Forensic Psychology
Critically evaluate the idea that imprisonment will ‘cure’ offending?
forensic psychology psych
Imprisonment
Eduardo A. Vasquez, Ph.D.
Autumn 2020
What are prisons for?
Keep undesirables out?
Retribution?
Reduce chances of re-offending/recidivism?
Rehabilitate offenders?
Make the public feel safer?
Retribution: deliver punishment. Can be important to make public and victims feel there is justice.
Utilitarian: reduce recidivism, chances offender will do it again.
Humanitarian: offenders are typically victims of circumstance and need rehabilitation.
Perspectives
Regardless of your opinion, there are important things to remember about imprisonment:
Prisoners are a population at risk:
They risk violence
Suicide
2) Prison can make things worse, if not done correctly:
Prisoners can learn maladaptive behaviours
Become more criminally oriented
May contribute to an increase in recidivism, without dealing with underlying causes of criminality
3) Cost money and resources
Above all, remember that we live in a democracy. Thus, the state must follow rules of justice:
Punished for a crime you actually committed.
No excessive punishment.
Maintain rights even if you are in jail.
Health and safety of prisoners should be a priority.
5
PRISON POPULATION: ENGLAND & WALES
June, 2018: 83,163
Male = 79361, female = 3829
For statistics, follow link:
https://data.justice.gov.uk/prisons
Prisoner characteristics
So, clearly, the prison population is an at-risk group.
What imprisonment aims to achieve:
Prison Service Mission Statement, (1988)
“Her Majesty’s Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release.”
Development of penal policy
1980’S Harsher Tougher Sentencing (Retribution)
1990 – Riots
e.g. Strangeways
45 days, 1 dead prisoner, 47 prisoners injured, 147 prison officers.
‘Imprisonment can be an expensive way of ‘making bad people worse’ (Home Office, 1990).
Woolf Report (Custody, Care And Justice 1991)
Prisoners Cited:
1. Unsanitary Conditions
2. No Redress For Injustices
3. Negative Regimes
4. Lack Of Respect
5. Destruction Of Family Ties
Woolf report: recommendations
Increased delegation of responsibility to Governors of prisons
A contract for each prisoner
National system of accredited standards
No establishment should hold more prisoners than its certified normal level (CNA) of accommodation.
Access to sanitation for all inmates not later than February 1996
Prospects for prisoners to maintain links with families and community through more visits and home leaves.
Currently…….
Overcrowding still exists
Some prisoners still slop out
Still no consistent regime
Prisons can’t fulfil rehabilitative role successfully
increases re-offending?
Empirical evidence: Imprisonment & recidivism
Lloyd et al (1994): 4 types of sanctions
Community service
Probation
Probation with additional requirements
Imprisonment
Found:
No difference between reconviction across types of sentence
Concluded: different sentences don’t have different effects on reoffending
Boot camps: Mackenzie & Souryal (1995)
Short terms of incarceration in a strict military environment
Daily schedule of hard labour, drill, ceremony and physical training
Strong hope that tough punishment will deter future criminal involvement
Burton et al (1993)
Boot camp prisoners: more positive prosocial attitudes
But: MacKenzie & Souryal (1994): selection effect boot camp prisoners not the same as other prisoners: non-violent crimes and less serious criminal histories
Types of imprisonment
Mackenzie et al (1995)
In U.S.A. no impact of boot camps on recidivism.
One State there was an increase in recidivism but mixed results from 3 others.
But: problems with measures of reoffending
Also any success could be due to level of supervision post release – not to boot camp regime.
Why?
Concluded:
Most successful boot camps: had treatment programmes.
Recidivism was higher for camps that emphasised physical activity and military discipline without any therapeutic programming.
Physical exercise, military atmosphere and hard labour won’t change the behaviour of offenders if the criminogenic needs are not addressed (Mackenzie et al 1995)
McKenzie (2000) review of rehabilitation:
Increased control and surveillance in the community.
Boot camps using old-style military models.
Programmes emphasising specific deterrence (shock probation and Scared straight).
What doesn’t work
Meta-analysis:
Lipsey (1995): ‘Despite their popularity, the available studies indicate that they actually result in delinquency increases rather than decreases.’ (p. 74).
Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Re-offending by ex-prisoners costs us £11 billion per year.
So what effects does prison have? Environment
Gallo & Ruggiero (1991):
Prisons are ‘factories for the manufacture of psycho-social handicaps’.
Two most common forms of behaviour = aggression and depression.
Prisoners live in a state of constant anxiety or disengaged in a form of psychological absenteeism encouraged by the availability of drugs.
Imprisonment may itself be criminogenic (Cid (2009).
So what effects does prison have? Deprivation
Sykes (1958) – pains of prison leads to ‘profound hurt’
5 specific ‘pains’
Loss of liberty: confinement, removal from family, friends
Goods and services: choice amenities, material possessions
Frustration of sexual desire: prisoners figuratively castrated
Autonomy: regime routine, work, trivial restrictions e.g. letters
Personal security: enforced association with unpredictable prisoners causing fear anxiety and having to fight for the safety of possessions
Given that most prisoners are guilty of breaking the law, are these things bad?
So what effect does prison have? Psychologically
Bukstel & Kilman (1980)
reviewed 90 experimental studies: found:
Methodological flaws
Crowding, phase of sentence and peer groups impact on personal functioning
Deterioration results from poor adaptation to surroundings
Benign, passive and dependent personalities often adjust well
Indeterminant sentencing leads to adjustment problems
Important issues in prisons—Prison gangs.
Definition: “Group of prisoners with a leader whose negative behavior adversely impacts on the prison that holds them” (Fong & Buentello 1991).
Camp & Camp (1985).
1st gang in Washington State in 1950.
By 1957 gangs were in California: in 1962 appeared in Illinois.
By 1983 33 of 49 US prisons reported presence. 2% of prison population involved.
By 1992 10% adult males, 3% females and 17% young offenders involved (Knox 1994)
Aims and impact of prison gangs
1) Acquisition of finance through trades & power through violence (Stevens 1997)
3) Prison gangs control drug trade in North Carolina prisons (Stevens 1997).
2) Where gangs are active: large amounts of drugs, assaults, extortion and non-gang transfer requests (Rush, Stone & Wycoff 1998).
5) Prison gangs can control street gang activity (Sikes 1997): Can order punishment (beatings, murders). Though this can develop into intra-gang conflict in some cases.
4) Undermine order & control in the prison (Camp & Camp 1985; Fong & Buentello 1991). For example, 1987 – Texas prison authorities lost control of prison due to gang activity (Porter 1988).
Example: La “M” or Mexican mafia in California
Theories of prison gang development
Importation Theory: Street gang members imported into prison and re-group.
For many gang members’ entry into prison is a ‘homecoming’ (Jacobs, 1974). Just part of the life of a gang member.
Once in prison, pre-existing attitudes and behaviours continue (Irwin & Cressey 1964).
Indigenous theory (Buentello, Fong & Vogel 1991): gangs develop as a result of the system.
Stage 1: prisoner imprisoned. Must learn to deal with everyday threat of violence (Duffee, 1989). To cope with loneliness and isolation prisoner goes through process of prisonization (Clemmer 1940) adopts prisoner code of conduct
Stage 2: prisoner mixes with similar others: race, religion, region of origin (Camp & Camp 1985) or previous incarceration (Stevens 1997).
Stage 3: group becomes self protective – is recognised by others. It has no structure; no clear membership; no criminal activity.
Stage 4: group becomes predatory – recognises its potential for power; rules may be devised; weak members expelled; begins criminal activity.
Stage 5: group strengthens; becomes organised; evolves into prison gang.
Why gang membership might appeal
Offset some of the deprivation imprisonment imposes (Sykes 1958):
Liberty
Goods and services
Autonomy
Personal security: Prisoners fear intimidation and assault above all aspects of prison life (Adler 1994).
Characteristics of gang members
Reluctant to accept prison mandate or be involved in any non-criminal activity (Camp & Camp 1985).
Serve longer sentences and have more convictions (Sheldon 1991).
Are younger than their non-gang counterparts (Ralph, Hunter, Marquart, Curchier & Meriianos 1996).
Prison gangs in England & Wales
1st study (Wood & Adler 2001) included 180 prison staff across all categories of prison:
staff perceived high levels of prisoner group involvement in activities associated with prison gangs.
Perceived levels of events predicted staff concern over losing control and order in prison.
Found: most common group activities
Drugs
Groups formed along racial lines
Transfer requests
Groups assaulting other prisoners
Groups formed along regional lines
Contraband phone cards
Verbal domination by groups
Groups making threats to staff
Physical domination by groups
Requests for protective custody
2nd study: prisoners’ perspective
2 main aims:
1. Examine prisoners’ reports of own and others’ gang-related events to see if order and control undermined.
2. Identify prisoners most involved in gang-related activity and some of the psychological characteristics associated with involvement in gang-related activity.
Psychological factors
1. Prisonization:
Definition: .. “the taking on, in greater or lesser degree, the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary” (Clemmer 1940, p. 270).
Facilitated by association with prisoners who possess leadership qualities and are integrated into prison subculture.
Prisonized prisoners are reluctant to become involved with legitimate activities in prison.
Psychological factors:2 Social Support
Definition: “the perceived or actual instrumental and/or expressive provisions supplied by the community, social networks, and confiding partners.” (Lin 1986, p. 18).
Thoits (1995): perceived emotional social support ‘buffers’ against life’s stressors.
Interestingly, Giving of social support also conducive to psychological well being (e.g. Coles 1993).
Methods
Cross section – 360 prisoners in English prisons
Involvement assessed using quantitive and qualitative methodology based on variables associated with gang existence (e.g.Fong & Buentello 1991)
E.g.
Group violence
Group trades in contraband
Group protection of members
Adherence to ‘group rules’
Measures: perceived social support received from and to family and significant others in prison using adapted SOS A & B (Power, Champion & Aris 1988). Calculate dissatisfaction with SS IN & OUT.
Continued…
Measures of prisonization taken using Organizational Structure and Prisonization Scale (OSPS) (Thomas and Zingraff1974).
Gang activity & order and control
Results
Perceived gang events successfully predicted perceptions of reduced order in prison.
Perceived gang events successfully predicted perceptions of reduced staff control in prison.
Percentage of prisoners reporting own involvement.
Predicting prisoners’ personal involvement
Important predictors
Age: younger more involved
Gender: males more involved
Number of sentences: more served = more involved
Prisonized attitudes
Dissatisfaction with soc supp to others in prison: more satisfied with support to others = more involved
1st sentence & recidivist prisoners’ gang activity & ‘prisonization.’
82
52
35
42
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Group
member
protective
gp
take drugsown rulesillegal
trade
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Gang activity
p<0.001
'Prisonization'
p<0.05
1 sentence
2+ sentences
Coping Abilities and Prisoners’
Perception of Suicidal Risk
Management
KEVIN POWER, JOE McELROY and VIVIEN SWANSON
Kevin Power is Professor of Clinical Psychology,
Joe McElroy is Lecturer, and Vivien Swanson is Research Administrator,
Anxiety and Stress Research Centre, University of Stirling
Abstract: Two hundred prisoners, in Scottish penal establishments, identified ‘at risk’ of suicidal
behaviour were interviewed. Difficulty coping with imprisonment was associated with previous
suicidal behaviour prior to custody, difficulties mixing with other prisoners, fewer friends in
prison, previous psychological/psychiatric treatment whilst imprisoned, and history of alcohol-
related problems. Level of coping ability was not related to whether or not this was the first time
in custody. However, the longer the period currently in custody, the greater the difficulty coping.
Prisoners reported the main disadvantages of location on suicidal supervision as sensory
deprivation, degrading aspects of the regime, negative emotional effects and social isolation.
Benefits reported of the regime included prevention of suicide and self-injury, time for reflection,
solitude and protection. Results are discussed in relation to prisoner characteristics, coping
abilities and methods of achieving a humane and safe environment for those ‘at risk’.
Studies of suicide in prison have been retrospective in nature and have been
concerned with the identification of a ‘suicide profile’ which describes the
salient features of the potential high-risk prisoner (Topp 1979; Backett
1987; Dooley 1990; Bogue and Power 1995). In so doing it has been hoped
that such information might enhance identification of those at risk and
thereby aid prevention. By nature of the topic under investigation the
approach used in such studies is usually inspection of official records and
casenotes. Obviously such a method of enquiry has inherent limitations on
the amount and quality of information that can be gathered.
Another strand of research has focused on the characteristics, precipitat-
ing factors, motivational determinants and methods of possible or actual
injury associated with parasuicidal behaviour among prisoners (Phillips
1986; Power and Spencer 1987; Wool and Dooley 1987; Leibling 1992). On
the basis of self-report information supplied by prisoners such studies aim to
improve our understanding of the vulnerability and predisposing factors
associated with parasuicidal behaviour and ultimately how the frequency of
such behaviour might be reduced.
About one-third of prison suicides have a history of previous psychiatric
in-patient care prior to imprisonment (Phillips 1986; Backett 1987; Dooley
378
The Howard Journal Vol 36 No 4. Nov 97
ISSN 0265–5527, pp. 378-392
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
1990). Studies of suicide in community samples (Barraclough et al. 1974;
Barraclough and Hughes 1987) often find levels of psychiatric contact and
inpatient treatment higher than those for prison suicide samples. Backett
(1987) argues that in contrast to the general population the level of depres-
sive illness amongst prison suicides is surprisingly low. Therefore it has been
suggested that some other factors, apart from psychiatric disturbance must
contribute to this higher rate of suicide amongst prison samples than
amongst those in the community (Backett 1987). It has been argued that
poor coping abilities such as avoidance, escape, alcohol and drug abuse are
characteristic of the range of dysfunctional coping strategies often used by
prisoners (Zamble and Porporino 1988). Furthermore, it has been shown
that as regards young offenders, poor coping skills manifested in factors
such as difficulty mixing with other prisoners, difficulty adjusting to impris-
onment etc., are some of the main features that differentiate parasuicidal
versus non-parasuicidal prisoners (Leibling 1992).
Recently, attention has been given to how prisoners who have been iden-
tified as a potential suicide risk are cared for. There has been considerable
debate about the extent of use of the ‘seclusion’ or ‘strip cells’ as a means of
suicide prevention. Leibling and Hall (1993) state that as regards England
and Wales there is no system for registering the purpose, frequency or dura-
tion of seclusion on medical grounds and they go on to note that ‘secluding
potentially suicidal prisoners in strip cells may be damaging and is certainly
inhumane and counterproductive’ (p. 400), and such a practice ‘should be
consigned to history’ (p. 400). Most people would agree that location of
disturbed, distraught and potentially suicidal prisoners in solitary confine-
ment for prolonged periods of time is medically unsound and potentially
psychologically damaging. However, there has been a dearth of detailed
study investigating the views and opinions of prisoners identified as at suici-
dal risk regarding aspects of their management and care.
Recent guidance regarding the management of potentially suicidal pris-
oners has been produced in the format of the Scottish Prison Service (1992)
Suicide Prevention Strategy. This document highlights that in managing
those inmates who may be suicidal a balance has to be found between the
need to ensure that the prisoner at risk has no opportunity to engage in
suicidal or parasuicidal behaviour, while at the same time ensuring that
he/she has as much opportunity as possible to make and maintain contact
with other prisoners and staff. In acknowledging the potentially damaging
effect of isolation, it is also recommended that maximum supervised contact
with other prisoners is vitally important if suicidal crises are to be overcome.
At the time of conducting this study the procedures in operation when a
prisoner was identified as a potential suicide risk, either at time of reception
or at some later point in custody, necessitated that the prisoner be placed
on some form of suicidal supervision until seen by the medical officer,
normally within the next 24 hours.
The present study attempts to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge
by providing data on the characteristics of those identified as at risk of
suicidal behaviour with particular emphasis on (i) prisoners’ perception
of their own coping abilities whilst imprisoned and (ii) their perception
379
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
of the main advantages and disadvantages of being placed on suicidal
supervision.
Aims
(i) To describe, among a group of identified ‘at risk’ prisoners, the main
factors associated with difficulty coping with imprisonment.
(ii) To assess ‘at risk’ prisoners’ self-perceived coping ability in prison in
relation to demographic characteristics, psychiatric history, level of
psychological wellbeing and degree of suicidal intent.
(iii) To describe the main self-perceived advantages and disadvantages of
being placed on suicidal supervision.
Method
At time of conducting the study there were three categories of supervision
for those inmates thought to be ‘at risk’ of suicidal behaviour. The cate-
gories in operation were Strict Suicide Supervision (SSS), Intermediate
Suicide Supervision (ISS) and Basic Suicide Supervision (BSS), and are
described below:
Strict Suicide Supervision (SSS)
Placement of a prisoner on SSS means that the prisoner in question is one
whom a member of staff or the medical officer believes to be an immediate
and very high risk in terms of self-injury. Where such a situation arises the
prisoner should, if possible and considered appropriate by the medical offi-
cer, be located in the establishment hospital accommodation immediately,
where supervision at intervals of not more than 15 minutes can be under-
taken. Where it is not possible to place the prisoner in such hospital accom-
modation, he/she should be placed in a single cell on the ground floor in a
location that allows maximum contact with staff. Staff are encouraged to
establish and develop a relationship with the prisoner by maximising
contact, offering support to reduce feelings of isolation, assessing the pris-
oner’s general wellbeing and monitoring any changes in the prisoner’s
condition. Cell accommodation is designed to reduce opportunity for
inflicting self-injury or suspending ligatures. As such, standard furniture and
fitments are absent. Bedding may entail flame-resistant mattress, sleeping
bag, or strong sheet. Clothing comprises tear and flame-resistant tops and
shorts designed to reduce the potential for self-injury.
Intermediate Suicide Supervision (ISS)
ISS should be seen as a ‘halfway house’ between SSS and BSS. This category
is normally used, at the discretion of the medical officer, when the initial
suicide crisis has passed but strict supervision is still required. Supervision is
continued at intervals of not less than 15 minutes. In real terms, the main
difference between SSS and ISS is that the prisoner may be given some items
to keep in his/her cell and some furniture to improve his/her quality of life
as a step towards normalisation. Such items are allowed only at the discre-
tion of the medical officer. For prisoners on ISS staff should continue to
380
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
develop a relationship making attempts to get the prisoner to interact and
encouraging the prisoner in the positive move from SSS to ISS.
Basic Suicide Supervision (BSS)
This classification is intended to cover those prisoners who have had a
history of suicidal crisis and who would benefit from additional support and
monitoring by staff. Under BSS a prisoner is located in his/her own cell with
supervision being undertaken at least once every hour. Prisoners may be
placed in this category by the medical officer when there appears to be a risk
of self-injury but there are no indications of immediate suicidal crisis
present. The decision to place a prisoner on BSS may come about for
instance after a ‘bad’ visit, receipt of bad news from home or simply if the
prisoner appears distressed or agitated. The prisoners should be allowed, as
the medical officer considers appropriate, work, normal circulation, exer-
cise, recreation and association when this is practicable.
Subjects
A sample of 200 prisoners was selected from six Scottish penal establish-
ments with subjects representing the main categories of adult (164, 82%)
and young offender (36, 18%); remand (73, 36.5%) and convicted (127,
63.5%); male (193, 96.5%) and female (7, 3.5%). All prisoners had recently
been identified as a possible suicide risk prior to medical officer assessment,
and all had been placed on SSS for an initial period either at time of recep-
tion (110, 55%) or at some later point in custody (87, 43.5%) (3 cases, 1.5%
missing data). Given that SSS should be used for the shortest period possi-
ble, many prisoners had their suicidal supervision status altered by the
medical officer prior to study interview. The location of prisoners at time of
study interview was as follows: SSS – 45 (22.5%); ISS – 19 (9.5%); BSS – 21
(10.5%); other medical observations – 28 (14%); off all observations – 86
(43.5%).
Procedure
Prisoners were interviewed in privacy. Prior to participation in the study they
were informed that the interview was part of a series of studies concerned
with an evaluation of the Scottish Prison Service Suicide Prevention
Strategy. Once the purpose of the study had been explained, and assurances
of anonymity and confidentiality had been given, prisoners were given the
opportunity to decide whether they wished to participate. It was emphasised
to prisoners that participation was voluntary, and their name and inmate
number was not required and that the data would be stored and analysed
outwith the Scottish Prison Service. The overall response rate was over 95%.
Prisoners completed a semi-structured interview conducted by researchers
with extensive experience of such techniques. As a measure of psychological
wellbeing, prisoners also completed the General Health Questionnaire
(GHQ) – 28 item (Goldberg 1972). For those who had exhibited any poten-
tial or actual self-injurious or suicidal behaviour, immediately prior to being
classified ‘at risk’, the Suicidal Intent Scale (Beck et al. 1974) was completed
as an indicator of suicidal risk.
381
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
Results
Prisoner Characteristics and Adjustment to Imprisonment
Of the total sample, 65 (32.5%) were in custody for the first time. As regards
how many close friends they had in prison 105 (52.5%) had none, 80 (40%)
had a few close friends and only 15 (7.5%) had many close friends. With
regard to how the sample mixed with other prisoners, 70 (35%) described
themselves as loners, 25 (12.5%) said that they had difficulty mixing with
fellow prisoners and 100 (50%) said they mixed well. In relation to any
particular difficulties with certain prisoners, 120 (60%) said they had no
such difficulties, while 39 (19.5%) reported major problems. The type of
difficulties experienced with fellow prisoners were as follows: direct
confrontation – 45 (22.5%); having been accused of grassing – 6 (3%);
being in debt to other prisoners – 8 (4%), being victimised or bullied – 14
(7%) and other miscellaneous problems – 8 (4%). Only 40 (20%) prisoners
were of the opinion that they coped well with imprisonment without any
trouble, 80 (40%) regarded themselves as having minor difficulties which
were tolerable, 78 (39%) saw themselves as having moderate or severe diffi-
culties which resulted in them barely coping or feeling that they were not
coping at all.
Mental Health Background
Ninety-nine (49.5%) of the sample had previous outpatient
psychiatric/psychological treatment (excluding attendance for psychi-
atric/psychological court reports). Sixty-five (32.5%) had received previous
hospital psychiatric inpatient treatment outwith prison. Forty-three (21.5%)
had previous psychiatric/psychological treatment whilst in prison and 31
(15.5%) were receiving such treatment at time of study interview. One-
hundred-and-thirty (65%) prisoners had a history of suicidal behaviour.
Thirty-two (16%) had a relative who had committed suicide. The relation-
ship of the suicide to the prisoner being mother (n = 7), father (n = 4),
brother or sister (n = 6) or other relatives (n = 15).
As regards problems related to alcohol abuse, 72 (36%) said that they had
no such problems, 49 (24.5%) reported mild problems characterised by a
history of regular ‘heavy drinking’, 42 (21%) reported moderate problems
reflected by episodes of ‘binge drinking to excess’ and 33 (16.5%) noted
severe problems manifested as previous hospital admissions for alcohol abuse.
With reference to problems associated with illicit drug consumption, 68
(34%) reported no such difficulties, 24 (12%) reported mild problems
reflected as occasional experimentation with drugs, 30 (15%) mentioned
moderate problems resulting in frequent intermittent use, and 77 (38.5%)
had severe problems culminating in dependency and preoccupation with
drug use.
Coping with Imprisonment
Table 1 illustrates that among this group of prisoners, those who have greater
difficulty coping with imprisonment are: (i) more likely to have a history of
382
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
383
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
TABLE 1
Prisoner Characteristics and Coping with Imprisonment
Variable Very well Minimal Moderate/ Total χ2 p< difficulties severe
difficulties
Previous suicidal Yes 19 (14.7) 47 (36.4) 63 (48.8) 129 14.5 0.001
behaviour No 20 (29.4) 33 (48.5) 15 (22.1) 68
Self-injurious Yes 7 (18.9) 8 (21.6) 22 (59.5) 37 8.7 0.05
behaviour No 33 (20.5) 72 (44.7) 56 (34.8) 161
Mixing Loner 6 (8.7) 22 (31.9) 41 (59.4) 69 30.7 0.0001
Diffs. 1 (4.0) 14 (56.0) 10 (40.0) 25
Mix 33 (33.0) 42 (42.0) 25 (25.0) 100
Well
Friends None 15 (14.6) 36 (35.0) 52 (50.5) 103 20.1 0.005
A few 17 (21.3) 40 (50.0) 23 (28.8) 80
Many 8 (53.3) 4 (26.7) 3 (20.0) 15
Prev. prison Yes 4 (9.3) 13 (30.2) 26 (60.5) 43 10.4 0.01
psych. treat. No 35 (23.3) 64 (42.7) 51 (34.0) 150
Current prison Yes 7 (11.9) 22 (37.3) 30 (50.8) 59 10.5 0.01
psych. treat. No 32 (27.1) 53 (44.9) 33 (28.0) 118
Fam. history Yes 7 (11.9) 22 (37.3) 30 (50.8) 59 10.5 0.01
psych. treat. No 32 (27.1) 53 (44.9) 33 (28.0) 118
Alcohol Yes 21 (29.6) 31 (43.7) 19 (26.8) 71 10.3 0.01
problems No 17 (13.8) 49 (39.8) 57 (46.3) 123
First Custody Yes 10 (15.6) 24 (37.5) 30 (46.9) 64 2.4 n.s
No 30 (22.7) 54 (40.9) 48 (36.4) 142
Prev. outpat. Yes 17 (17.2) 40 (40.4) 42 (42.4) 99 0.7 n.s
psych. treat. No 19 (20.7) 39 (42.4) 34 (37.0) 92
Prev. non-prison, Yes 10 (15.4) 23 (35.4) 32 (49.2) 65 4.5 n.s.
in-patient psych. treat. No 29 (22.7) 56 (43.8) 43 (33.6) 128
Drug problems Yes 13 (19.7) 28 (42.4) 25 (37.9) 66 0.1 n.s.
No 27 (20.6) 52 (39.7) 52 (39.7) 131
previous suicidal behaviour prior to the current period of custody (p < 0.001); (ii) more likely to have exhibited real or potential self-injurious suici- dal behaviour immediately prior to having been classified as ‘at risk’ during current period of custody (p < 0.05), (iii) more likely to be a loner or have difficulties mixing with other prisoners (p < 0.0001); (iv) less likely to have friends in prison (p < 0.005); (v) more likely to have had previous psychi- atric/psychological treatment while imprisoned (p < 0.01); (vi) more likely to be currently receiving psychiatric/psychological treatment while impris- oned (p < 0.01); (vii) more likely to have a family history of psychiatric/psychological treatment (p < 0.01), and (viii) more likely to have as history of alcohol related problems (p < 0.01).
Furthermore, those who felt that they were coping well with imprison-
ment in comparison with those who were experiencing tolerable difficulties
and those who had moderate or severe difficulties were clearly distinguished
from one another on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), thereby
indicating a higher level of non-psychotic psychiatric disturbance among
those with poorer coping abilities (p < 0.0001) (Table 2). This relationship
applied to each of the GHQ subscales, namely: somatic symptoms, anxiety
and insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression.
There was no significant relationship between difficulty coping with
imprisonment and pre-imprisonment background factors such as: (i)
whether or not one had a history of previous outpatient psychiatric treat-
ment; (ii) whether or not one had previous inpatient psychiatric treatment;
(iii) whether one did or did not have a history of drug misuse. Similarly
there was no significant relationship between difficulty coping with impris-
onment and various current factors such as: (i) whether or not this was the
first period of custody. However, the longer the period currently in custody
the greater the difficulties coping with imprisonment (p < 0.001). There was
384
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
TABLE 2
Relationship Between GHQ and Beck Scales and Coping with Imprisonment
Scales Very well Minimal Moderate/ F p< difficulties severe
difficulties
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
GHQ Total 5.4 (6.7) 11.0 (7.8) 17.7 (7.0) 39.9 0.0001
GHQ Subscale 1 1.3 (2.0) 2.6 (2.2) 4.8 (9.9) 4.3 0.05
GHQ Subscale 2 1.6 (2.2) 3.4 (2.6) 5.3 (1.8) 39.5 0.0001
GHQ Subscale 3 1.4 (1.7) 3.0 (2.3) 4.3 (2.2) 25.3 0.0001
GHQ Subscale 4 1.2 (2.0) 2.0 (2.4) 4.3 (2.5) 28.9 0.0001
Beck Total 3.3 (5.8) 6.7 (8.3) 7.7 (8.8) 0.65 n.s.
Beck Subscale 1 2.0 (2.7) 2.5 (2.0) 3.1 (3.8) 0.28 n.s.
Beck Subscale 2 1.2 (2.4) 3.7 (5.7) 4.3 (5.3) 0.91 n.s.
Beck Subscale 3 0.3 (0.8) 0.6 (0.8) 0.9 (1.5) 0.50 n.s.
no difference in the length of time currently in custody and the number of
friends in prison. Thus there is no indication that the longer this group
spends in prison the greater the number of relationships they establish.
There was no significant relationship between difficulty coping with impris-
onment and scores on the Beck Suicidal Intent Scale. Thus among those
who reported moderate or severe levels of difficulty coping with imprison-
ment there was no indication of higher suicidal intent, as retrospectively
assessed for at time of being placed on SSS, than among those who reported
coping well or coping with tolerable difficulty.
Disadvantages of SSS
Prisoners were asked an open question regarding what was in their opinion
the main disadvantage of SSS. Verbatim responses were noted and later
transcribed for analysis. The main categories of response were as follows:
Sensory Deprivation: A total of 84 (42%) prisoners mentioned topics that
fell under this heading, the most common of which were statements such as:
• nothing to do, no books, no smoking
• lack of reading material and no personal belongings
• no light for cigs, no water to drink, not allowed pen in cell
• in a cell with nothing, and nothing to do
• light burning all night, solitude, not having anything to read
• boredom, staring at four walls
• no access to radio, no exercise
• freezing cold, nothing to do
• don’t get books to read or glasses to read with
• was too cold, felt particularly freezing, as if hypothermia starting
• being stuck in that wee room, don’t know what day it is
• being locked in empty cell, no books, fags, complete boredom
• no bed, couldn’t sleep, just a gown and single blanket
• like lying in a fridge
• can’t get warm, freezing and light on which prevents you sleeping
• freezing, dark and no exercise
• nothing in cell, nothing to do, boredom
This was by far the most common theme mentioned by prisoners and the
things they felt deprived of most were warmth, reading material, cigarettes,
adequate darkness to permit sleep, and general sensory stimulation.
Degradation: This was the second most common issue raised by a total of
58 (29%) prisoners and was reflected in comments such as:
• it’s the silly clothes you wear, everybody looking and laughing with you
wearing these when you are slopping out
• you’re like an exhibit, clothes don’t fit, it’s disgusting, fleas on bedding,
treat you like an animal
• just the way you’re treated, dirty filthy sheets, mattress dirty, filthy,
couldn’t believe it, stripped naked, shorts and vest
• really humiliating, walk from one end of the hall to the other to slop out,
everybody watching you
385
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
• felt as if it was daft, putting on gown and shorts
• not allowed to wear own underwear, feels like a child, drinks in paper
cups
• only get spoon to eat from
• usually other prisoners make a fool of you
• embarrassed, dressed like a clown
• bit degrading what you have to wear, no socks, shoes, couldn’t even get
my glasses
• very degrading, no dignity
• being stripped of your dignity
• felt degraded, everyone can see you
• felt humiliated, people came to look at you as if you were some form of
cabbage
• not having own clothes, condition of cell deplorable, mattress was full of
grit, shorts and gown itches, smells terrible, couldn’t eat any food in cell
• way you get fed, paper plates and cups
• everybody stares at you all the time
The most common descriptors used by prisoners to describe how they felt
having been placed on SSS was embarrassment, humiliation and degrada-
tion. These feelings were particularly related to the clothing they had to
wear and also to a lesser extent the standard of cell accommodation avail-
able.
Negative Emotional Effects: The third most common issue raised by 40
(20%) of prisoners regarding disadvantages of location on SSS concerned
the potential negative emotional impact of being placed on such a regime
as illustrated by the following:
• I became more suicidal in the cell
• lying down there and starting to crack up as going to my head as I didn’t
like being locked up
• it’s just like being in the digger, being punished as if they didn’t care
• I’m just lying there with nothing but my thoughts, it’s just a punishment
• makes you want to kill yourself all over again
• if on the edge, would drive you to suicide, reminiscent of the dark ages,
should be done away with
• it’s a downfall, it’s about 5 times worse, makes you more depressed, it’s
like being put on punishment
• sitting talking to yourself drives you nuts
• if suicidal could put individual over the edge
• made me feel worse
• brain left to just sit and think, so bad thoughts escalate
• locked up in isolation not mentally healthy
• my freedom is even more restricted than other inmates
• made me feel bad, locked in, they didn’t care about you, didn’t trust you
• felt no-one wants to know you or listen to you
• no freedom, doing my nut in, unnecessary, more likely to want to top
yourself if you were that way inclined, but I’m not
386
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
The main sentiment expressed in such comments reflects prisoners’ beliefs
that location on SSS had the potential to worsen their mental health by
making them feel more depressed and more suicidal. Furthermore, location
on such a regime was often seen as either a punishment or an indication
that staff were disinterested and uncaring.
Social Isolation: This was the fourth most frequently mentioned topic and
was reflected in the following statements by 33 (16.5%) prisoners.
• stuck in cell all day by myself, don’t mingle with folk, on own a risk,
healthier if others there
• nobody to talk to, need to be with somebody, I hated it
• don’t get enough people to come in and talk to you, to counsel you
• the worst thing is being locked in on my own
• it’s a long day, mentally very tough, never anybody in cell for 4 days
• makes things worse being isolated
• very lonely existence, no opportunity to talk to others
• makes you feel more depressed not talking to someone
• being alone for so long, never going to get out, only opened up once to
slop out, that’s you
• the isolation is frightening
• as if no-one cared, but prison officers were nice to me
These statements reflect the basic need for most individuals for some form
of regular social interaction. Prisoners were not criticising a lack of medical,
psychiatric/psychological intervention, but rather commenting on a more
fundamental and basic need for contact with a fellow human being.
Other Disadvantages
The only other disadvantages of SSS that were mentioned by barely a hand-
ful of prisoners were issues related to:
Uncertainty:
• not aware of what’s going to happen to you
• wondering what was going on
Dependency:
• feeling of total dependence on others for any requirements I may have
Confidentiality:
• don’t like it when doctor comes in, don’t get chance to speak to him in
private, he is accompanied by two officers, and the door is always open
Not all prisoners listed disadvantages associated with SSS. Indeed a group of
21 (10.5%) prisoners were unable to list any disadvantages associated with
this regime.
Benefits of SSS
Prisoners were also asked, in an open-ended manner, what in their opinion
was the main benefit of SSS. One-hundred-and-six prisoners (53%) did not
387
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
mention any benefit associated with SSS. Of the remainder the main
response categories were as follows:
Prevention: This was the most common benefit associated with SSS as
mentioned by 43 (21.5%) prisoners in statements such as:
• it stopped me from doing myself in
• got me out of doing something to myself, happy to be on SSS because of
fear of harming myself
• something is being done, you are being recognised and do have the
medical officer in the morning to talk to
• for the ones who are suicidal there is nothing in the cell to hang yourself
with
• when I came in I did go on it as I couldn’t trust myself and I might have
damaged myself
• being locked up 24 hours stopped me from harming myself and I had
someone (nurses) to talk to
• stop you trying to kill yourself, screw watches you 24 hours a day
• at least someone is monitoring you, able to speak to someone
• appreciated the supervision
• allows close observation of someone who is mentally unwell
• wasn’t anything in the room which I could harm myself with and the offi-
cers have been good to me, helpful, understanding, trying to calm me
down
• they (prison staff) look after you and make sure you don’t have anything
in your peter
• I felt safer, didn’t have access to things to harm myself
From these statements it appears that for a significant proportion of prison-
ers SSS successfully restricts access to means of self-injury, reduces prisoners’
concerns about self-injury and provides reassurance and support from staff.
Reflection: This was the second most frequently mentioned benefit of SSS,
raised by 21 (10.5%) of prisoners in statements such as:
• gave you time to straighten out your mind
• gives me time to get my head together, I get peace, time to think
• helped me realise not to harm myself, to do anything stupid
• helps you an awful lot in that you get peace and quiet and it helps you get
your head straight
• thought it was good, peaceful, quiet
• gave me time to think
• it’s cleared my head once and for all, I can concentrate again on my
papers and television
• it’s helping me giving me more time to think about things
• calmed me down a bit, made me think a wee bit about myself.
For a minority of prisoners, location on SSS gives them opportunity to
reflect on various aspects of their life and reconsider troublesome issues in
a positive and constructive manner.
388
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
Solitude: Twelve (6%) prisoners mentioned issues that fall under this head-
ing, for example:
• sometimes you feel you need a bit of space for yourself and not going to
see anybody
• it keeps me from meeting other people
• prefer my own company and get panicky in hall
• it does help, getting away from problems, being on your own
• quite good, keeps you out of circulation, don’t need to share a cell
• a wee bit of benefit to me as I can’t stand crowds, have a quick temper
and get paranoid easily
For such prisoners SSS is beneficial as a means of social avoidance, thereby
reducing social anxiety and providing solitude.
Protection: This was the last discernible theme mentioned as a benefit of
SSS by a small group of eight (4%) prisoners as illustrated in the following:
• don’t have to worry about somebody going to attack you
• it’s harder for other prisoners to get to you than if you were on normal
protection
• better physical safety, because of the crime I’m charged with, inmates
express their revulsion in a very physical way
• SSS feels more relaxed than if I’m out with other prisoners, I’m nervous
outside the door, feel safe within the cell, the prisoners think I’m in for
child molesting
For this small group of prisoners, SSS appears to be of benefit as a means of
protection from other inmates.
Discussion
It has been proposed that ‘questions about the prison experience are far
more likely to distinguish between prisoners at risk of suicide and those who
may not be’ (Leibling 1992). The present study would tend to support this
viewpoint whilst also acknowledging the relevance of other individual char-
acteristics and pre-imprisonment background variables. For example, for
the sample of 200 prisoners identified as at risk of suicide, prison was often
a friendless environment where difficulty mixing with other prisoners was
commonplace. However, many of the sample also had a history of previous
outpatient treatment and previous suicidal behaviour.
Similarly, ability to cope with imprisonment was associated with a combi-
nation of background or pre-imprisonment characteristics and environ-
mental and situational prison-related factors. For example, as regards
pre-imprisonment features those who reported greater difficulty coping
with the current period of custody were more likely than those who were
coping well to have a family history of psychological problems, alcohol
related problems and previous suicidal behaviour. However a larger number
of prison related features were associated with poor coping ability such as
having few friends in prison, having difficulty mixing with other prisoners,
389
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
actual or potential self-injurious behaviour during current period of impris-
onment, past and present psychiatry/psychological treatment in prison. For
the group of prisoners under study, difficulty coping with the current period
of custody was not related to a history of outpatient or inpatient psychi-
atric/psychological treatment in the community, history of drug problems
or number of previous times in custody. Furthermore, those who had been
in custody longer were more likely to have difficulty coping with imprison-
ment but no more likely to have established friends in prison.
Coping abilities are multi-factorially determined by past experiences,
acquired skills, levels of competence, emotional state, current demands and
desired outcome. This is also true in the prison context. However, coping in
a closed, crowded and potentially aggressive environment is determined
largely by one’s ability to interact successfully, form alliances, establish alle-
giances, develop social networks and most importantly, acquire acceptance.
For many individuals in prison this is a daunting task which is unlikely to
prove successful and may therefore increase feelings of isolation, rejection,
despair and self-injury. This may be especially so for those with a history of
psychological/psychiatric problems which impairs their social skills,
increases their social anxiety or has a negative effect on their emotional state
thereby increasing the possibility of suicidal behaviour among a group who
have often already exhibited such a response to distress in the past. For such
individuals, location on SSS would seem to provide an environment that
might further add to their feeling of rejection and social isolation. However,
it is noteworthy that only a minority (16.5%) of prisoners complained of
social isolation as a disadvantage of being placed on SSS. This is not to
suggest that social isolation is an insignificant issue. On the contrary, for
social beings, lack of contact with others can be devastating. But it is worth-
while remembering that amongst the prisoners under study many were
loners (35%) or had significant difficulty mixing (12.5%). Furthermore,
10% saw the solitude or protection that SSS offered as a distinct advantage.
It is these issues that may explain the negative aspect of social isolation not
having been as readily complained of as one might have expected.
Nevertheless, both the negative impact of social isolation and the accepted
difficulties that many of the prisoners experience when interacting with
others may be rectified by locating such prisoners in small group supportive
environments outwith their cell during the day. This would alleviate the
pressure that many of the sample felt they were under when having to cope
with large numbers of prisoners while also limiting the negative effects of
imposed seclusion.
The most common complaint regarding SSS was the issue of sensory
deprivation, mentioned by 42% of prisoners, which is certainly unaccept-
able, anti-therapeutic and likely to worsen any negative emotional state that
a prisoner may be experiencing. The issue of sensory deprivation is however
rectifiable, and would also be remedied to a large extent by having those
prisoners who are classified as ‘at risk’ in some form of closely supervised
association during the day with access to reading and writing material, exer-
cise, interaction with others, TV etc. If prisoners ‘at risk’ were in supervised
circulation during the day there would seem little need for them to
390
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
continue to wear the standard vest and shorts that are issued when on SSS.
It is wearing of such clothing that prisoners find most degrading and a
major contributing factor as a source of ridicule. Addressing the three issues
of sensory deprivation, social isolation and the degrading aspects of the SSS
regime would most probably alleviate the potential negative emotional
adverse effects that a significant proportion of prisoners referred to.
However, if this were to be achieved it is important that the need for an
appropriately secure environment which minimises the risk of self-injury, is
not compromised.
In considering modifications to the SSS regime one must remember that
its primary purpose is prevention and this is acknowledged by 21.5% of pris-
oners. As such we again return to the balance of care dilemma whereby the
Scottish Prison Service must take adequate steps to reduce the risk of suicide
among certain sectors of its population while ensuring that such a regime is
not overly restrictive, spartan, punitive and thereby counter-productive. The
balance that has to be struck in order to address this care dilemma, while
acknowledging the above reports of prisoners, would appear to be a regime
that offered supported, supervised small-group activity of at-risk prisoners
during the day, with prisoners spending as much time as is feasible outwith
their cells and in normal clothing, coupled with relocation of at-risk prison-
ers to ligature-proof cells at night or at time of lock-downs and return to
appropriately protective clothing, if necessary, when not in circulation. Such
a system already operates in certain prisons. It is right to review procedures
and regimes, especially as regards the potential negative impact they might
have. However, it is also important to put such problems in context in that
it is recommended that SSS be used for as short a period as is possible, which
on average is 1.87 days for those identified as at-risk at time of reception and
2.59 days for those identified at some other point in custody, with a range of
1–37 days (Power and Moodie 1997). For those retained on SSS improve-
ments in their psychological wellbeing is a priority. The present study
suggests that by altering various environmental aspects of the SSS regime
the negative effects of sensory deprivation, degradation and social isolation
might be minimised, while still ensuring that the necessary preventative
features are maintained and prisoners are constructively assisted in coping
with the difficulties that imprisonment imposes.1
Note
1 Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the Scottish Office Central Research
unit for funding this research. We are also grateful for the assistance and
co-operation of the Scottish Office and Prison Service staff. The views
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and in no way reflect the
views of the Scottish Office or the Scottish Prison Service.
References
Backett, S.A. (1987) ‘Suicide in Scottish prisons’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 151,
218–21.
391
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
Barraclough, B., Bunch, J., Nelson, B. and Sainsbury, P. (1974) ‘A hundred cases of
suicide: clinical aspects’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 355–73.
Barraclough, B. and Hughes, J. (1987) Suicide: Clinical and Epidemiological Studies,
London: Croom Helm.
Beck, A., Herman, I. and Schuyler, D. (1974) ‘Development of suicidal intent scales’,
in: A. Beck, H. Resnick, D. Littieri and M. Bowie (Eds.), The Prediction of Suicide,
Maryland: Charles Press.
Bogue, J. and Power, K.G. (1995) ‘Suicide in Scottish prisons 1976–93’, Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry, 6, 527–40.
Dooley, E. (1990) ‘Prison suicide in England and Wales, 1972–87’, British Journal of
Psychiatry, 156, 40–5.
Goldberg, D. (1972) The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire (Maudsley
Monograph No. 21), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebling, A. (1992) Suicides in Prison, London: Routledge.
Liebling, A. and Hall, P. (1993) ‘Seclusion in prison strip cells’, British Medical Journal,
307, 399–400.
Phillips, M. (1986) A Study of Suicide and Attempted Suicides at HMP Brixton, 1973–1983,
London: Directorate of Psychological Services, Home Office.
Power, K.G. and Moodie, E. (1997) ‘Characteristics and management of prisoners at
risk of suicidal behaviour’, Archives of Suicide Research, 3, 109–23.
Power, K.G. and Spencer, A.P. (1987) ‘Parasuicidal behaviour of detained Scottish
young offenders’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 31, 227–35.
Scottish Prison Service (1992) ‘Suicide prevention strategy’ (unpublished manual).
Topp, D.O. (1979) ‘Suicide in prison’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 24–7.
Wool, R.J. and Dooley, E. (1987) ‘A study of attempted suicides in prisons’, Medical
Science and the Law, 27, 297–301.
Zamble, E. and Porporino, F.J. (1988) Coping, Behaviour and Adaptation in Prison
Inmates, New York: Springer Verlag.
Date submitted: April 96
Date accepted: July 96
392
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
http://cjb.sagepub.com
Criminal Justice and Behavior
DOI: 10.1177/0093854899026002005
1999; 26; 235 Criminal Justice and Behavior
JOHN D. WOOLDREDGE
Inmate Experiences and Psychological Well-Being
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/235
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
can be found at:Criminal Justice and Behavior Additional services and information for
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/26/2/235 Citations
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.ia4cfp.org
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/26/2/235
http://cjb.sagepub.com
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
at Templeman Lib/The Librarian on September 24, 2009 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cjb.sagepub.com
CURING OFFENDING WITH IMPRISONMENT
Critically evaluate the idea that imprisonment will ‘cure’ offending.
Rhea Bhandari
17887199
SP637
Word Count: 2807
To assess the benefits of incarceration in terms of healing from offences, we must first describe what’s implied by ‘curing.’ The main aim is to punish offenders, while at the same time having a deterrent effect, addition to rehabilitate inmates. Recidivism is described as someone who has obtained some sort of criminal sanction, from warning to conviction, and the continues to commit another crime. (Ministry of Justice, 2011) However the calculation of recidivism is flawed, as the evidence is often misinterpreted due to underestimation of recidivism due to a limited percentage of reported crimes and a lower proportion of prosecuted delinquents.
The concept that punishment can cure crimes is simply a speculative interpretation, although there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that incarceration will abolish crime altogether. In 1982 Andrew Dawson, also known as the “Angel of Mercy”, was sentenced to prison for the murder of a 91-year-old man. He was released in 2010, after which he murdered two of his neighbors within hours, saying his incarceration had little impact in preventing him from relapsing. The following article analyzes the psychological ideas that underlie the use of imprisonment (retribution, incapacity, punishment, recovery and restoration) also due to the psychological effects of prison to conclude on the effectiveness of prison sentences. to “cure” crime.
Piper et. al (2012) indicated that the purpose of incarceration is to impose a sentence for misconduct and to signal the dissatisfaction of the rest of society with what the perpetrator has done. In effect, it informs the criminal and therefore the rest of society that there would be a punishment for the crime. In most cases, this means imprisonment, which can have a number of psychological consequences on the offender that affect the likelihood of recidivism, making prison an unnecessary “remedy” for the offender.
The object of vengeance and desert is a psychological prison target, which has an effect not only on the prisoner, but on society. Wilson (2014) suggests that criminals and law-abiding citizens of society are tied together in such a manner that after a criminal behaves against the law, the appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the equilibrium of society is returned by deterrence. This affects the criminal mentally when they perceive the result of incarceration, which is the inevitable consequence of the offender’s criminality, as well as the influence on the rest of society who feel that this is also the appropriate penalty to recover the equilibrium of the offender’s wrongdoing. However, criminals may feel as if their sentences are unreasonable as they feel they ought to be prosecuted more harshly than they deserve, thereby not restoring the equilibrium that can enrage offenders and promote more re-offending in order to balance conduct. This research is legitimate because it was carried out using a quasi-experimental design that provided the findings as real-world scenarios. Research conducted by Murphy (1994) is quite credible as the results on punishment as a goal of incarceration has been supported in numerous reports, including Feinberg (1994) which explored the effect of punishment and the wilderness on the perpetrators and the rest of society as a primary psychological impact.
The object of vengeance and the wilderness is a target of psychological prison, which has an effect not only on the prisoner, but on society. Wilson (2014) suggests that law-abiding criminals and citizens of society are linked in such a way that after an offender behaves against the law, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that the balance between society is restored by deterrence. This mentally affects the offender when he perceives the result of incarceration, which is the inevitable consequence of the offender’s criminality, as well as the influence on the rest of society who feels that it is also the appropriate punishment to recover. the balance of wrongdoing by the offender. offender. . However, offenders may find their sentences unreasonable, as they feel they should be prosecuted harder than they deserve, without restoring the balance that can anger offenders and foster further recidivism to balance the offenders. behaviours. This research is legitimate because it was carried out using a quasi-experimental design that provided the results in the form of real-world scenarios. Murphy’s (1994) research is quite credible as the findings on punishment as the target of incarceration have been substantiated in numerous reports, including Feinberg (1994) who explored the effect of punishment and nature on perpetrators and the rest of society as the main psychological impact.
Another mental intent to imprison criminals as well as all members of society is termed deterrence. The consequences of crime disturbance are also divided into particular and general disturbances where the person who committed the crime is affected in the hope that they are less likely to commit more crimes by punishing imprisonment. General deterrence is then applied to the rest of society which is deterred from committing crimes because it is seen firsthand as the result of wrongdoing and therefore less likely to commit a criminal act due to a crime. same sentence. Lester (2008) argues that deterrence can have an impact on younger generations who are aware of misconduct and incarceration, particularly when a family reference to a criminal indicates that it is more likely to deter crime. rest of society. prosecute the crime in order to influence the criminal’s recidivism. The data were obtained using a multi-method meta-analysis approach and ventilation in the prisons where the evidence was extracted, making the results generalizable. This research is very precise, however, due to the various methodologies and time frames in which the information was gathered, considerable inferences were drawn with difficulty.
A contrasting psychological purpose of incarceration to punish and deter is the inability to effect this argument in incarceration, which has a predominantly detrimental impact on the life of the inmate rather than the psychological impact on the rest of society. The published statement indicated that incapacity was a requirement to limit the degree of crime by removing criminals from the environment and circumstances in which they would have the capacity to commit more crimes and therefore limit the offender’s ability to commit crimes. crimes. . The conclusions published by the Ministry of Justice (2011) have a partial view and are therefore not reliable since they are punishable by prison sentences under the authority of the Ministry of Justice and therefore the ministry will justify the first necessity of incarceration as disability and its usefulness in minimizing recidivism. On the other hand, Andrews (2001) reported that the goal of incarceration to get criminals off the road is hampered by the persistence of violence in detention, which allows offenders to carry out such activities after being released. and thus shows that incarceration is not an effective remedy for the offense. The use of a meta-analysis makes it easier to analyze a larger group to deduce that detention for the purpose of incapacity is not an adequate solution to crime, it is more generalizable to a greater extent. large community of delinquents.
Rehabilitation, on the other hand, offers a more optimistic view of incarceration, with the aim of removing the inmate from a criminal atmosphere to encourage him to seek support to improve his behavior. Bonta and. al (2017) suggested that therapy is the primary rationale for incarceration, as it allows offenders to understand how the culture perceives their irregularities in the community, while also encouraging anticipation of how improvements have been made. to deter further incarceration. McGuire (2004) examined how other recovery strategies might reduce the risk of recidivism, such as vocational counseling, victim awareness, and psychotherapy, with the goal of minimizing isolation and stigmatization of offenders, as well as ‘improve the actions of the offender to become a criminal. law-abiding member of the group. He used a wide variety of approaches to conduct a study, from the offender’s self-report to the psychiatrist’s assessments and conclusions using a multi-method methodology. This means that the research is very credible when compiling an information base, providing data to come back to the conclusion that recovery sessions often allow inmates to make new life decisions rather than relapse, but these sessions are not. necessarily the most effective in penitentiary establishments. , but they are often easier in an open and less restrictive atmosphere.
A more beneficial therapeutic goal in incarceration is rehabilitation, which aims to allow an effort to reconcile the perpetrator with the victims of his crime and with all others who might be harmed. Ashworth (2010) found that there is a growing awareness of the interests of victims of violence and their need for reconciliation. The investigation explores a three-step procedure ideal for mitigating the harm suffered, including acknowledging the offender’s responsibility for the crime, expressing genuine remorse, and adopting victim-recommended behaviors and behavior improvements. , qualified professionals such as forensic psychologist and other parties. This analysis is highly credible because the results were obtained from direct observations of the researcher and other independent observers, which showed good inter-rater reliability. Other research that has provided similar results comes from Leng et. (2003) who found that offenders who sought to come to terms with their victims and come to terms with their wrongdoing were less likely to relapse and more likely to improve their behavior by starting with positive behavior in prison, which may be due with the recognition of a mistake their way and once they started to change their way of life. As a result, offenders who continued to measure their lives according to the law encountered opposition from offenders who were reluctant or could not reconnect with their families, who relapsed after being released from prison, implying this restitution is in progress. a step in the right direction to “cure” crime.
The goals of incarceration, as illustrated above, have a real psychological influence and can be defined as having three main consequences, including social alienation, danger and institutionalization. The main personal impact resulting from incarceration is the social isolation which Hooper, (2003) describes as the isolation from social ties with parents, peers and associates which are very necessary for stable social well-being. Hooper (2003) noted, using a self-assessment system and additional information from prison staff, that forty-three percent of inmates reported losing contact or having had very little contact with their family after incarceration. . An additional statement from the study found that more than 20% of inmates who had started incarceration during their marriage had since been separated or divorced from their spouse. The Sainsbury Center for Mental Health (SCMH) also found that inmates’ social alienation had a psychological effect on the offender’s family, as they had to make emotional changes in the detention of their loved ones, leading to a series of related problems. stress such as depression, anxiety and eating disorders. Both results were particularly accurate, as the different data collection methods were not expected to draw common conclusions about the negative psychological effects of social alienation brought on by incarceration. The severing of important family ties and relationships with loved ones is counterproductive for the mental and emotional well-being of inmates, increasing symptoms such as depression and anxiety, as well as feelings of regret and frustration. The accumulation of such psychological consequences can cloud the decisions of the offender, allowing him to act and, ultimately, to commit more crimes. Social alienation can be a demonstration of how a significant psychological effect resulting from incarceration does not discourage recidivism and instead can foster greater involvement in illegal crimes.
The second personal consequence of detention is the danger of being in an atmosphere which, although recognized by rigid and restricted access regimes, remains extremely dangerous and constitutes an illegal enterprise, such as theft, theft and trafficking in drug, much more common than in the outside world. Woodcock and. al (2003) conducted a self-reported style study of inmates at Feltham Prison to provide a first-hand perspective on attack rates and to find that the unreported prevalence of mistreatment and assault among inmates was 18 times higher than the official rate, suggesting that there is a higher risk to the physical and emotional well-being of offenders than indicated. The study by Edgar et al. (2003) highlights the dangers for perpetrators of resorting to abuse as an aggressor in various ways that they like to express their control, correct alleged faults and out of anger. The build-up of negative emotions and behaviors undermines the offender’s self-esteem and personal protection, and could cause the individual to behave more aggressively in the face of subsequent illegal behavior, when he feels that his aggressive actions are justified. Both experiments had high ecological validity since the results were collected in real prisons with close interaction with inmates. However, all approaches to data collection involved self-assessment with knowledge of bias, as inmates would exaggerate their situation to track improvements in their time in prison.
The third personal consequence of incarceration is that institutionalization can be a short-term response to criminal offenses in terms of deterrence, but the longer the perpetrator remains in prison, the less exposed he is in real life, creating a variety of threats. complications as defined by the World Health Organization. Through various surveys, the World Health Organization (1999) found that prisoners, including prison guards, realized that prison was degrading, deprived of liberty, and destroyed the offender’s desire to be autonomous until replaced by the community. As a result, the criminals were unable to cope with their return to society, which resulted in unemployment and homelessness. This led to depressive emotions such as frustration, hopelessness, and depression that emerged in previous criminals causing them to act in a way they deemed acceptable, frequently contributing to recidivism. In addition, the atmosphere of the prison is not helpful to people with mental disorders, as inmates often did until their incarceration, as enforced idleness can induce unusual behaviors that turn into a cycle of acting out and isolation. Both researches used surveys of inmates willing to engage in data collection which limits generalizability, since these tests do not allow the involvement of offenders who may lack brains and, therefore, may have suffered a more severe incarceration for people without mental illness. The ideas and goals of incarceration, in addition to the psychological consequences that the perpetrator may experience, indicate that incarceration may not be the most effective approach to criminal wrongdoing, particularly in terms of adjusting criminal conduct and transforming the offender into law-abiding people. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice (2011) conclude that 46% of all detainees, regardless of their criminal offenses, will be repeat offenders within a year of release and that over 60% of detainees with short sentences return. be offended within a year, indicating that shorter prison sentences are less effective in minimizing recidivism. The Justice (2018) published a study detailing the highest recidivism patterns seen in crimes such as robbery (38.5%) and drug-related offenses (32.4%) that can occur because these activities are common in prison, then the criminal retains this activity upon his return to society
In summary, incarceration is not the most effective deterrent against criminal offenses, and statistics show that an atmosphere is created in which the social status of offenders is affected in several ways, such as depression, anxiety, anger issues, and more. These factors influence how offenders can cope if they return to society and without the support available to them to deal with the concerns that are characterized as offenders with psychiatric difficulties, triggering professional setbacks and also the relationships they create that encourage recidivism due to a sense of hopelessness and a feeling that such behavior was acceptable (Rafae, 2011)
A limited percentage of the study on the effectiveness of incarceration in terms of “curing” offenses has been investigated. While there are some positive effects of incarceration on criminals, there are many more negative effects that incarceration has on offenders, especially in today’s culture where civil rights offenders are increasingly a problem for society. Other forms of approaches are being implemented and are seen to be easier to mitigate recidivism, including teaching behavioral skills, in which criminals are guided on how to recognize circumstances in which they do not know how to respond and receive effective coping strategies (Lispey & Wilson, 1998). Another example of rehabilitation is the type of thinking skills teaching that includes a three-step curriculum in which criminals focus on how to overcome daily challenges through problem solving, alternative solutions, and a way to predict the results.
In conclusion, the belief that prison “will cure” crime is reassuring to society as it has become the norm that criminals are imprisoned for their crimes. However, the new ideology has many drawbacks, one of which is that it has no impact on crime recidivism, especially in short sentences, which is typical of the current prison system, where prisoners are released early and indefinitely. Improving the availability of additional recovery support can be used as a way to minimize recidivism after detainees return to society.
Bibliography
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Proven re-offending statistics, pp. 4-41.
Easton, S., & Piper, C. (2012). Sentencing and Punishment. 2nd ed. . Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1994). “The Expressive Function of Punishment”. In A. D. Garland, A reader on Punishment (pp. 71-91). Oxford : Oxford University Press .
Murphy, J. (1994). Marxism and Retribution. In A. F. Garland, A reader on Punishment (pp. 44-70). Oxford : Oxford University Press .
Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2008). The deterrent effect of executions: A meta-anaylsis years after Ehrlich,. Journal of Criminal Justice , 453-460.
Stafford, M., & Warr, M. (1993). A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquenxy , 123-135.
Weinrath, M., & Gartrell, J. (2001). Specific Deterrence and Sentence: The Case of Drunk Drivers. . Journalof Contemporary Criminal Justice , 105-122.
Andrews, D. (2001). Principles of effetcive correctional programs . Compendium 2000 on eeffetcove correlational programming.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct . London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and criime: Perspectives on theory and action. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education .
Ashworth, A. (2010 ). Sentencing and Criminal Justice (Law in context series). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
Taylor, R., Wasik, M., & Leng, R. (2003). Balcstone’s guide to the Criminal Justice Act . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hooper, C. (2003). Abuse, abuse counselling and women in prison: A literature review.
Nurse, J., Woodcock, P., & Ormsby, J. (2003). Infleunce of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: A Focus group study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) , 327.
Edgar, Kimmett, O’Donnell, Ian, Martin, & Carol. (2003). Prison Violence: the dynamics of conflict, fear and power. Cullompton, Devon : Willan Publishing .
Justice, D. o. (2018). Adult and Youth Reoffending in NI Statistics published today. .
Rafae, S. (2011). Incarceration and Prisoner re-entry in the United states . The ANNALS of American Academny Of Political and Social Sciences, 192-215.
Appleton, C. (2010). Life ater Imprisonment . Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Lispey, M., & Wilson, D. (1998). Effetcive intervention for serious juvenile offenders; A synethesis of research. In R. L. Farrington, Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). 1998: Sage Publications .