Performing Reform: Experiencing vs. Evidencing Rehabilitation for Life sentenced Prisoners

This research will explore experiences and practices of seeking and realising parole in Scotland, focusing on life sentenced prisoners, who can be imprisoned indefinitely for breaching parole licences.
Recent data (Van Zyl Smit and Appleton, 2019) show Scotland has among the highest rates of life imprisonment in Europe (16% of prisoners). This may be produced in part by low rates of granting parole, and one of the highest rates of prison recall (re-imprisoning released 'lifers'). These factors create pressure and risks for those seeking release. For lifers, the risk is in managing whether to conceal or reveal mental health, addiction, and relationship issues, fearing 'support' will mean further intervention, denial of parole or recall to custody.
This PhD seeks to explore the dilemmas facing those for whom the performance of 'stability', and the liberty their perceived low risk buys, may be prioritised over genuine engagement that could threaten that liberty.
As a lifer, the experiences of my peers and I, informed the drafting of this proposal. This research offers the opportunity to rigorously investigate how common these experiences are, how they might be situated in wider understandings of penal power, and ultimately, contribute to reforming parole practice.

Context
Following Scotland's drive to be a leader in rehabilitative, rather than punitive, approaches to punishment (SCCJR, 2015), evidencing successful rehabilitative 'progression' through pro-active engagement with prison regimes became increasingly pertinent. However, sizable backlogs for offending behaviour programmes and bottlenecks for limited spaces in units designed for gradual community (re)integration arose. Consequently, the rehabilitative care model, coupled with increasing risk aversion, ironically oversees longer sentences than ever before, while attempting to 'meet the needs' of those in custody before considering their release - effectively criminalising addiction and mental health issues (Fernandes, et al 2018). Progression has slowed greatly in the wake of Covid-19, heightening the urgency of research in this area (Armstrong et al., 2020).
Butler and Drakeford (2003) show how scandal, narrative and political machinations drive efforts to control for the unforeseen, signalling how statutory systems focus on managing reputational risk as much as their core area of activity. Scotland's criminal justice system saw significant escalation in risk criteria following a handful of high-profile incidents committed by prisoners on temporary release (Sweeney, 2008). Among other consequences, this led to substantial decline in those in Scotland being granted parole.
Lifers are disproportionately affected by this trend. They also draw greatest public concern. Yet Appleton (2010) found lifers had lower reoffending rates than any convicted population. Of the third recalled, 95% committed no crime, rather breaching technical rules of their parole. For those navigating progression and parole then, there is legitimate mistrust, and incentives to 'perform' - especially where individual practitioners have wide discretion to re-imprison.
Goffman (1961) and Sparks (2002) challenge the efficacy of systems that totalise to rehabilitate, arguing the best prisoners (complying without resistance) do not make the best citizens (navigating complex social fields), and subversion is necessary to retain one's sense of self. Lived experience supports these findings. The necessary subversion here being the superficial engagement of those who best perform the modes of 'Being' desired by systems of governance (Bourdieu, 1990), while concealing vulnerabilities - defined as risks, to succeed.
The primary research question underpinning this research is:

'To what extent and how do those in the justice system (learn to) perform 'stability' for professionals, what do they choose to hide, and how does this affect their wellbeing and progression?'