Homecomer: Reconstruction of relations in families of former prisoners

The article focuses on the family relations of people sentenced to imprisonment. The aim of the project is to study the relations between former prisoners and their family members, particularly to define various strategies of rebuilding family relations, applied by former prisoners in the process of social adaptation. Based on the reconstruction of biographies of adult people who experienced the imprisonment of a parent during their childhood, adolescence and early adulthood, the author characterised various strategies of rebuilding relations, as well as difficulties and setbacks connected with breaking and losing the bond. The study made use of qualitative strategies of sociological analyses (biographical method). 31 narrative interviews with people who experienced penitentiary isolation of their parent (adult children of prisoners, aged between 18 and 70) were conducted as part of the study.

The Social Injustice of Parental Imprisonment

Children of prisoners are often negatively affected by their parents’ incarceration, which raises issues of justice. A common view is that the many negative effects associated with parental imprisonment are unjust, simply because children of prisoners are impermissibly harmed or unjustly punished by their parents’ incarceration. We argue that proposals of this kind have problems with accounting for cases where it is intuitive that prison might create social injustices for children of prisoners. Therefore, we suggest that in addition to the question of whether children of prisoners are impermissibly harmed, we should ask whether the inequalities that these children endure because of their parent’s incarceration are objectionable from a social justice perspective. To answer this latter question, we examine the negative effects associated with parental imprisonment from the perspective of luck egalitarianism. We develop a luck egalitarian account that incorporates insights from the philosophy of childhood. On our account, children of prisoners might endure two different types of objectionable inequalities, since they are often deprived of resources that are important for ensuring fair equality of opportunity in adulthood, but also because they are likely to suffer inequalities in terms of childhood welfare. After defending this account, we explore its implications for policy.

At the origins of juvenile justice – the life and fate of Valery Mikhailovich Levitsky

The article reviews main milestones in the life and creative work of Valery Mikhailovich Levitsky, one of the active members ofthe Kyiv Patronage Society, justice of peace, first judge of the Kyiv Juvenile Court, journalist – in the context of social and politi calprocesses of the first half of the twentieth century. His scientific, political and public positions before and after 1917 are presen ted.The future judge was born on May 12, 1886 in the city of Halych, Kostroma province. In 1909, Valery Mikhailovich graduatedfrom the Law Faculty of St. Volodymyr Kyiv University with a first-class honors degree. While still a student he joined the public acti -vities of the Kyiv Patronage Society. First of all, we note that the Kyiv period of Levitsky’s creative activity was quite fruitful. He mainlydealt with problems of caring for homeless children and children of prisoners. He was elected a justice of peace, and in late 1913and early 1914 a judge of the Kyiv Juvenile Court.By 1916, Levitsky was in charge of all adolescent refugee facilities on the Southwestern Front and organized assistance to childrenaffected by the war. He also remained an active member of the Kyiv Patronage Board, a member of the Board and auditor of theKyiv Correctional Colony Society. Back in 1912, he was left to prepare for a professorship at the Department of Criminal Law of theKyiv University. During this period, he published many articles and reports on the activities of the juvenile court, which were creditedto him as his academic papers.In 1917, many events took place in his life. Valery Mikhailovich takes an active part in the political scene. Thus, in July 1917 hewas included in the electoral list of cadets for the Kyiv City Duma elections. But he did not become a vowel because he did not getenough votes. However, in August he became a member of the Ukrainian Central Council. At the end of the year, Levitsky took part inthe elections to the Ukrainian Constituent Assembly.Disappointed in failures and dissatisfied with the German occupation and Hetman P. Skoropadsky, Levitsky was looking for likemindedpeople and found them in the person of the editor of the newspaper «Kievlyanin» – V. Shulgin and his supporters.Valery Mikhailovich can be attributed to those who did not accept the revolution and took an active part in the White Movement.The year of 1917 dramatically changed his life. Then there was emigration. The further work in the specialty was impossible, so Le -vitsky actively proved himself in the field of journalism. Valery Mikhailovich Levitsky died on April 27, 1946 in Paris. Perhaps thisstudy will bring us a little closer to understanding the tragic events of that time.

Out of the Shadows: Republican Criminology and the Children of Prisoners

The Australian criminal justice system pays little attention to the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ dependent children, even though these children are often very vulnerable. In this article, it is argued that the system can better respond to children of prisoners by adopting Braithwaite and Pettit’s theory of republican criminology as a normative framework. Specifically, the relevance of Braithwaite and Pettit’s argument that the criminal justice system should have the maximisation of personal dominion as its primary goal is explored, in terms of its application to the children of prisoners. By orienting the criminal justice system towards this goal, it is possible for the needs of children to be viewed as an integral part of the business of criminal justice rather than as secondary or adjunct considerations.

Who Cares About the Children of Prisoners in New Zealand? A Journey from Research to Practice

Before 2009, little research had been undertaken in New Zealand on the situation of the children of prisoners. Agencies such as Pillars Inc, a charity supporting these children, looking to undertake evidencebased practice, were forced to rely on models imported from other countries, especially the United States. This is despite the fact that New Zealand has a high level of imprisonment, at 193 per 100,000, approximately one third higher than Australia. In response to this, Pillars sought and received funding for a two-year research study and interviewed 368 men and women in nine prisons, and 72 families of prisoners (with the families, at least one caregiver, and sometimes a child, interviewed). Reports were produced on the findings in 2009 and 2010, and in 2011 a further report considered the implications for research and practice. As well, a practice manual was produced, along with resource kits for teachers and GPs. A large number of seminars and report-back meetings were held with government agencies, and a report was commissioned by Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, on the Māori data, which constituted half of the overall data. Subsequently, a number of further opportunities for research and dialogue have emerged. This article reports the core findings of the study: that the children of prisoners are not doing well, and that social support and justice agencies, whilst often having good intentions, contribute to this through poor, absent or inappropriate practices. The article concludes with a discussion of the impact of this research programme on policy and practice in New Zealand.

Not Seen and Not Heard: Ethical Considerations of Research with Children of Prisoners

The ethical complexities associated with research with children are well recognised and have been debated extensively within the childhood literature. However, ethical issues occurring in research with children about sensitive issues, such as parental incarceration, and the practical solutions required to address such issues, are less well described. This paper draws on recent experiences of a research project conducted in the Australian Capital Territory exploring the needs of children of prisoners. It discusses three key interrelated methodological and ethical challenges observed by the researchers. While there is no doubt that considerable care needs to be taken to identify ethical and effective ways to undertake research with this group of children, we argue that applying a process of ethical reflexivity will assist researchers in planning and conducting ethical and methodologically valid research with children of prisoners.