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

这项研究将探索苏格兰寻求和实现假释的经验和做法，重点是被判终身监禁的囚犯，他们可能因违反假释许可证而被无限期监禁。最近的数据(Van Zyl Smit和Appleton，2019)显示，苏格兰是欧洲无期徒刑比率最高的国家之一(16%的囚犯)。这在一定程度上可能是由于准予假释率较低，以及监狱召回率最高(重新监禁获释的“无期徒刑”)。这些因素给那些寻求释放的人带来了压力和风险。对于无期徒刑的人来说，风险在于如何管理是否隐瞒或披露心理健康、成瘾和人际关系问题，因为担心“支持”将意味着进一步的干预、拒绝假释或召回羁押。这一博士学位旨在探索那些可能优先考虑那些可能威胁到自由的人所面临的两难困境，对他们来说，“稳定”的表现以及他们认为低风险所换取的自由，可能优先于真正的参与。作为一名终身工作者，我和我的同行的经历启发了这项建议的起草。这项研究提供了机会，严格调查这些经历有多普遍，它们可能如何存在于对刑事权力的更广泛理解中，并最终有助于改革假释实践。苏格兰努力成为改过自新而不是惩罚性惩罚方法的领导者(SCCJR，2015)，证明通过积极参与监狱制度而取得成功的改过自新“进展”的背景变得越来越中肯。然而，违规行为方案出现了大量积压，为逐步(重新)融入社区而设计的单元中有限的空间出现了瓶颈。因此，具有讽刺意味的是，康复护理模式，加上日益增长的风险厌恶，监督的刑期比以往任何时候都要长，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(Fernandes等人，2018年)。在新冠肺炎之后，进展大大放缓，加剧了这一领域研究的紧迫性(阿姆斯特朗等人，2020年)。巴特勒和德雷克福德(2003)展示了丑闻、叙事和政治阴谋如何推动努力控制不可预见的事情，表明法定制度如何专注于管理声誉风险以及其核心活动领域。在几起囚犯临时释放后犯下的备受瞩目的事件之后，苏格兰的刑事司法系统在风险标准方面出现了显著的升级(Sweeney，2008)。除其他后果外，这导致苏格兰获准假释的人数大幅下降。这种趋势对终身者的影响不成比例。他们也引起了公众的极大关注。然而，阿普尔顿(2010)发现，无期徒刑的再犯罪率比任何被定罪的人口都要低。在被召回的第三人中，95%的人没有犯罪，而是违反了假释的技术规则。因此，对于那些在进步和假释中导航的人来说，存在合理的不信任，以及“执行”的动机--特别是在个人从业者有广泛的自由裁量权可以重新监禁的情况下。戈夫曼(1961)和斯帕克斯(2002)挑战整体改造系统的有效性，认为最好的囚犯(顺从而不抵抗)不会成为最好的公民(在复杂的社会领域导航)，颠覆是保持自我意识所必需的。亲身经历支持了这些发现。在这里，必要的颠覆是那些最好地执行治理系统所希望的“存在”模式的人的肤浅参与，同时掩盖脆弱性--定义为风险--以求成功。支持这项研究的主要研究问题是：司法系统中的那些人(学会)在多大程度上以及如何为专业人士提供‘稳定’，他们选择隐瞒什么，这对他们的幸福和进步有何影响？

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?'