Incarcerating Motherhood

The Enduring Harms of First Short Periods of Imprisonment on Mothers

Isla Masson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781351729208
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Sociología

Incarcerating Motherhood explores how initial short period in prisons can negatively impact mothers and their children. We have much yet to understand about the enduring harms caused by first time incarceration, especially for minimal time periods and for mothers with dependent children. With large numbers of female prisoners currently incarcerated for short periods in England and Wales (either on short sentences or remand), many of whom are primary caregivers, this book asks: what kind of impact does this imprisonment has on both parent and child in the long term?

Based on original research, the experiences of sixteen mothers are presented to voice the material, physical and emotional consequences of short-term imprisonment. The book explores to what extent these mothers lose their sense of identity in a short space of time, whether this continues to affect them post-custody, and what level of support they are provided during and post-custody. This book also explores what bearing the initial separation and the care provided during the mother's absence will have on their children's lives, as well as whether the affects of imprisonment on the mother also increase the vulnerability of her children.

Incarcerating Motherhood provides a platform for readers to hear how a 'short sharp shock' can cause enduring harms to an already vulnerable group in society and how even short-term imprisonment have long-lasting and multi-dimensional consequences.

Part I

Providing the context

Chapter 1

Why women? Why mothers?

Prisons are seen as being in a permanent state of crisis, with concerns expressed about overcrowding, poor conditions, disorder and riots (Bulman, 2018b; Maidment, 2018; Perry, 2014). According to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2013g: 2), as a result of ‘tougher sentencing and enforcement outcomes’, more people are being incarcerated in England and Wales than ever before. For example, the prison population nearly doubled in size between 1993 and 2018¹ (MoJ, 2016; 2018l). The outcome of this expansion continues to be higher reconviction rates² (MoJ, 2018n), with significant social costs, and higher expenditure compared with sentences in the community³ (MoJ, 2017a; NOMS Women and Equalities Group, 2012; Prison Reform Trust (PRT), 2010c). With the considerable financial cost of prisons, many feel the ‘expenditure on prisons is drawing resources from other parts of the criminal justice system, and creating strain throughout the system’ (Hough, Jacobson and Milie, 2003: 3). This is especially the case as budget cuts are being made throughout the criminal justice system (CJS) (HM Treasury, 2017).

In England and Wales, prison is deemed to be our most severe punishment; however, there are a number of fundamental problems with how the use and purpose of the prison has changed. There has been a shift from using prisons to reform offenders, to protecting the public by managing the risk prisoners pose (Garland, 2001). In Culture of Control, Garland (2001) argues that in the past few centuries there has been a reinvention of the prison: we have witnessed changing penal fashions with various governments, with evaluations ranging from ‘prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse’ to ‘prison works’ (Baker, 1996: 639). Without clear direction on the purpose and best use of prison, the prison crisis will continue.

Although there has been increasing research on prisons (for example, Bennett, Crewe and Wahidin, 2007; Crewe, 2009; James, 2003; Liebling and Arnold, 2005), this remains disproportionately on men’s experiences, as they continue to account for the vast majority of the prison population (MoJ, 2018e). ‘Despite the recent identification of women prisoners’ distinct, gendered needs, at best they remain marginal to the study and practice of imprisonment’ (Moore and Scraton, 2014: 1). Similarly, when the literature focuses on the children of incarcerated parents, it often does not differentiate whether it is a mother or father incarcerated. However, it is argued that women who offend are often seen as ‘doubly deviant’ and therefore punished twice by the CJS – initially for breaking the law and then for breaking traditional gender roles (Carlen, 2002). The literature also suggests that men and women enter prison with very different life experiences, in terms of both offending history and vulnerabilities. For example, it is widely reported that many female prisoners have experienced high levels of trauma, as both children and adults (HM Prison Service, 2004; Powell, Ciclitira and Marzano, 2017) compared with the general female population and male prisoners (Williams, Papadopoulou and Booth, 2012). Half the women in the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR⁴) sample reported observing violence at home as a child, and over half (53 per cent) reported emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child (Williams et al., 2012). Likewise, half of the female prisoners in the 2006 Howard League for Penal Reform (Howard League) sample who experienced abuse were under the age of 12 at the time. According to the Prison Service Order 4800 (2008), a third of female prisoners have experienced sexual abuse and half have experienced domestic violence. Although women may be more likely than men to report sexual abuse (Williams et al., 2012), it is still underreported by women (MoJ, 2012b). This abuse plays ‘a part in the onset and persistence of offending’ (Gelsthorpe, Sharpe and Roberts, 2007: 7), as it contributes towards ‘lowered self-esteem, a lack of sense of control over one’s life, and behavioural inclinations for crime and violence’ (Chesney-Lind and Pasko, 2013: 108). Likewise, women’s ‘experiences of violent and sexual victimisation may partly explain their high rates of substance misuse’ (Gelsthorpe et al., 2007: 17) as a form of self-medication. Although abuse does not excuse, or necessarily cause, offending, ‘a more constructive response to offending, based on an appreciation of the impact of victimization on a woman’s circumstance and behavior, may be justified’ (Sentencing Advisory Panel, 2010: 73).

Due to their existing levels of social exclusion, and their role as a primary caregiver, women experience prison differently from their male counterparts. It has been argued that ‘a sentencing system set up primarily to process male offenders may lack sufficient sensitivity to the vulnerabilities and needs of many women offenders and result in unfair treatment and outcomes’ (Player, 2012: 254). Although these women have broken the law, they are often victims ‘of biology, of poverty, of abuse and addictions, and more than anything else, of men’ (Hudson, 2002: 39–40). As will be discussed throughout the book, the plethora of problems that characterise their lives include unstable accommodation, low education, unemployment, debt, poor physical health, drug and alcohol dependency, experience of abuse, mental health issues, self-harm, and risk of suicide. Female offenders also predominantly commit non-violent offences, which attract different custodial lengths: for example, between 2015 and 2017, 88 per cent of all female first prison receptions were remanded or serving a sentence of less than 12 months (MoJ, 2018e). There is also a body of literature that suggests that offending women experience double deviance (Carlen, 2002), for breaking societal as well as gender norms by engaging in criminal activities. ‘Women are considered “deviant criminals” in the sense that their choice of crimes is seemingly inexplicable. Their crimes are not seen as rational responses to structural conditions in the way that men’s crimes are’ (McCorkel, 2003: 69). As a group they therefore experience prison very differently from their male counterparts (Corston, 2007).

Another important distinction in the female estate is found in women’s role as caregivers, many of whom are mothers and often the sole carers of dependent children (Baldwin, 2015a; Booth, 2017; Caddle and Crisp, 1997; Howard League, 2011). These women ‘carry the burden of a criminal conviction and the violation of societal norms about what good women and mothers are supposed to be’ (Snyder, 2009: 38). Corston (2007: 16) highlighted how vital children and homes are to women’s identities: ‘to take this away from them when it may be all that they have causes huge damage to women’. By imprisoning them, their parental rights are decreased, and it inhibits ‘their participation in decisions regarding their children. Loss of parental rights signifies a loss of role functioning and leads to a loss of self-esteem and despair’ (Valentine, 2000: 19). This stigmatisation (Goffman, 1963) may continue post-custody and women must deal with this ongoing guilt. ‘Release back into the community will not be the end of mothers’ concerns and needs. The transition to life in the community and with their children has many pressures for women’ (Snyder, 2009: 43). These pressures will particularly affect those in prison for short periods, as there is little time to take advantage of assistance that could help reintegration post-custody. However, there is little information about the impact that this temporary loss of liberty has upon these women and their families over a longer period of time once they return to the community.

1.1 Construction of motherhood

It is suggested that identifying as a mother has a huge impact on her incarceral period experience. For example, some may argue that identifying as a mother is a positive thing that gives incarcerated women someone to do well for in prison, a provision of hope (Boudin, 1998), or an ‘anchor’. Kilty and Dej (2012: 19) suggest that ‘a woman’s identity as a mother may help her overcome a negative self concept’. Or conversely, identifying as a mother may be negative because of feelings of additional shame and guilt for not conforming to the concept of what constitutes a ‘good mother’, or being absent from day-to-day childcare. It is suggested that ‘maintaining presence and “force”’ while incarcerated is particularly problematic ‘when the mother has few resources⁵ to effect control of the other caretaker’ (Enos, 1998: 66). As such, those supporting women who are preparing to return from prison should be mindful about how much pressure is placed upon the importance of motherhood.

Many argue that the actual concept of motherhood is very much a social construction (Oakley, 1979; Phoenix, Woollet and Lloyd, 1991; Rich, 1986, 1995; Ruddick, 1989), and rightly or wrongly, and despite changes in legislation, there is still an expectation from society that women will without difficulty take on the role of an altruistic mother who lives for her children, whereas there is an expectation that for most men they should continue to support the family financially (Freitas, Inacio and Saavedra, 2016).⁶ Kilty and Dej (2012: 7) suggest that ‘motherhood binds together notions of femininity, purity, and selflessness; above all, mothering is constructed as natural for women’. Barnes and Cunningham Stringer (2013: 3) suggest that ‘women who embrace and perform this role well often enjoy praise and enhanced social status’ of motherhood. However, for women who choose to have children, there is a significant level of judgement about how they choose ‘to mother’. For example, even before they give birth there are judgements regarding whether women are eating or drinking the right things during their pregnancy and demonstrating their ability to mother from the start (Anderson, 2001; Athearn et al., 2004). Likewise, whether women breast, or bottle, feed their infants (Andrew and Harvey, 2011; Rumbelow, 2010) and where it is considered appropriate to do so. Whether they choose to immunise their children (Burgess, Burgess and Leask, 2006), to take an extended period of maternity leave and spend this time with their children or use childcare in order to engage in work (Boyd, 2002; Dillaway and Paré, 2008; Vincent, Ball and Pietikainen, 2004). There is also a growing evidence base regarding the discrimination faced by employed mothers. For example, according to a report by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016: 6), 77 per cent of 3,254 mothers ‘said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave, and/or on return from maternity leave’.

Given the level of scrutiny faced by ‘pro-social women’, there should therefore be little surprise that female prisoners who have children often experience Goffman’s (1963) ‘spoiled identities’ and face extreme versions of ‘double deviance’. Rather than just breaking social and gender norms, incarcerated mothers have also deviated from what society considers a ‘good mother’. ‘A mother’s incarceration is often viewed by society as confirmation that her priorities were elsewhere in lieu of her maternal responsibilities’ (Garcia, 2016: 3). Granja, da Cunha and Machado (2015: 1213) argue that ‘among the several categories of women excluded from the social construct of “good mothers,” imprisoned mothers illustrate a still relatively understudied connection among deviance, criminalization, poverty, mothering, and kinship’.

1.2 Overview of the book

Given the overuse of short terms of imprisonment in the female estate and the number of women in prison with children, it is the intention of this book to ‘reexamine and un-pack what we mean by mothering and motherhood in circumstances and situations that are stressful’ (Enos, 1998: 70). Despite a growing body of literature concerned with the use of prison for female offenders (for example Baldwin, 2015a; Carlen, 1983; Devlin, 1998; Enos, 1998; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Moore and Scraton, 2014), with the exception of Baldwin and Epstein (2017), very little of this addresses the use of short terms of imprisonment of this group. Therefore, through repeat interviews with mothers in England and Wales, this book explores how women experiencing a first short term of imprisonment in this country tread the fine line of mothering in or from prison, as well as the unintended and potentially disproportionate enduring consequences of exposing these women to prison for the first time. The critical question is whether short terms of imprisonment are an appropriate response given the potential collateral consequences to both mother and child.

It is known from the existing literature that prison often causes a high level of disruption to women’s lives. However, what remains unknown is the longevity of the harm caused by a first time in prison, especially when the time spent is minimal, and when that person has dependent children. Despite only short terms of imprisonment, the extent that they become institutionalised (Goffman, 1961), lose their sense of identity in a short space of time, and how they adapt to their return to civil society is unclear...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• PART I: Providing the context
• PART II: Material consequences
• PART III: Consequences to health and wellbeing
• PART IV: Forgotten victims of crime
• References
• Index