How Stigma Impedes Rehabilitation: A Literature

Review
Student ID: 201285967

This literature review is concerned with how social stigma, and the subsequent

discrimination and exclusion it creates, is one of the biggest barriers to successful

rehabilitation for people with criminal convictions. It will explore the role of the media

and political rhetoric in perpetuating stereotypes; how the prejudice infects multiple

areas of society, in particular the criminal justice system; and attempt to understand the

reasons behind populist punitiveness in the contemporary age.

The process of rehabilitation, ‘the restoration of a person to former privileges, status, or

possessions by official decree’ (OED 2009) can present a variety of challenges for

those hoping to return to society after a criminal conviction. In addition to the theory of

‘natural desistance’ (Henley, 2018) McNeill (2012) refers to the four forms of

rehabilitation, namely psychological, moral, social and legal, of which he seems to

suggest the social aspect of reintegration, where former convicts are supposedly

welcomed back into the community, can prove particularly daunting. Due to a number of

trends in the modern age, it would appear that the problem facing many returning

convicts is more forbidding than ever; firstly, for around a quarter of a century, there

appears to have been an inclination to construct a ‘false dichotomy’ (Drake and Henley,
2014) between people convicted of offences and victims of crime in political debate.

Moreover, in recent years, the level of punitiveness in the court of public opinion has

increased exponentially (Carvalho and Chamberlen, 2017). The media has also had a

sizable part to play in stoking the flames; Greer (cited in Harper and Hogue, 2015, p.4)

argues that the primary motivation of the press in its often sensationalist coverage of

crime, particularly that of a sexual nature, is in its appeal to populism, thus ensuring

continuing readership, with consequential monetary reward. In addition, Harper and

Treadwell (2013) suggest that the slant of the newspapers on the subject of crime is

rooted in retributory attitudes, and that perhaps a more robust approach is required from

voices within academic circles to challenge the misconceptions these attitudes promote.

Secondly, it could also be suggested that the contagious effect of social stigma

permeates the very fabric of the criminal justice system: Genders and Player (2014)

assert that the ‘selective acknowledgment of human rights’ in the modern correctional

apparatus perpetuates a climate of negligence towards the wellbeing, both physical and

psychological, of individuals while still in custody. The tendency to focus primarily on risk

management, and the subsequent failure to adequately balance this with regards to the

human rights of persons with a criminal conviction poses a significant problem (Genders

and Player, 2014). This also ties in with the ‘false dichotomy’ idea espoused by Drake

and Henley (2014). Another noticeable barrier to be considered, in some cases, is the

period between the time of formal disengagement with probation and other support

services, and the date of actual legal rehabilitation, when a sentence is classified as

‘spent’, during which individuals in the process of reintegration may enter a kind of ‘civic

purgatory’ (Henley, 2018). Furthermore, a person’s potential to acquire an equitable

prospect in the housing and labour markets is habitually hampered by the ghost of

conviction and incarceration (Clow et al, 2012).

Finally, an attempt is made to explore, albeit briefly, the possible motives behind this

recent surge in punitive attitudes among the general public. According to Carvalho and

Chamberlen (2017) there is a distinct probability that populist punitiveness in the

contemporary age is born of a desire for the comfort of cohesion during a time of

relative insecurity; a ‘hostile solidarity’ that encourages an almost tribal approach to

whoever is considered ‘other’, thus permitting an attitude that could amount to

dehumanisation. Also of interest is the notion of the ‘yuck factor’ (Kelly and Morar, 2014)

which allows revulsion to dictate the direction of policy as opposed to logic; and the

likelihood that initiatives regarding prisoners and ex-offenders are not necessarily

geared to risk prevention or public protection, but more aimed at pandering to the

collective sentiment of rage and fear among the public (O’Reilly, 2018). Coupled with

the retributive approaches favoured by the popular press (Harper and Treadwell, 2013)

rehabilitation can prove significantly difficult, if not almost impossible, especially with

regards to social integration (McNeill, 2012).

In conclusion, it is suggested that populist punitiveness, formed from a desire for

solidarity in times of instability (Carvalho and Chamberlen, 2017), inflamed by media

sensationalism (Harper and Treadwell, 2013) and facilitated by political soundbites

(Drake and Henley, 2014) permeates many aspects of society, and is therefore one of
the main stumbling blocks to the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of

individuals with criminal convictions.(McNeill, 2012)

Word count - 779

References

Carvalho, H. and Chamberlen, A. 2017. Why punishment pleases: punitive feelings in a

world of hostile solidarity, Punishment & Society, 20 (2), pp. 217-234

Clow, K.A., Ricciardelli, R., and Cain, T.L. 2012. Stigma-by-association: prejudicial

effects of the prison experience for offenders and exonerees. In: Russell, D.W. and

Russell, C.A. eds. The Psychology of Prejudice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on

Contemporary Issues. New York. Nova Science Publishers Inc. pp. 127-154

Drake, D.H. and Henley, A.J. 2014. ‘Victims’ versus ‘offenders’ in British political

discourse: The construction of a false dichotomy, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,

53(2), pp. 141-157

Genders, E. and Player, E. 2014. Rehabilitation, risk management and prisoners’ rights,

Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14(4), pp. 434-457

Harper, C.A. and Hogue, T.E. 2014. The emotional representation of sexual crime in the

national British press, Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 34 (1), pp. 3-24
Harper, C. and Treadwell, J. 2013. Counterblast: Punitive Payne, Justice Campaigns

and Popular Punitivism – What Next for ‘Public Criminology’? Howard Journal of

Criminal Justice, 52 (2), pp. 216-222

Henley, A. 2018. Mind the gap: Sentencing, rehabilitation and civic purgatory, Probation

Journal, 65(3) pp 285-301

Kelly, D. and Morar, N. 2014. Against the Yuck Factor: On the Ideal Role of Disgust in

Society, Utilitas, 26 (2), pp. 153-177

McNeill, F. 2012. Four forms of ‘offender’ rehabilitation: Towards an interdisciplinary

perspective, Legal & Criminological Psychology, 17 (1), pp. 18-36

Oxford English Dictionary [Online] 3rd ed. 2009 [Accessed 26 October 2018]. Available

from: www.oed.com

O’Reilly, M.F. 2018. Information Pertaining to Released Sex Offenders: To Disclose or

Not to Disclose, that is the Question, The Howard Journal of Crime & Justice, 57 (2), pp.

204-230