Within the Resettled Community

Obtaining the support of the community is pivotal in the reintegration process. Otherwise offenders will remain physically resettled but socially and emotionally unintegrated, a not uncommon event in this study as later chapters will demonstrate. The importance of developing positive community support was recognised in the British Columbia Crime Reduction Strategy which listed the creation of Community Support Teams as an outcome of expanding rehabilitation treatment of offenders through the private sector (Griffiths et al. 2007, p. 33). In this respect, McAlister (2009) highlights the significance of Community Relation Boards (CRBs) which seem similar to the Community Support Teams described by Griffiths et al. (2007) above.

The role of CRBs is to help the community and correctional institutions come together as partners in efforts to deal with the consequences of crime and incarceration (McAlister 2009). The need for this function is validated by the fact that some offenders discharged from prison may pose risks to their home community and hence local citizens will need reliable

83

information and assurances about the management of their resettlement. People from prison may also pose no risks but may nonetheless be seen in negative stereotyped ways and this too may need to be tackled by services such as CRB (McAlister 2009). This explains why the extant literature identifies antisocial delabeling/status-return/recognition ceremonies or redemption rituals (Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975; Travis 2005; Laws and Ward 2011) as ways in which negative mind-sets of community residents may be moderated in order to obtain their support.

3.2.4.1 Developing Positive Support through AntiSocial Delabeling

A US study based on a sample of 95,919 men and women adjudicated by the courts, established that persons who were formally labelled were significantly more likely to recidivate within two years when compared to those who were not labelled (Chirricos et al. 2007). Becker’s (2008) classic theory of labelling argues that rule creators in ascribing a label may engender negative and unmerited stereotypes based on popular misconstructions. Those with the power to create such labels have been referred to as ‘moral entrepreneurs’ who typically are at the centre of rule creation and with a vested interest in ensuring that certain behaviours are proscribed (Watts et al. 2008). Labels give rise to what Goffman (2009b) identified as ‘spoiled identities’.

Combating ‘Massa [Master] Identities’ with Reintegrative Shaming

Chapter 2 introduced some of the potential challenges faced by Jamaican ex-prisoners (and their communities too) in being stigmatised as criminogenic and how the stigma or labelling may become an over-riding identity that may impede behavioural change needed to lead a reintegrated lifestyle. This in turn highlights the importance of delabelling ceremonies in helping offenders develop their ‘redemptive scripts’ or new self-narratives essential to desist

84

from crime. Again, these ceremonies involve a respected member of society helping to reinstate offenders as law-abiding citizens through publicly announcing and certifying that they have changed (Meisenhelder 1982, cited in Maruna et al. 2004, p.275). This certification stage of desistance is more likely to occur if persons providing such witness represent official sources (Maruna and Toch 2005), which in the Jamaican case are likely to be ministers of religion and justices of the peace.

This process is closely aligned with reintegrative shaming practices such as circles of support which bring together community members and offenders in an event which evokes shame in offenders, whilst their reintegration needs are met by community members (McAlinden 2013). In some jurisdictions this is the preferred method used to manage sex offenders (McAlinden 2013). However in Jamaica it is being piloted and involves low-risk offenders and the use of various techniques to repair harms caused and promote values of mutual understanding, respect, hope, integrity, empowerment, interconnectedness and accountability (Durrant and Ward 2015). Despite some concerns about due process, accountability and legitimacy of the reintegrative shaming process (McAlinden 2013), the impact of RJ values and practices may have benefit for even the most dangerous offenders who at some point in their life course may return to a community which is likely to need support in reintegrating these individuals.

Special Challenge of the Buju Banton Syndrome

It was evidenced in Headley’s (2006) study that a weak sense of belonging promulgated by the ‘buju syndrome’, which is a form of deportee-related stigma, makes it difficult for some involuntarily returned migrants (IRMs) or repatriates to peaceably reenter and resettle within their former communities. This difficulty was linked to metaphors within the lyrics of a

85

famous reggae song in Jamaica entitled Deportees (Things Change) (Myrie et al. 1993), which appears to support the dis-integrative shaming of IRMs. IRMs are discredited on the basis of strongly held and at times unfounded beliefs (see Headley et al. 2005; Headley 2006; Madjd-Sadjadi and Alleyne 2007; Charles 2010) that all deportees wasted a privileged opportunity to improve their economic and social status by migrating. Hence they are often cast as undeserving of any second chance of living a normal life which might entail being able to depend on their neighbours for support when they return to Jamaican society (see Appendix P for Lyrics).

This deportee-related ‘buju’ stigma is a characteristic pattern of behaviour whereby the type and level of support provided to IRMs who return especially with little material wealth, is determined by the type of mutual friendships maintained while they and their families were overseas. As such the lyrics of the song seem to capture the prevailing attitude of locals towards individuals or families who failed to maintain social ties with their home

communities following their emigration to an overseas jurisdiction in search of a better life. Therefore individuals who were able to send remittances (see Madjd-Sadjadi and Alleyne 2007) and ‘clothes barrels’ (see Moberg 2008; Crawford-Brown and Melrose 2013) to family and friends left-behind were those who were likely to receive reciprocal support following their return.

What seems less understood by the Jamaican public however is that not all IRMs are ‘deportees’ (see Headley 2006). This lack of understanding encourages the debasement of IRMs in general. Whilst both deportation and administrative removal are tools for

immigration control, deportation is usually reserved for serious/violent foreign national offenders (FNOs) (Ashworth and Zedner 2014). In accordance with the Immigration Act

86

of1971 a deportation order made in the UK sanctions a detention pending removal usually of FNOs over age 17 who have been convicted for an offence which is punishable with

imprisonment or whose deportation is otherwise deemed by the Secretary of State to be conducive to the public good (Mitchell 2006). In comparison, the circumstances under which FNOs may become liable to administrative removal based on section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, tend to be for less serious offences often related to failure to comply with conditions of leave to enter or remain in the UK, the use of deception to obtain leave to remain in the UK or being the spouse, civil partner and/or child under 18 of a FNO in respect of whom removal directions have been given (Mitchell 2006). In this latter case involving the partners and children of FNOs who may also be removed (even though they may not have been complicit), upon returning to Jamaica they too are likely to fall victim to deportee- related stigma even though they were not deported.

Headley (2006) has championed the cause for IRMs to be treated as citizens and challenges popular misunderstandings about Jamaicans who have been involuntarily removed from overseas jurisdictions (see also Barnes and Seepersad 2008). In their study, Headley et al. (2005) showed how deportations to Jamaica from the US between 1997 and 2003 were mainly for non-violent crimes. In addition these IRMs were at older ages which made them less likely than their younger counterparts to reengage in criminality when repatriated (Headley et al. 2005). This aspect of the age-crime relationship merits further attention as below.

Ontogenesis and the Age-crime Curve

The notion of an age-crime curve stems from a graphical depiction of age-crime relationships developed from extensive analyses of cross-sectional data on criminal careers (Loeber et al. 2015). It shows how crime declines sharply across the life span after rising steeply at the age

87

of 12, peaking in the late teenage years at about ages 16 and 18 and gradually declining in the remaining age distribution (Sampson and Laub 1995; Howell 2010). The peak remains even though it may be higher or lower at different periods and the peak age may vary by a couple of years (Walsh and Bolen 2012).

This age distribution of crime indicates when a youth population is likely to start engaging in offending and the age at which the largest proportion of this population engages in offending (Loeber 2012). As such, there seems to be general consensus within the criminological literature that in comparison to adult offenders proportionally more adolescents and young adults resort to violent behaviour (Payne 2007; Tremblay 2009), and account for greater involvement in conventional crimes such as robbery (Desroches 2002). These observations resonate with findings from Robotham’s (2003) study which suggests that Jamaican youth aged 15 to 29 are at a high risk of engaging in criminality.

The age-crime curve also shows that participation in street crime is supposed to peak in late adolescence and disappear before the offender reaches age 30 (Maruna 2001; Shapland et al. 2012). However, whilst Jamaican youth are more likely to commit their first criminal offence within the 15 to 29 age cohort, the Robotham (2003) study also found that between the ages of 25 and 40 they may be committing a second or third offence. Examination of data gathered by the PIOJ (2013) revealed that a majority of persons arrested for murder, shooting and robbery in Jamaica in 2013 were aged between 16 and 30 years of age. This raises concerns about the number of juveniles in Jamaica who mature into career criminals. That said, involvement in crime as a juvenile is known to be a poor predictor of later adult offending because after age 30 individuals are likely to mature out of crime (Sampson and Laub 2001, cited in Ezell 2007, p.31).

88 Generative Commitments

It may also be that some older persons rather than maturing out of crime, have shifted to less visible criminal roles (Steffensmeier et al. 1989), and become more skilful at avoiding detection, or are spending more time in prison (Maruna 2001). This last group of individuals may also be those who would be least expected to engage in generative prosocial activities in the community. However the status of the Jamaican community don described in the previous chapter, offers some qualification to this supposition. The don, despite or because of any crime connections, is viewed as a hero and protector largely because of his/her generative commitments to the neighbourhood which is usually disadvantaged. Nonetheless, for some offenders involvement in generative community activities may help to support their

desistance (Maruna 2001) and provide significant others in the locality some necessary validation of their reform (McNeill and Maruna 2008).

However at the root exists the fundamental matter of agency and an individual’s capacity to persevere despite adversity. If individuals do not believe that they can produce desired effects by taking positive action (Bandura 2010), it is likely that all the above programmes and interventions could be of little impact. In which case, offenders may become locked into trajectories defined in significant part by the consequences of the choices they make (Elder Jr 1994; Bandura 2000; Sampson and Laub 2005). Hence, this is the reason that agency is given such prominence in later chapters but without eclipsing key institutional and structural

features of crime and reintegration in Jamaica.

3.2 Conclusion

There is an increasing focus among practitioners and policy-makers on identifying

programmes and strategies that help offenders successfully reintegrate into their communities without reoffending (Griffiths et al. 2007). The factors that drive offenders to reoffend are

89

complex and should not be understood solely in relation to the length of time spent in prison. Harsher prison treatment, overcrowding and the number of deaths in the facility of detention all help to increase the probability of offenders reoffending (Drago et al. 2009). A long held assumption is that prison environments are largely unsupportive of positive behavioural change (Banister et al. 1973). Hence there has been much focus across many jurisdictions on reintegration processes. For example, finding ways to manage or moderate ex-prisoner stigmatisation within the community; acknowledging the impact of the age curve – of growing-out of crime; the state making the most of non-custodial sentencing options; embracing the continuum of care approach; recognising the importance of human agency in the behavioural change process.

From such initiatives described in this chapter, relating to both Jamaica and wider afield, it can be seen that effective reintegration is not an issue that can be resolved by criminal justice institutions alone. Critical to the process are the roles, attitudes, activities, settings and relationships of individuals, families, communities and support services in civil society. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 address these much neglected aspects of the Jamaican context and in so doing will draw upon key concepts, policies and insights outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. Next, we move to Chapter 4 which describes the methodology and methods employed in seeking to understand the social reintegration phenomenon in Jamaica through the views of offenders and those who seek to assist them.

90