‘Just Waiting’: The Nature and Effect of Uncertainty on Young People in Remand Custody in Ireland
| Author | Sinead Freeman,Mairead Seymour |
| Published date | 01 August 2010 |
| Date | 01 August 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1473225410369298 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Youth Justice
‘Just Waiting’: The Nature and Effect
10(2) 126–142
© The Author(s) 2010
of Uncertainty on Young People in
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225410369298
Remand Custody in Ireland
yjj.sagepub.com
Sinead Freeman
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Mairead Seymour
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Abstract
This article examines the feelings of uncertainty experienced by 62 young people, aged 16–21, detained on
remand in Ireland. It argues that this experience of uncertainty is an important phenomenon since it can
lessen their ability both to cope while in custody and to progress after release. While it is acknowledged that
the nature of remand custody will always involve some uncertainty, it is argued that greater compliance with
international standards for treating young people deprived of their liberty would reduce the damaging effects
of their experience of uncertainty.
Keywords
children’s rights, prison coping, remand custody, uncertainty, young people
Introduction
All prisoners face the challenges of the standard prison stressors such as: lack of freedom,
removal from one’s normal social network, concern about safety, and uncertainty about
the exact date of release (Sykes, 1958, 2006; Zamble and Porporino, 1988). Those on
remand, however, face the additional issue of uncertainty about both the length of deten-
tion and the outcome of their case (Harvey, 2007; Lindquist and Lindquist, 1997).
According to Neustatter (2002: 115), the release date for young people in prison is ‘the
thing around which they shape their time inside and cope with it, the day when they see
themselves getting their lives back’. If they do not know their release date, time becomes
‘limbo time, a waiting game, a seemingly limitless sentence to unsentenced time’
(Neustatter, 2002: 52).
Corresponding author:
Dr Sinead Freeman, Department of Social Sciences, Dublin Institute of Technology, 40–45 Mountjoy Square,
Dublin 1, Ireland.
Email: sinead.freeman@dit.ie
Freeman and Seymour
127
In some situations, the experience of uncertainty can be a positive force allowing
individuals to retain a sense of optimism about their future (for instance, during the treat-
ment period for a medical condition when the final outcome is not yet known). In others,
uncertainty is associated with excitement and anticipation about how events will unfold
(Brashers, 2006). The concept of negative capability which is described as a state in which
an individual ‘is capable of being in uncertainties… without any irritable reaching after
fact and reason’ (Keats, 1817 cited in Gittings, 1970: 43) suggests that uncertainty is an
integral part of artistic creativity. However, it is generally recognized that the context
within which uncertainty arises impacts on how uncertainty is perceived by individuals.
Feelings associated with uncertainty tend to be negative when they arise in dangerous,
threatening or fearful circumstances (Brashers, 2006). It follows therefore that positive
perceptions of uncertainty are less likely among prisoners due to the restrictive nature of
their environment which is often characterized by a lack of autonomy and opportunities
for creativity (Liebling, 2004; Sykes, 1958, 2006).
The significance of uncertainty, particularly in the custodial remand environment, lies
in the fact that it reduces an individual’s capacity to cope (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). It
is the ability to cope that determines how far an individual can minimize the psychologi-
cal effects of imprisonment (Carver et al., 1993; Liebling, 1992). Thus, the experience of
uncertainty leads to negative psychological effects. Strategies to cope with uncertainty
have been identified in other disciplines (Janis, 1983; Mantler et al., 2005). Some have
been adopted in international best-practice guidelines for treating young people deprived
of their liberty (Committee on the Rights of the Child [CRC], 2007). Providing structured
vocational and leisure activity is noted as an important strategy to help prisoners to cope
(DeRosia, 1998; Jamieson and Grounds, 2002). In particular, it benefits young people in
prison (Cope, 2003; Johnson, 1978; Mohino et al., 2004) and individuals confronted with
uncertain circumstances (Mantler et al., 2005). Vocational and leisure activities are asso-
ciated with higher levels of well-being in the custodial environment (Liebling, 2004;
Wooldredge,1999); they also provide a source of distraction and a legitimate means for
releasing frustration and anxiety (Cope, 2003; Mohino et al., 2004). In a comparative
prison-based study involving young males who had attempted suicide and those who had
not, it was found that those who engaged in more activities found it easier to cope with the
boredom and isolation of being confined. The study concluded that ‘inactivity can com-
pound difficulties in coping’ (Liebling, 1992: 138).
In addition, prisoners frequently rely on the social support of their peers to help them
cope in the prison environment (Jamieson and Grounds, 2002; Van Harreveld et al., 2007).
This is particularly important for young people (Biggam and Power, 1997; Nieland et al.,
2001). Inmates can cope better if they exchange information about the court and prison
systems and if they experience the benefits of companionship (Severance, 2005; Sykes,
1958, 2006). The contribution of social relationships to coping extends beyond the custo-
dial environment, to family and friends in the community. Contact with family and friends
assists coping by providing a source of distraction from the prison routine, helping inmates
to better structure their time and alleviating concerns about individuals or events in the
outside world (Halsey, 2007; Toch 1977).
128
Youth Justice 10(2)
Pre-trial Detention: International Standards
International standards provide clear direction for treating young people deprived of their
liberty. Article 37(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) 1990 enshrines the principle of detention as a measure of last resort and of
limiting it to the shortest appropriate period of time. Under Articles 40(2)(b) and 37(d), a
young person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; to have the matter
determined without delay and to have prompt access to legal and other appropriate assis-
tance. Article 37(c) stipulates the treatment rights of young people to be detained sepa-
rately from adults; to maintain contact with their family and to be provided with a physical
environment that gives due regard to the needs for privacy, sensory stimulation, associa-
tion with peers, and participation in physical and creative activity, education and training.
Finally, it is laid down that staff of the facility should promote and facilitate frequent con-
tact between the child and the wider community, including family and friends.
In addition to the UNCRC, Ireland is privy to the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR). The strength of the convention was consolidated in Irish law under the
European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. While no specific provisions relate to
children, Kilkelly (2006) argues that the case law of the European convention is particu-
larly relevant to youth justice and detention in an Irish context, because of the require-
ments imposed on the state with regard to the treatment of young people in court
proceedings and in detention.1
Additional measures for detainees awaiting trial are outlined in the UN Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1977; the UN Standard Minimum Rules
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 1985 (Beijing Rules) and the UN Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 (Havana Rules). Although non-
binding, these rules establish minimum standards accepted by the United Nations for
protecting young people deprived of their liberty. Their impact is strengthened through the
Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which recommends that state parties incor-
porate the Beijing and Havana rules into their national laws and regulations and make
them available to all those involved in the administration of justice.
The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1977 stipulate that
young people on remand have their cases processed expediently and that every effort is
made to apply alternative measures to avoid detention on remand. Where detention on
remand is used, young people should be held for the shortest time possible; be detained
separately from convicted youths and have the right to communicate regularly and pri-
vately with their legal advisers. The Beijing Rules set out broad principles for the gover-
nance of juvenile justice. Specifically, they recommend pre-trial detention as a last resort
and for the shortest time possible, warning of ‘the danger to juveniles of “criminal contami-
nation” while in detention pending trial’ (Part 2 No. 13). The Havana Rules provide a
detailed set of good-practice guidance for young people in detention. One of their funda-
mental perspectives is that the juvenile justice system should uphold the rights and safety
of young people and promote their physical and mental well-being. Both sets of rules
outline the rights of young people to be detained in facilities that respect human dignity
Freeman and Seymour
129
and meet individuals’ care, protection and developmental needs, including opportunities
to...
To continue reading
Request your trial