Experiences of Vulnerability in Adult Male Prisoners: An Integrative Review

• Author: Vanessa Heaslip,Caspian Dugdale,Jonathan Parker,Berit Johnsen,Sarah Hean
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221139868
• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Date: 01 January 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Experiences of

Vulnerability in Adult

Male Prisoners: An

Integrative Review

Vanessa Heaslip

1,2,3

, Caspian Dugdale

2

,

Jonathan Parker

2

, Berit Johnsen

4

,

and Sarah Hean

3

Abstract

Vulnerability linked to offenders tends to focus on victims and society.

Understanding prisoner vulnerability is important to better address the neg-

ative impact of prison life. This article reviews the evidence of vulnerability

reported by male prisoners. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, 3039 citations were

f‌iltered. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, highlighting four areas

of vulnerability: uncertainty, environmental vulnerability, fear of harm, and

loss of human connection. The article notes that basic principles for the

treatment of prisoners are not met in many areas, indicating a need to

shift conceptualizations of vulnerability.

Keywords

prisoner vulnerability, social exclusion

1

University of Salford, Salford, UK

2

Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK

3

University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

4

University of Norwegian Correctional Service, Lillestrom, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Vanessa Heaslip, University of Salford Directorate of Nursing and Midwifery, 2.76 Mary Seacole

Bldg., Frederick Road, Salford, M66PU, UK.

Email: v.a.heaslip@salford.ac.uk

Article

The Prison Journal

2023, Vol. 103(1) 122–153

© 2022 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855221139868

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Background

Vulnerabilityis a broad, contested concept that is contextuallydef‌ined (Heaslip

et al., 2016). Itrelates to an individual being susceptible to, havingan increased

chance of, having an openness to, lacking barriers against, being exposed

to or without protection from, something unspecif‌ied (Purdy, 2004).

Mackenzie et al. (2014) argue our very existence as human beings is under-

pinned by vulnerability as it relates to physical needs and the frailty of the

physical body exposed to illness, disability, and death. As social beings, we

require human connectedness and consequently, we are susceptible to emo-

tional and psychological vulnerability. As sociopolitical beings, we are vul-

nerable to exploitation, oppression, and human rights violations, and lastly

exposure to our environment, both natural and human-made, can perpetuate

vulnerability (Mackenzie et al., 2014). Different population groups are

viewed as more, or less, vulnerable on some or all of the above dimensions.

Prisoners are one such population: it can be argued that offenders are made

vulnerable through ill health, poor societal value, reduced human connec-

tion, and living in hostile environments.

Understanding the vulnerability of prisoners is essential for the manage-

ment of prisons, prisoners, and prisoner rehabilitation. Although people

enter prison with a range of preexisting vulnerabilities, the prison environ-

ment may make these intolerable or create new ones (environmental and

human connectiveness dimensions of vulnerability). If these vulnerabilities

are not addressed, instead of acting as deterrence for future criminal behavior,

prison may in fact lead to an increase in antisocial attitudes/behaviors, making

the risk of reoffending even higher upon release (Chen & Shapiro, 2007).

Vulnerability, ill-def‌ined as it is, is part of our humanity and as such rep-

resents the common basis for human rights (Turner, 2006). Vulnerability is

associated with certain rights: the right to life, to privacy, to family life,

and so on. We are all vulnerable and protecting dignity is central to countering

this (Andorno, 2016). Furthermore, a human rights response is required

removing focus from the individual toward the global through social justice

measures (Hosani, 2019). This removes the sense of populist outrage at treat-

ing with dignity an individual who has committed a particular and heinous

offense but instead applies a value-based understanding of humanity regard-

less of setting or individual character. The United Nations (UN) Declaration

on Human Rights (UNDHR) (UN, 2009) follows this argument and includes

guidance specif‌ically on “basic principles for treatment of prisoners”stressing

the inherent dignity and value to which all human beings, including prisoners,

are entitled (sociopolitical dimensions of vulnerability). It asserts prisoners’

right to access healthcare (physical dimensions of vulnerability), education,

Heaslip et al. 123

and opportunities for meaningful employment placing a focus on reintegra-

tion post-incarceration. In a similar vein, the UN’s Educational Scientif‌ic

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2018; online) argues that society has

a responsibility to ensure—“…that the man in prison should not ‘become a

thing’but should retain at least some of the conditions without which life

becomes intolerable.”Indeed, Nelson Mandela famously quoted “No one

truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not

be judged by how it treats its highest citizen, but its lowest ones.”

Despite UNDHR, individual rights and dignity in criminal justice settings

are often limited and the human biographies of those made vulnerable in these

situations are ignored. The World Health Organisation (2014) reports interna-

tionally high levels of mental illness, infectious diseases (HIV, hepatitis,

tuberculosis), and noncommunicable disease in prison populations, for

example, which suggest prisoners remain highly vulnerable, experiencing

conditions that are not merely punishment, but humanely intolerable. This

raises questions related to our understanding of what constitutes intolerable

conditions and how this impact on prisoners, recidivism, and eventually

public safety.

Current Perceptions of Prisoner Vulnerability

In the criminal justice system context, vulnerability is often considered in

terms of risk of recidivism (Edwards et al., 2017) and identif‌ication of specif-

ically vulnerable prison populations such as people with mental illness

(Sodhi-Berry et al., 2015), disability (Murphy et al., 2017), and women

(Ministry of Justice, 2018). In reviews of the effectiveness of rehabilitation

models such as the Responsivity–Needs–Risk (RNR) (Andrewes & Bonta,

2006), there is a tendency to focus on an “etic”perspective: an external eval-

uation of what increases the risk of reoffending and the needs in the individual

prisoner that require amelioration. This etic approach focuses upon groups of

people and identif‌ies their vulnerability based on external objective criteria

(Spiers, 2000). Suicide rates (Fazel et al., 2017), incidences of psychotic

illness, and depression (Fazel & Seewald, 2012) are examples. However,

such studies neglect the prisoners’experiences. In contrast, an “emic”

approach, a state of being threatened and a feeling of fear of harm (Spiers,

2000), focuses on prisoners’experiences of their own vulnerability. This per-

spective is internally judged, identif‌ied by the individual experiencing feeling

vulnerable. The perspective is more in line with the strengths-focused Good

Life Model of rehabilitation (Ward & Maruna, 2007). This stance suggests

prisoners have the same aspirations as nonoffenders and that offenders seek

similar well-being/human good.

124 The Prison Journal 103(1)