A Childhood Cut Short: Child Deaths in Penal Custody and the Pains of Child Imprisonment
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12170 |
The Howard Journal Vol55 No 3. September 2016 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12170
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 278–294
A Childhood Cut Short: Child Deaths
in Penal Custody and the Pains
of Child Imprisonment
KATE GOOCH
Lecturer in Law, University of Birmingham
Abstract: The death of a child in penal custody is an infrequent, but particularly tragic,
event. In seeking to explain such events, the tendency has been to focus on individual
pathology or vulnerability. This article begins from the premise that in order to better
understand child deaths in penal custody, it is necessary to move beyond such explanations
and consider the wider systematic, cultural, operational, and policy issues. It contributes
to the debate by exploring the specific ‘pains of child imprisonment’ as narrated by teenage
boys (aged 15–17 years) in an English young offender institution (YOI). It is argued that,
trapped in ‘kidulthood’, the dual status of child prisoners poses experiential, conceptual,
and practical complexities, but it also produces pains, losses, and burdens that are unique
to childhood.
Keywords: children; custody; death; pains of imprisonment
Imprisonment in childhood is never a neutral experience. It risks expos-
ing children to very real damage and harm, even fatal harm, during their
formative years. Tragically, since 1990, 34 children aged 10–17 years have
died in penal custody. The deaths of children in the care of the State are,
as the House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human
Rights (2004, p.25) notes: ‘especially distressing’ and warrant special
attention. Not only have such children experienced difficult childhoods,
typically marked by loss, trauma, and abuse, but they are often failed
by the very services tasked with providing appropriate care and support
(see, for example, Prison Reform Trust 2012; Barrow Cadbury Trust
2015). Unlike adult prisoners, self-harm and suicide by children is far
less likely to be symptomatic of an underlying psychiatric illness and far
more likely to represent a response to the existential problems of life
inside (Liebling 1992). Their youthful age, inexperience and immaturity,
coupled with multiple and complex welfare needs, mean that children are
often ill-equipped for life inside.
In a one-week period in January 2012, two children committed suicide –
Jake Hardy (aged 17 years) and Alex Kelly (aged 15 years) – reigniting
278
C
2016 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 3. September 2016
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 278–294
the debate regarding the need for a public inquiry into child deaths
in custody. Successive governments have, however, remained resolutely
opposed to the idea. In July 2015, Lord Harris’s independent review
of young adult (18–24 years old) deaths in custody was published, but
when setting out the terms of reference, the then Secretary of State for
Justice, Chris Grayling, specifically excluded child deaths in custody from
its remit, contenting himself that a ‘lessons learnt’ report published by
the Youth Justice Board (YJB) would suffice (Hansard, HC Debates,
Written Statements, 6 February 2014, col. 36WS). The subsequently
released report (see Youth Justice Board 2014) provides a useful overview
of progress made but, unfortunately, does not engage with the real
substance of the wider policy and practical concerns, or provide the kind
of independent, objective scrutiny permitted by a public inquiry. Yet,
it is this wider, objective and comprehensive review, which is absolutely
necessary.
Rather than analysing specific case studies of children who have died
in penal custody, or comparing children who attempt suicide or self-injury
with those who do not, this article focuses on the ‘pains of child imprison-
ment’ as narrated by child prisoners in an English young offender insti-
tution (YOI). To date, the available literature has largely focused on adult
prisoners, leaving the specific pains of child imprisonment largely unex-
plored (see Halsey (2007) and Cox (2011) for notable exceptions). This is a
notable gap. Child prisoners are in a critical stage of maturation, develop-
ment and, crucially, transition – from childhood, to adolescence, to adult-
hood. The extent to which this combination of youthfulness, immaturity
and transitional life stage gives rise to experiential and conceptual dif-
ferences needs to be better understood, as does the way in which the
treatment of children serves to mitigate, or exacerbate, the ‘pains’ of
imprisonment.
This article argues that entry to a YOI is seen to mark a transitional
point where children are catapulted into premature adulthood and fear
that their ‘childhood’ has been irrevocably lost and the trajectory of their
lives permanently altered. Trapped in ‘kidulthood’, the ‘loss of childhood’
is reinforced by the cultural, structural and relational climate of the YOI.
Clearly, for those children who die in penal custody, it is their very lives,
not just their childhood, that has so prematurely come to an end. But
even those children who survive a custodial sentence experience a series of
irrevocable ‘endings’ in youth custody. Death and loss must be confronted
in myriad ways. The difficulties associated with achieving a child-centred
approach within a YOI has a direct bearing on perceptions of safety, fair-
ness and legitimacy, and, consequently, feelings of distress and anxiety.
Children may attempt self-harm or suicide, or, indeed, witness their peers
doing the same, causing them to, once again, confront pain, death and
loss. Death in youth custody cannot be properly understood without con-
sidering the experiences of those children who do not attempt suicide or
self-harm or those who do so but, for whatever reason, are unsuccessful.
Explanations of child deaths in penal custody need to move beyond a
focus on ‘poor coping’ or ‘vulnerability’ to consider the ways in which the
279
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial