Living in the Aftermath: the Impact of Lengthy Incarceration on Post-Carceral Success

Abstract

There is literature which considers the challenges of prisoner release and re-entry but little research which addresses the successful resettlement of formerlyincarcerated individuals in the years, not months, after release from prison. This article attempts to partially fill this void by focusing on the intersection of two temporal issues: duration of incarceration and the impact of this time on long-term resettlement. Using data from an ethnomethodological study of successful former long-term prisoners, this article discusses the post-carceral challenges encountered by ex-convicts, the strategies used to overcome these and concludes by considering these in relation to the prison expansionist agenda.Timmy 1 is a lifer who spent several decades in prison. Having begun his prison sentence as a teenager, he missed out on the usual rituals associated with growing into adulthood; instead, he became an adult in prison and institutional life was his reality. After release, he struggled to cope and to find his place in society. It wasn't easy and little things 'tripped him up'; eloquently demonstrating this metaphor, he once said that he kept stumbling over the sidewalk because there were 'no curbs in prison'.Timmy is only one of the approximately 13,200 individuals in Canada incarcerated for sentences lasting for more than two years (Canada, Statistics Canada 2007) with half of this group serving more than the median 945 days 2 (Canada, Statistics Canada 2010). As of 31 March 2010, there were 4,774 life-sentenced individuals serving a minimum of ten years in prison before parole eligibility and, therefore, the proportion of people serving greater time than the median is high (Canada 2009). Most of these men and women will eventually return to the community on graduated or statutory release and they will be asked to reintegrate into the social body. Most will succeed. Recent data indicate that over the past ten years, 82% of day paroles, over 70% of full paroles and 58% of statutory releases were successfully completed (Canada, Statistics Canada 2008).

“I Want a Second Chance”

“…First, they are seeking redemption. This notion is akin to Sociologist Elijah Anderson's (2001) concept of "going straight," which alludes to the complex processes of negotiating life postincarceration, with a commitment to engaging in positive behaviors and decisions (Maruna, 2001;Munn, 2011). In Maruna's (2001) study of released inmates, incarceration becomes a turning point for them "going straight," wanting to conform to social norms, and become a "changed" father (Dyer, 2005).…”

Older Men’s Social Integration After Prison

“…For lifers, reentry has been found to be a period of anxiety and difficult adjustment to the outside world, as prisoners slowly acculturate to life outside the prison walls (Clemmer, 1940(Clemmer, /1958Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013;Irwin, 2005). Relationships with women can be emotionally fraught, as minor disagreements provoke anxiety, and men reconcile their idealized expectations of women and relationships with lived realities (Munn, 2011). Yet, lifers may also undergo processes of rehabilitation while incarcerated, which may make successful integration more possible.…”

Managing Risk or Supporting Desistance? A Longitudinal Study on the Nature and Perceptions of Parole Supervision in the Netherlands

“…However, supervision can also be perceived as a more punitive experience for individuals subjected to it, which is particularly related to forms of intensive supervision (frequent check-ins and home visits) and the rise of ‘new surveillance’ technologies such as profiling, drug tests and electronic monitoring [46, 50]. Parole supervision in general, and intensive supervision in particular, can amplify the fear of being sent back to prison in case of violation after short and longer terms of imprisonment [42, 58]. Other examples of so-called pains of probation [19] are deprivation of time and autonomy in the case of frequent check-ins, being obligated as part of the conditions to share information about income, the threat of (re-)imprisonment, intrusive home visits, feelings of stigmatisation due to the ankle bracelet and feelings of isolation because of banning orders from certain places, people and situations [19, 31, 50, 59, 60, 63].…”