The Phenomenon of Double Regulation and The Development of Prison  Culture in The Interaction Between Street-Level Bureaucracy and A Semi Autonomous Social Field at Cipinang Prison and Batam Detention Center

Adzra Salsabila Fitri; Mohammad Irvan Olii

doi:10.59141/jiss.v7i6.2395

Authors

Adzra Salsabila Fitri Universitas Indonesia
Mohammad Irvan Olii Universitas Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59141/jiss.v7i6.2395

Keywords:

Double Regulation, Prison Culture, overcrowding, Pains of Imprisonment, Officers' Discretion

Abstract

This research examines the phenomenon of double regulation within correctional institutions—namely the coexistence and conflict between formal state rules and informal inmate norms—through a comparative analysis of Class I Cipinang Prison and Class IIA Batam Detention Center. The research is grounded in the evolving forms of pains of imprisonment in modern correctional systems, including procedural strain (tightness), impunity, and social stratification that shape prison culture. Using a descriptive qualitative approach, the study seeks to understand the social dynamics, bureaucratic practices, and power relations among actors inside prisons. The data were analyzed contextually to uncover the mechanisms through which dual systems of regulation emerge and affect prisoners' lived experiences and officers' conduct. Findings reveal that double regulation is shaped by complex social stratification (particularly in Cipinang Prison) and direct officer-inmate interactions that allow informal norms to fill gaps in formal regulations (notably in Batam Prison). Overcrowding intensifies officers' discretion, informal negotiations, and mutualistic consolidation between colleagues and staff, resulting in normative uncertainty, continuous psychological strain, and weakened rehabilitation and correctional programs. Nonetheless, prison culture also provides temporary operational stability through mechanisms of internal control. The study recommends structural reform, stronger accountability systems, institutional cultural transformation, harmonization of standard operating procedures, and further comparative research to reduce the adverse effects of double regulation and improve correctional governance in Indonesia.

References

APT.ch. (2015). Institutional culture in detention: A framework for preventive monitoring.

Antillano, A. (2022). The carceral reproduction of neoliberal order: Power, ideology and economy in Venezuelan prison. In Prisons, inmates and governance in Latin America (pp. 129–154). Springer.

Azizah, E., et al. (2023). Implementation of overcrowded handling policy at Class II B Siak Sri Indrapura detention center. Undip Journal, 1–15.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Buck, G., & Tomczak, P. (2022). Prisoners regulating prisons: Voice, action, participation and riot. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 24, 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221101997

Cipinang Narcotics Prison. (2025a). SOP for implementing routine searches. Class IIA Cipinang Narcotics Prison.

Cipinang Narcotics Prison. (2025b). SOP for implementing locking of residential block and room. Class IIA Cipinang Narcotics Prison.

Cipinang Narcotics Prison. (2025c). SOP for implementing the duties of security team members at block posts. Class IIA Cipinang Narcotics Prison.

Cipinang Narcotics Prison. (2025d). SOP for implementing KPLP staff duties in preventing disturbances of public order and/or natural disasters. Class IIA Cipinang Narcotics Prison.

Cipinang Narcotics Prison. (2025e). Visiting regulations for Eid al-Fitr 1446 H/2025 at the Class IIA Narcotics Prison in Jakarta. Class IIA Cipinang Narcotics Prison.

Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529.

Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155.

Kemp, T., & Tomczak, P. (2024). The cruel optimism of international prison regulation: Prison ontologies and carceral harms. Law & Social Inquiry, 49, 1683–1714.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and social change: The semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law & Society Review, 7(4), 719–746.

Mubarokah, A. F., & Larasati, N. U. (2024, April). Inter-inmate conflict at Cipinang Class I penitentiary from the perspective of prison subculture. Jurnal Anomie, 6, 1–15.

Penal Reform International, & Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2015). Institutional culture in detention: A framework for preventive monitoring (2nd ed.).

Reform, P., APT, & Stevens, J. (2015). Institutional culture in detention: A framework for preventive monitoring. Penal Reform Publications.

Santoso, A. (2005). Prison culture in Cipinang Class I prison (Disertasi, University of Indonesia).

Shammas, V. L. (2017). Pains of imprisonment. In The encyclopedia of corrections (pp. 1–5).

Simon, R. (2011). Prison culture: Case study at Bogor penitentiary (Disertasi, University of Indonesia).

Suara Indonesia. (2025, October 13). To reduce overcapacity, 41 Cipinang prisoners moved to Nusakambangan.

Symkovych, A. (2018). The inmate code in flux: A normative system and extralegal governance in a Ukrainian prison. Current Sociology, 66(7), 1087–1105.

Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.