Scaring Straight?
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300308 |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
154
RESEARCH
Scaring
Straight?
Given
recent
enthusiasm
for
’day
visit’
projects
taking
young
people
into
adult
prisons
to
learn
from
prisoners
about
the
reality
of
’life
inside’,
the
Home
Office
Research
Unit
studied
three
schemes
using
different
approaches,
observing
the
programmes
in
action
and
interviewing
referees
and
participants.
Garth
Prison
This
scheme,
based
on
the
original
’scared
straight’
model
in
the
United
States,
adopted
a
very
confrontational
and
emotionally
charged
style,
portraying
prisons
as
depressing,
sordid,
lonely,
violent
and
drug-ridden.
Some
of the
young
people
(aged
14-22)
were
shouted
and
sworn
at;
examples
of
stained
and
badly
worn
kit
and
home-made
prison
weapons
were
exhibited.
Referrals
(from
Probation,
Social
Services
and
a job
training
agency)
were
generally
very
positive
and
regarded
confrontation
as
critical
to
any
impact
the
scheme
might
have.
Risley
Prison
focused
on
small
groups
of
actual
or
suspected
motor
offenders
aged
15-21,
using
a
more
educational
approach.
It
aimed
to
challenge
the
common
view
that
’joy
riding’
is
a
trivial
offence,
emphasising
the
potential
consequences
both
for
victims
and
offenders
(explicit
video
footage
of
fatal
accidents)
and
the
futile,
degrading
and
dangerous
nature
of
imprisonment.
A
follow-up
session
held
at
the probation
office
allowed
more
informal
discussion
between
prisoners
and
participants.
Given
the
narrow
focus
of
the
scheme,
the
referrals
rate
was
low.
Maidstone
Prison
In
contrast,
the
Maidstone
scheme,
run
by
long-term
prisoners
and
probation
officers,
catered
for
very
large,
broad-based
groups
(100-
250)
of
teenage
school
children
(15-17)
who
were
taken
in
groups
around
the
prison
and
then
watched
a
presentation
combining
rock
music
with
talks
about
the
powerlessness
and
depression
of
prison
life,
illustrated
by
stark
images
on
video
clips
and
slides.
A
review
of
the
literature
suggests
that
there
is
no
convincing
evidence
that
schemes
of
this
kind
in
the
United
States
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
offending.
It
is
clearly
difficult
to
evaluate
the
pay-
offs
of
the
three
schemes
studied.
There
was
some
evidence
that
participants’
previous
knowledge
of
prison
was
based
almost
entirely
on
impressions
gained
from
the
media
which
had
served
to
glamorise
prisoners
and
criminals.
Some
illusions
had
been
dispelled,
according
to
participant
feedback.
The
prisoners
involved
appeared
enthusiastic
and
genuinely
committed
to
diverting
young
people
from
crime.
Some
research
has
observed
that
’day
visit’
projects
should
form
an
integral
part
of
a
larger
package
of
measures
designed
to
prevent
offending.
There
was
little
evidence
in
these
schemes
of
close
integration
of
the
visits
within
court
orders
or
school
work,
and
very
little
evidence
of
formalised,
one-to-one
follow-up
sessions
with
participants.
Among
recommendations
based
on
interviewees’
views
and
best
practice
observed:
0
Confrontational
approaches
should
be
restricted
to
cautioned
or
convicted
offenders.
.
Confrontation
should
be
minimised
wherever
possible:
a
minimum
of
theatricality
and
a
maximum
of
honesty
is
likely
to
ensure
that
young
people
are
left
in
no
doubt
as
to
the
presentation’s
authenticity.
.
Formal
assessment
procedures
should
be
put
in
place -
particularly
for
more
confrontational
schemes.
Sensitive
and
vulnerable
young
people
should
be
filtered out.
To continue reading
Request your trial