When legitimacy is denied: Offender perceptions of the prison recall system
| Author | Léon Digard |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550509354672 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
When legitimacy is denied: Offender
perceptions of the prison recall system
Léon Digard, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge
Abstract Academic attention given to the recent and dramatic rise in the number of
released prisoners recalled to prison has rarely considered offenders’ perspectives,
despite the impact that recall can have on their lives. Interviews with 20 recalled
sex offenders found offender views of the system focused almost exclusively on
the procedural fairness of the process. In line with theories of legitimacy, these
experiences appeared to have a strong impact on offenders’ attitudes, well-being,
and intentions for future behaviour. There is a need to qualify these accounts in the
context of offender denial. This article argues that greater consideration of the pro-
cedural justice of the administration of recalls is needed; the impact of the current
system as described by offenders throws considerable doubt on its ef cacy as a
tool for public protection.
Keywords sex offenders, extended sentences, procedural fairness, licence
conditions
Introduction
Prisoners who are released before the end of their sentence can be recalled back
to custody to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison, should they break the
conditions of their licence or commit a further offence. The number of offenders
recalled to prison under these circumstances has increased dramatically in recent
years. In 2000/1 there were 2457 offenders recalled to custody in England and
Wales, yet by 2006/7 this had risen by nearly 600 per cent to 14,669 (The Parole
Board 2001, 2007). This change cannot be accounted for simply with reference to
the number of people being released from custody under licence, nor is it thought to
be the result of a change in offender behaviour; instead, it has been suggested that
this increase is most likely the product of changes in enforcement practice. The move
to an executive administration of recalls, greater use of surveillance technologies,
Article
Copyright © 2010 NAPO Vol 57(1): 43–61
DOI: 10.1177/0264550509354672
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
43
44 57(1)
and increased inter-agency sharing of intelligence may all be implicated in the rise
in recall numbers (Pad eld and Maruna, 2006). Changes to the working culture of
the probation service, however, have been considered among the most signi cant
explanatory factors (Pad eld and Maruna, 2006; Thompson, 2007). Increases in
personal and departmental accountability, and the implementation of strict national
standards on enforcement, have eroded probation of cers’ willingness and ability
to employ discretion (Fletcher, 2003). The rise in recalls has been fuelled, it is
suggested, by this cultivation of a risk-averse, operationally constrained, workforce,
combined with the use of more numerous and stringent licence conditions (see
Pad eld and Maruna, 2006).
By 2003, large local prisons were reporting that up to 10 per cent of their
population were made up of recalled prisoners, demonstrating that recalled offen-
ders now comprise a signi cant group of prisoners (Prison Reform Trust, 2005).
Not only does the increasing prominence of recall within the criminal justice system
suggest that more critical consideration is needed, but the process of recall itself
stands distinct from the usual procedures of incarceration in several ways that again
deserve examination.
Although recall to prison has been a tool with which to manage offenders since
the Criminal Justice Act 1967, subsequent Acts have modi ed the process in a
number of signi cant ways (see, for example, Thompson, 2007). The Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made recalls to prison ‘executive decisions’
initiated at the recommendation of the Probation Service and not the Parole Board
as previously. The Parole Board retained a level of input by having to approve
the Probation Service’s recommendations, however, following the Criminal Justice
Act 2003; these now go directly to the Ministry of Justice for recon rmation, to be
reviewed by the Parole Board once the offender has been placed back in custody.
This should happen within 28 days of recall (Home Of ce, 2005). The Parole Board
is also charged with the task of dealing with appeals to recalls and for deciding
when offenders are suitable for re-release. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2008 has made further alterations to the procedure, the most important being that
‘non-dangerous’ offenders who are recalled to custody can now be automatically
re-released after 28 days without consideration by the Parole Board. However,
the Act states that this does not apply to those serving extended sentences, whose
release must still be made on the Board’s recommendation.
Extended sentences are comprised of two main sections. Firstly, the offender
will serve an ‘appropriate custodial term’, which should re ect the seriousness of
their offence, and will be eligible for release during the second half of this term.
Added to this is an extension period for the purpose of public protection, during
which the offender must be supervised on licence. Should the offender be recalled
for breaching this licence or committing a new crime, they are liable to serve the
entirety of this extension period in custody, their re-release being determined by the
Parole Board. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the extension period may
be up to ve years for violent offenders, and up to eight years for sex offenders
(section 227).
There has been an apparent reluctance amongst commentators to engage with
the legitimacy of these sanctions (though see Pad eld and Maruna, 2006, for further
To continue reading
Request your trial