In the Shadow of Prison: Families, Imprisonment and Criminal Justice

By Helen Codd
Portland, OR: Willan Publishing, 2008

We all live with the consequences of imprisonment, except that most of us are not forced to confront it.  The deductions from our pay contribute to the maintenance of the prison system and they contribute to the pay of those charged with apprehending, processing and guarding offenders.  Those deductions also contribute to the welfare checks paid to the least advantaged in our society, amongst whom we can count many of the families of those whom we imprison.  The prison has an extensive reach and its effects can be found in all our communities, except that we often fail to recognize its impact. 

Helen Codd’s most recent book is an uncompromising dissection of a very specific consequence of imprisonment: the ways in which prisoners’ families themselves become part of the prison network.  It is an immensely well informed and researched book, as the lengthy bibliography demonstrates, even though the book itself is of moderate length.  Moreover, she writes with some passion and – at the end – anger about the plight of these secondary victims.  She makes us think about what constitutes a family – and, amongst many of her questions, she poses the pertinent one: why is it that women prisoners are so little supported by partners, by comparison with male prisoners?

Codd is focusing on prisoners’ families from a largely British perspective, but bolsters much of her argument with extensive reference to American research and experience.  Canadian studies are only briefly mentioned, so why should Canadians read this book?  Because we can easily recognize the problems Codd relates, such as: the social and economic consequences of imprisonment for prisoners’ families (and for us); the particular impact of imprisonment upon women and children; and the geographic dislocation of prisoners’ families from their family member.  Our question should then be “why do we know so little about prisoners’ families here?”  In some ways, Codd answers that for us because there are many occasions throughout the book where she is pointing out the dearth of research in specific areas, worldwide.  She forces us to think about the destruction of family occasioned by imprisonment.  She refers to the hair-raising U.S. Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997), which mandates that a child who “has been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months” should then be subject to State proceedings terminating parental rights (Codd 2008: 9).  Different perhaps, in degree, from the law in Canada, but the consequences of the forced foster care of many children of Aboriginal prisoners should give us pause.

A particularly interesting chapter discusses prisoners’ families and the law.  Again, it might be assumed that the British focus makes this of less importance to the Canadian reader, but this would be to ignore the human rights’ issues raised.  It is also interesting to reflect upon the ways in which Canada might demonstrate to other countries the importance of allowing prisoners conjugal rights, even though Vacheret (2005) makes the significant point that such visits can also be a focus of prison control.

Codd also assesses the ways in which the voluntary sector fills the gaps in government provision.  In a time of recession these groups become even more important, but their failure to challenge the utility of imprisonment means they prop up the institution itself, rather than focus on the problems it creates for prisoners’ families.  This takes us into the realm more often visited when discussing the consequences of prison reform; is it right to attempt to repair an institution which is fundamentally flawed?  With regards to prisoners and their families there is no pat solution, as to fail to provide visits’ programmes, for example, can be as problematic as providing them.   Both the voluntary sector and, to a lesser extent, correctional authorities face often intractable problems in this regard.

Codd suggests that the U.K. might be heading towards the situation highlighted by Comfort (2007), wherein “for many women in relationships with imprisoned men, prison is the one state agency on which they can rely” (Codd 2008: 164).  This position – relevant to males, as well – can also be applied in Canada, where it is expected that rates of imprisonment will rise during the present recession, while the government remains committed to the use of custody.  

There is a degree of repetition throughout the book, particularly when citing authors and researchers whom she obviously respects, such as Comfort and Condry (2007).  This is no bad thing, in that Codd’s enthusiasm might encourage readers to seek out their rewarding books, but the main point to be made about this is that the problems faced by prisoners’ families cannot easily be disentangled from each other.  Correctional policies emphasize the importance of prisoners’ families in terms of the role they play in enabling the offender to return to his or her community.  What the policies downplay is the instrumental role of the prison in ensuring that many families cannot fulfil this function, because they have been weakened – and even destroyed – by their family member’s sentence.  Some, as Codd points out, will say that the responsibility for this lies entirely with the offender, but that would be to sidestep the reality that a single sentence involves very many more people than simply the offender and that we, as a community, shoulder the cost and consequences.

Comfort, M.  (2007).  Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison.  Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.

Condry, R.  (2007).  Families Shamed: The Consequences of Crime for Families of Serious Offenders.  Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

Vacheret, M. (2005). Private Family Visits in Canada, Between Rehabilitation and Stricter Control: Portrait of a System. Champ Pénal, 2. Available at: http://champpenal.revues.org/document2322.html