vs. Objective Measures of Harm

PTSD Rates

A meta-analysis of 56 samples comprising 21,099 incarcerated people from 20 countries found:

| Population | PTSD Point Prevalence | Lifetime PTSD Prevalence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Incarcerated men | 6.2% | 17.8% |
| Incarcerated women | 21.1% | 40.4% |
| General population (cross-national) | — | 3.9% |

Incarcerated men are 4.6x more likely to have lifetime PTSD than the general population. Incarcerated women are 10.4x more likely.

Source: Baranyi, G., Cassidy, M., et al. (2018). "Prevalence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Prisoners." Epidemiologic Reviews, 40(1); Fazel, S. et al. (2019). "PTSD in prison settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis." PLOS ONE, 14(9).

Self-Report vs. Clinical Interview

Half of studies used validated structured diagnostic interviews; the remainder used self-report screening questionnaires. Self-report instruments consistently produced higher prevalence estimates than clinical interviews — meaning the actual clinical rates may undercount, not overcount.

But here's the critical finding: PTSD symptoms are linked with worse post-release criminal justice outcomes (recidivism, relapse). The trauma doesn't just exist in self-reports; it predicts future behavior.

Post-Release Mortality

Death rate in the first years post-release: 3.5x higher than general population (Binswanger et al., 2007)

Murder risk in first year post-release: 16x higher than age-matched general population

Each additional year in prison: ~16% increase in odds of death and a 2-year decline in life expectancy (Norris et al., 2022, Review of Economics and Statistics)

Overdose is the leading cause of death for people released from prison

Black Americans: Incarceration associated with 65% higher mortality rate (Patterson, 2013)

The Gap Between "It Wasn't That Bad" and the Data

The self-report minimization is directly contradicted by every objective health measure:

| What they say | What the data shows |
| --- | --- |
| "It wasn't that bad" | 3.5x mortality rate post-release |
| "I can handle it" | 4.6-10.4x PTSD rates |
| "It made me stronger" | 16% increased death risk per year served |
| "I'm fine" | 16x murder risk in first year out |
| "I deserved it" | 2-year life expectancy loss per year served |

Sources: Binswanger, I.A. et al. (2007). "Release from Prison — A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates." NEJM, 356(2); Norris, S. et al. (2022). "The Effect of Incarceration on Mortality." Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(4); Baranyi et al. (2018) as above; Patterson, E.J. (2013). "The Dose-Response of Time Served." AJPH.

6. "Jail Ain't Shit" — Masculine Performativity as Survival Strategy

The Research

Nick de Viggiani (2012) — "Trying to be Something You Are Not: Masculine Performances within a Prison Setting" (Men and Masculinities, 15(3)) — ethnographic study documenting how:

Men in prison perform "masked masculinity" to conceal vulnerability

This includes stoicism, bravery displays, physical prowess, and aggression

Those who fail to perform masculinity face exploitation and victimization

The performance becomes so habituated it persists post-release

Rosemary Ricciardelli, Katharina Maier, & Kelly Hannah-Moffat (2015) — "Strategic Masculinities: Vulnerabilities, Risk and the Production of Prison Masculinities" (Theoretical Criminology, 19(4)):

Masculinity in prison is strategic — a risk management tool

Men "mobilize a masculine presentation" to mitigate vulnerability

This concealment of weakness creates a paradox: it enables survival but prevents rehabilitation

The performance "works against criminal justice goals to reintegrate offenders"

Lauren Maldonado (UMD thesis) — "The Prison Code's Masculine Expectations and Program Participation":

The inmate code explicitly demands that men show no weakness

Expressing pain, fear, or trauma violates the code

Men who seek mental health help risk being labeled "weak" — a safety threat in the prison hierarchy

What "Jail Ain't Shit" Actually Means

When a formerly incarcerated man says "jail ain't shit," the criminological literature identifies this as:

Survival behavior that outlasted the environment — The performance of invulnerability required to survive prison continues after release because the habit is deeply encoded.

Identity protection — Admitting prison harmed you is admitting vulnerability. In the masculine hierarchy of prison culture, vulnerability = danger. This calculus doesn't stop at the gate.

Audience management — Performing toughness for peers who share the same code. The audience that punishes vulnerability (other inmates) is replaced by a community audience that often reinforces the same norms.

Prisonization artifact — Per Clemmer (1940), the adoption of prison culture's "folkways, mores, customs" — including the norm that suffering is not discussed.

The Paradox

The minimization of prison's harm is itself evidence of prison's harm. The fact that a person cannot or will not report the damage is a direct product of the damage. Using "jail ain't shit" as evidence that prison conditions are acceptable is like using a trauma patient's dissociation as evidence they weren't traumatized.

Sources: de Viggiani, N. (2012). "Trying to be Something You Are Not." Men and Masculinities, 15(3), 271-291; Ricciardelli, R., Maier, K., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2015). "Strategic Masculinities." Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 491-513; Jewkes, Y. (2005). "Men Behind Bars: 'Doing' Masculinity as an Adaptation to Imprisonment." Men and Masculinities, 8(1).

7. Halden Prison (Norway) vs. US and Australian Conditions

Concrete Comparison

| Dimension | Halden (Norway) | US (Typical Max Sec) | Australia (Typical) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cell size | ~12 m2 (~129 ft2), single occupancy | 48-54 ft2, often double-bunked | Varies; WA double-bunks single cells |
| Occupancy | Single cell (always) | Double/triple bunking common | Double bunking; triple in Victoria |
| Staff:inmate ratio (day) | 1:1 (340 staff for 252 inmates) | 1:6 to 1:12+ | Varies, generally 1:5+ |
| Staff:inmate ratio (night) | 1:2.5 | 1:30+ in some facilities | Not publicly reported |
| Time out of cell | 12 hours/day minimum | 1 hour/day (segregation); 4-8 hrs (gen pop) | Varies |
| Private bathroom | Yes (en-suite shower + toilet) | Exposed toilet in cell, shared showers | Often shared; WA: urinate in front of cellmate |
| Kitchen access | Shared kitchens, cook own meals | Cafeteria (institutional food) | Cafeteria |
| Education | Full school, recording studio | Limited; varies by facility | Available but limited |
| Weapons (guards) | Unarmed guards | Armed in towers, OC spray, tasers | Varies |
| Family contact | Up to 3 visits/week, placed near home | Limited visits, often far from home | Limited visits |
| Max sentence | 21 years (with preventive detention possible) | Life without parole; death penalty (some states) | Life (rare); typically fixed terms |
| Recidivism (2yr) | ~20% | 44% (rearrest within 1 year); 76.6% within 5 years | ~46% within 2 years (national avg) |
| Incarceration rate | 54 per 100,000 | 531 per 100,000 (2023) | ~160 per 100,000 |
| Philosophy | Rehabilitation; "every inmate is coming back to society" | Punishment, deterrence, incapacitation | Mixed; states lean punitive |
| Cost per prisoner/year | ~$129,000 USD | ~$35,000-$60,000 (varies by state) | ~$110,000-$150,000 AUD |

Key Outcome Data

Norway: 20% recidivism within 2 years. 25% within 5 years. One of the lowest in the world.

United States: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014): 76.6% of state prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested within 5 years (N=404,638 prisoners across 30 states). 55% reconvicted. 28% re-sentenced to prison.

Australia: ~46% return to prison within 2 years (Productivity Commission, Report on Government Services). Indigenous Australians: ~78% return within 2 years. Indigenous incarceration rate is the highest per capita of any group globally.

The North Dakota Experiment

North Dakota sent corrections officials to Norway to study their model and implemented reforms. Early results showed improved staff morale, reduced violence, and better outcomes — suggesting the Norwegian model is transferable, not culturally unique.

Sources: Halden Prison data: prisonguide.co.uk; Wikipedia, "Incarceration in Norway"; NPR, "In Norway, A Prison Built on Second Chances" (2015); BJS, "2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism" (state prisoners released 2005-2014); Australian Productivity Commission, Report on Government Services (annual); US News, "Inspired by Norway's Approach, North Dakota Reforms its Prisons" (2019).

8. Who Writes About Prison?

The Gap

The vast majority of published prison research is written by people who have never been incarcerated. There are no comprehensive statistics on the exact percentage, but the structural barriers tell the story:

Barriers to formerly incarcerated people becoming researchers:

Felony convictions disqualify from many graduate programs

Federal Pell Grant eligibility was stripped from prisoners in 1994 (restored 2023)

Many states bar people with felony convictions from professional licensing

IRB (Institutional Review Board) restrictions classify prisoners as a "vulnerable population" — making it harder to conduct research involving prisoners, and functionally impossible for an incarcerated person to be a researcher rather than a subject

Academic hiring discrimination against people with criminal records

The median time to PhD is 5.8 years; formerly incarcerated people face housing instability, employment barriers, and parole conditions that make this nearly impossible

Convict Criminology

The Convict Criminology movement was founded in 1997 by formerly incarcerated academics including:

John Irwin (San Francisco State) — served time for armed robbery; wrote The Felon (1970) and Prisons in Turmoil (1980)

Stephen C. Richards (University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh) — federal prisoner; co-founded the movement

Jeffrey Ian Ross (University of Baltimore) — co-editor of foundational texts

Frank Tannenbaum (Columbia) — served time for labor disturbances; precursor to the movement

The Division of Convict Criminology (DCC) is now a recognized division of the American Society of Criminology. Members include faculty at Appalachian State, Chicago State, Marquette, San Francisco State, St. Louis University, University of Canterbury (NZ), and UW-Oshkosh.

The Fundamental Problem

The DCC states its founding premise directly:

"The voices of the formerly-incarcerated and system-contacted have been ignored in the disciplines of criminology, criminal justice, and corrections research, policy and practices."

The people who experience prison are almost never the people who document it. The people who document it have credentials that, by definition, most formerly incarcerated people cannot obtain. This creates a research literature written almost entirely by outsiders, about insiders, using methods that privilege observable behavior over lived experience.

When a prisoner's self-report ("it wasn't that bad") is taken at face value by a researcher who has never been inside, both prisonization theory and masculine performativity research tell us that self-report is a survival artifact, not data. But the researcher — who has never needed to perform invulnerability to avoid being victimized — may not recognize this.

Sources: Richards, S.C. & Ross, J.I. (2001). "The New School of Convict Criminology." Social Justice, 28(1); concrim.org (Division of Convict Criminology); Earle, R. (2014). "Prison Research From the Inside: The Role of Convict Auto-Ethnography." Prison Service Journal; Second Chance Pell experimental program (2015-2023); FAFSA Simplification Act (2020, implemented 2023).

Summary: The Architecture of Minimization

The claim "it wasn't that bad" is produced by at least six interlocking mechanisms:

Prisonization (Clemmer, 1940) — The prison socializes inmates to normalize deprivation

Masculine performativity (de Viggiani, 2012; Ricciardelli et al., 2015) — The prison code punishes vulnerability; toughness performances persist post-release

System justification (Jost & Banaji, 1994) — People defend systems that harm them to maintain psychological stability

Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) — Admitting the harm was pointless is more painful than believing it was deserved

Researcher distance — The people who write about prison have mostly never been inside; the people who have been inside are structurally excluded from writing about it

Absence of oversight — Lab rats have more mandated welfare protections than prisoners; the conditions that produce the harm are invisible because nobody is required to inspect them

Every objective measure — PTSD rates (4.6-10.4x general population), post-release mortality (3.5x), life expectancy loss (2 years per year served), recidivism (76.6% rearrest) — contradicts the self-report.

The self-report is not wrong. The person believes it. That's the point. That's what the system does.

Norway proves it doesn't have to: 20% recidivism, single-occupancy cells, 1:1 staffing, unarmed guards. Same humans. Different system.

The Humane Paradox