The Paradox of Punishment:
A Labelling Critique of the Effectiveness of Imprisonment
Aaron Gallagher
Postgraduate HRC 2015 Working Paper No. 6
On behalf of the Human Rights Centre in the School of Law,
Queen’s University Belfast
Human Rights Centre
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 The Historical Development of the Prison ....................................................................... 5 1.2 The Purpose of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 8 1.2.1 The Effectiveness Debate .......................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 The Aims and Importance of this Thesis ................................................................... 8 1.2.3 The Framework, Focus and Structure of the Thesis ................................................ 10 2. Labelling Theory ................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Historical Roots – The Rise of Labelling Theory .......................................................... 12 2.3 The Core Propositions of Labelling Theory ................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Key Contributors ..................................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 The Process of Secondary Deviance ....................................................................... 18 2.4 The Fall of Labelling Theory ......................................................................................... 22 2.5 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 23 3. The Direct Effects of Incarceration: Identity Transformation and the Psychological
Impact of Imprisonment........................................................................................................ 24 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 The Pains of Imprisonment ............................................................................................ 25 3.2.1 The Deprivation of Liberty ...................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 The Deprivation of Goods and Services .................................................................. 26 3.2.3 The Deprivation of Heterosexual Relationships ...................................................... 27 3.2.4 The Deprivation of Autonomy ................................................................................ 28 3.2.5 The Deprivation of Security .................................................................................... 30 3.3 Prisoner Adaptation and Identity Transformation .......................................................... 32 3.3.1 Prisonisation ............................................................................................................ 33 3.4 The Psychological Consequences of Incarceration ........................................................ 37 3.5 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 40 4. The Indirect Effects of Incarceration: The Structural Impediments Associated with
Criminal Labelling ................................................................................................................. 42 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 42 4.2 The Collateral Consequences of Incarceration............................................................... 43 4.2.1 The Immediate Legal and Civil Losses Contingent with Imprisonment ................. 43 4.2.2 The Problem of Reintegration and the Lack of Assisted Identity Management ..... 44 4.2.3 The Structural Barriers Faced by those Labelled .................................................... 46 4.3 The Potential for Deviant Subculture Participation ....................................................... 51 4.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 53 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 55 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 62 Books.................................................................................................................................... 62 Journal Articles .................................................................................................................... 68 Websites ............................................................................................................................... 72 1. Introduction
‘Imprisonment as it exists today is a worse crime than any of those committed by its victims’.1
Punishment, at its most basic, constitutes the deliberate infliction of harm upon another in
response to wrongdoing.2 As a social institution, its history ‘accompanies the human
condition almost universally’3 and to such a degree that imagining a society without it is
almost unfathomable. Whilst punitive methods have varied across time immemorial, they
have always been founded upon the belief that sanctioning is for the greater good of
humanity. This seems strange given that the punitive institution would not feature in any
idealised, utopian envisagement of what human society should look like. Thus, it could be
asked whether its continued existence is justified or, more specifically, whether the gains
sought from sanctioning offenders are worthwhile and whether the means chosen to do so
will secure such goods.4 While this project cannot begin to address these questions in full, the
latter two formulate a broad foundational basis for this thesis.
Without question, incarceration currently represents the most prevalent means of punishment
having become ‘the ultimate sanction of Western societies [with prisons serving as] potent
symbols of the state’s power to punish’.5 No other institution exercises such sustained control
and dominance over persons, making imprisonment ‘the strongest measure of power at the
disposal of the state’.6 With approximately nine million people incarcerated worldwide,
undoubtedly, it has become ‘the gold standard measure of punishment’.7 In light of this, it is
this punitive sanction which shall be evaluated throughout this project. However, before any
such evaluation can take place, it is first necessary to gain a brief understanding of the
institutions historical development within the UK.
1
Bernard Shaw, ‘Imprisonment’ in Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, English Prisons Under Local Government
(Longmans Green 1922) 1.
2
Deirdre Golash, The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law (New York
University Press 2005) 1.
3
Ibid. 6.
4
Ibid. 4.
5
Ben Crewe, ‘The Sociology of Imprisonment’ in Yvonne Jewkes (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan
Publishing 2007) 123.
6
Nils Christie, Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style? (Routledge, 1993) 23.
7
Mick Cavadino, James Dignan and George Mair, The Penal System: An Introduction (5th edn, Sage
Publications 2013) 123.
4
1.1 The Historical Development of the Prison
Counter to common belief, imprisonment has not always featured as a dominant punitive
measure. In its present form, the prison is a relatively modern innovation, only achieving
prominence as a major criminal sanction in the late 18th century.8 Ignatieff described the
1770s as the ‘point of departure’ for the modern penitentiary as, at this time;
…the vision of the total institution first began to take shape out of two
centuries of accumulated experience with workhouses, houses of
correction, and jails.9
Prior to this, prison-like institutions served mainly as human holding facilities for those
awaiting trial or transportation, or for those unwilling to pay their debts. The use of
confinement as a punishment in itself gradually took hold in the early 19th century. This
movement reflected the desire of penal reformers to replace the suffering caused by physical
brutality, which characterised punishment historically, with humane alternatives in what
Foucault titled the ‘great transformation’.10 Penal guidelines endorsing the infliction of bodily
pain were replaced with those promoting policies of ‘suspended rights’11 as disciplinary
processes became less corporal and more psychological; inferring that power over the body
could be achieved through control over the mind or soul.
Imprisonment symbolised an extremely individualised criminal response; a solution well
suited to an era dominated by individualistic explanations for crime. For most, deviance arose
from defects within the person and the only way to eradicate such behaviour was to alter the
personal characteristics of this criminal ‘other’. A belief that individuals could be
scientifically described and understood was immediately translated into institutional practices
of control and correction.12 Thus, the prison aimed to, not only contain and deter its inmate
populations, but to reform them. Its development was premised upon conceptions of the
human psyche as malleable and capable of enhancement through ‘moral treatment’,13
8
Andrew Coyle, Understanding Prisons (Open University Press 2005) 2.
Michael Ignatieff, ‘A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1970-1850’ (1978)
Pantheon 218, 218.
10
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Pantheon Books 1977) 15.
11
Ibid. 11.
12
Ignatieff (n 9) 218.
13
Peter Finn, ‘Prison Crowding: The Response of Probation and Parole’ [1984] 30 Crime and Delinquency 141.
9
5
effectively making prisons ‘shaping institution[s] for whole sectors of the population’.14
Accordingly, they became laboratories for practicing a new form of social science founded
upon the ‘power of confinement to reshape personality’15 and to reform the criminal outcast.
This belief in the perfectibility of human nature through institutional routinisation and
repetition persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century. Penal policies idealised
rehabilitative notions and explicated a ‘treatment and training ideology’16 in the hope of
eliminating, what was perceived as, an ever-growing crime problem after the Second World
War. However, following a crisis of containment during the 1960s, rehabilitative goals were
replaced with principles of ‘humane containment’ and ‘just deserts’ which solely sought to
‘incapacitate and punish…criminally disposed misfits’.17 As Scott suggests,
…prison life from this time on became…characterised by a profound
intensification and vigorous enforcement of the priorities of
discipline, surveillance and contro’.18
This decline in the rehabilitative ideal was compounded by research conducted throughout
the 1970s (perhaps most famously carried out by Robert Martinson who is now synonymous
with the ‘Nothing Works’ doctrine)19 which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of offender
reformation and ‘hastened a convergence between critiques of the treatment paradigm and
right wing advocates of law and order’.20 Simultaneously, liberal concerns regarding the
harmful effects of imprisonment were dismissed with the suggestion being that inmates coped
well in prison, merely experiencing a temporary, ‘behavioural deep freeze’.21 Resultantly, by
the 1980s, punishment was the new vogue word with incarceration processes now purely
based upon notions of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence. The search for punitive
14
David Garland, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (Oxford University
Press 2001) 6.
15
John Bender, Imagining the Penitentiary: Fiction and the Architecture of Mind in Eighteenth-Century
England (University of Chicago Press, 1987) 1.
16
David Scott, ‘The Changing Face of the English Prison: A Critical Review of the Aims of Imprisonment’ in
Yvonne Jewkes (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan Publishing 2007) 50.
17
Craig Haney, ‘The Contextual Revolution in Psychology and the Question of Prison Effects’ in Alison
Liebling and Shadd Maruna (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011) 73.
18
Scott (n 16) 53.
19
Robert Martinson, ‘What works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform [1974] 35 The Public Interest
22.
20
Robert Adams, The Abuses of Punishment (MacMillan Press 1998) 66.
21
Edward Zamble and Frank Porporino, Coping, Behaviour, and Adaptation in Prison Inmates (Springer-Verlag
1988).
6
alternatives was side-lined as the Thatcherite government announced the biggest prison
building programme since mid-Victorian times under the unverified slogan of ‘Prison
Works’.
This trend continued under the Conservative government who became increasingly
influenced by harsh penal policies implemented in the U.S. Indeed, by the mid-1990s, they
had adopted two of the more negative features of the American penal system, introducing
tougher prison regimes whilst also imposing longer sentences for those who committed even
minor misdemeanours. Surprisingly, even the New Labour government, who came to power
in May 1997, continued to ride this penal rollercoaster; creating 1036 new offences
punishable by imprisonment and constructing over 20,000 new prisons across England and
Wales (increasing the overall inmate holding capacity by one third)22 during their 13 years in
office. Thus, a profound counterrevolution in punishment has transpired over the last number
of decades, occurring with such unprecedented momentum that it no longer seems fitting to
describe its progress as akin to that of a ‘penal rollercoaster’. Rather;
…it resemble[s] nothing so much as a runaway punishment train,
driven by political steam and fuelled by media-induced fears of
crime.23
Contemporarily, this new penology persists as society remains fixed within this era of penal
expansionism. This seems unlikely to change in the near future as the majority of the
population continue to experience ‘generational anxiety’ regarding crime; the result being
that the nation remains gripped within a state of insecurity to which the singular response
seems to be to endorse a ‘rage to punish’24 mentality. This state of affairs has only reinforced
notions of penal populism as the language of punitive discipline has ‘ideologically cemented
the political elite with the wider population into…an emotional desire for inflicting vengeful
retribution’25 on lawbreakers. Consequently, the imprisonment binge endures and the political
22
David Scott and Helen Codd, Controversial Issues in Prisons (Open University Press 2010) 3.
Philip Zimbardo and Craig Haney, ‘The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-Five Years After the
Stanford Prison Experiment’ [1998] 53 American Psychologist 709, 712.
24
Lois Forer, A Rage to Punish: The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Sentencing (W.W. Norton 1994).
25
Roy Coleman and Joe Sim, ‘Contemporary Statecraft and the ‘Punitive Obsession’: A Critique of the
Penology Thesis’ in John Pratt, David Brown, Mark Brown, Simon Hallsworth and Wayne Morrison (eds), The
New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives (Willan Publishing 2005) 102.
23
7
tug-of-war, over who can lock up the most people for the longest amount of time to obtain
electoral favour, rages on.
1.2 The Purpose of the Thesis
1.2.1 The Effectiveness Debate
Even from this extremely brief overview of the prison’s development, it is patent how its
functioning has become the punishment for crime, transforming from a mere human depot
into, what is now, the bastion of the criminal justice system (CJS). Whilst its uses and aims
have varied throughout the years, the same cannot be said for its design which has been
largely resistant to change from its inception. In fact, as Haney notes, it may be the only
remaining social institution to retain so much of its 19th century form.26 Thus, for many,
prisons preserve their character as ‘hierarchical, militaristic forcing-houses for macho power
and demonstrations of violence’.27
However, it does not follow that this longevity of form is a sign of its effectiveness. Despite
its history, its efficacy has always been a matter of substantial controversy and debate. For
some, imprisonment represents the ultimate and only truly deterrent force capable of
inflicting retributive justice upon those deserving of legal punishment. They perceive all
forms of alternative sentences open to the courts, including community sanctions, fines or
probation, as acts of leniency or as inferior penalties. For others, the prison is a dangerous,
unhealthy and inherently criminogenic environment. They contend that, although constructed
as an institution for the prevention of deviance, ironically, it operates to perpetuate
criminality; forcefully transferring individuals from normal roles in society into distinctly,
deviant roles from which there is no escape.
1.2.2 The Aims and Importance of this Thesis
In light of this debate, it is the aim of this thesis to critique the effectiveness of imprisonment
as a means of preventing crime. It recognises that, whilst the confinement of an offender both
to punish and incapacitate him is one matter; whether detainment will inhibit or intensify his
26
Craig Haney, Reforming Punishment: The Psychological Limits to the Pains of Imprisonment (American
Psychological Association 2006) 162.
27
Adams (n 20) 104.
8
criminal activity upon release is another altogether.28 The importance of identifying whether
imprisonment impedes or inspires future deviance cannot be overstated and remains one of
the most intriguing issues in criminological discussion. The issue;
…is at the core of basic sociological concerns about the foundations
of social order…since legal and social systems are built on
assumptions about the efficacy of sanctions.29
Despite the protracted history of this debate, practically, it has never been so relevant given
the vast amount of money currently being invested in the incarceration project globally. For
example, domestically, over the last three decades, prison spending has expanded faster than
most other agencies in the CJS with UK taxpayers paying more to run prisons than in most
other major Western European countries.30 Thus, as Funke maintains, if prisons do not fulfil
their intended aims of reducing crime and levels of offender recidivism, their sustainment
represents ‘an irrational and uneconomic policy’31 which is no longer justifiable.
However, despite the significance of these issues, there remains remarkably little critical
debate in either the media or political sphere regarding the efficacy of the prison
contemporarily. A blind eye has been turned to fundamental questions concerning whether
incarceration is the best way of handling lawbreakers or, more radically, whether
imprisonment is actually counter-productive. Moreover, this lack of discussion has resulted in
a serious, societal misunderstanding of current penal realities for inmates. This is exemplified
by the fact that the media generally spend more time deliberating trivial matters, such as how
much money is spent providing meals and amenities for less eligible prisoners, than they do
reflecting upon the serious physical and mental health issues affecting those incarcerated.32
As Christie notes, there is a ‘remarkable reservation’ among scholars, law-makers and the
public to discuss the true nature of the punishments imposed on offenders; ‘how [it] hurts,
how it feels’ and the long-term effects of inflicting these pains upon unprecedented numbers
28
Dennie Briggs, In Place of Prison (Temple Smith 1975) 13.
Charles Tittle, ‘Deterrents or Labeling? [1975] 53(3) 399, 408.
30
David Barrett, ‘England and Wales Near Top of Prison Spending League Table’ The Telegraph (London, 11
February 2015) available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11405588/England-and-Walesnear-top-of-prison-spending-league-table.html> accessed 29th July 2015.
31
Gail Funke, ‘The Economies of Prison Overcrowding’ [1985] 478 Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 86, 97.
32
Scott and Codd (n 22) 161.
29
9
within society.33 These issues can no longer be ignored and it is hoped that this dissertation
can raise awareness of these too oft overlooked concerns and, perhaps, inspire some
meaningful discussion surrounding the neglected “pains of imprisonment”. This is imperative
as, although the subjective experience of pain may be, in the words of Scarry, ‘unshareable’,
‘verbally expressing pain is a necessary prelude to the collective task of diminishing [it]’.34
1.2.3 The Framework, Focus and Structure of the Thesis
This project relies heavily on notions of labelling theory which is utilised as a guiding
theoretical framework for exacting this critique and examining the extent to which
imprisonment can increase offending behaviour rather than reducing it. It is argued that,
despite having been all but dismissed as a significant, persuasive, policy-influencing theory,
this perspective remains of significant value because of its awareness of how social control
can become ‘a cause rather than an effect of the magnitude and variable forms of deviation’35
(emphasis added). It does not take processes of social control for granted, wholly
acknowledging that social reaction to deviant behaviour ‘may produce a heightened
commitment to the very behaviour that enforcement agents are attempting to eradicate’.36 It
rejects individualistic explanations for crime and adopts a central tenet of sociological
research generally; ‘that the ways that a person behaves and feels about himself and his
behaviour depend upon how others respond to him’.37 It is for these reasons that this theory
has been carefully selected to provide a critical cornerstone for this thesis.
Additionally, this project will focus particularly on the means by which incarceration impacts
upon young offenders. This decision has been made, not only to greater specify the scope of
the thesis, but also because it seems as though young people have become ‘special targets in
this “new punitivism”’.38 This is irrefutable given that the age of criminal responsibility has
been reduced to just ten in the UK and, consequently, the number of adolescents in custody
has doubled over the last two decades.39 As Briggs observes, ‘[f]or no other age group has
33
Nils Christie, Limits to Pain (Oxford: Martin Robinson 1982) 15.
Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (Oxford University Press 1985) 9.
35
Edwin Lemert, Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control (Prentice Hall 1967) 18.
36
Raymond Paternoster and Leeann Iovanni, ‘The Labeling Perspective and Delinquency: An Elaboration of the
Theory and an Assessment of the Evidence’ [1989] 6 Justice Quarterly 359, 362.
37
Edwin Schur, Labeling Deviant Behaviour: It’s Sociological Implications (Harper and Row 1971) 2.
38
Shadd Maruna, ‘Giving Up On the Young’ (2008) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 129, 129.
39
Ibid.
34
10
confinement…proved so ineffective, destructive and costly’.40 This selectivity is also fitting
as most labelling research is focused on juvenile offenders and suggests it is they who suffer
greatest from confinement. Having said this, it must be remembered throughout that simply
because some groups may be deemed more vulnerable to the dangerous effects of
incarceration than others, this does not make any other cohort invulnerable. The potential
susceptibility of every prisoner must be recognised as ‘[n]obody is safe in such a toxic
environment’.41
The project proceeds in Chapter 2 by examining the historical origins of labelling theory and
the social context in which it acquired prevalence and widespread interest before falling into
political disuse a short time later. Subsequently, its core tenets are described in detail, noting,
in particular, the two central etiological factors contributing to criminality advocated by its
theorists; the psychological change of self and the structural impediments faced by those
formally labelled. It is contended that these causal components correspond unequivocally
with what Richard and Jones describe as the direct and indirect effects of imprisonment;42 the
former including the pervasive ‘pains of imprisonment’ and the latter including its collateral
consequences experienced by prisoners upon their release. Chapter 3 considers the first of
these, focusing upon how carelessly thrusting an individual into prison can damage their
mental health, as well as their perception of self which may lead to an increased risk of
recidivism.
Subsequently, Chapter 4 reflects upon the collateral consequences of imprisonment
highlighting how processes of stigmatisation and marginalisation, coinciding with structural
impediments faced by ex-prisoners, can ensure the fixation of deviant roles and can also
encourage successive criminality. It is maintained that, essentially, prisoners are punished for
life even if their sentence only takes up a small proportion of this time by virtue of the
criminal labels imposed upon them. Finally, Chapter 5 summarises the overall conclusions of
this analysis whilst briefly suggesting potential reforms which may alleviate these
undesirable direct and indirect prison harms in future.
40
Briggs (n 28) 59.
Scott and Codd (n 22) 106.
42
Stephen Richards and Richard Jones, ‘Beating the Perpetual Incarceration Machine: Overcoming Structural
Impediments to Re-entry’ in Shadd Maruna and Russ Immarigeon (eds), After Crime and Punishment:
Pathways to Offender Reintegration (Willan Publishing 2004) 204.
41
11
2. Labelling Theory
No more self-defeating device could be discovered than the one society has developed
in dealing with the criminal. It proclaims his career in such loud and dramatic forms
that both he and the community accept the judgment as a fixed description43
2.1 Introduction
Before any specific assessment of the penal realities of imprisonment can take place, it is
crucial to understand the theoretical perspective upon which this critique has been based.
Primarily, it should be noted that labelling theory has a broad and extensive history, having
its roots in multiple theoretical perspectives which long predate the formers popularity.
Regrettably, it is simply not possible to explore each and every one of these complex theories
in depth within this section. However, what this chapter aims to do is to provide the reader
with both a comprehensive overview of the theory’s development throughout the last century
and a detailed insight into the multiple ways by which its proponents suggest crime and
deviance arise. It begins by reviewing the social and cultural context in which the theory
became popularised. This shall provide a solid foundation for a detailed review of the
theory’s core principles and central tenets. Subsequently, it concludes by noting some of the
more profound criticisms directed at this criminological perspective which, ultimately,
contributed to its unfortunate and undue demise.
2.2 Historical Roots – The Rise of Labelling Theory
From the outset it is imperative to note that, unlike other theories, there is ‘no such thing as a
“pure” labelling theory’44 which is easily sourced within a seminal text or singular piece of
writing. Contrastingly, the model arose as a result of numerous contributions from a myriad
of sociologists, criminologists and scholars; developing as a ‘fragmented tapestry’45
constructed in a piecemeal and unintegrated fashion. Its history is extensive, indirectly
43
Frank Tannenbaum, Crime and the Community (Ginn and Company 1938) 477.
Charles Thomas and Donna Bishop, ‘Criminology: The Effect of Formal Sanctions on Delinquency: A
Longitudinal Comparison of Labeling and Deterrence Theories’ [1984] 75 Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology 1222, 1226.
45
Sean Madden and Ineke Marshall, ‘Labelling and Symbolic Interaction Theories’ in J Miller (ed), 21st Century
Criminology: A Reference Handbook (Sage Publications 2009) 256.
44
12
featuring in the works of both Tarde46 and Durkheim47 in the late eighteen hundreds.
However, the theory as we know it, was predominantly generated over the first half of the
20th century before reaching the pinnacle of its acclamation in the 1960s.
The theory symbolised what was a hugely significant break from domineering, positivist
conceptions of criminality which advocated that the starting point of criminological inquiry
must either be with offenders themselves or the social environments in which they reside.48 It
represented a new approach, emphasising sociological factors and perceiving deviance as a
process of interaction between those who commit crime and the rest of society.
Simplistically, labelling theorists view crime as a ‘transaction’; an individual acts unlawfully,
others respond to this behaviour, and their reaction may encourage further criminality.49
Thus, by adopting such a stance, it proved to be a major exception to what Cohen termed the
‘assumption of discontinuity’,50 fundamentally challenging ‘norm-based definitions of
deviance’51 and mainstream studies which interpreted criminality through the eyes of the
establishment and the correctionalist.
Unsurprisingly, the theory initially gained little political support as its advocates continuously
suggested that persistent delinquency was a product of state punishments and the reactions of
state officials to deviation. Such controversial assumptions truly flew in the face of
traditionalist notions of crime causation which, as aforementioned, tended to blame nonconformity on purely individualistic motivations and wholly ignore the effects of sanctions
upon conformist behaviour.
However, it was this political contestation engendered within the theory that made the
tempestuous 1960s the ideal time for its expansion. During this period of rapid social change
in both the UK and US, many scholars and citizens alike began to “take stock” of their
46
See Gabriel de Tarde, The Laws of Imitation (Gloucester Mass 1895).
See Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (University Presses of France 1893).
48
Robert Lily, Francis Cullen and Richard Ball, Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (5th edn,
Sage Publications 2011) 143.
49
Shadd Maruna and Thomas LeBel, ‘The Desistance Paradigm in Correctional Practice: From Programs to
Lives’ in Fergus McNeill, Peter Raynor and Chris Trotter (eds), Offender Supervision: New Directions in
Theory, Research and Practice (Willan Publishers 2010) 74.
50
Albert Cohen, ‘The Sociology of the Deviant Act: Anomie Theory and Beyond’ [1965] 30 American
Sociological Review 5, 9.
51
John Kitsuse, ‘The New Conception of Deviance and its Critics’ in Walter Gove, The Labelling of Deviance
(2nd edn, Sage Publications 1980) 384.
47
13
assumptions regarding criminality.52 As a revolutionary counterculture emerged, many
became sceptical of the practices of government officials and social control agencies.
Consequently, criminologists shifted their observations away from the behaviour of
‘criminals’ to that of police, judges and politicians.53 Labelling theorists, sharing this distrust,
were among the first to adopt this viewpoint, becoming ever-more influenced by ‘legal
realists’ who were ‘disenchanted sceptics regarding the law and its enforcers if there ever
were any’.54 These feelings intensified throughout the 60s to such a degree that the state
eventually faced a ‘legitimacy crisis’55 as the public continued to lose faith in a government
which seemed unable to prevent a growing crime problem across the UK. Thus, it was this
era, characterised by a ‘deconstructionist impulse’,56 which provided fertile ground for the
growth of labelling theory and the cross-cultural framework for its diffusion throughout
America and Western Europe.
2.3 The Core Propositions of Labelling Theory
2.3.1 Key Contributors
At the heart of labelling theory lies the supposition that deviance is not a static entity but,
rather, ‘a continuously shaped and reshaped outcome of dynamic processes of social
interaction’.57 Unlike traditionalist models, its focus is less upon the study of deviant
behaviour and more upon the processes by which individuals are defined as deviant by
others.58 Such is integral, given that labelling theorists contend a person will act in a manner
consistent with how they believe others define or perceive them. Accordingly, they propose
that by defining individuals as ‘criminals’ we may be creating them. Its advocates rely
heavily upon Merton’s notion of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” asserting that ‘if men define
situations as real, they are real in their consequences’.59 They maintain individuals are
52
Lily, Cullen and Ball (n 48) 152.
William Chambliss, On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents (Indiana University Press 1978) 14.
54
Dario Melossi, ‘Overcoming the Crisis in Critical Criminology: Toward a Grounded Labelling Theory’
[1985] 23 Criminology 193, 195.
55
Lily, Cullen and Ball (n 48) 153.
56
Stanley Cohen, ‘Intellectual Scepticism and Political Commitment’ in Paul Walton and Jock Young (eds), The
New Criminology Revisited (Palgrave and MacMillan 1997) 101.
57
Schur (n 37) 8.
58
John Kitsuse, ‘Societal Reaction to Deviant Behaviour: Problems of Theory and Method’ in Howard Becker,
The Other Side (The Free Press 1964) 88.
59
William Thomas and Dorothy Thomas, The Child in America: Behaviour Problems and Programs (Alfred
Knopf 1928) 572.
53
14
constantly ‘reacting back against society’60 and it is this two-way dynamic which leads to
successive criminality. Thus, it is not the behaviour of those defined as deviant which is
important, but, ‘the interpretations others make of their behaviours, whatever these may be’.61
Consequently, the theory problematizes the notion that deviance is a property inherent within
certain forms of conduct, instead, suggesting ‘it is a property conferred upon [behaviours] by
the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them’.62 Therefore, labelling theorists
believe what makes an act ‘criminal’ is not the harm it incurs but whether the state imposes
such a label upon that action. Hence, what we regard as ‘criminal’ is constantly subject to
change over time and across societies.
As Kitsuse elucidates, it was this contention that the source of norms are found in negotiated
imputations by social audiences that made labelling theory a ‘new conception [and]
distinguished it from [those of] old’.63 However, this statement must be qualified as the
theory irrefutably has its origins in the earlier works of George Mead and Charles Cooley
who founded the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism. Together, they proposed that
the ‘self’ is inherently dynamic, as opposed to innate, being re-generated constantly in light
of social processes and experiences. They disregarded deterministic conceptions of the
human actor as a ‘mere medium for the operation of factors that produce behaviour’, instead
asserting that individuals ‘act toward their world’,64 playing active roles in creating their own
identities.
Nonetheless, as a corollary of this reflexive self, Mead submitted that processes of selfformation would be greatly influenced by the perceptions of others and that it was their
attitudes which would largely shape future behaviours. Therefore, actions and motives do not
solely originate from within, but are imputed by others before becoming self-affirmed.65 As
Berger surmises, ‘one cannot be human all by oneself and, apparently, one cannot hold on to
any particular identity all by oneself’.66 Thus, if an individual is perceived as delinquent,
60
George Mead, On Social Pathology (Chicago University Press 1977) 235.
Kitsuse (n 58) 100.
62
Kai Erikson, ‘Notes on the Sociology of Deviance’ in Howard Becker, The Other Side (The Free Press 1964)
11.
63
Kitsuse (n 51) 383.
64
Paternoster and Iovanni (n 36) 379.
65
Charles Mills, ‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive’ [1940] 5 American Sociological Review 904,
906.
66
Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology (Doubleday Anchor 1963) 100.
61
15
deviant motivations may be ascribed unto him which, in turn, may lead to his continued
criminality and, ultimately, his construction of an aberrant self-perception.
Although these ideas inherent in symbolic interactionism provided the foundations for
labelling theory, it was not until the later work of Frank Tannenbaum that they were first
applied to criminal behaviour. Having researched the effects of delinquent labelling on
youths, he was the first scholar to advocate that state intervention was criminogenic because
of how it ‘dramatizes evil’.67 By this, he inferred that whilst all youths may be equally guilty
of committing crime, only some are caught and, for those that are, their apprehension can
amplify their criminal inclination. He noted that by labelling a youth as ‘criminal’, he may
become segregated from other children; being ‘singled out for specialised treatment’ as the
‘arrest suddenly precipitates a series of institutions, attitudes, and experiences which other
children do not share’.68
Others react differently to the ‘offender’, ever-aware of his delinquent status, causing the
subject to become conscious of himself as a ‘criminal’. For the youth, ‘the entire
world…become[s] a different place…and remains different for the rest of his life’.69 Notably,
the research also suggested that such is particularly true if a youth goes to prison as it is in
this environment where ‘uncrystallised’ criminogenic traits are ‘hardened’.70 Thus, for
Tannenbaum, the process of making the criminal is a process of tagging, defining and
segregating; ‘it becomes a way of stimulating…the very traits complained of’ until,
eventually, ‘[t]he person becomes the thing he is described as being’.71
Soon after, Howard Becker advanced these notions in his ground-breaking work Outsiders.
Like Tannenbaum, he emphasised deviance was not a quality of an act committed but a result
of the application of rules or sanctions upon an ‘offender’. Accordingly, he regarded crime as
a mere creation of social groups with power to formulate rules ‘whose infraction constitutes
67
Tannenbaum (n 43) 19.
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid 66.
71
Ibid 19.
68
16
deviance’.72 Thus, in what is now a canonical statement of labelling theory, Becker
announced that:
The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied;
deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.73
Becker warned that heed must be taken when attaching such labels to individuals as doing so
may ‘set in motion several mechanisms which conspire to shape the person in the image
people have of him’.74 Further, in his earlier writings on marihuana use, he contended that
deviant acts would be more likely committed if a person’s view of those acts was
favourable.75 He maintained the likelihood of this opinion being formed would be augmented
if society perceives the subject as an ‘outsider’; an inevitable consequence of criminal
labelling. Therefore, it is the social reaction to ‘deviants’ which is crucial to understanding
delinquency, as this response plays a major role in, or perhaps even causes, criminality.
However, of all these contributors, it was the methodical analysis of Edwin Lemert which
drew these conceptions together and outlined what many consider to be the principal version
of labelling theory. While other theorists spoke of deviance as a process, they generally failed
to outline what this process actually entailed. Lemert, however, dealt with this issue,
differentiating between ‘two sharply polarized or even categorical phases’76 of individual
development which may lead to criminality; primary and secondary deviation.
Primary deviance describes initial norm violations which have ‘only marginal implications
for the status and psychic structure of the person concerned’;77 these crimes are soon
forgotten. Secondary deviation, however, refers to successive misconduct resulting from
social reactions instigated by criminal labelling. It occurs when a person employs deviant
behaviour ‘as a means of defence, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems
created’78 by others’ responses to that behaviour. In other words, by punishing and
stigmatising the misfeasor, their risk of re-offending escalates as deviance becomes a ‘central
72
Howard Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Free Press 1963) 9.
Ibid.
74
Ibid. 34.
75
Howard Becker, ‘Becoming a Marihuana User’ [1953] 59 American Journal of Sociology 235, 235.
76
Charles Lemert and Frederick Winter (eds), Crime and Deviance: Essays Innovations of Edwin M. Lemert
(Rowman and Littlefield 2000) 23.
77
Lemert (n 35) 40.
78
Ibid. 76.
73
17
fact of existence’79 for the indelibly labelled delinquent. Simultaneously, as societal
rejections strengthen, the subject may begin to resent, not only the violated norms, but the
larger social structures exacting these penalisations. Once more, as Sherman contends, this
response is especially likely from labelled adolescents who are, generally, treated with less
respect by officers and may purposely seek to defy authority where possible.80
These collective responses of social control serve to alter the ‘psychic environment’81 of
labelees as they come to devalue their original sense of self and undergo, what Lemert terms
an ‘identity crisis’.82 Borrowing from the symbolic interactionist notion of the ‘looking-glass
self-concept’, existing roles of the labelee become disrupted as he now views himself as he
believes others see him; as a criminal. At this point, Lemert contends a ‘reorganisation based
upon [the] new role or roles will occur’.83 This is, of course, a hugely oversimplified account
of an extremely complex process which is central to the labelling perspective. Thus, it must
now be explored in more detail.
2.3.2 The Process of Secondary Deviance
As mentioned, labelling theorists propose this process is initiated through the actions of social
control agents who criminally label those caught committing primary deviance. This
generally involves contact with the CJS and a criminal trial which serves to publicise the
individual’s new status; thus, constituting what Garfinkel describes as a ‘status degradation
ceremony’.84 Notably, the publication of this information has never been easier given
contemporary advances in communication technology which, unfortunately, means that the
stigma of a conviction has become increasingly powerful. Indeed, as Erickson observes,
whilst we may not parade deviants around the town square any longer, the timing of this
change in penal policy coincided directly with the development of newspapers to disseminate
such information.85 Subsequently, upon learning of the subject’s actions, others naturally,
whether rightly or wrongly, assume intent on the part of the ‘criminal’ and ascribe deviant
79
Ibid. 41.
Lawrence Sherman, The Defiant Imagination: Consilience and the Science of Sanctions (University of
Pennsylvania 2000).
81
Lemert (n 35) 17.
82
Ibid. 58.
83
Ibid. 76.
84
Harold Garfinkel, ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’ [1956] 61 American Journal of
Sociology 420, 420.
85
Erikson (n 62) 14.
80
18
motives unto them.86 Initially, this seems fair, however, this ascription is not limited to one
facet of the actor’s character, rather, serving an “essentialising” function as these motivations
are construed as indicative of the individual’s essential self.87 This results in the labelee’s
typification as a “deviant” and increased susceptibility to stigmatisation and segregation.
This being said, labelling theorists do not suggest that the instigation of this process is an
inevitability. Instead, they maintain it is circumstantial as, for example, there are instances in
which the formal application of a criminal label will go undisclosed to others and remain in
private. This might include where hearings are closed to the public or if those apprehended
are released without further action. Alternatively, even if the label is publicised, others may
reject it; neutralising the consequences of negative character ascription through ‘inclusive
reactions’.88 Similarly, the actor may resist others’ judgments through what Davis terms
‘deviance disavowal’; a process whereby the ‘deviant’ maintains their original identity by
continuing to view themselves as ‘essentially normal’.89 Overall, secondary deviance is
greatly dependent upon the subjective effects of being labelled; that is, ‘the labelling
experience [must] recast individuals in their own eyes as well as the eyes of others’.90
Recalling Mead’s conception of the adaptable self, labelling theorists advocate this
‘recasting’ is not uncommon. In fact, they contend that self-identity ‘has to be routinely
created and sustained in the reflexive activities of the individual’, meaning identity is
continuously restructured in light of new experiences and information.91 Every emotionally
salient experience plays a vital role in shaping each person; making the self both ‘socially
shaped and individually constructed’.92 This is consistent with Foucault’s belief that
individual behaviour is based upon interpretations ‘proposed, suggested and imposed on
[them] by [their]…society and social group’.93 Resultantly, once an individual is tagged as
‘criminal’, this label carries with it culturally prescribed attitudes and behaviours which
86
Paternoster and Iovanni (n 36) 375.
Robert Scott , ‘A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Deviance as a Property of Social Order’ in Robert Scott
and Jack Douglas (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance (Basic Books 1972) 14.
88
James Orcutt, ‘Societal Reaction and the Responses to Deviation in Small Groups’ [1973] 52 Social Forces
259, 260.
89
Fred Davis, ‘Deviance Disavowal: The Management of Strained Interaction by the Visibly Handicapped’
[1961] 9 Social Problems 120, 120.
90
Paternoster and Iovanni (n 36) 378.
91
Shadd Maruna, ‘Desistance and Development: The Psychosocial Process of ‘Going Straight’’ (1999) British
Journal of Criminology < http://britsoccrim.org/volume2/003.pdf> accessed 3 August 2015.
92
Ibid.
93
Everett Hughes, ‘Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status’ [1945] 50 American Journal of Sociology 353, 355.
87
19
labelees are expected to both learn and perform. They are assigned to a category which
‘carries with it a stock of interpretive accounting [for those] subsumed under its rubric’.94
These anticipated roles and responses tend to be embodied in stereotypes as those
surrounding the subject engage in a form of ‘social typing’95 whereby they forget the
‘deviant’s’ previous identity and respond to him as a criminal. As Schur contends, these
responses can cause serious problems of identity management for the subject as they can
overwhelm the individual to such a degree that they can no longer maintain any alternative,
prosocial self-conception.96 Consequently, the uniformity of these reactions may result in the
labelee conforming to society’s deviant expectations as such behaviours increasingly become
self-actualised.
As aforementioned, it is young people who are most susceptible to these processes. Indeed,
recent labelling research indicates that the earlier in the life-course sanctions are applied, the
greater the chances of deviant identity transformation.97 This affirms Lemert’s contention that
‘criminal careers are fashioned at the time of personal identity’.98 This vulnerability is
unsurprising as it is during adolescence that individuals first begin to shape their adult
identities. Youths are likely to ‘’try on’ various possible selves ‘for size’’99 which may
involve their engagement in criminal activity. However, whilst most will abandon their illicit
tendencies over time, if the youth is apprehended and labelled, this imposed, criminal identity
can become permanently fixed, meaning that ‘a moment of deviation may become the
measure of [that] person’s position in society’.100
Accordingly, secondary deviation becomes more likely as the actor must adopt this
anomalous perception of self to be reinstated into society.101 As Tannenbaum elaborates, once
labelled, ‘the community expects him to live up to his reputation, and will not credit him if he
does not live up to it’.102 Therefore, the subject’s behaviour becomes increasingly organised
around the stereotyped persona as they become ‘hooked’ upon it. ‘Once “hooked”, new
94
Schur (n 37) 41.
Ibid.
96
Ibid. 51.
97
Ted Chiricos, Kelle Barrick, William Bales and Stephanie Botranger, ‘The Labeling of Convicted Felons and
its Consequences for Recidivism’ [2007] 45 Criminology 547, 557.
98
Lemert and Winter (n 76) 5.
99
Maruna (n 91).
100
Erikson (n 62) 11.
101
Lemert (n 35) 44.
102
Tannenbaum (n 43) 477.
95
20
identities are fashioned out of new roles’ as ‘whole bundles’ of behaviours inconsistent with
the new self are abandoned, whilst bundles expressive of this delinquent characterisation are
adopted.103 Gradually, as the labelee plays out this role, he becomes engulfed within it as
‘[t]he long acting out of a role…will often induce a man to become what at first he merely
sought to appear’.104 An internal conflict arises as the individual begins to doubt his former
identity. These tensions are usually resolved through a reinterpretation of past experiences
which are now perceived as having always been encountered by a ‘deviant’. Thus, as
Garfinkel postulates,
‘the former identity, at best, receives the accent of mere appearance…[it]
stands as accidental; the new identity is the ‘basic reality’. What he is now,
‘after all’, he was all along’.105
It is only when this reconstitution of self is endured that it can be said that ‘the deviant
identification becomes the controlling one’.106 Thus, what merely began as a criminal label
may now be regarded as the subject’s ‘master status’;107 reducing what was a complex human
being to what is largely a one dimensional stereotype.108
From Lemert’s perspective, it is only inevitable that the internalisation of this label will
contribute to ‘deviancy amplification’. However, whilst emphasis has been placed upon these
internal, subjective changes of self, labelling theory also highlights how the practical
implications of criminal labelling can compound these personal effects. Predominantly, these
consist of the impediments arising from obtaining a criminal record. For example, convicts
are stripped of basic rights of citizenship including their right to vote, hold office or,
potentially, serve on jury duty. Additionally, upon release, the associated stigma can restrict
conventional opportunities relating to parenting rights, housing choices, educational
attainment or employment prospects. Without these, the ‘criminal’ is excluded from
interactions with non-deviants; ensuring the actor remains ostracised from his community and
without adequate inter-personal bonds which might otherwise have deterred successive
103
Christopher Uggen, Jeff Manza and Anela Behrens, ‘’Less than the Average Citizen’: Stigma, Role
Transition and the Civic Reintegration of Convicted Felons’ in Shadd Maruna and Russ Immarigeon (eds), After
Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (Willan Publishing 2004) 269.
104
Mills (n 65) 908.
105
Garfinkel (n 84) 422.
106
Becker (n 72) 33.
107
Ibid. 34.
108
Scott and Codd (n 22) 19.
21
criminality. These issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 but, for now, suffice it to
say, it is a combination of these subjective and objective effects which cause secondary
deviance as the labellee perceives that a life of crime offers more satisfactory solutions to his
difficulties than non-deviance.
2.4 The Fall of Labelling Theory
Despite its popularity throughout the 1960’s and 70s, labelling theory effectively lost its
status as a dominant, impactful criminological perspective by the early 1980s and was
‘pronounced dead by 1985’.109 Initially, it captured the imagination of a generation whose
ideologies were premised upon notions of revolution and rebellion against state power and
social control agencies. This is unsurprising as labelling theorists were among the first to
fervently support policies of decriminalisation and deinstitutionalisation. However, within a
decade, the tide had turned as individualistic empiricism reasserted its grip on public policy
and criminal research. The theory came under direct fire from positivist academics who
ridiculed its theoretical imprecision, criticising the methodological variation existing within
this area and the mixed results of supposedly supporting studies. Some went further
suggesting it was tautological and did not meet the criteria of an official theory, representing
a mere perspective with intuitive appeal.110 However, as those defending the outlook argued,
formal theoretical status should not be a major criterion in assessing its value or usefulness.111
Simultaneously, the theory was condemned on both sides of the political spectrum. For Left
Realists, it was a neo-liberal theory that did not go far enough in its evaluation of how the
state created crime. Taylor, Walton and Young led the charge finding it ignored important
political questions regarding how the elite can utilise their power over the legislature to
define criminal behaviour in a way that secures their own interests. For them, the theory
failed ‘to lay bare the structured inequalities in power and interest which underpin processes
whereby laws are created and enforced’.112 However, such critique was minimal compared to
that from the political Right. As mentioned, the 1980s saw the generation of a new wave of
punitivism under the Thatcher government who fundamentally opposed policy propositions
advocated by labelling theorists, seeing them as ‘soft on crime’. Penal policy became firmly
109
Paternoster and Iovanni (n 36) 359.
Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young, The New Criminology (Harper and Row 1973) 140.
111
Schur (n 37) 35.
112
Taylor, Walton and Young (n 110) 168.
110
22
reliant on notions of deterrence theory, a stance antithetical to that of labelling because of
their ‘flatly contradictory conclusions regarding how sanctions influence human conduct’.113
Thus, policies were premised on the idea that harsh sanctions will reduce offending by
elevating an individual’s perception of the risk of criminal engagement. Little thought was
given to how such intervention might impact upon an actor’s self-conceptions and access to
conventional opportunities. Consequently, by the end of the decade, the theory had become
an underdog perspective and, unfortunately, remains this way today.
2.5 Conclusion
Having provided the reader with an insight into the propositions expounded by labelling
proponents, the means by which traditional punishment can, not only fail to repress crime but
‘preserves a criminal class’,114 should be more discernible. Relatedly, it should also be
apparent that, currently, the means by which we deal with offenders through incarceration is
in no way sympathetic to a labelling approach, remaining wholly dependent on notions of
deterrence.
To summarise, whilst labelling theorists do not argue that labelling processes provide the only
reason for deviant behaviour, they contend these constitute a very important cause of such.115
Overall, they propose two key consequences of punishment which contribute to criminality.
The first involves a transformation of identity as the psychological impact of marking and an
individual as ‘criminal’, and treating him as such, causes the actor to reject conventional roles
and adopt a deviant self-perception. The second emphasises the structural barriers to
conventional opportunities which result from criminal labelling. Despite that the theory is no
longer politically persuasive, it is contended it has been prematurely dismissed. As shall be
seen, this perspective provides an extremely, contemporarily relevant basis from which to
critique the effectiveness of the prison given that both its core crime causing premises
explicitly relate to the direct and indirect effects of incarceration.
113
Thomas and Bishop (n 44) 1223.
Lemert (n 35) 42.
115
Gary Albrecht and Mayann Albrecht, ‘A Critical Assessment of Labeling in the Juvenile Justice System’
[1978] 4 Justice System Journal 114, 117.
114
23
3. The Direct Effects of Incarceration: Identity Transformation and the
Psychological Impact of Imprisonment
The penal system is there to hurt people, not to help or cure. And the
pain is inflicted to further the interests of persons other than those
brought to suffer.116
3.1 Introduction
Having explored the core premises of labelling theory and the two predominant means by
which its advocates suggest deviancy is caused, it is now possible to utilise these notions to
exact a detailed critique of imprisonment and to explain how the institution fails to prevent
crime and, in some cases, exacerbates criminality. This chapter focuses on the dangerousness
of the prison environment and highlights how the institution wholly facilitates delinquent
identity transformation; a primary cause of secondary deviance. It is maintained that
confinement has never been conducive to positive human change117 and that the prison is
‘one of the worst places to keep or get one’s self “together”’.118 Imprisonment represents a
majorly disruptive life-event which is experienced by inmates as a direct assault on the self;
an unsurprising fact as ‘[t]here is scarcely a more powerful social context…in our society
than [the] prison’.119
The chapter begins by identifying some of the more profound deprivations experienced by
detainees. It is recognised that prison hurts go far beyond physical constraint and are best
described through, what Sykes calls, the ‘pains of imprisonment’.120 Subsequently, attention
is drawn to the methods utilised by prisoners to adapt to these pains through processes which
can distort their self-identities; causing successive criminality, whilst also having dire
consequences for their mental health. Accordingly, the chapter concludes by reviewing the
prevalence of these psychological issues affecting prisoners across the UK and the sheer lack
of effectual healthcare provided to those suffering most.
116
Christie (n 33) 74.
Scott and Codd (n 22) 167.
118
John Irwin and Barbara Owen, ‘Harm and the Contemporary Prison’ in Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna
(eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011) 101.
119
Haney (n 26) 149.
120
Gresham Sykes, The Society of Captives (Princeton 1970) 63.
117
24
3.2 The Pains of Imprisonment
‘Prison has always been painful’121 and it is key to recognise that some pain is truly inevitable
given the loss of liberty features as the essence of incarceration. However, it is the series of
harms contingent with this primary deprivation that are of interest as, when taken together,
they deal a ‘profound hurt’ unto prisoners which strongly threatens their sense of being and
personal worth.122 Although these modern pains are, prima facie, more humane than the
brutality characterising confinement in the past, it must be remembered that ‘they can be just
as painful as the maltreatment which they have replaced’.123 According to Sykes, there are
five predominant, interrelated deprivations which psychologically afflict prisoners the most.
It is to these deprivations which attention must now be turned.
3.2.1 The Deprivation of Liberty
Despite being the most patent deprivation, Sykes maintains the withdrawal of liberty is
potentially the most painful, inflicting a two-fold punishment on inmates. On the one hand,
prisoners are removed from society and have their movements confined to within the prison.
They must spend the majority of their time in a six-by-eight foot cell, only being allowed to
leave when permission from an authority is granted. On the other, more significantly,
internment ensures detainees are almost completely cut-off from the ‘outside world’,
seriously restricting their ability to maintain relationships with family and friends ‘leaving a
real gap in many inmates’ lives’.124 Given the importance of these social relations for youth
to adult development, it is young people who suffer most prominently from this deprivation.
Involuntary seclusion can be devastating for adolescents who are unable to develop adequate
social skills and, as a result, become increasingly introvert. Whilst such isolation may be
reduced by occasional permitted contact with significant others, through visitation or
electronic communication, research highlights the ineffectiveness of such methods with the
Social Exclusion Unit reporting that 43% of prisoners in the UK had lost all contact with their
families upon their imprisonment.125
121
Haney (n 26) 10.
Robert Johnson and Hans Toch (eds), Introduction to the Pains of Imprisonment (Sage Publications 1982)
17.
123
Sykes (n 120) 64.
124
Zamble and Porporino (n 21) 82.
125
Social Exclusion Unit, ‘Reducing Reoffending by Ex-Prisoners’ (Home Office, July 2002) 1, 112.
122
25
The implications of such isolation can be even greater for those who perceive their
confinement as ‘a deliberate moral rejection…by the free community’.126 No longer do
inmates possess full rights of citizenship, being stripped of their law-abiding status and
purposefully segregated from those adhering to societal norms and values. Convicts become
subordinate to those on the ‘outside’, never being allowed to forget that they have forgone
their status as fully-fledged, trusted members of society. For Sykes, it is this internal
realisation that the subject is no longer ‘morally acceptable’ which hurts the most. Thus, the
prison walls which seal off the ‘criminal man’ serve as a constant threat to a prisoner’s selfconception and this ‘threat is continually repeated in the many daily reminders that he must
be kept apart from “decent” men’.127
3.2.2 The Deprivation of Goods and Services
By design, prisons deprive inmates of most goods and services they would generally have
access to in the ‘free world’. While their substantive needs are met behind bars, in that they
are ordinarily fed, sheltered and given a bed to sleep in, they are stripped of almost all
possessions deemed superfluous to survival. While also entitled to healthcare, as shall be
seen, its provision is usually insufficient and lacking. At first, this deprivation may seem
trivial, however, for the average prisoner living within this ‘harsh Spartan environment’,128
such material impoverishment can be considerably painful. This is particularly so across
contemporary Western societies which now place a higher value on accumulation and wealth
than ever before. Accordingly, within such a culture, material possessions are now a vital part
of an individual’s self-conception, symbolising their status, affluence and social standing.
Consequently, to forfeit these belongings ‘is to be attacked at the deepest layers of
personality’.129
This attack is particularly acute as this destitution is self-induced; caused by the subject’s
own misdeeds or mistakes rather than any act of misfortune. ‘The failure is his failure’,130
meaning this deprivation may become linked with personal inadequacy constituting ‘a
126
Sykes (n 120) 65.
Ibid. 67.
128
Ibid. 68.
129
Ibid. 69.
130
Ibid.
127
26
pernicious assault on the self-esteem of the inmate’.131 What’s more, Johnson highlights how
this ineptness is likely to be of a greater intensity in this technologically-advanced society. He
notes ‘a new level of disconnection between prison and society has emerged’132 as detainees,
especially those serving longer sentences, can more easily lose touch with the rapidly
developing ‘outside world’. For youths, this withdrawal can be particularly devastating as
they may not possess the requisite technological skills to acquire employment upon release.
Additionally, their sense of personal deficiency may be exacerbated by peer pressure to
obtain the latest gadgetry or even maintain a desired image of themselves on social media.
Again, this pain is inescapable as the sparse prison environment constantly reminds convicts
of their compromised status. Thus, the experience of imprisonment instils its own internalised
stigma within inmates as material deprivation quickly becomes ontological deprivation.133
3.2.3 The Deprivation of Heterosexual Relationships
A further pain effecting all inmates, again, especially those serving lengthy sentences, is the
deprivation
of
heterosexual
134
by…involuntary celibacy’
relationships.
Detainees
are
‘figuratively
castrated
and this poses considerable physical and psychological
problems for both male and female prisoners.135 For example, living within a mono-sexual
milieu can permanently damage inmates’ sexual orientations as many are pressured into
homosexual satisfaction of their carnal needs.136 Even if such behaviour is not engaged in,
‘latent homosexual tendencies’ may be activated within the subject generating feelings of
guilt at a conscious or unconscious level.137 This can cause significant anxiety and discomfort
for prisoners who are regularly confronted with these proximate homosexual encounters,
inducing another ‘constant tension’138 within the prison environment which detainees must
131
Haney (n 26) 181.
Robert Johnson, ‘Brave New Prisons: The Growing Social Isolation of Modern Penal Institutions’ in Alison
Liebling and Shadd Maruna (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011) 257.
133
Keith Hayward and Jock Young, ‘Cultural Criminology: Some Notes on the Script’ [2004] 8 Theoretical
Criminology 259.
134
Sykes (n 120) 70.
135
Deb Drake and Ben Crewe, ‘Deprivations/Pains of Imprisonment’ in Yvonne Jewkes and Jamie Bennett
(eds), Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment (Willan Publishing 2008) 62.
136
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 102.
137
Sykes (n 120) 71.
138
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 103.
132
27
overcome. Notably, this pain is particularly applicable within the UK as conjugal visits
remain unlawful, despite over half of European countries now permitting such visits.139
Beyond the frustrations of involuntary celibacy, living within a society composed exclusively
of one sex can also cause significant behavioural and attitudinal change within those
confined. As Johnson observes, there is a tendency for traditionally male personality traits to
become exaggerated in the absence of moderating effects of members of the opposite sex,
meaning that the image of manliness (in male prisons) and womanliness (in female prisons)
can be dangerously distorted.140 This hegemonic masculinity exaggerates the importance of
traits associated with toughness and aggression, which creates a ‘climate of fear’ within
prisons as inmates come to believe ‘that unless [they] convincingly project an image that
conveys the potential for violence, [they are] likely to be dominated and exploited’.141 This is
particularly so considering that homosexuality in prisons commonly takes the form of
aggressive advances by dominant individuals over weaker ones; a reality chillingly reflected
by the fact that approximately 1% of current prisoners across the UK have been raped, whilst
5.3% have been victims of coerced sex.142
Relatedly, an inmate’s self-conception is also susceptible to change in this environment and,
bearing in mind labelling notions of the ‘looking-glass self’, this is unsurprising. Recalling
that individuals construct their identities based upon how others perceive and react to them;
prisoners are denied of the vital reactions of those of the opposite sex. Consequently, ‘the
inmate’s self-image is in danger of becoming half-complete, fractured, a monochrome
without the hues of reality’.143
3.2.4 The Deprivation of Autonomy
This pain relates to the loss prisoners experience as a result of being relentlessly subjected to
vast bodies of rules and commands aimed towards their control and disempowerment.
139
Dominic Casciani, ‘Sex in Prisons to be studied by the Howard League’ BBC News (London, 27th June 2012)
available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18603360> accessed 8th August 2015.
140
Robert Johnson, Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison (Wadsworth 2002) 66.
141
Richard McCorkle, ‘Personal Precautions to Violence in Prison’ [1992] 19 Justice and Behaviour 160, 161.
142
Fred Thornhill, ‘Thousands Raped and Sexually Abused in British Prisons – Report’ RT Question More
(Russia, 10th February 2015) available at <http://www.rt.com/uk/230875-prison-sexual-aggression-links/>
accessed 8th August 2015.
143
Sykes (n 120) 72.
28
Frustration arises from the reach of decisions made on an inmate’s behalf by prison officials
as regulations extend into every aspect of their lives behind bars, leaving them with few or no
choices at all and wholly at the mercy of a higher authority. To take but a few examples,
inmates cannot choose when, what or where they eat; when they get up or have lights out;
whether, and for how long they shower; or even, in extreme cases, what clothes they wear.144
This aggravation is exacerbated by the fact that there is always the potential for these rules to
be enforced arbitrarily and inconsistently, pending on their subjective interpretation by prison
staff.145 Indeed, as the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) remarked, seemingly ‘every prison has 500
rules; they enforce 50 of them; and you never know which rule they will decide to
enforce’.146 Given the huge power differentials existing between the rulers and the ruled, and
the way that power lies exclusively in the hands of the ruling few, it is understandable that the
internal workings of the prison have been described as akin to a totalitarian regime.147
Living routinised and restricted lives, inmates may grow hostile to prison personnel as they
become dependent upon their decisions. Defining agency as ‘the capacity, condition or state
of acting or exerting power’;148 prisoners relinquish this ability to make autonomous choices
about their own lives. Eventually, for some, it becomes natural to be denied control over
decisions influencing their daily routines, thus, infantilising them by removing their right of
self-determination. Problematically, this regression to ‘the weak, helpless, dependent status of
childhood’149 further damages an inmate’s self-image as an accredited, independent, member
of society.
Moreover, institutional dependency can permanently hamper prisoners’ regulatory and
decision-making capacities as ‘they lose the ability to routinely initiate their own behaviour
or exercise sound judgment in making their own [choices]’.150 According to Haney, this is
particularly the case for juveniles who are unlikely to have fully established internal
behavioural controls prior to imprisonment. He maintains that, because the prison surrounds
detainees so thoroughly with external constraints, in the form of rules and regulations, it is
144
Craig Haney, ‘The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Postprison Adjustment’ in Jeremy
Travis and Michelle Waul (eds), Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on
Children, Families and Communities (Urban Institute Press 2003) 45.
145
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 106.
146
Prison Reform Trust, ‘Prisons Can Seriously Damage your Mental Health’ (2010) 1, 6.
147
Sykes (n 120) xiv.
148
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 98.
149
Sykes (n 120) 75.
150
Haney (n 144) 40.
29
dubious as to whether essential, internal controls will develop within these youths.151
Resultantly, upon release, their risk of recidivation is amplified due to this dearth of internal
controls but also because rigorous external behavioural restraints have now been removed. As
Soyer notes, ‘once…teenagers return to their communities, the punitive structures that have
ensured their compliance are gone and so is the immediate threat of repercussions for
disobedience’.152 Thus, this pain can go far beyond the prison walls; posing a serious threat to
an ex-convicts post-prison adjustment.
3.2.5 The Deprivation of Security
This final pain elucidated by Sykes arises by virtue of the fact that prisoners are repeatedly
exposed to individuals who may have a prolonged history of violent or aggressive behaviour.
Accordingly, ‘prison can never be regarded as a place of safety’.153 This seems
contemporarily accurate as the number of serious assaults in UK prisons recently reached
their highest level for a decade with 1,958 reported incidents recorded in 2014; an increase of
almost a third on the previous year.154 Undoubtedly, living in such conditions, where
attaining a sense of outright security is virtually impossible, ‘can prove to be anxietyprovoking even for the hardened recidivist’.155
Consequently, it is not uncommon for detainees to quickly become hyper-vigilant;
persistently on their guard and alert for any potential threats or risks to their personal safety.
Given each prisoners awareness that those with whom they live may be primed to exploit
weakness, imprudence or ineptitude at any moment, they cannot help but become
interpersonally cautious, viewing others with a heightened level of distrust or suspicion. As
McCorkle observed from his study of male inmate behaviour within a maximum security
prison, ‘fear appeared to be shaping the lifestyles of many of the men’.156 Not only do such
relations stimulate incessant wariness and paranoia, they also intensify individual isolation
and exclusion which, according to the PRT, incites vulnerability, depression, a reduced
151
Ibid. 41.
Michaela Soyer, ‘The Imagination of Desistance: A Juxtaposition of the Construction on Incarceration as a
Turning Point and the Reality of Recidivism’ [2013] 54 British Journal of Criminology 91, 105.
153
Prison Reform Trust (n 146) 3.
154
BBC News, ‘Serious Assaults in Prison ‘At Highest Level for Ten Years’’ BBC News (London 29th January
2015) available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31039766> accessed 10th August 2015.
155
Sykes (n 120) 77.
156
Haney (n 144) 41.
152
30
propensity and willingness to communicate whilst increasing the risk of offender
recidivism.157
Generally, whilst there remains a substantial lack of research instruments capable of
accurately measuring the psychological effects of incarceration, it can be said with certainty
that;
…the pains of imprisonment can transform prisoners, impede their
development, undermine their overall well-being, and negatively
affect their potential for post-prison adjustment.158
However, in saying this, it is vital to note that these pains are not experienced homogenously
as it remains true that ‘each man lives in his own prison’.159 Indisputably, some prisons
produce more pain than others whilst, simultaneously, some prisoners are more susceptible to
these harms than others. For example, research indicates female prisoners suffer far more
severely as a result of their separation from family members (especially their children) than
do men.160 Similarly, women exhibit greater anxiety regarding issues of privacy, personal
health and bodily autonomy.161 Conversely, it is men who experience more profound pain
associated with the threat or infliction of violence as female prisons tend to be physically
safer. Additionally, for the elderly or those suffering from a disability, incarceration pains are
particularly unforgiving due to ‘institutional thoughtlessness’;162 as prisons are commonly not
geared up to cater for their specific needs. For political prisoners, research again differs,
indicating they are among the least vulnerable class of detainee because of their sustained
commitment to an identifiable ideology.163 Also, as might be expected, sentence length is
generally found to be positively correlated with the reported pains of incarceration. However,
the research of both Sapsford164 and Rasch165 has shown that feelings of depression and
157
Prison Reform Trust (n 146) 4-6.
Haney (n 144) 150.
159
Terence Morris and Pauline Morris, Pentonville: A Sociological Study of an English Prison (Routledge 1963)
181.
160
Barbara Owen, Women in the Mix (New York Press 1998).
161
Drake and Crewe (n 135) 64.
162
Elaine Crawley, ‘Institutional Thoughtlessness in Prisons and its Impacts on the Day-to-Day Lives of Elderly
Men’ [2005] 21(4) Journal of Contemporary Justice 350, 350.
163
Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor, Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term Imprisonment
(Pelican 1972) 160.
164
Roger Sapsford, Life Sentence Prisoners: Reaction, Response and Change (Open University Press 1983).
158
31
demoralisation are most evident in those having served less time; leaving the predicted
implications of this variable somewhat open to question.
Thus, overall, as Hans Toch observed, few of the effects of imprisonment ‘are crosssectional…and ‘purely out there’, because personal susceptibilities that intersect with
environments are built up through personal histories’.166 It is vital that we do not suffer from
any form of ‘penal agnosticism’167 by making such homogenising assumptions. However, it
must equally be recognised that, given the rate of penal expansionism, more people are
subjected to these pains than ever before and there is increasing consensus that there are few
leaving prison unscathed by their experience. This is especially so given that imprisonment
pains have become decidedly more severe over the past three decades.168 With this in mind,
the question of how prisoners both react and adapt to these harms becomes all the more
relevant.
3.3 Prisoner Adaptation and Identity Transformation
Evidently, imprisonment must be viewed as substantially more than the withdrawal of liberty.
The extreme stresses contingent with prison pain make life more than unpleasant for inmates;
potentially causing them permanent damage. As per Hocking’s seminal review of the
psychological effects of human exposure to intense environmental pressures, ‘subjection to
prolonged, extreme stress results in the development of ‘neurotic’ symptoms in virtually
every person exposed to it’.169 Commonly, the combined deteriorative impact of these
pressures within fixed establishments is referred to as ‘institutionalisation’ or ‘institutional
neurosis’;170 describing the processes by which a person’s inner-self undergoes a series of
‘abasements, degradations, humiliations and profanations’.171 However, because pain is
165
Wilfried Rasch, ‘The Effects of Indeterminate Sentencing: A Study of Men Sentenced to Life Imprisonment’
[1981] 4 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 417.
166
Hans Toch, ‘The Role of the Expert on Prison Conditions: The Battle of Footnotes in Rhodes v Chapman’
[1982] 18 Criminal Law Bulletin 38, 44.
167
Keith Bottomley and Kennith Pease, Crime and Punishment: Interpreting the Data (Open University Press
1986) 164.
168
Haney (n 144) 60.
169
Frederick Hocking, ‘Extreme Environmental Stress and its Significance for Psychopathology’ [1970] 24
American Journal of Psychotherapy 4, 23.
170
Russell Barton, Institutional Neurosis (2nd edn, 1966 Wright Publishing) 14.
171
Erving Goffman, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and other Inmates (Anchor
Books 1961) 24.
32
aversive, individuals invariably adopt ‘coping strategies’172 to deal with these stresses.
Nonetheless, as accurately observed by Zamble and Porporino, while ‘beings are
extraordinarily adaptable…change does not occur without some cost’.173
3.3.1 Prisonisation
Relating specifically to the prison environment, it is well known that inmates make a number
of adaptations to reduce the pain they experience throughout their sentence. These are
natural, inevitable and normal responses to the unnatural and abnormal conditions of their
confinement as detainees incorporate the norms of prison life into their habits of thinking,
feeling and acting.174 Usefully, Clemmer coined the term “prisonisation” when describing
this process, defining it as ‘the taking on in greater or less degree of the folkways, mores,
customs, and general culture of the penitentiary’.175 From a labelling perspective, given the
self is formulated through an interplay of social, psychological and contextual factors,
identity change is almost an inevitability within this environment. As Mead notes;
…a person is a personality because he belongs to a community, because he
takes over institutions of that community into his own conduct.176
If this is true, then a prisoner’s personality is shaped by the institutional exigencies to which
the inmate is required to adapt, meaning ‘they are changed – often in problematic, adverse
ways – as a result’.177
This process of change is progressive and cumulative, as usually inmates who initially find
coping in prison extremely difficult, eventually become accustomed to the deprivations and
indignities that custodial life inflicts. However, issues arise because of the irrefutable
discordance between the values of the prison community and those of larger society. Thus,
prisoners must act in accordance with new norms and expected patterns of behaviour. They
must comply with the, so-called, ‘inmate code’, composed of numerous uncodified, informal
172
Nigel Walker, ‘The Unwanted Effects of Long-Term Imprisonment’ in Anthony Bottoms and Roy Light
(eds). Problems of Long-Term Imprisonment (Gower Publishing 1987) 192.
173
Zamble and Porporino (n 21) 83.
174
Craig Haney (n 144) 38.
175
Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (Christopher Publishing 1940) 299.
176
George Mead, The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead (Phoenix Books 1956) 239.
177
Haney (n 26) 13.
33
rules which, if violated, can have very serious repercussions for detainees. In male prisons
particularly, these informal norms tend to be ‘harsh, exploitative and even predatory’,178
inscribed in discourses of masculinity; glorifying violence, force and domination whilst
stigmatising femininity and feebleness. Accordingly, expressions of candid emotions and
intimacy are discouraged, meaning inmates are forced to suppress and control their emotional
responses in order to project an outward image of toughness and, hence, avoid exploitation.
According to Haney, they must develop an impenetrable ‘prison mask’ which acts as a
defensive shell against manipulative others. Problematically, he describes how such
emotional restraint can cause ‘a chronic emotional flatness that debilitates [prisoners’] social
interactions and intimate relationships’.179
As labelling theorists might suggest, this conduct is to be expected as, having been labelled
and treated as criminals, inmates will come to act in a manner consistent with stereotypically
prescribed behaviour which conforms to their deviant label. However, whilst adopting these
unconventional norms may be imperative to prison adaptation and endurance, significant
problems emerge if this projected ‘prison self’ becomes internalised. Specifically, there is a
risk that the constancy of the institutional environment may gradually alter an inmate’s preestablished identity and replace it with one promoting behaviours associated with a
stereotyped deviant identity; including successive criminality. Indeed, one need only consider
the results of the infamous Stanford prison experiment to see the dangerous effects of the
‘psychologically compelling prison environment’180 in which over half of the participating
‘prisoners’ suffered acute emotional disturbance and a transient loss of identity. Therefore, it
is contended that an inmate’s ability to psychologically survive the rigours of prison
primarily depends upon their ability to maintain their pre-existing sense of self whilst, also,
keeping it entirely divorced from their socially sanctioned, deviant identity that may have
been adopted to comply with prison norms.181
For many, ensuring this separation between what Goffman has conceptualised as ‘front stage’
and ‘back stage’ identities is all but impossible. This pseudo-conformity to deviant roles can
178
Ibid. 178.
Haney (n 144) 42.
180
Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Phillip Zimbardo, ‘Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison’ [1973] 1
International Journal of Criminology and Penology 69, 69.
181
Yvonne Jewkes, ‘Identity and Self’ in Yvonne Jewkes and Jamie Bennett (eds), Dictionary of Prisons and
Punishment (Willan Publishing 2008) 128.
179
34
instil a sense of ‘ontological insecurity’182 within inmates, whereby they begin to doubt the
integrity of their inner selves and undergo an identity crisis. It is for this reason Goffman
refers to prisons as ‘people processing factories’ noting how, upon detainment, an
individual’s pre-institutional self loses its importance and is soon replaced by an institutional
identity which is difficult to dismiss.183 Consequently, in the face of repeated designations as
criminals, within an environment specifically for these ‘kinds of people’, offenders may
renounce their conformist self-concepts and gradually internalise their publicised deviant
status.
Again, these processes do not affect all inmates homogenously. Indeed, it is important to note
that initial models of prison culture and prisonisation have been formulated predominantly
through examination of male inmates and institutions, meaning their implications for
explaining female prison culture is unclear.184 In what limited research does exist on this
issue, it is suggested that, just as male prisoners emphasise masculine traits, female prisoners
adapt by adopting qualities traditionally representative of femininity.185 For example, most
studies have focused on how women form ‘pseudo-families’ with other female inmates to
cope with prison pains.186 These are generally constructed around stereotyped gender-roles
which are transferred into the institutional setting from the ‘outside world’ and provide a
means of sustaining pre-prison identities. As Medlicott maintains, such behaviour is
consistent with the gender-stereotyping policy of female prisons which aim to re-feminise
women who deviate from traditional female roles.187 However, it seems that women are not
wholly exempt from deviant identity transformation as, upon failing to generate adequate
support structures behind bars, they too may adopt unconventional, hyper-masculinised
traits.188
182
Ronald Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness (Penguin 1965) 46.
Goffman (n 171) 87.
184
Ronda Dobbs and Courtney Waid, ‘Prison Culture’ in Mary Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Prisons and
Correctional Facilities (Sage Publications 2005) 722.
185
Jennifer Marchbank and Gayle Letherby, Introduction to Gender: Social Science Perspectives (Pearson
2007) 295.
186
See Amanda Beer, Robert Morgan and John Garland, ‘The Role of Romantic Intimate Relationships in the
Well Being of Incarcerated Females’ [2007] 4(4) 250.
187
Diana Medlicott, ‘Women in Prison’ in Yvonne Jewkes (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan Publishing 2007)
252.
188
Ashley Blackburn, Jocylyn Pollock and Shannon Fowler, Prisons: Today and Tomorrow (3rd edn, Jones and
Barlett 2014) 100.
183
35
Contrastingly, it is juveniles who are most susceptible to these processes of prisonisation as
many enter these extremely powerful environments not having developed stable values of
their own or the ability to make rational life choices. Resultantly, young offenders are likely
to develop behaviours and attitudes which accord with the structures of prison life, meaning
‘their institutionalisation may proceed more quickly, with deeper and more long-lasting
consequences’.189 These prolonged effects are unsurprising as there is a distinct possibility
that prison norms will become irreversibly ingrained within a youth’s identity as they go
through key developmental life stages whilst adapting to confinement.190 Also, because most
of these inmates lack pre-existing, mature identities, they are unable to revert to any former,
conformist version of self upon release. With this in mind, Maruna’s description of
imprisonment as ‘a normative “rite of passage” for disadvantaged young men’,191 gains
credence. He describes how juveniles become definitively separated from their developing
selves upon entry to the prison, which constitutes a distinctive liminal space ‘symbolically
outside the conventional sociocultural order’.192 It is within this space that new identities may
be formed. Unfortunately, as a consequence of the aforementioned prison pains and
adaptation processes, this identity shift is rarely progressive and prosocial as the youth,
undergoing this interaction;
…starts out as one status (presumably a ‘person’ or ‘citizen’), and
emerges…as a different entity altogether – an ‘offender’ or
‘criminal’.193
Whilst this identity may be functional within the prison, it is likely to prove problematic in
almost all other contexts. Thus, ‘mastering the psychological rigors of prison does little to
facilitate successful reintegration into the free-world’.194 As one study suggests, it is those
inmates who adjust most successfully to imprisonment who experience the greatest difficulty
reintegrating into society.195 Therefore, it must be recognised that post-prison transition is
rarely straightforward as most prisoners must overcome deep inner tensions between their
189
Haney (n 144) 39.
Haney (n 144) 40.
191
Shadd Maruna, ‘Reentry as a Rite of Passage’ [2011] 13 Punishment and Society 3, 10.
192
Catherine Bell, Rituals: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford University Press 1997) 36.
193
Maruna (n 191) 11.
194
Haney (n 26) 170.
195
Lynne Goodstein, ‘Inmate Adjustment to Prison and the Transition to Community Life’ [1980] 10 Research
on Crime and Deinquency 246, 265.
190
36
former identity, the person they appear to be whilst incarcerated, and the one they actually
become.196 Many are unable to manage these complex identity shifts, leading to inner
turmoil, stress and for a stark number of prisoners, severe mental health issues or even
suicide. It is to these issues which focus must now be directed.
3.4 The Psychological Consequences of Incarceration
The prevalence of psychological issues affecting prisoners across the UK is nothing short of
startling. So much so, that any evaluation of the psychological vicissitudes that inmates
experience would be incomplete without drawing attention to this area. Indeed, given the
intensity of inner turmoil which can result from imprisonment pains and from the processes
by which inmates adapt to these hurts, it is unsurprising that the modern prison has been
described as ‘a good greenhouse for developing mental health problems’.197 It is well
documented how the institution can provoke a wide range of strong human emotions
including frustration, anxiety, sadness and shame. The concentration of these emotions within
a relatively small space, from which there is no escape, makes the development of
psychological disorders almost an inevitability.198
Although for some inmates the prison environment acts as an emotional ‘stabilizer’,199 for the
majority, their mental wellbeing deteriorates. Indeed, according to research conducted by the
Northern Ireland Assembly and the Ministry of Justice, 70% of UK prisoners have two or
more mental health problems,200 with 23% of male and 49% of female inmates suffering from
severe anxiety or depression.201 These figures are substantial, as these ailments affect only
12% of men and 19% of women in the general population.202 Thus, despite that many
researchers assume the importation of these disorders, clearly, incarceration amplifies their
pervasiveness; creating or exacerbating existing mental conditions. Again, irrefutably, it is
196
Thomas Schmid and Richard Jones, ‘Suspended Identity: Identity Transformation in a Maximum Security
Prison’ [1991] 14 Symbolic Interaction 415, 417.
197
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Third Report - Session 2004-05 (Joint Committee on Human Rights
Publications 2004) 31.
198
Haney (n 26) 169.
199
Graham Durcan, From the Inside: Experiences of Prison Mental Health Care (Sainsbury Publications 2008)
31.
200
Northern Ireland Assembly, ‘Prisoners and Mental Health’ (NIAR 609-10, 9th March 2011) available at
<http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/4611.pdf> accessed 13th August 2015.
201
Ministry of Justice, ‘Gender Differences in Substance Misuse and Mental Health Among Prisoners’
(Ministry of Justice 2013) 19.
202
Ibid.
37
young offenders who bear the brunt of such vulnerability with the Social Exclusion Unit
reporting that approximately 95% of inmates aged between 15 and 21 suffer from at least one
mental disorder;203 a figure reflecting their lack of life experience upon which to rely when
dealing with prison pain. Further, these damaging effects are not simply a domestic
phenomenon with around one in seven inmates across Western prisons suffering from major
depression or a psychotic illness.204 Thus, it seems that Gallo and Ruggiero were not too far
wrong when describing prisons as ‘factories for the manufacture of psychosocial
handicaps’.205
However, what is more disconcerting, is the evidential link between imprisonment and
suicide which constitutes ‘one of the most disturbing features of the confinement project’.206
Although in decline for most of the twentieth century, the officially recorded figure of prison
suicides has reached unprecedented highs over the last 15 years.207 This problem is not going
away as, according to recent stats, 82 prisoners in England and Wales took their lives in
2014; the highest recorded statistic in seven years.208 Of this group, 14 deaths were of
individuals aged between 18 and 24. Further, according to Liebling, somewhere between one
third and one half of inmates have suicidal thoughts on a regular basis.209 Whilst, again, some
suggest this prevalence reflects the pre-established mental instability of some prisoners,
research has shown that those who self-harm in prison are far less likely to have a history of
psychiatric illness or treatment than those in the general population’.210
Thus, it seems that prison suicide usually results from the psychological trauma experienced
by inmates whilst confined. Research consistently highlights that those most likely to attempt
to take their own lives behind bars are those both physically and socially isolated within
203
Social Exclusion Unit (n 125) 70.
Seena Fazel and John Danesh, ‘Serious Mental Disorder in 23,000 Prisoners: A Systematic Review of 62
Surveys’ [2002] 359 The Lancet 545.
205
Ermanno Gallo and Vicenzo Ruggiero, ‘The Immaterial Prison: Custody as a Factory for the Manufacture of
Handicaps’ [1991] 19 International Journal for the Sociology of Law 273, 278.
206
Scott and Codd (n 22) 88.
207
Ibid. 95.
208
Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘Suicide in Prison’ (22 January 2015) available at
<http://www.howardleague.org/suicide-in-prison/> accessed 14th August 2015.
209
Alison Liebling, ‘Prison Suicide and its Prevention’ in Yvonne Jewkes (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan
Publishing 2007) 423.
210
Alison Liebling, ‘Risk and Prison Suicide’ in Jackie Pritchard and Hazel Kemshall (eds), Good Practice in
Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Jessica Kingsley 1997) 188.
204
38
prison.211 This is consistent with the findings of Durkheim’s classic study, Suicide, which
suggested that a person will usually only engage in such behaviour when the social conditions
and social relationships in which they are immersed become ‘anomic’.212 For many, selfharm provides a means of coping with the stresses of incarceration when common means of
managing such (for example, through usage of drugs, alcohol or family support) may be
unavailable. It represents a way of dealing with negative emotions by converting mental hurt
into physical hurt.213
Additionally, according to the Howard League for Penal Reform214 and Pratt et al.,215 this
increased susceptibility to suicide is also an issue for those released from prison. This usually
results from chronic psychological problems which can persist long after incarceration and
are usually linked with, what Herman terms ‘complex post-traumatic stress disorder’216
produced by ‘prolonged, repeated trauma or the profound deformations of personality that
occur in captivity’.217 She notes how this is commonly symptomized by protracted
depression, apathy, isolation and anxiety; ailments all intrinsically linked to suicide. Thus, it
is apparent that death has now become ‘an intrinsic part of the confinement project’218 with
one commentator going as far as to declare that the CJS ‘has rapidly become our secret death
penalty’.219
Unfortunately, this perilous situation seems unlikely to change any time soon as few prison
programmes acknowledge these risks and fewer provide adequate inmate healthcare.
Currently, offenders are provided with little or no direct counselling to help them understand
prison pain and the adaptations they are required to make.220 Historical trends, emphasising
that notions of treatment and care are incompatible with institutions premised upon
punishment and control persist, as healthcare offered by the Prison Health Service continues
211
Roger Matthews, Doing Time: An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment (Palgrave Macmillan 2009)
66.
212
Emile Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology (Routledge 1952).
213
Scott and Codd (n 22) 89.
214
Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘Suicide and Self Harm Prevention: Following Release from Prison’
[2002] 49(1) Criminal Justice Matters 42, 43.
215
Daniel Pratt, Mary Piper and Louis Appleby, ‘Suicide in Recently Released Prisoners: A Population Based
Cohort Study’ [2006] 368 Lancet 119.
216
Judith Herman, ‘Complex PTSD: A Syndrome in Survivors of Prolonged and Repeated Trauma’ [1992] 5(3)
Journal of Traumatic Stress 377.
217
Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (Oxford University Press 2003)
53.
218
Scott and Codd (n 22) 167.
219
David Wilson, Death at the Hands of the State (Howard League 2005) 1.
220
Haney (n 26) 14.
39
to be restricted by ‘the formal and informal networks of penal power’.221 Consequently,
illnesses taken very seriously in the ‘outside world’ have somewhat become normalised
within this medically unresponsive environment, meaning only those showing visibly severe
signs of psychological distress receive treatment.
Even then, prisons ‘are not equipped to provide anything more than ‘first-aid’ care for
individuals suffering from severe mental illness’;222 a supposition made all the more
disquieting by Durcan and Knowles who predict that around 40% of prisoners on healthcare
wings should be in secure NHS accommodation.223 Thus, it is maintained that while the NHS
does not assume complete responsibility for the delivery of healthcare in UK prisons, there
will always be a failure to recognise that criminal offenders remain citizens with full rights to
an equivalent standard of care as is afforded to those in the general community. Realistically,
a prison cannot provide the same level of care as a hospital and any quest for such
equivalence remains a forlorn hope.224 Overall, it is imperative it is realised, sooner rather
than later, that prisons can never become truly safe environments as they will always remain
‘shackled by the profoundly punitive nature of confinement’.225 Therefore, the concept of a
‘healthy prison’ is, in essence, an oxymoron.
3.5 Conclusion
Given this analysis, it is no surprising that prisons have been referred to as ‘the worst kinds of
total institution’;226 ostracising those confined from society and removing individual freedom.
However, prison pains are not limited to the loss of liberty alone as this deprivation is
inseparable from other hurts which, when dealt together, constitute ‘a set of threats or attacks
which are directed against the very foundations of [a] prisoner’s being’.227 In response to
these profound assaults, inmates must adapt to this toxic environment through processes
which distort their former identities and substitute dangerous institutional values in place of
human ones. Resultantly, as labelling theory predicts, gradually, these branded ‘deviants’
may not only begin to act differently, but perceive themselves differently and in a manner
221
Joe Sim, ‘The Future of Prison Health Care: A Critical Analysis’ [2002] 22 Critical Social Policy 300, 300.
John Gunn, Tony Madden and Mark Swinton, Mentally Disordered Patients (Home Office 1991) 98.
223
Graham Durcan and Karen Knowles, Policy Paper 5 – London’s Prison Mental Health Services: A Review
(Sainsbury Publications 2006).
224
Scott and Codd (n 22) 32.
225
Ibid. 104.
226
Nigel Walker, ‘Side Effects of Incarceration’ [1983] 23 British Journal of Criminology 61, 69.
227
Sykes (n 120) 79.
222
40
congruent with others’ perceptions of them; as criminals. Thus, for most, ‘incarceration does
not encourage the self-directed development of a non-deviant identity’,228 increasingly
regarded as an essential pre-requisite for sustained desistance. Consequently, the chances of
ex-offender recidivism may be enhanced by imprisonment meaning that;
…the system we have designed to deal with offenders is among the
most iatrogenic in history, nurturing those very qualities it claims to
deter.229
Beyond this, the implications for inmates’ health are also profound as a significant amount of
psychological pain continues to be inflicted upon those detained in the name of crime control.
In a manner eerily reminiscent of old, contemporary penal practice reflects an unfortunate
reversion away from ‘what works’ to ‘what hurts’; a stark reality which sits very uneasily
alongside current prison policy which consistently emphasises the official purposes of
imprisonment do not include harming inmates.230
Having now explored how the direct effects of incarceration relate to the first core,
criminogenic, etiological premise proposed by labelling theorists, it is timely to consider how
the indirect effects of a prison sentence are associated with the second causal component
espoused.
228
Soyer (n 152) 92.
Jerome Miller, ‘American Gulag’ Yes Magazine (6 February 2001).
230
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 94.
229
41
4. The Indirect Effects of Incarceration: The Structural Impediments
Associated with Criminal Labelling
Once convicted, forever doomed has been the practice of society. We
are the first to be accused and the last to be recognised. We are
branded the lowest of all people: we the Convicted Class.231
4.1 Introduction
Undoubtedly, as Richard and Jones note, there is a fundamental lack of recognition,
particularly amongst the public, as to how the damaging effects of a prison sentence expand
beyond the subjective impairments directly related to processes of incarceration.232 Many
remain ignorant to the ‘collateral consequences’ of imprisonment as, whilst its direct effects
may be instantly discernible, its indirect repercussions are less immediately apparent. For
labelling theorists, however, these outcomes are imperative when it comes to understanding
the reasons why branded individuals re-offend. They maintain that, although the centrality of
the immediate socio-psychological effects of labelling cannot be displaced, it is vital to
recognise how a criminal label also limits the legitimate opportunities which would otherwise
be available to a labelee. Consequently, as ‘identity is very much shaped within the
constraints and opportunity structure of the social world in which people live’,233 those
marked as ‘criminal’ may be unable to formulate prosocial identities because of their
restricted conventional prospects. Thus, deviant self-conceptions constructed by inmates
whilst imprisoned will not only fail to dissipate upon release, but may become reinforced;
ever-enhancing the likelihood of their criminal re-engagement.
This chapter explores these collateral consequences of incarceration and how these tangible
pains operate to augment processes of deviant identity transformation. It begins by noting
some of the more immediate ways by which a criminal conviction distorts civic participation,
amplifying an inmates feelings of exclusion. Subsequently, recent research is utilised to
highlight exactly how, and to what degree, a criminal label can impede and disrupt communal
reintegration, leading to a rejection of societal norms. Accordingly, the chapter concludes by
231
From the ‘Charter of the United Prisoners Union’ cited in Deirdre Briggs, In Place of Prison (Temple Smith
1975) 142.
232
Richards and Jones (n 42) 204.
233
Maruna (n 91).
42
reviewing how some ex-inmates, particularly those who are young and acquiescent, may
become immersed in deviant subcultures which promote non-conformist values and can
inspire future deviation.
4.2 The Collateral Consequences of Incarceration
4.2.1 The Immediate Legal and Civil Losses Contingent with Imprisonment
As noted, inmates suffer a number of immediate losses upon their confinement which are
contingent with their physical exclusion from the ‘free world’. They undergo ‘civilities
mortuus’ or civil death, describing how incarceration ‘suspend[s] their civil lives, rendering
them civilly dead until they are deemed worthy of return to the society of the living’.234 This
is demonstrated by the fact that it seems offenders are more distinguishable by their legal
relationship with the state and their separation from the general citizenry than by their class
or social status. According to Marshall, who defined citizenship as;
…a status bestowed on those who are full members of a
community…[each of whom] are equal with respect to the rights and
duties to which the status is endowed. 235
Inmates’ effectively revoke their citizenship upon entry to the prison. This contention seems
fair given that prisoners are stripped of many civil rights by virtue of their imprisonment. For
example, prisoners cannot stand on juries, hold public office and remain unable to vote
(despite the European Court declaring the illegality of this blanket ban on four separate
occasions).236 Undoubtedly, this denial of basic rights can intensify an offender’s sense of
both moral and civil rejection, heightening the overall depersonalisation effects of the prison
environment. They are “othered” by this partial withdrawal of legal status which constantly
differentiates between “us” and “them”; between the “conformist” and the “criminal”.
Nevertheless, many of these “civil losses” must only be endured by inmates during their
confinement as those released typically have these legal rights restored. However, while this
restoration will usually ensure that an ex-offender is legally entitled to be considered as a
234
Robert Johnson, Deathwork: A Study of the Modern Execution Process (Brooks-Cole Publishing 1990) 155.
T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge University Press 1950) 28.
236
BBC News, ‘UK Prisoner Voting Rights Breached, European Judges Rule’ BBC News (London, 10th
February 2015) available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31356895> accessed 16th August 2015.
235
43
fully-fledged citizen, what it cannot guarantee is that the, now labelled, “ex-con” will, in
reality, always be treated as such.
4.2.2 The Problem of Reintegration and the Lack of Assisted Identity Management
Undoubtedly, for inmates to survive the rigours of incarceration unscathed is extremely
challenging. Nonetheless, to describe it is an uncelebrated achievement would be an
understatement. Whilst completing a prison sentence may be seen as a ‘badge of honour’
within some peer groups (especially among juveniles), ‘a criminal record is primarily
regarded as a badge of shame, something to hide from others, and an open invitation for
discrimination and social exclusion’.237 For this reason, labelling theory suggests that an
offender’s punishment continues long after their incarceration, commonly taking the form of
stigmatisation and marginalisation. As LeBel elucidates, those formerly incarcerated must
continue wearing ‘invisible stripes’238 upon re-entering their communities and it is likely that
the manner in which others now react to them will ‘instil an ongoing sense of punishment that
goes beyond anything court imposed’.239 Thus, for most, their sanctioning is perpetual as a
criminal label becomes a ‘scarlet letter’240 leaving ex-prisoners permanently branded and
exposed to incessant stigmatisation.
The persistence of this pain is undoubtedly buttressed by the fact that, currently,
unprecedented numbers of inmates are released without adequate preparation for their
successful reintegration into society. Those who have adapted to prison life may suffer
greatly readjusting to societal rules and will typically experience ‘the disjuncture between
[the] two different structuration’s of time and space as a lack of confidence…in the structure
they re-enter’.241 According to Travis, this lack of rehabilitative focus has particularly
devastating effects across Anglo-American societies which are especially unreceptive and
237
Maruna (n 191) 19.
Thomas LeBel, ‘Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons’ Perceptions of and Responses to Stigma’
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Albany 2006).
239
Uggen, Manza and Behrens (n 103) 277.
240
Ibid. 283.
241
Richards and Jones (n 42) 203.
238
44
unamenable to those who have committed offences in the past;242 an unsurprising fact given
the recent rise of penal populism in the UK and US.
Thus, it seems as though many prisons across the UK ‘merely confine and let the wounds
fester’.243 For labelling theorists, this is inherently dangerous as inmates who are forced to
adapt to a world in which they lack independence and autonomy, are abruptly transferred to
one in which they are entirely on their own.244 Moreover, a dearth of meaningful transitional
programs means inmates receive little assistance when identifying and reversing the perilous
effects of prisonisation. Consequently, those who have fully immersed themselves in the
‘inmate culture’ and have subsequently come to internalise the criminal label attached to
them, may leave prison engulfed within these deviant roles. Thus, processes of prisonisation
may evolve ‘from being merely a set of short-term adaptations to an actual long-term strategy
of living’.245
This is consistent with Van Gennep’s contention that life-course transitions occur through
three distinct stages; separation, liminality and reintegration.246 Applying these to prisoners,
primarily, they are physically separated from their previous positions within the social
structure by virtue of their incarceration. As previously mentioned, the prison itself represents
a liminal space, characterised by ‘vulnerability, chaos and danger because customary rules
are upturned and normal codes of activity…are suspended’.247 As evidenced, it is within this
intense environment that identity change can, and often does occur but, usually, in hugely
detrimental ways. Consequently, the final stage of reintegration is fundamental as a means of
incorporating inmates into ‘new, relatively stable and well defined positions in society’.248
However, it is asserted that all too often, this concluding phase is lacking, leaving exprisoners deeply enmeshed in their deviant identities ‘with no proper license to resume a
normal life in the community’.249
242
Jeremy Travis, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Urban Institute Press
2005).
243
Briggs (n 28) 14.
244
Haney (n 26) 15.
245
Ibid. 181.
246
Arnold van Gennep ‘The Rites of Passage’ (Routledge 1960) 46-53.
247
Yvonne Jewkes, ‘Loss, Liminality and the Life Sentence: Managing Identity Through a Disrupted
Lifecourse’ in Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011) 375.
248
Ibid. 374.
249
Erikson (n 62) 17.
45
4.2.3 The Structural Barriers Faced by those Labelled
It is a truism in social psychology that an individual will find it easier establishing himself as
a ‘deviant’, than as a reformed person.250 As per Skowronski and Carlson, due to this
‘negativity bias’,251 a single deviant involvement can be enough to indefinitely mark a person
as ‘criminal’ whilst, conversely, many years of hyper-conformity and a life-time of
respectable behaviour may not suffice to reconceptualise that individual as a non-deviant.
This largely results from an ex-offender’s criminal record which serves as a patent reminder
to others engaging with the labelee that they are not communicating with any ‘ordinary’ or
‘civil’ member of society; they are dealing with a ‘criminal’ and someone who must be
treated accordingly. Resultantly, those released are subject to specialised treatment, usually in
the form of systemic stigmatisation which is typically manifest through exclusion from
employment, educational and social opportunities.
Releasees commonly face ‘a plethora of bewildering restrictions’252 and are rarely given a
fair opportunity to return home and start new lives; despite what their ambitions might be.
Even for those who do leave prison with the desire to reinstate themselves by establishing
conformist identities, it is unlikely that they will possess either the personal resources or
social relationships necessary to establish the role commitments associated with this persona
immediately after release. Indeed, this finding is supported by Halsey253 and Ashkar and
Kenny254 who, through studying the post-release lives of juvenile offenders, noted how
several of those studied emphatically expressed a willingness to desist from crime. However,
for most, these hopeful aspirations proved unrealistic given the unanticipated challenges
which faced them upon release.
This is unsurprising given that the majority of offenders leave prison with their criminogenic
needs untreated or worsened by imprisonment;255 often being left with no job or home, only
250
Shadd Maruna, Thomas LeBel, Nick Mitchell and Michelle Naples, ‘Pygmalion in the Reintegration Process:
Desistance from Crime Through the Looking Glass’ [2004] 10(3) Psychology, Crime and Law 271, 272.
251
John Skowronski and Donald Carlston, ‘Negativity and Extremity Biases in Impression Formation: A
Review of Explanations’ [1989] 105 Psychological Bulletin 131, 131.
252
Richards and Jones (n 42) 219.
253
Mark Halsey, ‘Assembling Recidivism: The Promise and Contingencies of Post-Release Life’ [2008] 97(4)
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1209.
254
Peter Ashkar and Dianna Kenny, ‘Views from the Inside: Youth Offenders’ Subjective Experience of
Incarceration’ [2008] 52(5) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 584.
255
Lily, Cullen and Ball (n 48) 164.
46
tenuous ties to their families, and generally, in a condition of financial instability. For
example, it is estimated that 12% of inmates released across the UK between 2012 and 2013
had no settled accommodation in which to reside256 and only 26% entered employment.257 Of
course, these issues are made more acute when one considers those already unemployed,
uneducated and impoverished remain overrepresented in the prison population;258 a statement
exemplified by the fact that, during the same period, 15% of newly sentenced prisoners were
reported as being homeless prior to incarceration,259 47% declared they had no previous
qualifications and only 32% reported being employed in the four weeks preceding their
confinement.260 Hence, many of those labelled as ‘deviant’ continue to be subjected to ‘a
continuous cycle of poverty, prison, parole and more poverty: the same cycle prisoners the
world over have endured since the first man was enslaved’.261
Individual attempts to break free of this vicious cycle and simultaneously gain social
credence are often inhibited by an inmate’s criminal record. For example, a growing number
of universities now utilise criminal records to reject student applications for admission and
their acquirement of loans.262 It goes without saying that juveniles suffer most from this
practice as, given their age, it is highly improbable that many have the opportunity to
complete their education prior to conviction. As a corollary of this, job prospects for exprisoners are bleak; a sad reality reinforced by the fact that employers also tend to
discriminate against ex-convicts. Indeed, according to Working Links, 55% of UK employers
admitted they would use a disclosed conviction to reject an applicant outright or to
discriminate against them.263 Similarly, they also found that only 20% of employers have
knowingly recruited an ex-offender in the past. Given these statistics, it comes as no surprise
256
Ministry of Justice, ‘Research Summary 3/12- Accommodation, Homelessness, and Reoffending of
Prisoners: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction Survey’ (Ministry of Justice: London, 2012) 1,
1.
257
Ministry of Justice, ‘NOMS Annual Report 2012/13: Management Information Addendum’ (Ministry of
Justice: London, 2013) Table 13.
258
Golash (n 2) 4.
259
Ministry of Justice (n 256) 1.
260
Ministry of Justice, ‘The Pre-custody Employment, Training and Education Status of Newly Sentenced
Prisoners’ (Ministry of Justice: London, 2012) 1, 7.
261
From the ‘Charter of the United Prisoners Union’ see (n 231).
262
Richards and Jones (n 42) 207. See also Centre for Community Alternatives, ‘The Use of Criminal History
Records in College Admissions Reconsidered’ (2010) available at
<http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-college-admissions.pdf>
accessed 21st August 2015.
263
Working Links, ‘Prejudiced: Tagged for Life – A Research Report into Employer Attitudes Towards ExOffenders’ (2010) available at <http://workinglinks.co.uk/pdf/Prejudged%20Tagged%20for%20life.pdf>
accessed 21st August 2015.
47
that almost a third of British people classified as unemployed and claiming Jobseeker’s
Allowance possess a criminal record.264 As Lofland states, all too often employers have little
confidence in their ability to discern between legitimate and illegitimate claims made by exprisoners regarding their personal reform. Thus, for them, it is safer to interpret any expressed
individual desire to ‘go straight’ as ‘phony, feigning, unbelievable and implausible’.265
This lack of access to conventional means of earning can be extremely problematic for exoffenders who may reasonably believe their illegal opportunities exceed their legitimate
earning potential.266 As Lemert asserts, they may ‘find more satisfactory solutions to their
problems through deviance than through non-deviance’.267 This assertion is not unfounded
with many studies reporting that post-release employment is the most important factor for
reducing reoffending.268 Supporting this, Sampson and Laub describe how youth
incarceration can spark their failure in school, negatively affect their later job stability and
weaken their community bonds; ultimately encouraging successive criminality over the lifecourse.269 Hence, ‘unemployment, crime, and punishment are often seen as ‘naturally’
destined to move together in the same direction’.270
As ex-offenders become ever-more ‘ensnared by the consequences of antisocial
behaviour’,271 their ostracism and segregation from the community becomes all the more
palpable. Accordingly, Lemert’s assertion that deviant actions constitute ‘social
foreclosures’272 remains pertinent. Any continued criminal involvement has a ‘systematic
attenuating effect on the social and institutional bonds that normally link adults to society’.273
This is substantial, as it is these informal, conventional ties and attachments which bind most
individuals to conformity and provide them with significant reasons to avoid deviation. Thus,
borrowing heavily from desistance literature and social bond theory, it is maintained that
varying ties to family, employment and education are essential pre-requisites for ensuring
264
Robert Winnett, ‘Third of Unemployed are Convicted Criminals’ The Telegraph (London, 28th December
2014) available at <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8979769/Third-of-unemployed-areconvicted-criminals.html> accessed 21st August 2015.
265
John Lofland, Deviance and Identity (Prentice Hall 1969) 212.
266
Uggen, Manza and Behrens (n 103) 269.
267
Lemert (n 35) 55.
268
Working Links (n 263).
269
John Laub and Robert Sampson, ‘Understanding Desistance from Crime’ [2001] 28 Crime and Justice 1, 57.
270
Melossi (n 54) 205.
271
Maruna and LeBel (n 49) 74.
272
Lemert (n 35) 51.
273
Laub and Sampson (n 269) 57.
48
continued desistance. Those lacking these bonds are prone to reoffend, having the least to
lose from the application of social sanctions due to their lower stake in conformity.274
Here-in lies the irony of imprisonment as a means of preventing crime as, while it is
recognised that improving an individual’s social ties will likely reduce their future criminal
involvement, incarceration removes these bonds; fundamentally reducing an individual’s
chances of achieving both relational and economic stability. It serves to ‘knife off’275 many of
a prisoner’s future life opportunities, thereby, creating unassailable barriers to their adoption
of legitimate adult roles. As Maruna observes, many ex-offenders may well be perfectly
capable of leading non-criminal lives were it not for the combination of these post-release
deprivations or this ‘cumulative continuity’.276
For juvenile offenders, these effects are particularly devastating as bad decisions made in
adolescence can effectively serve to ‘mortgage their future’ by blocking opportunities for
conventional success and enhancing their chances of re-offending.277 To allow this to occur
seems highly unorthodox as well as hugely counter-productive given that it remains one of
the most well-known findings in criminology that young offenders tend to ‘mature out’ of
deviant behaviour.278 Most delinquent youths, whether convicted or not, do not pursue
criminal careers indicating that their involvement in illicit behaviour is but a transitory phase
of their development.279 Although this process of ‘spontaneous remission’ is little understood,
this correlation between age and criminal participation has been described as direct, innate,
and even as part of the ‘law of nature’.280
However, as McCulloch and McNeill state, ‘chronological age has no meaning in or of its
self’;281 a claim somewhat verified by the fact that female offenders generally desist much
274
Shadd Maruna, Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives (American Psychological
Association 2003) 30.
275
Maruna and LeBel (n 49) 75.
276
Ibid.
277
Daniel Nagin and Raymond Paternoster, ‘On the Relationship of Past and Future Participation in
Delinquency’ [1991] 29 Criminology 163.
278
Shadd Maruna (n 91).
279
Novel Morris and Gordon Hawkins, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control (University of Chicago
Press 1969) 155.
280
Maruna (n 274) 29.
281
Trish McCulloch and Fergus McNeill, ‘Desistance Focused Approaches’ in Simon Green, Elizabeth Lacaster
and Simon Feasey (eds), Addressing Offending Behaviour: Context, Practice and Values (Willan Publishing
2008) 155.
49
earlier than males with their peak age of offending being 16 in comparison to 21 for males.282
Instead, ‘desistance is an outcome of a complex, interactional reciprocal process’283 which,
according to Sampson and Laub, is irrefutably initiated and enhanced by the formation of
strong social bonds throughout the life-course of an adolescent.284 Accordingly, given what
has been said before, imprisonment undoubtedly ‘derail[s] rather than facilitate[s] the
normative processes of maturation associated with desistance’.285 Instead of allowing
juveniles to naturally age-out of transient criminal roles, the CJS too often acts to unduly
penalise what are usually negligible infractions with formal conviction labels which can
encourage subsequent criminality. This supposition has recently been supported by Petrosino
et al. who, upon conducting a meta-analysis of 29 experiments which took place over 35
years, concluded that youths formally processed through the CJS were significantly more
likely to recidivate than those diverted from it.286 Substantially, this finding is consistent with
most research in this area which persistently suggests desistance occurs away from the CJS
and that current policies of incarceration do not support any long-term commitment to this
process.287
Thus, as labelling theory suggests, the chances of juvenile offenders’ recidivating can be
dramatically increased by imprisonment. Their exclusion from social opportunities can
reinforce deviant identities whilst also adding to their perpetual segregation from larger
society. Consequently, in a sense, ‘deviance can be viewed as a “normal” social response to
“abnormal” social circumstances’.288 Going further, Braithwaite argues that when society’s
reaction towards these ‘deviants’ is to stigmatise, isolate and exclude, youths have very
limited opportunities to achieve affiliation and self-respect in mainstream society.289
However, how such may still be sought is through their acceptance into delinquent
subcultures composed of similarly stigmatised outcasts.
282
Tim Bates and John Pitts, The RHP Companion to Youth Justice (Russell House Publishing 2005).
Laub and Sampson (n 269) 30.
284
Ibid. 19.
285
Maruna and LeBel (n 49) 69.
286
Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino and Sarah Guckenburg, ‘Formal System of Processing of
Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency’ (2010) Campbell Systematic Reviews 1.
287
Stephen Farrall, ‘Why do People Stop Offending?’ [1995] 1 Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies 51,
56.
288
Erikson (n 62) 10.
289
John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration (Cambridge University Press 1989) 66.
283
50
4.3 The Potential for Deviant Subculture Participation
Given this multitude of potential, indirect, collateral consequences associated with
incarceration, it is unsurprising that some of those formerly imprisoned choose to defy
societal norms and actively ‘reject one’s rejecters’.290 A common way of doing so may be to
seek out those of a like status; an obvious solution for those now marked as social pariahs.
Thus, because of society’s unified, incorrigible condemnation of offenders, conditions
become conducive for criminal labellees to differentially associate with other lawbreakers
and establish various criminal subcultural groupings.291 Within these associations alternate,
unconventional rules and anti-social values are normalised by members who perceive all
those external to the group as ‘outsiders’.292
As labelling theorists have warned, this reinforced, collective abrogation of conventional
norms is particularly likely among those incarcerated as imprisonment, by its very nature,
mandates that offenders must dwell in an area in which engagement with other ‘criminals’ is
an inevitability. Supporting this, Benberg et al. found that officially labelling juveniles led to
their increased exposure to delinquent subcultures293 whilst Johnson et al. noted how such
official processing contributed to an increase in a youth’s delinquent peer associations.294
Indeed, it must be said, that this initial decision to punish lawbreakers by excluding them
from the company of non-deviants and compelling them to spend, what can be, significant
periods of time amongst other criminals seems somewhat precarious and nonsensical.
Accordingly, prisons provide fertile ground for the establishment of such dangerous groups,
giving offenders;
290
Gresham Sykes and David Matza, ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency’ [1957] 22(6)
American Sociological Review 664, 668.
291
Lily, Cullen and Ball (n 48) 146.
292
Becker (n 72) 2.
293
Jón Bernberg, Marvin Krohn and Craig Rivera, ‘Official Labelling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent
Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labelling Theory’ [2006] 43 Journal of Crime and Delinquency 67, 81.
294
Lee Johnson, Ronald Simons and Rand Conger, ‘Criminal Justice System Involvement and Continuity of
Youth Crime: A Longitudinal Analysis [2004] 36(1) Youth Society 3.
51
…an opportunity to teach one another the skills and attitudes of a
deviant career, and provoking them into employing these skills by
reinforcing their sense of alienation from the rest of society.295
This conception of the prison as a ‘school for crime’ is nothing new with Bentham declaring
that it is in this environment that ‘wickedness is taught by surer means than can ever be
employed for the inculcation of virtue’.296 Similarly, Bonger noted that by imprisoning
adolescents who commit only trivial crimes ‘we are bringing up professional criminals’.297
Thus, it is within these inmate groupings that first-time offenders can integrate with more
hardened criminals, gaining an ‘education in crime’,298 whilst also being compelled to
conform to their criminogenic attitudes and behaviours in an attempt to avoid making
dangerous enemies on the ‘inside’. In other words, they may be ‘backed into a position of
compliance’.299 This new grouping can subsequently reinforce barriers to an inmate’s
reintegration by enforcing upon them a behavioural model for the future violation of norms.
Consequently, those released may continue to seek both situations and persons compatible
with their dispositions. Generally, this involves their careful self-selection into deviant peernetworks that support and sustain developed deviant personality or behavioural traits. In so
selecting, ‘individuals have fewer deterrents to change their ways’300 as they gain support
from those already immersed in deviant careers. Further, involvement in such networks
becomes desirable as such subcultures facilitate easier access to deviant opportunities or roles
which “members” may find pleasurable or even financially necessary given their restricted
legitimate earning potential. The grouping can also serve a protective function, shielding
“members” from ‘the negative attitudes of outsiders [and] from the quite practical problems
posed by outsiders’ reactions’.301 According to Tannenbaum, for youths, this endeavour for
assistance is inevitable as the isolation they experience upon being labelled leads them ‘into
295
Erikson (n 62) 16.
Jeremy Bentham, Theory of Legislation (William Stevens 1864) 351.
297
Willem Bonger, Criminality and Economic Conditions (Bloomington Press 1969) 118.
298
Lemert (n 35) 46.
299
Robert Scott, The Making of Blind Men (Sage 1967) 36.
300
Maruna and LeBel (n 49) 73.
301
Schur (n 37) 77.
296
52
companionship with other children similarly defined, and the gang [will] become his/her
means of escape’.302
Within these factions, adherence to societal values is likely to be condemned as the group
formulates its own cultural ideals which, as labelling theorists assert, are generally shaped
around stereotypical suppositions associated with deviance. Therefore, criminal tactics can be
discussed openly among ‘members’ without risk of moral condemnation. In fact, involvement
in illicit behaviour may be the only means by which those involved can earn respect from
their peers; thereby, creating a unique environment where criminality is facilitated,
encouraged and rewarded. For Becker, it is through these inimitable interactions with others
that a ‘member’s’ conception of illegitimate behaviour may change, making its continuance
seem more attractive.303 Consequently, for those released who become involved in such
subcultures, any individually constructed, deviant perception of self will be reinforced by the
subjective reactions and activities of those within the group, thus, serving to augment their
risk of reoffending.
4.4 Conclusion
Palpably, the indirect effects of a prison sentence can be just as detrimental to prisoners as the
potential socio-psychological consequences of incarceration. Indeed, whilst detained, the
collateral legal and civil ramifications of being officially labelled can compound an inmate’s
inner pain; amplifying feelings of internal exclusion and rejection from mainstream society.
Thus, such emotional isolation may enhance processes of prisonisation and deviant identity
transformation. This is greatly concerning given that communities across the UK ‘are
particularly bad at reintegrating and re-accepting [convicts]’ and there remains a dearth of
effective re-entry programmes for these offenders.304 Resultantly, many leave prison
unprepared to return to society; still adhering to the norms and values of the ‘inmate culture’
thereby, leaving them predisposed to secondary deviance.
302
Tannenbaum (n 43) 20.
Becker (n 75) 242.
304
Maruna (n 191) 4.
303
53
This criminogenic inclination is subsequently reinforced by the lack of financial and social
opportunities available to former detainees by virtue of their criminal record which ensures
that their punishment persists through their incessant stigmatisation and exclusion from
conventional pathways to success. For some, re-offending may become necessary for survival
as they adopt a stance consistent with the notion; ‘if I am going to be treated like a criminal, I
might as well act like one’.305 Youths are most susceptible to this as they it is highly unlikely
that they will possess the resources required to renounce their degraded status upon release.
With this in mind, it is understandable that labelling theorists contend it is better for the CJS
to ‘leave kids alone whenever possible’.306 This is especially so considering the substantial
evidence suggesting their imprisonment will lead them into association with deviant
subcultures.
Accordingly, it is now clear that these indirect incarceration effects unequivocally correspond
with, what labelling theorists maintain, is a core causal component of secondary deviance.
These effects not only serve to buttress the direct pains of imprisonment but can also help
fulfil the criminogenic self-fulfilling prophesy earlier alluded to. Hence, those marked as
‘criminal’ may be compelled by the reactions of others to adopt a role consistent with what
they are described as being. Thus, ‘subjective reality becomes objective fact for the
individual and the larger society’.307
305
Maruna and LeBel (n 49) 17.
Schur (n 37) 155.
307
Paternoster and Iovanni (n 36) 381.
306
54
5. Conclusion
‘Prisons are failed institutions that do not work. They are places of
pain and social control and are brutal, abusive and damaging to
everyone who is incarcerated in them. Prisons are fundamentally
flawed and all attempts to reform them have failed’.308
Overall, in light of this analysis, the prison must be regarded as ‘a powerful, often harsh, and
potentially destructive social context’309 which, not only fails to reform offenders, but also
serves to entrench their criminal potential further. Whilst it is recognised that, based on the
premises of rational choice theory, the threat of imprisonment can and does act to deter many
individuals from criminality, this benefit comes at a substantial cost to those who do end up
incarcerated. Currently, insofar as detainment prevents crime, ‘it does so by using offenders
as mere means to the ends of others’;310 unacceptably infringing upon the well-respected
Kantian principle that rational beings must always be treated as ends in themselves and never
as means.311
It is now known with ‘undeniable certainty’312 that imprisonment causes a significant amount
of damage to a vast, and growing, number of people. It transforms prisoners, compelling
them to adopt destructive and precarious ways of thinking and behaving in order to survive
the institutional contingencies thrusted upon them. This is not to mention the potentially
severe, or even deadly, deleterious psychological repercussions this toxic environment can
have on an inmate’s mental health. Upon release, these disparaging effects are reinforced by
their stigmatisation and marginalisation in wider society as, generally, detainees are ‘released,
impotent, without jobs and angry at the system which put them “inside”’.313 Accordingly, as
society relentlessly rejects them no matter what they do, their incentive for individual
transition into law-abiding roles is greatly reduced.314 For labelling theorists, it is the
308
No More Prison, Members’ Newsletter (October 2006, London).
Haney (n 26) 186.
310
Golash (n 2) 152.
311
Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (Thomas Abott tr, Arc Manor 2008)
47.
312
Golash (n 2) 42.
313
Briggs (n 28) 15.
314
Uggen, Manza and Behrens (n 103) 284.
309
55
culmination of these sanctioning effects which causes successive criminality rather than
diminished involvement in such.315
As this critique has shown, this contention remains valid as an array of recent research
persistently highlights the dangerousness and ineffectiveness of imprisonment, as well as the
irony of considering it as a successful crime prevention measure. Indeed, as Haney notes,
‘historically, recidivism rates have never generated much optimism about the effectiveness of
prison to reduce future crime’316 (emphasis in original). This remains the case with the
Ministry of Justice reporting that approximately 46% of adult prisoners are reconvicted
within one year of release, with this figure increasing to 58% for those serving sentences
under 12 months.317 As may be expected given the forgoing review, these statistics are even
worse for young offenders as it is estimated that over two-thirds (67%) of those aged under
18 are reconvicted within a year of custodial discharge.318 Therefore, ostensibly, ‘recidivism
is [now] a function of the institutionalisation process’,319 with one commentator suggesting
that by the time a prison sentence is served, an inmate’s chances of re-offending are increased
many-fold.320
Resultantly, in this era of penal expansionism, the prison system is perpetuating its own
growth, acting as a ‘revolving door’321 for prisoners because of its own institutional failings
to adequately prepare these individuals for release. They essentially represent ‘human
warehouses for the return of damaged goods’322 causing inmates’ irreparable personal and
psychological damage, effectively socially handicapping them by reinforcing their status as
criminal labelees and, thus, enhancing their overall risk of re-offending with each
confinement. Therefore, when restricted to its technical functions, it can safely be said that
imprisonment does not work as there remains;
…no compelling evidence that the spreading of prison pain [will]
accomplish its alleged purpose – a sizeable reduction of crime that is
315
Thomas and Bishop (n 44) 1243.
Haney (n 26) 71.
317
Ministry of Justice, ‘Proven Re-Offending Statistics Quarterly: July 2011 to June 2012’ (Ministry of Justice:
London, 2014) Tables 18a and 19a.
318
Ibid. Table 18b.
319
Anthony Vass, Alternatives to Prison: Punishment Custody and the Community (Sage 1990) 43.
320
Briggs (n 28) 51.
321
Richards and Jones (n 42) 219.
322
Ibid.
316
56
commensurate with the resources we have invested in the policy of
mass imprisonment.323
In fact, prisons themselves have somewhat become ‘criminogenic agents’ meaning that high
rates of incarceration can paradoxically serve to augment the amount of crime within a
society.324 With this in mind, it could be said that the conservation of the current prison
system is ‘as much a direct cost to society as crime itself’;325 both financially and socially. In
a sense, incarceration repeats the crime committed by offenders rather than annulling it
whilst, simultaneously, creating new victims rather than vindicating the original ones.326
As Zamble and Porporino concluded from their detailed investigation into the impact of
prison life on inmates, the futility of the institution for reforming “criminals” is wholly
unsurprising. This is so, given that its primary function has always been to constrain the body
rather than to promote inmate adherence to conventional societal norms and principles.327
Contrarily, the prison instils within inmates’ values and morals which entirely conflict with
those idealised on the “outside”. It represents a ‘society within a society’328 supporting a
‘regressive form of civilisation’329 with little connection to the lived reality of those beyond
its walls. Incarceration is a ‘temporary superimposed experience’330 that goes against almost
every aspect of human dignity and sanctity, which we expect individuals to, not only survive,
but to endure and come out of ‘reformed’. In most cases, they do not, as the institution
cannot generate opportunities for creative self-transformation as it remains completely
disconnected from positive social experiences of non-deviance.
Whilst this ineptness has long been recognised by many academics, theorists, and even some
politicians, the problem remains that the prison is entrenched and embedded in our society, so
much so, that its sustained existence seems beyond doubt. As Foucault described, it is ‘the
detestable solution which one seems unable to do without’.331 This is particularly true of late
323
Craig Haney (n 17) 86.
Ibid. 78.
325
Advisory Council on the Penal System, Powers of the Courts Dependent on Imprisonment (London HMSO,
1977) 4.
326
Golash (n 2) 152.
327
Zamble and Porporino (n 21) 89.
328
Sykes (n 120) xii.
329
Scott and Codd (n 22) 164.
330
Soyer (n 152) 105.
331
Foucault (n 10) 232.
324
57
as punitiveness has become more ingrained within society than ever before. This is largely a
result of a vociferous, right-wing, British press and fervent ‘penal populist’ tactics which
encourage lawmakers, even those recognising the inefficacy of incarceration policies, to
continue supporting them because of their powerful electoral cache.332
Currently, there does not appear to be any conceivable scenario in which more prisons are not
the answer. When crime rates are low, the public are told incarceration is successful and more
prisons are required to sustain this; when the crime rate is stable, prisons are advocated as a
means of reducing this level; and, finally, when crime rates rise, intensified incarceration
projects are deemed the best means of re-establishing control.333 This rationale is by no
means uniquely domestic, contributing to the fact that Serge’s ‘insane machine’ grinds on in
every “civilised” country of the world.334 Undoubtedly, this reinforces the sanction’s
superiority and symbolises the prison’s greatest triumph which has been ‘to have made itself
indispensable in the public imagination, rendering it difficult to conceive of a world without
it’.335
However, simply because it seems imprisonment will not be abolished as a sanctioning
practice in the near future, this does not mean nothing can be done to evade or alleviate both
the direct and indirect prison harms inflicted on inmates. Indeed, it is maintained that the
criminogenic effects of exposing individuals, particularly those who are young, to the
currently traumatic experience of imprisonment can no longer be tolerated. It is unfortunate
that, despite having the potential to impact directly on criminal law, public attitudes to
delinquency, and accepted means of dealing with offenders,336 policies proposed by labelling
theorists have been dismissed by lawmakers who automatically perceive them as ‘soft on
crime’. In some cases, this is understandable, as to promote policies of decriminalisation and
deinstitutionalisation alone would be unrealistic contemporarily and would be to forget the
deterrent and retributive functions sanctions also serve. Notwithstanding this, efforts must be
made to practically realise Beccaria’s fundamental principle that the punishment must always
332
Haney (n 26) 80.
Ibid.
334
Richard Green, ‘Foreword’ in Victor Serge Men in Prisons (Robert Green tr, Pluto Press 1978).
335
Scott and Codd (n 22) 170.
336
Schur (n 37) 170.
333
58
be proportionate to the crime337 as, presently, given the harm inflicted by incarceration, in too
many instances, this is not the case.
Primarily, it is proposed that policy-makers must grasp the nettle and move towards processes
of decarceration and reducing our reliance on imprisonment. Greater time and resources
must be invested in developing more creative solutions to crime which go beyond the
confinement project and endorse notions of community assimilation and offender
reintegration. Simultaneously, more must be done to ameliorate the direct pains of
incarceration. This is particularly so, given that, even with a greater availability of alternative
sanctions being open to the courts (such as restorative justice initiatives or community based
options), history informs us that these will only cause a minimal reduction in the usage of
prisons themselves.338 As Morris contends, regardless of what other forms of punishment are
in existence ‘the prison walls will not entirely disappear’.339
Therefore, efforts must be made to recognise and alleviate the adverse psychological effects
of imprisonment which remain largely and unacceptably neglected by current prison policy.
It is essential that both processes of institutionalisation and prisonisation are taken seriously
and that action is initiated to reduce their harmful effects. For example, inmate routines
should be adapted to replicate, in so far as possible, life on the ‘outside’, providing them with
real opportunities to exercise agency and autonomy.340 Concurrently, prisoners must be
helped to maintain supportive contact with significant others during their sentence; helping to
reduce feelings of isolation whilst, also, providing them with some access to conventional
norms.341 To the same end, a successful prison should provide convicts with co-operative,
programme-rich routines consisting of meaningful activities in which to participate as such
would provide detainee’s with productive and valuable alternatives to investing their time in
the ‘inmate culture’. Further, such involvement may also make the prison environment
somewhat safer, encouraging inmate socialisation and inter-personal trust. It goes without
saying that vast improvements are also required regarding the provision of inmate healthcare,
but, whether this can ever be provided to the same standard as for those in the community
remains extremely doubtful. While these constitute only a few of the innumerable necessary
337
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment (Prentice Hall 1963) 99.
Vass (n 319) 17.
339
Norval Morris, ‘Prison Evolution’ in Howard Jones and John Spencer (eds), Criminology in Transition
(Tavistock Publications 1969) 279.
340
Craig Haney (n 144) 56.
341
Ibid. 57.
338
59
reforms which should be undertaken to reduce the direct pains of incarceration, the
underlying message is clear;
…the design and operation of prisons should be based not on any particular
theory or ideology, but on some fundamental understanding of how
imprisonment effects individuals.342
Additionally, it is imperative that the too oft ignored collateral consequences of incarceration
are recognised and relieved through the creation of effective reintegration programs for exprisoners. It is maintained that these programs are best premised upon the principles of
desistance theory which has truly ‘come of age’ over the past two decades.343 Such research
focuses on answering both how and why offenders choose to desist from crime and, crucially,
acknowledges the various means by which imprisonment can disrupt such processes.
Fundamentally, it proposes that desistance is best assured, not only when an ex-prisoner’s
objective life chances are improved, but also when they undergo a subjective, ‘symbolic
reorganisation at the level of self-identity’.344 Indeed, in much the same way that Lemert
suggests a distinction between primary and secondary deviance, desistance theorists contend
offenders must go through a converse process of identity transition which distinguishes
between both primary and secondary desistance.345
Accordingly, the Good Lives Model346 of offender rehabilitation, proposed by Ward and
colleagues, is endorsed by virtue of its aims to both improve the lives of offenders (through
enhancing their ties to desired conventional opportunities), and to encourage them to undergo
negative ‘identity deconstruction’347 upon release, before creating new, prosocial generative
identities. The model focuses on assisting ex-prisoners to achieve their desired conventional
goals by identifying and enhancing individual skills which can provide them with the tools
necessary to formulate better life-plans.348 Unlike traditional rehabilitation, it is ‘desistancefocused’ as opposed to ‘offending-related’ in that, rather than targeting and trying to ‘correct’
342
Zamble and Porporino (n 21) 2.
Maruna, LeBel, Mitchelll and Naples (n 250) 271.
344
Shadd Maruna, Russ Immarigeon and Thomas LeBel, ‘Ex-offender Reintegration: Theory and Practice’ in
Shadd Maruna and Russ Immarigeon (eds), After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration
(Willan Publishing 2004) 19.
345
Ibid.
346
Tony Ward and Shadd Maruna, Rehabilitation (Routledge 2007) 107-142.
347
Laub and Sampson (n 269) 41.
348
Ward and Maruna (n 346) 24.
343
60
apparent offender deficits, the model promotes those things naturally associated with
desistance (such as strong social bonds and enhanced social capital).349 Importantly, it treats
offenders ‘as subjects rather than objects’,350 perceiving them as ‘more than the sum of their
criminal record’.351 Thus, it is contended that greater investment is required in such
desistance-based models of rehabilitation if the indirect effects of incarceration are to be
overcome. Notably, it seems as though progress has been made domestically following the
Owers review of the Northern Irish Prison Service which drew extensively on desistancebased evidence and explicitly called for the expansion of the ‘desistance agenda’.352 This is a
welcome, but long overdue, step in the right direction and more must be taken like it if we are
ever to achieve what Durkheim described as the ultimate goal of punishment which must be
to ‘transform a threat to social order into a triumph of social solidarity’.353
To conclude, based on this labelling critique, incarceration remains ineffective as a crime
prevention measure. It directly serves to modify offenders’ self-perceptions for the worse
whilst indirectly and permanently impeding their ability to regain social credence and
formulate prosocial identities. In line with labelling theory, it is likely that these effects,
which wholly result from social reactions to deviation, will cause further engagement in
criminality or secondary deviance. As shown, this is particularly the case for adolescents who
are most vulnerable to these prison pains. Presently, there is a fundamental lack of
recognition regarding the ironic, criminogenic nature of imprisonment as we continuously
rely on the sanction, remaining blind to the erroneousness of our assumptions regarding its
role and effectiveness. Change is needed as it is clear that reducing recidivism and breaking
the relentless cycle of recurring incarcerations requires more humane prisoner management
and improved means of offender reintegration.354 It is only when such is achieved that the
prison may potentially be adjudged as an effective institution for dealing with crime, and it is
only then that we may truly consider ourselves no longer enmeshed within, what has become,
the paradox of punishment.
349
Stephen Farral and Shadd Maruna, ‘Desistance-Focused Criminal Justice Policy Research: Introduction to a
Special Issue on Desistance from Crime and Public Policy’ [2004] 43(4) Howard Journal 358, 361.
350
Stephen Duguid, Can Prisons Work? The Prisoner as Object and Subject in Modern Corrections (Toronto
Press 2000) 18.
351
Ward and Maruna (n 346) 127.
352
Prison Review Team, ‘Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service: Conditions, Management and
Oversight of all Prisons’ (October 2011) 16.
353
Cited in David Garland, ‘Sociological Perspectives on Punishment’ [1991] 14 Crime and Justice 115, 123.
354
Irwin and Owen (n 118) 115.
61
Bibliography
Books
Adams R, The Abuses of Punishment (MacMillan Press 1998)
Advisory Council on the Penal System, Powers of the Courts Dependent on Imprisonment
(London HMSO, 1977)
Barton R, Institutional Neurosis (2nd edn, 1966 Wright Publishing)
Bates T and Pitts J, The RHP Companion to Youth Justice (Russell House Publishing 2005)
Beccaria C, On Crimes and Punishment (Prentice Hall 1963)
Becker H, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Free Press 1963)
Bell C, Rituals: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford University Press 1997)
Bender J, Imagining the Penitentiary: Fiction and the Architecture of Mind in EighteenthCentury England (University of Chicago Press, 1987)
Bentham J, Theory of Legislation (William Stevens 1864)
Berger P, Invitation to Sociology (Doubleday Anchor 1963)
Blackburn A, Pollock J and Fowler S, Prisons: Today and Tomorrow (3rd edn, Jones and
Barlett 2014)
Bonger W, Criminality and Economic Conditions (Bloomington Press 1969)
Bottomley K and Pease K, Crime and Punishment: Interpreting the Data (Open University
Press 1986)
Braithwaite J, Crime, Shame and Reintegration (Cambridge University Press 1989)
Briggs D, In Place of Prison (Temple Smith 1975)
Cavadino M, Dignan J and Mair G, The Penal System: An Introduction (5th edn, Sage
Publications 2013)
Chambliss W, On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents (Indiana University Press 1978)
Christie N, Limits to Pain (Oxford: Martin Robinson 1982)
— — Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style? (Routledge, 1993)
Clemmer D, The Prison Community (Christopher Publishing 1940)
62
Cohen S, ‘Intellectual Scepticism and Political Commitment’ in Walton P and Young J (eds),
The New Criminology Revisited (Palgrave and MacMillan 1997)
— — and Taylor L, Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term Imprisonment
(Pelican 1972)
Coleman R and Sim J, ‘Contemporary Statecraft and the ‘Punitive Obsession’: A Critique of
the Penology Thesis’ in Pratt J, Brown D, Brown M, Hallsworth S and Morrison W (eds),
The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives (Willan Publishing 2005)
Coyle A, Understanding Prisons (Open University Press 2005)
Crewe B, ‘The Sociology of Imprisonment’ in Jewkes Y (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan
Publishing 2007)
Dobbs R and Waid C, ‘Prison Culture’ in Bosworth M, Encyclopaedia of Prisons and
Correctional Facilities (Sage Publications 2005)
Drake D and Crewe B, ‘Deprivations/Pains of Imprisonment’ in Jewkes Y and Bennett J
(eds), Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment (Willan Publishing 2008)
Duguid S, Can Prisons Work? The Prisoner as Object and Subject in Modern Corrections
(Toronto Press 2000)
Durcan G, From the Inside: Experiences of Prison Mental Health Care (Sainsbury
Publications 2008)
— — and Knowles K, Policy Paper 5 – London’s Prison Mental Health Services: A Review
(Sainsbury Publications 2006)
Durkheim E, The Division of Labor in Society (University Presses of France 1893)
— — Suicide: A Study in Sociology (Routledge 1952)
Erikson K, ‘Notes on the Sociology of Deviance’ in Becker H, The Other Side (The Free
Press 1964)
Forer L, A Rage to Punish: The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Sentencing (W.W.
Norton 1994)
Foucault M, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Pantheon Books 1977)
Garland D, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society
(Oxford University Press 2001)
63
Gennep V.A., The Rites of Passage (Routledge 1960)
Goffman E, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and other Inmates
(Anchor Books 1961)
Golash D, The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law (New
York University Press 2005)
Green R, ‘Foreword’ in Victor Serge Men in Prisons (Robert Green tr, Pluto Press 1978)
Gunn J, Madden T and Swinton M, Mentally Disordered Patients (Home Office 1991)
Haney C, ‘The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Postprison
Adjustment’ in Travis J and Waul M (eds), Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of
Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities (Urban Institute Press
2003)
— — Reforming Punishment: The Psychological Limits to the Pains of Imprisonment
(American Psychological Association 2006)
— — ‘The Contextual Revolution in Psychology and the Question of Prison Effects’ in
Liebling A and Maruna S (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011)
Irwin J and Owen B, ‘Harm and the Contemporary Prison’ in Liebling A and Maruna S (eds),
The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011)
Jewkes Y, ‘Identity and Self’ in Jewkes Y and Bennett J (eds), Dictionary of Prisons and
Punishment (Willan Publishing 2008)
— — ‘Loss, Liminality and the Life Sentence: Managing Identity Through a Disrupted
Lifecourse’ in Liebling A and Maruna S (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011)
Johnson R, Deathwork: A Study of the Modern Execution Process (Brooks-Cole Publishing
1990)
— — Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison (Wadsworth 2002)
— — ‘Brave New Prisons: The Growing Social Isolation of Modern Penal Institutions’ in —
— — and Toch H (eds), Introduction to the Pains of Imprisonment (Sage Publications 1982)
Liebling A and Maruna S (eds), The Effects of Imprisonment (Routledge 2011)
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Third Report - Session 2004-05 (Joint Committee on
Human Rights Publications 2004)
64
Kant I, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (Thomas Abott tr, Arc Manor
2008)
Kitsuse J, ‘Societal Reaction to Deviant Behaviour: Problems of Theory and Method’ in
Becker H, The Other Side (The Free Press 1964)
— — ‘The New Conception of Deviance and its Critics’ in Gove W, The Labelling of
Deviance (2nd edn, Sage Publications 1980)
Laing R, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness (Penguin 1965)
Lemert C and Winter F (eds), Crime and Deviance: Essays Innovations of Edwin M. Lemert
(Rowman and Littlefield 2000)
Lemert E, Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control (Prentice Hall 1967)
Liebling A, ‘Risk and Prison Suicide’ in Pritchard J and Kemshall H (eds), Good Practice in
Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Jessica Kingsley 1997) 188 - 205
— — ‘Prison Suicide and its Prevention’ in Yvonne Jewkes (ed), Handbook on Prisons
(Willan Publishing 2007) 423 - 446
Lily R, Cullen F and Ball R, Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (5th edn,
Sage Publications 2011)
Lofland J, Deviance and Identity (Prentice Hall 1969)
Madden S and Marshall I, ‘Labelling and Symbolic Interaction Theories’ in Miller J (ed), 21st
Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook (Sage Publications 2009)
Marchbank J and Letherby G, Introduction to Gender: Social Science Perspectives (Pearson
2007)
Marshall T.H., Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge University Press 1950)
Maruna S, Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives (American
Psychological Association 2003)
— — and LeBel T, ‘The Desistance Paradigm in Correctional Practice: From Programs to
Lives’ in McNeill F, Raynor P and Trotter C (eds), Offender Supervision: New Directions in
Theory, Research and Practice (Willan Publishers 2010)
65
— — Immarigeon R and LeBel T, ‘Ex-offender Reintegration: Theory and Practice’ in
Maruna S and Immarigeon R (eds), After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender
Reintegration (Willan Publishing 2004)
Matthews R, Doing Time: An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment (Palgrave
Macmillan 2009)
McCulloch T and McNeill F, ‘Desistance Focused Approaches’ in Green S, Lacaster E and
Feasey S (eds), Addressing Offending Behaviour: Context, Practice and Values (Willan
Publishing 2008)
Mead G, The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead (Phoenix Books 1956)
— — On Social Pathology (Chicago University Press 1977)
Medlicott D, ‘Women in Prison’ in Jewkes Y (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan Publishing
2007)
Morris N, ‘Prison Evolution’ in Jones H and Spencer J (eds), Criminology in Transition
(Tavistock Publications 1969)
— — and Hawkins G, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control (University of
Chicago Press 1969)
Morris T and Morris P, Pentonville: A Sociological Study of an English Prison (Routledge
1963)
Owen B, Women in the Mix (New York Press 1998)
Petersilia J, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (Oxford University
Press 2003)
Richards S and Jones R, ‘Beating the Perpetual Incarceration Machine: Overcoming
Structural Impediments to Re-entry’ in Maruna S and Immarigeon R (eds), After Crime and
Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (Willan Publishing 2004)
Sapsford R, Life Sentence Prisoners: Reaction, Response and Change (Open University Press
1983)
Scarry E, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (Oxford University
Press 1985)
Schur E, Labeling Deviant Behaviour: It’s Sociological Implications (Harper and Row 1971)
66
Scott D, ‘The Changing Face of the English Prison: A Critical Review of the Aims of
Imprisonment’ in Jewkes Y (ed), Handbook on Prisons (Willan Publishing 2007)
— — and Codd H, Controversial Issues in Prisons (Open University Press 2010)
Scott R, The Making of Blind Men (Sage 1967)
— — ‘A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Deviance as a Property of Social Order’ in
Scott R and Douglas J (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance (Basic Books 1972)
Shaw B, ‘Imprisonment’ in Webb S and Webb B, English Prisons Under Local Government
(Longmans Green 1922)
Sherman L, The Defiant Imagination: Consilience and the Science of Sanctions (University
of Pennsylvania 2000)
Sykes G, The Society of Captives (Princeton 1970)
Tannenbaum F, Crime and the Community (Ginn and Company 1938)
Tarde G, The Laws of Imitation (Gloucester Mass 1895)
Taylor I, Walton P and Young J, The New Criminology (Harper and Row 1973)
Thomas W and Thomas D, The Child in America: Behaviour Problems and Programs
(Alfred Knopf 1928)
Travis J, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Urban
Institute Press 2005)
Uggen C, Manza J and Behrens A, ‘’Less than the Average Citizen’: Stigma, Role Transition
and the Civic Reintegration of Convicted Felons’ in Maruna S and Immarigeon R (eds), After
Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (Willan Publishing 2004)
Vass A, Alternatives to Prison: Punishment Custody and the Community (Sage 1990)
Walker N, ‘The Unwanted Effects of Long-Term Imprisonment’ in Bottoms A and Light R
(eds), Problems of Long-Term Imprisonment (Gower Publishing 1987)
Ward T and Maruna S, Rehabilitation (Routledge 2007)
Wilson D, Death at the Hands of the State (Howard League 2005)
Zamble E and Porporino F, Coping, Behaviour, and Adaptation in Prison Inmates (SpringerVerlag 1988)
67
Journal Articles
Albrecht G and Albrecht M, ‘A Critical Assessment of Labeling in the Juvenile Justice
System’ [1978] 4 Justice System Journal 114 - 129
Ashkar P and Kenny D, ‘Views from the Inside: Youth Offenders’ Subjective Experience of
Incarceration’ [2008] 52(5) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology 584 - 597
Becker H, ‘Becoming a Marihuana User’ [1953] 59 American Journal of Sociology 235 - 242
Beer A, Morgan R and Garland J, ‘The Role of Romantic Intimate Relationships in the Well
Being of Incarcerated Females’ [2007] 4(4) 250 - 261
Bernberg J, Krohn M and Rivera C, ‘Official Labelling, Criminal Embeddedness, and
Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labelling Theory’ [2006] 43 Journal of
Crime and Delinquency 67 - 88
Chiricos T, Barrick K, Bales W and Botranger S, ‘The Labeling of Convicted Felons and its
Consequences for Recidivism’ [2007] 45 Criminology 547 - 581
Cohen A, ‘The Sociology of the Deviant Act: Anomie Theory and Beyond’ [1965] 30
American Sociological Review 5 - 14
Crawley E, ‘Institutional Thoughtlessness in Prisons and its Impacts on the Day-to-Day Lives
of Elderly Men’ [2005] 21(4) Journal of Contemporary Justice 350 - 363
Davis F, ‘Deviance Disavowal: The Management of Strained Interaction by the Visibly
Handicapped’ [1961] 9 Social Problems 120 - 132
Farrall S, ‘Why do People Stop Offending?’ [1995] 1 Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice
Studies 51 - 59
— — and Maruna S, ‘Desistance-Focused Criminal Justice Policy Research: Introduction to
a Special Issue on Desistance from Crime and Public Policy’ [2004] 43(4) Howard Journal
358 - 367
Fazel S and Danesh J, ‘Serious Mental Disorder in 23,000 Prisoners: A Systematic Review of
62 Surveys’ [2002] 359 The Lancet 545 - 550
Finn P, ‘Prison Crowding: The Response of Probation and Parole’ [1984] 30 Crime and
Delinquency 141 - 153
68
Funke G, ‘The Economies of Prison Overcrowding’ [1985] 478 Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 86 – 99
Gallo E and Ruggiero V, ‘The Immaterial Prison: Custody as a Factory for the Manufacture
of Handicaps’ [1991] 19 International Journal for the Sociology of Law 273 - 291
Garfinkel H, ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’ [1956] 61 American
Journal of Sociology 420 - 424
Garland D, ‘Sociological Perspectives on Punishment’ [1991] 14 Crime and Justice 115 - 165
Goodstein L, ‘Inmate Adjustment to Prison and the Transition to Community Life’ [1980] 10
Research on Crime and Deinquency 246 - 272
Halsey M, ‘Assembling Recidivism: The Promise and Contingencies of Post-Release Life’
[2008] 97(4) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1209 - 1260
Haney C, Banks C and Zimbardo P, ‘Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison’ [1973] 1
International Journal of Criminology and Penology 69 - 97
Hayward K and Young J, ‘Cultural Criminology: Some Notes on the Script’ [2004] 8
Theoretical Criminology 259 - 272
Herman J, ‘Complex PTSD: A Syndrome in Survivors of Prolonged and Repeated Trauma’
[1992] 5(3) Journal of Traumatic Stress 377 - 391
Hocking F, ‘Extreme Environmental Stress and its Significance for Psychopathology’ [1970]
24 American Journal of Psychotherapy 4 - 26
Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘Suicide and Self Harm Prevention: Following Release
from Prison’ [2002] 49(1) Criminal Justice Matters 42 - 43
Hughes E, ‘Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status’ [1945] 50 American Journal of
Sociology 353 - 359
Ignatieff M, ‘A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 19701850’ (1978) Pantheon Books 218 - 234
Johnson L, Simons R and Conger R, ‘Criminal Justice System Involvement and Continuity of
Youth Crime: A Longitudinal Analysis [2004] 36(1) Youth Society 3 - 29
Laub J and Sampson R, ‘Understanding Desistance from Crime’ [2001] 28 Crime and Justice
1 - 69
69
LeBel T, ‘Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons’ Perceptions of and Responses to
Stigma’ (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Albany 2006)
Martinson R, ‘What works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform [1974] 35 The
Public Interest 22 - 54
Maruna S, ‘Giving Up On the Young’ (2008) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 129 - 135
— — ‘Reentry as a Rite of Passage’ [2011] 13 Punishment and Society 3 - 28
— —
LeBel T, Mitchell N and Naples M, ‘Pygmalion in the Reintegration Process:
Desistance from Crime Through the Looking Glass’ [2004] 10(3) Psychology, Crime and
Law 271 - 281
McCorkle R, ‘Personal Precautions to Violence in Prison’ [1992] 19 Justice and Behaviour
160 - 173
Melossi D, ‘Overcoming the Crisis in Critical Criminology: Toward a Grounded Labelling
Theory’ [1985] 23 Criminology 193 - 208
Miller J, ‘American Gulag’ Yes Magazine (6 February 2001)
Mills C, ‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive’ [1940] 5 American Sociological
Review 904 - 913
Ministry of Justice, ‘Research Summary 3/12- Accommodation, Homelessness, and
Reoffending of Prisoners: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction Survey’
(Ministry of Justice: London, 2012) 1 - 6
— — ‘The Pre-custody Employment, Training and Education Status of Newly Sentenced
Prisoners’ (Ministry of Justice: London, 2012) 1 - 21
— — ‘Gender Differences in Substance Misuse and Mental Health Among Prisoners’
(Ministry of Justice 2013)
— — ‘NOMS Annual Report 2012/13: Management Information Addendum’ (Ministry of
Justice: London, 2013) 1 - 76
— — ‘Proven Re-Offending Statistics Quarterly: July 2011 to June 2012’ (Ministry of
Justice: London, 2014) 1 - 47
Nagin D and Paternoster R, ‘On the Relationship of Past and Future Participation in
Delinquency’ [1991] 29 Criminology 163 - 190
70
No More Prison, Members’ Newsletter (October 2006, London)
Orcutt J, ‘Societal Reaction and the Responses to Deviation in Small Groups’ [1973] 52
Social Forces 259 - 267
Paternoster R and Iovanni L, ‘The Labeling Perspective and Delinquency: An Elaboration of
the Theory and an Assessment of the Evidence’ [1989] 6 Justice Quarterly 359 - 394
Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C and Guckenburg S, ‘Formal System of Processing of
Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency’ (2010) Campbell Systematic Reviews 1 - 88
Pratt D, Piper M and Appleby L, ‘Suicide in Recently Released Prisoners: A Population
Based Cohort Study’ [2006] 368 The Lancet 119 - 123
Prison Reform Trust, ‘Prisons Can Seriously Damage your Mental Health’ (2010) 1 - 6
Prison Review Team, ‘Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service: Conditions,
Management and Oversight of all Prisons’ (October 2011) 1 - 85
Rasch W, ‘The Effects of Indeterminate Sentencing: A Study of Men Sentenced to Life
Imprisonment’ [1981] 4 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 417 - 431
Schmid T and Jones R, ‘Suspended Identity: Identity Transformation in a Maximum Security
Prison’ [1991] 14 Symbolic Interaction 415 - 432
Sim J, ‘The Future of Prison Health Care: A Critical Analysis’ [2002] 22 Critical Social
Policy 300 - 323
Skowronski J and Carlston D, ‘Negativity and Extremity Biases in Impression Formation: A
Review of Explanations’ [1989] 105 Psychological Bulletin 131 - 142
Social Exclusion Unit, ‘Reducing Reoffending by Ex-Prisoners’ (Home Office, July 2002) 1 218
Soyer M, ‘The Imagination of Desistance: A Juxtaposition of the Construction on
Incarceration as a Turning Point and the Reality of Recidivism’ [2013] 54 British Journal of
Criminology 91 - 108
Sykes G and Matza D, ‘Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency’ [1957]
22(6) American Sociological Review 664 - 673
71
Thomas C and Bishop D, ‘Criminology: The Effect of Formal Sanctions on Delinquency: A
Longitudinal Comparison of Labeling and Deterrence Theories’ [1984] 75 Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology 1222 - 1245
Tittle C, ‘Deterrents or Labeling? [1975] 53(3) 399 - 410
Toch H, ‘The Role of the Expert on Prison Conditions: The Battle of Footnotes in Rhodes v
Chapman’ [1982] 18 Criminal Law Bulletin 38 - 43
Walker N, ‘Side Effects of Incarceration’ [1983] 23 British Journal of Criminology 61 – 71
Zimbardo P and Haney C, ‘The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-Five Years
After the Stanford Prison Experiment’ [1998] 53 American Psychologist 709 - 727
Websites
Barrett D, ‘England and Wales Near Top of Prison Spending League Table’ The Telegraph
(London, 11 February 2015) available at:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11405588/England-and-Wales-near-top-ofprison-spending-league-table.html> accessed 29th July 2015
BBC News, ‘Serious Assaults in Prison ‘At Highest Level for Ten Years’’ BBC News
(London 29th January 2015) available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31039766>
accessed 10th August 2015
— — ‘UK Prisoner Voting Rights Breached, European Judges Rule’ BBC News (London,
10th February 2015) available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31356895> accessed 16th
August 2015
Casciani D, ‘Sex in Prisons to be studied by the Howard League’ BBC News (London, 27th
June 2012) available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18603360> accessed 8th August
2015
Centre for Community Alternatives, ‘The Use of Criminal History Records in College
Admissions Reconsidered’ (2010) available at
<http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-collegeadmissions.pdf> accessed 21st August 2015
Howard League for Penal Reform, ‘Suicide in Prison’ (22 January 2015) available at
<http://www.howardleague.org/suicide-in-prison/> accessed 14th August 2015
72
Maruna S, ‘Desistance and Development: The Psychosocial Process of ‘Going Straight’’
(1999) British Journal of Criminology < http://britsoccrim.org/volume2/003.pdf> accessed 3
August 2015
Northern Ireland Assembly, ‘Prisoners and Mental Health’ (NIAR 609-10, 9th March 2011)
available at <http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/4611.pdf> accessed
13th August 2015
Thornhill F, ‘Thousands Raped and Sexually Abused in British Prisons – Report’ RT
Question More (Russia, 10th February 2015) available at <http://www.rt.com/uk/230875prison-sexual-aggression-links/> accessed 8th August 2015
Winnett R, ‘Third of Unemployed are Convicted Criminals’ The Telegraph (London, 28th
December 2014) available at
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8979769/Third-of-unemployed-areconvicted-criminals.html> accessed 21st August 2015
Working Links, ‘Prejudiced: Tagged for Life – A Research Report into Employer Attitudes
Towards Ex-Offenders’ (2010) available at
<http://workinglinks.co.uk/pdf/Prejudged%20Tagged%20for%20life.pdf> accessed 21st
August 2015
73
74