A few questions about rehabilitation!

A few questions about rehabilitation!

Here in the UK, we have the third highest prison population in Europe (Robinson, 2021). We seem to have a real issue with reoffending rates post prison. In February 2016, the then Prime Minister David Cameron stated that "46% of prisoners will re-offend within a year of release, and 60% of short-sentenced prisoners will reoffend within the same period." To provide some financial context to this statement at least, a recent study has shown that reoffending has an estimated annual social cost of £18.1bn (PRT, 2021), including of course these post-prison reoffending rates. Breaking these statistics down further, we find that 69% of those under 18 years of age (children) reoffend within this timescale. Also, 58% of women (while 75% of incarcerated women receive treatment for opiate addiction) and 48% of adults. Cameron was correct in stating that reoffending rates increase if the prison sentence is less than 12 months (Ibid). Pretty expensive punishment apparatus for those reoffending rates and social cost one could argue.

You may read these statistics and take the position that these individuals simply should not have committed an offence, relinquishing any sense of empathy toward them. You may also feel that life is a simple matter of choice. That social care or criminal justice provide ways out of crime, and that people should just accept that help. If they did, these statistics wouldn’t exist. If this is the case, I hope to engage your curiosity neurons, encourage an alternative school of thought and stretch that empathy muscle somewhat. If not, I still thank you for taking the time to read this blog. You are clearly interested in the subject. Interest and discussion develop our ability to open our mind to alternative perspectives, whether we agree with them or not. We are simply exploring complex social spaces and that is also great for learning. 

I have long since pondered on the implications around the lack of lived experience of prison and resettlement that contribute to the literature around prison recovery and rehabilitation. There are examples of contributions. However, I am convinced they do not receive the same weight or validation from those in positions of authority as the traditional experts. Yes, curious Criminologists have incorporated the lived experience into their work. Some even go as far as taking the position that utilising lived experience can be an effective tool when working with people that have offended. An innovative method of increasing aspiration and reducing the likelihood of reoffending through the use of mentors. This is something that lies close to my heart. I have indeed personal experience of being on both sides of this criminal justice coin. 

I wanted to share my reflections and experiences of that very journey from offender, to offender helper and explore how education has added knowledge to my lived experience and enhanced my capacity of personal exploration. I will also attempt to articulate some of the complexities that I have personally experienced which I believe is often missed as a result of the exclusion of direct lived experienced contribution. Lived experience voices are often obtained tokenistically through qualitative and quantitative methods and then interpreted by those undertaking the research. Inevitably constructing a power imbalance and a subjective analysis of what's important through the lens of those in positions of influence. Although I used statistics to provide context to this issue, this is a personal account. I do not represent the thoughts and feelings of everyone leaving prison, or becoming a justice professional after the experience. However small a minority we are. Ex-prisoners are not a homogenous group of people. My extensive work and journey include elevating excluded voices of those from similar backgrounds directly to those in those in positions of power. Through equal peer discussion about custody and rehabilitation, their views are often very similar to my own, but often missed in literature.

My experiences are what I call a familiar story when it comes to the prison recovery experience. More so when we consider the 24% of adult prisoners, that like me have taken a journey through the care experience, often due to abuse and neglect (Coates, 2016). These individuals are far more likely to make up the prison population with drug and alcohol issues due to childhood trauma and as a result, far more likely to fall into the group with shorter sentences. This is often described as the revolving door. This indicates that for many, they have fallen victim to crimes way before they have come into contact with the justice system as perpetrators. "Doesn't excuse their crimes” I hear many say. I wouldn't attempt to argue that it does. Mainly because I do not believe that to be true. It does mean we have to consider the implications of the justice response for these individuals if we are to be effective in reducing their involvement in reoffending, reducing victims. Criminal justice is essential for victims and society as a whole. However, if the history of the justice system has taught us anything, it should be that criminal justice in the absence of social justice ends in disaster for the vulnerable. Let's explore this further.

Firstly, what is the primary function of the Criminal Justice System? According to the Centre for Crime and Studies, it is to 'deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent' (Garside, 2008). This narrative that underpins the very function of the justice system divides those in receipt of a service from the justice system into two binary groups. The innocent, and the guilty. This is the start of proportioning more weight towards criminal justice (punishment), often at the cost of social justice (welfare). It is important to consider how we have arrived at this position through understanding the historical context. After all, we have a wealth of knowledge of who ends up in our prisons, often providing some level context as to the, why. Up to 50% of young people in prison are care experienced (Laming, 2016) against only 2% of the UK population. 25% of the prison population are from black or minority groups, even though this group only make up 14% of the UK population (Lammy, 2017). 46% of adult prisoners were permanently excluded from school according to MOJ data (Coates, 2016), while in 2009/10, only 0.08% of students were permanently excluded (DfE, 2012).

How does history play a role in current perspectives towards these often-vulnerable people that enter prison? Until the mid-20th century, we still held capital punishment here in the UK. Throughout history, these have often been public events of hanging, stocks, scolding and drowning. Especially of women, which were often poor women accused of witch craft. This often took place at the hands of the hierarchy. This was more often than not, men in positions of power deciding who was guilty, and who was innocent based on the social morals and values of their time. A historical example of how inequality plays out in a criminal justice context that can impact negatively on the vulnerable members of society. Actions that have been enforced through the structure of power and privilege and justified in the eyes of the public through a narrative of deviance and alienation. 

Another is that it wasn't' until the pivotal moment in Criminal Justice history when the Gladstone Committee (1895) explored how to reform young people involved in offending. It was only at this point that we introduced the first Borstal. Separating children from adults in 1902 for the very first time. Before this, children would be placed in horrendous prison conditions with adults. Notwithstanding that once the prisons were full here in the UK, we sent prisoners as young as eight to both America and Australia, dismantling families as a result. “Yes Andi, but we are a civilized society now with due process and a rehabilitative justice system which aims to reform and reintegrate people that go to prison,” again I hear you say.

Excluding the reoffending rates that dispute this, I believe there are two key problems with this view point. Firstly, what is rehabilitation? In the English dictionary, the definition is the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction or illness. The justice system aims to rehabilitate. However, it has not considered that the word in a justice context has not actually been conceptualized. In other words, when can the system itself state someone is in fact rehabilitated? Can anyone achieve that status post-prison, and if so, how do they prove it and who exactly decides when it has happened? What does that even look like?

I have recently been caught speeding at 37mph on a road with temporary works that recently changed from 40mph to 30mph. As many of us have from time to time, I didn't concentrate and broke the law. This is almost 20 years after my last prison release. I am sure most would say “that's not what we mean Andi.” However, that is in fact the very point. Does it depend on the crime? Does it depend on whether I get caught? If I do get into a fight for instance, do I go back to the beginning? Does the next time around come quicker due to good behaviour? More importantly, while we're all using the word rehabilitation like it's a matter of fact, does the lay person, the Probation Officer or the Prison Officer consider any of these complexities as I ponder over them now?

The second issue with this non concept, is how do we measure the causal factor? How can we specifically claim that the causal factor was the system itself, a sentence, a programme, or a professional in it? Over the years working in youth justice, I have often heard professionals claim that if they "make a difference to one person, that is success." Therefore, is making a difference rehabilitation in the professionals’ eyes? Is that the same for the system overall? Maruna (2001) explored this somewhat in his great book Making Good. Explaining that he found individuals that move on from offending don't fall into groups of desisters and persisters. I find it strange that we would ever believe that they do. After all, we don't research people that offend, we research people that are caught offending, or admitting that they have. 

It's interesting that without specific feedback from the individual that we claim now in theory have been rehabilitated, we use that individual’s data to generate terms such as what works or evidence base. Especially in the face of raw statistics that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the prison experience as a whole. In the absence of this consented feedback, institutions with power and influence seem to be misusing people's data (or lives) to provide evidence of effective practice to demonstrate they have achieved something that simply cannot be measured. These are questions that we need to ask of the system now, not later. Prison doesn't seem to be rehabilitative. The question to me is are we asking the right questions when trying to reform it? This may be one explanation as to the limitations explaining the reoffending rates and the strain on our public purse.

History does provide some answers about how society view prisoners or offenders. I believe this also contributes to modern day reoffending rates through social exclusion. Emile Durkheim was a late 18th century French Sociologist who explained deviance as a normal and necessary part of any society. Explaining deviance as having the following social functions: (a) it clarifies norms and increases conformity, (b) it strengthens social bonds among the people reacting to the deviant, and (c) it can help lead to positive social change. Many have been deemed as deviant in the past such as Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela. Only later to be viewed as inspirers of social change. I am not comparing people in prison to these historical characters and heroes in the eyes of many, including myself. I'm just explaining Durkheim's positive social change aspect of his theory.

The prior functions such as strengthening social bonds and reacting to the deviant interest me personally. How would that school of thought play out in modern day society and the relationships within the system itself? Especially as in the not-so-distant past we put disadvantaged men, women and children to death in the UK. Does all this historical context play out today, and if so, how? I would argue the misuse of the data of the vulnerable by establishments in positions of power is one example. Educating and recruiting professionals in varying justice roles, creating a belief they can in fact rehabilitate people through risk assessment processes and programmes without a measurement method is another. Not that people can't help, but humanity and compassion is essential to producing change in behaviour. Processes that can be regulated create institutions, not a network of connections that heal trauma and childhood stress. Rendering the poor feeling ushered through process within a demonising and stigmatising system by professionals that become despondent  to change themselves if they don't get the rehabilitation they expected (Morrison et al, 2021).

I've been to prison four times myself between the ages of 17 to 23 due to drug and alcohol related crimes. I have now worked in the youth justice system for 15 years and recently become a University Teacher. I am constantly learning more about myself, society and the justice system's history and functions which is enabling reflection on a deep personal level. My biggest question through this reflection is this; what if Durkheim's theory does play out within the relationships of those that work in the system and those that enter it? If it does contribute to the statistics, what do we do about it? Also, if we are not passionate about considering this as a society, is the reason grounded in the essence of social exclusion? Is societies lack of concern about these deviants and criminals an echo of Durkheim’s theory?

How does Durkheim's explanation of deviance in terms of creating social bonds for those that do not (or at least not been caught) offend impact on those that have been convicted? We have the Disclosure and Barring Service to protect the public and organizations by knowing and understanding potential employees’ organisations may employ with convictions. This ensures employers have details of people's offences, providing context to character, and the ability to make the right choices about who they employ, particularly when it comes to those with convictions. However, if Durkheim was right in his theory, creating a sense of social bond for those that do not offend, inevitably develops into a them and us mentality in society (guilty and innocent). They have offended, which means they are bad. We have not offended, therefore we are good. This would mean disclosure of convictions would likely develop an often-unintended implicit bias towards individuals with convictions. Placing them into the other group, one of dishonesty and distrust. This takes us back to when are we rehabilitated and who decides if and when we have. Could this confusion contribute towards social exclusion and have implications for those reoffending rates above?

Not even now, after all these years do I know how and when to disclose my prison experience to other professionals. Let alone how to take this task on in an application form while selling my strengths. I mean, it is the pivotal reason why I chose to work in, write about and study in this field. I hear everyone else open up talking about their background, their professional history, their research interests ect when they introduce themselves. I have no idea how one person to the next would respond to me explaining how my motivation to improve the system is from personal experience. Should I be ashamed of my past? Should I be proud of bouncing back from it? After all, it is obviously difficult, especially with my background of childhood trauma, care and addiction as we can see in the statistics. If I was proud, how will others interpret that? For me, it is a constant feeling of shame and inadequacy which inevitably develops into profound feelings of imposter syndrome, requiring constant reflection. I know everyone can empathise with not feeling like you fit in from time to time. For many, the prison experience in itself creates a feeling of inferiority to everyone else in society. It's certainly not an uplifting experience after social harms and abuse as I'm sure you can imagine.

Interestingly, when I speak to someone in the field with no personal lived experience of this complex issue, they immediately respond with explaining how I should tackle it. They rarely open up a discussion to explore how it feels. Is this because education on a subject matter now trumps the experience itself? Is it because once you are seen an ex-offender or ex-prisoner, your life and choices are open to direction from others because it has been studied for centuries? Could it be that there is a superiority complex which creates a subconscious thought process that it is better telling me, as opposed to listening? Another possible Echo of Durkheim's theory. Either way, over the years it is something I have learned to understand and deal with as I have matured and lost my hair. I do wonder how others with less education, capacity to reflect or ability to articulate these feelings deal with social exclusion, whether perceived or real.

Some people ask how and why I stopped offending. Not understanding that it is not unusual. Research shows many adolescents in contact with the justice system stop getting caught, or change their behaviour through the maturation process. My uniqueness is my working within the justice system itself for all these years, navigating this complex space. Maybe more colleagues being ex-offenders working in the field would increase moral of staff and a belief in change. I have rarely felt intentionally excluded. I feel very welcome and proud in my new role at Leeds Trinity University, delivering the Unlocked MSc Degree in Custodial Leadership to Prison Officers. For what it’s worth, I do believe two things can improve reoffending:

Firstly, we need more Lived Experienced people involved in all aspects of the Criminal Justice System. This would improve the system’s ability to challenge some of these personal complexities that many do not consider. From front line roles in custody and community orders; to those taking lead roles in research to develop studies through a lens that explores blind spots of literature. Secondly, society has to think about re-entry to society post prison as a societal problem that needs addressing. Not just one that is addressed solely by the justice system or government funded charities. We need more potential employers like Timpsons that have proven its economically viable as well as socially beneficial to recruit ex-prisoners. Maybe the focus of Probation should be to promote the welfare of prison leavers and create networks of opportunity. Releasing them from spending all their time risk assessing people and placing them in arbitrary boxes of high, medium and low risk, creating a false sense of control. This inevitably evolves into a disconnect between officer and those risk assessed. Providing opportunities will in itself be the best tool to manage risk and keep people safe through a relational intervention.

One aim of the justice system is to punish people, at times those that have spent their lives being victims before obtaining the label offender. It must be the responsibility of society to rebuild the harm caused to them after they've been held to account. We are all members of the same team. If someone breaks the rules, they get punished. However, after punishment takes place, they then must be allowed to be equal to every other team member. This is a what we could call a restorative community. That is the type of society I believe would reduce the re-offending rates here in the UK. Explained through the African philosophy of Ubuntu, I am because we are! 

Thanks for reading! 🤘

 

 

 

References 

 

Coates, S (2016) Unlocking Potential: A review of education in prison, Ministry of Justice

Department of Edcuation. (2012). A profile of Pupil Exclusions in England, Education Standards Research Division, Department of Education

Garside, R (2008). The purpose of the criminal justice system, The Centre For Crime and Justice Studies, Available here: The purpose of the criminal justice system | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies [Accessed Online 08.11.21]

Laming, W. (2016) In Care, out of Trouble, How the life chances of children in care can be transformed by protecting them from unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system, Prison Reform Trust.

Lammy, D (2017) The Lammy Review: An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Individuals in the Criminal Justice System. London: Lammy Review

Morrison, K. Maycock, M (2021) Becoming a Prison Officer: An Analysis of the Early Development of Prison Officer Cultures, The Howard Journal Vol 60 No 1. March 2021 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12394 ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 3–24 

Prison Reform Trust (2021) Bromley Bromley Findings Bromley Fact File, Available here: Winter 2021 Factfile final.pdf (prisonreformtrust.org.uk) [Accessed Online 08.11.21]

Robinson, R. (2021) UK prison population third highest in Europe and suicide rate twice the average, The Justice Gap, Available here: UK prison population third highest in Europe and suicide rate twice the average – The Justice Gap [Accessed Online 08.11.21]