CC BY
32Information for citation:
Kury, H. (2020) The effects of prison sentences on the family members and the community. European and Asian Law Review. 3 (2), 115-123.
UDC 343.9
BISAC LAW026010 LAW / Criminal Law / Juvenile Offenders DOI: 10.34076/27821668_2020_3_2_115
Research Article
THE EFFECTS OF PRISON SENTENCES ON THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE COMMUNITY
HELMUT KURY
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law ORCID: 0000-0002-0319-5603
The public debate on offenders and crime, in the public and often in scientific literature, focuses largely on current crime, the crimes committed and the sanctions imposed. The very important question against which the perpetrator became the perpetrator, his fate, his living conditions are largely ignored. Furthermore, the collateral damage of a sanctuary, such as incarceration, to existing family members, especially children, is largely ignored. An overview of existing research results on the consequences of custodial sentences on women and children of detainees will be given. Previous studies have clearly shown that the detention of a parent, especially the mother, generally has very negative effects on the socialisation of one's own children, especially to contribute to a delinquent development of the same. It should be noted that detainees largely come from disadvantaged social circumstances, which contributes to the transmission of deviant behaviour to the next generation (Kury & Kuhlmann, 2020).
Keywords: perpetrator, negative effects of parental detention, delinquent behaviour, family relationships, criminological research, collateral damag
Introduction
The discussion on criminality in both the media and the criminological literature largely refers to (serious) crimes committed, the damage caused and the sanctions imposed. The question, which is also central to crime prevention, is discussed in the public sphere seldom, for example, which circumstances have contributed to the development of the criminal behaviour of the perpetrator, although criminological research has provided substantial results on this for years (Healy, 2012). There is also less discussion about the consequences of a sanction imposed to an offender, especially an incarceration, for relatives of the perpetrator, such as his own family and existing children. However, there are now significant criminological research results about the topic (Thiele, 2016).
A differentiated presentation of the background to the development of an offender would raise the politically real question of the role played by the social conditions under which he grew up in terms of his criminal development (Ramsbrock, 2020). The 'fate' of the offender, his generally unfavourable living conditions, could contribute to the understanding of his criminal behaviour and, above all, provide evidence of effective preventive measures (Kury, 1979). A discussion of the impact of detention on one's own family, especially for children, would also cast a critical eye on custodial sentences and possible collateral damage. Advocating for harsh sanctions, such as long prison sentences, would be more questionable from the point of view of criminal policy.
Cunningham (2001: 35), for example, rightly points out: 'The purpose of a prison sentence is to punish offenders, not their children'. However, according to Walter (1999: 132), a brief glance at the sentences of prisoners already reveals that 'the claim of a targeted punishment of the delinquent found guilty is not fulfilled in criminal practice ... that the initiated evil of punishment 'scatters' and perhaps hits innocent relatives harder than the identified criminal'.
Copyright© 2020. The Authors. Published by Ural State Law University.
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0. license http:llcreativecommons.orglllicenselby-ncl4.0l
The restrained discussion of the corresponding collateral damage of a custodial sentence is also encouraged by the fact that the issue of the detention of a family member is, as far as possible, concealed by the families concerned, in order to avoid stigma trends, especially against children, as far as possible. The families concerned are themselves interested in ensuring that these facts and information do not go public. This contributes to the fact that little is known about the children involved, even though their number is considerable, especially in the USA, with the prevailing sanctions policy and the enormously high, highest in the world, incarceration rate. 'The children of parents involved in the criminal justice system have no voice because they are invisible to the larger society', Cunningham (2001) speaks of 'forgotten families' (Reed & Reed, 1997: 152).
Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF 1989)1 states that a child may not be separated from them against the will of his parents unless this is necessary for the child's benefit. In accordance with paragraph (3), States Parties must respect the right of the child, who is separated from one or both parents, to 'maintain regular personal relationships and direct contacts with both parents, insofar as this does not affect the best interests of the child' (Feige, 2019). The family rightly plays an important role in society, Article 6 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) emphasises the special responsibility of the state for its protection.
Both in public debate and in (criminological) research, the subject of family members of detainees is largely neglected, only in recent years have more and more relevant studies been carried out. Studies on the effects of parental detention on the children concerned in Europe have been the subject of increased research since 2000 (Besemer, van de Weijer & Dennison, 2018: 65). Flynn and Eriksson (2017: 437) emphasize: 'Albeit children of prisoners can be severely affected by parental incarceration, criminological research has only recently started taking an interest in their experiences'. In the following, key research results on the topic in the German and international fields will be briefly presented and discussed.
Materials and methods
The author used general scientific methods (analysis, comparison) and special scientific (statistical analysis, observation, survey) methods.
Results
The results of the author's research are stated in conclusions.
Discussion
The Situation in Germany
The punitive attitudes of the population have intensified in recent years against the background of the experience of increasing problems in society, for example in connection with the increased number of immigrants, but also an increasingly experienced complexity of the way of life and a decline in the confidence in the policy to solve upcoming problems (Kury & Redo, 2018). According to Calmbach et al. (2020: 566), the seriousness of the situation and the 'confusing conditions in the world' reinforce the trend of 'regrounding', the longing for belonging, support and orientation, which has contributed to a renaissance of classical virtues such as decency, fidelity and order among young people.
Politicians, often on the background of their own ignorance of relevant criminological research results, but especially in the context of their primary interest in being (re-)elected are not prepared or interested to make decisions primarily for criminal prevention and to focus on helping those affected (Kury & SchuBler 2019). It is difficult to win elections by working towards a more constructive prison system and supporting the relatives of detainees. Family members of detainees, many of whom belong to socially underprivileged groups and do not have a lobby, have also been left behind in their own interest in order to avoid stigma, and for a long time there has been little attention in criminal research, only in recent years the number of studies, especially in the international field, the USA and Great Britain, has increased (Besemer, van de Weijer & Dennison, 2018: 65). In Germany, too, more and more counselling and support is being offered to those affected (Clephas & Althoff, 2003: 279; Thiele, 2016).
The fact that such support is urgently needed is also demonstrated by the international study on the effects of parental detention on children, the COPING study (Jones, 2013). Comparable data for Germany were also collected here. The 145 children aged 7 to 17 years old interviewed in this survey, reported
a massive burden due to the incarceration of a parent, and an increased risk of mental/psychological illness was found accordingly. In their situation, the children cited regular contact with the detained parent as helpful (Bieganski, Starke & Urban, 2013: 9).
1 UNICEF e.V., Deutsches Komitee (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child [Konvention über die Rechte des Kindes]. Köln, UNICEF.
In her study, Kern (2002) asked women of imprisoned male partners about the impact on them and existing children (Kury & Kern, 2003a; 2003b). More than half of the women were completely surprised by the incarceration of their partner, their life situation changed suddenly and seriously, as did those of the children, who are even more helpless than the grown-up women. According to Turney (2014:1628), the father's imprisonment also influences the relationship between mother and child, such as their parenting behaviour, since she now bears all responsibility. A central question for the mothers, especially of younger children, was to what extent they should be informed about the detention of their father in the first place, or to be told that the father could not come home because he had a lot of work and therefore had to remain permanently in the 'company'1.
Busch (Busch, Fulbier & Meyer, 1987) estimate that in the 1980s in Germany about 50,000 children and adolescents were affected by the detention of a parent. According to estimates by the German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) (Feige, 2019: 80), around 64,000 prisoners have minor children. Thiele (Thiele, 2016: 49) estimates that up to 10,000 children are affected by the detention of a parent each year for the state of Baden-Württemberg alone. Children must go to prison if they want to see their father or mother (Bieganski, Starke & Urban 2013: 4). Feige (2019: 9) points out that there is no official data on the number of children detained in Germany, which indicates that such information is not considered to be particularly important politically. As of 31 March 2017, a total of 181 prisons with 64,193 detainees were registered throughout Germany, of which 5-6 % were women.
According to Döbber2, there are around 800,000 children in the European Union - EU with at least one parent in detention. 25 % of the children affected were conspicuously psychologically stressed, often reacted with distraught and confused, especially at the beginning of the incarceration. Older children are more likely to suffer from eating disorders, drug addiction and become increasingly self-criminal, so the 'next generation' (Kury, 1979). Good contact with the in-detention parents was crucial for the resilience of the children, with the often limited possibilities visiting the prisoner being a problem. It should be noted that the detention of a parent is usually only one of several stressors and not in all cases. In many cases, in-detained fathers have no contact with their children before their incarceration, but on the other hand, other stress factors are usually added to the children, such as missing support, missing feeling to be loved, guidance and control due to family problems, poverty, unfavourable housing conditions, alkohol/drugs in the family or social isolation.
Especially when the father has been imprisoned, which is usually the case, there is usually, in addition to the loss of social ties, an increasing financial disadvantage for the families (Busch, 1989: 134). Robertson et al. (Robertson, Christmann & Sharratt, 2016: 206) stress that it can also be a relief for some children if a parent, such as an abusive father, is removed from the family, but the research shows clearly that this is rather the exception, 'that most children suffer following parental imprisonment'. If the father is imprisoned for longer time, the central identification figure is also missing, especially for male children and adolescents.
Römer (1967: 37) found in his investigation that a large part of the children concerned suffered from animations that were given to them by neighbours, especially other children. According to the author's findings, the more severe criminality of one's own children can be attributed to a considerable extent to environmental stigma. Parents of prisoners are often classified as bad parents in the public eye, 'inmate mothers are not only seen to offend against society, but also against their role as mothers' (Cunningham, 2001: 37). Beichner and Hagemann (2016: 85) complain that the mother's incarceration has far more negative effects on children or adolescents than those of the father, they speak of 'detrimental effects of mothers' incarceration on children'. According to Walter (1999: 133), the 'widespread view that the family is, as it were, its own fault if it had a criminal parent is untenable', which is a form of 'sipping'.
Wildeman et al. (2017: 8) found that the detention of a parent can have a negative effect on the teacher's attitude towards the students concerned. Family members of detainees do not play a role in the perception of the public or in politics, the causes of their fate are largely attributed to them in a predominantly capitalist-oriented society, where everybody is responsible for his good luck.
It is rightly pointed out time and again in the literature that ties with the family also play a major role in the reintegration of offenders released from prison. For example, Holt and Miller (Holt, Miller 1972) demonstrated a positive effect of visiting detainees to their recidivism rate. The recidivism rate is significantly lower if the prisoner has the chance to return after release to a partner or his family (20 % vs. 47.9 %). Mitchell et al. (2016) found in their meta-analysis of the relapse-preventive effect of prisoners in custody that those who were visited showed 26 % fewer relapses after their release. Visits in particular, which took place about a year before release from prison, had a positive effect, with a 53 % decrease in recidivism within a year of release.
1 Cocon e.V. Freiburg (2020) Jahresbericht 2018/2019. Freiburger Verein für systemische Therapie von straffällig gewordenen Menschen, deren Angehörigen sowie Menschen in schwierigen Lebenssituationen. Report 2018/2019. Freiburg. (in German).
2 Döbber, C. (14 February 2020) 100.000 Kinder sehen Eltern nur im Gefängnis: Was das mit ihnen macht - und was hilft. Focus Online. Available from https://www.focus.de/perspektiven/keine-einheitlichen-standards-in-deutschland-100-000-kin-der-sehen-eltern-nur-im-knast-was-das-mit-ihnen-macht-und-was-hilft_id_11663780.html [Accessed: 17 October 2008].
2020. Is. 2
EUROPEAN AND ASIAN LAW REVIEW
At the same time, this indicates an enormous financial saving effect, taking into account, for example, that the custodial sentence is the most expensive penalty (Kury, 2020). Reducing the number of detainees would free up significant financial resources that could be spent more effectively on alternatives. Examples from abroad provide successful concepts, such as the Engelsborg family home in the catchment area of Copenhagen, in which the needs of the children of detainees are put at the centre (Thiele, 2016).
In recent decades, further programmes have been set up in Germany to support relatives of detainees, although there are still significant gaps in some cases, and in many cases there is also no secured financial support. For example, Caritas Deutschland1 offers extensive and concrete assistance for prisoners and relatives, even after release. The UN rightly refers to the rights of prisoners of the children2 (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2011). The Federal Working Group for Criminal Assistance3 refers under the keyword 'family/ children' to 195 institutions in Germany that offer concrete help and support4 (Caritas Deutschland, 2018). In this context, however, it is also clear that there is a difference in willingness in the individual Länder to open up the penitentiary to family contacts. Since the Federalism Reform in 2006 (Föderalismusreform), the necessary legal basis for the penal system has been laid down in corresponding state regulations. The times for visiting a prisoner, for example by family members, vary from one federal state to another.
In particular, it should be noted that the separation between detainees and family can be mitigated, in particular by the establishment of generous visits for relatives in the prisons and the support for such visits, with positive effects on the relatives, the detainees and their integration into society. An analysis by Feige (2019: 9) makes it clear that the possibilities for children to visit their imprisoned parents are very different throughout Germany. According to this analysis, the minimum visit time varies greatly between the federal Länder, ranging from one to four hours per month in the individual institutions. The results of the 2017 survey conducted by the German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) of 173 law enforcement institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany show that in 4.8 % of institutions the maximum visit time for children is one hour per month, in 9.6 % two hours, in 12.0 % three hours and in 24.1 % four hours (2019: 23). 32.5 % of institutions allow a maximum of up to three visits per month (2019: 25). As far as the child-friendly design of the visiting rooms in the prisons is concerned, 50.6 % were classified as rather non-child-friendly and 20.5 % as not at all suitable for children (Feige, 2019: 28). Only 19.3 % of institutions have a child or family representative who takes special care of the children of detainees. According to the results of the 2012 COPING study, the existing 'structural separation of justice and social assistance network (...) is as experts said one of the biggest problems' (Feige, 2019: 35).
In some German prisons for women, it is possible that babies or toddlers and their mothers will be placed in custody together in order to avoid separation, a non-unrequited practice. According to Paragraph 80 of the German Prison Law (Strafvollzugsgesetz - StVollzG), if the child of a female prisoner is not yet required to attend school, the child can be placed in the mother's penitentiary 'if this is in his best interests'. This is to avoid damage to the child as far as possible and to strengthen the responsibility of the mother. Meanwhile, mother-child stations are regulated in the individual state prison law laws.
A total of 13 German prisons have corresponding departments for women with babies or small children (Siebert, 2018). The duration of coexistence in detention is regulated differently in prisons5. Kaiser et al. (1992: 329) emphasized that, despite criticism, the establishment of mother-child stations in women's institutions is to be welcomed, since the separation of the child from the mother is often more harmful than growing up in a prison children's home. According to Walter (1999: 134), on the other hand, it seems necessary to 'explore alternatives in which neither mother and child are imprisoned, but both are left in freedom ... Especially in the first phase of life, in which mother and child are particularly closely related, one can hardly distinguish between the well-being of the mother and that of the child, which is why a theory according to which the mother is to be punished and the child is spared from all this misses the realities'.
1 Caritas Deutschland (2018) Dein Papa ist ja gar nicht auf Montage... [Your Father is not Away on a Job] [Podcast] Available from: https://www.carits.de/hilfeundberatung/ratgeber/haft/papa-im-gefaengnis/dein-papa-ist-ja-gar-nicht-auf-montage. [Accessed: 13 August 2020] (in German).
2 Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011) Day of General Discussion 'Children of incarcerated parents'. Available from: ttp s: // www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRC/Discussions/2011/DGD2011ReportAndRecommendations.pdf [Accessed: 15 November 2020]
3 Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Straffälligenhilfe e.V. (2020) Kinder Inhaftierter haben Rechte [Children of Prisoners Have Rights]. Bonn, BAG-S. (in German).
4 Caritas Deutschland (2018) Dein Papa ist ja gar nicht auf Montage. [Your Father is not Away on a Job] [Podcast] Available from: https://www.carits.de/hilfeundberatung/ratgeber/haft/papa-im-gefaengnis/dein-papa-ist-ja-gar-nicht-auf-montage. [Accessed: 13 August 2020] (in German).
5 Döbber, C. (14 February 2020) 100.000 Kinder sehen Eltern nur im Gefängnis: Was das mit ihnen macht - und was hilft. Focus Online. Available from https://www.focus.de/perspektiven/keine-einheitlichen-standards-in-deutschland-100-000-kinder-sehen-eltern-nur-im-knast-was-das-mit-ihnen-macht-und-was-hilft_id_11663780.html [Accessed: 17 October 2020].
The Situation in the USA
In the international field, especially in the USA and the United Kingdom, there are meanwhile significantly more studies on the situation of women and children of detainees (Kury & Kuhlmann, 2020). As far as the debate in the United States is concerned, this is particularly evident in the context of the enormously high incarceration rate there, which has fallen only slightly in recent years. The country still has internationally the highest incarceration rate, and thus relatively most of the families affected by a person's imprisonment. At present, 2.3 million inhabitants are affected by various forms of detention. The US has 4 % of the world's population, but the same time it also has 25 % of the world's prison population. About 1 in 4 male and 1 in 3 female prisoners are in custody in the United States. Between 620,000 and 730,000 people are released from prison each year1 (Duffin, 2020). Half of all adult citizens, some 113 million, currently have a family member who is in custody or has been detained in the past. These figures do not include the 4.6 million people under probation supervision. Nationwide, 1 in 37 citizens are under some form of surveillance by the Criminal Justice System2.
Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999: 130) emphasized years ago that some large states in the United States are now spending the same amount or more money, 'to incarcerate young adults than to educate their college-age citizens'. 52 % of all men and women in prison are parents, and 75 % of women in prison are mothers (Kajstura, 2019). The vast majority of detainees have poor or no education and are poor (Bohm & Haley, 2017). Two-thirds of incarcerated parents, both fathers and mothers, do not have a high school degree.
The consequences of the detention of a family member on the rest of the family are not much noticed here either. Numerous studies show that the detention of the father increases the likelihood that children and adolescents will also later become criminals and go into custody (Thornberry, 1997). Murray (2007: 55) speaks of a 'cycle of punishment'. According to Miller (2006: 472), the increasing number of children with imprisoned parents in the USA carries the risk that this will create 'one of the largest at-risk populations in the United States'.
The number of women in prison in the US is significantly lower than that of men in the US and internationally, but it shows striking characteristics. The number of female detainees has risen twice as much, by 834 % in the last 40 years, making them the fastest growing part of the US prison population. The increase is twice as high for African-American women as among whites. Female detainees show particular characteristics: they have experienced an increased level of abuse in terms of physical and sexual abuse, and continue to show an increased rate of HIV or drug addiction (Sawyer, 2018). The background swaying their delinquent behaviour is markedly different from that of men and depends on their specific social position and traumatic experiences (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004). A third of women in custody are lesbian or bisexual, compared to 10 % of men in prison. Among women and girls who are dismissed each year, the proportion of homeless people is significantly higher than for men (Kajstura, 2019).
More than 2.7 million children in the U.S. have a detained parent, making 1 in 28 children. However, the differences between the different ethnic groups are enormous. In terms of origin are affected, 1 in 9 (11.4 %) children from African-American families, 1 in 28 (3.5 %) Children from Hispanic families and 1 in 57 (1.8 %) children from white families. About 10 million children in the United States have had to experience a detained parent in their lives. Nearly half of these children were under the age of 10 when their parents were detained (Mauer, Nellis & Schirmir, 2007). In the United States in particular, studies are available that clearly demonstrate the long-term traumatic consequences for the children in need, whose increased likelihood of later imprisonment (Mears & Siennick, 2016). One of the first studies already examined the difficult financial problems of the families of detainees (Bloodgood, 1928). The influence of the detention of a parent on the children clearly depends on contextual conditions, especially the sex of the child and the same living conditions.
The available research convincingly suggests that the imprisonment of a parent is a significant turning point in the child's life, which has implications not only for the likelihood of his own criminal behaviour, but also for the level of education achieved, future income and the design of intimate relationships (Hagan, Foster & Murphy, 2020). Research shows that children of detained parents are five times more likely to go to court over the course of their lives than their peers from unobtrusive families3 (Ogletree, 2020). The incarceration of the father contributes to a stigmatisation of the children, especially among the peers and at school, which often leads to behavioural problems of those affected and increased school problems (Miller, 2006).
1 Duffin, E. (2020) Number of Sentenced Prisoners Released from Jurisdiction U.S. 2000-2019. Available from: https://www. statista.com/statistics/252905/number-of-sentenced-prisoners-released-from-juristiction-in-the-us/ [Accessed: 08 November 2020].
2 Bureau of Justice Statistics (29 November 2012) One in 34 U.S. Adults Under Correctional Supervision in 2011, lowest rate since 2000. Available from: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cpus11ppus11pr.cfm [Accessed: 27 October 2020].
3 Ogletree, S. (2020) Congressional Briefing: Connecting Children with Incarcerated Parents. Report. Available from: https://www.cwla.org/congressional-briefing-connecting-children-with-incarcerated-parents/[Accessed: 03 August 2020]
2020. Is. 2
EUROPEAN AND ASIAN LAW REVIEW
Although the incarceration rate for women is significantly lower than for men, research results here also confirm that the effects of the mother's removal on children are often more profound than when the father is in custody. The extent of the consequences of the failure of the mother or a parent part is strongly moderated by protective factors, such as support for those affected by the rest of the family or professional social welfare organisations. When the father is detained, the children usually stay with the mother, but when the mother is detained, the children often come to the grandparents or to foster parents or to a home (Dallaire, 2007). In the United States, against the background of the 'Adoptions and State Families Act' of 1997, parental rights are threatened with loss of parental rights to educate their own children.
Especially if the parent-child relationship was good before a parent was incarcerated, it is important to maintain the relationship through frequent visits, including through phone contacts. In the US, however, in the context of the size of the country, the majority of detainees are relatively far away from the homes of family members, and telephone contacts are relatively expensive. More than 50 % of prisoners in state prisons and more than 40 % of those in federal prisons are more than 100 miles from the children (Miller, 2006). The distances are even greater when a mother is detained due to the reduced number of women's prisons. On this background more than half of the incarcerated parents in state prisons and nearly half of those in federal prisons were never visited by their children during detention1.
Communities with black residents are affected by a six-times higher in-prison rate compared to whites (The Sentencing Project, 2018). Its members account for almost 40 % of the prison population, although they comprise only 13.8 % of the general population (Gramlich, 2020). Turney and Lanuza (2017:1314) also emphasize that '... high incarceration rate in the United States has transformative, intergenerational consequences'. Nearly half of prisoners in state prisons have been jailed for non-violent2. Blacks are shot or killed twice as often as whites as part of sentencing, or 1,254 people since 20153.
General overview
The negative effects of parental detention on families, especially on children, have been clearly demonstrated in international studies around the world, such as Great Britain (Murray, Bijleveld & Farrington, 2014), the Netherlands (Van de Rakt, Murray & Nieuwbeerta, 2012), Denmark (Wildeman & Andersen, 2017), Australia (Flynn & Eriksson, 2017; Farrell, 1998) or Germany (Kern, 2002; Feige, 2019; Thiele, 2016). For example, when Cunningham (2001: 35) emphasizes that the purpose of the custodial sentence is to punish the perpetrator, but not his children, he points to a central problem. However, if there are children with whom the perpetrator has contact, it is ultimately difficult to avoid copunishment of them, only the effects can be mitigated. Walter (1999: 134) rightly calls for the search for alternatives with regard to the incarceration of mothers with children to keep both in freedom. The closed penitentiary burdens and partly destroys family relationships, above all also burdens the next generation, thus also questioning the resocialization ideology of deprivation of liberty as a whole. Alternatives clearly show that incarceration could be significantly reduced without compromising internal security (Kury, 2016). Since politics is interested in voting, public education is of considerable importance.
The largely overlooked negative effects of the custodial sentence on the relatives of detainees further call this sanction into question. Kaiser et al. (1992: 532) rightly emphasized almost 30 years ago that 'there is still too little discussion in the official debate that families of offenders are drawn into community psychologically, socially and economically in the wake of the act and its consequences. There is a great need for integrated social assistance before, during and after imprisonment'. The demand is still valid today. Criminal policy, especially the sanctioning of offenders, should be much more serious about the side effects of the prison system if the perpetrators are to be effectively rehabilitated.
Criminal policy and prison practice must become more sensitive to the issues at stake and recognise the importance of the problem. Walter (1999: 129) emphasized more than 20 years ago: 'Which data on the penal system are collected and processed depends on the theoretical preconceptions and the ideas of importance derived from them. So far, these have centred on the full-time administration and the prisoners, hardly on the people whose fate is largely determined by that of a prisoner'. Above all, criminological research in the field must also be intensified. Thiele (2016: 44) rightly points out that marriage and family are very important in two functions: 'They are the prisoner's main link to social reality outside the prison and for the released offender to solve problems following his incarceration.'
1 The Sentencing Project (2018). Fact Sheet: Trends in U.S. Correction. Fact Sheet. Available from: https://www. sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/ [Accessed: 10 November 2020]
2 Ibid.
3 Vera Institute of Justice (2020) Ending Police Violence and Ensuring Accountability. Available from: https://www.vera. org/spotlights/ending-police-violence-and-ensuring-accountability [Accessed: 30 November 2020]
Conclusions
In the context of criminological research, for example, further clarification of questions such as is important: under what conditions the absence of a parent as a result of detention has what negative effects on the socialisation of children, what role the contacts play before detention, the sex of the detainees or children, how these effects are at different ages of the children, whether the effects depend on the offence of the detainee, the importance of the conditions of socialisation accompanying detention and the role of other members of the family. Ultimately, it is also necessary to continue to examine how damage to the offspring can be reduced by the design of the custodial sentence, such as visiting opportunities, the role played above all by the prison service in the design of detention and procedures to the outside world (Ramsbrock, 2020) and how an alternative approach can be implemented politically and practically. In the individual federal states, there are clear differences in this topic (Thiele, 2016).
Above all, the public must also be more informed about the problem, since politics is primarily geared to the ideas of the citizens. Here also criminology can play an essential role. The fact that a harsh punishment on offenders ultimately leads to a dead end is also shown by developments in the USA (Kury, Brandstei & Yoshida, 2009; Kury & Shea, 2011). As international research clearly shows, the detention of a parent contributes significantly to a divergence in the criminal behaviour of children. Criminal behaviour is thus passed on to the next generation rather than ended.
References
Beichner, D. & Hagemann, O. (2016) Incarcerated Women: Their Situation, Their Needs and Measures for Sustainable Reintegration. In: Kury, H., Redo, S., & Shea, E. (eds.) Women and Children as Victims and Offenders: Background, Prevention, Reintegration. Vol. 2: Suggestions for Succeeding Generations. Cham/CH, Springer, pp. 85-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28424-8
Besemer, K. L., Weijer, S. G. A. van de, & Dennison, S. M. (2018) Risk Marker or Risk Mechanism? The Effect of Family, Household, and Parental Imprisonment on Children and Adults' Social Support and Mental Health. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 45 (8), 1154-1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818782711
Bieganski, J., Starke, S. & Urban, M. (2013) Informationsbroschüre. Kinder von Inhaftierten. Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen der COPING-Studie. Dresden, TU Dresden. (in German).
Bloodgood, R. (1928) Welfare of Prisoner's Families in Kentucky. U.S. Department of Labor, Children's Bureau. Publication No. 182.
Bohm, R., & Haley, K. (2017) Introduction to Criminal Justice. [Kindle version] 9th ed. Boston, McGraw-Hill.
Busch, M., Fülbier, P. & Meyer, F. W. (1987) On the situation of women prisoners. Analysis and Assistance planning [Zur Situation der Frauen von Inhaftierten. Analyse und Hilfeplanung]. In Schriftenreihe der Bundesminister für Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit (vol. 194/1-3). Stuttgart, Kohlhammer.
Busch, M. (1989) Kinder inhaftierter Väter. Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe. 38, 131138. (in German).
Calmbach, M., Flaig, B., Edwards, J., Möller-Slawinski, H., Borchard, I. & Schleer, C. (2020) Wie ticken Jugendliche? 2020. Lebenswelten von Jugendlichen im Alter von 14 bis 17 Jahren in Deutschland. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (in German).
Chesney-Lind, M. & Shelden, R. (2004) Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Belmont, CA, Thompson/Wadsworth.
Clephas, H. & Althoff, H. (2003) Angehörigenarbeit in der Straffälligenhilfe. Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe. 52, 279-283. (in German).
Cunningham, A. (2001) Forgotten Families: the Impacts of Imprisonment. Family Matters. 59, 35-38.
Dallaire, D. (2007) Incarcerated Mothers and Fathers: A Comparison of Risks for Children and Families. Family Relations. 56, 440-453.
Farrell, M.A. (1998) Mothers Offending against their Role: An Australian Experience. Women and Criminal Justice. 9, 47-67.
Feige, J. (2019) Kontakt von Kindern zu ihren inhaftierten Eltern. Einblick in den deutschen Justizvollzug. (Analyse / Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte). Berlin, Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, Monitoring-Stelle UNKinderrechtskonvention. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-63938-6 [Accessed: 23 August 2020]
Flynn, C. & Eriksson, A. (2017) Children of Prisoners. In: Deckert, A., Sarre, R. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55747-2
Gramlich, J. (6 May 2020) Black Imprisonment Rate in the U.S. Has Fallen by a Third since 2006. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/black-imprisonment-rate-in-the-u-s-has-fallen-by-a-third-since-2006/ [Accessed: 16 October 2020]
Hagan, J. & Dinovitzer, R. (1999) Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and Prisoners. Crime and Justice. 26, 121-162.
Hagan, J., Foster, H. & Murphy, C. J. (2020) A Tale Half Told: State Exclusionary and Inclusionary Regimes,Incarceration of Fathers, and the Educational Attainment of Children. Journal of Social Science Research. 88-89, [102428]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102428
Healy, D. (2012) The Dynamics of Desistance: Charting Pathways through Change. Abingdon, Routledge.
Holt, N. & Miller, D. (1972) Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Corrections: Research Division. Research Report number 46.
Jones, A., Gallagher, B., Manby, M., Schutzwohl, M., Berman, A., Hirschfield, et al. (2013) Children of Prisoners: Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health. Huddersfield, University of Huddersfield. Available from: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/18019/1/childrenofPrisonersReport-final.pdf [Accessed: 17 September 2020].
Kaiser, G., Kerner, H.-J., Schöch, H. (1992) Penal System. Textbook [Strafvollzug. Ein Lehrbuch]. Heidelberg, C.F. Müller.
Kajstura, A. (2019) Women's Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019. Report. Available from: https:// www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019women.html
Kern, J. (2002) Die Situation der Frauen und Partnerinnen von Inhaftierten [The Situation of Women and Partners of Prisoners]. Freiburg, Institut für Psychologie, Diplomarbeit.
Kury, H. (1979) Sozialstatistik der Zugänge im Jugendvollzug Baden-Württemberg für das Jahr 1978. Freiburg: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht. Report number 8.
Kury, H., Brandenstein, M. & Yoshida, T. (2009) Kriminalpräventive Wirksamkeit härterer Sanktionen - Zur neuen Punitivität im Ausland (USA, Finnland und Japan). Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft - ZStW. 121, 190-238. (in German).
Kury, H. (2020) Umgang mit psychischen Erkrankungen im (Jugend-)Strafvollzug. Zeitschrift für Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe. 31 (1), 36-43. (in German).
Kury, H. & Kern, J. (2003a) Frauen und Kinder von Inhaftierten. Eine vergessene Gruppe. Kriminologisches Journal. 35, 97-110. (in German).
Kury, H. & Kern, J. (2003b). Angehörige von Inhaftierten. Zeitschrift für Strafvollzug und Straffälligenhilfe. 52, 269-278. (in German).
Kury, H. & Shea, E. (eds.) (2011) Punitivity International Developments. 3 Vols. Bochum, Universitätsverlag Dr. Brockmeyer.
Kury, H. (2016) Mediation, Restorative Justice and Social Reintegration of Offenders: The Effects of Alternative Sanctions on Punishment. In: Kury, H., Redo, S. & Shea, E. (eds.) Women and Children as Victims and Offenders: Background, Prevention, Reintegration. Vol. 2: Suggestions for Succeeding Generations. Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 249-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28424-8
Kury, H. & Redo, S. (eds.) (2018) Refugees and Migrants in Law and Policy. Challenges and Opportunities for Global Civic Education. Cham/CH, Springer International Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72159-0
Kury, H. & Schüßler, J. (2019) Der Umgang mit Kriminalität auf parteipolitischer Ebene. Eine Auswertung von Wahlprogrammen. Kriminologisches Journal. 51, 87-106. (in German).
Kury, H. & Kuhlmann, A. (2020) Zu den Auswirkungen der Inhaftierung Straffälliger auf Familienangehörige. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform. 103 (4). (in German). https:// doi.org/10.1515/mks-2020-2055
Mauer, M., Nellis, A. & Schirmir, S. (2007) Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Trends 1991 -2007. Available from: https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-parents-and-their-children-trends-1991-2007/ [Accessed: 13 September 2020]
Mears, D. & Siennick, S. (2016) Young Adult Outcomes and Life-Course Penalties of Parental Incarceration. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency. 53 (1), 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1177 % 2F0022427815592452
Miller, K. M. (2006) The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children: An Emerging Need for Effective Interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 23 (4), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-006-0065-6
Mitchell, M. M., Spooner, K., Jia, D. & Zhang, Y. (2016) The Effect of Prison Visitation on Reentry Success: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice. 47, 74-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcrimjus.2016.07.006
Murray, J. (2007) The Cycle of Punishment: Social Exclusion of Prisoners and their Children. Criminology and Criminal Justice. 7 (1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1177 %2F1748895807072476
Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. C., Farrington, D. P. & Loeber, R. (2014) Effects of parental incarceration on children: Cross-national comparative studies. Washington/DC, American Psychological Association.
Ramsbrock, A. (2020) Closed Society. A Prison as a Social Experiment - the German Story [Geschlossene Gesellschaft. Das Gefängnis als Sozialversuch - eine bundesdeutsche Geschichte]. Frankfurt/M., Fischer Verlag.
Reed, D. F. & Reed, E. L. (1997) Children of Incarcerated Parents. Social Issues. 24, 152-169. Robertson, O., Christmann, K., Sharratt, K., Berman, A. H., Manby, M. & Ayre, E., et.al. (2016) Children of Prisoners: Their Situation and Role in Long-Term Crime Prevention. In: Kury, H., Redo, S., Shea, E. (eds.) Women and Children as Victims and Offenders: Background, Prevention, Reintegration Vol. 2: Suggestions for Succeeding Generations. Springer, Cham., pp. 203-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28424-8_8
Römer, W. (1967) The Side Effects of Imprisonment on the Children of Delinquents [Die Nebenfolgen der Freiheitsstrafen auf die Kinder der Delinquenten]. Hamburg, Kriminalistik Verlag.
Sawyer, W. (2018) The Gender Divide: Tracking Women's State Prison Growth. The Prison Policy Initiative. Report. Available from: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women-overtime.html [Accessed: 25 September 2020].
Siebert, J. (11 August 2018). Strafvollzug und Familie. Wenn eine Mutter hinter Gittern sitzt. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Available from: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/strafvollzug-und-familie-wenn-eine-mutter-hinter-gittern-sitzt-1.4085975 [Accessed: 10 October 2020].
Thiele, C. (2016) Marriage and Family Protection in Prison. Prison Law and Practical Measures and Framework Conditions to Maintain Family Relationships of Prisoners [Ehe- und Familienschutz im Strafvollzug. Strafvollzugsrechtliche und -praktische Maßnahmen und Rahmenbedingungen zur Aufrechterhaltung familiärer Beziehungen von Strafgefangenen]. Mönchengladbach, Forum Verlag G.
Turney, K. & Lanuza, Y. (2017) Parental Incarceration and Transition to Adulthood. Journal of Marriage & Family. 79 (5), 1314-1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12429
Thornberry, T. P. (ed.) (1997) Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction.
Turney, K. (2014) The Consequences of Paternal Incarceration for Maternal Neglect and Harsh Parenting. Social Forces, 92 (4), 1607-1636. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot160
Van de Rakt, M., Murray, J. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2012) The Long-term Effects of Paternal Imprisonment on Criminal Trajectories of Children. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 49 (1), 81-108. https://doi.org/10.1177 %2F0022427810393018
Walter, M. (1999) Penal System [Strafvollzug]. Stuttgart u.a., Boorberg Verlag.
Wildeman, C. & Andersen, S. H. (2017) Paternal Incarceration and Children's Risk of Being Charged by Early Adulthood: Evidence from a Danish Policy Shock. Criminology. 55 (1), 32-58. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12124
Wildeman, C., Scardamalia, K., Walsh, E. G., O'Brien, R. L. & Brew, B. (2017) Paternal Incarceration and Teachers' Expectations of Students. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 3, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117726610
Information about the author
Helmut Kury - Prof. Dr. habil. Dipl. Psych., Prof. h.c. mult. Former (meanwhile pensioner): Senior Researcher at Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign and International Penal Law (currently the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law) - Department of Criminology and Prof. at the University of Freiburg (Germany) (e-mail: helmut.kury@web.de).
© H. Kury, 2020
Date of Paper Receipt: October 20, 2020
Date of Paper Approval: November 20, 2020
Date of Paper Acceptance for Publishing: December 1, 2020
I I 1
