Reconfigurations of penality

Carlen, Pat; Tombs, Jacqueline

doi:10.1177/1362480606065910

Cited by 94 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As sentencers acknowledged in a recent report published by the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, the will to reduce the prison population is a political decision, therefore political leadership is required to achieve it (Tombs 2004b). Sentencing reform is required alongside community developments to bring about change (Carlen and Tombs 2006; McIvor 2007). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The development of 218 on its own has not represented a ‘decentering’ of the prison (Hannah‐Moffat 2001; Carlen and Tombs 2006), hence the number of women in prison in Scotland has continued to rise. Two recent initiatives that appear to have been better able to impact directly on this are the use of home detention curfews (allowing women to be released early from prison through electronic monitoring 19 ) (Scottish Executive 2007); and mandatory supervised attendance orders in place of custody for non‐payment of fines (Reid Howie Associates 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘Time Out’ for Women: Innovation in Scotland in a Context of Change

Malloch

McIvor

Loucks³

2008

The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 218 Centre was set up following consistent concerns about the increasing number of women in prison in Scotland and the high-level needs of many of these women. It is an innovative and high-profile attempt to develop appropriate responses to women in the criminal justice system. It offers women an opportunity for 'time out' of their normal environment without resorting to 'time in' custody, providing both residential and community-based services. This article outlines some of the issues and challenges which characterised the early development and operation of the 218 Centre. It illustrates the ways in which some of the issues that arose during the evaluation resonate with current and ongoing debates within criminology, and draws attention to the difficulties in using the criminal justice system to address other issues.The 218 Centre 1 is an innovative resource which was set up in Glasgow in 2003 for women in the criminal justice system. 218 was established in response to a number of concerns about the response of the criminal justice system to women in Scotland and, in particular, the appropriateness of imprisonment for many women. By the mid 1990s practitioners and academics were increasingly questioning the appropriateness of existing sentences and the use of disposals for women (in particular, the over-use of prison and under-use of community disposals (McIvor 2004a; Rumgay 2004a)). As had also occurred across other western jurisdictions, an increasing number of young women were appearing before the Scottish courts and were receiving custodial sentences, with this being attributed to increasing levels of drug use (primarily heroin) among young women. The increased use of women's imprisonment did not appear to reflect an increase in the seriousness of women's offending: most women were imprisoned for relatively minor offences and the sentences imposed tended to be short (less than six months; McIvor (2007)).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Time Out’ for Women: Innovation in Scotland in a Context of Change

Malloch

McIvor

Loucks³

2008

The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particularly compelling criticism of the ability of prisons to deliver interventions that help reintegrate offenders in society stems from the accumulation of sociological knowledge about the nature and functioning of prison societies. The potential of the prison to rehabilitate has been portrayed as illusory and unworkable, principally because it contradicts the dominant roles and punitive purposes that define the institution and its routine practices (Carlen and Tombs, 2006; Hayman, 2006). Imprisonment is first and foremost a method of state punishment and its experience is punitive in ways that extend beyond the constraint of physical liberty (Chamberlen, 2016; Crewe et al., 2017).…”

Section: Established Critiques and Lessons For Contemporary Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long sentenced women prisoners: Rights, risks and rehabilitation

Genders

Player

2020

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper re-examines critically the role of rehabilitative interventions for a seriously neglected group of prisoners: women serving long sentences. Drawing on empirical research conducted in a democratic therapeutic community in a women’s prison in the south of England, it considers how far established criticisms identify insuperable difficulties that exacerbate existing harms and inequalities. It argues that evidence can be adduced to support rehabilitative interventions that are not predominantly concerned with the reduction of criminal risk but which provide tangible benefits to the personal wellbeing of women in prison and may increase their prospects of integration post release. It explores how such rehabilitative policies and practices could be supported and protected from attrition by penal power, by embedding them within a doctrine of human rights. By challenging and replacing prevalent assumptions and justifications that uphold existing power relations in prisons, we argue that a specific duty of care, owed by the prison service to women serving long sentences, can protect, support and re-imagine their right to rehabilitative opportunities.

show abstract

“…While there has been much reflection and concern with human rights in prison, the depiction of women's prisons as something 'other than' punishment has often resulted in a concealment of the punitive basis of custody as applied to women (e.g. Carlen, 1983;Hannah-Moffat, 2001; Carlen and Tombs, 2006). In the penal context, the rights of prisoners (as underpinned by human rights priorities) are intended to mitigate the punitive practices of the state, yet they have become increasingly blurred by growing emphasis on 'reintegration' and 'rehabilitation'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%