Criminal Justice & Intersectionality

Criminal Justice & Intersectionality

There are some interesting illusions presented to the public when it comes to our criminal justice system in England and Wales & our very high reoffending rates (PRT, 2021), that require further exploration. Services, organisations & individuals present that they are impacting on these high reoffending rates when in truth, these claims can be misrepresentations at best; dishonesty at the worst. The thinking that drove me to write this blog & reflection derived from several recent discussions with ex-prisoner friends that have various pre-prison experiences such as persistent offending, chronic childhood instability, drug addiction, the care experience or youth incarceration. These discussions prompted me to take a deep dive into the relationship between the people that enter the criminal justice system & intersectionality. We will explore this in detail and conclude with a suggestion about how this lens can positively rephrase these narratives into honest accounts, hopefully reduce reoffending rates & create a framework to improve social inclusion for prisoners most in need.

The first part of this discussion is to highlight that the reoffending rate post prison in 2016 sat at around 46% within 12 months of release (MOJ, 2016). This increases to 63% for short sentences under 12 months, and 69% for children under 18 (PRT, 2021). Put simply; of every two prisoners released from prison, one of those will go on to commit further crimes within a year, inevitable creating further victims. In accordance with this exploration, let's remember that means of course, 54% according to data collection do not reoffend in this timeframe. It seems worth exploring the profiles of those successful individuals and the narratives of organisations & services when they proport to be keeping people safe while impacting on the reoffending rates. It is essential to explore these nuances. Both with adults & children, those prisoners with eleven or more offences are significantly more likely to fall within the reoffending group than those with no previous offences, by 72% and 21% respectively. According to the governments own data (MOJ, 2020). Reinforced in their same report, MOJ claim that within the juvenile estate, those with eleven or more offences make up only 12% of the offender cohort. All fascinating stuff when considering the reoffending rate at population level. We can often forget that the pre-prison experience is as diverse as the prison population itself.

People go to adult prison in particular for a whole host of reasons. Murder, death by dangerous driving, domestic violence , rape, assault & fraud to mention a few convictions. There are first time offenders, not necessarily persistent offenders that commit serious crimes, leaving the judge with little alternative but to incarcerate. Many of these prisoners were employable before entering custody with stable family environments & support throughout their sentence. Not historically true of the individuals I have recently spoken to & prompted the pondering thoughts around this blog & intersectionality. How I believe that even within a disadvantaged group such as prisoners, there sits a deserving & an undeserving hierarchical structure. More importantly, how this can further exclude & stigmatise those most vulnerable prisoner's that have faced severe social harms before even obtaining the title, prisoner. This is why we must have an understanding of this revolving door for the most vulnerable & excluded prisoners. We must take hold of, and question any narratives that present a reduction in reoffending in the absence of this multitude of experiences. 

Let's then explore this through the lens of intersectionality. First, I will introduce you to the concept, then explore its relevance to this discussion. Intersectionality was conceptualised in the 1960s & 1970s by none-white women feminist's (Samuels, 2008). This group used intersectionality to explain that although all women have been fighting inequality, oppression & patriarchy, not all women experience this fight in the same way. In fact, even within a marginised group of women at this time, some may even have a position of privilege. A white woman living in an affluent family at this time in history will have faced structural barriers in society as a woman. She will have been unlikely to be presented with equal opportunities to men living in commensurate circumstances. However, as a black woman at that time living in deprived circumstances would face structural inequality, classism & racism in a very different way. This is also true of women with a disability, or women suffering mental health issues for example. Indicating women face intersectional challenges which means these structural issues should not be represented in the same way as an homogenous group facing disadvantage. 

Then how does this concept of intersectionality lend its hand to the conversation around incarceration & reoffending? It ensures we can question services seeking to employ ex-offenders are not proporting to reduce reoffending if they are hand picking prisoners that are work ready. It is fine for them to select work ready individuals. It does however raise questions if they then claim to reduce reoffending as this isn't reflected in the data. It also makes sure the interventions delivered which create an evidence base for further programmes do not present a picture of one size fits all. What if a high number of the 54% were not going to reoffending anyway, regardless of completing said programmes or being recruited by private companies. There are two fundamental issues with this claim to reducing reoffending in the absence of an intersectional lens:

1. It is almost impossible to say with any certainty that the intervention was the causal factor for the recidivism. I reoffended and also didn't reoffend after serving different sentences. I know my data from my last sentence could be used to evidence that a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) programme I completed meant I didn't reoffend, contributing to an evidence base. I would much rather that was not the case because it simply played no role in my recidivism, whatsoever. 

2. The individuals that complete these interventions may be the individuals that have not experienced chronic childhood instability, care, school exclusion, youth incarceration or homelessness. These are the individuals most likely to have eleven or more previous offences, increasing the likelihood of reoffending. 

Just like those black women in the US faced far more social barriers than their white counterparts, it seems clear that these individuals leaving custody will face intersectional issues that a one time offender released is not likely to face. Many individuals have support whilst in prison. Having experienced prison myself several times, I think it's pretty obvious which prisoners make up that 54% upon release. I can't remember thinking, 'that will be because of that effective intervention.' They're often the individuals that do not fit naturally into prison life. Not that anyone should fit naturally. This is for many like myself, just a reality. The other 46% that have lived in prison like circumstances as far back as they can remember. For many of them, prison is just a natural step in their predicted life trajectory. Often starting with youth incarceration which is linked to drug addiction, family dysfunction, social care involvement and school exclusion. 

If we think about intersectionality in the prison population, we can ask more questions about organisations when they claim to reduce reoffending. We can prevent the hand picking of prisoners that are very unlikely to reoffend because they never identified as offenders before they entered prison. It's admirable that private services and companies hire people with convictions, it really is & long may it continue. It doesn't mean they should hoodwink the public that they are reducing reoffending. This is misleading. However intersectionality does present an interesting opportunity for the justice system and its partners. We can explain that none white prisoners, those recovering from addiction, those with experience of care or homelessness need to be prioritised. These are the individuals most at risk of reoffending and have the most needs that require intensive support from the wider community upon release. 

Being in prison alone is a challenge, for sure. I know this all too well. However, just like those black women fighting issues white women didn't have to fight, employing prisoners that were employable before prison doesn't target the reoffending area of need. It certainly does not back up a claim of reducing reoffending. We need to find a delicate balance between providing the right opportunities to the right people against not allowing organisations to capitalise on a vulnerable group & simultaneously use false claims that needs more exploration. Let's focus our social interventions on those that need it most & hold the reoffending narratives to account by asking more questions. When we're being told that organisations or services are in fact working with or employing ex-prisoners & reducing reoffending, simply ask them what other intersectional experiences they are prioritising to make that claim. We know that many are going to return to employment post prison. Are they simply recruiting those because they are less risk. Let's learn from history & make sure equality of opportunity is at the forefront of thinking and not further marginalising the already excluded. 

Thanks for reading.

Andi Brierley - Leeds Trinity University

References:

Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile Winter 2021, Available On-line (Winter 2021 Factfile final.pdf (prisonreformtrust.org.uk) Accessed 28.03.22

Coates, S. (2016). Unlocking potential: A review of education in prison. 

Ministry of Justice. (2020). Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, England and Wales, January 2018 to March 2018.