The World Health Organization, stated in the World Report on Violence and Health (2002), defined violence as use of physical power or force, a threat to self, others, communities or groups that results in injury, psychological harm or death. The definition emphasizes that an individual or group must intend to use force or power against another. Wolff et al. (2007) state that violence is a growing problem in prison, particularly violent attacks against inmates or staff. Keller and Wang (2005) stated that it is not surprising that violence is a pervasive feature in prison because it is the result of hundreds of inmates being confined in close proximity to each other, with some inmates having antisocial behavior. Recent research on prison violence has focused on understanding prison misconduct and aggression. using two flagship models; Deprivation (Sykes, 1958) and importation model. However, Austin and Irwin (2001) noted that the idea of ​​prison violence is promoted by the general public. This sociological phenomenon in which someone “predicts” or expects another individual to act in a certain way is called a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” . Scheider et al. (2012) suggest that prison violence occurs due to external expectations that violence will occur regardless of the inmate's crime. These predefined expectations contribute to the self-fulfilling prophecy and reinforce prison violence. King et al. (2008) suggest that, to reduce the cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies, prison officers should respect inmates and promote a positive environment with helpful programs, rather than increasing inmates' aggression by labeling them as violent and resecting their behavior. access to treatment and programs, these changes will help reduce violent behavior. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get the original essay Research supports the idea that violence is an integral part of prison life, with UK government statistics showing that Assault rates in 2019 increased significantly, in one year assaults increased by 5% and assaults on staff increased significantly by 10% (Safety in Custody Statistics, England and Wales, 2019). Although these figures are alarming, penologists have developed a range of theoretical explanations for inmate violence. Early researchers Clemmer (1940), Sykes (1958), and Wheeler (1961) defined the prison as a distinct society with a prison culture and microsociety characterized by its own slang, norms, and code of conduct. Explanations of prison violence and other forms of misconduct have been dominated by competing models; Deprivation model (Sykes, 1958) and importation model, these models help to understand why violence occurs within a prison. Traditional theories of prison violence are rooted in sociological processes (Wolff et al., 2007). Sykes (1958) The deprivation model is rooted in the belief that although prisoners interpret their conditions in prison differently, all prisoners accept that prison life is disadvantaged due to the environment. Hilinski-Rosick and Freiburger (2018) suggested an increase in prison violence. when the prison population and stricter rules are implemented.Magargee (1976) suggested that previous research had not observed the impact of prison officers on prison violence, but recent publications suggest that prison officers and policies have a negative impact on prison life. Overcrowding has been correlated with a negative impact on the general well-being of inmates, due to inmates spending an increased amount of time in their cells, which in turn increases feelings of frustration, leading to reactive behaviors such as violence. This is why Magaregee (1976) suggests that programs should be put in place to compensate for this potential sense of depravity caused by overpopulation. Inmates should have access to programs that help teach prosocial response to negative feelings, this in turn will help the inmate regulate their emotions, thereby promoting rehabilitation and reducing violence in prison. The restrictive scope of Sykes's (1958) deprivation model has attracted much criticism in explaining inmate violence in prisons, Thomas (1970) suggested that the emphasis on immediate prison pressures in the deprivation model implies a closed system paradigm and therefore does not take into account the past experiences of prisoners. Additionally, Teague et al. (2008) and Wright et al. (2008), suggests that there is ample evidence that various forms of abuse, deprivation, violence and suffering that occur during early childhood as well as antisocial behavior could cause violence in prisons. Therefore, Irwin and Cressey (1962) argue that inmates do not arrive at the prison gates as blank slates to be shaped by prison conditions. Rather, they viewed inmate conduct as a reflection of the values ​​and behaviors that offenders brought with them to prison. Nevertheless, Damboeanu (2016) supports Sykes' (1958) suggestion that prison violence is due to the social environment, but there are limitations. Kazdin (2003) proposed methodological limitations, due to the nature of the theory, the data produced are subjective and therefore can be manipulated to achieve a socially desirable outcome, thereby increasing recall errors. Damboeanu (2016) further claims that the model fails to fully explain prison violence due to the reductionist stance, that the deprivation model ignores the influence of biological influences and instead focuses primarily on external factors as the only cause of violence and aggression, which in turn neglects the internal (psychological) factors which are important factors to consider for the violent behavior of prisoners. Therefore, Eysenck (1964) presented a comprehensive biosocial theory of crime, the theory proposed paradoxical biosocial interactions for violence and antisocial behavior. Individuals with deficits in biological functioning (poor conditioners) have difficulty refraining from exhibiting antisocial and violent behaviors in a normal environment. Eysneck's (1964) theory is that the notion of conditionality, prominence, violence, and antisocial behavior can be intrinsically rewarding, so such behavior occurs naturally unless punishing conditions are deliberately provided. Therefore, Raine and Venables (1981) proposed that the classical conditioning of violence and reward should be broken by prison officers, with prompt and consistent punishments, the prison should provide intervention and programs to help prisoners to regulate their needs in a prosocial way, rather than communicating through behaviorsprevious antisocials such as violence that was once rewarded. Although Eynesck's (1964) biosocial theory provided insight into prison violence, Rain and Venables (1981) stated that the theory lacked empirical testing, therefore, Rain and Venables (1981), conducted a study empirical; study results were consistent with Eyeseck's (1964) concepts of antisocialization, therefore, individual conditional capacity and criminogenic environments impact the likelihood of violence. Horn et al. (2014) also support Eysenck's (1964) notion that psychological functioning and criminogenic environments influence violence, particularly in prison. Although biosocial theories suggest an explanation for prison violence, they have limitations. Eysneck's (1964) theory of prison violence is outdated and subjective, due to the inability to consistently measure a criminogenic environment. Additionally, violence has broader influences, including brain dysfunction, neurotransmitters, and upbringing. These factors differ from prisoner to prisoner, although genetic factors influence prison violence, there is still a gap in research demonstrating the role of genes and environment in explaining prison violence (Pinto et al.,2010). Another dominant theory to explain prison violence is Irwin and Cressey's (1962) importation model. Irwin and Cressey (1962) suggest that the prison environment alone does not cause prison violence. Alternatively, the importation model assumes that inmates' pre-existing characteristics determine how they respond to life behind bars (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Offenders enter prison with diverse backgrounds, experiences and attitudes, which impacts their adjustment to prison. Thus, Irwin and Cressey (1962) believed that deviant subculture such as prison violence stemmed from the characteristics of prisoners and their experience before entering prison. The importation model continues to inform penological research and policy. Although the importation model offers an alternative perspective to the deprivation model, Irwin and Cressey (1962) unfortunately omitted specific variables for measuring pre-prison and antisocial behaviors that, in theory, would predict the likelihood of prison violence. For this reason, penologists and correctional officers have focused on the multiple risk factors present in prison, which have been empirically linked to misconduct and violent behavior (DeLisi et al., 2010). Byrne and Hummer (2008) further suggest that a variety of inmate characteristics have been linked to prison violence. Based on these connections, prison classification systems have been designed to identify likely inmate characteristics (e.g., age, race, prior criminal charges, mental health history). be associated with an inmate's risk of violence towards themselves, others and staff, in order to reduce violence in prison. Empirical tests of the import model are typically conducted at the individual level, examining relationships between inmate behavior and demographic variables such as age, gender, education. , SEN, race, relationship status, history of mental illness, substance abuse, and prior crimes. Therefore, the importation model (Irwin & Cressey, 1962) suggests that prison violence assumes that demographic variables and criminal histories are indicative of inmates' propensity to engage in violence, with individuals from socio-economic backgrounds -economic poor are more.