Advanced
search

Parents and Siblings of Incarcerated Men: Questioning Intersectionality and Familial Invisibility

Moran Benisty (Beit Berl College, Israel)

The Justice System and the Family: Police, Courts, and Incarceration

ISBN: 978-1-80382-360-7, eISBN: 978-1-80382-359-1

ISSN: 1530-3535

Publication date: 14 October 2022

pdf (1 MB) ePub (36 KB) Article view Figure view Cited (8) cite article

Abstract

The definition of the term “family” around the Western world is more heterogeneous than ever before and so are its roles and the social expectations of it. However, prisoners’ families (specifically parents and siblings) are expected to support their incarcerated son/brother as they are perceived responsible for his choices and as having the closest relationship with him. Based on a study of parents and siblings of incarcerated men in Israel, this chapter’s goal is to shed light on families’ choice to support their incarcerated son or brother and the struggles this choice entails. A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 17 parents and 10 siblings of incarcerated men in Israel showed that nuclear family members may experience various struggles throughout the legal proceedings, including family hardships, negative social experiences, and negative experiences with formal institutions – all leading to social self-exclusion. Looking through the intersectionality lens, the findings show that when accumulating hardships that prisoners’ families experience encounter perceived harsh institutional systems of oppression, preordained marginalization can be deepened as families operate in opposition.

Keywords

Citation

Benisty, M. (2022), "Parents and Siblings of Incarcerated Men: Questioning Intersectionality and Familial Invisibility", Maxwell, S.R. and Blair, S.L. (Ed.) The Justice System and the Family: Police, Courts, and Incarceration (Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Vol. 20), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 59-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1530-353520220000020004

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022 Emerald Publishing Limited

Invisibility of Prisoners’ Relatives

Since Morris’ pioneering work in 1965, the various implications and influences of imprisonment on one’s life have been widely investigated, inspiring many psycho-social theories (Braman, 2007; Cowan & Cowan, 2006; Crewe, 2011). Through the years, an abundance of data has been collected regarding the meaningful roles of an inmate’s familial unit concerning rehabilitation and reentry processes, as well as recidivism rates (Comfort, 2016; Klein, Bartholomew, & Hibbert, 2002; Machel, 2014). Most of the studies have focused on parental and spousal incarceration and its effects on the familial unit and the community (Condry & Smith, 2019; Murray, 2013), assigning a variety of superlatives attempting to describe the “collateral damage” of imprisonment. For example, Young (1999) emphasized the social and economic gaps and the deepened objective (and subjective) loss of control that are enhanced by incarceration; hence, he coined the term “secondary punishment,” referring to family members as mere spectators and not real participants in the general society. Based on Clemmer’s (1958) “prisonization” process, Comfort (2007) referred to the process that close circles experience as “secondary imprisonment,” emphasizing the importance and difficulties of maintaining relationships with the prisoner. Codd (2008) explained that society perceives family members of felons as responsible for their own fate and sometimes even as felons themselves and compared the prison experience to a shadow, casting its physical (e.g., darkness, coldness, dynamic size) and psychological (e.g., uncertainty, vagueness, lack of control) features on the prisoner’s close circles. Granja (2016) interviewed Portuguese family members and noted that their sense of the present time became “suspended” during the incarceration of their family member, thus describing the process they go through as a “parallel sentence.” Brew, Goldman, and Wilderman (2017) described the phenomenon as “the collateral consequences of mass incarceration on the families.” However, Kirk and Wakefield (2018) emphasized that the problems of estimating these “collateral consequences of mass incarceration” that “result from a lack of appropriate and detailed data on criminal justice processing, the incarceration experience, and later life outcomes” (p. 177). They claim that the initial wave of research on collateral consequences offered a series of baseline effects that highlight the association between incarceration and detrimental health outcomes, reduced employment opportunities and earnings, rising debt, housing insecurity, declining civic engagement, and adverse consequences for family stability and well-being. Still, many issues remain unclear regarding the specific consequences that flow from arrest, conviction, incarceration, etc. (Kirk & Wakefield, 2018).

Following May’s (2000) report on murderers’ relatives and their experience of trauma, bereavement, and stigmatization due to the murder conviction, Deegan (2021) exposed how murderers’ relatives experience stigma, financial ruin, mental collapse, violence, familial turmoil, loss of significant relationships and more:

relatives disappear into an eternal vortex of guilt, shame, and anger with little (if any) formal or informal support as a means to manage or recover from the debilitating stigma and strain. (p. 1)

Deegan also highlighted how particular experiences with the criminal justice system serve to compound relatives’ trauma.

Recently, Condry and Minson (2020) explained the term “collateral consequences” as the secondary punishment family members experience because of the offender. In their view, describing the processes that family members undergo in a theoretical manner must consider the various aspects of their experience and not further contribute to their social and scholarly exclusion. They opine that the language that assisted punishment theorists to describe the secondary effects of punishment on the offender implies the familial harmful experience is not as important or worthy. Moreover, it wrongfully converges two separate groups and their different experiences (prisoners and their families), thus underestimating each group’s unique experience. Based on the literature (see, for example, Braman, 2007; Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012), Condry and Minson (2020) also argue that considering the collateral consequences as “parallel” to the offender’s punishment is wrong since the familial harms are causal consequences of the punishment and are interwoven into the entire familial life. In that sense, they raise the question of marginalization of family members of prisoners and highlight the perception of their lives as having less worth than people whose family members never offended. As a result, they claim that the term “collateral consequences” is insufficient and suggest the term “symbiotic harms” as a more precise concept which “encompasses their relational, mutual, non-linear, agentic, and heterogenic properties, without naming them as incidental, collateral or neutral” (p. 2).

This chapter brings the relevant findings of a study that was conducted in Israel and included interviews with parents and siblings of prisoners. The findings highlight the unique, subjective experience that family members in Israel go through upon having a son/brother entering the justice system. Findings may be applicable for many families in Western countries, as this is one of the first studies to view the prisoner as an offspring, needing familial assistance and support, financially, socially, and mentally effecting the lives of other nuclear family members both as individuals and as a unit.

Looking through an intersectional lens, this chapter strives to show the importance of public awareness, as it has the power to prevent further marginalization of these groups as well as courtesy stigma and encourage consolidation of social support and policy changes.

The Prisoner as an Offspring

Most of the academic literature has investigated the effects of arrest and imprisonment on prisoners’ romantic partners (e.g., Codd, 2002; Condry, 2013; Peelo, Stewart, Stewart, & Prior, 1991; Turney, Schnittker, & Wildeman, 2012) and children (e.g., Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005; Mazza, 2002; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003; Turanovic et al., 2012). Despite the growing interest in the family unit and its unique hardships, there is an acknowledgment in the academic void regarding parents’ and siblings’ unique experience and their choice to stay in touch with the prisoner (Codd, 2013; Gueta, 2018). Specifically, there is a lack of information about parental perspectives of the incarceration experience, changes, role-related responsibilities, and coping skills throughout an imprisonment-related crisis (Benisty, Bensimon, & Ronel, 2021). Similarly, only little attention has been paid to incarceration effects on prisoners’ siblings, including emotional responses and withholding of information regarding the incarceration (Meek, Lowe, & McPhillips, 2010).

Though meager, some research has been dedicated to understanding the experience of prisoners’ siblings (e.g., Meek, 2008; Tadros, Fye, & Ray, 2020) and parents (e.g., Condry, 2013; Dallaire, 2007) in Western countries. For example, a study that was conducted in Sacramento, USA, almost three decades ago, explored the relationship between teenage gender and delinquent behavior among high-risk youths. Its analysis confirmed the social expectation that brothers would be more delinquent than sisters, thus suggesting how social structures of gender are a major form of social control (Bottcher, 1995). In 2008, Meek also stated that “little is known about the social and psychological impact of having a sibling in custody” (p. 1) and interviewed eight young people (ages 9–17) with an older brother in custody, in England. Knowing that older brothers’ social influence is major when it comes to certain criminal and risk behaviors (Aguilar, O’Brien, August, Aoun, & Hektner, 2001; Barnard, 2005; Conger & Reuter, 1996; Trim, Leuthe, & Chassin, 2006; Tucker, Barber, & Eccles, 1997), Meek (2008) strived to describe the nature of sibling influence. She found that siblings described an experience that included three major themes: an emotional response to a sibling being taken into custody, a reluctance to disclose information to teachers and peers, and perceptions of own behavior in the light of the sibling’s experiences of the criminal justice system. For example, prison visits were perceived as an important way of keeping in contact, but many of the young people described feeling intimidated and anxious by it and expressed concern for their sibling’s well-being. A more recent example is found in the qualitative work of Tadros et al. (2020), who showed how a sibling’s incarceration is a complex experience which depends on a combination of circumstances. They showed that in coping with the impact of incarceration,

participant experiences were viewed not only as a difficult adjustment for the family system but specifically a traumatic, stigmatized, and negative emotional experience for all individuals involved, with particular emphasis on the sibling subsystem. (p. 346)

The researchers interviewed five sisters of incarcerated men in the United States and identified five themes that emerged from their experience. The first theme, emotional impact, described their brother’s incarceration as a life-changing event that evoked feelings of loss/grief, mistrust, and responsibility; the second theme, adjustment, incorporated lifestyle changes and adjustments that were necessary for the sisters, the family, and the sibling to adapt to the incarceration experience. That was examined through a close relationship with their brother and financial impact. The third theme, prison experience, included what was previously referred to as “prison worries” (Braman, 2007) and focused on distress and worry about the welfare of the incarcerated brother. The theme revolved around the impact of prison culture on the brother, his mental and physical health while in prison, and the prison living conditions. The fourth theme was family impact, where the participants described additional familial stress (such as dealing with an illness of a parent), family communication changes, and family consequences (changes or cut off from other family members). The final theme was stigma, where sisters of prisoners encountered what they perceived as negative behavior and assumptions made about the incarcerated brother or the incarcerated population in general. Tadros et al. (2020) concluded that siblings had negative experiences throughout the incarceration process, be it before sentencing or during the person’s incarceration sentence. Benisty et al. (2021) found similarities in Israeli families’ experience and, based on Sykes’ work (1958), described parents and siblings as going through “familial pains of imprisonment.” The studies demonstrate the various ways through which siblings have a significant contribution to the entire familial experience.

Parents of prisoners are a population that needs support (Holt, 2010), not only for themselves but also because of their potential protective role in supporting their children and in helping them to desist from further crime. The small scope of existing research focuses mainly on the importance of parental support and the difficult experience that prisoners’ parents go through. For example, Gueta’s (2018) meta-synthesis of 10 qualitative studies conducted between the years 2000 and 2016 suggested a parental experience of “imprisonment by association.” She consolidated four core themes (parenting from a distance; the burden of care; troubled parental identity; social reaction) and concluded that the parental experience is amplified by real and symbolic losses that contribute to a more complex experience of marginalization. Benisty et al. (2021) identified similar aspects of the experience of parents (and siblings) of prisoners and detected a familial counterreaction of social exclusion. In other words, due to experiences of helplessness, loss of control, stigmatization, and further struggles with formal and non-formal social reactions, families have consciously chosen to exclude themselves from a variety of social interactions. Halsey and Deegan (2012) emphasized the importance of fathers in assisting their children to manage the physical and emotional challenges of the prison and/or post-release environments, whereas Melendez, Lichtenstein, and Dolliver (2016) found that mothers carried the main burden of parental blame and guilt. McCarthy and Adams (2019) interviewed over 60 parents of incarcerated young men. They emphasized that parenting continues even when the child is physically restricted and elaborated on the social adversities experienced by caregivers. Goldman (2019) described a similar phenomenon as “linked lives,” referring to the idea that problems in the lives of children can lead to maternal distress, less positive parental affect, worse parental self-evaluations, poorer parent–child relationships, and greater family strain. Overall, all studies highlighted that a better understanding of parental experiences is of superior importance in affecting familial resilience (Gueta, 2018; Mills & Codd, 2008) and the familial choice to support the prisoner (Benisty et al., 2021).

“Our Blood is Thicker”: Familial Support in Western Societies

Similarities between prisoners’ families were drawn in many Western countries in matters such as values (see, for example, Franceschelli & O’Brien, 2014; Katz & Lavee, 2005), as well as behavior before, during, and after incarceration (see, for example, Christian, 2005; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Machel, 2014), even during the COVID-19 pandemic (Testa & Fahmy, 2021). Although Israel is heterogeneous in its population, it is similar to Western countries not only in its punitive views (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006) but also in families’ choice to maintain the relationship with the prisoner.

The ideal family may well provide a stable emotional background and enable the development of favoured moral attitudes, but few families are ideal … when Jews and Christians together declare for the family and its values, they must be aware of the downside, and be ready in many instances to champion the rights of the individual against the family. (Solomon, 2020, p. 35)

Families do not always choose to stay in touch with their incarcerated relative, as it is “a time, resource, and labor-intensive process, which may create barriers to prisoners’ maintenance of family ties” (Christian, 2005, p. 2). However, especially in more traditional societies where family values overarch individuality, the option of detachment from the prisoner is seldom on the table (Herz & Rozen, 1982; MacNeil, Church, Nelson-Gardell, & Young, 2015). Some studies have found that parents and siblings are most likely to keep their relationship with prisoners (Brodsky, 1975; Codd, 2008), specifically returning prisoners (Shollenberger, 2009).

The choice to support the incarcerated relative throughout the legal proceedings and sentence has many advantages. Family presence in a prisoner’s life may increase the prisoner’s levels of well-being, thus reducing actions of self-harm (Duthé, Hazard, & Kensey, 2014), and potentially induce the prisoner’s levels of self-value, self-confidence, and self-control – both during and after the incarceration period (Mills, 2004; Souza, Lanskey, Markson, & Lösel, 2019). Research has also shown that meaningful family ties influence offenders in choosing to desist (Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2017; Markson, Lösel, Souza, & Lanskey, 2015; May, Sharma, & Stewart, 2008; Naser & La Vigne, 2006). The overall recognition of the important role played by supportive family relations and its effects on reintegration processes (Machel, 2014) and prevention of reoffending (Farkas & Miller, 2007) has affected policy changes and treatment goals (Codd, 2013; World Health Organization (WHO), 1999). However, when family members (parents, in particular) are socially expected to support the offender, it is usually because they are perceived by various social circles as equally or partly guilty for the offense (Codd, 2008; Condry, 2013; Hudson, 2006).

For many families, incarceration challenges relationships and does not necessarily enforce detachment, but relationships that were close pre-incarceration get tighter, whereas those that were weak usually break off (Laing, 2003). For example, according to Herz and Rozen (1982), the American Ashkenazi Jewish family holds a strong belief that family is a sacred, central aspect of life. Indeed, from a religious perspective, family values are of supreme importance in Judaism (for example, Krieger, 2010; Pepi, 2013), Islam (for example, Franceschelli & O’Brien, 2014), and Christianity (for example, Moore, 2018). From a sociological point of view, Israeli mentality is partially defined as ranking family values very highly in personal and national priorities (Katz & Lavee, 2005). In that sense, families who have a relative in prison often do not perceive the situation as a matter of choice and believe that maintaining the relationship and supporting the prisoner is a default (Benisty, 2019). That “blind spot” in which relatives chose to overlook the possibility of detachment might explain Brodsky’s findings (1975), which indicated that the relationship between a prisoner and his parents is the least probable to change due to incarceration. The presented study tried to gain information from parents and siblings of prisoners and describe the complex circumstances that shaped their experience the way they perceived it.

Prisoners’ Families Through the Intersectionality Lens

Originated in relation to feminism (Crenshaw, 2011), intersectionality focuses on the different ways through which social inequalities (such as those stemming from race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age) and power reciprocate and shape social experiences (Collins, 2015; Gueta, 2020; Western & Wildeman, 2009). Three main issues are relevant when referring to prisoners’ relatives through the intersectionality lens: (a) intersectionality might create or deepen marginalization; (b) some subgroups may experience harsher “vectors of oppression and privilege” (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017); and (c) experiences of people who share a common physical or social feature (e.g., a familial role) cannot be narrowed down into an identical and specific description. Some prisoners’ families in Western countries come from a preordained marginalized background, especially among women (Souza, Lösel, Markson, & Lanskey, 2015; Woodward, 2003) and children (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013). For example, families of prisoners often experience and fear social stigmatization because of their connection to the prisoner (Davies, 1980). However, many of these families are already socially excluded and experience stigma because of other characteristics such as poverty and race (Kotova, 2020). Entering a multileveled legal procedure that demands various adjustments might produce a deeper crisis where relatives struggle even harder to support the prisoner and the rest of the family. Therefore, questions such as “are there certain families that suffer more than others?” or “what is the experience of specific familial roles throughout the legal proceedings?” shed light on the notion that some families have a more complex journey than others.

Information from around the world paints a grim picture: when a family member goes into the legal system, two main factors play a crucial role in affecting the familial ability to cope: first, the social and economic status the family is in (e.g., immigrants, single parenthood); and second, the attitudes family members hold toward the crime committed (e.g., ideological crimes, honor killings). The more hardships a family deals with (both as individuals and as a unit), and the worse the perception of the offense is – the more excluded it gets. For example, a family that has long, stable social connections with friends and family may be higher in resilience in comparison to immigrant family members who do not speak the national language. The latter will also (probably) struggle to find financial resources, as they might not have jobs because of language barriers or solid social bonds to assist them. Accumulation of these hardships decreases levels of resilience (Lanskey, Markson, Souza, & Lösel, 2019) and recovery capital (Best & Laudet, 2010). Specifically, the process of immigration generates emotional struggles (Aroian & Norris, 2000), a decrease in material quality of life (e.g., housing difficulties and reduced professional status) (Ritsner, Modai, & Ponizovsky, 2000), language barriers (Ding & Hargraves, 2009), struggles with the creation of social networks and establishing a professional identity (Alaverdyan & Zaharieva, 2019), distrust of the authorities and cultural gaps which can make gaining support more complex (Kirmayer et al., 2011), and changes in family roles, structure, and authorities (Booth, Crouter, Landale, & Landale, 2012). Stressful circumstances might damage familial resilience levels and not only make the situation harder to cope with but also harder “bounce back” from post-incarceration (Vesely, Letiecq, & Goodman, 2017) and help the prisoner with reintegration (Yakhnich & Walsh, 2020). It seems that despite having a high tolerance for ambiguous situations (Yakhnich & Ben-Zur, 2008), immigrant families deal with a combination of stressors that might increase their vulnerability and stress level. Also, immigrant parents struggle with the intersectionality of multiple stigmas as both immigrants and parents of children who are involved in delinquency (Yakhnich & Walsh, 2020). That contributes to social invisibility and discrimination (Remedios & Snyder, 2018) and makes gaining social support more complex; in particular, distrust of the authorities and cultural gaps are added to the stressor list (Kirmayer et al., 2011).

Alongside immigration, other social statuses may burden families. Single parenthood is also a complex stressor, especially among women (Souza et al., 2019). Lowenstein (1986), for example, concluded that there are emotional, interactional, and behavioral difficulties that prisoners’ children experience due to incarceration, and that children’s ability to adjust is related to mothers’ familial and personal resources, as well as the degree of associated stigmatization. Intersectionality of lone parenthood and being a romantic partner (or ex-partner) increases women’s vulnerability through increased and intensified family, work, and caregiving demands (Lee, Wildeman, Wang, Matusko, & Jackson, 2014; Souza et al., 2019). The described accumulating hardships might decrease resilience and increase the chances for substance use (Best & Laudet, 2010), self-harm (Sourander et al., 2006), and anti-social behavior (Wikström & Sampson, 2006). Despite similarities in the shared experience of prisoners’ families in Western (and Western characterized) countries, intersectionality plays a major part when looking to better comprehend the phenomenon. Families may differ in their social integration and network levels, language barriers, familial bonds, socioeconomic status, and unrelated struggles (such as mental illnesses) – all of which influence the support they can receive and their ability to “bounce back” post-incarceration.

Another social aspect that might affect the familial unit is the attitudes and perceptions families have regarding the offense itself. The perception of the offense also has a great influence on resilience levels, as it is “easier” to support an offender who you believe has done “the right thing” (Cooper, 2007; Lepper, Zanna, & Abelson, 1970). People who use various accounts for the offense construct a justifying narrative that reflects levels of resilience (Hauser, Golden, & Allen, 2006) and may even increase it (see, for example, Christian & Kennedy, 2011; Randall, Baldwin, McKenzie-Mohr, McKim, & Furlong, 2015). For example, even though murder is socially perceived as the most severe offense (Harvey, 1986), it can be mediated by cultural perceptions that justify the act, such as honor killings in the Islamic community (Zvinkliene, 2010). Thus, an Arab family will most likely grant more legitimacy to murder had it been done in the name of honor (Ne’eman-Haviv, 2021), compared to a non-Arab family. In fact, “despite modernization processes, the use of honor killings as a tool to strengthen patriarchal control seems to be widening” (Ne’eman-Haviv, 2021, p. 1). A murder offense can also be mediated by legal accounts, such as self-defense (Holmes & Holmes, 2001), or by ideological accounts. For example, an act of vandalism in a meat factory that was committed by a vegan activist relative or theft aimed to help a sick loved one. Cases in which family members struggle with intersectionality, together with disagreement with the specific act of crime, the situation is perceived by them as a major crisis (Wildeman & Western, 2010).

According to the literature in sociology and criminology (see, for example, Baah, Teitelman, & Riegel, 2019; Chesney-Lind, 2006; Crenshaw, 1991; Erez & Berko, 2010; Ocen, 2013), one of the most important consequences of intersectionality is marginalization. That means that a complex social situation (e.g., incarceration of a family member) might occur under existing marginalized circumstances (e.g., low socioeconomic status, immigration) thereby enhancing the marginalizing process (e.g., poverty, housing insecurity, unemployment). Parental experience of an offspring’s incarceration is amplified by various aspects including some real and symbolic losses, which contribute to a more complex experience of marginalization (Gueta, 2018). For example, parents who have worked for decades and come from a mediocre or low socioeconomic background may use their pension funds to pay for their son’s legal expenses. That choice might limit their already diminishing ability to pay other bills, forcing them into a more marginalized lifestyle (e.g., affordable housing located in an area of limited access to a variety of services) (Baah et al., 2019).

The Research

The research was conducted in Israel in the years 2015–2018, offering a phenomenological perspective of parents and siblings of incarcerated men who went through different stages of legal proceedings, arrest, and incarceration. Its goal was to gain insight into their perceived experiences with the criminal justice system and its various phases. The analysis presented here is twofold: 1) to examine and compare the hardships parents and siblings describe, with those known about partners and children of prisoners; 2) to describe the familial reaction to imprisonment in a society in which familial values and consolidation are of extreme importance.

Research Sample and Method

Twenty-seven parents and siblings of incarcerated men from 16 households participated in this study. Ten households experienced legal procedures and/or incarceration as a first occurrence within the family unit (62.5%), whereas for six households, it was at least a second occurrence within the family unit (37.5%). The sample was comprised of 12 mothers (44.4%, mean age = 52), 5 fathers (18.51%, mean age = 55.4), 4 brothers (14.81%, mean age = 25.8), and 6 sisters (22.22%, mean age = 31.3) of male prisoners (mean age = 28.7). Three of the families had gone through legal proceedings, jail, or house arrest, and the rest had experienced incarceration sentences of different lengths (the shortest was eight months; the longest was nine years). Out of the 16 households, 3 were of average to high socioeconomic status (18.75%), 5 were single mothers (31.25%), 3 had a physical and mental illness of one of the parents (18.75%), and 2 were immigrants (12.5%), one of which had evident language barriers. All participants declared themselves as Jewish, three of the households described a religious lifestyle (18.75%) and the others were traditional or secular.

All participants chose to stay in touch with the prisoner. Cases in which the committed offenses hurt family members directly or otherwise were excluded to avoid creating a biased sample (e.g., theft from a family member, domestic violence). Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions, spanning a variety of issues: relationship with the son/brother before the offense (e.g., “Describe your relationship with your son/brother throughout your life”), the choice to support him (e.g., “In what ways do you support him?”), experiences from courtroom sessions (e.g., “Were you present at courtroom sessions? If so, please describe it, if not – why not?”), visitation within jails and prisons (e.g., “describe a visitation that you remember”), coping choices (e.g., “how did you make yourself feel better?”), and their opinions about the felony (e.g., “what is your opinion about the offense he committed?”). To protect the research participants’ anonymity, pseudonyms were used in place of their names in the narratives.

The study was conducted according to the traditional phenomenology approach and its wish to describe phenomena from a subjective point of view (Greene, 2007; Reynolds, 2017). A thematic analysis was chosen for identifying, analyzing, and reporting recurring themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006), striving to understand individual underlying experiences. The themes that consistently arose from at least half of the participants were counted as prevalent and were included in the findings, except the content relating to the feeling of loss, which was a part of the unexpected data that came up and was expressed by more than one third of the participants and therefore was considered a subtheme. Relationships were drawn across the themes, creating general concepts of the experienced phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The reliability of the study was verified through peer debriefing, based on expertise and qualifications of the professional parties, repeatedly deliberating on which themes were conveyed by the participants themselves as the most meaningful (Connelly, 2016).

Research Findings

The findings yielded four main themes of parents’ and siblings’ experiences of their son/brother’s incarceration: (a) family hardships, (b) negative social experiences and family reactions, (c) Negative Experiences with Formal Institutions and Family Reactions and (d) social self-exclusion.

Family Hardships

The hardships family members described focused on the emotional and financial aspects of the experience. Specifically, physical, emotional, and financial aspects loss were described. First, a comparison to the experience of physical loss was made, when participants compared the incarceration period to the seven mourning days in the Jewish tradition (“Shiva”) when the bereaved are visited and consoled by a wide social circle. That experience came both from the sibling’s perspective (e.g., “He was suddenly gone, it’s like sitting “Shiva” […] I felt like he passed away. We spoke about him in the past tense”; sister), and the parents’ perspective (e.g., “I think it’s like with bereavement, it takes you time to realize what’s happened”; mother). Parents who made the comparison to a loss acknowledged that the feeling of loss made them anxious. Emotionally, parents and siblings discussed intense worries regarding the prisoner’s physical and mental health (e.g., “they mix him up with criminal murderers … I think they probably abuse and pick on him, and I feel so bad about it”; sister), their fears concerning the criminality of cellmates and their possible influences on him (e.g., “It was important for me that he spends as little time possible in this ‘school’ … I was really scared he will get out of there having friendships”; mother), guards’ treatment toward him (e.g., “If they treated us like we are criminals, how do they treat him, inside?” mother), and his physical health and hygiene (e.g., “As a mother you can’t really take care of him, you don’t know what kind of medicine he gets if he’s sick, I constantly worry”; mother). The losses were described as accumulative in their affect specifically by mothers and in families that were characterized by an illness of a parent (e.g., “If I help him, I don’t have enough money to but my own medicine, and then my situation worsens, and I need hospitalization. But who will pay for that?” mother, suffers from mental illness), single parenthood (e.g.,

I’ve always struggled so he would have everything, on my own. Now, instead of two jobs, I work three, and a fourth on the weekends. I have no life of my own;

mother), and immigration (e.g.,

I am lucky that the local grocer knows my mother’s tongue, so I can get what I need, and we get along if I don’t have money. But I don’t understand what the lawyers want or what I can do to help my son. When he was here, he helped me with everything;

mother). These worries generated feelings of anger and disappointment that the parents described – both with the prisoner (e.g., “I was angry […] it hurt because I raised him […] it’s like spitting in my face”; mother) and with the legal system (e.g., “You develop this anti-establishment view. You simply realize that the entire system is corrupt […] I really don’t believe in the system anymore”; father). Parental frustration was expressed through comparison of the felon to his siblings (e.g., “Why did he come out like that, why not more like his brother?” mother), but it immediately followed empathy (e.g., “I understand his emotion, I understand his pain, I know the suffering he is going through because of this mistake”; mother). As for the siblings, they also expressed anger mixed with empathy, emphasizing the effect of their brother’s actions on their parents (e.g.,

There was reserved anger, frustration. I was angry at him for the state of our parents. But on the other hand, again […] I kept asking myself if I’m not asking for too much of him;

brother; “This situation is not simple, it’s still my brother, he’s not a stranger”; sister). Awareness of their son or brother’s vulnerability, together with the lack of ability to physically be with him, was described by parents and siblings as generating insecurity (e.g., “It’s like going back to being three years old, emotionally. It’s waking up in the middle of the night crying, going to work crying”; father), leading to physical and behavioral symptoms, causing some stress-related symptoms as well as worsening existing physical issues (e.g., “I drank a lot more coffee, smoked a lot more … I couldn’t sleep”; mother; “It turns you into a different person. I suffered tremendously, and my sugar levels and blood pressure went sky high”; father).

All the participants chose to maintain their relationship with the prisoner, despite their fear of potential social exclusion (e.g., “the social treatment is bad if the family wants to help, they are perceived as accomplices and then they are ruined by people talking about them”; father). According to them, their choice entailed paying increasing sums of money for legal fees, basic goods (e.g., hygiene products, food, clothing, means of communication), and visitation expenses (e.g., gas or public transportation expenses, losing their income of a missed workday). The financial hardships were described mainly by the parents, who described the general experience as a gradual diminishment of the family’s socioeconomic status starting at the arrest. All the parents in the study described financial struggles (e.g., “The financial crash is a total one […] all the money I got for the retirement … still goes to lawyers and his therapy program”; father); only one couple set a clear boundary for their son, declaring they will not sell their house due to their son’s actions and repercussions. Parents also reported that the financial costs sometimes created deprivations and deficiencies for other family members (e.g., “I told my other children that things will be denied of them at the expense of the situation”; mother).

Negative Social Experiences and Family Reactions

The second main theme dealt with stigmatization, shame, and keeping any information about the familial crisis to themselves or their close relatives. Both parents and siblings shared that people talked either directly or indirectly about their situation, expressing pity, shame, aggression, and even hatred (e.g., “The attitude toward families is negative if they want to help their son. It’s like we are accomplices”; father; “Why should I, as his sister, who obeyed the law all my life – be ashamed of a crime I did not commit?” sister). Because of feelings of fear and shame, participants decided to keep information regarding the arrest/incarceration a secret from certain social circles, thus creating distance and sometimes alienation from these social circles (e.g.,

No family or friends, let alone colleagues […] I don’t speak to anyone about this crisis […] I don’t want to. I’m scared people will grow apart from me because of it;

mother;

I don’t think I would tell anyone at my workplace, even though I need to take days off to go and visit him. It is just too shameful. I might be fired;

sister).

As for their opinion about the crime their relative committed, all participants expressed their understanding of the seriousness of the offense while still wanting to maintain the relationship with their family member. Their explanation was based on kinship (e.g., “This situation is not simple, it’s still my brother, he’s not a stranger […] at least he knows he’s got people rooting for him, his family”; brother; “At the beginning I was so mad, I didn’t go to visit him… but he is my son, and always will be”; mother; “If he did the crime, he deserves the time… I still love him because he is my brother”; sister).

Negative Experiences with Formal Institutions and Family Reactions

The third main theme that arose dealt with a lack of basic information about their rights, as well as information about judicial procedures, visitation privileges, and what is or is not allowed to be brought into the prison. Parents were shocked to find they were not getting any information, which they described as harming their expectations regarding parental rights (e.g., “When he was interrogated, I screamed – I am his mother, what do you mean I can’t get any information? I wanted to know what he’s in for!”; mother;). Missing information described by most parents and siblings also related to sudden changes of known rules and regulations without informing the public, which was perceived as arbitrary and senseless (e.g., “Almost every time we got there, there was something that was now forbidden for us to take inside but was allowed the last time”; sister). All the participants connected their inability to get information to feelings of helplessness, anxiety, and suppression (e.g.,

I have rights, but if I don’t know them or don’t receive them – what can I do against the system? You can’t. You feel the system harasses you, you feel helpless;

father). As mentioned previously regarding the various experiences of loss, the emotional effects were described as accumulative in families that were characterized by an illness of a parent (e.g.,

My pills were changes because I have trouble sleeping after my visit with the social worker. Not only did she not help me, but she also talked to me as if it’s my fault. I don’t see a connection between my illness and the fact that my son is in prison [crying] … she should have helped, or at least be nice;

mother, suffers from mental illness), single parenthood (e.g., “Maybe if I was married, we’d have more people to support us, to offer as guarantors… I don’t even know why they disqualified my brother, they never said”; mother), and immigration (due to language barriers).

Participants also described changes in their views of national establishments and the level of trust in them, that stemmed from a general experience of abandonment (e.g., “Nobody thinks about us on the other side, the systems’ side. That the kid’s family suffers the most… who cares about the parents who ate shit for two years?” father;

You ask yourself where the justice is. There is no justice here. The lawyer told me that at this point I am in a position where no one even looks at me for my opinion;

father). Family members described upholding their national duties such as serving the military and paying taxes, as well as being active as civil guard volunteers before their relative’s entrance to the legal system. However, negative experiences changed the positive, patriotic views they had about the state establishments (e.g.,

You develop this ‘anti’ feeling towards the system. You realize it’s simply corrupt … I used to volunteer with the police forces for years. Today I don’t go. The prison service is also a big disappointment. It’s a harsh, unfair system;

father; “I turned to the social services and they rejected me with all kinds of excuses. Nobody wanted to reach out. I felt anger”; mother).

Social Self-exclusion

The experience of negligence together with the loss of trust has evoked a spontaneous reaction of familial self-exclusion. Participants described no longer feeling a part of their community or wider circles. They described it as a betrayal of the people and organizations that are expected to assist or at least not judge in the light of courtesy stigma and said they felt a complete loss of faith and trust in formal social figures who are in charge of assistance and protection of citizens. As a result, family members started to withdraw from the general society both overtly (e.g.,

We live here, work hard, pay our taxes… but we have this justified hatred towards the system … even the extended family doesn’t want to do their military service. We feel like we no longer have any connection to this country;

sister) and covertly (e.g., “I don’t want to go out with friends or date anyone because I don’t want to be asked about it, and I don’t trust people to not tell others”; brother).

Discussion

Prisoners are rarely viewed as children and siblings of their nuclear family. In a reality where parents often financially support their children to a late age, it is expected of prisoners to turn to their parents for help. When parents and siblings choose to maintain the relationship with the prisoner, they also provide other kinds of support such as emotional and mental support. The study presented in this chapter offered a rare glimpse into the lives of Israeli prisoners’ families from the parents’ and siblings’ perspectives. Its goal was to explore the nuclear family’s relationships with the prisoner, experienced hardships, and various perspectives of the legal system (Benisty, 2021). Following previous findings (see, for example, MacNeil et al., 2015), the current study highlights shared feelings and world views among parents and siblings of incarcerated men. These were formed as a result of the accumulating hardships, or “familial pains of imprisonment” (Benisty et al., 2021).

Family members of prisoners belong to a preordained marginalized group due to courtesy stigma (Hudson, 2006). However, despite the cultural and social similarities prisoners’ families in Western countries share, each family is unique in its perception of the crime, social and economic resources, and inter-familial interactions. Relying on an intersectional perspective allows to address possible structural and representational factors underlying families’ barriers and struggles throughout their relative’s legal stages, as opposed to simply categorizing parents and siblings as guilty and responsible for the prisoner’s acts. Acknowledgment of these differences will enable the detection of particularly vulnerable families and better allocate resources and assistance (Gueta, 2020).

The current study’s findings show that all families expressed hardships encountering the various legal systems. However, some families were also struggling as single parents, mentally ill, immigrants, and low socioeconomic households. In some cases, several categories applied to a specific household and even to a specific parent. The preordained marginal background of some of the caregivers has shaped their experiences and influenced their ability to cope with the situation, as well as to assist the prisoner (Gueta, 2020; Western & Wildeman, 2009). Further marginalization through social determinants (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, familial role) and intersecting systems of oppression and power (e.g., national judicial and enforcement authorities, the prison system, community interactions, and facilities) may shape the opportunities families receive for health and social services (Gueta, 2020).

The findings portray a process that begins upon the entry of the son or brother to the judicial system, which increases perceived and real losses for the family units and evokes negative feelings, both toward the prisoner and the judicial system. However, as the family experiences more perceived negative interactions with police forces, courts, prison services, and social services – they report dealing with greater social and financial insecurities than ever before. The findings also support the notion according to which intersectionality might create or deepen marginalization: all participants reported increased financial, social, and emotional losses regardless of their previous socioeconomic status, previous mental challenges, gender, marital status, specific familial roles, or language barriers. With that said, some subgroups may experience harsher “vectors of oppression and privilege” (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017). Single mothers, for example, struggle with the intersectionality of multiple stigmas as both sole-providing women and parents of children who are involved in delinquency. As reported in previous studies (for example, see Cairney, Boyle, Offord, & Racine, 2003; Goldman, 2019; Kim & Kim, 2020), participants who were single mothers reported being socially stigmatized, feeling alone and anxious, and lacking financial and social resources. One of them also dealt with mental illness and another one was an immigrant, both are crucial factors that might contribute to their social invisibility and discrimination (Remedios & Snyder, 2018) and make gaining social support more complex.

Another relevant issue when referring to prisoners’ relatives through the intersectionality lens emphasizes that experiences of people who share a common physical or social feature (e.g., a familial role) cannot be narrowed down into an identical and specific description. Thus, despite it not being the focus of the study, a variety of perspectives, levels of functioning, and role perceptions were demonstrated by family members of prisoners regardless of specific familial roles or expectations based on social scripts. For example, in some families, parents were so overwhelmed by the situation, that a sibling took it upon her/himself to deal with bureaucratic issues and procedures; in other families, mothers worked more hours as fathers took care of the house and the other children; some parents chose to open savings or take loans, whereas others chose to set a clear financial boundary for the incarcerated son. The only two things that all family members shared was that (a) they all chose to maintain the relationship with the prisoner, and (b) they all reported experiences of belittlement by authorities and their representatives. That said, molding the concept of “family members” based on any specific description, might belittle real and severe hardships that members of the same family feel as individuals. While certain differentiating themes may rise out of the experiences of siblings versus those of parents, or brothers versus sisters, the intersectional voice calls out to think about the problem of sameness and difference and its relation to power. In this case, participants’ trials to manage themselves within a perceived powerful, restrictive, and arbitrary system generated feelings of helplessness and impotence, feelings that were magnified for families who have already experienced power relations due to pre-marginalized status. These feelings were described by participants as the cause for negative views and generalizations they developed toward formal authorities and their representatives. According to the findings, that generated one of two scenarios: families either shut themselves out and chose to drift away from the general society (by avoiding social interactions and keeping the ‘family secret’ from the outer world) or acted in defiance against other national establishments that are not directly related to the familial struggle (by declaring they are not interested in contributing to the country through military service, for example). Eventually, any defiant reaction or “counter rejection” (Benisty et al., 2021) on the family part might increase and strengthen the stigma and negative social pre-perception of the family, thus further pushing them to the margins, in what seems to look like a social vicious circle (Deegan, 2021). The idea of individual self-marginalization as a way of differentiating oneself from a perceived oppressive majority is not new (Foner, 1998; Traber, 2001). However, self-marginalization of social subgroups whose contribution to the general society has been solidified (e.g., prisoners’ families affect successful reintegration processes) might result in families’ differentiation and separation from multiple social circles. Hence, in addition to allocating resources more efficiently, employing an intersectional approach may also benefit the entire social structure.

Elaborated practical implications refer to several aspects. First, increasing availability of relevant information (physically, via phones, and virtually) that could assist family members with going through the various stages of the crisis, might decrease feelings of vulnerability and increase resilience, as it might help the family recruit better and more efficient resources. Other practical implications include professional training for different relevant staff members within the police forces, the legal system, and the correction facilities. Intersectional perspective-based training can raise staff members’ awareness and knowledge of accumulating familial hardships. Additionally, formal actions should be taken, such as the development of national support, assistance, and rehabilitation programs dedicated to helping prisoners’ families as a subgroup but also include a tailored package for more fragile units and their individual, unique needs. Other formal actions should include tracing existing programs (if there are any), partially or fully fund, manage, and supervise them.

Though focused on a specific group, the study presented in this chapter is a gateway to further research and a better understanding of the unique features of this group. More research is needed for the goal of rethinking familial changes in structures and functioning and revisiting the way Western societies perceive prisoners’ family members. Innovative data collection must recognize that family members deal with a variety of struggles in a variety of forefronts and differentiate between familial resources, backgrounds, and roles. For example, future research should explore experiences of specific familial roles under an intersectional lens: fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters of prisoners share both the experiences as a family unit, as well as unique, individual experiences. The latter is related to their familial role and the dynamic degrees of responsibility it encompasses, their relationship with the prisoner, their perception of the crime, and social inequalities such as gender or age. Additional important data may shed light on the experience of prisoners’ families in other parts of the world, where socio-political, economic, structural, cultural, and interpersonal circumstances are different than those of Western societies. Additional data of this nature may contribute to policy and structure changes and promote social justice and equity so that no one feels invisible.

References

Aguilar, O’Brien, August, Aoun, & Hektner, 2001Aguilar, B., O’Brien, K., August, G., Aoun, S., & Hektner, J. (2001). Relationship quality of aggressive children and their siblings: A multiinformant, multimeasure investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 29, 479–489.

Alaverdyan, & Zaharieva, 2019Alaverdyan, S., & Zaharieva, A. (2019). Immigration, social networks and occupational mismatch. The German Socio-Economic Panel, 1033, 1–48.

Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. A., & Parkman, T. S. (2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3(3), 267.

Aroian, & Norris, 2000Aroian, K. J., & Norris, A. E. (2000). Resilience, stress, and depression among Russian immigrants to Israel. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(1), 54–67.

Baah, Teitelman, & Riegel, 2019Baah, F. O., Teitelman, A. M., & Riegel, B. (2019). Marginalization: Conceptualizing patient vulnerabilities in the framework of social determinants of health – an integrative review. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1), e12268.

Barnard, 2005Barnard, M. (2005). Drugs in the family: The impact on parents and siblings. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Benisty, 2019Benisty, M. (2019). An offspring’s incarceration as a family crisis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.

Benisty, 2021Benisty, M. (2021). Familial spin: A criminal spin theory perspective on the experiences of parents and siblings of incarcerated men. Victims & Offenders, 17(4), 513–527. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2021.1967241

Benisty, Bensimon, & Ronel, 2021Benisty, M., Bensimon, M., & Ronel, N. (2021). Familial pains of imprisonment: The experience of parents and siblings of incarcerated Men. Victims & Offenders, 16(2), 247–265.

Best, & Laudet, 2010Best, D., & Laudet, A. (2010). The potential of recovery capital. London: RSA Projects.

Booth, Crouter, Landale, & Landale, 2012Booth, A., Crouter, A. C., Landale, N., & Landale, N. S. (2012). Immigration and the family: Research and policy on US immigrants. London: Routledge.

Bottcher, 1995Bottcher, J. (1995). Gender as social control: A qualitative study of incarcerated youths and their siblings in greater Sacramento. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 33–57.

Braman, 2007Braman, D. (2007). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Braun, & Clarke, 2006Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Brew, Goldman, & Wildeman, 2017Brew, B., Goldman, A., & Wildeman, C. (2017). The effects of corrections on communities and families. In O. Hayden Griffin & V. H. Woodward (Eds.) Routledge handbook of corrections in the United States (pp. 443–454). London: Routledge.

Brodsky, 1975Brodsky, S. (1975). Families and friends of men in prison: The uncertain relationship. Washington, DC: Lexington Books.

Brunton-Smith, & McCarthy, 2017Brunton-Smith, I., & McCarthy, D. J. (2017). The effects of prisoner attachment to family on re-entry outcomes: A longitudinal assessment. The British Journal of Criminology, 57(2), 463–482.

Cairney, Boyle, Offord, & Racine, 2003Cairney, J., Boyle, M., Offord, D. R., & Racine, Y. (2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(8), 442–449.

Cavadino, & Dignan, 2006Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). Penal policy and political economy. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(4), 435–456.

Chesney-Lind, 2006Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6–26.

Christian, 2005Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31–48.

Christian, & Kennedy, 2011Christian, J., & Kennedy, L. W. (2011). Secondary narratives in the aftermath of crime: Defining family members’ relationships with prisoners. Punishment & Society, 13(4), 379–402.

Clemmer, 1958Clemmer, D. (1958). The prison community. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Codd, 2002Codd, H. (2002). The ties that bind: Feminist perspectives on self–help groups for prisoners’ partners. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4) 334–347.

Codd, 2008Codd, H. (2008). Detention and families. Criminal Justice Matters, 71(1), 34–35.

Codd, 2013Codd, H. (2013). In the shadow of prison: Families, imprisonment and criminal justice. London: Routledge.

Collins, 2015Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20.

Comfort, 2007Comfort, M. (2007). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Comfort, 2016Comfort, M. (2016). “A twenty-hour-a-day job”: The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 63–79.

Condry, 2013Condry, R. (2013). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for relatives of serious offenders. London: Willan.

Condry, & Minson, 2020Condry, R., & Minson, S. (2020). Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 540–558.

Condry, & Smith, 2019Condry, R., & Smith, P. S. (2019). A holistic approach to prisoners’ families – From arrest to release. In M. Hotton & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison and the family (pp. 99–118). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Conger, & Rueter, 1996Conger, R. D., & Rueter, M. A. (1996). Siblings, parents, and peers: A longitudinal study of social influences in adolescent risk for alcohol use and abuse. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 1–30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Connelly, 2016Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435–437.

Cooper, 2007Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London: Sage.

Cowan, & Cowan, 2006Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2006). Developmental psychopathology from family systems and family risk factors perspectives: Implications for family research, practice, and policy. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 530–587). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Crenshaw, 1991Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 41, 1241–1298.

Crenshaw, 2011Crenshaw, K. (2011). Postcript. In H. Lutz, M. T. H. Vivar, & L. Supik (Eds.), Framing intersectionality: Debates on a multifaceted concept in gender studies (pp. 221–233). Farnham: Ashgate.

Creswell, & Poth, 2017Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.

Crewe, 2011Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529.

Dallaire, 2007Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56(5), 440–453.

Davies, 1980Davies, R. P. (1980). Stigmatization of prisoners’ families. Prison Service Journal, 40, 12–14.

Deegan, 2021Deegan, S. J. (2021). The meaning of murder: Family members in the lives of juvenile homicide offenders. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(1), 85–103.

Ding, & Hargraves, 2009Ding, H., & Hargraves, L. (2009). Stress-associated poor health among adult immigrants with a language barrier in the United States. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 11(6), 446–452.

Duthé, Hazard, & Kensey, 2014Duthé, G., Hazard, A., & Kensey, A. (2014). Trends and risk factors for prisoner suicide in France. Population, 69(4), 463–493.

Erez, & Berko, 2010Erez, E., & Berko, A. (2010). Pathways of Arab/Palestinian women in Israel to crime and imprisonment: An intersectional approach. Feminist Criminology, 5(2), 156–194.

Farkas, & Miller, 2007Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88–92.

Foner, 1998Foner, E. (1998). The story of American freedom. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Franceschelli, & O’Brien, 2014Franceschelli, M., & O’Brien, M. (2014). ‘Islamic capital’ and family life: The role of Islam in parenting. Sociology, 48(6), 1190–1206.

Goldman, 2019Goldman, A. W. (2019). Linked lives in double jeopardy: Child incarceration and maternal health at midlife. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60(4), 398–415.

Granja, 2016Granja, R. (2016). Beyond prison walls: The experiences of prisoners’ relatives and meanings associated with imprisonment. Probation Journal, 63(3), 273–292.

Greene, 2007Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gueta, 2018Gueta, K. (2018). The experience of prisoners’ parents: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Family Process, 57(3), 767–782.

Gueta, 2020Gueta, K. (2020). Exploring the promise of intersectionality for promoting justice-involved women’s health research and policy. Health & Justice, 8(1), 1–10.

Halsey, & Deegan, 2012Halsey, M., & Deegan, S. (2012). Father and son: Two generations through prison. Punishment & Society, 14(3), 338–367.

Harvey, 1986Harvey, O. J. (1986). Belief systems and attitudes toward the death penalty and other punishments. Journal of Personality, 54(4), 659–675.

Hauser, Golden, & Allen, 2006Hauser, S. T., Golden, E., & Allen, J. P. (2006). Narrative in the study of resilience. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 61(1), 205–227.

Herz, & Rosen, 1982Herz, F. M., & Rosen, E. J. (1982). Jewish families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 364–392). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Holmes, & Holmes, 2001Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2001). Murder in America. London: Sage.

Holt, 2010Holt, A. (2010). Managing ‘spoiled identities’: Parents’ experiences of compulsory parenting support programmes. Children & Society, 24(5), 413–423.

Hudson, 2006Hudson, B. (2006). Punishing monsters, judging aliens: Justice at the borders of community. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 232–247.

Katz, & Lavee, 2005Katz, R., & Lavee, Y. (2005). Families in Israel. Handbook of World Families, 486–506.

Kim, & Kim, 2020Kim, G. E., & Kim, E. J. (2020). Factors affecting the quality of life of single mothers compared to married mothers. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 1–10.

Kirk, & Wakefield, 2018Kirk, D. S., & Wakefield, S. (2018). Collateral consequences of punishment: A critical review and path forward. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 171–194.

Kirmayer, Narasiah, Munoz, Rashid, Ryder, Guzder, Hassan, Rousseau, & Pottie, 2011Kirmayer, L. J., Narasiah, L., Munoz, M., Rashid, M., Ryder, A. G., Guzder, J., Hassan, G., Rousseau, C., & Pottie, K. (2011). Common mental health problems in immigrants and refugees: General approach in primary care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(12), 959–967.

Klein, Bartholomew, & Hibbert, 2002Klein, S. R., Bartholomew, G. S., & Hibbert, J. (2002). Inmate family functioning. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), 95–111.

Kotova, 2020Kotova, A. (2020). Beyond courtesy stigma: Towards a multi-faceted and cumulative model of stigmatisation of families of people in prison. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 1, 1–8.

Krieger, 2010Krieger, A. Y. (2010). The role of Judaism in family relationships. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 38(3), 154–165.

Laing, 2003Laing, K. (2003). Supporting prisoners and their families. London: Young Voice Documents.

Lanskey, Markson, Souza, & Lösel, 2019Lanskey, C., Markson, L., Souza, K., & Lösel, F. (2019). Prisoners’ families’ research: Developments, debates and directions. In M. Hotton & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison and the family (pp. 15–40). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lee, Wildeman, Wang, Matusko, & Jackson, 2014Lee, H., Wildeman, C., Wang, E. A., Matusko, N., & Jackson, J. S. (2014). A heavy burden: The cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 421–427.

Lepper, Zanna, & Abelson, 1970Lepper, M. R., Zanna, M. P., & Abelson, R. P. (1970). Cognitive irreversibility in a dissonance-reduction situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 191–198.

Lowenstein, 1986Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parenthood – The case of prisoners’ families. Family Relations, 35(1), 79–85.

Machel, 2014Machel, H. (2014). The convict’s family as a participant in his penal resocialisation readaptation and social reintegration. Polish Journal of Social Rehabilitation, 7(1), 203–214.

MacNeil, Church, Nelson-Gardell, & Young, 2015MacNeil, G., Church, W. T., Nelson-Gardell, D., & Young, S. R. (2015). What’sa parent to do? How parents respond to notification of a child’s police detention. Journal of Family Social Work, 18(5), 349–365.

Markson, Lösel, Souza, & Lanskey, 2015Markson, L., Lösel, F., Souza, K., & Lanskey, C. (2015). Male prisoners’ family relationships and resilience in resettlement. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 15(4), 423–441.

May, 2000May, H. (2000). “Murderers’ relatives” managing stigma, negotiating identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(2), 198–221.

May, Sharma, & Stewart, 2008May, C., Sharma, N., & Stewart, D. (2008). Factors linked to reoffending: A one-year follow-up of prisoners who took part in the Resettlement Surveys 2001, 2003 and 2004. Research Summary, 5, 1–8. Ministry of Justice.

Mazza, 2002Mazza, C. (2002). And then the world fell apart: The children of incarcerated fathers. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83(5), 521–529.

McCarthy, & Adams, 2019McCarthy, D., & Adams, M. (2019). “Yes, I can still parent. Until I die, he will always be my son”: Parental responsibility in the wake of child incarceration. Punishment & Society, 21(1), 89–106.

Meek, 2008Meek, R. (2008). Experiences of younger siblings of young men in prison. Children & Society, 22(4), 265–277.

Meek, Lowe, & McPhillips, 2010Meek, R., Lowe, K., & McPhillips, K. (2010). The impact of a custodial sentence on the siblings of young offenders: Matching service to needs. Prison Service Journal, 190, 26–31.

Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016Melendez, M. S., Lichtenstein, B., & Dolliver, M. J. (2016). Mothers of mass murderers: Exploring public blame for the mothers of school shooters through an application of courtesy stigma to the Columbine and Newtown tragedies. Deviant Behavior, 37(5), 525–536.

Mills, 2004Mills, A. (2004, 6-9 July). ‘Great expectations?’: A review of the role of prisoners’ families in England and Wales [Paper presentation]. The 2004 British Society of Criminology Conference, Portsmouth.

Mills, & Codd, 2008Mills, A., & Codd, H. (2008). Prisoners’ families and offender management: Mobilizing social capital. Probation Journal, 55(1), 9–24.

Morris, 1965Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Moore, 2018Moore, R. D. (2018). The storm-tossed family: How the cross reshapes the home. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Murray, 2013Murray, J. (2013). The effects of imprisonment on families and children of prisoners. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 442–492). London: Routledge.

Naser, & La Vigne, 2006Naser, R. L., & La Vigne, N. G. (2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process: Expectations and realities. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 93–106.

Ne’eman-Haviv, 2021Ne’eman-Haviv, V. (2021). Honor killings in Muslim and Western countries in modern times: A critical literature review and definitional implications. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(3), 381–397.

Ocen, 2013Ocen, P. A. (2013). Unshackling intersectionality. Du Bois review: Social science research on race, 10(2), 471–483.

Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2003Parke, R. D., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2003). Perspectives, promises, and policies. In J. Travis & M. Waul, (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 189–232). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Peelo, Stewart, Stewart, & Prior, 1991Peelo, M., Stewart, J., Stewart, G., & Prior, A. (1991). Women partners of prisoners. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(4), 311–327.

Pepi, 2013Pepi, L. (2013). The role of the family in traditional Judaism. In A. Passaro (Ed.), Family and kinship in the deuterocanonical and cognate literature (pp. 367–386). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Randall, Baldwin, McKenzie-Mohr, McKim, & Furlong, 2015Randall, W., Baldwin, C., McKenzie-Mohr, S., McKim, E., & Furlong, D. (2015). Narrative and resilience: A comparative analysis of how older adults story their lives. Journal of Aging Studies, 34(1), 155–161.

Remedios, & Snyder, 2018Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2018). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized identities and perceptions of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 265–281.

Reynolds, 2017Reynolds, J. (2017). Phenomenology, naturalism and science: A hybrid and heretical proposal. London: Routledge.

Ritsner, Modai, & Ponizovsky, 2000Ritsner, M., Modai, I., & Ponizovsky, A. (2000). The stress-support patterns and psychological distress of immigrants. Stress Medicine, 16(3), 139–147.

Ritzer, & Stepnisky, 2017Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots: The basics. London: Sage.

Shollenberger, 2009Shollenberger, T. L. (2009). When relatives return: Interviews with family members of returning prisoners in Houston, Texas. http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411903.html.

Solomon, 2020Solomon, N. (2020). Judaism and inter-faith relations since World War II. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.normansolomon.info/Judaism%20and%20Inter-Faith%20preprint.pdf

Sourander, Aromaa, Pihlakoski, Haavisto, Rautava, Helenius, & Sillanpää, 2006Sourander, A., Aromaa, M., Pihlakoski, L., Haavisto, A., Rautava, P., Helenius, H., & Sillanpää, M. (2006). Early predictors of deliberate self-harm among adolescents. A prospective follow-up study from age 3 to age 15. Journal of Affective Disorders, 93(1), 87–96.

Souza, Lanskey, Markson, & Lösel, 2019Souza, K., Lanskey, C., Markson, L., & Lösel, F. (2019). Partners of incarcerated men: Questioning caring stereotypes. In M. Hotton, & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison and the family (pp. 203–226). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Souza, Lösel, Markson, & Lanskey, 2015Souza, K. A., Lösel, F., Markson, L., & Lanskey, C. (2015). Pre-release expectations and post-release experiences of prisoners and their (ex-) partners. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(2), 306–323.

Sykes, 1958Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison (1st ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tadros, Fye, & Ray, 2020Tadros, E., Fye, J., & Ray, A. (2020). The lived experience of sisters with an incarcerated brother: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(4), 335–354.

Testa, & Fahmy, 2021Testa, A., & Fahmy, C. (2021). Family member incarceration and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health & Justice, 9(1), 1–10.

Traber, 2001Traber, D. S. (2001). L.A.’s “White Minority”: Punk and the contradictions of self-marginalization. Cultural Critique, 48, 30–64.

Trim, Leuthe, & Chassin, 2006Trim, R. S., Leuthe, E., & Chassin, L. (2006). Sibling influence on alcohol use in a young adult, high-risk sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(3), 391–398.

Tucker, Barber, & Eccles, 1997Tucker, C. J., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (1997). Advice about life plans and personal problems in late adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(1), 63–76.

Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50(4), 913–959.

Turney, Schnittker, & Wildeman, 2012Turney, K., Schnittker, J., & Wildeman, C. (2012). Those they leave behind: Paternal incarceration and maternal instrumental support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1149–1165.

Vesely, Letiecq, & Goodman, 2017Vesely, C. K., Letiecq, B. L., & Goodman, R. D. (2017). Immigrant family resilience in context: Using a community-based approach to build a new conceptual model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), 93–110.

Wakefield, & Wildeman, 2013Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Western, & Wildeman, 2009Western, B., & Wildeman, C. (2009). The black family and mass incarceration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 221–242.

Wildeman, & Western, 2010Wildeman, C., & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 157–177.

Wikström, & Sampson, 2006Wikström, P. O. H., & Sampson, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woodward, 2003Woodward, R. (2003). Families of prisoners: Literature review on issues and difficulties (Occassional Paper No. 10). Australian Government, Department of Family and Community Services.

World Health Organization (WHO), 1999World Health Organization (WHO). (1999). Making a difference. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Yakhnich, & Ben-Zur, 2008Yakhnich, L., & Ben-Zur, H. (2008). Personal resources, appraisal, and coping in the adaptation process of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(2), 152–162.

Yakhnich, & Walsh, 2020Yakhnich, L., & Walsh, S. D. (2020). A phenomenological study of immigrant parents of adolescents with delinquent behavior in Israel. Family Process, 59(4), 1856–1873.

Young, 1999Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society: Social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. London: Sage.

Zvinkliene, 2010Zvinkliene, A. (2010). ‘Honour killings’ in modern societies: A sociological perspective. Islam and Civilisational Renewal Journal, 1(3), 532–535.

Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Join us on our journey