Content uploaded by Moran Benisty
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Moran Benisty on Dec 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uvao20
Victims & Offenders
An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and
Practice
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20
Familial Pains of Imprisonment: The Experience of
Parents and Siblings of Incarcerated Men
Moran Benisty, Moshe Bensimon & Natti Ronel
To cite this article: Moran Benisty, Moshe Bensimon & Natti Ronel (2021) Familial Pains of
Imprisonment: The Experience of Parents and Siblings of Incarcerated Men, Victims & Offenders,
16:2, 247-265, DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2020.1810187
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1810187
Published online: 31 Aug 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 306
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Familial Pains of Imprisonment: The Experience of Parents and
Siblings of Incarcerated Men
Moran Benisty , Moshe Bensimon, and Natti Ronel
Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
ABSTRACT
The goal of the present study was to gain insight into the experience
of parents and siblings of incarcerated men who went through dier-
ent stages of legal proceedings, arrest, and incarceration. The main
questions of the research revolved around family relationships, atti-
tudes toward various situations and perceived obstacles and experi-
ences throughout the dierent stages of what they dened as “crisis”.
A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 17 parents and
10 siblings of incarcerated men in Israel shows that nuclear family
members may experience various struggles, including family hard-
ships, negative social experiences, and negative institutional experi-
ences. Negative feelings, changes in attitudes toward society and its
facilities, and loss of trust, resulted in the development of counter
rejection, a process in which families seemed to be growing closer
together and further away from social circles, and wavering almost all
external help.
KEYWORDS
Prison experience; coping;
resilience; prisoner reentry
I have always held the opinion that if your kid does that to you, kick him out. Now I understand
parents who feel this pain but still help their children. I will always help him. He is my son.
Mother
Introduction
Incarceration of a family member puts prisoners’ families in a conflictual reality in which
high financial, mental, and social demands are constantly competing with resources,
regardless of incarceration length (Arditti et al., 2003; Sampson, 2011). It has been claimed
that maintaining and preserving familial relationships benefit both prisoners and their
family members (Machel, 2014; Tripodi, 2010). That includes the reduction of pains of
imprisonment, with an emphasis on the deprivation of liberty which is based on social
exclusion and isolation (Mills, 2005). Keeping various kinds of support and communication
with family members potentially induces the prisoner’s levels of self-value, self-confidence,
and self-control – both during and after the incarceration period (Mills, 2005; K. Souza
et al., 2019). Family presence in a prisoner’s life increases his levels of well-being, thus
reducing actions of self-harm (Duthé et al., 2014).
CONTACT Moran Benisty maureenby@gmail.com Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan
5290002, Israel.
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS
2021, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 247–265
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1810187
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
The overall recognition of the important role played by supportive family relations and
its effects on reintegration processes to the society (Machel, 2014) and prevention of
reoffending (Farkas & Miller, 2007), has affected policy changes and treatment goals
(Codd, 2013; World Health Organization, 1999). However, there is a dearth of research
regarding the effects imprisonment has on various aspects of the nuclear family. For
example, there is an academic void regarding parents’ and siblings’ unique experience
and their choice to stay in touch with the prisoner and care for him (Codd, 2013). Also,
there is a lack of information about individual and familial changes, as well as role-related
responsibilities and coping skills throughout an imprisonment-related crisis (Al et al.,
2014), or its effects on familial resilience (Gueta, 2018; Mills & Codd, 2008). Little attention
has been paid to incarceration effects on prisoners’ siblings, including emotional responses
and withholding of information regarding the incarceration (Meek et al., 2010), albeit
focusing mostly on young family members of prisoners in general (Aitken, 2017). The
current study offers a phenomenological perspective of parents and siblings of Israeli male
prisoners, i.e. their individual and group subjective experiences during their son/brother’s
incarceration period. Its goal was to gain insight into their perceived experiences with the
criminal justice system and its various phases.
Familial crises
Family units are systems, comprised of subsystems and interactions based on certain goals,
roles, and communication. Therefore, any change an individual goes through, might multi-
dimensionally affect the entire set of subsystems (Breen, 2008; Walsh, 2012). Literature
assumes that crises challenge familial functioning and create structural imbalance (Tasca
et al., 2011). Usually the coordinators of family units, parents are expected to navigate
through destabilizing situations, being aware that their reactions affect other family mem-
bers. Thus, crises might turn stable, well-connected family units into fragile social groups.
The loss of a member of the family, temporarily or permanently, can be perceived as
a crisis. For example, parents’ reaction to a loss of a child, real (e.g., death) or perceived (e.g.,
imprisonment, traveling), might affect the entire family unit (Mitchell et al., 2004). Parent-
child relationships are often the most enduring relationships throughout the course of life
(Fingerman et al., 2015; Ha et al., 2009). Siblings are also a great source of support for the
rest of the family members, but are also in need of support (Michael, 2018; Naylor &
Prescott, 2004). For example, siblings of children with special needs may encounter less
parental attention, increased care responsibilities and increased risk for poor peer-relations
(Naylor & Prescott, 2004). Siblings may feel more emotional distress, expected involvement
and personal responsibility (Giallo & Gavidia-Payne, 2006).
Incarceration of a son/brother as a challenge
Incarceration is a complex situation that demands various resources and might be experi-
enced as a crisis. Although some studies show minor or positive effects on family members
(e.g., Codd, 2007), the cases with complications, burdens and hardships outweigh the
positive cases. Children, spouses and even close friends of incarcerated men and women
experience incarceration periods as crises (Arditti, 2012; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013;
Morris, 1965; Tadros et al., 2019; Wildeman & Western, 2010). This often results in children
248 M. BENISTY ET AL.
and teenagers exhibiting conduct disorders and anti-social behavior (Murray et al., 2012;
Song et al., 2018; Wiesner & Shukla, 2018), enduring emotional hardships (Dallaire et al.,
2010), using violence and drug abuse as coping methods (Eddy & Reid, 2003), and
experiencing stigmatization (Phillips & Gates, 2011).
Various aspects of the family members’ experience have significant negative effects on
their relationship with the prisoner, as individuals and as a unit. Among these aspects are
heavy monetary demands (Braman, 2007; Flynn, 2014), which might generate feelings of
anger, resentment, and helplessness, and lead to emotional distancing. Another aspect is
mental and emotional hardships (Codd, 2013; Sharratt et al., 2014; Wildeman et al., 2012),
including high levels of distress and anxiety caused by worrying about the prisoner, as well
as feelings of loss of control and ability to assist the loved one. The aspect of stigma and
shame also has its negative effects on the relationship with the prisoner, when family
members might avoid having telephone or physical contact with the prisoner due to fear
of their surroundings’ reactions (Breen, 2008). In other cases, prisoners’ relationships with
children in the family are damaged, as children are being kept at a distant connection with
the imprisoned parent, in the belief that contact is not in the child’s best interests
(Eurochips-Ayre et al., 2006; Sheehy, 2010). Having to endure these hardships might
hamper the struggle to keep the family together (Lanskey et al., 2018; Tasca, 2018).
Partners of prisoners who have children reported viewing the incarceration period as
a mentally vulnerable time because of their having to take care of themselves, the prisoner,
and the children (Bartlett, 2019).
Although incarceration of a family member can be of benefit and relief for families in
some instances (Comfort, 2007), families have mostly reported negative consequences of
their family member’s imprisonment (Braman, 2007; Smith & Young, 2017), including
various costs and losses (Dettbarn, 2012). A wider view of the topic implies that prisoner’s
parents and siblings go through their own difficulties and hardships, which are unique to
the specific roles and dynamics relating to them (Mills & Codd, 2008). Little literature is
dedicated to parental coping with a child’s arrest (MacNeil et al., 2015) and its consequences
of social stigmatization (Farkas & Miller, 2007) and feelings of parental responsibility as
a lifelong value (McCarthy & Adams, 2019). Researchers have mentioned the general lack of
knowledge regarding parents and siblings of prisoners (Aitken, 2017; Codd, 2013; Gueta,
2018; Mowen & Visher, 2015; Murray et al., 2012). Siblings also received very little academic
attention: older siblings have been found to have significant influence on their younger
siblings, both as a positive source of support, advice, and guidance (Meek et al., 2010) and as
a negative influence regarding illegal and addictive behaviors (Barnard, 2005). In the light of
the lack of literature, the present study offers a first gaze into the experiences of parents and
siblings of incarcerated men throughout different justice system stages. Its aim was to gain
some insight into the experience of an understudied population.
Cultural perspective and the perception of children in the Israeli society
From a sociological viewpoint, Israeli society tends to rank familial values high in its set of
ideals and conduct. For example, Israel is a “child-oriented” society, and a “family” is
defined by having children (Lavee & Katz, 2003). Children are highly valued, not only by
their parents, who usually give the needs of their young top priority, but also by society as
a whole. Israeli family units were found to be stronger and more stable than in other
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 249
industrialized countries, having more children on average and embracing more traditional
gender roles (Lavee & Katz, 2003). All families in the present study chose to stay in touch
with the prisoner and support him before, during, and after arrest/incarceration. The
majority of the prisoner population in Israel is comprised of men. Therefore, families of
Israeli male prisoners were chosen as the study sample (Israeli Prison Service, 2019).
Method
Research approach
The methodology employed in this research is the phenomenological approach of qualita-
tive research (Van Manen, 2014), focusing on describing the meaning and interpretations
that participants ascribe to a given phenomenon (i.e. imprisonment of son/brother). The
dearth of data and the wish to bring out participants’ individual voices are the two main
reasons for the research to be inductive, within the thematic analysis framework.
Phenomenological approaches focus on human experiences and interactions that shape
one’s cognitive perceptions and behavioral responses. Therefore, it enabled both to accom-
modate unexpected contents and data, and incorporate it into the findings, thereby enhan-
cing the quality and authenticity of the latter (Greene, 2007; Reynolds, 2017; Stake, 2010).
This approach best suited the purpose of describing and comprehending the individual
human experiences of nuclear family members, since it allowed participants to extensively
express their individual perspectives and narratives.
Participants
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, whereas for six households it was at least a second
occurrence within the family unit. There were twelve mothers (44.4%, mean age = 52),
five fathers (18.51%, mean age = 55.4), four brothers (14.81%, mean age = 25.8), and six
sisters (22.22%, mean age = 31.3) of male prisoners, (mean age = 28.7). Three of the
families had gone through legal proceedings (e.g., managing their legal case in court) and
jail or house arrest, the rest had experienced incarceration sentences of different lengths
(the shortest was 8 months; the longest was 9 years). All participants chose to stay in
touch with the prisoner. The research excluded those whose son/brother’s offenses were
directed at them in any way (i.e. theft from a family member or domestic violence) to
avoid creating a biased sample.
Data collection
Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions, about
various issues: relationship with the son/brother prior to 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
250 M. BENISTY ET AL.
did you make yourself feel better?”), and their opinions about the felony (e.g., “what is your
opinion about the specific offense he committed?”).
Procedure
The sample was attained by contacting people outside of courtrooms and prisons (awaiting
court sessions or visitations), virtual social networks (Facebook groups), pamphlets dis-
tributed in different community centers, and a private clinic that provides clinical evalua-
tions and therapy for offenders during their legal proceeding or during an “on license”
period. All interviews were conducted by a trained researcher (first author), and lasted
between 55 minutes and 3 hours. The participants chose the location of the interviews: their
homes or public places (e.g., cafés). Two interviews were conducted via “Skype” (not as
a video call). The decision to end the interviewing phase was based on the accomplishment
of thematic saturation (Green & Thorogood, 2018).
Data analysis
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, which was expressed by more
than one-third of the participants and therefore was considered a sub-theme. 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
conducted by the second and third authors (Connelly, 2016). The research was conducted
entirely by the first author, as the other two authors were fully involved in processes of
guidance and writing of the final report. All authors operated according to the traditional
phenomenology approach and its wish to describe phenomena from a subjective point of
view (Greene, 2007; Reynolds, 2017). Therefore, the three authors practiced their expertise
and qualifications throughout the analysis process, repeatedly deliberating on which themes
were conveyed by the participants themselves as the most meaningful.
Ethical considerations
The research was approved by Bar-Ilan University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).
The participants signed informed consent forms prior to each interview. One of the
participants was a minor at the time (age 17), so his parents (who also took part in the
research) provided assent for the minor to take part. The first author has worked in
a clinic through which some of the participants were obtained, yet none of the partici-
pants had any previous connection of any sort (therapeutic or other), or knowledge of the
researcher. Anonymity was kept through use of pseudonyms and securing participants’
personal details on coded files. Information about the study and its aims was provided,
promising anonymity and the right to withdraw at any stage without any consequences.
Participants did not receive any form of material reward for their participation and were
well aware of this prior to taking part.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 251
Findings
The findings yielded three main themes of parents’ and siblings’ experiences of their son/
brother’s incarceration: (a) family hardships, (b) negative social experiences and family
reactions, and (c) negative institutional experiences and family reactions. Quotations are
presented according to the role of the speaker in relation to the prisoner, i.e. F (father),
M (mother), B (brother), and S (sister).
(a) Family hardships
The element of loss
Once the son/brother was arrested, participants experienced feelings of loss and even
bereavement. Some compared it to the seven mourning days in the Jewish tradition
(“Shivaa”), when the bereaved are visited and consoled by a wide social circle:
S1: He was suddenly gone, it’s like sitting “Shivaa” [. . .] I felt like he passed away. We spoke
about him in past tense.
M1: I think it’s like with bereavement, it takes you time to realize what’s happened, and only
then, you try to understand how it might affect you, and then you get anxious.
Others gained strength from the comparison, explaining that it is only temporary:
M2: He used to come home and laugh with everyone, and all of a sudden, there’s silence
[. . .] my father went to a specific direction, but my son will come back.
Financial hardships
Families that wanted to maintain their relationship with the prisoner described 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 income of a missed work-day). Most participants described financial
struggles; some had funds available, while others had to secure loans:
F1: The financial crash is a total one [. . .] I worked for 37 years myself, but all the money
I got for the retirement to this day, six years after he was sentenced – still go to lawyers and
his therapy program.
Financial costs sometimes created deprivations and deficiencies for other family
members:
M2: I told my other children that things will be denied of them on the expense of the
situation. We are all for one in this family.
The general experience described by participants was that of gradual diminishment of
the family’s socio-economic status, which commenced with the arrest.
Mental and emotional hardships
Parents and siblings shared worries regarding the prisoner’s physical and mental health,
their fears concerning the criminality of cellmates and their possible influences on him,
guards’ treatment toward him, his safety and his hygiene. These worries generated
252 M. BENISTY ET AL.
catastrophic thoughts and beliefs, increasing anxiety and wariness toward their surround-
ings, and putting the prisoner’s wellbeing as their first priority. Awareness of his vulner-
ability, together with the lack of ability to assist, was described as generating insecurity,
leading to physical and behavioral symptoms:
F3: 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 [. . .] it turns you into a different person. I suffered
tremendously, and my sugar levels and blood pressure went sky high.
Alongside emotional frailty, parents described feelings of anger and disappointment:
M3: I was angry [. . .] it hurt because I raised him [. . .] it’s like spitting in my face.
M4: As my son, he owes me explanations. You’ve already hurt me, so give me an answer.
Siblings expressed anger mixed with empathy, emphasizing the effect on their parents:
B1: It’s difficult to put myself in his shoes [. . .] my parents were his guarantors, there was
reserved anger, frustration. I was angry. But on the other hand, again [. . .] I kept asking
myself if I’m not asking for too much of him.
Parental frustration was expressed through comparison of the felon to his siblings:
M5: His brother is not into these things at all. He is 26 and never had a charge against him
[. . .] why did he come out like that, why not more like his brother.
Participants’ frustration was mixed with a great deal of compassion toward the son/
brother, and was expressed using genetic kinship:
B2: 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.
M4: He doesn’t speak [. . .] I understand his emotion, I understand his pain, I know the
suffering he is going through because of this mistake.
(b) Negative social experiences and family reactions
Participants reported being stigmatized by their association to the incarcerated son/brother.
Experiences of stigmatization included perceived rejection or dismissal by civil or social
agencies’ representatives and resulted in feelings of shame and discomfort. Family members
claimed that they chose to cut some interpersonal and even distant family relationships, and
in worse cases, to leave the community that they live in. Some participants shared that they
had heard people talk either directly or indirectly about their situation, expressing pity,
shame, aggression and even hatred:
F3: The attitude toward families is negative if they want to help their son. It’s like they are
accomplices, and then the family falls apart just because of people talking.
Parents described feeling guilt and shame due to their internal world of values (self-
expectations), external labeling, and implicit or explicit accusations:
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 253
M2: [Society] treats parents as if they were the criminals themselves. As if we are the ones
who brought the one person who destroyed the entire country – whether it’s the judge, the
jail [. . .] these families suffer so much as it is, why burden them even more?
Siblings experienced stigma by association, as if asking “am I my brother’s keeper?”
B4: They [police] come here because of my brother but treat me as garbage.
S3: Society sees it as a bad thing. It is a bad thing, but why should I, as his sister, who obeyed
the law all my life – be ashamed of a crime I did not commit? People will always think you
are also a felon, no matter how successful you are.
Because of feelings of fear and shame, participants decided to keep information regard-
ing the arrest/incarceration a secret from certain social circles, thus creating distance and
sometimes alienation from these social circles:
M2: No one at my workplace knows he was in prison. Each time I lied. Every courtroom
session or visitation. What would I tell them next? I ran out of excuses.
M6: 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.
Participants who were in a new romantic relationship, or were looking to start one,
said they would reveal their secret only after a high level of trust had been established and
even then, they expressed concern regarding the possible stigmatizing reaction. In con-
clusion, participants described experiences of both formal and informal social responses,
all of which caused them emotional hardships. Stigma by association, whether real or
perceived, has influenced parents and siblings in various ways, mainly causing them to: a)
keep the crisis as a secret, withdrawing from social circles and strengthening the family
unit, and b) form negative opinions and attitudes toward formal and informal social
circles.
(c) Negative institutional experiences and family reactions
Participants described authorities as withholding information regarding their rights, rules
and regulations of 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, as it shattered their personal expectations of rights as parents. Both parents
and siblings interpreted the lack of information as degrading treatment, which then
generated feelings of helplessness, anxiety (regarding the self and the incarcerated person),
suppression and impotence. Describing their experiences, participants used the phrase
“there’s no one to talk to”:
F3: You have no one to speak to, you can speak to the walls. At any stage of the process, we
didn’t interest anyone.
M7: There’s no one to talk to. The parole officer [. . .] she just created more damage! I felt
bad and humiliated [. . .] I cried and left – is your goal to help or harm?
Difficulties receiving information about basic rules and regulations evoked feelings of
anger, frustration and hatred, mainly toward formal establishments:
254 M. BENISTY ET AL.
F1: It’s not a way to conduct a whole system. 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.
Another aspect of missing information described by most participants was the sudden
changing of familiar rules and regulations without informing the public, which was inter-
preted as resulting from arbitrary decisions of prison personnel:
S3: It’s all up to the individual decision of the person who is there on that day [. . .] it’s so
hard [. . .] almost every time we got there, there was something that was now forbidden for
us to take inside but was allowed the last time.
Interactions with other visitors to the correction facility operated as a main way of
getting information about the son/brother’s rights, rules and regulations.
Attempts to resist feelings of powerlessness were made by discussing the idea of filing
official complaints or turning to the media, but were abandoned due to fear of vengeance:
M6: I wanted to complain [. . .] people told me ’You shouldn’t do that’. If I had said
anything, they would have treated my son worse.
Participants described and viewed the incarcerated son or brother as a direct extension of
the family unit:
M1: We are who we are and our son’s success or failure is very much our business.
Encountering negative responses on different social “fronts” has evoked the formation of
negative attitudes toward the Israeli society and its establishments, losing trust in social
kinship as well as belief in formal social figures in charge of assistance and protection of
citizens. For example, negative views of police officers, the judicial system, and social
workers/probation related personnel were prominent in the data:
F3: You develop this anti-establishment view. You simply realize that the entire system is
corrupt [. . .] I really don’t believe in the system anymore.
S4: We simply have no trust in the police, the government, anything.
Feeling neglected, unprotected and even attacked, participants renounced the Israeli
society and its establishments, though continued to live regularly as citizens. Some por-
trayed their distrust in somewhat passive ways:
S3: Today we don’t even put up a flag on Independence Day. We live here, we pay taxes,
work hard, but there is this hatred toward the establishments, hatred that is quite justified
[. . .] what do we have left in common with this country?
While others’ reactions were more proactive:
B4: My life story turned me into an anti-establishment person [. . .] if someone will post
a story against the police, my choice is automatic although I know his story might be bogus.
I’ll share the post [. . .] this guy only has you and me to share his story.
Withholding information from the “outside world”, keeping secrets and developing
negative attitudes stemmed from participants’ perception of being rejected by different
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 255
social circles. According to their descriptions, they chose to “socially exile” themselves from
the community and society they lived in:
M7: I grew apart from people. Friends. No one understood [. . .] I don’t want to see anybody!
2.5 years I didn’t see anyone [. . .] I cut everyone, even my siblings [. . .] I kept a wall, as if to
say, “don’t ask me, I won’t tell you, I don’t want to”.
At the same time, nuclear family members described getting closer and strengthening
family bonds as couples, parents, and siblings, due to a mutual perceived threat:
F3: It really brought us closer together.
S1: We met a lot, and after visitations, we used to have lunch in a restaurant with mom, dad
and all four of us siblings. It was something that brought us closer together.
Growing closer together made both parents and siblings feel more resilient, encouraging
each other to keep faith in the family and the prisoner, sometimes through making sure the
family structure is stable:
M2: When you put everyone together and each member has a role to play – something is
happening. There’s a dominant character that has affected all of us and there’s nothing else
to do but help – it’s a chain. So, if one link got bent – all the links are bent [. . .] I told my kids
they have a mother and a father. The rules are still rules, and no one is taking anyone’s place
and roles here, especially now.
In some families, older siblings adopted parental roles when they felt it was needed:
B1: I had to see how I lighten the burden and shock off of my parents and youngest brother
[. . .] I really wanted to be a level-headed figure in this mess.
Discussion
The present study aimed to gain insight into the personal experiences of parents and
siblings of incarcerated men. It strived to describe the entire nuclear family’s experience,
hence not dividing the participants into sub-groups, but learn of the familial experience and
the effects of incarceration of a son/brother as they perceive it. Family hardships included
both the element of loss and the financial struggles families endured throughout the crisis.
The element of loss relates to both the physical absence of the son or brother, as well as the
lack of someone manning his role in the house. Some had roles of older brothers with
somewhat parental roles, others had roles relating to a joyful atmosphere in the household,
etc. Once the person was physically missing, a feeling of mental void was created in the
familial physical and mental structure and dynamics, to the point it was described by
participants as parallel to the experience of death. The disappearance of a family member
“into the law system,” i.e. arrest or incarceration, might be perceived as a significant loss
(Katz & Florian, 1987) and an existential threat to the individual and the social circles he (or
she) belongs to (Giddens, 1991). Parents and siblings started by describing their loss as
a type of “death” of the family member, only to realize he is still alive, and they feel “obliged”
to support him. Experiences of family members are similar in aspects of behavioral and
emotional responses. However, romantic involvement roles might enable more freedom
256 M. BENISTY ET AL.
when choosing whether to end a romantic relationship with the prisoner (see for example,
K. A. Souza et al., 2015). Parents and siblings of prisoners do not only feel kinship-related
obligation to support their son/brother (Almeida et al., 2011), but also experience a unique
kind of loss, one that is related to specific sets of cultural and familial values (Almeida et al.,
2011).
Familial hardships also included financial hardships. These were described as a major
stressor that is expected in a situation where one needs the help of outsourced experts.
However, its scope and duration were described as unexpected and overwhelming, thus
turning into an emotional stressor. Upon their choice to support the offender, families must
endure direct and indirect financial burdens (Braman, 2007; Codd, 2013; Hairston, 2003).
Financial hardships are related to Lanskey et al.’s (2018) differentiation between “acute
pains” which are experienced at early stages of the judicial process, and “chronic pains,”
which “persisted and burdened family members over the longer term” (p. 181), since it
includes immediate expenses (e.g., legal fees) as well as long term expenses (e.g., commu-
nication expenses). Though measurable, financial hardships have much to do with the
feeling of general insecurity and other emotional burdens (Braman, 2007; Sykes, 1958).
Feelings of impotence and anxiety were related to the prisoner’s safety and physical and
mental health in prison, a phenomenon Braman (2007) referred to as “prison worries.”
These financial burdens increase mental and emotional hardships that stem from a growing
feeling of helplessness and impotence.
Negative social experiences throughout the crisis evoked negative family reactions.
Perceived negative attitudes based on kinship is not a new idea (Christian et al., 2015),
making participants’ experience of negative social reactions an almost natural process of
social shaming by proxy. Stigma related to the imprisoned son/brother creates a “ripple
effect” of various circles surrounding the family, which operate as social control agents,
generating feelings of social isolation and belittlement (Condry, 2013; Dallaire et al., 2010).
The present study strives to convey participants’ unique interpretation and reaction to
stigma. Being the subjects of gossip regarding their involvement and support, enduring
negative comments and having their privacy violated, were perceived as causing social
exclusion, threatening their sense of status in the Israeli social hierarchy, their familial
identity and their sense of agency. Parents might experience stigma differently than other
members of the prisoner’s family, as they are expected by society to teach their children
“wrong” from “right” (Wainryb & Recchia, 2017). Parents expressed self-guilt due to
knowledge of society’s expectations of them, especially during early stages of the crisis
(i.e. arrest and legal proceedings). However, as time passed and processes unfolded, all
participants expressed the belief that their specific roles as mothers, fathers, brothers and
sisters had not been damaged due to having grown closer into what seemed to be an ever-
strengthening unit that keeps reinforcing its parts.
Negative institutional experiences that family members had also influenced family
members’ attitudes, beliefs and behavior. A lack of knowledge of the justice systems’
rules, regulations and procedures resulted in catastrophic imagined thoughts and beliefs,
and increased anxiety and wariness toward the surroundings. Awareness of the prisoner’s
vulnerability together with inability to assist him, were described as the cause for ontological
insecurity (Giddens, 1991), and triggered physical and behavioral changes (e.g., poor sleep,
increased alcohol or nicotine consumption, and unrest). Other emotional pains included
anxiety regarding other family members (parents being worried about their other children
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 257
and siblings being worried about their parents), anger toward the offender, feelings of
betrayal, shame, frustration, guilt and kin-related compassion, the latter being unique to
parents and siblings. Participants repeatedly described encounters with the legal system
officials as “there’s no one to talk to,” or “it’s like talking to a wall,” emphasizing the
experience of loneliness and impotence. Thus, in addition to informal social reactions,
perceived harsh formal conduct also lead to participants’ negative experiences. The three
main complaints participants had toward state establishments and its representatives,
revolved around partial or missing information, arbitrary rules, and belittling treatment.
In accordance with the ideas of Crewe (2011), the importance of information and compre-
hension to prisoners’ experienced sense of autonomy and liberty is extremely high. The
present study suggests that feelings of “damaged” autonomy stem (or are at least augmen-
ted) from demonstrations of systemic power and a lack of information throughout the legal
process.
Families in the current study experienced the entire criminal justice system as painful. In
that sense, and in a parallel manner to the theory of “pains of imprisonment” (Crewe, 2011;
Lanskey et al., 2018; Sykes, 1958), family members also experience various pains. To them, it
was “deep” (Downes, 1988), i.e. oppressive and psychologically invasive, specifically feeling
either ignored by or having negative interactions with representatives of the law and state.
Downes (1988) described the concept of “depth” as a certain prisons’ levels of oppression
and psychological invasion. Feelings of great helplessness, impotence, and powerless
regarding the judicial and correctional systems, were described by participants as affecting
their sense of humanity and survivability, both as individuals and as a family unit. “Depth
suggests being buried far from liberty, deep below the surface of freedom” (Crewe, 2011,
p. 521). In terms of feeling a lack of security and control, the stages of trial and incarceration
were described by participants in the present study as the “deepest”.
Participants also experienced the “weight” of imprisonment through the strict rules and
regulations they had to follow as a part of the visitation process. The term “weight” is
a metaphor used to convey the degree to which imprisonment “weighed them down or bore
upon them” (Crewe, 2011, p. 521), emphasizing high levels of oppressiveness that can only
be compared to a heavy physical burden. Trial processes and the punishment periods were
also described as the “tightest” (Crewe, 2011) according to participants. “Tightness” refers
to the flexibility of power and authority, potentially being “soft” or “firm” on prisoners,
effectively generating high levels of physical and mental self-regulation. In the current
study, uncertainty about rules and procedures, as well as unclear and/or partial information
about them, created a sense of “not knowing which way to move, for fear of getting things
wrong” (Crewe, 2011, p. 522). For example, participants’ fear of institutional reaction of
retaliation toward their son/brother had they complained about negative interactions with
staff during a visit. Their choice not to take any action out of fear, portrays the system’s high
level of tightness over family members.
Counter rejection
Pains of imprisonment generate a counter-reaction amongst prisoners, who develop a sub-
culture of their own, which encompasses certain behavior codes that are based on loyalty
toward each other and distrust toward the punitive system and its representatives (Sykes &
Messinger, 1960). According to Sykes (1958), by rejecting institutional culture and forming
258 M. BENISTY ET AL.
their own sub-culture (“counter reaction”), prisoners manage to reduce “pains” (Crewe,
2011; Knudsen, 2018; Sykes, 1958). Participants described their consistent struggle to relieve
aversive psychological “pains” and regain some sense of control, as an experience of
“incarceration” that is parallel to that of their offspring. As a result of experiencing pains
and ontological insecurity in various realms of their lives due to their son or brother’s
incarceration, family members developed a set of attitudes and beliefs that generated
a general reaction that we would like to present as “counter rejection.”
In some Western countries, it was found that families tend to grow closer in times of
crises depending on their level of resilience (Braman, 2007; Christian et al., 2015; Gueta,
2018). However, the results vary greatly when it comes to family members’ relationships
and their responses to a family member’s incarceration. Some families grow closer (Afifi
et al., 2005; Braman, 2007; Lanskey et al., 2018), some grow apart while preserving parent-
hood roles (K. A. Souza et al., 2015) and some choose to completely dismiss the incarcerated
person, thus intensifying his mental ordeal during incarceration and reentry.
Based on their negative attitudes and fears of being stigmatized, participants developed
counter rejection to relieve their own familial pains of imprisonment. The themes that arose
from the findings created a two-fold process: withdrawal away from society and growing
closer as a family. For example, corresponding with previous studies (Condry, 2013;
Dallaire et al., 2010), stigma related to prisoners operates as social control agents, generating
feelings of social isolation and belittlement. Upon experiencing similar dynamics, partici-
pants either chose to (fully or partially) remove themselves from social circles, thus
becoming closer as a family unit. This was done consciously as a family decision with the
goal of protecting themselves from negative feelings, or from damage to their social status
caused by existing or potential stigma by association. Parents expressed feelings of respon-
sibility for their son’s deeds, as well as guilt and shame, alongside great desire to protect both
the offender and the other children. Siblings expressed the need to protect their parents
from being falsely accused by society and suffering the consequences. It seems that self-
blame and the need to protect each other brought parents and siblings closer together as
a family unit to become more resourceful.
Partners and children of prisoners might feel anger toward the prisoner for burdening
them with various additional responsibilities (Chui, 2010; Hannem, 2009). However, the
nuclear family expresses anger (as well as shame and disappointment) toward the son/
brother for “putting them in that position” of being stigmatized. The compassion that
parents and siblings felt, deepened their confusion and emotional instability. With time, as
they experienced negative reactions and treatment from various social (formal or informal)
circles based on stigma by association, family members embraced the narrative of support
and compassion as part of their own counter reaction to social rejection. Growing further
apart from others, while growing closer to family members is the process of counter
rejection.
From a cultural perspective, Israeli families were found to be stronger and more stable
than families in other industrialized nations, having more children on average, embracing
more traditional gender roles, and applying traditional cultural heritage as basis for the
family lifestyle (Lavee & Katz, 2003). This might be a possible explanation for the findings,
suggesting that Israeli families prioritize family values and choose to support the prisoner,
even at the cost of losing social connections, which could potentially assist them in helping
the prisoner.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 259
Fear of informal social control through stigmatization was strongly linked to social
denunciation and withdrawal. Parents and siblings grew closer together while growing
apart from their immediate social circles, “cocooning” and creating a feeling of higher
resilience levels. It seems that counter rejection both decreases familial and individual pains,
and strengthens individual and familial identities. These identities were protected and
preserved through the processes of “drifting” into the core family unit and becoming
more introverted. Participants’ reactions appear to mirror social circles’ reactions: they
chose to withhold information after feeling information was withheld from them, as with
self-exiling themselves after (and sometimes before) feeling rejected. Families tried (and
perhaps succeeded) to re-conceptualize resilience, in the sense that resilience does not rely
on social support. That might imply that familial identity could be strengthened by social
exclusion. However, in their reality as they described it – feelings of fear, uncertainty, loss of
control and helplessness were always present in their lives.
Conclusion
Parents and siblings of people who go through the legal system and its various stages have
long been ignored. Some experiences may align with what had been studied about partners
and children of prisoners, such as financial burdens, shame or worries about the prisoner’s
wellbeing. However, the uniqueness about the participants in the current study is twofold:
firstly, the basic perception of blood-relation and its obligatory role of caring for the
prisoner. In other words, taking personal responsibility over the son’s actions despite the
fact he is not a minor, and supporting him because “blood seems to be thicker than water.”
The latter was also the reason for the siblings to step up, together with the wish to help their
parents carry the weight of financial, emotional, and social struggles. Secondly, the Israeli
family tends to prioritize family values very high on its agenda, not only choosing to support
the “rotten apple,” but to never imagine there was any other option.
However, coming together as a family seems to have operated as a double-edged sword,
unifying the family unit on the one hand, yet distancing it from other social circles on the
other. Findings suggest that parents and siblings of prisoners experience parallel, additional
pains to those of the prisoner, experiencing “familial pains of imprisonment”. The latter
paint a rather detailed social picture of (contextually) innocent people who are wrongfully
accused and punished by the society in which they conduct themselves. This notion raises
inquiry regarding core aims of punishment and its effect on innocent citizens.
Participants reported feelings of “being imprisoned” in their own lives, facing dilemmas
and decision-making processes for which they did not necessarily have the suitable finan-
cial, social or mental resources. Their experience and its evolution birthed a counter
rejection process, an innovative concept that emphasizes a unique familial reaction. This
reaction is kinship-based and strengthened by negative social reactions. By disregarding or
mishandling their pains, as well as the absence of proper social services or access to them,
raising awareness to potential stigmatization and inclusive education programs – society
may be seen as approving and validating families’ pains of imprisonment. The spontaneous
response of self-exile might be an attempt (perhaps successful) to re-conceptualize a sense
of resilience, one that does not rely on outside sources. Finally, participants’ rejection of
different institutional and social circles stemmed from loss of trust and commitment toward
the state and community, potentially affecting odds of rehabilitation for the prisoner and his
260 M. BENISTY ET AL.
nuclear family unit. Disbelief in the society’s will and ability to assist might harm the family
unit as a potentially positive factor in one’s rehabilitation process.
Limitations and further recommendations
The current study has some inevitable limitations. First, more voices within a specific unit
should be heard, in order to get a more elaborate description of the phenomenon. A larger
sample might provide distinctive experiences of different roles. Exploring the phenomenon
from role or gender perspectives could be of great theoretical and practical value. Second, the
sample was comprised of people who chose to stay in touch with their incarcerated family
member. Findings may differ when it comes to family members who chose to detach
themselves from imprisoned sons/brothers. Third, future studies might focus on familial
reactions to crimes their family member committed that directly affected them (such as
domestic violence or theft), in order to explore and differentiate motivations to support the
prisoner. Efforts to keep track of and retain participants for longitudinal studies through which
long-term influences and hardships should be examined, is also advised. Overall, considering
how little research has been done on the perspective of parents and siblings of incarcerated
men and the consequences of imprisonment on nuclear families, the present study was
a positive step to better understanding the impact of incarceration on wider family systems.
Disclosure statement
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID
Moran Benisty http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9757-3424
References
Afifi, T. D., Olson, L. N., & Armstrong, C. (2005). The chilling effect and family secrets: Examining
the role of self protection, other protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communication
Research, 31(4), 564–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00883.x
Aitken, D. (2017). How young people experience the imprisonment of a family member: Critical
reections on policy [Doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved July 5, 2019, from http://hdl.handle.net/
1842/22877
Al, C. M., Stams, G. J. J., Asscher, J. J., & Laan, P. H. (2014). A programme evaluation of the family
crisis intervention program (FCIP): Relating programme characteristics to change. Child and
Family Social Work, 19(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00896.x
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 261
Almeida, J., Subramanian, S. V., Kawachi, I., & Molnar, B. E. (2011). Is blood thicker than water?
Social support, depression and the modifying role of ethnicity/nativity status. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 65(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.092213
Arditti, J. A. (2012). Child trauma within the context of parental incarceration: A family process
perspective. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4(3), 181–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-
2589.2012.00128.x
Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of
incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1741-3729.2003.00195.x
Barnard, M. (2005). Drugs in the family: The impact on parents and siblings. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Bartlett, T. S. (2019). Supporting incarcerated fathers: An exploration of research and practice in
Victoria, Australia. Probation Journal, 66(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0264550518820115
Braman, D. (2007). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America.
University of Michigan Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breen, J. (2008). The ripple effects of imprisonment on prisoners’ families. Working Notes, 57, 19–24.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25660536
Christian, J., Martinez, D. J., & Martinez, D. (2015). Beyond the shadows of the prison: Agency and
resilience among prisoners’ family members. In J. A. Arditti & T. le Roux (Eds.), And justice for all
(Vol. 4, pp. 59–84). Michigan Publishing.
Chui, W. H. (2010). ‘Pains of imprisonment’: Narratives of the women partners and children of the
incarcerated. Child & Family Social Work, 15(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.
2009.00659.x
Codd, H. (2007). Prisoners’ families and resettlement: A critical analysis. The Howard Journal of
Criminal Justice, 46(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00472.x
Codd, H. (2013). In the shadow of prison: Families, imprisonment and criminal justice. Routledge.
Comfort, M. (2007). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. University of
Chicago Press.
Condry, R. (2013). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for relatives of serious oenders.
Willan.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435–437.
https://ezproxy.beitberl.ac.il:2917/docview/1849700459?accountid=41221January2018
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage publications.
Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment and
Society, 13(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422172
Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). Teachers’ experiences with and expectations of
children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 281–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.04.001
Dettbarn, E. (2012). Effects of long-term incarceration: A statistical comparison of two expert
assessments of two experts at the beginning and the end of incarceration. International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry, 35(3), 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.02.014
Downes, D. (1988). Contrasts in tolerance. Oxford University Press.
Duthé, G., Hazard, A., & Kensey, A. (2014). Trends and risk factors for prisoner suicide in France.
Population, 69(4), 463–493. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu.1404.0519
Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2003). The adolescent children of incarcerated parents. In J. Travis &
M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children,
families, and communities (pp. 233–258). The Urban Institute Press.
Eurochips-Ayre, L., Philbrick, K., & Reiss, M. (eds). (2006). Children of imprisoned parents: European
perspectives on good practice. Eurochips.
262 M. BENISTY ET AL.
Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the families of
convicted sex offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.
2007.20.2.88
Fingerman, K. L., Kim, K., Davis, E. M., Furstenberg, F., Jr, Birditt, K. S., & Zarit, S. H. (2015). “I’ll
give you the world”: Socioeconomic differences in parental support of adult children. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 77(4), 844–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12204
Flynn, C. (2014). Getting there and being there: Visits to prisons in Victoria− the experiences of
women prisoners and their children. Probation Journal, 61(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0264550513512887
Giallo, R., & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2006). Child, parent and family factors as predictors of adjustment for
siblings of children with a disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(12), 937–948.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00928.x
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford
university press.
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research (4th ed.). Sage.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey Bass.
Gueta, K. (2018). The experience of prisoners’ parents: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Family
Process, 57(3), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12312
Ha, T., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A. A., & Engels, R. C. (2009). Marital quality, parenting, and
adolescent internalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 23(2), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015204
Hairston, C. F. (2003). Prisoners and their families: Parenting issues during incarceration. In J. Travis
& M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and re-entry on children,
families and communities (pp. 259–284). The Urban Institute Press.
Hannem, S. N. (2009). Marked by association: Stigma, marginalisation, gender and the families of male
prisoners in Canada [Doctoral dissertation], Carleton University.
Israeli Prison Service. (2019). Annual organization report, 2018. Retrieved July 5, 2019, from https://
www.gov.il/he/Departments/publications/reports/2018_riport
Katz, S., & Florian, V. (1987). A comprehensive theoretical model of psychological reaction to loss.
The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 16(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.2190/
YGRX-AA2B-XUY5-F7DL
Knudsen, E. M. (2018). The systemic invisibility of children of prisoners. In R. Condry & P. Scharff
Smith (Eds.), Prisons, punishment, and the family: Towards a new sociology of punishment? (pp.
288–303). Oxford University Press.
Lanskey, C., Lösel, F., Markson, L., & Souza, K. (2018). Prisoners’ families, penal power, and the
referred pains of imprisonment. In R. Condry & P. Scharff Smith (Eds.), Prisons, punishment, and
the family: Towards a new sociology of punishment? (pp. 181–195). Oxford University Press.
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel: Between tradition and modernity. Marriage &
Family Review, 35(1–2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v35n01_11
Machel, H. (2014). The convict’s family as a participant in his penal resocialisation readaptation and
social reintegration. Resocjalizacja Polska, 7(1), 203–214. http://libcom.linuxpl.info/resocjalizacja/
archiwum/wp-content/dokumenty/streszczenia/PJSR%207%20(2014)%20203-214.
pdfFebruary2017
MacNeil, G., Church, W. T., Nelson-Gardell, D., & Young, S. R. (2015). What’s a parent to do? How
parents respond to notification of a child’s police detention. Journal of Family Social Work, 18(5),
349–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2015.1065457
McCarthy, 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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517745892
McCubbin, L. D., & McCubbin, H. I. (2013). Resilience in ethnic family systems: A relational theory
for research and practice. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 175–195).
Springer.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 263
Meek, R., Lowe, K., & McPhillips, K. (2010). The impact of a custodial sentence on the siblings of
young offenders: Matching services to needs. Prison Service Journal, 190, 26–31. http://eprints.
soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/154713
Michael, R. (2018). Contribution of family relationships to the social–emotional functioning of
children of incarcerated fathers. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15548732.2017.1311290
Mills, A. (2005). Great expectations?“: A review of the role of prisoners‘ families in England and
Wales. In Selected Papers from the 2004 British criminology conference (Vol. 7, pp. 6–9),
Portsmouth, UK.
Mills, A., & Codd, H. (2008). Prisoners’ families and offender management: Mobilizing social capital.
Probation Journal, 55(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550507085675
Mitchell, A. M., Kim, Y., Prigerson, H. G., & Mortimer-Stephens, M. (2004). Complicated grief in
survivors of suicide. Crisis, 25(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910.25.1.12
Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. George Allen and Unwin.
Mowen, T. J., & Visher, C. A. (2015). Drug use and crime after incarceration: The role of family
support and family conflict. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.
2013.771207
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug
use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 138(2), 175–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026407
Naylor, A., & Prescott, P. (2004). Invisible children? The need for support groups for siblings of
disabled children. British Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
0952-3383.2004.00355.x
Phillips, S. D., & Gates, T. (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding the stigmatization of
children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 286–294. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10826-010-9391-6
Reynolds, J. (2017). Phenomenology, naturalism and science: A hybrid and heretical proposal.
Routledge.
Sampson, R. J. (2011). The incarceration ledger. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(3), 819–828.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00756.x
Sharratt, K., Porter, J., & Truman, C. (2014). Nowhere else to turn: Key findings from an evaluation of
the national offenders’ families helpline. Prison Service Journal, 216, 30–35. http://eprints.hud.ac.
uk/id/eprint/21719
Sheehy, D. (2010). ‘Staying connected’: Families’ experiences of visiting an imprisoned relative and
implications for social work practice. Critical Social Thinking: Policy and Practice, 2, 140–156.
https://www.ucc.ie/en/appsoc/resconf/conf/cst/vol2/theme4policyandpractice/DanielleSheehy.pdf
Smith, C. J., & Young, D. S. (2017). A retrospective look at the experience of parental incarceration
and family reentry during adolescence. Social Work in Public Health, 32(8), 475–488. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19371918.2017.1360819
song, H., Woo, Y., Lee, H. D., & Cochran, J. K. (2018). The dynamics of intra-family relationships
during incarceration and the implications for children of incarcerated parents. International
Journal of Oender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(12), 3775–3796. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0306624X18755481
Souza, K., Lanskey, C., Markson, L., & Lösel, F. (2019). Partners of incarcerated men: Questioning
caring stereotypes. In M. Hutton & D. Moran (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison and the
family (pp. 203–226). Palgrave Macmillan.
Souza, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12033
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum-security prison. Princeton
University Press.
Sykes, G. M., & Messinger, S. (1960). The inmate social system: Theoretical studies in the organiza-
tion of the prison. Social Science Research Council Pamphlet, 15, 1–30.
264 M. BENISTY ET AL.
Tadros, E., Fye, J. M., McCrone, C. L., & Finney, N. (2019). Incorporating multicultural couple and
family therapy into incarcerated settings. International Journal of Oender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 63(4), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18823442
Tasca, M. (2018). The (dis) continuity of parenthood among incarcerated fathers: An analysis of
caregivers’ accounts. Child Care in Practice, 24(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.
2017.1420040
Tasca, M., Rodriguez, N., & Zatz, M. S. (2011). Family and residential instability in the context of
paternal and maternal incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(3), 231–247. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093854810391632
Tripodi, S. J. (2010). The influence of social bonds on recidivism: A study of Texas male prisoners.
Victims & Oenders, 5(4), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2010.509660
Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological
research and writing. Left Coast Press.
Wainryb, C., & Recchia, H. (2017). Mother–child conversations about children’s moral wrongdoing:
A constructivist perspective on moral socialization. In N. Budwig, E. Turiel, & P. D. Zelazo (Eds.),
New perspectives on human development: Rethinking cognitive, social, and language & commu-
nicative development (pp. 182–208).
Walsh, F. (Ed.). (2012). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. Guilford Press.
Wiesner, M., & Shukla, K. (2018). Family deviance, self-control, deviant lifestyles, and youth violent
victimization: A latent indirect effects analysis. Victims & Oenders, 13(4), 504–525. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1381211
Wildeman, C., Schnittker, J., & Turney, K. (2012). Despair by association? The mental health of
mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. American Sociological Review, 77(2),
216–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411436234
Wildeman, C., & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2),
157–177. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0006
World Health Organization. (1999). Mental health promotion in prisons: Report on a WHO meeting,
The Hague, Netherlands. 18-21 November 1998 (No. EUR/ICP/LVNG 02 08 01). WHO Regional
Office for Europe.
VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 265
