Transcript 9 Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology

Penal policy, crime and criminology – experience and new challenges.
50-year Anniversary of the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention
‘Pains of probation’: practice implications
Ioan Durnescu
University of Bucharest
Methodology issues:
• Questions:
• What are the ‘pains of probation’?
• How they affect the rehabilitation process? (discussion)
• Method for collecting data: in-depth interview with 43
probationers from three different probation services selected as
they were scheduled to attend appointments with probation
counsellors
• Interviews transferred on paper and analysed using thematic
approach (Wolcott, 1994)
• Qualitative research aiming to elicit the subjective experience of
probationers they would rather avoid if possible.
‘Pain’ in the literature
• Sykes (1958) – ‘pains of imprisonment’ as ‘… deprivations or
frustrations of prison life … as punishments which the free
community deliberately inflicts on the offender for violating the
law’ (p. 64)
• Five ‘pains of imprisonment’: deprivation of liberty, deprivation of goods and
services, deprivation of autonomy, deprivation of heterosexual relationships
and deprivation of security.
• Payne and Ganey (1998) – ‘pains of electronic monitoring – house arrest’ in
terms of: monetary costs, effects on family, temptation effect and bracelet
effect.
• Prison Reform Trust (1997) – a man who ‘cut off his tag because it made him
feel like a dog’
• In France, for instance, after mobile electronic monitoring was introduced
(2005) a number of offenders complained that the alarm was wrongly set off
rather frequently and that the tag was ‘not discreet and thus socially
problematic’ (Herzog-Evans (2009) in European Journal of Probation –
www.ejprob.ro 1(2)).
• Other effects of electronic monitoring have included the feeling of being
constantly monitored (Mair, Mortimer 1996) and stress caused by the fear of
being sent back to prison (Herzog-Evans (2009); Nellis 2009)
‘Pains of probation’ in this study:
1. Deprivation of autonomy
• The requirement to attend appointments, to inform or to do certain
activities (obligations)
‘What I want the most … the only thing that I wish for is something to
change and I wouldn’t have to come here (i.e.. to the probation
service) twice a month. It is hard for me to come so many times a
month. There are many occasions when I can’t come ‘cause I am
sick let’s say … ’ (one probationer in Bucharest).
• Difficulties with job or to emigrate in other states for getting a job
• Difficulty with joining the family which is located in other states.
2. Pain of reorganizing the daily
routine around the sanction
•
•
When imposing a suspended sentence under supervision the court also applied a
number of mandatory supervisory conditions: to keep appointments with the
probation service, to inform probation staff regarding any income sources, to
inform the probation counsellor when planning a journey that will take more than
eight days and so on.
For example – informing about a journey taking longer than eight days.
‘You have to let them know … at least by calling them. You have to tell them that you
want to travel somewhere. This is the procedure .. you have to tell them. It is not
that they have to let you do this or that … but you have to inform them. But you
have to keep the tickets to prove that you’ve been where you said you go. And that
is all. ’ (one probationer in Sibiu)
•
Offenders have to plan - created significant problems for many individuals ,
particularly in light of the fact that they tended to lack effective problem solving
and self-management skills Andrews & Bonta, 2003. Furthermore, the need to
keep the train or the bus ticket to show to the probation counsellor added to the
other paper work probationers they were expected to do (e.g. to produce copies
from the work register, or copies of a rental contract and so on). Once the
sentence is enforced probationers have to produce judicial proofs of their daily
routine (work, accommodation, travel and so on).
3. Deprivation of private or family life
•
Especially during the initial stage of the supervision when the probation counsellor was
conducting the so called ‘initial assessment’. Depending on the practitioner’s style, this
assessment may take the shape of an open discussion, an investigative interview or even a
psychometric session. The coverage of the questions was sometimes so broad that the
probationer felt that everything about himself was under scrutiny:
‘Well … the first session … the first session was somehow different … so to say … he made a sort of
report about who am I, I remember. I mean whether I have a girlfriend, where I live, what
kind of people my parents are, what jobs they do, what is my job. I mean … it was about my
whole life at that time … ’ (one probationer in Sibiu).
•
Sometimes even feelings did not escape the scrutiny of the specialist, causing deep
frustration and anger especially when this was in conflict with the religious beliefs of the
person:
‘when I have to tell my feelings I don’t like telling anyone … I don’t like describing what I feel. I am
Pentecostal Christian and I don’t like this. If somebody comes and asks me ‘what did you do ?’
I can not tell, nor even to the (probation) counsellor. I feel ashamed. It is hard. ’ (one
probationer in Bucharest)
•
Some probationers were under 18 and thus were required sometimes to attend their
appointments together with their parents. During home visits probation counsellors visited
not only the offender but also (indirectly) those people who lived with him: parents,
partner, wife, or children. By exposing the whole family to these judicial forms of control the
impression was created that both the offender and his family were the object of
supervision. This obviously added more pressure on the family.
4. Deprivation of time
• Although the meeting itself with the
probation counsellor took between 10 to 60
minutes, in order to get there some
probationers had to travel long distances.
• Problems with public transport
• Taking into account that the probation period
could be up to nine years, it is clear that
considerable amounts of
time were
effectively taken away from the probationer.
5. Financial costs
• For travelling – if far away
• Most of them live on social benefit or ‘survival
agriculture’
• If they work - employer reduces wages and
food voucher for the day.
6. Stigmatization effects
•
Although it does not involve imprisonment, by being asked to produce proof of
employment, or being asked to take hours or even days off in order to attend
meetings with probation counsellor, probationers were forced to inform their
managers and colleagues about their juridical status:
‘Usually the close ones know about my situation. At work I avoid telling colleagues but
somehow they found out … and I had some problems … ’ (one probationer in
Bucharest).
•
As shown above, the probationer’s close family was aware of his legal status. Being
under supervision for years is practically impossible to conceal.
•
A significant stigmatisation issue became apparent when probation counsellors
made home visits accompanied by police officers. Usually the police officers were
wearing uniforms and therefore their status was clearly apparent to neighbours,
friends, and colleagues. As a consequence this practice carried a very significant
potential for stigmatization.
7. Forced return to the offence
•
A significant number of probationers complained that during the meetings, or
when participating in probation programmes, they had to discuss their offence and
that this forced return to the offence hurt them.
•
The probation office was always located in the Tribunal building (county court)
and that itself reminded the probationer what he or she did. The meetings with
the probation staff, the topics they covered in their discussions, the content of the
offending behaviour programmes and so on all reminded the probationer about
the offence (‘I want to forget .. but in this way … ‘ – one probationer in Iasi ).
•
However, it is interesting that some probationers identified this pain as being
instrumental for desistance:
‘this ritual, to come once every two months is very good ‘cause you remember what
was bad …it helps you to do good in the future …’ (one probationer in Bucharest)
•
The stigma, meetings with the probation counsellor, discussions about the offence
and the victim and so on all seem to applications of what ahs been labelled
“reintegrative shaming” (Braithwaite 1993). As the author noticed, shame could be
reintegrative or disintegrative according to the respect or the lack of respect
actually displayed by the correctional staff.
•
8. Live under a tremendous threat
Even if the failure to comply takes place just before the trial period expires, the
suspended sentence under supervision may be revoked and the offender sent to
prison without taking into consideration the time spent on suspended sentence.
Therefore, not surprisingly, a lot of probationers complained that they live under a
tremendous threat – the threat of imprisonment:
‘Well .. first is not to make mistakes, not to make the same mistakes ‘cause you are
under supervision now. Anyway I felt the fear right in my bones even when I got
arrested. No way .. I don’t even think about doing it again but ….’ (one probationer
in Sibiu)
•
As the person above mentioned, the fear of imprisonment seemed even higher
among those offenders who experienced preventive arrest during the trial.
•
In their practice, probation services employ a very large repertoire of tools to
amplify the fear of imprisonment: documents describing the conditions and
obligations and the consequences of non-compliance, warning letters, verbal
warnings, convocation letters and so on. These are just a few words that have the
sound of handcuffs:
‘if I make one more mistake during the next five years as it is my probation period, the
judge will give me the first punishment and add the punishment for the second
mistake. He (the probation counsellor) told me not to make mistakes ‘cause is not
good…’ (one probationer in Iasi)
Conclusions on ‘pains of probation’:
• As can be easily seen, most of these pains of probation are mainly
economic-emotional and not physical. Nonetheless, they cut
deeply and are experienced in a variety of ways depending on the
personal circumstances and histories of the participants.
• However, no matter how difficult it was for probationers to
experience supervision, none of them stated that they would
replace it with imprisonment:
‘it is ok … far better than being, God forbid, in prison. It is better to stay
free that being locked up. I would come ( to probation office) every
day only to be free .. . I mean is super OK, no problem … ’
(one probationer in Bucharest)
Discussion
• By imposing conditions and obligations upon the convicted
person, the court obviously seeks to inflict pain on
(restriction or interdictions) while also aiming to help his
rehabilitation (treatment obligations). This sort of dual
nature of supervision is particularly challenging for
practitioners who are placed in a very delicate ethical and
practice dilemma. In essence, which comes first the
punishment or the rehabilitation? Or in other words, where
does the punishment stops and when does the
rehabilitation process start.
• Sometimes these two aspects of probation practice come
into conflict and the practitioner needs some kind of
practice compass to guide his decisions.
Examples of how ‘pains of probation’
frustrates the desistance:
• Getting a job -The literature on offender reintegration demonstrates
clearly the causal link between getting a satisfactory job and the process
of desistance (Laub and Sampson 2003; Farrall 2002 ).
• Being close with the family - By preventing the probationer from rejoining
his family the probation service denies the him or her access to the social
capital so vital for his desistance from crime (Farall 2002, 2004). Social
capital is defined by Coleman (1994)
‘the set of resources that inhere in family relations and in community social
organisation and that are useful for the cognitive or social development of
a child or young person. These resources differ for different persons and
can constitute an important advantage for children and adolescents in
their development of human capital (300).’
Human rights issues
• Walker (1991) operates a very useful distinction
between obiter punishment, for those consequences
that fall upon other people (e.g. family), and incidental
punishment that are side effects of punishment (e.g.
losing a job).
• Obviously some conditions and obligations are
intended and stipulated in the law and sentence but
others not:
• Obiter – family exposure to probation supervision (home visits,
parents accompanying children)
• Incidental – stigmatization (at the job, neighbours ) – state should
protect the private life and dignity of the convicted people.
• Obiter – children of probationers especially in a vulnerable
position for stigmatization.
Financial costs
• The financial costs of the supervision is also a good example of incidental
punishment.
• Travel cost like a second punishment (financial penalty).
• The fact of a second punishment has two major negative implications.
• First, from the human rights perspective this cost could be seen as an infringement of
article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law) since the probationer is
required to accept a punishment not provided by law.
• Second, it could be seen as a violation of a traditional Roman principle of law – ne bis in
idem (not to apply two punishments for the same offence) since for the same offence the
probationer has been sentenced to probation and also forced to pay a sum of money
(just like a fine).
• State as a duty bearer is under the obligation to minimise or to
compensate this unintended punishment, by paying the travel
costs of the offender from home to probation office.
Effectiveness
•
The last two pains of probation – pain of forced return to the offence and life under tremendous
threat of imprisonment – reveals the theoretical framework of probation practice utilised in parts
of Romania. Being focused on the past and based on the threat of a more severe punishment,
probation practice seems to operate within the framework of deterrence and the
risk/needs/responsivity model - RNR model (Ward and Maruna 2007).
•
Although adherence to this model have been shown to reduce re-offending there are also some
important limitations to be mentioned. One of these limitations also emerges from this study. From
the probationer’s answers it can be concluded that the offender’s motivation for adhering to the
conditions of probation is not stimulated by the desire for a better life, or for a new and prosocial
lifestyle, but rather by a fear of a worse punishment. The way probation supervision is
constructed seems to encourage the offender to ‘play the system’ and not to engage in a profound
and constructive process of social and psychological change.
•
Bottoms (2001) useful distinction between instrumental, constraint-based, routinised or habitual
and normative compliance.
Normative compliance (active engagement with the content of the sanction)– the only one form of
compliance that produce longer term effects on the desistance.
•
•
Relationship ???
Possible solution
• probation practice turns its focus from threats and risks towards strengths
and the adoption of a good life model.
• A more constructive and probably more effective way of energizing the
offender motivation to change is arguably Good Lives Model (Ward and
Maruna, 2007 - GLM).
• GLM focuses on the offender‘s future supporting him to develop his own
plan for a better life. By virtue of its emphasis on ways of living that are
personally meaningful and socially acceptable, the model promotes a
more respectful and collaborative style of interaction between the
probation staff and the convicted person.
• The focus of the GLM on both goods promotion and risk reduction seems
to respond better to the concerns and aspirations reported by the
participants of this study of probation.
Conclusion:
• most of the ‘pains of probation’ may constitute
substantial infringements of human rights or are at
least examples of ineffective practice.
• Using some specific examples the paper argues for an
integrated response to these pains of probation from
the human rights and Good Life Model perspective.
• Both these perspectives seem to support each other
and may help to reduce the unnecessary and
counterproductive pains of probation
Thank you and Happy Anniversary !!!
References:
Boonin, D (2008) The problem of punishment. NY: Cambridge University Press
Bottoms,A. (2001) ‘Compliance with community penalties’ in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (edt.) Community penalties : Change and Challenges.
Cullompton: Willan.
Braithwaite, J. (1993) ‚Shame and modernity’ în British Journal of Criminology, 33 (1), p. 1-18.
Canton, R. (2007) ‘Punishment (aims and justifications)’ in Canton, R. and Hancock, D. (ed.) Dictionary of Probation and Offender Management. Cullompton:
Willan
Christie, N. (1981) Limits of pain (available at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/limits_to_pain/index.html )
Coleman, J. (1994) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Dianu, T. (1997) Non-Custodial Santions. Alternative Models for Post-Communist Societies. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Farrall, S. (2004) ‘Social capital, probation supervision and desistance from crime’, in Maruna. S. and Immarigeon, R. (eds.) After Crime and Punishment: ExOffender Reintegration and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan.
Farrall, S. (2002), Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan
Gelsthorpe, L. (2007) ‚Probation values and human rights’ in Gelsthorpe, L and Morgan R. Handbook of Probation. Cullompton: Willan
Herzog-Evans, M. (in press) ‘French Post Custody Law (2000-2009) : From Equitable Trial to the Religion of Control’ (submitted to European Journal of
Probation: www.ejprob.ro )
Van Kalmthout, A.M. and Durnescu, I. (ed) (2008) Probation in Europe Nijmigen: WLP
Laub, J. and Sampson, R. (2003) Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age Seventy. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press
Mair, G. , Mortimer, E. (1996) Curfew Orders with Electronic Monitoring. Home Office Research Study 163. London: Home Office.
McNeill, F. (2009) Towards effective practice in offender supervision (available on: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/news/SCCJR-Report-Released-Towards-EffectivePractice-in-Offender-Supervision/167 )
Nellis, M. (2009) ‘Surveillance and Confinement: Explaining and Understanding The Experience of Electronically Monitored Curfews’ in European Journal of
Probation Vol.1 (1): 41-65 (available on: www.ejprob.ro ).
Payne, B.K., Gainey, R.R. (1998) „A Qualitative Assessment of the Pains Experienced on Electronic Monitoring” în International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology . 42(2) p. 149-163.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rex,S. (1999) ‚Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation’ in The Howard Journal, 38, 366-83
Sykes, G.M. (1958) The Society of Captives. A Study of Maximum Security Prison. Princeton University Press.
Vanstone, M. (2008) ‘The International Origins and Initial Development of Probation. An Early Example of Policy Transfer’ in British Journal of Criminology
48: 735-755
Van Zyl Smit, D. (2007) Prisoner’s Rights in Jewkes, Y (ed.) Handbook on Prisons, Cullompton: Willan
Walker, N. (1991) Why Punish ? Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ward, T. and Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation. Beyond the risk paradigm. London and NY: Routledge
Ward, T. and Birgden, A. (2007) ‘Human rights and correctional clinical practice’ in Aggression and Violent Behavior doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2007.05.001
Ward, T and Salmon, K. (2009) ‘The ethics of punishment: Correctional practice implications’ in Aggression and Violent Behavior 14, 239-247
Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks. Calif.:Sage