The severity of a particular sentence is often assumed to be reflected by its degree of liberty-restriction: a five-year prison sentence is considered more severe than a one-year prison sentence, and imprisonment is considered more severe than electronic monitoring. Yet, the relationship between the degree of liberty-restriction and the experienced severity is more complex. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in two Belgian and two Norwegian prisons, and phenomenological interviews with electronically monitored offenders, this article argues that a lesser degree of liberty-restriction can result in a more painful experience of this liberty restriction, but still contributes to the offenders’ reintegration.
AertsenIBeyensK (2005) Restorative justice and the morality of law: A Reply to Brochu. In: ClaesEFoquéRPetersT (eds) Punishment, Restorative Justice and the Morality of Law. Antwerp–Oxford: Intersentia, pp. 101–118.
2.
ApplegateBKSmithHPSitrenAHFariello SpringerN (2008) From the inside: The meaning of probation to probationers. Criminal Justice Review34(1): 80–95.
3.
BauwensA (2011) The Transformation of Offender Rehabilitation?Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
4.
BenthamJ (1982) Of circumstances influencing sensibility. In: BurnsJHHartHLA (eds) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London–New York: Methuen, pp. 51–73.
5.
BeyensKBasRKaminskiD (2007) Elektronisch toezicht in België: een schijnbaar penitentiair ontstoppingsmiddel. Panopticon28(3): 21–40.
BrettschneiderC (2011) Rights within the social contract: Rousseau on punishment. In:SaratADouglasLUmphreyMM (eds) Law as Punishment – Law as Regulation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 50–76.
8.
BronsteenJBuccafuscoCMasurJ (2008) Hedonic adaptation and the settlement of civil lawsuits. Columbia Law Review108: 1516–1549.
9.
BronsteenJBuccafuscoCMasurJ (2009) Happiness and Punishment. The University of Chicago Law Review76(3): 1037–1082.
10.
Council of Europe (1987) Recommendation Rec(87)3 on the European Prison Rules (12February1987). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
11.
Council of Europe (1992) Recommendation Rec(92)16 on the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
12.
Council of Europe (2006) European Prison Rules. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
13.
Council of Europe (2010) Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
14.
CreweB (2011) Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society–International Journal of Penology13(5): 509–529.
15.
CrouchBM (1993) Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly10(1): 67–88.
16.
CullenFTGendreauP (2001) From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal81(3): 313–338.
17.
DaemsT (2009) Bestraffingssociologie van David W. Garland. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.
18.
DaemsT (2013) Functies en functionarissen van het elektronisch toezicht. In:DaemsTVander BekenTVanhaelemeeschD (eds) De machines van Justitie: vijftien jaar elektronisch toezicht in België. Antwerp–Apeldoorn: Maklu, pp. 75–126.
19.
DraperAJ (2000) Cesare Beccaria’s influence on English discussions of punishment, 1764–1789. History of European Ideas26(3–4): 177–199.
20.
DurnescuI (2011) Pains of probation: Effective Practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology55(4): 530–545.
21.
EricksonMLGibbsJP (1979) On the Perceived Severity of Legal Penalties. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology70(1): 102–116.
22.
European Union (2008) Probation Framework Decision (2008/909/JHA).
23.
FeeleyMSimonJ (1992) The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology30(4): 449–474.
24.
FijnautF (2014) Criminologie en strafrechtsbedeling. Antwerpen–Cambridge: Intersentia.
25.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
GiorgiA (1970) Psychology as a Human Science: A Phenomenologically Based Approach. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
27.
GiorgiA (2009) The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
28.
GoboG (2008) Doing Ethnography. London: SAGE.
29.
HancockPJewkesY (2011) Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society13(5), 611–629.
30.
HayesD (2016) Penal impact: Towards a more intersubjective measurement of penal severity. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies36(4): 724–750.
31.
JonesHL (2007) The pains of custody: How young men cope through the criminal justice system. PhD thesis, University of Hull, UK.
32.
KingRDMorganR (1980) The Future of the Prison System. Farnborough: Gower Publishing Co Ltd.
33.
KolberAJ (2009) The subjective experience of punishment. Columbia Law Review109(1): 182–236.
34.
MartinsonR (1974) What works? - Questions and answers about prison reform. National Affairs35(Spring): 22–54.
35.
MarkelDFlandersCGrayD (2011) Beyond experience: Getting retributive justice right. California Law Review99 (2): 605–628.
36.
MayDCWoodPB (2005) What influences offenders’ willingness to serve alternative sanctions?The Prison Journal85(2): 145–167.
37.
McNeillF (2010) Probation, credibility and justice. Probation Journal58(1): 9–22.
38.
McNeillF (2013) Community sanctions and European penology. In: DaemsTSnackenSvan Zyl SmitD (eds) European Penology. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 171–192.
39.
O’DonnellI (2016) The aims of imprisonment. In: JewkesYBennettJCreweB (eds) Handbook on Prisons. London: Routledge, pp. 39–54.
40.
PayneBKGaineyRR (1998) A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology42(2): 149–163.
41.
PayneBKGaineyRRWoodPB (2014) The pains of electronic monitoring: a slap on the wrist or just as bad as prison?Criminal Justice Studies, 27(2): 133–148.
42.
PetersT (1996) Probleemoplossing en herstel als functies van de straf. Panopticon17(6): 555–569.
43.
PetersiliaJ (1990) When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation54(1): 23–27.
44.
PetersiliaJDeschenesEP (1994) What punishes? Inmates rank the severity of prison vs intermediate sanctions. Federal Probation58(1): 3–8.
45.
PrattJ (1995) Dangerousness, risk and technologies of power. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology28(1): 3–31.
46.
PrattJBrownDBrownMHallsworthSMorrisonW (eds) (2005) The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives. Cullomptom: Willan Publishing.
47.
RaaijmakersEde KeijserJNieuwbeertaPet al (2014) De subjectieve zwaarte van detentie. Een empirisch onderzoek. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie56(1): 60–80.
48.
SchinkelM (2014) Punishment as moral communication: The experiences of long-term prisoners. Punishment & Society16(5): 578–597.
49.
SextonL (2015) Penal subjectivities: Developing a theoretical framework for penal consciousness. Punishment & Society17(1): 114–136.
50.
ShammasVL (2014) The pains of freedom: Assessing the ambiguity of Scandinavian penal exceptionalism on Norway’s Prison Island. Punishment & Society16(1): 104–123.
51.
SnackenSMcNeillF (2012) Chapter 2: Scientific recommendations. In: FloreDBolsySHonhonAMaggioJ (eds) Probation Measures and Alternative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 561–571.
52.
SpradleyJP (2016) Participant Observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
53.
SykesG (1966) The Society of Captives. New York: Atheneum.
54.
TonryM (2011) Why Punish? How Much? A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
UgelvikT (2014) Paternal pains of imprisonment: Incarcerated fathers, ethnic minority masculinity and resistance narratives. Punishment & Society16(2): 152–168.
56.
VanhaelemeeschDVander BekenTVandeveldeS (2014) Punishment at home: Offenders’ experiences with electronic monitoring. European Journal of Criminology11(3): 273–287.
57.
van GinnekenEHayesD (2017) ‘Just’ punishment? Offenders’ views on the meaning and severity of punishment. Criminology & Criminal Justice17(1): 62–78.
58.
VanhaelemeeschD (2015) De beleving van het elektronisch toezicht in vergelijking met de gevangenisstraf. Den Haag: Boom criminologie.
59.
Van KalmthoutA (2000) Community sanctions and measures in Europe: A promising challenge or a disappointing utopia? In: Council of Europe (ed.) Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 121–133.
60.
van Zyl SmitDSnackenS (2009) Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
WilliamsAMayDCWoodPB (2008) The lesser of two evils? A Qualitative study of offenders’ preferences for prison compared to alternatives. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation46(3): 71–90.
