Prisons and Imprisonment: An Introduction 3031093003, 9783031093005

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
List of Figures
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?
1.3 Outline of the Book
1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment
1.5 A Note on Language
1.6 Geographic Scope
1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society
References/Further Reading
Part I Punishment and Prison
2 The Prison Emerges
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Punishment Before the Prison
2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins
United States of America
United Kingdom
2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement
2.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
3 Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Justifying Punishment
3.3 Retributivism
3.4 Consequentialism
Deterrence
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
3.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
4 Who Is Punished?
4.1 Introduction
4.2 A Place for the Most Dangerous and Violent Law-Breakers?
4.3 The Unequal Distribution of Punishment and Imprisonment
Imprisoning the Poor
Racial Disparity in Imprisonment
A Criminal Justice Response to Social or Health Issues?
4.4 The Ripple Effects—Further Marginalising the Marginalised?
4.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
Part II Understanding the Experiences of the Prison
5 Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Power, Relationships and Culture
Prisonization
5.3 The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation
Deprivation and the ‘Pains of Imprisonment’ in the ‘Society of Captives’
The Evolution of the ‘Pains of Imprisonment’
The Prison as a ‘Total Institution’?
Importation of Outside Culture into the Prison Community
Moving Beyond the Importation/Deprivation Divide
5.4 A Universal Culture for a Single Prison Community?
5.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
6 The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Gender, Punishment and Confinement of Women
6.3 Imprisonment of Women in a Global Context
6.4 Who Are the Women Being Imprisoned?
6.5 Women’s Experience of Imprisonment
Meeting Women’s Needs or Furthering Gendered Expectations?
6.6 Masculinity and Imprisonment
6.7 The Imprisonment of Transgender People
6.8 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
7 Prisoners and Protest
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Structure, Agency and Resistance
7.3 Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances
7.4 Prisoners’ Rights Movements
7.5 Resistance: Outside and Inside
7.6 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
8 Prison in Popular Culture
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Prisons and News Media
8.3 Prison Films and TV Drama
Characteristics of a Prison Film
Characters in Prison Films
Plot Themes in Prison Films
Absent Realities in Prison Dramas
Damaging Depictions or a Tool for Reform?
8.4 Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside?
8.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
Part III The Penal Framework
9 Prisoners’ Rights
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Punishment and Civil Death
9.3 Human Rights and Imprisonment
9.4 Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights
9.5 ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’
9.6 Prisoners and Civil Rights
9.7 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
10 Governing Prisons
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Prisons and Social Order
10.3 Prison Rules and Daily Life
10.4 Regime and Routine
10.5 Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy
10.6 Self-Governance and Social Order
10.7 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
11 Working in Prison
11.1 Introduction
11.2 The Demographics of Prison Staff
11.3 The Role(s) of a Prison Officer
11.4 Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work
11.5 The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work
11.6 Prison Officer Culture
11.7 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
12 The Architecture of Incarceration
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Symbolism and Structure
12.3 International Standards
12.4 Place and Space
12.5 Improving the Penal Environment
12.6 New Prisons—Old Philosophies?
12.7 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
Part IV Politics and Penality
13 Comparative Penology
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Imprisonment Worldwide
13.3 Assessing Punitiveness
13.4 Comparing Penal Systems
United States of America
Norway
England and Wales
13.5 Conclusion
References/Further Reading
14 The Future of the Prison
14.1 Introduction
14.2 The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform
The Legacy of Prison Reform
Improving the System from Within
Alternative Visions of the Reformed Prison
14.3 The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition
Prisons as Inherently Harmful Places
Disproportionate Harm for Marginalised Communities
‘Crime’ as a Social Construct
Failure of Imprisonment to Meet Victims’ Needs
The Failures of Reform
14.4 A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition
Prison as a ‘Natural’ and Popular Response to Crime
Imprisonment as Necessary to Protect the Public
What Would We Do Instead to Address the Problems Prison Has Been Used For?
14.5 Alternatives to Prisons and Imprisonment
Restorative and Transformative Justice Initiatives
Therapeutic or ‘Intentional’ Communities
Tackling Inequality Through Justice Reinvestment
14.6 Reflecting on Your Reading so Far: Where Next for Prisons and Imprisonment?
References/Further Reading
Part V Researching Prisons and Imprisonment
15 Prison Research: Methods, Approaches and Sources
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Prisoners on Imprisonment
15.3 Telling Their Own Story
15.4 The Prison Researcher
15.5 Evaluating Sources
Ethics
Methods
Secondary Sources
Official and Semi-Official Sources
Penal Reform Organisations
Other Sources of Information
15.6 Conclusion
Appendix 1: Prisoner Autobiographies
Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment
References/Further Reading
Glossary
Index

Citation preview

An Introduction CORMAC BEHAN & ABIGAIL STARK

Prisons and Imprisonment

Cormac Behan · Abigail Stark

Prisons and Imprisonment An Introduction

Cormac Behan School of Social Sciences, Law, and Education Technological University Dublin Dublin, Ireland

ISBN 978-3-031-09300-5

Abigail Stark School of Justice University of Central Lancashire Preston, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-09301-2  (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: eStudio Calamar This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Outline of the Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.5 A Note on Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.6 Geographic Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Part I  Punishment and Prison 2 The Prison Emerges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2 Punishment Before the Prison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3 Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2 Justifying Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.3 Retributivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4 Consequentialism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

v

vi

Contents

4 Who Is Punished?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.2 A Place for the Most Dangerous and Violent Law-Breakers?. . . . . . 52 4.3 The Unequal Distribution of Punishment and Imprisonment . . . . . . 54 4.4 The Ripple Effects—Further Marginalising the Marginalised?. . . . . 63 4.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Part II  Understanding the Experiences of the Prison 5 Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.2 Power, Relationships and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5.3 The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation. . . . . . 78 5.4 A Universal Culture for a Single Prison Community?. . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6 The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Gender, Punishment and Confinement of Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6.3 Imprisonment of Women in a Global Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.4 Who Are the Women Being Imprisoned?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 6.5 Women’s Experience of Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.6 Masculinity and Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.7 The Imprisonment of Transgender People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 6.8 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 7 Prisoners and Protest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7.2 Structure, Agency and Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 7.3 Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7.4 Prisoners’ Rights Movements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 7.5 Resistance: Outside and Inside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 7.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 8 Prison in Popular Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 8.2 Prisons and News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 8.3 Prison Films and TV Drama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Contents

vii

8.4 Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 8.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Part III  The Penal Framework 9 Prisoners’ Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 9.2 Punishment and Civil Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 9.3 Human Rights and Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 9.4 Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 9.5 ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 9.6 Prisoners and Civil Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 9.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 10 Governing Prisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 10.2 Prisons and Social Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 10.3 Prison Rules and Daily Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 10.4 Regime and Routine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 10.5 Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 10.6 Self-Governance and Social Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 10.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 11 Working in Prison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 11.2 The Demographics of Prison Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 11.3 The Role(s) of a Prison Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 11.4 Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 11.5 The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work. . . . . . . . . 203 11.6 Prison Officer Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 11.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 12 The Architecture of Incarceration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 12.2 Symbolism and Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 12.3 International Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 12.4 Place and Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 12.5 Improving the Penal Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

viii

Contents

12.6 New Prisons—Old Philosophies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 12.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Part IV  Politics and Penality 13 Comparative Penology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 13.2 Imprisonment Worldwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 13.3 Assessing Punitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 13.4 Comparing Penal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 13.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 14 The Future of the Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 14.2 The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform . . . . . . . . 258 14.3 The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition . . . . . 262 14.4 A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 14.5 Alternatives to Prisons and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 14.6 Reflecting on Your Reading so Far: Where Next for Prisons and Imprisonment?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Part V  Researching Prisons and Imprisonment 15 Prison Research: Methods, Approaches and Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 15.2 Prisoners on Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 15.3 Telling Their Own Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 15.4 The Prison Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 15.5 Evaluating Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 15.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Appendix 1: Prisoner Autobiographies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Abbreviations

ACA  American Correctional Association ACLU American Civil Liberties Union BAME Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic BPP Black Panther Party CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CR Critical Resistance CSC Close Supervision Centre ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EPR European Prison Rules FNP Foreign National Prisoner GRC Gender Recognition Certificate HMICFRS His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services HMIP His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons HMP His Majesty’s Prison HMPPS His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service HMPS His Majesty’s Prison Service HMYOI His Majesty’s Young Offender Institution ICPR Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights IEP Incentives and Earned Privileges IMB Independent Monitoring Board IPP Imprisonment for Public Protection IRA Irish Republican Army ix

x

Abbreviations

IWOC Incarcerated Workers’ Organising Committee IWW Industrial Workers of the World JLS Jailhouse Lawyers Speak KPI Key Performance Indicator LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender LWOP Life Without Parole MOJ Ministry of Justice NPA National Prison Association NPM National Preventative Mechanism OPCAT United Nations Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture POA Prison Officers Association P-NOMIS Prison National Offender Management Information System PPO Prisons and Probation Ombudsman PRI Penal Reform International PROP Union for the Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners PRT Prison Reform Trust PSI Prison Service Instruction PSO Prison Service Order ROTL Release on Temporary Licence SDG Sustainable Development Goal TC Therapeutic Community UN United Nations UNDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services UNSMR United Nations Standard Minimum Rules  for the Treatment of Prisoners VPU Vulnerable Prisoner Unit WHO World Health Organization WSPU Women’s Social and Political Union

List of Figures

Fig. 13.1

Fig. 13.2

Fig. 13.3 Fig. 13.4 Fig. 13.5

Comparative imprisonment rate 2022 (per 100,000) (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incarceration in the United States of America (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparing US States (Source: Sentencing Project [2021b]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imprisonment in Norway (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research ([2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imprisonment in England and Wales (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

241

242 244 246 248

xi

1

Introduction

Chapter Outline

This chapter will: • • • •

Introduce the book, Prisons and Imprisonment. Outline the unique characteristics of the book. Consider the use of language around prisons and imprisonment. Set out the geographic scope of the book.

1.1 Introduction This book is about prisons and imprisonment. Historically, prisons and imprisonment have been a source of interest to the general public. Despite limited or no public access to them, prisons continue to attract attention and engage our consciousness today. Although there is near universal acceptance of an institution that represents our society, the reality of life behind bars is rarely revealed in news reports, ‘real life’ documentaries, dramas, films and social media commentaries. Using academic scholarship, empirical research, government papers, policy reports, and accounts from lived experiences of the institution, this book will examine prisons and imprisonment. It will sketch out the history of punishment, consider the objectives of imprisonment, explore the complexities and contradictions of prison life, analyse the place of prison in twenty-first century society, and examine its prospects for the future.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_1

1

2

1 Introduction

1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment? The power to punish is one of the primary demonstrations of the authority of the modern state. Over time, different methods of punishment have become the dominant means of sanctioning people, and today, punishment varies in different countries. In Western society, by the end of the nineteenth century, imprisonment began to be seen, to varying degrees, as a natural, taken-for-granted, even common-sense response to some types of deviant activity. Although many people today might find it hard to imagine punishment without prisons, this book will examine, and challenge readers to consider if prison is an effective, equitable and justifiable method of dealing with law-breakers. As the prison is now firmly established and plays a central role in the different options available for punishment, this book aims to: • • • • • •

Critically consider the theoretical foundations of imprisonment; Examine the social world of the prison and the sociology of prison life; Investigate the place of the prison in popular culture; Locate the institution within its wider social, political and cultural contexts; Encourage readers to engage in discussions about the use of imprisonment; Lay the foundations for readers to pursue further research on prisons and imprisonment.

As you progress through this book, a few conclusions about prisons and imprisonment will become clear. Firstly, there is a wide range of institutions that are called prisons. These institutions differ in their purpose, levels of security, regime, daily routine and architectural design. Despite this, they all share one common objective—the secure confinement of those they house. Secondly, there is no single characteristic that defines a prisoner, other than their confinement. Therefore, people have different experiences of imprisonment. Similar to the study of all human activity, the same life event or circumstances may be experienced differently, for a variety of reasons, including age, gender, race, creed, socio-economic position and life history. These characteristics impact on a person’s experience within the criminal justice system and, depending on where a prisoner serves their time, this can influence their experience of imprisonment. Thirdly, the use of imprisonment, and who is imprisoned reflects the society in which the prison is situated. This book is more than a study of prisons and imprisonment. As the use of punishment, in particular imprisonment, reveals something deeper about the social, cultural, economic and political environment in which it is located, it is

1.3  Outline of the Book

3

also a study of society. ‘The aims of prisons cannot be divorced from the characteristics of the societies in which they take root’, according to O’Donnell (2016: 48). He argues that: ‘Local legislative and policy contexts, together with societal values and community sentiment, play a critical role’. Throughout the book, the connection between the prison and society will be emphasised. Similar to other public institutions, all that goes on therein (even if they are run by private industry) is done in the name, and on behalf of, the state and society. Crewe (2009: 9) reminded his readers that prisons are institutions ‘whose dynamics are rarely exposed, even though they reveal important dimensions of state practice and authority’. Throughout the book, we will use the study of prisons to reveal characteristics of the criminal justice system, and uncover how state practice and authority is exercised.

1.3 Outline of the Book This chapter defines the parameters of the book. It begins with the aims and objectives, outlines the scope and emphasises the importance of language in studying prisons and imprisonment. Beginning with Chapter 2, Part I examines continuities and changes in the history of imprisonment, as well as the theoretical dimensions of the prison, including the philosophies of punishment. Chapter 2 outlines the history and development of the prison as an institution. With the modern prison emerging in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was argued by those who championed the institution that it was a more humane form of punishment than the cruel and brutal practices that preceded it. Chapter 3 sketches out some of the debates around the justification/s for punishment. It analyses several of the controversies about the objectives of prison. Chapter 4 examines the demographics of those who are sent to prison. This indicates a remarkable similarity over time, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with a disproportionate number of people imprisoned around the world from minority and marginalised communities. In Part II, the focus is on prison life: the varied experiences of incarceration, including its portrayal in popular culture and representation in the media. Chapter 5 examines the sociology of prison life. Within this chapter, the ‘classics’ of prison research will provide the reader with a more in-depth understanding of the social world behind bars. Chapter 6 considers the role of gender in shaping experiences of imprisonment. The prison is a highly gendered institution, experienced differently depending on one’s gender, and impacting the performance of gendered identities for imprisoned people. Chapter 7 examines prisons and protests. This

4

1 Introduction

includes an examination of resistance from those who were politicised outside and others who became politically conscious inside prison. Chapter 8 concludes this part by looking at the depiction of the prison in popular culture. The reality of the institution usually stands in stark contrast to the common portrayals that are mediated through drama, film and popular accounts. It draws attention to inaccuracies/ distortions in representation in order that readers can distinguish between accurate (if indeed there is a unified, single authentic reality) and sensationalised portrayals of prisons and prisoners in film and  on television. These representations are significant, not for their authenticity or accuracy, but for how they permeate into popular consciousness, and may even provide justification for the existence of the prison. Part III analyses various frameworks within which the prison operates. Chapter 9 on prisoners’ rights examines what rights people lose (and perhaps should keep) on incarceration, beyond the denial of liberty. Chapter 10 on governing prisons examines prison rules, prison conditions and minimum acceptable standards set out in various international documents, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules)  (UNODC 2015). Chapter 11 surveys the emerging body of research into the experiences of prison officers. The form of any building can indicate its function, and Chapter 12 examines how different architectural designs of prisons reflect the ideological perspectives of penal policymakers. Part IV of the book will consider political ideologies and penal policies. Chapter 13 considers the use of imprisonment in a global context. Examining the USA, Norway, and England and Wales, it considers how the treatment of prisoners reflects social, economic, political and cultural contexts. Chapter 14 examines the future of the prison and the debates on reform and abolition. It assesses if the prison can be a place of reform, and outlines alternative models of imprisonment. It considers if the prison is an inevitable and indeed, permanent feature of modern society, or if there is a potential for a future without prisons. The final section deals with researching prisons and imprisonment. Chapter 15 outlines some of the methods that can be used, and the materials and sources available, for researching prisons. With limited access to closed institutions, it offers some ideas on how to undertake further study of penology as you progress through the book, and after you have finished reading it. As you read through this book, remember the central themes include questions around the objectives of imprisonment, what activities are labelled deviant, who is criminalised and imprisoned, and why penal policy and prison systems differ. We encourage readers to reflect on an institution that has emerged to take a prominent place in our understanding of punishment in the western world in

1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment

5

twenty-first century society. While it has become an institution with a significant social, economic and political role, Morris and Rothman in The Oxford History of the Prison (1998: xi) conclude that ‘it is apparent that Western societies typically carry expectations of the prison that are unreal or contradictory’. Finally, instead of considering the use of imprisonment solely within a criminal justice framework, we try also to reflect on its use within a social justice context. As we argue in this book, the prison does not operate in isolation from the society in which it is located. It reflects wider social, economic, political and cultural characteristics. As the criminal justice system does not operate in a neutral manner, we challenge readers to reflect on the various elements of a system that leads to a disproportionate number of people from minority and marginalised communities ending up in prison. Imprisonment has a major impact on the lives and prospects of individuals, along with significant detrimental consequences for their families and communities. Therefore, we argue that we need to critically think about the role and functioning of prison from a social justice perspective.

1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment The aim of this book is to introduce some of the key issues around prisons and imprisonment. Written for students of penology and the general reader, it is intended to stimulate your interest and introduce some of the essential themes to understand the subject. As outlined earlier, the chapters cover a range of topics, and each is accompanied by a reference list/further reading to allow you to delve more deeply into these issues. Each chapter begins with an outline and concludes with a summary of the main points dealt with in the chapter. Throughout each chapter, there are questions to consider, and an activity at the end to be used to reflect on some of the central ideas dealt with in your reading. Spotlights highlighting key topics are contained within each chapter. A glossary providing an explanation of specific terms is included at the end of the book. Each term in the glossary is indicated in bold throughout the text. In studying penology, try to avoid sensationalist accounts which only reinforce stereotypes of prison and prisoners. As you read through this book, try to go beyond the vision of the prison we have all seen dramatised on television or at the cinema. These representations seldom reflect the complexity of prison life and rarely incorporate the perspectives of those who have spent (or continue to spend) time incarcerated. Popular versions of prison life that ignore, sensationalise, or sometimes disparage the voices of people who have direct experience of imprisonment can present a skewed portrayal of the institution. As with any

6

1 Introduction

academic study, you should try to read as many reputable sources as you can, to endeavour to get a rounded picture of the prison. Further, we should be careful about foregrounding one perspective in narrative/s about the prison. This is particularly important in studying the experience of imprisonment, as many times those who have direct experience of serving time in the institution can be silenced in the ‘hierarchy of credibility’ (Becker, 1967: 241). Read with a critical eye, and be careful not to take portrayals of prisoners and prisons at face value, even from official and/or government sources.

1.5 A Note on Language Penology is the study of punishment. It concerns not only the nature of these sanctions, but questions their utility, impact and outcomes. As with all social sciences, language use in penology is contested. Various names have been, and are currently employed to describe places of confinement. These include house of corrections, asylum, jail, prison, borstal, penitentiary, reformatory, detention centre and correctional institution (Morris & Rothman, 1998; Ugelvik et al., 2020). The names used can reveal the penal philosophy of policymakers and their expectations of the institution. Historically, the language used to describe prisoners has been dehumanising (Cox, 2020). In official discourse from governments and policymakers, and informally in the media and wider society, a range of words are used: ‘offender’, ‘convict’, ‘prisoner’, ‘criminal’, ‘felon’ and other, more pejorative terms. Language is powerful because it influences not only how society views an individual, but the ‘words we use to refer to people predispose us to act towards them in a different way’ (Scott, 2014: 412). In many jurisdictions the discourse around prisoners is negative, indicating their exclusion and detachment from society. They have become ‘othered’ (Garland, 2001). Othering prisoners labels them as different from the rest of society, and reduces people to labels associated with their imprisonment or past crimes. Further, it can also lead to an individual internalising a negative identity and can be counter-productive if the objective is desistance from criminal activity and re-entry into society (Maruna, 2001). Even after serving their time, the prison follows them: individuals move from the label of ‘prisoner’ to ‘ex-prisoner’, from ‘convict’ to ‘ex-convict’. As Jahmaine, a person with lived experience of the criminal justice system, argued in a discussion in Probation Quarterly (2021): ‘Language needs to be kept as neutral and respectful as possible, otherwise it can make people feel not worthy and lead to reoffending.’

1.6  Geographic Scope

7

The term ‘offender’ has been controversial in the United Kingdom, with many prisoners and scholars arguing that it should be removed from official and popular discourse, as it characterises the individual solely on the basis of their crime. In 2016 the Scottish government, in its National Strategy for Criminal Justice, encouraged government departments and partner organisations, when referring to former prisoners, to no longer use the term ‘offender’, but replace it with the phrase ‘person with convictions’ or ‘person with an offending history’. The Scottish government recognised that ‘defining people as “offenders” for the rest of their lives, will not help to change their behaviours, or shift attitudes within wider society’. They concluded: ‘We must be aware of the power of language to facilitate or inhibit this process’ (Scottish Government, 2016: 14). HM Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales in its 2021 probation reform programme (2021: 4) stated that they ‘will also move away from the term “offender” in those contexts where it is an unhelpful label, instead referring in this document to supervised individuals or individuals’. Cox (2020: 4) has identified an increase in destigmatising language in the US, and after studying the UN Nelson Mandela Rules on the treatment of prisoners, she believes there is a ‘shifting global language of imprisonment’, away from negative categorisation. Despite these developments, there are still debates about the use of language around prisons and people serving time in them, even amongst those who advocate for more respectful language. Nevertheless, Cox (2020: 8) reminds us that ‘our choices and intentions with respect to language reflect a long and complex history of struggle over the landscape of incarceration’. Many prison activists and penal reformers reject the terminology of the state and penal authorities, and campaign for a new language that recognises a person-first approach. While we are aware of these debates, and accept that there is no neutrality in discussions about prisons and imprisonment, for the purpose of this book, we will use the word ‘prisoner’. We do this for the sake of brevity and the factual status of imprisonment. However, throughout, we wish to remain sensitive to the dignity and humanity of people serving time in prison, and would encourage readers to do so as well.

1.6 Geographic Scope With most research, higher level institutions, journals, resources and academics located in the Global North (Carrington et al., 2019), this has led to a neglect of Southern experiences of criminology (Carrington et al., 2016), while the growing body of research available is not always published in English.  This is particu-

8

1 Introduction

larly so with the social science subjects pertinent to our study—criminology and penology. While it is changing, criminology is currently largely United States and United Kingdom-centred (Ugelvik et al., 2020). In his study of life in an Ethiopian prison, O’Donnell (2019: 267) argued that our understanding of penology ‘tends to be rooted in research carried out in Europe and the United States’. As the US has the largest incarceration rate in the world (Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research (ICPR), 2022), it is perhaps understandable that there is considerable research about its penal system. With England and Wales having one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Western Europe (ICPR, 2022), it also has a wide range of literature available about its penal system. This book draws on literature, reports and data available in English, with a primary focus on England and Wales. Therefore, much of the processes, language and terminology that we use will be in this context. However, we will seek to draw comparisons with other jurisdictions throughout, to better situate England and Wales within the global context of imprisonment. While this book concentrates on research available in the English language, we are acutely aware that this not only limits the scope but that there is research available in other languages on the themes and subjects covered in this book. That we have not included studies, policy analysis and research that is published in other languages reflects our own lack of linguistic competency, rather than a judgement on their significance.

1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society Finally, before you embark on your journey studying penology, remember that you are not just researching prisons and imprisonment, you are scrutinising a society. Many criminologists (and indeed other commentators, as we will see in this book) believe that the use of imprisonment reveals characteristics of the treatment of minority and marginalised groups in society, who, throughout history, and in most (if not all) countries throughout the world tend to be disproportionately represented in the prison population. We argue in this book that how a state defines crime, who it decides to punish and imprison, and how it treats those it incarcerates can be used to examine any jurisdiction. As an activist with the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela (1918–2013) was convicted of sabotage and attempting to overthrow the government. He spent 27 years incarcerated in some of South Africa’s most notorious prisons, including Robben Island. He later wrote: ‘No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones’ (cited in Green, 2013: 93).

References/Further Reading

9

Other people who have been imprisoned have recorded their experiences, their views on the role of prison in society, and whether it achieves its objectives. While you may agree or disagree with their views on punishment, and indeed their perspectives on incarceration, their lived experiences provide frames of reference that help in our understanding of prisons and imprisonment and provide perspectives that cannot be gained by those without this experience. These challenge us to reflect on the role, impact and usefulness of an institution that has become embedded in western society. When you read this book, try to keep in mind that the use of a particular form of punishment represents the social, political, economic and cultural character of a society at a moment in time. As you begin to engage in debates and discussion around the use of imprisonment as punishment, consider what it says about how a state treats its citizens, and how the use of punishment can be used as a baromter to judge a state and society. In Western society, it seems that the use of prison has become embedded, not only in the structures that house prisoners but in how society views punishment. However, always be mindful, as we will see in the next chapter, that the prison arrived relatively late in human history as a form of punishment. We must therefore understand its development, inquire into its objectives, continue to consider the reasons for its existence, and even reflect on what, if any, is the future for prisons and imprisonment. Chapter Summary

• This chapter introduced the book and some of the themes in the study of prisons and imprisonment. • It is important to be sensitive to language usage when referring to people in prison. • Punishment and imprisonment must be understood in a wider social, political and economic context. • A study of prisons and imprisonment can reveal important characteristics of a society.

References/Further Reading Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3): 239–249. Carrington, K., Dixon, B., Fonseca, D., Rodriguez Goyes, D., Liu, J., & Zysman, D. (2019). Criminologies of the global South: Critical reflections. Critical Criminology, 27(1): 163–189.

10

1 Introduction

Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern Criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 1–20. Cox, A. (2020). The language of incarceration. Incarceration: An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1): 1–13. Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford University Press. Green, R. (2013). Mandela: The Life of Nelson Mandela. Thomas Dunne Books. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). (2021). The target operating model for probation services in England and Wales: Probation reform programme. HMPPS. Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR). (2022). World prison brief. https:// www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data (accessed on 19 January 2022). Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association Books. Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (Eds.). (1998). The oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society. Oxford University Press. O’Donnell, I. (2016). The aims of imprisonment. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 39–54). Routledge. O’Donnell, I. (2019). The society of captives in an Ethiopian prison. The Prison Journal, 99(3): 267–284. Probation Institute. (2021). Probation quarterly: Guidance on the use of language. https:// static1.squarespace.com/static/5ec3ce97a1716758c54691b7/t/60d9c35377db0f12778bd351/1624884051251/Language+policy.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2021). Scott, R. (2014). Using critical pedagogy to connect prison education and prison abolitionism. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 33(2): 401–414. Scottish Government. (2016). National strategy for community justice. Scottish Government. Ugelvik, T., Jewkes, Y., & Crewe, B. (2020). Editorial: Why Incarceration. Incarceration: An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1): 1–5. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2015). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). UNODC.

Part I Punishment and Prison

2

The Prison Emerges

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

Punishment prior to the emergence of the modern prison. How the modern prison retained some of the features of the old regime. Why the prison was designed to deter, punish, and reform. The birth of the modern prison in the United States and the United Kingdom.

2.1 Introduction To study the history of punishment, we must examine the society in which it occurred. To understand any society, we must consider who, why and how it punishes. Different methods of punishment reflect the characteristics of a society at a moment in time. This chapter outlines some of the key approaches to punishment prior to, and in the early years of the prison: from the 1700s to the 1900s. During this time, there were significant developments in how society was governed in the Western world, the birthplace of the modern prison, moving from monarchical to democratic forms of governance. In economics, societies evolved from feudalism to capitalism. In terms of punishment, these economic and political changes had a knock-on effect on how deviant activity was conceptualised, law-breaking defined and subsequently punished. By the twentieth century, the prison had achieved hegemony in the options for punishment in modern penality. Today, it is the prison ‘on which the public imagination is mostly focused’ (Ryan, 2012: 22). However, it was not always this way. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_2

13

14

2  The Prison Emerges

The modern prison dates back to the end of the eighteenth century. Before then, confinement was generally used for a person awaiting punishment. The denial of liberty alone was not considered punishment. This chapter begins by looking at some examples of punishment in the past, prior to the more widespread use of the prison. It then examines how the early advocates of the prison wanted to leave behind the infliction of physical pain and replace the cruel and brutish penalties with a more humane approach. They believed that they found their solution in the prison: retribution, deterrence, containment and reform could be combined in one institution. However, the prison was soon found wanting and the next section of this chapter considers how, instead of dispensing with the prison, advocates of this new form of punishment believed that with modifications, the prison could be successful in achieving its aims and objectives. The final section considers different forms of confinement.

2.2 Punishment Before the Prison Prior to the emergence of the modern prison, there were places of confinement. Potter (2019) dates the first royal place of confinement in England to Norman times, with the building of the Tower of London. However, confinement alone was not considered sufficient to sanction law-breakers. Punishments tended to be more physical in character. They could be swift and barbaric, with pain inflicted on the body. In stark contrast to the privacy of the prison, punishment was usually done in public, which had the added dimension of community humiliation. It was employed as a warning to others, in the hope that it would deter them from committing a crime (we will examine deterrence as an objective of punishment in Chapter 3). A range of penalties was available that would be considered as cruel and inhumane today, and contrary to human rights protections that exist (in aspiration, if not in reality) in many jurisdictions throughout the world. Before the widespread use of the prison, punishments included stocks and pillory. These were normally wooden devices usually located in a town’s market square. Stocks were used to punish lower-level offences, and the pillory for more serious crimes. The person sat in the stocks and their ankles were locked into it. A pillory was a similar device, with the distinction that the person stood, and their head and hands were locked in place. Townspeople could throw rotten vegetables or stones at those convicted of crimes (Emsley et al., 2022). While undoubtedly an individual could be hurt in both stocks or pillory, the main purposes of these forms of punishment were to publicly humiliate, and to act as a deterrence to others. ‘For a respectable person, someone who depended on reputation to make

2.2  Punishment Before the Prison

15

his living’, writes McGowen (1999: 123), ‘appearing in the pillory in the very place where he carried on business, must have been a terrible event’. There were other forms of corporal punishment, including whipping for those convicted of theft (Examples of some gruesome punishments can be found on the Old Bailey online, with details not only of the punishments meted out, but fascinating accounts of everyday life in London, from the late seventeenth to early twentieth centuries: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/). By the end of the eighteenth century, 220 offences were punishable by death, a sharp increase from the 50 capital crimes in 1688 (Knowles, 2015: 9). This period has been described as the ‘Bloody Code’ due to the laws and punishment for capital offences. These ranged from the ‘serious to the trivial to the bizarre, and included: forgery; poaching; damaging Westminster Bridge; stealing items above a certain value; associating with gypsies; cutting down a tree; being out at night with a blackened face; and robbing a rabbit warren’ (Knowles, 2015: 9). As the spectacle of the scaffold (Foucault, 1977) was central to the process of execution, capital punishment by hanging was carried out in public, both as a punishment and a deterrence. During the Middle Ages, exile was used as punishment. A revised version of exile was introduced in 1718 with the Transportation Act. This began transportation to the British Colonies in North America. It was introduced, according to the Act, because punishments ‘have not proved effectual to deter wicked and evil-disposed persons from being guilty of the said crimes’. There was also a concern for labour shortages. The Act continued: ‘in many of his Majesty’s colonies and plantations in America, there is great want of servants, who by their labour and industry might be the means of improving and making the said colonies and plantations more useful to this nation’. Morgan (1987: 416) found that from 1718 until transportation was effectively ended with the American War of Independence in the 1770s, only a minority were convicted of serious crimes. Those transported were ‘largely people who had resorted to petty theft during hard times. It is therefore safe to conclude that the typical transport was young, male and poor but not an habitual criminal’. As the United States was lost to Britain with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, so too was the potential for transportation. The ‘Hulks Act’ of 1776 authorised confinement on decommissioned vessels in the Thames and elsewhere. However, soon, due to increasing demand, hulks were located at various locations, including Deptford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Chatham and Woolwich. Conditions on board were harsh, and with poor hygiene, disease quickly spread. There was strict discipline, with those below deck often locked in irons. ‘Infractions were punished with flogging, extra irons and, for the worst offenders, con-

16

2  The Prison Emerges

finement in the “black hole”’ (Digital Panopticon, 2022). Although the conditions were regularly criticised, people detained in Hulks were soon used for labour on public works projects. With the opening of new prisons and different locations found for transportation, the reliance on Hulks began to be reduced, but their use was not finally ended until 1857. In 1784, a new Act was passed, for transportation ‘beyond the sea, either within His Majesty’s dominions or elsewhere outside His Majesty’s dominions’. Thus began the transportation of convicts to Australia. There were a number of punishments for people sent there for a period of time. On completion of the sentence, those released on a Conditional Pardon were not allowed to return home. Those released under Absolute Pardons could return or stay in Australia. However, even when the sentence was complete, many of them did not have the resources to return to the United Kingdom, and ended up staying in their new ‘home’ for the rest of their lives (Shaw, 1966). The Age of Enlightenment in Europe led to major changes in society. Mirroring developments in wider society, punishment was changing too. Penal reformers of this period believed that punishing the body was no longer useful, or humane. Many of the philosophers of the Enlightenment were concerned with the subject of punishment. Italian jurist, Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) wrote On Crimes and Punishments (1764) which still stands as one of the founding texts of criminology. Beccaria argued that judicial torture should end, and he wanted to abolish the death penalty. With the emergence of early industrialisation and capitalism, the lack of a work ethic was seen as a major deficiency in a law-breaker’s character. Many who wanted to reform the system of punishment were inspired by Christian faith: Idle hands, they believed, were the devil’s tools. Discipline, regularity and hard work would engender reform in the wrongdoer. They wanted a system that while punishing, was also educating the prisoner by instilling in them the monotonous routine of labour, which they hoped would lead to their reformation. The modern prison became the educational technique, as it was to be used for schooling in industrious habits. Measures dealing with the infliction of pain did not disappear suddenly, but were only slowly abolished. The last sentence of branding at the Old Bailey was handed down in 1789 (Emsley et al., 2022). In 1817, public whipping of women was abolished. It was ended for men in the early 1830s, although it was not formally abolished until 1862. (However, whipping was still permitted in prisons until it was abolished with the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Corporal punishment in prison was finally abolished with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1967). Punishment in the pillory was abolished in 1837.

2.3  The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

17

In 1868, the Capital Punishment Amendment Act was passed which ended public executions as concerns grew about social order surrounding this public spectacle. However, the United Kingdom was not yet ready to abolish capital punishment and from 1868 when it was last carried out in public, until the last hanging in 1964, executions took place behind prison walls (Knowles, 2015). Transportation to Australia was abolished under the Penal Servitude Acts of 1853 and 1857. In replacing transportation, penal servitude—essentially imprisonment with hard labour—was introduced. It remained on the statute books until the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (Cox, 2021). In pre-prison times, punishments were harsh, even for minor crimes, but they were ‘swift, salutary and far more effective and less expensive than locking people up for prolonged periods’ (Potter, 2019: 14). The spectacle was important, to demonstrate the power and authority of the ruler, and to act as a deterrent to others who may be considering criminal activity. However, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, both public displays of punishment and inflicting pain on the body were deemed to be inhumane and ineffective. As part of the ‘civilising process’, penal sanctions were changing (Pratt, 2002, 2011). No longer would the body be punished. Reform and redemption would be found in punishing the soul and the mind. Question

• Why do approaches to punishment change?

2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins With the demise of public punishments and the moving away from infliction of pain on the body, a new form of punishment and deterrence was deemed necessary. As transportation from the United Kingdom ended, the prison began to be used more widely. Instead of people being held for short periods of time in gaols before real punishment, the denial of liberty using the metric of days, months and years became an attractive alternative. However, there was not a smooth transition to this new form of punishment. As soon as the prison was created, problems emerged. Several different approaches and regimes were tried out, as the criminal justice establishment moved to utilise the denial of liberty, and the prison began to be established as the central mode of punishment. While the modern prison may have been seen as part of the Enlightenment and the civilising process (Pratt, 2011), it was still an austere and harsh form of punishment. Instead of simply replacing the delivery of pain to the body with

18

2  The Prison Emerges

punishing the mind and soul, there were elements of the old regime in the new. The treadmill was one such method. A civil engineer, William Cubitt created the treadmill or treadwheel in the early 1800s (Peters, 2018). Prisoners stood on a wheel and climbed, in a pointless action to stimulate the spirit of industry in them. In some prisons, it could also be used to pump water or grind grain. Prisoners could spend up to ten hours a day on the treadmill and, in some instances, the public spectacle endured, as the people outside the prison could watch them. With an improved model developed in 1822, it was installed in many prisons (Henriques, 1972). Some people advocated for their use, concerned that as bed and board began to be provided in prisons for free (in the early institutions, prisoners had to pay for their own food, etc.), poor people might commit a crime to get access to prison. Therefore, they believed that some element of pain was essential to put them off committing a crime to get to prison (Peters, 2018). Even in the era of Enlightenment, the punishment was severe. Eighteenth and nineteenth century prison reformers, according to O’Donnell (2016: 45) ‘devised dietary scales that ensured prisoners’ appetites were never sated while starvation was kept at bay (just). They tallied the number of times the crank had been turned and the treadwheel spun and adjusted the resistance so that these pointless exercises brought prisoners to the brink of exhaustion but did not render them unfit for the next day’s exertions.’ The use of the treadmill faded out towards the end of the 1800s, as it began to be considered as torture, and concerns were expressed about prisoners’ health. The Prisons Act 1898 effectively abolished the treadmill, as well as creating restrictions on corporal punishment for transgressions of certain prison rules. Amongst the first modern prisons to emerge in the United States and the United Kingdom were penitentiaries. They were based on a cloistered system of separation and silence. Inspired by the religious idea of spending time alone with one’s maker, early prisons were designed to be places of silence and contemplation. Prisoners engaged in hard labour in their cell, on the treadmill, or in workshops. Their only break from the monotony of the regime was the opportunity (for those who were literate) to read or be instructed in Scripture. The objective of this institution was punishment and moral reformation. In his study of the new philosophy of punishment emerging in England between 1750 and 1850, Michael Ignatieff (1978: 213) argued that the penitentiary ‘was conceived as a machine for the social production of guilt’ which was hailed by the reformers, many of whom were inspired by Christian ideals.

2.3  The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

19

United States of America On arrival in the United States, the European colonisers set out to destroy the native way of life and began creating new political and social structures of governance. After the United States declared its independence from British colonial rule in 1776, a new country needed a new system of punishment. In 1829, the first purpose-built penitentiary, the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia was opened. Charles Williams, convicted of burglary was described as ‘Prisoner Number One’. His details were recorded: Light Black Skin. Five feet seven inches tall. Foot: eleven inches. Scar on nose. Scar on Thigh. Broad Mouth. Black eyes. Farmer by trade. Can read. Theft included one twenty-dollar watch, one three-dollar gold seal, one, a gold key. Sentenced to two years confinement with labor. Received by Samuel R. Wood, first Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary. (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021)

Those who established the penitentiary were convinced that crime was the result of moral failings of law-breakers and their environment. They believed that criminality was a disease that could be spread from prisoner to prisoner. This necessitated the separation of prisoners from each other for the entire period of their prison sentence. Solitude would give prisoners the time and space to reflect on their criminal activity and it would encourage them to become penitent, hence the name, penitentiary. All contact between prisoners was prohibited. In order to achieve this, masks covered the prisoners’ heads on the rare trips outside their cell. Prisoners had their own individual exercise yard. Even contact with prison guards was limited, and their meals were passed to them through a slit in the door (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021). This became known as the ‘Pennsylvania System’, or the ‘separate system’. An alternative to this approach emerged, named after the prison of its origin in New York, the ‘Auburn System’. It was also called the ‘silent system’. It enforced silence at all times, but prisoners worked in groups during the day and were confined to their cells alone at night. Prisoners were supposed to walk, eat and work in complete silence. Those who were seen speaking or looking at each other were punished with flogging (Henriques, 1972). In contrast to the ‘Pennsylvania System’, those who advocated for the ‘Auburn system’ believed that this would be more effective in rehabilitating prisoners. It would inspire in them a work ethic and personal discipline. The prison system in America became a source of curiosity and study to many Europeans. With new forms of incarceration establishing themselves, a ‘proces-

20

2  The Prison Emerges

sion of British and European visitors came to America, saw and admired’ the institutions (Henriques, 1972: 73). They returned home and took sides between the separate and silent systems. In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont undertook a visit to the United States on behalf of the French government to study their prison system. Although the ‘Auburn’ and ‘Pennsylvania’ systems were different, both isolated prisoners which they believed could potentially bring redemption. ‘Placed alone in the presence of his crime’, argued de Beaumont and de Tocqueville (1833: 27), ‘he learns to hate it: and if his soul is not yet desensitized to evil, it is in isolation that remorse will come to assail him. Solitude is a severe punishment, but such a punishment is merited by the guilty’. They were more impressed with the isolation of prisoners than another visitor, Charles Dickens.

Charles Dickens and the Prison Although he was never sent to prison for a crime, Charles Dickens spent some time in prison and was a keen advocate of penal reform. His father John Dickens spent three months in the Marshalsea Prison, London in 1824 for failure to pay a debt. So porous were the institutions at the time that Charles could breakfast with his father and the rest of the family, prior to going to work each day. He returned to the prison each evening for dinner before going home to his lodgings. These experiences had such a profound impact on him that he wrote about debtors’ prisons in his novels, The Pickwick Papers and David Copperfield. In Little Dorrit, the main character, Amy, is born in the Marshalsea (Scott 2020). When he went to America in the 1840s Dickens was keen to visit the Eastern State Penitentiary. He wrote a chapter about his visit in the account of his travels, American Notes (1842: 84): In its intention, I am well convinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for reformation; but I am persuaded that those who devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution, do not know what it is that they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it myself, and in reasoning from what I have seen written upon their faces, and what to my certain knowledge they feel within, I am only the more convinced that there is a depth of terrible endurance in it which none but the sufferers themselves can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow-creature. I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body…

2.3  The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

21

Separation and silence, which today would be considered essentially solitary confinement, came in for much censure, with critics arguing that it was causing damage to prisoners’ mental capacity. It may even be counter-productive to reform. Therefore, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there were many other attempts to create an institution that would both punish and reform. In October 1870, a National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline in the United States met to discuss prison discipline, and the punishment of prisoners. At this Congress, the National Prison Association (NPA) was established (later to become the American Correctional Association). The Declaration of Principles (cited in ACA, 2021) set out some of the objectives: ‘The treatment of criminals by society is for the protection of society. But since such treatment is directed to the criminal rather than the crime, its great object should be his moral regeneration’. While in prison, the state had a duty to give the ‘convict an improved mind and heart’ and ‘the capacity for industrial labor and the desire to advance himself by worthy means’. However, society also had a further responsibility because, ‘having lifted him up, it has further duty to aid in holding him up’ after release and not deny the ‘opportunity of earning honest bread’ (ACA, 2021). Further attempts were made to modify and improve the new method of punishment. Reformatories were established. Conditions within prisons were improved; basic education was provided; in certain institutions, an element of prisoner self-governance was trialled to improve the potential for reform (Gehring, 2021). In 1913, although it was no longer being used, as the ‘system had broken down decades earlier’, the Eastern State Penitentiary finally abolished the ‘separate system’ of confinement (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021). Henriques (1972: 93) argued that, although it was a failure, the separate system was ‘the most serious attempt to reform criminals made in the nineteenth century’. At this time, European legislators and penal reformers were also looking for a system of punishment that did not involve the barbaric practices of pre-Enlightenment times.

United Kingdom In 1779, the Penitentiary Act was introduced after campaigns by prison reformers such as John Howard. According to the Penitentiary Act, it became necessary to ‘amend the Laws relating to the Transportation, Imprisonment, and other Punishment of certain offenders’. Two new penitentiaries were to be built—one male and one female—to begin replacing the use of Hulks and as an alternative to transportation. Mirroring the American penitentiary system, there was to be single cell accommodation, prisoners had to work and they were to receive

22

2  The Prison Emerges

religious instruction. The preamble to the Act stated that it ‘might be the means, under Providence, not only of deterring others from the Commission of the like Crimes, but also of reforming the Individuals, and inuring them to Habits of Industry’. Although the penitentiaries were not built according to the stipulations in the 1779 Act, this was the beginning of a national prison system throughout the United Kingdom, and it was the ‘most forward-looking English penal measure of its time’ (Devereaux, 1999: 405).

John Howard and Penal Reform John Howard (1726–1790) is considered as one of the founders of the prison reform movement in the Western world, with penal reform organisations in England and Wales, Scotland and former British colonies in New Zealand and Canada named after him. After being appointed Sheriff of Bedford, England in 1773, Howard decided to educate himself about prisons by visiting institutions throughout England and Europe. He made several suggestions for reforming prisons, including separating prisoners, their classification, and paying jailers. At the time, many prisoners had to pay for their own imprisonment. The objective of imprisonment was, he believed, not just punishment, but reform and rehabilitation too. In keeping with the Christian ethos, Howard believed that hard labour, religious instruction and a regime of solitary confinement would be successful in reforming law-breakers. In 1774, John Howard’s evidence to a parliamentary committee was instrumental in passing the Gaol Act, which sought to improve conditions in prison. In 1777, he published the first edition of The State of the Prisons in England and Wales (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2021).

One of the philosophers of the Enlightenment Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) put forward an innovative design for a prison: the panopticon. Bentham’s prison comprised a circular structure, and at the centre was an inspection area in which a prison officer could observe prisoners. As guards could observe each prisoner, and the prisoner did not know if they were being watched, this would, it was hoped, control their behaviour (Digital Panopticon, 2022). It became known as the ‘all-seeing eye’. Bentham (cited in O’Donnell, 2016: 41) described the panopticon as ‘a mill for grinding rogues honest and idle men industrious’. In 1817, Millbank Prison opened in London—then the biggest prison in Europe—on a regime of solitude, hard labour and a meagre diet. Initially, it was to follow the design of Bentham’s panopticon, however, these plans were soon

2.3  The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

23

abandoned. Millbank was to begin replacing the Prison Hulks. Although they were still in use, they were increasingly being seen as no longer viable. Reflecting the pride in the new institution, Millbank was seen to be ‘very much a national resource, a prestige project rather more befitting an imperial Britain than the other state resource, the dismal and decaying hulks’ (Potter, 2019: 188). However: Unlike them it would be no transitory expedient but a permanent part of the penal estate and the flagship. It had no problem in constituting its superintending committee from the great and the good. Dukes, bishops and members of parliament were only too eager to be associated with this grand endeavour […] The country was convinced that, straddling the twin objectives of individual reform and general deterrence, Millbank was the answer to crime… (Potter, 2019: 188)

The new prison, despite being well-funded and lauded by the establishment, was a failure (Turner, 2016: 242). There were problems with the construction, and vast sums of money were spent to rectify these issues. Prisoners rioted about the type of food, and between 1822 and 1824, 30 prisoners died from diarrhoea. Disease led to the whole prison population being evacuated for a period (Wilson, 2002). Throughout its 74 years Millbank was, at various times, the National Penitentiary housing men and women, a local prison, an institution for prisoners awaiting transportation and a military prison (Ford, 2021). Despite these various iterations of confinement, it was finally closed in 1890. After campaigns for improvements in prison conditions by Elizabeth Fry and other penal reformers, the Gaols Act of 1823 was passed. This Act hoped to create comparable and improved standards in prisons throughout the United Kingdom and included reforms to prisons. It set out a system of classification. Male and female prisoners were to be separated, with the latter to be guarded by female officers. It introduced regular visits to prisoners by chaplains. Regulations on health, hygiene, education and labour were introduced and alcohol was banned. This Gaols Act 1823 was just one of many introduced, but political and financial commitment was needed to improve conditions. Reformers demanded that independent oversight and inspection be an integral part of the system (see Chapter 10 for modern-day equivalents). The beginnings of an inspection regime were introduced with this Act, as gaols were to be visited by visiting justices at least three times a year, with a report to be submitted to the Home Secretary annually (Stockdale, 1983). The Prisons Act 1835 introduced independent inspectors who made annual reports to the Home Office. This should have led to improvements in penal conditions, but with only five inspectors and limited powers, the impact of this Act was minimal.

24

2  The Prison Emerges

In light of the problems with Millbank, the decision was taken to build a new National Penitentiary, a ‘model prison’ in North London. Although not following exactly Bentham’s panopticon, the objective of Pentonville Prison was to keep prisoners isolated, with a central hall and four radiating wings which were visible to staff at the administrative hub of the prison. Opened in 1842, Pentonville Prison followed the ‘Pennsylvania System’ at the Eastern State Penitentiary. Thick walls were built in individualised cells to prevent their inhabitants from communicating with each other. Silence was to be the norm and communication between prisoners was forbidden. Prisoners were made to undertake work, such as picking tarred rope and weaving. Prisoners were hooded when outside their cells, they exercised in separate yards and even had separate stalls in the prison chapel (Marland & Cox, 2021). Pentonville ‘operated “like a machine”, with every minute of the convicts’ day from the first bell at 5.30 a.m. until lights out at 9 p.m., regimented, directed and observed in meticulous detail’ (Marland & Cox, 2021: 2, italics in original). Eight years later, built on a similar design, Mountjoy Prison in Dublin, Ireland was opened. It was, according to newspaper reports at the time, ‘the new Model Prison, one of the most complete structures of its class in the British Empire’ (cited in Carey, 2000: 50). Despite numerous Acts of Parliament and legislative innovations dealing with prisons in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, all was not well in British prisons. In 1895, the Report from the Departmental Committee on Prisons (which became known as the Gladstone Committee Report) began ‘from the principle that prison treatment should have as its primary and concurrent objects, deterrence and reformation’ (Gladstone Committee, 1895: para. 25). The Committee recommended that the treadmill should be abolished and labour in association be allowed in all prisons. Books should be made more widely available and educational facilities extended (Cross, 1971: 5). The Report recommended the classification of prisoners and concluded ‘that prison discipline should be more effectually designed to maintain, stimulate or awaken the higher susceptibilities of prisoners to develop their moral instincts’. It set an ambitious objective: ‘to train them in orderly and industrial habits and whenever possible to turn them out of prison better men and women, both physically and morally, than when they came in’ (Gladstone Committee, 1895: para. 25). By the beginning of the twentieth century, although moving from inflicting pain on the body, punishment remained severe. Prison life was bleak. Food was meagre, work was grinding, boring and hard. The delivery of pain by means of corporal punishment was replaced primarily with the new mode of punishment. As the prison emerged, no longer was a punishment to be delivered as part of the public spectacle, it would now be carried out behind prison walls.

2.4  From Imprisonment to Confinement

25

Questions

• Which form of imprisonment was more humane: the ‘silent’ or the ‘separate’ system? • Which was the more ‘effective’ form of punishment?

2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement The modern prison, through its buildings, administration, regimes and technologies, hoped to engender change in those it confined (O’Donnell, 2016). By the mid to late nineteenth century, the ‘prison had become the predominant form of punishment in England and other Western societies’ (Jewkes & Johnson, 2006: 4). The prison was now firmly established. This was not just in the bricks and mortar, but rather it was seen as a natural or common-sense response to some types of deviant behaviour. The denial of liberty spread as ‘prisons were exported as part of the civilizing mission of the imperialist powers’ (Gibson, 2011: 1057). Other places of confinement were established too. In recent years, research has been undertaken into different institutions, such as workhouses, reformatories, borstals and Magdalene homes which are now understood to have formed part of the penal and welfare landscape (Ugelvik et al., 2020). New research examining sites of ‘coercive confinement’ has found that although ‘some of them were ostensibly directed at the welfare and reform of their inhabitants, they were usually experienced as degrading, stigmatising and punitive places from which easy egress was not possible’ (O’Donnell & O’Sullivan, 2020: 2). While other places and forms of confinement are outside the scope of this book, coercive institutions have been used to deal with people in poverty, migrants, people with mental health issues, the vulnerable and those labelled ‘deviant’ (Bosworth, 2014; O’Donnell & O’Sullivan, 2020). Today, prisons around the world come in many different forms, with diverse approaches to punishment. While the prison remains an institution primarily for people convicted for breaking the criminal law (although as we will see in Chapter 4 remand prisoners can be held for long periods of time), today there is a wide range of institutions that are termed ‘prison’. The name may be the same, but the institutions differ so widely, they may seem to have little else in common. Norvall Morris wrote in The Oxford History of the Prison (1998: 202): Prisons range in security from double-barred steel cages within high walled, electronically monitored perimeters to rooms in unlocked buildings in unfenced fields. They range in pain from windowless rooms of close-confined, sensory deprived iso-

26

2  The Prison Emerges lation to work camps of no physical adversity whatsoever. There are “open prisons” indistinguishable from farms and “prisoners” who spend their days working unescorted and unsupervised in the community; there are “weekend prisons” and “day prisons”; there are “coeducational prisons” and there are prisons of grindingly dull routine interrupted by occasional flashes of violence and brutality. There are prisons with tennis courts and prisons where the only out-of cell exercise is an hour of pacing an outdoor cage three times a week; there are prisons of excessively crowded congregation and prisons of utter isolation. There are community-based pre-release centres, called “prisons,” indistinguishable from workers’ hostels.

Some prisons have the traditional characteristics that we associate with the institution: bars, uniforms, cells, strict routine, harsh regime and exacting rules. At one end of the spectrum, there are various types of high-security institutions called Supermax prisons in the United States, with features that distinguish them from other institutions: they tend to be for long-sentenced prisoners and those labelled dangerous; prisoners are held in effective solitary confinement (cell confinement for up to 23 hours a day) with restricted communication with the outside world and very limited programmes and educational activities (Shalev, 2009). At the other end of the spectrum, there are some open prisons which have few of the features that we associate with the modern prison: no locks on doors, or bars on windows, prisoners wear their own clothes, officers do not wear uniforms and the ultimate penal measure - no gate to keep a prisoner confined against their will (James, 2005). We will examine different forms of imprisonment and different approaches in the treatment of prisoners in later chapters. Questions

• How would you define a prison? • How does a prison differ from other places of confinement?

2.5 Conclusion This chapter has outlined how the prison emerged and developed. Advocates for the use of prison believed that they had found in the institution a formula to provide retribution, and deter, punish and reform; it could become a place to instil industrious habits in those it housed, sending them out into the world as productive members of society. The emergence of the prison normalised the denial of liberty as punishment. It set down roots in its home countries, and other forms of confinement were used alongside the prison. While the original objective of the institution might have been moral reformation and instilling industrious habits,

2.5 Conclusion

27

questions were soon raised, about how, or whether these could be achieved in the institution. The search for the ideal form of punishment, or the ‘model’ prison continues. Whether it is possible to create a form of punishment to meet the objectives of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and reform will be explored in the next chapter. Chapter Summary

• The prison emerged in tandem with changes in wider society. • Punishment moved from inflicting pain on the body to pain on the mind and soul. • Early modern prisons were used to instil industrious habits in those who were considered morally deficient. • The search for the model prison—that can punish and reform—began in the early 1800s and continues today. Activity

Read the Following Extracts: ‘Until 1783 most defendants actually executed were hanged at Tyburn (where Marble Arch stands today). Execution was a public spectacle, meant to act as a deterrent to crime. Convicts were drawn in a cart through the streets from Newgate, and, after they were given a chance to speak to the crowd (and, it was hoped, confess their sins), they were hanged. Huge crowds were attracted to these events […] The convict was placed in a horse drawn cart and blindfolded. The noose was then placed around his/her neck, and the cart pulled away. Until the introduction of a sharp drop in 1783, this resulted in a long and painful death by strangulation (friends of the convicts often helped put them out of their misery by pulling on their legs). Some of the most serious offenders were hanged near the place of their crime, as a lesson to the inhabitants of that area’. Extract from ‘Punishment Sentences at the Old Bailey’, cited in Emsley et al. (2022). ‘A UN human rights expert [Mr. Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] today raised concerns about the holding of prisoners for prolonged or indefinite periods in isolation in restrictive control units, known as Close Supervision Centres (CSC), calling on the British Government to review and regulate their use. […] a life sentence prisoner has been kept in CSC [Close Supervision Centres] units since March 2010, from the age of 23 […] According to the expert, “for the past 11 years, he is being held alone in a cell for more than 22 hours a day, is not permitted to participate in regular prison activities, receives his food through a hatch, and does not even have a privacy screen when using the toilet inside his cell […] ‘Physical and social isolation for prolonged periods may cause severe mental

28

2  The Prison Emerges and physical pain or suffering. When used for more than 15 consecutive days, these conditions of detention amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, therefore, are neither legitimate nor lawful.’ Extract from ‘United Kingdom: UN expert raises alarm over abuse of Close Supervision Centres’, cited in United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021).

 After reading the extracts above, discuss the extent to which punishment has become more civilised.

References/Further Reading American Correctional Association. (ACA) (2021). Declaration of principles. https://www. aca.org/ACA_Member/About_Us/Declaration_of_Principles (accessed on 20 June 2021). Beccaria, C. (1764 [2009]). On crimes and punishments. G. Newman & P. Marongiu (trans.) Routledge. Bosworth, M. (2014). Inside immigration detention. Oxford University Press. Carey, T. (2000). Mountjoy: The story of a prison. The Collins Press. Cox, D. (2021). Fitted both morally and physically to fulfil his proper duties in the battle of life?—The effectiveness or otherwise of penal servitude and imprisonment 1853–2021. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(SI): 47–55. Cross, R. (1971). Punishment, prison and the public. Stevens and Sons. de Beaumont, G., & de Tocqueville, A. (1833 [2018]). On the penitentiary system in the United States and its application in France. E. K. Ferkaluk (trans.) Palgrave Macmillan. Departmental Commitee on Prisons (1895). Report. (Gladstone Commitee Report). Departmental Commitee on Prisons. Devereaux, S. (1999). The making of the penitentiary act, 1775–1779. The Historical Journal, 42(2), 405–433. Dickens, C. (1842 [2000]). American notes for general circulation. P. Ingham (Ed.) Penguin. Digital Panopticon. (2022). Convict hulks. https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Convict_ Hulks#:~:text=The%20Hulks%20as%20a%20Form,and%20soil%20from%20its%20 shores (accessed on 12 March 2022). Eastern State Penitentiary. (2021). Timeline. https://www.easternstate.org/research/history-eastern-state/timeline (accessed on 21 September 2021). Emsley, C., Hitchcock, T., & Shoemaker R. (2022). Crime and justice—Punishments at the Old Bailey. Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Punishment.jsp (accessed on 12 January 2022). Ford, M. (2021). Thinking beyond the prison. Available at: https://www.crimeandjustice. org.uk/resources/thinking-beyond-prison (accessed on 21 November 2021). Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. A. Sheridan (trans.) Penguin.

References/Further Reading

29

Gehring, T. (2021). Our banner portraits: Prison educators and reformers. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/jper/ourbannerportraits.html (accessed on 20 June 2021). Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Oxford University Press. Gibson, M. (2011). Global perspectives on the birth of the prison. American Historical Review, 116(4), 1040–1063. Henriques, U. R. Q. (1972). The rise and decline of the separate system of prison discipline. Past and Present, 54, 61–93. Howard League for Penal Reform (2021). The life and work of John Howard. https://howardleague.org/john-howard/ (accessed on 21 October 2021). Ignatieff, M. (1978). A just measure of pain: The penitentiary in the industrial revolution, 1750–1850. Macmillan. James, E. (2005). The home stretch: From prison to parole. Guardian Books. Jewkes, Y., & Johnston, H. (2006). Introduction: Prisons in context. In Y. Jewkes & H. Johnston (Eds.), Prison readings: A critical introduction to prisons and imprisonment (pp. 1–12). Willan. Knowles, J. (2015). The abolition of the death penalty in the United Kingdom: Why it happened and why it still matters. The Death Penalty Project. McGowen, R. (1999). From the pillory to the gallows: The punishment of forgery in the age of financial revolution. Past and Present, 165(1), 107–140. Marland, H., & Cox, C. (2021). Prisoners, insanity and the pentonville model prison experiment. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/research/current/prisoners/outputs/ pentoville_experiment.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022). Morgan, K. (1987). English and American attitudes towards convict transportation 1718– 1775. History, 72, 416–432. Morris, N. (1998). The contemporary prison. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society (pp. 203– 234). Oxford University Press. Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (1998). Introduction. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society (pp vii-xiv). Oxford University Press. O’Donnell, I., & O’Sullivan, E. (2020). Coercive confinement: An idea whose time has come? Incarceration: An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement 1(1): 1–20. O’Donnell, I. (2016). The aims of imprisonment. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 39–54). Routledge. Peters, H. (2018). Treadmills were meant to be atonement machines. https://daily.jstor. org/treadmills-were-meant-to-be-atonement-machines/#:~:text=William%20Cubitt%2C%20a%20civil%20engineer,Queen%20Victoria%20for%20his%20efforts (accessed on 21 January 2022). Potter, H. (2019). Shades of the Prison House: A History of Incarceration in the British Isles. Boydell Press. Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and civilisation: Penal tolerance and intolerance in modern society. Sage. Pratt, J. (2011). Norbert Elias, the civilizing process and penal development in modern society. Sociological Review, 59(1) (supp): 220–240.

30

2  The Prison Emerges

Ryan, M. (2012). Delivering pain in the big society. Criminal Justice Matters, 89: 22–23. Scott, L. (2020 December 24). Charles Dickens, the writer who saw lockdown everywhere. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/charles-dickens-the-writerwho-saw-lockdown-everywhere (accessed on 27 November 2021). Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. Willan Publishing. Shaw, A. (1966). Convicts and the colonies: A study of penal transportation from great Britain and Ireland to Australia and other parts of the British empire. Faber and Faber. Stockdale, E. (1983). A Short History of Prison Inspection in England, British Journal of Criminology, 23(3): 209–228. Turner, J. (2016). The prison boundary: Between society and carceral space. Palgrave Macmillan. Ugelvik, T., Jewkes, Y., & Crewe, B. (2020). Editorial: Why Incarceration. Incarceration: An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1): 1–5. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). United Kingdom: UN expert raises alarm over abuse of close supervision centres. https://www. ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx (accessed on 29 January 2022). Wilson, D. (2002). Millbank, The panopticon and their Victorian audiences. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(4): 364–381.

3

Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • Why it is necessary to justify punishment and imprisonment. • The different philosophical rationales that have been used to justify punishment. • The challenges associated with particular philosophical rationales. • The ways different penal philosophies are evident and fulfilled (or not) in the use of imprisonment.

3.1 Introduction The use of imprisonment as a tool of punishment has grown substantially since the establishment of the modern prison. The way societies choose to punish law-breakers is often considered to reflect society more broadly, and the same can be said of the prison as an institution. The use of imprisonment is justified in various ways, as evidenced in the different mission statements of prison services around the world. These justifications—symbolic or pragmatic—do not only provide the formal rationales for the work of prison services. They are also used to justify the infliction of harm or restriction of liberties, through punishment, which would otherwise be unacceptable in society. The philosophical justifications of punishment are well rehearsed in academic literature and are often considered to indicate the possible aims of penal sanctions, including imprisonment, which legitimise their use. This chapter will © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_3

31

32

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

examine the various justifications of imprisonment as punishment, and their philosophical underpinnings, before considering the extent to which the prison is successful at fulfilling these aims.

3.2 Justifying Punishment The desire or need to punish law-breakers is an oft taken-for-granted principle embedded within criminal justice. However, for practices of the state to have legitimacy they must be morally justified, and with the act of punishing this is particularly important. Punishment cannot occur without justification because, as Duff and Garland (1994: 2) explain, it is ‘morally problematic’. Punishment involves the ‘conscious infliction’ of pain or suffering on an individual (Christie, 1981: 16) which in any other context would be considered immoral or wrong. It is this harm that the state may inflict, through their power to punish, which necessitates rigorous justification of punishment (Matravers, 2016; Scott, 2018). Despite its supposed emergence as a more ‘civilised’ approach to punishment (discussed in Chapter 2), imprisonment is the ultimate punishment in many jurisdictions, except where practices of capital or corporal punishment continue. Justifying imprisonment requires adoption of a philosophical position to determine what the intended aims of punishment are to be—only with these established can we make any assessment of whether the prison ‘works’ and the restriction of liberty can be considered justified. This chapter will outline four key philosophical justifications which have been used to rationalise the use of punishment more broadly and the practice of imprisonment in particular. Each of these penal philosophies has a bearing not only on how punishment is justified but also on how the appropriate amount of punishment is determined (Zedner, 2004).

Question

• Why is it important that the use of imprisonment has a philosophical justification?

3.3 Retributivism Calls for justice to be done demonstrate widespread acceptance of the principle that punishment is just or right when a law is broken—a position central to the philosophical approach of retributivism or retribution. Retributivist theory justi-

3.3 Retributivism

33

fies punishment on the basis that the harm or suffering imposed is deserved where a voluntary criminal offence has taken place. There is an acceptance that punishment can be good, in and of itself, rather than focusing on any instrumental consequences that may flow from punishment. As such, it is the position of some retributivists that punishment is not only a good, but a ‘categorical imperative’ (Kant, 1797: 141); punishment is not only an appropriate response to crime but a necessary one. This focus on the law-breaker as deserving of some suffering, necessarily leads to a concern with the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The emphasis on desert requires consideration of the severity of harm caused and/or the level of culpability attached to the offence, in order to determine how severe punishment should be in any given case. This approach has often been linked to the principle of lex talionis—an eye for an eye (Cavadino et al., 2020). This core principle of retributivism is evident in the rationale of just deserts, that the punishment should fit, or be commensurate with, the crime. As outlined by Von Hirsch (1976: 47), a key proponent of the just deserts theory, this connection between the seriousness of the offence and punishment given is necessary to redress balance; by inflicting some disadvantage on the individual, the unfair advantage gained from their offence is counterbalanced and ‘equilibrium is restored’. Through emphasising deserved punishment, a retributivist approach does not necessarily advocate a punitive, harsh response to offending (Cavadino et al., 2020)—this is a common misconception, where retributivism is often associated with emotive calls for revenge through draconian measures. In contrast, retributivist thought may serve to mitigate against penal severity through its emphasis on proportionality—for retributivists, it would be immoral to impose punishment exceeding that deserved. Further, penal philosophers have proposed hybrid theories where retributivist thought may have the effect of restraining otherwise heightened punishment justified under reductivist rationales, focused on reducing offending if punishment should be both deserved and instrumental. Proposing the approach of ‘limiting retributivism’, Morris (1974: 75) argues that ‘a discriminating clemency’ is not incompatible with desert, and the proportionate or deserved punishment according to retributivist thought is not a required level of punishment, but a maximum; in such hybrid theories, where other considerations suggest punishment of lesser severity may have more valuable consequences for reducing crime (Robinson, 2008), or be more humane or parsimonious, then no obligation to reach this level of punishment exists (Frase, 2012). For retributivists, punishments should be graded in relation to the severity of infractions, for example with tariffs, in order that the punishment reflects the crime and that similar cases are treated alike (Cavadino et al., 2020). Variation

34

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

in the length of time spent imprisoned—based on the severity of an offence— might be seen as an appropriate strategy for ensuring offenders receive their just deserts; time provides the means by which the amount of punishment is quantified, according to the gravity of the offence and culpability of the individual. However, there are some challenges to the legitimacy of the power entailed in imprisonment—and punishment more broadly—when thinking about how retributivism might play out in practice. Firstly, the emphasis of retributivism on proportionality suggests a need for consistency and fairness in the way punishment is meted out; those individuals who commit a similar offence, with similar levels of culpability, should be treated similarly in terms of both likelihood and amount of punishment. However, with imprisonment this does not happen, with evidence suggesting the likelihood of conviction, imprisonment and length of sentence varies on the basis of race and class (see Chapter 4). Further, consistency in punishment requires us to calculate how much harm or pain is equivalent to that caused in the offence committed. When not strictly following an ‘eye for an eye’ approach, or when seeking to inflict suffering in a different form, this is an extremely difficult task, not least due to the subjectivity with which pain is experienced (Hayes, 2018). Calculating the equivalence of pain is also more challenging when taking into account variation in prison conditions and regimes, between and within jurisdictions. As Katz et al. (2003: 320) have argued, ‘the lower the quality of life in prison, the greater the punishment for a fixed amount of time served.’ In this respect, graded tariffs, which increase the length of imprisonment in line with the gravity of an offence, may ignore variations in experience which impact on the potential proportionality of a prison sentence as punishment. The use of indeterminate prison sentences also presents challenges of legitimacy, given proportionate determinacy is key to the just deserts approach. Such sentences, with the potential to continue imprisonment beyond the period initially intended, do not adhere to the retributivist focus on the gravity of the crime—the amount of punishment is increased beyond that deserved for the offence itself, on the basis of future potential offending. As such, indeterminate custodial sentences present a significant challenge to the legitimacy of the prison from a retributivist perspective.

3.4 Consequentialism While retributivist justification of punishment is largely focused on the offence which has taken place, other philosophical justifications of punishment and imprisonment place greater emphasis on future offending and its reduction. These

3.4 Consequentialism

35

potential aims rely on the philosophy of utilitarianism, shaped by the ideas of Jeremy Bentham (1789) who was also influential in advocating for the panopticon model of imprisonment (see Chapter 2). Utilitarian thought states that an action or decision is ‘moral’ when it results in the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number (Mill, 1867). From this perspective, a range of philosophical approaches has been used to legitimise punishment, and the prison, on the grounds that the inevitable harms of punishment are outweighed by the prevention of greater harm or suffering in future. From a utilitarian perspective, this is the only circumstance in which punishment, which is inherently morally problematic, can be permissible. Rather than seeking to justify punishment based on the offence which has gone before—as with retributivism—these penal philosophies are focused on future actions of either the law-breaker or the wider community, presenting a ‘social defence’ of punishment (Mathiesen, 2006: 24). These approaches draw upon consequentialist and reductivist thinking (Cavadino et al., 2020), being focused on the potential of punishment to reduce future offending through either deterrence, incapacitation or rehabilitation, each of which will now be discussed in turn.

Deterrence Justification of imprisonment based on deterrence is predicated on an assumption that those who break the law are rational offenders, weighing up the costs and benefits of a particular course of action, and that such calculations are based on maximising pleasure over pain. As such, it is crucial the suffering imposed through punishment outweighs any potential gain from offending. Following this logic, the longer the prison sentence and the harsher the conditions, the more likely it is that the benefits of a crime will be outweighed, and the greater the chance an individual is deterred from offending. This aim of reducing offending through deterrence may be applied to the individual themselves (individual deterrence), or to the broader population (general deterrence): When we consider that an unpunished crime leaves the path of crime open, not only to the same delinquent but also to those who may have the same motives and opportunities for entering upon it, we perceive punishment inflicted on the individual becomes a source of security for all. (Bentham, 1830: 20–21)

36

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

For individual deterrence to justify imprisonment, the time spent serving a prison sentence must be sufficiently negative to dissuade the convicted person from breaking the law again, due to apprehension of being subject to the same unpleasant experience (or worse, or for a greater duration) in future. The onus is on the experience of punishment to deter future offending. An example of a sentencing policy focused on specific deterrence is California’s ‘Three Strikes’ law, introduced in 1994, which facilitated harsher punishment on the basis of an individual’s prior offending. Where an individual was charged with a serious or violent felony, their sentence would be increased based on any earlier convictions. With one prior felony conviction, the new felony sentence would be doubled, and if an individual had two earlier ‘strikes’, the court would be mandated to pass a minimum prison sentence of 25 years. The aim of specific deterrence is clear in such attempts to increase the costs of offending each time an individual is convicted, the aim being that individuals will not subsequently offend due to fear of an even harsher sentence. In the case of general deterrence, the potential punishment for a crime should be sufficiently severe that simply the threat of punishment is enough to put the general public off committing the offence. This logic is evident in attempts by courts to ‘make an example’ of law-breakers or to send a message to the public through imposition of harsh sentences. Mathiesen (2006) warns that, if justifying punishment solely on the basis of general deterrence, punishment of those whose guilt has not been proven may still deter others, thus raising concerns around the potential for miscarriages of justice when using punishment for this purpose.

The 2011 Riots and Deterrence in Sentencing On 6th August 2011, following the killing of Mark Duggan by the Metropolitan Police and the peaceful protest which followed, disturbances broke out in London before spreading to other major UK cities. Large numbers of people were convicted for their involvement in these events, with 2138 sentences handed down by courts between the disturbances and August 2012 (MOJ, 2012). Some examples of sentences given included: • A five-month custodial sentence for accepting a pair of stolen shorts from a friend. • Four-year custodial sentences for attempts to incite a riot through posts on Facebook (Lamble, 2013). Scholars argued that sentences would usually have been lower, however the abandonment of guidelines due to the exceptional nature of the ‘riots’

3.4 Consequentialism

37

resulted in ‘uplifts’ in sentencing at each stage of the criminal justice process, leading to a substantial cumulative increase in sentence lengths (Lightowlers & Quirk, 2015). The severity of sentences imposed on ‘rioters’ was justified on the grounds that others would be less likely to engage in similar behaviour in future, due to fear that they too would be subject to such punitive sanctioning. The sentences were—as stated by Lord Chief Justice Judge—‘designed to deter others from similar criminal activity’ (R v Blackshaw, 2011). This reasoning was also evident in comments by Judge Gilbards, who sentenced a number of men to custodial sentences for offences such as theft of a pack of cigarettes, and handling stolen goods: Those who choose to take part in activities of this type must understand that they do so at their peril…It is a message which I trust will deter others from engaging in this type of behaviour in the future. (R v Carter and Ors, cited in MOJ, 2011)

With the justification of deterrence evident in many sentences handed down, this approach was criticised as leading to disproportionality in sentencing for offences during the ‘riots’, and those after the disturbances had occurred, when compared to sentences beforehand (Pina-Sanchez et al., 2017).

When considering the justification of imprisonment, specifically, as a deterrent, this philosophy has a bearing on both the length of sentences imposed, and what are considered to be appropriate prison conditions. Calls for harsher prison conditions and removal of ‘luxuries’ are frequently seen in news media (see Chapter 8), based on the assumption that a negative prison environment will deter offending. In this way, deterrence can be linked to the notion of ‘less eligibility’—the principle that the conditions of a convicted individual being punished should be no more ‘eligible’ than those of the poorest working citizen outside of prison (Bentham, 1791). Scott (2013) has argued this emphasis on deterrence, as a justification for imprisonment, is more about deterring particular populations where human value is intimately connected to labour (Rusche & Kirchheimer, 1939) than it is about deterring crime: ‘Unhygienic living conditions and penal servitude send a clear message to the labouring classes that if they do not conform to the rigours of the labour market, an even worse fate could yet befall them’ (Scott, 2013: 12).

38

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

Such an assertion might be persuasive when the use of imprisonment for deterrence is unpicked further. There is little evidence to suggest changes to the severity of penal sanctions impact crime rates and, where deterrent effects have been identified these are usually marginal or ambiguous (Tonry, 2008). Thus, there is little basis from which to conclude that increasing the length or severity of sentences can enhance the deterrent effect of imprisonment (von Hirsch et al., 1999). Further, research has suggested changes to conditions of imprisonment also have little impact on levels of offending (Katz et al., 2003). As such it is difficult to determine what changes to imprisonment conditions or sentencing—if any—would increase the prison’s deterrent effect. It is only with increases in the certainty of punishment, that deterrent effects have been found to be more likely (Wright, 2010). As such, deterrence of crime does not necessarily follow from the use of imprisonment, despite the commonly held assumption, as stated by former Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard, that ‘prison works…[because] it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice’ (Howard, 1993). There are good reasons why imprisonment may fail to fulfill the aims of specific or general deterrence. The logic of deterrence is premised on the idea of law-breakers as rational actors, carefully undertaking a cost–benefit analysis of their actions. However, not all offences committed will be rationally calculated decisions. Further, justifying imprisonment on the grounds of deterrence assumes the pains of imprisonment will outweigh any pleasure which could be gained from crime. However, this is not the case when considering the circumstances of many who are convicted and sentenced to custody—often those who are already marginalised or stigmatised, as discussed in Chapter 4. The pains of imprisonment, and harsh prison conditions, may well outweigh the benefits of offending for those who have much to lose in their lives outside. However, for those who have little, are marginalised or are in complex circumstances, the risk of any negative experience of imprisonment may not outweigh the benefits of offending. Some may gain a roof over their head and regular meals through incarceration, whereas outside one’s position may provide no other means to get by than offending. Such circumstances may lead to individuals becoming institutionalised in prison. This is not to say the conditions within prisons are insufficiently harsh, but that considerations of deterrence assume a particular set of circumstances exist for those who need to be deterred—in fact, the prison may serve to deter those who may not need deterring while failing to deter those whose circumstances make it more likely they will be criminalised. Neither individual nor general deterrence will be equally effective for all members of the community. This does not mean the use of punishment, and in particular the prison, never has any deterrent effect, but that the persuasiveness of deterrence as an aim of punishment is certainly limited.

3.4 Consequentialism

39

Incapacitation At its most basic level, the prison has long been justified on the basis that it enables the removal of law-breakers from society, the assumption being this will protect the wider community from the potential harms the individual could cause; those who offend are incapacitated—made incapable of offending—by the physical restraints of the prison. Incapacitation as an underpinning aim of imprisonment is clear in the focus of many penal systems on ‘public protection’. This is especially evident in the restrictive conditions of high-security prisons and the use of solitary confinement, such as within US Supermax prisons or the High-Security Unit, known as a ‘prison within a prison’, at HMP Belmarsh, intended for prisoners deemed a potential threat to national security. An explicit rationale for incapacitation is also evident in the name of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) were introduced in 2005 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with the intention of protecting the public where individuals had been deemed ‘serious offenders’ but a Life sentence was not available in the circumstances of their crime. The IPP sentence was introduced as an alternative opportunity for indeterminate imprisonment; individuals were sentenced to an initial tariff, indicating the minimum time they must spend in prison, but after this point, release is dependent on the decision of the parole board. The parole board will only release the individual if their continued incarceration is no longer considered necessary for public protection, and those who are released are subject to supervision on licence meaning that they can be recalled to prison for any breach. IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, having been deemed to violate human rights, however, this abolition did not apply retrospectively and, consequently, as of December 2021, there were still 1602 IPP prisoners unreleased, the majority of which have been held more than eight years beyond their initial tariff (MOJ, 2022a). Recall of IPP prisoners for breach of licence is also a growing problem (Harris et al., 2020). As such, the IPP sentence poses challenges in terms of proportionality in sentencing, highlighting the tensions between sentencing based on incapacitation and retributivism.

40

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

For those imprisoned under IPP sentences, there are often problems of acute anxiety surrounding recall, isolation, and a sense of hopelessness that they will remain ‘trapped’ in a cycle of imprisonment (Harris et al., 2020). Further, these sentences have been found to cause significant harm to families of IPP prisoners, for whom the strain of these sentences can have long-lasting mental and physiological effects (Straub & Annison, 2020). Taking account of the harms and injustice of these indeterminate sentences, many reform organisations have called for an end to IPP sentences, along with abolitionist collectives such as Smash IPP. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett, who introduced the IPP sentence, has expressed regret at the injustices caused by the use of the sentence, however, the consequences for serving IPP prisoners remain ongoing. In late 2021 the House of Commons Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the IPP sentence, which concluded that the sentence is ‘irredeemably flawed’ and recommended the re-sentencing of all IPP-sentenced individuals (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2022: 51).

On the surface it might appear that imprisonment can easily be legitimised on the grounds of incapacitation; escapes from prison are infrequent, and this might suggest prisoners are being denied opportunities to offend against members of the community. The perceived simplicity of incapacitation as an aim of imprisonment has been argued to have ‘great political potency’ and persuasion, particularly where those identified as persistent or dangerous offenders are concerned (Dunbar & Langdon, 1998: 331). As Shalev (2017) has stated, in discussion of solitary confinement in the United States and further afield: ...it’s politically very convenient. Since politicians cannot do much about crime, they say, “look, you see, we have these wonderful high security prisons and units. Don’t worry you won’t ever have to hear from these criminals again”.

However, there are limits to how far imprisonment is successful at incapacitating when we consider the whole community, including those citizens who are either imprisoned themselves or working within prisons. With the exception, perhaps, of those subject to solitary confinement, prisoners are not incapacitated from harming others inside the prison. This is evidenced in the high levels of violence recorded in many prison systems. In recent years, prisons in England and Wales have seen record levels of assaults, on both prisoners and staff (MOJ, 2019). As

3.4 Consequentialism

41

such, rather than the prison serving to stop offending through incapacitation, it serves to limit the spatial environment in which offending can take place; individuals are not incapacitated, but their offending is simply displaced. This can also be seen in the high levels of drug use, and development of associated markets, within many prisons (Crewe, 2005). While arguments of imprisonment for incapacitation fail to consider this offending within the prison environment when stating claims of ‘public protection’, also ignored are the ways in which individuals may maintain their involvement in law-breaking from within the prison. Common assumptions about the incapacitation role of imprisonment, and its political appeal, are also problematic in their failure to acknowledge that many serving prison sentences are not there for violent offending. Rather, the majority of prisoners are serving sentences for non-violent offences (MOJ, 2020). Also, rather than imprisoning those who are violent or dangerous, prison populations are disproportionately made up of individuals from marginalised and impoverished backgrounds (to be discussed further in Chapter 4). This is particularly significant when considering the role of risk calculation, and prediction of future offending, in decisions about incapacitation. Mathiesen (2006) notes that this practice raises two key questions—one of accuracy and one of principles. Firstly, there are challenges involved in attempts to accurately predict future offending— the philosophy of incapacitation often results in sentencing based on a risk-based prediction of likely future offending when, in reality, it is impossible to know whether an individual will offend in future until they do so. Research has shown such calculations have a tendency to over-predict future offending and to present false positives (Braithewaite & Pettit, 1990; Christie, 1974). Further, scholars have highlighted concerns around actuarial approaches to risk assessment (Feeley & Simon, 1992) which are based on statistical calculations of an individual’s likelihood of offending, from offending data of those with similar characteristics. Consequently, these assessments are impacted by the groups from which individuals are drawn, perpetuating disproportionality in the criminalisation and imprisonment of marginalised groups, rather than necessarily ‘dangerous offenders’ (Scott, 2013). Secondly, Mathiesen (2006) questions the principle on which imprisonment, for the purposes of incapacitation, takes place. If all who pose a potential future risk are incarcerated, and this potential risk is likely to have been over-predicted, then this may result in us ‘locking up many to save a few’ (Monahan, 1976, cited in Holmes & Soothill, 2007: 604). Considering the harms and suffering caused by imprisonment, for incarcerated people and others, this may be problematic even from a utilitarian or reductivist perspective where such harms may play a role in future law-breaking through social exclusion, and make resettlement more difficult.

42

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

It is questionable whether inflicting suffering (as is inevitably involved in being imprisoned) to prevent possible future offending, which may or may not happen, can be legitimate. As noted earlier, punishment presents a moral challenge due to the pain involved, and if driven purely by the rationale of incapacitation then the amount or length of punishment is not based on offending which has already taken place, but that which may in the future. This may result in individuals being imprisoned for periods hugely disproportionate to their original offence, on the grounds of future predicted or anticipated offending. This is often apparent in the use of indeterminate custodial sentences such as life sentences, or—in England and Wales—the now abolished sentence of IPP. One of the key pitfalls of imprisonment, for incapacitation, is the potential for punishment to extend far beyond what is deserved or proportionate from a retributivist perspective.

Rehabilitation The use of the prison as a tool to reduce individual reoffending through rehabilitation, while often seen as a more progressive aim of imprisonment, is by no means a recent phenomenon. As Chapter 1 demonstrated, belief in the prison as a site for personal change or growth was evident in the introduction of modern imprisonment, with such aims—whether primary or on the periphery—also reflected in much of the terminology used to describe penal institutions, such as reformatories and penitentiaries, and in some instances whole penal systems. In the United States, references to ‘corrections’ allude to punishment as intended to ‘correct’ the problematic behaviour for which individuals have been convicted, yet does not necessarily involve humane punishment. Reflecting the continued influence of assumptions about the value of labour, prisons in many jurisdictions seek to fulfil the aim of rehabilitation through requiring participation in work or education programmes as part of sentence plans. Additionally, many prison systems also deliver structured programmes defined as ‘rehabilitation’, such as Offender Behaviour Programmes, focused on seeking to change behaviour considered to be problematic. While this aim of changing one’s behaviour or character, to enable their reform into a law-abiding member of society, has existed alongside retributivist justifications since the emergence of the modern prison, its popularity has fluctuated and the concept of rehabilitation itself has been contested. Various definitions or approaches to rehabilitation, identified by Raynor and Robinson (2009), indicate different understandings of the source of law-breaking behaviour and consequently may lead to the justification of very different models of punishment.

3.4 Consequentialism

43

The treatment model of rehabilitation, evident in prison systems’ reliance on treatment programmes, views offending as an individual issue—a problem with the ‘offender’ which needs to be ‘treated’ or ‘cured’ (Crow, 2004). This deterministic approach, which assumes offending has occurred because the law-breaker is in some way different to the law-abiding community, fails to consider the power relations and inequalities reflected in definitions of crime and processes of criminalisation—the individual becoming an ‘offender’ through the definition of their behaviour as problematic, rather than some intrinsic difference between them and law-abiding citizens. Further, even where the behaviour of an individual is universally accepted as harmful and problematic, the treatment model of rehabilitation fails to acknowledge the role of broader social or structural factors in an individual’s law-breaking. Despite the prevalence of reference to rehabilitation in penal policy, and continued enthusiasm for the rehabilitative potential of the prison, the potential for rehabilitation to work has been subject to criticism, with periods during which this approach fell out of favour. In 1974, Martinson famously stated that ‘nothing works’, arguing that interventions designed to rehabilitate demonstrated no more beneficial results than any other intervention. This resulted in the decline of the ‘rehabilitative ideal’ in the 1980s and, despite a resurgence in support for rehabilitation in prison policy—including the recent emphasis on ‘rehabilitative culture’ (Mann, 2019)—there are still many challenges to the legitimacy of imprisonment on this basis. When considering rehabilitation as a justification for imprisonment, perhaps the best indicator of the institution’s legitimacy might be how many of those who are imprisoned go on to be rehabilitated, through consideration of reoffending rates after release. In England and Wales, 31.8% of those who spend time in prison are reconvicted, or receive a caution, warning or reprimand, within a year of release, while this increases to 57.5% for those serving sentences of less than 12 months (MOJ, 2022b). In the United States 67.8% of prisoners released, across 30 states, were arrested for a new offence within three years (Durose et al., 2014). Even in jurisdictions with comparatively low levels of reoffending, and a reputation for commitment to rehabilitation, we still see a significant number of people released from prison reoffending. In Norway, considered to have one of the lowest reoffending rates in Europe, 20% of those released from prison will be reconvicted within two years (Graunbøl et al., 2010; Yukhnenko et al., 2020), demonstrating that—at least for those reflected in this figure—the prison fails to consistently fulfil this aim of rehabilitation. One of the key issues with this justification of imprisonment is that the term ‘re-habilitation’ rests on the assumption one is returning to a favourable, law-abiding position they had previously been in, but we know that is not always

44

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

the case (Carlen, 2013). What does it mean to be ‘habilitated’? Many housed in prisons are drawn from marginalised or left-behind communities, with complex circumstances that may indicate the lack of a ‘habilitated’ lifestyle to be returned, or return, to. As such, the presence of ‘rehabilitation’ programmes or treatment within the prison, will not necessarily have rehabilitative effects if one’s external circumstances are not addressed, and as such Mathiesen (2006: 46) argues that the prison has ‘never led to people’s “return to competence”’. Indeed, the prison has been spoken of—albeit in problematic and over-simplistic terms—as potentially furthering offending through ‘making bad people worse’ (Home Office, 1990). Not only is the prison’s record for rehabilitation poor, but scholars have also highlighted how imprisonment ‘dehabilitates’ many who are subject to periods of incarceration (Mathiesen, 2006: 53). A wide range of circumstances can affect one’s rehabilitation, and this has been reflected in policy for addressing reoffending. For example, the seven ‘pathways’ to resettlement (Home Office, 2004), informed by the Social Exclusion Unit (2002), have been used to guide practice in resettlement work: accommodation; education, training and employment; drugs and alcohol; mental and physical health; finance, benefit and debt; children and families; and attitudes, thinking and behaviour. ‘Rehabilitative’ initiatives in prison may thus seek to target a broad range of issues, however, these same areas of life are often negatively impacted by incarceration itself, for example through loss of any employment, and reduced contact with family (see Chapter 4), and the disproportionate likelihood of experiencing multiple health problems (WHO, 2019). In other words, the prison environment—and the impact of imprisonment on the lives of those incarcerated—disrupts and damages many of the circumstances, connections or bonds which might serve to prevent future offending. This is reflected in Oscar Wilde’s reflections in his 1890 ‘Ballad of Reading Gaol’: The vilest deeds like poison weeds Bloom well in prison air; It is only what is good in man That wastes and withers there. Such consequences seem out of line with rehabilitation as concerning positive change for the ‘good’ of the individual, an aim which is too often used to justify longer sentences or greater punishment. It has been argued by some scholars that rehabilitation should be reconceptualised as entailing a role of the wider community in one’s ‘social rehabilitation’. McNeill (2016: 74) has argued that: ‘The

3.4 Consequentialism

45

penal system has it within its own grasp to exclude, but not to integrate’ where social integration and acceptance play a significant role in one’s rehabilitation and resettlement. Rotman (1987) has argued that where the harmful consequences of imprisonment are not accompanied by rehabilitative efforts to counteract these effects and a rehabilitative connection between imprisonment and the community, this could constitute additional, unjust punishment.

Questions

• Can the prison as an institution simultaneously fulfill the aims of retribution and rehabilitation? • To what extent can imprisonment be justified on consequentialist grounds? Each of the reductivist justifications, premised on reducing offending, rely upon the assumption that punishment and the use of the prison do indeed have this consequence. Where this is not the case, and it does not serve the greater good in this way, then punishment should not be used as it cannot be morally permissible. This assumption of punishment serving the greater good is not without criticism, and when applied to imprisonment there is much evidence to suggest that the potential to prevent future harm through reducing offending—and therefore outweigh the harms punishment itself inflicts—is limited. Further, justification of imprisonment on grounds of consequentialist reasoning alone has the potential to result in unjust sentences which are unequal, and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence itself. Despite the limitations of justifying imprisonment under retributivist or consequentialist philosophies, the prison continues to be a central feature of systems of punishment globally. Carl Cattermole (2019), a formerly incarcerated writer, has argued that the popularity of the prison—in spite of its questionable philosophical legitimacy—is due to a belief that prison is the only way to punish, and that ‘the prison issue is less a moral maze and more plainly unimaginative’.

Questions

• Is the prison successful at fulfilling the aims discussed? • What reasons, beyond the aims discussed, might there be for the prison remaining such a popular form of punishment? • What other functions—beyond these philosophical justifications—might imprisonment serve?

46

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

3.5 Conclusion As a form of punishment, involving the ‘conscious infliction’ of suffering (Christie, 1981: 16), rigorous justification of imprisonment is crucial. A variety of different justifications are drawn upon in policy and political discourse, with some holding significant public appeal. Despite these well-rehearsed rationales underpinning the popularity of the prison, there are difficulties in justifying imprisonment with each of the philosophies considered, and tensions between differing philosophical justifications. The limitations of the prison to fulfil these penal philosophies require us to consider that the purposes or functions of the prison may not be limited to these philosophical positions. When thinking about the functions the prison serves, we must consider its roles beyond enabling retributivist expression of desert or instrumental aims of crime control and acknowledge its interaction with broader social structures. Justifications for imprisonment operate within society and are permeated by the power relations and ideology of society, leading to the prison disproportionately affecting particular portions of the population. While the philosophy of punishment might appear to present neutral, legitimate aims for punishment through imprisonment, ‘extra-penological’ functions of punishment may also exist (Wacquant, 2001) by nature of the particular groups it serves to control; the power relations in society impact significantly on the make-up of prison populations, which we will now explore in the next chapter.

Chapter Summary

• Punishment requires philosophical justification because it presents a moral challenge; it involves the infliction of harm or pain that, in any other context, would be seen as problematic. • Punishment and imprisonment have been justified through retributivist philosophies, focused on deserved punishment for the crime committed. • Punishment and imprisonment have also been justified through reductivist philosophies which focus on reducing future offending (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation). • In practice, each of these penal philosophies presents challenges when applied to the use of imprisonment, and the prison has challenges to its legitimacy whichever philosophy we assess it against.

References/Further Reading

47

Activity

A young man with an addiction to drugs has been convicted of burglary. Consider, from the perspective of each of the following philosophies, what the most appropriate response to this offence might be, and the factors that might impact this: • Retributivism • Incapacitation • Deterrence • Rehabilitation.

References/Further Reading Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Pantianos Classics. Bentham, J. (1791). Panopticon: Or the inspection house. Kessinger Publishing. Bentham, J. (1830). The rationale of punishment. C and W Reynell. Braithewaite, J., & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: A republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford University Press. Carlen, P. (2013). Against rehabilitation: For reparative justice. In K. Carrington, M. Ball, E. O’Brien, & J. Tuari (Eds.), Crime, justice and social democracy: International perspectives (pp. 89–104). Palgrave Macmillan. Cattermole, C. (2019, August 5). My time in prison made me fight for radical reform— And I’ve found some surprising bullies along the way. The Independent [Online]. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prison-reform-criminal-justice-system-sentence-jail-a9040341.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2021. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G., & Bennet, J. (2020). The penal system: An introduction (6th ed.). Sage. Christie, N. (1974). Norwegian penal council report. Universitetsforlaget. Christie, N. (1981). Limits to pain. Columbia University Press. Crewe, B. (2005). Prisoner society in the era of hard drugs. Punishment and Society, 7(4), 457–481. Crow, I. (2004). The treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. Sage. Duff, A., & Garland, D. (1994). A reader on punishment. Oxford University Press. Dunbar, I., & Langdon, A. (1998). Tough justice: Sentencing and penal policies in the 1990s. Blackstone Publishing. Durose, A., Cooper, D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010—Update, NCJ 244205. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetailandiid=4986. Accessed 15 Feb 2021.

48

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474. Frase, R.S. (2012). Just sentencing: Principles and procedures for a workable system. Oxford University Press. Graunbøl, H. M., Kielstrup, B., Muiluvori, M.-L., Tyni, S., Baldursson, E. S., & Gudmundsdottir, H. (2010). Retur: En Nordisk Undersogelse af Recidiv Blant Klienter I Kriminalforsorgen. Kriminalomsorgens Utdanningssenter. Harris, M., Edgar, K., & Webster, R. (2020). ‘I’m always walking on eggshells, and there’s no chance of me ever being free’: The mental health implications of imprisonment for public protection in the community and post-recall. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30, 331–340. Hayes, D. (2018). Proximity, pain, and state punishment. Punishment and Society, 20(2), 235–254. Holmes, S., & Soothill, K. (2007). Dangerous offenders and dangerousness. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 589–607). Willan Publishing. Home Office. (1990). Crime, justice and protecting the public, Cm 965. HM Stationary Office. Home Office. (2004). Reducing reoffending: National action plan. Home Office. Howard, M. (1993, October 5). Speech to the Conservative party conference. London. Conservative Central Office. House of Commons Justice Committee (2022). IPP sentences: Third report of session 2022–23. HC 266. House of Commons. Kant, I. (1797). The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press. Katz, L. F., Levitt, S. D., & Shustorovich, E. (2003). Prison conditions, capital punishment and deterrence. American Law and Economics Review, 5, 318–343. Lamble, S. (2013). The quiet dangers of civilized rage: Surveying the punitive aftermath of England’s 2011 riots. South Atlantic Quarterly, 112(3), 577–585. Lightowlers, C., & Quirk, H. (2015). The 2011 English ‘riots’: Prosecutorial zeal and judicial abandon. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 65–85. Mann, R. (2019). Rehabilitative culture part 2: An update on evidence and practice. Prison Service Journal, 244, 3–10. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54. Mathiesen, T. (2006). Prison on trial (3rd ed.). Waterside Press. Matravers, M. (2016). Punishment, suffering and justice. In S. Farrall, B. Goldson, I. Loader, & A. Dockley (Eds.), Justice and penal reform: Re-shaping the penal landscape (pp. 27–46). Routledge. McNeill, F. (2016). What good is punishment? In S. Farrall, B. Goldson, I. Loader, & A. Dockley (Eds.), Justice and penal reform: Re-shaping the penal landscape (pp. 69–80). Routledge. Mill, J. S. (1867). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Written evidence to home affairs committee HC1456. https:// publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/1456/1456we19.htm. Accessed 10 Nov 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2012). Statistical bulletin on the public disorder of 6th to 9th August 2011—September 2012 Update. Ministry of Justice. https://assets.publishing.service.

References/Further Reading

49

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219665/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-130912.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2019). Safety in custody statistics, England and Wales: Deaths in prison custody to June 2019, assaults and self-harm to March 2019. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2020). Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2020. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2022a). Offender management statistics quarterly: July to September 2021. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2022b). Proven reoffending statistics quarterly bulletin: January to March 2020. Ministry of Justice. Morris, N. (1974). The future of imprisonment. University of Chicago Press. Phillips, D. (2019, July 29). Gang violence leaves more than 50 dead in Brazil prison riot. The Guardian [Online]. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/29/gang-violence-leaves-more-than-50-dead-in-brazil-prison-riot. Accessed 4 Jan 2021. Pina-Sanchez, J., Lightowlers, C., & Roberts, J. (2017). Exploring the punitive surge: Crown courts before and after the 2011 English riots. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 17(3), 319–339. Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2009). Why help offenders? Arguments for rehabilitation as a penal strategy. European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 3–20. Rotman, E. (1987). Do criminal offenders have a constitutional right to rehabilitation? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 1023–1068. Robinson, P.H. (2008). Distributive principles of criminal law: Who should be punished? How much? Oxford University Press. Rusche, G., & Kirchheimer, O. (1939). Punishment and social structure. Routledge. Scott, D. (2013). Why prison? Posing the question. In D. Scott (Ed.), Why prison? (pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press. Scott, D. (2018). Against imprisonment: An anthology of abolitionist essays. Waterside Press. Shalev, S. (2017, February 8). “Prison’s Darkest Place”, An Interview with Sharon Shalev by Luk Vervaet. http://supermax.be/prisons-darkest-place-an-interview-with-sharon-shalev-by-luk-vervaet/. Accessed 4 Jan 2021. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing reoffending by ex-prisoners. Social Exclusion Unit. Straub, C., & Annison, H. (2020). The mental health impact of parole on families of indeterminate-sentenced prisoners in England and Wales. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30(6), 341–349. Tonry, M. (2008). Learning from the limitations of deterrence research. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 279–311. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. Hill and Wang. Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E., & Wikstrom, P. O. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentencing severity. Bloomsbury. Wacquant, L. (2001). Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 95–133. Wilde, O. (1890/1999). The ballad of reading gaol. In Profundis, The ballad of reading gaol and other writings (pp. 115–138). Wordsworth Editions Ltd.

50

3  Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment

World Health Organisation. (2019). Health in prisons: Fact sheets for 38 European countries. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/397915/Health_in_prisons_ report_online.pdf#:~:text=There%20is%20overwhelming%20evidence%20that%20 people%20who%20are,HIV%2C%20tuberculosis%2C%20hepatitis%20C%20and%20 other%20infectious%20diseases%286%29.?msclkid=f2e8e91cb25911ec800f4119933e 780f. Accessed 31 Mar 2022. Wright, V. (2010). Deterrence in criminal justice: Evaluating certainty vs. severity of punishment. The Sentencing Project. Yukhnenko, D., Sridhar, S., & Fazel, S. (2020). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update. Wellcome Open Research, 4(28), 1–25. Zedner, L. (2004). Criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

Case Law R v Blackshaw [2011] EWCA Crim 2312. R v Carter and Ors [2012] EW Misc 12.

4

Who Is Punished?

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The characteristics of the prison population. • The range of sentences and offence types for which people are imprisoned. • The reflection of societal inequalities in the disproportionate imprisonment of particular groups. • The marginalising impacts of imprisonment on prisoners, their families and communities.

4.1 Introduction Popular understandings and depictions of the prison tend to foster a view of prisoners as bad, wicked or dangerous individuals. Such views oversimplify and obscure the reality of the prison population, made up of those convicted or accused of a wide range of offences, while also failing to consider the layers of marginalisation characterising prison populations around the world. As a social institution, prison populations reflect the inequalities prevalent throughout society, and may also function to shape or perpetuate disadvantage. This chapter will answer the question ‘who is punished?’ to provide an understanding of who is held within prison, and further demonstrate how the prison reflects the society it is situated within, its associated problems and structural inequalities. The chapter will explore prison populations with reference to the following issues: variations in offence type; economic inequality; racial disproportionality and complex © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_4

51

52

4  Who Is Punished?

circumstances and vulnerabilities. Finally, the chapter will consider the extent to which imprisonment itself perpetuates these inequalities, through its impact on families and communities.

4.2 A Place for the Most Dangerous and Violent LawBreakers? Popular depictions of prison often essentialise the prisoner, and perpetuate the myth that carceral spaces are filled with those who embody ‘absolute otherness’ (Greer & Jewkes, 2005: 21), or ‘depravity and wickedness’ (Drake, 2011: 368). However, this is a significant misconception and oversimplification when considering the vast range of offences for which individuals may be subject to a sentence of imprisonment. Significant variation is evident between different types of prisons, with different categories of institution to hold groups according to their level of risk or, often predominantly, the likelihood of escape. In England and Wales, this variation in security conditions is evident in the categories A to D which are attributed to each prison across the estate: Category A indicates the highest security conditions, while Category D is the designation for open prisons. While categorisation practices vary, many other jurisdictions maintain the distinction between closed and open prisons, as well as having ‘high-security’ institutions for those deemed to be of the highest risk. The most pronounced example of this is perhaps the use of Supermax facilities in the United States, as mentioned in Chapter 2. As such, prisons hold individuals convicted of a wide range of offences which challenges the idea of imprisonment as a punishment of last resort. In England and Wales those imprisoned for violent and sexual offences—spanning the full range of offences in these categories—make up just under half (47%) of the prison population, and 65% of prisoners in the year to June 2020 had committed a non-violent offence (MOJ, 2020b). In the United States, nearly half of those held in state prisons are imprisoned for non-violent drug, property or public order offences (Bureau of Justice, 2015, cited in The Sentencing Project, 2019). As such, the ‘prisoner’ has not necessarily been convicted of the dangerous, violent offences that popular ideas of the prison may have us believe. Rather, many serving sentences of imprisonment are doing so for law-breaking which would be considered less serious, such as low-level drug offences, acquisitive crime, or even for default on fines or council tax debt (Epstein, 2017). The wide range of offences for which imprisonment is used is also evident in the varied sentences being served, ranging from days through to one’s whole life.

4.2  A Place for the Most Dangerous …

53

In the year to June 2020, 47% of those imprisoned in England and Wales were given sentences of six months or less (MOJ, 2020b) despite community sentences resulting in lower rates of reoffending than short-term prison sentences (Eaton & Mews, 2019). The majority of the England and Wales prison population are serving determinate sentences, meaning that the length of the sentence is fixed and they will be released into the community at a fixed point. This is in contrast to indeterminate sentences, where individuals may be held indefinitely beyond the length of their tariff, should they be deemed to pose an ongoing risk. Life sentences are examples of indeterminate sentences, for which the average time spent in prison has increased significantly, from 13 years in 2001 to 17 years in 2019 (PRT, 2019). Sentences of life without parole are available in 65 jurisdictions, while de facto or ‘virtual’ life sentences—where the length of tariff is such that the individual will likely die in prison—also add to the number of individuals held for the whole or majority of their lives (Appleton & van Zyl Smit, 2018). However, only a very small number of those imprisoned in England and Wales— 60 at the time of writing—are serving a whole life sentence, meaning they are unlikely to ever be released from prison (MOJ, 2020a). In addition to the majority of those sentenced to imprisonment each year being given short sentences, many in prison have served multiple custodial sentences. 48% of those who leave prison in England and Wales are reconvicted within a year of their release, while this is even higher for those serving sentences of under 12 months at 63% (MOJ, 2018), and many are also reimprisoned. This is often referred to as ‘revolving door’ imprisonment, with individuals being stuck in a cycle of release followed by return to prison. The prison population also includes many who have been returned to prison—after initial release—through recall. In England and Wales, all sentenced to imprisonment are subject to a period of supervision in the community after release (Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014). Those who have received a life sentence are on ‘licence’ for the whole of their life after release. While individuals are ‘on licence’ there are various conditions with which they must comply, and breach of these conditions—whether amounting to a criminal offence, or not—can result in recall to prison. In England and Wales, levels of recall have been increasing since the 1990s (MOJ, 2020c; Padfield & Maruna, 2006), with many thus spending additional time in prison for actions which may not amount to a criminal offence. Legislative changes resulting in increases to the length of post-prison licence and supervision, and consequently increasing the period during which a breach can occur, have been given as the reason for this increase (MOJ, 2020c). Whilst prison is largely considered to be a place people are sent for punishment, for a significant proportion of those incarcerated guilt has not yet been

54

4  Who Is Punished?

established. In England and Wales, more than a tenth of the prison population (11.7%) is made up of individuals on remand (Walmsley, 2020), either awaiting trial (65%) or sentencing (35%) (PRT, 2019: 23), along with 18.9% of those imprisoned in Ireland and 22.5% in the United States (Walmsley, 2020). In some jurisdictions, these figures are far higher, such as in Libya where 90% of the prison population is in pre-trial detention (Walmsley, 2020). The number of those held in prison before their trial makes up 29.5% of the global prison population (approximately 2.9 million people), an increase of 30.4% since 2000 (Walmsley, 2020). In England and Wales, approximately 9% of those held in prison on remand are acquitted at trial (MOJ, 2021a), while many more are convicted but not given a custodial sentence.

Question

• To what extent is a custodial sentence a necessary response to the law-breaking of those currently imprisoned in England and Wales? What is clear from reviewing these figures is, contrary to popular conceptions, the prison population includes those who have committed a wide range of crimes— including many non-violent and arguably less serious offences, alongside those who have committed serious, violent crimes—as well as those who are not, and may never be, convicted law-breakers. This varied prison population is not, however, drawn equally from all sections of society, and the chapter will now go on to consider the role of inequalities in shaping the prison population, and the role that imprisonment can play in perpetuating or reinforcing existing inequality.

4.3 The Unequal Distribution of Punishment and Imprisonment When exploring who we send to prison, one of the most striking similarities across prison populations is the extent to which countries imprison those who are marginalised in their communities. Consideration will now be given to some of the key characteristics of prison populations which illustrate this inequality, with a particular focus on the disproportionate imprisonment of the poor, and ethnic minorities. While these particular inequalities will now be considered in turn, it is important to note that there are intersections between these dimensions of inequality which must be considered when exploring the reasons for such disparity in prison populations.

4.3  The Unequal Distribution of Punishment …

55

Imprisoning the Poor As Reiman and Leighton (2020) note, the prison population is not drawn in equal proportions from all social classes, rather—as put in the title of their book—‘the rich get richer, and the poor get prison’. Reiman and Leighton’s (2020) central argument is that many who cause harm in society are not imprisoned for these harms, or even punished, while those who are poor are disproportionately likely to be criminalised and imprisoned. These are trends which play out across many national contexts, to differing extents, but are particularly evident in neoliberal capitalist economies, where the gap between rich and poor is most pronounced and free-market principles tend to result in low levels of welfare provision for those struggling financially (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006; Wilkinson & ­Pickett, 2010). The England and Wales prison population provides a clear example of this. The majority of those in prison in 2019 (68%) were unemployed in the four weeks before being taken into custody, compared to only 7.7% of the population deemed to be economically active (PRT, 2019). Further, a disproportionate number of prisoners demonstrate low levels of educational achievement, and other difficulties engaging in school such as histories of truancy or exclusion (Coates, 2016; Williams et al., 2012). 47% of those in prison have no formal qualifications, compared to 15% of the working age population outside of prison (Williams et al., 2012), no doubt presenting challenges for securing stable and well-paid work. A further indication of the over-representation of those experiencing significant economic deprivation is provided in data on housing circumstances, with 15% being homeless before entering prison (compared to 4% of the general population) (PRT, 2019). So, given this overwhelming over-representation of those from economically disadvantaged or marginalised backgrounds, with circumstances of social exclusion linked to this, we may question why this is the case. Various contributions to criminological theory have sought to explain offending with reference to economic circumstances. However, claims of any causal relationship between poverty and law-breaking are problematic as the vast majority of those in poverty do not offend (Webster & Kingston, 2014). This suggests there are other factors leading to the disproportionate numbers of minoritised and marginalised individuals imprisoned. Nevertheless, there is significant research to suggest that poverty and social exclusion can be a factor impacting offending. Importantly, as noted by Bennett (2012: 11) this further challenges the idea of prisoners as ‘others’:

56

4  Who Is Punished? Many people consider prisoners and those involved in crime as abhorrent, anti-social, and holding values that are contrary to those of mainstream society. However [...] For many prisoners, coming as they do from circumstances of poverty and social deprivation, crime provides a means through which they can pursue and realise conventional dreams of material success.

However, the definition of ‘crime’ on which one’s conviction—and ultimately punishment—is based, also requires interrogation if we are to understand the reflection of structural inequalities in the prison population. In a number of jurisdictions, scholars have highlighted the criminalisation of poverty through the attachment of criminal sanctions to situations which inevitably result in disproportionate punishment of the poor (Dolan & Carr, 2015; Herring et al., 2020), and increasing connections between systems of welfare and punishment (Fletcher & Wright, 2018; Gustafson, 2009), which can themselves compound the poverty individuals are facing (Herring et al., 2020). A good example of how poverty itself can be criminalised is the Vagrancy Act 1824 in England and Wales, which—until repealed in the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022—set out begging and rough sleeping as criminal offences, thus effectively making homelessness a criminal issue to be punished rather than dealt with through support. This is in contrast, as Reiman and Leighton (2020) note, to the more wealthy and powerful members of society whose behaviour is less often criminalised or punished. Further to this, operational policy for criminal justice agencies— particularly the police—tends to prioritise street-level crime in low-income areas (McMahon & Roberts, 2011). Offences of poverty are likely to be far more visible at a street level than law-breaking or harmful practices associated with the wealthy and powerful. This is also likely to lead to a greater focus on acquisitive crime, drug offences and street-level violence, with over-policing of more deprived areas; those within lower-income areas are disproportionately likely to be stopped and arrested for an offence when compared to those in less heavily policed areas, and consequently more likely to experience punishment through imprisonment.

Racial Disparity in Imprisonment Another key demographic similarity in criminal justice around the world, intersecting with economic deprivation (Platt, 2007), is the disproportionate representation of Black and Minority Ethnic groups within prison populations. This has been widely discussed in the United States, where racial disproportionality is such that one in every three Black men is likely to experience imprisonment at some point in his lifetime, along with one in six Latino men, compared to one in seventeen white

4.3  The Unequal Distribution of Punishment …

57

men (Mauer, 2011). Those from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are also disproportionately represented within the England and Wales prison population, with 27% being from BAME groups, and 13% being Black, compared to 14% and 3.3% of the general population, respectively. This disproportionality is even greater when looking at children imprisoned in England and Wales, with 51% being from BAME groups, and 29% being Black (MOJ, 2018: 3). Issues of race, ethnicity and religion also intersect in some of the inequalities evident in the prison population. In England and Wales, there has been increased over-representation of Muslims in prison in recent years. In 2017, 15% of the prison population were Muslim, compared to 5% of the general population (Lammy, 2017). In France, this is estimated to be even higher, with Muslims making up between 25 and 50% of the prison population while only 8% of the general population (Lammy, 2017).

The Legacy of Colonialism Along with acute racial disparities in levels of imprisonment discussed thus far, Indigenous people across post-colonial societies are over-represented in prisons (Ryan et al., 2019). In Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, the proportion of Indigenous peoples in prison continue to rise (PRI, 2021: 25). In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners accounted for just over a quarter (27%) of the total Australian prison population. The total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 18 years and over in 2016 was approximately 2% of the Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). In New Zealand, Māori men and women make up over 52% of prisoners (New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2020) despite only constituting 14% of the national population. New Zealand’s imprisonment rate currently stands at approximately 180 per 100,000 inhabitants. However, the rate rises to approximately 700 prisoners per 100,000 in the case of Māori inhabitants (New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2016). In 2020, Canada’s Correctional Investigator reported that, despite a decrease in the prison population, custody rates for Indigenous people had ‘accelerated’. He found that, in the previous ten years, the Indigenous prison population had increased by 43%, whereas the non-indigenous prison population had declined by 14%. The proportion of Indigenous people behind bars represents over 30% of the prison population while accounting for 5% of the general Canadian population (Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2020).

58

4  Who Is Punished?

These figures illustrate a common theme in the global use of imprisonment—that it is not distributed equally across society, but those ‘belonging to national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are overrepresented in criminal justice systems’ (PRI, 2020: 28). While the particular groups disproportionately incarcerated vary from one jurisdiction to the next, this reflects the broader social context of racial, ethnic or religious inequality; in this way, the prison reflects society. When seeking to understand such disproportionality, data from England and Wales demonstrates that throughout the criminal justice process, members of the public, suspects and defendants have different experiences depending on race or ethnicity. This disparity at each stage of the criminal justice process cumulatively produces a significant variation in the likelihood of imprisonment between racial groups (Lammy, 2017). In England and Wales, Black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people, increasing to 23 times if focusing on the most disproportionate locality (MOJ, 2021b). Asian and mixed-race individuals are twice as likely to be stopped and searched as white people (MOJ, 2020). Arrest rates are also higher for those who are Black or of mixed ethnicity, though not for those of Asian ethnicity, when compared to arrest rates for white people (MOJ, 2016). When it comes to charging decisions disparities are less evident, except when looking specifically at offences of rape or domestic abuse—in these instances Black or Chinese individuals have higher prosecution rates than other groups (Lammy, 2017). Once an individual has been prosecuted, there continue to be disparities in the criminal process. BAME defendants are more likely to plead ‘not guilty’, and more likely to elect to have their case heard in the Crown Court with a jury, which has greater sentencing powers. It has been posited that this is due to a lack of trust in the system and magistrates, BAME defendants being more willing to put trust in members of the public who would make up a jury (Lammy, 2017). This decision is perhaps understandable given evidence of higher conviction rates for BAME women by magistrates, but also increases the sentencing powers available to the court if a defendant is found guilty (Lammy, 2017). When we reach the point of sentencing, there are some stark disparities in sentences handed out; for BAME defendants, the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence for drug offences is 240% higher than for white defendants (Lammy, 2017: 33). While the extent of these disparities varies depending on the specific group considered, and stage of the process, the differential treatment at each stage builds upon the last to increase the overall chances of imprisonment for BAME individuals. Yet, a significant question remains: why do these disparities in treatment, at all stages of the criminal justice process, exist?

4.3  The Unequal Distribution of Punishment …

59

There are various possible explanations, relating in different ways to the inequalities faced by particular racial groups in society. Evidence suggests that those from ethnic minority groups, in many national contexts, are more likely to experience poverty and deprivation (Platt, 2007), or to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019), factors which may impact on one’s likelihood of being policed, convicted and punished. However, it would be inaccurate and oversimplified to uncritically accept that such disparity is simply because those from particular socio-economic groups offend more often, when processes of criminalisation, policing, prosecution and sentencing are influenced by bias and prejudice, shaped by the structural inequalities evident in society. Firstly, it is helpful to consider how the ‘criminal’ is constructed, a process which is often racialised and influenced by assumptions around class and poverty. A number of scholars have noted how political rhetoric ‘often conflates “black” and “poor” with criminality and reinforces images that equate “young and black” with “criminal”’ (McMahon & Roberts, 2011: 21; Williams & Clarke, 2018) perpetuating racialised notions of criminality (Philips & Bowling, 2017). This racialisation has been evident in the moral panic around the ‘mugger’ in the 1970s (Hall et al., 1978), the disproportionate application of the ‘gang’ label to groups of young black men in urban areas (Williams & Clarke, 2018), and the increased surveillance of BAME individuals as part of the ‘War on Terror’ (Pemberton, 2015). While the particular ‘crime problem’ in a given context may shift, Davis (2003: 16) argues that: ‘Because of the persistent power of racism, “criminals” and “evildoers” are, in the collective imagination, fantasized as people of color’.

Foreign National Prisoners While rates of foreign national imprisonment vary between jurisdictions, Foreign national prisoners (FNPs) constitute a significant proportion of the global prison population. In England and Wales, the number of FNPs has risen alongside the overall prison population, making up a greater proportion of the prison population than women; in 2020 12% of the prison population were foreign nationals (MOJ, 2020b). This is in addition to immigration detainees, held under immigration powers rather than for a criminal offence, some of whom are held in prisons, demonstrating the increased blurring of boundaries between criminal justice and immigration systems. The punishment of FNPs has also been argued to be intertwined with issues of racial disproportionality, with race providing ‘the crucial

60

4  Who Is Punished?

bridge between criminality and foreignness’ in the construction and depiction of the ‘foreign criminal’ (De Noronha, 2015: 1). Warr (2016) has argued that during imprisonment, FNPs experience an additional range of ‘pains’ making time inside even more difficult: the deprivation of certitude—being unsure of when their imprisonment will end; the deprivation of legitimacy, for example where their ongoing incarceration, beyond their sentence for their law-breaking, was concerned; and the deprivation of hope, due to the lack of access to rehabilitative programmes or support, and the potential threat of removal after imprisonment. Some FNPs are subject to deportation during or after completion of their custodial sentence, not only being temporarily removed from society but banished from the jurisdiction they call home. As De Noronha (2020) explored in his study of deportation to Jamaica, this can lead to further marginalisation of the individual themselves, but also of families and friends who are deprived materially and emotionally as a consequence of their loved one’s removal. As such, the consequences of conviction are not equal for all, with the additional punishment of deportation—or in some very extreme instances revocation of citizenship (Tripkovic, 2021)—significantly heightening the impacts of conviction and imprisonment, for foreign nationals.

Such constructions of racialised criminal ‘others’ may contribute to, but also distract from (Delsol, 2015), ‘institutional racism’ within the criminal justice system. This term, ‘institutional racism’, was used in the Macpherson Inquiry (1999) into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and subsequent police investigation. Diverging from explanations of disproportionality as a consequence of individual racism or bias, and therefore a problem which could be attributed to a few ‘bad apples’ (Scarman, 1981), the Macpherson report (1999: 49) described institutional racism as: The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

The routine disproportionality in stop and search figures and the use of restraint (HMICFRS, 2021), as well as racial disparities in deaths in custody involving use of force (Angiolini, 2017), have all been held up as examples of insti-

4.3  The Unequal Distribution of Punishment …

61

tutional racism in the England and Wales criminal justice system. In the context of the United States, the ‘War on Drugs’ has highlighted how African Americans were disadvantaged by sentencing decisions indirectly resulting in their receipt of lengthier mandatory minimum sentences than white drug users, and consequently disproportionate representation in the prison population (ACLU, 2006)—a practice suggesting racism is embedded within the criminal justice system. Much discussion of racism in the contemporary criminal justice system, and in particular of the disparity in experience between Black and white people, has highlighted the importance of historical forces in shaping how punishment is distributed. In the UK context, consideration has been given to the role of colonial empire and imprisonment as a way to manage surplus labour, while in the United States the legacy of slavery has been argued to shape punishment in various ways. Davis (2003: 84), emphasising the reliance of capitalism on the exploitation of black labour, has argued that the ‘prison industrial complex’ emerged as a means for the continued exploitation of African Americans after the abolition of slavery, while other scholars have noted the similarities between slavery, Jim Crow segregation, the ‘ghetto’ and mass incarceration in control of the African American population (Wacquant, 2001). Alexander (2012) has argued that mass incarceration—encompassing not only imprisonment but the many restrictions accompanying a conviction—is the reinvention of a racial caste system in the United States, or a ‘New Jim Crow’. In this respect, the disproportionate impacts of the prison on Black and Minority Ethnic communities are not simply consequences of the biased application of justice but intended outcomes of the ‘extra-penological’ functions of the prison (Wacquant, 2001).

Question

• What are the potential reasons for the disproportionate representation of individuals from BAME groups in the prison population?

A Criminal Justice Response to Social or Health Issues? In addition to the disproportionate representation of poor and BAME people, we also find significant over-representation of other experiences of marginalisation, disadvantage and trauma in prison. Connections have been established between the care system and the prison; although the vast majority of those in care are never involved in offending, care leavers are over-represented throughout the

62

4  Who Is Punished?

criminal justice system, including in prison (Laming, 2016). In England and Wales, 24% of the prison population report having spent time in care as a child, with this being even higher for women, at 31% (Williams et al., 2012). Research exploring the reasons for this over-representation has highlighted the ‘excessive’ (Fitzpatrick & Williams, 2017: 4) or ‘unnecessary’ criminalisation of children in care through, for example, minor offences being routinely prosecuted in children’s homes where official intervention would be unlikely for those living with parents (Fitzpatrick, 2009). Often contrasts are drawn between victims and offenders, with the assumption that these groups include distinct groups of people. However, this offender–victim dichotomy is often false, with many law-breakers also having been victims of crime themselves. In fact, figures suggest that prisoners are disproportionately likely to have experienced various kinds of trauma or victimisation, when compared to the general population, including emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child or witnessing violence in the home (Williams et al., 2012). While the majority of those imprisoned are male, prior experiences of trauma are particularly prevalent in the biographies of imprisoned women, with over half of women in prison also reporting being victims of domestic abuse as adults (PRT, 2017). In addition to those who have been through marginalising and traumatic experiences, the prison also disproportionately houses those with various health and wellbeing issues, highlighting the way in which social issues are often responded to with criminal justice rather than health interventions. 22% of the prison population drank every day in the four weeks before custody, compared to 16% of men and 10% of women in the general population, demonstrating that alcohol consumption is over-represented within the prison population (PRT, 2019). The prohibition and criminalisation of drugs have also contributed significantly to the increase in prison populations in many jurisdictions, and those in prison are more likely to have used Class A drugs than members of the general public (PRT, 2019), while the number of prisoners developing drug addiction while in prison has increased in recent years highlighting the potential for prisons to be criminogenic places (Reform, 2020). Further to this, prisoners are disproportionately likely to have been diagnosed with clinical mental illness; 25% suffer from both anxiety and depression compared to 15% of the general population (PRT, 2019). Not only is the prevalence of mental illness disproportionately high amongst the prison population, but so too is its severity with 49% of imprisoned women and 21% of imprisoned men having attempted suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 6% of the general population (PRT, 2019).

4.3  The Unequal Distribution of Punishment …

63

Question

• Is the prison a suitable environment for individuals with experiences of trauma, drug and alcohol use, or mental illness? Why/why not? As such, as well as finding that many in prison are drawn from poor and marginalised communities, we can also see that many prisoners have varied, complex needs, making them far from a homogenous group of immoral law-breakers. Rather than necessarily the most harmful, dangerous or anti-social members of society, the preceding discussion demonstrates that prisons disproportionately house the most marginalised in society, with punishment—rather than support— being used as a response to the social issues which are produced, or perpetuated, by unequal societies. As such, Davis (2003: 16) argues that the prison seeks to ‘disappear’ problems by removing from society those who are unable to contribute in the way capitalism expects, rather than resolving the issues which may ultimately result in one’s criminalisation: The prison therefore functions ideologically as an abstract site into which undesirables are deposited, relieving us of the responsibility of thinking about the real issues afflicting these communities from which prisoners are drawn in such disproportionate numbers. This is the ideological work that the prison performs – it relieves us of the responsibility of seriously engaging with the problems of our society, especially those produced by racism and, increasingly, global capitalism.

However, not only does the prison ‘disappear’ individuals and allow abdication of responsibility for the social problems they may face. In fact, research has demonstrated that imprisonment causes further harms for those affected by imprisonment, ultimately compounding and perpetuating the issues afflicting communities. The chapter will now go on to consider these consequences of incarceration for the individual, their families and communities.

4.4 The Ripple Effects—Further Marginalising the Marginalised? This chapter has highlighted how prison populations tend to over-represent the poor, marginalised, and those from BAME groups; the prison reflects the inequalities of the society it is situated within and may serve ‘extra-penological’ functions relating to the maintenance of economic and racial inequality (Wacquant, 2001). The prison has also been found to produce and compound inequality

64

4  Who Is Punished?

through its impacts on those imprisoned themselves, as well as contributing to the further marginalisation of the families and broader communities whose members are imprisoned, not only reinforcing but also playing a role in revealing race and class inequalities (Wakefield & Uggen, 2010). These ripple effects have been labelled ‘collateral consequences’ of imprisonment. Kirk and Wakefield (2018: 172) have described collateral consequences as including both formal and informal consequences: (a) the (formal) legal and regulatory sanctions that the convicted bear beyond the sentence imposed by a criminal court but also (b) the (informal) impacts of criminal justice contact on families, communities, and democracy.

These consequences of conviction are not factored into sentencing decisions, or transparent in their impact, and thus might be seen as unanticipated or unintended damage. However, some scholars have questioned the ‘collateral’ or unintentional nature of these consequences (Behan, 2022; Condry & Minson, 2021; Kaiser, 2016; Whittle, 2018), particularly where consequences are explicitly legislated for, or discriminatory practices upheld in law and/or policy. Nevertheless, this body of literature has provided considerable insight into the ‘invisible punishment’ that can accompany a criminal conviction and prison sentence (Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002; Travis, 2002), examples of which will now be considered in turn. One of the most widely discussed consequences of a criminal record is the impact on one’s opportunities in the labour market, with research demonstrating the difficulties people with convictions face in securing stable employment (Henley, 2017; Pager, 2003). Opportunities, where available, are often limited to low-paid and low-status jobs (Maguire, 2021; Wakefield & Uggen, 2010), and this negative impact on employment is larger for African Americans in the US context (Pager et al., 2009). While it has been noted many are unemployed prior to imprisonment, where individuals do have employment their imprisonment removes them from the job market and—even if able to keep their job— reduces the amount of time they are able to earn. The broadening out of research to the wider communities affected by imprisonment has highlighted the negative economic impacts on families of incarcerated people who are unable to contribute financial support. This can result in relatives facing financial instability, while imprisonment also creates significant additional costs for those who want to maintain a relationship with their loved one (Comfort, 2008). In England and Wales, costs of travelling to visits can be significant when many are held miles away from their homes (Farmer, 2019: see Chapter 12 on locating new pris-

4.4  The Ripple Effects—Further Marginalising …

65

ons), while families may also send money into prison to subsidise costs of phone calls, canteen purchases or clothing, potentially placing further strain on already stretched finances. In light of these impacts, Smith et al. (2007: 77) have argued that criminal justice and welfare policy ‘combine to impoverish and disadvantage, and exclude, the relatives of those in prison – in particular, prisoners’ children’, often furthering or compounding child poverty and inequality within already poor communities. In his analysis of punishment and inequality in the United States, Western (2006) found these financial consequences of incarceration to disproportionately affect African Americans, with a greater impact on wages when compared to white people with convictions, consequently compounding the consequences for poor, Black families and communities. This racial variation in the financial impact of imprisonment has also been identified in England and Wales (Smith et al., 2007), suggesting imprisonment contributes to furthering disadvantage amongst minoritised racial groups. However, the social exclusion experienced as a result of a relative’s imprisonment can extend beyond financial disadvantage. The families of people in prison also report experiences of exclusion in treatment by others and feelings of shame surrounding their relative’s incarceration. Families affected by the criminal justice system can be easy targets for the media where the law-breaking was in the public eye (Codd, 2008), while relatives may also be faced with ‘social silence’ and isolation as friends or neighbours distance themselves due to the individual’s conviction and/or imprisonment (Braman, 2004). In addition to this, research has demonstrated the potentially marginalising effect of parental incarceration on children’s education, thus having a bearing on their future adult lives (Murray & Farrington, 2008). Where those from particular racial groups are disproportionately incarcerated, these consequences could perpetuate social exclusion, and contribute to inter-generational inequality for families affected by imprisonment. This may compound or heighten the inequalities already experienced by these communities, furthering their marginalisation within society. Manza and Uggen (2006), Western (2006) and Thompson (2010) have also noted how the imprisonment of large numbers from poor, marginalised communities—often subject to social exclusion and disenfranchisement already—can further dampen these communities’ voices though denial of voting rights. Criminal disenfranchisement practices result in disproportionate numbers of voting-age individuals being unable to vote, and consequently weaken their collective influence on future policy. This has the potential to impact local communities themselves, as well as more broadly on election outcomes, as Manza and Uggen (2006) have found in the US context. Western (2006) has also noted how the US practice of assuming prisoners to be residents in the locality of the prison, rather

66

4  Who Is Punished?

than their family homes, impacts population size, determining funding distribution between communities—consequently further impoverishing those communities with a high concentration of members in prison. This ‘Usual Residence’ rule also disproportionately redistributes political power from poor, urban communities, to the rural areas where many prisons are located (Thompson, 2010). As such, there are significant political and economic consequences for prisoners’ broader communities when large numbers of residents are imprisoned; such communities are more likely to be politically disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged. Further, the destabilising impact of individuals going back and forth between prison and their community—what Clear (2002: 182) describes as ‘coercive mobility’—may aggravate issues of neighbourhood crime for those who remain in these communities (Wakefield & Uggen, 2010). Having considered the ‘collateral’ consequences of imprisonment, it is clear the prison inflicts many challenges on those communities who have already been disproportionately impacted by the removal and incarceration of their members and loved ones. In the US context, these consequences are particularly problematic given the sheer scale of imprisonment and the imprisonment of whole communities, rather than individuals, that is seen as a key feature of ‘mass incarceration’ (Garland, 2001). As Kirk and Wakefield (2018: 176) state: ‘The evidence is overwhelming that mass incarceration has produced significant social harms and that these harms are disproportionately visited on the poor, disadvantaged, and non-white.’ These harms, economic, social and democratic, not only result in failure to address the issues which may have led to individuals becoming imprisoned in the first place but also demonstrate how the prison itself perpetuates inequality. Western and Pettit (2010: 8) argue that the imprisonment of so many has ‘renewed race and class disadvantage’, with the prison being not only a response to crime as a consequence of inequality but also serving the function of maintaining and perpetuating it. The harms inflicted on communities who are disproportionately impacted by imprisonment create a situation where the already marginalised are further marginalised, and inter-generational criminal justice involvement is only made more likely (Roettger & Dennison, 2018; Western & Pettit, 2010). Although much literature on collateral consequences focuses on United States ‘mass incarceration’, the consistency with which imprisonment is disproportionately used against individuals who are poor, or from marginalised racial or ethnic groups in many jurisdictions, suggests the furthering of inequality through incarceration is an issue of relevance in most national contexts, perhaps posing a particular warning to countries following in the United States’ footsteps with rising prison populations and increasingly punitive penal policy.

4.5 Conclusion

67

4.5 Conclusion This chapter has considered the question of ‘who is punished?’. The discussion has challenged conceptions of the prison as a punishment of last resort, reserved for the most violent law-breakers, demonstrating the frequent use of imprisonment for non-violent offences, as well as highlighting the significant number held in prison prior to conviction. Acknowledging the fact that many within the prison system have also been victims of significant disadvantage does not ignore or dismiss the fact that in some cases they have caused significant harm and suffering to their victims and others. However, it is important to recognise that any depiction of prison as a place reserved for a homogenous group of dangerous law-breakers misrepresents and oversimplifies the complex reality of prison populations, and the wide range of circumstances in which individuals may find themselves spending time in prison. The chapter has also considered the key demographic features of prison populations, exploring how prisoners are disproportionately drawn from situations of poverty or economic disadvantage, and from BAME groups, and disproportionately demonstrate additional complex circumstances and vulnerabilities. This has demonstrated how prisons disproportionately house some of the most marginalised in society, arguably serving as ‘a black hole into which the detritus of contemporary capitalism is deposited’, with people—rather than the social problems they face—being ‘disappeared’ (Davis, 2003: 16). Finally, the chapter has demonstrated how the prison not only reflects inequalities within society but also creates, shapes and renews these inequalities through the impacts of incarceration on those imprisoned, their families and communities. With these consequences concentrated disproportionately in poor and ethnic minority communities, imprisonment serves to further marginalise these already marginalised groups.

Chapter Summary

• The prison population is heterogenous and includes individuals convicted of a wide range of offences, as well as unconvicted prisoners. • Racial and socio-economic inequalities in broader society are reflected in the prison population, with disproportionate representation of poor, marginalised communities. • The prison houses many with complex circumstances and vulnerabilities, rather than necessarily the most dangerous in society. • Many of the inequalities reflected in the prison population are also deepened and perpetuated by the impact of imprisonment on individuals, their families and broader communities.

68

4  Who Is Punished?

Activity

Choose a jurisdiction not discussed in this chapter and research the characteristics of its prison population. Consider the following: • Who are the groups most impacted by imprisonment, and why might this be? • In what ways are inequalities reflected in the prison population in your chosen jurisdiction? • What does the make-up of the prison population tell us about the wider society in your chosen jurisdiction?

References/Further Reading Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (Rev.). The New Press. American Civil Liberties Union. (2006). Cracks in the system: Twenty years of unjust federal crack Cocaine law. American Civil Liberties Union. Angiolini, E. (2017). Report of the independent review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/655401/Report_of_Angiolini_Review_ISBN_Accessible. pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2022. Appleton, C., & van Zyl Smit, D. (2018). Challenging life imprisonment. https://www.compen.crim.cam.ac.uk/Blog/blog-pages-full-versions/guest-blog-on-challenging-life-imprisonment. Accessed 9 Feb 2021. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Prisoners in Australia, 2016. https://www.abs.gov. au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0~2016~Main%20Features~Overview~3. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Behan, C. (2022). No longer a ‘collateral consequence’: Imprisonment and the reframing of citizenship. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1283–1303. Bennett, J. (2012). Prisoner backgrounds and biographies. In B. Crewe & J. Bennett (Eds.), The prisoner (pp. 1–12). Routledge. Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. University of Michigan Press. Carson, E. A., & Anderson, E. (2016). Prisoners in 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). Penal systems: A comparative approach. Sage Publishing. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G., & Bennett, J. (2020). The penal system: An introduction (6th ed.). Sage. Clear, T. (2002). The problem with ‘addition by subtraction’: The prison-crime relationship in low-income communities. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 181–193). The New Press.

References/Further Reading

69

Coates, S. (2016). Unlocking potential: A review of education in prison. Ministry of Justice. Codd, H. (2008). In the shadow of prison: Families, imprisonment and criminal justice. Willan Publishing. Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love in the shadow of the prison. University of Chicago Press. Condry, R., & Minson, S. (2021). Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 540–558. Davis, A. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press. Delsol, R. (2015). Racial profiling. Criminal Justice Matters, 101, 34–35. De Noronha, L. (2015). Unpacking the figure of the “foreign criminal” (COMPAS Working Papers, WP-15-121). University of Oxford. De Noronha, L. (2020). Deporting Black Britons: Portraits of deportation to Jamaica. Manchester University Press. Dolan, K., & Carr, J. L. (2015). The poor get prison: The alarming spread of the criminalization of poverty. Institute for Policy Studies. Drake, D. (2011). The ‘dangerous other’ in maximum-security prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11(4), 367–382. Eaton, G., & Mews, A. (2019). The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on reoffending. Ministry of Justice. Epstein, R. (2017). Punishing the poor: The scandal of imprisonment for council tax debt. Socialist Lawyer, 74, 33–35. Farmer, L. (2019). The importance of strengthening female offenders’ family and other relationships to prevent reoffending and reduce intergenerational crime. Ministry of Justice. Fitzpatrick, C. (2009). Looked after children and the criminal justice system. In K. Broadhurst, C. Grover, & J. Jamieson (Eds.), Critical perspectives on safeguarding children (pp. 211–227). Wiley-Blackwell. Fitzpatrick, C., & Williams, P. K. (2017). The neglected needs of care leavers in the criminal justice system: Practitioners’ perspectives and the persistence of problem (corporate), parenting. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 17(2), 175–191. Fletcher, D. R., & Wright, S. (2018). A hand up or a slap down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain via strategies of surveillance, sanctions and deterrence. Critical Social Policy, 38(2), 323–344. Garland, D. (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Sage Publications. Greer, C., & Jewkes, Y. (2005). Extremes of otherness: Media images of social exclusion. Social Justice, 32(1), 20–31. Gustafson, K. (2009). The criminalization of poverty. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 643–716. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. Macmillan. Henley, A. J. (2017). Criminal records and conditional citizenship: Towards a critical sociology of post-sentence discrimination. In S. Fletcher., & H. White. (Eds.), Emerging

70

4  Who Is Punished?

Voices: Critical Social Research by European Group Postgraduate and Early Career Researchers (pp. 119–128). European Group Press. Herring, C., Yarbrough, D., & Alatorre, L. M. (2020). Pervasive penality: How the criminalization of poverty perpetuates homelessness. Social Problems, 67(1), 131–149. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. (2021). Disproportionate use of police powers: A spotlight on stop and search and the use of force. https://www. justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/disproportionate-use-of-policepowers-spotlight-on-stop-search-and-use-of-force.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2022. Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2014). Travellers in the Irish prison system: A qualitative study. Irish Penal Reform Trust. Kaiser, J. (2016). We know it when we see it: The tenuous line between ‘direct punishment’ and ‘collateral consequences.’ Howard Law Journal, 59, 341. Kirk, D. S., & Wakefield, S. (2018). Collateral consequences of punishment: A critical review and path forward. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 171–194. Laming, H. (2016). In care, out of trouble. Prison Reform Trust. Lammy, D. (2017). The Lammy review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/643001/lammy-review-final-report.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2021. Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence inquiry: Report of an inquiry. HM Stationary Office. Maguire, D. (2021). Male, failed, jailed: Masculinities and ‘revolving door’ imprisonment in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan. Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press. Mauer, M. (2011). Addressing racial disparities in incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 87S–101(S). Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press.  McMahon, W., & Roberts, R. (2011). Truth and lies about ‘race’ and ‘crime’. Criminal Justice Matters, 83(1), 20–21.  Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2019). English indices of deprivation 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019. Accessed 1 Oct 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2016). Black, Asian and minority ethnic disproportionality in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, Table 5.1. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-disproportionality-in-the-criminal-justice-system-in-england-and-wales. Accessed 10 Feb 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2018). Statistics on race and the criminal justice system 2018. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2020a). Offender management statistics quarterly: July to September 2020. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2020b). Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2020. Ministry of Justice.

References/Further Reading

71

Ministry of Justice. (2020c). Story of the prison population 1993–2020. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/930166/Story_of_the_Prison_Population_1993-2020.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2022. Ministry of Justice. (2021a). Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly, June 2021. https://www. gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-june-2021. Accessed 5 Oct 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2021b). Stop and search. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service. gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest?msclkid=647cfbdeb1a011eca5a457270b122446. Accessed 29 Mar 2022. Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The effects of parental imprisonment on children. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37, pp. 133–206). University of Chicago Press. New Zealand Department of Corrections. (2016). 2.0 Criminal justice system bias and amplification. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research/over-representation-of-maori-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplification/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplification. Accessed 1 Oct 2021. New Zealand Department of Corrections. (2020). Prison facts and statistics – June 2020. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/statistics/quarterly_prison_statistics/prison_ stats_june_2020. Accessed 22 Oct 2022. Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. Office of the Correctional Investigator. (2020). Indigenous People in Federal Custody Surpasses 30%: Correctional Investigator Issues Statement and Challenge. https://www. oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/comm/press/press20200121-eng.aspx. Accessed 28 Jan 2021. Padfield, N., & Maruna, S. (2006). The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(3), 329–352. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937–975. Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 195–213. Pemberton, S. X. (2015). Criminal justice as state racism: Race-making, state violence, and imprisonment in the USA, and England and Wales. New Political Science, 37(3), 321–345. Penal Reform International. (2020). Global prison trends 2020. Penal Reform International. Penal Reform International. (2021). Global prison trends 2021. Penal Reform International. Phillips, C., & Bowling, B. (2017). Ethnicities, racism, crime, and criminal justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (6th ed., pp. 190–212). Oxford University Press. Platt, L. (2007). Poverty and ethnicity in the UK. Policy Press. Prison Reform Trust. (2017). ‘There’s a reason we’re in trouble’: Domestic abuse as a driver of women’s offending. Prison Reform Trust. Prison Reform Trust. (2019). Bromley briefings prison factfile: Winter 2019. Prison Reform Trust. Reform. (2020). The prison system: Priorities for investment. Reform Research Trust.

72

4  Who Is Punished?

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2020). The rich get richer and the poor get prison (12th ed.). Routledge. Roettger, M. E., & Dennison, S. (2018). Interrupting intergenerational offending in the context of America’s social disaster of mass imprisonment. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(11), 1545–1561. Ryan, N., Ackerman, J., Bond, C., Ready, J., & Kinner, S.A. (2019). Prison life and prior social experiences: Understanding their importance for indigenous peoples’ re-entry outcomes. British Journal of Criminology, 59(1), 188–208. Scarman, L. J. (1981). The Brixton disorders, 10th–12th April (1981). HM Stationary Office. Smith, R., Grimshaw, R., Romeo, R., & Knapp, M. (2007). Poverty and disadvantage among prisoners’ families. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Sentencing Project. (2019). US prison population trends: Massive buildup and modest decline. The Sentencing Project. Thompson, A. C. (2010). Unlocking democracy: Examining the collateral consequences of mass incarceration on black political power. Howard Law Journal, 54(3), 587–638. Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). The New Press. Tripkovic, M. (2021). Transcending the boundaries of punishment: On the nature of citizenship deprivation. British Journal of Criminology, 61(4), 1044–1065. Wacquant, L. (2001). Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 95–133. Wakefield, S., & Uggen, C. (2010). Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 387–406. Walmsley, R. (2020). World pre-trial/remand imprisonment list (4th ed.). Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research. Warr, J. (2016). The deprivation of certitude, legitimacy and hope: Foreign national prisoners and the pains of imprisonment. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(3), 301–318. Whittle, T. N. (2018). The intended collateral consequences of felony convictions. In B.M. Huebner, & N.A. Frost (Eds.), Handbook on the consequences of sentencing and punishment decisions. Routledge. World Prison Brief. (2021). United Kingdom: England and Wales. https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-kingdom-england-wales. Accessed 1 Nov 2021. Webster, C. S., & Kingston, S. (2014). Anti-poverty strategies for the UK: Poverty and crime review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation. Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. Penguin. Williams, P., & Clarke, B. (2018). The black criminal other as an object of social control. Social Sciences, 7(234), 1–14. Williams, K., Papadopoulou, V., & Booth, N. (2012). Prisoners’ childhood and family backgrounds. Ministry of Justice. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278837/prisoners-childhood-family-backgrounds.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2021.

Part II Understanding the Experiences of the Prison

5

Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The prison social world, and prisoner adaptations to this world. • Key classic texts and their contributions to prison sociology. • The role and origins of prison culture, focusing particularly on the deprivation vs importation debate. • The significance of time and place to prison culture and social dynamics.

5.1 Introduction The social world of the prison raises various issues of interest to sociologists including cultural development in closed institutions, power dynamics and adaptation, and thus prison social life is a rich area of study. Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a sustained interest in furthering understanding of life behind bars and, in particular, the cultural features of the institution. Within these contributions are several ‘classic’ texts, which—based on empirical observation of life in carceral contexts—take varying approaches to explaining the prison social world. This chapter will discuss the contributions of these classic texts to the sociological understanding of the prison environment, culture and adaptation to imprisonment, and the organisation of social relations in prison, with a focus on Clemmer’s (1940) The Prison Community, Sykes’ (1958) The Society of Captives, and Irwin and Cressey’s (1962) Thieves, Convicts and Inmate Culture. These seminal texts—along with consideration of their influence on subsequent © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_5

75

76

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

literature—will be used to explore key debates in prison sociology and the central features of the social world within prisons. The chapter will begin by considering the distribution of power in prison, and how this impacts life during imprisonment. The existence of an ‘inmate culture’ and its origins will then be explored, with a discussion of the deprivation vs importation debate. Finally, the chapter will explore the heterogeneity of social groups within prison and the role of hierarchies in structuring prison life, to demonstrate how the experience of life behind bars may vary for those inside.

5.2 Power, Relationships and Culture One of the key features of the prison social world is the power disparity inherent in the relationship between captor and captive. Indeed, imprisonment is one of the most authoritarian environments to exist in many democratic nations and has been used as a focal point for the study of totalitarian control (Sykes, 1958). Through involuntary incarceration, prisoners are held in a position of reliance on prison staff to meet their basic needs, and where the behaviour permitted is closely controlled by the prison rules and regime. As such, the power held by prisoners and prison staff is highly unequal, having a significant bearing on relationships between these two groups (see Chapter 11), as well as on the culture which develops amongst those who are imprisoned. However, despite this substantial power disparity between staff and prisoners, the power of staff is not absolute. While prisoners are reliant on their captors, prison staff are also reliant on those they guard to maintain order within the institution—without prisoners’ cooperation, and outnumbering staff, there could be substantial disruption. As such there exist ‘cracks’ or ‘defects’ in the power imposed over prisoners (Sykes, 1958: 53). Rather than absolute adherence by staff to all requirements of the regime, there is a level of compromise that must be sustained to ensure order, with staff turning a blind eye to some rule-breaking or disobedience, in return for compliance in other areas. Some scholars have noted how power is further complicated where authorities are criticised, by prisoners, for failing to abide by their own rules—what Mathiesen (1965) termed ‘censoriousness’. Nevertheless, while power over prisoners may not be as absolute on closer inspection, the power disparity between those imprisoned and their captors has significant implications for the characteristics of ‘inmate culture’—another key feature of imprisonment which has attracted substantial sociological debate.

5.2  Power, Relationships and Culture

77

Prisonization The Prison Community by Clemmer (1940) is widely understood to be the first sociological study of prison life (Drake et al., 2015), considering male prisoners’ adaptation to, and culture within, Illinois State Penitentiary. Clemmer (1940: 114) argued that the ‘unique community’ of the prison influenced those held within, resulting in a distinct ‘prison community’. The culture of the prison influenced individuals to differing extents depending on the extent of their exposure—the longer an individual was imprisoned, the more they would become assimilated or socialised into the ‘prison primary group’, their affiliation to which is based on prisoners’ shared circumstances. Individuals are socialised into prison culture and the prison primary group through ‘prisonization’. Clemmer (1940: 299) defined ‘prisonization’ as the process by which individuals take on ‘in greater or lesser degree […] the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary’, and thus this term was used to explain the effect of imprisonment on the individual. Through prisonization, Clemmer considered prisoners’ external personalities disrupted as they assimilated to a distinct community inside prison. This process would apply to greater or lesser extents depending on a range of factors, such as the length of one’s sentence or the strength of connections to groups in, or outside of, the prison (Clemmer, 1940). Clemmer noted, however, that for those demonstrating a higher degree of prisonization, this change could be difficult to come back from, thus having significant implications for rehabilitation and suggesting that, where individuals are rehabilitated, it is not as a result of the system. While Clemmer noted that many prisoners experienced prison individually, where individuals were socialised into the prison culture this involved following a strict inmate code—a set of expectations and values to guide behaviour in the prison community. This code centred around loyalty to the prison's primary group and opposition to the prison, its staff and representatives. Building on Clemmer’s work, Sykes and Messinger (1960) posit five key tenets of this inmate code: don’t interfere with other prisoners’ interests e.g. through ‘ratting’ or ‘grassing’; do your own time and keep a cool head; don’t exploit fellow inmates e.g. stealing or reneging on promises; be a man and don’t demonstrate weakness; don’t trust or take the side of prison officers or officials. However, Sykes and Messinger (1960) do not present the inmate code as an accurate description of prisoners’ behaviour, but rather as an ‘ideal’ guide for social relations. Thus, responses to the pains of incarceration are diverse, demonstrated in the various argot roles that Sykes (1958) uses to describe the extent of prisoners’ fulfilment of, or deviation

78

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

from, the inmate code. In particular, Sykes (1958) notes the difference between individualistic ‘alienative’ adaptations, and those of real men who value cohesion amongst prisoners above all else, with ‘cohesive’ responses enabling the development of a more solidary social group. While Clemmer’s work explores socialisation into prison culture and provides insights on the substantive nature of this culture and the ‘inmate code’, built upon in subsequent works (Sykes, 1958; Sykes & Messinger, 1960), a key criticism levelled at his contribution is that he did not address where this prison culture originates from and why (Drake et al., 2015). In response to this gap has emerged one of the central debates in prison sociology—whether prison culture originates from within or outside of the institution.

5.3 The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation ‘Inmate culture’ is seen as central to understanding social relations in many of the seminal studies of imprisonment, but where does this culture, supposedly shared amongst prisoners, originate from? Whether, and to what extent, prison culture and adaptations are shaped by the prison environment has been a question of significant debate, and key contributions to the prison sociology literature have centred around one of two key approaches to the origins of prison culture: importation theory, which asserts that prison culture is imported into the institution from outside, and deprivation theory, which sees prison culture as emerging in response to the deprivations inherent in imprisonment. We will now consider each of these explanations in turn, as well as explore how adaptations to the prison environment are understood in the work of scholars aligned with each perspective.

Deprivation and the ‘Pains of Imprisonment’ in the ‘Society of Captives’ Imprisonment involves pain and loss, and the deprivation model—sometimes known as the indigenous approach (Dhami et al., 2007)—argues it is in these deprivations that the origins of prison culture lie. Widely considered the seminal text in prison studies (Crewe, 2016), The Society of Captives by Gresham Sykes (1958) was based on the exploration of the social system in a New Jersey maximum security prison. One of Sykes’ key conclusions about the social world was

5.3  The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation

79

that the society of captives was characterised by substantial deprivations, despite prison being introduced as a ‘civilised’ alternative to more physical punishments (discussed in Chapter 1): These deprivations or frustrations of the modern prison may indeed be the acceptable or unavoidable implications of imprisonment, but we must recognize the fact that they can be just as painful as the physical mal-treatment which they have replaced. (Sykes, 1958: 64)

Sykes (1958) outlined five deprivations he considered imprisonment to entail, which he described as the ‘pains of imprisonment’: the deprivation of liberty; goods and services; heterosexual relationships; security; and autonomy. For Sykes and advocates of the deprivation model, it is in these pains that prison culture is rooted and by which adaptations to imprisonment are shaped. The most obvious of these pains is the deprivation of liberty—incarceration is based on the restriction of an individual’s liberty to live freely within the community, while there is a ‘double’ loss of liberty with additional confinement to one’s cell within the prison (1958: 65). However, for Sykes (1958: 65) there is also a key symbolic element to this deprivation; not only does imprisonment physically deny liberty, but it encompasses social exclusion from the outside community: It is not difficult to see this isolation as painfully depriving or frustrating in terms of lost emotional relationships, of loneliness and boredom. But what makes this pain bite most deeply is the fact that the confinement of the criminal represents a deliberate, moral rejection of the criminal by the free community.

The second pain is the deprivation of goods and services, with those available inside prison often being inferior to those individuals could obtain outside. According to Sykes (1958), despite basic needs such as food and shelter being met, goods and services also hold symbolic value in materialistic societies. Clothes, accessories, or possession of the latest gadgets are seen as an important part of how people express their individuality, while also being used as an indicator of status and/or wealth. The denial of material indicators of self or status is thus experienced as an attack ‘at the deepest layers of personality’ (1958: 69); imprisonment deprives individuals of the accoutrements needed to present a particular identity to others. This deprivation is often justified under the reasoning of less eligibility, meaning that those in prison should have no more than those with the least outside, but nevertheless—as Sykes argues—is experienced as an inherent pain of imprisonment.

80

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

The next pain identified by Sykes (1958) is the deprivation of heterosexual relationships, with the sex-segregated context of the prison, and physical separation from partners of the opposite sex, denying the opportunity for heterosexual relations. According to Sykes (1958: 70), the prisoner is ‘figuratively castrated by his involuntary celibacy’, denying opportunities for heterosexual intercourse as well as a female audience. If one’s sense of self is based on the perceptions of others, Sykes argues this can lead to only a portion of the individual’s self, and consequently masculinity, being recognised. The significance of masculinity to the prison environment (discussed further in Chapter 6) is also evident in the deprivation of security. In its function as a penal institution, the prison is filled with many convicted of criminal offences, some of whom may be violent. Sykes argues that even where an individual may not see themselves as violent, they will likely view other prisoners as a potential threat and treat them with suspicion, arousing anxiety. In addition to fear of potential violence, this deprivation of security creates anxiety by presenting the challenge of how to cope with confrontation, with individuals being aware they will be ‘tested’ or ‘pushed’ by fellow prisoners. The individual could become a target of further violence as a result of his response and consequently perceived manhood, whether his failure positions him as an ‘obvious victim’ (1958: 78) or his success paints him as a target for proving one’s masculine prestige. Finally, Sykes (1958) argued that prisoners experience the deprivation of autonomy. During time inside, individuals are denied the opportunity to have control over day-to-day life, not able to make basic decisions themselves, with the institution imposing a rigid regime, and rules and regulations governing the minutiae of their daily existence (discussed further in Chapter 10). This occurs through what Sykes describes as ‘total power’ rather than with the consent of those who are governed. Sykes argues that it is the triviality of some restrictions, those which do not ‘make sense’, and the lack of explanation for decision-making which are received with particular hostility. These seemingly arbitrary restrictions on prisoners’ decision-making and autonomy, Sykes (1958: 75) argues, again threaten one’s identity by ‘[reducing] the prisoner to the weak, helpless, dependent status of childhood’; the deprivation of autonomy is painful because it infantilises the imprisoned. These deprivations, inherent in imprisonment, are key to understanding prison culture through the deprivation model. Prisoners’ responses to these deprivations, in line with an established ‘inmate code’ (Clemmer, 1940), shape the prison social world and galvanise collective organisation and shared identity. In doing so, they serve to limit the emotional challenges of rejection from wider society and mitigate the ‘pains’ of incarceration (Sykes & Messinger, 1960).

5.3  The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation

81

Question:

• To what extent do you agree with Sykes’ assertion that imprisonment is as painful as the physical punishments it has replaced?

The Evolution of the ‘Pains of Imprisonment’ While Sykes’ work is still extremely influential in understandings of the pains inherent in imprisonment, subsequent works have sought to further understanding by utilising and developing Sykes’ ‘pains’ framework. This has resulted in the literature highlighting how the original five deprivations are experienced in a variety of geographical and temporal contexts, as well as identifying various new, additional pains, amongst particular groups of prisoners. A particularly significant contribution to the literature on the pains of imprisonment comes from Crewe, in his ethnographic study of Wellingborough prison, now seen as a classic itself. Crewe (2009) explored the ‘society of captives’ in the late-modern era with a focus on how the specific penal context—and its emphases on managerialism and risk—shaped power, prisoner adaptation and social life in prison. Considering the features of the prison social world in the late-modern era, Crewe (2011) proposed new categories of pains shaped by the centrality of a more invisible ‘neo-paternalistic’ power to the prison regime. Firstly, Crewe (2011: 514) identifies the pains of uncertainty and indeterminacy, based on the ‘ambiguous quality of penal power’. Crewe highlights how increasing use of indeterminate sentences (see Chapter 3), and the discretionary power accompanying their administration, by the Parole Board, for example, creates substantial insecurities. There is uncertainty surrounding what is required during one’s sentence, while the powers that make decisions regarding progression and release— such as the Parole Board—seem distant and out of reach. This distant power and ambiguity of requirements means that: In the face of uncertainty, everything is loaded with meaning, and can be perceived as a test or a threat. Prisoners talk about being ‘set up to fail’, either in the sense that sentence plans and release conditions are excessively demanding or that minor mistakes are taken to be far more indicative of risk than years of good behaviour. (Crewe, 2011: 514)

In a system where individual calculated risk is central to decision-making, in the case of indeterminate sentences, Crewe identifies a second category of pains—the pains of psychological assessment—which impact both on prisoners’ time inside

82

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

and on their futures. Crewe (2011) notes how processes of psychological assessment in prison require individuals to fit into neat categories, failing to capture the complexities of their identities or contexts, reducing individuals’ identities to formal psychological labels. Crewe argues that this can be experienced as painful and de-humanising, destroying one’s sense of self and, sometimes, forcing prisoners to respond to labels and issues that may not align with their own self-perceptions. This denial of humanity is furthered by the impersonal assessment process, while the power of comments written on one’s file—and the unpredictability of when/how these might be used—illustrates the replacement of physical coercion with psychological power: Unlike the brutal immediacy of physical coercion, which, to some extent, makes its presence felt and then re-coils, psychological power suspends itself perpetually, never quite revealing when it might take effect. (Crewe, 2011: 518)

Finally, Crewe (2011) argues that the nature of governance and control in the late-modern prison entails pains of self-governance. The deprivation of autonomy may be most evident in the denial of opportunities to make decisions for oneself, and the intimate regulation of prisoners’ lives through regimes. However, Crewe (2011) notes such high levels of oversight and control are not so evident, or necessary, in late-modern, responsibilised prisons with systems of incentives, such as the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme (IEP), in place. Instead, prisoners themselves are deemed responsible for autonomous decision-making and management of their own behaviour throughout their sentence. Active engagement is required, it no longer being sufficient to simply ‘do your time’. In this way, the ‘burden of control is relocated and reshaped’ (Crewe, 2011: 519), resting on the individual themselves, and accompanying this greater responsibility comes greater risk for the individual if behaviour is deemed inappropriate (discussed further in Chapter 10).

‘Pains of Imprisonment’ and Prison Culture in Comparative Context Sykes’ theorising is based on the observation of one particular US prison in the 1950s. There is substantial variation in the conditions, policies and institutions of imprisonment globally (see Chapter 13) and consequently, there is also variation in the prisoner experience. Scholars have explored the relevance of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ in a variety of different contexts, including for prisoners in different jurisdictions and thus subject to

5.3  The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation

83

prison regimes which differ significantly from those in the Anglo-American context. Such variation has significance not only for the deprivations associated with incarceration, but also for understanding the broader social world of the prison; as O’Donnell (2019: 276–277) notes, ‘If the deprivations differed in quantity or quality, so too would the prisoner social system’. For example, in his study of prisons in Brazil, Darke (2013, 2018) found many of the pains discussed in the analysis of the Western Anglophone prison experience did not apply equally in the Brazilian context. Rather than pains such as material deprivation, distrust in the use of power and denial of autonomy, Darke (2013, 2018) found that Brazilian imprisonment was characterised by cohabitation, avoidance of violence and conflict to survive within an under-resourced system, and employment by state or private agencies. These distinct features also resulted in a distinct social system, with the governance of the prison shared between prisoners and officers, and interaction centred on mutual reciprocity. Similarly, Symkovych (2018: 1094) found the role of extra-legal ‘private justice’ through the criminal elite, and informal prisoner self-rule, altered the power dynamics and social system within the Ukrainian prison community. While the deprivation of liberty is a ‘penological constant’ (O’Donnell, 2019: 277) and the deprivation of heterosexual relations was also a shared pain, O’Donnell’s study of an Ethiopian prison found Sykes’ other three pains were less evident in this context. Equivalence in access to most goods and services when compared to outside meant this deprivation was lessened, reports of feeling safe within prison resulted in a less marked deprivation of security, and greater autonomy was evident in the freedom of individuals to socialise as they wished within the prison boundary. O’Donnell (2019: 279) concluded a greater sense of ‘common purpose’ (2019: 279) amongst prisoners in Ethiopia resulted in an environment where the pains of imprisonment were ‘rendered less severe’ (Sykes, 1958: 107, cited in O’Donnell, 2019).

Scholars have also sought to examine how the ‘pains’ of imprisonment are experienced differently, or where additional pains exist, for particular groups of prisoners including women (Carlen, 1998; Crewe et al., 2017), fathers (Ugelvik, 2014), transgender people (Maycock, 2022), and foreign national prisoners (Warr, 2016), as well as for families of prisoners (Chui, 2010; Kotova, 2019). This has resulted

84

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

in a broad application of Sykes’ (1958) pains, as well as additions and extensions to the range of pains discussed. More recently, scholars have even considered how lockdown policies during the Covid-19 pandemic, may have ‘unintended adverse consequences that are akin to the “pains of imprisonment”’ (Dhami et al., 2020: 2). While the prevalence of pains as a focal point of discussion demonstrates the continued influence of Sykes’ work on prison research, Haggerty and Bucerius (2020: 12) argue that through the introduction of ‘additional pains’, ‘disaggregated pains’, ‘pains beyond the prison walls’ and ‘distinctly modern pains’, the concept of ‘pains’ has expanded to the extent that it is now too broad to be meaningful: We are now at the point where the “pains” framing encompasses atrocious prison-based abuses as well as a litany of “lesser” harms and indignities, manifest both inside and outside of prison walls and experienced by inmates and non-inmates alike […] And while it is right, proper, and occasionally urgent to document these pains, it is also clear that the pains framing has become a victim of its own success; both dulled and diluted by virtue of having been applied to ever-more disparate domains, groups, and practices. There does not appear to be easy way past this tension between the imperative to bear witness, and a degree of cynicism about the continuing value of the concept, given the unfettered way in which it is now applied.

Nevertheless, it is clear Sykes’ work continues to be highly influential, with the deprivation model holding significant currency as a tool for explaining experiences of imprisonment, thus advancing understanding of life inside.

Questions:

• Do the pains of imprisonment apply equally to all prisoners, in all prison environments? • Reflecting on your own experience of lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic, do you think Sykes’ five deprivations were applicable to our confinement during this time? In what important ways might this experience have differed from imprisonment and its inherent pains?

The Prison as a ‘Total Institution’? Another seminal work which has had a significant influence on prison sociology, influenced by Sykes (1958) and adopting the deprivation model (Crewe, 2016), is Asylums by Erving Goffman (1961). In his book, the institution of study was an

5.3  The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation

85

asylum—not a prison—however, given the shared features of ‘total institutions’ that shaped inmates’ experiences and responses to detention, this work has been very influential in theorising about the prison and is considered a classic text for those studying imprisonment. Goffman (1961: 11) himself described jails, alongside other locations such as boarding schools and hospitals, as a clear example of a ‘total institution’, which he defined as: a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life.

This ‘cut off’ from wider society is key to understanding total institutions, with ‘a breakdown of the barriers’ which would usually separate different spheres of individuals’ lives, such as sleep, play and work, while barriers to the outside world simultaneously separate individuals from their external communities. This separation of the institution from the outside world is a central feature of the total institution’s aim to change those held within, in the case of the prison to rehabilitate or reform. Once within the institution, and separated from the outside world, Goffman explained how individuals are subjected to assaults on their self-identity through a process he labelled the ‘mortification of the self’. By requiring uniforms, use of numbers rather than names, and denial of opportunities to demonstrate one’s individuality, the institution strips away individuals’ external identities to then be rebuilt through the institution’s regime (Crewe, 2016). While inside the total institution, one’s activity is tightly scheduled, and individuals are subject to a strict regime and systems of punishment and reward to influence behaviour. Time in the institution is also experienced as ‘batch’ living (Goffman, 1961: 17) with all treated alike, as a homogenous group (see Chapter 10), and expected to do the same thing together, once again demonstrating an attack on the autonomy of the individual—as described by Sykes (1958)—and enforcing a regime around which new identities can be constructed. Nevertheless, this mortification and denial of autonomy are not absolute, and just as Sykes (1958) described prisoners’ methods of adaptation to the prison environment, Goffman (1961) too found individuals would seek to fight against the complete denial of autonomy through ‘secondary adjustments’, albeit in a more individual than collective way. These secondary adjustments included involvement in removal activities such as work or education (see Chapter 7), or activities which might defy the institution’s rules or expectations, thus providing the individual with ‘important evidence that he is still his own man, with some control of his environment’ (Goffman, 1961: 56). Like Sykes (1958), Goffman

86

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

saw the resources for such adjustments—and consequently the influences on the prison culture—as located within the prison, rather than outside of it. However, the deprivation model has been critiqued on the grounds that it fails to explain differences in adaptation between prisoners serving similar sentence lengths (Dhami et al., 2007), and that Sykes (1958) underplayed the role of external factors in shaping prison life (Crewe, 2016). Such weaknesses of deprivation theory led to the response of an alternative approach—importation theory.

Importation of Outside Culture into the Prison Community Critiquing the attribution of prison culture to conditions of imprisonment in the work of Sykes (1958), Sykes and Messinger (1960) and Goffman (1961), John Irwin and Donald Cressey (1962)—in their seminal article Thieves, Convicts and the Inmate Culture—argue the role of external ‘latent’ culture, gained from experiences outside prison, has been minimised in academic discussion. While they do not reject Sykes’ propositions entirely, they present a theory of importation, based on the premise that imported characteristics and prior cultural experiences outside prison, such as those within deviant subcultures, also determine inmate cultures and responses to the challenges of imprisonment: We have no doubt that the total set of relationships called “inmate society” is a response to problems of imprisonment. What we question is the emphasis given to the notion that solutions to these problems are found within the prison, and the lack of emphasis on “latent culture” – on external experiences as determinants of the solutions. (Irwin & Cressey, 1962: 145)

Importation theorists posit there is a clear connection between external influences and inmate culture ignored by other scholars (Irwin, 1970; Irwin & Cressey, 1962), noting the similarities between the ‘prison code’ and a ‘criminal code’ outside of prisons. Consequently, they argue “a clear understanding of inmate conduct cannot be obtained simply by viewing ‘prison culture’ or ‘inmate culture’ as an isolated system springing solely from the conditions of imprisonment” (1962: 145). Highlighting the significance of external influences, rather than a homogenous ‘inmate culture’, Irwin and Cressey draw a distinction between thief culture, which shares many characteristics of Sykes’ inmate code and serves as an ideal aspired to or paid ‘lip service’ on one hand, and convict culture on the other. This convict subculture is utilitarian in its focus on achieving status through means

5.3  The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation

87

available within the prison, and thus ‘flourishes’ in a carceral environment where the entailed deprivations place all imprisoned on an equal footing. For those with experience of thief culture outside, imprisonment is likely a frequent reality, and the subculture itself provides patterns of behaviour to respond to this predicament and ‘do time’ which may be shared from one institution to another. Where convict culture is seen to be in play, the utilitarian approach may also be brought in from groups outside of prison. Finally, posing the third culture within prisons, Irwin and Cressey argue there is a legitimate culture in which individuals reject both thief and convict culture, and adapt to their incarceration by acting in ways expected of ‘good’ prisoners and adhering to the prison’s requirements. The legitimate culture involves seeking status on the authorities’ terms, while thief culture seeks status within the wider criminal world beyond prison, and convict culture involves aiming for status within prison by seeking out positions with privileged access to information or resources. While Irwin and Cressey do not see these cultural groups as always entirely distinct, with some blending of cultures depending on the particular institution, this range of different subcultures demonstrates the significance of external influences on the prison social world and individuals’ adaptation to incarceration. Rather than resulting from the environment itself, ‘inmate culture’ is seen as ‘an adjustment or accommodation of these three systems within the official administrative system of deprivation and control’ (Irwin & Cressey, 1962: 153). The importation thesis challenges the existence of a prison community entirely distinct from the outside world, demonstrating how individuals may hold affiliations to social groups within and outside of prison in a more fluid, pluralistic way. This can be seen in the continued engagement with outside crime during imprisonment by some prisoners, as well as in the external affiliations which may travel into the prison where individuals from the same communities or social groups are incarcerated together. More recent developments in the literature on the ‘liminal space’ between prison and the outside world support this more fluid approach, demonstrating the potential for connections with external communities to shape life during and adaptations to imprisonment (Moran, 2011).

Moving Beyond the Importation/Deprivation Divide The importation/deprivation debate has for many years dominated the discussion of life behind bars. However, sociological scholarship on imprisonment has developed significantly since the mid-twentieth century and, while the work of deprivation and importation theorists continues to be highly influential, there

88

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

is an increasing acceptance that their opposition has resulted in a ‘stale debate’ (Crewe & Laws, 2018: 138) with both approaches providing insight of value for understanding life in prison. As such, many more recent studies of prison life acknowledge the combination of external influences and the prison environment in shaping individuals’ day-to-day realities of imprisonment (Crewe, 2009; Dhami et al. 2007; Toch, 1977). Crewe’s (2009) work is a good example of this, considering the role of imported backgrounds and characteristics alongside inherent deprivations in the discussion of prisoners’ adaptations to the prisoner society. In combining the models of deprivation and importation, it demonstrates how ‘within the terms delimited by the institution, prisoners reflect on their circumstances, evaluate their options, and make decisions about how to “do time” in ways that relate to their pre-prison characteristics’ adding nuance to the stark distinction often drawn between these two models (Crewe, 2009: 7). From Crewe’s perspective then, one’s imported characteristics may have a significant bearing on one’s experience of imprisonment, and thus on the deprivations inherent in incarceration; the importation theory and deprivation approach are not mutually exclusive but interact in prisoners’ lived realities.

5.4 A Universal Culture for a Single Prison Community? The preceding discussion of inmate culture and prisoner adaptations is predominantly premised on the notion of one prisoner community, united by prison culture and acceptance of the inmate code. However, when we look at prisons research there is much to suggest prisons do not hold a singular homogenous and cohesive community, but in fact multiple distinct communities and subcultures; indeed, many scholars have presented findings which contest the notion of a singular shared culture and community within the prison. In particular, imported factors such as race and ethnicity can have a significant bearing on the formation of social groups within prison, resulting in numerous distinct social groupings and cultures within the institution. In his study of Illinois State Penitentiary, Stateville, Jacobs (1977) found racial identity subsumed the ‘prisoner’ identity, with racial and ethnic divisions being a core feature of US imprisonment. Thus, rather than one ‘inmate code’ and ‘prison culture’ shared by all, Jacobs found there to be different norms and inmate codes within different racial groups, with prisoners living in distinct social worlds, often characterised by conflict. This challenge to the notion of a homogenous inmate culture has also been continued by more recent studies, demonstrating how particular assumptions

5.5 Conclusion

89

attached to race—in relation to culture, music or family life—can result in individuals expecting to have commonality of experience with those of the same race or ethnicity (Crewe, 2009; Genders & Player, 1989; Phillips, 2008), while distinct cohesive groups may also develop on the basis of religion (Crewe, 2009; Phillips, 2008). Although the co-existence of multiple, distinct communities and cultures may be due to imported characteristics, scholars associated with the deprivation model have also found multiple communities to be in existence within the prison environment. For Goffman (1961), particular solidarities or communities would develop amongst ‘administered groups’ in total institutions. For example, in prison this may include those held on wings together, or those serving similar sentences, with these groupings coming together around a ‘sense of common fate’. Thus, splinters or distinct social groupings—sometimes with subtle differences in their codes and cultures—may result not just from external experiences, but also from the institution itself and its administration of the society of captives. More recent research has noted how particular communities, with their own hierarchies and inmate codes, may develop on the basis of offence type. For example, Ievins and Crewe (2015) found those convicted of sexual offences—widely considered to be at the bottom of the prison hierarchy—would find ways to develop a sense of community in response to their moral exclusion. Distinct prisoner communities may also develop as a consequence of other shared imported characteristics, such as prior connections to social groups and attachment to a local area, particularly where individuals are cautious in developing friendships with those they do not know in prison (Crewe, 2009). This again demonstrates the complexity of the interaction between importation and deprivation in shaping experiences of, adaptations to, and the social groupings that develop within, prison.

5.5 Conclusion Despite being a hidden space, with barriers existing in efforts to understand and study life behind bars, there is a substantial body of sociological literature which has illuminated the social systems, power disparities, hierarchies, cultures and communities existing within prisons. This chapter has considered some of the seminal contributions to this literature, with a particular focus on one of the dominating theoretical debates—that of the deprivation model vs importation theory. Having explored both sides of this debate, we can see that the social world within the prison is shaped not only by characteristics of imprisonment itself but also by imported characteristics in the backgrounds of those sent to prison, demonstrating

90

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

once again how prison can reflect the society it is situated within (as discussed in Chapter 4, imprisonment is not experienced equally by all). The chapter has also considered challenges to the notion of a distinct inmate culture, highlighting the multiple social groupings which may develop within the prison and the importance of acknowledging heterogeneity in experiences of life behind bars.

Chapter Summary:

• The social world of the prison is characterised by a disparity in power between captor and captive, which influences the development of a prison culture. • The origins of prison culture have been debated, with the importation model arguing this is a result of cultures imported from outside, while the deprivation model argues that the roots lie in the deprivations of imprisonment. • The distinction between deprivation and importation models has been critiqued, with scholars acknowledging the influence of external characteristics on experiences of deprivation within the prison. • The idea of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ has been adapted and applied to a range of groups and contexts, demonstrating that the prison experience— and adaptations to it—are heterogeneous.

Activity

Based on what you know about imprisonment in England and Wales, consider whether the different theoretical approaches discussed in this chapter apply to the contemporary prison experience: • Using Goffman’s (1961) definition, to what extent is the contemporary prison a ‘total institution’? • How useful is the distinction between importation and deprivation theory for understanding the cultural life of the contemporary prison?

References/Further Reading Carlen, P. (1998). Sledgehammer: Women’s imprisonment at the millennium. Macmillan Press Ltd. Chui, W. H. (2010). “Pains of imprisonment”: Narratives of the women partners and children of the incarcerated. Child and Family Social Work, 15(2), 196–205.

References/Further Reading

91

Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press. Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment and Society, 13(5), 509–529. Crewe, B. (2016). The sociology of the prison. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 77–100). Routledge. Crewe, B., & Laws, B. (2018) Subcultural adaptations to incarceration. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prisons and imprisonment (pp. 125–142). Oxford University Press. Crewe, B., Hulley, S., & Wright, S. (2017). The gendered pains of life imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), 1359–1378. Darke, S. (2013). Inmate governance in Brazilian prisons. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 272–284. Darke, S. (2018). Conviviality and survival: Co-producing Brazilian prison order. Palgrave Macmillan. Dhami, M. K., Ayton, P., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Adaptation to Imprisonment: Indigenous or Imported? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1085–1100. Dhami, M. K., Weiss-Cohen, L., & Ayton, P. (2020). Are people experiencing the ‘pains of imprisonment’ during the covid-19 lockdown? Frontiers in Psychology, 11(578430), 1–14. Drake, D. H., Darke, S., & Earle, R. (2015). Prison life, sociology of: Recent perspectives from the United Kingdom. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of social and behavioural sciences (2nd ed., pp. 924–929). Elsevier. Genders, E., & Player, E. (1989). Race relations in prisons. Clarendon Press. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books. Haggerty, K. D., & Bucerius, S. (2020). The proliferating pains of imprisonment. Incarceration, 1(1), 1–16. Ievins, A., & Crewe, B. (2015). “Nobody’s better than you, nobody’s worse than you”: Moral community among prisoners convicted of sexual offences. Punishment and Society, 17(4), 482–501. Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon. Prentice Hall. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155. Jacobs, J. (1977). Stateville: The penitentiary in mass society. University of Chicago Press. Kotova, A. (2019). “Time…lost time”: Exploring how partners of long-term prisoners experience the temporal pains of imprisonment. Time and Society, 28(2), 478–498. Mathiesen, T. (1965). The defences of the weak: A study of a Norwegian Correctional Institution. Tavistock. Maycock, M. (2022). The transgender pains of imprisonment. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1521–1541. Moran, D. (2011). ‘Between outside and inside? Prison visiting rooms as liminal carceral spaces. GeoJournal, 78, 339–351. O’Donnell, I. (2019). The society of captives in an Ethiopian prison. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 267–284.

92

5  Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison

Phillips, C. (2008) Negotiating identities: Ethnicity and social relations in a young offenders’ institution. Theoretical Criminology, 12(3), 313–331. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Sykes, G., & Messinger, S. (1960). The inmate social system. In R. A. Cloward (Ed.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison (pp. 5–19). Social Science Research Council. Symkovych, A. (2018). The Ukrainian response to Sykes: Prisoner hierarchy and self-rule: Power, legitimacy, and dynamics. British Journal of Criminology, 58(5), 1087–1106. Toch, H. (1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. American Psychological Association. Ugelvik, T. (2014). Paternal pains of imprisonment: Incarcerated fathers, ethnic minority masculinity and resistance narratives. Punishment and Society, 16(2), 152–168. Warr, J. (2016). The deprivation of certitude, legitimacy and hope: Foreign national prisoners and the pains of imprisonment. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(3), 301–318.

6

The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The role of gender in punishment and imprisonment. • The characteristics of the female prison population and the suitability of the prison for meeting women’s needs. • The relationship between masculinity and imprisonment. • The experiences of transgender prisoners.

6.1 Introduction This chapter explores the role of gender in shaping experiences of imprisonment, considering the way traditional gendered understandings impact on the construction and treatment of prisoners. The prison is a highly gendered institution, experienced differently based on gender and impacting on gendered identities. Discussions of gender and imprisonment have tended to highlight the particularities of women’s imprisonment, and the chapter will consider the issues raised by the imprisonment of women and their unmet needs where the prison system is built by men, for men. It will then go on to consider the less frequently explored role of masculinity in shaping experiences of imprisonment and the prison’s influence on performed masculinities. Finally, the experience of transgender prisoners will be considered, and the difficulties of meeting these individuals’ needs within a system built around gender segregation and the male–female binary.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_6

93

94

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

6.2 Gender, Punishment and Confinement of Women As with any area of society, historical developments and current experiences of crime, criminal justice and punishment are influenced by gender. Crime has typically been seen as a male issue, with the vast majority of those who offend, are convicted, sentenced and punished, being men. Consequently, women who commit criminal offences are at once seen as an ‘insignificant’ minority (Smart, 1976), posing little threat to order, and simultaneously treated as abnormal, with their criminality perceived as going against expected femininity. These responses to female law-breaking have had a significant bearing on the use and nature of punishment, particularly through confinement, historically and in contemporary penal practice. While gendered expectations have been argued to ensure leniency for women, prompting ‘chivalry’ from criminal justice actors (Pollak, 1950), these ideas are strongly contested. Alternatively, scholars have argued women have been subject to discriminatory treatment throughout history on the grounds of gendered expectations based upon ‘repressive, discriminatory and usually outdated ideologies of womanhood and femininity’ reflected in wider society (Carlen & Worrall, 2004: 2). This occurs where women are treated as ‘doubly deviant’, not only seen to have contravened the law but also to have contravened gender norms by acting in an un-feminine way, with traditional ideas of women as evil, weak or frail permeating explanations of female law-breaking (Smart, 1983). While these two approaches are often viewed as opposing arguments, the reality is far more complex than either side of this debate suggests; women may experience leniency when perceived as conforming to gendered expectations, whereas ‘double deviancy’—and thus harsher sentencing—comes into play where women are perceived as ‘failing to achieve “normal” standards of conventional femininity’ (Medlicott, 2007: 252). Thus, the decision to imprison a woman is not simply determined by their law-breaking, but by how they are perceived as a woman, and what paternalistic role imprisonment might play in making them into ‘better women, better wives, better mothers, better daughters’ (Carlen & Worrall, 2004: 48). Further, leniency and discrimination may feature differently depending on women’s relative power or marginalisation in society (e.g. based on race or class), thus further complicating arguments about the leniency or harshness in sentencing of women. If we reject the polarised debate of leniency vs double deviancy, as Medlicott (2007) argues we should, it may be more beneficial to consider the justifications of women’s punishment and the purposes it may serve within patriarchal societies. The institutionalised control of women who deviate, or are deemed at risk of

6.3  Imprisonment of Women in a Global Context

95

deviating from, accepted gender norms is evident throughout history, beyond the use of prisons which historically held very few women. From the eighteenth century, Ireland’s ‘fallen women’, or those deemed at risk of moral depravation, were confined in Magdalene homes (also called Magdalene Laundries) run mainly by Catholic congregations (O’Sullivan & O’Donnell, 2007)—institutions which also played a significant role in the discipline of women in many other jurisdictions, having penal characteristics, and similar institutions have been argued to be the ‘first women’s prisons’ in the US context (Jones & Record, 2014). The emphasis on women’s morality and sexuality, as a basis for their control and punishment, is evident throughout history (Moore & Scraton, 2016), with systems of punishment and confinement acting as a continuation of the gendered social control experienced by women in other areas of society. Medlicott (2007: 257) has argued this control through punishment, based on conventional understandings of femininity, is undertaken through the ‘tripartite apparatus of feminization, domesticization and medicalization’. While women may be drawn into systems designed for men due to the role of gender stereotypes in sentencing decisions, punishment domesticises women through prioritisation of the ‘domestic ideal’ in the training or work women are given (Carlen, 1990; Carlen & Worrall, 2004) and has medicalised them in the shift towards treatment of law-breaking as a symptom of abnormality, through psychiatry and medication (Sim, 1990). This perpetuates the idea of criminalised women as mad, bad or sad. Through these methods of controlling and disciplining women, the prison normalises and enforces conventional gender expectations, serving patriarchy in seeking to ensure conformity with these expectations by those deemed abnormal as women (Medlicott, 2007; Smart, 1976). This historical relationship between gender and punishment continues to impact the experiences of women imprisoned today, and we will now consider the scale, characteristics and experiences of the female prison population.

6.3 Imprisonment of Women in a Global Context The global women’s prison population has increased by 53% since 2000, growing in all continents, and at a faster rate than the male prison population (Walmsley, 2017), with the number of women and girls held in penal institutions increasing from approximately 466,000 in 2000 to 714,000 in 2017 (Walmsley, 2017). The largest growth has been seen in Central America, while nearly one-third of the worldwide female prison population (about 211,870) is in the United States (Walmsley, 2017). In England and Wales, the growth in women’s imprisonment

96

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

has outstripped growth in the male prison population, despite rates of law-breaking not seeing an equivalent increase. This increase is thus argued to result from political decision-making and policy change, particularly through neoliberal austerity policies with the effect of criminalising women through furthering marginalisation (Moore & Scraton, 2016). Despite this substantial growth in imprisonment of women globally, women are a minority within majority-male prison populations, making up 6.9% of the total global prison population. Although female imprisonment rates vary significantly, between 65.7 per 100,000 in the United States and an average of 3.2 per 100,000 in the continent of Africa, imprisoned women are nevertheless consistently the minority when compared to levels of male imprisonment (Walmsley, 2017). In most jurisdictions, women constitute between 2 and 9% of the prison population, the highest proportion being in Hong Kong at 20.8% of the recorded prison population (Walmsley, 2017). In England and Wales, women have accounted for a very small proportion of the total prison population for many years, at between 4 and 5% (MOJ, 2020a). However, the low numbers contained in daily population figures conceal a more worrying trend. There is a high turnover of female prisoners, as most women are imprisoned for short sentences, and thus the female proportion of receptions to prison is much higher; in 2019, 10% of receptions to prison were female, compared to 5% of the prison population (MOJ, 2020a). Nevertheless, being the minority, women’s imprisonment has been even more hidden and ‘shadowy’ than men’s, neglected in the development of prison policy geared towards the majority and responding to current issues in men’s prisons, within which women have been ‘subsumed’ (Medlicott, 2007: 246) despite their unique characteristics and needs.

6.4 Who Are the Women Being Imprisoned? So, who are the women who make-up this small proportion of the prison population? What are their backgrounds, and why are they imprisoned? Criminal justice systems disproportionately imprison poor, marginalised and vulnerable members of society (see Chapter 4). In the female prison population, marginalisation is particularly evident, with even greater disproportionality in the prevalence of mental health issues and histories of trauma and victimisation. Seventy-one per cent of imprisoned women in England and Wales have a mental health problem of some sort, with 49% identified on reception as suffering from both anxiety and depression compared to 23% of imprisoned men (PRT, 2021). Forty-six per cent have also reported attempting suicide at some point in their life, compared to 21% of impris-

6.5  Women’s Experience of Imprisonment

97

oned men (Light et al., 2013). Despite possible under-recording of men’s mental health issues based on gendered expectations of masculinity, evidence suggests women are disproportionately likely to suffer from the most severe mental health issues, while rates of self-harm are much higher within female establishments (MOJ, 2021a). Further, many imprisoned women have experienced abuse at some point in life, with 53% disclosing emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child (Williams et al., 2012), while many have experienced domestic or sexual abuse in their adult lives, sometimes including coercion into law-breaking by abusers (PRT, 2017). Thus, a significant proportion of female prisoners have histories of trauma which, alongside mental illness, are compounded or exacerbated by incarceration. Despite these vulnerabilities and marginalisation, it might still be thought appropriate to imprison women who pose a danger to the public under the rationale of incapacitation (see Chapter 2). However, women in prison are most often serving short sentences for non-violent offences. In England and Wales, women are most commonly imprisoned for theft offences (PRT, 2021), while worldwide women are particularly vulnerable to imprisonment for failure to settle fines or bail payments (PRI, 2012). Consequently, most imprisoned women are serving short sentences; in England and Wales 58% of women imprisoned are sentenced to six months or less (PRT, 2021). As such, women’s prisons are not often used to house dangerous individuals, but the most marginalised. Further, many are imprisoned for assisting with a crime for, or carrying out offences on behalf of, a male partner or to support family. Forty-eight per cent of women imprisoned report committing an offence to support someone else’s drug use (MOJ, 2013), while many cite supporting their children as the reason for their law-breaking (Caddle & Crisp, 1997). Women’s law-breaking, and imprisonment, is thus intrinsically linked to social and economic deprivation (Carlen, 1983). Despite serving short sentences, for relatively low-level offences, many women are also stuck in the ‘revolving door’ of imprisonment, serving these short sentences repeatedly, suggesting that the needs of women, their marginalisation, victimisation and traumatisation are not being addressed in prison (Carr, 2016).

6.5 Women’s Experience of Imprisonment While the prison imposes pains on all it touches, directly or indirectly, incarceration has especially harmful consequences for imprisoned women and their families. While the main ‘pains of imprisonment’ may be evident in women’s experiences (see Chapter 5), scholars have highlighted additional ‘pains’, or ways in which pains are exaggerated or more salient, resulting in a disproportionately

98

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

punitive experience for women (Carlen, 1983; Crewe et al., 2017). Research suggests that the ‘avalanche of human need’ in women’s prisons cannot be met by the prison itself, with the institution not being suitably equipped to make-up for the lack of appropriate support outside (Medlicott, 2007: 246). Pains thus exist partly due to the inability of imprisonment to address women’s circumstances, as described above, but also through aspects of the prison regime which further women’s oppression. Some of these harmful features of the prison environment are particularly problematic for imprisoned women precisely because of their former experiences, serving to perpetuate existing marginalisation, and compound trauma. Firstly, there are various elements of the regime which may compound or replicate past trauma or abuse. The invasive practice of strip-searching, where a woman is suspected to be concealing contraband, involves a substantial loss of ‘privacy and bodily integrity’ (Scraton & Moore, 2006: 70) and is experienced as humiliating and re-traumatising. In Canada, Hutchinson (2020: 171) has argued that strip-searches of women in prison, where the power disparity removes the option to say ‘no’, constitute ‘state-inflicted sexual assault’ and the harm they cause can be heightened when women have previously experienced sexual abuse. The loss of privacy in day-to-day life is also a pain felt particularly acutely by female prisoners which can compound histories of trauma. Privacy is limited in prison, with intimate parts of daily life, such as dressing or using the toilet, often being in view of staff or fellow prisoners. Crewe et al. (2017) note this pain is not simply about lack of physical privacy for women but also ‘emotional claustrophobia’ with limited time to oneself. One aspect of imprisonment identified as most difficult for women serving long sentences is ‘having to follow other peoples’ rules and orders’ demonstrating how Sykes’ deprivation of autonomy is felt more acutely by women (Crewe et al., 2017: 1365). Denial of autonomy is one way the prison may serve to replicate experiences of abuse and trauma for imprisoned women. Both the presence of invasive surveillance practices and the lack of opportunities for privacy or autonomy can be particularly problematic and re-traumatising for women in prison, whose lives often entail complex experiences of trauma, abuse and marginalisation. The potential for imprisonment to be re-traumatising has led to calls for the introduction of trauma-informed approaches and environments, with trauma-informed programmes also highlighted as providing meaningful opportunities to explore past victimisation (Petrillo, 2021). However, as Jewkes et al. (2019) have noted, such programmes are insufficient if embedded in unsuitable or ‘trauma-generating’ environments, and harms of imprisonment may hinder the value of interventions.

6.5  Women’s Experience of Imprisonment

99

In addition to women’s histories rendering imprisonment particularly traumatic, the gender-specific health needs of women during menstruation, pregnancy and menopause can also present challenges in an environment designed for men, with the complexity and variation of women’s healthcare needs not necessarily being catered to in the prison environment (Carlen & Worrall, 2004). Lack of control over diet is also problematic when this is one way women may assert control over their bodies and health (Smith, 2002). Failures to respond to the gender-specific needs of women in prison not only serve to hinder their physical health, but also have implications for mental health (Moore & Scraton, 2016). Thus, imprisonment may perpetuate pre-existing mental health issues reported by many imprisoned women, while also failing to provide appropriate services, support or care to address these issues during their time inside (Jablonska & Meek, 2018). The pains of imprisonment are influenced significantly by its impact on familial relationships, with consequences for motherhood featuring frequently in female prisoners’ accounts. While many imprisoned men are fathers, women are more likely to be primary carers and their incarceration has particularly significant consequences for their identity as a mother,  and for their dependent children. Caddle and Crisp (1997: 55) argue that, through separation from children, mothers are ‘doubly penalised’ by imprisonment; not only are they serving their own sentences but also trying to care for their children, in difficult circumstances, or worrying about them if care arrangements are unclear (Social Exclusion Taskforce, 2009). It is estimated that only 5% of imprisoned women’s children stay in their own homes, 10% being cared for by their fathers and others looked after by family or placed in foster care (PRT, 2017). By nature of being a minority prison population, women are also held across a smaller number of institutions and are thus housed, on average, further away from family than men (Carlen, 1983). In England, women are imprisoned—on average—63 miles away from home, with some held as far as 100 miles away (Farmer, 2019). Distance is particularly problematic in Wales; with no women’s prisons, any women sentenced to custody are incarcerated in England. The distance placed between women and their families has implications for maintenance of family ties, presenting a significant practical and financial obstacle to regular visits, and consequently women tend to receive fewer visits during incarceration. In addition to the impact on children outside, incarceration also impacts on experiences of pregnancy and birth with figures released in October 2019 showing 47 pregnant women in prison on one day (Frazer, 2019), while 56 babies were born to women during their imprisonment in 2017–2018 (Davies, 2019). Scholars have highlighted problems women face in accessing appropriate pre-na-

100

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

tal care during pregnancy, while loss of autonomy is exacerbated by denial of control over birth and pregnancy choices, and the decision of whether they can care for their own children (Abbott et al., 2020). As an institution designed to discipline and control, rather than to care for those inside, concerns have also been raised about the suitability of prison as a space for children to be born into, and the safety of childbirth for imprisoned mothers-to-be. These concerns have been most starkly reflected in the tragic cases of babies dying in prison shortly after birth. The inquiry into a baby’s death at HMP Bronzefield in 2019 found maternity services at the prison to be inadequate, and identified numerous failings of the prison in its care of the baby’s mother (PPO, 2021), leading a number of organisations—Birth Companions, Level Up and Women in Prison—to launch a campaign to end the imprisonment of pregnant women. After childbirth, the continued imprisonment of new mothers also raises questions around care of the newborn, with many removed from the mother after birth—separation which has negative consequences for the mother themselves, but may also infringe on the rights and well-being of the child (O’Malley et al., 2021). Some prisons have Mother and Baby Units to enable women to care for their children inside up to eighteen months, reducing the trauma caused by separation (Abbott, 2016). However, this opportunity is given to very few incarcerated mothers and most experience separation from their children, with the number of places in these units falling and resources often under-utilised (O’Keeffe & Dixon, 2015). The length of time children can remain with their imprisoned mothers varies significantly around the world; some jurisdictions allow babies to stay with mothers until weaned (Zimbabwe) or a few months old (Jamaica), while others allow children to live with imprisoned mothers for the first four years (Argentina), until the age of ten (Pakistan) or even into teenage years (Bolivia) where alternative care is unavailable (Library of Congress, 2020; Prisoners Abroad, 2018). However, accommodation arrangements for children in prisons vary significantly and raise questions about their suitability for children’s development. Reviewing worldwide approaches, Fair (2008) found the most child-friendly approach to be at a prison in Frodenburg, Germany, where some women lived with their children until aged six, in self-contained flats equipped for families. However, facilities for accommodation of children could legitimise imprisonment of mothers, encouraging courts to imprison women where a non-custodial sentence would suffice (Medlicott, 2007), and potentially having negative consequences for children subjected to the prison environment. When serving indeterminate sentences in prison, women may also experience ‘pains of indeterminacy’, including not only the loss of relationships with children but a loss of control in relation to fertility, with imprisonment taking away

6.5  Women’s Experience of Imprisonment

101

the opportunity for some women to have children when they otherwise may have wished to (Walker & Worrall, 2000: 28). Consequently, both actual and potential motherhood can heighten the pains of incarceration for women.

HMP Holloway HMP Holloway was designated as the first English female-only prison in 1902, having previously held men and women for pickpocketing, drunkenness, robbery and prostitution, since 1852. Holloway is considered to reflect the broader history of women’s punishment (Moore & Scraton, 2016), holding suffragettes in the early twentieth century, having the first female governor—Charity Taylor—appointed in 1945, and with its regime reflecting the shift towards medicalisation. HMP Holloway has become a place of notoriety and controversy, with its conditions criticised heavily in inspectorate reports. In 1995 Lord Ramsbotham famously refused to complete an inspection due to his horror at the situation. Holloway also reflected the high levels of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths within the women’s prison population and, in 2016, the death of Sarah Reed led to significant criticism of the care and management of mental health at the prison. As Deborah Coles, Director of Inquest, said: ‘Instead of providing her with adequate support, the prison treated her ill mental health as a discipline, control and containment issue’ (Taylor, 2017). Holloway’s closure was announced in 2015, following descriptions as ‘inadequate’ and ‘antiquated’, within the context of a broader policy of relocating prisons to rural spaces to save money and modernise the estate (Guest & Seoighe, 2020). While the closure was welcomed by many campaigning to reduce women’s imprisonment, it initially caused considerable distress for women who found out, from TV, they would be moved further away from their families (Cain, 2018). The closure announcement sparked the beginning of a campaign to ‘Reclaim Holloway’ as a space for providing services to women within the community through a women’s centre, rather than funding prison-building elsewhere (Mansfield, 2019). Eventually, in 2019, the land was sold to a housing association for building of 1000 new homes, along with a women’s building which promises to ‘re-provide the support services to vulnerable women that were previously provided on-site when the prison was operational’ (Holloway Prison Consultation, 2020).

102

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

Scholars have considered the deficits in moral legitimacy identified at Holloway, prior to its closure, as indicative of failures in women’s punishment more broadly (Medlicott, 2007). Holloway also encapsulated tensions inherent in women’s imprisonment such as ‘the conflicting aims of punishment and care’, in the fact that ‘[i]t was simultaneously a place of punishment, blame and pain (Scott & Codd, 2010) and a space where women could access support—a result of community and non-profit engagement with the prison’ (Guest & Seoighe, 2020: 355). In this respect, the institution embodies both the history of women’s imprisonment (Moore & Scraton, 2016) and the core debates surrounding the ongoing imprisonment of women.

Ultimately imprisonment denies women’s autonomy. Thus, despite official aims of reform, imprisonment is an oppressive experience with a disciplinary focus which further denies women the control they were often deprived of outside, and compounds previous trauma. As Scott and Codd (2010: 39) argue, ‘for women who are often already abused and vulnerable, prison perpetuates this and does little to empower women to change their lives’. This raises the question of whether prison can meet the needs of imprisoned women, or whether it serves to further gendered expectations and marginalisation.

Meeting Women’s Needs or Furthering Gendered Expectations? The growth in women’s imprisonment has led to the gendered needs of imprisoned women being acknowledged in gender-specific policies and strategies, nationally and internationally. In December 2010, the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (known as the Bangkok Rules) were adopted by the UN General Assembly to supplement existing standards for the treatment of prisoners by taking account of the ‘distinctive’ needs of women. The rules acknowledge the marginality of women entering prison, and outline rules on reception to prison, gender-specific healthcare, location of women’s imprisonment and discipline of pregnant or breast-feeding women. However, despite these standards, prisons in many jurisdictions continue to fail at meeting the needs of incarcerated women in practice. Rather, imprisonment—denying autonomy and control—can perpetuate existing harms and trauma experienced by women, being experienced as

6.5  Women’s Experience of Imprisonment

103

an extension of the power, oppression and social control women are subject to outside, while also failing to address their marginalisation. As Carlen (2013: xiii) argues, women are ‘repeatedly released back into those same circumstances of malign neglect and poverty which catapulted them into jail in the first place’. The issues highlighted above, combined with the fact many imprisoned women are marginalised rather than dangerous, have been used to argue imprisonment is inappropriate for women. Fundamentally, the prison fails to address and often exacerbates the very circumstances of deprivation, marginalisation and abuse which lead women to become criminalised in the first place. As such, Carlen (1990) has argued women’s imprisonment should be the test case for prison abolition (see Chapter 14), with only a small number of spaces retained, in more ‘woman-wise’ centres, for individuals who must be confined. Such challenges to women’s imprisonment have not been limited to academia. Women in Prison, a UK charity established by formerly incarcerated Chris Tchaikovsky, have argued for a dramatic reduction in the women’s prison population—a call echoed by other leading penal reform organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Further, inquiries into imprisonment have made recommendations for decarceration and substantial redesign of penal responses to women’s law-breaking. In 2006, following a number of self-inflicted deaths of women in prison, Baronness Corston completed a review of women with vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Corston (2007: 2) called for ‘a radical new approach, treating women both holistically and individually—a woman-centred approach’ emphasising provision of community-based support, and advocating for the women’s prison estate to be replaced with smaller units, to house the minority of women who require confinement, enabling women to be held closer to home. It is a view held by many prisons scholars that, in most cases, more harm than good is caused to individuals, families and communities when women are imprisoned, and that alternatives to incarceration would be preferable (Carlen & Worrall, 2004; McNaull, 2019; Moore et al., 2018). However, since the publication of the Corston report, very few of its 43 recommendations have been implemented, despite repetition of many since (Farmer, 2019), and we are yet to see a reduction in use of ‘inappropriate’ regimes of imprisonment which continue to further harm and breach rights of women (Moore & Scraton, 2016). In England and Wales, this problematic situation is likely to continue, with the Ministry of Justice announcement of 500 new prison spaces for women (MOJ, 2021b). While this announcement has been heavily criticised, it signals a continued commitment to expansion under the guise of reform, rather than decarceration in the women’s prison estate. This is also without clear efforts for meaningful change to women’s social or economic circumstances outside, what Gelsthorpe and Morris (2002) call the ‘penal paradox’.

104

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

6.6 Masculinity and Imprisonment While the majority within prison populations, men’s prison experience is also gendered, and thus the subject of masculinity warrants investigation when considering the gendered nature of imprisonment. Despite a large body of research on imprisonment, of which men are often at the centre, it is not until more recently that prisoners ‘as men’ have received dedicated consideration (Maguire, 2021a) or been ‘truly seen’ (Sloan, 2016: 18). The significance of masculinity has been considered in relation to pathways into crime and imprisonment, with masculinities argued to be significant in shaping offending trajectories. Further, there has been a recent growth in scholarship highlighting the role of masculinity in shaping the social dynamics of imprisonment, as with many spaces outside, on which we will now focus our attention. The sociology of imprisonment (see Chapter 5) is littered with references to masculine traits and presentations in shaping prison culture, hierarchies and adaptations to life inside. Toughness, stereotypically considered a hegemonic masculine trait, is highlighted as a key feature of the ‘inmate code’ and individuals’ ability to conform to hegemonic masculine ideals has significance for their place in the institutional hierarchy. According to Sykes (1958) the ‘real man’ who is admired by fellow prisoners demonstrates stoicism and self-control, resisting control by the system. Conversely, those who deviate from gender normative expectations, or are victims of rape or sexual assault, fall at the bottom rung of the ladder due to characterising ‘idealised masculinity’s antitheses’ (Murray, 2020: 4). In light of the significance masculine performances hold within prison, developments in this area of literature have explored how masculinity is something that is ‘done’ or ‘performed’ in the prison environment where ‘immersion into a single-sex community’ has implications for how men interact with each other (Murray, 2020: 3). The prison is widely considered a ‘hypermasculine’ space and presentation of a ‘macho’ front is used by many to adapt where signs of weakness—which are ‘masked’—could render them vulnerable and a degree of ‘controlled aggression’ is deemed necessary for psychological survival (Jewkes, 2005). Although prison is characterised by very particular performances of masculinity, the deprivations of imprisonment also remove many opportunities for performance of masculinity through, for example, fatherhood or work. This ‘status-depriving’ nature of imprisonment makes male competition for status particularly prevalent (Jewkes, 2005: 53). While such opportunities for legitimate masculine performance are denied, Sloan (2016: 2) argues the prison also

6.6  Masculinity and Imprisonment

105

imposes ‘highly feminising processes and positions’ on men inside, with restrictions on their spatial access and control over time, for example, placing them in a ‘dominated, submissive, and controlled’ position, as women are subject to in many ways throughout society. With such constraints on the domination or control Sloan views as central to masculinity, and in a space where the ‘accoutrements of masculine living’ are extremely difficult to access (2016: 1), men may present hypermasculine performances for audiences within prison—prisoners and prison staff—in various ways. One example Sloan (2016) has noted is the significance of the male body to identity management, with masculine behaviours taking place ‘through the body’, presentations of stature ‘by the body’, and displays of masculine identity being inscribed, through physical size and appearance, ‘on the body’. The body as a site of masculine performance can help to explain, in part, the significance of the gym to prison life, men taking up bodybuilding so their body becomes a ‘site of difference in relation to others who are less physically strong’ (Jewkes, 2005: 58). Such visible displays of power as performances of masculinity are particularly prevalent amongst young men in prison, who are more likely to align understandings of masculinity with hypermasculine values (Toch, 1998). Questions:

• What gendered expectations of masculine behaviour are evident in society? • How might these expectations be heightened during, or impact on, imprisonment? While performances of masculinity are particularly evident in prison, and performed for the ‘male gaze’ of the imprisoned audience (Sloan, 2016), such performances do not originate solely from imprisonment. They also represent culture outside, operating ‘simultaneously [as] a reflection of wider social norms and a response to the specific, unique properties of imprisonment’ (Jewkes, 2005: 61). Highlighting the connections between external and imprisoned masculinities, Maguire (2021a: 193) argues prison is just one site amongst many, including the streets, care settings, school and work, which ‘contribute to the construction and maintenance of versions of protest and excluded masculinities’ for men who have grown up in impoverished neighbourhoods where ‘claims to power that are so central to hegemonic masculinity are constantly negated by economic and cultural weakness’ (2021a: 19). The relative powerlessness of these men at each stage, provides the context in which themes of hegemonic masculinity are ‘reworked’ into this protest masculinity involving aggression, violence and criminal behaviour; such masculinities therefore play a role in paths to prison while

106

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

also highlighting the significance of class for understanding masculinity in prison. Thus, prison masculinity is not unique or distinct, but a continuation of the classed masculine performances of marginalised young men who have been unable to fulfil the ideals of hegemonic masculinity. Despite descriptions of the prison as ‘hypermasculine’, and the prevalence of masculine presentations in prison, not all are able to fulfil this hegemonic ideal or construct their own ‘protest masculinity’. Instead, these individuals—such as those who ‘have been through the emasculating process of being formally categorized as “vulnerable” by prison officials’—occupy positions of ‘subjugated’ masculinities (Maguire, 2021b: 508). These prisoners seek different adaptation strategies to negotiate life at the bottom of the prison’s social hierarchy and alternative ways to perform masculinity. The experience of imprisonment—and many of the characteristic features and pains of imprisonment—are highly gendered. This growing body of research demonstrates this is no less the case for men than for women, despite a tendency to neglect gender when considering the majority prison population. As a highly gendered space, imprisonment simultaneously denies opportunities for performance of ideal masculinities, while necessitating masculine performance for adaptation and survival, with such expectations contributing significantly to the social world of the male prison.

6.7 The Imprisonment of Transgender People So heavily shaped by gender, the prison is not designed to meet the needs of those who fail to conform with gender norms, posing challenges for transgender people whose gender identify differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Literature on transgender people’s experiences of imprisonment is limited, particularly outside of the United States (Gorden et al., 2017). It is not known how many transgender people are held in prisons in many jurisdictions, with prison systems not regularly collecting data on gender identity as opposed to birth sex (Lamble, 2012). In the most recent data available, it was estimated there were 163 transgender people in prisons across England and Wales, making up a very small proportion of the prison population (MOJ, 2019), which has arguably led to ‘invisibility’ within the system (Dunn, 2013). Despite making up a very small proportion of prison populations, transgender people are disproportionately likely to be criminalised; the US Transgender Survey found disproportionate levels of criminal justice contact for transgender people, with 2% of respondents having been incarcerated compared to less than 1% of the general population (James et al., 2016).

6.7  The Imprisonment of Transgender People

107

For those incarcerated, there can be challenges relating to accommodation, treatment and access to appropriate healthcare provision (Gorden et al., 2017). Prisons are usually organised around sex-segregation (Sumner & Sexton, 2016), with women and men held in separate institutions or areas, presenting challenges in the allocation of accommodation for transgender prisoners. Transgender individuals may therefore be held within a highly gendered environment in conflict with their gender identity, while the gender binary organisation leaves little room for accommodation of non-binary individuals. In England and Wales, prisoners are allocated based on their legally recognised gender identity (MOJ, 2020b), meaning those who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)—providing legal proof of their gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004—will be held with those of their sex assigned at birth, while in the USA allocation is based on assigned sex with exceptions only deemed appropriate in ‘rare cases’ (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2018: 6). These challenges of accommodation have often resulted in a ‘dilemma of difference’ for transgender prisoners and the prison itself, with institutions often relying on segregation based on sexuality as a solution where this is distinct from gender identity (Sumner & Sexton, 2016). In Scotland, no legal recognition through a GRC is required in policy around housing prisoners in suitable accomodation, with  decisions instead made through an individualised risk assessment (Maycock, 2022). While housing prisoners according to their gender identity is in line with equality law, critics have raised concerns surrounding the safety of women in prison, resulting in some trans women being held in separation or isolation. For example, in 2019, a dedicated wing was set up at HMP Downview to house trans women with a GRC identified as ‘presenting a high risk of harm to other women in custody’. However, such separation was found to have potentially negative consequences for the well-being of the individuals concerned, while the IMB criticised the rushed re-designation of this wing for transgender prisoners, along with its failure to provide sufficient purposeful activity (IMB, 2019). The prison—providing limited access to the usual possessions or treatments which might be crucial to one’s visible presentation of self—can pose challenges for transgender people in sustaining an appearance reflecting their gender identity. There are challenges accessing hormone treatments within prison, and limited availability of clothing, make-up or accessories which one might use to ‘feel more feminine’, as described by one transgender prisoner in the United States (Jenness & Gerlinger, 2020: 198). Such restrictions on presentation of femininity may be particularly painful where official categorisations ‘deliberately defeminize’ transgender women, and where use of masculine pronouns by staff and/or fellow prisoners are experienced as ‘willful invalidation of their gender status, identity and

108

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

self-expression’ (Jenness & Gerlinger, 2020: 193). The extent to which provision is made for transgender prisoners to express their gender identity does, however, vary significantly between prisons and jurisdictions. Jenness and Gerlinger (2020: 199) have argued that the hypermasculine environment of the prison may serve as ‘a site for the production of femininity’, with the expression of femininity holding enhanced salience for transgender women in this environment in terms of presenting an ‘authentic self’ or gaining respect of others. However, expressions of femininity within male prisons can also carry risks of victimisation; US research found high rates of sexual assault of transgender women within male prisons (Jenness et al., 2019), while transgender prisoners in Scotland noted higher levels of transphobia within prison than outside, ranging from transphobic comments to threats of violence (Maycock, 2022). Consequently, the limited body of research in this area suggests transgender prisoners are at greater risk of verbal, physical and sexual victimisation in prison, while also being perceived as a potential risk to be managed. Maycock (2022: 1524) has argued this heightened risk of victimisation is accompanied by ‘pains of isolation’ for transgender prisoners, lacking opportunities for support from other transgender people, and experiencing separation from the LGBT community many felt part of outside. Such isolation can lead to or compound mental health issues, with transgender prisoners considered amongst the most vulnerable prisoners, with risks of suicide and self-harm (PPO, 2017). As demonstrated, the rigidity of prison regimes means that the institution is often ill-prepared to respond where an individual’s circumstances diverge from those of the men they are designed for, heightening the pains of incarceration for transgender prisoners. The complex and nuanced issues around accommodation and provision for the needs of transgender prisoners further highlight how the gendered nature of the institution, and its organisation around the gender binary, create further difficulties for those with needs which differ from the ‘average’ prisoner for whom the institution was designed. Questions:

• Is treating prisoners of all genders similarly the best way to ensure equality/parity in experiences of imprisonment?

6.8 Conclusion This chapter has explored the role of gender in shaping the experience of imprisonment. As McCorkel (2013: 8) states, ‘prisons are gendered organizations in which assumptions about masculinity, femininity, and gender differences are

References/Further Reading

109

encoded into the practices, ideologies, and distribution of power’. Thus experiences of—and adaptations to—imprisonment are reflections of the normative gendered expectations prevalent in wider society. Heteronormative gender expectations contribute to the development of a ‘hypermasculine’ environment and social hierarchy in prison, while also serving to depict the female law-breaker as in need of normalisation through a system which fails to meet women’s needs and reinforces controls evident in wider society. Additionally, the gender binary around which the prison system is built poses significant challenges for transgender prisoners, in terms of their accommodation, safety, and presentation of self.  Chapter Summary:

• Experiences of imprisonment are shaped by gendered expectations and ideals prevalent in wider society. • The female prison population is made up of some of the most marginalised women, and the prison fails to meet their needs, often compounding prior trauma. • Men’s experiences of imprisonment are also gendered, with masculinities influencing the social world, adaptations to and hierarchies in male prisons. • The organisation of prison systems around a gender binary presents a variety of unique challenges and pains for transgender prisoners. Activity

• How might an institution designed by women, for women, to meet the needs of women, look compared to current prisons? • Is it possible for a prison to be designed to meet women’s needs? If not, what might an alternative approach for female law-breakers look like?

References/Further Reading Abbott, L. (2016). Becoming a mother in prison. The Practicing Midwife, 19(9), 8–11. Abbott, L., Scott, T., Thomas, H., & Weston, K. (2020). Pregnancy and childbirth in English prisons: Institutional ignominy and the pains of imprisonment. Sociology of Health and Illness, 42(3), 660–675. Caddle, D., & Crisp, D. (1997). Imprisoned women and mothers. Home Office. Cain, C. (2018). After Holloway: Consultation with women affected by the criminal justice system. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Carlen, P. (1983). Women’s imprisonment. Routledge. Carlen, P. (1990). Alternatives to women’s imprisonment. Open University Press. Carlen, P. (2013). Preface. In B. Carlton & M. Seagrave (Eds.), Women exiting prison: Critical essays on gender, post-release support and survival. Routledge.

110

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

Carlen, P., & Worrall, A. (2004). Analysing women’s imprisonment. Willan Publishing. Carr, L. J. (2016). Inside the revolving door: A study of the repeat short-term imprisonment of women at HMP New Hall. Unpublished Thesis. University of Sheffield. Corston, J. (2007). The Corston Report: A report by Baronness Jean Corston of a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Home Office. Crewe, B., Hulley, S., & Wright, S. (2017). The gendered pains of life imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), 1359–1378. Davies, M. (2019). Pregnancy and childbirth in prison: What do we know? Nuffield Trust. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/pregnancy-and-childbirth-in-prisonwhat-do-we-know. (accessed 20 Oct 2022). Dunn, P. (2013). Slipping off the equalities agenda? Work with LGBT prisoners. Prison Service Journal, 206, 3–10. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2020). Written evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (COV0131). https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/6873/html/. Accessed on 12 March 2021. Fair, H. (2008). International review of women’s prisons. Prison Service Journal, 184, 3–8. Farmer, L. (2019). The importance of strengthening female offenders’ family and other relationships to prevent reoffending and reduce intergenerational crime. Ministry of Justice. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2018). Transgender offender manual. https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5200-04-cn-1.pdf. Accessed on 22 March 2021. Frazer, L. (2019, October 31). Letter to Harriet Harman MP. https://www.parliament. uk/globalassets/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/correspondence/201920/191031-Response-from-Lucy-Frazer-QC-MP-on-the-tragic-death-of-a-baby-atHMP-Bronzefield.pdf. Accessed on 27 January 2022. Gelsthorpe, L., & Morris, A. (2002). Women’s imprisonment in England and Wales: A penal paradox. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 2(3), 277–301. Gorden, C., Hughes, C., Roberts, D., Astbury-Ward, E., & Dubberley, S. (2017). A literature review of transgender people in prison: An ‘invisible’ population in England and Wales. Prison Service Journal, 233, 11–22. Guest, C., & Seoighe, R. (2020). Familiarity and strangeness: Seeing everyday practices of punishment and resistance in Holloway prison. Punishment and Society, 22(3), 353– 375. Holloway Prison Consultation. (2020). The women’s building. http://hollowayprisonconsultation.co.uk/about-the-womens-building/. Accessed on 9 March 2021. Hutchinson, J. (2020). “It’s sexual assault. It’s barbaric”: Strip-searching in women’s prisons as state-inflicted sexual assault. Affilia, 35(2), 160–176. Independent Monitoring Boards. (2019). Annual report of the independent monitoring board at HMP/YOI Downview for reporting year to 30 April 2018–1 May 2019. Independent Monitoring Boards. Jablonska, A., & Meek, R. (2018). “There was no understanding, there was no care, there was no looking after me”: The impact of the prison environment on the mental health of female prisoners. In A. Mills & K. Kendall (Eds.), Mental health in prisons: Critical perspectives on treatment and confinement (pp. 159–182). Palgrave Macmillan. James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.

References/Further Reading

111

Jenness, V., & Gerlinger, J. (2020). The feminization of transgender women in prisons for men: How prison as a total institution shapes gender. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(2), 182–205. Jenness, V., Sexton, L., & Sumner, J. (2019). Sexual victimization against transgender women in prison: Consent and coercion in context. Criminology, 57(4), 603–631. Jewkes, Y. (2005). Men behind bars: “Doing” masculinity as an adaptation to imprisonment. Men & Masculinities, 8(1), 44–63. Jewkes, Y., Jordan, M., Wright, S., & Bendelow, G. (2019). Designing ‘healthy’ prisons for women: Incorporating trauma-informed care and practice (TICP) into prison planning and design. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 16(20), 1–15. Jones, M., & Record, L. (2014). Magdalene laundries: The first prisons for women in the United States. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 17(1), 166–179. Lamble, S. (2012). Rethinking gendered prison policies: Impacts on transgender prisoners. Howard League for Penal Reform ECAN Bulletin, 16, 7–12. Library of Congress. (2020). Laws on children residing with parents in prison: Part III. Foreign country surveys. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/children-residing-with-parentsin-prison/foreign.php#_ftn52. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Light, M., et al. (2013). Gender differences in substance misuse and mental health amongst prisoners. Ministry of Justice. Maguire, D. (2021a). Male, failed and jailed: Masculinities and ‘revolving door’ imprisonment in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan. Maguire, D. (2021b). Vulnerable prisoner masculinities in an English prison. Men and Masculinities, 24(3), 501–518. Mansfield, M. (2019). The violence of austerity. In P. Windham Stewart & J. Collier (Eds.), The end of the sentence: Psychotherapy with female offenders. Routledge Maycock, M. (2022). The transgender pains of imprisonment. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1521–1541. McCorkel, J. (2013). Breaking women: Gender, race, and the new politics of imprisonment. New York University Press. McNaull, G. (2019, July 30). The problem with women’s prisons—And why they do more harm than good. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-problem-withwomens-prisons-and-why-they-do-more-harm-than-good-120922?msclkid=05bc7ce7b2a511ec816673d3dd1d7a06. Accessed on 25 March 2022. Medlicott, D. (2007). Women in prison. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 245– 267). Willan Publishing. Ministry of Justice. (2013). Gender differences in substance misuse and mental health amongst prisoners. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2019). Her majesty’s prison and probation service offender equalities annual report. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2020a). Statistics on women and the criminal justice system. Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (2020b). The care and management of individuals who are transgender. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf. Accessed on 22 March 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2021a). Safety in custody statistics, England and Wales: Deaths in prison custody to December 2020 assaults and self-harm to September 2020. https://

112

6  The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-september-2020/safety-in-custody-statistics-england-and-wales-deaths-in-prison-custody-to-december-2020-assaults-and-self-harm-to-september-2020#self-harm-12-months-to-september-2020. Accessed on 25 March 2021a. Ministry of Justice. (2021b). Press release: Extra funding for organisations that steer women away from crime. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-funding-for-organisations-that-steer-women-away-from-crime. Accessed on 8 April 2021b. Moore, L., & Scraton, P. (2014). The incarceration of women: Punishing bodies, breaking spirits. Palgrave Macmillan.  Moore, L., & Scraton, P. (2016). Doing gendered time: The harm of women’s incarceration. In Y. Jewkes, J. Bennett, & B. Crewe (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 549–567). Routledge. Moore, L., Scraton, P., & Wahidin, A. (Eds.). (2018). Women’s imprisonment and the case for abolition. Routledge. Murray, C. (2020). “Can’t hack the whack”: Exploring young men’s gendered discourses on time in prison. Criminology and Criminal Justice, Online First. O’Keeffe, C., & Dixon, L. (2015). Enhancing care for childbearing women and their babies in prison. Hallam Centre for Community Justice. O’Malley, S., Baldwin, L., & Abbott, L. (2021). Starting life in prison: Reflections on the English and Irish contexts regarding pregnancy, birth, babies and new mothers in prison, through a children’s rights lens. In F. Donson & A. Parkes (Eds.), Parental imprisonment and children’s rights. Routledge. O’Sullivan, E., & O’Donnell, I. (2007). Coercive confinement in the Republic of Ireland: The waning of a culture of control. Punishment and Society, 9(1), 27–48. Petrillo, M. (2021). “We’ve all got a big story”: Experiences of a trauma-informed intervention in prison. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, Online First. Penal Reform International. (2012). Access to justice: Discrimination against women in criminal justice systems. Penal Reform International. Pollak, O. (1950). The criminality of women. University of Pennsylvania Press.  Prison and Probation Ombudsman. (2017). Learning lessons bulletin: PPO investigations issue 3: Transgender prisoners. Prison & Probation Ombudsman. Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. (2021). Independent investigation into the death of baby A at HMP Bronzefield on 27 September 2019. Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. Prison Reform Trust. (2017). “There’s a reason we’re in trouble”: Domestic abuse as a driver to women’s offending. Prison Reform Trust. Prison Reform Trust. (2021). Why focus on reducing women’s imprisonment. Prison Reform Trust. Prisoners Abroad. (2018). Children imprisoned with their mother. https://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/news/children-imprisoned-with-their-mother. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Scraton, P., & Moore, L. (2006). Degradation, harm and survival in a women’s prison. Social Policy & Society, 5(1), 67–78. Scott, D., & Codd, H. (2010). Controversial issues in prisons. Open University Press. Sim, J. (1990). Medical power in prisons. Open University Press. Smart, C. (1976). Women, crime and criminology: A feminist critique. Routledge. Sloan, J. A. (2016). Masculinities and the adult male prison experience. Palgrave Macmillan.

References/Further Reading

113

Smith, C. (2002). Punishment and pleasure: Women, food and the imprisoned body. Sociological Review, 50(2), 197–214. Sumner, J., & Sexton, L. (2016). Same difference: The “dilemma of difference” and the incarceration of transgender prisoners. Law and Social Inquiry, 41(3), 616–642. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Taylor, D. (2017, July 20). Care failings contributed to death of woman in prison, inquest finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/20/care-failingscontributed-to-death-of-woman-sarah-reed-in-prison-inquest-finds. Accessed on 10 April 2021. Toch, H. (1998). Hypermasculinity and prison violence. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Masculinities and violence (pp. 168–178). Sage Publications. Walker, S., & Worrall, A. (2000). Life as a woman: The gendered pains of indeterminate imprisonment. Prison Service Journal, 132, 27–37. Walmsley, R. (2017). World female imprisonment list (4th ed.). World Prison Brief. https:// www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_prison_4th_edn_v4_web.pdf. Accessed on 9 March 2021. Williams, K., Papadopoulou, V., & Booth, N. (2012). Prisoners’ childhood and family backgrounds. Ministry of Justice. 

7

Prisoners and Protest

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The ways prisoners circumvent rules and regulations to lessen the harshness of penal regimes. • The different ways prisoners engage in resistance. • The activities of the prisoners’ rights movements. • Prison campaigns which sought to advance wider social and political programmes.

7.1 Introduction For as long as individuals have been held against their will and their freedom restricted, they have attempted to circumvent the rules, regulations and regimentation inherent in daily life in prison. Throughout history, challenges to penal authority have manifested themselves in many forms, violent and peaceful, legal and illegal, individual and collectivist, as prisoners find ways to contest the coercive measures inherent in confinement. These range from silent individual acts of agency which go unnoticed to the prison authorities, to collective protests that end up as a riot, or the ultimate protest, the hunger strike. This chapter considers how prisoners use their agency to circumvent, undermine or challenge penal power. The first section examines structure and agency, when disciplinary techniques imposed by the prison regime are met by individuals who wish to retain some element of control in their lives. It examines various © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_7

115

116

7  Prisoners and Protest

forms of resistance behind bars that illustrate the power (although limited) that individuals retain to resist the constraints of the prison regime. Notable prison disturbances in the United States and Britain are then analysed. The next section examines prisoners’ rights movements and the continued campaigns for improvements in prisons conditions, penal reform and/or abolition. The chapter closes by analysing examples of hunger strikes in prisons which were used to challenge penal policy and seek wider political and social change.

7.2 Structure, Agency and Resistance As outlined in Chapter 5, Sykes (1958) listed the ‘deprivation of autonomy’ as one of the ‘pains of imprisonment’. He considered ways in which prisoners are denied self-determination and the ability to make a range of choices for themselves. However, despite the limits that imprisonment imposes on an individual’s capacity to act, most prisoners retain some agency. This can manifest itself through silent acts of defiance, and subtle ways to negotiate and navigate their time and space. Sparks et al. (1996: 81) in Prisons and the Problem of Order argued that it is ‘precisely the struggle to maintain a sense of personal agency in the face of overweening institutional constraint which motivates and sustains some of the prisoners’ most intractable contests with the system, long after they would seem to have “lost”’. Even though there are rules, regulations and regimes that limit individual choices, the expression of agency does not always lead to outright confrontation with the prison regime. Agency and structure are intertwined, influencing prisoner behaviour. The way individuals, alone or collectively assert their agency and the subsequent outcome depends on, amongst other elements, the structural dynamics of individual prisons (Rubin, 2017) and domestic penal policy (Behan, 2022). Resistance is a broad term and cannot be understood outside of the context in which it occurs. In the prison context, ‘[r]esistance is refusal to give in or comply with a given state of affairs and can be conceived at either an individual or collective level’ (Scott, 2009: 20). The exercise of agency can become resistance if prison rules and internal discipline are so rigid that they deny any element of flexibility in human affairs. If prison rules are seen by prisoners as over-bearing and illegitimate, this can lead to refusal to comply. What is considered resistance is also dependent on how those rules are operationalised and translated into practice by prison officers, who retain a large degree of discretion as rule enforcers (see Chapter 11). Rubin (2017: 647) argues that acts of resistance ‘whatever their outcome, are celebrated as victories because when prisoners exercise a forbidden agency, they take back the humanity denied them’.

7.2  Structure, Agency and Resistance

117

Refusal to comply with the coercive limitations of confinement is far more routine and common than the breakdown in social order that commands public and media attention. History is replete with examples of prisoner resistance, as withstanding the coercive elements of the institution is as old as the prison itself. In the early years of the penitentiary, the ‘silent’ and ‘separate’ systems (see Chapter 2) did not allow prisoners to talk to each other. Yet, prisoners refused to comply with the denial of the most human of activities, communication. They conversed by tapping on pipes that linked their cells (Teeters, 1949). A more recent manifestation of this desire for social interaction was seen when members of Greenpeace protesting about oil drilling in the Arctic were imprisoned in Russia. Although an infraction of the rules, they kept up social interactions by sending messages, even an impromptu newssheet ‘down the line’ from window to window about the goings-on in the prison (Stewart, 2015). Refusal to comply occurs in the most extraordinary circumstances. When the prison warden shut down the sanctioned book club for prisoners on Death Row in Holman Prison, Alabama, they continued reading and discussing themes from books through the bars (Hinton, 2018). On Texas’ death row, restrictions included, according to Rob Will (2008), one of its inhabitants, ‘being locked in a small cage for 22 to 24 hours a day […] constantly deprived of sleep, unable to touch another human being, fed disgusting food, and having to face a host of other means designed to break the human mind and body’. Despite these restrictions, Will and his fellow prisoners organised the Death Row Inner Communalistic Vanguard Engagement (DRIVE) (Hartnett et al., 2011). Cohen and Taylor (1972: 132–146) in their book Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term Imprisonment identified five different types of prisoner resistance: self-protecting, campaigning, confronting, striking and escaping. ‘Self-protecting’ is an individualised form of resistance, where the prisoner learns how to utilise their prison time with productive activities, rather than merely ‘serve’ their time. ‘Campaigning’ involves prisoners utilising the administrative and legal mechanisms available, such as appealing to monitoring bodies, prison ombudsman and the courts to improve their conditions of confinement (These are examined in detail in Chapter 10). ‘Confronting’ is collective or organised action on behalf of prisoners to improve their conditions of confinement. This has been done through non-violent protests (refusal to undertake prison work, sit-downs strikes and refusal to obey officers’ orders) and violent protest (rioting). Striking is the use of hunger strike, which can be done individually or collectively, in the hope of improvements in penal conditions and/or political transformation. Escaping is physically breaking out of the prison. These different categorisations, which provide a framework for the various types of resistance, are not mutually

118

7  Prisoners and Protest

exclusive. Prisoners collectively engage in different forms of resistance, which can depend on the penal context. Similarly, individual prisoners resist in different ways, at various times during their incarceration. There are a range of activities that fit into Cohen and Taylor’s ‘self-protecting’ strategy—from engagement in education, exercising in the gym, getting a prison job (especially the highly sought-after ones)—that can be used to ameliorate the harshness of prison life, in particular the regimentation that comes with prison discipline. Education or training is often seen as a key factor in rehabilitation or resettlement (see Chapter 3), though is not always experienced as relevant to post-prison life in practice. Where courses utilise old technology or lack relevance to contemporary work, these may be experienced as preparation for ‘“normal” citizenship in an imaginary world’ rather than meaningful preparation for competing in the current labour market (Stark, 2022). Although penal policy may focus on education to occupy prisoners, or upskill and train them for the labour force on release, it can be an expression of agency and/or resistance to the regulation of penal life (Earle & Mehigan, 2019). Educational spaces can become a haven of humanity, softening the starkness of the prison regime, and abating some of the damage done within penal environments (Behan, 2021; Szifris, 2021). Several prisoners have gone further than ‘self-protecting’, with education becoming part of a consciousness-raising process, an ‘intelligent riot’ (Davidson, 1995: 9). It empowers them in their struggles within the criminal justice system and wider society. Members of the Black Panther Party (BPP) and individuals such as Malcolm X, Angela Davis and George Jackson in the United States understood the liberating power of education for themselves and fellow prisoners. The experience of education in prison transformed Malcolm X from a prisoner into a community leader (X & Haley, 1965). ‘Knowledge is a weapon’, reasoned Theodore Arrington (cited in Zahn, 1997) who served seven years in prison. Outlining the history of racism in the United States, he continued: ‘If it wasn’t a weapon, they would not have denied it. You would not have hung slaves for trying to read a book’. Eddie Ellis (cited in Zahn, 1997) who spent 25 years in prison argued that prisoners needed education, because the ‘more education they had, the better they would be able to deal with themselves and their problems, the problems of the prison and the problems of the communities from which most of them came’. On committal to prison, some people engage in ‘self-protecting’ through sport and physical activity which can help address their health needs, while also providing constructive out-of-cell activity (Meek & Lewis, 2012). In refusing to be

7.2  Structure, Agency and Resistance

119

stripped totally of their identity, prisoners can use their time by continuing an activity that they engaged in prior to imprisonment. Considering the number of prisoners with complex mental and physical health needs, ‘sport and physical activity clearly offers a valuable way of motivating prisoners to engage in health promoting initiatives’ (Meek & Lewis, 2012: 117). While physical activity may be encouraged to contribute to a positive penal environment, to promote alternative identities and encourage engagement in therapeutic interactions and peer support opportunities (Meek, 2018), the gym and exercise yard can become spaces where the normal disciplinary modes associated with imprisonment can be, if not totally eliminated, then perhaps softened (see Chapter 12 on prison architecture). Another form of resistance in Cohen and Taylor’s typology is campaigning: pursuing improvements in prison conditions through prisoner litigation. It can be undertaken collectively, although is more commonly initiated individually. Prison litigation can be considered the ‘peaceful equivalent of a riot, in bringing prisoners’ grievances to public attention and in mobilising political support for change’ (Jacobs, 1980: 459–460). As we will see in Chapter 9 on prisoners’ rights, some prisoners have become known as ‘jailhouse lawyers’. They engage in ‘rightful resistance’ (O’Brien, 1996), by using the language of the law and policies instituted by powerful elites to curb penal power and to show the authorities up if they do not live up to their professed ideals. For example, utilising ‘rightful resistance’, prisoners used New Labour’s introduction of the Human Rights Act in 1998 to pursue their right to vote through the European Court of Human Rights (see Chapter 9). Thomas Mathiesen (1965) put forward a similar argument in developing the concept of ‘censoriousness’ in his study in a Norwegian prison. On the face of it, prisoners were powerless, yet using their limited agency they highlighted when the prison authorities were not adhering to their own rules. In some prisons in England and Wales, prison councils offer the opportunity for active citizenship, to engage in both ‘self-protecting’ and ‘campaigning’ forms of resistance. Under European Prison Rules (Council of Europe 2020) and Prison Service Order (PSO) 4480 (HM Prison Service 2002), prisoners can elect and participate in prisoner representative organisations. Schmidt (2013: 13) found that for prisoners, participating in prison councils enabled them ‘to construct new roles that they saw as productive, helpful, and beneficial to others’. However, PSO 4480 sets strict restrictions on the role and powers of prisoner representative bodies. They cannot be facilitated through cross-institutional representation and have no standing outside individual institutions. They have no right to negotiate with national authorities. Security and a wide range of personal issues are outside their remit. While prisoner councils have functioned with

120

7  Prisoners and Protest

mixed results, depending, usually, on the attitude of local prison staff and management (Solomon & Edgar, 2004), they can be used by prisoners as a form of resistance, and simultaneously to improve prison conditions for themselves and fellow prisoners. Question

• Using Cohen and Taylor’s (1972) typology, why do you think prisoners engage in different forms of resistance?

7.3 Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances Prison riots have attracted a wide range of research (Bosworth & Carrabine, 2001; Carrabine, 2005; Haslam & Reicher, 2012; Jameson & Allison, 1995; Lord, 2015; Useem & Goldstone, 2002; Thompson, 2016). With little opportunity to engage in civil disobedience in prison, peaceful protest can quickly degenerate into violent encounters, as prison regimes take any disobeying of an order as a breach of prison discipline and the response may lead to confrontation. Disturbances in prison rarely erupt in isolation (Useem & Goldstone, 2002). Internal grievances and sub-standard conditions of confinement can lead to prisoner protest and a breakdown in social order. As Rubin (2017: 658) stressed, prisoners resist for a variety of reasons, as ‘not all collective action is political: some prisoners may participate in riots to cut loose, exact revenge or temporarily avoid one’s cell, whereas other prisoners, especially those who initiated the action, may be more politically inclined’. Sometimes prisoners, like people outside who are unhappy with their lot, have just had enough. Prisoners may be separated physically from the world outside, but they are not unaffected by events beyond the prison walls. Social unrest and wider societal concerns have a bearing, as prisons are ‘products of the greater society in which they exist and, as such, they feel the impact of the social upheaval and political unrest’ (Marr, cited in Clarkson & Munn, 2021: 23). Reflecting, and influenced by, the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s, prisoners established a range of representative organisations and prisoner unions throughout the United States and Europe. When their concerns were either snubbed, or their organisations outlawed, anger boiled over and sometimes led to prison disturbances. One of the most significant protests by prisoners in US history began at Attica on 9 September 1971 (Thompson, 2016). Earlier that year, a letter was sent to the New York Commissioner of Corrections, Russell Oswald, by prisoners of the Attica Liberation Faction demanding penal reform. ‘We hope that your department don’t

7.3  Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances

121

cause us any hardships in the future because we are informing you of prison conditions’, they stated, expressing concern that there may be repercussions for highlighting what were generally considered appalling conditions in the prison. They continued, ‘These demands are being presented to you. There is no strike of any kind to protest these demands. We are trying to do this in a democratic fashion’ (Attica Liberation Faction, cited in Select Committee on Crime, 1972: 983). A few months later, approximately 1000 of Attica’s roughly 2200 prisoners took control of the prison, taking 42 staff hostage. Attica prisoners went further than demanding improvements in penal conditions and insisted on their right to organise. They issued an ultimatum calling for the firing of the prison warden and an amnesty for those involved in the protest. Prisoners, officers and management knew that the stakes were high and that the ‘implications went far beyond the walls of Attica’ (Pallas & Barber, 1972: 14). If the Attica demands were met, prisoners would have established the right to participate in prison governance and they would be free from punishment for rebelling against prison rules. The protest was brutally suppressed, with state police being used to retake control of the prison. By the time the disturbance was over, there were 43 people dead, mostly prisoners. The protest at Attica, which entered into the annals of the prisoners’ rights movements posed a significant challenge to the penal system in the United States and subsequently led to some improvements in penal conditions. According to Thompson (cited in Pilkington, 2018), author of Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy (2016): ‘Attica drew a line in the sand—it was a recognition that people have a right to rebel, and will rebel, when they are forced into unbelievably horrific conditions’. Within a year of the uprising at Attica, British prisons were in turmoil. By 1970, half of the prisoners in British jails were housed in institutions over 100 years old. The government accepted that many of the prisons in Britain ‘were grossly overcrowded’, and most of them were ‘obsolescent’ (Home Office, 1969: 2). Out of a prison population of 38,000, nearly 8000 were sleeping two to a cell designed for one, and 4700 sleeping three to a cell designed for one (Home Office, 1973: 5–6). Overcrowding also led to a shortage of workshop spaces, places in classrooms and visiting accommodation. Arising from discontent with these prison conditions, in May 1972, the Union for the Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners (PROP) was launched in London to ‘preserve, protect and to extend the rights of prisoners and ex-prisoners and to assist in their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, so as to bring about a reduction in crime’ (cited in Fitzgerald, 1977: 136–137). PROP hoped to negotiate with officers, governors and national government, effectively to operate as a trade union for prisoners. PROP welcomed sympathisers as associate members, but full

122

7  Prisoners and Protest

membership was only open to prisoners and ex-prisoners. It developed a Charter of Prisoners’ Rights which included the right to form representative associations with recognition for elected leaders; to vote in local and national elections; to trade union membership; to take legal proceedings without Home Office permission, and to communicate freely with the press and public. It demanded the right to legal representation at judicial hearings; to be allocated to a local prison; to improved visiting conditions; to exercise conjugal rights and to enter into marriage; to send and receive any amount of letters without censorship and the right to educational and vocational training. PROP was also concerned about reintegration and argued for the right to courses to advise on housing, education, marriage and child care; home leave; a fully franked insurance card and rights to full state benefits; equal right to employment in state bodies and the right to have criminal records destroyed within five years of discharge (Charter of Prisoners’ Rights, cited Fitzgerald, 1977). Protests in British prisons were not new. In 1969, a major disturbance in Parkhurst prison resulted in 12 prison officers and over 35 prisoners being injured (Garside, 2020: 4). Between January and May 1972, there were over 50 demonstrations by prisoners (Scott, 2009). Outside the prison, 1972 was a year of social and political protest, with a rise in industrial action. In January, mineworkers went on strike in the first official national strike since the general strike of 1926. In total, 26 million days were lost through strike action during 1972, compared to the average of 12.5 million strike days per year for the period between 1969 and 1974 (Darlington & Lyddon, 2001). The PROP took what it termed ‘direct action to defend prisoners’ interests’ (Ryan & Sim, 2007: 699–700). The high point of PROP’s activity came in August 1972 when it organised a 24-hour general strike, with estimates of up to 10,000 out of about 40,000 prisoners involved in 33 prisons (Fitzgerald, 1977: 157–158), in favour of the demands in the PROP Charter. By the end of the year, when its demand to act as a representative body for prisoners was rejected by the Home Office, PROP activism had fizzled out. Although the strike was effectively defeated, it was ‘the most widespread demonstration by prisoners ever seen in this country’ (Taylor, 1972: 618) and until then, ‘one of the largest prison strikes in the world’ (Fitzgerald, 1977: 157). The most significant prison disturbance in post-war British penal history, began at Strangeways Prison in Manchester in April 1990 and soon spread to other institutions. Lasting 25 days, the disturbance ‘largely destroyed the prison, rocked the Prison Service and shocked the country’ (McConville, 2021: 626). Overcrowding was rife, prisoners still had to slop out, and a lack of trust in the internal redress procedures undermined legitimacy of penal governance amongst prisoners (Jameson & Allison, 1995). ‘Every aspect of life was consequently

7.3  Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances

123

under pressure’, according to McConville (2021: 627), ‘and stress and resentment levels made an outbreak of some kind inevitable: time and size were the only questions’. Outside events also played a role in the lead up to the disturbances. The disturbance broke out on 1 April 1990, the day after a demonstration against the Poll Tax, the largest demonstration seen in Britain for decades, which eventually led to the ending of Margaret Thatcher’s 11-year tenure as Prime Minister. The disturbances soon spread to other prisons, with the Strangeways protest continuing for 25 days. There was no doubting the need for penal change and in the aftermath, Lord Justice Woolf’s report (1991) made a series of recommendations to improve the conditions for prisoners, including that a contract should be drawn up between prisons and the prisoners held in them, outlining what prisoners could expect from the prison and how the prisoner was to behave in return. The Report led to some changes in British prisons: the introduction of Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP), the elimination of ‘slopping out’ and the establishment of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) (Day et al., 2015). It was argued that this was Reform through Riot (Player & Jenkins, 1994). The Strangeways riot highlighted conditions in British jails and the treatment of prisoners. Scott argued that although the ‘proposals of the Woolf Report were not really that innovative’, it ‘was acclaimed as the blueprint for prison policy for the next three decades’, but it did not live up to expectations (Scott, 2020). Even the limited recommendations and modest reforms did not solve what has been termed the ‘penal crisis’ (Cavadino et al., 2020). Prison numbers continued to increase, conditions have deteriorated in many prisons, there is a lack of availability of prison programmes and self-harm and bullying are at all-time highs (PRT, 2022). Sporadic disturbances have occurred since then. In 2016, over 500 prisoners at the privately-run HMP Birmingham rioted over access to healthcare and other issues (Grierson, 2018). Sim (2012) argued that the ‘demands made by [PROP] striking prisoners four decades ago (and indeed in the manifesto produced by prisoners at Attica in 1971) are as relevant as ever’. As a result of their conditions of confinement and wider penal policies, prisoners continue to voice their concerns about their treatment, with movements emerging again to represent their interests. Questions

There were a wide range of demands in the PROP Charter of Rights. • Should all/any of these demands have been granted to prisoners? • If so, which ones and why? • If not, why not?

124

7  Prisoners and Protest

7.4 Prisoners’ Rights Movements As prison numbers have increased in recent decades and conditions have not improved, especially in the United States, England and Wales and Scotland, new prisoners’ rights movements have emerged. Essentially, there are two types: firstly, those that develop organically from within prison and secondly, support organisations outside campaigning for penal reform. The former usually call themselves prisoners’ unions, mirroring somewhat the activities and structures of a trade union. While they largely use forms of protest traditionally associated with trade union activity, the circumstances of their confinement mean that they have little of the power and leverage that traditional trade unions have outside. Prisoner activism, to one degree or another, usually relies on outside support to organise, coordinate activities with other prison/ers, or litigate on their behalf. Although much of the lobbying and legal action can practically only be undertaken by members outside, the experiences of prisoners inform and strengthen their campaigns. What distinguishes prisoners’ rights movements from campaigning organisations and penal reform groups, is that they foreground the prisoner voice, and are led by prisoners and/or former prisoners. As we will see in this section, these organisations provide leadership as prisoners engage in active resistance, the ‘process and acts of challenging one’s subordinated position in a given social system’ (Haslam & Reicher, 2012: 155; italics in original). Critical Resistance (CR) was established in 1987 by activists, academics, prisoners and former prisoners in California. It spread throughout the US, with its mission ‘to end the Prison Industrial Complex by challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe’ (Critical Resistance, 2021). They locate the use of imprisonment in the context of America’s racial past and unequal present, which is examined further in Chapters 4 and 13. Therefore, CR believes ‘that basic necessities such as food, shelter, and freedom are what really make our communities secure’. It argues that: the prison industrial complex is not a broken system to be fixed. The system, rather, works precisely as it is designed to—to contain, control, and kill those people representing the greatest threats to state power. Our goal is not to improve the system even further, but to shrink the system into non-existence. We work to build healthy, self-determined communities and promote alternatives to the current system. (Critical Resistance, 2021)

In recent years, one of the most high-profile examples of prison organising was a series of work stoppages and hunger strikes that took place in US prisons in

7.4  Prisoners’ Rights Movements

125

2018. These strikes began on 21 August, to coincide with the 47th anniversary of the killing of George Jackson, Black Panther Party activist and author of Soledad Brother (a collection of prison letters which was a searing critique of the racism in America and its penal system). It ended on 9 September, which coincided with the beginning of the Attica Prison uprising. The protests were called by Jailhouse Lawyers Speak (JLS) and the Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC, see below). JLS is a ‘national collective of imprisoned persons fighting for human rights by providing other prisoners with access to legal education, resources, and assistance’ (JLS, 2021). It provides opportunities to keep prisoners connected with the outside world and runs a number of programmes, including the International Law Project, the Jailhouse lawyers paralegal sponsorship program, Right 2 Vote campaign and the High-Risk Youth Mentoring Program (JLS, 2021). The strike was organised partly in response to disturbances in Lee Correctional Institution, a maximum security prison in South Carolina which left seven prisoners dead (Pilkington, 2018). The striking prisoners’ demands included penal reforms ‘that recognize the humanity of imprisoned men and women’ (JLS, 2018). They wanted an end to ‘prison slavery’; easier access to the courts, and reform of sentencing laws. They argued that the criminal justice system was racist, and therefore, wanted an ‘immediate end to the racial overcharging, over-sentencing, and parole denials of Black and brown humans’. Finally, the protesters wanted greater availability of prison programmes, access to funding support for college education, and called for the right for all prisoners and former prisoners to vote (JLS, 2018). The Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC) in Wales, Scotland and England was launched in 2016 by a group of ex-prisoners and members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a revolutionary trade union founded in 1905 (Socialist Lawyer, 2019). IWOC membership is open to prisoners, ex-prisoners and supporters. Similar to CR, it opposes the Prison-Industrial Complex. The IWOC was established to ‘support prisoners to organise and fight back against prison slavery and the prison system itself’ (IWOC, 2021). Membership is free to prisoners and IWOC also want to develop a network outside to support prison organising. They point out that prisoners who work ‘have no rights to organise, no contracts, no pensions, no right to choose what they do—they have no use of the gains that workers have fought and died for over centuries’ (IWOC, 2021). IWOC campaigns against prison expansion, the use of prison labour and Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (see Chapter 3 for IPP). Prisoner members are concerned with lack of access to healthcare, particularly mental health care. Other issues  of concern, according to IWOC, include ‘the Kafka-esque merry-go-round

126

7  Prisoners and Protest

of rehabilitation courses, parole hearings, probation supervision and recall to prison […] the physical and psychological torture of the UK’s high-security units, such as “close supervision centres” and segregation’ (Socialist Lawyer, 2019: 28). Question

• Do you think that prisoners should be allowed to organise through a union/ representative organisation?

7.5 Resistance: Outside and Inside Despite the lack of distinction in the media and elsewhere, prisoners are not a homogenous group. McEvoy et al. (2007) identified five types of prisoners that do not fit the usual characterisation as ‘criminals’. These are ‘prisoners of war’; ‘prisoners of conscience’; ‘conscientious objectors’; ‘radicalised “ordinary” prisoners’ and ‘politically motivated prisoners’. Politically motivated prisoners tend to distance themselves from ‘ordinary’ prisoners, as they want to distinguish their actions from those who end up in prison for transgressing the traditional criminal code. They argue that their pursuance of a political objective means that they should be treated differently to ‘ordinary’ prisoners sentenced for activities traditionally prosecuted under the criminal law. McConville (2021: 7) argues that the ‘activist prisoner’s complaint is never merely a thing in itself but is always a means of advancing to the launch of another one. Free or captive, the goal is the same: triumph of the cause by attrition and endurance’. Two of those groups who challenged the penal and political system through activism—‘attrition’ and ‘endurance’—were the Suffragettes and Irish Republicans. 

Who Is a Political Prisoner? There is no internationally recognised legal definition of a ‘political prisoner’. Many people throughout the world claimed to be political prisoners, from those who opposed conscription in the two World Wars to others who became political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nobel Peace Prize winners, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. The concept of a ‘political prisoner’ remains a contested idea between those who have carried out illegal acts for political, ideological or religious objectives and the state that seeks to deny them legitimacy and treat them like other prisoners. McEvoy et al. (2007: 293) argue that:

7.5  Resistance: Outside and Inside

127

The notion of a ‘political’ crime or a ‘political prisoner’ speaks directly to the fiercely contested political and ideological terrain between those involved in purported ‘political’ actions and the state which imprisons them. Political prisoners frequently view their imprisonment as an integral part of larger political and social conflicts. Often, states involved in such conflicts are deeply imbued in processes designed explicitly to deny or circumvent the claim to political status of such prisoners. As a result, prisons may become charged sites where larger battles are fought, and the outcomes have direct consequences for society beyond prison walls.

Today, incarcerated members of liberation movements in Palestine and Kurdistan, for example, would be considered by many as political prisoners, along with those struggling for democracy in Myanmar and fighting for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Established in 1903, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) quickly became known as the Suffragettes. Frustrated by the lack of progress towards universal suffrage, and with no recourse to parliamentary means, WSPU members began a campaign of civil disobedience and direct action. This included disrupting ‘public order’; damage to property; chaining themselves to railings; setting fire to mailbox contents and smashing windows. This brought members of the WSPU into conflict with the law and inevitably led to many members being imprisoned. Radzinowicz and Hood (1979: 1457) argued that they ‘adopted the novel tactic of courting imprisonment’ as they hoped that this would highlight their cause to the general public and embarrass the government into conceding women’s suffrage. While incarcerated, the suffragettes were keen to distinguish themselves and their actions from other prisoners. When one of their leaders, Emmeline Pankhurst was imprisoned in 1907, she wrote: We simply meant to assert our right to be recognised as political prisoners […] If it were the custom to treat political offenders as ordinary offenders against the wellbeing of society, we should not have complained if we were treated like that, but it is not the international custom to do it, and so, for the dignity of the women of this country, and for the sake of the consciences of the men of the country, and for the sake of our nation amongst the nations of the earth, we are not going to allow the Liberal government to treat us like ordinary law breakers in future. (cited in Radzinowicz & Hood, 1979: 1467)

On imprisonment, many Suffragettes began hunger strikes which the authorities initially responded to with force-feeding. Fearing that a prisoner may die on

128

7  Prisoners and Protest

hunger strike, or by force-feeding, the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for ill Health) Act 1913 was introduced. This provided for the ‘temporary discharge of prisoners whose further detention in prison is undesirable on account of the condition of their health’. It became known as the ‘Cat and Mouse Act’ because as the hunger strike continued and the health of a suffragette was deteriorating, she would be released until her health improved. She would then be reimprisoned until she finished her sentence.

Emily Wilding Davison: Political Prisoner or Criminal? Emily Wilding Davison is probably best known for her death in June 1913, four days after running across the racecourse during the Epsom Derby where she collided with the King’s horse, Anmer. However, Emily had a long and noble history in the struggle for women’s rights. In 1906, she joined the Women’s Social and Political Union to campaign for women’s suffrage. In April 1911, she hid overnight in parliament so she could claim it as her address on census night. Emily Wilding Davison was arrested on nine occasions and endured force-feeding 49 times in prison. In September 1909, she was sentenced to two months for stone-throwing at White City, Manchester, and the next year, Emily received a one-month sentence for breaking windows in the House of Commons. In January 1912, she was sentenced to six months imprisonment for setting fire to postal boxes at Holloway, London (Emily Davison Memorial Project, 2021). In 2001, Labour MP Tony Benn revealed that he and Jeremy Corbyn had secretly placed a commemorative plaque inside the cupboard in which Davison had hidden eighty years earlier. In April 2013, a plaque to commemorate Davison’s death was unveiled at Epsom racecourse. In June 2013, there was a meeting organised at the House of Commons to demand a plaque of Emily Wilding Davison in House of Commons. Speakers included the then Home Secretary (and later Prime Minister) Theresa May, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman and the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow (Topping, 2013).

As with many public and political campaigns, when World War One broke out, the WSPU abandoned its campaign for the duration of the war. The WSPU never again regained momentum. However, women and working-class organisations who had also campaigned for widening the franchise, had made their mark. In

7.5  Resistance: Outside and Inside

129

February 1918, eight months before the First World War ended, the Representation of the People Act was passed. This enfranchised women over 30 with minimum property qualification. Over 8 million women gained the vote. Later that year, in November 1918, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act allowed women to be elected to parliament. In 1928, the Representation of the People Act extended the franchise to all women over the age of 21. Women were then allowed to vote on the same terms as men. Resistance inside was significant as the suffragettes used their prison protests to humiliate the government and highlight the struggle for universal suffrage outside. One of the most well-known struggles for recognition of political prisoner status began when the Conflict in Northern Ireland erupted in the late 1960s. Prisons became sites of contestation and resistance. Republican prisoners wanted to be distinguished from the general prison population and further, differentiate their acts that led them to prison from others who were incarcerated for breaking the criminal law. From the prisoners’ perspective, they were ‘Political Prisoners’ or ‘Prisoners of War’. From 1972 until 1976, members of paramilitary organisations imprisoned for actions related to the Conflict were given ‘Special Category Status’. This meant that these prisoners were not required to do work; they could wear their own clothing and were allowed more generous allowances in visits, letters and food parcels. With the removal of ‘Special Category Status’ by the British government, those sentenced after 1 March 1976 would face a range of measures labelled ‘criminalisation’. In September 1976, protests began when Kieran Nugent was convicted for Provisional IRA activity. When he was sent to the Long Kesh/Maze prison he refused to wear the prison uniform and adhere to the new regime. In pursuance of their demands, prisoners began to resist and rebel. They refused to wear the prison uniform and began a ‘blanket protest’, which later escalated into the ‘dirty protest’, as prisoners were not allowed to leave their cells without wearing the prison uniform. The prisoners set out five demands which they believed would provide effective political status. These were: the right not to wear a prison uniform; not to have to do prison work; free association with other prisoners and the right to organise educational and recreational pursuits; one visit, one letter and one parcel per week, and full restoration of remission lost through the protest (CAIN, 2021). After a number of years of protests, prisoners utilised the ultimate act of prisoner resistance: a hunger strike (Beresford, 1987). On 1 March 1981, Bobby Sands began a hunger strike in Long Kesh/Maze Prison. On 5 May, after he had been elected MP for the Fermanagh/South Tyrone constituency the previous month, Bobby Sands died on hunger strike. Throughout the course of 1981, 10 Republican prisoners died until the hunger strike was called off on 3 October (McEvoy, 2001). A few days after the end of the strike,

130

7  Prisoners and Protest

the government announced changes in prison policy, which would apply to all prisoners. Although ‘Special Category’ was not restored, these changes ‘went a long way to meeting many aspects of the prisoners’ five demands’ and by the end of October, the blanket protest was effectively over (CAIN, 2021).

7.6 Conclusion This chapter has examined protest and resistance within prisons. This takes many forms, from individual acts that deviate from the prison regime which are not even noticed by prison authorities, to breakdowns in social order. Although two methods of protest—the hunger strike and prison riot—receive the most public, political and media attention, it is the small acts of defiance that signify prisoners’ agency on a daily basis. Some people become politicised and socially aware on incarceration and use their time individually and collectively to pursue reforms. Others use their imprisonment to pursue wider social and political objectives. However, no matter how restrictive the conditions of confinement, most prisoners will find ways to circumvent the rules, to try to lessen the coercive nature of incarceration and assert their agency, individually or collectively. Chapter Summary

• Most prisoners retain some agency, to circumvent or undermine the prison rules and penal regimes. • Riots and disturbances have led to reforms within the prison system. • The emergence of prisoners’ rights movements foregrounds the voice of prisoners. • Hunger strikes have been used to try to improve penal life and/or to struggle for political and social change. Activity

• Consider whether the Suffragettes should have been granted political prisoner status.

References/Further Reading Behan, C. (2022). No longer a “collateral consequence”: Imprisonment and the reframing of citizenship. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1283–1303. Behan, C. (2021). Education in prison: A literature review. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

References/Further Reading

131

Beresford, D. (1987). Ten men dead: The story of the 1981 hunger strike. Grafton Books. Boin, A., & Rattray, W. (2004). Understanding prison riots: Towards a threshold theory. Punishment and Society, 6(1), 47–65. Bosworth, M., & Carrabine, E. (2001). Reassessing resistance: Race, gender and sexuality in prison. Punishment and Society, 3(4), 501–515. Conflict and Politics in Northern Ireland (CAIN). (2021). The hunger strike of 1981. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/hstrike/summary.htm. Accessed 18 Nov 2021. Carrabine, E. (2005). Prison riots, social order and the problem of legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 896–913. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G. & Bennet, J. (2020). The Penal System: An Introduction. Sage. Clarkson, C., & Munn, M. (2021). Disruptive prisoners: Resistance, reform and the new deal. University of Toronto Press. Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1972). Psychological survival: The experience of long-term imprisonment. Penguin. Critical Resistance. (2021). Our mission. http://criticalresistance.org. Accessed 1 Dec 2021. Darlington, R., & Lyddon, D. (2001). Glorious summer: Class struggle in Britain, 1972. Bookmarks. Davidson, H. (1995). Possibilities for critical pedagogy in a ‘total institution’: An introduction to critical perspectives on prison education. In H. Davidson (Ed.), Schooling in a ‘total institution’ (pp. 1–23). Bergen and Garvey. Day, M., Hewson, A., & Spiropoulos, C. (2015). Strangeways 25 years on: Achieving fairness and justice in our prisons. Prison Reform Trust. Earle, R., & Mehigan, J. (Eds.). (2019). Degrees of freedom: Prison education at The Open University. Policy Press. Emily Davison Memorial Project. (2021). The life of Emily Wilding Davison. http://emilydavisonproject.org/?page_id=59. Accessed 18 Nov 2021. Fitzgerald, M. (1977). Prisoners in revolt. Penguin. Fitzgerald, M., & Sim, J. (1982). British prisons. Blackwell. Garside, R. (2020). Prisons and politics. Prison Service Journal, 250, 4–12. Grierson, J. (2018, August 20). Birmingham prison riot “should have been stopped sooner”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/20/birmingham-prisonriot-should-have-been-stopped-sooner. Accessed 16 Dec 2021. Hartnett, S., Wood, J., & McCann, J. (2011). Turning silence into speech and action: Prison activism and the pedagogy of the empowered citizen. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 8(4), 331–352. Haslam, A., & Reicher, S. (2012). When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154–179. Hinton, R. (2018). The Sun Does Shine: How I found Life and Freedom on Death Row. Penguin. Home Office. (1969). People in prison. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Home Office. (1973). Report on the work of the Prison Department 1972. HMSO. Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC). (2021). About us. https://iwoc.iww. org.uk/about-us/. Accessed 9 Sept 2021. Jacobs, J. (1980). The prisoners’ rights movement and its impacts, 1960–1980. Crime and Justice, 2, 429–470.

132

7  Prisoners and Protest

Jailhouse Lawyers Speak. (2021). About jailhouse lawyers speak. http://www.iamweubuntu.com/. Accessed 21 June 2021. Jameson, N., & Allison, E. (1995). Strangeways 1990: A serious disturbance. Larkin Publications. Lord, A. (2015). Life in strangeways: From riots to redemption—My thirty two years behind bars. John Blake Publishing. Mathiesen, T. (1965). The defences of the weak. Tavistock. McConville, S. (2021). Irish political prisoners, 1960–2000: Braiding rage and sorrow. Routledge. McEvoy, K. (2001). Paramilitary imprisonment in Northern Ireland. Oxford University Press. McEvoy, K., McConnachie, K., & Jamieson, R. (2007). Political imprisonment and the ‘War on terror.’ In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 293–322). Routledge. Meek, R. (2018). A sporting chance: An independent review of sport in youth and adult prisons. Ministry of Justice. Meek, R., & Lewis, G. (2012). The role of sport in promoting prisoner health. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 8(3/4), 117–131. Neier, A. (1995). Confining dissent: The political prison. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison (pp. 350–380). Oxford University Press. Norman, J. (2021). Negotiating detention: The radical pragmatism of prison-based resistance in protracted conflicts. Security and Dialogue (online first). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0967010620970521. Accessed 10 Jan 2021. O’Brien, K. (1996). Rightful resistance. World Politics, 49(1), 31–55. Pallas, J., & Barber, B. (1972). From riot to revolution. Issues in Criminology, 7(2), 1–20. Pilkington, E. (2018, August 21). US Inmates stage nationwide prison labor strike over “modern slavery”. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/20/ prison-labor-protest-america-jailhouse-lawyers-speak. Accessed 9 Sept 2021. Player, E., & Jenkins, M. (1994). Reform through riot. Routledge. Potter, H. (2019). Shades of the prison house: A history of incarceration in the British Isles. Boydell Press. Prison Reform Trust. (2022). Bromley briefings prison factfile: Winter 2022. Prison Reform Trust. Radzinowicz, L., & Hood, R. (1979). The status of the political prisoner in England: The struggle for recognition. Virginia Law Review, 65(8), 1421–1481. Rubin, A. (2017). Resistance as agency? Incorporating the structural determinants of prisoner behaviour. British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 644–663. Ryan, M., & Sim, J. (2007). Campaigning for and campaigning against prisons: Excavating and reaffirming the case for prison abolition. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 696–718). Willan. Schmidt, B. (2013). User voice and the prison council model. Prison Service Journal, 209, 12–17. Scott, D. (2009). Resistance as reform: Direct action through prisoner movements, legal activism and the radical penal lobby. Criminal Justice Matters, 77(1), 20–22. Scott, D. (2020). Remembering and forgetting the Woolf Report. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/remembering-and-forgetting-woolf-report. Accessed 21 Jan 2022.

References/Further Reading

133

Select Committee on Crime. (1972). Hearings before the Select Committee on Crime. House of Representatives Second Session. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Sim, J. (1991). “We are not animals. We are human beings”: Prisons, politics and protest in England and Wales. Social Justice, 18(3), 107–129. Sim, J. (2012). Where is penal activism? Contesting the neoliberal prison. https://downsizingcriminaljustice.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/where-is-penal-activism-contesting-the-neoliberal-prison/. Accessed 4 Dec 2021. Socialist Lawyer. (2019). Incarcerated workers organising committee: One big union, inside and out. Socialist Lawyer, 82, 26–29. Solomon, E., & Edgar, K. (2004). Having their Say: The work of prisoner councils. Prison Reform Trust. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the Problem of Order. Oxford University Press. Stark, A. D. (2021). Anticipated citizenship in the shadow of imprisonment. Probation Journal, 69(3): 278–295. Stewart, B. (2015). Don’t trust, don’t fear, don’t beg: The extraordinary story of the Arctic 30. The New Press. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Szifris, K. (2021). Philosophy behind bars: Growth and development in prison. Bristol University Press. Taylor, L. (1972, September 28). Prison splash. New Society. Teeters, N. (1949). The early days of the Eastern State Penitentiary. Pennsylvania History, 26(4), 261–302. Thompson, H. (2016). Blood in the water: The Attica prison uprising of 1971 and its legacy. Pantheon Books. Topping, A. (2013, June 4). MPs call for statue of Emily Davison in parliament. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/04/mps-statue-emily-davison-parliament. Accessed 20 Nov 2021. Useem, B., & Goldstone, J. (2002). Social order and its breakdown: Riot and reform in U.S. prisons. American Sociological Review, 67, 499–525. Will, R. (2008, June 25). The death row resisters. Socialist Worker. https://socialistworker. org/2008/06/25/the-death-row-resisters. Accessed 9 Sept 2021. X, M., & Haley, A. (1965). The autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley. Penguin. Zahn, B. (Director). (1997). The last graduation: The rise and fall of college programs in Prison. Deep Dish Television.

8

Prison in Popular Culture

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The representation of imprisonment in popular media. • The key features and omissions in dramatic representations of imprisonment. • The extent to which popular representations reflect realities of imprisonment. • The implications of various media representations of the prison.

8.1 Introduction We live in an increasingly ‘mediated society’ (Jewkes, 2007: 447), with the public gaining their understanding of many places they have not been, people they have not met, and institutions which are hidden from them, through popular media representations. Prisons are particularly hidden from public view, with tight regulation on who can enter, and it is estimated that 80% of the public have never been inside a prison, whether to work, visit family or serve time (Ipsos MORI, 2004). For the vast majority, it is through popular media—newspapers, documentaries, television dramas and films—that their understanding of the prison is shaped. For them, ‘state punishment is only made visible through mediated representation’ (Carrabine, 2016: 47). Thus, understanding of the prison environment is mediated, shaped by the agendas of media sources, which may vary from one source or editorial team to the next. This chapter will explore how various popular media © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_8

135

136

8  Prison in Popular Culture

forms represent imprisonment, the extent to which they represent realities of imprisonment, and the potential role of such representations in shaping attitudes to imprisonment, and penal policy.

8.2 Prisons and News Media Despite widespread interest in crime news, the prison receives relatively little coverage considering the large number of individuals held there. However, despite constituting a relatively small proportion of news coverage, discussion of crime in news media has several characteristics which may be influential on perceptions of prisons and prisoners. Jewkes (2004) has identified various news values which influence editorial decisions as to whether a story is sufficiently ‘newsworthy’ to be featured, and these values may also influence conceptions about people held in prison and the extent to which prison is a necessary response to crime. For example, crime news reporting tends to focus on the more extreme and violent offences, meeting the criteria of violence, and sometimes sex, risk or graphic imagery, while also crossing the threshold for inclusion due to their seriousness (Jewkes, 2004). This creates a popular understanding of the prison as necessary to respond to these threats, represented in a straightforward manner without complicated explanation, often as awful acts done by bad or evil people, through simplification (Jewkes, 2004). Cases with a celebrity or notorious law-breaker are also more likely to meet the threshold for reporting and some have argued that, due to widespread reporting on particular cases, the growth of the British prison population can be traced back to high-profile cases in the news media (O’Sullivan, 2001). An example of one such case, coverage of which reinforced pressure for harsher punishments and a tough-on-crime approach, was the murder of twoyear-old James Bulger, by two ten-year-old boys, in 1993 (Newburn 2007).

Social Media and Imprisonment The use of social media has grown substantially over the last few decades and, as with many areas of society, the prison has not been immune to its influence, with platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or TikTok offering various representations of imprisonment, in addition to providing a platform for campaigning and activism by those outside of the prison seeking to garner support for change. In England and Wales, serving prisoners are prohibited from accessing social media sites during their time in prison. However, despite these

8.2  Prisons and News Media

137

restrictions, figures demonstrate that the prison service is identifying, and closing down, an increasing number of social media profiles linked to individuals inside (Bulman, 2019). Through the use of contraband phones, prisoners may use social media to contact those outside or to share unmediated videos or images of life inside which may then be used by news or television outlets (as in The Secret Life of Prisons, Channel 4), while concerns have also been raised around use of these platforms to contact victims, or coordinate criminal activity. Researching social media use in Russian prisons, Piacentini and Katz (2018: 190) found that social media use may be a demonstration of agency through ‘unmaking one’s invisibility’, re-establishing their presence external to the prison online while their incarceration has made them ‘absent’ from the outside world.

While broader crime news may influence attitudes to imprisonment and its use, scholars have also identified two opposing trends in the relatively limited reporting on the prison itself, with prisons either being depicted as ‘cushy’ or easy environments which are insufficiently punishing, or as horrifying spaces, with correspondingly divergent—albeit both negative—depictions of prisoners. Cheliotis (2010: 175) explains: Prisons are most usually typecast either as dark institutions of perpetual horror and virulent vandalism or idyllic holiday camps offering in-cell television and gourmet cuisine on the back of taxpayers. Prisoners, for their part, are portrayed as degenerate beasts beyond redemption or undeserving layabouts.

Depictions of prison as ‘easy’ with prisoners as ‘undeserving layabouts’ are particularly evident in tabloid headlines highlighting the material facilities and supposed ‘luxuries’ prisoners may have access to at cost to the tax-payer, while neglecting mention of the pains and deprivations which characterise imprisonment: Inside cushy prison where inmates chill in swanky rooms with laptops, TV and PHONES to call their kids.     (Hesketh, 2018 in The Mirror). ‘EASY JAIL BRO’ Lag pictured posing with box of Sugar Puffs and other home comforts ‘including Playstation and CD player in his cell’     (Gillespie, 2017 in The Sun)

138

8  Prison in Popular Culture

This discussion of material conditions in prison as potentially better than those outside for many depict the prison as insufficiently punitive, driven by the logic of less eligibility, rather than directing attention to broader failures in society where people outside experience deprivation. Jewkes (2007) has argued this can serve to prevent or dampen debate amongst the public in relation to imprisonment and some of the worst features of its use. For example, the depiction of phones to call one’s children as a ‘cushy’ luxury for prisoners undermines the serious deprivation that removal and isolation from one’s family is, and the impacts on loved ones (Condry & Minson, 2021), as well as the rehabilitative benefits of family ties (Jardine, 2014). Further, the emphasis on access to PlayStations and televisions, presented as luxuries these individuals are undeserving of, also minimises the painful mundanity of prison life. These trends in depicting ‘underserving layabouts’ enjoying an ‘easy life’ feed into the broader culture of penal populism. Related to media depictions suggesting the insufficient punitiveness of incarceration, is political rhetoric. Coining the phrase ‘populist punitiveness’, Bottoms (1995: 40) described the process by which ‘politicians tap into, and use for their own purposes, what they believe to be the public’s generally punitive stance’. Consequently, media depictions of imprisonment as ‘easy’, which may have a dualistic relationship with public opinion—both influenced by and shaping it—can contribute to these assumptions of public punitiveness which underpin political policy calling for harsher or longer sentences. Such punitiveness is also served by depictions of prison as ‘dark institutions of perpetual horror’ (Cheliotis, 2010: 175) where frequently centring behaviour of those in prison, vilifying prisoners in derogatory terms with violent language (Mason, 2006), serves to distance them from the ‘law-abiding’ and reinforce perceptions of prison as necessary to contain their behaviour: Out of Control: Inside Britain’s privately-run ‘anarchy’ jails where lags take Zombie drug Spice, start 50 fires a week, brawl with inmates and eat COCKROACHES. (Higgins, 2018 in The Sun) Teenage thugs injure 20 prison officers in riot at young offenders’ institute. (Torre, 2019 in The Mirror)

In these headlines, depictions of prisoners as ‘thugs’ and ‘lags’—and a clear focus on their violent behaviour—paints an image of violent and, as Cheliotis (2010: 175) describes, ‘degenerate beasts’. Any mention of poor conditions is framed within the context of this behaviour and perhaps even utilised to further the negative portrayals of prisoners themselves.

8.3  Prison Films and TV Drama

139

Questions

Look at some recent newspaper headlines and reflect on the following: • Is there any coverage relating to prison? If so, why are these stories newsworthy? • How does the article depict prison and/or prisoners? • What message does the article send about the role of prison in society? • Could such representations influence the reality of penal policy or practice? How? However, there is variation in the reporting of the prison, and the prevalence of these themes, depending on the publication studied (Jewkes, 2007). Tabloid papers tend to be the predominant sources of sensationalist, punitive depictions like those highlighted above. In contrast, some broadsheet newspapers and investigative journalism may take a more sympathetic approach, concentrating on issues with the system rather than vilifying those inside, thus potentially bringing to their readership’s attention significant injustices and failings of the prison system (Mason, 2005). For example, Mason (2006: 257) notes how in some instances The Guardian has provided the ‘only counter-discourse’ to calls for increased use of imprisonment, deviating from the rhetoric of how prison should operate in other news outlets. This is while the newspaper has also published discussion of criminal justice issues by formerly incarcerated prison correspondent, Eric Allison, and Erwin James who began writing for The Guardian while still imprisoned. Ultimately, representation of imprisonment in the news media is shaped by political agendas and beliefs of editorial teams, and thus ‘Newspapers are not engaged in dispassionate analysis but precisely the opposite—passionate engagement for the purposes of exercising moral sentiment’ (Jewkes, 2007: 450). Therefore, news media representations of imprisonment should be understood not as seeking to objectively reflect reality, but as mediated constructions of reality.

8.3 Prison Films and TV Drama Given the relatively limited coverage of imprisonment in news media, films and television dramas are of particular interest as potential sources of insight or commentary on imprisonment. The prison is a popular feature in film and drama, with a wide range of films based within prison, or in which imprisonment is featured, across various genres including serious dramas on the experience of incarceration, historical films exploring high-profile cases, action-adventure blockbusters

140

8  Prison in Popular Culture

involving jailbreaks and sci-fi depicting prisons or penal systems of the future. In 2006, Mason (2006) estimated at least three hundred prison films were created in the last century and this number has continued to increase over the last 15 years, with changes in media consumption leading to increased popularity of television dramas, several of which have also sought to explore prison life. What is it then, that makes the prison such a popular focal point for film and television drama? Kehrwald (2017: 6) has argued that a desire for ‘“understanding”, whether genuine or imaginary, is a primary reason for the genre’s appeal’, precisely because it is so difficult to find out about imprisonment in any other way—the prison is shrouded in greater mystery and secrecy than many other parts of the justice system, despite so many being imprisoned (Mason, 2006). This begs the question of how far prison films and dramas unmask the reality behind this mystery, or what mediated realities are constructed by the dramatic choices of their creators? To establish whether prison films reflect the reality of incarceration, we will now consider the features, and omissions, of various dramatic representations of imprisonment.

Characteristics of a Prison Film Given the wealth of films and television dramas featuring the prison in some way, there are challenges involved in determining what constitutes a ‘prison film’. Scholars have debated the remit and characteristics of the prison film genre; is it simply that the prison must feature in the film, that the film is based inside prison, or that the film is concerned with the experience or impact of incarceration? Rafter (2006) argues prison films are characterised by several stock themes, characters and storylines. Many of these common features result in depictions of prisoners and prison staff which are exaggerated, unrealistic and potentially problematic (Wilson, 1993). One feature evident in prison films is the tendency to depict the ‘worst of the worst’, as prisoners were described in Con Air (1997) (O’Sullivan, 2001). By depicting prisoners as the ‘worst’, most violent and dangerous ‘offenders’, prison films perpetuate the idea that this is who we are imprisoning, and that prisons are necessary to protect the public, despite the reality that many people imprisoned are held for non-violent offences (see Chapter 4). This emphasis on the most extreme examples of offending is also evident in the tendency of films to centre on prisoners serving long-term sentences for very serious offences and extreme examples of punishment, such as supermax prisons—even where depicted as future imagined punishments in sci-fi e.g. Fortress (1992) or

8.3  Prison Films and TV Drama

141

Lockout (2012)—or death row in the United States (as in The Green Mile [1999], Dead Man Walking [1995] and Trial by Fire [2018]). By focusing on the sharpest ends of penal systems, the more extreme and spectacular, films may distort understandings of what prison does—or should—look like, as well as understandings of who prisoners are and the crimes they have committed. In depicting the most dangerous offenders, films also tend to present the prison as a harsh, brutal environment characterised by gang conflict, disturbances and violence. Jewkes (2007) has noted how, in this way, prison dramas are seen by some scholars to replace the role of prison architecture in providing an austere image to send a communicative message to the community; rather than the gothic façade which was once influential (see Chapter 12), dark representations of prison in film and television are the predominant window into this hidden world for many (Fiddler, 2005 cited in Jewkes, 2007).

Characters in Prison Films While the ‘worst of the worst’ are evident in many prison films and dramas, Rafter (2006: 164) argues that the range of characters featured stretches beyond this, with numerous ‘staple’ characters often including: convict buddies, a paternalistic warden, a cruel assistant warden or guard, a craven snitch, a bloodthirsty convict, and the young hero, who is either absolutely innocent or at most guilty of a minor offense that does not warrant prison.

In contrast to the emphasis on the most dangerous or serious ‘offenders’, another popular feature of prison films and dramas is the struggle for freedom by this ‘young hero’ or innocent prisoner. High-profile miscarriages of justice have formed the basis of several successful prison dramas, such as In the Name of the Father (1993) and When They See Us (2019). Additionally, innocent prisoners have been central characters in many fictional depictions, with the struggle of the individual against the system forming a key plot device. Wilson (1993) has noted how use of individual innocent prisoners as exceptional examples, fighting against the system, creates a perception that only these exceptions are deserving of redemption. Rather than highlighting the humanity of those sent to prison more broadly, this can serve to present the rest of the prison population—who don’t fulfil this ‘innocent’ exception—in only ‘disparaging terms’ and as undeserving or incapable of such redemption (Wilson, 1993: 79).

142

8  Prison in Popular Culture

Another common feature of prison films has been depiction of prison staff as corrupt or brutal in the use of their powers (O’Sullivan, 2001). Prison officers or wardens are often framed as antagonists of the story, with the innocent hero working to escape, overthrow or resist a corrupt regime (Wilson & O’Sullivan, 2004); this is evident in The Shawshank Redemption (1994), when the protagonist is used by the prison warden to hide transfer of illegitimate funds, as well as in Cool Hand Luke (1967) in the physical and psychological torment the ‘Captain’ subjects prisoners to in the chain gang. These characterisations, that are so prevalent in prison films, often result in an over-simplistic distinction between good and bad, with the ‘good’ innocent prisoner triumphing over the ‘bad’ staff or system so that ‘moral order is restored’ (Rafter, 2006: 166). While failing to take account of the complexity of humanity on both the part of those incarcerated— innocent or not—and their custodians, such narratives serve to reassure us that ‘good’ will triumph and that no further challenge of the system is needed.

Plot Themes in Prison Films Frequently, plots of prison films involve a jailbreak or prison escape. Popular films Escape from Alcatraz (1979), Papillon (2017), Midnight Express (1978), The Great Escape (1963) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994) all feature efforts to escape imprisonment as central to their plots, while the series Prison Break (2005–2017) has five seasons all centred on breaking out of prison. This plot device has continued to feature in films such as Escape Plan (2013) or The Escapist (2008), along with other examples of resistance described in Chapter 7, such as rioting (Rafter, 2006). Rafter (2006: 167) has noted that fiction may sometimes ‘foreshadow’ or ‘intertwine’ with reality. For example, prison riots both preceded, and followed, the film Riot (1969), suggesting that the film ‘uncannily anticipated the two most deadly riots in U.S. prison history’ (2006: 167). Thus, popular representations of prison may not only be influenced by reality but reflect likely future realities in this way. However, the prevalence of riots and escapes in prison films may also exaggerate the reality of these events where, in fact, they are relatively infrequent. In England and Wales, there was only one escape from prison in the 2019/2020 period (MOJ, 2021), highlighting that escapes are exceptional rather than a general feature of prison life.

8.3  Prison Films and TV Drama

143

Representations of Women’s Imprisonment Most popular representations of imprisonment are based on the adult, male prisoner experience (O’Sullivan, 2001), while prison staff as central characters are also often male. As such, the experiences of women are less visible in dramatic representations. Where prison films about women have existed, these have often been part of the ‘Babes-Behind-Bars’ genre which ‘perpetuate[s] highly sexualised images of female prisoners’ (Cecil, 2007: 304–305). Negra and Lagerwey (2017) have argued, however, that we are starting to see female television anti-heroines (in the form of female prisoners) as part of what Joyce and La Pastina (2017: 222) consider a broader global trend towards ‘more nuanced representations of women varying in race, sexuality, profession and their choices between illicit/licit activities’. This deviates somewhat from the tendency towards innocent heroes as protagonists in male prison dramas, as well as from heteronormative depictions of women’s sexuality (Herman, 2003), arguably resulting in more nuanced depictions of women in prison. While television dramas such as Bad Girls (1999–2006) and Orange is the New Black (OITNB) (2013– 2019) may be popular due to their entertainment and comedic value, the serialised model through which women’s biographies are explored allows for an emerging message that prison may not be a suitable response for many of these women (Schwan, 2016).

While many common themes in prison films centre on the negative aspects of imprisonment, such as violence and corruption, one commonality in prison dramas is a tendency for the institution to redeem itself in the final moments (Rafter, 2006). Similarly, redemption of the individual prisoner is also a common plot device which further serves to legitimise the prison in the public consciousness, suggesting its potential for rehabilitative effects despite the injustices and problems highlighted in films. Rafter (2006: 3) explains how this frequent feature of crime films suppresses opposition to systems of punishment, despite encouraging some critical thinking about their use and problems: crime movies, whether they portray cop, private eyes, courts, prisons, or crime itself, have traditionally made two arguments at once. On the one hand, they criticize some aspect of society—police brutality, prison violence, legal barriers to justice, or the menace of crime, often by encouraging viewers to identify with a “good” bad guy

144

8  Prison in Popular Culture

who challenges the system. On the other hand they enable us to identify with a character who restores order at the end, even if that means the punishment or death of the bad-guy hero. Thus, crime films offer contradictory sorts of satisfaction: pride in our ability to think critically and root for the character who challenges authority, exposes injustice, champions the underdog; and pride in our maturity for backing the restoration of the moral order, an overhaul that makes further rebellion unnecessary.

This is evident in the conclusion to The Shawshank Redemption; despite the film focusing heavily on injustices of the system throughout, the parole board’s final decision to release Red—after doing all he can to satisfy them, and having lost hope in the system following repeated knock-backs—seems to redeem the system, suggesting it can function as it is supposed to. By concluding with this redemption, ‘prison movies enable us to believe, if only briefly, in a world where long-suffering virtue is rewarded’ (Rafter, 2006: 163). While the core themes of the prison film genre may change over time to reflect attitudes to prison and trends in penal policy (Bennett, 2006), this common theme of the system redeeming itself seems to persist, regardless of the institution’s flaws and failures.

Absent Realities in Prison Dramas While these characters and plot devices might help to delineate the prison film genre, the centrality of exceptional or dramatic themes often comes at the expense of dealing with core realities of prison life. As such, ‘dramatic products may help create a view of the world as much by what they leave out as through what they include’ (Wilson & O’Sullivan, 2004: 15), skewing the public’s view of imprisonment to the more exaggerated and sensationalised. Scholars and those with lived experience of imprisonment have commented on the absence of central features of imprisonment from dramatic representations, and while some missing features, such as the distinctive smell of prison (Zephaniah, 2003, cited in Jewkes, 2007), may be impossible to replicate through a screen, the exclusion of other core realities of incarceration is likely down to artistic or commercial decision-making. Although these characteristics may be crucial to understanding incarceration, they may not excite, entertain and, ultimately, attract viewings to the same extent as the extremes prevalent in prison films. By focusing on the most sensationalised and dramatic elements of imprisonment, many prison dramas fail to reflect the complexity of prison life, characterised not only by the risk of violence and chaos but also by tedium, repetition and boredom. However, boring is the opposite of what directors and producers are

8.3  Prison Films and TV Drama

145

seeking in development of a film or drama, the aim being to excite and captivate the audience, which is harder to do when portraying the mundane. Similarly, few prison films capture the loneliness of incarceration through separation from loved ones. Dramatic plots often revolve around dialogue between characters, making depiction of isolation and solitariness difficult—or less exciting—to depict. Boredom and isolation, along with other pains of imprisonment (see Chapter 5), are thus often lacking in dramatic depictions of imprisonment which prioritise entertainment over realistic representation. While failing to capture the more everyday struggles of incarceration, the tendency towards sensationalist, dystopian representation in prison dramas also results in a failure to reflect the very real positive changes that may be seen in prison regimes. This includes positive developments due to enforcement of international guidelines or human rights standards, as well as from policy and political decisions (along with any more negative outcomes) with connections between practice and political decision-making rarely acknowledged in dramatic representations. Additionally, many dramas fail to consider the positive personal change (Bennett, 2008) that may take place for individuals during or following, but perhaps despite, imprisonment. While the redemption story of protagonists is central to many prison films, little attention is given to the actual process by which individuals desist from crime, or the individual, social and structural factors that may shape, encourage or hinder this process. Without understanding these influences on one’s path away from offending, depictions of redemption will always be oversimplified. Some genres of film are inevitably more prone to sensationalism and excess, which O’Sullivan (2001) argues can account for some of the misrepresentations discussed. Rafter (2006: 163) notes many prison films are ‘essentially fantasies, films that purport to reveal the brutal realities of incarceration while actually offering viewers escape from the miseries of daily life through adventure and heroism’; sensationalism and excess take priority over realistic depiction. Some dramas do not try to offer serious representation, for example, those within the comedy genre, such as Porridge (1974–1977). Nevertheless, while this may have dealt with some real issues such as adaptation to imprisonment and its impact, and there is no absolute claim to realistic representation, this may have led to a sanitised view of imprisonment where laughter minimises the harms of imprisonment (Wilson & O’Sullivan, 2004). Due to the limited representation of imprisonment elsewhere, Bennett (2008) has argued prison dramas can perform an important social function, highlighting issues of importance to the public. However, by excluding many of the more subtle realities of imprisonment, and the significant consequences for society more broadly, they perhaps fail to fulfil this function as fully as possible.

146

8  Prison in Popular Culture

Damaging Depictions or a Tool for Reform? As discussed above, there are many criticisms of popular depictions of imprisonment, with scholars noting the damage that can be done through putting ‘into circulation’ particular interpretations and understandings of the prison (O’Sullivan, 2001). An important question then is whether such representations have any meaningful impact on prison reform efforts or agendas, or indeed prisons themselves, through influencing public views (Bennett, 2006). O’Sullivan (2001: 331) has highlighted the dualistic relationship between imprisonment and the media, questioning whether depictions in prison films accompany and reflect broader trends in policy, or in fact influence them: ‘Did the cinematic imagery of the control-problem prison “accompany” or “underpin” the growth of the prison population?’. Scholars have noted how dramatic representations can raise awareness of inhumanity and injustice within the prison system, where they deviate from the usual focus on entertainment and sensationalism in their depiction, and can cultivate an empathy in relation to the impact of policy and practice on those imprisoned (Wilson & O’Sullivan, 2005). Some films within the prison genre have sought to parody the justice system (e.g. Chicago [2002]), while other dramas have integrated current policy issues, and critiques of these, into their storylines. For example, in Season Five of OITNB, conditions rapidly deteriorate as Litchfield Penitentiary is taken over by a private corporation, resulting in overcrowding, insufficient resources and ill-trained staff, encapsulated most starkly in the killing of Poussey by a young, inexperienced prison officer during her restraint. Through highlighting the impact of cost-cutting where profit-motives interfere in state punishment, the series appeared to provide a critique of private sector involvement in the US prison-industrial complex, in addition to a ‘subtle critique of (female) mass incarceration’ (Schwan, 2016: 473). One recent drama that resisted the usual trappings of dramatic representations and shed meaningful light on the experience of incarceration, is the BBC’s Time (2021) by Jimmy McGovern. Following its airing, reviewers, journalists and those with lived experience of imprisonment shared praise for its more realistic and nuanced depiction of prison life. Journalist Owen Jones (2021) described the drama as avoiding ‘the trap of painting villains and heroes, opting instead for emphasising the moral complexity that really defines the human condition’, while formerly incarcerated Eric Allison (2021) said: ‘there is nothing in the show that I have not seen first-hand during my time inside. Shocking incidents do occur, but they are bookended by the long periods of tedium and inertia that character-

8.3  Prison Films and TV Drama

147

ises prison life’. John Crilly (2021) also discussed the accuracy of McGovern’s depiction, saying: ‘Time took me right back to my own time in prison—all that was missing were the smells’. Such ‘meaningful’ depictions of prison are argued to be rare (Bennett, 2006: 100), but where such depictions are presented these can be extremely important, potentially helping to re-shape perceptions of imprisonment by providing a more realistic insight into the prison experience and its inherent pains. Commentators have argued the potential for Time’s representation of imprisonment to garner support for reform, in a way that politicians and penal reform organisations have not, particularly through acknowledgement of the fact prison is an inappropriate environment for many held there (Jones, 2021). However, despite these more critical prison dramas, we are yet to see substantial reform to prison systems that fail to fulfil their stated aims, and such depictions may well be dismissed on the grounds that they are, after all, fictional. Exploring the relationship between media and penal policy, Bennett (2008: 107) notes how media sources can play a negative role in dissuading engagement in discussions of reform: ‘the media play their part in the crisis of legitimacy by failing to effectively challenge policies and reinforcing the ideology that support them; they are part of the problem’. However, O’Sullivan (2001: 321) argues that we should not focus on why it is that such representations fail to cultivate support for prison reform, but instead ‘consider the ways in which representations of prison in film actively contribute towards legitimating prison as a form of punishment and, possibly, [continue to] encourage the trend towards a growth in the prison population’. In their study of prisoners’ perspectives on prison films, Bennett and Knight (2020) have noted how imprisoned men themselves considered media representations to be part of the structures enabling punitiveness in society, while dramatic depictions could also impact on identity and sense of self for those inside. Thus, prison dramas may have the potential to interact with individuals’ lived experiences of imprisonment, as well as impacting on broader attitudes to its use in society in a way which might hinder meaningful change. Looking at the core features of most dramatic representations of imprisonment, we may see some critical reflection on prison conditions or injustices, but overwhelmingly we see a penal system which ultimately rights itself and is needed to respond to all but the innocent heroes (Rafter, 2006; Wilson & O’Sullivan, 2004). Cheliotis (2010: 175) thus argues that instead of ‘undermining the external legitimacy of prisons […] media representations reinforce public perceptions of the overall essentialness of the prison institution and of the essentialness of its further growth and harshening’. To reinforce the ‘essentialness’ of imprisonment, dramatic representations must gloss over the many failures of

148

8  Prison in Popular Culture

the institution when assessed against its own official aims. Thus, in prioritising entertainment, they, alongside news media representations, form part of what Mathiesen (2000: vii cited in O’Sullivan, 2001) terms processes of denial: the entertainment industry of television has transformed crime and prison to entertainment objects, thus corroding our doubts and worries about the prison solution.

News values and entertainment take precedent over meaningful challenge of policies and practices of incarceration, and where dramas do raise concerns, rather than sparking critique of the system, criticism is often inwardly focused with fears of potential ‘copycat’ violence resulting from the film, for example (Bennett, 2008). Questions

• Does representation trump reality in the public consciousness surrounding imprisonment? • Do popular representations of the prison normalise imprisonment?

8.4 Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside? While dramatic depictions of the prison often skew reality to maximise entertainment value, it might be expected that prison documentaries would provide a more realistic insight into life inside. Indeed, documentaries often claim to provide a glimpse into the real world of prison. For example, Channel 4’s Secret Life of Prisons (2016) pitched itself as revealing ‘how brutal the reality of life inside prisons can be’ by utilising footage filmed by prisoners on smartphones, rather than journalists entering the prison. Alternatively, documentaries may shed light on, or enable the implementation of, innovative programmes within prison. For example, in Football Behind Bars (2009), ex-footballer Ian Wright trialled the creation of a prison football academy to foster rehabilitation, with a view to encouraging the roll-out of such initiatives across the prison estate. Some documentaries may serve an educational purpose in raising awareness of injustices and harms of the system, as well as the broader issues of inequality and exclusion which cause certain groups to be more heavily subject to criminal justice intervention than others. Ava Duvernay’s 13th (2016) is a documentary about, but not filmed within prison, which provides an accessible yet well-informed discussion of the connections between slavery and the prison-industrial complex in the United States (see Chapter 4), drawing on insights of academics and activ-

8.4  Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside?

149

ists such as Angela Davis and Michelle Alexander. However, while the focus of such educational documentaries is important—highlighting the broader context of injustice that feeds into prison systems—they rarely provide a window into understanding prison life itself, and those which claim to often fall into trappings of sensationalism and entertainment at the expense of reflecting reality. Even where programmes are based on reality, and depict issues facing prisoners, there often remains a focus on exciting and sensationalised events which both attract audiences and serve to perpetuate damaging ideas about prison and prisoners. Cecil (2007) found this in depictions of imprisoned women in documentaries, magazines and television news, with programmes highlighting features such as sex and violence to excite their audience. As Ross (2015: 406) notes ‘Rarely are viewers given a glimpse of the mundane, daily reality of prison life. If they were, few would watch the programs’. In line with this emphasis on violence, many prison documentaries focus on the most high-security institutions, holding those deemed to be the most dangerous prisoners. For example, HMP Belmarsh—a Category A, high-security prison often used to house individuals whose cases are high-profile or pose a threat to national security—has been the subject of several documentaries, including Welcome to HMP Belmarsh with Ross Kemp (2020) and Screws: Inside Belmarsh (2004). This theme is also evident in the multitude of documentaries such as Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons (2016) or Banged Up Abroad (2006–2020) which, by focusing on prison regimes elsewhere in the world, may further legitimise imprisonment through portrayal of domestic prisons as less inhumane, or more legitimate, than those abroad. However, a potential benefit of documentaries involving undercover investigation, for example, is the window it can provide into an otherwise hidden world, raising awareness of injustices and abuses of power. In a case study of documentaries in the US, Brown (2016) argues that, by visually documenting negative and harmful elements of imprisonment, documentaries can serve to encourage accountability of the state in their operation of punishment. For example, in 2015 an undercover documentary report by BBC’s panorama uncovered allegations of abuse and staff misconduct at G4S-run HMYOI Medway (Withnall, 2016). This case demonstrates how documentaries may force formal inquiries and actions on the part of ministers, with the YOI being brought back into public control shortly after the documentary aired (Bordell, 2017). Other ways that ‘factual’ television shows may try and shed light on incarceration is through reality TV-based challenges or experiments. For example, in the US reality show 60 Days In (2016–2020) volunteers spend 60 days incarcerated as undercover prisoners in a county jail, or in the experimental ITV show Bring Back Borstal (2015) young men with convictions took part in a mock-up

150

8  Prison in Popular Culture

Borstal programme to explore the effectiveness of this historical alternative to modern-day imprisonment. While such shows may seem to offer the viewer a real insight into aspects of life inside, the ultimate agenda of entertainment will inevitably shape editing and production of such shows, while the experience of volunteers can never come close to replicating the pains of incarceration when involuntarily separated from loved ones, sometimes for an indefinite period. Where television shows are filmed undercover, they also raise ethical questions about the observation of those held at the hands of the state, and responsible use of imagery, sound and personal information. Such issues, considered alongside the fact that these representations are always mediated and constructed according to their makers’ agendas, suggest that television—even where claiming to reflect reality—should be treated with caution. Questions

• Are reality television shows within prison ethical? • What might the ethical implications of these television shows, or documentaries, be when considering the prisoners who may be featured?

8.5 Conclusion The preceding discussion has demonstrated the problem with assuming there is one objective prison reality that can be presented or observed, and has highlighted that we should be concerned with both the ‘assumptions about the nature of reality embedded in film narratives and imagery’ (Rafter, 2006: 8) and the ideological messages such representations might send. However, if we do not view popular representations of prison as portraying reality, but merely depicting the prison in the manner which best fulfils the media, film or drama’s purpose to entertain and engage, is it really a problem that these depictions are exaggerated or sensationalised? While many may not view the media they consume as an accurate representation of life in prison, Surette (2015: 4) has noted that ‘continued exposure to the content [nevertheless] influences one’s view of reality’. Research also suggests that when presented with more accurate information and background to instances of crime, the public’s views are more nuanced than we might first think (Jewkes, 2007) with proposed sentences—for example—being more in line with actual practice. As such, the messages sent by popular representations of prison do matter in terms of the messages they send about imprisonment. As Cheliotis (2010: 171) summarises, ‘the mass media resemble a double-edged sword. They can be used and abused, they can be empowering as well as disempowering, they can be

References/Further Reading

151

an instrument of direct democracy as much as a subtle means of symbolic manipulation and oppression’. In this respect, popular representations may be valuable in challenging public conceptions of imprisonment, while also having the potential to reinforce views on the necessity of the prison and desires for punitiveness in its use. Chapter Summary

• The treatment of crime in the news media can serve to vilify those in prison and reinforce populist punitiveness. • Dramatic representations of the prison are often sensationalised, exceptional and fail to portray the more mundane realities of imprisonment. • Documentaries may appear to offer a more realistic window into life inside, encouraging accountability, but may also sensationalise and dramatise the prison experience. • Media representations of imprisonment are varied, and present mediated realities, influenced by the agendas and values of those involved in their production. Activity

Choose a prison film or TV drama. While watching, reflect on the following questions: • How is prison used in the film? • In what ways does the depiction of imprisonment reflect reality, or not, based on your wider reading and understanding of the institution? • What message does the film/drama send about imprisonment?

References/Further Reading Allison, E. (2021, June 18). ‘There’s nothing here I did not see inside’—A Former HMP Inmate on Time. The Guardian [Online]. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jun/18/time-former-hmp-inmate-jimmy-mcgovern-sean-bean-stephen-graham. Accessed 20 Jan 2022. Bennett, J. (2006). The good, the bad and the ugly: The media in prison films. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(2), 97–115. Bennett, J. (2008). Reel life after prison: Repression and reform in films about release from prison. Probation Journal, 55(4), 353–368. Bennett, J., & Knight, V. (2020). Prisoners on prison films. Palgrave Macmillan. Bordell, W. (2017). Medway ‘clearly unfit to look after children’, says Howard League. The Justice Gap. https://www.thejusticegap.com/medway-clearly-unfit-look-childrensays-howard-league/. Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

152

8  Prison in Popular Culture

Bottoms, A. E. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 17–49). Clarendon Press. Brown, M. (2016). Social documentary in prison: The art of catching the state in the act of punishment. In L. K. Cheliotis (Ed.), The arts of imprisonment: Control, resistance and empowerment (pp. 101–118). Routledge. Bulman, M. (2019, April 1). Surge in prisoners’ social media accounts being shut down by authorities, figures show. The Independent [Online]. https://www.independent. co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prisons-inmates-social-media-accounts-closed-down-mobile-phones-contraband-illicit-a8847756.html. Accessed 16 Dec 2021. Carrabine, E. (2016). Telling prison stories: The spectacle of punishment and the criminological imagination. In L. K. Cheliotis (Ed.), The arts of imprisonment: Control, resistance and empowerment (pp. 47–72). Routledge. Cecil, D. K. (2007). Looking beyond caged heat: Media images of women in prison. Feminist Criminology, 2(4), 304–326. Cheliotis, L. K. (2010). The ambivalent consequences of visibility: Crime and prisons in the mass media. Crime Media Culture, 6(2), 169–184. Condry, R., & Minson, S. (2021). Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 540–558. Crilly, J. (2021, June 22). BBC’s drama Time took me back to being inside—I hope it showed the public how painful prison is. The I [Online]. https://inews.co.uk/ opinion/bbc-drama-time-took-me-back-being-inside-hope-showed-public-painfulprison-1063902. Accessed 22 June 2021. Gillespie, T. (2017, February 9). ‘EASY JAIL BRO’ Lag pictured posing with box of Sugar Puffs and other home comforts ‘including Playstation and CD player in his cell’. The Sun [online]. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2822684/lag-pictured-posing-with-box-ofsugar-puffs-and-other-home-comforts-including-playstation-and-cd-player-in-his-cell/. Accessed 17 Dec 2021. Herman, D. (2003). “Bad girls changed my life”: Homonormativity in a women’s prison drama. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(2), 141–159. Hesketh, S. (2018, July 21). Inside cushy prison where inmates chill in swanky rooms with laptops, TV and PHONES to call their kids. The Mirror [Online]. https://www.mirror. co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-cushy-prison-inmates-chill-12958345. Accessed 17 Dec 2021. Higgins, E. D. (2018, August 20). OUT OF CONTROL: Inside Britain’s privately-run ‘anarchy’ jails where lags take zombie drug Spice, start 50 fires a week, brawl with inmates and eat COCKROACHES. The Sun [Online]. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/ uknews/7056768/uk-private-run-jails-g4s-hmp-birmingham-spice/. Accessed 17 Dec 2021. Ipsos MORI. (2004). Attitudes to crime and prisons 2004. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsosmori/en-uk/attitudes-crime-prisons-2004. Accessed 15 July 2021. Jardine, C. (2014). The role of family ties in desistance from crime. Families Outside. https://www.familiesoutside.org.uk/content/uploads/2017/11/families-outside-in-brief-9.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2021. Jewkes, Y. (2004). Media and crime. Sage.

References/Further Reading

153

Jewkes, Y. (2007). Prisons and the media: The shaping of public opinion and penal policy in a mediated society. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 447–466). Willan Publishing. Jones, O. (2021, June 11). Will it take a BBC drama to finally start a rational debate about Britain’s prisons? The Guardian [Online]. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/bbc-drama-britain-prisons-jimmy-mcgovern-time. Accessed 14 June 2021. Joyce, S., & La Pastina, A. (2017). Women and criminality in Brazilian Telenovelas: Salve Jorge and human trafficking. In M. Buonanno (Ed.), Television antiheroines. Intellect Books Ltd. Kehrwald, K. (2017). Prison movies: Cinema behind bars. Columbia University Press. Mason, P. (2005). Captured by the media: Prison discourse in popular culture. Willan Publishing. Mason, P. (2006). Lies, distortion and what doesn’t work: Monitoring prison stories in the British media. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(3), 251–267. Ministry of Justice. (2021). Escapes from prison establishments and HMPPS escort. https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons/public-protection/escapes. Accessed 19 July 2021. Negra, D., & Lagerwey, J. (2017). Foreword. In M. Buonanno (Ed.), Television antiheroines. Intellect Books Ltd. Newburn, T. (2007). “Tough on crime”: Penal policy in England and Wales. Crime and Justice, 36(1), 425–470. O’Sullivan, S. (2001). Representations of prison in nineties Hollywood Cinema: From Con Air to The Shawshank Redemption. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 317–334. Piacentini, L., & Katz, E. (2018). The virtual reality of imprisonment: The impact of social media on prisoner agency and prison structure in Russian prisons. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 8(2), 183–204. Rafter, N. (2006). Shots in the mirror: Crime films and society (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ross, J. I. (2015). Varieties of prison voyeurism: An analytic/interpretive framework. The Prison Journal, 95(3), 397–417. Schwan, A. (2016). Postfeminism meets the women in prison genre: Privilege and spectatorship in Orange is the New Black. Television and New Media, 17(6), 473–490. Surette, R. (2015). Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities, and Policies. (5th Edition). Cengage Learning. Torre, B. (2019). Teenage thugs injure 20 prison officers in riot at young offenders’ institute. The Mirror [online]. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teenage-thugs-injure20-prison-14268338. Accessed on 17 Dec 2021. Wilson, D. (1993). Inside observations. Screen, 34(1), 76–79. Wilson, D., & O’Sullivan, S. (2004). Images of incarceration: Representations of prison in film and television drama. Waterside Press. Wilson, D., & O’Sullivan, S. (2005). Re-theorizing the penal reform functions of the prison film: Revelation, humanization, empathy and benchmarking. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4), 471–491.  Withnall, A. (2016). Medway abuse claims: G4S workers accused of punching children and stabbing them with forks. The Independent [Online]. https://www.independent.co.uk/ news/uk/home-news/medway-abuse-claims-g4s-workers-accused-of-punching-children-and-stabbing-them-with-forks-a6802071.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. 

Part III The Penal Framework

9

Prisoners’ Rights

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

The history of punishment and erosion of rights. International guidance and domestic legislation on prisoners’ rights. The Prison Rules 1999 and prisoners’ rights. Civil rights of prisoners, focusing on one of the most contentious of these rights, enfranchisement.

9.1 Introduction The right to liberty is taken away with a sentence of imprisonment. For practical reasons inherent in confinement, or sometimes for punitive purposes, other rights are also denied to prisoners. The denial of liberty is one element of punishment, with further rights eliminated, or undermined on conviction. This chapter examines prisoners’ rights. It begins by outlining how the recognition of rights developed over time. The next section examines the rights that prisoners retain, set out in international declarations and covenants. The chapter then considers how these international standards translate into domestic prison rules. It continues by examining the role of the courts in upholding prisoners’ rights, and considers how the ‘rights on the books’ translate into ‘rights in action’. Finally, the chapter analyses prisoners’ civil rights, in particular the right to vote.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_9

157

158

9  Prisoners’ Rights

9.2 Punishment and Civil Death The rights which individuals retain (or lose) on imprisonment have changed over time, and today vary between jurisdictions. Punishment before the emergence of the prison (see Chapter 2) inflicted pain on the body, and the human rights of those being punished were rarely considered. Today, the rights a state affords to those it confines reveal much about the objectives of imprisonment in that jurisdiction. In more punitive penal systems, the denial of liberty is only part of punishment as legislation removes other rights that people in the free world may take for granted. Nevertheless, although they are not always recognised, prisoners retain their human rights (in theory, if not always in practice), no matter how punitive the penal policy. In more progressive jurisdictions, prisoners retain some or all of their civil rights. Prior to the emergence of the modern prison, punishment removed certain rights. The argument was that those who committed a serious crime (at the time labelled a felony), put themselves outside the law voluntarily, and therefore could not invoke the protections of the law from the king, prince or feudal lord, whose role it was to safeguard and protect people who lived under their rule. This could lead to ‘civil death’: being dead in law. The concept of civil death has its roots in Greek, Roman, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon legal traditions. In ancient Greece, ‘civil death’ meant that certain law-breakers forfeited all of their civil rights, including the right to property and possession, the right to inherit and bequeath, the right to bring suit, the right to vote and the right to appear in court. In Roman law, an individual pronounced ‘infamous’ was prohibited from serving in the army, appearing in court, making speeches, attending assemblies and voting. Being declared infamous could be for a criminal or immoral act. In later times, Germanic tribes used ‘outlawry’ to punish those who committed serious crimes. The outlaw was expelled from the community, their property confiscated and they were denied all rights. Later, in extreme cases, the outlaw, being considered outside society and therefore beyond protection from the realm, could be killed with impunity (Ewald, 2002). In feudal England, the Crown seized the property of felons as part of their punishment. English law created its own punishment of ‘attainder’. The ‘attained’, for a felony or crime of treason, was liable to three penalties: forfeiture—the confiscation of chattels and goods; ‘corruption of the blood’—they were unfit to inherit, possess or leave their estate to heirs, and the land was forfeited to the local lord; and finally, the attained was ‘dead in law’ (Itzkowitz & Oldak, 1973: 724). They could not bring suit or appear as a witness in court and were denied the franchise (Ewald, 2002).

9.3  Human Rights and Imprisonment

159

Most civil death statutes disappeared over time and have been abolished in modern democracies, but others were embraced by many former British colonies and common law jurisdictions (Easton, 2006; Ewald, 2002). In many US states, further sanctions accompany a sentence of imprisonment, including the denial of the right to vote, to hold public office, eligibility to obtain certain occupational licenses or practice certain professions, entitlement to food stamps and eligibility for financial aid to attend college (Miller & Stuart, 2017). This has led to what has been described as ‘carceral citizenship’ which ‘begins at the moment of a criminal conviction and is distinguished from other forms of citizenship by the restrictions, duties and benefits uniquely accorded to carceral citizens, or to people with criminal records’ (Miller & Stuart, 2017: 533). In England and Wales, although civil death statutes are less restrictive, a sentence of imprisonment can impact the right to vote (Tripkovic, 2019), and access to the courts under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Post-release, the Juries Act 1974 takes away the right to sit on a jury from some former prisoners. Restrictions introduced in 2012 limit the potential for people with unspent criminal records to receive an award from the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Authority (Bradford-Clarke et al., 2022). There are restrictions on standing for parliamentary office, local authority, mayoral and Greater London Authority elections and a conviction can remove the right to stand for election to become a Police and Crime Commissioner (Henley, 2014: 22–23). While prisoners and ex-prisoners are no longer ‘dead in law’, these sanctions have created ‘civil and political penality, beyond the boundaries of the criminal justice system, [which] are now used as instruments of punishment’ (Behan, 2020: 4). Question

Alexander Paterson, the Commissioner of Prisons in England and Wales from 1922 to 1947 is often quoted as saying that: ‘Men are sent to prison as a punishment, not for punishment’. • Should imprisonment be used as or for punishment?

9.3 Human Rights and Imprisonment In reaction to the horrors of World War II, international human rights frameworks were established for all people, free and imprisoned. Along with the development of human rights standards, came a recognition that even on imprisonment, human dignity should not be denied. Prisoners should retain human rights, which

160

9  Prisoners’ Rights

were set out in transnational penal declarations and conventions (van Zyl Smit & Snacken, 2009). While human rights are inalienable, Hunt (2007: 29) contends that they are ‘difficult to pin down because their definition, indeed their very existence, depends on emotions as much as on reason’. Hunt (2007: 29) continues: Rights cannot be defined once and for all because their emotional basis continues to shift, in part in reaction to the declaration of rights. Rights remain open to question because our sense of who has rights and what those rights are constantly changes. The human rights revolution is by definition ongoing.

With imprisonment, prisoners lose their right to liberty; however, there are various international declarations, conventions and agreements which set out the rights that they retain. Some of these concentrate on human rights which people possess by being human, and others focus on civil rights, those you are entitled to as a citizen or subject of a particular jurisdiction, nation or state. Some deal solely with prisoners and others are more general. Unless prisoners are explicitly excluded, we can infer that international frameworks cover them, as human rights are universal and inalienable. At an international level, these include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1976). Although nations of the world profess adherence to the UNDHR, the rights contained therein are not legally enforceable but may be considered ‘soft’ law. However, there are legal obligations on states who have signed up to the ICCPR and ICESCR. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (UNSMR) were first agreed in 1955 and updated as the UN Nelson Mandela Rules in 2015. The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, also known as the Bangkok Rules were approved in 2010 (see Chapter 6). The Nelson Mandela and Bangkok Rules set out principles on the treatment of prisoners, rather than legal obligations. Rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules (2015) states: ‘All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings’. Under no circumstances shall a prisoner be ‘subjected to, and all prisoners shall be protected from, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Further punishments should not be used to accompany the denial of liberty. Recognising that treating all prisoners the same does not mean that they will be treated equally, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) developed the Handbook on Prisoners with special needs (2010). It covers eight

9.4  Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights

161

groups of prisoners ‘which have a particularly vulnerable status in prisons’ (UNODC, 2010: 1). These include prisoners with mental health care needs; prisoners with disabilities; ethnic and racial minorities and indigenous peoples; foreign national prisoners; LGBT prisoners; older prisoners; prisoners with terminal illness and prisoners under sentence of death. At a European level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1950) prohibits torture, slavery and forced labour. It guarantees the right to liberty and a fair trial, and no punishment without law. It prohibits discrimination and obliges states to provide effective remedies. Under Protocol No. 6 of the ECHR, agreed in 1982, the death penalty was outlawed in peacetime. In 2002, it was outlawed in times of war. The European Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) is a key part of the framework of oversight and monitoring in prisons throughout Europe through the work of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (see Chapter 10). Similar principles to the Nelson Mandela Rules inform the revised European Prison Rules (EPR) (Council of Europe, 2020) which begin: ‘All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights’. The EPR states that the denial of liberty is the punishment and that there should be no further erosion of rights unless enshrined in legislation. ‘Persons deprived of their liberty’, according to the Basic Principles (no. 2) of Council of Europe’s EPR (2020), ‘retain all rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or remanding them in custody’. However, the principles set out in international declarations, covenants and conventions do not always translate into domestic policy, and at times are not adhered to in daily practices in prisons.

9.4 Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights The Prison Rules 1999 govern how prisons are run in England and Wales. They cover a range of areas, including health and welfare, education, communication with the outside world and time in open air. The Prison Rules set the limitations on prisoners’ rights and include rules on the role of prison officers and governors. They emphasise that many of what we consider rights in the free world become privileges while in prison. These can be removed if a prisoner does not adhere to the Prison Rules and they can be confined to a cell as a punishment (see Chapter 10 for potential punishments for transgressions of these Rules). It is widely accepted that prisoners should have a right to keep in touch with the outside world. The Prison Rules state: ‘Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family’ (Rule 4(1)).

162

9  Prisoners’ Rights

However, as with most other rights for prisoners, these are abridged. The norm in prisons in England and Wales is for telephones to be available on landings to make a limited number of calls to certain people (although there are exceptions, such as HMP Berwyn where prisoners have phones in their cells and are able to make, but not receive calls). Prisoners can send letters, although ‘every letter or other communication to or from a prisoner may be read, listened to, logged, recorded or examined by the governor or an officer deputed by him’ (Rule 34(4)). Prison authorities can prevent letters from leaving the prison or stop other communications on the ‘ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length’ (Prison Rules 34(4)). However, there are exceptions. Prisoners have the right to send letters to lawyers and courts without these being read by the prison authorities. These letters may be examined to check if they are to legal advisors or courts. If a letter is to be inspected it must be done in the presence of the prisoner. A prisoner’s legal advisor may consult with their client within sight, but out of hearing of prison officers (Rule 38(2)). Most prisons internationally allow visits from family and friends. In England and Wales, a convicted prisoner is usually allowed at least two 1-hour visits every four weeks. A prisoner on remand (waiting for their trial) is allowed three 1-hour visits a week (MoJ, 2022). In some jurisdictions, and/or for certain categories of prisoners’ some visiting spaces are separated through a glass screen, ostensibly to prevent contraband from entering the prison. Prison Service Instruction 16/2011 (revised 2021) states that a ‘prisoner and his/her visitor(s) normally sit across a table in an open room, with other prisoners and visitors present. Physical contact between the prisoner and his/her visitor(s) is usually allowed at the beginning and end of the visit, unless the prisoner is subject to other restrictions’. However, the Prison Rules for England and Wales state that ‘the Secretary of State may require that any visit, or class of visits, shall be held in facilities which include special features restricting or preventing physical contact between a prisoner and a visitor’ (Rule 34(4)). A visit may be held under these ‘closed’ conditions if there are concerns about prison security, or the possibility of illegal activity during the visit such as passing drugs. During a ‘closed’ visit, the visitor and prisoner talk to each other while seated either side of a glass panel. During all visits, officers are present and may listen to the conversation. Visitors’ bags and pockets are searched and they may also be given a rub down search and asked to open their mouth (PRT, 2022). Conjugal visits are not allowed in England and Wales. In some jurisdictions, for example, Spain, Brazil and Belgium, prisoners are allowed conjugal visits with their partners, in a private space, away from the view of guards and prison authorities (Vladu et al., 2021). In some US states, there are also Extended Family Visits or Family Reunification Programmes. These tend to take place at medium

9.4  Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights

163

or low-security prisons (Cramer et al., 2017). Severe restrictions on the number or types of visits can erode more than just the rights of prisoners. They can impact on the rights of partners, and especially children, as having a parent in prison ‘is traumatic, and the disruption of the parent–child relationship and attachment is considered an adverse childhood experience’ (Cramer et al., 2017: 2). Some prisoners in England and Wales who are on ‘Enhanced’ programmes can have extended family visits to help maintain relationships and prepare for release. While most people accept that imprisonment should not deny prisoners their human rights, there are differing opinions and approaches about what other rights they should retain. Although education is a human right recognised under international declarations (Behan, 2021), domestic penal policies do not always follow these principles. The Prison Rules simply state that a programme of activities should be provided in each prison, and ‘every prisoner able to profit from the education facilities provided at a prison shall be encouraged to do so’ (Rule 32(1)). However, this does not always occur as space, facilities and courses can be limited. Overcrowding in British prisons has been an issue since the 1990s (PRT, 2022), and therefore opportunities to attend education and other programme activities are not always available. Not having access to programmes and courses is especially detrimental for those on indeterminate sentences (prisoners who are serving IPPs and lifers) who need to attend programmes to demonstrate to the parole board that they have been ‘rehabilitated’ in their application for release. The resources and facilities needed to engage in education in the twenty-first century are not always provided (Behan, 2021). To provide a modern educational experience, access to the internet is essential. Most prisons internationally do not allow access to the internet and no, or restricted internet access continues to be the norm in prisons throughout England and Wales. Only 18 out of 117 prisons have in-cell cabling, leading to a study on information technology concluding that despite British society becoming increasingly digitised, ‘our prisons are almost entirely offline’ (CSJ, 2021: 4). The study recommended that controlled broadband facilities be installed throughout the prison estate. At the moment, the ‘uptake of digital services in UK prisons is a postcode lottery’, with research indicating that a prison sentence ‘disrupts digital literacy, which can lead to increased isolation, loneliness, boredom, frustration and anger’ (Knight, 2017). Some jurisdictions such as Belgium have led the way with limited access to the internet through a system called PrisonCloud (Knight, 2017). Under the Prison Rules, prisoners are allowed freedom of worship and access to a Minister or Chaplain of the denomination to which they registered on arrival in prison. The Chaplain is expected to visit members of their faith regularly. If a

164

9  Prisoners’ Rights

prisoner belongs to a denomination for which there is no prison minister, ‘the governor shall do what he reasonably can, if so requested by the prisoner, to arrange for him to be visited regularly by a minister of that denomination’ (Rule 15(2)). There are a range of other issues outlined in the Prison Rules around sleeping accommodation, bedding and hygiene, with prisoners expected to ‘have a hot bath or shower on reception and thereafter at least once a week’ (Rule 28(2)). Prison food—always a source of contention throughout history (Tomlinson, 1978) and across jurisdictions (Vanhouche & Beyens, 2020)—is also dealt with in the Prison Rules 1999. ‘The food provided shall be wholesome, nutritious, well prepared and served, reasonably varied and sufficient in quantity’ (Rule 24(2)). Alcohol is outlawed. No tobacco is allowed ‘except as a privilege under rule 8 and in accordance with any orders of the governor’ (Rule 25(2)). Prisoners are expected to work, unless excused on medical grounds (Rule 31). A prisoner is allowed time in the open air daily if the ‘weather permits and subject to the need to maintain good order and discipline’ (Rule 30). These rules govern every aspect of prisoners’ lives. However, along with the principles outlined in international declarations, they do not always lead to effective protection of prisoners’ rights, as we will see in the next section. Question

• On incarceration, what rights should a person retain, and what rights should they lose?

9.5 ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’ Human rights observance takes on much greater significance in prison, with the power dynamic overwhelmingly on the side of prison authorities. Shaw (1987) and Scott (2013) have noted that in prison there are few rights and an abundance of privileges. Drake (2018: 11) contends that prisons ‘operate as repressive, unconstitutional spaces’, based on the ‘premise that the citizens they govern will not be afforded the same rights and freedoms’ as enjoyed by people outside prison. It does this by setting prisoners apart and ‘othering’ them. Although rights in the Human Rights Act 1998 ‘do not apply in the same way to people in prison as they do to people in the community’ (Prison Reform Trust [PRT], 2014: 10), there are certain rights individuals are entitled to while under the care and custody of HM Prison Service. These include the right to life, right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, and freedom from slavery and forced labour (PRT, 2014).

9.5  ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’

165

As with all public bodies, HMPPS have obligations under the Equality Act 2010 which introduced the public sector equality duty, identifying eight protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation (s149 Equality Act). According to Lloyd Bright (2020: 176) the Equality Act: requires public authorities to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not, when developing policy, dealing with their employees and in delivering services.

While there is an obligation on the state to protect all prisoners, this becomes more significant when dealing with prisoners who are vulnerable prior to incarceration, or find themselves in a vulnerable position because of imprisonment. One such vulnerable group is prisoners with a disability. According to Prison Service Instruction (PSI) ‘Ensuring Equality’, issued in 2011, the prison service ‘aims to ensure that we meet our moral duty and legal obligations to provide a fair service to all’. To achieve this, governors must consider the built environment, prison policy and practice, and whether the lack of other services ‘could put a disabled prisoner or visitor at a substantial disadvantage and if so must make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage’. If reasonable adjustments are not possible, the prisoner should be transferred to another prison. While there are some pockets of good practice, research found that HM Prison Service was falling short in meeting, and ill-equipped to respond to, the needs of d/Deaf prisoners. This meant that ‘the pains and deprivations associated with imprisonment went way beyond those of other prisoners’ (Kelly, 2017: 8) and were worse than those experienced by other minority groups, such as women, Foreign National and older prisoners. Kelly’s (2017: 15) research recommended ‘a standardised set of guidelines for prison establishments’ as the Equality Act 2010 ‘is not currently protecting the rights of d/Deaf people in prison’. As this research indicated, even where protected in legislation, the rights of every prisoner may not be guaranteed at all times in practice, especially for vulnerable sections of the population. As with all rights outside, they are rarely absolute for prisoners and can be abridged, for administrative and practical purposes. However, in Raymond v. Honey ([1983] 1 AC 1), Lord Wilberforce opined that ‘Under English law, a convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment, retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication’. While a significant precedent, Easton (2008: 135) argued that the ruling left scope for discretion, as ‘by necessary implication’ means taking account of the administrative requirements of

166

9  Prisoners’ Rights

the Prison Service. This allows courts to give prison authorities a wide margin of appreciation in the interpretation of Prison Rules, to allow for the smooth running of prisons. Further, the establishment of prisoners’ rights by the judiciary can depend on the make-up and interpretation of the courts, along with prevailing political and penal policies. Due to the class and racial make-up of the judiciary, which stands in stark contrast to the social make-up of the prison population, it can be difficult for the judiciary to comprehend the experiences of imprisonment and subsequently to determine if human rights and standards of decency are breached. Dirk van Zyl Smit (2007: 580) has argued that ‘recognition of prisoners’ rights by the gradual accumulation of precedents is a slow process and one that could easily be reversed’. He continued that ‘one obvious reason for the reluctance of English courts to intervene has been that English prison legislation was not designed to spell out prisoners’ rights but rather to enable government to manage its prisons’. If the ‘rights on the books’ are not being adhered to, there are a number of options, right up to the courts, to ensure the state and its representatives observe ‘rights in action’. Initially, prisoners might communicate with monitoring and oversight bodies as under ‘international and domestic law, prison inspection and monitoring bodies are important safeguards against breaches of human rights in places far from public view’ (van der Valk et al., 2021: 3). In England and Wales, monitoring is primarily carried out by Independent Monitoring Boards, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (which are examined in more detail in Chapter 10). There are also several NGOs that campaign (such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST—see Chapters 14 and 15), and some litigate on prisoners’ behalf. The Howard League for Penal Reform launched a campaign to reverse a PSI which severely restricted a range of items, including books that prisoners could receive from friends and relatives. This was labelled a ‘book ban’ (Padfield 2018).

Howard League Campaign: Overturning the ‘Book Ban’ In November 2013, as part of a revised Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, the Ministry of Justice introduced restrictions on items that could be sent to prisoners, including books. This was part of a crackdown on what ministers described as prisoners’ ‘perks and privileges’. In March 2014, the Howard League for Penal Reform launched a campaign to try to get the ban overturned. They argued that not only was the ‘book ban’ further punishment, but that ‘we should do everything we can to encourage reading and not restrict a prisoner’s access to books’. The campaign was

9.5  ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’

167

successful in getting support from a number of high-profile writers, including the then poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, David Hare, Salman Rushdie, Jeffrey Archer and Philip Pullman (Howard League, 2016). A court case was brought on behalf of a prisoner at HMP Send to challenge the ban. Her lawyers argued: ‘Reading is a right and not a privilege, to be encouraged and not restricted. The policy was unnecessary, irrational and counter-productive to rehabilitation.’ (cited in Gilna, 2016). Mr. Justice Collins quashed the ban imposed by the then justice secretary, Chris Grayling, stating: ‘I am satisfied that in so far as it includes books in IEP schemes PSI 30/2013 is unlawful. It is perhaps worth noting that the PSI refers to the obtaining by prisoners of privileges. In the light of the statement made about the importance of books and the absence of any intention to prevent or interfere unreasonably with prisoners being able to have access to books, to refer to them as a privilege is strange’ (The Queen (on the application of Barbara Gordon-Jones) v. Secretary of State for Justice and Governor of HM Prison Send).

Although access to the courts is severely restricted, some prisoners use the ‘law on the books’ to make sure the state fulfils its human rights obligations. As Loucks (2000: 8) noted in her review of the Prison Rules 1999, ‘the ordinary law of the land, both civil and criminal, applies in prisons, even if it is difficult to enforce’. Some prisoners have become what are termed ‘jailhouse lawyers’ (Milovanovic, 1998), with prisoner litigation being described as the ‘peaceful equivalent of a riot’ (Jacobs, 1980: 459). While prisoners might be successful in appeals through the courts, jailhouse lawyering can be difficult as prisoners may not have the expertise, skills or access to legal texts to prepare a case (Sood, 2014). Although it was limited beforehand, access to the courts was severely curtailed in 2012, which eroded opportunities for prisoners to challenge penal and political power. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 cut legal aid to prisoners because, according to the then Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, prisoners should not have access to legal aid for ‘the conditions in the prison, or the choice of prison in which they are detained’ (cited in Sood, 2014: 10). Although many of the government restrictions were overturned on appeal, prisoners are still denied legal aid to petition the courts over certain issues concering thier confinement (Behan, 2020). Outside of England and Wales, there have been a number of landmark cases where the judiciary have ruled on human rights of prisoners. In 2011, by a major-

168

9  Prisoners’ Rights

ity of 5–4, the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata ruled that overcrowding in California’s prison system led to inadequate medical and mental health care for prisoners. The ruling declared that ‘[a]s a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are fundamental to liberty’ (Brown v. Plata, 2011: 12). However, it continued: Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons […] To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care […] A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in a civilised society.

Jonathan Simon (2021: 47) has argued that with this judgment, the legal position of prisoners in the United States has been improved, as the Supreme Court emphasised the dignity of prisoners and recognised the role of courts in the protection of rights of prisoners. With the Supreme Court ordering a population cap, there was a decline in the overall national prison admission rate of 24% between 2006 and 2018, with California accounting for 37% of this decline alone (Kang Brown et al., 2018: 14). However, this decline has not been uniform nationally, and with some states having larger numbers imprisoned for longer, and jail admissions varying, this makes the overall picture more complex (Kang Brown et al., 2018). Further, the conditions in which prisoners are held in many US prisons and jails did not see a substantive improvement. Overcrowding is still rife, with many prisons and jails condemned as ‘violent, and inhumane […] that do not provide treatment, education, or rehabilitation’ (Equal Justice Initiative, 2021). Courts’ statements on rights and human dignity have not always translated smoothly into the recognition and exercise of these rights. The Council of Europe Guide on the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights: Prisoners’ Rights (2021) covers a vast array of court decisions, including prison conditions, healthcare, contact with the outside world, freedom of conscience, and the right to education, to vote and to legal remedy. It notes that prisoners have fundamental rights as the European Convention on Human Rights ‘does not stop at the prison gate’. It concludes: Prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, […] Any restrictions on these other rights must be justified, although such justification may well be found in the considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder,

9.6  Prisoners and Civil Rights

169

which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment. However, there is no question, therefore, that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. (Council of Europe, 2021: 7)

Echoing the ruling in Brown v. Plata, the Guide continues that ‘the very essence of the Convention system of protection of human rights is based on respect for human dignity’ and this includes prisoners (Council of Europe, 2021: 8). Prisons are environments ‘where the potential for abuse has been well-documented’ (Cliquennois et al., 2021: 3), as the power dynamic in prison is overwhelmingly on the side of the state. The recognition, protection and exercise of rights are influenced by more than just legislation and judicial rulings but also prison rules, institutional dynamics, oversight and monitoring mechanisms, penal policy and the emotional tone of debates around the treatment of prisoners. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires British judges to ‘take into account’ the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in connection with Convention rights, which provides guidance on the human rights of prisoners. However, as we will see in the next section on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote, the British government disagreed with a ruling in the highest court of appeal and resisted translating the rights prisoners had on the books, as set out in judgments from the ECtHR, into action.

9.6 Prisoners and Civil Rights Moving beyond recognition of human rights, the civil rights of prisoners are contested. One of these, whether prisoners should have a right to vote, has been a source of controversy in many jurisdictions (Behan, 2014; Tripkovic, 2019). The cases for and against voting rights for prisoners have been widely examined in academic literature and political discourse (see, for example, Abramsky, 2006; Behan, 2014; Easton, 2006; Ewald & Rottinghaus, 2009; Manza & Uggen, 2006; Ramsay, 2013; Tripkovic, 2019). Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—which the United Kingdom has agreed to follow—affirms that: ‘Every citizen shall have the right and opportunity […] To vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors’. Echoing this, Article 3 of Protocol Number 1 of the ECHR declares the right to vote for all citizens, regardless of status: ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the

170

9  Prisoners’ Rights

people in the choice of the legislature’. While it seems clear that prisoners should be allowed to vote according to these principles, legislation has been introduced in many jurisdictions (including the United Kingdom) to limit or eliminate prisoners’ access to the franchise (Tripkovic, 2019). In the United States, 48 states ban people in prison from voting. Eleven states restrict voting rights for some or all people, even after they have served their prison sentence and are no longer on probation or parole, with a potential lifetime ban. These measures have led to 5.2 million citizens being denied their right to vote because of a felony conviction (Chung, 2021: 1). As with many elements in the US criminal justice system, the sanctions are not distributed equally. Disenfranchisement has a disproportionate impact on Black communities; ‘One in every 16 Black adults are disenfranchised’, and ‘Black Americans of voting age are nearly four times as likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population’ (Chung, 2021: 2). With so many people who have criminal records disenfranchised, this not only excludes millions from voting but has had an impact on election results in the last decades of the twentieth century (Manza & Uggen, 2006). During the 2000 presidential election, 537 votes separated the Republican candidate George W. Bush from Democratic candidate Al Gore in Florida when the US Supreme Court decided the outcome. Over 600,000 Floridians were disenfranchised because of a prior felony conviction. Analysis of voting patterns and political preferences found that, even with a conservative estimate of the numbers of ex-felons voting, Al Gore would have won the state by over 30,000 votes, thus changing the outcome in the Electoral College (Uggen & Manza, 2002: 792 and 797). Disenfranchisement of former prisoners in all likelihood gave the state and election to George W. Bush and changed the course of American history (Manza & Uggen, 2006), and, it could be argued, altered the course of world history (Behan, 2014). Other jurisdictions have taken different approaches, with interventions by the courts to protect the voting rights of prisoners. After Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel was killed, the man convicted of killing him was allowed to vote in the next election because the Israeli Supreme Court decided that the right to vote and be elected ‘are the infrastructure of democracy’ (Alrai v. Minister of the Interior, 1996). Various judgments from the South African Supreme Court found that prisoners had the right to vote in post-Apartheid elections. In August v. Electoral Commission, 1999, it ruled that ‘The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts’. In Sauvé v. Canada ((No. 2), 2002), the majority found that the ‘right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside’. In 2006, the Republic of Ireland introduced legislation to enfranchise all prison-

9.6  Prisoners and Civil Rights

171

ers, regardless of sentence or crime (Behan, 2014). Whether prisoners should be allowed to vote remains a contentious issue throughout Europe and internationally, with legal philosophers, politicians, prisoners, the judiciary and policymakers joining the debate (Tripkovic, 2019).

Civil Rights, Human Rights and Prisoner Enfranchisement After the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, a British prisoner, John Hirst claimed that his human rights were breached under the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees free elections and the right to vote. At the time all sentenced prisoners were banned from voting under the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 2000. After losing in the British courts, Hirst appealed to the European Court of Human Rights The UK government argued that those who had breached basic rules of society should not have a say in how rules were made for the duration of their sentence. Convicted prisoners had breached the social contract, and therefore could be regarded as (temporarily) forfeiting the right to take part in the government of the country. Disqualification, the government argued, intertwined the legitimate aims of preventing crime, punishing prisoners, enhancing civic responsibility and engendering respect for the rule of law (Hirst v. United Kingdom, (No. 2), 2005). The ECtHR rejected these arguments and ruled that the British government’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting breached Article 3 of Protocol No.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Committing a crime that leads to imprisonment does not always breach the social contract and the Court was concerned about the lack of substantive debate by the legislature. The right to vote is not a privilege and the blanket ban was ‘arbitrary’ and ‘disproportionate’, it ruled (Hirst v. United Kingdom, (No. 2), 2005). In response to the judgment, there was much debate in the British press, legal and political circles, with both Conservative and Labour parties rejecting the ruling. In one parliamentary debate, David Cameron, UK Prime Minister (2010–2016) stated: ‘It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison. Frankly, when people commit a crime and go to prison, they should lose their rights, including the right to vote’ (cited in Behan, 2014: 52). Twelve years after the ruling, the British government responded by altering prison rules, to allow anyone on ROTL (Released on Temporary Licence) on election day and who had registered to vote to cast their

172

9  Prisoners’ Rights

franchise. According to the then Secretary of State for Justice, David Lidington, this meant that the UK government would not have to amend its legislation, but would satisfy the ruling in the ECtHR. As a result, approximately 100 out of 86,000 prisoners would be allowed to vote. At the time of writing, there were different rules governing the enfranchisement of prisoners in Scotland, which has adopted a more inclusive approach, allowing a limited number of prisoners to vote in certain elections (Behan, 2022).

Questions

• Should prisoners have the right to vote? • If not, why not? • If yes, should there be exceptions based on crime and/or sentence?

9.7 Conclusion The chapter began with the history of punishment and the loss of rights. While imprisonment denies liberty, it also removes rights and freedoms that are taken for granted in the world outside. Over time, in particular in the post-World War II period, it has been generally accepted that even those who have broken the criminal law should retain human rights. Despite their captivity, the state has a duty to uphold and respect the dignity and humanity of those under its care and custody. Although the courts have generally been reluctant to intervene in the day-to-day running of prisons, some notable judgments have reaffirmed the rights of prisoners. Despite their status and the loss of autonomy, prisoners (sometimes on their own, or with allies outside) have used the courts to pursue and protect their rights. This has led to clarification of prisoners’ rights; however, as outlined in the chapter, translating ‘rights on the books’ into ‘rights in action’ is a far more protracted exercise for people in prison. The final part of the chapter considered the issues and debates around whether prisoners should be allowed to vote, highlighting the contentious nature of, and varied approaches to prisoner enfranchisement. Chapter Summary

• Punishment no longer necessarily means the denial of human rights. • The power differentials in prison lead to the protection of rights taking on greater significance.

References/Further Reading

173

• As prison rules refer to an abundance of privileges and few rights, the principles in international declarations and conventions do not always translate into domestic policy and/or daily practice/s. • The rights that prisoners should maintain remain contested, with some jurisdictions legislating to remove their civil rights. Activity

• Draw up a Charter of Prisoners’ Rights. • When you are designing this Charter, read over the previous chapters to try to appreciate the issues that may be of concern to prisoners.

References/Further Reading Abramsky, S. (2006). Conned: How millions went to prison, lost the vote, and helped send George Bush to the White House. The New Press. Behan, C. (2014). Citizen convicts: Prisoners, politics and the vote. Manchester University Press. Behan, C. (2022). No longer a “collateral consequence”: Imprisonment and the reframing of citizenship. European Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1283–1303. Behan, C. (2021). Education in prison: A literature review. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Bradford-Clarke, L., Davies, R., and Henley, A. (2022) When ‘ideal victim’ meets ‘criminalised other’: Criminal records and the denial of victimisation. Probation Journal, 69(3), 353–372. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G., & Bennet, J. (2020). The penal system: An introduction. Sage. Centre for Social Justice. (2021). Digital technology in prisons: Unlocking relationships, learning and skills in UK prisons. CSJ. Committee of Ministers. (2020, revised). European prison rules. Council of Europe. Chung, J. (2021). Voting rights in the era of mass incarceration: A primer. Sentencing Project. Cliquennois, G., Snacken, S., & van Zyl Smit, D. (2021). Introduction: Human rights, prisons and penal policies. European Journal of Criminology, 18(1), 3–10. Council of Europe. (2021). Guide on the case-law of the European convention on human rights. Council of Europe. Cramer, L., Goff, M., Peterson, B., & Sandstorm, H. (2017). Parent-child visiting practices in prisons and jails: A synthesis of research and practice. Urban Institute. Drake, D. (2018). Prisons and state building: Promoting “the fiasco of the prison” in a global context. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(4), 1–15. Easton, S. (2006). Electing the electorate: The problem of prisoner disenfranchisement. Modern Law Review, 69, 443–452.

174

9  Prisoners’ Rights

Easton, S. (2008). Constructing citizenship: Making room for prisoners’ rights. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 30(2), 127–146. Equal Justice Initiative (EJI). (2021). Prison Conditions. Available at: https://eji.org/issues/ prison-conditions/. Accessed 1 November 2021. Ewald, A. (2002). “Civil death”: The ideological paradox of criminal disenfranchisement law in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 5, 1045–1137. Ewald, A., & Rottinghaus, B. (Eds.). (2009). Criminal disenfranchisement in an international perspective. Cambridge University Press. Gilna, D. (2016). United Kingdom: Prison book ban overturned. Prison Legal News. Available at: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/nov/8/united-kingdom-prisonbook-ban-overturned/. Accessed 27 October 2021. Henley, A. (2014), ‘Abolishing the stigma of punishments served’, Criminal Justice Matters, 97(1), 22–23. Howard League for Penal Reform. (2016). Books for prisoners. Available at: https://howardleague.org/case-studies/books-for-prisoners/. Accessed 10 November 2021. Hunt, L. (2007). Inventing human rights: A history. W. W. Norton and Company. Itzkowitz, H., & Oldak, L. (1973). Restoring the ex-offenders right to vote: Backgrounds and developments. American Criminal Law Review, 11, 721–70. Inside Time. (2016, July 1). Belgian prisoners allowed access to the internet in their cell via PrisonCloud, Inside Time. Jacobs, J. (1980). The prisoners’ rights movement and its impacts, 1960–1980. Crime and Justice, 2, 429–470. Kang Brown, J., Hinds, O., Heiss, J., & Lu, O. (2018). The new dynamics of mass incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice. Kelly, L. (2017). Suffering in silence: The unmet needs of d/Deaf prisoners. Prison Service Journal, 234, 3–15. Knight, V. (2017, December 14). Despite public outrage, web access for prisoners isn’t a luxury item—here’s why. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/ despite-public-outrage-web-access-for-prisoners-isnt-a-luxury-item-heres-why-88803. Accessed 29 January 2022. Lloyd-Bright, K. (2020). Gender identity and prisons in England and Wales: The development of rights and rules; checks and balances. In L. Claydon, C. Derry, & M. Ajevski (Eds.), Law in motion: 50 years of legal change (pp. 168–194). The Open University. Loucks, N. (2000). Prison rules: A working guide. Prison Reform Trust. Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press. Miller, R., & Stuart, F. (2017). Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology, 21(4), 532–548. Milovanovic, D. (1998). Jailhouse lawyers and jailhouse lawyering. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 16(4), 455–475. Ministry of Justice. (2022). Staying in touch with someone in prison. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/staying-in-touch-with-someone-in-prison/visiting-someone-in-prison. Accessed 1 March 2022. National Offender Management Service. (2019, 3rd revision). Providing visits and services to visitors (PSI 16/2011). NOMS.

References/Further Reading

175

Padfield, N. (2018). Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: Who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners? Crime Law and Social Change, 70, 57–76. Prison Reform Trust. (2014). Human rights information booklet for prisoners. Prison Reform Trust. Prison Reform Trust. (2022). Visiting someone in prison. Available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ForPrisonersFamilies/Visitingsomeoneinprison. Accessed 1 March 2022. Ramsay, P. (2013). Voters should not be in prison! The rights of prisoners in a democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16(3), 421–438. Scott, D. (2013). The politics of prisoner legal rights. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 223–250. Shaw, S. (1987). Conviction politics: A plan for penal politics. The Fabian Society. Simon, J. (2021). Dignity and its discontents: Towards an abolitionist rethinking of dignity. European Journal of Criminology, 18(1), 33–51. Sood, K. (2014). The role of the prison lawyer in balancing the scales of justice. Howard League for Penal Reform. Tomlinson, M. (1978). ”Not an instrument of punishment”: Prison diet in the mid-nineteenth century. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 2, 15–26. Tripkovic, M. (2019). Punishment and citizenship: A theory of criminal disenfranchisement. Oxford University Press. Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 67, 777–803. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). Handbook on prisoners with special needs. UNODC. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2015). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). UNODC. Van der Valk, S., Aizpurua, E., & Rogan, M. (2021). Towards a typology of prisoners’ awareness of and familiarity with prison inspection and monitoring bodies. European Journal of Criminology, 18(1), 101–119. Vanhouche, A., & Beyens, K. (2020). Introduction: Prison foodways international and multidisciplinary perspectives. Appetite, 147, 1–2. Van Hout, M.-C., & Crowley, D. (2021). The “double punishment” of transgender prisoners: A human rights-based commentary on placement and conditions of detention. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 17(4), 439–451. Van Zyl Smit. D. (1998). Changing prison life. University of Toronto Law Journal, 48, 451–457. Van Zyl Smit, D. & Snacken, S. (2009). Principles of European prison law and policy: Penology and human rights. Oxford University Press. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2007). Prisoners’ rights. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 566–585). Willan. Vladu, A., Kalebic, N., Audley, J., Stevens, A., & Taylor, P. (2021). Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic literature review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 31(5), 343–361.

176

9  Prisoners’ Rights

Case Law Raymond v. Honey [1983x] AC 1. Hilla Alrai v. Minister of the Interior [1996] HC2757/06 P.D. 50(2) 18. August and Another v. Electoral Commission and Others [1999] CCT 8/99. Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) [2002] 3 SCR 519. Hirst v. the United Kingdom(no. 2) [2005] ECHR 681. Brown, et al. v. Plata, et al. [2011] 563 U.S. 493. The Queen (on the application of Barbara Gordon-Jones) v Secretary of State for Justice and Governor of HM Prison Send [2014] EWHC 3997 (Admin).

Governing Prisons

10

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

The challenges of maintaining order in prison. International and domestic rules on prison governance. Inspection, monitoring and oversight bodies. How prisoners are incentivised to follow prison rules and comply with prison governance.

10.1 Introduction Prisons are coercive institutions. People are held against their will and are expected to follow orders, and abide by rules, regulations and disciplinary modes to which they have no input. This is not a natural state of affairs for human beings. Prisons therefore can become contested spaces, where tension—between prisoners, who must follow rules, and officers, who must enforce them—can erupt into out-and-out conflict. Nevertheless, in most prisons, for most of the time, that tension does not lead to a breakdown in social order. This chapter examines how prisons are governed. The first section looks at the challenges of exercising authority and legitimising penal governance with people held against their will. The chapter then examines international declarations and domestic prison rules governing the treatment of prisoners, which also set out the framework for running prisons. Since the beginning of the modern prison, routine and regime have been used to engender conformity, and while these might © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_10

177

178

10  Governing Prisons

seem benign, the next section examines how these are operationalised and have become an instrument of penal governance. Oversight and monitoring bodies are then considered. These can give prisoners the opportunity to assert their rights and pursue redress, but can also legitimise prison governance. The final section considers how the introduction of Incentives and Earned Privileges in England and Wales are used as a more subtle form of regulation. Research has indicated that IEPs have transformed prison dynamics, incentivised compliance and are used to encourage prisoners to co-operate in their own governance.

10.2 Prisons and Social Order The prison has both real and symbolic authority, not only over those it houses, but also in wider society, as it ‘embodies the largest power the state exercises over its citizens in time of peace’ (Morris & Rothman, 1998: xiii). Despite this power, there are challenges for prison management and staff—who represent the state—in governing an institution that holds people against their will. As there is no mutual agreement or social contract in the organisation of penal institutions, it is necessary to use other methods to convince prisoners to conform to the rules made for them, which they had no input in creating. Despite the lack of consent asked for by prison authorities, most prisons seem from the outside to be relatively stable institutions and have only sporadically erupted with breakdowns in social order (See Chapter 7). Cressey (1961: 2) notes that ‘one of the most amazing things about prisons is that they “work” at all’. Although it tends to be during disturbances that prisons and internal penal dynamics attract media and political interest, the study of social order in prisons has drawn widespread academic research (Clemmer, 1940; Cohen & Taylor, 1972; Crewe, 2009; DiIulio, 1991; Jacobs, 1977; Mathiesen, 1965; Morris & Morris, 1963; Sparks et al., 1996; Sykes, 1958). The dynamics within a prison are much more nuanced than they appear from the outside. When an individual enters prison, it is into a ‘complex social system with its own norms, values, and methods of control’ (Sykes, 1958: 134). However, the modern prison is not a generic institution and as Sparks et al. (1996: 61) point out, ‘neither history nor contemporary studies can sustain the assumption that all prisons are basically alike’. While many sociologists and scholars of governance have sought to identify common traits within the institution, there are so many different types of prison, and prisoner, that it is difficult to generalise about governing prisons and maintaining social order. These include high security and open prisons, public and private, adult and juvenile, male and female institutions. Prison governance is also influ-

10.2  Prisons and Social Order

179

enced by the people housed in the institution, i.e. high-security prisoners, longterm prisoners, people convicted for certain crimes, male and female prisoners. Regardless of the differences between populations and institutions, the search for social order in the modern prison is constant and one of the central tasks of any prison administrator (Sparks et al., 1996). While populations may differ, penal policies shift, and institutional dynamics vary, there is one overarching similarity: ‘All forms of incarceration imply the use of force. Few people brought into custody would accept their loss of liberty so willingly if the full potential of state coercion was not handcuffed to their wrists’ (Scraton et al., 1991: 61). Although individuals are not likely to consent to their imprisonment, once an individual has been sentenced, the exercise of penal power is more nuanced than at first glance. Despite the coercive nature of imprisonment, attempts by the authorities to use corporal force to maintain control over prisoners have rarely lasted indefinitely. Bosworth (2007: 81) points out that it ‘is not just that it is inefficient to run an institution always by force, but also that to do so would be morally, ethically and practically exhausting’. However, the threat of force lies underneath the surface (Sykes, 1958). As with other social institutions, ‘the decisions involved in any system of social control are decisions of compliance as well as command—of consent as well as coercion’ (McCleary, 1961: 152). In order to govern without corporal force, there are various ways modern penal governance encourages, rather than enforces prisoners to accept the rules, regulations and disciplinary modes inherent in the denial of liberty. While the use of force or overt violence in the modern prison is rare (Sparks et al., 1996), prisoners are more likely to accept the legitimacy of penal authority—even if it is only outwardly (Crewe, 2009)—if there are decent conditions of confinement, availability of productive out-of-cell activities, a robust complaints procedure and fair application of rules, positive staff-prisoner dynamics and an internal culture that promotes human dignity. If legitimacy is established, this can influence the smooth running of institutions, as prison authorities convince prisoners to submit to, if not agree with penal governance. Carrabine (2005: 899–90) argued that the ‘naked use of force is rarely relied on in prisons but that, ordinarily, authorities manipulate order through informal systems of power sharing with prisoners’. One of the key elements in the power sharing process is the relations between prisoners and prison officers (see Chapters 7 and 11). While there is understandably a tension between the keeper and the kept, prisons can only run smoothly if management, and in particular prison officers can co-opt or convince prisoners to buy into the regime, either inwardly or outwardly. Prison officers, Sykes (1956: 258–59) argued, stand as ‘the surrogate of society’ and are called on to make decisions ‘in the daily flux of human

180

10  Governing Prisons

affairs’. Dealing with human beings, even within a coercive institution means there will be tensions, and cooperation that will be fluid, dynamic and rarely open to absolutist rule indefinitely. Although from the outside, prison staff ‘appear to be the possessors of almost infinite power’ (Sykes, 1958: 41), they do not in reality possess absolute authority due to the ‘defects of total power’. At times, the dynamics of human interaction between prisoners and prison officers can have a greater impact on daily life, and the maintenance of social order, than publicly stated penal policies. Goffman (1961) argued that ‘Total Institutions’ (see Chapter 5) typically consist of two groups of people: managers and the managed—in this case, prison officers and prisoners. This can produce tension between two opposing groups who work and live side by side. Due to people being held against their will, historically, a culture developed of ‘them’ (prison officers) and ‘us’ (prisoners). However, in modern prison governance, breaking down these stereotypes and barriers (around ‘them’ and ‘us’) with the establishment of positive relations between prisoners and officers is essential to maintain social order, and provide the space and potential for rehabilitation (Liebling, 2008). However, if prisoners withdraw their consent and there is a breakdown in the equilibrium between prisoners and officers, it can lead to prison disturbances as occurred at Strangeways and other prisons in 1990 (James, 2015; see Chapter 7). Questions

• To what extent should prison management be concerned with achieving consent from prisoners? • How should prison management gain that consent?

10.3 Prison Rules and Daily Life Prisoners live in coercive institutions, with a myriad of rules, regulations and disciplinary modes that govern their daily lives. Some are to protect their human rights (see Chapter 9), others to remind them of the regime they have to abide by while in prison. Prison rules set the boundaries of behaviour and can be crucial in generating social order. The United Nations Nelson Mandela Rules (2015: Preamble) contain what are ‘generally accepted as being good principles and practice in the treatment of prisoners and prison management’. A central element of these Rules concerns the maintenance of social order in prison. Rejecting an absolutist approach, ‘[d]iscipline and order’, according to Rule 36, ‘shall be maintained with no more restriction than is necessary to ensure safe custody, the secure

10.3  Prison Rules and Daily Life

181

operation of the prison and a well-ordered community life’. In order to maintain transparency and to establish legitimacy, prisoners must be made aware of what constitutes a disciplinary offence, the types and duration of sanctions that can be imposed and who has the authority to impose them (Rule 37). To avoid using official sanction or ultimately, brute force, Rule 38 states that prison administrations are ‘encouraged to use, to the extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanism to prevent disciplinary offences or to resolve conflicts’. Sanctions for breaches of discipline must be proportionate. Rule 1 states: ‘No prisoner shall be subjected to, and all prisoners shall be protected from, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for which no circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification’. Indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is not permitted. Solitary confinement is defined as confinement for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact, and prolonged solitary confinement as being held in these conditions for more than 15 consecutive days (Rule 44). Corporal punishment or the reduction of a prisoner’s diet or drinking water are prohibited as a means of punishment (Rule 43(1d)). With very limited exceptions, disciplinary sanctions shall not include the prohibition of family contact, and collective punishment (Rule 43(3)) is not allowed under the Nelson Mandela Rules. Recognising the need to distinguish treatment according to gender, under the Bangkok Rules (see Chapter 6), punishment by ‘close confinement or disciplinary segregation shall not be applied to pregnant women, women with infants and breastfeeding mothers in prison’ (Rule 22). Further, acknowledging the importance of maternal contact, disciplinary sanctions cannot include prohibition of family contact, specifically with children (Rule 23). Finally, Rule 24 states that instruments of restraint during childbirth, and immediately thereafter, shall not be used. The revised European Prison Rules (2020) follow similar lines, although they are more expansive and acknowledge the importance of prison environments and productive out-of-cell activity in generating compliance. Rule 49 states: ‘Good order in prison shall be maintained by taking into account the requirements of security, safety and discipline, while also providing prisoners with living conditions which respect human dignity and offering them a full programme of activities’. The EPR recognises the importance of communication with prisoners and giving them opportunities to engage with prison authorities. This could soften one of Sykes’ (1958) ‘pains of imprisonment’—the deprivation of autonomy—as it allows prisoners a degree of self-determination. ‘Subject to the needs of good

182

10  Governing Prisons

order, safety and security’, the EPR states, ‘prisoners shall be allowed to discuss matters relating to the general conditions of imprisonment and shall be encouraged to communicate with the prison authorities about these matters’ (Rule 50). The Nelson Mandela Rules, Bangkok Rules and European Prison Rules are international guidelines for best practice. They establish principles for administrative frameworks, rather than policies or legislation for the administration of penal institutions. In England and Wales, the Prison Rules 1999 ‘lie at the heart of prison policies and an examination of the Rules is relevant because of what they reveal about the day-to-day administration of prisons’ (Loucks, 2000: 1). These rules are complemented by Prison Service Orders (PSOs) and Prison Service Instructions (PSIs).

Rules, Orders and Instructions Prison Rules The Prison Rules came into force in England and Wales on 1 April 1999. They replaced the rules from 1964 which were based on the Prison Act 1952. The Prison Reform Trust provide the following helpful definitions:  ‘Prison Service Orders (PSOs) PSOs are long-term mandatory instructions which were issued until 31 July 2009. They have no expiry date, and remain in force until cancelled or replaced. ‘Prison Service Instructions (PSIs) PSIs contain a number of rules, regulations and guidelines by which prisons are run. PSIs have a definite expiry date. They also introduce amendments to PSOs’ (Prison Reform Trust, 2021). In February 2016, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister (2010– 2016), made a speech on ‘prison reform’ at the right-wing thinktank, Policy Exchange. He argued for wholescale changes in how prisons were run. David Cameron (2016) noted that: 924 prison service instructions and prison service orders are currently in operation. These are documents issued from ‘headquarters’ to prescribe the running of our prisons. Together, they amount to an incredible 46,000 pages of rules, regulations and guidance. Now some of this will be necessary, I accept. Prisons need rules. But we’ve reached the point where someone in Whitehall is sitting around deciding how many jigsaws a prisoner should be able to keep in his cell, how many sheets of music they can have in their possession – 12, in case you’re wondering – and even how many pairs of underpants they’re allowed.

10.4  Regime and Routine

183

The Prison Rules 1999 cover much of the ground in the Nelson Mandela, Bangkok and European Prison Rules. Some of the Rules relate to controlling the prison population; others to creating an ordered prison routine and a penal regime within a clear hierarchical structure. Rule 6 deals with the maintenance of order and discipline which ‘shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is required for safe custody and well ordered community life’. However, it continues that in ‘the control of prisoners, officers shall seek to influence them through their own example and leadership, and to enlist their willing co-operation’. The treatment of prisoners by prison staff ‘shall be such as to encourage their self-respect and a sense of personal responsibility’ (Rule 6(3)). Prisoners can be removed from association to maintain good order and disciple, or for their own protection (Rule 45). Under Rule 51, there are 25 offences against discipline. Taking controlled drugs or alcohol, and setting fire to one’s possessions or any part of the prison, are against the rules. A prisoner transgresses prison rules if they assault anyone, detain anyone against their will, fight, endanger any other person, or obstruct an officer or any member of prison staff in their duties, including being disrespectful to any person working there and using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’. Finally, any prisoner who ‘disobeys any lawful order; disobeys or fails to comply with any rule or regulation’ can be disciplined (Rule 51(22–23)). Punishments that can be imposed by a prison governor are varied, ranging from a caution to the forfeiture of privileges for up to 42 days, cellular confinement for up to 14 days or an award of additional time, not exceeding 42 days, to their sentence (Rule 55). Questions

• Why do prisoners obey rules that they do not agree with? • Why do you think that some rule breaches go unpunished, even when staff are aware of them?

10.4 Regime and Routine When the modern prison was created, the institution used a strict routine and harsh regime to maintain order. As discussed in Chapter 2, discipline and order were seen as essential elements of a prisoner’s reformation, as ‘(n)ineteenth-century prison managers saw the timetable as an important mechanism for instilling discipline into a population whose criminality lacked the moral fibre to live respectable lives’ (Scraton et al., 1991: 47–8). Prison routine and an exacting

184

10  Governing Prisons

penal regime became an established part of the apparatus of early penality and prison governance. Prisons such as Millbank (Wilson, 2002), Pentonville (Marland & Cox, 2022) and Mountjoy (Carey, 2000) followed a strict timetable. Foucault (1977: 236) noted the outcome of this strict regime in his analysis of early prisons which ‘not only in a day, but in the succession of days and even years, may regulate for the man the time of waking and sleeping, of activity and rest, the number and duration of meals, the quality and ration of food, the nature and product of labour, the time of prayer’. He continued: ‘It takes possession of man as a whole, of all the physical and moral faculties that are in him and of the time in which he is himself’. Instilling discipline through rules and regulations lay at the core of the penal philosophy. This was no mere coincidence as the scholar of governance Robert McCleary (1961: 154) pointed out that ‘the heart of custodial controls in traditional prisons lies in the daily regimentation, routine and rituals of domination’. Times have changed from early prisons in treatment of prisoners and penal management, but some characteristics remain the same in the pursuit of order and control. Goffman’s (1961) study of Total Institutions outlined how each part of the day was sub-divided into tightly scheduled routine. He argued that this contrasts with engagement with different people at various times of the day, without a strict scheduled routine outside the institution. According to Sparks et al. (1996: 81): The organisation of activity in its proper times and places (the movement of prisoners, the taking of meals, the locking up and counting of prisoners at night, the scheduling of times for visits, work, exercise, and so on) is of the essence of the definition of order and control as these are conceived of and implemented by prison staff.

While routine is one of the means used to create order and maintain control, this daily schedule is generally in stark contrast to a prisoner’s previous lifestyle, which for many may have been chaotic and unregulated; a significant number of people who end up in prison only attended school intermittently and few held a job for a prolonged period of time (See Chapter 4). Routine and regime still lie at the core of penal administration, as prisoners must not be away from their authorised location in the prison, and must work where instructed. It is against Prison Rules (51(18)) if a prisoner ‘absents himself from any place he is required to be or is present at any place where he is not authorised to be’. Erwin James (2016: 272) recounted how he was in numerous institutions during his 20 years in prison. On being moved from Wandsworth to Wakefield Prison, he noted the similarity in the design and routine of the institution. A bronze bell stood in the circle where the four wings converged. This was used:

10.5  Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy

185

to wake the jail up at 7.30 a.m. and then at rigid times throughout the day signalling un-lock, slop-out, meals, work and bang-up […] Once we were assembled and accounted for an officer called into his walkie-talkie, ‘Line the route!’ Outside his colleagues with dogs formed a gauntlet that snaked from outside an exit door on C Wing all the way to the workshops. As soon as they were in place the order was shouted and off we trooped in single file to our work.

Other methods are used to try to control, and generate order within the prison population through uniformity. In Chapter 12, we will see how prison architecture was (and is) designed to maintain order within the penal space. Goffman (1961) identified four main characteristics of ‘Total Institutions’: binary management, the ‘inmate’ role, institutional perspective and batch living. The latter can manifest itself in different ways in various jurisdictions: prison diet, prison work, prison haircut, prison issue clothing, etc. which can lead to ‘mortification of the self’. Ash (2010: 164) examined the history of prison dress, arguing that while it has acted as a ‘repressive instrument of punishment’ for over 200 years, she concludes: ‘Prison authorities globally employ a variety of techniques of normalisation in an attempt to control the reconstruction of prisoner’s identity through clothes’.

10.5 Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy In his report on the disturbances at Strangways, Lord Justice Woolf (1991) emphasised that a balance must be found between security, control and justice. The latter concerned fairness and due process in decision-making. It seemed that security and control had been prioritised and prisoners felt that there was a lack of due process in decision-making, combined with what were generally considered intolerable standards in prisons. This undermined the legitimacy of the prison system, alienated prisoners and made them resentful. Along with proposals on improvements in prison conditions, the Woolf Report’s recommendations on procedural justice and fairness led to the establishment of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (Day et al., 2015). This new body complemented Independent Monitoring Boards and HM Inspectorate of Prisons to create a domestic tripartite system of oversight and monitoring (Behan & Kirkham, 2016). Today, along with this tripartite system, the United Nations Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) and oversight from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) are essential parts of prison governance. They can help maintain social order and contribute to the smooth running of prisons.

186

10  Governing Prisons

These monitoring and oversight bodies help legitimise the exercise of penal power and authority. Robust oversight and monitoring can provide accountability for the actions of those who hold power and generate order, as it gives people with little power the possibility of remedy, to appeal to outsiders about their treatment. In turn, they can ease tensions between keepers (prison management and officers), and the kept (prisoners). While each body has a different role, issues considered by them range from the less serious loss of property, to bullying, assaults and deaths in custody. In England and Wales, if a prisoner has an issue or wants to make a complaint, in the first instance, they can raise this with the prison governor. Under the Prison Rules 1999, if a prisoner is charged with a disciplinary offence, they must be informed within 48 hours of the discovery of the offence. It must be investigated by the prison governor and the prisoner has the right to present their side at a hearing (Rules 53–54). Each prison in England and Wales has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) whose members are independent and unpaid. Their role is to monitor day-to-day life in individual prisons and ‘ensure that proper standards of care and decency are maintained’ (IMB, 2021). IMB members have unrestricted access to the prison, and prisoners can put in a confidential request to see a member of the IMB in private. Issues raised with IMBs tend to be at the lower end of the seriousness scale, and can include concerns over lost property, visits from family or friends, special religious or cultural requirements, although they can also deal with more serious allegations such as bullying (IMB, 2021). Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, prisons in England and Wales are subject to monitoring by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP). The Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) reports to the Secretary of State on prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. While the Inspectorate does not respond to individual complaints from prisoners, inspectors can visit prisons unannounced and make a full inspection once every five years. A report is prepared for the prison and an action plan must be devised by the prison to respond to the report’s recommendations. Inspectors also compile thematic reports or reports about specific populations, based on visits across the prison estate. HMIP essentially have four tests for a ‘healthy’ prison: safety, in particular for vulnerable prisoners; respect and human dignity for prisoners; purposeful activity for prisoners, and rehabilitation and release planning, including maintaining relationships with family and friends (HMIP, 2020). The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) carries out independent investigations into more serious complaints by prisoners. It examines what happened and identifies learning for the prison. It also investigates deaths in custody and deaths of recently released prisoners. Their work, according to the PPO, ‘makes a significant contribution to safer, fairer custody and offender supervision’ (PPO, 2021).

10.5  Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy

187

The Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture (OPCAT) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2002 and came into force in 2006. OPCAT established a system of regular visits by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, not just prisons. The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture ‘cooperates, for the prevention of torture in general, with relevant United Nations organs and mechanisms as well as with international, regional, and national institutions or organizations’ (UN, 2021). Each signatory to OPCAT must create a National Preventative Mechanism (NPM). The OPCAT was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2003, with its NPM established in 2009. It now has 21 statutory bodies that monitor places of detention. These include the Care Quality Commission, Independent Custody Visiting Association, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (NPM, 2021). These bodies have the power to examine the treatment of prisoners and the conditions of confinement, make recommendations to improve treatment and conditions, and be consulted on existing or draft legislation. In addition to the domestic monitoring bodies, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visits places of detention, including prisons in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. CPT delegations have unlimited access to places of detention without restriction, and can interview prisoners in private. The CPT delegations also meet ministers and officials within criminal justice institutions, representatives of National Preventive Mechanisms, and non-governmental organisations active in the criminal justice field. At the end of its visit, the CPT presents preliminary observations to the minister responsible for prisons. Subsequently, the CPT sends reports to the state concerned and publishes these on their website, alongside a detailed response from governments to the issues raised in reports (Council of Europe, 2021). Despite the array of oversight bodies, there are concerns about their independence and effectiveness which can undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of prisoners (Behan & Kirkham, 2016). The Chief Inspector of Prisons is appointed by the minister with responsibility for prisons. The Inspector can only make recommendations and it is up to individual prisons and/or the Secretary of State to respond to them (Behan & Kirkham, 2016). The Inspectorate does not deal with individual complaints from prisoners. That is left to, amongst others, the Independent Monitoring Boards. Although the concept of these volunteer monitors is designed to provide the public with an eye-witness account of what goes on behind prison walls, Padfield (2017: 65) asks ‘is it appropriate to rely on unpaid volunteers to be the watchdog on prison malpractice?’ The final appeals adjudicator, the Pris-

188

10  Governing Prisons

ons and Probation Ombudsman has a backlog of cases. Further, their own analysis found that some of the most marginalised groups, women and young people are under-represented in the complaints it receives (Prisons & Probation Ombudsman, 2015). Added to these concerns, there is a lack of awareness amongst many prisoners about the oversight and monitoring bodies, and scepticism about the likelihood that their issues will be resolved in their favour (Behan & Kirkham, 2016). Deficiencies in prison oversight and monitoring can undermine confidence in these bodies, but also weaken the legitimacy of penal power. However, the oversight and monitoring bodies have become an important part of modern penal governance. If the monitoring and oversight institutions are considered to be transparent, procedurally fair, with consistent outcomes, this will likely contribute to the maintenance of social order (Jackson et al., 2010) through compliance rather than coercion. The greater the confidence in these bodies, the more likely that those bound by rules and control structures will obey them (Tyler, 2006). Thus, if issues can be resolved using established bodies, it can ease tensions in prison, encourage social order, and play an important function in legitimising penal power. Questions

Padfield (2017: 65) notes: ‘The typical IMB member is retired and middle class’. • Why do you think this is the case? • What impact does it have on prison oversight and procedural justice? • If you are interested in learning more about IMBs, or the IMB for your local prison, further details are available at: https://www.imb.org.uk.

10.6 Self-Governance and Social Order New techniques and strategies have been adopted in prisons in England and Wales to govern prisons, and incentivise prisoners to comply with prison rules. A system of Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme (IEP) was introduced after being recommended in the Woolf Report in the wake of the Strangeways riots (Day et al., 2015). In line with a strategy of responsibilization (Garland, 2001) that has become prevalent in governance in neoliberal society, prisoners in England and Wales are now given responsibility for their own ‘rehabilitation’. This strategy goes further than expecting prisoners to demonstrate the desire for a crime-free future. Rather, they must proactively engage in activities set out by the prison authorities. Originally established to encourage prisoners to engage in constructive activities,

10.6  Self-Governance and Social Order

189

sentence planning and endeavours designed to plan for a crime-free life post-imprisonment, it was also hoped to create a more disciplined and safer penal environment. The revised IEP system, which commenced in 2013, is considered by the Ministry of Justice (2020: 5) as a ‘key tool for incentivising prisoners to abide by the rules and engage in the prison regime and rehabilitation, […] whilst allowing privileges to be taken away from those who behave poorly or refuse to engage’. As the spotlight below outlines, on committal all prisoners in England and Wales are assigned to the ‘Entry’ level for fourteen days, and can only move to ‘Standard’ level if they participate in the induction process and various other activities set out in the plan designed by the prison. To move to another level, prisoners must meet what are termed ‘behavioural principles’. To reach ‘Enhanced’ status, a prisoner must show a ‘commitment to their rehabilitation’; participate in ‘offending behaviour courses’; attend work and education; help other prisoners and demonstrate an ‘exemplary attitude towards staff’. Further, a prisoner must ‘engage and co-operate with the prison regime by attending activities as required, by following orders and instructions from staff and completing any other additional requirements imposed by the Governor’ (cited in Inside Time 2021).

Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) (Revised 2013) The Prison Reform Trust provides, through its Advice and Information Service the following guidance on IEPs in prison. Entry Level New prisoners and those who have been recalled are put on ‘Entry’ level. This is reviewed after 14 days. Prisoners progress to the ‘Standard’ level if they meet the criteria. If not, they can be put on ‘Basic’ level. Basic Level If prison staff deem that a prisoner has not met the criteria for ‘Standard’ level or think the behaviour has been poor, they may put the prisoner on ‘Basic’ level. This means a prisoner can only have certain minimum items that the law says they must have, such as some letters and access to visits. Prisoners on ‘Basic’ will not be allowed anything extra. Standard Level Prisoners who successfully complete ‘Entry’ will be put on ‘Standard’ level. This includes being of good behaviour and demonstrating a commitment to rehabilitation. More visits and letters are allowed, along with the opportunity to pay for a television in their cell and to spend more of their money.

190

10  Governing Prisons

Enhanced Level Prisoners who demonstrate that they are committed to rehabilitation, take part in work and other activities and follow prison rules for at least three months will be considered for ‘Enhanced’ level. A commitment to helping other prisoners and working co-operatively with other staff is necessary. This level opens up the opportunity for more visits, and employment in trusted roles within the prison. Source: Prison Reform Trust (2018)

Ben Crewe (2009) in his study of Wellingborough Prison argued that, along with indeterminate sentences, the emergence of Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) has changed penal internal dynamics. Outwardly, if a prisoner wishes to move to another level of IEP, they cannot adopt a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude. They must actively engage with the process of ‘rehabilitation’, as designed by the prison. As they are now unsure of the limits to their autonomy, prisoners need to follow orders and be seen to comply. The prison regime has become more intrusive, with a firmer grip on individuals’ daily activity. Crewe’s research indicated that soft power has replaced the hard force of the past. While prisoners may not have a problem with courses and supports in principle, ‘soft power’, argues Crewe (2011: 463): forces prisoners to regulate all aspects of self, it harnesses them in its process of governance, and it erodes their freedom to be left alone. It is not visible to all prisoners, nor do all object to its demands. For others, however, it creates powerful feelings of illegitimacy and resentment.

With high levels of overcrowding (Cavadino et al., 2020) in prisons in England and Wales, and lack of sufficient programmes, this makes prisoners responsible for their own ‘rehabilitation’ without providing the resources, support and infrastructure necessary for a prisoner to engage in these activities. The IEP scheme promotes another objective than merely encouraging responsible behaviour. It marks ‘a radical change in what is required from prisoners, whereby “good and responsible” behaviour is no longer sufficient to progress within the system. The reforms made to the IEP scheme have attempted to nurture self-governance in prisoners’ (Khan, 2022: 99). If prisoners do not comply and participate in their own rehabilitation in the manner set out by the prison, this can have negative con-

10.7 Conclusion

191

sequences for their level of IEP, the quality of life while in prison, their progression through the different categories and levels of security, and, for prisoners on indeterminate sentences, the potential for release.

10.7 Conclusion This chapter has examined the challenges of governing and maintaining social order in penal institutions. While it is probably too much to expect this to be achieved through harmonious relations, as scholars of prison governance have noted that prisons ‘work’ most of the time. It is rare that social order degenerates and leads to riots. The late-modern prison uses a range of strategies to exercise penal authority and maintain social control. Rules, regulations and routine are designed to set the boundaries of prisoners’ behaviour. Oversight bodies allow prisoners to air their grievances and may be seen to legitimise penal authority. Finally, the introduction of incentivised regimes gives prisoners the opportunity to demonstrate that they are ‘rehabilitated’ in a way identified by the prison system, as they are encouraged to comply with penal discipline and participate in self-governance. Chapter Summary

• The coercive nature of confinement creates challenges for maintaining social order. • The power and authority that the prison portrays is somewhat diluted by the daily human interaction between prisoners and officers. • Instead of brute force, consent is generated by routine and regime, and prison rules, legitimised through monitoring and oversight bodies. • With the introduction of Incentives and Earned Privileges, prisoners in England and Wales now have to self-govern and demonstrate their ‘rehabilitation’. Activity

The Prison Rules 1999 are available here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ uksi/1999/728/contents/made. • After reading through the Rules, consider if they are appropriate to maintain social order in the modern prison. • If the Rules were being revised today, are there any that should be removed, or should new ones be included?

192

10  Governing Prisons

References/Further Reading Behan, C., & Kirkham, R. (2016). Monitoring, inspection and complaints adjudication in prison: The limits of prison accountability frameworks. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 55(4), 432–454. Bosworth, M. (2007). Creating the responsible prisoner: Federal admission and orientation packs. Punishment and Society, 9(1), 67–85. Cameron, D. (2016). Prison reform: Prime Minister’s speech. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prison-reform-prime-ministers-speech. Accessed 22 Mar 2022. Carey, T. (2000). Mountjoy: The story of a prison. The Collins Press. Carrabine, E. (2005). Prison riots, social order and the problem of legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 896–913. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Christopher Publishing House. Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1972). Psychological survival: The experience of long-term imprisonment. Penguin Books. Cressey, D. (Ed.). (1961). The prison: Studies in institutional organization. Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Council of Europe. (2021). What is the CPT. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/faqs. Accessed 3 Nov 2021. Crewe, B. (2011). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455–468. Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation, and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press. Day, M., Hewson, A., & Spiropoulos, C. (2015). Strangeways 25 years on: Achieving fairness and justice in our prisons. Prison Reform Trust. DiIulio, J. (1991). Understanding prisons: The new old penology. Law and Social Inquiry, 16(1), 65–99. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Penguin Books. Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford University Press. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Penguin. His Majesty’s inspector of Prisons. (2020). What we do. https://www.justiceinspectorates. gov.uk/hmiprisons/. Accessed 1 Nov 2021. Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB). (2021). About us. https://www.imb.org.uk/independent-monitoring-boards/. Accessed 15 Dec 2021. Inside Time. (2021). Incentives and earned privileges. https://www.insidetime.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/PSI/psi-2013-030-IEP.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems., 10(2), 142–155. Jackson, J., Tyler, T., Bradford, B., Taylor, D., & Shiner, M. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10. Jacobs, J. (1977). Stateville: The penitentiary in mass society. Chicago University Press. James, E. (2015). Lord Woolf: 25 years on from strangeways, prisons are still in crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/01/lord-woolf-strangewaysprisons-still-crisis. Accessed 20 Sept 2021.

References/Further Reading

193

Khan, Z. (2022). A typology of prisoner compliance to the incentives and earned privileges scheme: Theorising the neoliberal self and staff–prisoner relationships. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 22(1), 97–114. Liebling, A. (2008). Incentives and earned privileges revisited: Fairness, discretion, and the quality of prison life. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9(1), 25–41. Loucks, N. (2000). Prison rules: A working guide. Prison Reform Trust. Marland, H., & Cox, C. (2022). Prisoners, insanity and the pentonville model prison experiment. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/research/current/prisoners/outputs/ pentoville_experiment.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2022. Mathiesen, T. (1965). The defences of the weak. Tavistock. McCleary, R. (1961). The governmental process and informal social control. In D. Cressey (Ed.), The prison: Studies in institutional organisation and change (pp. 149–188). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Morris, T., & Morris, P. (1963). Pentonville: A sociological study of an English prison. Routledge. Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (1998). The Oxford history of the prison. Oxford University Press. National Preventative Mechanism (UK). (2021). Background. https://www.nationalpreventivemechanism.org.uk/about/background/. Accessed 20 Nov 2021. Padfield, N. (2017). Monitoring prisons in England and Wales: Who ensures the fair treatment of prisoners? Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(1), 57–76. Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. (2015). Learning from PPO investigations: Why do women and young people in custody not make formal complaints? http://www.ppo.gov. uk/document/learning-lessons-reports/. Accessed on 30 Aug 2021. Prison and Probation Ombudsman. (2021). Home. https://www.ppo.gov.uk/. Accessed 2 Nov 2021. Prison Reform Trust. (2018). Incentives and earned privileges. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisoner%20Information%20Pages/22%20Incentives%20and%20Earned%20Privileges.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2021. Prison Reform Trust. (2021). Prison rules, prison service orders and prison service instructions. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ForPrisonersFamilies/Prisonrules. Accessed 22 Nov 2021. Scraton, P., Sim, J., & Skidmore, P. (1991). Prisons under protest. Open University Press. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford University Press. Sykes, G. (1956). The corruption of authority and rehabilitation. Social Forces, 34(3), 257–262. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). Rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial measures for women offenders (Bangkok rules). UNODC. United Nations Office on Crime and Drugs. (2015). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela rules). UNODC. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). Introduction to the committee: Subcommittee on prevention of torture. https://www.ohchr.org/en/ treaty-bodies/spt/introduction-committee. Accessed 20 Nov 2021. Wilson, D. (2002). Millbank, the panopticon and their victorian audiences. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(4), 364–381.

Working in Prison

11

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • The demographics of prison staff in England and Wales. • The roles and duties of uniformed prison staff, with a particular focus on prison officers. • The importance of staff-prisoner relations. • The challenges of prison work and prison officer culture.

11.1 Introduction For a long time prison staff were largely absent from studies of incarceration, however a substantial body of literature now exists which has highlighted the importance of researching and understanding prison staff, their roles, their interactions with prisoners, and the culture surrounding their work. It is now acknowledged that prison staff can be ‘key regulators of the quality and purpose of confinement’ (Arnold, 2016: 256). There are a variety of individuals who work in the prison environment, from uniformed staff, such as prison officers and operational support grade staff along with prison custody officers in privately run prisons, through to management including governors or directors, and civilian staff such as educators, administrators, psychologists and individuals delivering many of the contracted-out services within the prison setting. This chapter will explore the duties, roles and experiences of prison staff, focusing in particular on prison

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_11

195

196

11  Working in Prison

officers, highlighting the complex and potentially contradictory nature of this position (Arnold et al., 2007; Hay & Sparks, 1991; Liebling et al., 2011), as well as the significance of staff-prisoner relations to the experience of incarceration. Finally, the chapter will explore the challenges facing the modern prison officer in their role, along with the occupational culture which has been argued to exist amongst prison officers, and the potential implications of this for their work.

11.2 The Demographics of Prison Staff In June 2021, there were equivalent to 22,043 full-time prison officers working for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), along with 5081 operational support staff (MOJ, 2021a), in addition to staff working in private prisons for companies such as Serco, Sodexo or G4S. Prison staff include individuals from a variety of backgrounds. HMPPS collect statistical data on staff characteristics, and these can help to tell us something about the groups that are most likely to work in the prison environment. Traditionally the prison officer role has often been seen as men’s work, with women sometimes perceived as less capable. Scholars have noted how female officers are often either protected or sexualised by their male colleagues (Crawley, 2004), while sometimes being viewed as physically inferior to their male counterparts, out-of-place in men’s prisons (Burdett et al., 2018; Ricciardelli, 2019), or as potentially increasing pressures on security due to their perceived vulnerability (Bruhn, 2013). Despite these views, female staff make up 27.7% of officer grade roles and 45.6% of those in officer support grade roles (MOJ, 2019). Research has also shown that female officers are particularly valued for their verbal communication, with the removal of macho presentation that might come from male-to-male interactions helping to de-escalate violent or volatile situations without the need to use physical force (Zimmer, 1986). Further, female staff more frequently achieve the highest appraisal ratings (MOJ, 2019). Individuals from BAME groups are also under-represented amongst prison staff at only 7.7%, compared to 14.4% of the general population (MOJ, 2021b). This is perhaps particularly concerning given the disproportionate representation of BAME individuals in the prison population (see Chapter 4). The Lammy Review found this lack of diversity amongst officers contributed to the maintenance of an ‘us and them’ culture between staff and prisoners from a BAME background (Lammy, 2017: 45), prompting HMPPS to make a public commitment to increasing the percentage of BAME recruits across the organisation.

11.3  The Role(s) of a Prison Officer

197

11.3 The Role(s) of a Prison Officer Traditionally the role of the prison officer has been depicted as that of a ‘warden’ or ‘turn-key’, responsible for the security of the prison and surveillance of those held within it (Gredecki & Horrocks, 2017). Security has often been seen as the primary focus of the prison officer’s role, in line with HM Prison Service’s (HMPS) objective to ‘keep those sentenced in custody’, and this thus impacts substantially on officers’ interactions with people in custody. However, officers’ experience of the role is far more complex than this, and the varied nature of the work is acknowledged in advertisements for Prison Officer positions. One HMPPS advert described the opening as involving ‘One career, many roles. Role model, negotiator, referee, educator, influencer, life changer – as a prison officer, no two days are the same’ (MOJ, 2021c). Having become more varied and arguably contradictory over time, the role of a prison officer simultaneously requires distance and enforcement, alongside care and compassion, at least in theory. Whether these divergent roles can truly be fulfilled alongside each other in practice is another question. It is also worth noting that a prison officer’s role will vary depending on the particular duties an officer is assigned to. The experience of prison officers will also vary depending on the particular establishment they are working at, and the daily routine at that institution. Officers may hold roles in particular areas or departments of the prison which lead to their time being focused on some elements of prison work more than others. As such, the prison officer does not necessarily have one homogenous role, but a divergent range of roles which all involve contributing to the smooth running of the regime and institution. Regardless of the role taken on, however, and the institution worked at, it is clear that prison officers must balance a plethora of competing objectives and priorities which may sometimes appear to be in conflict with one another. The ‘landing officer’ role, fulfilled by officers working daily on the prison wings and a key role impacting significantly on prisoners’ experiences, has been described as ‘one of maintaining security and control, and in carrying out both relating effectively to prisoners’ (Liebling et al., 2011: 46). As such, landing officers’ duties on the wing may include unlocking prisoners from their cells for meals, association time, or for attendance at work, education or activities, before ensuring all prisoners are back in their cells for ‘lock-up’. They may be involved in security checks on the wing, for example by searching cells for contraband or checking locks, while also being responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of prisoners who may be vulnerable and require regular observations. They may also manage the flow of prisoners around the wing, and the movement of prisoners

198

11  Working in Prison

from one part of the prison to another during ‘movements’, while also supervising prisoners when they are out of their cells. In addition, officers may have significant administrative duties, entering comments on a prisoners’ file through P-NOMIS (Prison National Offender Management Information System) or processing applications made by prisoners. As such, many of the duties of prison officers can involve relatively mundane and repetitive tasks required to keep the regime running (Arnold, 2016; Scott, 2006 ). However, through undertaking these tasks prison officers operate as ‘gatekeepers’ to things prisoners are seeking to access in their lives, from basic essentials such as food or toiletries, to safety and contact with family (Liebling et al., 2011). Thus, in an environment where autonomy is heavily restricted and reliance on staff is high, prison staff hold significant power in their ability to meet or deny the needs of those in their care, and thus to make a person's time in prison more or less bearable.

11.4 Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work As Liebling et al.’s (2011) summary of the landing officer’s role highlights, prison officers’ work also involves interaction with prisoners and there are various elements of prison work which are relational. In England and Wales, each prisoner should be allocated a Personal Officer—a uniformed staff member who is intended to be their main point of contact within the prison—and officers’ ability to build ‘positive and mutually supportive relationships with prisoners’ in this role is treated as an indication of a core competency expected of prison staff, that being working with others (HMPS, n.d.). In addition to the more formal responsibilities involving interaction with prisoners as part of their sentence management, staff will also interact with prisoners during the day-to-day routine on the wing. The level of interaction involved in an officer’s role may vary by the time of day and particular part of the prison regime that one is facilitating, as well as staff shift patterns which operate around 24/7 staffing of the institution—those working night shifts are less likely to have lengthy interactions with prisoners than those on shift during association periods (Liebling et al., 2011). The significance of prisoner-staff relationships for experiences of imprisonment has been repeatedly highlighted by scholars and those in prison leadership and oversight (Bennett & Shuker, 2010; Crewe et al., 2015; HMIP, 2021), being described by Liebling et al. (2011: 83) as ‘the heart of prison work’. As such, the role of prison officers in the prison regime is a significant one, with staff holding the potential to be ‘powerful determinants of the harshness or otherwise of life for prisoners as well as the cultures of different prisons’ (Brown & Clare, 2005: 64). Staff influence thus goes far

11.4  Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work

199

beyond the maintenance of security. Just as positive relationships between staff and prisoners have been thought to cultivate more pleasant environments to both live and work in, poor treatment by officers can make the experience of incarceration even more painful given the power disparity between captor and captive.

The Use of Discretion in Prison Work Prison work involves a combination of enforcing formal rules and policies, such as the Prison Rules, and a significant amount of discretion. Officers may use their discretion in deciding whether to enforce the rules in particular instances, or in deciding an appropriate response to rule-breaking behaviour. As a consequence, ‘incarcerated people’s experiences are profoundly shaped by when, how, and why officers use their discretion’ (Haggerty & Bucerius, 2021: 138). Scott (2008) has highlighted how the level of discretion available to officers can vary, from discretion to choose between formally defined options within the rules, to decisions which are subject to no formal monitoring. Liebling (2000) notes the significance of discretion in the implementation of the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme (IEP), which sees prisoners given different levels of privileges based on their behaviour and compliance (discussed further in Chapter 10). Under this scheme, prison officers have significant discretion to determine an individual’s privilege status of ‘basic’, ‘standard’ or ‘enhanced’, with differences in levels of formal and informal enforcement between wings and individual staff members. Literature has demonstrated that officers may need to use discretion where failure to enforce rules, in certain circumstances, may enable the smooth running of the institution. This was identified by Sykes (1958) in the ‘defects of total power’, while choosing their ‘battles’ may also provide long-term advantages for individual officers that make their job slightly easier (Haggerty & Bucerius, 2021). For example, Gariglio’s (2019) research in Italy has noted how discretion may be used with less neutrality for particular groups of prisoners who are seen as different from ‘ordinary’ prisoners, such as the Mafiosi, due to the ability of such prisoners to help govern the prison, social recognition of outside status, and fear of retaliation.

There are various reasons, both normative and instrumental, why positive staff-prisoner relationships are seen as an important feature of a prison regime. When thinking about standards of decency and humanity, more positive interac-

200

11  Working in Prison

tions and relationships between staff and prisoners can serve to alleviate some of the pains of imprisonment, making day-to-day life inside more bearable, and consequently positive staff-prisoner relationships can be seen as a positive end in themselves. Positive relationships are seen as a key feature of the ‘rehabilitative culture’ agenda in public sector prisons (Mann, 2016), with many institutions identifying strategies for improving staff-prisoner relations as key to their implementation of this idea. However, staff-prisoner relationships have also been understood as instrumentally important due to their intrinsic connection to the smooth running and security of the institution. Positive relationships with prisoners can help to keep the regime operating effectively, with Liebling et al. (2011: 100) describing relationships as ‘the “oil” which smoothed the flow of the prison day’. While these more relational elements of the officer role may seem in contrast to security-focused aspects of prison work, in fact security priorities also permeate officers’ relationships and interactions with prisoners. Positive staff-prisoner relationships are not only seen as important by nature of their ability to improve the prison experience for those held inside, but also due to their bearing on security and order within the institution (Arnold, 2016). Staff-prisoner interactions are viewed as an important basis for building intelligence about what is going on in the prison, and gaining understanding of those individuals held there. This is described as ‘dynamic security’ which is seen to complement security measures provided by gates, walls and other physical features of the prison environment (European Prison Rules 2006, s. 51(2)). While prisoners are reliant upon relationships with staff to meet their basic needs, staff are thus also reliant upon their relationships with prisoners—and prisoners’ cooperation—to successfully maintain the order and security of the institution. However, a security focus may also hinder staff-prisoner relations by creating a culture of suspicion (Crawley, 2004) and limiting opportunities for friendly interaction or general conversation between officers and prisoners, due to concerns regarding the potential for conditioning of staff, or the crossing of professional boundaries, to weaken maintenance of order through authority. Further, staff-prisoner relationships may also be experienced by prisoners as indicative of heightened surveillance rather than support. Nevertheless, just as the aims of the prison go beyond simply containing prisoners, so too does the officer role. Another way that prison officers are expected to be more actively involved with those held in their care is through involvement in rehabilitation. As Crawley (2004: 95) explains: ‘In addition to their custodial tasks […] the modern prison officer is expected to change prisoners’ behaviours and outlooks and to provide him or her with care’. Prison staff may be involved in the delivery or facilitation of offending behaviour programmes or interventions geared towards addressing particular behaviours, such as sexual offending, or focused on the development of skills to assist a move away from crime. The importance

11.4  Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work

201

attached to this part of an officer’s role is clear in the policy focus on creating a ‘rehabilitative culture’ within prisons in England and Wales. Liebling et al. (2011) have noted how increased involvement in delivery of treatment and rehabilitation programmes has resulted in modern prison officers holding a ‘strengthened’ orientation towards treatment in their working lives. This expectation of staff participation in the rehabilitation process is not restricted to encouraging or facilitating participation in rehabilitative activities as part of the regime, but also increasingly involves the expectation that staff members will be pro-social role models or provide a ‘good example’ for prisoners too (European Prison Rules 2006, s.75), seeking to ‘influence them through their own example and leadership’ (Prison Rules 1999). This expectation of staff involvement in changing the lives of those within prison, when considered alongside duties of security, rule enforcement and surveillance, highlights the unique, multifaceted and sometimes contradictory role that prison officers are required to fill: What is distinctive about the work of prison officers is, first, the centrality of often enduring relationships to their work, and, second, the harmonizing of welfare and discipline, or care and power. Prison officers negotiate their authority on a day to day basis with a sceptical and complex audience, through interaction and in a context in which enforcing rules ‘by the book’ would be impossible. (Liebling, 2011: 485)

Such emphasis on the role of staff in rehabilitation, also creates administrative roles for staff related to the ‘pains of self-government’ described by Crewe (2011). Staff may not be involved in the overt enforcement of rules to the extent that previously may have been expected, yet are involved in oversight and report-writing which records one’s self-governance (or lack of), contributing to the ‘tightness’ of the prison experience for prisoners themselves (Crewe, 2011) (discussed further in Chapter 10). Questions

• What is, or should be, the most important element of a prison officer’s role? • Is it feasible to simultaneously fulfil all the duties of a prison officer satisfactorily? • In what ways are staff-prisoner relationships and concerns around security linked? Ultimately, in addition to the various roles officers are expected to play in their daily work, they are also significant ‘deliverers and interpreters of policy’ (Liebling & Price, 1999: 86); they are the individuals through whom

202

11  Working in Prison

prisoners—held at the hands of the state—experience state policy during their imprisonment. How an officer interprets and delivers particular elements of the regime, and changes to these, can have a substantial bearing on whether it is experienced positively or punitively by prisoners, and indeed whether it is felt to reflect legitimate use of authority. Thus, it is the actions of individual staff members which determine how the aims or intentions of policy statements play out in practice on a local institutional level. Despite the fact that this diverse range of duties and priorities may be reflected in official descriptions of the role, Hay and Sparks (1991: 2) have asked the question of whether ‘the role of the prison officer [has] become so poorly defined, or alternatively so contradictory, as to make it unusually hard for anyone to occupy it satisfactorily’. Consequently, the question of what makes a good prison officer is an extremely complex one. Arnold et al. (2007: 477) have argued that being a ‘good’ officer may be as much about ‘core’ personality characteristics as the skills of the officer, with research suggesting that not all are the right sort of person to undertake this job, with there being significant importance attached to ability to build good staff-prisoner relationships through knowing, caring for and showing respect to prisoners as individuals. Tait (2011) has argued that prison officers can be differentiated based on the levels of caring they deliver in their role: true carers, who are confident, secure and engaged in their role, with their work being structured by caring; limited carers, who provide pragmatic care within the bureaucratic boundaries of the system; old school officers, whose care is given in return for compliance; conflicted officers who conflate care with control and damaged officers who no longer hold interest in caring for prisoners. Gilbert (1997) has also noted how Muir’s (1977) different ‘professional orientations’ of police officers can be applied to prison work, shaping the factors prioritised and the approach taken, particularly in relation to the use of discretion given that ‘full enforcement of prison rules, policies, and procedures is an impossibility’ (Gilbert, 1997: 61). Gilbert (1997) argues that correctional officers fall into four categories of ‘professional orientation’. ‘Professionals’ include those who will use their discretion ‘when warranted’ fairly and openly, while only using force as a last resort and preferring verbal communication; ‘enforcers’ use ‘aggressive enforcement’ and go ‘by the book’, demonstrating little concern for prisoners and being ‘quick to use threats’ or force; ‘avoiders’ seek to minimise confrontation in their work through limiting interaction, rejecting the ‘interpersonal’ aspects of the work; and ‘reciprocators’ want to help others, approaching their role in a way akin to social work, and preferring to get along with prisoners than use force, ‘even when it is justifiable’ (Gilbert, 1997: 50). In their research, Liebling et al. (2011) found that some ‘role model’ prison officers could be described as combining elements of different ‘professional ori-

11.5  The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work

203

entations’. Similarly to Gilbert’s (1997) ‘reciprocators’, Gredecki & Horrocks (2017: 310) found some officers ‘crafted’ their own role identities which went beyond official security-focused roles, using ‘compassion’ to align themselves with ‘‘allied health’ professionals’, while conversely Lemmergaard and Muhr (2012) found officers to adopt ‘professional indifference’ to manage the tensions of the role. While research suggests that some characteristics or personalities are more akin to the ‘good’ officer as described by prisoners themselves, these studies demonstrate that there are divergent views of, and approaches to the job, making prison officers far from a homogenous group. Rather than there being one perfect officer, with tensions evident between many of the characteristics or qualities expected of a ‘good’ officer, Liebling and Price (2001) see these features as a ‘tool bag’ from which officers need to pick during their role, selecting the right tool for the particular job at hand. This challenge of selecting the correct tools is a tricky job when it involves reconciling the wealth of sometimes contradictory aims and priorities that officers are expected to manage (Liebling et al., 2011), further heightened and complicated by the challenging working conditions of the modern prison as will now be considered.

11.5 The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work Given the involvement of both the public and private sector in running prisons, and the diverse range of prisons serving different functions, working conditions vary across the prison estate. However, it is generally accepted that prison officers engage in high-stress work (Kinman et al., 2017) which is made even more difficult by the working conditions, resource challenges and business priorities influencing the role in recent years. This is reflected in low morale amongst staff, with the Howard League for Penal Reform (2017) finding that few officers saw a medium or long-term future working in the prison service. One of the most frequently discussed challenges of the prison environment in recent years has been the levels of staffing, with prison officers feeling that they are increasingly working alone and ‘firefighting’ to keep things under control (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2017: 3). As part of government cuts to spending, the number of staff working in prisons was cut by approximately 7000 between 2010 and 2017. These staff cuts were at a time when the prison population was growing, and there was an increase in violence, suicides and self-harm across the prison estate (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2017). In response

204

11  Working in Prison

to these concerns funding for staff has increased since 2017, yet struggles have been faced in recruiting staff to the service and staff figures remain below those in 2010. Staff currently in post are also less experienced overall—in 2019, 50% of officers had less than five years of experience, compared to 22% in 2010 (HMPPS, 2019). The loss of more experienced staff has resulted in ‘a large proportion of new and very inexperienced staff who sometimes struggled to challenge poor prisoner behaviour’ (HMIP, 2019). Research has highlighted how low staffing levels, and the concerns this raises in terms of working hours, workload, personal safety and burnout, can have significant consequences for the wellbeing of prison staff, with high prevalence of likely mental health issues (Kinman et al., 2017). While it is important to note that problems within prisons cannot be explained away through discussion of staff numbers and resources alone (Scott, 2018), under-staffing presents a significant challenge for prison officers in their day-to-day work, and impacts on levels of job satisfaction and retention, further exacerbating staffing challenges. This is in addition to the negative consequences of overstretched staff for prisoners and their experience of incarceration, through limiting access to rehabilitative activity and heightening the deprivation of security already inherent in the prison experience (Sykes, 1958). Question

In 2019, 50% of prison staff had less than five years’ experience (HMPPS, 2019). • What might the possible explanations for this be? While working conditions and levels of job satisfaction may vary between particular institutions and the public/private sector, research has demonstrated that there is low morale amongst prison staff (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2017) and that prison officers saw themselves as undervalued, and their work as underappreciated, long before these significant reductions in staff numbers (Crawley, 2004). Prison officers are not highly paid for the work that they do, which—as discussed—is challenging, potentially dangerous and involves high levels of stress and emotional labour, and the Prison Officers Association have argued that improvements to pay are necessary to ensure the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified officers (POA, 2022). Additionally, research suggests that prison officers often have a negative view of prison management as distant and uninterested in the views of those on the ground (Arnold et al., 2007; Kauffman, 1988). However, morale and work satisfaction are also influenced by whether individuals feel fulfilled in their job, and research suggests that restrictions on opportunities to engage meaningfully in rehabilitative work with pris-

11.5  The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work

205

oners impact significantly on this. Shifts towards managerialism, through the introduction of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) against which prisons’ performance is measured, and increased record-keeping, have heightened the administrative burden on prison officers and consequently reduced the time spent on face-to-face work with people in custody. These increasing managerialist demands have resulted in a culture where it may be seen as more important to have recorded actions or ticked boxes (Bryans, 2000), than to have completed one’s work in a way which involves meaningful interaction with prisoners. As Liebling et al. (2011) argue, KPIs ‘do not measure the “intangibles” such as the quality of staff-prisoner relationships, the usefulness of activities provided or the social climate of an establishment, which are much harder to translate into service delivery objectives for staff to follow’. This is particularly difficult when research suggests prison officers desire change in their jobs, and want to be involved in supporting individuals to move away from crime (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2017), a focus which is arguably in tension with managerialist concerns for record-keeping and outcome measurement. While we have already considered the pains of imprisonment for those who are serving time in prison, there can be pains and emotional burdens associated with working in prisons too. ‘Prison damages people’ (Behan, 2002: 1) and while prison staff may hold significant power to determine one’s experience of imprisonment, they are not exempt from this damage, regularly ‘witnessing the physical manifestation of the suffering of others’ (Scott, 2007: 168). Research has shown that there is substantial ‘emotional labour’ associated with prison work; along with the regime-oriented tasks and enforcement of rules, prison staff members can witness and experience traumatic and challenging events on a regular basis. As Scott (2007: 168) goes on to explain: In any day, an officer may find themselves cutting down a person who has successfully hung themselves; providing resuscitation for a suicide attempter; dealing with a person who has smeared their own excrement over themselves or the cell walls and is refusing to wash, eat or drink; or encountering a person so distressed that they perpetually cut up their arms, their legs or neck, mutilate themselves or attempt to burn themselves alive. More mundanely, but equally disturbingly, officers spend a great deal of time with people so demoralised and damaged by their experience of imprisonment and the outside world that they have become apathetic and unable to cope with the harsh realities of life

This emotional labour, alongside the exhaustion, depression and poor work-life balance evident in prison workforces, has consequently been argued to make prison officers particularly vulnerable to ‘presenteeism’—a situation where indi-

206

11  Working in Prison

viduals continue to attend work despite feeling too unwell (Kinman et al., 2019). Additionally, levels of medical absence or ‘absenteeism’ are high amongst serving prison officers (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000), putting further pressure on already strained resources. Crawley (2004) has argued that the emotional challenges of prison work can also ‘spill over’ into officers’ personal, family and home life. The consequences of witnessing such harrowing events, and the despair or hopelessness of individuals inside are substantial, yet research demonstrates that prison staff often feel the need to ‘get on with it’ or ‘keep up appearances’ in their roles as officers, finding acceptable ways to manage their responses (Barry, 2017). Scott (2007) has also argued that officers may adopt ‘techniques of denial’ in order to rationalise the suffering of those inside, or even reach a place of ‘moral indifference’, where prisoners are conceived of as lacking shared humanity so their suffering can be understood as legitimate. These are examples of coping mechanisms officers may develop to deal with the challenges of the job, while not deviating from their own and others’ expectations of their role, which are permeated by the occupational culture evident amongst prison staff.

11.6 Prison Officer Culture Research has suggested that emotional labour is one reason for the development of a clear and distinct occupational culture amongst prison staff. This culture is thought to be characterised in such a way as to enable officers to cope with the challenges of their work, and to shape the way the job is done and what is understood as acceptable prison work (Morrison & Maycock, 2021; Scott, 2012). Solidarity has been noted as a key feature of prison officer culture and it has also been strongly linked to unionisation, with the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) representing many working in prisons and secure settings, and commenting regularly on prison policy debates in England and Wales. Arnold et al. (2007) argue that this culture of solidarity develops early on in training, with allegiance to fellow officers being seen as intrinsically linked to another key feature of prison officer culture—cynicism. The understanding that prison officers may need to rely on each other in difficult situations, and have each-others’ backs, contributes to distrust of prisoners and maintenance of the ‘us and them’ division, while also creating an opposition to perspectives of ‘others’ beyond their position, such as management or the public, on their work (Arnold et al., 2007). Garrihy (2020: 134) has noted how this bottom-up culture emerges within a group who ‘feel under threat from all sides’ and misunderstood by these groups and others. Scholars have also noted the prevalence of humour in prison officer culture, as a

11.7 Conclusion

207

defence mechanism or healing tool for surviving challenging encounters (Crawley, 2004) and as a tool for managing relationships with both prisoners and fellow staff members (Nielsen, 2011), alongside detachment from emotional situations. Adherence to a traditional prison officer culture has been found to have a significant bearing on prisoners’ experiences, with scholars noting how it can even impact on levels of prisoner distress and suicide, having a ‘direct and significant association with levels of care for prisoners in most prisons’ (Arnold et al., 2007: 489). Nevertheless, this occupational culture is not homogenous and fixed; it may differ on the basis of one’s institution, whether public or private sector, as well as on the basis of age or experience (Arnold et al., 2007), while cultures also change over time. As Garrihy (2020: 139) argues: Cultures are at once a toolkit from which officers draw to create meaningful practices to achieve their aims, and an internalised lens through which they perceive, think, and feel about their occupational world. Officers do not blindly embody their occupational cultures, but engage with them. In this way, occupational cultures are negotiated, contested and not impervious to change.

Question

• How might prison officer culture impact on prison work, and prisoners’ experiences of imprisonment? As this chapter has considered, the roles of the prison officer are diverse, complex, and often contradictory or conflicting. As a consequence, there is inevitable variation in the approaches taken to prison work by individuals, and consequently how they fulfil their role as ‘interpreters of policy’ (Liebling & Price, 1999: 86). Having considered how approaches to work might be shaped by adherence to a prison officer culture, it becomes clear that these two interests are connected: ‘occupational cultures are one means of understanding the disconnect between policy and practice’ (Morrison & Maycock, 2021: 19). As such, when considering the official role of prison officers—and the policies that guide their work—we cannot separate these from the particular cultural context of the occupation, and the work-related burdens from which this originates, which permeate the daily reality of how prison work is experienced by both staff and prisoners.

11.7 Conclusion This chapter has examined the work and experiences of prison officers, whose roles in the prison system—and relationships with those held in prison—have a significant bearing on the prison environment and experience. The chapter has

208

11  Working in Prison

highlighted the diversity of the prison officer role, illustrating how this extends beyond the task of maintaining control and security within the institution, to fulfilling a diverse range of functions entailed in expectations of the prison to both contain and rehabilitate those inside. Such diverse roles may require staff to wear a variety of different ‘hats’, and present challenges where these may appear contradictory. While seeking to perform these roles, this chapter has highlighted the importance of staff-prisoner relationships as well as the challenging working conditions within which prison staff may be working, heightening the burdens of prison work and impacting on the experience of imprisonment for those confined. Finally, the chapter has considered the role of occupational culture in staff’s responses to such challenging conditions, providing ways to cope with the emotional labour of prison work, while also impacting on prison staff’s significant role as those who interpret and enact policy on the ground in prisons. Chapter Summary

• The roles of prison officers are many, diverse and complex, and it can be difficult to fulfil all roles simultaneously where some are contradictory. • Staff-prisoner relationships have a significant bearing on the experience of imprisonment, and the prison environment, with prison staff approaching their roles in a variety of different ways. • The working conditions of prison staff are challenging, highlighting how prison may create harms for those who are working in this environment as well as those who are held there. • Prison officers have been identified as having a distinct occupational culture which may help to manage the challenges of prison work. Activity

Search online for current job adverts for a Prison Officer (Public Sector) or Prison Custody Officer (Private Sector). These are usually listed on the HMPPS website, or on the websites for companies running private prisons, such as  Serco, Sodexo and G4S. • How far are the different elements of a prison officer’s role reflected in the job description? • Does this vary between different adverts? • Are some elements of the role more prominent than others? Why might this be?

References/Further Reading

209

References/Further Reading Arnold, H. (2016). The prison officer. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennettt (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 265–283). Routledge. Arnold, H., Liebling, A., & Tait, S. (2007). Prison officers and prison culture. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 471–495). Willan Publishing. Barry, C. (2017). ‘You just get on with the Job’: Prison officers’ experiences of deaths in custody in the Irish prison service. Prison Service Journal, 230, 53–60. Behan, C. (2002). Transformative learning in a total institution [Unpublished MA Dissertation]. National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Bennett, P., & Shuker, R. (2010). Improving prisoner-staff relationships: Exporting Grendon’s good practice. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 49(5), 491–502. Brown, A., & Clare, E. (2005). A history of experience: Exploring prisoners’ accounts of incarceration. In C. Elmsley (Ed.), The persistent prison: Problems, images and alternatives (pp. 49–73). Francis Boutle. Bruhn, A. (2013). Gender relations and division of labour among prison officers in Swedish male prisons. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 14(2), 115–132. Bryans, S. (2000). The managerialisation of prisons—Efficiency without a purpose? Criminal Justice Matters, 40(1), 7–8. Burdett, F., Gouliquer, L., & Poulin, C. (2018). Culture of corrections: The experiences of women correctional officers. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 329–349. Crawley, E. (2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Willan Publishing. Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment and Society, 13(5), 509–529. Crewe, B., Liebling, A., & Hulley, S. (2015). Staff-prisoner relationships, staff professionalism, and the use of authority in public- and private-sector prisons. Law and Social Inquiry, 40(2), 309–344. Council of Europe. (2006). European prison rules, recommendation Rec (2006) 2 (Revised in 2020). Council of Europe. Garrihy, J. (2020). There are fourteen grey areas: ‘Jailing’, professionalism and legitimacy in prison officers’ occupational cultures. Irish Probation Journal, 17: 128–150. Gariglio, L. (2019). Challenging prison officers’ discretion: “Good reasons” to treat courteously Mafiosi in custody in Italy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 48(1), 80–102. Gilbert, M. J. (1997). The illusion of structure: A critique of the classical model of organization and the discretionary power of correctional officers. Criminal Justice Review, 22(1), 49–64. Gredecki, N., and Horrocks, C. (2017). ‘Crafting identity’: Constructions of the prison officer role. In J. Ireland, C. Ireland, M. Fisher & N. Gredecki (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of forensic psychology in secure settings (pp. 300–312). Routledge. Haggerty, K. D., & Bucerius, S. M. (2021). Picking battles: Correctional officers, rules, and discretion in prison. Criminology, 59, 137–157. Hay, W., & Sparks, R. (1991). What is a prison officer? Prison Service Journal, 2–7.

210

11  Working in Prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. (2019). Annual Report 2018–19. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2021). Staff-prisoner relationships. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/prison-expectations/respect/staff-prisoner-relationships/. Accessed 10 Dec 2021. HM Prison Service. (n.d.). Competency and qualities framework. https://www.justice.gov. uk/downloads/jobs/hmps-competence-framework.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2022. Howard League for Penal Reform. (2017). The role of the prison officer: Research briefing. Howard League for Penal Reform. Kauffman, K. (1988). Prison officers and their world. Harvard University Press. Kinman, G., Clements, A. J., & Hart, J. (2017). Job demands, resources and mental health in UK prison officers. Occupational Medicine, 67(6), 456–460. Kinman, G., Clements, A. J., & Hart, J. (2019). When are you coming back? Presenteeism in U.K. Prison Officers. The Prison Journal, 99(3). Lammy, D. (2017). The Lammy review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/643001/lammy-review-final-report.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2021. Lemmergaard, J., and Muhr, S.L. (2012). Golfing with a murderer — Professional indifference and identity work in a Danish prison. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(2), 185–195.  Liebling, A., and Price, D. (1999). An exploration of staff-prisoner relationships at HMP Whitemoor. HM Prison Service.  Liebling, A. (2000). Prison officers, policing and the use of discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 333–357. Liebling, A. (2011). Distinctions and distinctiveness in the work of prison officers: Legitimacy and authority revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 484–499. Liebling, A., Price, D., & Shefer, G. (2011). The prison officer. Willan Publishing. Loftus, B. (2009). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society, 20(1), 1–20. Mann, R. (2019). Rehabilitative culture part 2: An update on evidence and practice. Prison Service Journal, 244, 3–10. Mawby, R. C., & Worrall, A. (2011). Probation workers and their occupational cultures. University of Leicester. Ministry of Justice. (2019). Her majesty’s prison and probation service annual staff equalities report 2018/19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/848745/hmpps-staff-equalities-report-2018-19.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2021a, June). Her majesty’s prison and probation service workforce quarterly. Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/her-majestys-prison-and-probation-service-workforce-quarterly-june-2021a/her-majestys-prison-and-probation-service-workforce-quarterly-june-2021a. Accessed 1 Sept 2021. Ministry of Justice. (2021b). Prison officer workforce. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures. service.gov.uk/workforce-and-business/workforce-diversity/prison-officer-workforce/ latest. Accessed 1 Sept 2021.

References/Further Reading

211

Ministry of Justice. (2021c). 202111: Prison officer—HMP Birmingham. Civil Service Jobs. https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1755592. Accessed 27 Jan 2022. Morrison, K., & Maycock, M. (2021). Becoming a prison officer: An analysis of the early development of prison officer cultures. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(1), 3–24. Muir, W. (1977). Street corner politicians. University of Chicago Press. Nielsen, M. M. (2011). On humour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 500– 514. Prison Officers Association (2022). POA 2022 submission to the Prison Service pay review body. https://www.poauk.org.uk/media/2102/poa-psprb-sub-2022.pdf. Accessed on 22 Oct 2022.  Ricciardelli, R. (2019). Also serving time: Canada’s provincial and territorial correctional officers. University of Toronto Press. Ryan, C., Brennan, F., & McNeill, S. (2021). Prison officer training and education: A scoping review of the published literature. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Online First. Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19–47. Scott, D. (2006). The caretakers of punishment: Prison officer personal authority and the rule of law. Prison Service Journal, 168, 14–19. Scott, D. (2007). Creating ghosts in the penal machine: Prison officer occupational morality and the techniques of denial. In J. Bennett, B. Crewe, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Understanding prison staff (pp. 168–186). Routledge. Scott, D. (2008). Discretion. In Y. Jewkes & J. Bennett (Eds.), Dictionary of prisons and punishment (pp. 69–70). Willan Publishing. Scott, D. (2012). Guarding the ghosts of time: working personalities and the prison officer-prisoner relationship. Prison Service Journal, 201, 18–23. Scott, D. (2018). Penal agnosis and historical denial: Problematising ‘common sense’ understandings of prison officers and violence in prison. In A. Barton & H. Davis (Eds.), Ignorance, power and harm: Agnotology and the criminological imagination (pp. 213–238). Routledge. Sim, J. (2007). An inconvenient criminological truth: Pain, punishment and prison officers. In J. Bennett, B. Crewe, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Understanding prison staff. Routledge. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press. Tait, S. (2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 440–454. Zimmer, L. (1986). How women reshape the prison guard role. University of Chicago Press.

The Architecture of Incarceration

12

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • Penal philosophy underpinning prison architecture. • International standards on prison architecture and internal design. • Places and spaces that avoid the normal disciplinary modes associated with imprisonment. • Whether new approaches in prison architecture and internal design can eliminate, or soften the pains of imprisonment.

12.1 Introduction Based on television and media representations of the institution, we might think that all prisons are the same. We usually see rows of cells or bunks, food halls, recreation spaces, prison yards and little else. Yet, prisons differ in significant ways. There are many different types and models of prison. One of the most obvious ways we can see the difference is in the buildings in which prisoners are housed. While some early prisons from the nineteenth century are still being used in England and Wales, and elsewhere, there are many different designs in penal architecture today. Most of these structures, then and now, reflect the philosophy underpinning the objective/s of imprisonment. This chapter examines prison architecture. It considers how the various philosophies of punishment—retributivism, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (which we examined in Chapter 3)—can influence the architecture of the prison. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_12

213

214

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

The chapter begins by examining how penal objectives informed (and continue to influence) the physical structure of prisons. The international standards on prison architecture are then outlined. The next section looks at how design can help facilitate internal prison routine and regime, recognising that there are spaces within the prison that eschew normal dynamics inherent in the penal experience. Finally, the chapter considers if recent initiatives in prison architecture soften Sykes’ (1958) ‘pains of imprisonment’, or are designed to merely reformulate the denial of liberty for the twenty-first century.

12.2 Symbolism and Structure As the modern prison took shape in the nineteenth century, its form—like all public buildings—reflected its function. The British architectural historian Thomas Pevsner noted in A History of Building Types (1976: 293): ‘[E]very building creates associations in the mind of the beholder, whether the architect wanted it or not’. He argued that: ‘Nineteenth-century architecture is evocative architecture’ with educational institutions, banks and churches built to reflect what designers hoped to portray and encapsulate in architectural blueprint. He concluded that the ‘gaol of course had to have the motifs of the medieval castle’ (Pevsner, 1976: 293). The high walls were designed to evoke power and might. They indicated that the purposes were to contain and punish those inside, and to deter those outside from committing crime. The Eastern State Penitentiary, which we read about in Chapter 2, was opened in 1829. Its architect John Haviland was said to have captured ‘a philosophy in stone’ (cited in Hallinan, 2001: 6). As the ‘Pennsylvania system’ in operation in the Eastern State Penitentiary encouraged separate confinement as part of rehabilitation, the design had to meet the needs of this system. Single-cell accommodation prevented prisoners from mixing with each other. Each cell had a private outdoor exercise yard with high walls so that prisoners could not communicate. There was a small skylight in the cell and those who could read had the Bible for comfort. The ‘interior of the penitentiary resembles a church, with its 30-foot, barrel vaulted hallways and tall arched windows. In contrast, the exterior is a menacing, medieval Gothic façade, built to intimidate’ (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021). The design reflected the function: to deter, incapacitate, inspire repentance and encourage reformation. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) (see Chapter 2) proposed the panopticon as a prison design. Based on a radial formation, from the central inspection tower, prison staff could see into each cell. Hence, it was called the ‘all-seeing’

12.2  Symbolism and Structure

215

eye. As prisoners could not know if they were being watched, it was hoped that this would encourage them to regulate their behaviour and discipline themselves. While confined in their cells, prisoners would engage in manual labour, thus reducing the costs for the prison authorities (see Chapter 2). ‘By a simple idea in Architecture!’ proclaimed Bentham in his preface to Panopticon, Or The Inspection House (1791 [2017]: 2), ‘Morals reformed - health preserved - industry invigorated - instruction diffused - public burthens lightened’, in a ‘new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example’. Foucault (1977: 227–228) was much more sceptical. He believed that the ‘theme of the Panopticon – at once surveillance and observation, security and knowledge, individualisation and totalisation, isolation and transparency – found in the prison its privileged locus of realisation’. Prisons built in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century reflected the objectives of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and moral reform. They were to deter the urban poor and working class from crime, and act as instruments of Christian punishment (Glancey, 2001). HMP Leicester, built in 1828, HMP Reading, built in 1844, HMP Leeds, built in 1847, and HMP Shrewsbury, rebuilt in 1877, resembled castles. HMP Strangeways (now HMP Manchester), built in 1868, had a monastic façade (Hancock & Jewkes, 2011). Oscar Wilde (1898) in his Ballad of Reading Gaol wrote about how the small windows and lack of light exacerbated the punishment: ‘I never saw sad men who looked/With such a wistful eye/Upon that little tent of blue/We prisoners called the sky’. As the condemned were no longer punished in public, the spectacle of the infliction of pain on law-breakers was gone. Locating prisons within sight of urban populations, usually in city centres, these buildings were concrete expressions of deterrence and demonstrations of state power. Internal design can also create spaces which conjure up associations with particular environments. In his study of a 1950s New Jersey maximum security prison, Sykes (1958: 7) argued that the most striking feature of the prison was its ‘drabness’. He observed that it had an ‘institutional’ look, similar to police stations, hospitals and orphanages. Foucault (1977: 227–228) expressed similar sentiments in his examination of the ‘carceral archipelago’. He argued that the prison was similar to other institutional structures, suggesting that prisons resemble schools, hospitals and factories, which in turn, resemble prisons. Wener (cited in Moran & Jewkes, 2015:164) concluded that: ‘Jails and prisons represent more than just warehouses of bed space’ and the design is ‘critically related to the philosophy of the institution, or maybe even of the entire criminal justice system’. Internal design and prison buildings are more than just the physical manifestation of the institution. They indicate its penal philosophy, objectives of the prison system, and opportunities for transformation for those confined therein.

216

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

Questions

• Find a prison near you online. Have a look at some pictures of it and research its history. • What do you think is the penal philosophy behind its architecture?

12.3 International Standards As we have seen in Chapter 2 and other sections throughout the book, there are many different types of prisons. Institutions differ across, and within jurisdictions. What ties them together is that imprisonment at its core is about the denial of liberty. However, the level of coercion can vary, depending on the philosophy underpinning penal policy, which can be subsequently reflected in the architecture. International declarations and conventions (discussed in Chapter 9) stress the importance of prison architecture and internal design in creating humane institutions that facilitate rehabilitation. Rule 12 of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules deals with internal prison design. It recommends that single person cells should be used for only one prisoner, except for ‘special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding’. If dormitories are used, regular supervision at night is essential. Rule 13 deals with accommodation for prisoners, especially sleeping accommodation, which ‘shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation’. Further Rules stipulate that windows in living and working spaces need to be large enough to allow prisoners to read or work by natural light and allow fresh air. There should be suitable bathing and showering installations, sanitary facilities should be adequate and ‘comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner’ (Rule 15). The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) has issued technical and operational guidance based on the Nelson Mandela Rules: ‘The deprivation of liberty constitutes the prisoner’s punishment, not the circumstances of his or her confinement’ (UNOPS, 2016: 27). However, they concede that ‘in many instances around the world, prisoners continue to suffer persistent indignities and are subject to considerable cruelty, even torture’. They recommend the categorisation of prisoners, from the highest degree of security at level 1 to the lowest at level 4. Internal design and security features should be suitable for each category. This guidance argues that the purpose of imprisonment goes beyond the containment of prisoners and protection of the public. Consideration should be given in the design of the prison, to facilitating purposeful regimes to improve the quality of life, and aid rehabilitation (UNOPS, 2016: 28).

12.3  International Standards

217

The revised European Prison Rules (EPR) (2020) mirror many of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules concerning architectural design and physical environment. Rule 18 states that ‘all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation’. The EPR state that prisoners should be housed in individual cells, and only in shared cells if the accommodation is suitable and occupied by other prisoners who are deemed appropriate to be in the same cell. Significantly, and particularly important in light of the issue of overcrowding in many jurisdictions, Rule 18.4 states: ‘National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons’. However, these principles are often more honoured in their breach than observance. The United Nations (2021: 5) reported that overcrowding was prevalent in over 110 Member States. More than 50 Member States were operating prison services at more than 150 per cent of their official capacity and in ‘many prisons, overcrowding is so acute that prisoners are forced to share beds, sleep in shifts or on top of each other, or spend the night standing’ (UN, 2021: 5). In England and Wales, women and young adults are imprisoned in either closed conditions or open conditions, ‘according to their risks and needs. In exceptional cases, women and young adults may be held in a high security prison’ (HMPPS, 2021). There are four categories of prison for male prisoners (which were outlined in more detail in Chapter 7): Categories A to D, depending on seriousness of crime and escape risk. However, even within prisons, there are different areas, such as Vulnerable Prisoner Units (VPUs) and Close Supervision Centres (CSCs). Officially, VPUs are for prisoners who at risk of bullying, suicide or self-harm. CSCs were first introduced in 1998 to ‘remove the most seriously disruptive prisoners from the general prison population following an individual risk assessment’ (UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021). In 2021, there were 52 people held in CSCs in prisons in England and Wales (Siddique, 2021). These can hold prisoners for prolonged periods of time in their cell, for up to 22 hours a day. Prisoners have no social interaction, through the normal prison regime, and no privacy, even when using the toilet (Shalev & Edgar, 2015). These conditions of detention, described by Amnesty International UK as ‘akin to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment’, can have a detrimental impact on the mental health of prisoners (cited in Siddique, 2021). CSCs, often referred to as a ‘prison-within-a-prison’, mirror somewhat the Secure Housing Units (SHU) in US prisons. Prison design and architecture do not always equate with the level of security necessary to house a prisoner, or the seriousness of a crime. United Nations and

218

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

Council of Europe guidance notes that prison infrastructure should not exceed the level of security necessary for the secure confinement of prisoners. However, overcrowding, common in the penal estate in England and Wales since the 1990s (Prison Reform Trust, 2022), can lead to individuals being held in higher category conditions due to lack of space in suitable institutions. The European Prison Rules Basic Principles (2020) state that life in prison ‘shall approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life in the community’. Therefore, ‘restrictions placed on persons deprived of their liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective for which they are imposed’. If an individual is held in a higher category institution than their own classification, or if the prison infrastructure is out of sync with the risk posed, this can impact detrimentally on a prisoner’s quality of life (Nutall & Jurisic, 2016) . While neither the UN Nelson Mandela Rules nor the European Prison Rules have legal effect in domestic legislation, in cases dealing with the conditions of confinement the latter have informed judgements in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Further, the Court is increasingly referring to the European Prison Rules and reports from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (See van Zyl Smith 2006, and Chapters 9, 10 and 15) in its judgments. In Kalashnikov v. Russia (2002), before the ECtHR, the applicant complained that the conditions of his imprisonment were in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR which states that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. During his detention, Valeriy Yermilovich Kalashnikov was held in a cell of 17m2, with eight bunks and 24 prisoners who took turns sleeping in them. The Court noted that at any one time there was only 0.9 to 1.9 m2 per prisoner. It observed that the Committee for the Prevention of Torture ‘had set 7 m2 per prisoner as an approximate, desirable guideline for a detention cell’. The cell was continuously severely overcrowded and prisoners had to sit on the floor waiting for their turn to sleep. Prisoners ate in the cell, only a meter from the toilet. During his nearly five years of detention, Kalashnikov contracted fungal infections and skin diseases. Van Zyl Smit (2011) concluded that in Kalashnikov, the ECtHR extended the scope of Article 3 of the ECHR in its finding that there did not need to be intentional mistreatment for conditions to be declared as ‘inhuman or degrading’. Indeed, he observed that overcrowding could in itself be considered as degrading. Article 3 of the ECHR was also used when the Scottish Court of Outer Sessions ruled in the Napier case in 2004. Robert Napier, a remand prisoner in Bar-

12.4  Place and Space

219

linnie Prison, Scotland complained that the cell in which he was detained was grossly inadequate with regard to living space, lighting and ventilation. The sanitary arrangements involved ‘slopping out’. He claimed that the time he was confined in his cell was excessive and that the periods of exercise and recreation outside were inadequate. The Court found that overcrowded conditions and the continued use of ‘slopping out’ constituted inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3. The fact that his eczema was exacerbated by his imprisonment in such conditions was also important in the Court‘s finding. Lord Bonomy (Robert Napier v. Scottish Ministers, 2004) concluded: that to detain a person along with another prisoner in a cramped, stuffy and gloomy cell which is inadequate for the occupation of two people, to confine them there together for at least 20 hours on average per day, to deny him overnight access to a toilet throughout the week and for extended periods at the weekend and to thus expose him to both elements of the slopping out process, to provide no structured activity other than daily walking exercise for one hour and one period of recreation lasting an hour and a half in a week, and to confine him to a “dog box” for two hours or so each time he entered or left the prison was, in Scotland in 2001, capable of attaining the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute degrading treatment and thus to infringe Article 3.

Robert Napier was awarded £2450 in damages. Although on appeal the Scottish government lost (BBC, 2005), the process of eliminating ‘slopping out’ continued throughout the Scottish penal estate.

12.4 Place and Space Regulation is at the heart of every prison (see Chapter 10). Architecture can facilitate the daily routine, organisation of time, and the disciplinary modes inherent in the denial of liberty. Essential to penal regimes lie—similar to the other total institutions—strict regulation and scheduling of each activity at a pre-arranged time each day (Goffman, 1961). As we saw in Chapter 10, prison rules, regulations and routine make sure prisoners follow regime guidelines, considered essential to create disciplinary order within prison. If all great architecture connects people to place, then it is understandable that those who are sentenced to imprisonment will rarely, if ever, be satisfied with the place they have to spend their time. However, despite the appearance from the outside, prisons are not monolithic institutions. Even within old-style security-

220

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

focused perimeters, there is the potential to create a space which overcomes the objectives associated with a prison. Inside there are spaces and places that eschew regulations and disciplinary modes of imprisonment. There are locations within the prison ‘where the outside and inside worlds blur and collide’ and become ‘set apart culturally from the wider institution’ (Crewe et al., 2013: 60). Erving Goffman, in his study of total institutions, identified what he termed ‘places of vulnerability’ that do not follow strict institutional dynamics. Here prisoners can engage in what are termed ‘removal activities […] where the individual can get lost, a temporary blotting out of all sense of the environment in which she/he lives’ (Goffman, 1977: 84). He suggested that these included supply rooms, sick bays and kitchens. In prisons, these spaces can also include recreation areas and exercise yards. There are other places that, while being physically located inside the prison walls, allow for the temporary change of role and transformation of identity. These include places of worship, where individuals can briefly lose their designation as a prisoner and become a person of faith and worshipper, schools where prisoners become students, libraries where they become readers, and gyms where prisoners are concerned with exercise and fitness routines. Warr (2016: 19) examined the ‘emotional geography’ within prison, arguing ‘different penal environments, or spaces within the prison, are designed to have very different and specific functions and, correspondingly, are designed to evoke and provoke specific types of reaction and emotion’. The prison school can be a place where the ‘normal’ distinction between staff and prisoner is eroded, especially in jurisdictions where educational staff are not employed by the prison authorities (Behan, 2014). The prison school could be considered a space that evokes different emotions. It is one of the spaces that overcomes the ‘normal’ disciplinary modes on which the prison is operationalised. It can become a little island of ‘vivid, enrapturing activity’ in the ‘kind of dead sea’ of the institution (Goffman, 1961: 68). Prison schools can allow prisoners to show vulnerability, and eschew the frontstage masculinity that tends to dominate in male prisons (see Chapter 6). Based on pedagogical, rather than penal principles, individuals can identify as students during their time in the educational space, rather than as prisoners (Behan, 2014; Szifris, 2021). Questions

• Do you think that prisoners would design a prison differently to prison architects? • What design features might prisoners include/exclude?

12.5  Improving the Penal Environment

221

12.5 Improving the Penal Environment Architecture and design move with the times. With changes in emphasis in penal priorities and the tone (in words, if not deeds) of penal policymakers, indicating a desire to create a more rehabilitative environment, research has begun to examine if the ‘pains’ of imprisonment can be reduced, and focus on a more rehabilitative, even restorative approach, in the physical design of prisons. These include proposals for ‘reform prisons’, ‘green prisons’, ‘rehabilitative prisons’, ‘educational prisons’, ‘community prisons’, all designed to make imprisonment more focused on reform and transformation of the prisoner. However, sometimes despite change of name, or design, there is little change in ethos, as traditional penal practices and internal disciplinary regimes triumph. In terms of architecture, Hancock and Jewkes (2011: 620) note that: While prisons undoubtedly serve a punitive function, the aim of rehabilitation – the production of socially compatible subjects – remains in most cases primary to their mission. As such, the general ugliness and bleakness of most prison architecture, combined with a restrictive economy of space, has also started to lead to questions regarding whether these features lead to negative penal outcomes and whether, conversely, prison architects and designers should actively address ways in which architecture and design might be mobilized in order to promote higher rates of successful rehabilitation of offenders.

Hancock and Jewkes (2011) found that, although limited, a number of prisons in Britain and Europe have been designed to create spaces for transformation, with new ideas about internal design and architecture emerging. Recommendations for improvement to prison architecture and design are contained in a study, Rehabilitation by Design: Influencing Change in Prisoner Behaviour produced by architects and criminologists. ‘Built environments in which we live have consequences for the mind and the body. This is never truer than in the context of incarceration’, argued the study (Gleeds, 2016: 12), which recognised that ‘in conjunction with well-trained, well-supported staff, clever prison design is a vital component of rehabilitation’. A range of innovations should ‘design in’ opportunities for ‘normalisation’ prevalent in Scandinavian models: free movement in prison could be facilitated through the use of technology; fewer barriers inside and glass rather than bars on the windows; cell design that allows prisoners some control over their immediate environment and adequate shared spaces to allow agency for prisoners (Gleeds, 2016: 12–15). Instead of using security measures alone to stop contraband entering the prison, the study

222

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

suggested that demand for mobile phones could be reduced if there were more opportunities for family communication, such as Skype calls, and programmes to reduce the demand for drugs (Gleeds, 2016: 20–23). The need for innovative design is essential: ‘Put simply, conventional prison design can reinforce criminal and criminalised identities’ (Gleeds, 2016: 13).

Halden Prison, Norway Norway, with one of lowest imprisonment rates in the world, follows a policy of ‘normalisation’. This is reflected in the approach of the Norwegian Correctional Service: ‘The punishment is the restriction of liberty; no other rights have been removed by the sentencing court. Therefore, the sentenced offender has all the same rights as all others who live in Norway. No-one shall serve their sentence under stricter circumstances than necessary for the security in the community. Therefore, offenders shall be placed in the lowest possible security regime’. Further, ‘You need a reason to deny a sentenced offender his rights, not to grant them’ (Norwegian Correctional Service, 2021). Halden Prison in Norway opened its gates in 2010. Described by The Guardian as the ‘most humane prison in the world’ (Gentleman, 2012), the architecture of Halden Prison reflects the philosophy of ‘normalisation’. Located in a wood, it has few of the features we expect from a prison. Described as feeling like a university campus rather than a jail by some visitors, each cell has its own en-suite bathroom, television, fridge and desk. In the communal areas, there are different coloured sofas, and a kitchenette. The colours in the prison are varied, with the lighting designed to imitate natural light. The top of the exterior wall has been rounded off, to avoid the ‘feel’ of a prison. There are communal dining facilities and the prison library has IT facilities. There are large bar-less windows and murals on the exterior walls (Gentleman, 2012). The architect Hans Henrik Hoilund (cited in Daily Mail, 2010) explained: ‘The most important thing is that the prison looks as much like the outside world as possible. To avoid an institutional feel, exteriors are not concrete but made of bricks, galvanised steel and larch; the buildings seem to have grown organically from the woodlands’. In 2010, Halden Prison was shortlisted for the World Architecture Festival Awards, and won the Arnstein Arneberg Award for its interior design.

12.6  New Prisons—Old Philosophies?

223

Other suggestions for improvement in the penal environment include using nature to positively impact on prisoners’ wellbeing. Plants, grass and water can create the feeling of ‘normality’. While prisons are generally drab, dark, inward-looking places, Söderlund and Newman (2017)—in their study of biophilia in American and Australian prisons—argue that greater use of nature and natural elements can improve mental health and reduce stress, increasing the potential for behavioural change: ‘Fostering a biophilic love of life is an essential component of steering prison inmates from further regression into a “life of decay” to a life where altruism and a sense of belonging are the greater forces’ (Söderlund & Newman, 2017: 276). They concluded, therefore, that natural elements can provide opportunities to improve mental health and wellbeing in prison, improve the quality of life and can assist in prisoner rehabilitation.

12.6 New Prisons—Old Philosophies? In response to an acute increase in the number of prisoners in England and Wales since the 1990s (see Chapter 13) various proposals have been advanced by Secretaries of State for Justice to deal with overcrowding. Rather than considering strategies for reducing prison numbers, the response has usually been to build more prison places and, in effect, modernise the penal estate. In 2008, New Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw proposed the building of three ‘Titan’ prisons, with a capacity to hold 2500 prisoners. This is despite the recommendation in the Woolf Report (1991) that prisons should not hold more the 400 people. Straw argued that new prison places were needed for the projected 96,000 prisoners by 2014. These ‘Titan’ prisons would have five units, each with approximately 500 prisoners. In a disturbing return to the past (see Chapter 2), Jack Straw said that the Ministry of Justice was also looking at buying a prison ship (Morris, 2008) to deal with overcrowding. The plans were criticised by a range of organisations, including  the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, and the Prison Governors Association. In 2009, the government announced that the ‘Titan’ prisons would not be built. Jack Straw also announced that they would no longer pursue plans to purchase a new 450-place prison ship, as building extra prison capacity on land would be cheaper (Travis, 2009). As well as a succession of eight justice secretaries under Conservative governments from 2010 until 2021, there were a range of announcements and changes in penal policy, some of which related to creating new, more modern prison designs. In early 2016, the Prime Minister, David Cameron (2016) stated: ‘Prisons aren’t a holiday camp – not really. They are often miserable, painful environments.

224

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

Isolation. Mental anguish. Idleness. Bullying. Self-harm. Violence. Suicide. These aren’t happy places’. One of the ways the penal system was going to have to change was the replacement of the old Victorian buildings. Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Justice 2015–2016) agreed, as he was concerned that the ‘current prison estate is out-of-date, overcrowded and in far too many cases, insanitary and inadequate’. Along with new technology to prevent illicit drugs entering the prisons, he said ‘we have to consider closing down the ageing and ineffective Victorian prisons in our major cities, reducing the crowding and ending the inefficiencies which blight the lives of everyone in them and building new prisons which embody higher standards in every way they operate’ (Gove, 2015). Various other policies were suggested by the succession of justice secretaries, including the announcement of six ‘reform prisons’ with governors having operational and financial autonomy, opening nine new prisons and closing old and inefficient prisons (Cavadino et al., 2020: 213–216). Recognising again the need to improve standards for the twenty-first century, a new Secretary of State for Justice Liz Truss (2016) promised a £1.3bn prison-building programme to provide 10,000 places as some prisons were ‘dilapidated and dated at best, dirty and dangerous at worst’. She recognised that ‘out-of-date prisons, with darkened corridors, cramped conditions and rat infestations’ do not ‘provide the most effective backdrop for reform’.

Locating Prisons Along with designs for new prisons to replace the old estate, the siting of a prison impacts on the potential for rehabilitation. With the acute rise in the number of prisoners in the United States and England and Wales, the cost of building prisons has become a factor for consideration. Due to the costs of prime real estate in city centre locations, it is argued by those proposing new prisons that building prisons outside major urban centres can cut costs, and act as a means of community regeneration by providing jobs in deindustrialised areas. Hallinan (2001) examined the development of what has been termed the prison-industrial complex in the US, with a boom in prison building in rural areas, disconnected from the urban communities which have a disproportionate number of their residents incarcerated. In his study of penal expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, Hallinan (2001: 6) argued: The modern ‘correctional facility’ is a concrete econo-box, low and bunkered and anonymous. From a distance, it resembles a hospital or suburban high school. It has no guard towers, because guards are expensive. It has no walls; fences are

12.6  New Prisons—Old Philosophies?

225

cheaper. There are no long rows of cells. Today’s prisons are divided into pods, or small clusters of cells. The cells in the pods are huddled around a central control booth, like the worker bees around the queen. And in this way one guard, with the benefit of closed-circuit cameras, may do the work that five once did.

Pods within the prison act as mini-panopticons, with a desire to achieve mass incarceration at minimal cost. Hallinan argued that in contrast to the nineteenth century penal innovators, today’s prison design is not driven by a penal policy promoting reform, but by cost. In their study of the British penal landscape, Coal today, gone tomorrow: How jobs were replaced with prison places, Jones et al. (2021: 6) identified how prison expansion has occurred to meet the rising numbers incarcerated since the 1980s. New prisons have been built in deindustrialised locations and centres of urban decline. They conclude that ‘the prison complex may come to replace the industrial complex’. The location of a prison can impact on the penal experience and potential for rehabilitation. When prisons are built in remote areas, ‘prisoners are often cut off from their families and community resources that could assist in their rehabilitation. This increases a sense of physical and emotional isolation, and increases the risk of them reoffending’ (Nutall & Jurisic, 2016) . Many rural prison locations do not have adequate public transport connections and there are both financial costs and time considerations with long distances to travel, impacting negatively on the potential for visits and the maintenance of familial relationships, a significant support in the rehabilitative process (Codd, 2007).

In response to the climate crisis, and in line with changing sensibilities in society, there have been demands for the incorporation of green initiatives in prisons. In 2021, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab (2021) unveiled plans for the ‘UK’s greenest and most innovative prison’. He pledged to deliver ‘the biggest and most innovative prison-building programme in a century’ beginning with Glen Parva, Leicestershire, to be completed in 2023. He proclaimed that it would be 35 per cent greener than HMP Berwyn, opened in 2017. It would use rubble from the old demolished prison, and utilise green energy, including more than 960 solar panels and infrastructure for electric vehicle charging points. Four new prisons were in the pipeline which it was hoped would further reduce carbon emissions by at least 85 per cent. In addition, Raab announced that prisoners would help plant 3500

226

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

trees, and nurseries would be established at a further seven prisons which will eventually grow 100,000 trees from seed every year. Along with in-cell technology to provide literacy and numeracy tuition, these green proposals, Raab argued, would ‘provide offenders with the opportunity to gain horticultural skills and qualifications – bolstering their chances of employment on release’. Jewkes and Moran (2015) recognise that ‘green technology’ can deliver some gains, however they have cautioned against giving these innovations too much weight in improving the prison experience. They conclude: ‘Green prisons are, after all, still prisons’ (Jewkes & Moran, 2015: 466). Expansion can come under the guise of sustainability. The narrative around new prisons, whether they be ‘green’, ‘rehabilitative’ ‘reform’ or ‘educational’, and the rationale for their location can be used as a justification to build more prisons. It can also be used to silence dissent about the use of imprisonment and deflect criticism of penal expansion. The architecture of incarceration is more than just bricks and mortar that surround the penal space; it reflects the objectives of policymakers. The prison was not an accidental innovation in punishment. Nor indeed was its architectural design. Old philosophies can be reframed, using more progressive language and packaged in new designs. At the time of writing (2022), it remains to be seen if the new designs will soften the ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes, 1958) and encourage the process of reintegration. Question

• Do you think that punishment and the ‘pains of imprisonment’ can be eased by architectural models and internal design?

12.7 Conclusion This chapter examined prison architecture. No matter which type, or model of prison, policymakers and politicians begin with a penal philosophy and approach to punishment, which inevitably impacts on the structure and design of the institution. The chapter began by sketching out the development of the prison, in particular how the penal objectives informed the physical structure. The international standards on imprisonment were examined along with how courts have tried to compel jurisdictions to measure up to these benchmarks. The chapter reflected on different shapes and forms of confinement and how design can facilitate internal prison routine and regime. Certain spaces within the prison can neutralise, or even overcome, normal prisons dynamics. Finally, the chapter considered if there is potential to transform the institution, and soften the pains of imprisonment, by

12.7 Conclusion

227

re-conceptualising confinement. In the next chapter, we will examine how different penal policies and strategies lead to very different outcomes in an examination of imprisonment worldwide. Chapter Summary

• Prison architecture reflects penal philosophies. • There are different places and spaces within the prison that eschew the dynamics of the penal regime. • In some jurisdictions, prisons are used to regenerate local economies and bring financial resources to deindustrialised towns and rural areas, and these benefits can be used to justify prison expansion. • No matter how the prison is reformulated in ethos, design or name, prison is still painful. Activity

The design of a prison reflects different penal philosophies. Design a prison that is primarily based on: • Incapacitation • Rehabilitation In designing the prison, consider the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Size of the institution Number in institution Location of the prison Cell or dormitory accommodation Accommodation in wings or houses Cell size Number in each cell Use of colour Space for purposeful activities Location of programme activities within prison building Size of school Space for library Recreation area Connection to outside world Visiting facilities

228

• • • •

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

Space for conjugal visiting Separate space for vulnerable prisoners Exercise yard Administrative/observation points.

Consider the difference in the design and architecture of the prison depending on the penal philosophy.

References/Further Reading BBC. (2005). Ministers lose slopping out case [online]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ news/scotland/4253661.stm. Accessed 1 Feb 2022. Behan, C. (2014). Learning to escape: Prison education, rehabilitation and the potential for transformation. Journal of Prison Education and Re-Entry, 1(1), 20–31. Benko, J. (2015, March 29). The radical humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html. Accessed 2 Jun 2021. Bentham, J. (1791 [2017]). Panopticon, or the inspection house. Anodos Books. Cameron, D. (2016). Prison reform: Prime Minister’s speech. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prison-reform-prime-ministers-speech. Accessed 15 Mar 2022. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G., & Bennett, J. (2020). The penal system: An introduction (5th ed.). Sage. Codd, H. (2007). Prisoners’ families and resettlement: A critical analysis. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 255–263. Committee of Ministers. (2020). European prison rules (revised). Council of Europe. Crewe, B., Warr, J., Bennett, P., & Smith, A. (2013). The emotional geography of prison life. Theoretical Criminology, 18(1), 56–74. Daily Mail. (2010, May 12). World’s poshest prison? Cells with en-suite bathrooms and no window bars (plus £1m Banksy-style art). Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-1277158/Halden-Prison-Inside-Norways-posh-new-jail.html. Accessed 1 Nov 2021. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Penguin. Gentleman, A. (2012, May 18). Inside Halden, the most humane prison in the world. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/18/halden-most-humaneprison-in-world. Accessed 10 Jun 2021. Glancey, J. (2001, February 1). Within these walls. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/feb/01/prisonsandprobation.artsfeatures. Accessed 1 Nov 2021. Gleeds. (2016). Rehabilitation by design: Influencing change in prisoner behaviour. Gleeds. https://www.brighton.ac.uk/_pdf/research/ssparc/rehabilitation-by-design.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2021. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situations of mental patients and other inmates. Doubleday.

References/Further Reading

229

Goffman, E. (1977). The Goffman reader (C. Lemert & A. Branaman, Eds.). Wiley-Blackwell. Gove, M. (2015, July 17). The treasure in the heart of man—Making prisons work. Speech given at Prisoners Learning Alliance. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/thetreasure-in-the-heart-of-man-making-prisons-work. Accessed 9 Nov 2020. Hallinan, J. (2001). Going up the river: Travels in a prison nation. Random House. Hancock, P., & Jewkes, Y. (2011). Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of Imprisonment. Punishment and Society, 13(5), 611–629. HMPPS. (2021). Working in the prison and probation service. https://prisonjobs.blog.gov. uk/your-a-d-guide-on-prison-categories/. Accessed 24 Jan 2022. James, E. (2003). A life inside: A prisoner’s notebook. Guardian Books. James, E. (2016). Redemption: A memoir of darkness and hope. Bloomsbury. Jones, P., Gray, E., & Farrall, S. (2021). Coal today, gone tomorrow: How jobs were replaced by prison places. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Jewkes, Y. (2013). Prison contraction in an age of expansion: Size matters, but does “new” equal “better” in prison design? Prison Service Journal, 211, 31–35. Jewkes, Y., & Moran, D. (2015). The paradox of the “green” prison: Sustaining the environment or sustaining the penal complex? Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 451–469. Moran, D. (2015). Carceral geography: Spaces and practices of incarceration. Ashgate. Moran, D., & Jewkes, Y. (2015). Linking the carceral and the punitive state: A review of research on prison architecture, design, technology and the lived experience of carceral space. Annales de Géographie, 163–184, 702–703. Morris, N. (2008, February 1). Straw pledges new deal for packed jails. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/straw-pledges-new-deal-for-packedjails-776762.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2022. Norwegian Correctional Service. (2021). About the Norwegian correctional service. https:// www.kriminalomsorgen.no/informasjon-paaengelsk.536003.no.html. Accessed 1 Jun 2021. Nutall, G., & Jurisic, P. (2016). How to build a humane prison. https://www.unops.org/ news-and-stories/insights/how-to-build-a-humane-prison. Accessed 10 May 2021. Pevsner, N. (1976). A history of building types. Princeton University Press. Prison Reform Trust. (2022). Bromley briefings prison factfile winter 2022. Prison Reform Trust. Raab, D. (2021). UK’s greenest and most innovative prison unveiled. https://www.gov.uk/ government/news/uk-s-greenest-and-most-innovative-prison-unveiled. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. Romney, L. (2014, August 18). What kind of prison might the inmates design? The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-restorative-justicedesign-20140818-story.html#page=1. Accessed 13 Nov 2021. Shalev, S., & Edgar, K. (2015). Deep custody: Segregation units and close supervision centres in England and Wales. Prison Reform Trust. Siddique, H. (2021, July 26). Fifty-two prisoners in close supervision units “that may amount to torture”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/26/52held-close-supervision-prison-units-may-amount-torture. Accessed 10 Nov 2021. Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2017). Improving mental health in prisons through biophilic design. The Prison Journal, 97(6), 750–772.

230

12  The Architecture of Incarceration

Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Szifris, K. (2021). Philosophy behind bars: Growth and development in prison. Bristol University Press. Travis, A. (2009, April 24). Straw set to abandon “Titan” prison plans. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/24/titan-prisons. Accessed 12 Jan 2009. Truss, L. (2016). The biggest overhaul of our prisons in a generation. https://reform.uk/ research/biggest-overhaul-our-prisons-generation-rt-hon-elizabeth-truss-mp-lord-chancellor-and. Accessed 15 Mar 2020. United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). (2016). Technical guidance for prison planning: Technical and operational considerations based on the Nelson Mandela Rules 2016. https://content.unops.org/publications/Technical-guidance-Prison-Planning-2016_ EN.pdf?mtime=20171215190045. Accessed 1 Jun 2021. United Nations. (2021). United Nations System common position on incarceration. United Nations. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2016). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). UNODC. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). United Kingdom: UN expert raises alarm over abuse of close supervision centres. https://www. ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27076&LangID=E Accessed 29 Jan 2022. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2006). Humanising Imprisonment: A European Project. Journal of Criminal Justice Policy and Research, 2: 112-20. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2011). Strategies for improving prisoners’ rights and prison conditions in Europe. Council of Europe. Warr, J. (2016). Transformative dialogues (re)privileging the informal in prison education. Prison Service Journal, 225, 18–25. Wener, R. (2012). The environmental psychology of prisons and jails: Creating humane spaces in secure settings. Cambridge University Press. Wilde, O. (1898 [1999]). The ballad of reading gaol. In O. Wilde (Ed.), The soul of man and prison writings. Oxford University Press.

Cases Kalashnikov v. Russia [2002] ECtHR (application no. 47095/99). Robert Napier v. Scottish Ministers [2004] Outer House, Court of Session P739/01.

Part IV Politics and Penality

Comparative Penology

13

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

Trends in imprisonment worldwide. The challenges of comparing penal systems. How imprisonment reflects wider society. Comparisons between penal systems of the United States, Norway, and England and Wales.

13.1 Introduction In Chapter 2, we read how the modern prison began in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. It is now used as a method of punishment across the world. This chapter considers the differences in the use of imprisonment, reflecting a range of approaches to punishment. It begins by examining trends in rates of imprisonment internationally. It then outlines some of the challenges of comparing penal systems. Finally, the chapter compares three penal systems to consider how penal policies and the use of imprisonment follow political, social, economic and cultural influences. It examines England and Wales which have been a focus of this book, and two countries which are usually characterised as being ‘exceptional’ in their penal policies: the United States of America and Norway.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_13

233

234

13  Comparative Penology

13.2 Imprisonment Worldwide Imprisonment rates vary between countries, and can even differ sharply within countries that have more than one jurisdiction. In analysing imprisonment in different countries, the most obvious (and perhaps the easiest) comparison is the number of prisoners and the imprisonment rate, calculated using the number of prisoners per 100,000 of a jurisdiction’s population. With regular publication of the World Prison Population List (now in its 13th edition; Fair & Walmsley, 2021), and free online access to the World Prison Brief from the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), the numbers of prisoners and rates of imprisonment are an accessible way of beginning our survey of prison systems. There are more than 11 million people in prison worldwide. The global prison population has increased by 24% from 2000 to 2021, a little more slowly than the estimated increase of 28% in the general population over the same time (Fair & Walmsley, 2021: 2). However, the numbers of prisoners and/or rate of imprisonment have not risen in every country or region. From 2000 to 2021 the prison population increased in Oceania by 82%, in the Americas by 43%, in Asia by 38% and in Africa by 32%. Significant increases in prison populations have been recorded in South America (200%) and south-eastern Asia (116%). However, in Europe, the total prison population has decreased by 27%. The European figure reflects significant decreases in prison populations in Russia (56%) and also in central and eastern Europe (49%). The prison population ‘in Europe other than Russia has increased by 5%’ over the same period (Fair & Walmsley, 2021: 2).

Imprisonment Rates: Highest and Lowest In its survey of 223 prison systems across the globe, the World Prison Population List (Fair & Walmsley, 2021: 2) found the world prison population rate was 140 per 100,000 in 2021. The countries with the highest prison population rate are the United States (629 prisoners per 100,000), followed by Rwanda (580), Turkmenistan (576), El Salvador (564), Cuba (510), Palau (478), British Virgin Islands (447), Panama (436), St Kitts and Nevis (423), Grenada (413), Thailand (412), U.S. Virgin Islands (394), Bahamas (392), Uruguay (383) and Brazil (381). According to the World Prison Brief (ICPR, 2022), the countries with the lowest rates of imprisonment are the Central African Republic (16 prisoners per 100,000) followed by Faeroe Islands (18), Gambia, (23), Republic of Congo (27), Democratic Republic of Congo (29), Iceland (29),

13.2  Imprisonment Worldwide

235

Republic of Guinea (30), Liechtenstein (31), Guinea Bissau (31), Nigeria (33), Mali (34), Monaco (34), Yemen (35) India (35) and Burkina Faso (35). Fair and Walmsley (2021: 2) found than more than half of all countries and territories in their List (53%) have rates of imprisonment below 150 per 100,000.

Table 13.1 details the numbers in prison and rates of imprisonment in a selection of countries from around the world. It indicates how rates of imprisonment vary widely. Along with regional variations, there are acute differences within different regions (Fair & Walmsley, 2021). The rates of imprisonment are a product of criminal justice practices and penal policies, influenced by a jurisdiction’s social relations, political economy, history and culture, rather than geographic location. For example, as Table 13.1 indicates, near neighbours differ significantly. In 2022, the Russian Federation had 464,183 prisoners (321 prisoner per 100,000). However, there has been a sharp decrease since 2000, when there were 1,060,404 prisoners (729 per 100,000). This was due to changes in sentencing patterns, the closure of many Soviet-era Gulags, a decrease in crimes and the impact of jurisprudence of the ECtHR (Dunkel, 2017). Russia’s neighbour, Finland, which began a period of decarceration in the second half of the twentieth century (Lappi-Seppälä, 2002), had a much lower and relatively stable imprisonment rate in the first decades of the twenty- first century. The number of prisoners reduced slightly, from 2855 prisoners (55 per 100,000) in 2000 to 2743 prisoners (50 per 100,000) in 2022 (ICPR, 2022). Comparing penal systems is a complex endeavour. Collecting, classifying and comparing data from different countries, some with more than one jurisdiction, is fraught with difficulty. The authors of the comprehensive World Prison Population List (Fair & Walmsley, 2021: 1) conceded: ‘Care has been taken to ensure that the List is as accurate as possible but we cannot guarantee the reliability of every figure’. Data was not available for Eritrea, Somalia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The figures for China on the List included sentenced prisoners only, with data on pre-trial detention, other forms of detention and the Uighur Muslims detained in camps in Xinjiang province not available (Fair & Walmsley, 2021: 2 and 11). Amnesty International (2021) has reported that since 2017, ‘massive numbers of men and women from predominantly Muslim ethnic groups have been detained in Xinjiang’, including hundreds of thousands who have been sent to prison, as well as up to 1 million or more who have been sent to internment camps.

236

13  Comparative Penology

Table 13.1   International imprisonment (25 countries) Country

Prison population

Prison population (per 100,000 of the national population)

Argentina

106,559

235

Australia

42,403

165

8096

90

Austria Belarus Brazil

32,556

345

811,707

381

Canada

38,570

104

Czech Republic

19,046

178

Denmark Ethiopia Finland India Ireland, Republic of Israel Lebanon Malta

4227

72

110,000

99

2743

50

488,511

35

3939

78

19,376

234

6670

98

821

159

84,990

232

New Zealand

7702

150

Norway

3097

57

22,900

120

Morocco

Romania Russian Federation

464,183

321

South Africa

140,948

235

Turkey

291,198

347

Ukraine

48,038

123

United States of America Zimbabwe

2,068,800

629

20,407

115

Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (2022)

In the collection of prison numbers by national authorities, there are differences in collation and categorisation. Some jurisdictions are more efficient and robust in the collection of data. There is also a digital divide leading to deficien-

13.3  Assessing Punitiveness

237

cies in data collection. For example, in Sri Lanka prison records are mostly manual and the methodology differs across prisons (PRI, 2021: 40). Internationally, according to Penal Reform International (2021: 40) data ‘on prisons, from basic information such as number of detainees, levels of capacity and staff numbers are not always captured or transparently available. This is particularly the case in low-income countries or fragile and conflict-affected settings where a lack of resources is a challenge’. However, even in more economically advanced, over-developed and peaceful nations, national and local bodies with responsibility for prisons are not always forthcoming with accurate data, or are unwilling to report data to outside researchers and/or international institutions of which they are members. Some demographics are under-reported, not classified or mis-categorised. Race and ethnicity are not always recorded. In some countries transgender prisoners are categorised according to their gender identity, rather than their sex assigned at birth. Other prison systems refuse to recognise their self-identified gender. LGBTQ +  people are disproportionately imprisoned, and the collection of data by authorities is only partial. Few national and local prison administrations gather data on this section of the population. If they do, it is generally underestimated due to the limited methods of collecting data, and in some cases, people are put off declaring their identity for fear of further discrimination and violence (PRI, 2021: 26). Question

• Why should we compare penal systems?

13.3 Assessing Punitiveness The data on prison numbers and rates of imprisonment are essential sources of information in sketching out the penal system of a jurisdiction. They ‘often present themselves’ according to Sparks (2001: 171), ‘as the hardest and most compelling data sets between which to draw comparisons between penal culture, style, degrees of “punitiveness” and so on’. He continues: ‘Without in any way detracting from the importance of those comparisons (and leaving to one side the monumental methodological difficulties involved in doing them adequately) there would also seem to be ample scope for developing the more qualitative dimensions of comparative work’. To understand the punitiveness of a penal system, we must go beyond the prison, and imprisonment rates. Therefore we need to consider what activities are criminalised, who is punished and why they are imprisoned. Further, we need to examine the treatment of prisoners, conditions of

238

13  Comparative Penology

confinement and the ‘invisible punishments’ that can remove or undermine rights on conviction, and finally, what alternative sanctions are available and utilised. Prison numbers are one indicator of punitiveness of a nation, but they do not illustrate the reasons behind imprisonment, or the rationale for differences in criminal laws between jurisdictions. Criminal law and penal policies shape what is defined as deviant and how a state responds to that deviancy, either through civil or criminal sanctions. In many jurisdictions, not all harmful activity is criminalised. For example, a range of harms, including what are termed ‘white collar’ behaviours—from health and safety transgressions to environmental damage— are not criminalised and some are not even sanctioned with civil measures (Canning & Tombs, 2021). On the other hand, some people seeking to highlight the climate crisis and protect the environment have been imprisoned, such as members of Insulate Britain (Gayle, 2021), and others who are willing to risk imprisonment in their campaigns of civil disobedience, recalling the campaigns of the suffragettes (Taylor, 2021). As not all criminal activity is pursued and prosecuted equally, policing strategies and prosecutorial priorities can also influence the type of activities that lead to imprisonment, with a subsequent impact on the numbers in prison. In many jurisdictions, criminal sanctions can be used to enforce a particular view of morality, which is not always revealed in the prison numbers. In some jurisdictions, certain activities around women’s healthcare are criminalised, while in other penal systems, people can be punished for their sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2020, 69 of 194 UN member states criminalised consensual same-sex relationships, and in some jurisdictions life imprisonment or the death penalty was possible (PRI, 2021: 26). Even after examining who and what is criminalised, as we saw in Chapter 4, criminal justice is not dispensed equally. In some jurisdictions, a person’s race, ethnicity or identity may lead to their communities being overpoliced and under-protected, even targeted in discriminatory strategies by the state. Reflecting wider social, economic and cultural treatment of minorities in many societies, members of BAME communities are disproportionately stopped and searched, arrested, appear before the courts, denied bail and subsequently end up in prison (Cavadino et al., 2020: 325–333; Sentencing Project, 2013). Sentencing guidelines and the notional objectivity from judicial decision makers have not overcome racial bias within the wider criminal justice system. In some jurisdictions, the use of non-custodial sanctions has increased through ‘net-widening’. This is where sanctions and measures in the community are used—such as electronic monitoring and community service—along with, rather than as a replacement for, imprisonment (Cavadino et al., 2020). While imprison-

13.3  Assessing Punitiveness

239

ment is the most severe sanction in most countries of the world, there are a range of other punishments utilised by governments. The level and types of non-custodial punishment are also important when examining a nation’s penal system. While this book focuses on imprisonment, more people who are convicted in England and Wales, Europe and the United States are subject to community sanctions and measures, than to custody (Robinson et al., 2013: 322). Another aspect of punishment which differs widely across jurisdictions which is not revealed in the number of prisoners, or imprisonment rate, is the type of ‘invisible punishments’ (Travis, 2002) utilised in a jurisdiction. These include many human and civil rights, which can be denied even after time is served and a sentence is complete. If ‘invisible punishments’ or ‘collateral consequences’ of imprisonment follow the individual after they have served their sentence in full (Miller & Stuart, 2017), this reveals a more punitive approach by the state (see Chapter 9). Even if the number and classification of prisoners can be calculated accurately, trying to compare the experience of imprisonment is especially challenging, if at all possible. A sentence of similar (or even the same) length can be experienced differently, depending on a number of jurisdiction-specific factors. Doing time varies within, and between jurisdictions. It can be influenced by, amongst other factors, penal policies, the conditions of confinement, levels of overcrowding, size of the institution, time in cell, availability of out-of-cell activities, prisoner-staff dynamics, prisoners’ rights and whether time is served in an open or closed facility. Despite these challenges, comparing penal systems is an important part of penological study. The study of penal policy in one jurisdiction can reveal important characteristics in others (Nelken, 2007) and it gives readers an opportunity to locate how it is done ‘here’ in comparison to ‘there’. While appreciating that comparisons between cultures can be reductionist (Ugelvik & Dullum, 2012), comparing penal systems outside the focus of this book encourages readers to consider alternative approaches to punishment utilised in other jurisdictions. The comparative study of penal systems has been undertaken by scholars to sketch out how jurisdictions have taken different approaches to punishment and why each utilise imprisonment to a greater or lesser extent (Brangan, 2020; Cavadino and Dignan, 2006; Garland, 2001 & 2018; Lacey et al., 2017; Nelken, 2007; Newburn, 2020; Ruggiero & Ryan, 2013; Sparks, 2001). ‘Comparative study is a vital and important strand of the punishment and society project’, argued Brangan (2020: 598), as conducting ‘research questions cross-nationally can help refine how we theorise the relationships between punishment, culture, politics and social structure.’

240

13  Comparative Penology

Cavadino et al. (2006) argued that there is a political and ideological imperative to understand differences in penal systems. Writing from a British perspective they contend that comparing penal systems reveals how some jurisdictions have resisted the punitive policies in operation in England and Wales, and act as a beacon of how punishment can be done differently. Ryan (2013: 6) agrees and argues that the study of comparative penal systems should not be confined to the academy; It is essential to move ‘beyond the parameters of conventional penal discourse’ to ‘build (and sustain) public support for progressive penal change’. Comparing penal systems illustrates their similarities and differences, can help us understand how and why penal policies developed, the extent to which one country has influenced another, and challenges us to reflect on the use of imprisonment in our own jurisdiction. Questions

• Why are some activities criminalised in certain jurisdictions and not in others? • What can this tell us (if anything) about a jurisdiction’s level of punitiveness?

13.4 Comparing Penal Systems This section sketches out the characteristics of the penal systems in the United States, Norway and England and Wales. Although the concept of ‘exceptional’ in penal studies literature has come in for some criticism as being ‘Anglocentric’ (Brangan, 2020), we will examine two countries that have traditionally been characterised as ‘exceptional’ in their penal policies: the United States (Reitz, 2018) and Norway (Pratt, 2008a, 2008b). In examining penal systems at either end of the ‘exceptional’ spectrum, we hope to move beyond the classifications of countries into one or other category: punitive (USA) v. non-punitive (Norway). As we will see, the story is much more complex than at first glance. England and Wales were chosen as this book has largely focused on its penal policy and prison system. This section draws on some of the issues dealt with throughout the book, to sketch out penal frameworks of each jurisdiction. Penal policy is shaped by a number of factors, some local and others cross-national. These include the levels of crime, economic forces, political economy and cultural dynamics (Lacey et al., 2017). It can be influenced by a jurisdiction’s history, race relations, levels of inequality, crime as a political issue, politicisation of criminal justice institutions, public opinion and the media. The levels of migration and international conflicts can also affect penal policy. In their study of com-

241

13.4  Comparing Penal Systems

parative penal policies, Cavadino et al. (2006) developed an interesting typology of different penal systems. These are Neo-Liberal: jurisdictions such as England and Wales, USA, Australia and South Africa with ‘law and order’ as the dominant penal ideology and an exclusionary attitude towards prisoners; Conservative Corporatism: countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, with a mixed mode of punishment and the dominant penal ideology being rehabilitation/ resocialization; Social Democratic: countries such as Norway and Sweden, with a rights-based framework for, and an inclusionary approach towards prisoners, and Oriental Corporatism: Japan being their example, with an inclusionary mode of punishment and apology-based restoration and rehabilitation as the dominant penal ideology. Before we begin to look at each penal system in more detail, Fig. 13.1 indicates the sharp differences in rates of imprisonment, which have prompted the categorisation of Norway and the United States as ‘exceptional’. The United States confines over ten times more prisoners (629 prisoners per 100,000) than Norway (57 prisoners per 100,000). England and Wales imprison 132 people per 100,000 (ICPR, 2022).

United States of America The United States of America has been described as ‘exceptional’ in penal policy (Garland, 2018; Reitz, 2018) for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious is the number of people it imprisons and the rate of imprisonment. It imprisons more

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

United States of America

England and Wales

Norway

Fig. 13.1   Comparative imprisonment rate 2022 (per 100,000) (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022])

242

13  Comparative Penology

people than any other country in the world and has the highest rate of imprisonment. With the ‘punitive turn’ (Garland, 2001), in the last decades of the twentieth century, there was ‘an explosion of imprisonment’ (Lacey et al., 2017: 5). Figure 13.2 shows the increase in the incarcerated population (in prisons and jails) over 40 years, from just over 500,000 in 1980 to just over 2 million people by 2020. The increase in the number of prisoners was for a variety of reasons. Federal and state policymakers instituted legislation leading to the increased use of imprisonment, such as three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing laws (Garland, 2001). Mandatory minimum sentences increase the number of people in prison, as they are confined for longer. The number imprisoned on Life Without Parole (LWOP) now stands at 55,945, an increase of 66% since 2003 (Nellis, 2021: 15). There is a racial dimension to this too. Throughout the US, ‘two thirds of people serving life are people of color […] Among people serving LWOP, the most extreme life sentence, 55% are Black’ (Nellis, 2021: 18). The United States is also an outlier in its use of capital punishment, which continues in many states. The USA, along with Belarus were the only two countries of the 57-member Organization for Security and Co-operation Organization that executed people in 2019. The USA was one of only 20 countries of the nearly 200 members of the United Nations who were known to have executed people that year (Amnesty International, 2020: 10).

2,500,000

No. of Prisoners

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1980

1990

Year

2000

2010

2020

Fig. 13.2   Incarceration in the United States of America (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022])

13.4  Comparing Penal Systems

243

The ‘War on Crime’ in the 1960s, followed by the ‘War on Drugs’ in the 1970s has contributed to the politicisation of crime and punishment in the United States (Simon, 2007). The ‘War on Drugs’ led to the number incarcerated for drug offences rising from 40,900 in 1980 to 430,926 in 2019. There was also a sharp increase of those under correctional control (including those supervised in the community on probation or parole, and persons in state or federal prison or local jails) from 1,842,100 individuals in 1980 to 6,621,600 in 2019 (Sentencing Project, 2021a). When the Democratic president Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he ‘escalated’ the War on Drugs ‘beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible’ (Alexander, 2016). Similar to New Labour in England and Wales (1997–2010), Clinton did not want to be seen as soft on crime, and he refused to row back on, but instead extended punitive measures. He supported the ‘three strikes’ legislation in the 1994 Crime Bill. This $30 billion bill expanded prison building programmes and increased resources for police forces. Dozens of new federal capital crimes were created, which copper-fastened the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, and contributed to racial bias in sentencing (Alexander, 2016). This racial injustice, most acute in states with histories of slavery and legal discrimination through Jim Crow laws, is laid bare in the data on who is imprisoned today (see Spotlight). As outlined in Chapter 4, the US penal system incarcerates minority populations at a much higher rate than White Americans. About one in every 12 African American men in his 30s is incarcerated on any given day (Sentencing Project, 2020a). This discrimination reflects racial injustice in wider society which begins long before the prison gates, but is particularly acute in the criminal justice system.

The United States: An Assortment of Penal Policies When studying the US, it is important to remember that each state (and the federal system) has its own criminal justice and penal policies, with different levels of penal governance. There are wide differences in rates of imprisonment and ‘invisible’ punishments between states (Lappi-Seppälä, 2018). This is for a variety of reasons, including crime and arrest rates, law enforcement, prosecution and sentencing practices, especially around drug convictions, racial disparities and social class (Mauer, 2011). A state’s history also impacts on levels of punitiveness. For example, penal policies differ significantly between Maine and Oklahoma due to, amongst other

244

13  Comparative Penology

reasons, their racial past. Figure 13.3 outlines penal outcomes of two states with different racial histories. In Oklahoma, the prison population (639 per 100,000) is over four times the rate in Maine (146 per 100,000). In Oklahoma, the rate of jail incarceration (those who are awaiting trial or sentence, or on a short sentence) is 430 per 100,000, compared to 160 per 100,000 in Maine. In Maine, just over 3% of the prison population is on a life sentence, compared to just over 12% in Oklahoma. The disparity is even more acute when comparisons are made on racial grounds. The imprisonment rate of Black people in Oklahoma (2395 per 100,000) is nearly twice that of Maine (1331 per 100,00). Finally, Maine does not disenfranchise any of its citizens in jail or prison. In Oklahoma, 56,995 people were disenfranchised, including 11,240 African Americans (Sentencing Project, 2021b).

With nearly 4500 penal institutions in the United States, conditions vary widely, although they are regularly criticised by activists and penal reform organisations. While overcrowding is denied in official sources—the official occupancy rate reported to be 96% (ICPR, 2022)—the methods of determining levels of overcrowding differ significantly, and many institutions have been condemned as being continually overcrowded (Prison Policy Initiative, 2020). The rate of imprisonment for women is just over 10% cent of the prison population, which is above the global average. However, there has also been a significant increase in recent decades. In 2000, there were 158,629 women in state and federal prisons. By 2019, it was approximately 211,375 (ICPR, 2022). The numbers in pre-trial

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Prison (rate per 100,00)

Jail (rate per 100,000) Maine

Black people in prison (rate per 100,000)

Oklahoma

Fig. 13.3   Comparing US States (Source: Sentencing Project [2021b])

13.4  Comparing Penal Systems

245

detention are also concerning, making up over 23% of the incarcerated  population. This accounts for approximately 550,000 incarcerated people (ICPR, 2022). Pre-trial detainees are usually held in jails. Research indicates that three out of five people in jails ‘are legally presumed innocent, awaiting trial or resolution of their cases through plea negotiation in facilities that are often overcrowded, noisy, and chaotic’, while many spend longer periods in jail because they are too poor to pay for bail (Subramanian et al., 2015: 5) . Compared to other Western jurisdictions, the United States is ‘exceptional’ in its use of collateral sanctions (see Chapter 9) that accompany a period of incarceration. Not only are human and civil rights restricted while incarcerated, sanctions can last long after imprisonment, even after a sentence is served. The United States stands alongside a limited number of industrialised nations that disenfranchises people who have completed their sentence (Tripkovic, 2019). The differences between European countries and the United States in the number and type of sanctions, their widespread imposition and their length (sometimes for life) illustrates the difference in penal policies and philosophies between the two continents (Demleitner, 2018).

Norway The Nordic countries are usually held up as ‘exceptional’ in penal policy (Pratt, 2008a, 2008b). Their progressive social system has led to a ‘welfarist’ approach in penal policy (Warner, 2021). There are low rates of imprisonment, a large number of small prisons, a high rate of prisoners in open conditions, humane conditions with no overcrowding, dynamic security with positive prisoner-prison officer relationships, and a wide range of educational and productive out-of-cell activities (Pratt, 2008a and 2008b). On incarceration, Nordic states traditionally view, and treat their prisoners inclusively. Instead of the ‘criminology of the other’ (Garland, 2001) prevalent in the US, prisoners are treated as part of the community. As outlined in Chapter 12, innovative architecture also creates more humane conditions of confinement. In comparison to the United States, the rate of imprisonment and total number of prisoners in Norway has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years. In 2000, there were 2548 prisoners (57 per 100,000) and although the number increased to 2932 prisoners in 2020, the rate of imprisonment was lower at 54 per 100,000 (ICPR, 2022) (Fig. 13.4). Throughout this book, examples have been used to illustrate how Nordic countries did not take the ‘punitive turn’ that occurred in England and Wales, and the United States (Garland, 2001). During the latter part of the twentieth

246

13  Comparative Penology

No. of Prisoners

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

1980

1990

2000

2020

Year

Fig. 13.4   Imprisonment in Norway (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research ([2022])

century, Nordic countries predominately had social democratic governments. In contrast to the countries that adopted a more punitive approach, their policy of penal welfarism acknowledged how penal measures might be used for rehabilitative supports, rather than retributive sanctions (Garland, 2001). Further, penal welfarism was based on the belief  that the ‘state was to be an agent of reform as well as repression, of care as well as control, of welfare as well as punishment’ (Garland, 2001: 38). According to official data, the capacity of the prison system in Norway is 3302, with an occupancy level of 83% (ICPR, 2022). With 33 penal establishments (consisting of 58 prisons), smaller institutions are generally considered more conducive to rehabilitative support and activities. Norway has a high proportion of open prisons. There is single-cell accommodation for almost all prisoners, with private sanitation arrangements and out-of-cell time is usually 12–14 hours. Prisoners have access to a range of programmes such as therapy, training and education. There is prisoner ‘self-management’ and generous home leave (Warner, 2021). These conditions reflect the penal policy of ‘normalisation’ set out in the government’s 2008 White Paper on punishment (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, 2008). In keeping the number of prisoners low, the Norwegian penal system is focused on a ‘socially inclusive concept of rehabilitation and its recognition that this is best achieved outside prison or in open prisons’ (Warner, 2021: 115). In recent years, scholars have begun to re-examine the penal systems of Nordic countries more critically. These have included studies on the ‘prison queue’ in Norway in which sentenced law-breakers are only imprisoned after a space becomes available, to avoid overcrowding, that is prevalent in many prison systems (Laursen et al., 2020). Other studies dealt with groups such as foreign national prisoners

13.4  Comparing Penal Systems

247

(Mulgrew, 2016) and pre-trial detainees (Smith, 2017). Despite a more progressive penal policy, the percentage of pre-trial detainees in Norway at 22% is just below the US figure of 23% and six per cent more than England and Wales (ICPR, 2022). The use of solitary confinement for some remand prisoners in Norway has drawn human rights criticism (Smith, 2017). The Norwegian Prison Service recognised the harmful effects of isolation and accepted that it is a major challenge for the service. It conceded the need to reduce isolation as a human rights issue (Norwegian Correctional Service, 2021: 23). Further, Smith (2017: 144) concluded that in Nordic countries (Norway Sweden and Denmark), the treatment of people in pre-trial detention, including isolation and very limited contact with the outside world, has ‘little to do with the typical image of Scandinavian or Nordic penal exceptionalism’. Shammas’ study (2014) of imprisonment on the low security ‘Prison Island’ in Norway found that even this environment created its own pains. He concluded that this ‘freedom is occasionally experienced as ambiguous, bittersweet or tainted’ (Shammas, 2014: 104). While Scandinavia ‘may have low imprisonment rates and high standard material conditions within prisons’, Brangan (2020: 600–601) cautioned that ‘their carceral systems are far from non-painful’.

England and Wales Cavadino et al. (2006) locate England and Wales in the category of neo-liberal regime type, with a ‘law and order’ penal strategy. The jurisdiction is usually counted alongside the USA as having encountered the ‘punitive turn’ (Garland, 2001), with characteristics of a neo-liberal economy (Newburn, 2007) and an exclusionary form of punishment. While it is not often considered ‘exceptional’ compared to Norway and the US, it stands out as more punitive than many of its western European neighbours (Lacey et al., 2017). As Fig. 13.3 shows, similar to the US, the prison population of England and Wales rose sharply in the 1990s and early years of the twentieth century. In 1980, the prison population was just over 43,000, rising to 45,636 in 1990 and then to 64,602 by 2000. In 2020, it was 79,514 (Fig. 13.5). At 133 per 100,000, the rate of imprisonment in England and Wales is the highest in western Europe. This is compared to the Netherlands, with 60 people per 100,000; Denmark at 72 per 100,000; Germany at 72 per 100,00 and Italy at 89 per 100,000 (ICPR, 2022). The coming to power of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 was ‘a turning point leading to the social and economic world that we presently inhabit: a world of resurgent capital, reduced working class power, neo-liberal policies and welfare state retrenchment’ (Garland, 2019: 268). The rise in imprisonment did not

No. of Prisoners

248

13  Comparative Penology 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

1980

1990

2000

2020

Year

Fig. 13.5   Imprisonment in England and Wales (Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022])

begin with her accession, but Conservative Party governments from 1979 to 1997 adopted a harsher rhetoric directed towards those who were on the margins of society: the unemployed, immigrants and welfare recipients (Farrall et al., 2016). The increase in the numbers in prison is usually attributed to beginning with the Home Secretary (who at the time had responsibility for prisons), Michael Howard (1993–1997). In 1993, he initiated what became known as the ‘Prison Works’ philosophy. More people subsequently ended up in prison, with the introduction of a range of new criminal offences and longer sentences (Behan, 2022). With the emergence of New Labour—in particular Tony Blair’s accession to Shadow Home Secretary in 1992—the party began to echo the criminal justice tone set by the Conservatives’ ‘Prison Works’ philosophy. In government from 1997 to 2010, the Labour Party did not want to be outdone in the ‘law and order arms race’ (Lacey et al., 2017: 16) and between 1999–2000, 139 new criminal offences were introduced (Hillyard et al., 2004: 370). In 2010, the Conservative Party again came to power (first with the support of the Liberal Democrats and then alone) and over the next 11 years, a succession of eight justice secretaries made a range of changes around penal policy. There was a sharp reduction in the budget for the Ministry of Justice, and the privatisation and then re-nationalisation of the probation service. In 2021, the new Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab launched the Prisons Strategy White Paper (Ministry of Justice, 2021). Amongst its commitments were 20,000 additional prison spaces at a cost £4 billion, with the safety standards of 35,000 existing cells upgraded and investment in ligature-resistant cells to protect vulnerable prisoners. Further financing of £200 million a year by 2024–2025 was pledged to improve access to accommodation and employment support for people leaving prions, and substance misuse treatment. Within prisons, fast-track adjudications were to be

13.4  Comparing Penal Systems

249

introduced to deal with lower level rule breaking. In addition, Dominic Raab undertook the recruitment of 5000 prison officers. At the time of writing (2022) it remains to be seen how, or if these policies will be translated into practice and what impact they will have on the experience of imprisonment, the prison estate and more widely, the penal system. As outlined in Chapter 4, the rate of imprisonment amongst BAME communities is high in England and Wales. Indeed, Lammy (2017: 3) found a ‘greater disproportionality in the number of Black people’ in prison than in the United States. Foreign National Prisoners (FNP) who make up 13% of the prison population can find further pains of imprisonment beyond the usual ones encountered by domestic prisoners (Warr, 2016). England and Wales have a lower level of pre-trial detainees compared to the United States and Norway as they make up 16.6% of the prison population, and female prisoners make up 4% of the total prison population (ICPR 2022). Although an official occupancy rate reported by the ICPR (2022) of 105%, independent analysis indicates that the prison system as a whole has been overcrowded every year since 1994. Seventy seven out of 120 prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded in 2022, with more than a fifth of the prison population (nearly 16,000 people) confined in overcrowded accommodation (Prison Reform Trust, 2022: 23). Although there have been major developments in penal policies in recent times, privatisation has been ‘one of the most significant issues for prisons in England and Wales for the last 25 years’ (Cavadino et al., 2020: 199). Unlike Norway and many other European jurisdictions, the free market laissez-faire economics that triumphed during the 1980s, and continued under New Labour, led to the privatisation of prisons and other criminal justice institutions. It began in 1992, when Group 4 was awarded the contract to manage the first privatised prison in Europe, HMP Wolds. Soon new prisons were being constructed on a DCMF (design, construct, manage and finance) basis, using Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). While the privatisation of punishment has been criticised on moral and philosophical grounds, there are also practical issues. One analysis noted that ‘the question of whether contracted prisons perform better or worse than their counterparts in the public sector is a contentious one, and not easily answered’ (Garton Greenwood, 2014: 9). Those who advocate in favour of privatisation usually emphasise that it will result in value for money, improve accountability, the quality of prison life and reduce recidivism. A study published in 2019 (Grierson & Duncan, 2019) indicated that private prisons were 47% more violent than public institutions in terms of assaults. In the first decades of privatisation, savings made by operators were ‘largely […] achieved at the expense of employment conditions for Prison Service staff’ (Prison Reform Trust, 2005), which has led to high turnover of staff. This can have a detrimental impact on staff-prisoner dynamics and the quality of prison life, for both officers and prisoners.

250

13  Comparative Penology

Along with critiques by the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform, privatisation has been opposed by the Prison Officers Association and the Public and Commercial Services Union. The Prison Governors Association (cited in Garton Grimwood, 2014: 12) advanced a more philosophical and moral argument: ‘No civilised society can hire out punishment for profit nor can those responsible for administering the ultimate sanction of the state be accountable to anybody except the Home Secretary and through him, parliament’. Despite these objections, privatisation has continued. By 2019, three private companies (G4S, Sodexo and Serco) were involved in running prisons. Out of the 119, private companies were responsible for 13 prisons, housing almost one-fifth of the prison population (Cavadino et al., 2020: 199–120). However, after analysing the debates around privatisation, Cavadino et al. (2020: 204) concluded, that there is no evidence that privatisation has won the economic argument by ‘delivering more for less’, or is resolving the ‘various pressing crises that continue to confront the English prison system’. Questions

• What are the arguments for and against the privatisation of punishment? • Do you think prisons should be privatised or treated differently to other public services?

13.5 Conclusion This chapter began with an examination of trends in imprisonment worldwide. Prison numbers and the imprisonment rate help us to begin our examination of the punitiveness of penal systems. However, penal policies reflect political ideologies as ‘punishment is ineluctably a political matter’ (Sparks, 2001: 172). Using the examples of the United States, Norway and England and Wales to compare penal policy, this chapter illustrated how the use of imprisonment and penal policy is reflective of political, social, economic and cultural frameworks. As it has outlined, not every country or jurisdiction has experienced an increase in the numbers imprisoned or in the rate of imprisonment. However, in those countries that have seen sharp rises, the use of imprisonment as a means of punishment has become a major social, political and economic issue in the twenty-first century. The United Nations recognised this in its first Common Position on Incarceration agreed in 2021. It argued that prison reform and the treatment of prisoners was part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, dealing with a number of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Consideration needs to be given to a move away from the use of imprisonment, the UN argued:

13.5 Conclusion

251

This shift also requires a movement towards depenalization and decriminalization in appropriate cases, in line with international norms and standards. Preventing crime from occurring in the first place is essential for reducing the number of people who come in contact with the criminal justice system. […] Given the significant cost of imprisonment, even in low-resourced prison settings, non-custodial measures tend to be more cost-effective, enabling resources to be invested in social, welfare and health services with long-term benefits for communities at large. […] Prior to any decision to expand prison capacity, States that are confronted with prison overcrowding should first explore and exhaust opportunities to reduce the prison population, and then conduct a comprehensive and realistic assessment of remaining needs. (United Nations, 2021: 9).

These are ambitious and far-reaching objectives. In the next chapter, we will examine how, or if they can be achieved. Chapter Summary

• There has been a substantial increase in the number of people imprisoned internationally. • Comparing penal systems is multifaceted, with prison authorities not always forthcoming and transparent in providing data. • Imprisonment is a product of international and domestic influences, and reflects a jurisdiction’s social, cultural and political systems. • An analysis of the US, Norway and England and Wales helps us understand how penal systems operate ‘here’ in contrast to ‘there’. Activity

Pick a jurisdiction/country and do some independent research about the prison system. What are the following? • • • • • • •

Numbers in prison Rates of imprisonment Increase/decrease in prison numbers Pre-trial detainees Prison conditions Rates of overcrowding ‘Invisible punishments’

What does your research  indicate about the country’s penal system, and wider political, economic, social and cultural characteristics?

252

13  Comparative Penology

References/Further Reading Alexander, M. (2016, February 10). Why Hillary Clinton doesn’t deserve the Black vote. The Nation. Amnesty International. (2020). Amnesty International Global Report: Death sentences and executions 2019. Amnesty International. Amnesty International. (2021). “Like we were enemies in a war”: China’s mass internment, torture and persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang. https://xinjiang.amnesty.org/#arbitrary-detention. Accessed 16 Mar 2021. Behan, C. (2022). No longer a ‘collateral consequence’: Imprisonment and the reframing of citizenship. Euroepan Journal of Criminology, 19(6), 1283–1303. Bottoms, A. E. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 17–49). Clarendon Press. Brangan, L. (2020). Exceptional states: The political geography of comparative penology. Punishment and Society, 22(3), 596–616. Canning, V., & Tombs, S. (2021). From social harm to zemiology: A critical introduction. Routledge. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). Penal systems: A comparative approach. Sage. Cavadino, M., Dignan, J., Mair, G., & Bennett, J. (2020). The penal system: An introduction. Sage. Darke, S. (2013). Inmate governance in Brazilian prisons. The Howard Journal, 52(3), 272–284. Demleitner, N. (2018). Collateral sanctions and American exceptionalism: A comparative perspective. In K. Reitz (Ed.), American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford University Press. Dünkel, F. (2017). European penology: The rise and fall of prison population rates in Europe in times of migrant crises and terrorism. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 629–653. Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2021). World prison population list (13th ed.). https://www. prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_prison_population_ list_13th_edition.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2022. Farrall, S., & Hay, C. (2014). The legacy of Thatcherism: Assessing and exploring Thatcherite social and economic policies. Oxford University Press. Farrall, S., Burke, N., & Hay, C. (2016). Revisiting Margaret Thatcher’s law and order agenda: The slow-burning fuse of punitiveness. British Politics, 11(2), 205–231. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garland, D. (2018). Theoretical advances and problems in the sociology of punishment. Punishment and Society, 22(1), 8–33. Garland, D. (2019). Punishment and welfare revisited. Punishment and Society, 21(3), 267– 274. Garland, D. (2020). Penal controls and social controls: Toward a theory of American penal exceptionalism. Punishment and Society, 22(3), 321–352. Garton Grimwood, G. (2014). Prisons: The role of the private sector. Standard Note: SN/ HA/6811. House of Commons.

References/Further Reading

253

Gayle, D. (2021, November 17). Nine Insulate Britain activists jailed for breach of road blockades injunction. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/ nov/17/nine-insulate-britain-activists-jailed-for-breach-of-road-blockades-injunction. Accessed 16 Mar 2022. Grierson, J., & Duncan, P. (2019, May 13). Private jails more violent than public ones, data analysis shows. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/13/private-jails-more-violent-than-public-prisons-england-wales-data-analysis. Accessed 29 Mar 2022. Gröning, L. (2014). Education for foreign inmates in Norwegian prisons: A legal and humanitarian perspective. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2(2), 164–188. Hillyard, P., Sim, J., Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2004). Leaving a stain upon the silence: Contemporary criminolgy and the politics of dissent. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 369–390. ICPR (Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research). (2022). World prison brief. https:// www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data. Accessed 29 Mar 2022. Lacey N., Soskice, D., & Hope, D. (2017). Understanding the determinants of penal policy: Crime, culture and comparative penal policy (LSE Working Paper 13). Lammy, D. (2017). An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethic individuals in the criminal justice system. The Stationery Office. Laursen, J., Mjåland, K., & Crewe, B. (2020). “It’s like a sentence before the sentence”— Exploring the pains and possibilities of waiting for imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology, 60(2), 363–381. Lappi-Seppälä. (2002). Penal policy and incarceration Rates in Finland. Corrections Today, 64(1), 30–33. Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2018). American exceptionalism in comparative perspective: Explaining trends and variation in the use of incarceration. In K. Reitz (Ed.), American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford University Press. Mauer, M. (2011). Addressing racial disparities in incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91(3) (supp), 87–101. Mason, C. (2013). International growth trends in prison privatization. The Sentencing Project. Miller, R., & Stuart, F. (2017). Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology, 21(4), 532–548. Mulgrew, R. (2016). Foreign prisoners: Findings of a study in foreign national only prisons in Norway and the Netherlands. http://www.cep-probation.org/foreign-prisonersfindings-of-a-study-in-foreign-national-only-prisons-in-norway-and-the-netherlands/. Accessed 1 Mar 2022. Nellis, A. (2021). No end in sight: America’s enduring Reliance on life imprisonment. The Sentencing Project. Nelken, D. (2007). Comparing criminal justice. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Newburn, T. (2007). ‘Tough on crime’: Penal policy in England and wales. Crime and Justice, 36(1), 425–470.

254

13  Comparative Penology

Newburn, T. (2020). Understanding comparative penality: Some continuing conceptual and analytical challenges. In T. Daems & S. Pleysier (Eds.), Criminology and democratic politics (pp. 103–120). Routledge. Norwegian Correctional Service. (2021). Annual report 2020. Norwegian Correctional Service. Penal Reform International. (2021). Global Prison Trends 2021: Special focus—prisons in crises. PRI. Piacentini, L. (2013). The Russian Penal System. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.), Punishment in Europe: A critical anatomy of penal systems (pp. 157–182). Palgrave Macmillan. Prat, J. (2008a). Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess. Part1: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 119– 137. Prat, J. (2008b). Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess. Part II: Does Scandinavian Exceptionalism have a future? British Journal of Criminology, 48, 275– 292. Prison Policy Initiative. (2020). Just how overcrowded were prisons before the pandemic. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/12/21/overcrowding/. Accessed 20 September 2021. Prison Reform Trust. (2022). Bromley briefings prison factfile winter 2022. Prison Reform Trust. Prison Reform Trust. (2005). Private punishment: Who profits? Prison Reform Trust. Reitz, K. (Ed.). (2018). American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. Oxford University Press. Robinson, G., McNeill, F., & Maruna, S. (2013). Punishment in society: The improbable persistence of probation and other community sanctions and measures. In J. Simon & R. Sparks (Eds.), Handbook of punishment and society (pp. 320–341). Sage. Ruggiero, V., & Ryan, M. (Eds.) (2013). Punishment in Europe: A Critical Anatomy of Penal Systems. Palgrave Macmillan. Ryan, M. (2013). Introduction. In V. Ruggiero & M. Ryan (Eds.) Punishment in Europe: A Critical Anatomy of Penal Systems. Palgrave macmillan. Sentencing Project. (2013). Report of the sentencing project to the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system. Sentencing Project. Sentencing Project. (2021a). Trends in US corrections. https://www.sentencingproject.org/ wp-content/uploads/2021a/07/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2021. Sentencing Project. (2021b). State-by-state data: Maine compared to Oklahoma. https:// www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#detail?state1Option=Maine&state2Option=Oklahoma. Accessed 22 Dec 2021. Shammas, V. L. (2014). The pains of freedom: Assessing the ambiguity of penal exceptionalism on Norway’s prison island. Punishment and Society, 16(1), 104–123. Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press. Smith, P. (2017). Punishment without conviction? Scandinavian pre-trial practices and the power of the ‘Benevolent’ state. In P. Scharff Smith & T. Ugelvik (Eds.), Scandinavian

References/Further Reading

255

penal history, culture and prison practice: Embraced by the welfare state? (pp. 129– 155). Palgrave. Sparks, R. (2001). Degrees of estrangement: The cultural theory of risk and comparative penology. Theoretical Criminology, 5(2), 159–176. Subramanian, R., Delaney, R., Roberts, S., Fishman, N., & McGarry, P. (2015). Incarceration’s front door: The misuse of jails in America. Vera Institute of Justice. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum-security prison. Princeton University Press. Taylor, M. (2021, April 5). Extinction Rebellion to step up campaign against banking system. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/05/extinctionrebellion-to-step-up-campaign-against-banking-system-climate-crisis. Accessed 10 June 2022. Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). The New Press. Tripkovic, M. (2019). Punishment and citizenship: A theory of criminal disenfranchisement. Oxford University Press. Ugelvik, T., & Dullum, J. (Eds.) (2012). Penal exceptionalism? Nordic prison policy and practice. Routledge. United Nations. (2021). United Nations System common position on incarceration. United Nations. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2015). Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). UNODC. Warner, K. (2021). Resisting the new punitiveness: Penal policy in Denmark, Finland, and Norway and contrary trends in Ireland. In L. Leonard (Ed.), Global perspectives on people, process, and practice in criminal justice (pp. 110–143). IGI Global. Warr, J. (2016). The deprivatino of certitude: Foreign national prisoners and the pains of imprisonment. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16(3), 301–318.

The Future of the Prison

14

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

The legacy and potential of prison reform. Possible alternative visions of the prison. The arguments for, and potential of, prison abolition. An overview of themes raised in the book, encouraging readers to reflect on their own ideas about the future of prisons and imprisonment.

14.1 Introduction Throughout your reading so far, you have explored the rationales and philosophies that have been used to underpin the modern prison, how these institutions operate, and the experiences of those who are held within them. In doing so you will have noticed the many challenges and harms that plague contemporary systems of prisons and imprisonment, and impact significantly on the lives of those impacted by these institutions. In this chapter, we will now consider what the future holds for prisons and imprisonment. We will explore the impact that the work of prison reformers has had on the development of the prison, and the extent to which reform might hold the potential for a more humane and effective response to law-breaking. The chapter will then go on to consider whether the prison does, or should, have any future in society; we will explore the arguments presented by scholars and activists who support prison abolition, and the challenges that might be faced in realising the abolitionist aim of a world without © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_14

257

258

14  The Future of the Prison

prisons. Consideration will be given to what alternatives to imprisonment might look like, demonstrating how abolition would require broader societal transformation, beyond the prison itself, given prisons are a reflection of the societies in which they operate. Finally, the chapter will conclude by providing an overview of the key issues raised within this book, encouraging readers to reflect on their view of what the future of prisons and imprisonment should look like.

14.2 The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform Given the many challenges facing the prison in fulfilling its diverse and contested aims, and the harms it can cause for those held within, their families and communities, it is clear the institution must see change if it is to be ‘successful’ beyond the purpose of confinement, and if its harmful effects are to be minimised. As such, many scholars and organisations advocate for the reform of the prison system. They believe that, by working to effect change within the existing system, we can have a more effective response to crime resulting in safer societies for all, improved experiences for prisoners and their loved ones, and better protection of human rights and equality by reducing harm (Penal Reform International; Prison Reform Trust, 2022). We will now consider the arguments for reform as an appropriate response to the challenges of imprisonment.

The Legacy of Prison Reform Firstly, previous examples of prison reform—which have in some instances improved the prison experience for those held within—have been seen throughout history. As discussed in Chapter 2, the prison has been through numerous iterations and reforms in attempts to reach the ideal model of imprisonment. For hundreds of years prison reformers have sought to improve prison conditions, with the work of John Howard in the 1700s (see Chapter 2) often highlighted as one of the earliest and most influential examples, ultimately leading to the establishment of the Howard League for Penal Reform. Since this point, the Howard League and other prison reform organisations have argued for reforms to the existing system which would improve the immediate conditions of those who are incarcerated, while the perceived potential of the prison to reform individuals has often been at the centre of dominant narratives around desired reforms to the system. Acknowledging the significance of imprisonment as a reflection of broader

14.2  The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform

259

society, the Prison Reform Trust works to ensure prisons are ‘just, humane and effective’, having carried out various campaigns to work towards their aims of: reducing the use of imprisonment; ‘improving conditions for prisoners’; and promoting ‘equality and human rights in the criminal justice system’ (PRT, 2022). Such reform organisations have had significant successes, improving conditions in prison and advocating for prisoners’ rights (see Chapter 9), and providing support to those affected by imprisonment, while also raising awareness of injustices within prisons—a crucial step to garnering public support for reforms. Reform groups have often sought to be in positions to engage with policymakers and thus have the potential to influence reform through policy. However, the extent to which these groups are influential in policy fluctuates and might be more limited since some have moved towards more ‘radical terrain’ through, for example, arguing for decreased use of incarceration or the abolition of imprisonment for particular groups (Ryan & Sim, 2016). The continuity between reform campaigns and political power at any given time is likely to have a bearing on the particular reforms which are taken forward, and it is worth considering that these may not always be in line with seemingly ‘progressive’ approaches to prison conditions. Many changes witnessed in the prison system may be perceived as contributing to ‘successes’ from a particular ideological perspective, not in terms of improving conditions for rehabilitation but rather, for example, through increasing cost-efficiency. An example of this could be the shift towards the use of Private Finance Initiatives to fund the building of new prisons in England and Wales, and the increasing prevalence of managerialism and privatisation in the running of prisons (see Chapter 13)—examples of changes which may contribute towards a very different vision of the ‘reformed’ prison.

Improving the System from Within Not all reforms will necessarily improve the prisoner’s situation, driven by different aims or visions of a ‘better’ prison. However, reformers have played a role in securing important improvements to prison life and immediate material conditions through, for example, introduction of in-cell sanitation, family visits, payment (albeit minimal) for work undertaken in prison, and access to educational or ‘rehabilitative’ activities. The potential for such improvements to mitigate the immediate harms and suffering experienced by incarcerated people is a key argument for reform within the existing prison system. While goals of reimagining an entirely different system may ultimately reduce harm substantially in the long run, such aims are unlikely to significantly improve the situation of those living in

260

14  The Future of the Prison

prison right now. As such, it is important to acknowledge the role that even very small reforms or policy shifts can have in mitigating the harms experienced by incarcerated people (Carlton, 2018), even where this may also come with potential risks, as will be discussed later. Question:

• Based on your reading thus far, what reforms do you think are necessary for the prison to ‘work’? Use examples from earlier chapters to support your ideas and reflect on the different aims of imprisonment which could influence these reforms.

Alternative Visions of the Reformed Prison Some reformers point to institutions which differ significantly from the ‘average’ English prison in appearance, culture or ethos, as evidence that a better reformed prison is possible. One such way that reformers have sought to advocate for the possibility of a better prison, is through looking to the approaches of jurisdictions with lower reoffending rates (such as Norway or Sweden) as examples of how prison can ‘work’. The differences in the approach and ethos of Scandinavian prisons has led to conclusions from scholars that these institutions differ substantially from the archetypal prison (Shammas, 2014). However, as discussions in this book (particularly Chapter 13) have demonstrated, these institutions reflect society, operating within the particular social context of more egalitarian, universalist and inclusive cultures. As such, it would not be as simple to translate Scandinavian models of imprisonment into more individualistic, exclusionary and punitive contexts and expect the same consequences for reintegration. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 13, even the least restrictive Scandinavian prison environments entail their own ‘pains’ for those imprisoned there (Shammas, 2014). In addition to looking abroad for potential reforms to the prison, there has also been significant discussion around whether we can improve prisons through design and architecture (see Chapter 12). However, as discussed in relation to the building of HMP Berwyn, the tension between rehabilitative design and the need to keep costs low can result in compromises (Wainwright, 2019) which hinder meaningful reform through design. Additionally, Hancock and Jewkes (2011) posit that even where prisons are designed to be more pleasant for those living inside, they ‘may bring about their own “insidious form[s] of control” as they mask more effectively the fact of incarceration’ (Hancock & Jewkes, 2011: 613, cited in Shammas, 2014: 108).

14.2  The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform

261

Scholars have also pointed to practices of more progressive institutions within the UK penal estates as perhaps offering a vision of ‘better’ imprisonment, through turning to therapeutic institutions such as HMP Grendon (Bennett & Shuker, 2017) or the, now closed, Barlinnie Special Unit in Scotland (Stephen, 1988). These institutions follow the model of Therapeutic Communities (TCs), differing significantly from ordinary prison regimes. Transfer to a TC is usually voluntary, with those moving to this environment committing to a more intensive (and perhaps invasive) therapy experience. TCs operate on a model of mutual accountability, with wing members taking responsibility for holding each other accountable and engaging democratically in decisions surrounding the day-to-day running of the institution (PSO 2400; Stevens, 2012). As we will see later, the ethos of TCs is seen as so divergent from the wider prison estate that they are considered by some as an alternative to imprisonment, rather than simply a better prison. A variety of benefits have been identified in TCs when compared to other prisons, including lower levels of self-harm and violence, a greater sense of decency, greater promotion of wellbeing, and lower reoffending levels (Bennett & Shuker, 2017), thus being more ‘successful’ if we are to evaluate prisons on the basis of rehabilitation (see Chapter 3). Despite the benefits identified, TCs have remained marginal in the prison estate and have received little public or media attention. It is also unclear whether such outcomes partly reflect the outlook of individuals likely to commit to such a regime, rather than being attributable solely to the regime itself. Improved versions of the prison have also been sought through attempts to reform the ethos and culture within institutions, as intended by the ‘rehabilitative culture’ agenda in England and Wales. In addition to encouraging physical environments conducive to change (Mann, 2019), the intention of this agenda is to foster a culture that is ‘safe, decent, hopeful and optimistic about reducing offending’ (HMPPS, 2018). Institutions have sought to implement this agenda in different ways, through initiatives to improve staff-prisoner relationships, or through encouraging what is described as an ‘active citizenship’ approach to the prison regime (HMIP, 2020). However, although this policy agenda is well established and has been encouraged across the prison estate, reoffending rates remain high and inspection reports still note that prisons often struggle to facilitate purposeful activity (HMIP, 2021). As such, the question remains as to whether it is really possible to create a ‘rehabilitative’ prison, when the practice of imprisonment is deeply de-habilitative (see Chapter 3). Consequently, there are a range of alternative models of imprisonment, and reform agendas, that have been looked to as inspiration for a ‘better’ prison system. However, despite differences between prisons, they all share the common

262

14  The Future of the Prison

objective of securely confining those who are imprisoned. In doing so, they will inevitably restrict liberty and autonomy, often of the most marginalised in society (Chapter 4), which could lead to even the most ‘rehabilitative’ or ‘humane’ regimes being experienced as painful and controlling. As such, it has been questioned whether the debate should focus not on what prisons should be like, but whether we should have prisons at all. As Angela Davis (2003: 10) asks, are prisons in fact ‘obsolete’? This is a question that has been considered by those who critique the reformist ambition of an improved prison, and instead advocate prison abolition, to which we will now turn.

14.3 The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition Despite the efforts that have been made in reform and reinvention of the prison, the extent to which these have resulted in a just, fair or humane system is contested, and there is a substantial body of scholars and activists who would argue that a more appropriate ultimate goal for the prison is abolition (Davis, 2003; Mathiesen, 1974; Scott, 2018a, 2018b; Sim, 2009; Wilson Gilmore, 2007). Penal abolitionism also argues for the abolition of other key state criminal justice entities such as the criminal law itself and the police (Ruggiero, 2010), however, for the purposes of this discussion we will focus on the challenge of abolishing the prison.

Prisons as Inherently Harmful Places Arguments for the abolition of imprisonment have been primarily grounded in the harms that the system causes, not only to those caught up within it, but also to families, communities and wider society. For abolitionists, the prison is seen as a site of pain-infliction—‘a place of terror, punishment and humiliating vilification for the confined’ (Ryan & Sim, 2016: 712). Our previous discussions have highlighted the ‘pains’ inherent in the daily prison experience (Chapter 5), and the harms that are also imposed on prisoners’ loved ones and communities (Chapter 4). As such, abolitionists dispute the argument that prison can, or is intended to be a place of reform, contending instead that it simply operates to confine and punish individuals. Despite differences between prisons, they all share the common objective of securely confining individuals. In doing so, they inevitably restrict liberty and

14.3  The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition

263

autonomy, often of the most marginalised in society, which can lead to even the most ‘rehabilitative’ or ‘humane’ regimes being experienced as painful and controlling. Consequently, Ryan and Sim (2016: 714) ask: Should we be thinking about the prison as a dysfunctional entity, as a place of punishment and pain, which instead of delivering redemption for the individual offender and protection for the wider society, is more likely to contribute to their psychological immiseration and sometimes physical destruction of offenders and to the maintenance of an unjust and unequal social system?

Can the prison ever really be a positive, or transformative place, or does striving for such a place rely on ‘the myth of a “penal utopia”’ (Scott, 2018a: 23)? Prisons, even when built, run and staffed with the intention of rehabilitation, are still prisons—they are still places of deprivation, which can fundamentally de-habilitate individuals in their separation from the outside world. Additionally, however uniquely rehabilitative individual institutions may be, they remain situated within a broader system and culture which is both punitive and exclusionary in its approach towards law-breakers (at least in the England and Wales context), disproportionately harming marginalised communities and the poor.

Beyond the Prison: Penal Abolitionism This chapter focuses on the merits and challenges of abolishing the prison, however, penal abolitionism goes much further than arguing solely for the reduction or abolition of incarceration. Rejecting the objective reality of ‘crime’ as a social construct, penal abolitionism is concerned with resisting the broader systems which have developed to respond to ‘crime’ and the harms which they impose through retributivist punishment (Ruggiero, 2010). As such, penal abolitionists may also seek to oppose other institutions within the criminal justice system, beyond the prison, and echoes of abolitionist ideals can be seen in the campaigns to ‘defund the police’ following instances of police brutality, and the resulting ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in the United States (Fleetwood & Lea, 2022).

Disproportionate Harm for Marginalised Communities Abolitionism also stems from a concern about the distribution of harms across society, with these disproportionately impacting on marginalised communities (see Chapter 4). Considering the disproportionate impact of imprisonment on the

264

14  The Future of the Prison

poor, Ryan and Ward (2014: 112) argue that we should view the prison as ‘one of a series of disciplinary institutions at the disposal of the state to rule and discipline the working classes’ (Ryan & Ward, 2014: 112). Further, leading abolitionists—particularly in the United States—have highlighted the disproportionate impact of the harms of imprisonment, and its collateral consequences, on BAME groups and particularly poor, Black communities (see Chapters 4 and 9). As such, Davis (2003) argues we must ask ourselves the question: ‘Are we willing to relegate ever larger numbers of people from racially oppressed communities to an isolated existence marked by authoritarian regimes, violence, disease, and technologies of seclusion that produce severe mental instability?’ If not, then, according to Davis, the prison is ‘obsolete’.

‘Crime’ as a Social Construct As raised in Chapter 1, considering the role of imprisonment raises questions not just about the institution itself, but also about what we define as criminal and consequently who we do (or don’t) criminalise. Another reason that abolitionists advocate for an end to imprisonment is that ‘crime’, the very concept which determines people’s conviction and ultimately incarceration, lacks any objective ontological reality (Canning & Tombs, 2021; Hillyard & Tombs, 2017). ‘Crime’ is a socially constructed concept which does not exist in isolation from the decisions of law-makers to label particular behaviours as problematic. As Sim (2009) notes, the law is often skewed in the interests of these law-makers, with the behaviours of the powerless labelled as ‘criminal’ by those in power. Therefore, to challenge the definition of crime in itself also requires the challenging of consequences imposed upon those who have been defined as ‘criminal’ in this process, hence the need to question the use of imprisonment.

Failure of Imprisonment to Meet Victims’ Needs Another criticism of the prison—and broader criminal justice system—raised by abolitionists, is that it fails to respond to harm in a meaningful way that meets the needs of victims/survivors and communities affected by crime; in the penal system’s focus on responding to crime by punishing the law-breaker, the needs of those who have been affected are often left unmet (Christie, 1982; Scott, 2018a). For example, Moore (2016) has argued that the prison fails to provide an appropriate environment for responding to perpetrators or remedying—in any way pos-

14.3  The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition

265

sible—the harms caused to victims of serious violent or sexual offending. Rather, he argues, the solutions to these endemic harms lie in disrupting the unequal social structures which lead to such harms in the first place—dismantling the patriarchy.

The Failures of Reform Finally, abolitionists argue that reform is unable to address the issues with imprisonment as a fundamentally harmful institution, noting the failures of previous reforms to meaningfully improve prisoners’ experiences, however well-intentioned. Despite decades of reform to the prison system, when looking to official rhetoric and policies, prisoners’ own accounts of incarceration suggest imprisonment has been ‘marked more by continuity than change’ (Brown & Clare, 2005: 50, cited in Sim, 2009: 4). Despite successful changes in some areas, others have been extremely resistant to meaningful reform, even when changes have been called for in official inquiries. The ‘Woolf report’, following the 1990s Strangeways riots (see Chapter 7), made twelve core recommendations for reform in the prison system to improve living conditions and prevent similar disturbances in future (Woolf & Tumin, 1991). However, despite such calls for change occurring thirty years ago, and some reforms resulting from this report, some recommendations for reform— such as calls for smaller prison units—have been repeatedly ignored. Additionally, other reforms implemented following the report—such as the introduction of the IEP scheme (see Chapter 10)—have resulted in new, different pains of incarceration (see Chapter 5), rather than alleviating the day-to-day struggles of i­mprisonment. While proposals of the Corston report (2007) on women’s imprisonment (see Chapter 6) have been reiterated repeatedly, piecemeal reforms have done little to resolve the fundamental problems associated with women’s imprisonment. Consequently, it has been argued that reforms have brought little meaningful change to a punitive and harmful system, while substantial changes that have taken place are often in the interests of the powerful, for example through reforms to privatise and marketise state institutions of punishment (Ryan & Sim, 2016). In many respects, attempts to reform the prison have been unsuccessful at ameliorating its inherent harms or improving its outcomes. However, despite the limitations of reform, the use of imprisonment has remained a constant and increasingly popular feature of society, as Foucault (1977: 277) has highlighted: So successful has the prison been that, after a century and half of failures the prison still exists, producing the same results, and there is still the greatest reluctance to dispense with it.

266

14  The Future of the Prison

As such, despite criticisms of the prison as a place of pain and suffering, and a repeated failure to meet its frequently reinvented aims (Scott, 2018a), it is clear that there are substantial barriers to challenging the centrality of imprisonment in society.

14.4 A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition Despite the issues highlighted by abolitionists, it seems the prison has ‘achieved almost “hegemonic status”, making its function impregnable to serious criticism’ (Ryan & Sim, 2007 cited in Ryan & Ward, 2014: 108). Consequently, the abolitionist goal is seen by many as a utopian vision that is unlikely to be successful in practice, with supporters of abolition described as ‘unrealistic, naïve and impractical dreamers’ (Thomas & Boehlefeld, 1991: 246, cited in Moore, 2016). There are various barriers or impediments to eradicating imprisonment which have led to this view of abolitionism, some of which will now be considered in turn.

Reform as a Step Towards Abolition? Are the two approaches of reformism and abolitionism entirely distinct, or might reform be a possible step on the journey towards abolishing the prison? After all, the focus of prison reform groups has shifted ‘onto a more critical and radical terrain’ (Sim, 2009), with the reduction in the use of imprisonment advocated by both the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform. In a recent interview with The Justice Gap (2021), reflecting on her time in charge of the Howard League, Frances Crook stated ‘the criminal justice system never makes things better, ever, for anybody. Less is better is my motto’. Despite this shared aim of reducing the prison population, abolitionists have noted that reform is not necessarily always beneficial and can sometimes be damaging, serving to reinforce the existence of the prison. For example, Carlen (2002) has noted that seemingly positive reforms can be subject to ‘carceral clawback’ through the prison’s power ‘constantly to deconstruct and successfully reconstruct the ideological conditions for its own existence’ (2002: 116). It is a view of the prison as ‘a coercive and institutionally violent state institution’ that distinguishes abolition from liberal reform (Ryan & Sim, 2016: 735), and therefore reforms focused on moving towards an ideal, non-coercive and non-violent institution are seen as oxymoronic.

14.4  A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition

267

However, this is not the case with all reforms, and many have noted the importance of alleviating immediate harms for those held inside while a society without prisons is yet to be realised. Although reliance on reform can ‘produce the stultifying idea that nothing lies beyond the prison’ (Davis, 2003: 20), Mathiesen (1974) has distinguished between what he calls ‘reformist’ and ‘non-reformist’ reforms in this respect. While reformist reforms seek to improve the existing system, and consequently further its legitimacy, non-reformist reforms fundamentally challenge the existing system and work towards its demise in the long term. With this in mind, the question is not necessarily whether reform is compatible with abolition, but what reform might be compatible with an abolitionist vision. As BenMoshe (2018: 349) notes ‘The question is what kinds of reform are sought and whether they will strengthen the system in the long run’. Arguably ‘abolitionists have yet to reconcile the paradoxical position of reform and its relationship to abolition politics and strategy’ (Carlton, 2018: 286), which Carlton argues remains both a risk—in its potential to lead to expansion—and a necessity for abolitionists when engaging in broader campaigns for change.

Prison as a ‘Natural’ and Popular Response to Crime One of the most frequent criticisms of the abolitionist movement has been that its aim—of completely abolishing the use of the prison—is unrealistic, based on the assertion that prison is seen to be a necessary feature of society. As Angela Davis (2003: 10) notes: Prison abolitionists are dismissed as utopians and idealists whose ideas are at best unrealistic and impracticable, and, at worst, mystifying and foolish. This is a measure of how difficult it is to envision a social order that does not rely on the threat of sequestering people in dreadful places designed to separate them from their communities and families. The prison is so “natural” that it is extremely hard to imagine life without it.

The ‘natural’ status of the prison in society is also continually reinforced through visual representations (Davis, 2003) as well as by politicians and policymakers who, in order to appear ‘tough on crime’, use longer prison sentences and harsher prison conditions as tools to appeal to the perceived punitive desires of the

268

14  The Future of the Prison

public (see Chapter 8). This ‘populist punitiveness’ (Bottoms, 1995), which has characterised many developments in penal policy in England and Wales, and the United States, can make it difficult to envisage a world with far fewer people in prison, let alone with no prisons whatsoever. Further, the centrality of the prison has become more deeply engrained in the economy, with prison expansionism increasingly being used as an economic development strategy. This has been seen in the purchase of prisons being used to replace declining industries in parts of rural America (Huling, 2002), while new prison-building initiatives in England and Wales have been pitched as ‘a major boost to the local economy’ by creating jobs (MOJ, 2020; see Chapter 12). The reliance on imprisonment for both political and economic capital serve to reinforce the idea of the prison as a necessary feature of society. While the necessity of imprisonment appears to be deeply engrained in the public psyche, advocates of prison abolition have noted how there was a time when the abolition of slavery or capital punishment would too have been viewed as unlikely and idealistic developments. Scott and Codd (2010) argue that such historical developments should provide encouragement that an abolitionist vision is possible, even if the road towards this goal is a long and challenging one.

Imprisonment as Necessary to Protect the Public Critics of abolitionism would argue that the prison is needed to protect society from those who are deemed ‘dangerous’ individuals, being the only realistic way to fulfil the role of incapacitation for individuals perpetrating violent and sexual offences, for example. Given the low levels of absconding, it is difficult to argue with the prison’s success at fulfilling its role of confining individuals away from the broader community (see Chapter 3). Some abolitionist scholars have noted, however, that the outright rejection of all confinement is a mis-characterisation of their views. Indeed, Sim (2009) has noted how abolitionists have recognised that ‘some conventionally dangerous individuals need to be detained because of their predatory behaviours’ and that ‘it is the nature of confinement which is at issue’, while a ‘different, more utopian form of confinement is still winnable’ (Ryan & Sim, 2016: 728). Other abolitionist scholars have also acknowledged that there are a very small number of individuals who may indeed require some form of confinement (Carlen, 1990; Sim, 2009), but with the view that this confinement would differ markedly from the ‘modern-day cathedrals of pain we call prisons’ (Scott, 2018a: 183).

14.4  A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition

269

With prison being widely considered as ‘an inevitable and permanent feature of our social lives’ (Davis, 2003: 10), arguments for the abolition of imprisonment for particular groups in society may be met with less resistance, and might be thought of as more palatable for both the public and politicians within the context of a politically driven punitive system. Carlen (1990: 121) argued that given the unsuitability of the prison for women (see Chapter 6), imprisonment for women should be abolished, retaining only 100 places in custody for those convicted of ‘abnormally serious crimes’ for an ‘experimental’ period of five years. This would provide an example of ‘selective abolitionism’ (Hudson, 2003), which Scott and Codd (2010: 165) have argued might provide a ‘politically plausible’ way to lobby governments for dramatic reductions in the prison population, by encouraging changes to sentencing for particular groups of individuals, or for particular offence types. They propose that it may be effective, therefore, to argue for the abolition of imprisonment for women, children, people with mental health problems and those convicted of immigration offences (Scott & Codd, 2010). However, as Moore (2016: 44) has argued, continued support for imprisonment of ‘dangerous’ or ‘violent’ offenders, ‘still ideologically legitimises prison’. Thus, considering only the abolition of imprisonment for these groups might be understood as having ‘compromised a “total” abolitionist perspective’ (Ryan & Ward, 2014: 113) and serve as a barrier to challenging the existence of the prison itself (Moore, 2016).

What Would We Do Instead to Address the Problems Prison Has Been Used For? A further hurdle faced when seeking to challenge the near ‘hegemonic’ position of the prison (Ryan & Sim, 2007) is arguably the way that imprisonment has been used as a solution to a wide range of socio-economic problems (Gilmore, 2009). The prison has been used, as discussed in Chapter 3, as a way to try and ‘disappear’ social problems despite only having the effect of disappearing human beings (Davis, 2000). As such, alternatives to the use of imprisonment more broadly must be proposed if abolition is to be realised, and the centrality of the prison to society is to be disrupted, and this is something for which abolitionists have faced substantial criticism. As such, one of the most significant challenges for abolitionism remains proposing alternatives to the current institution of the prison—as a system of punishment to respond to law-breaking and the perpetration of harm— and garnering support for such alternatives where the inevitability of imprisonment is so ingrained in the psyche of society. A number of possible solutions have

270

14  The Future of the Prison

been proposed, some of which have begun to influence criminal justice practice around the world, and the chapter will now turn to the consideration of these alternatives to imprisonment. Question

• Is the idea of abolishing the prison utopian?

14.5 Alternatives to Prisons and Imprisonment So, if the prison were abolished, what would go in its place? How would we respond to law-breaking in society and, in particular, instances where harm is perpetrated? While decreased use of imprisonment, in favour of community sanctions, is widely advocated by reformists, the use of community punishments has also seen increases in many jurisdictions, leaving them without the capacity to replace imprisonment for many. Additionally, community-based penal sanctions may still be experienced as painful (Durnescu, 2011), imposing harms which disproportionately impact marginalised communities and perpetuate inequality. Primarily, proposed abolitionist alternatives to imprisonment have centred around holding people to account for the harms caused by their actions, without inflicting further harm through processes of criminalisation and punishment. This has led to an emphasis on initiatives prioritising victims’ needs and restoration of relationships, rather than the traditional focus of criminal justice on directing blame towards the ‘offender’.

Restorative and Transformative Justice Initiatives Some restorative justice initiatives may be seen as potential alternatives to punishment from an abolitionist perspective (Ruggiero, 2010). Focused on restoring victims, law-breakers and their relationships/communities to a position prior to the harm caused, restorative justice can serve as a valuable alternative to state criminal justice which appropriates the conflict of individuals, rather than allowing ownership and collaborative responses to harms caused (Christie, 1977). Restorative justice may remedy this by re-centring the response to harm on those affected by the conflict, and involving, ‘to the extent possible, those who have a stake in an injustice to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in order to heal and put things as right as possible’ (Braithewaite, 2006: 35). By focusing on ‘righting the wrongs’ (Braithewaite, 2006: 35), rather than

14.5  Alternatives to Prisons and Imprisonment

271

on stigmatising the individual responsible, restorative justice may provide a more reintegrative response to harm than punitive sanctions (Braithewaite, 2002). Going further than this, transformative justice initiatives have also been proposed as alternatives to carceral justice. These initiatives seek to develop collective community responses to harms—and the broader social structures from which these stem—focused on accountability and safety, rather than utilising state-imposed responses (Brown, 2020). It has been argued that, in the US context, this is the most dominant alternative vision for justice amongst activists working and advocating for abolition on the ground (Brown, 2020). As such, abolitionist alternatives to the prison may focus on involving both those affected by harms, and the broader community, in more reintegrative responses to encourage meaningful accountability and responsibility, rather than relying on punishment and imprisonment as a response.

Therapeutic or ‘Intentional’ Communities However, as noted previously, abolitionists do not necessarily reject any confinement whatsoever, and institutions which embrace this focus on accountability over punishment—such as TCs in England and Wales—are viewed by some abolitionist scholars as potentially providing a ‘politically plausible and radical alternative to the prison sentence’ (Scott & Gosling, 2016: 63) rather than simply a different form of imprisonment. Scott (2018a) argues that ‘non-punitive’ TCs could provide a suitable space for therapeutic interventions to address mental health or substance use issues, for example, while also costing the tax-payer less than imprisonment. Scott (2018a: 277) also proposes ‘intentional communities’ as another potential abolitionist alternative to imprisonment, ‘where wrong-doers—and perhaps their families if they so wished—could be relocated to small villages in sparsely populated areas’. For those who would benefit from a new environment, such communities would provide a space to ‘rebuild their lives’ and develop pro-social attitudes and skills, while they would also provide a ‘sanctuary’ for the ‘quarantine’ of serious law-breakers to ‘cool off’ and attempt delivery of solutions for the harm caused (Scott, 2018a: 277). While abolitionists have proposed these alternative responses to law-breaking, such interventions do not always deal directly with the broader structural inequalities evident in the prison population (see Chapter 4). As such, a key principle of abolitionist thought is that any alternative to existing punishment must be seen within a broader change in the structures of society, with abolitionist alternatives being about change far beyond the prison itself:

272

14  The Future of the Prison

Effective alternatives include both the transformation of the techniques for addressing ‘crime’ and of the social and economic conditions that track so many children from poor communities, and especially communities of color, into the juvenile system and then on to prison. (Davis, 2003: 20–21)

Tackling Inequality Through Justice Reinvestment At the heart of abolition then, is the need to challenge not only the existence of punitive institutions, but also the structural inequalities which marginalise groups in society: The abolitionist dream is a combination of penal and social change that will be complete only when prisons are no longer required because other practices have replaced state punishment and confinement, and because gender-based, racial, and other forms of violence have been tackled at their social and ideological roots. (Ryan & Ward, 2014: 116)

As such, proposed abolitionist alternatives extend far beyond the remit of criminal justice, including advocating for more radical social welfare policies. For example, abolitionists have argued for the introduction of a basic minimum income, or models of taxation involving redistribution of wealth to lessen the material inequalities which so often lead people to become criminalised in the first place (Scott, 2018b). While such policies are often rejected as unaffordable and thus politically unviable, Mathiesen (2000) proposes a model of ‘justice reinvestment’, with the funds which support the criminal justice system and its punitive interventions being diverted or ‘reinvested’ in these broader social welfare policies. As such, the abolitionist vision is not just one of a world without prisons, but of a more equal world where there is no need for imprisonment as punishment. Consequently, abolitionist alternatives to imprisonment encompass efforts to realise this more equal society, within which the eradication of imprisonment may seem more realistic. While these alternatives—both those directly responding to conflicts and those focused more broadly on creating a more equal society—set out an abolitionist vision of what a world without prisons would look like, the movement is still seen as unrealistic by some. Scholars have argued that this criticism of abolitionism, for failing to provide realistic or politically appealing alternatives to incarceration, places the burden of justification on the wrong side of the debate and that

14.6  Reflecting on Your Reading so Far: Where Next …

273

it is prison reformers who should be required to justify the continued use of the prison (Ryan & Ward, 2014; Sim, 2009). Sim (2009: 192) argues that descriptions of abolitionism as unrealistic or utopian in fact better characterise the reform movement, which repeatedly chases an unachievable aim—‘the oxymoron that is the ideally reformed prison’. This raises the question of whether we should be expecting those proposing reforms to explicitly justify the continued use of imprisonment (Ryan & Sim, 2016); should we be asking whether the continued use of an institution which fails to fulfil its stated objectives—rather than a world without prisons—is feasible or desirable?

14.6 Reflecting on Your Reading so Far: Where Next for Prisons and Imprisonment? At the start of this book, we encouraged you to think critically about the use of the prison, its role within, and as a reflection of, society. In Part I we explored the way that the modern prison has developed through history (Chapter 2) and the aims or justifications for the use of imprisonment (Chapter 3). These chapters illustrated that the form and goals of the prison as an institution have not been settled, but fluctuate between the prioritisation of competing aims or philosophies as time goes on, and between different individual institutions. There have also been challenges to the legitimacy of the prison when it has been assessed against each of these goals or justifications; despite the prevalence of imprisonment in many societies, we continue to see the existence of crime in society, and reoffending rates in England and Wales continue to be high. Further, Chapter 4 illustrated how imprisonment has been understood to work very effectively—rather than fulfilling its official objectives—at further marginalising already marginalised communities in society. This was discussed in relation to the disproportionate representation of individuals from BAME communities in the prison population, as well as the disproportionate prevalence of individuals experiencing social or economic exclusion. Part II of the book explored the complexities of life in prison for those both held and working within these institutions. In doing so, this part of the book highlighted the various ways in which penal institutions can cause pain or harm for those inside, through the deprivations inherent in the prison regime (Chapter 5) but also through specific gendered pains, with particular aspects of imprisonment being experienced as even more painful by women and transgender people (Chapter 6). Chapter 7 drew attention to the methods incarcerated people have used to resist prison regimes and influence change in the prison system, high-

274

14  The Future of the Prison

lighting the various ways prisoners assert their agency within a coercive institution. Having considered the experience of incarceration for prisoners themselves, the book then went on to discuss how the reality of this experience is not always reflected in public discourse around imprisonment, or the representations of this that we see in daily life through news and popular media (Chapter 8). In particular, depictions of the prison as reforming institutions, and of serving time as easy or ‘cushy’, have been challenged through discussion of the painful realities of daily life in prison, while the potential consequences of such depictions were also considered. In Part III of the book, we explored the different frameworks that the prison operates within, and how these play out in practice in daily prison life. This highlighted that ensuring prisoners’ rights are upheld can be a difficult process when comparing the ‘law on the books’ and ‘law in action’ (Chapter 9). Chapter 10 highlighted the challenges of maintaining social order in prison, and the complexities of its governance, demonstrating how—even where policies and governance structures may seek to ensure a prison that ‘works’—ensuring these are adhered to in practice can be hard. In this section we also explored the complexities of the staff-prisoner relationship, and the potential for such interactions to shape the prison experience into one which is more punitive or tolerable for the individual, while also highlighting that some harms of the prison are not limited to those who are held there, but can also impact on those working in this environment (Chapter 11). Next we considered the role that the physical environment of the prison can play in the prison experience and explored whether improving the physical prison environment can make prison rehabilitative, or simply neutralise an institution intended to punish and inflict pain (Chapter 12). Finally, Part IV of the book has sought to demonstrate how the use of imprisonment as a penal sanction is political. We have considered the way in which social, political and cultural context can impact on the form prisons take, and the extent of their use in a society (Chapter 13). Finally, this chapter considers the politics of reform and abolition which feed into debates about the future of imprisonment. We now encourage readers to reflect on what they think the future holds for prisons and imprisonment, and continue to further their own understanding of the institution. Scott (2013) argues that a crucial step towards reducing—and ultimately ending—the use of imprisonment is to encourage honest discussion about the prison’s failures, in particular through amplifying the voices of those with lived experience of imprisonment. This step of developing an understanding of the prison, and encouraging public discussion of its effectiveness and potential consequences, is something which academic research on the prison can provide a contribution

References/Further Reading

275

towards (alongside consideration of activism and lived experience). Chapter 15 will provide you with some practical guidance on how you can progress your own independent research on the prison to further your understanding of the institution, and perhaps contribute to this public discussion which may impact on the prison’s place in society in the future. In the introduction to this book, we stated that the study of imprisonment is a study of society, and this applies equally when considering the prison’s future. When asking the question of ‘where next for prisons and imprisonment?’, we must also ask the question ‘where next for society?’. Chapter Summary:

• Reform efforts have resulted in some improvements to prison conditions throughout history, and these can have important implications for the daily lives of people in prison. • The extent to which reforms have mitigated the harms inherent in imprisonment may be limited, with the possibility of a ‘better’ prison being contested by abolitionists. • Both reformists and abolitionists have advocated for alternatives to the use of imprisonment, which may take varied forms. • The prison reflects society and thus, for meaningful change in the use of imprisonment to be possible, we need to see broader changes in society. Activity

• Imagine what your vision of a society without prison would look like. Based on your reading of this book, what issues would a prison-free society address, and what changes (if any) would need to take place in wider society for this to be possible?

References/Further Reading Ben-Moshe, L. (2018). Dis-epistemologies of Abolition. Critical Criminology, 26, 341– 355. Bennett, J., & Shuker, R. (2017). The potential of prison-based democratic therapeutic communities. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(1), 19–24. Braithewaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 563–577. Bottoms, A. E. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform. Clarendon Press.

276

14  The Future of the Prison

Braithewaite, J. (2006). Accountability and responsibility through restorative justice. In M. D. Dowdle (Ed.), Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences (pp. 33–51). Cambridge University Press. Brown, M. (2020). Transformative justice and new abolition in the United States. In P. Carlen & L. A. França (Eds.), Justice alternatives. Routledge. Canning, V., & Tombs, S. (2021). From social harm to zemiology: A critical introduction. Routledge. Carlen, P. (1990). Alternatives to women’s imprisonment. Open University Press. Carlen, P. (2002). Carceral clawback: The case of women’s imprisonment in Canada. Punishment and Society, 4(1), 115–121. Carlton, B. (2018). Anti-carceral feminist campaigns and the politics of change in women’s prisons, Victoria, Australia. Punishment and Society, 20(3), 283–307. Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), 1–15. Christie, N. (1982). Limits to pain. Martin Robertson. Corston, J. (2007) The Corston report: A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Home Office. Davis, A. Y. (2000). Masked racism: Reflections on the prison industrial complex. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 4(27), 4–7. Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press. Durnescu, I. (2011). The pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. Probation Journal, 55(4), 530–545. Fleetwood, J., & Lea, J. (2022). Defunding the police in the UK: Critical questions and practical suggestions. Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, 61(2), 167–184. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Penguin. Gilmore, R. (2009). The golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press. Hancock, P., & Jewkes, Y. (2011). Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 611–629. Hillyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2017). Social harm and zemiology. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (6th Edition, pp. 284–305). Oxford University Press. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2020). Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Stafford by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2021). Annual report 2020–21, HC 442. Stationary Office. HM Prison and Probation Service. (2018). Rehabilitative Culture Handbook. HM Prison & Probation Service.  Hudson, B. (2003). Punishment, justice and responsibility. Punishment & Society, 5(2), 215–219. Huling, T. (2002). Building a prison economy in Rural America. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press. Mann, R. (2019). Rehabilitative culture Part 2: An update on evidence and practice. Prison Service Journal, 244, 3–10. Mathiesen, T. (1974). The politics of abolition. Martin Robertson. Mathiesen, T. (2000). Prison on trial (2nd ed.). Waterside Press.

References/Further Reading

277

Ministry of Justice. (2020). New prison to create jobs and boost economy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-prison-to-create-jobs-and-boost-economy. Accessed 10 Oct 2021. Moore, J. M. (2016). What about the rapists? An abolitionist response. In A. Beckmann, J. M. Moore, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Penal abolitionism: Papers from the Penal Law, Abolition and Anarchism Conference (Vol. I, pp. 43–58). European Group Press. Prison Reform Trust. (2022). About.https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/about/ Accessed 23 Oct 2022.  Scott, D. (2013). Unequalled in pain. In D. Scott (Ed.), Why prison? (pp. 301–324). Cambridge University Press. Scott, D. (2018a). Against imprisonment: An anthology of abolitionist essays. Waterside Press. Scott, D. (2018b). Prison abolition isn’t impossible. It’s necessary. Red Pepper. Available at: https://www.redpepper.org.uk/prison-abolition-isnt-impossible-its-necessary/. Accessed 1 Oct 2021. Scott, D., & Codd, H. (2010). Controversial issues in prisons. McGraw-Hill Education. Scott, D., & Gosling, H. (2016). Therapeutic communities as an abolitionist real Utopia? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), 52–66. Shammas, V. L. (2014). The pains of freedom: Assessing the ambiguity of Scandinavian penal exceptionalism on Norway’s Prison Island. Punishment and Society, 16(1), 104– 123. Stevens, A. (2012). Offender rehabilitation and therapeutic communities: Enabling change the TC way. Routledge. Ruggiero, V. (2010). Penal abolitionism. Oxford University Press. Ryan, M., & Sim, J. (2016). Campaigning for and campaigning against prisons: Excavating and reaffirming the case for Prison Abolition. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 712–733). Routledge. Ryan, M., & Ward, T. (2014). Prison abolition in the UK: They dare not speak its name? Social Justice, 41(3), 107–119. Sim, J. (2009). Punishment and Prisons. Sage Publishing. Stephen, I. (1988). The Barlinnie special unit: A penal experiment. In S. Backett, J. McNeill, & A. Yellowlees (Eds.), Imprisonment today (pp. 125–139). Palgrave Macmillan. The Justice Gap (2021). Episode 16: ‘Prisons never make things better’, Justice Gap Podcast. https://www.thejusticegap.com/episode-16-prisons-never-make-things-better/ Accessed 20 Oct 2022. Wainwright, O. (2019). Epic jail: Inside the UK’s optimised ‘super-prison’ warehouses. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/sep/02/epic-jail-inside-super-prison-warehouses-architecture. Accessed 22 Oct 2021.  Wilson Gilmore, R. (2007). Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press. Woolf, L. J., & Tumin, S. (1991). Prison Disturbances, April 1990. HM Stationary Office

Part V Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

Prison Research: Methods, Approaches and Sources

15

Chapter Outline

This chapter will explore: • • • •

Prisoners’ perspectives on imprisonment. Some challenges of researching prisons and imprisonment. Sources readily available to undergraduate students and general readers. Prisoner autobiography, memoir and online resources for further research.

15.1 Introduction Prisons by their very nature are closed institutions. This generates challenges for anyone researching prisons and imprisonment. With students and researchers having limited or no access to prisons, and prisoners only allowed controlled communication with the outside world, this chapter considers some of the difficulties in studying prison life. The first section outlines some of the frustrations expressed by prisoners who believe that depictions of prisons and prisoners in popular and political narratives are rarely accurate. The next section argues that while personal accounts by those serving time can provide a rich source of information, they are much more than raw data. They give testimony to the ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes, 1958) and can be considered as an alternative to the narratives in official, semi-official and popular representations of the institution. Despite the closed nature of prisons, there are sources and materials available to enable students and general readers to gain insights from the experiences of people serving time in them, and assist in understanding the institutions. The final © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_15

281

282

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

section gives a step-by-step guide to researching prisons and imprisonment: ethics, methods and sources. Included at the end of the chapter are two appendices with a list of prisoner biographies and memoirs, and a range of online resources for further research.

15.2 Prisoners on Imprisonment Prisons are both visible and invisible: visible as large and imposing structures and invisible, as we know little of what goes on therein. As the vast majority of the general public has never been inside a prison, this can lead to a skewed understanding of prison life. Portrayals of the prison are regularly mediated through various sources, and from people who have little or no penal experience. Some prisoners have written about the complexities of prison life that are rarely dealt with in popular representations: loneliness, isolation, the pains of imprisonment, guilt, reflection/s on past life and personal change. Several have written about their frustration at the portrayal of the institution, in particular the stereotyping of the people in prison. Erwin James spent twenty years in prison on a life sentence, from 1984 to 2004. While in prison, he was given ministerial approval to write about prison life in The Guardian. Later, James’ articles were collected in two books, A Life Inside and The Home Stretch, and in 2016 he was appointed editor of a newspaper for prisoners, Inside Time. As the majority of people in society have no direct experience of imprisonment, either as a prisoner, or through family and friends, James was concerned that people found it difficult to comprehend prison life. In one of his articles written while he was in prison, James wrote about his experience of meeting Lord Justice Woolf in the aftermath of the Strangeways Prison riot and disturbances throughout the United Kingdom in 1990 (see Chapter 7). Lord Justice Woolf had been asked by the government to prepare a report on the riots and penal conditions more generally. James was struck by one question from the judge, a man who had no doubt sent many people to prison during his time in the judiciary. He asked a group of prisoners what prison life was like. James (2003: 74) elaborated: Prison was no doubt necessary. But it was unsettling that prison life was such a mystery to society. There seemed an assumption among the outside world that people in prison were inherently different. Prisoners were not individuals but a collective, with the same crude standards, values and culture – a sub-race almost.

15.3  Telling Their Own Story

283

Some prisoners while engaging in debates about the portrayal of prisoners and imprisonment hope to contribute to public debates on penal policy. Alan Lord was one of the leaders of the Strangeways riot, the most significant and longest disturbance in British penal history. After many years of fighting the penal system, he began to campaign for reforms, using very different tactics. Writing became his new method to inform the public and struggle for change. He was exasperated about the slow pace of reform, and started writing to various establishment figures about the privations of the penal system: My conscience had taken a turnaround that would enable me to progress, slowly but surely. It enabled me to put my energy into writing and doing things the right way. I knew I had to fight for change within the prison system. I also knew that I’d helped change the sanitation rules that abolished the slop-out system after the Strangeways demonstration. But there was still a long way to go. [...] I started putting pen to paper and wrote to whatever dignitaries I felt I had to complain to. (Lord, 2015: 171–172)

Depictions of the institution and portrayals of prisoners in popular representations and political rhetoric can reinforce stereotypes, but they can also be used to validate the continuation of the prison in its current form. Therefore, when undertaking research, it is essential to allow those who endure the pains of imprisonment to tell their story.

15.3 Telling Their Own Story A US prisoner cited in Stephen Duguid’s book, Can Prisons Work: The Prisoner as Object and Subject in Modern Corrections (2000: 83) believed that: ‘To describe what it means to be a prisoner, how it feels to be confined is impossible for one who has not experienced it’. So, how, or can those who have never been confined comprehend imprisonment and gain an insight into prison life? Historically, first-hand accounts from prisoners were rare for a variety of reasons. Prisoners seldom kept written records ‘setting forth the ideology of the inmate population, its myths or its mores’ (Sykes, 1958: xix). Amongst other reasons, this was due to censorship, with many prison systems imposing strict guidelines on what prisoners could officially relay to the outside world. This dissuaded them from keeping written records as if these materials were discovered and deemed to transgress prison rules, it could lead to official punishment or unofficial sanction. The lack of written sources from prisoners meant that there were fewer records of the experience of imprisonment for scholars to counterbalance the narrative

284

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

publicly expounded by prison authorities, official and semi-official accounts, and from the media and politicians. Further, prisoners have overwhelmingly come from working class, poor and marginalised communities whose ‘voices are faint’ (Linebaugh, 2003: 437; see Chapter 4). This meant that ‘much of the published work on correctional facilities reflected the ideas of prison administrators and largely ignored what convicts knew about the day to day realities of confinement’ (Richards et al., 2012: 16). Today, some regimes impose strict guidelines on whether prisoners can possess pen and paper, and computer hardware to record their experiences. In the vast majority of prisons, rules and regulations exist which limit communication with the outside world. Face to face visits are controlled; phone calls can be listened to; hand-written letters are read and can be redacted for security reasons; there is limited or no access to the internet; personal mobile phones are prohibited; contact with journalists is highly regulated, if allowed at all. As prisoners had, and continue to have, disproportionately low levels of literacy compared to the population outside (Behan, 2021), they understandably have left limited information or written accounts of their time inside, in comparison to the available data from official and semi-official sources. Nevertheless, in recent times prisons have become more porous, with prisoners sharing their stories through various media: memoir and autobiography, anthologies, prisoner newspapers, prison radio, creative art exhibitions and blogs transcribed to family/friends to be put online. These sources offer some rich raw autobiographical data and help scholars gain an insight into prison life (A list of memoirs, autobiographies and online resources are listed in the appendices at the end of this chapter). Although prisoner autobiographies are not criminology ‘in the formal sense as they do not adhere to any formal conventions of sociological method’, they are according to Morgan (1999: 337): texts or documents of direct and critical understanding of the discourses and social practices of prison which can and should be analyzed using formal methodology. They represent some of the most extended narratives and analyses of a particular social experience normally hidden from public view.

Other media that relays the prison experience include poetry, art (see Koestler Awards Spotlight), drama and music. Jail Guitar Doors was established in 2007 ‘to provide instruments to those who are using music as a means of achieving the rehabilitation of prisoners’ (https://www.jailguitardoors.org.uk/). Set up by Billy Bragg, it takes its name from the title of a 1978 song by the Clash, ‘Jail Guitar Doors’. Music gives prisoners another medium through which to record their

15.3  Telling Their Own Story

285

lives, hopes and dreams, and encourages them to express themselves in creative ways. Prisoners can share their lives and keep in touch with the outside world with National Prison Radio (https://prison.radio/national-prison-radio/). Inside Time was founded by Eric McGraw in 1990 and published initially in hardcopy as a voice for prisoners. Today, it has an extensive website, with hardcopies sent to prisons throughout the United Kingdom. There is a lively letters page with correspondence from inside, and former prisoners prepare resources and contacts in the ‘Inside Information’ section (https://insidetime.org/). These sources can be important opportunities for prisoners to articulate their penal experiences, but can also act as a valuable resource for penologists undertaking research into prisons and imprisonment.

The Koestler Awards The Koestler Awards for arts in criminal justice were established in 1962. They are named after Arthur Koestler who was imprisoned and sentenced to death by the fascists during the Spanish Civil War. He later wrote about his experience in Dialogue with Death. He served time in France in the Le Vernet Internment Camp for subversion, and when he fled to England, Koestler was held at Pentonville as a suspected illegal immigrant. The awards are open to people confined in the United Kingdom: in prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres, secure children’s homes, immigration removal centres and high or medium security psychiatric hospitals. The awards are open to all abilities in visual art, design, writing and music. Each year thousands of people share their creative work by submitting art for consideration in the Koestler Awards. In recent years, the entrants’ work has been exhibited at the Southbank Centre, London (https://www.koestlerarts.org.uk/). The Koestler Awards allow prisoners to ‘interact with the world outside the prison […] Their artistic interaction with the world reveals a renegotiation of the relationship between proximity, identity and the self that prisoners experience due to their time incarcerated’ (Turner, 2016: 17).

The penal experience expressed in music, memoir, art and drama can be raw, angry and emotional. However, some of the most authentic narratives can come when an individual has been stripped of all the normal associations with their identity, and life outside. Memoir, autobiography and letters are part of ‘criminology from below’ (Sim, 1994) that foregrounds the experience of the imprisoned. These ‘accounts from below […] are either missing or marginalized’ in official

286

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

narratives, however they ‘articulate a very different version of the penal “truth” to the reality depicted in official prison documents’ (Sim, 2009: 3).

15.4 The Prison Researcher With the emergence of prison as a method of punishment, prisoners became subjects of punishment behind walls, away from the public gaze. Yet, when one enters the criminal justice system, a lengthy catalogue of observations and analysis begins. The accused are observed by the media throughout a trial, by the judge as they pass a sentence, prison governors, prison officers, probation officers, psychologists and parole board members. When they enter the criminal justice system, in particular the prison system, prisoners complain about being observed and analysed by a range of ‘experts’ (Crewe, 2009; Duguid, 2000). A Canadian prisoner noted that all these experts wanted ‘insights’. One researcher, having examined files in various prisons was: struck by the repetition of the word ‘insight’ (as in lack thereof) and by its apparent multiple meanings as it is deployed by psychologists, psychiatrists, core management officers, parole officers, counsellors, parole board members and prisoners themselves. It is a slippery notion throughout, with prisoners lacking it, gaining it, losing it, pretending to have it, or not having the vaguest idea what it is. (Duguid, 2000: 48)

Although academic researchers are also involved in observation and analysis, the prison researcher must be careful not to be reduced to a spectator, or a voyeur. They act as an observer, but also as a witness. Researchers are being welcomed into the prisoner’s world, either in person, or in her/his narrative account of life inside. Researching and relating a human experience is a complex, sophisticated and at times, challenging process and researchers must be careful not to become merely another person collecting and offering ‘insights’. Prisoners should not become objects of study (Duguid, 2000). While autobiography and memoir from prisoners can be an important source of data, we must be careful not to essentialise prisoners. Try to use their stories to comprehend their world, and the significance and experience/s of life inside, and appreciate them as the people they are, beyond the prison. While transforming raw data from any research participants into a coherent narrative is a challenging process, Sparks et al. (1996: 356) in their research hoped to ‘act somewhat in the manner of messengers and translators’. Crewe (2009), in his ethnographic study of Wellingborough Prison includes an Appen-

15.4  The Prison Researcher

287

dix dealing with the research process that could act as guide to anybody new to prison studies. He admits that having entered the prison ‘fairly naively’, he learnt that for the prison researcher, the ‘most valuable research tools were sincerity and respect’. These are, perhaps, the most important tools in any research environment. Crewe echoed Sparks et al., that essentially he had a duty to prisoners, ‘to convey their basic humanity’ and represent their experiences as ‘a moral obligation’ (Crewe, 2009: 487). After research in prison has been conducted, there are other challenges. When studying penology, it is important to critically analyse sources. Everything about the prison is political. Each organisation and individual is subjective (whether stated explicitly or not), and comes from an ideological perspective. It is important to keep this in mind when researching the prison. To mediate raw data to the reader involves a process that is fraught with difficulty for every researcher. ‘Truth’ and ‘reality’ are contested; both are open to subjective understandings, especially in a penal context. This is because ‘truth is being constructed within the research process rather than being discovered by the research process’ (Costelloe, 2007: 208). There can be a divergence between the ‘authenticity’ depending on who is telling, interpreting and reporting the story. Prisons are complex and contested spaces. Accounts of prison life and what goes on therein can lead to starkly different descriptions of events from different actors. Official and semi-official sources can contain a wealth of data to be mined for research. However, the amount of data, or easy access to it, should not privilege these sources for information on prison life. All data reflect particular perspectives, philosophies and practices. Joe Sim (2020) contrasts the treatment of accounts from prisoners to state actors in the Woolf Report. He asked: ‘Who’s telling the truth about prisons?’ and notes that prisoners ‘have consistently been vilified and dismissed as incorrigible liars when they have described life inside’. He concluded that: Even the much-lauded, but narrowly focused, and ultimately futile, Woolf inquiry into the disturbance, qualified the prisoners’ accounts of what happened by indicating that their evidence was not given on oath, a point that was not made about those state agents who also gave evidence. And yet, it was the prisoners at Strangeways, and not the state and its media acolytes, who were telling the truth about the prison’s physically withering and psychologically lacerating regime. (Sim, 2020)

Prisoner narrative can provide a counter-discourse to official and semi-official accounts from government ministers, policymakers, prison officials, oversight and monitoring bodies. It can relay the lived experience of people sentenced to spend time in penal institutions. In popular and political narratives, the com-

288

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

plexity of prison life and the penal experience as expressed by prisoners can be neglected in the ‘hierarchy of credibility’ (Becker, 1967: 241). Researchers must be careful not to endorse this hierarchy in their studies. Without endeavouring to include all perspectives in the study of the prison, we risk getting a one-dimensional representation. That will neither help us to understand the complexity of prison life, nor appreciate the challenges of the penal environment. Finally, personal accounts by those serving time can provide a fruitful source of information on the human impact of imprisonment, and enrich an academic understanding of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes, 1958). However, even in using prisoner autobiography, researchers must be careful not to foreground one interpretation of the penal experience. Although prisoner narrative can give an unmediated account of some prisoners’ lives, not all accounts of imprisonment will see their way to publication. As outside, it is not always those with literary competences who get published. Former prisoners with a public status, and easier access to publishers—such as Piper Kerman, Vicky Pryce, Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aiken—are more likely to have their penal experiences published. Questions

• Can a researcher ever be silent in the research process? • Can/Should the researcher take sides in prison research?

15.5 Evaluating Sources To embark on a study of the prison world, we must begin with an obvious certainty: Prisons differ. No two institutions are the same. Individual prisons can be influenced from without by social, political and cultural contexts and shifting penal priorities. Within the prison, daily life can be shaped by the level of security, conditions of confinement, internal organisational dynamics, prison rules, prison staff and the prisoner population. Prisoners differ too. Therefore, the experience of incarceration varies for each person. This can be for a range of individual, structural and social reasons. The experience of confinement can differ depending on, amongst other characteristics, gender, class, ethnic background, race, sexual orientation and educational level. Prisoners are a diverse group of individuals, in terms of biography, ability, attitudes and even in terms of their common bond, their confinement. They are not a homogenous collective. Therefore, we cannot assume that all prisons or penal experiences are the same.

15.5  Evaluating Sources

289

There is an assortment of books that introduce research methods in the social sciences (Bryman & Bell, 2016); criminology (Gadd et al., 2011) and penology (Drake et al., 2015; Rainbow, forthcoming). Reading these will introduce you to different approaches to begin your studies. As criminology is sometimes referred to as a reference discipline, encompassing a variety of subject areas and topics, an eclectic range of methods can be used to undertake research. Many methods used in other subject areas of criminology can be used by penologists. However, as the prison produces unique challenges, scholars have identified some innovative ways of studying life behind bars. Firstly, we begin with ethical considerations.

Ethics As with all research in the social sciences, research must be undertaken ethically. If seeking to undertake research within prisons, the formal ethics process is usually a two-pronged progression. Firstly, the research institution (usually, although not always a university) must give ethical approval. Next is the national prison service (in England and Wales it is His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service [HMPPS]). As the prison population contains many vulnerable people, or people who find themselves in a vulnerable position, researchers have to be mindful to protect the dignity of their participants, without undermining their agency. Healy (2009) examines key ethical issues in criminology, including the difficulties associated with maintaining confidentiality, protecting privacy, obtaining informed consent, managing participant distress and ensuring voluntary participation.

Methods Once we have our research questions focusing on the themes we want to investigate, we must decide on the most appropriate methodology. There are a range of methodologies used in prison research. Quantitative methodologies include surveying prisoners’ (and increasingly prison officers’) attitudes and experiences. Qualitative methodologies include participant observation; in-depth-interviewing and focus groups. Due to issues accessing prisons, desk-based research using, for example, documentary analysis is the most likely approach to be used by undergraduate students. Ethnography is one type of qualitative research that gathers observations, interviews and collects other data to understand the social life of a prison. This

290

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

usually involves field visits (normally in one prison) over a prolonged period of time. Mutual trust is established, with the objective of studying prison culture and the values, beliefs and behaviours of the prison population. Although prison ethnographies have become more difficult to undertake (Wacquant, 2002), some have been conducted in recent years (Crewe, 2009; Darke, 2018; Drake, 2012). Autoethnography is another potential research method. Using this approach, the author draws on their own experience, and this is now being recognised as an important method which helps to further society’s understanding of prison conditions, through personal stories of individual prisoners (Micklethwaite & Earle, 2021). Autoethnography draws on the researcher’s own experiences of imprisonment and foregrounds subjectivity in the research endeavour. First person perspectives are becoming more widely used in research, including narrative criminology which is ‘primarily, […] a clarion call for criminology to take stories seriously in our study of human lives’ (Maruna & Liem, 2021: 126). Increasingly scholars are developing new and innovative methodologies to relay the experience of life behind bars. Michael Hviid Jacobsen’s (2014) edited collection contains a range of methodologies, from using dance to give expression to prisoners’ lived experiences to autoethnography. Herrity et al. (2021) consider the sensory experiences of those who spend time or engage in research in prison and other sites of surveillance and control. The authors explain the challenges of communicating the sensory aspects of their research in conveying the experience of carceral spaces. Indeed, something as basic as sound differs in prison to the outside, and there are even distinctive sounds within different areas of the prison. ‘Sound is a powerful medium for emotion’, argues Herrity (2020: 28), ‘altering the feel of the wing for all within it’. Art (Cheliotis, 2012), photographic sources (O’Donnell, 2021) and visual representations (Brown & Carrabine, 2017) can also be used to explore the prison world.

Convict Criminology Since the 1990s, due to the sheer number incarcerated in the US, a new branch of criminology has emerged—Convict Criminology. It originally emerged amongst people who had served time, but also included people who worked in prison. Subsequently, a branch of Convict Criminology was established in the United Kingdom (Aresti & Darke, 2016). Ross and Richards (2003) outlined how Convict Criminology emerged in the United States as a result of four inter-related movements: theoretical developments in criminology, the failure of prisons to rehabilitate, the authenticity of the insider perspective, and the centrality of ethnography.

15.5  Evaluating Sources

291

Convict criminologists argue that they embrace their past to help inform their research. They reject the concept of objectivity and scorn the idea that those who immerse themselves in prison research can stay out of the fray in the political debates on penal policy. Therefore, they foreground ethnography as a way to understand life inside. ‘Objectivity is an illusion that illustrates the class privilege and social distance of the armchair technicians from the sordid lives of criminals and convicts’, argue Ross and Richards (2003: 350). They continued: ‘In contrast, the prison ethnographer, by entering prison and spending time with convicts and learning to understand their concerns as legitimate, surrenders any pretence to be value-free’. The word ‘convict’ is used because they believe that the words ‘offender’ and ‘inmate’ ‘suggest statistical categories and are used by correctional authorities to dehumanize persons. Instead, we prefer prisoners, convicts and persons convicted of criminal offences’ (Richards & Jones, 2004: 202). As outlined in the introduction, the language used to describe people in prison is contested. With the emergence of a ‘second generation’ of Convict Criminologists, there is some debate about the use of the term ‘convict’ which many Formerly Incarcerated (FI) people find offensive (Tietjen, 2019).

While it is not impossible to gain access to prisons to undertake research, it is rare (if ever) that undergraduate students will be allowed into prisons for this purpose. To gain access, research needs to align with HMPPS strategic priorities (HMPPS, 2022). This can be difficult to navigate, as research projects do not always meet these priorities, and sometimes interrogating the role, purpose and objectives of a prison system, and prison in general, can lead to wider critiques of prisons and imprisonment. HMPPS state that applications below doctoral level ‘need to be supported by an MOJ/HMPPS business lead in order to be considered’. This support needs to ‘come from a senior member of staff, working in MOJ/HMPPS Headquarters who is willing to state that they believe the research is going to be of benefit to MOJ/HMPPS and will have minimal resource demands’ (HMPPS, 2022). While accessing a prison to undertake research may not be feasible, there are however many documentary, official, and secondary sources that are accessible for research. A list of prisoner biographies/memoirs and online resources are in the appendices for undergraduate students and general readers conducting research on prisons and imprisonment.

292

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Secondary Sources For those who have not been confined, there are unique challenges to comprehending the experience of incarceration. However, there are a number of studies based on prison testimony, ethnographic and qualitative analysis that reveal the complexities of prison life. Some of these have stood the test of time and others are more recent. You will have consulted some of them throughout this book. The Society of Captives (1958), a study of a New Jersey Maximum Security Prison in the 1950s should be read by every penologist, at least once. Other examples of rich qualitative studies include The Prison Community, edited by Donald Clemmer (1940); Prisons and the Problem of Order by Sparks et al. (1996); The Prisoner Society by Ben Crewe (2009), Prisons, Punishment and the Pursuit of Security (2012) by Deborah Drake, Prisoners, Solitude and Time (2014) by Ian O’Donnell, Conviviality and Survival: Co-Producing Brazilian Prison Order (2018) by Sacha Darke and Halfway Home: Race, Punishment, and the Afterlife of Mass Incarceration (2021) by Reuben Miller. Throughout the book, we have referred to a range of academic journals that either focus on imprisonment or contain substantive papers on the subject. These include Punishment and Society; Incarceration: An international journal of imprisonment, detention and coercive confinement; Journal of Prisoners on Prisons; The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice; British Journal of Criminology; Crime, History and Societies; European Journal of Criminology; Justice, Power and Resistance; Critical Criminology; and The Prison Journal. Many of these, amongst others, will be available online through your university library. Publications such as the Journal of Prison Education and Re-entry and Prison Service Journal are open access and available free online. Academic journals behind a paywall have certain articles which are open access due to requirements of research funders, and some articles in these journals are available to all researchers in university repositories. Questions

• What are the ethical issues that must be considered when undertaking research with prisoners? • Are these issues any different to any other group of research participants? Data on prison life can come from a range of sources. The majority of sources referenced in this section have websites which are included in Appendix 2 at the end of this chapter. All sources, including those from official bodies, need to be treated critically when undertaking research.

15.5  Evaluating Sources

293

Official and Semi-Official Sources • His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) publishes annual reports and a range of other data. • HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP) provides independent scrutiny of the conditions for, and treatment of prisoners and other detainees. HMIP issues annual reports and individual prison and thematic reports, with recommendations on how to improve conditions. The Chief Inspector also blogs on the website. • The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) carries out independent investigations into complaints made by prisoners and young people in detention (prisons and secure training centres). It issues reports which are available on its website. • Every prison in England and Wales has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB). IMBs comprise members of the public who visit the prison on a regular basis to observe the daily life of the institution and deal with low-level complaints. They issue regular reports that are published on their website. • The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Cruel and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visits places of detention in the 47-member states of the Council of Europe (which includes the United Kingdom) to examine how persons deprived of their liberty are treated. It issues reports on the conditions of detention in individual countries and publishes the national government’s response.

Penal Reform Organisations Other sources which are useful to study life behind bars include charitable and campaigning groups that observe and keep a watching brief on prisons. They regularly highlight deficiencies in prison conditions and lobby policymakers for improvements. • The Howard League for Penal Reform claims to be the world’s oldest penal reform organisation. It regularly publishes research on the penal system and is associated with The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, an international peer-reviewed journal which you will have used in your study of penology. • The Prison Reform Trust produces a regular publication, Bromley Briefings which were used extensively in this book. Published twice a year, the Bromley

294

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Briefings provide up-to-date data and information on prisons in England and Wales. They are an excellent resource for anyone who wishes to study prisons and the penal system in England and Wales. • Women in Prison (WIP) is a national charity that delivers support for women affected by the criminal justice system. Established in 1983 by Chris Tchaikovsky, who had spent time in Holloway Prison in the 1970s, and criminologist Pat Carlen, it is an organisation centred on women’s experiences of punishment, and campaigns for radical change to the penal system. • INQUEST is a charity that provides expertise on state-related deaths, including deaths in police and prison custody, immigration detention and mental health settings. • The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies argues for what they term transformative solutions to the problems society faces, addressing what they believe are the harmful consequences of over-reliance on policing, prosecution and punishment. • Penal Reform International (PRI) publishes international and comparative research. It is a non-governmental international organisation that promotes human rights within the criminal justice systems. Its website has a range of publications on issues about imprisonment across the globe.

Other Sources of Information • Prison Governors Association represents operational and senior operational managers in public and private sector prisons in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. • As the Prison Officers Association represents the interests of its members, it offers the perspective of prison officers on pay, conditions and the experience of working behind bars. • Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC) in Wales, Scotland and England was launched in February 2016. They want to build a grassroots movement inside to abolish what they term prison slavery and develop a network outside to build support for prison organising. • Community Action on Prison Expansion (CAPE) was established in 2014 to oppose the construction of HMP Berwyn in North Wales. It is a network of grassroots groups fighting prison expansion in England, Wales and Scotland. • Some of the most reliable information on prison numbers internationally is published in the World Prison Brief collated by the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR), University of London. It is an excel-

15.6 Conclusion

295

lent resource, freely available online, for prison scholars as it provides easily accessible data and statistics on penal policy and practice. The ICPR also publishes the World Prison Population List which provides details of the number of prisoners and imprisonment rates for over 200 jurisdictions worldwide. Launched in 2000 using data compiled by Director of the World Prison Brief, Roy Walmsley, it is now in its 13th edition, with Helen Fair as co-author. Much of the data on prison numbers throughout the book has come from the World Prison Brief and the World Prison Population List. Questions

• Is one source about imprisonment more reliable than another? • Are there likely to be different perspectives depending on who is relaying the information?

15.6 Conclusion This chapter began with an outline of some of the frustrations expressed in prisoner accounts that the depictions of prison in popular and political narratives are rarely accurate. The perspectives of prisoners on the experience of incarceration add rich data to comprehending the institution. They can act as a counter-narrative to ‘official’ narrative and challenge stereotypes and tropes about prison life. The next section looked at the penologist’s dilemmas in undertaking research and trying to relay the inside society to the outside world. It argues that sources should be chosen carefully and read critically, with an awareness that they are all subjective, even from government and official papers. If we engage in prisons research (whether by entering prisons or utilising primary sources), there is an obligation and responsibility to those whose worlds and lives we study to relay their perspectives of the institution as we seek to bring the inside to the world outside. The final section gave a step-by-step guide to a range of sources for researching prisons and imprisonment. Before the references/further reading section in this chapter, there are two appendices with a list of prisoner biographies and online sources for further research. Chapter Summary

• There are unique challenges in undertaking research on prisons and imprisonment. • Prisoner narratives are an essential source to gain an insight into the pains of imprisonment and prison life more generally.

296

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

• Despite limited opportunities to undertake research in prison, a range of sources is available to begin your study. • Choose your sources carefully and read them critically, being aware that they are all subjective, and many ideologically inspired. Activity

• Consider the strengths and weaknesses of different sources and methodologies for undertaking research into prisons and imprisonment.

Appendix 1: Prisoner Autobiographies There are many autobiographies and memoirs by prisoners and former prisoners. Several are available in second-hand bookshops. Consider reading at least one as a companion to this book. Most are not just about prison but are rich in detail about lives prior to incarceration. Some are classics of literature; others express the raw, unmediated experience of imprisonment. The following list is not exhaustive, but will introduce you to some autobiographical works on prison life. Abbott, J. H. (1981). In the belly of the beast: Letters from prison. Random House. Aitken, J. (2006). Porridge and passion. Bloomsbury Academic. Archer, J. (2004, 2005 and 2006). Prison diaries: Three volumes. St. Martin’s Press. Armstrong, P. (2017). Life after life. Gill books. Atwood, S. (2009). Hard time: A Brit in America’s Jail. Mainstream Publishing. Behan, B. (1961). Borstal boy. Corgi Books. Betts, R. D. (2009). A question of freedom: A memoir of learning, survival, and coming of age in prison. Penguin. Boyle, J. (1984). The pain of confinement: Prison diaries. Pan Books. Callan, K. (1998). Kevin Callan’s story. Time Warner. Campbell, B., McKeown, L., & O’Hagan, F. (Eds.). (1994). Nor meekly serve my time: The H-Block struggle 1976–1981. Beyond the Pale Publications. Cannings, A. (2006). Against all odds. Time Warner Books. Conlon, G. (1991). Proved innocent. Penguin Books. Davis, A. (1988). An autobiography. International Publishers. Hassine, V. (2011). Life without Parole: Living and dying in Prison Today. Oxford University Press.

Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

297

Healy, J. (2008). The Grass Arena. Penguin Books. Hill, P. (1995). Forever lost, forever gone. Bloomsbury. Irwin, M. (2017). My life began at forty. L.R. Price Publications. James, E. (2003). A life inside: A prisoner’s notebook. Guardian Books. James, E. (2016). Redemption: A memoir of darkness and hope. Bloomsbury. Kerman, P. (2010). Orange is the new black: My time in a women’s prison. Random House. Kropotkin, P. (1872 [1991]). In Russian and French prisons. Black Rose Books. Leech, M. (1993). A product of the system: My life in and out of prison. Victor Gollancz. Lerner, J. (2010). You ain’t got nothing coming: Notes from a prison fish. Doubleday. Lord, A. (2015). Life in Strangeways: From riots to redemption—My thirty two years behind bars. John Blake Publishing. Maguire, P. (2008). My father’s watch: The story of a child prisoner in 70s Britain. Fourth Estate. McVicar, J. (1974 [2002]). McVicar by himself. Artnick. Pryce, V. (2013). Prisonomics: Behind bars in Britain’s failing prisons. Biteback. Smith, N. (2005). A few kind words and a loaded gun: The autobiography of a career criminal. Penguin. Wilde, O. (1898 [1999]). The ballad of reading gaol. In O. Wilde (Ed.), The soul of man and prison writings. Oxford University Press. Wyner, R. (2004). From the inside: Dispatches from a Women’s Prison. Arum Press.

Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment The following is a list of online resources for undertaking further research. It is not exhaustive, so you will likely come across others in your studies. However, as with hardcopy sources, read, study and use them critically. These web addresses were live at the time of publication (2022). They are listed alphabetically in each section. The inclusion of these resources (including websites) does not verify their accuracy, nor is it an endorsement of the content available on them.

298

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Official Sources His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prisons-in-england-and-wales Oversight and Monitoring Bodies European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment http://www.cpt.coe.int His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-hmi-prisons/ Independent Monitoring Boards https://www.imb.org.uk/ National Preventative Mechanism https://www.nationalpreventivemechanism.org.uk/ Prison and Probation Ombudsman https://www.ppo.gov.uk/ Penal Reform and Campaigning Organisations Amnesty International https://www.amnesty.org/en/ Centre for Crime and Justice Studies http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/ Community Action on Prison Expansion https://cape-campaign.org/ Critical Resistance (USA) http://criticalresistance.org/ Death Penalty Information Center (USA) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home Howard League for Penal Reform https://howardleague.org Inquest https://www.inquest.org.uk/

Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) http://www.actionicopa.org/ National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders http://www.nacro.org.uk/ Penal Reform International https://www.penalreform.org/ Positive Prison? Positive Futures (Scotland) http://www.positiveprison.org/ Prison Legal News (USA) https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/ Prison Reform Trust http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ Sentencing Project (USA) http://www.sentencingproject.org Women in Prison http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/ Representative Bodies Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee https://iwoc.iww.org.uk/ Prison Governors Association https://modernising-justice.co.uk/sponsor/prison-governors-association/ Prison Officer Association (UK) https://www.poauk.org.uk/ Prisoner Voice/s British Convict Criminology https://britishconvictcriminology.co.uk/ Convict Criminology https://www.concrim.org/ Ewrin James Prison Diary http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/erwinjames http://erwinjames.co.uk/

299

300

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Inside Time https://insidetime.org/ Jail Guitar Doors https://www.jailguitardoors.org.uk/ Journal of Prisoners on Prisons http://www.jpp.org/ Koestler Arts https://www.koestlerarts.org.uk/ National Prison Radio https://prison.radio/national-prison-radio/ Pen https://pen.org/publications/prison-writing-awards-anthology/ Unlock https://unlock.org.uk/ User Voice https://www.uservoice.org/ Write to Freedom https://www.writetofreedom.org.uk/ Penal History Clink Prison Museum https://www.clink.co.uk/ Digital Panopticon https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/ Eastern State Penitentiary https://www.easternstate.org/ Kilmainham Gaol Museum https://kilmainhamgaolmuseum.ie/ London Metropolitan Archives (with records on prisons) https://search.lma.gov.uk/

Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

301

National Justice Museum https://www.nationaljusticemuseum.org.uk/ Penal Press www.penalpress.com Prison History https://www.prisonhistory.org/ Prison Memory Archive https://www.prisonsmemoryarchive.com/ Other Sources Abolitionist Futures Ava DuVernay (2016) 13th—Netflix Bent Bars Project https://www.bentbarsproject.org/ Carceral Geography Working Group (CGWG) https://carceralgeography.com/about-3/ Civic Dignity https://civicdignity.com/ Clinks https://www.clinks.org/ Eugene Jarecki (2012) The House I Live in European Prison Education Association https://www.epea.org/ European Society of Criminology Working Group’s Prison Life and the Effects of Imprisonment https://effectsofprisonlife.wordpress.com/ Inside Stories (film) https://www.prisonsmemoryarchive.com/feature_films/inside-stories/ Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research World Prison Brief http://www.prisonstudies.org

302

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Marshall Project https://www.themarshallproject.org/about National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (USA) https://nicic.gov/ Prisons: the Rule of Law, Accountability and Rights (PRILA) https://www.tcd.ie/law/research/PRILA/ Solitary Watch https://solitarywatch.org/ University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology (Comparative Penology) https://www.compen.crim.cam.ac.uk/Blog/blog-pages-full-versions World Prison Brief https://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data Podcasts/Webinars After Strangeways webinar video https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/tags/after-strangeways-webinar-video Ashley T. Rubin, The Deviant Prison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlS7qMSJc_c Dominque Moran, ‘Can Green Space improve the well-being of people who work in prisons?’ Locked up Living Podcast. https://linktr.ee/LockedUpLivingPodcast Ear hustle https://www.earhustlesq.com/ Lockdown: Prisons: Abolition or Reform? https://soundcloud.com/novaramedia/the-lockdown-prisons-abolition-or-reform Secret Life of Prison—Prison Radio Association and Prison Reform Trust https://prison.radio/the-secret-life-of-prisons/ Strangeways Riot 1990 (1) https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/2020-09-10/25-days-april-part-1strangeways-podcast-out-now

References/Further Reading

303

Strangeways Riot 1990 (2) https://secretlifeofprisons.libsyn.com/25-days-in-april-part-2 100 Years of the Howard Journal: Lessons for contemporary penal policy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhtYlX7Krqw

References/Further Reading Aresti, A., & Darke, S. (2016). Practicing convict criminology: Lessons learned from British academic activism. Critical Criminology, 24, 533–547. Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–249. Behan, C. (2021). Education in prison: A literature review. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Brown, M., & Carrabine, E. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge international handbook of visual criminology. Routledge. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. Carnochan, W. (1997). The literature of confinement. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison (pp. 427–455). Oxford University Press. Cheliotis, L. (Ed.). (2012). The arts of imprisonment: Control, resistance and empowerment. Ashgate. Costelloe, A. (2007). Researching correctional education: Why we must advance from “research on”, to “research on and for”, and ultimately to “research on, for and with”. Journal of Correctional Education, 58(2), 205–212. Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English Prison. Oxford University Press. Darke, S. (2018). Conviviality and survival: Co-producing Brazilian prison order. Palgrave Macmillan. Drake, D. (2012). Prisons, punishment and the pursuit of security. Palgrave Macmillan. Drake, D., Earle, R., & Sloan, J. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of prison ethnography. Palgrave. Duguid, S. (2000). Can prisons work? The prisoner as object and subject in modern corrections. University of Toronto Press. Fair, H., & Walmsley, R. (2021). World prison population list (13th ed.). Available at: www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2022. Gadd, D., Karstedt, S., & Messner, S. (2011). The Sage handbook of criminological research methods. Sage. Healy, D. (2009). Ethics and criminological research: Charting a way forward. Irish Probation Journal, 6, 171–181. Herrity, K., Schmidt, B., & Warr, J. (Eds.). (2021). Sensory penalties: Exploring the senses in spaces of punishment and social control. Emerald. Herrity, K. (2020). “Some people can’t hear, so they have to feel…”: Exploring sensory experience and collapsing distance in prisons research. Howard League ECAN Bulletin, 43, 26–32.

304

15  Prison Research: Methods, Approaches …

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. (2022). Research at HMPPS. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/her-majestys-prison-and-probation-service/about/research. Accessed 7 Mar 2022. Hviid Jacobsen, M. (Ed.). (2014). The poetics of crime: Understanding and researching crime and deviance through creative sources. Ashgate Publishing. James, E. (2003). A life inside: A Prisoner’s notebook. Guardian Books. James, E. (2005). The home stretch: From prison to parole. Guardian Books. Linebaugh, P. (2003). The London hanged: Crime and civil society in the eighteenth century. Verso. Lord, A. (2015). Life in Strangeways: From riots to redemption—My thirty two years behind bars. John Blake Publishing. Maruna, S., & Liem, M. (2021). Where is this story going? A critical analysis of the emerging field of narrative criminology. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 125–146. Micklethwaite, D., & Earle, R. (2021). A voice within: An autoethnographic account of moving from closed to open prison conditions by a life-sentenced prisoner. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(4), 529–545. Miller, R. (2021). Halfway home: Race, punishment, and the afterlife of mass incarceration. Little, Brown. Morgan, S. (1999). Prison lives: Critical issues in reading prisoner biography. The Howard Journal, 38(3), 328–340. Nellis, M. (2002). Prose and cons: Offender auto/biographies, penal reform and probation training. The Howard Journal, 41(5), 434–468. O’Donnell, I. (2021). Texas triptych. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 17(2), 301–302. Rainbow, J. (forthcoming). Researching prisons. Routledge. Richards, S., & Jones, R. (2004). Beating the perpetual incarceral machine: Overcoming structural impediment to re-entry. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to re-integration. Willan Publishing. Richards, S., Ross, J. I., Newbold, G., Lenza, M., Jones, R., Murphy, D., & Grigsby, R. (2012). Convict criminology, prisoner reentry, and public policy recommendations. Journal of Prisoners on Prison, 21(1–2), 16–34. Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (Eds.). (2003). Convict criminology. Wadsworth/Thompson. Sim J. (1994). The abolitionist approach: A British perspective. In A. Duff, S. Marshall, R. E. Dobash, R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Penal theory and practice. Manchester University Press. Sim, J. (2009). Punishment and prisons. Sage. Sim, J. (2020). We are having no more: We are not animals, we are human beings. Available at: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/we-are-having-no-more-we-arenot-animals-we-are-human-beings. Accessed 8 Dec 2021. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford University Press. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press. Tietjen, G. (2019). Convict criminology: Learning from the past, confronting the present, expanding for the future. Critical Criminology, 27(1), 101–114. Turner, J. (2016). The prison boundary: Between society and carceral space. Palgrave Macmillan. Wacquant, L. (2002). The curious eclipse of prison ethnography in the age of mass incarceration. Ethnography, 3(4), 371–397.

Glossary

Age of Enlightenment:  This was a philosophical and intellectual movement that dominated Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is sometimes shortened to the Enlightenment. Some of the philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) argued for a more humane form of punishment. Argot Roles:  Sykes (1958) used this term to describe the various patterns of behaviour and attitudes displayed by prisoners in the ‘society of captives’, each with its own slang label. Determinate sentence: This is when a court sets a fixed prison sentence. The person will not necessarily spend the whole period of the sentence in prison and will likely serve some time on licence in the community. Felony:  It is generally used in the US context to describe more serious offences, compared to less serious offences which are called ‘misdemeanours’. Indeterminate custodial sentence: This sentence does not have a fixed length of time. A prisoner will have to spend a minimum amount of time in prison before they are considered for release by the parole board. Jailhouse Lawyers:  This is a term used to describe prisoners who use their time during their sentence to challenge prison authorities and the state on various aspects of prison law and human rights. They are typically selftaught, having familiarised themselves with prison law. It is usually associated with US prisons. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2

305

306

Glossary

Just deserts:  This is an approach to punishment that argues that the sanctions imposed on the law-breaker should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Key Performance Indicators:  These are a set of measurements that can be used to gauge a prison’s overall performance. Less eligibility:  This is a penal doctrine which argues that the conditions in prison must not be better than the living conditions of the poorest in society. Mandatory minimum sentences:  These are sentences designed to eliminate judicial discretion by imposing a predetermined minimum sentence for a particular crime. Neo-liberal:   This is generally used to refer to economic restructuring and deregulation in markets. In the penal sphere it has led to privatisation of prisons and probation services and other criminal justice institutions. Prison Industrial Complex:  This term is usually associated with the United States (but is now being used by scholars and prison activists elsewhere). It is used to describe the relationship between the government and private industry. It has led to increased rates of imprisonment and prison building in urban and rural areas to provide employment, replacing traditional industrial jobs. Private Finance Initiatives: These are used to finance public sector projects, such as prisons with private sector finance. They allow for capital spending on buildings, etc. without upfront government investment. Proportionality:  This is similar to ‘just deserts’. Proponents argue that the level of the punishment should be in proportion to the severity of the crime. Recall:  If a prisoner is released on licence, they must abide by a set of conditions. They can be brought back (recalled) to prison if they break any of these conditions. Remand:  This is when a person is detained in prison awaiting trial or sentence. Different prison rules apply to remand prisoners. Restorative justice: This is a process when a meeting is organised in response to a crime between the victim and perpetrator. It is part of a process for the person who has committed the crime to understand the impact it has had on the victim and how amends can be made.

Glossary

307

Secure Housing Units (SHU):  These are housing units in US prisons where prisoners are separated from the rest of the prison population. They can be housed alone or with other prisoners. Prisoners can be locked in a windowless cell for up to 23 hours each day, with little or no interaction with prisoners or guards. Access to mail and phone calls are severely restricted. The SHU is usually reserved for those deemed to be powerful gang members and people who have committed violent attacks while in prison. Supermax Prison: The full title is super-maximum-security prison and it is sometimes referred to as administrative maximum (ADX) prison. These prisons usually house people who have committed violence against other prisoners and staff, the highest security prisoners, and those who have been convicted of crimes against the state. There is limited contact between prisoners and officers and between prisoners and other prisoners. Prisoners can spend up to 23 hours in their cell, with restricted contacts and limited visits. Structural inequality:  This refers to a social system where some groups are given an unequal status compared to others. Government policies, laws and social practices contribute to thwart equal access in social and economic domains. Tariff:  This is the length of time set by the judge at sentencing before a prisoner can be considered for release. Therapeutic Communities:  These are prisons or wings designed for longterm prisoners to address the behaviour that led to their imprisonment. There are regular therapy sessions and individuals are accountable to other members of their group, as well as prison authorities. ‘Three strikes laws’: These were introduced in a number of jurisdictions in the United States in the 1990s.They generally mandate a life sentence on conviction for a third serious or violent felony. They were introduced in California after a referendum in 1994 and they have led to significantly harsher punishment and longer sentences for more people. Transformative Justice:  This approach seeks to respond to those who have committed a crime and harmed others without recourse to the traditional criminal justice system. It goes further than restorative justice, as it seeks to change wider social structures in society.

308

Glossary

Whole life sentence:  This is a life sentence, with a whole life term set by the judge. It is used as a sentence in England and Wales. The person is highly unlikely to ever be considered for release. A similar sentence in the US is Life Without Parole (LWOP).

Index

A Abbott, L., 100 Abolitionism, 262, 263, 266, 268, 269, 272, 273 Aboriginal peoples, 57 Abramsky, S., 169 Academic journals (for prisons and imprisonment), 292 Accountability, 149, 151, 186, 249, 261, 271 Adaptation to imprisonment, 75, 145 African American, 61, 64, 65, 244 African National Congress, 8 Agency, 115, 116, 118, 119, 130, 137, 221, 274, 289 Aizpurua, E., 166 Alatorre, L.M., 56 Alexander, M., 149, 243 Allison, E., 120, 122, 139, 146 Alternatives to imprisonment, 258, 270, 272 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 61 American Correctional Association (ACA), 21 American War of Independence, 15 Amnesty International, 217, 235, 242 Anafi, M., 106 Annison, H., 40 Appleton, C., 53 Archer, J., 167, 288

Architecture, 119, 141, 185, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222, 226, 227, 245, 260 Architecture (UN guidance), 216 Aresti, A., 290 Arnold, H., 195, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, 207 Asia, 234 Astbury-Ward, E., 106 Asylums, 84 Attica Liberation Faction, 120, 121 Attica Prison Uprising (1971), 121 ‘Auburn System’, 19 Audley, J., 162 August and another v. Electoral Commission and Others (1999), 176 Australia, 16, 17, 57, 241 Austria, 236 Ayton, P., 78, 86, 88

B Bail, 238, 245 Baldursson, E.S., 43 Baldwin, L., 100 Ballad of Reading Gaol, 44, 215 Bangkok Rules (United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders), 102, 160, 182 Barber, B., 121

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2

309

310 Barlinnie Prison, 218 Barlinnie Special Unit, 261 Barry, C., 206 Batch living, 185 BBC, 149 Beccaria, C., 16 Becker, H., 6, 288 Behan, C., 64, 116, 118, 159, 163, 167 Belarus, 242 Belgium, 162, 163 Bell, E., 289 Belmarsh, HMP, 39, 149 Ben-Moshe, L., 267 Benn, T., 128 Bennett, J., 55, 144–148, 261 Bennett, P., 198 Bent Bars Project, 301 Bentham, J., 22, 24, 35, 37, 214, 215 Bercow, J., 128 Beresford, D, 129 Berwyn Prison, 162, 225 Beyens, K., 164 Birmingham (HMP), 123 Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME), 57–59, 61, 63, 67, 196, 238, 249, 264, 273 Black prisoners, 249 Blair, T., 248 Bloody code, 15 Blunkett, D., 40 ‘Book ban’, 166 Booth, N., 55, 62 Borstal, 6, 25 Bosworth, M., 25, 120, 179 Bottoms, A.E., 138, 268 Bowker, L.H, 105 Bowling, B., 59 Bradford, B., 188 Bradford-Clarke, 159 Braithewaite, J., 41, 270 Branding, 16 Brangan, L., 239, 240, 247 Brazil, 83, 162, 234 Broadhurst, K., 62 Brown, A., 265 Brown, M., 271

Index Brown v. Plata [2011], 168 Bruhn, A., 196 Bryman, A., 289 Bucerius, S., 84 Bulman, M., 137 Burdett, F., 196 Burke, N., 248 Burney, E., 38

C Cain, C., 101 California, 36, 124, 168 Cambridge, 302 Cameron, D., 171, 182, 223 Campaigning, 101, 117, 119, 124, 136, 293 Canada, 22, 57, 98 Canning, V., 238 Capitalism, 13, 16, 61, 63 Capital punishment, 15, 17, 242, 268 Capital punishment Amendment Act 1868, 17 Carceral, 52, 87 Carceral citizenship, 159 Carceral clawback, 266 Carceral Geography Working Group (CGWG), 301 Carey, T., 24, 184 Carlen, P., 44, 83, 94, 95, 97–99, 103, 268, 269 Carlton, B., 260, 267 Carr, J.L., 56 Carrabine, E., 120, 135, 179, 290 Category of prisons (A to D), 162 Cattermole, C., 45 Cavadino, M., 33, 35, 55, 123, 190, 224, 238–241, 247, 249, 250 Cecil, D.K., 143, 149 Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 294 Cheliotis, L.K., 137, 138, 147, 150 Chesney-Lind, M., 64 Chief Inspector of Prisons, 186, 187, 223 China, 235 Chivalry (in sentencing), 94 Christianity (influence on punishment), 18 Christie, N., 32, 41, 46, 264, 270

Index Chui, W.H., 83 Chung, J., 170 Citizenship, 60, 118, 119, 159 Civic Dignity, 301 Civil Death, 158, 159 Clare, E., 265 Clarke, B., 59 Clarke, J., 59 Clarkson, C., 120 Clash, The, 284 Class, social, 55, 243 Clear, T., 66 Clements, A.J., 203, 204, 206 Clemmer, D., 75, 77, 78, 80, 178, 292 Clinton, B., 243 Cliquennois, G., 169 Close Supervision Centres (CSCs), 27, 28, 126, 217 Coates, S., 55 Codd, H., 102, 225, 268, 269 Coercive confinement, 25 Cognitive Behaviour Programmes, 42, 200 Cohen S., 117–120, 178 Collateral consequences, 64, 66, 239, 264 Collier, J., 101 Colonialism, 57 Comfort, M., 64 Community Action on Prison Expansion (CAPE), 294 Community service, 238 Comparative Penology, 302 Complaints Adjudicator, 186, 188 Condry, R., 64, 138 Conformity, 95, 177 Confronting (as prisoner resistance), 117 Conjugal visits in prison, 162 Consequentialism, 34 Conservative Party, 248 Convict Criminology, 290, 299 Corbyn, J., 128 Corporal punishment, 15, 16, 18, 24, 32, 181 Corston, J., 103 Corston report, 103, 265 Costelloe, A., 287 Council of Europe, 161, 168, 187, 217, 293

311 Covid-19, 84 Cox, A., 6, 7 Cox, C, 184 Cox, D., 17, 24 CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment), 185, 293 Cramer, L., 163 Crawley, E., 196, 200, 204, 206, 207 Cressey, D., 75, 86, 87, 178 Crewe, B., 3, 41, 78, 81, 82, 84–86, 88, 89, 178, 179, 190, 198, 201, 220, 286, 287, 290, 292 Crilly, J., 147 Criminal disenfranchisement, 65 Criminal Justice Act (1948), 16, 17 Criminal Justice Act (1967), 16 Criminal record, 64, 122, 159, 170 Critcher, C., 59 Critical Resistance (USA), 298 Cross, R, 24 Crow, I., 43

D Daems, T., 136, 247 Daily Mail, 222 Darke, S., 83, 290, 292 Darlington, R., 122 Davidson, H, 118 Davis, A., 59, 61, 63, 67, 118, 149, 262, 264, 267, 269 Davison, Emily, 128 Death penalty, 16, 161, 238 Death Penalty Information Center (USA), 298 Death row resisters, 117 de Beaumont, G, 20 Decarceration, 103, 235 d/Deaf prisoners, 165 Delaney, R., 245 Demleitner, N., 245 Denmark, 247 Dennison, S., 66 de Noronha, L., 60 Deprivation (model), 78–80, 84, 86, 89, 90

312

Index

Design, Construct, Finance, Manage (DCMF), 249 Design (prisons), 4, 22, 189, 190, 216, 217, 220–222, 224 Desistance, 6 Deterrence, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 27, 35–38, 46, 213, 215 de Tocqueville, A., 20 Devereaux, S., 22 Dhami, M.K., 78, 84, 86, 88 Dickens, C., 20 Digital Panopticon, 16, 22 Dignan, J., 55, 239–241, 247 DiIulio, J.J., 178 Discharge (absolute and conditional), 128 Discipline, 15, 16, 19–21, 95, 100–102, 116, 118, 120, 181, 183, 184, 191, 201, 215, 289 Discretion, 116, 165, 199, 202 Disenfranchisement, 65, 170 Dockley, A., 32 Documentary (and representation of the prison), 148 Dolan, K., 56 Domestic Abuse and Women’s imprisonment, 62 Donson, F., 100 Drake, D., 164 Drama (and representation of the prison), 135, 140, 144–146, 151 Drug use, 41, 44, 47, 52, 56, 58, 61–63, 97, 138, 183, 222, 224, 243 Dubberley, S., 106, 107 Duff, A., 32 Duguid, S., 283, 286 Dunbar, I., 40 Durnescu, I., 270 Durose, A., 43 Dynamic security, 200, 245

Eaton, G., 53 Edgar, K., 120, 217 Education, 23, 44, 65, 85, 118, 122, 125, 161, 163, 168, 189, 197, 246 Education in prison, 118 Emily Davison Memorial Project, 128 Emsley, C., 14, 16, 27 Enlightenment, 17, 22 Enlightenment (Age of), 16, 18 Epstein, R., 52 Equality Act 2010, 165 Equality and Human Rights Commission, 259 Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), 168 Escape (from prison), 40, 142 Ethics, 282, 289 Ethiopia, 83 Ethnic minority prisoners, 67 Ethnography, 289, 291 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT), 187 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane Treatment and Punishment, 187 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 161, 168, 171, 218 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 119, 171, 218 European Prison Education Association, 301 European Prison Rules (EPR), 161, 181–183, 217, 218 European Society of Criminology Working Group’s Prison Life and the Effects of Imprisonment, 301 Ewald A., 158, 159, 169 Exceptionalism, 40, 141 Extended determinate sentences, 53

E Ear hustle, 302 Earle, R., 118, 290 Eastern State Penitentiary, 19, 21, 24, 214 Easton, S., 159, 165, 169

F Fair, H., 100 Families (and imprisonment), 52, 63, 65, 67, 97 Farmer, L., 64, 99, 103

Index Farrall, S., 248 Farrington, D.P., 65 Federal Bureau of Prisons, 107 Feely, M., 41 Felon Disenfranchisement, 6 Film (and representation of the prison), 135 Films (prison), 140–147 Finland, 235 Fishman, N., 245 Fitzgerald, M, 121, 122 Fitzpatrick, C., 62 Fletcher, D.R., 56 Flogging, 15, 19 Ford, M., 23 Foreign national prisoners (FNPs), 59, 83, 161, 246, 249 Foucault, M., 15, 184, 215, 265 France, 57, 241, 285 Frazer, L., 99 Fry, E., 23

G G4S, 196, 208, 250 Gadd, D., 289 Gaols Act 1823, 23 Gariglio, L., 199 Garland, D, 6, 32, 66, 239, 242, 245–247 Garrihy, J., 206, 207 Garside, R., 122 Gatekeeping, 198 Gayle, D., 238 Gehring, T., 21 Gender, 2, 3, 93–95, 104, 106, 107 Gender identity, 106–108, 238 Gender Recognition Act 2004, 107 Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), 107 Gentleman, A., 222 Germany, 100, 241, 247 Gibson, M., 25 Gilbert, M.J., 202 Gillespie, T., 137 Gilmore, R. (2009), 269 Gilna, D. (2016), 167 Gladstone Committee Report (1895), 24 Glancey, J., 215

313 Gleeds, 221, 222 Global North, 7 Goff, M., 163 Goffman, E., 84–86, 89, 90, 180, 184, 185, 219, 220 Goldson, B., 32 Goldstone J., 120 Gorden, C., 106, 107 Gosling, H., 271 Gouliquer, L., 196 Gove, M, 224 Graunbøl, H.M., 43 Gray, E., 146 Grayling, C., 167 Greece, 158 Greenpeace, 117 Green prisons, 221 Grendon Underwood Prison, 261 Grierson, J., 249 Grigsby, R., 284 Grimshaw, R., 65 Group 4, 249 Grover, C., 62 The Guardian, 139, 222, 282 Guest, C., 101, 102 Gustafson, K., 56

H Haggerty, K.D., 84, 199 Halden, Prison, 222 Hall, S., 59 Hallinan, J., 214, 224, 225 Hancock, P., 215, 221, 260 Harris, M., 39, 40 Hart, J., 203, 204, 206 Hartnett, S, 117 Haslam, A, 120, 124 Hay, C., 248 Hay, W., 202 Hayes, D., 34 Healy, D., 289 Heiss, J., 168 Henley, A, 159 Henriques, U.R.Q., 18–21 Her Majesty’s inspectorate of Prisons, 166

314 Herman, J.L., 106 Herring, C., 56 Herrity, K., 290 Hesketh, S., 137 Higgins, E.D., 138 High-security prisoners, 179 Hilla Alrai v. Minister of the Interior [1996], 176 Hinds, O., 168 Hirst v. United Kingdom, (No.2) [2005], 171, 176 His Majesty’s inspectorate of Prisons, 187 Hitchcock, T., 14, 16, 27 Holloway Prison, 294 Holmes, S., 41 Home Office, 23, 122 Hood, R, 127 Hope, D., 239, 240, 242, 247, 248 House of Commons, 40, 128 House of Representatives (Hearings before the Select Committee on Crime), 121 Howard, J., 21, 22, 258 Howard, M., 38, 248 Howard League for Penal Reform, 103, 166, 250, 258, 266, 293 Hudson, B., 269 Hughes, C., 106, 107 Huling, T., 268 Hulk Act (1776), 15 Hulley, S., 84 Human rights, 14, 39, 125, 145, 158–160, 163, 166, 167, 169, 172, 247, 258, 259, 294 Human rights (and imprisonment), 159 Human Rights Act (1998), 119, 164, 169, 171 Hunger strike, 115–117, 124, 127, 129, 130 Hunt, L., 160 Hutchinson, J., 98 Hviid Jacobsen, M., 290 Hypermasculinity, 105, 108

I Iceland, 234

Index ICPR (Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research) (2022), 8, 234, 235, 244–247, 249, 295 Ievins, A., 89 Ignatieff, M., 18 Importation (model), 90 Imported model, 78, 89 Imprisonment for Council Tax Debt, 52 Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), 39 Incapacitation, 27, 35, 39–42, 46, 97, 213, 215, 268 Incarcerated Workers Organising Committee (IWOC), 125, 294 Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP), 123, 166, 178, 190, 191, 199 Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB), 166, 185, 187 Indigenous model, 78 Inequality, 54, 58, 63, 65, 66, 240, 270 INQUEST, 166, 294 Inside Time, 189, 282, 285 Inspection (prison), 76, 166, 214 International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA), 299 International Imprisonment, 236 Invisible punishments, 238, 239, 251 Ipsos MORI, 135 IRA (Provisional), 129 Ireland, 24, 54, 95, 170 Irwin, J., 75, 86, 87 Itzkowitz, H., 158

J Jablonska, A., 99 Jackson, G., 118, 125 Jackson, J., 188 Jacobs, J., 88, 119, 178 Jail Guitar Doors, 284, 300 Jailhouse lawyers, 119, 125, 167 Jailhouse Lawyers Speak (JLS), 125 Jails (US), 168 James, E., 26, 282 James, S.E., 107 Jameson, N., 120, 122

Index Jamieson, J., 62 Jamieson, R., 126 Japan, 241 Jardine, C., 138 Jefferson, T., 59 Jenkins M., 123 Jenness, V., 107, 108 Jewkes, Y., 25, 52, 98, 104, 105, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 144, 150, 215, 221, 226, 260 Johnston, H., 25 Jones, M., 95 Jones, O., 146, 147 Jones, P., 225 Jones, R., 284 Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 292, 300 Joyce, S., 143 Judges, 169 Jurisic, P., 218, 225 Jurisprudence (on prisons), 169, 235 ‘Just deserts’, 33, 34, 306 Justice reinvestment, 272 Justice Secretaries (England and Wales), 223, 224, 248 Justifying punishment, 32

K Kaiser, J., 64 Kalashnikov v. Russia (2002), 218 Kang Brown, J., 168 Kant, I., 33 Karstedt, S., 289 Katz, E., 137 Katz, L.F., 34, 38 Kehrwald, K., 140 Keisling, M., 107 Kelly, L., 165 Kendall, K., 99 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 205, 306 Khan, Z., 190 Kielstrup, B., 43 Kilmainham Gaol, 300 Kinman, G., 203, 204, 206 Kirchheimer, O., 37

315 Kirk, D.S., 64, 66 Kirkham, R., 185, 187, 188 Knapp, M., 65 Knight, V., 147 Knowles, J., 15, 17 Koestler, A., 285 Koestler Arts, 300 Kotova, A., 83

L Labelling, 4, 7, 25, 26, 82, 85, 129, 166 Labour government, 203, 248 Labour Party (incl. New Labour), 128, 248 Lacey, N., 239, 240, 248 Lagerwey, J., 143 Lamble, S., 36 Laming, H., 62 Lammy, D., 57, 58, 196, 249 Langdon, A., 40 Language (about prisons and prisoners), 136 La Pastina, A., 143 Lappi-Seppälä, T., 235, 243 Laursen, J., 246 ‘Law and order’ ideology, 241 Lee Correctional Institution, 125 Legal activism, 162 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), 167 Legitimacy, 32, 34, 43, 45, 46, 60, 102, 122, 126, 147, 179, 181, 185, 187, 188, 267, 273 Leighton, P., 55, 56 Lenza, M., 284 Less eligibility, 37, 79, 138, 306 Levitt, S.D., 34, 38 LGBT+ prisoners, 161 Liberal democrats, 248 Library of Congress, 100 Lidington, D., 172 Liebling, A., 180, 197–207 Liem, M., 290 Life sentences, 42, 53 Light, M., 96

316 Lightowlers, C., 37 Linebaugh, P., 284 Loader, I., 32 Local prisons, 23, 120, 122, 188, 237 Location (of prison), 225, 227 Loewenstein, G., 78, 86, 88 London riots, 36 Long-term imprisonment, 179 Lord, A., 120, 283 Loucks, N., 167, 182 Lu, O., 168 Lyddon, D., 122

M Macpherson Inquiry, 60 Magdalene Laundries, 95 Magistrates, 58 Maguire, D., 64, 104–106 Mair, G., 33, 35, 123, 190, 224, 238, 249, 250 Malcolm, X., 118 Managerialism, 81, 205, 259 Mandatory sentences, 61, 242, 306 Mandela, N., 8, 126, 160, 183 Mandela Rules, 4, 7, 160, 161, 180–182, 216–218 Mann, R., 43, 261 Mansfield, M., 101 Manza, J., 65, 169, 170 Marland, H., 24, 184 Martinson, R., 43 Maruna, S., 6, 53, 239, 290 Masculinities, 93, 104–106, 109 Mason, P., 138–140 Mathiesen, T., 35, 36, 41, 44, 76, 119, 148, 178, 262, 267, 272 Matravers, M., 32 Mauer, M., 56, 64, 243 May, T., 128 McCann, J., 117 McCleary, R., 179, 184 McConnachie, K., 126 McConville, S., 122, 126 McEvoy, K., 126, 129 McGarry, P., 245 McGovern, J., 146, 147

Index McGowen, R., 15 McNeill, F., 44, 239 Medlicott, D., 94–96, 98, 102 Meek, R., 99, 118, 119 Mehigan, J., 118 Mental health (amongst prisoners), 161 Mental Health in Prisons, 217 Messner, S., 289 Methods (in prison research), 289 Mews, A., 53 Micklethwaite, D., 290 Millbank General Penitentiary, 23, 24 Millbank Prison, 22 Miller, R., 159, 239, 292 Mill, J.S., 35 Milovanovic, D., 167 Ministry of Justice, 189, 223, 248 Minson, S., 64, 138 Mjåland, K., 246 Monitoring, 117, 161, 166, 169, 178, 185– 188, 191, 197, 199, 238, 287 Monitoring prisons in England and Wales, 166 Moore, J., 264, 266, 269 Moore, L., 95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103 Moran, D., 87, 215, 226 Morgan, K., 15 Morris, N., 6, 25, 33, 178, 223 Morris, P., 178 Morris, T., 178 Morrison, K., 206, 207 Mother and Baby Units, 100 Mottet, L., 107 Mountjoy Prison, 24 Muiluvori, M-L., 43 Muir, W., 202 Munn, M., 120 Murphy, D., 284 Murray, C., 104 Murray, J., 65 Muslim prisoners, 57, 235

N Napier, R., 218, 219 Napier v. Scottish Ministers [2004], 219

Index National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), 299 National Preventative Mechanism (NPM), 187, 298 National Prison Radio, 285, 300 Negra, D., 143 Nelken, D., 239 Nellis, A., 242 Nelson Mandela Rules, 7, 160, 161, 180–182, 216–218 Neo-liberal, 188, 241, 247, 306 Net-widening, 238 Newbold, G., 284 Newburn, T., 136 New Jim Crow, 61 New Labour, 119, 243, 248, 249 Newman, P., 223 Nielsen, M.M., 207 Normalisation (Norway), 222 Norman, J., 14 Northern Ireland, 129, 294 Norway, 4, 43, 222, 233, 240, 241, 245–247, 249–251, 260 Norwegian Correctional Service, 222, 247 ‘Nothing works’, 43 Nugent, K., 129 Nutall, G., 218, 225

O O’Brien, K., 119 O’Donnell, I., 3, 8, 18, 22, 25, 83, 95, 290, 292 Offender Behaviour Programmes, 42 Office of the Correctional Investigator (Canada), 57 Oldak, L., 158 Old Bailey online, 15 O’Malley, S., 100 Open prisons, 26, 52, 178, 246 Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), 185, 187 Orange is the New Black (OITNB), 143 O’Sullivan, E., 25, 95

317 O’Sullivan, S., 136, 140, 142–148 ‘Othering’, 164 Overcrowding, 121, 122, 163, 168, 190, 216–218, 223, 239, 244–246, 251

P Padfield, N., 53, 166, 187, 188 Pager, D., 64 Pains of imprisonment, 38, 79, 81–84, 90, 97, 99, 106, 116, 145, 181, 200, 205, 214, 226, 249, 281–283, 288, 295 Pallas, J., 121 Pankhurst, E., 127 Panopticon, 22, 24, 35, 214 Papadopoulou, V., 55, 62 Parental Imprisonment and Children, 65 Parent-Child Visiting Practices in Prisons, 163 Parole, 39, 53, 125, 144, 170, 243, 286 Paternal Pains of Imprisonment, 38, 60 Peeters, M.C.W., 206 Pemberton, S.X., 59 PEN, 300 Penality, 13, 184 Penal policy, 240 Penal populism, 138 Penal reform, 22, 103, 116, 120, 124, 125, 147, 293 Penal Reform International, 237, 258, 294 Penal Reform Trust, 103 Penal Servitude Act 1853, 17 Penal Servitude Act 1857, 17 Penal welfarism, 246 Penitentiary, 6, 18, 19, 77, 117, 214 Penitentiary Act (1779), 21 Pennsylvania System, 19, 24, 214 Pentonville Prison, 24 People in Prison (1969), 122 Peters, H., 18 Peterson, B., 163 Petrillo, M., 98 Pettit, B., 66 Pettit, P., 41

318 Pevsner, N., 214 Philosophies of punishment, 3, 213 Piacentini, L., 137 Pilkington, E., 121, 125 Pillory, 14–16 Pina-Sanchez, J., 37 Platt, L., 56, 59 Player, E., 123 Political prisoner, 126–129 Politicisation of crime, 243 Politics of imprisonment, 274 Populist punitiveness, 138, 151, 268 Positive Prison? Positive Futures (Scotland), 299 Positivism, 44, 119, 145, 180, 198, 200, 218, 263 Potter, H., 14, 17, 23 Poulin, C., 196 Pratt, J., 17, 240, 245 Pregnancy (and childbirth in English prisons), 100 Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners (PROP), 121–123 Price, D., 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 205 Prison Act (1952), 182 Prison activism, 7 Prison and Probation Ombudsman, 298 Prison clothes/uniform, 26 Prison Community, 77, 87, 88 Prison conditions, 4, 23, 34, 37, 38, 119– 121, 147, 168, 185, 186, 251, 258, 259, 267, 275, 290, 293 Prison culture, 75, 77–80, 82, 86, 88, 90, 104, 290 Prison Discipline, 20, 21, 24, 118, 120 Prisoner agency, 116 Prisoner councils, 119 Prisoners Abroad, 100 Prisoners’ rights movements, 115, 121, 124, 130 Prison food (diet), 164 Prison Governors Association, 223, 250, 294, 299 Prison inspection (history), 166 Prisonisation, 77 Prison Legal News (USA), 299

Index Prison Memory Archive, 301 Prison Movies/films, 144 Prison officer (occupational culture), 206, 207 Prison Officers Association (POA), 204, 250, 294 Prison Officers (training and Education), 246 Prison Officers (working conditions), 203 Prison overcrowding, 251 Prison Reform Trust, 103, 250, 259, 266, 293, 299 Prison research, 3, 84, 286, 289, 291 Prison riots, 120 Prison Rules 1999 (England and Wales), 161, 162, 164, 167, 182, 183, 186, 191 Prisons Act (1835), 23 Prisons Act (1898), 18 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), 123, 166, 185–187, 293 Prisons and the Media, 284 Prison Service Instruction (PSI), 162, 182 Prison Service Order (PSO), 119, 182 Prison staff, 76, 105, 140, 142, 143, 180, 183, 184, 189, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204–206, 208, 214, 288 Prisons: the Rule of Law, Accountability and Rights (PRILA), 302 Prison Structure, 116, 214 ‘Prison Works’, 38, 248 Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), 249 Privatisation, 248–250 Probation, 170, 243 Procedural justice, 185, 188 Programmes (prison), 123, 125, 148, 149, 190, 246 Proportionality, 33, 34, 39, 306 Punitiveness, 138, 147, 151, 237, 238, 243, 250 Punitive sanctions, 271

Q ‘Quality of Prison Life’ (Liebling, A.), 249 Quirk, H., 37

Index R Raab, D., 225, 226, 248, 249 Racial bias, 238, 243 Racial disparities (in sentencing), 57, 60, 243 Racism, 59–61, 63, 118, 125 Radical penal lobby, 294 Radzinowicz, L., 127 Rafter, N., 140–145, 150 Ramsay, P., 169 Rankin, S., 107 Raymond v. Honey (1983), 165 Raynor, P., 42 Recalls to Prison, 39, 53, 126, 306 Recidivism, 249 Record, L., 95 Reform prisons, 221, 224 Regime (prison), 81, 82, 98, 108, 115, 116, 118, 120, 130, 145, 149, 189, 190, 198, 199, 217, 261, 273 Rehabilitation, 22, 35, 42–46, 77, 118, 121, 126, 148, 167, 168, 180, 186, 188–191, 200, 201, 213, 214, 216, 221, 223–225, 241, 246, 259, 261, 263 Reicher, S., 120, 124 Reiman, J., 55, 56 Reiner, R., 239 Reintegration, 121, 122, 226, 260 Reitz, K., 240, 241 Religion, 57, 89, 165 Remand, 54, 162, 218, 247 Remand prisoners, 25, 247, 306 Research (prisons and imprisonment), 2, 4, 8, 281, 282, 285, 291, 295, 296 Resistance, 4, 18, 116–120, 124, 129, 130, 142, 269 Responsibilization, 188 Retribution, 14, 26, 27, 32, 45, 215 Retributivism, 32–35, 39, 213 Ricciardelli, R., 196 Richards, S., 284 Richards, S.C., 291 Rights in action, 157, 172 Rights on the books, 157, 166, 172 Riots (and prison disorder), 120, 130, 142

319 Riots (2011), 36 Roberts, B., 59 Roberts, D., 106, 107 Roberts, J., 37 Roberts, S., 245 Robinson, G., 42, 239 Roettger, M.E., 66 Rogan, M., 166 Romeo, R., 65 Ross, J.I., 149 Rothman, D., 5, 178 Rotman, E., 45 Rottinghaus, B., 169 Routine, 16, 26, 60, 117, 177, 183, 184, 191, 197, 198, 214, 219, 220, 226 Rubin, A., 116, 120 Ruggiero, V., 239, 262, 263 Rusche, G., 37 Russia, 117, 234, 235 Ryan, M., 13, 122, 240, 259, 262–266, 268, 269, 272, 273

S Safety of prisoners, 100, 107 Sands, B. (MP), 129 Sandstorm, H., 163 Sauvé v. Canada (2002), 170 Scandinavia, 247 Schaufeli, W.B., 206 Schmidt, B., 119 School (in prison), 220 Schwan, A., 143, 146 Scotland, 22, 107, 108, 125, 219, 261, 294 Scott, D., 32, 37, 41, 102, 164, 198, 199, 205, 206, 262–264, 266, 268, 271, 272, 274 Scott, L., 123 Scott, R., 6 Scott, T., 100 Scottish government, 7 Scraton, P., 95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 179, 183 Seagrave, M., 44, 103 Select Committee on Crime (1972), 121

320 Self-harm (in prison), 97, 101, 108, 123, 203, 217, 261 Self-protecting, 117–119 Sentences/sentencing, 34, 36–41, 43, 44, 52, 53, 58, 59, 64, 89, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 125, 138, 150, 167, 190, 191, 222, 242, 243, 269, 307 Sentencing Project (USA), 52 Seoighe, R., 101, 102 Sexton, L., 107 Shalev, S., 26, 40, 217 Shammas, V.L., 247, 260 Shaw, A., 16 Shaw, S., 164 Shefer, G., 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 205 Shiner, M., 188 Shoemaker, R., 14, 16, 27 Shustorovich, E., 34, 38 Siddique, H., 217 Sim, J., 95, 122, 123, 259, 262–266, 268, 269, 273, 286, 287 Simon, J., 41, 168, 243 Skidmore, P., 179, 183 Sloan, J., 77, 289 Smith, A., 220 Smith, C., 99 Smith, P., 247 Smith, R., 65 Snacken, S., 160 Snyder, H.N., 43 Social control, 95, 103, 179, 191 Social Democracy, 241, 246 Social Exclusion Unit, 44 Social justice, 5 Social media (and representation of the prison), 136, 137 Social order (and its breakdown), 117, 120, 130, 177, 178 Social order (in prison), 178–180, 191, 274 Söderlund, J., 223 Solitary confinement, 21, 22, 26, 39, 40, 181, 247 Solitary Watch, 302 Sood, K., 167 Soothill, K., 41 Soskice, D., 239, 240, 242, 247, 248

Index South Africa, 8, 241 Spain, 162 Sparks, R., 116, 178, 179, 184, 202, 237, 239, 250, 286, 287, 292 ‘Special Category Status’, 129 Spectacle of punishment, 215 Stevens, A., 261 Stocks, 14 Strangeways, 122, 123, 180, 188, 265, 282, 283, 287 Straub, C, 40 Straw, J., 223 Strip-Searching (in Women’s Prisons), 98 Structure (in prison), 9, 214, 215, 274 Stuart F., 159, 239 Subramanian, R., 245 Sugie, N., 64 Suicide (prevention), 205 Suicide (rates among prisoners), 62, 96 Sumner, J., 107 Supermax prisons, 26, 39, 140 Support services, 101 Surveillance, 59, 98, 197, 200, 201, 215, 290 Sweden, 241, 247, 260 Sykes, G, 75–86, 98, 104, 116, 178–181, 199, 204, 214, 215, 226, 281, 283, 288 Symbolic interaction, 151 Symkovych, A., 83 Szifris, K., 118, 220

T Tait, S., 202 Tariff, 33, 34, 39, 53 Taylor, D., 101 Taylor, L., 117, 120, 122, 178 Taylor, P., 238 Teeters, N., 117 Telephone (prions rules), 161 Telephone calls (in cells), 162 Thatcher, M., 123, 247 The Prison Community, 75, 77, 292 Therapeutic Communities (TCs), 261, 307 Thomas, H., 100

Index Thompson, A.C., 65, 66 Thompson, H., 120 ‘Three strikes’, 36, 242, 243 Tietjen, G., 291 Time (BBC drama), 146, 147 ‘Titan prisons’, 223 Toch, H., 88 Tombs, S., 238, 264 Tomlinson, M., 164 Tonry, M., 38 Topping, A., 128 Torre, B., 138 ‘Total Institution’, 85, 89, 90, 180, 184, 185, 219, 220 Tower of London, 14 Trade Union (for prisoners). See IWOC Trade Union (for prison officers). See POA Transgender prisoners, 93, 107–109, 237 Transportation, 15–17, 21, 23 Travellers, 64 Travis, A, 223 Travis, J. (2002), 64, 239 Treatment, 4, 102, 160, 161, 185, 187, 293 Tripkovic, M, 169–171 Truss, L., 224 Tuari, J., 44 Tumin, S., 265 Turner, J., 23, 285 Tyler, T., 188 Tyni, S., 43

U Ugelvik, T., 6, 8, 25, 239 Uggen, C., 64–66, 169, 170 United Kingdom, 7, 8, 16–18, 22, 23, 28, 169, 187, 215, 233, 282, 285, 290, 293 United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), 216 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 28 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 160 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), 4

321 United Nations System Common Position on Incarceration, 250 United States of America, 19, 233, 241 University of Cambridge, 302 Useem, B., 120 Utilitarianism, 35

V Values, 3, 56, 77, 136, 148, 151, 178, 290 van der Valk, S., 166 Vanhouche, A., 164 van Zyl Smit, D., 53, 160, 166, 218 Victimisation, 62, 96–98, 108, 165 Violence (in prison), 26, 40, 108, 141, 143, 179, 203, 261, 264 Visiting (in prison), 22, 122, 162 Vladu, A., 162 Vocational training, 122 Voluntary organizations, 289 Volunteers, 149, 187 von Hirsch, A., 33, 38 Voting (for prisoners), 169, 170 Vulnerability, 196, 220 Vulnerable prisoners, 108, 186, 248

W Wacquant, L., 46, 61, 63 Wakefield, S., 64, 66, 184 Walker, S., 101 Walmsley, R., 54, 95, 96, 234, 235, 295 Wandsworth Prison, 184 Ward, T., 264, 266, 269, 272, 273 Warner, K., 245, 246 War on Terror, 59 Warr, J., 60, 83, 220, 249 Webster, R., 55 Weiss-Cohen, L., 84 Wener, R., 215 Western, B., 65, 66 Western Europe, 8 Western world, 4, 13, 22 Weston, K., 100 Whipping (as punishment), 15, 16 Wikstrom, P.O., 38 Wilde, O., 44, 215

322 Will, R., 117 Williams, K., 55, 62 Williams, P., 59 Williams, P.K., 62 Wilson, D., 23, 140–142, 144, 145, 184 Windham Stewart, P., 101 Women in Prison (WIP), 62, 97–100, 103, 143, 294, 299 Women’s imprisonment, 93, 95, 96, 101–103, 265 Women’s Social and Political Union, 128 Wood, J., 117 Woolf, Lord Justice, 123, 185, 282 Woolf Report, 123, 185, 188, 223, 265, 287 Working class prisoners, 215, 284 World Health Organisation (WHO), 44 World Prison Brief, 234, 294, 295

Index World Prison Population List, 234, 235, 295 Worrall, A., 94, 95, 99, 101 Wright, J., 77, 289 Wright, S., 56 Wright, V., 38 Write to Freedom, 300

Y Yarbrough, D., 56 Young Offender institution (YOI), 285

Z Zahn, B., 118 Zedner, L., 32 Zimmer, L., 196