And Justice for All: Families & the Criminal Justice System
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information): This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact [email protected] for more information.
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Chapter 5: “He has a life sentence, but I have a life sentence to cope with as well”: The Experiences of Intimate Partners of Offenders Serving Long Sentences in the United Kingdom
Recent years have seen a marked increase in long-term imprisonment in England and Wales. The proportion of the sentenced population serving indeterminate and life sentences increased from 9 percent in 1993 to 19 percent in 2012 (Ministry of Justice, 2013a), and the average time spent in custody by those serving mandatory life sentences for murder increased from 13 years in 2001 to 16 years in 2012 (Ministry of Justice, 2013b). It is also worth noting that out of those serving indeterminate IPP sentences (imprisonment for public protection), 63 percent had passed their tariff expiry date (Ministry of Justice, 2013c).
Previous research has established that imprisonment has a highly negative impact on prisoners’ partners, with many facing a range of financial, social, emotional and/or practical problems as a result of their loved one’s imprisonment (for example see Comfort, 2008; Morris, 1965; Condry, 2007). However, the experiences of partners of long-term prisoners have not yet been studied directly. Condry (2007) might be correct when she suggests that the difficulties suffered by prisoners’ families in general are likely to be exacerbated when the sentence in question is a long one. As will be discussed in the following section, long sentences may be correlated with greater stigma, an exacerbation of difficulties prisoners' families in general face, and emotional distancing.
Although the Ministry of Justice’s definition of long-term imprisonment is any determinate sentence of 4 years or more (e.g., Berman & Dar, 2013) with half being served in custody and half on license in the community, this paper departs from this primarily administrative definition. It treats any determinate sentence of 10 years or more as “long,” as well as any life sentence or IPP sentence[1] (imprisonment for public protection). The administrative definition shall be departed from in this chapter primarily because previous research on long-term imprisonment often takes the equivalent of a 10 year determinate sentence as a benchmark (e.g., Flanagan, 1981—at least 5 years of continuous incarceration; Merriman, 1979—10 years).
Some previous studies on prisoners’ families in general, such as that of Condry (2007) and May (2000), described the experiences of families of serious offenders. Thus a long sentence was implied, but both studies focused on issues of stigma and stigma management, and not specifically the longevity of the sentence and how it may affect the lives of the families in question. Other studies that looked at sentence length in conjecture with familial relationships found that as time went on, marital relationships were especially prone to disintegration—with Sapsford (1978) finding that by the end of the fifth year in custody, nearly all wives/girlfriends ceased all contact with the incarcerated individual. Merriman (1979) too found that whereas wives and girlfriends started off with a high level of contact, this dwindled eventually, though no specific numbers were given in the study. Although these are relevant and useful findings, this study did not seek to explore, in sociological detail, the lived experiences of the prisoners’ families and did not shed light as to why these relationships tended to fall apart.
The only studies, to date, to focus specifically on families of long- term prisoners are those of Tsui (2010) and Merriman (1979). The former, however, was conducted in Hong Kong, and its focus was on the processes of psychosocial development these families go through during the long sentence. The latter was conducted in the U.S., and is a brief study, primarily covering practical issues such as patterns of visiting and giving rather general statements rather than specific data. Neither aimed to delve into the detail of the effects long-term imprisonment may have on families of the imprisoned individuals. These studies, however, provide an excellent foundation for thinking about partners of long-term prisoners specifically.
The above discussion raises three important reasons why a further, more detailed study of the experiences of long-term prisoners’ partners is important. Firstly, intimate relationships are more likely to disintegrate over a long sentence—if we are to help support healthy family relationships, it is important to understand what challenges and difficulties the partners experience. This is especially important bearing in mind that healthy relationships are correlated with a decreased chance of future reoffending (e.g., recently, University of Cambridge, 2012). Secondly, as will be discussed below, long sentences may go hand-in-hand with greater trauma and an exacerbation of difficulties experienced by all prisoners’ families regardless of sentence length. Finally, a broader question of social justice emerges (see Arditti, 2012 and Kotova, 2014)—if partners of long-term prisoners suffer more injustice and hardship than the general population of prisoners’ families, it becomes all the more pertinent that their experiences are examined and discussed.
Theoretical Framework
Considering the dearth of research focusing on long-term prisoners’ families, it is useful to turn to the research on sociology of imprisonment, and specifically on the impact long-term imprisonment has on prisoners themselves. An excellent starting point is Comfort’s (2009) concept of “secondary prisonisation”—the idea that prisoners’ families are subjected to “a weakened but still compelling version of the elaborate regulations, concentrated surveillance, and corporeal confinement governing the lives of ensnared felons” (p. 2). Using this concept, Comfort (2009, 2008) argued that prisoners’ families are subjected to some of the “pains of imprisonment” (as set out by Sykes, 1958) that classic sociology of imprisonment has shown prisoners to be subjected to. These include deprivation of autonomy, deprivation of goods and services, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of security, and deprivation of heterosexual relationships (Sykes, 1958).
Comfort’s (2008) U.S.-based ethnography on prisoners’ partners only referred to a narrow range of literature on “pains of imprisonment”—the classic works of Sykes (1958) and Cohen and Taylor (1974). However, the notion that prisoners’ families are subjected to pains of imprisonment is a very useful one. In order to extend the discussion beyond Comfort’s (2008) work, however, a broader range of literature on pains of imprisonment should be considered, as well as more recent literature on pains of long- term imprisonment specifically. It would then be possible to discuss any links between long-term imprisonment and partners of long-term prisoners. For the purposes of this chapter, three themes related to the pains of imprisonment, and long-term imprisonment specifically, will be briefly discussed.
Time
When considering long sentences, time is an obvious and important theme not just for prisoners, but also for their partners. Three sub-themes emerge from the literature:
Making Sense of a Long Sentence
Cohen and Taylor’s (1974) classic work on psychological survival amongst long-term prisoners pointed out that some such long-term prisoners struggle to make sense of time and are worried about deteriorating in prison. Liebling et al. (2011a), in their extensive study, found that long- term prisoners go through “existential and identity crises brought on by both the length and uncertainty of contemporary sentences” (p. 536) and that some found it difficult to accept a long sentence. Sapsford (1983) found that lifers tended to not speak about the future and those who did could only see a short way into the future.
Temporal Disconnect
Further, Liebling et al. (2011b) highlighted that some research subjects reported difficulties associated with missing out on important events such as weddings, seeing their children grow up, and so forth. Time may not appear to flow when nothing changes in the prisoner’s daily routine (see Braudel 1980; Cope 2003), whereas it does flow, and quickly, for the partner outside as modern life moves on at a rapid pace—there is thus a temporal disconnect. Medlicott (1999) also raises the theme of missed opportunities building up as times goes on—weddings and birthdays the prisoner could not attend, for example.
Accumulation of Burdens over Time
Time could potential exacerbate the emotional burden of supporting someone in prison. For example, it is possible that the difficulties and frustrations of visiting, stresses of being searched and loneliness accumulate over time and build up into a heavy emotional burden. It is thus worth examining whether, with time, the partner adjusts and becomes adapted to her situation or whether the emotional difficulties—such as missing her partner—continue throughout the sentence.
Distancing
Closely related to the issue of time is the potential for emotional distance to develop between the prisoner and his partner as the sentences draws on. Flanagan (1981), for example, reported great fears amongst long-termers of losing their family—one participant said that he and his family will be different people when he comes out. Grounds and Jamieson (2003) also note that changes, such as children growing up and changing over time, which could also be extended to include changes in the partner, may result in distancing. These issues also come through in first-hand accounts of long-term prisoners. Warr (2011), a prisoner who served 12 years, described how prison made him distant, partially because he sought to protect his family from the negative aspects of imprisonment. For example, he did not tell them when he was attacked with a knife. Previous research has found that prisoners’ partners tend to, likewise, make their conversations with prisoners deliberately positive and withhold bad/negative news and emotions (e.g., see Comfort 2008; Merriman 1979). It is important to explore whether partners also feel this distancing, and if/how they are affected by what they might perceive as their imprisoned loved one’s distancing.
The literature on institutionalisation has also found that some long- term prisoners become withdrawn, Taylor (1961) describing the long- term prisoner as one showing “a flatness of response which resembles slow, automatic behavior of a very limited kind, and he is humorless and lethargic,” (p. 373) and Jose-Kampfner (1990) stated the female long-term prisoners experience an “existential death... being cut off from the outside” (p. 123). Although this issue has not been researched, to the best of my knowledge, there is perhaps a feedback loop at play, with the one form of distancing feeding the other. Merriman (1979) noted that some partners of long-termers were troubled by their partners’ distancing, but this is only mentioned briefly.
Stigma
Although stigma is not discussed as a key “pain of imprisonment” in relation to prisoners, it is certainly an important pain of imprisonment for prisoners’ families. Previous research has shown that all prisoners’ families may be subjected to courtesy stigma (see Condry, 2007; Codd, 2003; May, 2000; Comfort, 2008). The concept of courtesy stigma was first analysed by Goffman (1963), and refers in this context to the way in which the identities of prisoners’ families may be seen as “spoilt” by virtue of their relationship with the prisoner. The question arises whether and how stigma is experienced over a long sentence and how it is managed, and whether this courtesy stigma is more intense for partners of long-term prisoners. Again, it is useful to break this up into two sub-categories:
Serious Offences Yielding Long Sentences
Stigma may be worse for partners of men serving long sentences because long sentences tend to be given for crimes that society deemed to be most heinous. In the U.S., very long sentences may be given for less serious crimes, such as drug possession. For example, the Rockefeller laws in New York resulted in some drug offenders getting sentences as high as 15 to 20 years with the possibility of imprisonment for life (Fried, 2004). To compare, possession of Class A drugs in the U.K. carries a maximum determinate sentence of 7 years in prison, though supply and production are treated more harshly (Gov.uk, 2015). The only mandatory life sentence in England and Wales is applied to murder, and there is only a limited use of mandatory minimum sentences in cases of repeat serious drug traffickers (at least 7 years), repeat domestic burglars (at least 3 years) and firearms offenders (at least 5 years) (see Crown Prosecution Service, n.d.). In the latter two cases, there are provisions for reducing the minimum term. This should be compared to U.S. federal mandatory minimum sentences, which apply to a greater range of crimes and are usually much longer (see Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 2013).
Correlated to this may be increased media interest in the case—cases attracting a long sentence tend to be more “high profile” and thus attract more media attention. Families sometimes become media targets (see Codd, 2007), and prosecutions that result in longer sentences are more likely to attract significant media coverage. In a society obsessed with scandals and social media, partners of people accused of serious offences may face intense public scrutiny and be vilified. A good illustration of this is what sometimes occurs to wives of sex offenders: Laurie Fine, for example, argued that the media presented her as an evil woman who knew of and aided in her husband’s offending (see Kekis, 2012). Even if the family member herself is not identified or targeted, the fear of stigma may still be ever-present (Codd, 2007).
Stigma Management Over Time
Stigma-management may be more difficult when the sentence is long. Coping with years of gossip in itself may be extremely painful. Having to conceal or lie about their partner’s whereabouts (which are amongst some stigma-management techniques identified by Condry, 2007) may be very difficult when the sentence is a long one. Lies may be forgotten, for example, if different lies are told to numerous different people over the years.
In the following sections, I will illustrate the above themes with data emerging from an ongoing study on the experiences of partners of long- term prisoners in the U.K.
The Present Study
The study from which the data for this chapter is drawn aimed to understand the lived experiences of partners of long-term prisoners in the U.K., in their own words and from their own perspectives. More specifically, the study sought to broadly explore how a group of women whose partners (husbands, fiancés, or boyfriends) are currently serving, or have served, long sentences experienced the sentence; how practical difficulties were approached in the long-term, how stigma was managed, and how the issues of time was dealt with.
Method
A qualitative approach was taken, it being most suitable to exploring under-researched populations and their lived experiences. Prison is a complex social institution, and its broader sociological impact is better understood via a qualitative approach, which is better suited to research which seeks to understand meanings and interpretations as opposed to patterns (Cassell & Symon, 1994). Such an approach allows the researcher to delve into the lived experiences of the research subjects, and to explore themes in rich detail, thus weaving together a nuanced, complex dataset.
The specific method chosen was semi-structured interviews. This allowed the participants to tell their story while giving me the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and delve into themes which I might not have anticipated prior to the interviews. New themes could thus be explored. The less structured form of interviewing also created a conversational atmosphere, allowing the participants to be at ease with a stranger. This was important because they were asked to talk about potentially quite traumatic and upsetting experiences, but also aspects of their lives which were deeply personal (their relationships with their partners).
The data presented in this chapter is drawn from five semi-structured interviews; a small part of a larger set of interviews conducted to date. Interviewees for the larger study were drawn from a broad range of sources; support organisations for prisoners’ families, online forums/ blogs, Twitter and other social media, personal meetings at conferences and advertisements put in Inside Time, a national prison newspaper. This meant I could reach a large range of participants, living all across the U.K., including those who could not visit their partners for various reasons and those who were not part of any support organisation or group. It was up to the interviewees to step forward and contact me; this led to a self-selective sample but was a necessary practicality considering the stigmatised nature of this particular group of people and the hesitation many might feel about talking to strangers. Thus, participation was completely voluntary.
Interviews were conducted in neutral locations (e.g., private meeting rooms in public houses, cafes, hotels) in the area where the participants lived. This was to save them the cost of traveling. It was not possible to offer them any reimbursement other than a drink of their choice if the meeting was in cafe. All but two interviews in the larger dataset were audio recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, and questions were informed by the literature on prisoners’ families and long-term imprisonment. Generally, the interview subjects were allowed to tell “their story” as they wished, with the interviewer asking more targeted questions as they touched upon various topics. Particularly, they were asked about any institutionalisation of their partner, stigma and coping with it, visiting, phone-calls and letters (as applicable) and their views of the future.
Coding and Analysis
The interviews presented here were coded and analysed with the help of NviVo software. First, themes that were drawn from previous literature were extracted out from the interviews—stigma, time, practical difficulties, etc. Other themes emerged during the process of data analysis—a fluid process which necessitated going back and forth between previous literature and the interviews (see Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Given the focus of this chapter, the themes of time, stigma and emotional distancing were focused on during the analysis process.
Participant Characteristics
As seen in Table 1, none of the five participants came from an ethnic minority background; this is not representative of the general prison population in the U.K., where ethnic minorities are over-represented. Over one-quarter of all prisoners whose ethnicity was recorded come from a minority ethnic group (Berman & Dar, 2013). The Prison Reform Trust (n.d.) notes that this compares to 1 in 10 of the general population. Black British prisoners make up 10 percent of the total prison population: the proportion is significantly higher than the 2 percent of the general population they represent (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). All five participants were also middle class and older—this is a feature of the self-selective nature of the sample. Perhaps middle-class older women are more likely to step forward as research participants: they may have less chaotic lives, more free time, and/or are simply more used to talking about themselves and their problems. Some were married and some unmarried to their partners; for brevity, the term “partner” will be used regardless of their marital status in this chapter.
| Pseudonym | Age | Ethnicity | Sentence of partner | Time served when interviewed | Offence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anne | 50s | White British | Life sentences | 3 ¼ years | Murder |
| Esther | 50s | White British | Life sentence | 13 years | Murder |
| Mary | 40s | White British | 14 years | 5 years | Unknown[2] |
| Lisa | 40s | White British | Life sentence | 16 years | Murder |
| Elizabeth | 40s/50s | White British | 22 years | 1 ½ years | Sexual offence |
Findings
In this section, the themes discussed above will be illustrated using the data from the present study. It should be noted that as the larger study is still ongoing, my purpose here is to illustrate the various themes rather than to draw firm conclusions from the data.
Time
Dealing with the length of the sentence was difficult for some of the women. Lisa put it starkly when she said that “Most people doing a life sentence will become severely depressed, and I certainly have”—she also admitted to being suicidal at times. Mary highlighted that it only became possible to see a future and talk about it when the sentence was drawing to an end—there was then “a light at the end of the tunnel, so we could both feel a future... .” Planning became possible at that stage—even though she admitted that even at this optimistic stage, neither her nor her partner could say exactly what was going to happen in the future. There was still a great deal of uncertainty. For Elizabeth, much hinged on whether the upcoming appeal would be successful or not. If it transpired that her partner would have to serve the full sentence, then she admitted that they would have to sit down and figure out the way forward.
Both Mary and Anne coped with the length of the sentence in similar ways—by not thinking too far ahead:
So you’ve just got to take one day at a time, and I think that’s the thing... (Mary)
I have divided his sentence... If he gets parole after 15 years, right...? I’ve divided his sentence into, like, blocks. So there’s like 5 blocks of 3 years. The first block has gone over into second block. So it’s easier to cope with. Four more blocks, I’m already into the fourth block. So there’s only really three full blocks to go. It makes it more, in my mind, it’s not as hard to cope with as thinking of 18 years. (Anne)
A few of the participants mentioned various important events that they partners have missed. Mary’s father passed away not too long before Christmas, something that was very “tough” because she could not sit down and talk to her partner about such a sad event and could not get the “closeness” she needed then. Esther’s partner lost both of his parents while he was in prison, and it was her who had to pass the news to him. Her father also passed away—something that she too described as being “tough” because she could not simply call her partner. Elizabeth had to go in and tell her partner that two close relatives of his had died, which, she admitted, was far from easy to do. When a sentence is long, it becomes more likely that things like this will happen—funerals will be missed, children will grow up, and so on. These women needed the presence and support of their partners, but could not have it because of the separation. Moreover, Esther had not spent any Christmases or New Year’s Eves with her partner because she visited her parents then. The ultimate fear, for Anne, was age- related. Her partner was quite elderly, and led to the fear that:
...because of our age, one of us will die, before release. You know, and that’s a fear. Because of our age, you know? (Anne)
A final theme that was explored was coping with the practical and emotional difficulties of maintaining a relationship with someone in prison over a prolonged period of time. A prominent theme here was missing their other half and the emotional difficulty of leaving them after visits.
...it’s just devastating, leaving them in there, really is. It doesn’t get any easier, either. It was always difficult, when I was just a mate, it was a difficult, so, like, doesn’t get any easier. (Mary, emphases added)
Others pointed out that the emotional difficulties continue well into the sentence and can be characterised by serious emotional ups and downs. Lisa spoke of emotional “valleys” and “summits” and of having good and bad days. Elizabeth admitted to sometimes simply not having the strength to keep going. Anne said that time “has stood still” for her, and went on to describe herself as being emotionally “stuck” at times, with even simple decisions about what to eat for dinner being impossible. She also described missing her partner and having no-one to talk to at times.
There could also be triggers that would remind of the participant of what happened with her partner and cause a lot of anguish even well into the sentence, something that Condry (2007) touched upon in her research:
Other times, something could come on the telly and if I’m just not in the right frame of mind, I just have to turn it off. Can’t watch it. Can’t deal with it. Songs on the radio - oh my God, they’ve got to be the worst. They are absolutely the worst. You know, when we got married, we had 3 wedding songs, whenever any of them come on the radio I have to turn the radio off. I turn it off. I just cannot deal with it at all. (Elizabeth)
Distancing
None of the participants said that their relationships with their partners deteriorated or that there was emotional distancing, though three of the partners had not been in prison for extended periods at the time. In fact, most said that they and their partners have become closer due to the increased opportunities for in-depth communication via letters, phone- calls and visits. However, the disconnect between them, the issue of living somewhat separate lives, was a theme that came through in the interviews. Mary’s partner, for example, was quite closed off about his prison experience —something that she said made her quite frustrated.
He’s never, he’s never told me a lot about his daily life. I think that’s more because he wants to compartmentalize, he doesn’t want me changed through the... It’s like his outside world is his outside world, prison is prison. (Mary)
Similarly, there were things the women did not tell their partners. Mary was somewhat anxious and scared about what was going to happen when her partner was going to be released, but said that she “can’t really tell him that because then it’s a bit of a downer.” Elizabeth admitted to carefully moderating what she said and when, so as not to upset or worry her husband, and Lisa remembered trying to not “challenge him too much, not rock the boat.”
There was also a sense in which life outside moved on much faster than on the inside:
...it’s quite weird, ‘cos he wrote to me one time, and said - what’s Skype? And it made me realize that actually, he’s missed out on a lot of technological progress. And when he comes out, he’s gonna be like what the hell is that? D’you know what I mean? Like, why do you, you’ve got internet on your phone? And you can get onto Facebook on your phone? And stuff like that. He’s completely outdated on technology. And that’s gonna take some getting used to. (Mary)
For Mary, a younger professional woman with a good job and a vibrant social circle, another concern was how her partner would fit in with her friends when he comes out. She did not know what the reactions would be and said there were people she would keep her partner away from.
One way which the different flows of time could be combated was attempting to keep the imprisoned partner informed about the minutia of everyday life—for example, Mary would send in photos of her cats and tell her partner all about her new house. Anne would send in clippings from the local paper and tell her husband about things like roadworks and so on, just to keep him up-to-date. This, of course, required quite a bit of creativity, effort, and time.
All of the participants said that their partners were, to some extent, institutionalised. This gave rise to various difficulties. For example, Esther noted that the following sometimes happens because her husband is not used to the often changing, erratic everyday life on the outside:
If I’m not where he thinks I’m going to be, or something happens out of the ordinary in my day that has an impact on him, it does throw him a little. Oh, I didn’t know you were going there! I said no, it just came up. (Esther)
Her husband’s institutionalisation was, for Esther, a cause for some anguish:
He came out for his dad’s funeral and when he got out of that car, that brought him to his dad’s funeral, which is the first time he’d been for [number] years then, it nearly broke my heart. And my mum did cry. Because he looked like a rabbit scared in the headlights. [...] He said - everything felt so fast and so noisy. (Esther)
Elizabeth said this about her partner’s institutionalisation, especially the fact that he could get very down at times and was on antidepressants, something that was really out of character for him:
It’s very hard. I can see certain things about him changing but I have to understand that he is, he is going to change from being where he is. It is something I have to accept. (Elizabeth)
Lisa pointed out another way in which her partner’s institutionalization caused some difficulties:
Oh, sometimes he’s been controlling about visits, as in wanting to control his contact with the outside world including me. I found that difficult...[...] Or he would just withdraw completely for a while, which was horrible. (Lisa)
Mary also expressed a mild irritation with the extent to which her partner was institutionalised:
...he’s quite institutionalized in his own head, like his job was, he has his routine and he does this on Monday, this on Tuesday, and he doesn’t like being interrupted. So like he doesn’t like certain visits on certain days ‘cos he’s going to the gym or he’s doing a course or stuff. And he gets a bit old- womanish about that, he really does, he really really does get, like, ridiculous about it. And it’s like—hang on a minute, I’m travelling 100 miles to see you, like, really?! (Mary)
It should also be noted that the women themselves can be institutionalised over time, as the following quote demonstrates:
I’ve become used to certain things. Like every time he’s moved prison, I find it difficult to adjust to a different routine. When he phones, how visits go, and how you organise things. You become institutionalised in your own way. (Lisa)
Mary also kept holding her phone throughout the interview, and apologised for doing so—she said she always did that, because she had no idea when her partner would call her.
Stigma
Most of the women described experiencing social stigma to some extent. Esther lost a close friend she had known all her life, Anne described being “disowned” by her partner’s son and not being invited to his upcoming wedding. Elizabeth said that “Friends tend to clear off. Most of them have, in fairness.” Lisa was bullied at work for a time, and one of her brothers deleted her on Facebook, something that made her feel “like a social outcast.” Mary, although not recalling any specific instances of stigma, did say that she does not advertise where her partner is; here, the impact of feared, potential stigma can be seen.
Some of the respondents also felt stigmatised by the police and prison staff. Esther described the prison system as one that “says go and wait outside in the rain for an hour, no you can’t stand in this little bit that’s dry. We want you stand there in the rain. And that’s what they do to us.” She then added that prisoner’s partners are “treated as criminal, actually.” “They look at you like you less than human,” said Lisa, and later said that she at times was treated “like dirt.” Elizabeth said the police were initially “very, very judgemental and very harsh” in their treatment of her, something she found difficult to cope with as the police told her that she needed to forget her partner and move on with her life. Because her partner was accused of such a serious offence, she felt that the police and the system as a whole “could not accept the fact that [she] was standing by him.”
For Anne, stigma continued well into the (long) sentence. However, it was in Esther’s and Lisa’s cases that the longevity of the stigma was all the more apparent, as the excerpts below demonstrate.
It’s horrendous. Every single week, I think, what type of person is gonna search me today, is it gonna be one that’s gonna be polite and smile or one that’s gonna “you can’t wear your scarf this week.” (Esther, emphasis added)
[The stigma is] Horrendous... I mean, it just hasn’t stopped, either. Just like... I think the most painful, some of the most painful stuff is the people we’re the closest to. Absolute agony. My ex-husband, he and I don’t really talk about... He said some appalling things. And then he got into a relationship with someone who was even worse than he was. (Lisa – emphasis added)
Stigma management was very difficult for Esther as time went on. She noted that:
So, that’s a hard thing as well, that you have to lie. I never-ever say he doesn’t exist. I never say I’m single. But I make up all sots of stories about where he could be and where he is... [...] So you tell lies. And then you have to remember you’ve told the lies to, and what the lie is. (Esther)
Esther had let one neighbor think that her and her partner had split up, which, she anticipated, will lead to more difficulties in the future and has made her feel “disloyal.”
Where I live now, on my own, [partner] and I used to live there together, I’m close to two of my neighbours. And isn’t it strange, I told one what happened to [partner] but I didn’t tell the other. I let her assume we’d split up. How I’m gonna explain when he’s coming back, I don’t know. But I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. (Esther)
Four of the five cases received some media attention—something that was unpleasant for each of the four women. Anne stated that the media tended to “Sensationalise it. And everything was exaggerated,” and Mary noted that “there was a few things [she] didn’t like in the papers.” The lies and distortions were painful. Elizabeth recalled reading lies and distortions as being “quite difficult”; one particular lie was a report pertaining to a sex manual which was allegedly taken from her house during a search.
Lisa was specifically mentioned in the headline, albeit not by name, on the front page of a newspaper the day after a sentencing hearing. She described the impact this had on her in the following terms:
But then there was this terrifying period where I didn’t know if they would try to come after me, whether it was gonna get in the nationals. Whether they would try to get a picture of me, I had to go stay with some friends. It was really, really frightening. (Lisa)
Conclusion
The findings discussed above suggest that long-term imprisonment can have serious and lasting effects on partners of prisoners. It has the potential to change people and impact their lives in many different ways, for years—in Esther’s case, over a decade at the time of the interview. More research is needed into this particular group of prisoners’ families, especially in light of an increasing number of prisoners serving long and indeterminate sentences. After all, if we are to understand the full impact of imprisonment, we also need to understand its collateral impact—on families, communities, cities, and so forth. This chapter, and the larger project from which the data is drawn, hopes to begin to uncover a group of prisoners’ families that has as of yet not attained much academic attention.
The words of Lisa and Anne best summarize how they have been impacted by a long sentence:
And you change because of it, and you become someone who, that’s part of your identity, the fact that you’ve done this, he fact that you’ve survived this. (Lisa)
Everything really revolved around this prison journey. It takes over. It’s taken over everything. (Anne)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Joyce Arditti, Rachel Condry, and Tessa leRoux for their useful feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter. I would also like to thank The Sir Halley Stewart Trust for funding the research project. All views expressed here are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Trust. Finally, without the women who stepped up and shared their stories, this research would not have been possible—my thanks go out to them.
References
- Arditti, J. A. (2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York, NY: New York University Press.
- Berman, G., & Dar, A. (2013). Prison population statistics. Commons Library Standard Note. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04334
- Braudel, F. (1980). On history. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
- Cassell, C. M, & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative methods in organizational research. London, UK: Sage.
- Codd, H. (2003). Women inside and out: Prisoners’ partners, women in prison and the struggle for identity. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Women%20Inside%20and%20Out.pdf
- Codd, H. (2007). Prisoners’ families and resettlement: A critical analysis. The Howard Journal, 46(3), 255-263.
- Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1974). Psychological survival: The experience of long-term imprisonment. New York, NY: Vintage.
- Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Comfort, M. (2009).”We share everything we can the best way we can”: Sustaining romance across prison walls. Transatlantica, 1. Retrieved from http://transatlantica.revues.org/4281
- Condry, R. (2007). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for relatives of serious offenders. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
- Cope, N. (2003). “It’s no time or high time”: Young offenders’ experiences of time and drug use in prison. The Howard Journal, 42(2), 158-175.
- Crown Prosecution Service. (n.d.). Mandatory and minimum custodial sentences. Retrieved from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mandatory_and_minimum_custodial_sentences/
- Families Against Mandatory Minimums. (2013). Federal mandatory minimums. Retrieved from http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf
- Flanagan, T. J. (1981). Dealing with long-term confinement: Adaptive strategies and perspectives among long-term prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8(2), 201-222.
- Fried, J. (2004). Drug laws and lives revisited. The New York Times, December 12. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/nyregion/12folo.html
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
- Gov.uk, (2015). Drug penalties. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
- Grounds, A., & Jamieson, R. (2003). No sense of an ending: Research the experience of imprisonment of imprisonment and release among republican ex-prisoners. Theoretical Criminology, 7(3), 347-362.
- Jose-Kampfner, C. (1990). Coming to terms with existential death: An analysis of women’s adaptation to life in prison. Social Justice, 17(2), 110-125.
- Kotova, A. (2014). Justice and prisoners’ families. Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 5/2014. Retrieved from https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/What_is_Justice/HLWP_5_2014_2.pdf
- Kekis, J. (2012). Laurie Fine ESPN lawsuit threat: Wife of ex-Syracuse coach Bernie Fine says life is “destroyed.” Huffington Post, May 16. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/laurie-fine-espn-lawsuit-threat-syracuse-bernie-fine_n_1521354.html
- Liebling, A. (2011). Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and prison pain. Punishment and Society, 13(5), 530-550.
- Liebling, A., Arnold, H., & Straub, C. (2011a). Staff-prisoner relationship at HMP Whitemoor: Twelve years on. London, UK: Home Office.
- Liebling A., Arnold H., & Straub C. (2011b). Vunerability and power in prison: Updating the findings from HMP Whitemoor: Ten years on. [Prisoner excerpts]. London, UK: Home Office.
- May, H. (2000). Murderers’ relatives’ managing stigma, negotiating identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29, 198-221.
- Medlicott, D. (1999). Surviving the time machine: Suicidal prisoners and the pains of prison time. Time and Society, 8(2), 211-230.
- Merriman, P. (1979). The families of long-term prisoners. Probation Journal, 26(4), 114-120.
- Ministry of Justice. (2013a). Story of the prison population: 1993–2012, England and Wales. London, UK: Ministry of Justice.
- Ministry of Justice. (2013b). Offender management caseload statistics 2012. [Table A3.5]. London, UK: Ministry of Justice and Offender Management Caseload Statistics.
- Ministry of Justice. (2013c). Offender management statistics (quarterly), January to March 2013. [Table 1.4]. London, UK: Ministry of Justice.
- Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
- Prison Reform Trust. (n.d.). Projects and research: Race. Prison Reform Trust. Retrieved from http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ProjectsResearch/Race
- Sapsford, R. J. (1978). Life-sentence prisoners: Psychological changes during sentence. British Journal of Criminology, 18(2): 128:145.
- Sapsford, R. J. (1983). Life sentence prisoners: Research, response and change. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Sykes, G. M. (1958). Society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Taylor, A. (1961). Social isolation and imprisonment. Psychiatry, 24(4), 373-376. Tsui, E. (2010). Subjective experiences of families of long-term prisoners in Hong Kong. [Ph.D thesis]. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/65289
- University of Cambridge. (2012). Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families. Retrieved from http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/fathers_in_prison/final_report.pdf
- Warr, J. (2011). Afterward. In B. Crewe & J. Bennett (Eds.), The prisoner. London UK: Routledge.
