Pervasive punishment in a pandemic

Abstract

In this paper, we draw on data from a recent study of how Covid-19 and related restrictions impacted on vulnerable and/or marginalised populations in Scotland (Armstrong and Pickering, 2020), including justice-affected people (i.e. people in prison and under supervision, their families and those that work with them; see Gormley et al., 2020). Focusing here mainly on interviews with people released from prison and others under community-based criminal justice supervision, we explore how the pandemic impacted on their experiences. Reflecting upon and refining previous analyses of how supervision is experienced as ‘pervasive punishment’ ( McNeill, 2019 ), we suggest that both the pandemic and public health measures associated with its suppression have changed the ‘pains’ and ‘gains’ of supervision ( Hayes, 2015 ), in particular, by exacerbating the ‘suspension’ associated with it. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for the pursuit of justice in the recovery from Covid-19.

The impact of the pandemic on probation: lessons for the future

“…In Phillips et al (2021) – where staff were using video calls and the telephone – staff suggested that remote communication made it difficult to create relationships with people remotely, partly because of the difficulties in conveying certain emotions, which are considered critical to the process of building rapport and relationships. Similarly, Viglione et al (2020) found that 13% of probation directors found the inability to meet face-to-face to be challenging and impeded staff members’ “perceived inability to stay current with the individual and provide an adequate level of supervision”, and in Scotland, researchers have noted that “most staff reported that phone-based supervision imposed limitations on the supervisor-supervisee relationship” (Casey et al , 2021). There also appears to be important differences between groups which has important ramifications for the future of remote supervision.…”

“…The main one here is greater flexibility. In Austria, for example, staff reported being “happy to be freed from the regular obligation of personal contact” (Stempkowski and Grafl, 2021) while in Scotland, “some staff felt that it gave them the opportunity to have more casual and sympathetic conversations with those they supervise” (Casey et al , 2021). Remote communication reduces the need to go to the office, means clients have to take less time off work for appointments, reduces travel time and travel costs and so supervision can become more flexible to individuals’ needs and circumstances.…”

“…Certainly, exercising less control and offering more trust seems to have been positive and productive, at least in some cases. (Casey et al , 2021)…”

“…Across much of the research published so far, the way in which the pandemic impacted on peoples’ access to social support comes out as an important effect of the pandemic. Thus, in Scotland, community groups filled the gaps left by the statutory sector upon which people under supervision had been reliant prior to the pandemic (Casey et al , 2021). In Austria, Stempkowski and Grafl (2021) found that probation staff reported that losing employment and experiencing financial stress was relatively common among people on probation.…”

“…A second important theme here is the way in which people under probation supervision are digitally marginalised. Some people [for example, Lewis in Casey et al ’s (2021) study] are formally prohibited from using the internet (due to their offending) but much of the research which has explored probation in the pandemic points to the difficulties that people on probation have in terms of accessing the technology required to undertake remote supervision (Phillips et al , 2021; Stempkowski and Grafl, 2021). This raises important questions about how probation services ensure that people who might benefit from remote supervision are able to do so while also managing the risks that having access to such technologies might pose.…”