Many of the negative effects of imprisonment are inherently suffered in silence; these emotions often accumulate and return underlying feelings of distrust, hatred and low self-esteem, which are productions that are then imported back into society after release (Liebling, 1999). Understandably, these effects caused by imprisonment are important as the deprivations are often inherently embedded within the structure of prison (Sykes, 1958). The process of extending prison structures and length of sentences is adding to the burden, both on the economy and diverting funds away from school, universities and neglecting the intervention programs that should be used to resolve the issues of mass incarceration and the necessity to seclude individuals from society (Hagan and Dinovitzer, 1999). Programs that include restorative justice, that give victims the opportunity to reveal the effects of the crime upon them, getting answers and finding a way forward by the offender taking responsibility, something that is often lost with imprisonment and distorts the foundations of correction (Restorative Justice Council, 2012).
The negative effects of imprisonment are often described by suicide rates that provide an indicator but sadly successful attempts are, for obvious reasons not investigated within research. Samples included are not from the volume of prisoners but what has been diluted after removal, to other institutions; suicide; absconders or release (Liebling and Maruna, 2005). The transition from ‘street to prison’ (Goffman, 1961; Zamble and Porporino, 1988); often involves hurdles within the initial entry point, or reception and an accelerated liability of suicide and self-harm (Fawcett and Marrs, 1973; Liebling, 1999). Prisoners have higher suicide rates than ‘free’ equals within their communities; remand prisoners suicide attempt rate accelerates to 7.5 times, and sentenced prisoners have a rate of almost six times the rate of their counterparts within communities (Jenkins et al, 2005). Controversially, it could be argued that suicidal risk factors could exist within offenders for the same reasons as why they commit crime; but it does not reduce the responsibility of the institution, to recognise the stresses involved with imprisonment or the help and support this vulnerable group (Pratt et al, 2006).
The negativity of imprisonment is defined by Gibbs (1971) as a ‘death experience’. Entering ‘reception’ was classified as a state in ‘limbo’; a no-man’s land in a state of control; where once his responsibility and control existed on the street, he now finds himself awaiting confinement. This stage of pre-confinement can lead to an emotional breakdown of a person’s characteristics and the ultimate test of their identity (ibid). These are periods as described by Goffman (1961) as ‘mortifying’, adhering to rules and regulations with no personal control and with the idea of “doing time…dominated by the idea of violence” (Jones and Schmid, 2000: pp54). Zamble and Porporino (1988) suggest the emotional responses include being detached from everything they know, the conditions they now face, a lack of support from both the institution and staff and a concern for safety; which highlight the initial shock of imprisonment and the boundaries they now will face.
These boundaries comprise of separation, as described by Turner (1969) as “the detachment of the individual or group either from an earlier fixed point in the social structure, from a set of cultural conditions or from both” (pp94). The conditions and the loss referred to by Sykes (1958) as ‘pains of imprisonment’ and include the deprivation of autonomy. This deprivation has grown dramatically due to the over-reliance on prisons as a matter of punishment. The recent reforms in prison and the introduction of privilege systems have led to certain conditions that were once part of prison life now being treated as matters of privilege, that can be withdrawn at will of the prison officer; each year these restrictions are increased without reason (Toch, 2002). Within the current prison culture there is also a tendency for prisoners developing a drug addiction whilst in prison, a report by Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons in April 2012, highlighted the seriousness of drugs along with the limited work provision and training opportunities within HMP Wolds, a privatised prison run by G4S (Hardwick, 2012). These policies created by non-incarcerated individuals are used as a matter of control and order, although they can have dramatic consequences for both the prisoners and their families and can have negative effects within the structure and management as a matter of course.
Research is notably lacking into the long-term negative effects of imprisonment and the hidden factors of the psychological and emotional damage it causes (Grounds, 2004). Regardless of the recognition of these effects by the Home Office (1991) in the White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice; where a prisoner’s recognition of their responsibility is reduced through imprisonment and subsequently what is essentially recognised by society in a law abiding citizenship lost; reintroduction into society often occurs without thought or consideration to the effects both on the prisoner, their families and society. There is now a recognition of disorders developed whilst incarcerated; Post Incarceration Syndrome (PICS) is a set of symptoms present in incarcerated and recently released prisoners with little education of rehabilitation opportunities (Ditton, 1999). This syndrome is coherently mixed with a constellation of added symptoms; institutionalised personality traits, from deprivations of incarceration; post-traumatic stress disorder, both pre and post incarceration; anti-social personality traits, as coping mechanisms of incarceration and social sensory deprivation syndrome, caused by lack of social contact (Grassian, 1983). The assemblage of this condition leads to substance use disorders that allegedly help to manage the effects of PICS Symptoms (Grassian, 1983).
Along with the psychological, behavioural and emotional long-term negative effects on prisoners there is also the perspective of the incarcerated parent and the consequences upon the non-incarcerated family members. The Department of Health funded research into the behavioural effects of children from broken homes, separated or divorced parents. 11% of those children whose family unit had broken down experienced emotional disorders; compared to 3% who remained within a family unit (Mooney et al, 2009). The Government have reinforced their commitment to children suffering from mental issues and disorders (Mooney et al, 2009). However, separation trauma in young people tends to be investigated through permanent situations of breakdowns within family units, research is lacking into the periodical short and long-term effects of imprisonment through parental incarceration. UK Treasury announced in 2003 that 150,000 children experience some level of parental incarceration every year (HM Treasury, 2003). Surveys of parental incarceration by Shaw (1987) were last conducted in 1984 in England and Wales for fathers and in 1967 for mothers (Gibbs, 1971). Despite the recognition of this shortcoming, no statutory body regulates the parental status of prisoners in the UK; leading to children at risk of the negative effects caused by parental incarceration being unmonitored and unrecognised. Anti-social behaviour has been highlighted as a consequence of parental incarceration (Kierkus and Baer, 2003). Family and parenting units are key predictors of criminal activity within the life-course (Farrington, 2002). As such, issues of fairness and legitimacy play a major role both within the institution and outside it (Liebling, 1999). Furthermore, criminological theories would suggest that families that have an incarcerated parent are likely to raise a non-conforming child (Arditti, 2012). These transitions in family structures and the disproportionate use of incarceration strengthen the views of opponents, that prisons are both expensive and damaging to society (King, 2008); and leave behind ‘orphans of justice’ (Shaw, 1992).
It has long been recognised that there is a political necessity to ‘get tough on crime’, currently shifting to a ‘tough but intelligent’ approach (Jowit, 2012). With the views of the public considered when writing policies increasing the use of imprisonment and extending the length of sentencing. Yet a family perspective, that draws upon criteria such as child development and health, family functioning and parental competence, are never considered (Arditti, 2012). Shaw (1987) suggested over 20 years ago, if society do not attend to the effects of imprisonment on children, “we will be punishing innocent victims and neglecting a seriously at risk group” (Shaw, 1987: pp57). Visher and Travis (2003) viewed family influences as being critical in understanding a prisoner’s life and their transition back into society. However, results of an over-reliance on incarceration often have consequences that include high recidivism, intergenerational criminal activity and communities that lack masculine involvement due to imprisonment from both perspectives of the micro, within community and the macro of the institutions (Huebner and Gustafson, 2007). Socialisation of children is influenced by diverse family units and other factors within society; it is now more common that imprisonment is playing an influencing factor in a child’s development, through the consequences and effects of parental incarceration; that is embedded from institutions such as schools, where detention is used and exclusion for more serious ‘offenses’ (Arditti, 2012). Criminal Justice agencies are not reliant on the opinions of families in policy making nor are they concerned with its outcomes. Incarceration does not regard the removal of a parent, but the imprisonment of an offender, whereby they become socially and psychologically altered as a result of that incarceration (Austin and Irwin, 2001). It is those alterations that can have long-term negative effects both during incarceration and beyond; but not just for the offender but also the family members (McDermott and King, 1992).
Prisoners are identified as likely to be unemployed, of low social class and often show mental health issues and other difficulties during their life courses (Dodd and Hunter 1992). It is more likely that these individuals from the bottom of society will end up in prison (Reiman, 1995). However these problems along with others often escalate whilst incarcerated (Reiman, 1995). Subsequently, on release these problems are imported back into society were all too often are unrecognised and untreated. Furthermore, this vision is distorted by policies, criminal justice agencies and the general consensus of the population (Reiman, 1995). The reigns of the criminal justice umbrella control many factors of society and the loss of its control in a deteriorating system require exploration and resolution. However, society inherently concentrates on the micro and the minority acts of criminality, they do not query the misconduct of institutions and the acts they, which effectively protect, guard and ensure their place in society is safeguarded (Reiman, 1995). As Wacquant (2001b) would agree that prisons are the institutions that control social order.
Those professionals that are involved in the realms of justice are unwilling to confess their involvement in dictated harm (Clear et al, 2001). Although due to imprisonment, suicide rates inherently rise and mental health issues fester. It is frequently stated that children of prisoners are six times more likely than their peers to be imprisoned themselves (Farrington, 2002). Studies into the adverse reactions of children from families of parental incarceration lack the methodological expertise to divide those effects with other factors and developing those causations would provide critical outcomes in developing solutions to their problems.
This is not surprising as prisoners’ families are a neglected group, which makes research very difficult (Hounslow et al, 1982); together with additional difficulties in the administration of such a survey as no statutory agency holds this information and as the same group are reluctant to respond to official or independent enquiry (Johnston, 1993). The Prison Service might reduce the negative effects of parental incarceration on children and on prisoners by helping to maintain a regular level of contact. However, visits are considered as privileges; rather than a right for families (Brooks-Gordon, 2003). Prisoners’ children deserve the same research analysis than other risk groups previously researched and there is no statutory body responsible for supporting the families of prisoners in the UK (HM Treasury, 2003). Pauline Morris (1965) studied 825 men that were incarcerated and 469 of their wives; her findings related to ‘a crisis’ of family dismemberment rather than stigma. Although those wives experiencing this loss for the first time certainly felt the stigma and shame that was attached. Common problems were reported; 63% experienced deterioration in financial circumstances; 81% in employment; 63% reduction in social activity, and vast deterioration is social connections of both family and friend relationships. Financial circumstances have been highlighted as the most difficult of experiences (Anderson, 1966; McEvoy et al, 1999). Notably, research also found that imprisoning mothers also reduced family income. The aftermath of incarceration contributes to divorce and relationship breakdowns (Anderson, 1966); medical and health problems (McEvoy et al, 1999) and the trauma of separation from family units. The non-incarcerated family members often suffer through a lack of information regarding contact procedures (Ferraro et al, 1983); which leads to frustrations and blame.
These negative effects on the non-incarcerated family members are highlighted not only whilst their partner, father or friend is incarcerated, but amplified effects on release (Liebling, 1999). Whereas, the employment rates of ex-prisoner’s is greatly affected. Research has explored how criminal records have increased the barriers to employment and how new legislation in the Police Act (1997) has provided employers freedom of information through a ‘Disclosure’ system from the Criminal Records Bureau (Metcalf et al, 2001) (DWP). Recruiters’ said “their interest in criminal record was rooted in the aim of protecting customers, but the researchers concluded that this information is actually often used in a discriminatory way” (Metcalf et al, 2001). With rates of unemployment of ex-prisoners as high as 50%, the consequential social exclusion aspect then becomes inherently worse, leading to an increase in re-offending and the subsequent raise is crime rate figures (Metcalf et al, 2001). This is also apparent on discovery, after secured employment, where hidden convictions may lead to dismissal, regardless of their ability to perform; regardless of the discriminatory attitudes against ex-prisoners and regardless of the needs of society to include such individuals (Metcalf et al, 2001).
In concluding the negative long-term effects of incarceration, there is a degree of irony within a system that obviously, as described has severe imbalances of power. Effects of imprisonment are extensive and not only affect the prisoners, but disperse throughout the family; intergenerational, community and societal negativity which has created boundaries, from the prisoners perspective, their family and throughout society. The punitive system has driven forward an increased population within prisons, and therefore is required to deal with the outcomes and the catalyst of their creation. In understanding imprisonment, there is the ultimate question, of who benefits from the current state of criminal justice? Moving forward needs a triumvirate approach, recognising why there is a failure to implement policies that work in reducing crime, identifying the harms caused by the elite and dismantling the bias that exists ultimately in a criminal justice system that inflicts wrong on the poor within society (Reiman, 1995). Political and social factors are ignored and mass incarceration continues which inevitably is inherited by any political system that supersedes. The pains of imprisonment and the causation of many negative effects tend to be ignored and although evidence compounds the negativity, society does not seem to address the adversity upon a society they so tend to protect. Political positions still voice the typology in addressing crime rates, regardless of the reduction in them compared to incarceration. Families and individuals are now experiencing a wide spread undesirable, damaging and long lasting effect both upon them and society as a whole.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, N.N. (1966) Prisoners’ Families: A Study of Family Crisis. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Arditti, J.A. (2012) Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents and caregivers. New York, London: New York University Press.
Austin, J., and Irwin, J. (2001) It’s about time: American’s imprisonment binge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barton, R. (1966) (2nd Edition) Institutional Neurosis. Bristol: Wright Publishing.
Berman, G. (2012) Prison Population Statistics. Available at: . Accessed 12th October 2012.
Bowlby, J. (1973) Attachment and Loss Vol 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. London: Hogarth Press.
Brooks- Gordon, B. (2003) ‘Contact in Containment’, in A. Bainham, B. Lindley, M. Richard and L. Trinder (eds) Children and their families: Contact, Rights and Welfare. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Clear, T.R., Rose, D.R., and Ryder, J.A. (2001) ‘Incarceration and the Community: The Problem of Removing and Returning Offenders.’ Crime and Delinquency, 47 (3), 335-351.
Coker, J., and Martin, J.P. (1983) Licensed to Live. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coyle, A. (2005) Understanding Prisons. Berkshire, NY: Open University Press.
Ditton, P.M. (1999) Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (NCJ-174463). Available at: . Accessed on 12th October 2012.
Dodd, T., and Hunter, P. (1992) The National Prison Survey 1991. London: HMSO.
Edgar, K. (2004) Lacking Conviction: The Rise of the Women’s Remand Population. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Farrington, D.P. (2002) ‘Families and Crime’, in J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds) Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control. Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies press.
Fawcett, J., and Marrs, B. (1973) Suicide at the county jail. In B. L. Danto (Ed.), Jail house blues: Studies of suicidal behavior in jail and prison. Orchard Lake, MI: Epic Publications.
Feeley, M., and Simon, J. (1992) ‘The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications,’ Criminology, 30, 449-74.
Ferguson, I. (1994) Containing the crisis: crime and the Tories. Available at: . Accessed 12th October 2012.
Ferraro, K., Johnston, J., Jorgensen, S., and Bolton, F.G. (1983) ‘Problems of Prisoners’ Families: The Hidden Costs of Imprisonment’, Journal of Family Issues 4, 575-591.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin.
Frank, J. (2007) Theoretical Inquiries in Law. Critical Modernities: Politics and Law Beyond the Liberal Imagination. Available at: . Accessed 12th October 2012.
Gibbs, C. (1971) ‘The Effect of the Imprisonment of Women Upon Their Children,’ British Journal of Criminology, 11, 113-130.
Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essay on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York, NI: Random House.
Grassian, S. (1983) Psychopathological effects of Solitary confinement. American Journal of Psychiatry. Available at: http://law.wustl. edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf. Accessed on 12th October 2012.
Grounds, A.T. (2004) ‘Psychological consequences of wrongful conviction and imprisonment,’ Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46 (2), 165-182.
H M Treasury (2003) Every Child Matters (Green Paper) Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Hagan, J., and Dinovitzer, R. (1999) ‘Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities and Prisoners,’ in M Tonry and J Petersilia (eds) Crime and Justice, 26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hardwick, N. (2012) Report on an announced full follow-up inspection of HMP Wolds. Available at: . Accessed on 12th October 2012.
Hill, C. (2002) ‘Inmate Privileges and Fees for Services,’ Corrections Compendium 27 (8), August, 8-26
Home Office (1990) Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public: The Government’s Proposal for Legislation, CM965. London: HMSO.
Home Office (1991) Custody, Care and Justice: The Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales. London: HMSO.
Hounslow, B., Stephen, A., Stewart, J., and Crancher, J. (1982) Children of Imprisoned Parents. NSW: Ministry of Youth and Community Services of New South Wales.
Huebner, B.M., and Gustafson, R. (2007) The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice. 35.3
Jenkins, R., Bhugra, D., Meltzer, H., Singleton, N., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Coid, J., Farrell, M., Lewis, G., and Paton, J. (2005) ‘Psychiatric and Social Aspects of Suicidal Behaviour in Prisons.’ Psychological Medicine, 35: 257-269.
Johnston, D. (1993) ‘Effects of Parental Incarceration,’ in K Gabel and D Johnston (eds) Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books.
Jowit, J. (2012) David Cameron's 'tough, but intelligent' initiative on crime runs into trouble. Available at: . Accessed 26th October 2012.
Kierkus, C., and Baer, D. (2003) Does the Relationship Between Family Structure and Delinquency Vary According to Circumstances? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45 (4). 405-429.
King, R. (2008) Expanding the vote: State felony disenfranchisement reform, 1997-2008. Available at: . Accessed 20th October 2012.
Liebling, A. (1992) Suicides in Prison, New York: Routledge Publishing.
Liebling, A. (1999) Doing Research in Prison: Breaking the silence? Theoretical Criminology, 3 (2).
Liebling, A., and Maruna, S. (2005)(Eds) The Effects of Imprisonment. London, New York: Routledge.
Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986) ‘Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency’ in M Tonry and N Morris (eds) Crime and Justice: An annual Review of Research, Vol 7. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp 29-149.
McDermott, K. and King, R.D. (1992) ‘Prison Rule 102: Stand by your man’ in R Shaw (ed) Prisoners’ Children: What Are the Issues? London: Routledge Pubishing.
McEvoy, K., O’Mahony, D., Horner, C., and Lyner, O. (1999) ‘The Homefront: The Families of Politically Motivated Prisoners in Northern Ireland,’ British Journal of Criminology, 39 (2), 175-197.
Metcalf H., Anderson T. and Rolfe H. (2001) “Barriers to employment for offenders and ex-offenders” (DWP Research Report No 155) Leeds: CDS.
Miller, J. (2001) ‘American Gulag’ Yes Magazine. Available at: http://doggo. tripod.com/doggdetent.html. Accessed 12th October 2012.
Ministry of Justice (2006) Young adult male prisoners: A short thematic report. Available at: . Accessed 11th October 2012.
Ministry of Justice (2012) Prison Population Projections 2012-2018 England and Wales. Available at: . Accessed 9th October 2012.
Mooney, A,. Oliver, C., and Smith, M. (2009) Impact of Family Breakdown on Children’s Well-Being: Evidence Review. Available at: . Accessed 4th October 2012.
Morris, P. (1965) Prisoners and their families. Working: Unwin Brothers.
Parkers, T. (1963) The Unknown Citizen. London: Hutchinson Press.
Pratt, D., Piper, M., Appleby, L., Webb, R., and Shaw, J. (2006) ‘Suicide in Recently Released Prisoners: A Population-based Cohort Study.’ Lancet, 368: 119-123.
Reiman, J. (1995) Rich Get Richer and Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Crime and Criminal Justice. MA: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
Restorative Justice Council (2012) What is Restorative Justice? Available at: . Accessed 1st November 2012.
Richards, B. (1978) ‘The Experience of Long-term Imprisonment,’ British Journal of Criminology, 18 (2), 162-169.
Sapsford, R. (1978) Learned helplessness and reactance in life sentence prisoners. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of London.
Shaw, R. (1987) Children of Imprisoned Fathers. Bungay, Suffolk: Richard Clay Publishing.
Shaw, R. (1992) ‘Imprisoned Fathers and the Orphans of Justice’, in R Shaw (ed) Prisoners Children: What Are the Issues? London: Routledge Publishing.
Sykes, G. (1958) The Society of Captives. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Toch, H. (2008) Punitiveness as Behaviour Management. Available at: . Accessed 29th October 2012.
Turner, V. (1969)The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Visher, C.A., and Travis, J. (2003) Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review Sociology, 29.
Wacquant, L. (2002) The curious eclipse of prison ethnography in the age of mass incarceration. Available at: . Accessed 10th October 2012.
Zamble, E., and Porporino, F.J. (1988) Coping, Behaviour, and Adaption in prison inmates. New York, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
by
sheelagh (student)
