Michelle Butler

The Impact of Disrespect on Prisoners’ Aggression: Outcomes of Experimentally Inducing Violence Supportive Cognitions

Abstract Self-report research suggests that much violence is triggered by perceived insults and disrespect. This may be particularly true in the context of a prison or another environment of acute deprivation, whereby individuals have little other recourse to means of reputation enhancement. This paper presents the findings of two studies conducted with prisoner volunteers inside a Category C (minimum security) prison in England. In the first study, the authors randomly assigned a sample of 89 prisoners to one of two conditions: the experimental group were asked to discuss times they have been disrespected by authority figures inside and outside the prison; the control group were asked more neutral questions. Both groups then completed several measures of cognitive beliefs, distortions, and hostile attribution biases. None of the measures differed across the two groups except the measure of excuse and justification acceptance. Controlling for other factors, the experimental group endorsed these rationalisations at a significantly higher rate than the control group. This finding suggests that raising the salience of disrespect – reminding prisoners of times they have been made to feel unworthy of consideration – may raise the risk that prisoners will engage in violence by providing prisoners with justifications or excuses for actions they might not otherwise endorse. These findings received some additional validation in the second study, a qualitative analysis of offender accounts of violence and aggression within the prison. Implications for reducing violence within prisons are discussed.

What are You Looking at?: Prisoner Confrontations and the Search for Respect

This article examines the occurrence of fights, assaults, arguments and threats of violence between adult male prisoners in an English category C prison. The self-narratives of 40 men are analysed to investigate whether some prisoners engage in more confrontations than others due to a psychological need to protect their identity. The findings indicate that how an individual understands and constructs their self-narrative can influence their involvement in aggressive behaviour. Implications for interventions attempting to reduce aggression are explored.

Rethinking Prison Disciplinary Processes: A Potential Future for Restorative Justice

Abstract The movement for restorative justice (RJ) has struggled with marginalization on the soft end of the criminal justice system where the threat of net widening and iatrogenesis looms large. To realize the full potential of RJ as an alternative philosophy of justice, restorative practices need to expand beyond the world of adolescent and small-level offenses into the deeper end of the justice system. Disciplinary hearings inside of adult prisons may be a strategic space to advance this expansion. This article presents findings from a study of prison discipline in four U.K. prisons. The findings strongly suggest that in their current form such disciplinary proceedings are viewed by prisoners as lacking in legitimacy. Although modeled after the adversarial system of the criminal court, the adjudications were instead universally derided as “kangaroo courts” lacking the basic elements of procedural justice. Based on these findings, we argue that RJ interventions may offer a viable redress to these problems of legitimacy which, if successful, would have ramifications that extend well beyond the prison walls.

Using Specialised Prison Units to Manage Violent Extremists: Lessons from Northern Ireland

ABSTRACT The use of specialised prison units (SPUs) as a means of countering violent extremism and radicalisation is growing in popularity in many jurisdictions. Yet, little is known about their ability to prevent radicalisation in the long term, limit the spread of violent extremism, or promote de-radicalisation and disengagement. This paper begins to explore these issues by reflecting on the over 40 years of experience that Northern Ireland (NI) has had in this area. It is argued that the international community tends to have an incomplete understanding of: a) why SPUs were created and installed in NI; b) how their regime, conditions, and underlying rationale changed over time; and c) the long-term consequences that SPUs have had on the spread of violent extremism, de-radicalisation, and disengagement. This paper seeks to make an original contribution to this literature by highlighting the role psychological, situational, social, and political factors played in shaping the effectiveness of SPUs in NI. By providing a more in-depth analysis of why SPUs in NI entrenched extremism rather than promoted disengagement or de-radicalisation, other jurisdictions will be encouraged to reflect on how these factors may affect the success of their own SPUs in countering violent extremism.

Imprisoned fathers - responding to children

Many have commented on the invisibility of fathers in the area of child and family welfare in research, policy and practice (e.g. see Brown, Callahan, Strega, Walmsley, & Dominelli, 2009). This special edition of Child Care in Practice focuses on a much-overlooked issue in child and family scholarship: responding to the needs of children whose fathers are imprisoned. In recent decades, we have seen growing recognition of the important role played by fathers in their children’s lives and subsequently, the impact of absent fathers. It is now generally accepted that fathers have an important, and separate, role to play in children’s lives and have a significant influence on how children grow and develop into adulthood (Fletcher, May, St George, Stoker, & Oshan, 2014; Huerta et al., 2013). Contemporary discourse encourages fathers to be “hands-on” in their parenting, promoting displays of men cuddling, playing with and feeding their children (Brown et al., 2009). Yet, there seems to be little guidance on how to achieve this state, particularly for those fathers who face challenges across a range of life domains, and perhaps need most help. There has also been a growing recognition that the term father should not just refer to those that are the biological fathers of children but should also include non-biological social and legal relationships, such as adoptive fathers, stepfathers, social fathers (i.e. where a man has assumed responsibility for a child), as well (see Marsiglio, Day, & Lamb, 2000). The corollary of the present, active, good father, is the bad, absent father. Our understanding of what has become known as “father absence” is, in many ways, limited in focus. McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider (2013) provide evidence of the negative impact of father absence on children’s school completion, social-emotional adjustment and their mental health as adults. However, this research only focused on father absence arising from parental divorce/ separation or father absence from birth. Less is known about father absence arising from imprisonment and the specific needs of imprisoned fathers and their children. McLanahan et al. (2013) also note that much research in this area has found it difficult to disentangle what causes the negative impacts of father absence from the circumstances that led to the father’s absence and how these effects may intersect. If we consider parental incarceration as a very specific type of father absence, which typically co-occurs alongside other personal and structural issues, including substance abuse, mental health, family violence, poor education and employment, then it seems highly likely that these intersecting issues will create an even more negative impact on children. Often, the impact of parental imprisonment on children is overshadowed in the minds of the general public and policymakers by the criminal status of the imprisoned father and focus on the father’s offending behaviour. This is unfortunate as not only does it not consider how imprisonment can result in negative harms for innocent children but it also fails to appreciate how parental imprisonment may increase the risk of these children becoming involved in antisocial behaviour and crime in the future (Besemer, van der Geest, Murray, Bijleveld, & Farrington, 2011; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012). Greater attention needs to be paid to this area as

Allowing imprisoned fathers to parent: maximising the potential benefits of prison based parenting programmes

ABSTRACT During imprisonment, fathers are separated from their families and contact is limited. When delivering a prison based parenting programme, providing an opportunity to rehearse newly acquired parenting skills can be key for mastering the performance of these skills and using these skills to improve father-child relationships. This paper takes an in-depth look at how one parenting programme in Northern Ireland sought to overcome this challenge by providing additional opportunities to parent via increased telephone contact and special family friendly visits. Using a combination of in-depth interviews and observations, how fathers and their families responded to this increased contact is explored, as well as the extent to which this increased contact facilitated the acquisition of the parenting skills being taught on the programme. It is argued that while prison based parenting programmes can improve parenting skills and father-child relationships, their potential long-term effectiveness may be limited by wider prison policies, procedures and practices surrounding prison visitation, telephone access and the progression of fathers following the completion of such programmes. Recommendations and suggestions for future practice are offered.