Performing Reform: Experiencing vs. Evidencing Rehabilitation for Life sentenced Prisoners

实施改革：无期徒刑囚犯康复的经历与证据

• 批准号: 2561048
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Edinburgh
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2021
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2021 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2561048
• 关键词: Performing; Reform; Experiencing; vs.; Evidencing

This research will explore experiences and practices of seeking and realising parole in Scotland, focusing on life sentenced prisoners, who can be imprisoned indefinitely for breaching parole licences. Recent data (Van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019) show Scotland has among the highest rates of life imprisonment in Europe (16% of prisoners). This may be produced in part by low rates of granting parole, and one of the highest rates of prison recall (re-imprisoning released 'lifers'). These factors create pressure and risks for those seeking release. For lifers, the risk is in managing whether to conceal or reveal mental health, addiction, and relationship issues, fearing 'support' will mean further intervention, denial of parole or recall to custody. This PhD seeks to explore the dilemmas facing those for whom the performance of 'stability', and the liberty their perceived low risk buys, may be prioritised over genuine engagement that could threaten that liberty. As a lifer, the experiences of my peers and I, informed the drafting of this proposal. This research offers the opportunity to rigorously investigate how common these experiences are, how they might be situated in wider understandings of penal power, and ultimately, contribute to reforming parole practice. Context Following Scotland's drive to be a leader in rehabilitative, rather than punitive, approaches to punishment (SCCJR, 2015), evidencing successful rehabilitative 'progression' through pro-active engagement with prison regimes became increasingly pertinent. However, sizable backlogs for offending behaviour programmes and bottlenecks for limited spaces in units designed for gradual community (re)integration arose. Consequently, the rehabilitative care model, coupled with increasing risk aversion, ironically oversees longer sentences than ever before, while attempting to 'meet the needs' of those in custody before considering their release - effectively criminalising addiction and mental health issues (Fernandes, et al 2018). Progression has slowed greatly in the wake of Covid-19, heightening the urgency of research in this area (Armstrong et al., 2020). Butler and Drakeford (2003) show how scandal, narrative and political machinations drive efforts to control for the unforeseen, signalling how statutory systems focus on managing reputational risk as much as their core area of activity. Scotland's criminal justice system saw significant escalation in risk criteria following a handful of high-profile incidents committed by prisoners on temporary release (Sweeney, 2008). Among other consequences, this led to substantial decline in those in Scotland being granted parole. Lifers are disproportionately affected by this trend. They also draw greatest public concern. Yet Appleton (2010) found lifers had lower reoffending rates than any convicted population. Of the third recalled, 95% committed no crime, rather breaching technical rules of their parole. For those navigating progression and parole then, there is legitimate mistrust, and incentives to 'perform' - especially where individual practitioners have wide discretion to re-imprison. Goffman (1961) and Sparks (2002) challenge the efficacy of systems that totalise to rehabilitate, arguing the best prisoners (complying without resistance) do not make the best citizens (navigating complex social fields), and subversion is necessary to retain one's sense of self. Lived experience supports these findings. The necessary subversion here being the superficial engagement of those who best perform the modes of 'Being' desired by systems of governance (Bourdieu, 1990), while concealing vulnerabilities - defined as risks, to succeed. The primary research question underpinning this research is: 'To what extent and how do those in the justice system (learn to) perform 'stability' for professionals, what do they choose to hide, and how does this affect their wellbeing and progression?'

这项研究将探讨在苏格兰寻求和实现假释的经验和做法，重点是终身监禁的囚犯，他们可能因违反假释许可证而被无限期监禁。最近的数据（货车Zyl Smit和Appleton，2019年）显示，苏格兰是欧洲终身监禁率最高的国家之一（占囚犯的16%）。这可能部分是由于假释率低，以及监狱召回率最高的原因之一（重新逮捕释放的“lives”）。这些因素对寻求释放的人造成压力和风险。对于终身监禁的人来说，风险在于管理是否隐瞒或透露心理健康，成瘾和关系问题，担心“支持”将意味着进一步的干预，拒绝假释或召回拘留。这个博士旨在探讨那些面临的困境，对他们来说，“稳定”的表现，以及他们认为低风险购买的自由，可能会优先于真正的参与，可能会威胁到这种自由。作为一个终身从业者，我和我的同行们的经验为起草这份提案提供了信息。这项研究提供了一个机会，严格调查这些经验是多么普遍，他们如何可能位于更广泛的理解刑罚权力，并最终有助于改革假释实践。背景随着苏格兰努力成为康复而不是惩罚性惩罚方法的领导者（SCCJR，2015），通过积极参与监狱制度来证明成功的康复“进展”变得越来越重要。然而，犯罪行为方案出现了大量积压，为逐步融入社区（重新融入）而设计的单元空间有限，出现了瓶颈。因此，康复护理模式，再加上日益增加的风险规避，具有讽刺意味的是，监督比以往任何时候都更长的刑期，同时试图在考虑释放之前“满足”被拘留者的需求-有效地将成瘾和心理健康问题定为刑事犯罪（费尔南德斯等人，2018）。在新冠肺炎之后，进展大大放缓，这加剧了该领域研究的紧迫性（Armstrong et al.，2020年）。Butler和Drakeford（2003）展示了丑闻、叙事和政治阴谋如何推动对不可预见事件的控制，表明法定制度如何将管理声誉风险作为其核心活动领域。在临时释放的囚犯犯下几起引人注目的事件后，苏格兰刑事司法系统的风险标准显著升级（Sweeney，2008年）。除其他后果外，这导致苏格兰获得假释的人数大幅下降。终身受这一趋势的影响不成比例。他们也引起了公众的极大关注。然而，Appleton（2010）发现终身监禁者的重新犯罪率低于任何被定罪的人口。在第三次被召回的人中，95%没有犯罪，而是违反了假释的技术规则。对于那些导航进展和假释，然后，有合法的不信任，并激励“执行”-特别是在个人从业者有广泛的自由裁量权重新监禁。戈夫曼（Goffman，1961）和斯帕克斯（Sparks，2002）对完全改造系统的有效性提出了质疑，认为最好的囚犯（没有抵抗地服从）不会成为最好的公民（在复杂的社会领域中导航），颠覆是保持自我意识的必要条件。生活经验支持这些发现。这里必要的颠覆是那些最好地执行治理系统所期望的“存在”模式的人的表面参与（Bourdieu，1990），同时隐藏脆弱性-定义为风险，以取得成功。支撑这项研究的主要研究问题是：“在多大程度上以及如何在司法系统中（学习）执行专业人员的'稳定'，他们选择隐藏什么，以及这如何影响他们的福祉和进步？”'