An Absent Presence: Visitor Narratives of Journeys and Support for Prisoners During Imprisonment
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12153 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Author | CHRIS HOLLIGAN |
The Howard Journal Vol55 No 1–2. May 2016 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12153
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 94–110
An Absent Presence: Visitor
Narratives of Journeys and Support
for Prisoners During Imprisonment
CHRIS HOLLIGAN
Professor of Education, School of Education, University of the West
of Scotland
Abstract: The system of allocation of prisoners to prisons in Scotland results in the
incarceration of prisoners at significant distance from their homes, creating an obstacle
to the maintenance of family ties. Using unpublished statistical and primary research
data collected with visitors of prisoners during 2014, this qualitative study reports an
examination of peregrinations designed to provide prisoner support. More specifically,
it converges upon perceptions of why, in the minds of visitors, these journeys are conse-
quential for sustaining the welfare of their loved ones, and notes that prison authorities
over-represent visitation as a panacea for alleviating the pains of imprisonment.
Keywords: travel; transport; Scotland; prisons; visitation
Incarceration is a disruptive process. It introduces significant losses for
prisoners and for their families. Scottish prisons are typical of those in
other industrialised countries in drawing their inmates from among ‘ur-
ban outcasts’ (Houchin 2005; Waquant 2011). The purpose of this article is
to explore the voices of Scottish prison visitors, to understand their world
and, critically, how their commitment to visiting affects them, and what
they believe about the goals that visits serve. The existence of challenging
visiting conditions may indirectly impact prison visits’ supposed connection
with desistance. Codd’s (2008) empathic shadow trope of stressed families
outside conjures a bleak landscape. The intrusion of pain and punishment
is pervasive throughout the history of imprisonment as legal violence (Wil-
son 2014). It is accepted that even short sentences manufacture immense
distress in family systems (Arditti, Lambert-Shute and Joest 2003), but we
have a ‘lack of knowledge about both the extent and nature of the suffering
endured and problems faced by prisoners’ families’ (Light and Campbell
2007, p.306).
Parental imprisonment is associated with child antisocial behaviour,im-
paired mental health, poverty and a damaged education trajectory (Rakt,
Murray and Nieuwbeerta 2012). Clemmer’s (1940) theory of ‘prisonization’
94
C
2015 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol55 No 1–2. May 2016
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 94–110
highlights a backstory explaining sources of damaged family ties: prison-
ers’ loyalties turn inward; antipathy to prison staff fosters an oppositional
outlook. Incarceration interferes with prisoners’ ability to keep tuned in
to daily life outside (Dettbarn 2012; Grounds 2005) and thereby under-
mines the meaningfulness of family bonds (Arditti, Lambert-Shute and
Joest 2003). Duthe, Hazard and Kensey (2014) found that prisoners re-
ceiving visits had lower rates of suicide in custody, suggesting that visits
protect. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) encourages family contact, not-
ing ‘the absolutely negative impact that imprisonment can have on family
life . . . We recognise that such positive relationships can make a valuable
contribution in supporting offenders to desist from further offending’ (see
http://www.sps.gov.uk (accessed 2 September 2014)).
The proportion of the Scottish population imprisoned is higher (and
projected to increase) than in most European Union countries (Scottish
Government 2010), statistics in tension with SPS recognition of impact.
Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
2012 provides for the right of children to contact with imprisoned parents,
and for the latter to enjoy family life: visitation by children leads to bet-
ter child adjustment and post-release community integration (Codd 1998).
HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (1996) describes benefits accruing
from ongoing contact with friends and family in terms of raising morale,
but despite official policy deeming visits important, in practice this arti-
cle identifies limitations inherent in the contemporary realities of visiting.
From the prisoners’ standpoint, family contact has advantages in terms of
goods and bonding (Braman 2004). Pallot and Katz (2014) found that the
geography of the penal estate in the Russian Federation undermines the
family ties: ‘distance reduced visitation by convicts families and friends’
(p.250). Kohl (2013, p.1269) reports: ‘where a prisoner serves time deter-
mines how much of a deprivation he or she will suffer’ and by extension,
the social reach of prison tariffs. In the US, millions of children experience
parental incarceration (Arditti, Lambert-Shute and Joest 2003). Across the
European Union, 800,000 children have parents in prison (Martynowicz
2011).
Family ties aid community re-entry and preventing reoffending (So-
cial Exclusion Unit 2002; Codd 2008). But, as Codd (2007) argues, prison
visiting is burdensome on prisoners’ fragile family networks, and the man-
agement of prisons, she suggests, is indifferent to their role in intensifying
family disruption. Morris (1965) observed decades ago: ‘women who have
genuine fears and phobias about travelling on trains and coaches, and who
never visit their husband’ (p.113). Cost, time and practicality are major bar-
riers to visiting, especially if there is dependency on public transport and
the prison is located in a rural area, and particularly when mothers are ac-
companied by their children (Niven and Stewart 2005; Flynn 2014). Flynn
(2014, p.187) describes how ‘getting there’ and ‘being there’ for children
are especially problematic, helping to account for irregular visiting. Prison
environments are intimidating for both children and adults, reflecting se-
curity needs, staff attitude and the stigma of association (Tomaino et al.
2005; Comfort 2003). And, yet, Rule 4 of the Prison Rules (1999) states the
95
C
2015 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial