This is a guest post by Ailie Rennie, a PhD student at the University of Cambridge and the lead for a new post-release project at the Prison Reform Trust, in which she discusses her work on the release of mandatory life-sentenced prisoners.
Following a lengthy period of imprisonment and a successful Parole Board hearing, over two hundred mandatory life-sentenced prisoners are released back into the community each year on life licence. As a result of being convicted of and having served a sentence for murder, these individuals face strict licencing conditions, which if breached could result in their return to prison. This blog examines the relationship between individuals released from a life sentence and those responsible for making recommendations about recall decisions (their probation officer(s)) in the first five months of their release.
The findings which follow are based on a study I conducted into the release of 20 men serving mandatory life sentences in England and Wales between April 2022 and May 2023. I interviewed each man twice, once before his release from prison after a successful Parole Board hearing, and a second time in the community at a probation office.
Experiences with probation post-release
In my study, 75 percent of the men had never met their probation officer prior to their release, as most were released to a new geographic area as a result of licence conditions restricting the areas they were allowed to be in. Despite this, almost all participants characterised their relationship(s) with probation as being positive, trusting, and constructive:
“[PO] has full respect for me… He got to know me as a person, as well as my crime, and ultimately, what I was looking to achieve and… you can’t ask for more. Somebody who is doing their job on a professional capacity, and sees you in the light that you want to be seen. It takes your breath away. (Andrew, T2)”
Feeling able to trust their probation officer and turn to them for help provided comfort to these men, easing concerns upon returning to the outside world. For Andrew, ‘[i]t’s all about trust, you know, and building that relationship and having that rapport’. These men firmly believed that probation was there to help, not hinder, them: ‘they’re not just there to recall you, they want us to stay out’ (Connor). Developing positive working relationships encouraged and enabled the men to be more open and honest with their probation officer, and to ‘speak freely’ (Derek) during supervisions. This did not just include talking about their successes and progression, but also (perhaps more importantly) discussing the challenges they were facing, as Wayne described:
I don’t have to hide anything, if I’m upset, if I’m angry, if I’m tearful, if I’m fed up, I don’t have to hide anything in here. So there’s no mask for anybody, I don’t have to pretend to them that I’m happy or I’m content. (T2)
These men also described to me the ways in which their probation officer provided emotional and psychological assistance, most obviously by enhancing the individual’s sense of value and worth. For example, Wayne’s probation officers ‘noticed straight away’ that he was struggling with his mental health upon release, and assisted him in seeking medical treatment, checking in more frequently to see how he was doing. Having someone to talk to about his mental health helped Wayne to feel less isolated and alone, which was a big comfort. The support provided upon release even made Danny question why ‘people moan about probation’ when he ‘actually love[d] coming’.
Respect and humanity
Being treated with respect and humanity enabled the men to feel ‘more human’, as if their probation officer was seeing them as ‘a person’ and not ‘an offender’ (James). Building genuine and caring relationships went beyond an assessment of ‘risk’ and instead provided these men with validation and recognition of their attempts to lead a normal and prosocial life. For James, probation was considered to be the place he most belonged, where he felt he could be ‘completely naked’ without any fear of judgement.
There were two participants who described relationships with their probation officer(s) that were significantly worse than anticipated. For these men, probation had hindered, rather than helped, their reintegration. This was largely related to the addition of new licence conditions (that the men felt were unnecessary to manage their ‘risk’) and the degree of judgment they experienced at the hands of their probation officer (regarding who they were and what they had done). They begrudged how criminal justice professionals, and in particular those responsible for them remaining in the free world, failed to acknowledge their transformation, viewing them instead with great suspicion and as an enduring risk.
Further, both men were told by their probation officer that they had almost been recalled for minor incidents arising from miscommunication, but were instead given warnings. This generated a sense of fear and apprehension for these men who felt that probation were trying to ‘catch [them] out’ (Gary) rather than support their resettlement. These men felt that probation was being done to them, rather than with them.
Most people on probation “overwhelmingly positive”
As a result, the vast majority of participants (with the exception of two) described their relationship with probation as being overwhelmingly positive, which was surprising given previous research (including my own with Professor Ben Crewe). Despite being largely complimentary about the treatment they received, these men still criticised the operational need to be supervised and managed in the community. This suggests that positive and supportive treatment by supervising officers is not sufficient by itself to overcome broader and more entrenched negative attitudes related to licencing and supervision.
