Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Women in prison experience a double digital divide, due to gendered discrimination and carceral isolation. We focus on a recent policy change in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, whereby digital devices were provided to incarcerated people. This policy change is considered in light of women’s trauma histories and the importance of community and family connection. We respond to themes presented at the United Nations’ Sixty-Seventh Session on the Commission of the Status of Women, specifically achieving equality and empowerment for all women and girls in the digital age. Incarcerated women must be prioritized when addressing the gendered digital divide.

Keywords

digital technology rehabilitation women pains of imprisonment re-entry from prison to community

People in prison have always faced isolation and lacked access to digital technology, the developments of which are enjoyed by the outside world. However, in 2020, incarcerated people in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, were provided with digital devices to alleviate the compounded isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This article will cover several topics related to the provision of technology to incarcerated women in NSW. We begin by identifying some key themes in Australian feminist prison literature, after which we explore how particular United Nations publications address or overlook issues related to imprisoned women and technology. Furthermore, we discuss how the use of technology in prisons is a decidedly new phenomenon (accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic) and the detrimental impact the pandemic has had on prison populations. Following this, we outline the policy change in NSW in 2020 and review empirical findings regarding providing digital technology to people in prison.

We directly respond to the priority theme of the United Nations’ Sixty-Seventh Session on the Commission on the Status of Women, which considered “Innovation and technological change, and education in the digital age for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls” (Commission on the Status of Women Sixty-Seventh Session [CSW67], 2023a). Using the aforementioned recent policy changes in NSW as a case study, we assert that it is imperative that incarcerated women are specifically considered when it comes to addressing the gendered digital divide. Women in prison often have significant trauma histories and struggle with feelings of isolation, disempowerment, and dehumanization as part of a punishing, androcentric prison system (Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Chamberlen, 2018; Corston, 2007). Thus, discussions of gender equity, equality, and empowerment must prioritize their experiences if such discussions are truly to include “all women and girls”.

Women’s Imprisonment in Australia

Australia has followed Europe, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) in the increased use of custody as a punishment in the last decade (Bartels, 2017; Garland, 2002; Pratt, 2011; Walker et al., 2019). Imprisonment can already be an unforgiving, frightening, and dehumanizing experience, which has been identified by Australian authors (see, e.g., Eriksson, 2016; Johns, 2019), but prison is particularly harmful to women because most imprisoned women are survivors of multiple forms of trauma, such as sexual and family violence (Bunn, 2019; Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Corston, 2007; Russell & Carlton, 2013).

A significant amount of feminist literature in Australia has argued that women’s prison experiences are often shaped by prior violent victimization at the hands of men and surviving extreme poverty; custodial settings are not appropriate for addressing pre-existing trauma and providing material support (see, e.g., Baldry, 2010; Bartels et al., 2020; Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Franich et al., 2021; Russell & Carlton, 2013; Stathopoulos et al., 2012). In fact, many Australian authors suggest that imprisonment itself can be a traumatic incident in women’s lives (Franich et al., 2021; Segrave & Carlton, 2010; Stathopoulos et al., 2012; Russell et al., 2021). The punitive use of imprisonment as a supposedly logical and just response to marginalized women contributes to further traumatization (Segrave & Carlton, 2010; Snider, 2004).

Exploring connections to the United Nations’ Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the 67^th Session on the Commission on the Status of Women

The themes present in Australian literature regarding women in prison are present in United Nations publications that address issues pertinent to women’s imprisonment, for example, the Bangkok Rules (United Nations Secretariat, 2010) and the Handbook on Women and Imprisonment ([the Handbook] UNODC, 2014). These publications explicitly deal with the global prevalence of trauma histories that influence women’s criminalization. The Bangkok Rules (United Nations Secretariat, 2010) build on the guidelines laid out in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR), which were formally adopted in 2015 (UNODC, 2015) to supplement the SMR with rules specific to women. Prison Regime of the Bangkok Rules (entitled ‘Prison Regime’) employs several distinct rules to demonstrate that prison regimes in women’s facilities must find innovative ways of ensuring that women in prison can have complex trauma histories addressed and access to a range of activities that are facilitated in various modes; they particularly emphasize the importance of ensuring women in prison maintain contact with their families and communities (United Nations Secretariat, 2010, Rules 42–47).

The Handbook draws on the Bangkok Rules to reiterate the importance of these rules being implemented and adopted by prison regimes worldwide. The Handbook states that, though there are global variations in women’s circumstances, common factors across countries include that women face discrimination in access to justice, high levels of physical, emotional, and sexual victimization (before and during imprisonment), high likelihood of caregiving responsibilities, disproportionate distress at being in prison, and disproportionate levels of stigma and discrimination post-release (UNODC, 2014). The Handbook unequivocally emphasizes the importance of “comprehensiveness in approach” (UNODC, 2014, p. 49) to provide “contact with the outside world”, activities and programs, and pre- and post-release support (UNODC, 2014, p. 73). However, the Bangkok Rules and the Handbook fail to note the potential of using technology in prisons. This is not necessarily surprising, as there is limited literature and resources regarding introducing technological devices for people in prison. Still, we hope this article serves as a suggestion for ensuring a “comprehensiveness of approach”, as noted by the Handbook (UNODC, 2014; Department of Justice and Regulation, 2016).

Complex and nuanced discussions about the use of technology within a patriarchal world have become more necessary in recent years, prompting the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to address gender equality and technological change as the priority theme for their 67th session (CSW67). The Report on the Sixty-Seventh Session (Session Report) (CSW, 2023b) and the Agreed Conclusions (CSW67, 2023a) are publicly available. The Session Report and Agreed Conclusions are thorough in addressing the gendered digital divide, encouraging governments and stakeholders to prioritize closing this divide and supporting women and girls. However, neither document contends with the issue of imprisoned women. The Agreed Conclusions repeatedly emphasize the need to support ‘all women and girls’ in closing the gendered digital divide. Whilst we can assume that the word ‘all’ encompasses women in prison, this context is not mentioned, even though the Agreed Conclusions explicitly “values the diversity of situations and conditions of women and girls” (CSW67, 2023a, p.4). We agree with this sentiment but feel that neglecting to specifically consider the complex situation of incarceration constitutes a significant oversight. As astutely reported by the CSW67 resources (CSW67, 2023b), women and girls face a discriminatory gendered divide regarding access to technological innovation and advances. People in prison also face a digital divide, as they are deliberately denied the opportunity to engage with technological developments as part of their isolation from mainstream society (Reisdorf & DeCook, 2022). Therefore, it follows that women in prison face a compounded and a multiple digital divide in which patriarchy and the isolation of imprisonment operate in tandem.

Technology in Prisons

Security and punishment have traditionally been the priorities of prison operations, therefore limiting the focus on enhancing incarcerated people’s rehabilitation prospects. It has, however, become increasingly apparent that as society has moved towards digitized learning and working environments, the digital divide between incarcerated people and those in the community has increased. Incarcerated people, typically socially and economically disadvantaged, have therefore become referred to as a ‘digital underclass’ (Reisdorf & DeCook, 2022). The lack of access to modern technology in prison has had poor consequences for incarcerated people’s relationship with the rest of society, as well as compromised their ability to rehabilitate and live a pro-social lifestyle (McDougall et al., 2017; Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016). Thus, the need for incarcerated people to access developing technology and learn how to navigate it is critical.

The first initiatives to introduce digital technology in prisons began over a decade ago. Most of these have been aimed at streamlining and improving the administrative operations of prisons. Self-service technologies such as prison kiosks allow incarcerated people to check their account balances, order items from the canteen, apply for prison programs, and book their visits (Palmer et al., 2020). Opportunities have also been available for incarcerated people to access computers with heavily restricted Internet access, but only for particular reasons such as education or legal research. Further, access to video conferencing with external prison providers, legal personnel, and courts has become increasingly available (Ross et al., 2023). International evaluations of these initiatives have predominantly shown positive outcomes as these assist in building confidence and agency amongst incarcerated people, reduce violence in prisons, and free up staff to engage positively with incarcerated people (McDougall et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2023). A drawback of these initiatives is that they do not provide entertainment opportunities or enhance connection with family and friends; digital devices (discussed below), however, have that potential. There is limited literature regarding gender-specific issues and considerations when it comes to technology in prisons. So, we recommend that future initiatives, criminological literature, and Commission on the Status of Women reports contend with the issue of closing the digital divide in women’s prisons.

COVID-19: Impact on Prisons and Technology

Global literature indicates that COVID-19 restrictions exacerbated the punitiveness of imprisonment and made feelings of isolation more acute (see, e.g., Craig et al., 2023; Greener, 2021; Lachsz & Hurley, 2021; Payne & Hanley, 2020; Whittaker, 2021). Similarly, Lachsz and Hurley (2021) posit that the restrictive and isolating conditions were degrading and cruel. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers held grave concerns for people in prison during the pandemic and emphasized the severe detriment to the mental health of people inside caused by the additional isolation of quarantine measures (Craig et al., 2023; Gordon et al., 2021). From a legal perspective, Greener (2021) and Murphy (2021) write about how the intensified isolation caused by the pandemic restrictions necessitated increased use of bail (Greener, 2021) and that the impact of the pandemic encouraged a push toward decarceration and sentencing remissions (Murphy, 2021).

The World Health Organization issued interim guidance for preventing and controlling COVID-19 in prisons (World Health Organization, 2020, p. 2). Responses by correctional agencies around the world varied significantly; immediate responses were somewhat drastic, such as releasing large numbers of incarcerated people or banning prison visits altogether, to more subtle measures over time, such as digital visits, isolation processes for those infected, enhanced cleaning measures and contact tracing, and decarceration (Ross et al., 2023). In Australia, the responses to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons were particularly harsh: the flow of people, including staff, volunteers, and visitors in and out of prisons, was significantly reduced for a period of almost two years (Kennedy et al., 2023). Whittaker (2021) critiques the ‘opacity’ of Australian prisons during the pandemic, stating that the restrictive prison conditions endangered the dignity and well-being of people inside. These conditions undoubtedly intensified the effects of isolation in prisons but also prompted investment and implementation of digital technology in prisons.

Theoretical Underpinning

Prison policy reform must be in the service of improving the lives of people currently inside whilst not reifying and legitimizing the prison system in such a way that facilitates further incarceration. In this section, we offer a feminist reading of ‘pains of imprisonment’, a theory that was initially conceptualized by Gresham Sykes (1958), as well as a brief overview of the literature regarding ‘pains of imprisonment’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sykes’s original study focused exclusively on a men’s correctional facility; however, we adapt the theory to detail the gendered pains of imprisonment that a digital device may help alleviate. ‘Pains of imprisonment’ is a critical framework in penology that offers a typology of the fundamental deprivations of life in prison (Haggarty & Bucerius, 2020; Sykes, 1958). Sykes identified five deprivations: (1) deprivation of liberty, (2) deprivation of goods and services, (3) deprivation of heterosexual relationships, (4) deprivation of autonomy, and (5) deprivation of security (1958, pp.65–77). Many scholars have adapted ‘pains of imprisonment’ with a gendered lens, though a concrete typology of women’s ‘pains’ does not yet exist. Rather, this body of literature, some of which we will discuss below, can be reviewed thematically to demonstrate some of the key deprivations that imprisoned women feel. Unique to women, proposed ‘pains’ include grief related to motherhood, embodied trauma, and other forms of coercive control (Haggarty & Bucerius, 2020; Jones et al., 2019). The ongoing pains transform imprisoned women’s sense of identity, and they begin to see themselves as criminals, unfit mothers, and social rejects (Hoskins & Cobbina, 2020; Scraton, 2016).

Research on women’s ‘pains of imprisonment’ generally agrees that women feel the deprivations of liberty, autonomy, and security more acutely than men and in a particularly embodied way because women’s bodies serve as sites of surveillance and control under the punitive gaze of the patriarchal state (Chamberlen, 2016, 2018). Carlen (2002), for example, argued that prisons are, foremost, for the restriction of movement of the body in society. Chamberlen (2016, 2018) engaged with Sykes’ (1958) theory but asserts that it is insufficient because of Sykes’ (1958) claim that bodily suffering (i.e., corporeal punishment) is not a part of modern prison practice. Chamberlen (2016, 2018) argues that prison causes psychological pains that the body feels, that is, women internalize prison punishment, expressing their pain upon themselves.

There are also very practical considerations regarding the embodied pains of imprisonment, mainly regarding health services in prison. In Australia and globally, health services in women’s prisons have been found to be critically under-resourced and in desperate need of improvement as many incarcerated women are experiencing poor mental and physical health (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2020; Franich et al., 2021; Scraton, 2016). The paucity of healthcare for women invokes the deprivation of goods and services, and the deprivation of (bodily) autonomy as women are unable to seek health services on their own terms or in a timely manner. Kendall and colleagues (2020) reported that Aboriginal women in NSW prisons experienced a ‘loss of autonomy’ regarding healthcare, facing extreme difficulty and long wait times when trying to access medical appointments via in-prison booking systems, prescribed medications, women’s health services (e.g., pap smears), or basic pain management (such as the provision of paracetamol or ibuprofen). Sykes (1958) originally conceptualized the pains of imprisonment as distinct from each other, but they are very much intertwined for women.

The final topic we will address regarding the gendered pains of imprisonment is related to motherhood and family. The global percentage of mothers in women’s prisons ranges from 57.7% in Denmark to 90% in Argentina (Nuytiens & Jehaes, 2022). Women feel unique and distinct pains of imprisonment because of their central role in families (Abbot et al., 2020; Haggarty & Bucerius, 2020; Moore & Scraton, 2016; Stone et al., 2017). Incarceration results in the deprivation of family time, and women experience intense grief caused by limited and controlled contact with children. The stigma of being an incarcerated mother also exacerbates women’s pains with layers of guilt and shame (Carlen, 2002; Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Moore & Scraton, 2016).

There has also been a proliferation of literature regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons, some of which we discussed in our literature review. A recent study by Craig and colleagues (2023) explores explicitly how the pandemic exacerbated the ‘pains of imprisonment’ in United States prisons. They found that their data contained descriptions of physical and emotional distress that closely reflected Sykes’ (1958) original typology. Further, this study noted that the families of incarcerated people experienced acute pains associated with limited contact with their loved ones and vice versa. Whilst the pandemic no longer feels acute, we must accept the fact that COVID-19 is not ‘over’ and that contagious diseases may continue to affect imprisoned populations (Craig et al., 2023; Park & Meagher, 2020). As we will mention in our following ‘policy change’ section, one of the aims of providing tablets was to digitally connect incarcerated people with their loved ones and mitigate the pain of separation during the pandemic.

Policy Change in New South Wales

In recent years, there have been unprecedented attempts in the US, the UK, and Australia to deploy innovative, secure digital devices, such as iPads and computers, to bring a part of the technologically developed outside world into prisons. Notably, during stringently applied COVID-19 restrictions in prisons, it became necessary to digitally connect incarcerated people with their families and communities (Van Aaken, 2023). NSW was the first Australian jurisdiction to trial this type of in-cell digital technology in 2020. Following the successful pilot rollout of the Offender Digital Services platform, the Digital Restart Fund provided AUD$40.4 million US dollars to support the incremental digital technology implementation across 16 prisons state-wide by mid-2023 (Van Aaken, 2023). This fund supports the NSW government’s contract with an Australian company called Ericom to provide devices to people in custody. (Ericom operates in conjunction with Viapath which is one of the largest providers of prison digital devices in the US).

Tamper-proof, mid-size, android-based secure devices with a touchscreen are given to incarcerated persons every afternoon (shortly before in-cell lock-down). All device features (except for phone and video calls) can be used until the morning, when they are collected by staff and put into a charging station (Thaler et al., 2022). The devices are configured for intranet access, which allows secure monitoring of their usage and provides access to various paid and free services. The services include information and forms about prison administration; direct messaging between custodial staff and incarcerated people; access to pre-approved ‘white-listed’ websites (such as news, entertainment, education resources, health, and welfare services); audio and video communication with family and friends; and games (Thaler et al., 2022). Incarcerated people in NSW pay to consume the pre-loaded content on the devices and to make phone and video calls.

The ‘digital solution’ aims to transform ‘prisoner rehabilitation’ by assisting reintegration into the community, thereby addressing the NSW Premier’s priority to ‘reduce reoffending’ (Smith, 2022). Specifically, the deployment has aimed to streamline prison administrative processes as well as enhance rehabilitative prospects for people in prisons via access to public service websites, online learning, and increased contact with family and friends (Barkworth, et al., 2022). Prior to this policy shift, incarcerated people could spend up to 16 hours locked up without access to purposeful activities, including rehabilitative services, programs, or connections to the community. Access to digital devices aims to improve incarcerated people’s digital literacy, especially in terms of communication, work, and healthcare, thereby enhancing their autonomy and building their skills and confidence, easing their reintegration back into society, and ultimately reducing their risk of re-offending (Barkworth et al., 2022; Van Aaken, 2023). A further objective is to find innovative ways to creatively engage incarcerated people in evidence-based behavior change interventions. NSW Correctional Services is currently exploring the possibilities of partnering with academics and vendors to create these opportunities for incarcerated people (Van Aaken, 2023).

Empirical Evaluation of New South Wales Policy

To date, two studies have been conducted by the NSW Corrections Research, Evaluation and Statistics Unit evaluating the deployment of digital devices in NSW. The first quantitative study entailed a two-section survey, asking the participants about the extent to which the device improved their prison experience, as well as psychometric measures assessing the social climate in NSW prisons, and the extent of their perceived well-being and sense of autonomy. The response rate was significant as 33% of the total sample (of 632 eligible people in custody) participated (Barkworth et al., 2022). The overall finding from the study was that the device deployment had a positive impact on incarcerated people’s social climate. Almost 90% of study participants reported daily device use for over 2 hours. Even two-thirds of those with little or no previous experience using digital devices reported daily device use for at least 30 minutes (Barkworth et al., 2022).

The only gender-related difference reported by Barkworth and colleagues (2022) was in the utilization of digital devices between incarcerated men and women. Incarcerated men reported using the devices more often and frequently than incarcerated women. Two possible explanations were offered for this discrepancy. First, men are more likely to view technology as ‘a fascination or a toy’ and therefore ‘play with it,’ whilst women see it as a ‘means to an end’, that is complete the required task, and that is it. Second, males in the study were incarcerated in cell-based accommodation (usually with a cellmate), whereas the women resided in unit-based accommodation of six women with a private room and a shared living area. So, it could be argued that women had more opportunities than men to socialize and engage with each other, thus limiting their need to use devices (Barkworth et al., 2022). Regardless, these findings clearly confirm the gender digital divide discussed earlier in this paper.

The second study employed a qualitative design. Twenty incarcerated people (ten men and ten women) were interviewed at two pilot prison sites. Through narrative storytelling, they were asked about their personal experience with the device deployment (Thaler et al., 2022). The phone calls feature on the digital device was identified as the most popular as it allowed study participants to connect with their significant others. Importantly, it allowed incarcerated people to make phone calls throughout a longer part of the day (until 10 p.m. as opposed to 3 p.m.) in the privacy of their living space and without having to wait to access one of the few phone booths available. Unsurprisingly, most noted improvements in their relationships with family and friends in the community. In addition, incarcerated people regarded the ability to watch the news and play games as ‘something new’ to talk about instead of constantly dealing with ‘internal drama’ within the prison. As a result, incarcerated people (both genders) reported reduced friction and violence between incarcerated people and, thereby, an improved general sense of well-being (Thaler et al., 2022). This study did not access institutional records to substantiate this finding.

Qualitative study respondents also identified some challenges with the device deployment in prisons. Many incarcerated people complained about inconsistent Wi-Fi and connectivity issues. In addition, some noted hardware issues, which included device batteries not lasting more than a few hours and unexpected system ‘crashes’ (Thaler et al., 2022). A few also complained about some having a lack of digital literacy and processes teaching the use of technology in prisons, an example of the digital divide noted by the CSW67 resources discussed above (CSW67, 2023b). Finally, the prohibitive cost of phone calls (especially international calls) was a barrier identified by some to establishing a more solid connection with significant others (Thaler et al., 2022). It should be noted that data on the impact of device deployment on re-offending rates in NSW is not yet available.

Discussion

The findings from NSW are similar to previous international research into the use of technology in custodial settings (Palmer et al., 2020; West, 2023). Palmer and colleagues (2020), based on a multi-method approach, reported that the introduction of prison-related technology (such as in-cell telephones, self-service kiosks on prison wings for incarcerated people to submit administrative tasks, and mobile devices for prison staff with access to Prison-National Offender Management Information System) in the UK was perceived very positively by the incarcerated people (when there were no technology outages). The technology was regarded as an incentive for good behavior, which contributed to an improvement of the psychological well-being of incarcerated people, reduced tension on the wings between them and staff, and improved their relationships with people outside the prison. Staff were generally positive about the implementation of digital technology for incarcerated people; however, they provided mixed results about their own access to mobile devices. These mixed results were largely due to staff reluctance to use the device due to perceived lack of convenience and non-intuitive application (Palmer et al., 2020).

Even though over the last few years, there has been a surge in the utilization of similar devices in prisons in the US to the ones deployed in NSW (West, 2023), there appears to be a lack of evaluations analyzing the deployment of this type of technology in prisons in the U.S. The limited research that has been conducted indicates similar positive findings related to incarcerated people’s access to entertainment and communication, enhancing connectedness between incarcerated people and their loved ones (West, 2023). Further, the cost of phone calls on digital devices is reported to be prohibitive and seems to vary from one jurisdiction to the next (West, 2023).

The provision of a tablet in prison may not come without its own pains. A study conducted by Cortina (2022) in a Delaware (US) men’s prison found three ‘modernized pains of tablets in prison’: (1) conflicted comfort, (2) deprivation of access, and (3) deprivation of financial autonomy. Conflicted comfort refers to the comfort felt at enhanced contact with loved ones, but these positive feelings were offset by worries about arbitrary rules regarding tablet access, the high cost of tablet usage, and potential poor connection. A significant challenge with the NSW policy related to technological issues, such as system ‘crashes’ or poor battery life (Thaler et al., 2022). For incarcerated people, these challenges would feel like acute ‘pains of imprisonment’ (as opposed to simply frustrations), given the powerlessness felt while incarcerated (Cortina, 2022).

Cortina (2022) also conceptualizes the pain resulting from technological issues as relating to both ‘conflicted comfort’ and ‘deprivation of access’ and argues that it impacts the person in prison and their loved ones in the community. In this context, ‘conflicted comfort’ refers to the tension felt by both the incarcerated person and their family members as they are comforted by contact with their loved one(s), but there is an ever-present worry that connection will be lost if the Internet or battery fails. Whilst two people on the outside could simply text each other to say that their Internet stopped working, there is no such luxury when communicating to/from prison, thus demonstrating the digital divide felt by those inside and their loved ones in the community (Cortina, 2022). Thaler and colleagues (2022) did not investigate gender differences, and Cortina’s (2022) study focused on men, so further research is needed to investigate the impact of this pain on women. However, we would surmise that incarcerated women would likely have experienced these painful technological challenges more onerously, due to their well-reported need for family and community connection.

Deprivation of access is somewhat related to the ‘conflict’ in Cortina’s (2022) first ‘pain’, but also refers to a lack of clear policy regarding tablet use in prisons, meaning that people inside do not know what rights they have regarding access to the technology. We can see this finding reflected in Palmer and colleagues’ work (2020), where they noted that custodial staff were often reluctant to use or set up their own technology, and it was reported that the provided technology was not very ‘user friendly.’ This lack of access would compound incarcerated people’s limited digital literacy and, as Cortina (2022) stated, exacerbate painful deprivations of liberty and autonomy. It should be noted that the aforementioned evaluations of the NSW policy did not investigate access issues such as these, and therefore, further research in NSW is necessary to ascertain how custodial staff enact tablet provision and the impact on the digital literacy of people inside.

Cortina’s (2022) third ‘pain’, deprivation of financial autonomy, relates to the high cost associated with tablet use in Delaware, U.S. Tablets and content are provided by private companies in the U.S. (usually without any government funding like in NSW), who then charge users high fees (Cortina, 2022). Cortina (2022) also found that participants in their study had limited personal funds and that the cost of services facilitated by the tablets was exorbitant, mirroring other findings in the U.S. by West (2023) and in NSW by Thaler and colleagues (2022). Cortina (2022), West (2023), and Thaler (2022) did not investigate the financial impact on women in prison. It is necessary for gender-specific research to be conducted regarding financial autonomy, as many women in prison are survivors of extreme poverty (Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Franich et al., 2021; Snider, 2004). Additionally, many women in prison have been deprived of financial autonomy throughout their lives as part of coercive or abusive relationships (Russell et al., 2021), and therefore, the further deprivation of financial autonomy in prison is likely to result in significant re-traumatization. If we consider this in conjunction with women’s particular need for connection with community and family, we can see that further research is needed to analyze the specific policy outcomes for incarcerated women.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

In this paper, we considered the priority theme of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women Sixty-Seventh Session, “Innovation and technological change, and education in the digital age for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls” (CSW67, 2023a) in the context of imprisoned women. Global literature on prisons and technology indicates that incarcerated people are often excluded from digital developments, resulting in lower digital literacy than non-incarcerated people, as well as feelings of isolation (McDougall et al., 2017; Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016). As discussed above, we posit that these issues are particularly compounded for incarcerated women, who thus face a double digital divide. By reviewing the recent policy changes in NSW, we argued that it is imperative that incarcerated women are considered when it comes to addressing the gendered digital divide. However, we found that they were not specifically mentioned in the published material from CSW67 (2023b). Discussions of gender equity, equality, and empowerment must consider the experiences of incarcerated women if there is to be gender equality for “all women and girls” with regard to technology.

We discussed the initial benefits and challenges of the introduction of digital devices in prisons in NSW and considered how it related to the ‘pains of imprisonment’ experienced by incarcerated people, particularly women. Sykes (1958) explained the pains of imprisonment inside the prison; however, subsequent feminist literature has sought to transcend prison as a fixed place of pain. We took this idea of ‘transcendence’ to consider how the digital sphere can offer a space that represents ‘the outside’ and facilitates autonomy, privacy, and social connection. We do not claim that a digital device undoes the negative effects of imprisonment or that a digital device can make a prison a therapeutic place. However, the digital sphere could represent a new space that allows incarcerated women autonomous access to services, facilitating family connections and entertainment. Furthermore, digital devices have the potential to provide booking systems and health resources, thus going some way to address the inefficiency and opaqueness of prison medical systems, as discussed by Kendall and colleagues (2020), and alleviating some aspects of the classic Sykesian deprivations of services and autonomy.

Devices with identical services are given to both men and women, which could help bridge the gender digital divide. However, as mentioned earlier, women in prison need to have their complex trauma histories specifically addressed. Digital literacy and accessibility are imperative for incarcerated people, particularly women, as they are typically unprepared to thrive in the digital world. The establishments of safe housing, employment, and family connections (e.g., video calls with children in out-of-home care) often rely on the use of digital systems and forms, which is also a significant issue identified by service providers who work with women post-release (Carlton & Segrave, 2016; Franich et al., 2021; Stone et al., 2017). Digital devices have the potential to deliver entertainment, education, prison-specific information, and family connections to incarcerated people.

A number of relevant policy recommendations seem imperative. Foremost, the fees related to the utilization of devices need to be minimized and regulated by correctional departments as opposed to being set by the private digital technology providers who maintain the devices and provide content. This is important given that people in custody can only earn anywhere up to US$5 per day in the U.S., UK, and Australia, and need to ensure they can purchase food and other hygiene-related necessities as well as pay for use of digital devices. For women in particular, the connection to family and loved ones is very important, and they should not have to choose between paying for food at the canteen or making a phone call. In addition, access to devices should not be revoked as punishment. This recommendation is particularly pertinent for women for whom relationships and communication are paramount for alleviating some of the mental and embodied distress of imprisonment. Thus, revoking access to a device that facilitates this connection would constitute an especially harsh punishment. Finally, there needs to be an exploration of whether women-specific content on devices is required and what might constitute that content.

There also needs to be regular ongoing evaluation of the impact of digital devices for incarcerated women and whether it addresses the double digital divide that results from gendered discrimination and the isolation of imprisonment working in tandem, as discussed above. It is imperative that these evaluations are done in consultation with women in prison as lived experience experts. Lived experience consultation should be part of the ongoing evaluation design. The emphasis needs to be on augmenting rehabilitation opportunities through fostering agency and autonomy; this has the propensity to lead to enhanced feelings of self-worth and confidence required to navigate the complex post-release digital world. The ultimate goal of policies such as this must be to play a role in decarceration by strengthening imprisoned women’s connections to their communities and closing the double digital divide.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Marietta Martinovic

Author Biographies

Gabriela Franich is a third year Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne in the discipline of Criminology. She considers herself a critical feminist criminologist. Gabriela has worked and volunteered in prisons since 2017, delivering education programs in both women’s and men’s facilities. She has also authored and co-authored academic articles and research reports addressing the needs of women in prison and post-release. She has also been involved in activist campaigns, working alongside and learning from women who have been inside.

Dr Marietta Martinovic is an Associate Professor in Criminology and Justice Studies at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. She started the first Australian Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program in Australia, and has established, and is leading five prison-based and one community-based Think Tank. The Think Tanks are consulted by a range of stakeholders about improving justice-related policies and practices. Dr. Martinovic is internationally recognised for transformative learning in prisons and developing opportunities for the inclusion of lived criminal justice experience in policy making.

References

Abbot

Scott

Thomas

Weston

(2020). Pregnancy and childbirth in English prisons: Institutional ignominy and the pains of imprisonment. Sociology of Health and Illness, 42(3), 660–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13052

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] . (2020). The health and welfare of women in Australia’s prisons. Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/prisoners/health-and-welfare-of-women-in-prison/summary

Baldry

(2010). Women in transition: From prison to… Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(2), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2010.12035885

Barkworth

Thaler

Howard

(2022). Implementing digital technologies in prisons: Inmate uptake and perceived value of in-cell digital tablets. Corrections Research Evaluation and Statistics. Corrective Services NSW Research Bulletin No. 54. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/research-and-statistics/rb54-implementing-digital-technologies-in-prisons.pdf

Bartels

(2017). Criminal justice law reform challenges for the future: It’s time to curb Australia’s prison addiction. In Levy

O’Brien

M. T.

Rice

Ridge

Thornton

(Eds.), New directions for law in Australia: Essays in contemporary law reform (pp. 119–132). ANU Press.

Bartels

Easteal

Westgate

(2020). Understanding women’s imprisonment in Australia. Women & Criminal Justice, 30(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019.1657550

Bunn

(2019). Intersectional needs and reentry: Re-Conceptualizing ‘multiple and complex needs’ post-release. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 19(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817751828

Carlen

(2002). Women and punishment: The struggle for justice. Willan Publishing.

Carlton

Segrave

(2016). Rethinking women’s post-release reintegration and ‘success’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815573876

10.

Chamberlen

(2016). Embodying prison pain: Women’s experiences of self-injury in prison and the emotions of punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 20(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615595283

11.

Chamberlen

(2018). Embodying punishment: Emotions, identities, and lived experiences in women’s prisons. CPI Group (UK) Ltd.

12.

Commission on the Status of Women Sixty-Seventh Session . (2023a). Innovation and technological change, and education in the digital age for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. https://undocs.org/en/E/CN.6/2023/L.3

13.

Commission on the Status of Women Sixty-Seventh Session . (2023b). Report on the 67th session (25 March 2022 and 6-17 March 2023). https://www.undocs.org/E/2023/27

14.

Corston

(2007). The Corston report: A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Home Office. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505070540030805

15.

Cortina

H. G.

(2022). “I want to do more than sit in that cell and wait to die”: The modernized pains of tablets in prison [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Delaware.

16.

Craig

M. O.

Kim

Beichner-Thomas

(2023). Incarcerated in a pandemic: How COVID-19 exacerbated the “pains of imprisonment”. Criminal Justice Review, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168231190467

17.

Department of Justice and Regulation . (2016). Women exiting prison in Victoria: Summary report of a post-release study. Monash University. https://files.corrections.vic.gov.au/2021-06/cv_women_exiting_prison_summary.pdf

18.

Eriksson

(2016). Punishing the Other: The social production of immorality revisited. Routledge.

19.

Franich

Sandy

Stone

(2021). ‘It’s not designed for women at all’: Exploring service providers’ perspectives of working in the Victorian criminal justice system. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1837713

20.

Garland

(2002). The culture of control. Oxford University Press.

21.

Gordon

Klose

Storrod

M. L.

(2021). Youth (in)justice and the COVID-19 pandemic: Rethinking incarceration through a public health lens. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859966

22.

Greener

(2021). ‘COVID bail’: The response of Victorian courts and prisons in navigating the impact of COVID-19. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859969

23.

Haggarty

K. D.

Bucerius

(2020). The proliferating pains of imprisonment. Incarceration, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632666320936432

24.

Hoskins

K. M.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2020). It depends on the situation: Women’s identity transformation in prison, jail, and substance abuse treatment settings. Feminist Criminology, 15(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/155708511987826

25.

Johns

(2019). Confronting the disabling effects of imprisonment: Toward prehabilitation. Social Justice, 45(1), 27–131.

26.

Jones

D. J.

Bucerius

S. M.

Haggerty

K. D.

(2019). Voices of remanded women in western Canada: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Community Safety & Wellbeing, 4(3), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.103

27.

Kendall

Lighton

Sherwood

Baldry

Sullivan

E. A.

(2020). Incarcerated Aboriginal women’s experiences of accessing healthcare and the limitations of the ‘equal treatment’ principle. International Journal for Equity in Health, 19(48), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-1155-3

28.

Kennedy

Martinovic

Sandy

(2023). Supporting formerly incarcerated people before and during COVID-19: Is socially distanced (re)integration possible? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 35(3), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2221367

29.

Lachsz

Hurley

(2021). Why practices that could be torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should never have formed part of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1863310

30.

McDougall

Pearson

D. A. S.

Torgerson

D. J.

Garcia-Reyes

(2017). The effect of digital technology on prisoner behavior and reoffending: A natural stepped-wedge design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(4), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9303-5

31.

Moore

Scraton

(2016). Doing gendered time: The harms of women’s incarceration. In Jewkes

Crewe

Bennett

(Eds.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 549–567). Taylor and Francis.

32.

Murphy

J. R.

(2021). Pandemic sentence remissions: A model for executive decarceration during and following COVID-19. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859965

33.

Nuytiens

Jehaes

(2022). When your child is your cellmate: The ‘maternal pains of imprisonment’ in a Belgian prison nursery. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 22(1), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820958452

34.

Palmer

E. J.

Hatcher

R. M.

Tonkin

M. J.

(2020). Evaluation of digital technology in prisons. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f0c5821d3bf7f03ab8a4e04/evaluation-digital-technology-prisons-report.PDF

35.

Park

Meagher

(2020). A state-by-state look at Coronavirus in prisons. The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/05/01/a-state-by-state-look-at-coronavirus-in-prisons

36.

Payne

J. L.

Hanley

(2020). COVID-19 and corrections in Australia: A summary review of the available data and literature. Victims and Offenders, 15(7-8), 1367–1384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1829226

37.

Pratt

(2011). Elias, punishment, and decivilization. In Pratt

Brown

Hallsworth

Morrison

(Eds.), The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives (pp. 256–319). Routledge.

38.

Reisdorf

B. C.

DeCook

J. R.

(2022). Locked up and left out: Formerly incarcerated people in the context of digital inclusion. New Media and Society, 24(2), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063178

39.

Reisdorf

B. C.

Jewkes

(2016). (B)Locked sites: Cases of internet use in three British prisons. Information, Communication and Society, 19(6), 771–786.

40.

Ross

Wood

Baird

Lundberg

(2023). Corrections agencies' use of digital service delivery applications during COVID-19. In Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice no. 677. Australian Institute of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti77093

41.

Russell

E. K.

Carlton

(2013). Pathways, race and gender-responsive reform: Through an abolitionist lens. Theoretical Criminology, 17(4), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480613497777

42.

Russell

E. K.

Carlton

Tyson

(2021). ‘It’s a gendered issue, 100 percent’: How tough bail laws entrench gender and racial inequality and social disadvantage. International Journal for Crime, Justice & Social Democracy, 11(3), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.1882

43.

Scraton

(2016). Bearing witness to the ‘pain of others’: Researching power, violence and resistance in a women’s prison. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), 520. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.288

44.

Segrave

Carlton

(2010). Women, trauma, criminalisation and imprisonment. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(2), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2010.12035887

45.

Smith

(2022). Digital solutions - transforming prisoner rehabilitation with an Australian first. NSW Government. https://www.digital.nsw.gov.au/article/digital-solutions-transforming-prisoner-rehabilitation-an-australian-first

46.

Snider

(2004). Female punishment: From patriarchy to backlash? In Summer

(Ed.), The blackwell companion to criminology (pp. 228–251). Blackwell Publishing.

47.

Stathopoulos

Quadara

Fileborn

Clark

(2012). Addressing women’s victimisation histories in custodial settings. ACSSA Issues: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/i13_0.pdf

48.

Stone

Liddell

Martinovic

(2017). Incarcerated mothers: Issues and barriers for regaining custody of children. The Prison Journal, 97(3), 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517703957

49.

Sykes

G. M.

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press.

50.

Thaler

Barkworth

Howard

(2022). Implementing digital technologies in prisons: A qualitative study of inmate experiences. In Corrections research evaluation and Statistics. Corrective Services NSW. NSW Research Bulletin no. 58. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/research-and-statistics/rb58-implementing-digital-technologies-in-prisons.pdf

51.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime . (2014). Handbook on women and imprisonment (2nd ed.). United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/women_and_imprisonment_-_2nd_edition.pdf

52.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime . (2015). United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (the Nelson Mandela rules). United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf

53.

United Nations Secretariat . (2010). United Nations rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial measures for women offenders (the Bangkok Rules). United Nations. https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Bangkok_Rules_ENG_22032015.pdf

54.

Van Aaken

(2023). Transforming rehabilitation through digital technology in New South Wales corrections: Technology implementation case. Justice trends. https://justice-trends.press/transforming-rehabilitation-through-digital-technology-in-new-south-wales-corrections/

55.

Walker

Sutherland

Millsteed

(2019). Characteristics and offending of women in prison in Victoria, 2012- 2018: Crime Statistics Agency. https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/characteristics-and-offending-of-women-in-prison-in-victoria-2012-2018

56.

West

(2023). How people in prison really use technology. Slate/future tense. https://slate.com/technology/2023/09/prison-tech-survey-viapath-securus.html

57.

Whittaker

(2021). No news is no news: COVID-19 and the opacity of Australian prisons. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859964

58.

World Health Organization . (2020). Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention: Interim guidance. WHO. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2021-1405-41155-57257

Deployment of Digital Devices in Prisons in New South Wales in Australia: Exploring the Benefits,Challenges,and Opportunities for Incarcerated Women

Abstract

Keywords

Women’s Imprisonment in Australia

Exploring connections to the United Nations’ Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the 67th Session on the Commission on the Status of Women

Technology in Prisons

COVID-19: Impact on Prisons and Technology

Theoretical Underpinning

Policy Change in New South Wales

Empirical Evaluation of New South Wales Policy

Discussion

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References

Exploring connections to the United Nations’ Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the 67^th Session on the Commission on the Status of Women