Using techniques of neutralisation to maintain contact: The experiences of loved ones supporting remand prisoners
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Author | Isla Masson,Natalie Booth |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12489 |
Received: 18 June 2 021 Accepted: 4 March 2022
DOI: 10.1111/ho jo.12489
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Using techniques of neutralisation to maintain
contact: The experiences of loved ones
supporting remand prisoners
Isla Masson1Natalie Booth2
1Isla Masson is Lecturer in Criminology,
The Open University
2Natalie Booth is Senior Lecturer in
Criminology, Bath Spa University
Correspondence
Isla Masson, Lecturer in Criminology,The
Open University.
Email: isla.masson@open.ac.uk
Funding information
Oakdale Trust
Abstract
This article proposes that loved ones supporting prison-
ers with experience of remand in England and Wales
may use Sykes & Matza’s (1957) ‘techniques of neutral-
ization’ by proxy. Adopting neutralisations may enable
those in prison to be viewed not as those who have
harmed, or bad people, but as those who themselves
have been harmed. Potentialbenefits of these techniques
are twofold: they help to reject stigma; and explain and
enable continued contact. This framework may be a use-
ful basis for work exploring familial contact and support
for those affected by imprisonment.
KEYWORDS
contact, loved ones, remand prisoners, stigma, techniques of
neutralisation
1 INTRODUCTION
There is a significant and growing body of literature focusing on the benefits to prisoners if they
have contact with family members. This narrative is predominantly found in policy documents
and prisons literature, for example: ‘maintaining and rebuilding family relationships is central
to prisoner rehabilitation’ (HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2020, p.53). Families are often talked
about in terms of how they can help those in prison, ‘or the role families can play’ (Farmer,
2017, p.4), rather than with consideration of their needs. The links between maintaining family
ties and resettlement outcomes occupy an ideological stronghold despite continued criticism by
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, providedthe original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. The HowardJournal of Crime and Justice published by Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Howard J. Crim. Justice. 2022;61:463–483. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hojo 463
464 THE HOWARDJOURNAL OF CRIME AND JUSTICE
academics of this instrumental approach (see Booth, 2021; Codd, 2008;Jardine,2017). The focus
of this article is on the experiences of ‘loved ones’12 (Masson & Booth 2018) of remand prisoners
who are separated from a close person through imprisonment, which is an area that has received
little attention to date. The article addresses this gap, and examines the reality for loved ones
supporting prisoners with experience of remand and how they navigate emotions relating to the
alleged offence and subsequent period of incarceration. Likewise, central to this article is the orig-
inal application of Sykes & Matza’s (1957) ‘techniques of neutralization’ which are used by proxy
– and the analysis of the role these may take in managing stigma and explaining the maintenance
of contact. The unique application of this theoretical lens significantly contributes to academic
knowledge as it helps to explain why some loved ones sustain contact, which so far has not been
fully explored by previous research. As discussed below, there has been considerable interest in
who visits, the number of visits and the visiting experiences, but much less attention on why some
loved ones maintain contact. This article provides new insights into the loved ones’ conceptuali-
sations of their relationships and their motivations to maintain contact which practitioners could
draw upon when supporting these family ties as identified by the Farmer reviews (Farmer, 2017,
2019).
The qualitative study on which this article is based presents valuable insights into a wide
number of different relationships and personal circumstances of loved ones supporting men and
women who were – or had been – remanded into prison custody in England and Wales. Those
interviewed maintained contact through multiple means – telephone calls, emails, letters and
visits. However, the loved ones in the study are in a minority as most prisoners do not receive
visits (HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2020). There are many reasons why people maychoose not
to stay in contact with those in prison, and do not step across the prison threshold. The decision to
maintain contact with someone in prison, particularly for an unknown time period (as is the case
for those remanded), is not a decision made lightly. There aremany practical barriers preventing
contact, whether they relate to finances, distance, prohibitive rules relating to visits and telephone
calls or delays with letters and emails:
I found one of the most difficult things with her being in prison, is dealing with the
prison. (Zabina – mum)2
Also, as Condry (2007)3and Kotova (2020) argue, loved ones must also navigate the judgment
of others and navigate feelings of shame and stigma ‘by association’ (Masson, 2019). There are
emotional barriers, whether these relate to feelings regarding the alleged offence and responses
by other people to it, or emotions due to stilted or emotionally charged contact. Moran & Dis-
ney (2018) argue that problematic visiting areas actually diminish opportunities for intimacy:
‘how the spaces provided for prison visitation affect the doing of intimacy in ways that arguably
detract from the potential benefits of visitation in supporting the wellbeing of both prisoners and
visitors’ (p.180). Loved ones, who themselves have not been remanded, are placed in positions
where they must navigate significant changes to their relationships which are heavily influenced
by, and within, the prisons (Booth & Masson, 2021). Maintaining contact with someone while
they are incarcerated is a very uniquely charged experience; Condry (2007) suggests that the
decision to support someone may result in further stigmatisation of those on the outside, while
in the case of remand, providing support for an indefinite time period further complicates the
issues.
One explanation is that in order to overcome these emotions and barriers, and to fully
commit to the maintenance of contact, loved ones ‘choose to frame the events of their lives’
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting