Search results

Drawing from interviews with individuals on parole, this chapter explores experiences of and responses to penal misrecognition. It documents that participants feel fundamentally misrecognised by the parole agency and penal state. They believe that the penal state views them as dangerous, defective and incapable of virtuous self-governance. Yet this is not how they perceive themselves. This leads to a delicate balancing act where participants refuse certain aspects of the penal state while accommodating others. On the one hand, individuals refuse parole’s misrecognition of them and reject the state’s authority to define who they are. On the other hand, they largely acquiesce to parole’s authority to supervise and regulate conduct. Turning to the concept of refusal highlights that individuals do not just attempt to resist penal power; rather, they flatly reject the state’s epistemic constructions. They do this by turning away from parole and by turning towards other forms of sociality beyond the penal state. This creates material and affective distance from parole and opens up space for self-recognition and for receiving positive recognition from others. In this way, individuals seek to minimise, move away from and/or bypass a penal intervention that is ostensibly designed to assist and support them.

This paper aims to shift from the male offender perspective in attempts to explore the stories and lived experiences of five females on parole in Nelson Mandela Bay, as most correctional research in South Africa focuses on the male offender experience. The experiences of females are largely ignored both in terms of reform and in research, and while only a few South African studies on female criminality have emerged, little is known about the impact of incarceration and reintegration on their livelihoods.

This paper makes use of an ethnographic approach as the narrative follows the complex realities of females on parole to include their voice, depth and experience in the debate within the parole experiences measure framework. This study made use of five individual interviews and observations, which were complemented by existing literature.

This paper provides insights on the experiences, vulnerabilities, challenges, fears and concerns of females on parole and the relative social costs of their incarceration. The experiences allow for a deeper understanding of the shades of their experiences of powerlessness, gender-specific sexualisation and exploitation, economic vulnerability and destitution and social alienation and exclusion which uniquely influences behavioural and emotional deficits.

Because the number of females on parole in Nelson Mandela Bay is few, this study could only interview five female offenders. Yet, as this study is ethnographic in nature, it offers a deep understanding of these five female offenders.

This research offers an insight into the social ills faced by female on parole. This work highlights the effects of incarceration are often felt by females long after their release since their experience of imprisonment affects their future prospects, damaging and debilitating. This paper suggests self-reclamation that could lead to positive reactions towards rehabilitative and reintegration. This research opens up the larger debate and does not offer tangible recommendations.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study parole amongst female offenders.

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.

This book brings together an international group of scholars whose chapters, analytically and/or empirically, engage with, challenge, and further advance our understanding of ‘mass supervision’ across jurisdictions. In this introductory chapter, we describe the impetus for and purpose of this book and briefly outline each chapter’s contribution. Together, contributors to this book provide contextualised insight into what ‘mass supervision’ is, how it works, and what effects it has on individuals and communities. The chapters span macro-examinations of the socio-political origins and developments of probation and community-based supervision across jurisdictions and micro-examinations of how people perceive and experience punishment in the community both as its practitioners and as its subjects.

In this closing chapter, we review the contributions of this collection, reflecting on how each advances our understanding of ‘mass supervision’. We return to McNeill’s conceptualisation of ‘mass supervision’ as a starting point to showing how contributors illuminate ‘mass supervision’ as a contextually and locally specific phenomenon with implications for families, communities and the larger penal system. Contributors critically examine the legal and policy developments and implications of ‘mass supervision’.

In the current chapter, we examine the nature, distribution and experiences of probation in Canada. More specifically, drawing upon in-depth interviews with probationer loved ones, we examine the experiences of what we refer to as secondary supervision. The concept captures how individuals with a loved one (i.e. family member or partner) on probation understand, make sense of and feel affected by their loved one’s probation order. Complementing existing literature on the collateral consequences of incarceration or ‘secondary prisonization’, we show how secondary supervision burdens probationer loved ones mentally and emotionally as they must navigate the uncertainties of their loved one’s legally precarious status. We highlight the necessity of expanding probation research and of our thinking about ‘mass supervision’ to consider the collateral and unintended consequences of community-based supervision.

Most prisoners are eventually returned to their communities, making their transition into the community and aftercare a fundamental aspect of successful re-entry. This paper aims to explore the stages of someone’s reintegration from pre-release, through to reintegration and desistance and consider the factors relevant to the re-entry process for those who have offended and how to enhance this process. The aim of this paper was twofold; first to highlight the various factors and issues involved in the re-entry and reintegration process, particularly for those who are released after imprisonment and, second, to consider the significance of aftercare services in facilitating this process.

This paper opted for a brief review of the literature regarding incarceration and reintegration and some of the gaps in the literature. This paper will commence with a discussion of the effects of imprisonment on those who are incarcerated, then a consideration of the re-entry process, followed by a discussion of the reintegration process and desistance. Following will be reflections regarding the implications for practice. A case study is used to illustrate these points.

The current paper proposes a framework by which organisations and service providers working with those who are released from prison can use or incorporate into their practice to enhance aftercare support. The case study is used as an example to further illustrate this.

Implications for practice are also considered as well as recommendations to aid the re-entry and aftercare process. Suggestions are also offered to those agencies that are responsible for the provision of aftercare services for those released from prison.

This paper offers some considerations regarding the importance of the preparing and planning for release with a specific focus on aftercare services and their role in the re-entry and reintegration process.

Following the ‘Sarkozy’ era (2007–2012), France has engaged in ‘zero-tolerance’ policies, which have brought an increasing number of people into the criminal justice system (CJS). In an already extremely impoverished CJS, these policies have led to serious financial problems and have made an already existing prison overcrowding problem worse. Consequently, the CJS has gradually opted for a McDonald (Ritzer, 2019; Robinson, 2019) type of offender processing, whether in prosecutor-led procedures (representing roughly half of all penal procedures: Ministry of Justice, 2019) or in the sentencing phase (Danet, 2013). A similar trend has been found in probation and in prisoner release (in French: ‘sentences’ management).

The prison and probation services, which merged in 1999, have since then been in a position to benefit from the 1958 French Republic Constitution, which places the executive in a dominant position and notably allows it to draft the bills presented to a rather passive legislative power (Rousseau, 2007) and even to enjoy its own set of normative powers (‘autonomous decrees’ – Hamon & Troper, 2019). By way of law reforming (2009, 2014, and 2019 laws), the prison and probation services have thus embraced the McDonaldisation ethos. Their main obsession has been to early release as many prisoners as possible in order to free space and to accommodate more sentenced people. To do so, the prison services have created a series of so-called ‘simplified’ early release procedures, where prisoners are neither prepared for nor supported through release, where they are deprived of agency and where due process and attorney advice are removed. Behind a pretend rehabilitative discourse, the executive is only interested in efficiently flushing people out of prison; not about re-entry efficacy. As Ritzer (2019) points out, McDonaldisation often leads to counter-productive or absurd consequences. In the case of early release, the stubborn reality is that one cannot bypass actually doing the rehabilitative and re-entry work. I shall additionally argue that not everything truly qualifies as an early release measure (Ostermann, 2013). Only measures which respect prisoners’ agency prepare them for their release, which support them once they are in the community, which address their socio-psychological and criminogenic needs, and which are pronounced in the context of due process and defence rights truly qualify as such. As it is, French ‘simplified’ release procedures amount to McRe-entry and mass nothingness.