Retreat from Release
Candidate Number: PEN1423
Mrs Stacy Woodrow
Homerton College
Supervised by Dr Serena Wright
Retreat from Release by Adult Male Life Sentence
Prisoners
Number of words: 18,111
Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in
Applied Criminology, Penology and Management
2015-2016
Retreat from Release
I hereby declare that

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing that is the
outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically acknowledged in
the text and bibliography

This dissertation is not the same as any that I have submitted for a degree or
diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge, any other university or
similar institution. I further state that no part of my dissertation has already been, or
is currently being, submitted for any such degree, diploma, or other qualification.
Statement of word length
I hereby declare that my dissertation, excluding footnotes, appendices and bibliography
does not exceed the permitted length of 18,000 words.
Signed______________________
Date______________
Acknowledgements
ii
Retreat from Release
I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Dr Serena Wright for her patience,
support and guidance during the past two years. Without her constant encouragement and
enthusiasm in my research, I am sure the task at hand would have seemed impossible.
My gratitude also extends to the Scottish Prison Service for funding my participation on the
programme, for allowing me access to conduct my research and for providing me with the
opportunity of a lifetime! In particular, I would like to thank Rhona Hotchkiss and the
management team at HMP Dumfries who allowed me time away from the workplace to
participate in seminars and for their continual patience and support throughout my
research.
The participants also deserve a special thank you, for sharing their experiences with me,
allowing completion of the study and giving the work purpose, validity and context.
I am grateful to my peers for their insight, support and memories that will last a lifetime!
Last but certainly not least, I am forever indebted to my husband Ralph, his unconditional
love, support, optimism and unwavering belief in my capabilities has made this possible
from start to end. Thank you.
Abstract
iii
Retreat from Release
Based on in-depth interviews with ten adult male prisoners from three establishments
within the Scottish Prison Service Estate, this study explores why life-sentence prisoners
might ‘retreat from release’; having served their minimum tariff period. This effectively
means that prisoners voluntarily decide to avoid release, and is characterised by a lack of
willingness to engage in the parole process. In seeking to understand this phenomenon, it
asks: how have these men adapted to their sentence over time; how have they built their
life in prison; and what are the key factors that underpin their decision to retreat from
release.
The findings demonstrate that ‘retreat from release’ is a multifaceted, complex, and
individualised experience that shifts over time, place and space. However, broad themes
identified within the data suggest that this is a phenomenon shaped by the adaptive
patterns and the subsequent survival techniques adopted by prisoners, and compounded by
isolation and the indeterminate nature of the life sentence. Significant fears of the outside
world, ‘technophobia’, and deep cynicism in regard to system legitimacy in the application
of offender behaviour programmes were also central in the decision to retreat from release.
The findings offer insight into the challenges encountered by those who retreat from
release, and insights into the experience and impact of serving a life-sentence in prison from
the perspective of those who reject the notion of returning to life outside the prison walls.
The research findings contribute to a significant gap in existing research and can help to
inform the ways in which life-sentenced prisoners can be supported and encouraged
towards release.
Table of Contents
Page
iv
Retreat from Release
Student Declaration
ii
Acknowledgements
iii
Abstract
iv
Table of Contents
v
Appendices
vi
List of Acronyms
vi
Section One – Introduction
1
Section Two - Literature Review
5
Section Three – Methodology
16
3.1 Aims of the Research
16
3.2 Research Design
16
3.3 Sampling and Research Methodology
19
3.4 Data Analysis
28
3.5 Ethical Considerations
29
3.6 Limitations
30
Table 1 – Prisoner data table
24
Section Four - Findings and Discussion
4.1 Adapting to the Sentence
33
33
4.1.1 Pains of Imprisonment
33
4.1.2 Survival
36
4.1.3 Time
42
4.1.4 Control
43
4.2 Building a Life in Prison
45
4.2.1 Seeing Prison as Home
45
4.2.2 Offence Related Trauma
47
v
Retreat from Release
4.2.3 Making a Sentence Meaningful and Constructive
50
4.2.4 Social Relationships Inside the Prison
52
4.3 Retreat From Release
55
4.3.1 Transformation
56
4.3.2 Isolation
59
4.3.3 ‘Technophobia’
61
4.3.3 Post-release survival
62
Section Five - Conclusion and Recommendations
67
Bibliography
72
Appendices:
83
Appendix I
Interview Schedule
Appendix II
Letter to Governor
Appendix III
Participant Information Sheet
Appendix IV
Consent Form
Appendix V
Thank you letter
Acronyms:
HMP
Her Majesty’s Prison
ICM
Integrated Case Management
ISP
Intensive Supervision Programme
PR2
Prisoner Records Version 2
RFR
Retreat From Release
SPS
Scottish Prison Service
vi
Introduction
Section One - Introduction
“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside the jails. A nation
should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones” (Mandela,
1994, p174-175). Consequently, the way in which we manage our prisons and the values
that inspire their management have influence beyond the explicit aims of protecting the
public and reducing re-offending. Rather, our prisons embody moral and symbolic roles as
they are a means of communicating the nation’s attitude toward its citizens (Liebling and
Maruna, 2005, Garland, 1990).
With this in mind one would expect considerable attention to be paid to those subject to
the “ultimate sanction” (Appleton, 2010, p. 9) in jurisdictions without capital punishment;
the life sentence1. However, Shover argues that this has not been the case, and that while
studies of imprisonment for ‘street criminals’ are ‘commonplace’, ‘empirical interests in its
long-term and cumulative effects ha[ve] rarely sustained for long the attention of
investigators’ (Shover, 2004, p. VII). This concern has also been shared more recently by
Kazemian and Travis who drew attention to the fact that ‘researchers and policy makers
have largely ignored the issue of long termers and lifers’ (Kazemian and Travis, 2015, p.
357).
While both Appleton, and Kazemian and Travis, focus primarily on the United States, their
significance sweeps beyond these borders to the United Kingdom where the distribution of
1
This includes standard life imprisonment, along with those sentences known in the United States ‘life without
parole’ [LWOP] and in the United Kingdom as whole life tariffs (WLTs) which are applicable to England and
Wales. Scotland introduced the Order for Lifelong restriction (OLR) sentence in 2006 which provides for the
lifelong supervision of high risk violent and sexual offenders following what is deemed an adequate period in
custody and allows for intensive supervision to manage the risk that those individuals pose (Risk Management
Authority, n.d).
1
Introduction
life sentences has increased exponentially since the abolition of the death penalty in 1957.
Moreover, the courts are increasingly dispensing life sentence tariffs which are significantly
longer than has historically been the case, and which have been described by Wright et al as
“barely survivable” (Wright, Crewe and Hulley, 2015, p. 14). In 1968, the Radzinowicz report
defined long term prisoners as those serving over four years. At this time, it was uncommon
for prisoners to be sentenced to life with a tariff greater than nine years (Radzinowicz,
1968). Today, however such sentences - are so frequently served that they fail to grab
headlines, with the average tariff in England and Wales reaching 21.1 years in 2013 (an
increase from 12.5 years in 2003) (Wright, Crewe and Hulley, 2015). Consequently our
understanding of what constitutes a life sentence and the experience of serving such
sentences has changed remarkably.
For life prisoners in Scotland - the focus of the present study - the court sets a ‘punishment’
period (to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence), which the prisoner must
serve in custody in its entirety. Life sentence prisoners may be released on licence after this
point if the Parole Board considers that continued incarceration is not required for the
protection of the public. If a prisoner breaches licence conditions, this can lead to a recall to
custody (McCallum, 2014).
It is through my role as a practitioner in the Scottish Prison Service [hereafter SPS] that I
have personally observed the existence of a small group of individuals - within the overall
lifer population – who, having served their punishment period appear to ‘retreat from
release’. This effectively means that prisoners voluntarily decide to avoid release, and is
characterised by a lack of willingness to engage in the parole process.
2
Introduction
The concept of life-sentenced prisoners retreating from release should provoke sociological
and humanistic concerns; for example the significant consequences of deprivation of
autonomy, social isolation, identity crisis and institutionalisation. Recently however,
academic interest has seen a seismic shift away from interest in long-term imprisonment,
particularly since the 1970’s and 80’s (cf. Wright, Crewe and Hulley, 2015). Thus, there is a
relative paucity of existing data and academic understanding of the reasons that prisoners
might retreat from release and the experiences they have encountered. This suggests that
the broader SPS aim of ‘unlocking potential and transforming lives’ (SPS Annual Report,
2014, foreword) – while representing an important and laudable endeavour - requires
further thought in relation to such prisoners. It is only through such research that we can
ensure that the SPS is providing the most effective and appropriate support and
management possible for life-sentenced prisoners.
In light of this, the main aim of the study is to present the ‘lived experience’ of lifers who
retreat from release, documenting their perceptions of the experiences they have
encountered in relation to this phenomenon. There are three main areas of interest; firstly,
how such individuals have adapted to their sentence over time and where they see
themselves in the future; secondly, how they build their life in prison, and whether this
changed during their sentence; and thirdly, what are the factors they identify as
underpinning their decision to retreat from release. The study adopted a qualitative design,
using semi-structured interviews with ten prisoners located in three establishments across
the SPS estate as the primary mode of data generation.
3
Introduction
Whilst the research involves a small sample from an unknown population, the considerable
financial costs to society (should these men continue to remain in custody indefinitely), as
well as the human cost to the individuals concerned, provoke significant unease, and with
longer prison sentences continuing to be dispensed by the courts, this is a potentially
growing phenomenon. It is therefore essential to invest efforts in trying to understand this
phenomenon, in order to better inform policy and practice in addressing the needs of such
individuals, and to support them in realising the SPS’ desire to ‘transform’ their lives and to
encourage them to see – and create - a meaningful life in the community.
4
Literature Review
Section Two - Literature Review
As identified in the Introduction, existing data and academic research fails to provide an
exploration or explanation of the reasons that life-sentenced prisoners might retreat from
release [hereafter RFR] – however it is a recognisable phenomenon in lifer’s accounts of
prison:
When Felix… [said] that he was no longer interested in being released, there was no
doubt in our minds that he was serious…It was evident that Felix had been suffering
from hoop-jumping fatigue for some time…It’s one thing for a man serving a lifesentence to decide in his own mind that he never wants to be released. But it’s rare
that such thoughts get vocalized.
(James, 2005, p.17-18).
As there are no studies that focus specifically on RFR prisoners like Felix as a group in their
own right - omissions perhaps indicative of the low priority placed on RFR by academics and
politicians alike - the present literature review focuses on elements of existing theory and
empirical literature that are tangentially relevant to the RFR phenomenon, primarily in
relation to the sociology of the life sentence experience.
‘Maxing out’ represents the closest concept in the criminological literature to RFR, and is the
terminology used to explain why prisoners forego parole and voluntarily remain in prison
until their sentence expires (Bottomley, 1973; Petersilia, 2003; Ostermann, 2010).
Focussing primarily on one state in the US, Ostermann identified that 40% of all prisoners
released unconditionally in 2006 had opted to ‘max out’, thus evading services ‘potentially
5
Literature Review
offered to them through parole’ (Ostermann, 2010, p. 4). The voluntary ‘max out’
population was characterised as male (92%), convicted of drug offences (40.3%), with an
average age of 35 at release, and had served on average 3.5 years in prison. Criminal justice
stakeholders were becoming increasingly concerned, believing that individuals ‘max out’
because they wish to avoid supervision in order to continue their criminal careers after
release. However, Ostermann recognises that the pursuit of criminal activity is too
simplistic to fully account for the motives of those who ‘max out’, and suggests it represents
a rational choice taken by prisoners who perceive imprisonment to be a less severe sanction
than parole supervision. Ostermann’s research however was not without its limitations; the
foremost being that it focussed exclusively on the characteristics of the ‘max out’ population
by means of statistics. Consequently, the reasoning and individual rationales behind the
decision to ‘max out’ remain unknown to us. However, Petersilia’s (1990) finding that ‘some
serious offenders feel that ISPs [intensive supervision programs] are at least as punitive as
imprisonment - if not more so’ (Petersilia, 1990, p. 23) appears to lend some weight to
Ostermann’s conclusions regarding ‘maxing out’ (i.e. remaining in prison for longer) rather
than opting for parole and supervision as a rational choice.
Similar to the United States, the number of long-term prisoners (prisoners with sentences of
three years and over)being released at the expiration of their sentence (rather than at the
first possible point for parole) has also been progressively increasing in Belgium with the
number of long-termers ‘maxing out’ reaching 445 in 2009 (an increase from 27 in 1996)
(Bauwens et al, 2012). Investigating the reasons why Belgian prisoners were opting to ‘max
6
Literature Review
out’, Bauwens et al touch on the findings from an unpublished study by Robert which was
centred on Andenne prison in Belgium; one of the few prisons where the entire prisoner
population is serving sentences of more than 3 years. In-depth interviews were conducted
with 60 long-term prisoners and 40 staff as well as a detailed analysis of prisoner files.
Bauwens et al claim; prisoners were more likely to ‘max out’ and leave prison without any
type of supervision if the supervision period outweighed the time left to serve. Again, it
appears that ‘maxing out’ is born out of rational choice; a ‘calculation of pleasure versus
pain’ (Akers and Sellers, 2009, p. 24), which in this case is understood in terms of what a life
outside under supervision would entail in comparison to a life in prison.
One key issue with these existing studies on ‘maxing out’ (besides their comparative
paucity) is that they relate only to prisoners serving fixed sentences. The experiences and
concerns specific to life-sentence prisoners have yet to be considered in this respect.
However, these studies do suggest that research related to the ‘pull’ of imprisonment versus
the concerns associated with parole and supervision may both influence feelings related to
release. We can infer, then, that studies which comment on these issues in relation to longterm, life-sentenced prisoners might help us to better understand the components of RFR.
In an explicit account of the effects of imprisonment Miller comments:
Offenders emerge from prison afraid to trust, fearful of the unknown, and with a
vision of the world shaped by the meaning that behaviors had in the prison
context…In a sense, the system we have designed to deal with offenders is among
the most iatrogenic in history, nurturing those very qualities it claims to deter.
7
Literature Review
(Miller, 2002, p.29).
Concern relating to the long-lasting effects of imprisonment, as portrayed by Miller, is not
recent. In the 1960’s the Radzinowicz report highlighted the lack of knowledge on this issue,
and concerns that – even in light of this – such sentences continued to be imposed:
Practically nothing is known about the vital subject of the lasting effects on human
personality of long term imprisonment, yet pronouncements on the subject continue
to be made and very long prison sentences continue to be imposed.
(Radzinowicz, 1968, p. 71).
The Radzinowicz report sparked academic interest in this field of inquiry, which flourished as
a result of the publication of a number of studies devoted to the long-term effects of
imprisonment (Banister et al, 1973 and 1974, Heskin et al, 1973 and 1974, Sapsford, 1983,
Flanagan, 1980 and 1982). Much of this concentrates on the potential detrimental impacts
and - particularly mental, emotional and intellectual - deterioration of those subject to longterm sentences, largely underpinned by the assumption that the effects intensify over long
periods in custody. While, the broad conclusion that can be drawn from the existing
literature is that long-term imprisonment does not appear to have a detrimental impact on
cognitive functioning, Cohen and Taylor (1972) comment that the long term prisoners they
had studied were ’peculiarly obsessive, however, in their conversation about such mundane
and untested matters as the passage of time, the making and breaking of friends, the fear of
deterioration, the role of self-consciousness and the loss of identity’ (Cohen and Taylor,
1972, p. 39). Whilst this theory of prison adaption portrays an explicit account of how longterm prisoners adapted to their confinement and offers insight into the harsh realities of
8
Literature Review
those experiencing long-term imprisonment; the research is dated and may not be
representative of the prisoner experience today and particularly to the Scottish RFR
prisoner. More recently, Hulley et al (2015) have also challenged previous literature that
minimises the negative impact of incarceration stating this is too simplistic an understanding
of the data, and instead identified a range of problems associated with the themes of
deprivation, autonomy/control and time. Consequently, Hulley et al argue that there are
long-term effects and impacts on the individual, which may make life on release profoundly
problematic. Yet Hulley et al took no account of prisoners in Scotland, nor did this work
explicitly engage with RFR prisoners. Furthermore, the study found that the highest
‘severity’ in terms of problems faced by long-term imprisonment to be at the ‘early’ stage of
imprisonment, as opposed to late stage and post-tariff, leaving the phenomenon of RFR
entirely ambiguous.
Moreover, Liebling and Maruna convincingly argue that the potentially ‘hidden, but
everywhere apparent’ features of prison life – such as those identified by Hulley et al above
- have escaped attention within the criminological literature:
[These features have] not been measured or taken seriously enough by those
interested in the question of prison effects. Sociologists of prison life knew these
things were significant, but have largely failed to convince others in a
methodologically [compelling] way that such ‘pain’ constitutes a measurable ‘harm’.
(Liebling and Maruna, 2005, p. 3).
Such ‘pains’ are central to Sykes’ (1958) account of prison adjustment, coining the phrase
‘pains of imprisonment’ to illustrate the deprivations caused by the institution, and the
9
Literature Review
sociological concerns faced by prisoners as a result of this deprivation. Deprivations and
frustrations are an inherent part of the prison experience and encompass: liberty, goods,
services, autonomy, heterosexual relationships and safety. According to Sykes, it is
imperative to recognise that these sociological concerns are just as painful as bodily harm,
which they have replaced in posing an acute threat to an individual’s personality and sense
of worth (Sykes, 1958). This typology of prison adjustment claims that the prison social
system serves to alleviate these deprivations making prison survivable. It remains unclear,
however, how these concepts apply to the decisions made by RFR prisoners, as does the
extent to which such immersion in the ‘prison social system’ might be relevant in mediating
the ‘pains of imprisonment’ for them. However, this system could also act to the detriment
of the individual, if subject – over long periods of time – to the process of ‘prisonization’ (i.e.
‘the taking on, in greater or lesser degree, of the folkways, mores, customs and general
culture of the penitentiary’) (Clemmer, 1958, p. 299). However, the absence of literature on
RFR prisoners means that we are unaware of the long-term impact of confinement in the
‘total institution’ of prison (cf. Goffman, 1961), and the degree to which this might shape
individuals’ decisions to remain ‘inside’.
According to Goffman, the social world of inmates and conceptions of the self is profoundly
distorted through a ‘series of abasements, humiliations and profanations of the self’
(Goffman, 1961, p. 14), which Goffman labels ‘mortifications’. These mortifications
eradicate the personal identity of the individual, creating a new identify that is imposed by
the institution, which serves to assist the institution in maintaining control as a result of
creating a barrier between the individual and the outside world. Goffman’s work suggests
10
Literature Review
it is important to understand the degree to which such ‘barriers’, created by the institution,
might shape the decision-making processes of RFR prisoners.
More recently in a re-examination of the pains of imprisonment, Crewe (2009) identifies
new pains of imprisonment which had not been considered by historical theories of prison
adaptation. According to Crewe (2009), penal power is now softer which brings a new set of
pains making ‘modern imprisonment less restrictive but more difficult to navigate’ (Crewe,
2009, p. 109). Crewe describes uncertainty, and indeterminacy as specific pains of those
serving indeterminate sentences, creating insecurities as the ‘road-map to freedom is by no
means clear’ (Crewe, 2011, p. 514). Research by Jewkes (2005) into the pains of
indeterminacy experienced by life-sentenced prisoners’ also uncovered significant effects
manifested in a struggle to find meaning and purpose:
Indeterminate life sentence prisoners suffer more than a restriction of liberty:
they are stripped of their fundamental sense of ‘being’ and may experience
imprisonment as a kind of social death.
(Jewkes, 2005, p. 370).
A further pain identified by Crewe is that of psychological assessment which ‘not only define
prisoners’ futures but also impact significantly on their present lives’ (Crewe, 2011, p. 515).
Self-government was also identified as a pain particularly in regard to sentence management,
owing to prisoners being expected to engage ‘in an institutional project in which they have
little real voice…Yet prisoners are asked to recognize the benefits of risk assessment
processes, to feel empowered by sentence plans almost regardless of their input’ (Crewe,
11
Literature Review
2011, p. 520). It is necessary to understand how these recently-identified pains operate in
the lives of all prisoners, but may also be instructive in understanding the RFR phenomenon.
The theme of ‘time’, which was identified by Sykes and Crewe previously, has been
identified by a number of scholars as being central to the lived experience of long serving
prisoners, as whilst imprisonment has resulted in a loss of freedom, time has also been
stolen and can never be salvaged. The painful passage of time was described by Abbott;
‘time descends in your cell like the lid of a coffin in which you lie and watch it as it slowly
closes over you’ (Abbott, 1982, p. 44). As such, central to prison adaptation is the way in
which prisoners negotiate the enduring burden of time. Yet despite its obvious significance
O’Donnell contends that ‘despite its centrality to their lived experience, little is known about
how prisoners negotiate time’ (O’Donnell, 2014, p. 177). The element of time according to
Flanagan ‘exacerbates all of the deprivations and transforms them…into major problems of
survival’ (Flanagan, 1981 p. 212). Time represents a specific struggle in relation to lifesentence prisoners, particularly in terms of the indeterminate nature of the sentence, which
leaves prisoners in a ‘fog of uncertainty about the basic terms of their captivity’ (Crewe,
2011, p. 514) rendering time impossible to consider (Cohen and Taylor, 1972, Flanagan,
1981). ‘Time warps as well as drags’ (Crewe, 2011, p. 514) for life sentence prisoners, yet
despite this, prisoners remain mindful that free time should be treasured (Jamieson and
Grounds 2005). In recognition that sentences have distinct temporal dimensions for
prisoners, O’Donnell sought to capture these in his own time framework where he identified
three separate dimensions namely:, tumult, where ‘the individual is in a liminal state,
betwixt and between the real world and the convict society’; tedium, where prisoners live in
a ‘kind of suspended animation…managing the present rather than examining the past or
12
Literature Review
planning the future’; and lastly trepidation, experienced ‘when a release date looms’
(O’Donnell, 2014, p. 207). Such ‘trepidation’ features largely in elderly prisoners facing
release in research by Crawley and Sparks, with fear centred upon uncertainty regarding the
ability to cope in the community given that external social networks were often nonexistent. Profound anxieties expressed by prisoners also encompassed; ambiguity as to
where they were going to reside, how they would get there, whom they would be living
with, and fears for personal safety. As this work is based on the experiences of elderly
prisoners, it is necessary to investigate the potential role of such release fears and anxieties
as may affect the life-sentenced RFR population. It is also important to consider whether
specific notions of ‘time’ may influence prisoners decision-making in regard to retreat from
release.
A further theme present in existing literature is that of the traumatic characteristics of
prison life - the ‘internal chaos, disorganization, stress, and fear’ (Haney, 2001, para. 31) which are ‘so stark and psychologically painful that it represents a form of traumatic stress’
(Haney, 2001, para. 30). This experience may be particularly and uniquely stressful for those
life-sentenced prisoners who have been convicted of, and accept guilt in relation to, the
offence of murder (cf. Pollock, 2000; Wright, Crewe & Hulley, under review). Symptoms of
trauma include: anxiety, withdrawal, loss of control, hopelessness and depression (Haney
and Lynch, 1997 p. 529) – the potential role of such psychological phenomena in shaping the
life-sentence prisoner’s decision to RFR remains unknown.
Much is to be said on the theme of external relationships and how this shapes the
experience of life-sentence prisoners. Whilst the loss of external relationships is a concern
13
Literature Review
for all prisoners during their time in custody, for life-sentence prisoners this creates distinct
fears and preoccupation that these contacts will be forever lost (Richards, 1978; Flanagan,
1995). Yet, existing literature continues to stress the important role played by the family in
prison adaptation (Tomar, 2013) and prisoner re-integration (Codd, 2007), which is
particularly influential on how life-sentence prisoners cope with their predicament
(Richards, 1978; Wikberg and Foster, 1990; Flanagan, 1995). Some prisoners cope by
seeking to ‘freeze a mental picture of life on the outside – and their role in it’ (Flanagan,
1995, p. 112); however, maintaining social relations can also be threatening, because ‘this
reminds the prisoner that the world outside is changing’ (Flanagan, 1995, p. 112) beyond
their control and without being a part of this change. A common theme in the literature is
the profoundly negative impact that long-term imprisonment has on maintaining external
relationships, which provides a further dimension to the pains of imprisonment experienced
by life-sentence prisoners (cf. Sapsford, 1978; Flanagan, 1995; Jamieson and Grounds,
2003). As time escapes, long-term prisoners experience an erosion of social relations which
is often as a result of bereavement and relationships generally breaking down (Sapsford,
1978) – perhaps in an effort to reduce the incidence of such pains, some prisoners choose to
relinquish relationships as a means to reduce pain and stigma of the offence on loved ones
(Farber, 1944, Wikberg and Foster, 1990), as ‘prison life is more bearable and easier to cope
with if you have nobody to care about beyond the walls’ (Crawley and Sparks, 2006, p. 69).
Research by Crawley and Sparks found that acute anxieties related to coping upon release and specifically about resettlement – experienced by elderly long term prisoners were
experienced more poignantly for those without family networks. It is important to consider
14
Literature Review
how the absence of a family network may shape the life-sentence prisoners decision to
retreat from release.
The concepts that weave through each of the aforementioned studies offer insight into a
number of key themes that are likely to be relevant to long-term life-sentenced prisoners
who experience retreat from release: adapting to the prison environment; isolation from
social relationships; the enduring burden of time; psychological impact on the self, and the
formation of personality characteristics and attitudes which are shaped by the extreme
prison environment. Coming to terms with the aforementioned themes, most likely make
prison survivable for life sentence prisoners, yet equally they will almost certainly impact on
life-sentence prisoners’ feelings in regard to their release.
15
Methodology
Section Three – Methodology
3.1 Research Aim and Questions
Research questions according to Mason are ‘the formal expression of your intellectual
puzzle…questions are formulated in such a way that intellectually interesting answers are
possible and probable’ (Mason, 2002, p.16). Bearing this in mind, research questions were
designed to fully address the research aims and to ensure the research and the adopted
methodology remained true to its exploratory, fluid nature.
The aim of this study is to explore the reasons why life sentence prisoners might retreat
from release; this represents, in Mason’s words, the central research ‘puzzle’. Guided by
the existing literature – both in terms of what is there and what remains unanswered in
terms of the phenomenon of RFR – and the research aim, the three specific research
questions are:

How have those who ‘retreat from release’ adapted to their sentence over time and
where do they see themselves in the future?

How have these individuals built their life in prison and has this changed during their
sentence?

What are the factors that underpin the decision to retreat from release?
This study hopes to present the ‘lived experience’ of lifers who retreat from release through
their own eyes and documenting their perceptions of the experiences they have
encountered, and their reasons for eschewing a return to the outside world.
3.2 Research Design
16
Methodology
Given the relative absence of existing data and academic understanding of the reasons that
prisoners might retreat from release, an exploratory qualitative design using semistructured interviews was chosen as the key research method. Exploratory research was
particularly appropriate for the present study as it enables the researcher to collect data on
situations about which little is known to establish a starting point with which future
research can be compared (Maxfield and Babbie, 2015). The exploratory approach was also
befitting with the present study as it is employed to:
find out how people get along in the setting under question, what meanings they
give to their actions, and what issues concern them…and to investigate social
phenomena without expectations.
(Bachman and Schutt, 2014, p. 10).
The central aim of the research questions is to explore the lived experiences, perceptions
and interpretations, of individuals who retreat from release and to develop a deeper
understanding of this phenomenon from these individuals’ own perspectives (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998, Kvale, 2012). Such characteristics are the hallmark of qualitative investigation
(Mason, 2002). Qualitative methods have the distinct advantage of being able to extract
richness and meaning from the data (Maxfield and Babbie, 2015) and as such portray the
world of those studied in a manner which is sensitive to the fact that ‘reality is socially
constructed, complex, and ever changing’ (Glesne, 2006, p. 6).
Guided by Crewe (2015) who suggests quantifiable measures can only go so far in
understanding distinctions in prisoner experiences, quantitative measures were not
employed for the present research. Definitive responses to standardised questions which
17
Methodology
are the properties of a quantitative design would not have been able to illustrate nuances in
responses or portray the rich illustrations (Robson, 2011) of those experiencing RFR.
With this in mind, a semi-structured interview design was selected as the approach for all
interviews, with the intention of maximising data generation that gathered comparable
qualitative data to answer the research questions and address the research aim by yielding
‘rich insight into people’s biographies, experience, opinions, aspirations, and feelings’ (May,
2011 p131). The Interview Schedule drew inspiration from the ‘life inside’ interview as
created by Wright, Crewe and Hulley (under review) and Robson (2011), and was designed
to incorporate relevant themes from the literature review, according to the following
structure: Introduction; ‘Warm’ Up - Daily Life And Time; Sentence Over Time; Exploring
Retreat From Release; Relationships; ‘Cool Off’; and Closure (See Appendix I for copy of
Interview Schedule).
The nature of semi-structured interviews allows individuals to speak candidly about their
perceptions and experiences (Packer, 2011) – this was certainly my experience during the
current study, with individuals disclosing profound pains of imprisonment including coming
to terms with ones sexuality, and acute fears keenly felt when thinking of a life beyond the
prison walls. The semi-structured design also allowed for new avenues of enquiry to be
introduced by the participant, that could be embraced through exploration and elaboration
(Geertz, 1973) and which provided rich material to answer the research questions. New,
interesting avenues of enquiry and rich illustrations of experience could have been
smothered had a structured interview with rigid standardised elements been employed; for
example, a number of participants raised feelings of a lack of system legitimacy particularly
18
Methodology
in relation to offending behaviour programmes, something which had not been on the
Interview Schedule and yet which proved to be highly relevant to my attempt to explain
experiences of RFR among the sample.
Prior to conducting the research it was essential to ensure that the SPS Ethics Committee
approved the research design.
As such, an application form was submitted which
comprehensively detailed the research aims and design. Upon receiving formal approval
the fieldwork stage of the research commenced. The issue of research ethics is discussed
further below.
3.3 Sampling and Research Methodology
Nine one-to-one interviews were conducted with adult male life-sentenced prisoners and a
further one-to-one interview was conducted with an adult male extended sentence
prisoner. The research questions dictated that a purposive sampling strategy was employed
to identify potential interviewees. According to Bryman, purposive sampling is ‘conducted
with reference to the goals of the research, so that units of analysis are selected in terms of
criteria that will allow the research questions to be answered’ (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). As
the present research was interested in prisoners with experience of retreat from release, it
was essential to purposefully recruit individuals who could reflect upon their experiences
and thus contribute relevant data in terms of relevance and depth (Jupp, 2006). To adopt a
random sampling strategy would be to defeat the aim of the research, as there would be no
guarantee that individuals chosen would possess the necessary experience.
As such,
individuals were approached who had communicated – either to myself, or to another staff
19
Methodology
member, officially or unofficially – that they never wanted to get out of/be released from
prison. In practice, the recruitment of such individuals proved to be a tricky enterprise, and
the difficulties experienced in accessing this population is perhaps one reason why so little
research exists on RFR.
Since I was interested to learn more about retreat from release, prisoners who had
experience of this phenomenon represented the primary criterion for inclusion in the
sample group. I therefore aimed to seek out two groups: i) individuals who were currently
retreating from release; and ii) those individuals who had previous experience of retreating
from release. I anticipated that identifying individuals in these groups would be quite
complex – for instance, there is no designated field for such information on PR2 [Prisoner
Records Version 2]. Consequently, potential participants would need to be identified
through my local knowledge of prisoners at HMP Dumfries, and the expert knowledge of my
colleagues across the Scottish Prison Service estate.
Recruitment of sample
It was originally intended that interviews would be undertaken with ten to twelve life
sentence prisoners, both male and female, as it was considered that twelve participants
would be manageable within the data collection timeframe. The eventual number of
interviews conducted however, was ten, out of which nine were life-sentenced prisoners
and one was an extended sentence prisoner2. All interviewees were male, as my initial
2
An extended sentence is comprised of a fixed period spent in custody followed by a period spent on licence in
the community. Extended sentence prisoners are subject to recall consideration for the total period of the
extended sentence. If recalled, prisoners are subject to parole reviews prior to release. The prisoner included
in the present study had been recalled to custody and had subsequently stated he did not wish release
evidenced by self-rejecting from the parole process, which presented an extra important avenue to explore, as
clearly not only life-sentenced prisoners had experienced RFR.
20
Methodology
scoping discussions with colleagues were unable to identify any female life-sentence
prisoners retreating from release. It was anticipated that participants would be dispersed
across the long term prisoner estate in Scotland; however, following discussions with
colleagues from ten prisons, only three prisons identified as having individuals with
experience of RFR; namely, HMP Dumfries, HMP Edinburgh and HMP Glenochil. As such,
the research was conducted in each of the aforementioned establishments.
In order to access the sample in each establishment, contact was made via email with the
Governor, from whom permission was sought to conduct research in the prison (See
Appendix II for example email). On receiving permission, contact was then made with
colleagues involved in integrated case management (ICM), in order to establish how many
prisoners had experience of retreat from release in each establishment. Whilst it would
have been advantageous to attend each prison prior to commencing the interviews to
establish contact with potential participants, the geographical location of two of the prisons
– some 80 miles (HMP Edinburgh) and almost 100 miles (HMP Glenochil) from my base at
HMP Dumfries - made this unfeasible.
In Establishment A, I met individually with potential participants and discussed the main
objectives of the study and what involvement would entail. During these meetings
prisoners were provided with an information sheet (See Appendix III) and consent form (See
Appendix IV) and were requested to return the completed consent form to myself if they
wished to participate by an agreed deadline. The meetings also allowed an opportunity for
prisoners to ask any questions or seek clarification on any aspect of the study. Out of the
four prisoners who met the criteria for the study in Establishment A, three stated they
21
Methodology
would be willing to take part during this meeting and completed the consent form
immediately. The remaining prisoner, declined to consent during this initial meeting
immediately after an officer informed me – in front of the prisoner I was speaking with –
that I was “wasting your time” with that particular individual. To me, this felt like an
example of how cultural attitudes of staff could negatively impact on recruiting potential
participants for the current study.
In Establishment B, potential participants had been informed of my research by a
Residential First Line Manager prior to my attendance and were asked if they would be
willing to meet with me to further discuss the research objectives. I met with two potential
participants individually on the day of the interview and after introducing myself followed
the same format of the meetings that I had adopted at the initial establishment. On this
occasion both prisoners agreed to participate in the study. Having travelled all the way to
this establishment, it was only when I got on the wing that I was notified that one of my
potential participants had been transferred. I was able to establish contact with a unit
manager at the prisoners’ new location in the hope of being granted access to this prisoner;
however, during a subsequent conversation, the unit manager stated that finding a suitable
location for the prisoner to be interviewed which did not impact on the segregation regime
and resources would be an “impossible” task. Special security measures that the prisoner
was being managed under were also cited by the unit manager as a potential issue. He
stated he would seek consent from the prisoner and get back to me; a short time later, I
received an email response to say the prisoner declined to take part. This is another
example of organisational barriers experienced during prisons research, even by ‘insider’
researchers (this issue is discussed further below).
22
Methodology
At Establishment C, the ICM co-ordinator approached all potential participants (n=14) on my
behalf and - on gaining consent from 50% of those approached proceeded to arrange the
interview times prior to my attendance. Whilst 50% of prisoners approached agreed to take
part; on the day of the interviews two prisoners declined to attend. While this was not an
ideal method of recruitment, and possibly reduced the number of potential participants, it
was all that was achievable given time and resources constraints on the current study. For
those who attended interviews at Establishment C, I introduced myself and again followed
the same sequence as I had in previous meetings to ensure prisoners were fully aware of all
the facts in order to provide informed consent.
The eventual population included in the research sample – drawn from three Scottish
prisons: HMP Dumfries, HMP Glenochil, and HMP Edinburgh - was male, aged between 42
and 83 years old (average age=60), and, in terms of ethnic origin, were all White British.
Over half had been convicted of murder. The sample were however diverse in terms of the
sentences received for the original offences, with the minimum sentence being 5 years
custodial plus 5 years extended (the period subject to licence conditions in the community)
and a maximum life tariff of 25 years. The subsequent time spent in custody also ranged
greatly, with the minimum years served being 4 years and the maximum years served being
42 years (average time served=23years).
23
Methodology
Table 1 – Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Prisoner
Age
Index offence
Original sentence/Tariff
Dumfries 1
45
Murder
Life - tariff 14 years
Dumfries 2
58
Murder
Life x2 - tariff 10 years + tariff of 25
years
Dumfries 3
42
Murder
Life - tariff 14 years
Glenochil 1
57
Murder
Life - tariff 15 years
Glenochil 2
53
Glenochil 3
83
Glenochil 4
59
Murder
Life - 13 years
Glenochil 5
61
Murder
Life - 12 years
Edinburgh 1
80
Wilful Fireraising
Life - tariff 7 years
Edinburgh 2
58
Sexual
Offences
Life - tariff 13 years 9 months, 6 days
Sexual
Offences
Sexual
Offences
5 years custodial + 5 years extended
Life - tariff 8 years
Years
served
26
years
41
years
17
years
16
years
4 years
11
years
42
years
29
years
25
years
17
years
Conducting the Interviews: A Reflexive Overview
As suggested by Robson (2011), interviews consisted of the following sequence;
introduction, warm up, main body, cool off and closure. As noted above, the interview
schedule was an adapted version of the life inside interview as applied by Wright, Crewe
and Hulley (under review). It was further shaped by key themes that had emerged from the
literature review and from feedback received from professionals and my research
supervisor (Appleton, 2010), whilst also allowing for the emergence and exploration of new
themes by incorporating a number of probes. The interview schedule also comprised of a
number of ‘appreciative’ questions (Liebling, Price and Elliot, 1999) in attempt to bring
balance to the interview by seeking out positive experiences, for example what does a good
24
Methodology
day look like for you in here as opposed to a normal day? Whilst some interviewees were
able to recall and express positive experiences they had encountered in a reflective and at
times humorous fashion, the majority of responses were marred with a deep sense of
hopelessness, especially when disclosing goals and plans for the future.
‘Interviewing is rather like a marriage: everybody knows what it is, an awful lot of people do
it, and yet behind each closed door there is a world of secrets’ (Oakley, 2013, p.31). In an
attempt transport the reader to the world of secrets behind the closed door as described by
Oakley, this section of the methodology will discuss the practical considerations of the
interview process.
One such consideration was whether the interview should have been piloted, which might
have been beneficial in ‘help[ing] not only with the wording of a question but also with
procedural matters such as…the ordering of question sequences’ (Oppenheim, 1992, p. 47).
However, time constraints meant a pilot was not realistic. Instead, on conclusion of the
interview, feedback was sought in relation to whether questions were easy to understand,
and if the layout of the questions created the feeling of a ‘conversation with a purpose’
(Burgess, 2002, p. 84). Participants were also offered the opportunity to contribute any
questions they felt to be particularly relevant to understanding RFR, and thus provide input
into the design of the interview schedule (cf. Harvey, 2008). Ultimately, all participants
stated they understood the questions and felt that the interview schedule encompassed all
aspects relevant to understanding retreat from release.
25
Methodology
Time was another important consideration. It was planned that each interview would last
for one to two hours. In reality however, only four interviews adhered to the allocated time
with the majority running considerably over this time (average interview duration = 3
hours). The length of time an interviewee had spent in custody appeared to impact on the
duration of the interview, with prisoners reflecting on the experiences they had
encountered throughout their significantly lengthy sentences. The times that interviews
could take place was governed by the prison regime which varied between establishments.
For instance in one establishment I was only able to interview participants between the
hours of 09:00 and 12:00, which meant a number of repeat trips to complete the interviews
– whilst this occurrence had the potential to impact on my rapport with participants and
ultimately the data generated in the interview – none of the interviews were affected by
this and in fact participants had thanked me for making the repeat trips.
The importance of choosing a suitable location to conduct interviews cannot be
underestimated in terms of the impact this could have on data generation. In a correctional
setting, appropriate – i.e. quiet, private, comfortable - locations to interview are somewhat
limited in comparison to the options available in wider society. With this in mind, all
interviews took place in a private office which was conducive to confidentiality, as audio
privacy was ensured.
Interviews were audio recorded on a digital Dictaphone and later transcribed. Limited notes
were also taken during each interview. In recognition of the need to protect the identity of
the participants, all actual names were replaced with pseudonyms and all identifiable
information was removed from transcripts. In accordance with best practice all data
26
Methodology
generated from the research was stored securely within a lockable cabinet in HMP
Dumfries, where only I had access and all recordings were securely destroyed on completion
of the transcription process.
Guided by Patenaude (2004) who emphasised the importance of establishing rapport and
gaining trust when conducting interviews in a correctional setting, I attempted to establish
an atmosphere during interviews where interviewees felt at ease by practising reflective
listening (King and Horrocks, 2010), offering reassuring nods and allowing periods of silence
to allow individuals to gather their thoughts.
While the interviews discussed emotive and sensitive issues, none of the prisoners in the
sample became visibly upset or distressed. Instead the majority of prisoners appeared
enthused to tell their story and the overwhelming feedback from interviewees was that the
interview was “really enjoyable” and had allowed them to “delve into the store of
knowledge”. A number of prisoners thanked me for listening to them, and the majority of
the sample said that this was the first time they had had the opportunity to share their
experiences. However, regardless of how at ease the interviewees appeared throughout
the interview, I ensured that I asked them if they were alright and informed them of a point
of contact if they felt they needed support on conclusion of the interview. Each prisoner
was also given a personal letter thanking them for participating and repeating the reminder
about seeking support, if required (See Appendix V).
The findings summarised in the following chapter are based solely on the interviews
described above. Prisoners’ accounts were not challenged during interviews or verified by
27
Methodology
reviewing prisoner files, as the study aimed to present the ‘lived experience’ of prisoners
who
have
28
Methodology
experience of retreat from release through their own eyes and documenting their
perceptions of the experiences they have encountered.
3.4 Data Analysis
Data analysis is a search for meaning and is a process which ‘transforms data into findings’
(Patton, 2002, p. 432) through the emergence of patterns, themes and relationships (Hatch,
2002) which thereafter are subject to evaluation and interpretation. In qualitative research,
it is equally important to apply a framework for analysis which mitigates any potential bias
(Patenaude, 2004). In addition, analysis is concerned with ‘understanding the people
studied’ (Patton, 2002, p. 457), and in this case with understanding the experience of
retreat from release by adult male life sentence prisoners. As such, this section of the
chapter examines the way in which the data generated from interviews was converted into
comprehensible responses to the research questions.
The first step in preparing the raw data for analysis was the process of transcription which
can ‘help interviewers better understand the rhythm of an interview…Transcripts, though
not easy to create, help extend the life of the interview information’ (Sommer and Quinlan,
2009, p. 74). Accordingly, all interviews were transcribed, fully verbatim, by the researcher
on completion of each interview; the extra time full transcription may have taken was found
to have been worthwhile, as data that initially appeared extraneous during interview was
found to be valuable upon further examination. The process of transcription was however
time consuming and also proved quite challenging due to the emotive nature of the
research. For instance, the circumstances which led to the murder of a woman were
discussed by one participant during interview which was especially difficult to listen to.
29
Methodology
On completion of the transcription process, the data was analysed using a qualitative
approach – this was particularly suited to the present study owing to the rich data collected,
which extended to 304 pages of transcripts. Given the thematic nature of the interview
schedule itself it made sense when coding to follow the themes sequentially to ensure that
the analysis was directed through the lens of the research questions. In practical terms
thematic analysis ‘minimally organises and describes your data set in (rich) detail’ (Braun
and Clarke, 2006, p.79). As such, I took a subset of transcripts and began the process of
‘open coding’ (this pertains to the ‘naming and categorizing of phenomena through close
examination of the data’ (Strauss and Corbin, 2004, p. 303). This involved a line-by-line
analysis to identify emergent themes, patterns and anomalies. These themes assisted in the
initial interpretation of the data. ‘Focussed coding’ (i.e. applying a limited set of codes to
large quantities of data (Monette et al, 2014) was then applied on a line by line analysis to
each interview, to ensure that the initial codes remained relevant to the full data set and to
allow for the emergence of new themes and anomalies that were linked with pre-existing
theory.
The data was then displayed using framework analysis (Spencer et al, 2014), a matrix which
displays the themes and subthemes against the verbatim data from each participant
revealing nuance and texture. The framework analysis method allowed a clear and visible
insight into how retreat from release was experienced by life sentence prisoners and also
facilitated an appreciation of the way in which the prisoners made sense of their situation.
3.5 Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the SPS Ethics Committee, which set the ethical
parameters for the research. Formal access requests which comprehensively outlined the
30
Methodology
research aims and process were also sent to governors (See Appendix II) to obtain
permission to conduct research in their establishment.
Guided by Noaks and Wincup’s (2004) thoughts on ‘informed consent’, and the British
Society of Criminology Code of Ethics - which states ‘research participants should be
informed about how far they will be afforded anonymity and confidentiality’ (British Society
of Criminology, n.d. p. 3) - I used a customary research protocol which covered the issues of
informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity by way of a participant information sheet
(See Appendix III). The information sheet informed participants of: the research aims; that
they did not have to answer any questions they did not wish to; of their right to stop the
interview at any point; and of the right to withdraw consent up until 1st September 2015.
Participants were also provided the opportunity prior to interview to ask questions and seek
verbal clarification on any aspect of the research. Prior to interview, participants were
provided with a consent form to sign (See Appendix IV), which stated that they agreed: to
take part in the research; to interviews being recorded; and to the researcher using direct
quotes from their interview (as long as this was done in such a way that they could not be
identified). In recognition of the need to protect the anonymity of the participants - all
actual names were replaced with pseudonyms and all identifiable information was removed.
In accordance with best practice all data generated from the research was stored securely
where only I had access and all recordings were securely destroyed on completion of the
transcription process.
3.6 Potential limitations and reflecting on ‘insider research’
31
Methodology
It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which the present study is representative to all lifesentence prisoners who retreat from release, as this is admittedly a small, all-male sample
(from an unknown population). Future research could expand on the findings generated in
the present study by investigating RFR outside of the Scottish context, to establish if RFR
translates across other cultural borders and further exploration is needed to ascertain
whether the findings presented in the current study represent the female experience of
RFR.
It would also be interesting to see future research conducted both from a non-‘insider’
perspective, to see if any further insights can be generated which might have been limited
by my ‘insider’ status as a prison practitioner (Operational First Line Manager at HMP
Dumfries; one of the research sites). Being an ‘insider’, I was known to a number of the
participants in my professional role and it was initially thought that this pre-existing
relationship could have negatively impacted on recruitment for the present study and on
participants’ willingness to speak freely during interviews (Sangster, 1994). Because of my
‘insider’ status, I was acutely aware throughout the research of trying to maintain the
balance of being attentive to the participants’ experiences whilst simultaneously being
conscious of how my own experiences as a professional could bias my objectivity, as
described by Maykut and Morehouse (1994). To dispel potential fears regarding
confidentiality that my ‘insider’ status might have generated, the information sheet (See
Appendix III) advised that I was conducting the research in my capacity as a student and I
took time to remind participants of my student role prior to interview, whilst setting the
parameters for confidentiality. When conducting the interviews, I dressed casually as a
student as opposed to prison uniform which assisted in creating a relaxed, informal
32
Methodology
atmosphere. Participants were accepting of my role and were enthusiastic to share their
experiences with someone who was willing to listen, which served to enhance the breadth
of the data generated.
33
Findings and Discussion
Section 4 - Findings and Discussion
This study aimed to explore the reasons why life-sentenced prisoners might retreat from
release by presenting their ‘lived experience’ through their own eyes and documenting their
perceptions of the experiences they have encountered. In addressing the three
fundamental research questions, this chapter presents the reader with the data, by
discussing the key themes that emerged from the rich material derived from interviews.
The chapter breaks down the data thematically and begins by discussing adaptation to the
sentence and specifically; pains of imprisonment, survival, time and control. Next, the
chapter discusses how prisoners build a life in prison through consideration of: accepting
the prison as home; the experience of offence-related trauma; making a sentence
meaningful and constructive; and internal social relationships. Finally, the chapter explores
the reasons why prisoners retreat from release, focusing on the concepts of transformation,
isolation, ‘technophobia’, and post-release survival.
4.1 Adapting to the Sentence
As prisoners recounted their experiences of adapting to their sentence, it quickly became
apparent that the way that they had adapted to their sentence varied greatly. Despite these
differences, four main themes were identified within their accounts: pains of imprisonment,
survival, time and control. Each of the themes is considered in turn below.
4.1.1 Pains of Imprisonment
Similar to life-sentenced prisoners interviewed by Wright et al (under review), the majority
of prisoners in the current study described the initial phase of imprisonment as an
extremely painful experience, often expressing far deeper ‘pains’ than those considered in
34
Findings and Discussion
the existing literature. Some accounts on the initial phase of imprisonment following
conviction and sentencing expressed ‘disengagement between self and environment’ (Feeny
et al, 2000, p. 491):
The world just disappeared…I don’t know how I got down the steps, I don’t know
how I got back to the cells, how I got back to the jail, just nothing. Nothing
registered. I didn’t hear anybody I just couldn’t function at all. It was as if somebody
had put a switch on and I did everything automatic
Damon.
I felt numb…I was at the end of the table sitting there very quiet and away in a wee
world of my own, I couldn’t even tell you where my brain was or what I was thinking
about… I was kind of in a haze
Jack.
Other accounts in the immediate aftermath of receiving a conviction and sentence were
characterised by shock, fear and suicidal thoughts:
To go from a couple of months to life in prison? To me that was the biggest shocker,
because that was a different ballgame altogether…The first couple of weeks I was
kind of anxious and paranoid
Josh.
I didn’t think I would be here today…I thought I would be long gone…I mean I cannot
believe that I’m still sitting here now 16 years on
35
Findings and Discussion
Adam.
Whilst the pains of imprisonment have been well documented in much of the prison effects
literature, for one of the interviewees instead of being a ‘pain’, orchestrating a life sentence
provided a sense of security from the hardships of living in society (cf. Schinkel, 2014). As
such, he was able to make a seemingly smooth transition into custody:
I felt quite content. I intended on getting a life sentence and I got a life sentence so I
was quite happy…because it meant that until the day I die I have a roof over my
head, I’d have a warm bed to sleep in and I’d have three meals a day for the rest of
my life
George.
The experience reported by George offers support to the findings presented by Laub and
Sampson (2003) who reported that some prisoners hold the perception prison is easier than
living in society, and provides weight to those who argue conventional life is ’more terrifying
than doing time’ (Akerstrom, 1985, p. 23).
Accounts on the ‘pains’ of this initial period also extended to the devastating impact of
receiving a life sentence on relationships. Narratives were dominated by prisoners
expressing profound concerns for the wellbeing of loved ones, offering support to the
findings presented by Zamble and Porporino (1988) who found that prisoners were deeply
troubled by being separated from loved ones during their initial phase of imprisonment. A
further common theme was the acute inner turmoil prisoners had experienced when trying
to do right by loved ones, even to the detriment of oneself, confirming previous research
36
Findings and Discussion
that some prisoners choose to relinquish social relations (Farber, 1944, Wikberg and Forster,
1990, Crawley and Sparks, 2006):
I wasn’t worrying about myself so much as everybody outside because I didn’t know
if they were getting a hard time or how they were coping because I hadn’t seen
them for 4 weeks…so how were they feeling? Were they distraught or were they
getting abuse?
Damon.
It was the hardest part of my sentence because my girlfriend was there with my son
…I had to finish with my girlfriend…I had to for them because I couldn’t see myself
bringing them through a whole life sentence
Luis.
I said I’m here forever. I said don’t you wait…you will be a very old woman…It would
have done my head in if I thought she was going to hang around. A sentence is hard
enough without having added pressures and that’s the way I looked at it. I would be
worrying what was happening to her on the out and I just cut all ties
Adam.
4.1.2 Survival
Whilst the majority of prisoners expressed deep turmoil during the initial phase of their
predicament, narratives were generally followed by accounts of coping with the sentence
and seeing it as a challenge; of tales of survival:
37
Findings and Discussion
It’s like whatever way you can be successful in this environment, see it as a
challenge - when you’re down get up, get up straight away if you go down. It was
always a challenge of what you can endure, of what your spirit can endure you know
and that’s endured a very lot and you learn the way of positive thinking…violence
was a big issue back then, you know you were astounded by it…total confidence in
yourself that was a priority because you were in that environment…the other thing is
survival - how do I cope with this? You get a bad day of violence and you could be
lying there beat up to a pulp […] you have got to bounce back from that
Fletcher.
Those who – like Fletcher - had been incarcerated for over twenty years discussed the need
to survive in a different type of prison experience in the early days; one which was largely
absent from the narratives of those who had served less time, illustrating Crewe’s (2011)
point that ‘penal power’ has changed over the years, moving away from more physical
‘pains’, and towards paper-based and covert pains (an issue revisited in Section 4.1.4):
It was just a cacophony all the time, it was non-stop…it was that initial big bang of
that gate and you are thinking oh shit I am stuffed now…you got two sheets and a
blanket in the middle of November and it’s snowing outside and you are thinking ‘I
am not going to survive this, I am dead’…You are sitting thinking all night ‘I am just
going to die in here’ and nobody disavowed you of that because they know how you
are feeling, you just need to struggle
Damon.
38
Findings and Discussion
[Back then], you hit a member of staff you are getting a kicking, trust me […] I see it
as an acceptable part of life in prison
Jack.
In discussing the issue of ‘coping’, many of the interviewees commented on the importance
of not thinking about their sentence, as “if you start thinking about your life in prison you
would kill yourself” (Adam), and also highlighted the necessity of not yielding to depression
as “the last place you want to be depressed is in prison” (Josh). Most presented a similar
narrative to that of Luis, who said “You [just] get on with it”.
However, this did not necessarily happen immediately – for example, Luke described a long
path toward “self-destruction” prior to accepting the situation and finding ways to cope:
When I got my life sentence…I gave up. To me I was expecting to spend the rest of
my life in prison and I just gave up and went “That’s it”. The first 7 years I spent
stoned and drunk and personally I was on a path of self-destruction
Luke.
For some prisoners – particularly those describing the violence of Scottish prisons in the
1980s and 1990s - the creation of a ‘jail personality’ (Davis, 1986) and an emotionally
protective barrier were described as their primary coping mechanisms:
[A] jail personality is something you create - he is not a real person, he is a tool and
that tool is for dealing with the worst that you will come across in your
environment… You had to establish yourself in amongst a lot of other violent
people…That’s when the occasion of the jail personality kicks in…You say ‘I need a
39
Findings and Discussion
tool here’…So one of your priorities is knowing how to fight…I suppose that’s what
it’s all about, the ability to adapt to your environment. If it’s violent you need to
adapt to that by being violent
Fletcher.
She said ‘You’ve got a wall up’. I said ‘You’re right’, I said ‘That’s my protection’…I
said ‘You will not get through unless I allow you because that’s my protection…I can
switch off and know nothing…I don’t pay any attention to what goes on in the
sections [wings]’
Adam.
The previous quotations distinctly highlight the ‘massive assault’ (Berger, 1963, p. 100) on
identity and self of those imprisoned in order to survive and fit into institutional life
(Clemmer, 1958, Goffman, 1961). The first quotation indicates ‘the inavoidable [sic]
hardening effects of the prison environment’ (Schmid and Jones, 1991, p. 416) with the
theme of violence dominating the survival imagery, offering support to Jewkes who
proposes such ‘macho credentials’ (Jewkes, 2008, p. 128) are essential to ‘fit in with the
prevailing culture of masculinity’ (Jewkes, 2008, p. 128). Yet, Adam’s experience above
introduces the adoption of a ‘protective’ (rather than aggressive) survival strategy (Schmid
and Jones, 1991, p. 416); by becoming utterly self-insulated from the prison environment.
Discussions around coping occasionally turned explicitly towards the concept of
‘institutionalisation’. Haney (2001, para 14) describes this as the process by which prisoners
are ‘shaped and transformed by the institutional environments in which they live’. Several
40
Findings and Discussion
prisoners persuasively confirmed their institutionalisation. However, it quickly became
apparent that individual perceptions on the nature of ‘institutionalisation’ varied to some
degree; that is, while routine and ‘structure’ were described as being “monotonous”, they
simultaneously provided a sense of “comfort” by providing structure and predictability to
institutional life:
I am institutionalised…To me it’s a bit like being in the army, you’ve got set
timings. That’s the way I feel about me being institutionalised. I’ve got rules and
regulations to stick by. I get up at a certain time, go to my bed at a certain time and
in between everything else happens so it’s basically like being in the army like a drill
day in, day out…It’s kind of a comfort knowing what I’m doing but at the same time,
it can be a pain in the arse because it’s the same thing, it is monotonous…You have
no option but to get on with it […] [Y]ou start getting paranoid if it happens before
it is supposed to happen or it happens after it is supposed to happen. You start
thinking ‘What’s going on?’ That’s no good for anybody
Josh.
I’m used to the structure, used to managing it and being told what to do and being
where I am meant to be…so I feel comfortable in that setting. When it changes I feel
pretty anxious, I just feel out of place
David.
Some referred to their reliance or dependence on the institution, in-keeping with
‘institutionalisation’ as more traditionally defined by Goffman (1961) and Cohen and Taylor
41
Findings and Discussion
(1972) – for example, George (a prisoner in his eighties) said “I’m so used to being in prison
that it has took over my life completely”. However, others – also recognising
‘institutionalisation’ as a forced reliance on the prison - described themselves as defying this
process:
If I was to let them run my life 24/7 I would imagine that is a form of
institutionalisation. You are relying on them. Well I’ve decided I’m no relying on
them for anything
Adam.
Some of the narratives alluded to various “degrees” of institutionalisation, arguing that total
institutionalisation was not applicable to their experience as they still had a desire (or
“hope”) for freedom, or maintained a “freedom of the mind”:
I believe [that after serving] 3-5 years you are institutionalised up to a point but
there is also various degrees…I am in 42 coming up on 43 and I still want out - I’ve
got that tiny bit of hope to get out - but the older I get, the longer I am in it gets
harder and harder
Jack.
A lot of the time my mind isn’t in the jail…I’m talking about freedom of mind and
what you can study…If I’m institutionalised it’s like I don’t have a problem in being
told what to do…That relationship I don’t have a problem with but that’s not cause
I’m institutionalised, that’s because it’s the easiest way to do your time
Fletcher.
42
Findings and Discussion
4.1.3 Time
Almost all of the prisoners in the present study found difficulty in contemplating future time
and generally avoided thinking beyond the immediate present, instead presenting in a
‘suspended animation’ (O’Donnell, 2014, p. 207) because of the indeterminate nature of the
life sentence. Instead the majority of prisoners managed their time on a short-term or a
day-by-day basis:
I just think about today whatever happens tomorrow will happen…there is no point
in me thinking to the future because I don’t have one…Live day by day
Adam.
Day by day, is the only way to deal with a sentence like this. You can’t plan for the
future because there is no future. I don’t see any future, I don’t see any light at the
end of my tunnel
Luke.
Phrases like ‘day by day’ and ‘I can’t think that far ahead’ were a vividly recurring theme and
highlighted the inability of the majority of prisoners in the sample to conceptualise their
future, which offers support to the finding presented by Zamble (1992) where prisoners
framed time on a day by day basis. This is in contrast to Wright et al (under review) who
identified ‘day by day’ thinking as a coping mechanism for the start of a sentence. The
current findings indicate ‘day by day’ thinking is similarly an important mechanism for those
who – despite often being decades past tariff – were just as unable to conceive of the future
as those at the start of their sentence in the Wright et al study.
43
Findings and Discussion
The previous quotations allude to dark and hopeless themes about the future which was
also illustrated by some of the participants who had commented that they “hope to still be
alive tomorrow”. This was in contrast to the healing aspect of time described by others:
I was a walking bundle of anger, hatred and bitterness for years…It was eating away
at me like an acid…I am free of all that…Time has cured me
George.
Time heals…It’s like at both times when I committed murder for a few minutes I lost
self-control, I like to think now that the self-control will not get away from me again,
even when I’m raging I maintain that control
Fletcher.
4.1.4 Control
Discussions of ‘control’ and power also featured heavily in the transcripts. Such dimensions
of the prison experience are rarely exposed and yet they communicate the state attitude
toward imprisonment and shape prisoner experiences of imprisonment, making control and
power worthy issues to discuss in prison sociology. Participants were acutely aware that
their control was highly restricted and were astutely able to identify the areas of life they
did and did not have control over:
I think it’s the prison that controls us. I think so anyway but I have got control over
my life when the door locks. During the day they tell me what to do
Adam.
44
Findings and Discussion
My life depends on how the SPS view things
Josh.
I have got control of my life whilst I am in prison but as I said the parole tribunal have
got control of my life [overall] and I don’t like it.
George.
The previous quotations highlight the powerlessness endured by prisoners in their inability
to control their situation as a consequence of the power yielded by the prison and the
parole board (Johnson and Dobrzanska, 2005) which is akin to ‘fatalism’ (Matza, 1967),
whereby the locus of control is external. Similar to what Foucault coined ‘subjectivation’,
interviewees therefore tended to focus more on self-conduct (e.g. not becoming angry, not
responding aggressively), which was deemed to be within their power and control, and reframing ‘mucking up’ (in Luis’ case committing the offence which led to his incarceration), as
an opportunity to reassert and regain control of oneself and one’s daily routine:
I can do what I wish but at the same time I’m under rules and regulations so there’s
only so far that I can take it…As the years have progressed I’ve got older, wiser, I’ve
regained my dignity [and] I’ve kept quite good control of my anger. I think that’s the
two biggest [areas of control]: my anger, and my dignity
Josh.
I think I’ve got control of certain parts and aspects of it but I wouldn’t say all of it…I
think sometimes when you do a bad thing it makes a good thing happen…’Well I
45
Findings and Discussion
mucked up – [so] get control of your life back. See what programmes that you can
do, see what education you can pass your time with, and go to work’.
Luis.
4.2 Building a Life in Prison
The extent to which prisoners were able to build a life in prison and make their sentence
constructive was also the subject of discussion. The four themes that presented in the
narratives were: seeing prison as home; offence related trauma; making a sentence
meaningful and constructive; and social relationships inside prison; each of which is
discussed below.
4.2.1 Seeing Prison as Home
After the initial period of anxious adjustment it became evident from the personal accounts;
the majority of interviewees acknowledged their predicament and sought to make the most
out of the situation that they had found themselves in. In doing so, it became
overwhelmingly transparent that life now existed within the confines of the prison as
opposed to the community:
I just get on with it I just get on with my life
Josh.
It’s not the sort of life that you live outside with people attracted and chase the
bright lights…you can still have a life in here but it’s a different type of life […] I
46
Findings and Discussion
would like the option to do certain things…But I don’t count on them to make me
happy
Fletcher.
The previous quotation accentuates the rationalisations that some prisoners experience
when positively reassessing the grim reality of prison becoming an ‘involuntary home for
life’ (Johnson and Dobrzanska, 2005, p. 8) and illustrates a finding eloquently portrayed by
Johnson and Dobrzanska:
Prison is not a home that life-sentenced inmates would want, and prison does not
provide a life they would desire, but prison is all lifers have. To survive, they must
adapt. For lifers, prison is as good or as bad as it gets.
(Johnson and Dobrzanska, 2005, p. 8).
Yet, one of the accounts illustrated an inability to construct a life in prison due to not being
able to overcome the initial grim assessment of what this new life would entail:
I have never settled here, never…It is soul destroying. How are you supposed to
progress or motivate yourself if there’s nothing there and they are not helping
you?…Well as long as I’m here I will never settle
Adam.
Many prisoners recounted their experiences of prison transfers and likened this experience
to being “evicted” reaffirming existing literature that they were ‘persons living in prison
rather than offenders doing time’ (Zamble, 1992, p. 423-4). For many, transfers were an
47
Findings and Discussion
extremely painful experience, having built a life in a particular prison and often resulted in
feelings of dread, anxiety, frustration and anger:
It’s hellish…You don’t worry about it when you are told about it, you worry when
you get there. See when that outside gate slams, that’s when the knot starts…It’s
like walking through treacle because nobody knows you…it’s not fear as most people
would think of it…it is trepidation because you know if that trepidation gets any
worse it is going to be replaced by anger and then you are stuffed
Damon.
It’s devastating, it’s like you being in a house and somebody is evicting you
Luke.
In any jail over time you establish relationships and friendships…But then suddenly
you are upended and moved to a different jail where you don’t have that support
…They say changing your house is one of the most stressful things that you can do,
well changing jails can be really stressful as well
Fletcher.
4.2.2 Offence-Related Trauma
The capacity for building a life in prison also meant coming to terms with a serious offence
for many of the interviewees. All prisoners in the present study had admitted their guilt and
the majority had taken full moral responsibility for their actions. The experiences expressed
by prisoners often reflected a sense of ‘penal consciousness’ (Sexton, 2012); that is ‘the
48
Findings and Discussion
[way] in which prisoners orient to and make meaning of their punishment’ (Sexton, 2015, p.
114):
It does alter you because obviously you bring up in your mind ‘right I did this, what
did I do that for? That was terrible’…It’s affected me badly but I can’t be too
sympathetic to myself because the sympathy lies with the girl and her family…
you’ve got to deal with yourself, you’ve got to contemplate what you’ve done…the
only thing that bugged me about possibly having cancer was not being able to do
that twenty five year I owed the family…I can die right after I’ve done the twenty five
year…that’s my way of saying sorry…you can’t see yourself as a victim…or you will
destroy yourself
Fletcher.
It’s always one thing I have been consistent about I am the guilty party...I was
100% to blame for this…My victim was 110% innocent
Jack.
Rumination generated profound remorse and voluntary suffering which often continued to
shape the behaviour of prisoners who had evidenced that they were never able to fully
contemplate – nor perhaps truly make amends for - the enormity of what they had done.
Narratives were often dominated by reflections about what it had meant to take someone
else’s life and what could have been:
49
Findings and Discussion
That young life that I took for all I know she could have been married, she could
have had a kid by now, for all I know she could have been dead. I don’t know but I
took that life before she got that chance
Josh.
Why should I enjoy life when I’ve taken one? This lady is never going to enjoy life,
she is never going to have anything, she is gone…why should I go out there and enjoy
what’s left of my life when this lady has been gone for 16 years, she will never see
her family, she will never see anything, she can’t enjoy summers, winters, nothing.
Why should I have that?
Adam.
For some prisoners, the combination of conscious self-criticism and the persistence of
involuntary invasive memories of the offence and the victim that were ‘indelibly etched on
[their] mind’ (Meichenbaum, 1996, cit. in Pollock, 2000:177), evidently affected and shaped
their everyday life in prison:
I could never forget what I did. Every single day it haunts me but I can’t change that
now, 16 years gone
Adam.
I mean people will criticise guys like myself, murderers, I don’t think they realise how
much we criticise ourselves…you could be doing something along your day and bang
the victim is in your mind, you see something on the television, bang it’s there, it’s
50
Findings and Discussion
there, what you’ve done. It’s like you’ve got a wee sleepless inquisitor called
‘Conscience’ in your head that’s there all the time…For others it’s a very threatening,
very painful experience because you feel utterly worthless
Fletcher.
One means of trying to combat perceived “worthlessness” was through making the
sentence as meaningful and constructive as possible.
[Y]ou know you deserve [your punishment]…but at the same time you have still got
to manufacture some sort of self-esteem? It’s finding that balance…saying to
yourself right this is my punishment but rather than all that time going to waste you
do things within the jails to make it constructive…you’ve got to find reasons to get
out of your bed in the morning
Fletcher.
4.2.3 Making a Sentence Meaningful and Constructive
The desire to make a sentence meaningful and constructive was presented passionately in
the majority of narratives when discussing the early phase of imprisonment, offering
support to the findings presented by Cohen and Taylor (1972), Sapsford (1978) and Zamble
(1992). For example, prison time was seen as an opportunity for making positive change by
reducing risk or personally developing through educational attainment:
There is a lot of issues I had to deal with through offending and understand why I am
offending…Moving Forward Making Changes [is an offending behaviour programme]
51
Findings and Discussion
I got a lot out of. I mean I know that there is still work for me to do but I got a lot
from…the chaplaincy and things like the groups and it has done me good
David.
After I had been in about six years, that’s when I started going to education and I
suddenly realised that I had a brain, because I left school with no qualifications…it’s
like everybody is born with potential…there is that part of you that you think ‘wait a
minute - I am better than I think I am, I’m not just this person…in certain things I can
shine’. Again it’s about self-esteem, self-belief […] and the need to be something
better and different than you were before
Fletcher.
Yet similar to Sapsford (1978), such aspirations among the current sample shifted over time,
and in the present, the idea of making prison ‘meaningful’ or time ‘constructive’ gave way to
the hopelessness keenly felt by those prisoners who were significantly post-tariff. Many
appeared overwhelmed by the enduring ambiguity pertaining to their release; they were
resigned to staying in custody, and deemed such endeavours as futile, with dreams of
personal improvement and goal-setting completely shattered:
I stopped setting goals years ago…I stopped setting goals when I got the refusal for
my SEL’S [Special Escorted Leaves] and stopped setting targets or doing anything.
I’m not interested at all now
Josh.
52
Findings and Discussion
I haven’t set nothing…I’ve watched guys do every single group that is asked of them,
life sentence prisoners I mean and they are still here after 30 years. That doesn’t
give you a lot of hope and I’ve just turned it into negativity and I’ve done nothing.
I’ve been stuck in a rut
Adam.
I used to set goals when I was younger because I needed a lot of help when I was
younger but there wasn’t any help available in the prisons in those days…Nowadays I
don’t set goals…because I can’t see them being achieved
Jack.
The findings presented in the previous quotations are in contrast to Zamble (1992) who had
found that two thirds of prisoners set goals. Instead, the current data supports and extends
Zamble and Porporino’s (1988) findings which proposed that the majority of prisoners lost
interest in self-improvement within a year of beginning their sentence.
4.2.4 Social Relationships Inside the Prison
According to Crewe on the theme of social relationships:
It might be expected that the conditions of imprisonment would give rise to close
friendships and strong bonds of solidarity […] Yet, at the same time that the prison
incites affiliation, it also circumscribes the forms that these relationships can take.
(Crewe, 2009, p. 301).
53
Findings and Discussion
The complexities of social relationships in a prison environment as described by Crewe here
were identified in the current study, with stark contrasts in participants’ willingness to
engage in social relations. Some narratives evidenced an avoidance of forming social
relationships and instead these prisoners lived a life of relative solitude:
I’ve not really formed any friendships…There is no such thing as a friendship in a
prison…for a life sentence prisoner you can’t really strike up a friendship with
anybody because you start talking to somebody, then the next time you turn around
and talk to them he’s away somewhere else, he’s away to another prison or he is
liberated… I don’t know that you can really have people on the inside because you
can’t really rely on anybody…because it’s a fear factor I think. It’s a fear that if you
tell them something then the next thing you know it’s everywhere…I don’t trust
anybody and that has been throughout.
Josh.
I’ve not really built any kind of relationship…I don’t classify people as friends on the
inside. They are acquaintances because the people that I talk to are determinate
sentence prisoners. They will leave so I wouldn’t like to build a relationship just to
be kicked in the teeth…if it was left up to me I would just be on my own all the time
it’s just something that I have created over the years of being in prison
Adam.
54
Findings and Discussion
I don’t actually build any relationships…why should I become close to anybody in the
prison system because…what’s the point in becoming friends with them in here
when you are not allowed to be friends outside?
Luke.
As the previous quotations suggest, the avoidance of social relationships was attributed to
three distinct considerations, namely: suspicion; an inability to trust others; and a fear of
loss. This last point was closely linked to the indeterminate nature of the life sentence,
which made prisoners reluctant to form social bonds in the recognition that at some point in
the future the relationship would cease to exist, and the desire to avoid the associated
emotional ‘kick in the teeth’ (in Adam’s words) that this would inevitably result in.
However, for others, prison was a social environment like any other whereby strong bonds
flourished:
I think it is the same as outside because this is our society, this is my society. There’s
people in here I trust a million percent. They are proper friends…it’s important in all
walks of life…to have friends and people that you trust enough to go to and say
listen I’ve got this problem…You also need somebody there that is able to
recognise your feelings.
Jack.
Others were able to occupy both positions – recognising that friendship in prison was both
possible and desirable, but also acknowledging the deep pains experienced when
relationships were forcibly ended by the nature of the prison regime:
55
Findings and Discussion
This is a social environment as much as out there is…It was all about comradeship
and getting a hand from people you know you can trust…I feel for them I love these
guys sometimes…you see them in a totally different light…I’ve had some brilliant
relationships, really some brilliant people who would do anything for you…when you
meet a friend in the jail it’s not like outside because you all have nothing. So the guy
is going to you not for any other reason than he likes you, it’s genuine. But you lose
them all over the sentence…you lose them all, they all move on.
Fletcher.
I just want a friend. I just want somebody who understands me, and I understand
them, and share everything. And it’s part of feeling normal. It’s not anything
profound…it’s normality in chaos
Damon.
In contrast to Crewe (2009) who had found trust was often limited in the prison setting, the
previous quotations suggest, social relations were formed on the basis of absolute trust.
Prisoners expressed the ability to “share everything” with others and often described prison
relations as being “genuine”, suggesting that prison is a social environment where valued
friendships could be established and maintained.
4.3 Retreat from Release
The reasons why some prisoners may not desire to be released from custody, when they are
eligible, having served their minimum tariff period is captured more fully by the concept
retreat from release. Determined by a number of multifaceted, complex components;
56
Findings and Discussion
retreat from release is an individualised experience that shifts over time, place and space.
As prisoners recounted their experiences it was evident that their experiences of retreat
from release and the underpinning reasons for retreating varied greatly. Despite these
differences, examination of prisoner responses identified three main themes:
transformation, isolation, ‘technophobia’, and post-release survival. Again, each of the
themes is considered in turn below.
4.3.1 Transformation
Many interviewees described being acutely aware of profound existential transformations
that had occurred during their time in custody. For the majority, transformations were
positive:
At one time I was a walking bundle of anger, hatred and bitterness; for years and
years and years when I first came to prison. But now all that has left me […] It was
eating away at me like an acid…I have changed completely
George.
Prison…helped me to change with having groups available…I think I am stronger
now. A lot more positive and understanding
David.
Despite the positive changes prisoners had recognised in themselves, the majority of
narratives were tinged with disappointment at how little these changes were recognised by
prison authorities and the outside world:
57
Findings and Discussion
If they gave me a chance to prove myself they would find a totally different Luke
because I’d go out my way to do it, to prove myself to them
Luke.
At the beginning of my sentence I was a right sorry soul. I just didn’t care but as the
years have went on I’ve changed, I’ve matured…I’m not the same person I was way
back at the beginning of my sentence. I’m a totally different person but not a lot of
people will see that…I’m not getting the opportunity to integrate so they won’t see
who I am
Josh.
Such disappointments manifested in feelings of a lack of system legitimacy, particularly in
relation to Offender Programmes, which were felt on the one hand to be meaningless ‘tick
box’ exercises, and yet on the other, crucial to the possibility of progression to ‘top-end’
conditions (that is, less secure conditions where prisoners go into society for work
placements and home leaves):
The programmes are the ‘in’ thing…they want me to do Moving Forward Making
Changes despite the fact that I’ve got a psychological risk assessment saying I don’t
need it… so that they can tick a box because I can’t prove I am not a danger to the
public…They can’t get passed what I did in the past…They ram programmes down
people’s throats, especially lifers. They tell you it is voluntary…I’ve took that option
and they tell me if I don’t do the programme I am not going to get onward
movement…So, how is it voluntary?
58
Findings and Discussion
Jack.
I’d like to see them stop conning us with groups because they have set you say 5
groups they want you to do over your 15 year tariff and you’ve done that 5 groups
and you have had excellent results during that 5 groups I want you to go to top-end
now. There is guys done all that stuff and they are still here. Where is your
progression? ... I’ve done what you have asked me to do and you have now stuck
another barrier in my way
Adam.
For those who were among the longest-serving prisoners in the sample, their transformative
narratives often expressed deterioration – as a direct consequence of their prolonged
confinement - which had profoundly impacted on their ability to re-integrate back into
society. This deterioration was keenly felt by Fletcher, who had previously progressed to
less secure conditions but had experienced acute anxieties, stress and panic attacks when
released for work placements, and committed another serious crime while on day release.
This had ultimately led to him receiving a further life sentence. During interview, Fletcher
stated that the damage done to him during his sentence was a primary factor underpinning
the circumstances of the second life sentence:
I thought that I was the last person to get another [life sentence] but I didn’t know
then the damage that had been done to me. This is the thing - damage does get
done to you…I found difficulty in making the transition from jail to civvy street during
placement…because the tools no good in ordinary society and it made me feel
vulnerable, prone to panic attacks…And you say ‘Where’s this coming from?’
59
Findings and Discussion
Because you are supremely confident in the jail environment but as soon as you
were out there it was just…very strange
Fletcher.
Adam also commented on the deterioration of his ability to have a positive outlook in
regard to his life, again highlighting the profoundly negative transformative impact that can
occur during very long life sentences:
When I first started my sentence I was happy go lucky, I was always chatty to people
and just all of a sudden one day a switch has went off… I no longer have a positive
outlook on life. I did at one time but that’s gone now I’m just not interested in
anything whatsoever.
Adam.
It was in this way that narratives of transformation – both in terms of the ever-changing
criteria for officially ‘proving’ this, and because of the negative self-changes induced during
the sentence – contributed to the feeling that release was unattainable, and therefore (as a
self-protection mechanism) the belief that it was also undesirable.
4.3.2 Isolation
As Section 4.2.4 demonstrated, interviewees’ perspectives on social relationships inside the
prison were a complex mix of concerns relating to suspicion, trust, the nature of the
indeterminate sentence, and the pains of loss. It was this final theme, and a profound sense
of social isolation, which also dominated interviewees’ narratives of their relationships with
those outside the prison walls.
60
Findings and Discussion
A minority of interviewees had contact with the outside world, but this was minimal, and
primarily in the form of letters or the very occasional visit. For the majority, however,
outside relationships that once existed with family and friends had been completely
eradicated. This was often a result of action taken by the prisoner. Most opted to
relinquish external contacts as a technique of self-preservation - as Josh notes, cutting off
contact with visitors from the outside was protection from the “heart-wrenching”
experience of having to repeatedly watch them return to the outside without him:
My visits were regular right from the beginning… [but] I gradually cut them all back
because as times it is painful. Especially when you see them coming in and you’re all
happy and smiley and all right, but it’s heart wrenching when you’ve got to watch
them walking away because all you want to do is go with them but you can’t
Josh.
Others self-isolated by cutting ties with family members – particularly intimate partners which (as Adam notes here) acted both to protect his loved ones but also protected himself
from the associated worries and pressures of having outside relationships:
A sentence is hard enough without having added pressures and that’s the way I
looked at it. I would be worrying what was happening to [my partner] on the out
and I just cut all ties…that just cemented it. I thought ‘Well that’s it, the end of the
line - that was the drawbridge pulled back up and that was it, decision made
Adam.
61
Findings and Discussion
The previous quotations offer support to existing literature by capturing the acute pains
experienced by life-sentenced prisoners in relation to maintaining relationships (Sapsford,
1978, Flanagan, 1995, Jamieson and Grounds, 2003) and the reality that for many prisoners
‘prison life is more bearable and easier to cope with if you have nobody to care about
beyond the walls’ (Crawley and Sparks, 2006, p. 69).
However, not all interviewees were socially isolated from the outside world by choice, but
by the very nature of their sentence; as time passed, social relations gradually eroded, most
often as a result of bereavement and relationships generally breaking down (Sapsford,
1978). This meant that (particularly for those who had served more than 20 years) there
was nobody left to get out to – this meant release had felt less important to some than it
had when close family members were still alive:
When I came in I had a big circle of family and friends that came and seen me, the
longer you do the smaller that circle gets until your left with a dot in the middle and
that’s more or less disappeared
Fletcher.
I have nobody out there at all, my mum, my dad, my brother, my sister - they
snuffed it, my dog snuffed it and [even] the procurator fiscal stopped writing to me
(laughs)
Henry.
4.3.3 ‘Technophobia’
62
Findings and Discussion
Fear of the new world beyond the gates held the majority of prisoners in a vice-like grip; this
was a fear which further contributed to the perceived undesirability of life outside the
prison gates, and had most certainly shaped thinking on the decision to retreat from
release. Societal changes had overwhelmed interviewees, and vast advances in technology
had resulted in fear and anxiety that were explained in terms of technophobia (cf. Brosnan,
1998). Such concerns were presented by Josh and George as acute pains of release:
I’m technophobic - I’ve not got a clue about technology. On the outside I don’t know
anything about money […] The last time I seen money was twenty years ago… I don’t
know how to pay a bill…I mean technology-wise; mobile phones, apps, Facebook,
Twitter. What’s all that?
Josh.
It would be completely alien to me…I am completely clueless to modern technology;
I have just heard the names on the radio, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and EBay. I
have not got a clue what all these things are, not at all…Fear of the unknown
George.
Such pains were more often presented by those interviewees who had served more than
fifteen years, who felt that rapid technological and societal developments represented a
profound threat to the perceived likelihood of making their way through life post-release,
and the 21st century world outside the prison gates.
4.3.4 Post-release survival
63
Findings and Discussion
Just as ‘survival’ was a central feature of the men’s narratives of their adaptations to life
inside prison, so it dominated their reasoning in retreating from release. For Jack, ‘survival’
within current socio-economic conditions represented an unknown and uncomfortable idea,
when compared to the prison (in which he knew he could survive, and perhaps even thrive):
I watch the news, read the newspapers…in the winter, pensioners [have] got a
choice to make: do they heat their house and keep themselves warm or do they
have a meal?…Well if they are like that after working their whole lives, paying all
their taxes…what am I going to have?...They were on about these food banks and […]
people are working full time and they can’t feed their family…how can I survive?...
This is my life [here] - I don’t need to worry about my next meal, don’t need to worry
about keeping myself warm, I’ve got a wee wage coming in, no bills to pay. In reality
I’ve no cares - I’ve got friends, I’ve got everything I need and if I was that way
inclined I’ve got a bit of sex if I want it. So is it worthwhile me actually going out
there for the hassle that is going to come to me?
Jack.
Josh – who had served almost 30 years’ continuous confinement - similarly described his
fears regarding release as centred on surviving in the unknown environment of the outside
world, and the ways in which his anxieties related to existing outside, rather than inside, the
prison walls:
I would be fearful [of release] because the odd times I’ve ventured outside a prison
has been on home visits, hospital visits and funerals. That’s the only time I’ve
interacted with the outside world. Apart from that I’ve not been outside the walls,
64
Findings and Discussion
I’m always inside walls…So to me I’m fearful of the outside, I’m scared to go out, I
don’t know what’s out there…I was out on an escort a few weeks back to a funeral
and I was shaking going out because I was so anxious. I just wanted back to the jail
as quick as possible.
Josh.
For those with previous experience of being released, the fear of not coping, plus the lack of
wider support mechanisms available upon release, informed the decision to retreat from
release. Within this, the sense of failure from criminal justice agencies to support them in
trying to make their way in life post-release was palpable:
When I was out on licence I was having a lot of problems and I kept saying to myself
‘Well I’m better off in the jail. I had friends there and I was working, I had something
to do, I had structure in my life’… So I kept on forcing that on my mind, which is a
hard thing as well saying ‘I would rather be back in jail than out there’…I started
having problems with my neighbour [at the hostel] …I was getting depressed…then I
was telling my social worker about the problems that I was having…and they said
‘Just keep a note…’ I felt what’s the point? Nobody is interested. I never had any
other support
David.
When I got out before I got a kick in the teeth from everybody that was supposed to
help me and I ended up sleeping rough and living rough in an old van…the housing
refused to house me. She told me a pack of lies…So I went to see my social worker…I
65
Findings and Discussion
said ‘Can you help me?’ And she said, ‘no I can’t help you’…. So after all that
happening, when I got [back to] the jail, I sat and looked into the future again and I
said ‘I am not going to have it - I will just get life imprisonment, a life sentence’. I lost
all trust in the system
George.
Finally, fears about survival were not only related to making their way in the unknown world
outside the prison, but in doing so safely. For those like Adam - who feared repercussions as
a result of his offence - retreating from release was a safer option:
Even after 16 years there is still going to be people…they would be like ‘We know
what you done’…I’d have to defend myself and I don’t want to be doing that. That’s
another reason why I decided that [being released] is not for me…I will just deal with
the day to day life in here. I can’t be harmed in here, I can only harm myself.
Nothing can happen because I’m protected in here. Outside, I’ve got to fight for
myself…in here I’ve got my cocoon nobody can get to me unless I allow it
Adam.
In this sense, the prison performed the role of protector, sheltering the men from the
anticipated psychological and physical dangers of living in society, and providing a “cocoon”;
a (relatively) safe place in which they could retreat from release.
Summary
66
Findings and Discussion
The findings presented in this chapter demonstrate that ‘retreat from release’ is a
multifaceted, complex, and individualised experience that shifts over time, place and space.
However, broad themes identified within the data suggest for many, the prison had
‘[nurtured the] very qualities it claims to deter’ (Miller, 2002), evidenced by the adaptive
patterns and subsequent survival techniques adopted by some prisoners to provide them
with the ‘tools’ to cope with a life in prison. Such ‘tools’ while making prison survivable
served to make the transition to society incomprehensible for some and problematic for
others which had ultimately informed the decision to retreat from release. Isolation and the
indeterminate nature of the life sentence had served to compound the decision to RFR, as
for many there was nothing and no-one to get out to, and what came across strongly in the
data was that prisoners appeared to be suffering from ‘hoop-jumping fatigue’ (James, 2005)
creating insecurities, as the ‘road-map to freedom [was] by no means clear’ (Crewe, 2011, p.
514). This had manifested in deep cynicism in regard to system legitimacy in the application
of offender behaviour programmes, which were viewed as barriers to – rather than a means
of - progression. Moreover, significant fears of the outside world (‘technophobia’) and the
fear of being unable to survive in society were also pivotal factors in the decision taken by
prisoners who reject the notion of a life outside the prison walls.
67
Conclusion and Recommendations
Section Five - Conclusion and Recommendations
Given the fact that ‘researchers and policy makers have largely ignored the issue of long
termers and lifers’ (Kazemian and Travis, 2015, p. 357) and as the courts are increasingly
dispensing life sentence tariffs, which have been succinctly defined by Wright et al as being
‘barely survivable’ (Wright, Crewe and Hulley, 2015, p. 14), this study aimed to investigate a
subject which existing research has failed to take seriously; the ‘lived experience’ of lifers
who retreat from release.
Given the concerns that the retreat from release phenomenon provokes, it is essential to
invest efforts in trying to understand RFR and the impact it has on the individuals
concerned, to better inform policy and practice in addressing the needs of these individuals’
and to support and encourage them in realising their potential to transform their lives and
to see and create a life in the community.
As envisaged, there were a number of themes which emerged from the data, which offer
support to existing literature on the experiences of long-term prisoners, but also some
original findings which offer insight into the experience of RFR and how the ‘pull’ of
imprisonment, and the concerns associated with release, influence life-sentenced prisoners
feelings with regard to a future outside prison. For instance, the prevalence of
technophobic concerns presented as pivotal factors in the decision to RFR, yet
technophobia is a phenomenon which remains to be addressed in the prison sociology
literature.
68
Conclusion and Recommendations
I was moved by the stories told by prisoners that were dominated by themes of darkness,
hopelessness and bleak forecasts for the reality of their future lives. What was most
startling - as demonstrated in the findings - was that in the same way that the men talked
about fears regarding their physical and psychological survival when they began the
sentence in relation to the prison, this was mirrored in the ways they now thought about
the outside world. This presents a striking paradox within the prison system in creating a
culture of dependence among older life-sentenced prisoners. This was not because prison is
‘comfortable’ as such, but because these men have been in so long, or are so old, that life
outside now seems just as terrifying to them as prison life did when they first came in.
Furthermore, while ‘jail personalities’ and other protective strategies were identified as
necessary to survive in the prison environment, interviewees were also clear – from the
stories of those who had experienced release- that such survival “tools” created profound
difficulties in the attempt to re-integrate into society. The findings therefore call into
question the significant and long-term invisible harms imposed on prisoners by the extreme
prison environment – in Miller’s (2002) terms, its ‘iatrogenic’ effects - and highlight the ways
in which the penal system can continue to punish after the official sanction has ended.
Despite the majority of prisoners accepting their predicament and having a sound grasp on
the areas of their life that they did or did not have control over, a number of prevailing
concerns were powerfully emphasised. For instance, prisoners expressed an acute lack of
agency in regard to their future; instead of being ‘internal’, the locus of control over their
own future was very much externalised, whereby many believed “my life depends on how
the SPS view things”. Such feelings centred on frustration with the SPS in the overpervasiveness of programmes and risk culture. For many, programmes were viewed not as
69
Conclusion and Recommendations
a mean to progression, but as barriers to this which created an enduring torment. In order
to adjust to the bleak reality of spending a life in prison and to survive the sentence,
prisoners relinquished goals and thoughts of the future, and instead – as at the start of their
sentences - focused only on the immediate present. Suppressing thoughts of the future in
this way, combined with a sense of powerlessness/absence of control over their situation
(similar to that witnessed by Schinkel, 2014 among her sample of released lifers) had
undoubtedly served to influence prisoners’ feelings on retreating from release.
The extent to which the prisoners would describe ‘prison as home’ had not been
anticipated. The majority of narratives when discussing prison transfers were dominated by
themes of “eviction” which appears to confirm that ‘prison is all [some] lifers have’ (Johnson
and Dobrzanska, 2005, p. 8). However, finding contentment in their prison life had also
appeared to negatively impact on the enthusiasm for prisoners to seek release as the
majority of prisoners perceived they had no cares or worries in the prison environment often stating that they were fed, warm and clothed. A further common perception was prisoners believed no harm could come to them as they were ‘protected’ in the prison
environment; a safety net which was missing from life outside. The sense of loneliness and
isolation was another strong theme. Outside relationships that once existed with family and
friends had been completely eradicated for the majority of prisoners. For some, this
isolation was as a result of bereavement or natural breakdowns in relationships, yet for
others relinquishing relationships was a survival strategy; a self-preservation technique.
Whatever the reason for prisoners experiencing isolation, it clearly presented as a catalyst
to RFR, as there was nobody or nothing for these prisoners to get out to. As such, the
70
Conclusion and Recommendations
importance of social relationships in the successful reintegration of life-sentence prisoners
cannot be underestimated.
A further pivotal factor on the decision to retreat from release was fear of the outside
world, which included: technophobia, life skills, wider social conditions and the potential
repercussions of being recognised. Such fears had created panic attacks, anxiety and acute
pains of release, which most certainly influenced the decision to RFR. The absence of
support in making a new life outside was central to the RFR decision among those who had
committed a further offence and come back to prison (and for one participant this lack of
support had led to the commission of a serious crime in order to return to custody) – the
inference is that if we want to reduce the potential for future offences and future victims
(and not simply by keeping prisoners indefinitely, and constantly moving the goalposts), and
enable these individuals to the possibility of ‘meaningful’ lives, we might perhaps consider
that they need to be released younger, not kept so long, and given better support prior to
release (e.g. intensive support regarding technological advances, such as use of the internet,
and a mobile phone; finding accommodation; budgeting/money management) and once in
the community (both in terms of personal and emotional support, support in how to ‘undo’
the “damages” inflicted by many years in prison).
The extent to which the stories presented represent the wider experiences of life-sentence
prisoners who retreat from release is difficult to ascertain. What has been gained from this
study, however, is a more vivid picture of what it means to experience ‘retreat from release’
and the factors that might underpin this decision. The data suggests that it becomes harder
to imagine a life outside of prison as: a) your continuous time served increases; but also b)
71
Conclusion and Recommendations
your age increases. This means that those prisoners who were older but only served a few
years might retreat from release (where the sentence is indeterminate), as might those who
are comparatively younger but have served many continuous years in confinement. It also
seemed that those who fell into both of these groups – which represents the majority of the
men in this study – had proved to be the hardest prisoners to motivate into feeling that a
life post-release was both viable and desirable.
The contribution made by this study is both its attempt to pave the way for further
understanding of retreat from release by life sentence prisoners, and in highlighting the
significant invisible and iatrogenic effects of locking people away for long periods of time,
both in terms of impact on the individual, and on the prison system itself.
72
Bibliography
Bibliography
Abbott, J. H. (1982), In the Belly of the Beast: Letters from Prison. London: Hutchinson.
Akers, R.L. and Sellers, C.S. (2009), Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and
Application [5th Edition]. New York: Oxford University Press.
Akerstrom, M. (1985), Crooks and Squares: Lifestyles of Thieves and Addicts in Comparison
to Conventional People. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Appleton, C.A. (2010), Life After Life Imprisonment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, R. and Schutt, R.K. (2014), The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal
Justice [5th Edition]. California: Sage Publications.
Banister, P.A., Smith, F.V., Heskin, K.J. and Bolton, N. (1973), Psychological Correlates of
Long Term Imprisonment 1: Cognitive Variables. British Journal of Criminology, 13: 313-323.
Banister, P.A., Heskin, K.J., Bolton, N. and Smith, F. V. (1974), A Study of Variables Related
to the Selection of Long Term Prisoners for Parole. British Journal of Criminology, 14: 359368.
Bauwens, A. Robert, L. and Snacken, S. (2012), Conditional Release in Belgium: How
Reforms Have Impacted Recall. European Journal of Probation, 4: 19-33.
Berger, P.L. (1963), Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor
Books.
73
Bibliography
Bottomley, K. A. (1973), Parole Decisions in a Long-Term Closed Prison. British Journal of
Criminology, 13: 26-40.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3: 77-101.
British Society of Criminology, (n.d.), Code of Ethics. Retrieved 21st April 2015 from
http://www.britsoccrim.org/docs/CodeofEthics.pdf
Brosnan, M. (1998), Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information Technology.
London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods [4th Edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess, R.G. (2002), In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Routledge.
Clemmer, D. (1958), The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Codd, H. (2007), Prisoners’ Families and Resettlement: A Critical Analysis. The Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 46: 255-263.
Cohen, S. and Taylor, L. (1972), Psychological Survival: The Experience of Long-Term
Imprisonment. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Crawley, E. and Sparks, R. (2006), Is There Life After Imprisonment? How Elderly Men Talk
About Imprisonment and Release. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6: 63-82.
Crewe, B. (2009), The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English
Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74
Bibliography
Crewe, B. (2011), Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisiting the Pains of Imprisonment.
Punishment and Society, 13: 509-529.
Crewe, B. (2015), Inside the Belly of the Penal Beast: Understanding the Experience of
Imprisonment. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4: 50-65.
Davis, J.R. (1986), The Science of Criminal Justice. North Caroline: McFarland & Company
Incorporated Publisher.
Farber, M. (1944), Suffering and Time Perspective in the Prisoner. In K. Lewin (Ed.) Authority
and Frustration (pp.155-213). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Feeny, N., Zoellner, L., Fitzgibbons, L., & Foa, E. (2000), Exploring the roles of emotional
numbing, depression, and dissociation in PTSD, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13: 489-498.
Flanagan, T.J. (1980), The Pains of Long Term Imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology,
20: 148-156.
Flanagan, T.J. (1981), Dealing with Long Term Confinement: Adaptive Strategies and
Perspectives Among Long Term Prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 8: 201-222.
Flanagan, T.J. (1982), Correctional Policy and the Long Term Prisoner. Journal of Crime and
Delinquency, 28: 82-95.
Flanagan, T.J. (1995), Long-Term Imprisonment: Policy, Science and Correctional Practice.
California: Sage Publications.
Foucault, M. (1986), The History of Sexuality, Volume 3: The Care of the Self, translated by R.
Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books.
75
Bibliography
Garland, D. (1990), Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Glesne, C. (2006), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction [3rd Edition]. Boston:
Pearson.
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums. London: Penguin.
Haney, C. (2001), The Psychological Impact of Incarceration - Implications for Post-Prison
Adjustment. National Policy Conference - From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration
and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities (pp. 1-19). Washington: Department of
Health and Human Services.
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997), Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological Analysis of
Supermax and Solitary Confinement. New York University Review of Law & Social Change,
XXIII: 477-571.
Harvey, J. (2008), An Embedded Multimethod Approach to Prison Research. In R.D. King, and
E. Wincup (Eds.) Doing Research on Crime and Justice [2nd Edition]. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hatch, J.A. (2002), Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. New York: State
University of New York Press.
76
Bibliography
Heskin, K.J., Smith, F.V., Banister, P.A. and Bolton, N. (1973), Psychological Correlates of
Long Term Imprisonment 11: Personality Variables. British Journal of Criminology, 13: 323330.
Heskin, K.J., Bolton, N., Smith, F.V. and Banister, P.A. (1974), Psychological Correlates of
Long Term Imprisonment 111: Attitudinal Variables. British Journal of Criminology, 14: 150157.
Hulley, S., Crewe, B. and Wright, S. (2015), Re-Examining the Problems of Long-Term
Imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology.
James, E. (2005), The Home Stretch: From Prison to Parole. London: Atlantic Books.
Jamieson, R. and Grounds, A. (2003), No Sense of an Ending – Researching the Experience
of Imprisonment and Release Among Republican Ex-Prisoners., Theoretical Criminology, 7:
347-362.
Jamieson, R. and Grounds, A. (2005), Release and Adjustment: Perspectives from Studies of
Wrongly Convicted and Politically Motivated Prisoners. In A. Liebling and S. Maruna (Eds.)
The Effects of Imprisonment (pp.33-65). Devon, Willan Publishing.
Jewkes, Y. (2005), Loss, Liminality and the Life Sentence: Managing Identity Through a
Disrupted Lifecourse. In A. Liebling and S. Maruna (Eds) The Effects of Imprisonment
(pp.366-388). Devon: Willan Publishing.
Jewkes, Y. (2008), Identity and Self. In Y. Jewkes and J. Bennett (Eds.) Dictionary of Prisons
and Punishment (pp.128). Devon: Willan Publishing.
77
Bibliography
Johnson, R. and Dobrzanska, A. (2005), Mature coping among life-sentenced inmates: An
exploratory study of adjustment dynamics. Corrections Compendium, 30: 36-38.
Jupp, V. (2006), The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: Sage Publications.
Kazemian, L. and Travis, J. (2015), Imperative for Inclusion of Long Termers and Lifers in
Research and Policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 14: 355-395.
King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010), Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage
Publications.
Kvale, S. (2012), Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications.
Laub, J. H. and Sampson, R.J. (2003), Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to
Age 70. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Liebling, A., Price, D. and Elliot, C. (1999), Appreciative Inquiry and Relationships in Prison.
Punishment and Society, 1: 71-98.
Liebling, A. and Maruna, S. (2005), The Effects of Imprisonment. Devon: Willan Publishing.
McCallum, F. (2014), “SPICE Briefing: Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill”, Scotland:
The Scottish Parliament, retrieved 18th April 2015 from
http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAnd
Factsheets/S4/SB_14-60.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=qUxVf2tMIOqaaqdgJAF&ved=0CDAQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNEcf3SheFVC7GUySRVYhWzX9rIA1Q
78
Bibliography
Mandela, N. (1994), Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. London:
Little Brown.
Mason, J. (2002), Qualitative Researching [2nd Edition]. London: Sage Publications.
Matza, D. (1967), Delinquency and Drift. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Maxfield, M.G. and Babbie, E.R. (2015), Research Methods for Criminal Justice and
Criminology [7th Edition]. Connecticut: Cenage Learning.
May, T. (2011), Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process [4th Edition]. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994), Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophical and
Practical Guide. London: Falmer Press.
Miller, J. (2002), The Prison System Does Not Work. In R. Espejo (Ed.) America’s Prisons:
Opposing Viewpoints (pp.24-30). California: Greenhaven Press.
Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T.J., Dejong, C.R. and Hilton, T.P. (2014), Applied Social Research: A
Tool for the Human Services. California: Brooks/Cole, Cenage Learning.
Noaks, L. and Wincup, E. (2004), Criminological Research: Understanding Qualitative
Methods. London: Sage Publications.
O'Donnell, I. (2014), Prisoners, Solitude, and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oakley, A. (2013), Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.) Doing
Feminist Research (pp.30-61). London: Routledge.
79
Bibliography
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement.
London: Continuum.
Ostermann, M. (2010), Parole? Nope, Not for Me: Voluntarily Maxing Out of Prison. Crime
and Delinquency, 57: 1-23.
Packer, M. (2011), The Science of Qualitative Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Patenaude, A.L. (2004), No Promises, But I’m Willing to Listen and Tell What I Hear:
Conducting Qualitative Research Among Prison Inmates and Staff. The Prison Journal, 84:
69S-91S.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods [3rd Edition]. California:
Sage Publications.
Petersilia, J. (1990), Evaluation of New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program. Crime and
Delinquency, 34: 437-448.
Petersilia, J. (2003), When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pollock, P. (2000). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following homicide. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11:
176-184.
Radzinowicz, L. (1968), The Regime for Long-Term Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum
Security: Report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System. London: HMSO.
80
Bibliography
Richards, E. (1978), The Experience of Long Term Imprisonment. British Journal of
Criminology, 18: 162-168.
Risk Management Authority. (n.d.), “FAQs – OLR”, Retrieved 26th December 2015 from
http://www.rmascotland.gov.uk/news-and-information/faq-s/olr/
Robson, C. (2011), Real World Research [3rd Edition]. West Sussex: Wiley.
Sangster, J. (1994), Telling our Stories. Women’s History Review, 3: 5-28.
Sapsford, R.J. (1978), Life-Sentence Prisoners: Psychological Changes During Sentence.
British Journal of Criminology, 18: 128-145.
Sapsford, R.J. (1983), Life Sentence Prisoners: Reaction, Response and Change. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Schinkel, M. (2014) Being Imprisoned: Punishment, Adaptation and Desistance. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Schmid, T.D. and Jones, R.S. (1991), Suspended Identity: Identity Transformation in a
Maximum Security Prison. Symbolic Interaction, 14: 415-432.
Scottish Prison Service. (2014), “Scottish Prison Service Annual Report 2013-2014”,
Retrieved 23rd October 2015 from
http://www.sps.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=1070&sID=270
Sexton, L. (2012), Under the Penal Gaze: An Empirical Examination of Penal Consciousness
Among Prison Inmates. California: University of California.
81
Bibliography
Sexton, L. (2015), Penal Subjectivities: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Penal
Consciousness. Punishment and Society, 17: 114-136.
Shover, N. (2004), Foreword. In S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds.) After Crime and
Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration(pp.vii-xi). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Sommer, B.W. and Quinlan, M.K. (2009), The Oral History Manual [2nd Edition]. Lanham:
Altamira Press.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Ormston, R., O’Connor, W. and Barnard, M. (2014), Analyses:
Principles and Processes. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, and R. Ormston
(Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers [2nd
Edition] (pp.269-294). London: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures
for Developing Grounded Theory. California: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (2004), Open Coding. In Seale, C (Ed.) Social Research Methods:
A Reader (pp.303-306). London: Routledge.
Sykes, G.M. (1958), The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Tomar, S. (2013), The Psychological Effects of Incarceration on Inmates: Can We Promote
Positive Emotion in Inmates. Delhi Psychiatry Journal, 16: 66-72.
Wikberg, R. and Foster, B. (1990), The Long-Termers: Louisiana’s Longest Serving Inmates
and Why They Have Stayed So Long. The Prison Journal, 70: 9-14.
82
Bibliography
Wright, S., Crewe, B. and Hulley, S. (2015), In for the Long Term. Independent Monitor, 115:
14-15.
Wright, S., Crewe, B. and Hulley, S. (Under Review), Suppression, Denial, Sublimation:
Adapting to the Early Phase of Very Long Life Sentences.
Zamble, E. (1992), Behaviour and Adaptation in Long-Term Prison Inmates. Criminal Justice
and Behaviour, 19: 409-425.
Zamble, E. and Porporino, F.J. (1988), Coping, Behaviour and Adaptation in Prison Inmates.
New York: Springer-Verlag Publishing.
83
Appendix I – Interview Schedule
Information to share at the start of the session
Offer a welcome to the interviewee.
My name and role within SPS – stress independent in this instance, as acting as a researcher. Reaffirm no loss
of pay for attending.
Information shared is confidential unless it poses a risk to self / others or a threat to establishment or a breach
of prison rules or further offences.
Expected to last one to two hours, maximum. Tape recorder to be used and limited notes taken.
All relevant names/other identifying details will be removed during the transcription process and replaced
with a pseudonym.
Explain aim – to understand the issues of retreat from release through the eyes of a prisoner.
Advise that the finished thesis may be available in the Institute of Criminology library.
If you feel upset / distressed at any point please advise and we can stop, or arrange for support.
Warm – up – Daily life & Time
It would be helpful for me, as a good place to
start this, if you could talk me through a
current ‘day in the life’ of you.
Prompts: Job? Exercise routine? Education?
If none of these, what do they do? How do they
spend their time in prison?
And has this always been the daily structure of
prison life for you?
What kinds of short or medium-term goals have you
have set for yourself in here?
If not, when was this different? And why?
What are these?
Are these set by you or by the prison? Are they
focused solely/primarily on progression?
How have you tried to make your time in here
constructive?
To what extent have you engaged with offending
behaviour courses?
Prompt: Have any of these courses helped you to
develop personally?
Which ones?
Engaged with some and not others? Why?
Has level of engagement/interest changed over
time? If so, how and why?
What does a good day look like for you in here as
opposed to a normal day? Can you tell me about your
most recent good day?
And what about your most recent bad day?
The Sentence Over Time
So the next section of the interview is about how you
and your sentence have progressed over time, so
perhaps I can ask you to think back to the very start of
your sentence, and talk me through how you felt
when you were first given this sentence?
Prompts: How did you feel about your sentence
then? [i.e. perceived legitimacy]
How do you feel about your sentence now?
84
Appendix I – Interview Schedule
What do you remember about your first few days and
weeks?
Prompts: First time in prison?
Smells, sounds, feelings?
In what ways was your prison experience different
then to the way it is now?
Did you initially appeal your sentence or conviction?
What aspects of this did you appeal? (i.e. not
guilty/new evidence/sentence length)
Can you talk me through the sentence so far in some
detail, in particular what life has been like for you at
its various stages?
-
-
And what has been the most positive, or
rewarding, phase or period out of these
stages?
And the most negative, or hardest phase?
(i.e. when you felt you were deepest in the
system, and might never get out)
Have you previously progressed to top-end/open
conditions, or been released?
Prompts: Plead guilty/not guilty? Maintain
innocence?
Appeal at any other points during sentence? Why
(personally) and on what grounds (evidentiary)?
Why at that particular point?
Impact of prison moves? Different regimes?
Can you please talk me through this experience
(when was it, how did it feel, what happened
when you left closed conds/were released?)
Why did you return to closed conditions?
How did you feel when returned to closed conditions
from top-end/open conditions?
How does the person you are now compare to the
person you were on the outside, before this
sentence?
Do you have any concerns about how you might
change during the rest of your sentence?
To what extent do you feel that you have control of
your life in here?
Prompts: Which parts of you have stayed the
same?
Have any changes been positive for you?
How much have you made a deliberate effort to
change yourself?
How much are the changes in you (from the
person you were outside) because of a conscious
decision you have made to change and how much
are they because the prison environment forces
you to change?
Prompt: e.g. problems with positivity, dealing with
challenges etc.
Prompts: what form does this ‘control’ take? What
areas of your life have you managed to retain or
get back, some control?
85
Appendix I – Interview Schedule
Exploring Retreat from Release
A central part of this study is trying to understand
why men like yourself might ‘retreat from release’,
or decide that they do not want to be released from
prison – it would be helpful if you could talk me
through the extent to which this phrase makes
sense in respect of your own personal experience?
Probe responses for depth/detail.
What does it mean to ‘retreat from release’ for you?
If currently RFR: It would really help me to
understand the concept of retreating from release in
terms of your experience if you could talk me
through the decision-making processes that
underpinned that decision for you?
What are your central reasons for doing this?
If ex-RFR: What were your central reasons for doing
this?
What would a life outside of prison look like for you
at this time?
How do you feel about the prospect of
being released on licence?
Do you think that you will try for progression at any
point in the future?
Does the concept of ‘institutionalisation’ have any
relevance to you in respect of your decision to RFR?
You indicated before that you currently identify as
retreating from release – can you talk me through
your decision-making processes around this?
You indicated before that you used to retreat from
release, but that this is no longer the case – can you
talk me through your decision-making processes
around this?
Prompt: Accommodation, job opportunities, friends,
family support, substance use, feeling of place in the
world/society.
When did you first begin to think about your life
after prison?
If “no”/RFR: At what point in your sentence did you
stop thinking about life after prison? Why was this?
If ex-RFR/planning for release: At what point did
this change? What were the reasons for your
decision around this?
How old do you think you will be when you are
released? How much life do you think you will have
left in you?
What do you most want to achieve when you leave
prison?
To what extent, if at all, is the prison helping you to
achieve these aims?
Can you imagine your life [in prison/post-prison] five
years from now – where do you think you will be
and what do you think life will look like for you?
What are your main hopes, fears and expectations
when you think five years ahead?
How do you feel about your release itself?
Prompt: What would you like it to be like?
To what extent has the prison or have staff helped
86
Appendix I – Interview Schedule
prepare you for your release?
Do you truly want to stay? Or is it that the other
options – i.e. release - feel so impossible?” or that
you don’t actually want to stay, but are too fearful
of the alternative?
Does the prison you are located in have any impact
on your decision to retreat from release?
Prompts: Optimistic/pessimistic, confident/fearful
Prompts: Emotional preparation?
Practical help with accommodation, job, finances
etc?
Experience of home leave?
[If applicable] What can the Scottish Prison Service
do to support and encourage you to be released and
see a life in the community?
Relationships: other prisoners/staff
I’m interested in the sorts of relationships with
other people that you maintain and build during
your time inside. Can you tell me about the kinds of
relationships that you have formed with other
prisoners while you’ve been in for this sentence?
How important is it to have friends around you,
when serving a sentence like this?
Are there other prisoners you would count as proper
friends?
Do you have support from anyone on the out in
managing difficult times?
How would you describe your relationships with the
prison officers in here?
How do you think officers see you?
To what degree do you feel that staff in
this/previous prisons truly care about you and your
future?
Do you meet regularly with your personal officer?
Do you attend Case Conferences and progression
meetings?
Prompts: What’s the single most important thing
that you get from your friendships inside?
Are there differences between your friends outside,
and your friends inside prison?
Are there other prisoners you would consider
associates/
Prompts: How have your relationships with other
prisoners changed over the course of the sentence
so far?
What are these friendships important for?
Prompts: trust, emotional disclosure
Why those people and not others?
What contact have you had with your personal
officer?
If so, who are these people? What support do they
provide?
If not, has this always been the case? When did
things change?
Who have you lost contact with?
Have you started up any new relationships with
people outside since you came in?
Prompt: Are there any members of staff who you
87
Appendix I – Interview Schedule
I’m interested in knowing about the staff who have
had a big influence on you and your life in here,
either positive or negative. Are there any staff in
this prison (officers, governors or other staff), or in
other prisons you have been in during this sentence,
who have been especially influential?
feel you can trust?
Prompt: How does that compare to other prisons
you have been in?
Prompt: How does that compare to other prisons
you have been in?
Prompt: Could you perhaps talk me through the
relationship you have with your current PO? Has this
changed over time/with different POs?
[whatever the answer] It would be helpful if you
could talk me through why this is the case?
Ending the Interview
I’ve come to the end of my questions, but I know you might have some questions for me. Is there anything
you want to ask me?
Is there anything that we haven’t talked about which you think would be interesting or important for me to
understand?
Perhaps you could provide me with some feedback on the interview itself. Were the questions easy to
understand? Did the interview flow like a ‘conversation’?
Thank participant for their time and contribution
Reiterate available support mechanisms.
88
Appendix II – Letter to Governor
/07/2015
Dear ********,
Following on from our conversation on * July, I am writing to formally request permission to
conduct my research in your establishment. Please find enclosed a summary of my
proposed research; a breakdown of the provisional interview schedule, a participant
information sheet and a copy of the consent letter for completion by potential participants.
I appreciate your time to consider my research.
Regards
Stacy Woodrow
89
Appendix III – Participant Information Sheet
Retreat from Release by Adult Male Life Sentence Prisoners
Stacy Woodrow
Who am I?
I am a part-time M.St. student at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. I also work
full time for the Scottish Prison Service, as a First Line Manager.
Why am I doing this study?
I am conducting this research in order to fulfil the requirements of the M.St. qualification and am
interested in finding out more about the experiences of long serving prisoners who do not wish to be
released back into the community and the experiences of prisoners who previously did not wish to
be released but have since changed their mind. I am particularly interested in the factors that have
contributed toward you taking these decisions, how you cope with your sentence and how this has
changed over time, what relationships you have formed with other prisoners and with staff, how you
have built your life in prison, how you feel generally about your sentence and where you see
yourself in the future. I think that my study will help the Scottish Prison Service, and other
researchers, understand more about what it is like to be in your position.
What will participation involve?
Participation will involve one interview. In this interview, I will ask you to tell me about the story of
your life in prison so far and I will ask you questions on your feelings about yourself and your
sentence.
Do I have to take part in the study?
Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not want to take part, you do not have to, and
this will not disadvantage you in any way. You can withdraw from the study at any time, without
giving reasons, until the 01st September 2015.
Are there any risks involved in taking part?
During the interview you will be asked to discuss your experiences of your sentence. Some
questions might also ask you to think about things you have not previously thought about, or choose
not to think about. Depending on your circumstances, this might spark some unhappy or upsetting
thoughts. However, you do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to, and time will be
given at the end of the interview to discuss anything you may have found difficult. If you find the
interview distressing, you can stop at any time, and I will advise you on whom, in the prison, you
could talk to about your feelings.
Are there any benefits in taking part?
I cannot pay you for taking part in the study, but if you agree to take part and are interviewed when
you would normally be working or in education, you will not lose any pay. Taking part in the study
will not affect your privilege level or any decision about your parole or release.
90
Appendix III – Participant Information Sheet
You may, however, feel that talking about your experiences of prison is useful or helpful to you and
it may present as a welcome opportunity to speak to someone neutral who is willing to listen to you.
You will also be contributing to a fuller understanding of prison life.
Will what I say be kept confidential?
The information you share in the interview will normally be kept completely confidential. However, I
will be obliged to pass on to a member of prison staff any information regarding:
 A breach of prison security
 Any further offences you admit to that you have not yet been convicted for
 Any breach of prison rules that occurs during the interview
 Anything you say that implies a threat to yourself or to others
In all other circumstances, everything you say will remain confidential. The information you provide
is the property of the Crown and will not be supplied to another party or used for any other purpose
other than the agreed research. As such, all information will be stored securely, for up to a
maximum of 60 months on completion of the research and destroyed thereafter.
Will my contribution remain anonymous?
If you agree to the researcher using quotes from the interviews, this will be done in such a way that
you cannot be identified. I will give you a different name and will change any details about your life
which would identify who you are.
How do I agree to take part in the study?
If you agree to take part, you will be asked to complete a consent form, confirming that you
understand what the study involves and have had a chance to discuss any questions with the
researcher. You will also be asked to state whether you agree to the interview being recorded.
What if I want to withdraw from the study?
You are free to stop an interview at any stage during the research process, without having to explain
why you want to stop. You can also insist that the content of your interviews so far is excluded from
the study, without having to explain why. You may make this decision at any point up until 01st
September 2015, when I will begin writing the research findings. If you make this decision, I will
destroy your interview recording and any associated material. Making this decision will not be held
against you or disadvantage you in any way.
Where can I go for support should participation in the research cause me anxiety or distress?
If, once you have finished the interview, you feel that some of the things that you have talked about
have made you to feel anxious or distressed, there are a number of ways that you can access
support:


You can speak to a member of staff or ask the researcher to contact a member of staff who
you would like to talk to.
You can contact a peer support worker, such as a Listener, or I will contact on your behalf
another prisoner in your establishment to let them know that you would like their support.
91
Appendix III – Participant Information Sheet
What will happen to the results of the study?
Your interview may contribute to the publication of my research. The findings may also be discussed
in other academic publications written by the researchers, and in discussions or presentations with
members of the Scottish Prison Service, as well as other university researchers. A copy of the final
research report will be submitted to the Scottish Prison Service to be lodged in the Research Library.
Again, this would be done in such a way that you could not be personally identified.
What if I want more information about the study, or want to complain about some aspect of it?
The study has been reviewed by the Scottish Prison Service Access and Ethics Committee. If you
would like more information or have any questions or complaints about the research please feel free
to speak to me directly. If you do not wish to pursue your question or complaint in this way, you
should contact James Carnie, who will either deal with the issue himself or pass it on to the research
team, where relevant. James Carnie’s contact details are:
James Carnie
Chair of the Research Access and Ethics Committee
Analytical Services
Scottish Prison Service Headquarters
Calton House
Redheughs Rigg
Edinburgh
EH12 9HW
Thank you for your time in reading this information. If you have any further questions at any
stage of the research, please do not hesitate to ask.
Stacy Woodrow
92
Appendix IV – Consent Form
Project title:
Retreat from Release by Adult Male Life Sentence Prisoners
Researcher:
Stacy Woodrow, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Please tick the boxes if you agree with the following three statements.
YES
1. I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet for the study,
and have had the opportunity to ask questions.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary, that I do not have to answer
any of the researcher’s questions if I do not wish to, and that I can withdraw at
any time, without giving reasons, until 01st September 2015.
3. I agree to take part in the study, which means being interviewed by the
researcher.
Please answer YES or NO to the following two statements by ticking the appropriate box.
YES
NO
4. I agree to our interviews being recorded.
5. I agree to let the researcher use quotes from our interviews and
conversations, as long as this is done in such a way that I cannot be
identified.
Name of participant:
Date:
Signature:
Name of researcher:
Date:
Signature:
93
Appendix V – Thank You Letter
**** 2015
Dear Mr. ****
Thank you for giving up your time to take part in the research process. Your insight is very valuable
and will assist me in accurately conveying the experiences of prisoners who retreat from release.
The study aims to build on academic literature but also to help shape prison policy in the future.
I recognise that today’s research session may have caused you some upset or distress and so may I
please take this opportunity to remind you of the different sources of support available to you,
including Listeners, personal officers, residential officers, friends and family. I would strongly
recommend that you talk to one of these support networks if you found today’s session distressing
in any way.
Thank you once again and good luck for the future.
Kind regards,
Stacy Woodrow
Masters Student – Cambridge University
94