“Disincarcerating incarcerated emotions”: The influence of emotional dynamics behind and beyond bars on desistance from crime

Abstract

This article is based on 50 interviews and six written testimonies of 24 individuals convicted, incarcerated, and then released from penitentiaries in Switzerland. Focusing on emotional mechanisms inside and outside prison in a longitudinal perspective, this study explores their influence on desistance pathways. The incarceration experience shapes affective mechanisms, which are identified as delimited, dissimulated, and discredited. Upon release, it turns out that shifting from dynamics of emotional closure to dynamics of emotional (re)opening is critical in light of structural, relational, and emotional barriers to change.

Introduction

Desistance from crime describes the processes toward the cessation of a criminal behavior. These pathways result from interrelated individual and social components (Bersani and Doherty, 2018; LeBel et al., 2008; Weaver, 2018). Cognitive drivers are related to the development of a law-abiding identity and self-esteem (Giordano et al., 2002). Social drivers refer to life events, new ties, or the restoration of previous relationships operating as turning points in an individual’s life course (Sampson and Laub, 1993).

Recent studies also stress the existence of emotional drivers like impulses, paths, or finalities in the desistant journey (Farrall et al., 2014). Emotional states take different forms: emotions are transient and involuntary reactions to an event or object, feelings are more persistent and depend on a cognitive interpretation, and moods evolve more widely over time (Lawler, 2001). All of them potentially influence desistance from crime and this study considers them under all their forms (Hunter and Farrall, 2017). Emotions are connected to a “crystallization of discontent” which can lead to a cost-benefit-driven decision to give up crime (Paternoster and Bushway, 2009). However, desistance is more than the result of a decision, as affective states are closely linked to the identity construction (Farrall, 2005). They contribute to the development of a conventional and satisfying self-perception. In the same vein, they shape the narratives surrounding the desistance processes (Maruna, 2001; Vaughan, 2007). Positive emotional states encourage desistance efforts, allow for future plans, and strengthen individuals’ sense of agency (Harris, 2011; Healy, 2014). Burnett and Maruna (2004) observe that hope and optimism are strongly correlated to future behavior, for instance, in the way challenges are perceived and overcome upon release from prison. Meaningful relationships and events become “emotional turning points” (Fantini, 2014).

Nevertheless, it would be misguided to conclude that desistance is mainly characterized by a form of positive emotional opening. More often than not, desistance might be hampered by painful moments, complex, even contradictory feelings that in some circumstances undermine the willingness to change (Halsey et al., 2016; Hunter and Farrall, 2017). Isolation, confrontation with failure and repeated failures, frustration, and loss of hope represent the three main “pains of desistance” identified by Nugent and Schinkel (2016). Halsey et al. (2016) even talk about a “f*ck-it moment” to point out relapses in the disengagement process. According to them, relapses would not reflect the desire to re-offend but rather the loss of practical and emotional capacities and a lack of resources to follow up on the desistance path.

How do emotions and emotional trajectories during incarceration influence desistance upon release from prison and after one’s return to freedom? Drawing on in-depth interviews with 23 men and one woman, ¹ all convicted, incarcerated, and then released from penitentiaries in French-speaking Switzerland between 2018 and 2020, this contribution explores the emotional settings that can either hinder or support dynamics of change.

Change through the lens of incarceration experience

Many studies highlight the deleterious consequences of incarceration and the inefficiency of prison to prevent recidivism and support desistance (Harding et al., 2019; Jonson, 2010). Detention and the harshness of custodial sanctions would rather precipitate new offenses (Jolliffe and Hedderman, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2017).

However, some prison environments are more and some others less conducive to limit the adverse effects of imprisonment and to support desistance trajectories (Auty and Liebling, 2019). “Moral climates” positively correlated with crime-free lifestyles are related to structural features (coherent organization, structural security, etc.) and the opportunity to build interpersonal relationships (based on respect, fairness, humanity, legitimate use of authority, etc.). The feeling of security, the quality of sleep, the relationships between fellow inmates, the access to visitors, or the level of perceived autonomy is crucial (Van Ginneken et al., 2019).

In addition, some authors suggest that in the event that prison institutions are able to provide at least some opportunities for personal development, supportive relationships, the acquisition of skills employable in a free environment, and an adequate preparation before release, then imprisonment could act as a “turning point” and be used as an impetus for change (Schinkel, 2014; Van Ginneken, 2015). The acquisition and maintenance of personal skills, meaningful relationships, and opportunities, combined with the negative consequences of incarceration, could facilitate the embracing of possibilities of change toward law-abiding aspirations and attitudes. While, for some individuals, prison is so harsh that it precludes any possibility of change, for others overcoming and making sense of this experience may, at some point in their lives, emerge as an opportunity to use that time and work on themselves (Kazemian, 2020; Van Ginneken, 2016).

Recent studies by Van Ginneken (2016) and Kazemian (2020) provide important insights into the positive growth that can occur during long periods of incarceration and the circumstances able to activate, support, or hinder it. Both refer to the notion of “posttraumatic growth” (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004) to account for coping strategies associated with hostile contexts such as prison environment and their fertile ground for change (Vanhooren et al., 2018). Elements of post-traumatic growth are identified as overcoming the initial shock of incarceration, withstanding the hardships of imprisonment, limiting the feelings of powerlessness, maintaining a sense of agency, giving purpose and meaning to the prison experience, and maintaining a basic self-esteem. These components are likely to facilitate the positive reconstruction of one’s identity and, as a result, to potentially support the desistance process. The process of coping with the negative effects of imprisonment and the suffering of one’s life course is described as “adversarial growth” (Kazemian, 2020). Adversarial growth is characterized by using time in prison, reflecting on one’s wrongs, making sense of one’s life experiences, accepting and managing negative emotions, conserving family ties, and seizing resources not available on the outside. These elements contribute to the development of a “redemption script” as described first by Maruna (2001) and to which Kazemian (2020) dedicates eight main dimensions: the ability to overcome suffering and adversity, the development of a sense of responsibility, a self-image in line with an appreciated future, an identity that is not reduced to past experiences, an openness to change now perceived as accessible and achievable, visible resources and opportunities for change, and the realization that thoughts are not simply a reflection of anyone’s personality.

These findings echo the concept of “imagined desistance” which describes future law-abiding projections growing in detention (Soyer, 2014). These expressions of a future life without transgressive behaviors are supported by the construction of a conventional identity and a related-narrative framework. The concept of “turning-point narratives” reflects an opportunity to initiate a process of change which is fostered by detention. Nevertheless, on the outside, consequences and difficulties often undermine projects initiated on the inside. According to Doekhie et al. (2017), the “script” developed inside, in the sense of inmates’ narrative construction in relation with their life course and their future plans, can be realized only through their insights into a conventional self, a feeling of being able to influence one’s own life, relational and social resources, and the existence of formal supervision. The transformative effect of incarceration is largely determined by personal and social resources, before and after their stay in prison (Schinkel, 2014, 2015).

As a result, this effect would apply to a limited number of prisoners: those who are able to combine their willingness to change with their resources at the time of their release and those who are able to incorporate the meaning given to their incarceration into narratives typical of a “redemption script” (Maruna, 2001). For desisters, the prison experience becomes part of a discourse sustaining a process of change already initiated rather than being a facilitator of desistance processes (Schinkel, 2015). In other words, the opportunities to engage in a process of change in prison does exist, but the positive impacts of detention remain limited, and prison represents a “truncated turning point” (Soyer, 2014). In this respect, the potential to support desistance from crime behind bars is less related to the incarceration itself, but rather to the meaning the individuals attribute to their prison experience, to their resources behind and beyond bars, but also to their abilities to navigate through strong emotional states.

Emotional states through the lens of incarceration experience

Contact with the criminal justice system and prison is known as being emotionally charged. Arrest, detention, trial, and release are identified as hot spots (Sherman, 2003) due to their high potential to influence the life course of justice-involved individuals, notably desistance from crime (Calverley and Farrall, 2011; Giordano et al., 2007).

Incarceration limits freedom, but restrictions on the well-being such as fair living conditions, sufficient resources, and quality services are factors of noncompliant behaviors (Birgden, 2015). By contrast, feelings of respect (Durnescu, 2011), legitimacy (Schinkel, 2014; Wallace et al., 2016), and fairness (Tyler, 2010) related to justice intervention are provided to promote law-abiding conducts. As Walters (2018) points out, “legitimacy beliefs reduce future offending and lead to desistance by inhibiting moral disengagement” (p. 37).

In addition, according to McGuinn (2018), desistance involves a move away from emotional states such as loneliness, powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, and alienation. Nevertheless, in custody, stress, anxiety, fear, sadness, or despair prevails and most often these feelings add to already existing sufferings (Kazemian, 2020). For these reasons, emotional distress emerges as a key element to understand the desistance issue. Otherwise, anger, feelings of injustice, and disempowerment trap the individual in a “condemnation scrip” (Maruna, 2001). This narrative framework is opposed to the “redemption script” which expresses a wish for change, a new self-perception, and a sense of agency. In the end, desistance from crime reflects an emotional openness to change, whereby emotions typically associated with crime, such as strain or anger, are reduced (Giordano et al., 2007). Schroeder and Frana (2009) highlight the development of a “positive emotional self.”

However, as previously stated, it would be wrong to conclude that desistance is a pleasant journey. It is more often punctuated by adverse emotional states, particularly upon release from jail (Hunter and Farrall, 2017; Stoll, 2020). Isolation, the confrontation with repeated failures, frustration, and the loss of hope are identified as “pains of desistance” (Nugent and Schinkel, 2016). Relapses are usually not the result of a desire to re-offend but rather due to the lack of emotional and practical resources. Halsey et al. (2016) describe it as a “f*uck-it moment.”

Finally, emotional states in desistance pathways also require examination of their occurrence, as they change over time (Farrall et al., 2014). Emotional trajectory patterns bring to light several phases. The first, when the renouncement to offenses is recent, is characterized by guilt, regret, and uncertainty. In the second phase, a period of 3 to 5 years without offending, hope grows and mixed feelings indicate a tension between the current and future selves. The affective states in the third and fourth phases are linked to a sense of belonging to an anchoring community. They are likely to persist from about 4 until 9 years after the last offenses. The fifth and final phase, from 10 to 13 years, is colored by feelings related to broader expectations than mere compliance with criminal norms (Hunter and Farrall, 2017). The focus gradually shifts from the individual to loved ones and the society as a whole (Calverley and Farrall, 2011).

Methods

The present article is based on findings from a qualitative longitudinal study on the role of emotional states in desistance processes. The narratives of 23 men and one woman (N = 24), all convicted, incarcerated, and then released from penitentiaries in French-speaking Switzerland, were gathered. Data collection took place in prison and then in the community. In a phenomenological perspective, between 2018 and 2020, two or three interviews were conducted with three-fourths of the study participants (N = 18) for a total of 50 interviews. The length of the follow-up period averaged 8.5 months. Many individuals interviewed only once received a deportation decision and had to leave the country.

The first interviews were life stories, the second and third semi-structured interviews. The duration of the interviews was approximately one-and-a-half hour. They comprised many themes, including familial and intimate relationships, friendships, schooling, training and employment, leisure activities, interactions with extra-judicial institutions, substance abuse, victimization, judicial experience, liberation, and all the emotional states that go with them. The participation was completely voluntary, and the recruitment approach based on flyers sent to people convicted by the canton of Neuchâtel and eligible for parole within the next 6 months. Flyers were also dropped in the waiting room of the probation service.

The data were supplemented by six free written testimonies that five participants in the study wished to share with us. These notebooks are full of facts, stories, reflections, or feelings and often show a desire to write or draw during detention. Their content was discussed in interviews with each of the five participants in several meetings. Although this material cannot be considered as representative of the study population, it constitutes a very productive source of information to be combined with the data collected in interviews. It also reveals an urge for almost all of these five respondents to keep a record of their history through writing and/or drawing, without sharing it. In short, writing as an easily accessible medium reveals experiences and emotions as close as possible to their manifestation and expression (Cellard, 1997; Flick, 2014).

More specifically, the five authors of the abovementioned testimonies initiated their writing process already during imprisonment to make time pass, to overcome this period, and to understand better significant moments in the course of their life. These testimonies are privileged means of coping with incarceration but also of (re)writing one’s history, both literally and figuratively. They are illustrations of potential “redemption scripts” (Maruna, 2001). In addition, we hypothesize that these contributions might also be part of desistance processes because their creation and sharing could reflect a (re)opening or (re)connection to oneself, one’s journey, one’s loved ones, and/or the society.

The interviews and the free written testimonies were subject to an iterative and continuous phenomenological analysis focusing on own experiences, emotional states, and the meanings given to them (Paillé and Mucchielli, 2012). The phenomenological approach adopted at epistemological, methodological, and analytical levels allows for an in-depth exploration of subjective and intimate affective states (Anadón, 2006). It enhances the reflexivity of the participants and also of the researcher herself through an analysis of her own representations and feelings (Stoll, 2020). Each interview was transcribed and coded using HyperResearch qualitative analysis software. Each material was analyzed on its own (vertical analysis), before being analyzed in a second step in relation to the other data sources (horizontal analysis). In a third step, a cross-sectional analysis bringing together all the collected data was carried out. Emotional markers associated with the life course of individuals in conflict with the law, specific configurations in their life trajectories such as the detention, the period of release from prison, or the months that followed, emerged as predominant dimensions.

Characteristics of the participants

The recruitment strategy for the research was spontaneous and without prior categorization in order to stick as closely as possible to the processual dynamic of desistance from crime, which goes beyond the absence of recidivism and puts a much broader focus on stabilizing a situation. The choice of avoiding to qualify anyone according to a “desistant”/“persistant” typology is justified by the thought not to consider only the positive aspects of desistance processes (Nugent and Schinkel, 2016). The individuals met during these 2 years of research reported no further desire to commit offenses. This study also abstains from mentioning whether participants re-offended after release because a transgression does not simultaneously preclude a process of change (Mohammed, 2012; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011).

The sample population consisted of individuals between 26 and 63 years, with an average of 41 years. All of them went through a carceral experience in the French-speaking part of Switzerland as prisoner sentenced to a custodial punishment. Respondents have been convicted of offenses against physical integrity, property offenses, and drugs trafficking. The average length of their last sentence was 27 months but most of them mentioned having previously been in conflict with the criminal justice system or been previously incarcerated. During imprisonment time, the interviews were conducted between 8 months and 1 week before release. Outside of prison, interviews took place between 1 month and over 24 months after release.

A limitation of this study is the recruitment strategy on a voluntary base without sampling process. This choice was motivated to provide sufficient internal diversification within the sample in view of a limited population base. This approach is also relevant when examining intimate affective states. Future directions would be to further investigate these findings with a wider population and over a longer term. The emotional experiences of incarcerated and released women would also need to be given more attention.

Findings

The analysis of this research shows that emotions and emotional trajectories in prison shape the relationship with one’s feelings well beyond the period of incarceration. In other words, “incarcerated emotions” as described below influence the future and the desistance process. Fred illustrates this observation:

I learned to armor myself in prison, really the shell of a shell. . . To hide my feelings, to hide everything. Not to hide but. . . I don’t know how you say it, to learn not to be affected by what is going to happen. You must keep everything for yourself and it’s really hard to let go. (Fred, more than 24 months after release, aged 50) ²

For the purpose to reveal the manifestations of these feelings and their consequences, the analysis has been divided into three sections. The first section is focused on emotional states in relation to the self during incarceration. The second section covers emotional states related to the relationships in prison. The third section deals with the emotional climate associated with the prison environment. These affective dynamics in detention are then discussed in the light of their impact on the individuals at the time of their release.

A disconnection from the self: Delimited emotions

When they characterize incarceration, all respondents talk about their relationship with the time dimension. It appears clearly that prison operates a break in their life course as there is a time before and after prison. Time past in prison is described as frozen and it differs substantially from the time always in motion experienced in the community. Time repeats itself endlessly in jail. Following the existing literature, incarceration is featured as a period out of time and space in which every single event, even the most insignificant, is likely to attract attention, to get people talking about, and to provoke intense emotions (Crawley, 2011). Consequently, detention time must be managed to be overcome with as little trouble as possible (Liebling and Maruna, 2013). As an exercise of patience, making time in prison bearable requires containing one’s behavior, thoughts, and emotional states. Nicolas’ words capture the need to get over and temper own emotions. Only some feelings can be experienced—and only to a certain extent:

You must realize very quickly that you have to manage your thoughts and feelings, so that you don’t suffer unnecessarily or become weak. By thinking, of course, but not about everything! But how could one refrain from thinking about something? (Nicolas, written testimony, aged 29)

These dynamics consist of a fragile balance involving psychosocial resources that, according to various respondents, many prisoners do not dispose of. For the less vulnerable ones, this self-care allows them to get through detention without too many problems (interpersonal conflicts, violence, abuse, sanctions, etc.), to engage in law-abiding activities (physical exercise, working, reading, writing, etc.), and to be protected from the most damaging ones (drugs, alcohol, medication, etc.). To regulate feelings becomes a daily exercise in prison. However, for the most vulnerable ones, the prison environment reinforces their fragilities. Any escape is considered as welcomed in a context where abuse of power and influence may be more likely due to the lack of external scrutiny. It could quickly become a slippery slope, being difficult to escape without extracting oneself from this environment. Although time in prison can for some people be conducive to reflection and simultaneously be helpful in terms of a withdrawal from a harmful environment (peer influence, drug or alcohol addiction, critical health condition, etc.), this experience is very hard to bear for others. In all cases, a prison experience causes consequences which tend to weaken the drivers of desistance (Doekhie et al., 2017; Kazemian, 2020; Van Ginneken, 2016).

When detention extends beyond a few days or weeks, it deprives prisoners of their housing, their jobs, and their secure relationships. In prison, everything is controlled, from lunchtime to administrative formalities. Prison also weakens their decision-making abilities especially because any initiative is subjected to a formal request and a formal evaluation. As Christophe stresses, detainees feel a sensation of powerlessness, lacking any possibility to influence their life course (lack of a sense of agency) and spaces to express feelings:

You must not show that you are weak or vulnerable. At the same time, you don’t dare to be too, how should I say, too aggressive because otherwise you’ll be pigeonholed into another category. You don’t dare to be passive either, because otherwise you’ll be picked up by everyone. You must remain neutral. And so, you go from day to day waiting for your release. (Christophe, pending release, aged 34)

In addition, incarceration generates for prisoners a specific relationship to hope (Burnett and Maruna, 2004; Van Ginneken, 2015). Having hope is required to maintain a sufficient self-esteem and stay emotionally as neutral as possible. However, participants describe a parsimonious hope, limited to the prospect that the deprivation of liberty is not endless and that there is a future afterward. Francis explains:

You can’t let your feelings get in the way. But if you lose self-esteem, you become. . . You don’t look good here in prison. You must keep your self-esteem and always a little hope anyway. (Francis, pending release, aged 58)

If hope and emotions are not contained, respondents indicate that it is easy to be overwhelmed by out-of-control ideas and feelings which might become upsetting or destructive, making life in prison unbearable and causing long-lasting effects on their life course. To avoid being affected by unfavorable or incongruous emotional expressions becomes a critical point: for example, by restraining expectations as much as possible, by accepting the impossibility of influencing events, by forbidding oneself to think about what is happening outside, or, by protecting oneself from false hope, by refusing to believe in an improvement of one’s penal situation because most things are uncertain and largely outside one’s control.

Given the disruptions it produces, in terms of time and space, but also in terms of one’s relationship with society, one’s sense of agency and possibilities to envisage the future, detention generates particular emotional experiences: stress, sadness, guilt, or shame as also regularly mentioned in literature (Crawley, 2011; Picken, 2012). Due to their effects on detainees, they must be restrained and not become too intense, unless they become harmful and hamper the process of desistance.

A disconnection from others: Dissimulated emotions

The characteristics of relationships in prison are almost systematically discussed: detention disconnects prisoners from relationships with the outside world. At the same time, contacts inside prison are not representative of relationships in a free environment. Analyses show that prisoners’ thoughts and emotional states are rehearsed, ruminated, and rarely, if ever, shared. The quotes of Said illustrate the possible effects of these closed-circuit emotions:

When I am meeting people like you, we talk a bit and it’s a pleasure. We get away from it all, we talk about everything on our minds. That’s a relief. It’s necessary because if you keep everything inside, you get carried away, and you become aggressive. (Said, 1 week before release, aged 49)

In prison, despite the access to radio, television, and sporadically to newspapers, communication between prison and the free society is very limited. The most widespread mean to get information today, that is, Internet, is not accessible in detention or only during sporadic supervised sessions. Prisoners still feel out of step because evolutions on the outside are too fast compared with the pace in prison. The institution cannot progress at the same pace mainly because of its security constraints. These disconnections further contribute to the disaffiliation of incarcerated people, an observation that contrasts with the importance attributed in literature to the development of social capital as one of the main drivers of desistance (Burke et al., 2018; Farrall et al., 2014).

Depending on detention policies, telephone is anyhow rationed. Nevertheless, it remains the most affordable way to stay linked to the outside world. For prisoners who are cared for and whose relatives can visit them, visiting rooms are made available. In any case, these connections suffer both quantitatively and qualitatively, thereby contributing to the emergence of feelings of loneliness and isolation. Moreover, when links are preserved, it is always tricky for prisoners to meet the expectations of the free world. However, processes involving members of the civil society are perceived as milestones deemed to support desistance from crime.

When it comes to the relations with other detainees, they are described as superficial because of an underlying mistrust. In a prison environment, nothing is secret and free. Tensions are frequent and generate constant feelings of insecurity. To protect oneself from being ostracized, it is common to share and show only the strict minimum, especially with regard to the manifestation of emotions that would reveal intimate aspects of oneself. Emotional states, beyond being limited, also tend to be dissimulated. The words of Charles testify this permanent pursuit of an emotional balance:

We develop a certain permeability to our emotions. So, there is a real hardness to adopt in the attitude to protect ourselves from attacks on our integrity. (Charles, more than 24 months after release, aged 45)

In addition, interviewees are not keen to express interest in forming friendships with fellow inmates: Because, in their words, they are “delinquents,” because their influence is perceived as negative and not recommended, which creates an atmosphere of mistrust. Association with prison makes undesirable to start and maintain such relationships in the community, particularly in the eyes of people who try to operate a break from this period of their lives.

Also, for detention officers, relationships are well defined. Even if staff members behave as fair and respectful as possible, relations with them are regulated by the security missions they are assigned. This is compounded by time constraints which limit opportunities for interactions and also by the power relations between guards and prisoners. According to the respondents, the same is true for the judicial and administrative staff:

If you have a little bit of affinity with detention officers, you can talk a little bit more. But don’t ask him anything. It allows you to have an interchange on what happens outside the walls. Three to five minutes is enough for them, but it’s a big conversation already. If you make a joke, they listen and talk to you. But it’s still a fairly basic chat. (Michael, 21 months after release, aged 47)

With regard to medical or social staff, interviewees formulate diverging opinions. Their perception seems to depend on their individual experiences and on the structural conditions surrounding their interventions (needs of the incarcerated population, organization of the institution, staffing ratio, etc.). However, the more supportive nature of the tasks might inspire a relational proximity and more emotional transparency, subject evidently to the constraints imposed by a prison environment.

As a consequence, after having valued the most common interactions in prison and taken into consideration the possible exception played by medical or social staff, it emerges from the study that none of these connections resemble conventional relationships of the type that can be developed in a free environment—which are described in the literature as supporting desistance from crime (Farrall et al., 2014; Sampson and Laub, 1993).

A disconnection from society: Discredited emotions

It emerges from the research that detention impacts relationships with self, with others, but also with regard to emotions and attitudes toward the criminal justice system and the authorities. Respondents point out that they understand the objectives of a prison sentence and its existence in the absence of more effective structures. However, they deplore its deleterious consequences, on the one hand, because of structural and operational constraints that weigh on institutions and on the responsibles in the criminal justice system, and, on the other hand, because of a negative societal context and a skeptical emotional climate toward people in conflict with the law. For them, they live in a world where “the second chance has become a myth” which leads to feelings of exclusion.

Even though physically released, most respondents stated that they did not feel free due to the place and the influence that the criminal justice system still holds over them. For instance, they refer to the impact of community control measures and criminal record. They stress that they have paid their debt to the society through the custodial sentence and they request therefore that this be reflected once they are released, by being and feeling truly free. Daniel writes on this:

Looking back, what dominates is doubt. The doubt of the right choice, the doubt of my capacities and the doubt of going forward. . . A doubt nurtured by the fear of not being loved. (Daniel, 12 months after release, aged 63)

Respondents note that most of French-speaking Swiss judicial institutions, but also their usual interlocutors, are overloaded, making staff unable to carry out the tasks assigned to the carceral system: Prison overcrowding, lack of places in homes and in socio-professional integration structures, high staff turnover, lack of socio-educational personnel, complexity and slowness of procedures, or labeling effects are highlighted. These features are also identified in literature as arousing feelings from the relative indifference to the anger and hindering a conventional lifestyle (Halsey et al., 2016; McGuinn, 2018).

In addition, interviewees report that the criminal justice system is increasingly reluctant to trust people who already had to face the severity of the law. Most of them feel exclusively treated as dangers, regardless of any steps which might demonstrate that they are not or that they are in capacity to change. They recall having experienced these feelings on several occasions during their criminal career. This gradually builds up their opinion of having been too heavily and unfairly punished. In some circumstances, they do not refute that these grievances and feelings of injustice undermine their desire to respect criminal and/or social norms. Their feeling is that their individuality and efforts are not taken into account. For them, this means having duties but no rights in return, like a one-way commitment.

The interviewees agree that their perception of the criminal justice system also applies to the society. Society is perceived as less and less tolerant toward former “convicts” and in particular “inmates” or “ex-inmates”. Most of them fear the stigmatizing and alienating perceptions. For some of them, it is difficult, or even impossible, to talk about their former prison experience. As a result, they describe their emotional states associated with the prison journey as discredited or deprived of consideration. Yet, this is what matter to them. Tiken’s comments are consistent with this finding:

We are also here to help the society but if access is closed you won’t make it. (Tiken, 1 week before release, aged 30)

These findings show that such experiences strongly affect people who go through them and that they might even lead to a gradual loss of trust in institutions, in society, and, sometimes, in humans. They elicit perceptions, emotional states, and behaviors that are hostile to them, delegitimize them, confront them, and, in the most extreme cases, hurt them:

Prison did not improve my health. On the contrary, it traumatized me even more. I lost confidence in society in general, in human beings. (Pierre, 15 months after release, aged 55)

To summarize, it appears that delimited, dissimulated, and discredited emotional states related to incarceration or prisoners’ carceral status translate into dynamics of emotional closure and withdrawal. In detention, the spaces being likely to encourage their expression are limited in number and time. The same is true regarding the relationships that could possibly limit excessive and damaging emotions or avoid isolation. Indeed, research shows that their expression, their sharing, and their acceptance are critical to encourage desistance from crime (Fantini, 2014; Giordano et al., 2007; Schroeder and Frana, 2009).

Releasing and reconnecting with incarcerated emotions

Based on the testimonies of justice-involved individuals in the French-speaking Switzerland, this research outlines how the incarceration experience shapes affective mechanisms, which are identified as delimited, dissimulated, and discredited. It highlights their pivotal character and their potential to hinder desistance from crime in light of structural and relational barriers to change.

Along with detention climates (Auty and Liebling, 2019), the negative consequences of incarceration (Birgden, 2015; Liebling and Maruna, 2013; Sykes, 1958), the capabilities of individuals to cope with detention (Kazemian, 2020; Van Ginneken, 2016), their future plans (Doekhie et al., 2017), or their internal and external resources (Schinkel, 2014, 2015; Soyer, 2014), the impact of affective states emerges as a main concern to understand how emotions and emotional trajectories during incarceration influence desistance after one’s return to freedom. According to the existing literature and theories, the incarceration experience might operate as a “turning point” or a “diverting point” (Stoll, 2020). This study suggests that affective states and the means of coping with them are critical in both directions, although in the context studied, detention is more conducive to the perpetuation of disrupted life courses. In any case, it is argued that affective states should be more systematically included in research on desistance from crime.

In prison, deep-seated sufferings and intense affective states coexist with a necessary emotional withdrawal. Feelings are only shared in few spaces and occasional times, for example, in the presence of visitors or in contact with the outside world (Crewe et al., 2014). Faced with emotional states, avoidance strategies like those described by Shapland and Bottoms (2011) as “diachronic self-control tactics” are used to manage feelings and avoid the risk that they damage a situation and undermine own efforts toward desistance (Shapland and Bottoms, 2011). Incarcerated individuals seek the “right emotional balance,” being indisputable that suppressing feelings in prison is just as bad as externalizing them. Therefore, the more emotional resources incarcerated individuals are feeling, along with additional ones they can acquire over detention time, the more coping strategies become accessible to them.

Without these emotional resources, it becomes almost impossible to develop drivers of desistance. In the absence of “right emotional balance,” it is expected that mechanisms to overcome and take advantage of a hostile situation, as dynamics of “posttraumatic and adversarial growth” are jeopardized (Kazemian, 2020; Van Ginneken, 2016; Vanhooren et al., 2018). It also hinders the transformation of reactive postures into productive ones: These acceptations, inside and outside the walls, are supportive for the desistance process (Crewe et al., 2017; Schinkel, 2014). In addition, inappropriate emotional states and mechanisms do not allow for emotional and cognitive openness to change (Giordano et al., 2002, 2007), for the development of an “internal narrative of desistance” (Vaughan, 2007), or for a “redemption script,” namely the development of a conventional self-perception and a narrative identity in line with established common norms (Kazemian, 2020; Maruna, 2001). In summary, emotional trajectory patterns of desistance, as described by Farrall et al. (2014), are unlikely.

This longitudinal research also brings to light that life in the free world requires the capacity to release and to reconnect with emotional states that have been limited, dissimulated, and discredited. While detention is characterized by emotional closure and withdrawal, the return into the community calls for a dynamic of progressive (re)opening up to oneself, to the others, and to the society. Consistent with the emotional patterns highlighted by Farrall et al. (2014), this study demonstrates that this path also needs time to feel less vulnerable. The release is critical, especially in view of its perception as an idealization that is not conducive to give up crime. Memories of sufferings, loneliness, feelings of powerlessness, or injustice tend to freeze emotional configurations, which hinder the pursuit of conventional projects, the overcoming of obstacles, and the mobilization of internal and external resources. Worry and stress increase, as do disappointments and discouragements, making hope and motivation insufficient or inappropriate for achieving change (Stoll, 2020). These emotional components provide an additional dimension to the notion of “unrealistic optimism” (Van Ginneken, 2015) or “cruel optimism” (Nugent, 2017): Unsuitable affective states interfere significantly with a rapid reconnection with the outside world. They challenge a realistic attitude and an accurate degree of hope in order to avoid falling into the trap of disillusionment or despair (Burnett and Maruna, 2004; Schinkel, 2014).

Finally, this study shows the determinant nature of “emotional turning points” (Fantini, 2014; Halsey et al., 2016). It provides a more detailed understanding of the structural and relational barriers causing emotional configurations which negatively influence desistance from crime and are often reinforced by incarceration. These processes require a constant emotional balancing while (in)stability is likely to break down when the environment is highly disadvantageous in terms of practical, relational, and emotional supports. It is true that practical and relational obstacles are already well documented (Burke et al., 2018; Giordano et al., 2002; McGuinn, 2018), but they also need to be stressed in the present contribution. It is actually one of the few studies in this field of inquiry in Switzerland and it consequently provides helpful information in this context. Moreover, these findings still struggle to be translated into policy and practice. Last but not least, in times of crisis these barriers are reinforced and have a greater impact on the most vulnerable and marginalized population such as individuals being incarcerated and released from prison.

Conclusion

Prison is a constrain not only for the body, but also for thoughts and feelings. Delimited, dissimulated, and discredited emotional states in a carceral environment shape emotional dynamics beyond the period of incarceration. This article shows that they influence desistance from crime but remain rarely explored in scientific research and practical settings. Yet, they play pivotal roles as drivers, as means or goals for change.

Through oral and written testimonies of justice-involved individuals, the theoretical and methodological findings of this study call for the development of further research initiatives and reveal significant implications for policy and practice. They show the need to be attentive and to take more systematically into account the experiences, voices, and feelings of justice-involved individuals. This sensitivity would certainly allow the construction of custodial and judicial systems more responsive to their needs. It would also prevent emotionally charged situations from becoming trapped to the point of undermining desistance processes.

This research also demonstrates that emotional states are shaped by systems, structures, and social relations. Climates have the potential to hinder or conversely to sustain the dynamics of change. In detention, the more restricted the spaces for a safe expression of emotions are, the more out of reach a successful path to desistance becomes. The same logic applies to the quantity and the quality of connections with the outside world. During incarceration but also after release, supporting desistance certainly implies the strengthening of the internal and external resources by individuals who are, at some point of their life trajectory, in conflict with the law. It is only by guaranteeing adequate structural, relational, and emotional conditions that a society is reasonably able to support desistance from crime.