(Re)constructing Prisoner Death Investigations: A Case Study of Suicide Investigations from England and Wales

Philippa Tomczak, Kaitlyn Quinn, Catherine Traynor, Lucy Wainwright
{"title":"(Re)constructing Prisoner Death Investigations: A Case Study of Suicide Investigations from England and Wales","authors":"Philippa Tomczak, Kaitlyn Quinn, Catherine Traynor, Lucy Wainwright","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2023.75","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because states must rebut the presumption of responsibility, all prisoner deaths must be investigated. These investigations frequently illustrate the tip of an iceberg of rights abuses and systemic hazards but have largely escaped analysis in prison-monitoring scholarship. Focusing on suicides, we assemble some of the first evidence illustrating how the staff of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, who investigate prisoner deaths in England and Wales, seek to prevent further deaths. Ombudsman investigations are widely regarded as ineffective, yet there are competing constructions regarding why this is and what could be done to improve outcomes. As a result of organizational norms and constraints, ombudsman staff have offered narrow accounts of prisoner suicides, focusing on the failure of frontline staff to comply with prison policies. By contrast, prison staff and coroners have focused on systemic hazards or “accidents waiting to happen,” including imprisoning people with severe mental illness, illegal drugs, unsafe facilities, and inadequate staffing. These differing constructions lock penal actors into an unproductive cycle of blame shifting that contributes to high suicide numbers. We reconceptualize prisoner deaths as occurring at the intersection of systemic hazards, organizational contexts, and individual errors. We hope that this reconceptualization facilitates broader investigations that are more likely to prevent prisoner deaths.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Social Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2023.75","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Because states must rebut the presumption of responsibility, all prisoner deaths must be investigated. These investigations frequently illustrate the tip of an iceberg of rights abuses and systemic hazards but have largely escaped analysis in prison-monitoring scholarship. Focusing on suicides, we assemble some of the first evidence illustrating how the staff of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, who investigate prisoner deaths in England and Wales, seek to prevent further deaths. Ombudsman investigations are widely regarded as ineffective, yet there are competing constructions regarding why this is and what could be done to improve outcomes. As a result of organizational norms and constraints, ombudsman staff have offered narrow accounts of prisoner suicides, focusing on the failure of frontline staff to comply with prison policies. By contrast, prison staff and coroners have focused on systemic hazards or “accidents waiting to happen,” including imprisoning people with severe mental illness, illegal drugs, unsafe facilities, and inadequate staffing. These differing constructions lock penal actors into an unproductive cycle of blame shifting that contributes to high suicide numbers. We reconceptualize prisoner deaths as occurring at the intersection of systemic hazards, organizational contexts, and individual errors. We hope that this reconceptualization facilitates broader investigations that are more likely to prevent prisoner deaths.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(再)囚犯死亡调查的建构:以英格兰和威尔士自杀调查为例
由于各国必须反驳责任推定,因此必须调查所有囚犯的死亡。这些调查经常显示出侵犯人权和系统性危害的冰山一角,但在监狱监测方面的学术研究基本上没有对其进行分析。以自杀为重点,我们收集了一些初步证据,说明负责调查英格兰和威尔士囚犯死亡情况的监狱和缓刑监察专员的工作人员如何设法防止更多的死亡。申诉专员的调查被普遍认为是无效的,然而,关于为什么会这样,以及可以做些什么来改善结果,人们有不同的看法。由于组织规范和限制,申诉专员的工作人员对囚犯自杀的描述很狭隘,重点是一线工作人员未能遵守监狱政策。相比之下,监狱工作人员和验尸官关注的是系统性危害或“即将发生的事故”,包括监禁患有严重精神疾病、非法药物、设施不安全以及人员配备不足的人。这些不同的结构将罪犯锁定在一个毫无成效的相互指责的循环中,这导致了高自杀率。我们将囚犯死亡重新定义为发生在系统危害、组织环境和个人错误的交叉点上。我们希望这种重新界定有助于开展更广泛的调查,从而更有可能防止囚犯死亡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Atrato River as a Bearer and Co-creator of Rights: Unveiling Black People’s Legal Mobilization Processes in Colombia Agency Entrenchment: Sociological Legitimacy in a Politically Contested Occupation The False Marking Gold Rush: A Case Study of the Private Enforcement of Public Laws The Legal Realists on Political Economy The Paradox of Sanctuary: How Punitive Exceptions Converge to Criminalize and Punish Latinos/as
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1