Remote Control: Television in Prison PDF
Preview Remote Control: Television in Prison
Remote Control Remote Control Television in Prison Victoria Knight DeMontfortUniversity,UK REMOTECONTROL Copyright©VictoriaKnight2016 Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.Noportionofthis publicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmittedsavewithwritten permission.InaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCopyright,Designs andPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicencepermittinglimited copyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,SaffronHouse, 6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS. Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages. Firstpublished2016by PALGRAVEMACMILLAN Theauthorhasassertedherrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork inaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988. PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited, registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire,RG216XS. PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofNatureAmerica,Inc.,One NewYorkPlaza,Suite4500,NewYork,NY10004-1562. PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld. ISBN:978–1–137–44390–8 ISBN:978–1–137–44391–5(eBook) DOI:10.1057/9781137443915 DistributionintheUK,EuropeandtherestoftheworldisbyPalgrave Macmillan®,adivisionofMacmillanPublishersLimited,registeredin England,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke, HampshireRG216XS. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Knight,Victoria,1971–author. Remotecontrol:televisioninprison/VictoriaKnight. pages cm Includesbibliographicalreferences. 1. Prisoners—Recreation—GreatBritain. 2. Prisoners—Great Britain—Socialconditions. 3. Television—GreatBritain. 4. Televisionviewers—GreatBritain. 5. Massmedia—Social aspects—GreatBritain. I. Title. HV8860.K652016 365(cid:2).668—dc23 2015033226 AcataloguerecordforthebookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. For Olive Florence Roberts (2006–) Lois Helen Roberts (2012–) Contents ListofFiguresandTables viii Acknowledgements ix 1 ResearchFoundations 1 2 PerspectivesonPrison 25 3 PrisonerPerspectives 50 4 AudiencesofTelevision 67 5 MakingRoomforIn-CellTelevision:Access,Availability andPointsofUse 95 6 PersonalControl:Television,EmotionandPrisonLife 121 7 SituatedandMediatedControl:ManagingSoulswith In-CellTelevision 153 8 ConcludingDiscussion 197 Appendix1:PrisonerInterviewRespondentPortraits 221 Appendix2:StaffInterviewSample 226 Appendix3:ComparisonofAverageTelevisionViewingforPrison SiteandUKNationalAverage(BARB) 227 Appendix4:ExampleofNumberofHoursofTelevisionWatched EachDayforDiaristC 228 Glossary 229 Notes 231 References 236 Index 251 vii Figures and Tables Figures 1.1 AmodeloutliningLayder’stheoryofsocialdomains (2004) 16 2.1 Conceptsofimprisonment 28 5.1 Numberofdiaristsviewingin-celltelevisionfor weekdayandweekend(Saturday) 119 Tables 5.1 Theroutine:Typicalperiodsoflock-upandunlockin prisonsiteforweekdaysandweekends 114 viii Acknowledgements Iamespeciallygratefultotheunnamedprisoninthisstudyforpermit- tingmeaccesstotheestablishmenttoconducttheresearch,andtothe participants (prisoners and staff) who volunteered their time to share their own experiences. What is recorded here was galvanised by your voicesandallofyouhavehelpedmetounderstandtheprisoninways I would never have imagined at the beginning of this journey – thank you.InspirationandinterestalsocomefromcolleaguesoftheIndepen- dent Monitoring Board, good people at National Prison Radio, Inside Time,KickStartTV,LeafandLifeChannel. IamindebtedtoProfessorTimO’Sullivanforhistime,humour,prag- matism and patience over the many years I have known him, as well as Professor Brian Williams (1952–2007) for his nurturing support in the beginning of my research. Of significance I must record here how ProfessorLorraineCulley,ProfessorDerekLayder,DrNickyHudson,Pro- fessorDaveWard,AnnieBritton,ProfessorRobCantonandDrCharlotte Knighthaveuntiringlyencouragedme. Finally,Philip,formakingourhomeahaven,asafeandfunplaceto be.Thisprojectsawthebirthofourbeautifuldaughters,OliveandLois, towhomthisbookisdedicated. ix 1 Research Foundations This book is about the role of in-cell television in a male adult closed prison. Its focus is to capture the experience of television use by prisonerswithintheprisoncontext. 1.1 Introductionandrationale 1.1.1 Researchorigins Theimpetusforthisbookarosefromworkontheconsumptionofmass communications in a closed male young offenders’ institution which I completed in 2001 followed by a focused study on television (Knight 2012). British studies, Jewkes’s (2002a) and my earlier research in 2001 came at a time when in-cell televisions were just being introduced to prison cells in England and Wales. The introduction of television in prisoners’ cells, following New Labour’s announcement by the Home Secretary Jack Straw in 1998, revealed some interesting effects on the prisonenvironment.TheBritishresearchcouldnotsystematicallydoc- umenttheseeffects,asin-celltelevisionatthistimewasonlyavailable to ‘privileged’ prisoners. In-cell television is now firmly fixed into the prisonenvironment.Thisintroductiontook12yearstocompletefrom its official launch to the last prison receiving television in cells in 2010. Installation was not straightforward and many cells had to be modernised to receive electricity. There were, however, approximately 1000 prisoners who benefited from in-cell television from 1991 and this disparity in availability of in-cell television called for an official review (Ministry of Justice [MoJ] personal correspondence 2011). The research that was carried out provided a snapshot of its early intro- duction and its effects were limited to those prisoners who complied withcurrentbehaviourmanagementstrategies.TheIncentiveandEarned 1 2 RemoteControl Privilege (IEP) system, introduced in 1996 (PSI 11/2011), following a review of disturbances at HMP Strangeways by Lord Justice Woolf in 1990, sought to manage prisoner behaviour much more robustly. Pol- icymakers were tasked with ensuring that prisoners complied with the prison regime. Incentives were needed in order to motivate prisoners and in-cell television became a key incentive to enable prison staff to encourage compliance. Along with other incentives such as access to goods and services, visits from friends and family, time out of cell and accesstoworkandeducation,theIEPsystemsoughttoorganiseprison- ers based on their compliance and behaviour. Within limits, the more prisoners complied with the prison regime the more access they were allowed to goods and services. Non-compliance could lead to privi- leges being withdrawn and prisoners placed on a ‘basic’ regime. The introduction of in-cell television and other privileges received highly contested focus in public discourse, as an index to broader concerns about the penal system going ‘soft on’ criminals and losing its direc- tion. In defence of this, in-cell television became framed in political rhetoric.In-celltelevisionwasthereforepositionedasanearnableprivi- legefor‘deserving’prisoners;forexample,thosewhoprovedtobedrug free (Hansard Vol. 314, 1998). The Prison Service employed television to directly manage behaviour, a method which is directly mirrored in manyhouseholdswithchildren(Silverstone1999a). Tracing the introduction of mass communications into British pris- ons is difficult, as scarce public historical or policy documents report their introduction. Staff and prisoners anecdotally related1 that early accesstomassmediawasoriginallythroughnewspapersandmagazines. Itwascommonpracticeforstafftoreadoutnewsinchapeleveryweek. By 1954 prisoners could directly access radio and newspapers, under supervision.Radiowasbroadcastontoprisonlandings,shortlyfollowed by prisoners’ opportunity to buy their own transistor sets. Films were sometimes shown in communal areas like the chapels or gyms on a weeklybasis.Communaltelevisionsetswereintroducedto‘association’ areas where prisoners spent leisure time out of their cells in some pris- ons from the 1970s, but this was never formally standardised. Prisons, therefore,aremedia-poorenvironments. Only one prison contributed to a formal evaluation of in-cell tele- vision (McClymont 1993), which outlined concerns about the decline in prisoners attending associations and other activities; a theme also echoed by Jewkes (2002a). It was also noted that in-cell television had an influence on the atmosphere in the pilot prison, where it was observedthatprisonersappearedcalmer(Jewkes2002a).Despiteclaims
The list of books you might like
