Punishment for Life





Upon release from prison, an individual faces a multitude of barriers, both

structural and personal, in reintegrating back into the community. Firstly, one of the most consequential is the criminal record attached to their identity for life. Secondly, the community assigns responsibility to the individual in dealing with their own needs,alienating them by retracting support and rejecting them as outcasts. Thirdly, a majority of those incarcerated come from poor, lower class backgrounds, with families struggling to meet basic needs or do not have any place to call home. Finally, many have low education levels that limit their options to obtain jobs with higher pay and access to social capital.





A criminal record continues to stigmatize the individual long after they have

served their sentence and paid dues to society for a crime (Ruddell & Winfree, 2009).This presents economic, social and emotional difficulties in establishing a foothold in the community. Many employers refuse to hire individuals with records, access to social services may be denied, welfare applications may be refused and landlords may reject them as possible tenants (Comfort, 2008). With the adoption of Bill C-10 the term ‘pardon’ has been substituted with ‘record suspension’, with ‘pardon’ now designating‘clemency’ as offered in exceptional cases by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen (Legislative Summary, 2011). The Minister of Public Safety stated aftertheadoption of Bill C-10 that the role of the State is ‘not to provide forgiveness to offenderson behalf of victims because that is something the victims must do themselves.’ (Legislative Summary, 2011) The waiting time before application can be made for apardon has also been increased to five years for a summary offense and up to ten years for an indictable offense (Legislative Summary, 2011). The bill also introduces mandatory minimum sentences for drug related offenses, non-violent property crimes and mandates incarceration for youth (Legislative Summary, 2011).





The State has certain roles in rehabilitating the offender, but the neoliberal

framework through which it operates is committed to the notion that individuals can and should be changed (Moore & Hannah-Moffat, 2005). Targeted governance is used to constantly correct and manage certain undesirable behaviors through programs that focus on needs such as cognitive skills, substance abuse and living skills, but neglect underlying social causes of recidivism. The emphasis on personal choice and responsibility, through such programs as cognitive behavioral therapy further ignores crime as a social phenomenon (Moore & Hannah-Moffat, 2005). The State’s role is a

custodial one, dedicated to protecting public safety, managing risk groups and labeling criminals as separate from the rest of society. Criminals are referred to as individuals who must take responsibility for their actions and remain burdened by past wrongdoings because of wrong choices (Garland, 2001).The neoliberal state expects the individual to be a good citizen through civilized consumption, further aligning the criminal justice system against those who attempt to express their freedom in alternative ways (Levinsky).

In addition to structural disadvantages, individuals face many personal challenges for which the community and State offer minimal support, such as substance abuse, mental health problems, poor overall health, abusive relationships and problems with violence (Doob & Webster, 2006). Incarcerated women face being separated from their children once within the prison and upon release through State custody. Limited funding is allocated to treatment programs and many women struggle with poor health, no economic support and lack of accessible shelter (Doob & Webster, 2006). In Europe, for

example, there are separate prisons for women with children. Women are provided the basic necessities for themselves and their children and are housed in special facilities that are similar to a house arrest rather than a total institution (European Council SDC, 2012).





The consequences of imprisonment on offenders, families and communities are

far reaching and permeate beyond the physical boundaries of the penal institution (Comfort, 2008). Moffat states that ‘various forms of group membership and institutional processes of categorization influence social conduct and representation (Hannah-Moffat).





The institutions treat the families and relatives of offenders within a hierarchical, demeaning and abusive manner that forces them through a process of self-mortification (Goffman, 1961). They are treated much like the prisoners despite being innocent of any wrongdoing and looked down upon by the institution’s staff (Comfort, 2008). Through the long waiting lines, limited instructions, haphazard security regulations, no attention to maternal needs and stripping of personal possessions the total institution offers no care for the individual persona, but treats prisoners and visitors alike

on a equal plane (Goffman, 1961).





The institution’s reach extends beyond the prison by emotionally and structurally stigmatizing the families of those incarcerated by treating them as potential risks to the rest of society (Comfort, 2008). The State engages in a risk

management approach of targeted groups, who are mostly the poor, welfare dependent, petty criminals, discharged psychiatric patients and street people (Rose, 1998). These groups are targeted because the criminal justice system is designed to funnel the poor into prison, while those with more wealth can afford to buy their way out (Reiman, 2004).





The authors outline the need for comprehensive case management of released

offenders, with programs developed to meet individual needs within the community upon release (Ruddell & Winfree, 2006). The development of programs with linkages to community networks would ease the stigmatization associated with imprisonment through acceptance of an offender’s atonement. An empowerment of the individual by creating opportunities to allow freedom of self-responsibility, without discriminating based on past actions would discourage recidivism. However, although such methods would undoubtedly reduce recidivism and reliance on imprisonment as punishment, they

would be met with resistance, from both economic and social fronts. The resistance would stem from the fact that only non-violent offenders would be allowed to reintegrate, but what about those who used violence to varying degrees? The financial burden on taxpayers, individualistic structure of society and policing of the poor by the State would create barriers to addressing the social context of crime.





Violence can be considered to be the utmost expression of human freedom and

control over one’s life, such as in the case of suicide (Szasz). Any kind of violence can be understood as a human action, no matter how ‘morally insane’ it may seem (Becker,1998). Thus, if society were to accept the notion that certain crime is committed not necessarily out of evil intention, but due to problems of living, the criminal justice system would be less retributive. Yet, the retributory aspect of punishment is difficult to remove entirely because it is part of human nature to avenge harm to one’s persona. To deny

violence as being a part of our being, to deny that we are all capable of ‘criminal action’ would be to deny our very existence. Our disapproval of violence is layered with moral teachings, cultural expectations and constant social upbringing. But, that same disapproval gives rise to prisons, punitive treatment and discrimination based on gender, class and race. Moral denial of violence spawn actions that are no less violent.





Barnett, L. et al. (5 October 2011, rev. 11 January 2012) Legislative Summary: Bill C-10.

Library of Parliament. Ottawa, Canada. Publication No. 41-1-C10-E

Becker, Gavin de (1998). “The Gift of Fear”. Dell Publications.

Megan Comfort (2008). “In the Tube at San Quentin: The Secondary Prisonization of

Women Visiting Inmates.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 32(1): 77-107

David Garland (2001). The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Pp. 1-27 (‘Chapter One: A History of the Present’). Coursepack.

Erving Goffman (1961). Asylums. New York: Anchor Books. Pp. ix-43.

Coursepack.

Dawn Moore and Kelly Hannah-Moffat (2005). “The Liberal Veil: Revisiting Canadian

Penality.” In John Pratt et al, editors, The New Punitiveness. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Pp.

85-100. Coursepack.

Jeffrey Reiman (2004). The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Boston:

Pearson. Pp. 103-156 (Chapter Three: ‘…And the Poor Get Prison’). Coursepack.

Beth Richie (2001). “Challenges Incarcerated Women Face as They Return to Their

Communities.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 368-389.

Rick Ruddell and L. Thomas Winfree (2006). “Setting Aside Criminal Convictions in

Canada.” The Prison Journal 86(4): 452-469.

Rose, N. (2000). Government and Control. British Justice Criminology, Vol. 40: 321-339.

Scot Wortley (2003). “Hidden Intersections: Research on Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice

in Canada.” 35(3): 99-117.

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, 2008. Women and Mothers with

Children in Prison. European Council Projects, Governance.



