Freedom, so close but yet so far: The impact of the ongoing confrontation with freedom on the perceived severity of punishment
| Author | Helene De Vos,Elli Gilbert |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220317710393 |
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220317710393
European Journal of Probation
2017, Vol. 9(2) 132 –148
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220317710393
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Freedom, so close but yet
so far: The impact of the
ongoing confrontation with
freedom on the perceived
severity of punishment
Helene De Vos
Leuven Institute of Criminology, KU Leuven, Belgium
Elli Gilbert
Leuven Institute of Criminology, KU Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
The severity of a particular sentence is often assumed to be reflected by its degree of
liberty-restriction: a five-year prison sentence is considered more severe than a one-
year prison sentence, and imprisonment is considered more severe than electronic
monitoring. Yet, the relationship between the degree of liberty-restriction and the
experienced severity is more complex. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in two Belgian
and two Norwegian prisons, and phenomenological interviews with electronically
monitored offenders, this article argues that a lesser degree of liberty-restriction can
result in a more painful experience of this liberty restriction, but still contributes to the
offenders’ reintegration.
Keywords
Electric monitoring, freedom, imprisonment, liberty-restriction, subjective severity
Introduction
General statements regarding the severity of a particular sentence are often based on the
degree of liberty-restriction of that sentence. This means not only that a prison sentence
of five years is considered to be more severe than a prison sentence of one year, but also
Corresponding author:
Helene De Vos, Leuven Institute of Criminology, KU Leuven/Research Foundation Flanders, H. Hooverplein
10, box 3418, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: Helene.devos@kuleuven.be
710393EJP0010.1177/2066220317710393European Journal of ProbationDe Vos and Gilbert
2017
Article
De Vos and Gilbert 133
that imprisonment is generally considered to be more severe than electronic monitoring.
Yet, research has shown that the relationship between the degree of liberty-restriction
and the subjective experience of the severity of this sentence is more complex (Bronsteen
et al., 2009; Sexton, 2015; Shammas, 2014; Vanhaelemeesch, 2015). Studying this com-
plex relationship is particularly relevant given the growing importance of offenders’
reintegration as an aim of punishment (Van Zyl Smit and Snacken, 2009). Indeed, the
political and scholarly focus on reintegration has not only led to the awareness of unin-
tended pains that may hamper a successful reintegration, but has also given rise to the
question whether offenders’ subjective experience of punishment should be taken into
account in judicial decision-making (Bronsteen et al., 2009; Hayes, 2016; Kolber, 2009;
Markel et al., 2011; Raaijmakers et al., 2014).
Two conceptual distinctions are fundamental to our understanding of the perceived
severity of punishment in relation to the degree of liberty-restriction. First, the distinc-
tion between intended and unintended effects of the infliction of punishment.
Understanding this distinction is crucial whether or not the unintended effects are con-
sidered part of the actual punishment (see e.g. Bronsteen et al., 2009; Markel et al., 2011;
Van Ginneken and Hayes, 2017). Second, the painful effects of imprisonment should be
distinguished from its harmful effects. By painful, we mean the negative experiences that
are directly or indirectly caused by the prison sentence (such as physical pain, feelings of
loneliness or frustrations about the loss of autonomy), while harmful effects refer to the
(mostly unintended) negative consequences that last longer than the prison term itself
(such as traumatization, broken relationships or loss of professional skills) and hamper a
successful reintegration. Although there is a considerable overlap between those two
categories, not all painful effects are harmful.
This article argues that the ongoing confrontation with freedom, which comes with a
lesser degree of liberty-restriction, results in a more painful experience of this liberty
deprivation. However, despite these additional unintended pains caused by the confron-
tation with freedom, it still contributes to the successful reintegration of offenders. Thus,
we will argue that the deprivation of liberty in an open prison or in the context of elec-
tronic monitoring is often experienced as more painful than generally expected and less
harmful than detention in a closed prison.
The aims of punishment and its (un)intended pains
Thinking about punishment and its severity does not happen in a vacuum. The desired
severity of a sentence should be determined in relation to the aims pursued by this sen-
tence and these aims are affected by the wider societal and penal context. Therefore, the
questions ‘Why Punish?’ and ‘How Much?’, which Michael Tonry (2011) uses to attract
our attention to his Reader on Punishment, sound very promising to every penologist
looking for the answers about punishment. Yet, at the same time, it is clear that the
answers do not exist. Given their embeddedness in the changing political and social con-
text (O’Donnell, 2016), it is indeed not surprising that the questions as to ‘why punish?’
and ‘how much?’ continue to stimulate the debate on punishment.
The question ‘why punish?’ can be understood in two different ways. On the one
hand, the question refers to the legitimate causes to punish: what actions or what
To continue reading
Request your trial