Turning points or dead ends? Identity, desistance and the experience of imprisonment

Abstract

Desistance research has pushed criminologists to develop a nuanced conceptual account of criminal identity and human agency. However, these tools have mostly not been used to consider identity changes among long-sentenced prisoners, despite the growing preponderance of long-term imprisonment in England and Wales. As a result of this, desistance theory has not been used to evaluate the administration of indeterminate sentences, meaning that practitioners may be missing out on some of the insights that it can generate. This qualitative study begins to fill that gap, using a phenomenological analysis of eighteen in-depth semi-structured interviews with life- sentenced prisoners at a single prison in England, all of whom had been convicted of murder. It argues that most eventually attempt conscious projects of personal change during imprisonment; second, that many frame change in terms which are not consistent with the official discourses of risk reduction (which govern their progression through the sentence); and third, that how they themselves conceive and pursue personal change is affected by their position in the sentence and the life course, and also by the specific nature and circumstances of their index offences. The analysis classifies four different styles of agency found in the sample: ‘defensive’ and ‘fractured’ agents were unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for the offence, and were consequently in penal ‘dead ends’; while ‘corrective’ and ‘redemptive’ agents had encountered ‘turning points’, in that they accepted responsibility, albeit in different ways. The analysis describes each group’s characteristic ways of describing the offence and their part in it. It also describes their attitudes to prison social life in general, and to rehabilitative intervention in particular. The study as a whole suggests that much of the personal change which lifers themselves frame as significant happens outside rehabilitative interventions, and may be invisible to key prison staff. This raises important questions about whether prisons and prisoners think about rehabilitation in the same way, with consequences for the legitimacy of penal power.

Why? How Perpetrators of Male-Male Homicide Explain the Crime

“…Identifying and understanding the narratives that perpetrators use to rationalise and neutralise the crime offers a unique opportunity to analyse first-hand the prevailing stories told to manage blame, guilt and stigma, and ultimately explore the accounts that sustain, enable or prevent desistance (Jarman, 2019; Presser & Sandberg, 2015). This approach also illustrates that subjective transformation linked to correctional devices and interventions is not a linear process (Adshead, Berko, Bose, Ferrito, & Mindang, 2018Adshead et al, 2018; Ferrito et al, 2016).…”

“…Since the language used by men was directly shaped by institutional knowledge, this study argues that the incorporation of new rationalities and terminology (psychological, social, cultural, etc.) is key in the desistance process (Jarman, 2019). In order for penal devices to have an effect – in terms of identity and practices – the consistency between official discourses and the stories used by offenders should be analysed.…”

“…Being a ‘rebel’, a ‘macho’, a ‘ poronga ’ (hotshot) is used as a way of accounting for the homicide and, at the same time, a presentation of a strong self. This portrayal is linked both to identity and gender practices in their life course and in the interview (Flood, 2013), as well as folk theories about personality and character (Jarman, 2019).…”

“This is My Story”: Why People in Prison Participate in Qualitative Research

“…On a more critical note, the therapeutic reasons for participation can be seen as embedded in lay theories of the penal system (Bottoms, 2006), where participants had internalized parts of the therapeutic discourse of the prison system (Di Marco, 2022;Jarman, 2019;Stone, 2016). Importantly however, people in prison also resisted these institutions by rejecting prison psychologists and navigating official discourses in creative ways.…”

“…Self-improvement featured as the recurrent reason for participants to describe their willingness to participate; personal growth and change were the core elements of this motivation. Despite the different forms of self-improvement addressed (religious, social, relational, personal), they were connected by a similar discourse of subjective transformation or redemption (Jarman, 2019;Mcadams et al, 2001;Stone, 2016). While participants could be critical of the instrumental use of such narratives in meetings with the prison system, they still regarded healing and self-improvement an important reason for their participation.…”