The Indefensible Psychology of
Imprisonment
Prof. Shadd Maruna
Queen’s University Belfast
s.maruna@qub.ac.uk
The rise of “psychological power
in prisons” (Crewe, 2009)
A number of leading prison scholars have argued that
psychology has “never…been more influential” in the
prison than in the past few decades (Thomas-Peter, 2006)
“Psychologists have taken over prisons in the last ten
years. IN the eighties, you never saw a psychologist.
[Now] if a psychologist says you’ve addressed your
offending behaviour, and you genuinely appear to be
making progress with life and going straight, then that
gets you out. If a psychologist says the opposite, that
keeps you in” (prisoner quoted in Crewe, 2009, p. 118).
The Prisoner Society
Psychology & the Prison
“Prisons are places that
demean humanity, destroy
the nobility of human nature,
and bring out the worst in
social relations among
people. They are as bad for
the guards as the prisoners in
terms of their destructive
impact on self-esteem, sense
of justice, and human
compassion” (Zimbardo,
Maslach & Haney, 2000)
Why Do They Mistrust Us?
“When I first came [to prison], the psychologist
was there if you’d got problems, to talk to. She
wasn’t there to write reports, she wasn’t there
to judge you, she wasn’t there to…manipulate
you, she was there to help you if you needed
help. Now that attitude’s not there. … Your
interests, your needs are pretty much last on the
list. … This is why a lot of psychologists are held
in nothing other than suspicion” (prisoner
quoted in Crewe, 2009, p. 118).
The Risks of Risk Assessment
From Attrill & Liell, 2007:
• I want to communicate the pure fear that risk
assessment has caused in me. The post-sentence
report process was the hardest time of my life – it
made me suicidal by leaving me in the dark and being
so swift and out of my control (p. 194).
• It’s not fair – I’m prejudged on what I did in the past,
not on what I’m doing now (p. 198)
A Risk Society
• “From my experience risk assessment isn’t fair as
it’s just pure negatives that people look at, not
positives”
• “They should consider all the work he’s done in
prison and his intentions for rebuilding his life and
the steps taken towards this – in prison”
• “I committed a crime that was terrible, that
doesn’t make me a terrible person. … Look at
people’s achievements. Do not look at knee-jerk
reactions to prominent serious offences”
Looking for Help,
Not Assessment
“Most prisoners had little objection to psychological
insight per se. A large proportion expressed
concerns about mental health issues and longed
for help to deal with deep-rooted personal
problems. … Indeed, prisoners were crying out for
neutral forms of intervention and explanation. Yet
the system left little room for unpartisan
judgment. Personal problems…were quickly
subsumed into institutional discourse, and
transformed from needs to risks in the interests of
public protection”(Ben Crewe, p. 120).
Evidence Based Practice
1. Random Control Trials
2. Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews
3. Finding programmes or interventions or
treatments that are empirically effective
(i.e. participants on aggregate have
better outcomes than non-participants –
or at least drop-outs/non-completers).
Correctional Services
Accreditation & Advisory Panel
NOMS Commissioning Intentions
for 2013-14
Discussion Document
July 2012
Table 1: Reoffending factors
(criminogenic needs)
• 1. Anti-social thinking and behaviour
• 2. Pro-criminal attitudes
• 3. Social supports for crime (antisocial
associates)
• 4. Drug misuse
• 5. Alcohol misuse
• 6. Family relationship problems
• 7. Poor work habits
• 8. Antisocial lifestyle
• 9. Homelessness
First Person Evidence
• “I know I did bad things but I paid the price for five years
by being in these walls. I want to go back and start over but
how do I do that. They won’t let me forget and they have
my picture around. I am a changed man but they won’t let
me be changed.” (Taxman et al. 2002, 17).
• “No matter how much time we do, everyone always thinks
it’s like once a criminal always a criminal and that is how
people see me and it’s very hard to deal with” (Dodge &
Pogrebin 2001, 49).
• “Every time I filled out an application and ran across that
section about felony convictions, it made me feel sick
inside. I felt like getting up and walking out on the spot.
What was the use? I knew what they were going to do”
(McCall, 1994, 234).
User Voices
• “You are labelled as a felon, and you’re always
gonna be assumed and known to have contact
with that criminal activity and them ethics. And
even when I get off parole, I’m still gonna have
an “F” on my record” (Uggen, Manza, and
Behrens 2004, 283).
• “I am an outcast four times over….Ex-con, exjunkie, black, and HIV-positive. I’d be lyin’ if I told
you I had any dreams” (Wynn 2001, 17)
Chiricos et al, 2009
Sample of 95,919 men and women over a
two-year period in Florida who were either
adjudicated or had adjudication withheld
Found that those who were formally labeled
were significantly more likely to recidivate
within two years than those who were
not.
Hierarchical linear modeling
Inaugural winner of the American Society of
Criminology’s prize for research article.
Rochester Youth
Development Study
Bernburg and Krohn (2003) found that criminal
justice intervention in mid-adolescence increases
criminal behaviour up to 22 years old through its
impact on educational and occupational
attainment.
“Youths who experience juvenile justice
interventions are significantly more likely to be
members of a gang during the successive period
[of the study]. Juvenile justice intervention has a
significant, positive [i.e. negative!] effect on
subsequent peer delinquency”
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Davies and Tanner (2003) found that
criminal justice contact between the
ages of 15 and 23 was strongly
predictive of employment outcomes at
ages 29-37, even controlling for other
risk factors associated with offending.
Wolfgang’s 1958 Philadelphia
Birth Cohort
Tracy and Kempf-Leonard (1996)
follow-up of the 1958 Philadelphia
birth cohort found that adolescent
incarceration was one of the strongest
predictors of adult criminality.
Jeff Fagan & Aaron Kupchik
(2003)
Fagan, Kupchik, & Liberman, 2003 tracked arrests
in NYC over a two year period and found that
individuals who received “any court” experience
were much more likely to be re-arrested; however,
those who were sent to adult court were rearrested and re-incarcerated at a much higher rate
than those sent to juvenile court.
Taxman & Piquero
Drunk Drivers Sample
Conviction for drunk driving was
associated with a 12 per cent increase
in risk of recidivism.
Yet when first-time offenders were
analysed separately, this increased to
27 per cent.
Bales & Piquero (2012)
Bales and Piquero assess compare the effect of
imprisonment on reoffending relative to a prison
diversion program for over 79,000 individuals
sentenced to state prison and 65,000 offenders
sentenced to Community Control between 1994
and 2002.
“Findings indicate that imprisonment exerts a
criminogenic effect and that this substantive
conclusion holds across all three methods”
Is that all you got??
Other criminological studies finding support for labelling
hypotheses:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adams & Evans, 1996
De Li, 1999
Johnson, Simons & Conger, 2004
Kaplan & Johnson, 1991
Matsuetda, 1992
Palarma, et al., 1986
Ray & Downs, 1986
Stewart et al, 2002
Triplett & Jarjoura, 1994
Zhang, 1997
Comparative International
Research
Huizinga et al (2003) comparative study of
two, well established longitudinal studies –
one in Bremen Germany the other in
Denver, USA – found that arrests and
sanctioning were related to higher levels of
offending, and that the more severe the
sanctioning, the more serious the
subsequent criminal career.
Farrington’s Cambridge
Study
“We find persistent and strong associations
between juvenile conviction and adult
criminal behaviour, antisocial personality
and life success.
Incarceration increased [these] risks … over
and above the effects of conviction without
incarceration”
(Murray and Farrington, 2013, p. 1).
Edinburgh Study of Youth
Transitions and Crime
McAra & McVie (2007)
“Repeated and more intensive forms of contact with
youth justice agencies may be damaging to young people
in the long term, even within the confines of a welfarebased system” (337).
“[Our research] shows how labelling processes within
agency working cultures serve to recycle certain
categories of children into the youth justice system,
whereas others serious offenders escape the tutelage of
the formal system altogether. The deeper a child
penetrates the formal system, the less likely he or she is
to desist from offending”
Labelling and Stereotype Threat
in the Classroom… and beyond
• Teacher expectancies of student
performance are strongly predictive of
student performance on standardized
tests (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1992; Steele, 2010).
• Meta-analyses of studies conducted both
inside and outside the research laboratory
suggest an average effect size or correlation (r)
of over .30 in studies of interpersonal
expectancy effects
(Rosenthal 2002; Kierein and Gold 2000).
What about Deterrence?:
Doesn’t “Prison Work”?
“Specific Deterrence” is the “antithesis
to labelling”
Deterrence theory (e.g., Andenaes,
1968) anticipates that official
sanctions will reduce rather than
amplify criminal involvement
Andenaes, J. (1968). Does punishment deter
crime? Criminal Law Quarterly, 11, 76-93.
No respect for the dead?
James McGuire (1995) “The Death of Deterrence”. In J.
McGuire and B. Rowson (Eds.), Does punishment work?
London, UK. London: ISTD.
“Evidence for the impact of punishment is extremely difficult to
obtain and findings in support of deterrence theory have
consistently proved elusive” (McGuire, 2002)
Mike Lynch, et al (1999) “Beating a dead horse: Is there any
basic empirical evidence for the deterrent effect of
imprisonment?” Crime, Law and Social Change, 31, 347-362.
After examining 325 comparisons involving 336,052 individuals: “We
can say that imprisonment does not appear to deter most criminals”
(Lynch, et al 1999, p. 348).
Proof of the Pudding
For the 2004 cohort of young men released from
prison, 75 per cent of 18 to 20 year-olds had reoffended within two years.
Gendreau and colleagues’ (1999) meta-analysis,
synthesizing the findings from 50 prison effects
studies dating from 1958 involving over 300,000
prisoner subjects, found the higher the quality of the
study (including two randomized designs), the more
likely it was to find a strong positive (i.e. negative)
correlation between time spent in prison and
recidivism.
Prison Effects
• Almost two-thirds of the prisoners lose their
jobs as a result of their imprisonment
• Four out of ten prisoners are homeless on
release
• Over two-fifths lose contact with families or
friends in the course of a prison sentence
• 66.6% of prisoners have no job one year after
release
• Ex-prisoners have a mortality rate 3 ½ times
that of the population in first 2 years after
release
Structural Impediments and
“Cumulative Continuity”
Sampson and Laub (1997) argue that criminality
is a kind of ‘chimera’ that ‘mortgages one’s
future’ by blocking opportunities for achieving
success in employment, education, and even in
marriage.
“The released offender confronts a
situation at release that virtually ensures
his failure” (McArthur, 1974, p. 1).
From Prisonisation...
“Prisonisation instills prison-based habits and
ways of being, an overdependency on external
structures and routines to organise and regulate
one’s behaviour, a tough veneer that precludes
expressing weakness or vulnerability, the
generalised mistrust that comes from the fear of
exploitation, and a tendency to strike out in
response to minimal provocations. All are highly
functional inside prison and problematic virtually
everywhere else” (Haney, 2006; see also
Grounds & Jamieson, 2003)
To “Post-Incarceration Syndrome”
Prisoners 10 x more likely to
suffer from PTSD symptoms than
wider population (Heckman, et al
2007)
“Our findings suggest that postincarceration syndrome constitutes
a discrete subtype of PTSD that
results from long-term
imprisonment” (Liem & Kunst,
2013; Harvard University)
An Expensive Way of Making
Bad People Worse
“The criminal justice system feeds on
itself. The more people who are
arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and
especially incarcerated, the larger is
the criminally stigmatized underclass
screened out of legitimate
opportunities”
(Jacobs, 2006: 387)
Invisible Stripes
“We know now why men ‘come back to
prison a second, third or fourth time.’
… It is because the prisoner, on his
discharge from prison, is conscious of
invisible stripes fastened upon him by
tradition and prejudice”
(Lewis Lawes, Governor of Sing Sing
Prison, NY, 1938: 298).
Impacts of Imprisonment
[Prison] breaks up families. It is hard for prisoners
to retain or subsequently to secure law-abiding
jobs. Imprisonment can lessen people’s sense of
responsibility for their actions and reduce their
self-respect, both of which are fundamental to law
abiding citizenship. Some, often the young and
less experienced, acquire in prisons a wider
knowledge of criminal activity. Imprisonment is
costly for the individual, for the prisoner’s family
and for the community (Home Office 1991 para
1.16).
Collateral Consequences on
Families (forthcoming APA Books)
• Joe Murray and colleagues found “Parental
arrest and conviction without imprisonment did
not predict problem behaviours for this study.”
• “When compared to other European countries,
effects of parental imprisonment were much
stronger in England than in Sweden or Holland,
suggesting that higher levels of welfare support
or less punitive penal policies might reduce
harmful effects of parental imprisonment on
children”
Collateral Consequences on
Communities
‘Cycling a large number
of young men from a
particular place through
imprisonment, and then
returning them to that
place, is not healthy for
the people who live in
that place’ (Todd Clear)
Wider harm to the common good
• It has weakened labour markets, especially by
weakening the earning power of people who cycle
through the prison system;
• It has reduced the rate of marriage;
• It has contributed to problematic health outcomes,
including STDs and teen-age births;
• It has served as a source of negative attitudes toward
the justice system
Todd Clear again
Mass Incarceration: Us and Them
The Impact of Mass Incarceration
on Poverty
“Relying on a state-level panel spanning 1980
to 2004, the study measures the impact of
incarceration on three poverty indexes. ...
The evidence indicates that growing
incarceration has significantly increased
poverty, regardless of which index is used to
gauge poverty. Indeed, the official poverty
rate would have fallen considerably during
the period had it not been for mass
incarceration” (DeFina & Hannon, 2013)
McAra & McVie (2007)
European Journal of Criminology
“Over the past decade, youth justice discourse in
many western jurisdictions has become dominated by
the mantra of ‘evidence-based’ policy. Informed by
the results of research on risk and protective factors
and (more especially) by the precepts underpinning
the ‘what works’ agenda, huge resources have been
devoted to early intervention initiatives for ‘at risk’
children and their families, as well as to specialist
programmes aimed at reducing re-offending among
older, more persistent offenders. This has been
accompanied (particularly in the UK) by a massive
increase in government sponsored research, focused
on evaluating programme effectiveness and
establishing value for money” (315-316)
McAra & McVie (2007)
European Journal of Criminology (cont’d)
“Evidence-based policy, as currently conceived,
has a particularly seductive quality for
politicians, not least because its scientific
imprimatur suggests political neutrality and
because it has the capacity to enhance central
(government) control over youth justice
agencies, through national standards,
performance indicators and evaluation research
– all considered integral to the delivery of
‘programme integrity’” (316).
McAra & McVie (2007)
European Journal of Criminology (cont’d)
“It also has a seductive quality for certain sectors
of academia (providing a major source of research
income and sustaining a new generation of
contract researchers) and for some practitioners
(as, for example, within Scotland, where the ‘what
works’ agenda has functioned to reprofessionalize and re-legitimize the social work
contribution to criminal justice; see McAra 2005a).
Consequently, a range of more or less powerful
groups now have a strong vested interest in
maintaining the evidence-based approach” (316).
McAra & McVie (2007)
European Journal of Criminology (cont’d)
“As a counterweight to this, however, there is a
growing body of … studies that have explored the
longer-term (mostly damaging) impact of system
(rather than individual programme) contact on
young people” (316).
Yet “an evidence-base that suggests that less
intervention is rather more effective in reducing
offending becomes ‘politically’ untenable” (339).
McAra & McVie (2007)
Euro Journal of Criminology (Last words)
“Accepting that, in some cases, doing less is
better than doing more requires both courage
and vision on the part of policy makers. A
realization of this vision in turn requires
acceptance that youth justice agencies cannot,
by themselves, make the wider public feel safer
nor can they mend broken families and remake
shattered communities. To the extent that
systems appear to damage young people and
inhibit their capacity to change, then they do
not, and never will, deliver justice” (340).
Risk Assessing Prisons
We psychologists need to add a crucial
“dynamic risk factor” to every
psychological assessment we do -Not “how dangerous is this person”,
but “how dangerous is this prison for
this person?”
“How much damage
will another month
of incarceration do
to this individual”?
Thanks