Accountability is one of the most repeated words inside corrections. It’s printed in policy language. It’s referenced in disciplinary hearings. It’s used to justify consequences. It’s positioned as the moral backbone of incarceration. But accountability, as practiced inside Arizona Department of Corrections , flows in one direction. Down. Mutual accountability would look very different. It would mean individuals are responsible for their behavior — and the institution is responsible for the conditions it creates. It would mean discipline is paired with evaluation of whether the environment contributed to the behavior being corrected. It would mean when patterns repeat, the system examines itself before defaulting to punishment. That kind of accountability is destabilizing because it requires power to look inward. In a control-based structure, authority is rarely conditioned on self-examination. Rules are enforced, not questioned. When misconduct occurs, the individual is scrutiniz...
There’s a reason dignity is often treated like a luxury instead of a requirement. In systems built on hierarchy and enforcement, dignity can be misinterpreted as weakness. And weakness, in environments centered on authority, is seen as destabilizing. Arizona Department of Corrections operates within a framework where power must be visible to be effective. Commands must be followed. Boundaries must be reinforced. Consequences must be clear. The structure depends on compliance. Within that logic, dignity can appear to dilute authority. But that assumption confuses control with respect. Dignity doesn’t remove boundaries. It changes how they’re enforced. It shifts the tone from domination to structure. It communicates that someone’s behavior is being corrected, not their humanity being stripped. That distinction feels subtle on paper. In practice, it changes everything. Control-based systems fear dignity because dignity redistributes psychological power. When someone is treated as cap...