Prisons in Romania e Book

PRISONS IN ROMANIA.
EFFECTS ON OFFENDERS LIVES

Cristina Damboeanu
Prisons in Romania. Effects on offenders lives
Copyright Cristina Damboeanu

Copyright TRITONIC 2015 pentru ediia prezent.
Toate drepturile rezervate, inclusiv dreptul de a reproduce fragmente din carte.
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education

and Research, CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-PD-2012-3-0116:
Effects of Imprisonment on Romanian Offenders Lives, 2013-2015.
TRITONIC
Str. Coaczelor nr. 5, Bucureti
e-mail: editura@tritonic.ro
www.tritonic.ro
Tritonic Bucureti apare la poziia 18 n lista cu Edituri de prestigiu recunoscut

n domeniul tiintelor sociale (lista A2) (CNATDCU):
http://www.cnatdcu.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/A2_Panel41.xls
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

DAMBOEANU, CRISTINA
Prisons in Romania. Effects on offenders lives / Cristina Damboeanu
Tritonic, 2015
ISBN: 978-606-749-078-7
Coperta: ALEXANDRA BARDAN

Redactor: BOGDAN HRIB
Tehnoredactor: DAN MUA
Comanda nr. 67 / noiembrie 2015
Bun de tipar: noiembrie 2015
Tiprit n Romnia
Orice reproducere, total sau parial, a acestei lucrri, fr acordul scris al

editorului, este strict interzis i se pedepsete conform Legii dreptului de autor.
Cristina Damboeanu
PRISONS IN ROMANIA.
EFFECTS
ON OFFENDERS LIVES
Contents
Foreword 7
Abbreviations 11
CHAPTER 1 THE RESEARCH CONTEXT 13

CHAPTER 2 PRISON VIOLENCE AND PRISON VICTIMIZATION 43
CHAPTER 3 P RISONERS CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIPS
AND DETERMINANTS OF SEPARATION 89
CHAPTER 4 P RISONERS HUMAN CAPITAL AND THEIR
PERCEPTION ON EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS
AFTER RELEASE 131
Synthetic conclusions 169

References 174
Foreword
imprisonment is often seen by citizens, as much as by criminal

justice representatives and policymakers as the most efficient pe-
nal strategy of crime prevention and control. At least three main
arguments are advanced in support of this view. First, due to its
unpleasant, socially and psychologically depriving nature, prison
deters the offenders from committing future crimes. Second, prison
has an incapacitation effect: it physically removes the lawbreakers
from the society and disables their roles of active offenders. Third,
prison rehabilitates and helps the offenders to make positive chang-
es so they can live an honest life once they return in community.
An extensive academic literature reveals, however, that these in-
tended aims of imprisonment are overstated: prisons have largely
failed to achieve the purposes that legislators have traditionally
assigned it. Both meta-analyses and empirical studies using longi-
tudinal research designs and advanced statistical techniques have
concluded that imprisonment increases instead of reducing reoff-
ending (Spohn and Holleran, 2002; Villetaz et al., 2006; Cid, 2009;
Nieuwbeerta et al., 2009; Werminck et al., 2010). As such, these
studies documented that ex-prisoners recidivate more often and at
shorter periods after completing their (prison) penalties than the
offenders convicted to alternative sanctions. More recently, the ad-
vocates of the developmental and life-course theories have drawn
attention to the adverse consequences of confinement not only on
recidivism, but also on prisoners conventional life-domains such as
employment, wages and job stability; family roles and relationships;
well-being of life-partners and children and so on (Western, 2002;
Pager, 2003; Arditti, 2005; Murray, 2005; Sampson and Laub, 2005;
Uggen, Wakefield and Western, 2005). All these are considered as
leaving a profound mark on offenders future hampering their suc-
cessful post-prison reintegration and desistance from crime.
Internationally, the research interest in studying these negative
and unintended consequences of imprisonment is notable and on
the rise. The growing rates of incarceration in the United States
and Western Europe over the past 35 years were the main triggers
of this increased empirical attention. Accordingly, a wealth body
of studies has emerged in the literature bringing important con-
tributions to theories of criminology and sociology of crime and
imprisonment as well as to correctional policies and practice. The
underlying assumption guiding these studies is that identifying
prison negative influences on offenders lives is a key element in
developing efficient criminal and social policy aimed at preventing
post-prison recidivism.
In Romania, the topic of imprisonment and its influences on
offenders lives was rather neglected by sociologists, criminologists
and other social scientists. Actually, the only research on prison
effects was conducted by P. Dobrica (2009-2012) and focused on
de-culturation as a consequence of incarceration. The current book
attempts to fill this gap by presenting a collection of empirical stud-
ies aimed precisely at understanding the experience of imprison-
ment in Romania and the way(s) it shapes the offenders lives. It
discusses from a sociological perspective three prevailing themes
in the literature on prison life and effects of imprisonment that are
also highly relevant for policymakers and professionals working
within the prison system: (1) prisoner victimization; (2) prisoner
human capital and perception on post-release employment pros-
pects; and (3) prisoner family relationships. The main ambition of
this volume is to pave the way for future sociological contributions
and research on prisons in Romania, with a focus on the lived ex-
perience of imprisonment.
As such, the first chapter set out the context of the study. It first
presents the trends in crime and imprisonment in post-communist
Romania, the recent developments in prison policy, as well as some
of the main problems facing the prison system. Then, the discus-
sion turns to the state of the art of the contemporary domestic re-
search on prison life and imprisonment. The current study is in-
troduced next, describing its objectives, the methodology and the
prison settings where the research was conducted.
Chapter 2 focused on the determinants of prison violence and
prison victimization. Its main purpose is to answer to a research
question widely circulated albeit rarely empirically examined in the
literature: do victims and victimizers share the same characteristics?
The theoretical assumptions guiding the study are grounded in the
classical deprivation/ importation debate. As such, it is investigated
whether violence/ victimization in prison are indigenously activated
by the deprivations and restrictions imposed by prison environment
or are rather the resultant of offenders violent and antisocial behav-
iour they bring inside prison. Prior studies do not provide a straight
and unequivocal answer to that, but rather came to conflicting find-
ings. Additional measures drawn from environmental opportunity
and procedural justice perspectives are as well investigated under the
current study for their relationships to prison violence/ victimization.
But violence/ victimization in prison are not the only poten-
tial negative outcome prisoners might experience during impris-
onment. The dissolution of family relationships may as well be
an undesirable and, obvious, a very harmful one. Accordingly,
in Chapter 3, determinants of couple dissolution are examined
along with several protective factors drawn from general socio-
logical models of family stability. Quantitative data are doubled
by the qualitative one in order to deepen the understanding of the
context and the motives behind couples separation during mens
imprisonment.
Chapter 4 turns the attention to how prisoners perceive their
life after release with a focus on their post-prison employment ex-
pectations. Drawing on the literature of desistance from crime, the
study examines prisoners characteristics that correlate with their
optimism in finding (good) employment upon return in the com-
munity. Specifically, differences in how prisoners perceive their
chances of employment are investigated in relation to their pre-
prison human capital characteristics and feelings of being stigma-
tized by employers. An important emphasis is placed on the contri-
bution of participation in prison and work programs to prisoners
optimistic prospects of finding (good) job after leaving prison.
The book ends with a short chapter of conclusions, synthetiz-
ing the main findings, considering their limitations and advancing
several recommendations for future agenda of research.
Abbreviations
CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EPR European Prison Rules
EU European Union
GDP gross domestic product
NAP National Administration of Prisons
NEA National Employment Agency
CHAPTER 1
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT
1.1. Introduction
Political changes brought in 1989 marked the end of almost 45
years of communist rule and repositioned Romania on the path-
ways of democracy and human rights. Yet, much as a legacy of the
old totalitarian epoch, but also due to a series of contemporary
political and economic factors, Romania is currently listed among
the most punitive countries in Europe (Lappi-Seppl, 2011). At
the beginning of 2014, the country imprisoned 167.6 prisoners per
100.000 population. The rate was very much alike to the other for-
mer Communist countries but higher than in nearly all Western
Europe (Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, 2014).
Differences in terms of incarceration rates are explained in
cross-national analyses not only by reference to the criminal poli-
cies, but also to the aspects related to political economy. In one
much-cited study, Cavadino and Dignan (2006) have associated the
high rates of imprisonment with neoliberal doctrine of the United
States, the moderate rates with the German conservative corpo-
ratism, and the low rates with the social democratic corporatism
specific to Nordic countries, but also with the oriental corporatism
typical to Japanese society. In another notable study, Lappi-Seppl
14 | CRISTINA DAMBOEANU e-Book
(2011) found that punitiveness and the heavy reliance on the use of
imprisonment are characteristics to the countries with low levels
of social trust, political legitimacy, and social welfare provisions.
Summarizing the findings of prior comparative studies aimed to
understand the differences in levels of punitiveness, Snacken and
Dumortier (2012) reveal, in addition, that those countries with
majoritarian rather than consensual democracies; where judges
and prosecutors are elected; and where crime control policies are
not balanced with human rights are most likely to employ punitive
penal policies. Even a cursory glance at Romanian context reveals
that the country holds much of the aforementioned attributes as-
sociated with penal severity.
1.2. Background information1

Romania is one of the most recent EU Member States. The ad-
hesion to the European structure in 2007 was regarded by many
of its citizens with the expectations of an increased economic wel-
fare. While some progress has been definitely achieved, Romania
remains, however, among the less wealthy country in the continent.
With an average GDP at purchasing power parities per inhabit-
ant of 13.900 in 2013, it is placed next to last in the prosperity
standings of the EU countries, surpassing only Bulgaria. The eco-
nomic recession has also profoundly affected the standard of living
in Romania. The austerity program adopted by the government in
2010 led, among others, to a 25.0 per cent cut off of wages in public
sector and contributed to the atrophy of an already fragile mid-
dle-class. Yet, the unemployment rate, although has increased to
a level of 7.0 per cent in 2010 and 7.2 per cent in 2011, kept below
1
Data presented in this sub-section are mainly based on Eurostat data,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
e-Book PRISONS IN ROMANIA. EFFECTS ON OFFENDERS LIVES | 15
the EU average. Romanian economists consider, however, that this

relatively low level of unemployment masks major deficiencies in
the labour market such as the high numbers of migrants for work
abroad and/ or of the people enrolled in informal forms of employ-
ment (Boboc et al., 2011).
Other macro indicators reveal the large social disadvantages
that further characterize Romania compared even with other
Eastern European countries (see Table 1.1). First, Romania has
high levels of social inequalities in welfare distribution as meas-
ured by the Gini index. Its value for 2013 was of 34.5 and placed
Romania above the EU average, as well as above the average of the
other former Communist countries. Second, the statistical data
also show that almost 40 per cent of Romanians are at risk of pov-
erty or social exclusion, and nearly 30 per cent are suffering severe
material deprivation. Even though, Romania spends only 15.6 per
cent of the GDP on social protection, half the average of the ex-
penditures among the EU. Poor welfare provisions are speculated
in the literature to be directly linked to high levels of punitiveness,
since they may produce more crime by denning social support to
in-need persons (Lappi-Seppl, 2012). Indirectly, they are related
via increases in social distance and relative deprivation.
Complementarily to the low level of welfare, Romania is also
suffering by rampant corruption. Scholars usually ascribe it to the
communist cultural heritage, claiming that communism created
structural incentives for engaging in corrupt behaviours, which
became such a widespread fact of life that they became rooted in
the culture in these societies that is, the social norms and prac-
tices prevailing in communist societies (Sandholtz and Taagepera,
2005). Numerous cases of high-level official corruption have been
brought to public attention during last years and diminished an
already low level of public trust in political institutions. According
to the latest data published by the Global Corruption Barometer2, a

worldwide survey conducted by Transparency International (TI) on
public perception of corruption, almost three quarters of respond-
ents in Romania agreed that the political parties were corrupt/ very
corrupt; almost 70% shared a similar opinion about the parliament
and 60% about the judiciary system. It is not surprising then
that according to both national surveys and Eurobarometer
these three institutions are placed at the bottom tier of Romanians
trust. Conversely, the army, the church as well as the international/
European institutions are those invested by citizens with the high-
est levels of trust. Lack of institutional confidence is related to frag-
ile political legitimacy and may lead to the use of more repressive
means in order to maintain the existing authority (Lappi-Seppl,
2011; 2012).
Table 1.1: Main indicators of punitiveness, social welfare and political legitimacy
social exclusion2
% of population
imprisonment1
TI corruption
parliament4
protection2
Gini Index2
poverty or
% of GDP
on social
at risk of
Rates of
Trust in
index3
Lithuania 314.6 30.8 34.6 16.5 57 11

Romania 167.7 40.4 34.0 15.5 43 11
Italy 102.9 28.4 32.5 30.2 43 10
Germany 77.5 20.3 29.7 29.5 78 44
Netherlands 60.8 15.9 25.1 33.3 81 41
Denmark 67.1 18.9 27.5 34.6 91 58
Baltic states 267.1 29.8 34.2 15.3 59 21
Central and
Eastern Europe 148.1 29.0 29.0 16.7 50 17
(former
communist)
Southern Europe 119.6 28.5 32.5 26.1 54 19
2
According to the data available at www.transparency.org
social exclusion2
% of population
imprisonment1
TI corruption
parliament4
protection2
Gini Index2
poverty or
% of GDP
on social
at risk of
Rates of
Trust in
index3
Western Europe 100.6 18.8 28.0 30.2 76 41
Northern Europe 60.0 17.1 25.9 32.1 90 62
UK 147.2 24.8 30.2 28.8 76 24
1
Source: Aebi and Delgrande (2014). Council of Europe, Space I Prison Population Survey 2013;
2
Eurostat Database 2013; 3www.transparency.org; 4 Eurobarometer no. 80 (autumn 2013)
1.3. Crime and imprisonment trends

As in other East European countries, Romania witnessed an
upsurge of crime prevalences in the first years of post-Commu-
nism transition. As Figure 1.1 indicates, crime rates have increased
exponentially in the period between 1990 and 1997.
Figure 1.1: Crime and imprisonment rates in Romania, 1990-2012.
Source: For crime rates: Romanian Statistical Yearbook (INSSE, 2011), completed for 2011
and 2012 with official statistics of the Superior Council of Magistracy (Human Resources and
Organization Department, official letter no. 2/27381/1154/27.11.2013 sent at the request of the
Institute of Sociology. For incarceration rates: National Administration of Penitentiaries and the
information available at http://www.anp.gov.ro.
Specifically, the rate of criminal convictions increased by 3.5

times, reaching at 496 persons sentenced per 100.000 population
in 1997 compared with 160 the rate registered in 1990. The expla-
nations for this impressive growth are directly linked to the collat-
eral social consequences of the rapid socio-political and economic
changes the country went through. According to Romanian schol-
ars, anomie was the defining characteristic of that period. Unable
to adjust to the new highly promoted values of individualism and
competition on the free market, some people found themselves
caught in a web of social hardships, crime and social exclusion
(Rdulescu, 1998). Imprisonment rate has increased as well from
112 at 100.000 population in 1990 at 232 in 1998. While this trend
can be thought as an effect of crime rate growth, it can also be ex-
plained by the unprecedented surge in punitiveness. In the context
of the rising number of acts of vandalism, theft, robbery and vio-
lence that followed the democratic revolution, legislators resorted
to tougher penal policies in order to cut off the crime wave. In
December 1989, a decree-law was adopted that doubled the prison
penalties for property crimes3. Theft in particular was severely pe-
nalized: the maximum limits of penalty were raised to 12 years in
the case of simple theft and to 15 years in the case of qualified theft.
The amendments to the Criminal Code that were enacted in
1997 kept this unparalleled increase in sentence length for property
offences (see Table 1.2). In addition, according to the same amend-
ments, the minimum term for conditional release eligibility has
also increased (Brezeanu, 2007: 279; NAP, 2011), which straight-
forwardly led to increases in time spent in prison. Interestingly, the
proportion of custodial sentences in the overall sanctions imposed
3
The Decree-Law no. 5/29 December 1989 for the prosecution, sen-
tencing and punishing some offences, published in the Official Monitor no.
7/30 December 1989.
annually by the court has declined by 1.6 times from 1990 to 1996.
In 1997 and 1998, there was a resurgence of judges reliance on the
use of imprisonment, the proportion of prison sanctions increased
considerably reaching the level of more than 50 per cent in the total
sanctions given by the court.
Table 1.2: Main types of penalties stipulated for specific crimes by the Criminal
Codes: Law no. 15/21 July 1968; Law no. 140/05 November 1996;
Law 286/17 July 2009.
Criminal Codes
1969 1997 2009*
Offences
Simple theft 3 months to 2 years 1 to 12 years 6 months to 3 years
Qualified theft 1 to 5 years 3 to 15 years 1 to 5 years
Robbery 2 to 7 years 3 to 18 years 2 to 7 years
Fraud 3 months to 2 years 6 months to 12 years 6 months to 3 years
Homicide 10 to 20 years 10 to 20 years 10 to 20 years
Qualified homicide 15 to 20 years 15 to 20 years 15 to 20 years
Rape 2 to 7 years 3 to 10 years 3 to 10 years
Prostitution 3 months to 3 years 3 months to 3 years -
Begging 1 month to 3 years 1 month to 3 years -
Vagrancy 1 month to 3 years 1 month to 3 years -
Tariff of conditional release
< 10 years of imprisonment 1/2 2/3 2/3
> 10 years of imprisonment 2/3 3/4 3/4
*entered into force on 1st of February, 2014
The next period (1998-2008) was characterized by a sound de-

crease of both crime and incarceration rates. Actually, the rate of
convicted offenders dropped by about 2.3 times, from 390 to 159
reaching the level recorded in 1990. A potential explanation of this
decrease is linked to the free movement of persons within the EU,
especially since 2007, as many offenders preferred to continue their

criminal career abroad. Consequently, the imprisonment rate fell
as well to the level of 1990. Several other arguments have been put
forward by Romanian experts in order to explain this steep decline
in prison population (see NAP, 2011). The first one is related to the
development since 2000 of the probation service. This substan-
tially expanded the range of alternative sanctions. National data
show in this regard that between 1999 and 2009, complementarily
to reduction of the proportion of the custodial sentences in the to-
tal sanctions imposed by courts, the use of conditional suspension
of the execution of a penalty increased about 2.5 times and the use
of the suspension of penalty execution under supervision about
2.3 times. Another explanation for the decrease of the incarcera-
tion rate is linked to the reduction in the number of criminal cases
with defendants in custody pending before the court (NAP, 2011).
The subsequent five years (2009-2013) witnessed a new upward
trend of crime rates. These developments were accrued during the
countrys economic recession and may be attributed to the dete-
rioration of the living standard. Imprisonment rate also increased
during that period. While this might be the consequence of crime
rates increases, it comes also as an outcome of the rising number
of the Romanian inmates transferred from abroad to execute their
custodial penalties in the country. Although no official data were
publicized, the figures presented in the national media reveal that
between 11.000 and 13.000 offenders are confined in EU prison
and are expected to be transferred home according to the EU
Framework Decision related to the transfer of prisoners.
In 2014, a slight relaxation of the number of prisoners was ob-
served in the context of the entering into force of the new criminal
code. This introduced inter alia the house arrest measure and the
implementation of more favourable criminal law principles4, which

led to a small reduction in the prisoner number.
1.4. Prison reform: the official rhetoric

Imprisonment and its crime prevention effects have never
been among the top priorities issues on political agenda in post-
communist Romania. The interest has focused mainly on the judi-
cial reform, the quality of justice and the fight against corruption.
Mandatory criteria for EU accession, they have been and still are
the subject of intense monitoring by the European bodies. It is thus
not surprising that these issues have absorbed much of attention of
the criminal justice system professionals, politicians, and the me-
dia. The state of prisons has remained rather peripheral within the
overall debates on criminal justice reform5. Only recently, with the
conviction and incarceration of several well-known public officials,
the prison conditions have been brought to the fore of public con-
siderations. Otherwise it was only in 2006 16 years after the fall
of communist regime when new prison legislation was passed6.
The law and its implementing regulation replaced a prison
act of more than 35 years old7 and represented the synthetic in-
corporation of several European recommendations stated in
the European Prison Rules (EPR) as well as in the reports of the
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane
4
Art.6: Whether a new law is enacted before the completion of a final
conviction, which provides softer penalties for an offence, and if the sanction
imposed to the offender according to the old law exceeds the special maxi-
mum stipulated in the new law, then the sanction is reduced at that maximum.
5
For a similar discussion in Bulgaria, see Gounev (2013).
6
Law no. 275/2006 regarding the execution of penalties and measures
taken by the judicial bodies during the criminal trial.
7
Law 23/1969 of penalties execution modified in January 7, 1990 when
the death penalty was abolished.
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (Durnescu, 2009).

Accordingly, the law embraced a modern view on imprisonment
that paid substantial attention to prisoners rights and the offend-
ers social reintegration into community.
As such, the classification of prisoners by prison regimes has
been (re)introduced as well as the application of the principle of
penalty execution in progressive versus regressive system depend-
ing on prisoner conduct and their efforts toward social reintegra-
tion8. The institution of the judge delegated to oversee the legality
of the execution of prison penalty was also stipulated. Prison pro-
grams were in particular designated to prepare prisoners for social
reintegration in the community. The preservation of family ties and
the liaison with the support environment were also promoted by
the application of the principle of incarceration in the nearest pris-
on to the prisoners residence, and by consecrating the institution
of conjugal visit (see also Durnescu, 2009). Despite its modern pro-
visions, the law left outside to the normative regulation an aspect
of paramount importance: the prisoners post-release assistance.
At that time, the Probation Service had no legal responsibilities to
supervise and assist the conditional released prisoners. Its involve-
ment in this regard was mainly based on partnerships or coopera-
tion agreements concluded with prison administrations, but it was
not regarded as a priority (Durnescu and Decarpes, 2012).
This gap has been addressed recently in the context of major
changes in the criminal law initiated in 2009 with the adoption of a
new criminal code and of a new criminal procedure code. Thus, the
Probation Service is now mandated to supervise the way prisoners
released on parole, whose unexecuted remainder of the sentence in
8
This principle was first time introduced in 1929 by prison law pro-
mulgated by Royal Decree no. 2596/30 July 1929 (and published in the Official
Monitor no. 166/30 July 1929).
prison is 2 years or more, complies with certain measures and ob-

ligations imposed by the court. According to the experts, the lack
of a coherent institutional network with responsibilities clearly de-
fined with regard to facilitating social reintegration of those who
are released from prison greatly limits the beneficial effects of this
provision. Yet, at the beginning of 2015, Romania has adopted the
first strategy of social reintegration of ex-prisoners9. Its purpose is
precisely to address the development and strengthening of partner-
ships between public authorities, NGOs, and local communities to
facilitate social reinsertion of former prisoners.
Consequently to the adoption of the new criminal code, a new
prison law also came into effect (although its implementing regula-
tion is still pending). Based on its 2006 predecessor, the law adver-
tises an even more humane vision on imprisonment rooted in the
international and European provisions.
1.5. Romanian prison system: the reality

The Romanian prisons are coordinated by the National
Administration of Prisons (NAP) and operate under the authority
of the Ministry of Justice. Currently, there are 35 prison facilities
for adults (one for women), of which 16 are officially classified as
maximum security facilities, holding prisoners who are either on
pre-trail detention or who are serving their sentence at maximum
security and closed regime. The rest of 19 are semi-open and open
prisons. In addition, the Romanian correctional system includes 6
prison-hospitals, 2 detention centres for young people and 2 ed-
ucational centres. The country has no private run prisons. From
1990 up to 2011, the overall number of correctional institutions has
9
The National Strategy of Prisoner Reintegration 2015-2019, available
at http://www.anp.gov.ro/programe-si-strategii-proprii
increased with 13. The two newest penal institutions were opened
in 2004; both being classified as maximum security prisons for
adults inmates. Over 30 per cent of prisons have been built 160
years ago, 26 per cent are at least 100 years old, and just fewer than
40 per cent are relatively recent constructed (e.g. 40 years or less)
(Brezeanu,2007: 276).
Despite the legal rhetoric, the Romanian prisons are confronted
multiple challenges. By far, the most important is overcrowding.
Currently, the country has an occupational level of more than 150
per cent10, which is translated into a deficit of over 10.000 accom-
modation places. Since a law of pardon and amnesty hasnt been
adopted recently11, this forces all except one Romanian prisons to
operate over the designed capacity. The worst situation is found in
six prisons (two of maximum security and four of open/semi-open
regimes) that incarcerate more than twice as many inmates as the
European standards admit. Furthermore, some prisons do not pro-
vide suitable conditions for semi-open and open regimes (GRADO,
2008). Recently, the Romanian Ministry of Justice has declared that
at least 6 new prisons are needed in order to remedy the problem of
overcrowding, an investment that will cost Romania approximately
half billion of euros. The governmental decision that regulates the
construction of the first two new facilities has just been subjected
to public debate, but obvious pessimism surrounds its future giv-
ing the huge financial effort, but also the levels of public opinion
opposition.
The CPT reports, as well as the evaluations conducted by dif-
ferent national NGOs continuously have drawn attention to the
10
Calculated on four squares meters per person, the European Council
standard in terms of inmates housing.
11
Pl-x no. 162/2013, legislative proposal for amnesty and pardon was
rejected in November 2014.
problem of overcrowding, as much as to the other dreadful physi-

cal and material conditions of confinement that the Romanian
prisons are confronting with. None of the prisons, for example, ac-
commodates the prisoners in single cells. Except two new recently
built prisons that houses prisoners in cells of 2, 4 and maximum 8
beds, the rest have more various types of accommodation, includ-
ing large dormitories. A recent report prepared by the Association
for Human Rights in Romania following the visit in one prison
illustrates the degrading conditions in which some prisoners are
confined:
The air was hard to breathe, the beds on the third level almost reached
the ceiling, and the windows were blocked with beds crammed, so
there was no natural light there. Makeshift power wires hung over the
beds on the top floor, posing a real threat to the lives of prisoners. The
switch was installed outside the room and although the natural light
cannot enter the room, the agents turn on the light only after 4 p.m.
During the visit, around noon, the lights were still on. The inmates
said that the power and running hot water were interrupted at 10
p.m. The room features a toilet with poor hygiene, with 2 sinks, 4
showers and 3 WCs. The inmates complained that mattresses are full
of bugs, and that there were mice in the bathroom and in the galley.
Only 4 of the 50 people came out to work and 2 participated in cours-
es. For the rest the sole activity is to sit crammed in the room. For an
hour per day they walk out in the court yard (APADOR-CH, 2015).
Not surprisingly, Romania occupies a dishonourable first place

among the Member States regarding the number of European
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) convictions for improper con-
ditions of detention. In its press country profiles for Romania,
the ECtHR have actually concluded that violations of art.3 of the
European Convention of Human Rights is a common problem and
that despite efforts to improve the situation, Romania had to take

further steps, including a compensation scheme.
Another key concern is understaffing. Currently, in Romanian
prisons there are 7.8 prisoners per one custodian, a rate that place
the country in top three at EU level in terms of prisoner-staff ra-
tio12. The proportion is three times higher than in its neighbours
Bulgaria (2.5) and Hungary (2.8) and twice the mean of Council
of Europe members. Moreover, there is a 10 per cent custodial staff
vacancy, as well as 17 per cent vacancy for prison officers work-
ing at the social reintegration sector. Consequently, prison staff job
satisfaction is limited as they are overloaded and forced to perform
overtime work. A relevant study undertaken by NAP (2010a) has
pointed to the so-called syndrome of doubled pressure the prison
staff is subjected to due to the inflexibility and inconsistencies of
prison rules on the one hand, and to the high level of risk to which
they are exposed to on the other hand. Low levels of job satisfaction
have been linked in the literature to low performance, absenteeism
and turnover, but also to negative attitudes of prison staff toward
rehabilitation (Lambert et al., 2002). The results of another nota-
ble study conducted by NAP (2007a) revealed that 84 per cent of
prison staff considers that prisoners have lower chances of social
reinsertion. The study was conducted on a representative sample
of 399 prison personnel, of which 94 per cent occupied operational
positions, and 6 per cent command positions.
In this context, the ambitious aim of facilitating prisoners social
reintegration via prison programs seems rather a desideratum. In
addition to the already mentioned shortages of staff in the service
of education and psychosocial assistance, lack of space to conduct
educational and psychosocial activities, small budgets, and lack of
12
Aebi and Delgrande (2014). Council of Europe, Space I Prison
Population Survey 2013.
viable job opportunities provided to prisoners are just few of the

factors that combined lead to a low level of enrolment of prisoners
in meaningful and constructive activities (Damboeanu, 2011).
1.6. Costs of incarceration

In 2014, the prison system budget was of almost 200 million
of euros and represented slightly over one quarter (27 per cent) of
the overall budget of the Romanian Ministry of Justice on public
order and national security. The most substantial part of the pris-
ons budget, more than 70 per cent respectively, accounted for staff
costs (NAP, 2015). The cost of incarceration per prisoner, calcu-
lated by dividing the total budget to the total number of prisoners,
was about 6000 euros per year. In Bulgaria, the average annual cost
per inmate was 3600 euros (Gounev, 2013), while in the UK, in the
fiscal year 2005-2006, it was of 26.993 (Bennett, 2008). Mention
should be made that currently, in Romania, less than one euro is
allocated for the daily norm of prisoners basic nutrition.
1.7. The demographic and criminal profile

of Romanian prison population
The typical Romanian prisoner is male, 22-40 years old, recidi-
vist, convicted for property offences, and serving long-term prison
sentences. As such, the official data13 indicate that the proportion of
incarcerated men is about 95% and that of women 5%, similar to
the EU average. More than a third of all prisoners are aged between
22 and 30 years old, a comparable proportion is recorded by prison-
ers aged 31-40. Just over a quarter is formed by prison population
Data reported for the year 2012.
13
aged over 41. Young people between 18-21 years make up about 5
per cent of the number of prisoners, slightly over the EU average
(4.7 per cent), and half the percentage recorded in the period 1990-
1998. Juveniles record the lowest proportion in the overall number
of prisoners (1.4 per cent), a value very much alike to the EU average
(1 per cent). Their fraction has also substantially decreased by about
5-6 times when compared with the levels registered
in 1991-1993.
Recidivists represent over 45 per cent of the incarcerated per-
sons (final convicted and on pre-trial detention as well). Their pro-
portion increased by 3 times from 1990 to 2003 (from 14 per cent
to 45 per cent) and remained relatively stable at this level until now,
even if, as we have previously shown, a series of important legisla-
tive measures have been adopted in this interval.
Almost half of Romanian prisoners are incarcerated for prop-
erty offences, whereas less than a third is imprisoned for crimes
against persons (see Table 1.3). Only 4 per cent are serving prison
sentences for drug offenses. Comparisons with EU countries on
these particular types of offences reveal interesting differences. As
such, Romania incarcerates almost 1.5 times more offenders for
theft than the European average. The country actually is placed sec-
ond, after Bulgaria, in the hierarchy of EU Member States with the
highest proportion of prisoners imprisoned for theft. The percent-
age of people incarcerated for homicide is as well 1.5 times higher
compared to the EU average: 19 per cent versus 12.7 per cent), and
also places the country in top four, after Finland (23.6 per cent),
Lithuania (22.8 per cent) and Estonia (21.5 per cent). Instead, in
terms of the proportion of prisoners sentenced for drug offens-
es, Romania incarcerates about 5 times fewer offenders than the
European average (4 per cent versus 20 per cent). In fact, Romania
along with Poland has the lowest proportions of prisoners convict-
ed for drug offenses in EU.
Table 1.3: Conviction offence of prisoners in Romania and in the EU, 2013
Romania EU
Homicide 19.1 12.7
Rape 5.8 4.7
Theft 31.0 15.4
Robbery 17.9 13.3
Drug traffic 4.0 17.0
Organized crime 4.7 1.1
Source: Aebi and Delgrande (2014). Council of Europe, Space I Prison Population Survey 2013
Half of Romanian prisoners are serving long-term prison sen-

tences. According to the official data, less than 3 per cent of pris-
oners were serving a prison sentence of up to one year, the lowest
proportion among the EU countries (see Table 1.4). About 8 per
cent were convicted to imprisonment of between 1 and 2 years. In
equal proportions (45 per cent), prisoners were sentenced to custo-
dial sentences of 2 to 5 years, and of over 5 years, including life. The
average duration of the time actually spent in prison, calculated
by the European Council experts on the basis of the total stock of
inmates, was 24.6 months in Romanian. This period is 2.5 times
higher than the European average and places our country in first
place in the ranking of European countries in terms of time a per-
son actually spends in detention.
Table 1.4: Length of sentences in Romania and the EU average, 2013

Romania EU
< 1 year 2.7 18.7
1-3 years 23.1 26.6
3-5 years 29.4 18.3
5-10 years 26.4 20.8
Romania EU
10-20 years 14.7 9.7
> 20 years 3.2 3.0
life sentence 0.5 2.6
other 0.0 1.4
Source: Aebi and Delgrande (2014). Council of Europe, Space I Prison Population Survey 2013.
1.8. Romanian studies on prisons and the effects of imprisonment

Unlike the US and most of the Western European countries,
where researchers have shown a major interest in studying im-
prisonment and its intended and unintended consequences, in
Romania, this topic is very poorly addressed in the academic
literature. To date, no study has specifically focused in Romania
on collateral consequences of prison imprisonment. One argu-
ment that could partially explain this regrettable state of the art is
the lack of a well-established tradition of criminological and pe-
nological research. Though the first scientific attempts of study-
ing imprisonment can be traced back since the end of the 19th
century, the almost 45 years of communism represented a sig-
nificant step backward in the development of this research area.
Unfortunately, even today, at more than 20 years after the fall of
the old regime, the topic remains largely unexplored by the na-
tional scholarship.
1.8.1. E arly academic preoccupations on prisons

and the effects of imprisonment
As elsewhere in Europe, the first scientific efforts to study
prison have also emerged in Romania in the last decades of the
nineteenth century, with the birth of positivist school of thought
and the emergence of criminology as a scientific discipline. The

thesis and principles that underpin the discourse about crime
and punishment of this new approach have generated a genuine
effervescence in the European academia. The Romanian schol-
ars of that time, renowned specialists in criminal law, were per-
manently connected to the academic developments in the field.
According to the findings of a monographic study undertaken on
one of the most successful and influential journal of that time,
Revista penitenciar i de drept penal [Journal of Prison and
Criminal Law]14, recidivism, reorganization of the prison system,
and juvenile justice were key themes addressed by its contributors
(Damboeanu, 2014). Various theoretical reflections, notes and
comments published in that time were referring to the applica-
tion of safety measures for social defence, the scientific study of
prisoners, the classification of offenders in relation to their risk,
the individualization of penal treatment, the regulation of prison
labour, recidivism.
The enthusiasm that dominated Romania of the end of the
nineteenth century and of the first half of the twentieth century in
the field of prison science was, however, brutally interrupted with
the establishment of the Communist regime. Under the utopian
image of a perfect, classless society, crime and other social prob-
lems were obvious largely denied by the authorities. Not surpris-
ingly, sociology and criminology were banned several times in that
14
The journal was published in successive periods. The first period lay
between 1912 and 1916, followed by an intermediate period between 1919 and
1926, when it was issued under the name of Revista penitenciara [The Prison
Journal]. The next period covered the interval between 1927 and 1943 when,
after the merging with Revista Penal [The Penal Journal], it was published as
Revista de Drept Penal i tiin Penitenciar [The Journal of Criminal Law
and Prison Science]. The journal was relaunched after the fall of communism
regime, in 1992.
period15 and in their short episodes of living were under high po-
litical and ideological control. Social studies were mainly focused
on art, literature, and industrialization, while the few studies in the
field were mainly limited on studying juvenile delinquency.
1.8.2. Current developments in the field of prison effects

Today, although the national scientific community interested in
studying deviance and crime is on the rise, the topic of imprison-
ment continues to be under-researched. The majority of academic
studies on prison population aimed rather to identify the main
social and psychosocial factors that determined the onset and the
development of criminal behaviour among different categories of
offenders such as juvenile delinquents, female criminals, violent
offenders, human smugglers and so on. The authors of these stud-
ies have developed relevant etiological models for these particular
types of crimes and advanced different sets of policy recommenda-
tions for authorities to efficiently tackle these problems. Yet, few
Romanian scholars have focused on prison life, prison adaptation,
inmate socialization and subculture and even fewer have examined
prison effects. Among the handful existing studies, three strands of
research can be distinguished.
The first one includes the academic work of prison practition-
ers mainly conducted from a psychological approach. For example,
Gh. Florian16, former director of a Romanian prison, published a
15
Sociology was prohibited during the period 1947-1965, subsequently
re-launched to mid-70s. In 1976, the sociological education was again abol-
ished; sociology merged with history and philosophy was thus removed from
the university curricula.
16
Florian Gh. (1999), Dinamica penitenciara. Reforma structurilor
interne. Bucharest: Oscar Print; Florian Gh. (2001). Psihologie Penitenciara.
Bucharest: Oscar Print; Florian Gh. (2006), Fenomenologie penitenciara.
Bucharest: Oscar Print.
remarkable series of books on the dynamics, psychology and phe-

nomenology of prisons, respectively. The volumes contain a collec-
tion of studies and research that address topics such as prison staff,
prison management, prison order and safety, prison influence on
human personality, dangerous prisoners, and long-term prisoners.
In 2004, an edited collection of studies on the carceral universe
have been issued. The volume was coordinated by E. Stanisor, a for-
mer director of NAP and covered psychological and psychosocial
analyses conducted by prison practitioners.
The second line of research endorses the sociological approach
toward imprisonment. P. Dobrica, professor at the University of
Bucharest, is the main promoter of this research strand. His stud-
ies embrace a Goffmanian perspective and focus on de-cultura-
tion as effect of incarceration. In 2010, the results of his study as
well as of his collaborators were published in a special issue of
one of the main Romanian journal in sociology (i.e. Sociologie
romaneasca17). Several theoretical and empirical studies focused
on social hierarchy and sexuality in prison, prisonization, prison
aggressiveness, and the practice of tattooing were then published.
Another notable sociological study was conducted by Bruno Stefan
on prison culture and civilization. The author was delving deeper
into prison symbolism analyzing the spatial and temporal dimen-
sions of prison life, carceral argot and rituals, and prisoner affilia-
tion to informal groups.
The third axis of research includes relevant empirical studies
recently conducted by NAP. Some of these studies were examin-
ing prisoners perceptions of various aspects of prison life as well
as their perspectives over their future after release. For example,
in one such study (NAP, 2007b), prisoners perception of prison
Sociologie Romaneasca, vol. VIII, no. 3, 2010.
17
quality of life, staff-prison relationship, prison programs partici-

pation, but also prisoners expectations of postrelease difficulties
were investigated. The findings revealed that 20 per cent of pris-
oners do not have a social support network on which to rely on
after release from prison. In addition, almost half believe that the
most important problem they will encounter when they return to
the community is to find a job. Surprisingly, only a small percent-
age (less than 15 per cent) is worried about their status as ex-
prisoners they will have in society. In low percentages inmates
mentioned their loss of contact with reality, lack of financial sup-
port, financial problems, housing, health issues and meeting with
former criminal entourage as problems which might hamper their
reintegration into society. Other studies (NAP, 2013) have rather
described prisoners aggressive behaviour, where some surveyed
the internal aggression of prisoners i.e. their acts of self-harm
and suicidal behaviour as much as prisoner-to-prisoner assaults
and prison-to-staff assaults.
1.9. The present study

The studies that form the essence of this book aim precisely to
compensate the lack of research in the field of consequences of im-
prisonment in Romania and to link the Romanian criminological
research to the international one. They are the end-product of a
postdoctoral research project funded by the Ministry of Education
and Research (UEFISCDI) and conducted with the broader pur-
pose of identifying the nature of the prison impact on prisoners
lives, the main life-domains affected by incarceration and the
mechanisms that put in motion the prison influences. Specifically,
the book focuses on examining the determinants of three outcomes
of the prison experience: a) violence/ victimization; b) dissolution
of conjugal relationships; c) participation in prison programs and

expectations of postrelease chances of employment.
1.91. Methodology
Preferably to study the effects of incarceration one would like do
a prospective longitudinal study, i.e. following people before, dur-
ing and post prison, and with an experimental group (people with
(long) prison sentence) and a control group (people with (short)
prison sentence). However, under the current study, this was rather
impossible, and therefore a cross-sectional research design has been
adopted. The most important is related to the length of sentence.
As noted above, since 97 per cent of prison sentences are of more
than one year in Romania, it would have taken a long time to com-
plete the study. For example, if to an average length of confinement
of 3-5 years, it adds 1-2 years of follow-up, the result is a period
of data collection between 4 and 7 years. Given the limitations of
the duration of the study at two years, it becomes evident that the
longitudinal approach although ideal, was not feasible. An alterna-
tive option would have been to focus on inmates incarcerated for
maximum 1 year, but the relevance would have been limited since
they represent only 3% of all incarcerated inmates.
Exploratory and pilot studies

Given that the topic of the effects of incarceration has been
under-investigated in Romania, an exploratory study was first con-
ducted. Its aim was to identify those issues to be addressed in the
main research. A group of 20 prisoners held in Giurgiu Prison, all
men, were interviewed in July 2013 using a semi-structured, in-
depth interviewing technique. All the interviews were tape-record-
ed, but only after the prisoners had given their written informed
consent. The interview guide covered several themes centered on

identifying how the lives of prisoners were shaped by the current
and, if applicable, previous experiences of incarceration.
In addition, a pilot survey was carried out in December 2013 to
test for the adequacy of the quantitative research instrument (i.e.
the questionnaire for prisoners), as well as to identify the poten-
tial practical problems which could affect the collection of data in
the full-scale research. Following this study, some of the questions
included in the questionnaire were rephrased, while others were
dropped out given the relatively sensitive nature to prisoners. Also,
the mode of questionnaire administration was changed from self-
administrated in small groups to face-to-face interviews. The lack
of appropriate rooms where prisoners could fill in the question-
naires, their reticence of addressing additional questions in front
of other prisoners or conversely, the joint completion of ques-
tionnaires, the relatively long duration of self-administration (70
minutes on average), and the difficulty to monitor this activity have
been the main reasons why this mode was discarded in favour of
face-to-face interview technique.
Main research
Research instruments
The study was based on a small-scale survey, as well as on of-
ficial records drawn from the prisons administration electronic
database. The questionnaire was structured on eight dimensions:
data about parents and childhood; history of crime; history of al-
cohol and drug use; the experience of imprisonment; the relation-
ships with life-partner before and during detention; relationships
with children before and during detention; human capital and
participation in prison programs and work activities; relation-
ships with friends before and during incarceration. In addition,
in the introductory section, data on prisoners institutional status

were recorded (e.g. the date of arrest, regime for penalty, sentence
length, conviction offence etc.). The majority of the questions in-
cluded in the questionnaire were pre-coded. As such, the categories
of responses were predetermined so that prisoners could choose
for those reflecting their individual experiences.
From the prisons administration electronic database, the fol-
lowing information was retrieved: data about prisoners institu-
tional status; socio-demographic data; criminal history data; pris-
oner behaviour (e.g. transfers, licenses, changes in prison regime,
rewards, disciplinary sanctions); prisoner participation in voca-
tional and educational programs, as well as in work activities; pris-
oner social support from his family and friends (e.g. frequency of
visits, correspondence, telephone conversations, financial support).
Except one prison, where the electronic database was accessed
from Prison Sector of Records18, in the other three they were ac-
cessed from Prison Education and Psychosocial Assistance Service.
Research settings
Prison research has clearly its own particularities since it takes
place in a closed institution (Goffman, 1961) defined by very strict
security and control rules. As such, the access of researchers, the
access with certain research tools (e.g. audio recorder), the selec-
tion of research sample, the schedule and the actual meetings be-
tween prisoners and researcher for the administration of survey
are almost entirely dependent on the prison staff. Therefore, the re-
searcher is often forced to adapt his research plan based on the con-
straints of this environment. There have been some adjustments to
initially set methodology in this research as well.
18
Data on prisoners participation in prison programs couldnt be
accessed.
Thus, the quantitative study was intended to be conducted in

two prisons for adult men: one of open and semi-open regime, i.e.
Timisoara Prison and one of maximum security and closed regime,
i.e. Giurgiu Prison. However, the large volume of data collected to
the level of each prison would have overburden the work of prison
staff for a relatively long period of time (2-3 months). For this rea-
son, two other prisons were included in the research i.e. Craiova
Prison and Tulcea Prison. A brief description of all four prisons is
given below (see also Table 1.5). Information about the location of
prisons, the security level, size of custodial population, occupancy
index are presented.
All four are among the ten largest correctional facilities in
Romania, each holding over 1.000 incarcerated persons. Only one,
Timisoara Prison, is an open and semi-open prison; the other three
are classified as maximum-security and close regime prisons; how-
ever, they were also housing prisoners held at open and semi-open
regime, although they do that at a lower rate. All four prisons are
confronting the problem of overcrowding; among them, Timisoara
Prison had the lowest occupational level (100.19 per cent), and
Craiova Prison the highest (182.89 per cent). None of them ac-
commodate the inmates in single cells. Actually, only Giurgiu
Prison, a new and modern institution operating since 2004, houses
the prisoners in cells of 2, 4 and maximum 8 beds. The other three
have more various types of accommodation, including large dor-
mitories. For example, at Craiova Prison, the inmates incarcerated
under the maximum security regime are held in rooms equipped
with three beds, while those held at close regime are confined in
common rooms of 15 or 21 beds. At Tulcea Prison, there are rooms
with 3, 9 and 15 beds; at Timisoara Prison some dormitories are
even furnished with 33 beds. Among these four prisons, Giurgiu
Prison has the highest prevalence of aggressive behaviours.
Table 1.5: Characteristics of prisons included in quantitative study

Craiova Giurgiu19 Timisoara Tulcea
Location (region) South-West South West South-East
All types of
regimes
Maximum Maximum Open and (officially
Level of security security and security and semi-open classified as
closed regime closed regime regime maximum
security)
Population size (20.05.2014) 1.101 1.580 1.069 1.012
Occupational level 182.89% 127.11% 100.19% 122.85%
(20.05.2014)
freq. of self-aggression (2012) 6.5 11.2 1.3 1.5
freq. of prisoner-to-prisoner 4.4 8.4 3.3 2.1
assaults (2012)
% of prisoners involved in 24% - 70% 26%
working activities (2014)
% of prisoners involved in 6.5% - 13% 10%
skills programs (2014)
According to the findings of a study conducted by the National

Administration of Prisons, in 2012, the rate of inmate-to-inmate
assaults, calculated as the number of incidents at 100 prisoners,
was twice in Giurgiu (8.4) than in Craiova (4.4) and Timisoara
(3.3), and even four folds higher than in Tulcea Prison (2.1). The
differences in self-aggression rates are much more pronounced.
Giurgiu had a rate of 11.2; Craiova placed second, with a rate of
6.5, while Timisoara and Tulcea Prisons have incomparable lower
rates of 1.3, and 1.5, respectively. Timisoara Prison held the high-
est proportion of prisoners participating in working activities: al-
most 70 per cent, of which almost 60 per cent carried out paid
work. At Craiova and Tulcea Prisons, only one fourth of prisoners
have been working in prison. The percentages of participants in
19
Data on the participation in prison work and programs are not avail-
able for Giurgiu Prison.
skills programs are similar at Timisoara and Tulcea Prisons (10-13

per cents) and lower at Craiova (6 per cent). Conversely, larger
proportions of prisoners were enrolled in school classes at Craiova
and Timisoara Prisons (10-15 per cents) compared with Tulcea
Prison (4 per cent).
Participants
The respondents have been proportionally selected with the
overall number of inmates incarcerated in the aforementioned
four prisons, according to the time they already spent in deten-
tion: long-serving prisoners, who had spent in prison more than
five years of their current sentence, medium-serving prisoners,
who had served between two and five years of their term and
short-serving prisoners, who had served less than two years of
their sentence. Specifically, in each prison, the respondents have
been randomly recruited from three lists, order alphabetically
with all adult male inmates who received a final conviction and
who were imprisoned for the corresponding three periods of time
mentioned above. However, in order to have groups of roughly
equal size, long-serving prisoners were over-represented in the
sample at both Giurgiu and Craiova. Also, at Tulcea, only this cat-
egory of prisoners has been selected for the study. The overrepre-
sentation of prisoners incarcerated for more than 5 years lead to
an overrepresentation of inmates imprisoned for violent offences,
especially homicide.
The initial sample consisted of 320 participants to whom a
questionnaire was administrated. For all respondents who gave
their written consent, additional data on disciplinary behaviour
and other information about their institutional status were further
collected via official records drawn from the prisons electronic da-
tabase. 94 per cent of the survey participants (305 of 323 inmates)
agreed that their electronic files to be consulted. In 25 cases, some

incompatibilities were found between official data and inmates
questionnaires in respect to several socio-demographic variables;
therefore, they were dropped from the database. The final sample,
on which this paper is based on, comprises 280 inmates for which
both questionnaires and official data were consistent. Of these, 38
per cent have been in prison for less than 2 years of their current
term, 32 per cent have already spent in prison between 2 and 5
years and 30 per cent served more than 5 years.
Ethical considerations were strongly taken into account given
that prisoners, as subjects of sociological surveys, are considered
vulnerable persons due to their limited capacity of personal auton-
omy20. Consequently, all participants were informed about the pur-
pose, objectives, sampling procedure, as much as about the volun-
tary nature of participation e.g. the fact that they can refuse to take
part in the survey with no repercussions on them. Also, prisoners
were made aware that the data collected via questionnaires and of-
ficial records will not be discussed or disclosed to others and that
they will be used solely for the purpose of research. The assurances
about the confidentiality of data were doubled by those regarding
the anonymity of participation. As such, the names of respondents
were not included in the questionnaires or on the form used to
gather information from the official records. Finally, the respond-
ents were asked to validate their consent by signing the informed
consent form and the agreement of participation form. The rate of
participation at the survey was surprisingly high, mainly because
in 3 of the 4 prison included in the study; prison staff offered a
20
See Committee on Ethical Considerations for Revisions to DHHS
Regulations for Protection of Prisoners Involved in Research (2006) Ethical
Consideration for Research Involving Prisoners. The National Academy Press:
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19882/pdf/Bookshelf_
NBK19882.pdf
number of credits to inmates for taking part at the research. In ad-

dition, many saw their participation to the survey as a way of get-
ting out of the daily routine of prison life and of interacting with
somebody from the outside world.
CHAPTER 2
PRISON VIOLENCE AND PRISON VICTIMIZATION
2.1. Introduction
Imprisonment has been traditionally invested with several
crime prevention goals such as incapacitation, rehabilitation, and
specific deterrence; yet, controversies surrounding its efficiency in
achieving these goals have been largely disputed in the correctional
literature. One of the focal points of these controversies gravitates
around the criminogenic effects of imprisonment.
On the one hand, scholars have argued that prison violence, es-
pecially its major forms such as robbery, physical assaults, sexual
aggressions and homicides question the incapacitation effect of
imprisonment, since prisoners continue to offend instead of stop-
ping while incarcerated (DeLisi, 2003). Prison violence is further
considered a sign of resistance to rehabilitation and reformation
(Thomas, 1973), as much as a contributor to post-prison recidivism
and antisocial behaviour continuity (DeLisi, 2003; Trulson et al.,
2011; Cochran et al., 2014); thereby it is thought as undermining
the specific deterrence argument that prisons are places that scares
the offenders straight (Nagin, 2012).
On the other hand, victimization in prison yields a wide range
of immediate and tangible negative effects on individual prisoners,
but with ramifications on long-run. As such, victimized prisoners

may suffer from high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, suicide
attempts, and given the inescapable nature of the prison setting,
it may be that experiencing victimization in prison may be worse
than experiencing it in the community (Listwan et al., 2010:
1144). These negative outcomes may further alter prisoners capac-
ity of making a wealthy transition in the community after release
and successfully reintegrate into the mainstream society.
Given all these undesirable consequences, it is not surprising
that prison violence and prison victimization raise vast concerns
among scholars, prison administrators and policy makers alike.
Accordingly, an extensive corpus of research mainly examining the
correlates of prison violence has emerged in the criminological lit-
erature of the past decades. The bulk of these researches is based
on Anglo-American data, and it has been prompted by the massive
increase of the incarceration rates in the Western countries, par-
ticularly in the United States over the past 35 years (Tonry, 1999;
Snodgrass et al., 2011). This generated an intense need of know-
ing how to best deal with large prison populations so that levels of
institutional violence or other negative incidence not to escalate.
However, whereas prison violence has received considerable re-
search attention, less is known about prison victimization and its
determinants. Given the high overlapping existing between the two
behaviours, many scholars actually assume that the same factors
explaining violence are also explaining victimization. Yet, as Pratt
et al. (2014: 88) recently argued, this is not to say that victimiza-
tion and offending should be treated as interchangeable dependent
variables since they are certainly not the same thing.
The present study aims precisely to explore whether the same
correlates accounts for both prison violence and prison vic-
timization. Specifically, various importation and deprivation
characteristics (including several measures grounded in the en-

vironmental opportunities and procedural justice perspectives)
are examined for their relationships with prison violence and vic-
timization. As such, this study advances the scope of existing re-
search in at least two ways. First, it focuses on a particular combi-
nation of factors, testing for its relationships with prison violence/
victimization in the context of Romanian prisons. Second, unlike
most prior studies that relied on official data, the current study is
based on a unique set of self-reported data collected among a sam-
ple of 280 Romanian prisoners.
In what it follows, the study presents some of the methodologi-
cal reflections on type of data, operational definitions and vari-
ous forms of prison violence and victimization used in previous
studies. Then, the types and official incidence of prison violence
and other forms of misbehaviour in Romanian prisons, as well as
the system of disciplinary sanctions are discussed. Next, theoreti-
cal models of prison violence and prior research are reviewed. The
chapter continues by describing the data, measures and methods
used in the current study, followed by the results. It concludes with
the discussion and policy recommendation sections.
2.2. P rison violence and victimization:

official versus self-reported incidence
Information about prison violence in studies aiming at iden-
tifying its determinants is mainly based on official data (e.g. dis-
ciplinary reports filled in by custodial staff). Whilst largely used,
the administrative correctional data have been highly criticised
on the ground that they underrepresent the magnitude and types
of violence committed in prison. Several facts concurred to that.
First, some forms of violence, especially physical assaults or sexual
aggressions committed on other prisoners go largely unreported.

The norms of prison subculture strictly forbid the disclosure of
other prisoners acts of deviance (Wolff et al., 2007). Consequently,
prisoners may deliberately refuse to divulge such incidents, either
as an expression of esprit de corps or out of fears of retaliation and
further victimization. Other infractions such as cell thefts albeit
ubiquitous, are considered rather minor forms of victimization and
prisoners may do not wish to invest the effort of reporting them.
Second, the official data are influenced by the ability of prison
staff to detect violence, as well as by their willingness to report it
(Wooldredge, 1998). Studies have indicated that the decision to
register (or not) a specific instance of violence is rather discretion-
ary, and largely dependent by the attitudes of staff toward that in-
cident and toward the perpetrator (Bottoms, 1999). For example,
assaults on prison staff are by far the most frequent officially reg-
istered form of misconduct. On the contrary, prisoner-to-prisoner
assaults are sometimes overlooked by prison staff, as they are per-
ceived as less serious than violence against prison staff (Kury and
Smartt, 2002).
In addition to the discretionary nature of registering, David
Skarbek (2014: 20-21) discusses other three factors that impede
prison staff to registering the majority acts of violence occurring in
prison. First, prison officers have limited resources; they are usu-
ally outnumbered by prisoners and thereby, they cannot be aware
of each act of violence taking place behind bars. Second, prison
staff may sometimes skip their work duties and responsibilities. As
the author explains, punishing one inmate can generate blowback
from the inmate or his friends. If these efforts dont directly benefit
the officer, then he may think twice about giving it his all. The third
factor is related to prison guards inexperience and lack of under-
standing of prisoner subculture.
The alternative to official data on prison violence is self-re-

ported data collected via sociological surveys. In such studies,
prisoners are asked to indicate whether they have been the vic-
tim or the perpetrator of specific acts of violence. Nevertheless,
self-reported data are suffering as well from several limitations.
Some are related to the way the research instruments are de-
signed (the order and content of questions, questionnaire length
etc.); others regard the mode of administration and provision
of response confidentiality, the interviewer characteristics and
his interviewing style and competence (Blumstein et al., 1986).
Another type of limitation concerns the degree of inaccuracy of
answers given by the respondents due to the memory errors and
the so-called social desirability effect. For example, it is assumed
that especially prisoners with low levels of education, drug users,
alcoholics, and chronic offenders display biases in recalling the
number or the types of specific episodes of violence/ victimiza-
tion; consequently, their answers might be inexact and less reli-
able (Ibidem).
2.3. D efinitions, types and incidence of prison violence

and victimization
Scholars usually agree that prison violence and victimization
are different from that occurring in the community for at least
three reasons (De Almeida and Paes-Machado, 2014). First, they
take place under the deprived nature of imprisonment and are typi-
cally linked to the enforced obligation of living in close proximity
with people having various backgrounds. Second, prison violence
and victimization are associated with the everyday routine of pris-
on life. Third, there is somehow a tacit acceptance of it by the gen-
eral public, authorities and even prisoners.
However, just as in the free-world, violence in prison can take

many forms. For example, it may be physical, psychological, eco-
nomic or social (Bowker, 1980). Each form further embraces its
own subtypes. Differentiated by perpetrator, physical violence
can be committed by prisoners against other prisoners, by prison-
ers against prison staff, by staff against prisoners or by prisoners
against themselves (e.g. self-mutilation) (Florian, 2006). Delving
even deeper, specific acts can be ultimately listed for each of these
categories. Prisoner-to-prisoner physical violence may include acts
of aggressions and violence which lie on a continuum: shouting,
'squaring up,' pushing or shoving, slapping, scratching, butting,
punching, biting, elbowing, kneeing, kicking, knifing, shooting
(causing an explosion). In prison, an inmate might find himself on
a violence disciplinary report for virtually any of these activities,
from pushing to knifing inclusive (Davis, 1982 as cited in Bottoms,
1999: 213). Similarly, physical violence toward staff may include
pushing, spitting, throwing objects, striking and attacking with a
weapon (Wortley, 2002: 117). Some definitions of violent behav-
iour are broader and include non-violent acts such threats or acts
that have the potential to be violent such as possession of a weapon
(Schenk and Fremouw, 2012).
Qualitative categorizations on reasons for which violence is
committed in prison commonly introduce the distinction between
instrumental and expressive aggressiveness. According to Bowker
(1983), instrumental violence is rational and it is committed with
the aim of obtaining power, status or other concrete outcomes,
while expressive violence is rather spontaneous and involves more
often minor conflicts. Framing this classification in a situational
model of prison disorder, Wortley (2002: 81) describes instru-
mental assaults as involving the calculated exploitation of a pre-
senting opportunity, and the expressive assaults as the reaction
to pent-up tensions and frustrations generated by incarceration.

Edgar, ODonnell and Martin (2012: 140-154) identified six pur-
poses for which violence is inflicted to other prisoners: to punish
those who breach prison norms, to retaliate against their own or
friends victimizers, to demonstrate their toughness, to protect
oneself against a direct threat of harm, to defend their honour, and
to solve disputes.
Few studies have estimated the extent of prison violence and
victimization. A recent study conducted in a Brazilian prison re-
ported a victimization rate of 54% (De Almeida and Paes-Machado,
2014). The level of prisoner-to-prisoner physical victimization was
38%, whereas the level of staff-to-prisoner physical violence was
10%. Psychological victimization perpetrated by other prisoners
reached the level of 22%, and that perpetrated by prison staff at
5%. In the US, Wooldredge (1998) found that almost half of re-
spondents in three American prisons reported being the victim of
various crimes (e.g. physical assaults, theft, robbery, and property
damage) in the last six months. A more recent study was undertak-
en by Wolff et al. (2007) on prisoners housed in all 14 prisons (of
which one for female offenders) within an American state prison
system. The authors calculated both overall and 6-month preva-
lences of physical victimization. For male prisoners, they found
that the total prevalence rate for prisoner-to-prisoner physical as-
sault was 252 per 1.000 prisoners, while the staff-on-prisoner rate
was 292 per 1.000 prisoners. Depending on how they were meas-
ured (e.g. based on a single or five-item(s) question), the 6-months
prevalence rates were oscillating from 75 to 205 per 1.000 pris-
oners. Prisoners held in medium and large-size facilities were in
particular exposed to the risk of physical violence. In England, the
study of Edgar et al. (2012) reported that 19% of adults and 30% of
young offenders were physically assaulted in prison, while 26% and
44% respectively were threatened with violence at least one occa-

sion during previous month. Also exclusion as specific form of vic-
timization was more prevalent among the youngest: 18% compared
with 7% among adults. The occurrence of hurtful verbal abuse as
well was doubled among young offenders than among adults (56%
compared with 26%). The Hamlin Study examined prisoner-to-
prisoner violence among young males held at one Young Offender
Institutions in Germany (Kury and Smartt, 2002). According to
the research findings, more than one third had been physically as-
saulted, and over half had experienced physical threats. Theft was
also frequent: almost 40% of respondents saying that some of their
goods and property were stolen. A high proportion of the surveyed
sample 80% had experienced multiple victimizations.
2.4. Types and official incidence of prison violence in Romania

According to the Romanian prison law21, prison violence is
listed among the very serious misconduct-type along with other
misbehaviour falling under the generic categories of contraband,
drugs and alcohol, and security.
The correctional literature postulates that violence has higher
prevalences in prisons defined by poor conditions of confinement.
Consequently, it is assumed that depriving prison conditions can
generate high levels of stress and frustration among prisoners that
are conducive to tensions, conflicts and violence. They may also in-
tensify the competition on the scarce resources available for satisfy-
ing the basic needs; violence may be employed in order to win this
competition. Rough conditions of confinement may further raise
doubts in the legitimacy of prison rules and increase the level of
21
As stated in the prison law 254/2013, misconducts are divided in three
classes of severity: very serious, serious, and minor.
prisoners dissatisfaction toward prison staff. Ellis (1984: 289) no-

ticed in this regard that crowded conditions may shatter the pris-
oners belief they might have had in the moral worthiness of the
criminal justice system generally and of its corrections division
in particular. Conflicts and even assaults committed by prison-
ers against prison staff might therefore have higher occurrence in
overcrowded and scant prison conditions.
As already noted in the previous chapter, Romanian prison sys-
tem does suffer from such conditions of confinement. Regrettably,
no prison self-reported surveys have been undertaken so far to es-
timate the scale and the nature of prisoner deviance and violence.
Yet, the existing official data shows that prisoner-to-prisoner vio-
lence places second after contraband infractions among the most
common disciplinary problems for which the Romanian prisoners
have been officially sanctioned (see Table 2.1). They are followed
by violations of prison internal regulations, disrespectful attitudes
towards prison staff, and self-mutilation. Less common, at least
as the official figures show, are stealing, instigation to disobedi-
ence or riot, prisoner-to-staff assaults, drug/alcohol infractions,
and prisoner sexual assaults. Lethal violence is also exceptional in
Romanian prisons: according to NAP data, only 10 prisoners died
in the past 14 years as a result of involvement in physical assaults.
Table 2.1: Number of misconduct by specific types, 2013

TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT N %
Manufacturing/possession of prohibited items 4653 29.6
Assaults on other inmate 2516 16.0
Violating prison internal regulations 2262 14.4
Disrespectful attitude towards prison staff 1514 9.6
Self-mutilation 1381 8.8
Other misconduct 1640 10.4
TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT N %

Destroying property 1042 6.6
Establishing relationships with other inmates that poses risk for prison 240 1.5
security
Introduction, possession and alcohol consumption 169 1.1
Disrespectful attitude towards judicial bodies 116 0.7
Stealing from other inmate(s) 66 0.4
Refuse to comply to search procedure 34 0.2
Instigation to disobedience 33 0.2
Assaults on prison staff 23 0.1
Refusing work 21 0.1
Failure to comply to work regulations 17 0.1
Instigation to riot 11 0.1
TOTAL 15738 100%
Source: National Administration of Prisons (NAP), 2014.
A study conducted by NAP between 2010 and 2014, has exam-

ined on the basis of official data the prevalences of four types
of aggressive behaviours: prisoner-to-prisoner assaults, prisoner-
to-staff assaults, self-mutilations, suicide/suicide attempts. The
findings showed, for example, that the rate of prisoner-to-prisoner
assaults (calculated as the number of incidents at 100 prisoners)
increased in 2014 at 5.2, compared with 4.7 in 2010 and 2012, re-
spectively 4.0 in 2011 and 2013. The rate of self-harm has a peak
in 2010, when were recorded 3.3 incidents at 100 prisoners. The
number of inmate-to-staff assaults increased in the five years pe-
riod, but overall it remained rather low, with variations from 13
incidents in 2012 to 46 in 2014. The number of suicides is low as
well, ranging from 10 instances in 2010, 2011, and 2014 to 21 in
2012 and 18 in 2013.
2.4.1. Disciplinary sanctions: types and procedures

A range of disciplinary measures are imposed by prison admin-
istration to disobedient and violent prisoners. Most of them rep-
resent suspensions of certain rights (e.g. to buy and receive goods,
to be visited, to work or to participate in prison programs and
activities) for 1 up to 3 months depending on the seriousness of
misconduct. In addition, prisoners who breach minor prison rules
can get a warning, the most lenient disciplinary sanction. At the
other extreme, the most severe action against major rule breakers
is isolation for maximum ten days. However, this sanction is ap-
plied rather rarely, as official data indicates; for example, in 2013,
less than 10% of all prisoners charged for a disciplinary infraction
(around 4% of all incarcerated prisoners) have been sent to isola-
tion. Postponement of de-classification in a softer regime is also
possible, as well as the classification in a more severe prison re-
gime if the prisoner committed a crime or he has been disciplinary
sanctioned for a very serious misconduct or for a number of seri-
ous misconduct including violence. An additional administrative
sanction is applied to inmates found guilty of possession of drugs
or mobile phones. They are forbidden to work inside prison (i.e. to
participate in activities related to prison functioning)
Disciplinary sanctions, as well as the rewards (the opposite
mechanism through which prison administrations attempt to en-
sure inmates compliance with prison rules), are based since 2013
on a credit-points system. For each educational, training or psy-
chosocial programs and activities completed, inmates acquire a
specific number of credit-points. Each type of disciplinary sanc-
tions and each type of rewards they receive are associated with a
loss of a particular number of credits. For example, if an inmate

is sanctioned with the suspension of the right to receive visits for
a maximum three months, he loses 60 credits. He would lose the
same number of credits for one-day permission to leave prison.
However, the credit system is not yet used in the decisions regard-
ing inmates classification or granting conditional release.
2.5. Theoretical background

Scholarship on prisoner violence is usually framed under two
prominent theories of adaptation to imprisonment: the importa-
tion and the deprivation models. The latter one has been recently
extended in the literature to also include the situational or envi-
ronmental (Wooldredge, 1998; Wortley, 2002) and the procedural
justice perspectives (Sparks et al., 1996; Reisig and Mesko, 2009).
The deprivation model

The deprivation theory of violence points to prison environ-
mental influences on prisoner behaviour (Clemmer, 1940; Sykes,
1958). Its main propositions are rooted in the early ethnographic
researches of prison sociology and focuses on correlates associated
with prison conditions. Sykess (1958) landmark study on the so-
ciety of captives is considered the architype of this model. In line
with his argumentation, prisons deprive individuals in terms of
physical liberty, autonomy, heterosexual relationships, goods and
services, and personal security. Such deprivations, claims the au-
thor, cause severe psychological sufferings to prisoners and pose
profound threats to their personality or sense of personal worth
([1958] 2007: 64). To cope with these anguishes arisen from the
austerity of prison life, prisoners develop various adaptive respons-
es. The most common among prisoners is the collectivistic one:
prisoners ally with each other and form their own social system
based on specific norms (e.g. the inmate code) and specific social
structure (e.g. the argot roles).
The emergent subculture is defined by its profound antithetical
orientation toward conventional values and its general appeal to
prisoners loyalty and solidarity against prison staff. Arguably, the
models basic assumption is that the more deprived the experience
of imprisonment is, the deeper will be the prisoners immersion
in the prison subculture and consequently, the higher will be their
involvement in prison violence. For example, some prisoners may
take the role of gorilla getting the desired goods from other pris-
oners by means of violence and coercion. In the same way, prison-
ers may adopt the role of wolves and engage in sexual aggressions
toward other prisoners in order to overcome the deprivation of
heterosexual relationships and to reaffirm their masculine outlook.
Goffmans (1961) theory of total institution is also emblem-
atical for the deprivation model. According to the author, prisons,
like the elderly or child care institutions, mental health hospitals,
military barracks, monasteries, are such institutions that cuts off
the individuals from the outside world. Through successive sta-
tus degradation ceremonies to which prisoners are subjected to
since admittance, prisons denude individuals of their former civil
roles and personal identities and prepare them to become institu-
tionalized. All prisoners experience an assemblage of humiliations
and attacks on the self as a consequence of losing their physical
autonomy and capacity for self-governance under prisons intru-
sive control. To counteract the corrosive action of prison and to
reinstate a sense of autonomy and self-worth, prisoners embrace
several forms of secondary adaptations; some of them such as
inflexible tactics are focusing on rebellion, noncompliance and
the constant refusal to cooperate with prison staff.
In consonance with both Sykes and Goffman theories, prison

violence is the product of prisons via the psychological pains and
indignities they induce and the subsequent subculture/adaptations
they generated. Today, however, the model is regarded by some au-
thors as outdated, as the prison deprivations have been somewhat
reduced, and the prison subculture has been fragmentised. Several
developments are thought as conducive to these results (Crewe,
2005: 180-181). First, changes in prison policies and practice in
accordance with human rights principles led to improvements of
prison conditions via provisions of amenities, openings to outside
world, and shifts in attitudes of prison staff. Second, the prisons sys-
tem of incentives and privileges has motivated prisoners to comply
with the institutional goals. Third, it is assumed that changes in the
size and composition of prison population (e.g. the influx of young-
er, violent, drug addicted prisoners) have led to the disintegration of
prison subculture (Jacobs, 1980; McCorkle et al., 1995; Innes, 1997).
Yet, the deprivation model was not abandoned, but reframed
in the language of situational (Wortley, 2002) or environmen-
tal opportunity perspective (Wooldredge, 1998; Steiner and
Wooldredge, 2009). Shifting the focus from the prison subculture
to the formal elements of prison environment (e.g. prison regime),
the new perspective asserts that certain characteristics of the fa-
cilities in which prisoners are confined (e.g. crowding, program
availability etc.) either obstruct or stimulate occasions for inmates
to commit misbehaviour (Wortley, 2002; Steiner and Wooldredge,
2009). Scholars assume, for instance, that participation in prison
programs and work activities reduces prison violence and victimi-
zation by providing inmates with a daily routine (Wortley, 2002). It
further decreases both the opportunities for association with rule
breaking prone inmates and the exposure to high-risk situations
(Wooldredge, 1998).
The procedural justice theory has also evolved from the classi-
cal model of deprivation. It associates prison violence with prison-
ers feelings of being deprived of a fair treatment and subjected
to deficits in legitimacy of rules. At the heart of this perspective
lie the relationships between prisoners and prison staff. Liebling
(2011a: 534) notices in this regard that the absence of respect and
fairness is experienced as psychologically painful. Being treated
disrespectfully or without dignity generates negative emotions
such as anger, tension, indignation, depression and rage; all may
lead further to disobedience, violence and misconduct. On the
contrary, when prisoners are treated with respect and equity, and
power is accepted as legitimate, obedience is more likely to happen,
information flow between prison staff and prisoners will be more
facile, trust will develop, and well-being will increase (Liebling,
2011b).
The importation model

It suggests that not the prison conditions, but the prisoners
characteristics, their personal biographies, social experiences, and
criminal histories are the main correlates of violence in prison.
Irwin and Cressey (1962), the founders of this perspective, argue
that the inmate subculture is not the product of the carceral set-
tings; rather it is a duplication of a larger criminal subculture the
thief subculture that inmates carried with them in prison once
incarcerated. In other words, prisoners do not become violent per-
sons under the deprived environment of prison; they are already
as such when entered in prison and they continue to act inside the
facility exactly in the same manner they acted in the community.
To put it simply, the theory assumes that prison violence is the
resultant of the same characteristics that in general predispose in-
dividuals toward anti-sociality and crime (Innes, 1997; Berg and
DeLisi, 2006). These characteristics are typically grouped in two

categories. The first one includes the socio-demographics such as
age, level of education, occupational status, marital status, number
of children, as proxies for individuals adherence to criminal value
system (Lahm, 2008: 121). Young persons, with lower levels of edu-
cation and poor history of employment, not married and without
children are supposed to behave more violently in prison compared
with those more educated, with steady employment background,
and stable families. The second group of factors includes offending
history measures as direct indicators of inmate predisposition to-
ward criminality. Prior incarcerations, conviction history, violence
past are all assumed to correlate with violent behaviour.
Although initially developed as alternative explanations, the
deprivation and importation models are now used in an integrat-
ed fashion; characteristics of both models are incorporated into a
single one in order to discern the combination of factors that best
explain prison violence and victimization (Sorensen et al., 1998;
Dhami et al., 2007; Tasca et al., 2010). Yet, as it will be shown in the
next section, no definite conclusions have been reached so far re-
garding the ability of different measures to explain prison violence
and victimization.
2.6. Prior studies

Prison violence
According to the deprivation model, the scantier the prison re-
gimes are the more likely inmates will misbehave in prison. This
hypothesis is tested in prior research assuming that inmates held
at maximum security and closed regimes would suffer more dep-
rivations than those confined at open and semi-open regimes due
to higher levels of prison regulations (Cao et. al, 1997; Jiang and
Fisher-Giorlando, 2002). The empirical findings generally support

this assumption. Innes (1997) for example found that prisoners
held at higher security levels are more likely to engage in serious
violence, while prisoners incarcerated at medium security regimes
have higher probabilities to commit minor assaults. In addition,
some studies investigated whether participation in working ac-
tivities influence inmate involvement in institutional misconduct.
Huebner (2003) found that what she called remunerative controls
(e.g. working outside and working inside prison) significantly im-
pacts inmate-to-staff assaults, but not the inmate-to-inmate as-
saults. Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) also indicated that number
of hours at work assignment significantly reduces assaults in prison.
Also consistent with the deprivation model, it is assumed that
prisoners who spend more time in detention have a prolonged
experience of deprivations, and thus, have higher probabilities of
violating prison rules than those with shorter staying in prison
(e.g. Innes, 1997; Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando, 2002). Empirical
studies examining the relationship between length of stay in pris-
on and misconduct give mixed results. While some studies found
support for this hypothesis (Berg and DeLisi, 2006; Steiner and
Wooldredge, 2008), others found no relationship (Cunningham
and Sorensen, 2007; Lahm, 2008). Still others identified a curvilin-
ear rather than a linear effect (Lahm, 2009; Innes, 1997). However,
when length of sentence was examined, most studies showed that
its effect is inversely correlated with misconduct: inmates serving
longer sentences have lower likelihoods of committing miscon-
duct than those convicted to shorter prison terms (Cunningham
et al., 2005; Cunningham and Sorensen, 2007; Morris et al., 2010).
For instance, Cunningham and Sorensen (2007) pointed out that
those sentenced to less than five years of imprisonment were ap-
proximately twice as likely to commit violent misconduct as those
convicted to prison sentences longer than 20 years. Another study

conducted by the same authors (Cunningham et al., 2005) revealed
that parole-eligible inmates sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment
or more had also a two-fold higher probability to engage in violent
misbehaviour compared with prisoners sentenced to life or death.
These findings were supported by Morris et al. (2010) study among
capital inmates.
Studies have also shown that the visits someone received in
prison could impact his violent behaviour. Overall the relation-
ship was assumed to be negative: prisoners who received visits in
prison have lower probabilities of engaging in violence than those
not visited (Hensley et al., 2002; Cochran, 2012). In a recent study,
Tewksbury et al. (2014) found that the total number of visits re-
ceived by an inmate during one year was a significant predictor
for any disciplinary infraction, as well as for serious infractions in-
cluding assaults. The authors found that for every additional visit
received, the likelihood of being charged for serious disciplinary
infraction decreases by 2%. Again, as in the case of other corre-
lates, other investigations identified no significant relationship be-
tween visits and prisoner violence (Jiang and Winfree, 2006; Lahm,
2009). Some clarifications of these conflicting findings came from
longitudinal studies that examined the patterns of both visiting and
misconduct, including violence. In one of such analyses, Siennick
et al. (2013) demonstrated that the risk of a disciplinary infraction,
including violence dropped in the weeks preceding the visits, in-
creases after the visits, and then declines again.
Prisoners subjective evaluations of procedural justice are also
speculated in the literature as being significantly related to prison
violence. Yet, most of the studies examining this relationship in-
cluded rather general measures of misconduct and less of prison
violence. These studies have showed an unequivocal association
between inmates perception of treatment and/or quality of rela-

tionship with staff and likelihood of participating in misconduct.
Using the data of the Prison Project, a longitudinal study on the
effects of imprisonment in the Netherlands, Beijersbergen et al.
(2014) documented a causal relation between prisoners percep-
tion of procedural justice and misconduct. In addition, the study
stressed the role of anger as mediator of this relation: prisoners who
assessed their treatment by prison staff as unfair were more likely
to experience anger; experiencing anger in relation with their treat-
ment by prison staff was further linked with higher probabilities
of involving in misconduct. In Slovene context, Reisig and Mesko
(2009) also revealed an inverse relation between procedural justice
and both self-reported and official misconduct. Yet, legitimacy was
not correlated with misconduct, a result mainly attributed by the
authors to how legitimacy was measured.
As far as it concerns the importation variables, scholars con-
sistently found a strong, inverse relationship between age and mis-
behaviour: younger prisoners have higher probabilities of involve-
ment in prison misconduct than older prisoners (MacKenzie, 1987;
Cao et al., 1997; Gendreau et al., 1997; Lahm, 2009). For exam-
ple, Cunningham and Sorensen (2007) found that prisoners aged
younger than 21 were 3.5 times more likely to commit violent acts
in prison than those with age between 31 and 35 years old. Several
studies however indicated rather a nonlinear relationship between
age and prison infractions (Cao et al., 1997; Morris et al., 2010).
Another factor alleged to affect prison misconduct is education.
The hypothesis is that prisoners with lower levels of education are
more prone to violence than those more educated. Cunningham et
al. (2005) provided scientific support for this hypothesis. In their
model of predicting the prevalence of violence among prisoners,
they revealed that education indeed exerts a significant negative
influence on misbehaviour: prisoners who obtained at least high

school diploma had lower levels of involvement in violent infrac-
tions compared with those who hadnt completed the high school.
Furthermore, scholars have found that married male inmates
are less likely to commit acts of violence than the unmarried
prisoners (Jiang and Winfree, 2006). However, Jiang and Fisher-
Giorlando (2002) indicated that divorced prisoners are less likely
than married prisoners to commit incidents against other inmates.
Paradoxical, having children seems to be non-related (Jiang and
Winfree, 2006) or, even more intriguing, positively correlated with
prison violence (Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando, 2002).
Previous research also looked on how prior prison sentences
affect the likelihood of involvement in prison violence. Some stud-
ies suggested that inmates who have previously been in prison
were more likely to commit violent or other misconduct under
current incarceration (Berg and DeLisi, 2006; Cunningham et al.,
2005; Jiang and Winfree, 2006; Sorensen and Cunningham, 2010).
Cunningham and Sorensen (2007) showed, for instance, that those
who served prior prison terms were 35% more likely to engage in
violent incidents than first-time incarcerated offenders (p. 248).
Morris et al. (2010) as well identified a significant association be-
tween having prior incarceration and the prevalence of violent, ac-
countability, security, contraband, and drug infractions, and none
for potential violent, sexual and property breaches.
Researchers attention was also directed toward the association
between the conviction offence and prison violence. Most of the
investigations focused on the violent nature of conviction offence
presuming that there is a direct relationship between violent offenc-
es leading to conviction and violent behaviour in prison. Although
some studies confirmed this assumption (Steiner, 2009), the major-
ity reported that inmates convicted for violent crimes actually had
lower levels of prison violence and misconduct than those convict-

ed for nonviolent crimes (Cunningham and Sorensen, 2007). For
example, Cunningham et al. (2005) found that inmates convicted
for property offenses were more likely to commit violent offenses
in prison.
Prisoner victimization
As already mentioned, few studies have focused on correlates
of prisoner victimization. The existent ones found that prison re-
gime is the most relevant deprivation characteristics explaining
victimization in prison. Similar to the findings reported in the
case of prison violence, prisoners held as maximum security levels
have higher likelihoods of becoming the victim of prison violence
(Cooley, 1993; Prez et al., 2010). Participation in prison programs
and work has as well been tested in relation to prison victimiza-
tion. Wooldredge (1998), for example, found that the hours spent
in educational classes relate to a lower probability of being victim-
ized by physical assaults. Yet, the number of hours spent at a prison
job, and the participation in vocational training were not related to
this type of victimization. Interesting, the number of hours spent
in recreational activities actually increases the likelihood of being
victimized. In another notable study, Prez et al. (2010) revealed
that paid job assignment was related to low likelihood of being vic-
timized by prison staff; it was not related with the probability of ex-
perience victimization by other prisoner. According to their study,
time served, another deprivation characteristics, was significantly
associated with higher chances of being victimized by other pris-
oners and with lower chances of being victimized by prison staff.
Prior studies documented that among the importation characteris-
tics, age holds the strongest relationship with prison victimization.
As such, younger prisoners are more likely than adult prisoners
to experience various forms of victimization in prison (Wolff et

al., 2007; Edgar et al., 2012). Other characteristics assumed to be
linked with prison victimization and perception of safety in cus-
tody were mental disability, prior experiences of victimization dur-
ing childhood, criminal behaviour, level of education and income
(Wolff and Shi, 2009).
2.7. Data, measures and method

The present study seeks to examine the determinants of overall
prevalences of prison violence and victimization among a sample
of Romanian male prisoners. Data for this study were collected on
a sample of 280 Romanian male, finally convicted prisoners incar-
cerated in four facilities: Craiova, Giurgiu, Timisoara, and Tulcea22.
Dependent variables
Information on prisoners experience of violence both as
perpetrator and victim was obtained from prisoners survey. As
such, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of prison
victimization experiences during the current sentence. A broader
definition of victimization was used including 13 types of possi-
ble violent behaviours exerted either by other prisoners or prison
staff: threat, harassment, humiliation, verbal aggression, hitting,
serious injury, theft and receiving drug deals. Response options
were distributed on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 corresponded to the
option never and 4 to option over 10 times. Subsequently,
subjects were asked to indicate the frequency with which they
themselves have exerted the same types of behaviours on other
prisoners or prison staff. Two general scales one of victimization
Details on sampling procedure are presented in Chapter 1
22
and one of violence were further constructed by averaging pris-

oners answers to the aforementioned 13 types of violent acts. In
order to calculate the total prevalences, they were both dichoto-
mized as it follows: 1 = at least 1-5 acts of victimization/violence
during the current sentence; 0 = none. Using the same procedure,
four other dichotomous variables measuring the prevalences of
prisoner-to-prisoner victimization, prisoner-to-prisoner violence,
staff-to-prisoner victimization, and prison-to-staff violence were
also created.
Independent variables
Congruent with deprivation theory, the following characteris-
tics were included in the analyses: prison regime measured at the
time of the interview (1 = maximum security and close regime
(55%); 0 = open and semi-open regime); time served (1 = 5 years or
more (31%); 0 = else); and length of sentence (1 = 5 years or more
(73%); 0 = else). Also, a variable gauging prisoners perceptions on
prison conditions was incorporated in the analyses. The measure
was created by first averaging prisoners responses to four items on
how problematic is for them to share cell with other prisoners, the
quality of food, overcrowding, and poor sanitation. They could rate
these items on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = problem-
atic in a very small extent to 5 = problematic in a very great extent).
The variable was then dichotomized: 1 represented the scores of 4
or higher (45%) and 0 the scores of 3 or less.
Three other variables included in the analyses were drawn from
environmental opportunity perspective: participation in prison
work (1= yes, for at least 6 months (28%); 0 = else); participation in
skills programs (1= yes, (42%); 0 = else); receiving visits often and
very often by at least one member of the family/group of friends (1 =
yes (50%); 0 = no);
Not least, in line with procedural justice approach, prisoners

perception of treatment by staff was incorporated. In order to do
that, we have first averaged the respondents answers at two ques-
tions on how problematic are for them the harsh attitude of prison
staff and lack of support from prison staff (with response options
lying also on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = problematic in a very
small extent to 5 = problematic in a very great extent). The measure
was then broken down in a dummy variable (1 = 4 or higher (25%);
0 = 3 or less).
The importation variables consisted of four socio-demograph-
ics, all dichotomously recoded: age at arrest (1 = 35 years or older;
0 = else); having a life-partner at the time of arrest (1 = yes; 0 =
no); having minor children (1 = yes; 0 = no) and graduated at least
secondary school (1 = yes; 0 = no). In addition, two variables related
to criminal history were created. First, having prior incarcerations
as self-reported by respondents (1 = yes; 0 = no); and second, being
currently imprisoned for a violent offence (1 = yes; 0 = no).
Method
A sub-sample of 155 prisoners who have less than two years
left until being hearing for conditional release have been extracted
from the original final sample. The decision to restrict the sam-
ple to this particular category of prisoners was motivated by the
intention to avoid the potential biases that might have arisen
from the use of measure(s) during the entire period the inmates
have been incarcerated. The statistical analyses start with descrip-
tive analyses carried out in order to examine the prevalences of
prison violence and prison victimization. Bivariate analyses us-
ing the independent T-test are then conducted in order to test the
relationships between prisoners victimization and violence on
the one hand and each deprivation, environmental opportunity,
procedural justice, and importation characteristic separately on

the other hand. The results of these analyses are presented in Table
2.A in the Appendix.
Second, in order to examine the contribution to self-reported
prevalences of victimization and violence of each of the character-
istics while holding all the others in the model constant, logistic
regression analyses were employed. The results for the prevalences
of total and specific subtypes of prison victimization are presented
in Table 2.3, while those corresponding to prison violence are dis-
played in Table 2.B in the Appendix.
2.8. Results
Prisoners as victim of violence
In the first stage of the analysis, the prevalence of various types
of prison victimization/ prison violence is examined. The results
revealed a relatively high prevalence of victimization in the inves-
tigated group. Thus, approximately 63% of all survey participants
reported at least one victimization experience during the current
sentence (see Figure 2.1). However, about 95% of the respondents
have achieved an average score of 2.4 on the victimization scale
meaning that the majority has indicated at most 1 to 5 episodes.
Depending on the perpetrator of violence (prisoner or prison staff),
60% of respondents said they did fall victims of various kinds of
violence by other prisoners; nearly one-third have mentioned they
were mistreated by prison staff (see Figure 2.1).
In terms of types of violence, threats and insults have the high-
est prevalences (see Figure 2.2). Thus, about 45% of the sampled
prisoners admitted they had been threatened, and 41% said they
had been insulted at least once by other prisoners. More than a
quarter claims they were insulted by prison staff (29%) or hit/
pushed by other prisoners (25%). In relatively similar proportion

(22-24%) they admit that they have been harassed by other pris-
oners or harassed by correctional staff. About one-fifth say they
were victims of burglary in prison, and also that they were humili-
ated by prison staff (19%). In slightly reduced weights, survey par-
ticipants stated that they had been hit by staff (16%) and that they
were offered drugs in prison (15%). 10% or even less claim they
were humiliated by other inmates or seriously injured by them or
by prison staff.
Prisoners as perpetrator of violence

Half of the surveyed prisoners do admit, on the other hand,
their involvement in anti-social and hetero-aggressive behaviour
(see Figure 2.1). About half say they committed acts of violence
against other prisoners, and almost one fifth against prison staff.
Interestingly, most of them (40%) admit that they had violent
behaviour towards other prisoners, pushing or hitting them (see
Figure 2.2). In addition, in proportion of 30% of respondents say
they insulted and threatened other inmates. Less than 20% of re-
spondents claim that they harassed their detention colleagues or
insulted prison staff. In almost negligible proportions, prisoners
admit that they harassed prison workers and humiliated, seriously
hit or hurt them. Also in very low proportions, they declare that
they have humiliated a fellow inmate, seriously injured another
person incarcerated, were the perpetrators of thefts in prison, of-
fered drugs or drank alcohol in prison.
Figure 2.1: Prevalences of overall and main categories

of prison violence and victimization
Figure 2.2: Prevalences of specific types of prison violence and victimization
Bivariate analyses
In the second stage of the analysis, bivariate relationships be-
tween each deprivation, environmental opportunity, procedural
justice, and importation characteristic on the one hand and over-
all self-reported prison victimization/ violence on the other hand
were performed (see Table 2.2).
Characteristics of prisoners who experienced prison victimization

All four deprivation variables hold significant and positive rela-
tionship with the prevalence of self-reported prison victimization.
As expected, prisoners confined at maximum security and closed
regimes have higher probabilities of reporting victimization (88%)
than prisoners held at open and semi-open regimes (50%). Also,
prisoners who served five years or more of their current prison term
and those who have been convicted to longer prison sentences have
higher chances than their counterparts to report being victimized
in prison (81% versus 55% and 77% versus 44%, respectively).
Perceptions of prison conditions also significantly distinguish
between prisoners likelihoods of victimization: prisoners who
rated the conditions of confinement as problematic and very prob-
lematic have 67% chance of reporting victimization, whereas those
having more positive perceptions yield 59% chance.
Among the environment opportunity variables, only participa-
tion in skills programs holds as significant and, as anticipated, in-
verse relationship to self-reported prison victimization. Prisoners
attending skills programs have 57% chances of being victimized in
prison, significantly lower than the chances of prisoners who were
not involved in such programs (67%).
Contrary to our theoretical assumptions, working in prison and
receiving often and very often visits from families or friends do not
act as protective factors against victimization, since they hold no
significant relationships with overall self-reported victimization.
Instead, the procedural justice variable discriminates prisoners
probability of being victimized: prisoners perceiving prison-staff
as harsh and unsupportive have 85% chances of being victimized in
prison compared with just over half of those complaining in lesser
extent by prison-staff.
Table 2.2: Bivariate relation between prison/ prisoners characteristics

and the experiences of violence/ victimization
Prisoners as victim of Prisoners as perpetra-
violence tors of violence
yes no sig yes no sig.
Deprivation factors
Served 5 years or more 0.81 0.55 *** 0.77 0.36 **
Convicted to 5 years or more of imprisonment 0.77 0.44 *** 0.64 0.27 **
Confined at maximum security and closed 0.88 0.50 *** 0.78 0.33 **
Highly discontent by prison conditions 0.67 0.59 ** 0.50 0.45
Environmental opportunity factors
Receiving visits often and very often 0.67 0.61 0.44 0.49
Participation in work programs 0.57 0.67 ** 0.45 0.49
Participation in skills programs 0.61 0.64 0.39 0.58
Procedural justice factors
Highly discontent by prison staff 0.85 0.55 *** 0.69 0.40 **
Importation factors
Aged 35 years or older 0.49 0.68 ** 0.26 0.57 ***
Completing 8 grades or more 0.60 0.64 0.40 0.55
Having partner at time of incarceration 0.64 0.59 0.42 0.51
Having underage children 0.62 0.62 0.45 0.48
Being convicted for a violent offense 0.68 0.57 0.57 0.36
Having prior incarcerations 0.66 0.61 0.53 0.46
~ Table shows results of T-test
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
The results of bivariate analysis further show that age is the only
importation variable significantly related with self-reported prison
victimization. In line with prior studies, incarcerated persons of 35
years or older have lower self-reported prevalences of being victim-
ized than younger prisoners (49% versus 68%). Curiously, the other
socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. education, marital status,
fatherhood) were not related with overall self-reported victimization

in prison. Neither were prisoners previous offending characteristics.
Characteristics of prisoners who perpetrated prison violence

Almost the same set of variables that turned to be relevant in the
case of prison self-reported victimization proved to be also signifi-
cant for prison violence. As such, all deprivation characteristics
except for prisoners perception on prison conditions are related
with overall self-reported prison violence. Long-serving prisoners as
much as those convicted to longer prison penalties have twice the
chances of their counterparts to report involvement in prison vio-
lence (77% versus 36% and 64% versus 27%, correspondingly). Also,
prisoners housed at maximum security and closed regimes have two-
fold likelihoods of participating in prison violence than those held at
open and semi-open regime. The only environmental opportunity
variable significantly related to prison victimization participation
in prison skills programs lost its relevance for prison violence.
The procedural justice measure kept instead its importance:
prisoners dissatisfied by the way by prison staff treats them have
69% chances of reporting participating in prison violence com-
pared with 40% the chances of their matching part who displayed
moderate or lower levels of dissatisfaction with their treatment by
staff. Similar to prison victimization, age is the only importation
characteristics significantly related to self-reported prison vio-
lence. In line with theoretical expectations, older prisoners have
28% chances of engaging in prison violence, half the chances cor-
responding to younger prisoners (57%).
The results of logistic regressions

In the third stage of analysis, multiple regression models
were employed in order to examine the relationship between the
deprivation, environmental opportunity, procedural justice, and

importation factors and the six types of prison violence, while con-
trolling for all variables included in the models.
Prison victimization
According to the regression models presented in Table 2.A in
the Appendix, prison regime is the only deprivation characteristic
that remains significantly related to both overall and prisoner-to-
prisoner victimization prevalences. Specifically, the odds of experi-
encing overall prison victimization are five times as higher for pris-
oners held at maximum security and closed regimes than for those
confined at open and semi-open regime holding other character-
istics constant. For prisoner-to-prisoner victimization, the odds
are eight times as higher. Interestingly, prison regime does not sig-
nificantly relate to staff-to-prisoner victimization. Instead, another
deprivation factor length of sentence is relevant. Prisoners con-
victed to longer sentences are more likely to report victimization
by prison staff compared with prisoners that have received shorter
prison penalties. Moreover, time spent in prison was one of the
correlate for prison-to-prison victimization. Congruent with our
assumptions, the likelihood of such victimization is higher for pris-
oners who already spent five or even more years in prison than for
those who served less time incarcerated.
The environmental opportunities variables proved as well to be
significantly but differently related to the types of prisoner victimiza-
tion included in the analyses. On one hand, unlike non-participants,
prisoners who attended prison skills programs were significantly
less likely to report an incident of victimization in prison. On the
other hand, and contrary to our anticipations, prisoners who worked
(longer) in prison have significantly higher probabilities to report vic-
timization by other prisoners. Actually, the odds of being victimized
by other prisoners are two times as higher for them than for prison-
ers who did not work in prison or worked less than 6 months. The
procedural justice variable measuring prisoners perception on treat-
ment by staff is significantly related to overall and staff-to-prisoner
victimization. More precisely, the odds of experiencing any type of
victimization are three times as higher for prisoner who rated as
problematic/very problematic their treatment by prison staff than for
those who stated otherwise. For staff-to-prisoner victimization, the
likelihoods are eighth times as higher. The only importation charac-
teristic that proved to be significantly related to prison victimization
is education, but its relevance is limited to staff-to-prisoner victimi-
zation only. Contradicting our theoretical suppositions, the likeli-
hood of reporting this type of victimization is higher among more
educated prisoners than among those with lower levels of education.
Curiously, neither age nor other socio-demographics (e.g. marital
status, fatherhood) or criminal history variables were significant cor-
relates of any of the types of victimization included in the analyses.
Prison violence
The results of logistic regression for participation in overall
prison violence and specific categories are shown in Table 2.B in
the Appendix. Also in this case, prison regime turned to be the only
deprivation characteristics significantly related to overall prison
violence as well as to prisoner-to-prisoner violence. The odds of
participation in overall violence were three times as higher for pris-
oners incarcerated at higher security levels than for those housed in
softer regimes, and eighth times as higher in the case of prisoner-
to-prisoner violence. Similar to the model on staff-to-prison vic-
timization, length of sentence was also related to its counterpart:
prison-to-staff violence. As such, prisoners convicted to sentences
of five years of imprisonment or more are significantly more likely
to report involvement in acts of violence against prison staff than

those convicted to shorter prison sentences. Interestingly, the envi-
ronmental opportunity characteristics were related only to prison-
to-staff violence. As expected, both prisoners involved in prison
work and those participating in skills programs were significantly
less likely to report committing violence against prison staff. The
procedural justice measure was significantly related only with the
overall prevalence of prison violence. The odds of participating in
any type of prison violence are actually 2.8 times as higher for pris-
oners who rated as problematic/very problematic the way they are
treated by prison staff than for those deploring in lesser extent how
prison staff deals with prisoners.
Among the importation variables, prisoners age was significant-
ly related to overall and prisoner-to-prisoner violence. As hypoth-
esized, compared to the youngest, older prisoners are less likely to
participate in any type of violence as well as in violence against other
prisoners. Intriguing, prisoners age was not related to prisoner-to-
staff violence. Yet, other socio-demographic characteristics turned
to be relevant for this type of prison violence. First being married
or in cohabitation at the time of arrest is inversely linked with self-
reported participation in violence against prison staff. Curiously,
having minor children is instead positively related. Not least, one of
the offending history characteristic prior incarcerations was also
straightforwardly related to prisoner-to-staff violence. As such, the
likelihood of reporting violence against prison staff was three times
as higher for recidivists than for first-time offenders.
2.9. Discussion and Conclusions

The current study adds to a longstanding tradition of research
in correctional literature that examined the factors associated with
prison violence and prison victimization. Its main goal was to ex-
pand the existing scholarship, largely dominated by the U.S. stud-
ies, by exploring the relationships between certain importation
and deprivation characteristics (including environmental oppor-
tunities and procedural justice measures) and the prevalences of
various types of prison violence and prison victimization: overall
victimization/overall violence, prisoner-to-prisoner victimiza-
tion/violence, and staff-to-prisoner victimization/prisoner-to-staff
violence. The main purpose of our approach was to test whether
the factors associated with prison violence are similar to that ex-
plaining prison victimization. Unique self-reported data collected
among the sample of Romanian prisoners were used to investigate
whether it is the depriving nature of imprisonment that favour
prison victimization/prison violence or rather the characteristics
of prisoners themselves incite to that. The study also examined
whether several environmental opportunity factors such as par-
ticipation in skills programs, working in prison and being visited
often and very often may act as buffer against victimization/vio-
lence. Not least, the contribution of procedural justice (e.g. the way
prisoners perceived that they were treated by prison staff) was as
well explored.
The findings of this study confirm that measures of both models
hold significant relationships with prison victimization and prison
violence. Still, it was found that the characteristics drawn from
deprivation model better explain prisoners participation in vio-
lence both as victim and perpetrator. As such, the study stands in
line with early empirical findings asserting that prison regime is a
relevant correlate for prison violence as much as for prison victimi-
zation (Innes, 1997; Prez et al., 2010; Worrall and Morris, 2011).
Prisoners incarcerated at higher security regimes are more likely
to be involved as victims and perpetrator as well in overall and
prisoner-to-prisoner violence. As deprivation theory suggests, the

explanation for that might directly refer to the restrictions and dep-
rivations that characterize these regimes. However, it is also possi-
ble that prisoners confined at these regimes may be in general more
prone toward violence and some may even be reclassified in here
from softer prison regimes precisely because of their insubordina-
tion and aggressive behaviour.
In relation to prison victimization, prior studies reported that
prisoners confined at maximum security prisons are indeed more
likely to be victims of violence (Hensely et al., 2003; Prez et al.,
2010). Surprisingly, prison regime was not significantly related to
staff-to-prison victimization or to prison-to-staff violence, contra-
dicting thus several research findings previously reported in the
literature (see for example Prez et al., 2010). This means that there
are no significant differences between prisoners housed at higher
security levels and those accommodate at softer regimes in terms of
prison violence committed by/against prison staff. The characteris-
tics of the open and semi-open regimes in Romanian prisons may
account for this non-relation. Although they permit a higher de-
gree of prisoners freedom of movement inside and outside prison,
they may display similar levels of control and supervision to those
of maximum security and closed regimes.
Moreover, in some prisons (e.g. Tulcea Prison), prisoners at
maximum security/closed regimes and those at open/semi-open
regimes are hold in the same facility; they are only accommodated
at different floors. Consequently, prison staff may display similar
power and control orientation regardless of the regime the pris-
oners are incarcerated. Following the visit to such an open/semi-
open prison, the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in
Romania noticed: According to a prisoner, you have to keep your
mouth shout if you want to go home. The statement refers to the
ability to withstand the stress inflicted by prison conditions in or-

der to avoid disciplinary reports that could affect the chances of be-
ing release from prison as early as possible. According to prisoners,
the incident reports are filled in very easy and sometimes for less
serious infractions, such as verbal violence or smoking in the cell.
Closely related to this finding are the significant relationships be-
tween the procedural justice variable gauging prisoners perception
on their treatment by prison staff and self-reported overall victimiza-
tion, overall violence, and staff-to-prisoner victimization. Following
Tylors (2001) theory on how citizens are treated by the police and
court, it can be argued that also in prisons feeling unsupported and
unfairly treated by staff might promote hostility and increase the
likelihood of both violence and victimization. While the study didnt
measure prisoners perceptions at a particular time frame and thus
no assumption can be made whether they are actually influenced
by a specific episode of violence/victimization, we can presume, as
Listwan et al. (2014) did in their research on poly-victimization in
prison, that the threatening prison environments does encourage
the experiences of aggression and victimization in prison.
Another deprivation characteristic time served was related
with prisoner-to-prisoner victimization only. As Prez et al. (2010:
390) explained, long-serving prisoners have higher probabilities to
make enemies in prison, to letting know their routines to poten-
tial perpetrators or even to become less vigilant once they become
more familiar to prison environment. Length of sentence instead
was positively and significantly related with both violence perpe-
trated by prison staff against prisoners and violence perpetrated by
prisoners against prison staff.
Among the environmental opportunity factors, participation
in working activities in prison was further related curiously to
higher chances of prisoner-to-prisoner victimization. It is possible
that tenets of prison subculture to make these prisoners more vul-

nerable since they come frequently into contact with and may be
more privileged by prison staff. Another explanation would be that
prisoners experiencing victimization by other prisoners are more
likely to choose to work in prison after an episode of victimization
(for a similar discussion on the role of religious services, see Listwan
et al., 2014). Yet, working in prison was significantly related to low-
er probabilities of prison-to-staff violence. Whereas this might be
due to the more positive interactions between prisoners and staff,
it might also be the consequence of the selection effects. Usually,
a prison committee selects prisoners for work according to several
criteria. One of them is precisely to have a low risk of violent be-
haviour. Participation in skills programs as well was linked to lower
probabilities of overall victimization and prisoner-to-staff violence.
The nonsignificant relations between importation measures
and victimization measures are surprising. Whereas the findings
on the non-relations between several socio-demographics such as
marital status and fatherhood are supported to some extent by pri-
or research (Wooldredge, 1998), the absence of a relevant associa-
tion between prisoners age and the various measures of victimiza-
tion is striking and definitely needs further research attention. Our
results now indicate that victimization in prison occurs with the
same likelihoods across all age categories. They challenge thus pri-
or research findings revealing that victims and offenders are closed
in age and that there may be structural limitations on opportunities
to victimize older prisoners (Wooldredge, 1998).
However, when the importation determinants of various types
of prison violence are examined, age turned to be a significant
correlate of overall violence and prisoner-to-prisoner violence,
supporting the findings previously reported in the literature that
found strong and negative relationships between prisoners age and
violence (e.g. DeLisi et al., 2004; Morris et al., 2010; Tewksbury et

al., 2014). However, contrary to this literature, the current study
found prisoner-to-staff violence not to be influenced by age. A
possible explanation of this unexpected finding may be rather pro-
vided by the procedural justice theory: younger and older partici-
pants in our sample have comparable participations in disobedient
behaviours, since both may share low levels of perceived legitimacy
and resentments of being unfairly treated by prison staff. A second
explanation may refer to the regime characteristics. The conclusion
of Mandaraka-Sheppards (1986: 189) study on female prisoners
aggression is revealing. She noticed that although compliant in-
mates in the context of prisons are likely to be inmates who are old-
er, rated as less potent [etc.] yet there will still be non-compliant
inmates from these categories (i.e. older, [less potent] etc.) if the
institution is lacking in order, [is] preventing autonomy of inmates,
and is using severe punishments.
Furthermore, in contrast to other findings previously reported
in the importation literature, the characteristics of prisoner offend-
ing history were found to be weakly linked to both prison victimi-
zation and violence (DeLisi et al., 2004; Drury and DeLisi, 2010;
Morris et al., 2010; Sorensen and Cunningham, 2010). This led us
to the conclusion that the importation model might be more suit-
able to Anglo-American context. Over the past decades, the US
prisons in particular have witnessed the influx of a new type of
offenders (Innes, 1997: 158): younger and more aggressive, gener-
ally urban individual, who before coming to prison, was involved
in street gangs that used or sold drugs and routinely employed vio-
lence. The result, in this view, is an individual who is asocial, who
is incapable of feeling either empathy or guilt, and who adheres to
a code of behaviour that encourages the use of violence to resolve
disputes and achieve status. The official statistics confirm that in
the US, for example, more than half of the sentenced state prison-
ers are convicted for violent offenses, and only 18% for property
offenses (Carson and Sabol, 2012). In Romania, about one third of
prisoners are serving time for violent offenses and almost 50 per
cent for property offenses (NAP, 2014). The most inquiring find-
ing was the absence of significant relationships between prior in-
carceration and any of the three types of violence included in the
study except prisoner-to-staff violence.
2.10. Research limitations

Although we believe the current study made notable contribu-
tions to the literature, it also has several limitations that need to be
addressed in future research. First, we have used broader defini-
tions of violence and victimization that included both minor (e.g.
insults) and major forms of violence (e.g. seriously injuries), vio-
lent (e.g. hits) and non-violent (e.g. threats; thefts). We have chosen
to do that given the lower prevalences of self-reported violence.
As noticed in a previous section of this chapter, although studies
based on self-reported data have many advantages, they also hold
a number of limitations that could influence on the present study.
For instance, some prisoners might be reluctant to disclose their
involvement in prison violence either as a victim or perpetrator.
Moreover, even those who admitted being victimized or inflicting
violence may choose to hide the real dimension of their experi-
ences of this kind. Closely related to this is the second limitation of
the present study. Given that most prisoners reporting participa-
tion in prison violence/ victimization concentrated their responses
around the answering option corresponding to 1-5 incidents, it was
necessary to dichotomize the dependent variables for analytic pur-
poses (see for a similar approach Prez et al., 2010). Third, as also
mentioned in the first chapter, our sample over-represents the vio-

lent and longer-sentenced prisoners and this might bias our results.
Fourth, since the data were collected in only four prisons, findings
should be interpreted with cautious and not generalized to other
facilities. Replications of this study among representative samples
of inmates drawn from all Romanian prisons are definitely needed
to confirm or to refine if necessary the current research findings.
2.11. Future research

In addition to addressing the abovementioned research limi-
tations, further sociological and criminological investigations on
prison violence and prison victimization might be conducted based
on the current study. One line of future research might examine
macro-level characteristics of prisons such as level of overcrowd-
ing, proportion of prisoners participating in prison programs or
work activities as much as measures of prison social climate in rela-
tion to violence and victimization behind bars.
Another direction of research could look at characteristics of
prison staff that might influence violence/ victimization in prison.
As Prez et al. (2010: 392) suggested, it is necessary to understand
the personal characteristics staff members possess that are related
to violent attitudes and behaviours. This knowledge would go a
long way toward improving the content of staff training and pro-
moting behavioural change.
Also future research could explore the overlapping between
victimization and violence (see Edgar et al., 2012) and see whether
there are similarities and/ or disparities in terms of individual and
institutional characteristics between prisoners involved both in vi-
olence and victimization, prisoners who experience either violence
or victimization, and those not involved at all in such behaviours.
The current study used a cross-sectional research design; there-

fore, we recommend further analyses to focus on the temporal pat-
tern of prison violence/ victimization and to examine their deter-
minants in relation to the stages of prisoners institutional career
(see also Wheeler, 1961). Not least, qualitative research is definitely
needed in order to clarify the mechanisms through which vari-
ous deprivation, environmental opportunity, procedural justice,
and importation characteristics are related to prison violence and
prison victimization.
2.12. Policy recommendations

Studies examining the correlates of prison victimization/vio-
lence help prison administrations and policymakers to develop
evidence-based strategies toward identifying and classifying cor-
respondingly vulnerable prisoners on one hand and violent prison-
ers on the other hand. In this way, higher levels of order and safety
inside prisons might be achieved and the negative consequences of
prison violence prevented.
In 2014, a strategy for reducing aggressiveness in Romanian
prison has been adopted aiming to: a) develop and implement a
unitary system of evaluation; b) develop and implement a trans-
disciplinary policy of addressing aggressive behaviour in prison;
c) develop the normative framework that regulates the prison
interventions intended to manage the aggressiveness in pris-
on d) improve the security and control measures. As such, the
document provides, among others, the elaboration of a tool for
estimating the risk of violence. The results of the current study
could provide important inputs in supporting correctional efforts
of prison administration for the good implementation of this
strategy.
For example, the finding that prison regime is significantly re-

lated to overall and prisoner-to-prisoner victimization/ violence
prevalences should inform prison administrations that additional
support must be provided to prisoners held at maximum securi-
ty and closed regimes. In line with deprivational model, one av-
enue to do that is by improving the conditions at these regimes.
As Bottoms, Hay and Sparks (1995: 193) suggested, this might be
achieved by delivering of an acceptable level of provisions for the
basic necessities of life, together with the retention of links with
significant others outside the prison (i.e. reasonable food, reason-
able clothing, reasonable arrangements for family visits etc.)
Also the finding that prisoners negative perceptions on how
they are treated by prison staff were more likely to report overall
victimization, overall prison violence, and staff-to-prison victimi-
zation highlights the need to develop more staff-focused initiatives.
Sparks and Bottoms (1995) argued in this regard that considera-
tions of fairness and respect are not just normatively desirable, they
are central to the achievement and reproduction of social order in
prison. Prez et al. (2010: 392) as well asserted that one of the easi-
est and less costly strategies to reduce the incidence of violence and
victimization in prison is the modelling of appropriate behaviour
with respect to inmate and staff interactions. Continuous train-
ing of prison staff, informed hiring practices, maintaining certain
staff-to-inmate ratios, or hiring a more culturally diverse personnel
might contribute to more positive relationships between staff and
prisoners and hence to lower prevalences of violence and victimi-
zation (Listwan et al., 2014).
Another policy recommendation that can be drawn from the
current study is to encourage prisoners participation in prison
work and skills programs. We found that prisoners attending these
activities have lower likelihoods of overall victimization as well as
of committing violence against prison staff. Congruent with an

environmental opportunity explanation, spending time in struc-
tured activities reduces the odds of victimization via increasing
the levels of prison staff supervision. In the same time, it enhances
the (positive) contact between prisoners and prison officers and
thus contributes to lower prevalences of prison-to-staff violence.
An intriguing finding that should further turn the attention of
prison practitioners concerns the positive relationship between
participation in prison work and victimization by other prisoners.
Accordingly, this suggests that prisoners working behind bars may
need better protection from correctional officers.
We conclude by listing several strategies designed to reduce
prison victimization/ prison violence purposed by the criminolo-
gist Lee H. Bowker for American correctional system, but which
could also be relevant for the Romanian ones. First, the author
highlighted the need for developing a victimization data system.
He argued that prisons typically process incidents as they arise
and then file them under the names of aggressors. This case man-
agement system is completely individualistic in nature, so it never
builds a body of knowledge about historical trends, relationships
between the characteristics of victims and aggressors, and the eco-
logical distribution of victimization within the institution or cor-
rectional system (p. 71). Such database, he further suggested, will
make possible for prisons to allocate resources realistically in order
to prevent and curb prison violence.
Second, he pleaded for the introduction of the institution of
correctional ombudsman which could serve as channel of infor-
mation from prisoners to administrators, short-circuiting the usual
route through custody staff members. The information thus gained
can be used to focus resources on conditions and situations that
appear to be most conducive to victimization (p. 71-72).
Third, Bowker recommended the classification of prisoners by

victimization potential. As such violent prisoners should not be
housed together with non-violent prisoners, and prisoners with a
lower-class background of street survival should not be mixed with
those from more sedate, middle- or working-class backgrounds
(p. 72).
Fourth, the author encouraged prison administrators to reduce
the economic deprivations to which prisoners are usually exposed
by increasing the opportunities for paid work. By doing that, the
gap between legitimate earnings and the illegitimate ones one of
the main sources of prison victimization could be diminished.
Fifth, he urged for a more therapeutic roles for correctional
officers. They should be invested with the responsibilities for the
personal growth and the development of prisoners. [] Caring
staff members can influence prisoners to be less predatory, and
they can also offer superior therapeutic services to the targets of
victimization that still occurs (p. 73-74).
Sixth, he recommended increasing the number of prison staff in
general and of prosocial prison staff in particular. When the budg-
et limitations impede this, the effect can still be achieved, Bowker
admitted, by (1) decreasing prisoners populations through early
release, work and study release, and so on, and (2) altering the
ecology of prisoner-staff interaction by reassigning staff, increasing
the proportion of staff in continuous contact with prisoners, and
changing the prisoners daily schedules. The latter solution requires
modifying the staff subculture, which normally encourages correc-
tional officers to minimize and routinize interaction with prisoners
exactly the opposite of the values that are necessary to achieve a
prosocial and anti-victimization effect (p. 74).
We believe that Bowkers recommendations, of which some were
obviously supported by the results of the current study, could only be
beneficial to NAP in general and prisons in particular in their efforts

to cut off the levels of violence and victimization in prison.
APPENDIX 2.A
Table 2.A: Regression of the deprivation (including environmental opportunity
and procedural justice) and importation measures on overall self-reported
victimization and sub-types.
Overall Prisoner-to-prisoner Staff-to-prisoner
victimization victimization victimization
B S.E. B S.E. B S.E.
Deprivation factors
Served 5 years or more .885 .757 1.444 .743 .541 .596
Convicted to 5 years or more of .423 .521 -.056 .516 1.041 .555
imprisonment
Confined at maximum security 1.665*** .601 2.140*** .596 .217 .531
and closed
Highly discontent by prison conditions -.094 .442 -.039 .432 .329 .452
Receiving visits often and very often .108 .460 .263 .456 -.432 .481
Participation in work programs .706 .483 .830 .475 -.092 .498
Participation in skills programs -.760 .429 -.693 .423 -.533 .439
Highly discontent by prison staff 1.220** .602 .789 .557 1.965*** .506
Importation factors
Aged 35 years or older -.234 .472 .168 .468 -.054 .536
Completing 8 grades or more .152 .455 -.031 .444 .809 .473
Having partner at time of .001 .473 -.227 .465 .332 .469
incarceration
Having underage children .027 .476 .008 .470 -.068 .493
Being convicted for a violent offense -.344 .608 -.595 .608 .441 .550
Having prior incarcerations .191 .470 .050 .464 .136 .506
Intercept -.486 .662 -.635 .659 -2.451** .758
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
APPENDIX 2.B
Table 2.B: Regression of the deprivation (including environmental opportunity
and procedural justice) and importation measures on overall self-reported
violence and sub-types.
Prisoner-
Overall Prisoner-to-staff
to-prisoner
violence violence
violence
Deprivation factors
Served 5 years or more 1.116 .724 1.029 .659 .418 .670
Convicted to 5 years or more of imprisonment .596 .567 .528 .541 1.544 .793
Confined at maximum security and closed 1.238** .532 .900 .499 .966 .618
Highly discontent by prison conditions -.353 .461 .038 .437 .032 .540
Receiving visits often and very often -.505 .469 -.423 .453 .279 .586
Participation in work programs -.032 .525 .006 .500 -1.287 .695
Participation in skills programs -.216 .441 -.019 .424 -1.127 .577
Highly discontent by prison staff 1.035 .562 .828 .515 .342 .581
Importation factors
Aged 35 years or older -1.100** .529 -1.137** .523 -.874 .756
Completing 8 grades or more -.045 .459 .116 .445 .483 .562
Having partner at time of incarceration -.647 .502 -.352 .475 -1.100 .607
Having underage children .117 .509 .221 .492 1.333** .638
Being convicted for a violent offense -.655 .625 -.559 .583 .390 .669
Having prior incarcerations .797 .498 .629 .477 1.161 .607
Intercept -.421 .673 -.940 .664 -3.253** .943
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10.
CHAPTER 3
PRISONERS CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIPS
AND DETERMINANTS OF SEPARATION
3.1. Introduction
A growing body of literature asserts the key role that prison-
ers families play in promoting the offenders social reintegra-
tion and desistance from crime (Hairston, 1991; Mills and Codd,
2008). It is argued that families provide prisoners with social, eco-
nomic and emotional support during incarceration, thus mini-
mizing the pains of imprisonment and preventing the negative
effects of prisonization / institutionalization (Codd, 2007). After
release as well families may offer prisoners practical assistance,
as much as moral upholding so they can successfully overcome
the multifaceted challenges raised by the process of resettlement
(Mills, 2005).
Research interested to assess the collateral consequences of im-
prisonment on family relationships have documented that prison
influences are varied in type, intensity and meaning. In some cases,
such as of unhappy families or of relationships consumed with do-
mestic violence, alcoholism, tension and conflict, enforced sepa-
ration caused by incarceration may have beneficial effects, bring-
ing at least a temporary relief for its members (Shaw, 1987). An
opposed perspective is that imprisonment can bring the family

closer together allowing the reaffirmation of the relationship itself
and new expressions of love and commitment (Codd, 2008: 49).
However, the dominant view that transpires in the literature is that
separation caused by incarceration is usually felt by life-partners
as a disruptive experience. Early studies in the field have actually
approached incarceration as a crisis-inducing life event that often
ends the family relationships (Hill, 1965; Morris, 1965).
Most of the literature focused on prisoners families is based
on Anglo-American data. In Romania, no studies have been con-
ducted so far on the stability of conjugal relationships during mens
incarceration. Neither prisons administration does collect statistics
on the extent of conjugal breakup or changes in marital status use-
ful in examining who, when and in what circumstances conjugal
relations end during imprisonment.
The current chapter intends precisely to rectify this by examin-
ing the characteristics of imprisonment related to couple dissolu-
tion as well as the protective factors that can act as buffer against
separation. A unique research design combining quantitative and
qualitative data was employed in order to address three-key re-
search aspects. First, we will explore the extent of prisoners sepa-
ration from their life-partners among a sample of Romanian pris-
oners. Second, we will investigate the prison-related characteristics
associated with the prevalence of separation. In the same time, we
will test whether several protective factors drawn from the gen-
eral sociological models of family stability can prevent couple dis-
solution. Third, using a qualitative perspective, we will gain insight
about the precursors of separation, as they were recounted by the
incarcerated men.
The study builds on prior (international) theoretical and em-
pirical literature, but advances it in several ways. For example,
with few notable exceptions (see Apel et al., 2010; Massoglia et al.,
2011), little is known about the factors underlying the relationship
between imprisonment and conjugal dissolution although as
mentioned before most prison studies assert it. And even less is
known about the factors that counteract this negative outcome as-
sociated with imprisonment. As such, the current study tests sever-
al criminological presumptions that relate time spent in prison, the
length of sentence and prior incarcerations to separation from life-
partners. It also assesses several variables depicted from sociologi-
cal theories of marital investment and preparation for marriage for
their protective role against couple dissolution. In the same time,
the study brings relevant inputs to the existing qualitative literature
by focusing on prisoners accounts. Much of the current research
on prisoners families is based on the narratives and standpoints
of prisoners wives or life-partners (see Fishman, 1990 Comfort,
2007; Christian and Kennedy, 2011). Although this approach has
proven valuable in several respects, it should definitely be accom-
panied by the one focused on prisoners perspectives in order to
better understand the contexts leading to separation and to design
specific prison interventions that could help prisoners to preserve
their family relationships.
The study starts by reviewing the theoretical and empirical
literature pertaining to the consequences of imprisonment on
the stability of conjugal relationships. Thereafter, the Romanian
prison policy regarding prisoners contact with families is shortly
discussed. The data and methods of the current chapter are next
described, followed by the results sections: the first part pre-
senting the quantitative results, and the second the qualitative
ones. The chapter concludes with discussion and several policy
recommendations.
3.2. Theoretical and empirical background

The effects of imprisonment on the stability of the couple
Several empirical studies have confirmed that couple relation-
ships often end with the incarceration of men. In the United States,
Hairston (1987) found that 75% of the participants in a prison re-
lated family program who were married at the time of arrest were
divorced by the time of the study. More recently, Massoglia and his
colleagues (2011) have examined the effects of imprisonment on
marital dissolution using data from the US National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth. They showed that the separation is less likely to
occur due to the experience of incarceration per se, but rather to
the length of time spent in prison. According to their findings, each
year spent behind bars actually doubles the probability of separa-
tion/ divorce in a given year among men imprisoned after the first
marriage (p. 145). Also in the US, Lopoo and Western (2005) re-
ported that the probability of marital dissolution is almost three
times higher among incarcerated men than of those non-incarcer-
ated. A study conducted in the Netherlands found that first-time
incarceration has a strong and statistically significant effect on the
likelihood of divorce (Apel et al., 2010). Specifically, married men
sent to prison have a probability of divorce 57% higher than that
of individuals sentenced with alternative sanctions. Married men
without children and those convicted of serious offenses have a
probability of divorce even greater than that of prisoners who have
children or those convicted of minor offenses (idem). Qualitative
studies reached similar conclusions. For example, Edin et al. (2004)
investigated the impact of incarceration on the relationships be-
tween prisoner fathers and the mothers of their children. Based
on in-depth interviews with approximately 300 unskilled men, the

authors revealed a powerful negative prison effect on family rela-
tionships especially among the stable couples. According to their
findings, almost all conjugal relationships ended during mens
incarceration.
Two pathways explaining this negative effect of imprisonment
on conjugal relationships have been advanced in the criminologi-
cal literature. The first one is direct: physical separation and non-
cohabitation sooner or later lead to the breakup of relationships.
The second one is indirect: incarceration raises enormous personal,
financial and social pressure for the partner left outside, which may
damage the conjugal relationships. Both are briefly discussed next.
Incarceration and physical distance

Incarceration is one of the situations in which partners are
forced to live apart from each other. This enforced physical separa-
tion may have a straightforward impact on the couple leading to its
breakup. Family studies on divortiality and marital instability pro-
vide the theoretical and empirical framework of understanding the
impact of being apart from ones spouse on the dissolution of con-
jugal relationships. Two major explanatory models dominate this
literature. First, in line with psychosocial perspective developed by
Rindfuss and Stephen (1990), the longer the couple spends sepa-
rately, the greater is the likelihood that one or both partners have
changed in significant way. In other words, the physical separation
makes the stock of common biographical experiences compress
and that of individual experiences expand (Davis 1973: 252); this
may lead in turn to estrangement of partners and eventually to the
dissolution of relationships. Another notable psychosocial expla-
nation is considered under the attachment theory advanced by Hill
(1998). According to this perspective, non-cohabitation prevents
partners to spend leisure time together and thereby reduces the

strength of the attachment between them. Lower levels of attach-
ment may further be conducive to couples breakup.
Congruent with these views, it can be argued that long term
prisoners may be particularly affected by couple dismemberment.
Prisoners convicted to lengthier sentence as well may be at high
risk of separation given the longer period the partners anticipate to
spend apart from each other.
On the other hand, prison visits from family members may
prevent separation by ameliorating the negative potential of non-
cohabitation. Prison visits promote a certain degree of interaction
between spouses, which may contribute to the conservation of
conjugal attachment and marital satisfaction. Schafer (1994: 18-19)
described the multifaceted benefits of prison visits, showing that:
The visits permits role continuance and role practice and thus may
smooth the adjustment of both family and prisoners to his release.
It may be that a demonstration of support during incarceration
reflects a promise of continued support after release. It may only
mean that the family that has the resources to visit regularly has the
resources to provide assistance to the prisoners during the transi-
tion from prison to the community. It may also reflect a degree of
family loyalty and cohesion that predated the period of incarcera-
tion and will outlast it.
However, a number of studies on the effects of incarceration
on family life have addressed the difficulties and obstacles encoun-
tered by partners in their attempts of maintaining close ties during
detention. As shown by Megan Comfort (2007: 65-66), the puni-
tive management, prison specific prohibitions and strict supervi-
sion often make visits oppressive and discouraging. Studies have
actually described prison visits as an experience that is unpleasant
(Schafer 1994), difficult (Arditti, 2011), stressing (Hairston 1991),
traumatic and unsettling (Dixey and Woodall, 2012), or humiliat-

ing and stigmatizing (Cobean and Power, 1978). Codd (2008: 60)
noted that prisons can make families feel at home, or, in contrast,
profoundly unwelcome. Laura Fishman (1990) as well showed that
the way prison system structures family visits can either strengthen
or weaken family relationship. In her analysis based on a qualita-
tive methodology, she identified a number of constraints associ-
ated with prison visits such as: the lack of physical contact between
partners and/ or parent/ children the short duration of the visit and
the impossibility of extension; presence and surveillance of visits
by prison officers, which inhibits communication between part-
ners; lack of a friendlier environment for children who come to
visit their parents. The financial costs of visiting may also turn a
visit to the prison from an experience that is desired positive into
an anguishing one. In addition, the distance to the prison, the lack
of an adequate means of transport, the schedule of the person in
whose charge the child may further hamper the prison visits.
Family problems raised by mens incarceration

The second mechanism underlying the relationship between
incarceration and couples breakup focuses on the multiple prob-
lems caused by imprisonment to prisoners wives and life-partners
left behind. The sociological perspective in particular provides
useful understanding of the mechanism by which conjugal rela-
tionships may end as a consequence of numerous hardships the
partners experienced during mens incarceration. Consistent with
exchange theory (Udry, 1981; South and Lloyd, 1995), time spent
apart from each other weaken the marital cohesion and reduces the
level of satisfaction and/ or attraction of partners toward the exist-
ing couple relationship, enhancing instead the interest for various
alternatives. According to this perspective, partners maintain or
renounce to conjugal relations based on a rational calculation that

takes into account the costs and benefits of that relationships ver-
sus the costs and benefits of alternatives available to that relation-
ships (Rusbult and Martz, 1995). As such, it might be assumed that
having a spouse in prison may bring fewer benefits and more eco-
nomic, social and psychological costs to female partners (e.g. loss
of income, higher expenditure, stigmatization, and loss of intimacy
see next section) that will motivate them to find another spouse.
Congruent with this line of argumentation is the view that women
will come out of these relationships to the extent that they find bet-
ter alternatives to the existing ones. Conversely, if the range of al-
ternatives is limited or non-existent, they will continue to remain
in the couple relationships, even if the level of discontent is high.
From this point of view, recidivists in particular may be at higher
risk of separation since, in time, they may bring higher charges
and less marital satisfaction to their life-partners.
As such, a large body of studies and research pointed out to
the numerous problems the women are forced to deal with during
partners incarceration. Some of these hardships begin immediate-
ly after the men are arrested and aggravate over the trial period. As
Schwartz and Weintraub (1974: 21) noted, a wife usually comes to
the day when her husband is to be sentenced completely drained
of both financial resources and emotional energy. Nevertheless,
incarceration depending on its length may put even more bur-
den on women shoulders. The main difficulties prisoners partners
must deal with during mens incarceration are briefly addressed
below.
Sexual and emotional problems. One of the most important

sources of conjugal cohesion and functionality drastically affected
by incarceration is that of the intimacy and sexuality (Trudel, 2002;
Litzinger and Gordon, 2005). Schneller (1976) indicated, for exam-

ple, that sexual-emotional sphere is particularly the one that records
the most dramatic changes in couple due to the mens imprison-
ment. According to the results of his study conducted on 93 families
of prisoners held in an average security prison in the US, the eco-
nomic issues ranked second, while those on social acceptance were
placed last in terms of negative impact generated by incarceration.
Obviously, the frequency and patterns of sexual relations are chang-
ing at best if not cease for good during the period the men spend
behind bars (Hill 1965: 46). Imprisonment rarely favours intimacy
of the couple; in fact, the only times when it is encouraged are with
the occasion of prison leaves and conjugal visits; but these are rather
granted hardly, much as a privilege for good behaviour men have in
prison and less as right or an incentive to preserve the couple rela-
tionships. Psychosocial and family sociology studies have shown that
satisfaction with sex life of the couple is a good indicator of marital
welfare and any imbalance produced in this area can profoundly and
sometimes irreparably affect couple relationship (McCarthy, 1997).
Consequently, partners infidelity is very often a major concern of
incarcerated men and one of the reasons of separation.
Financial breakdown. The incarceration of men can also dete-

riorate the material and financial situation of prisoners wives and
life-partners. In an early study, Morris (1965) found that 60% of
prisoners wives experienced a decline in their financial situation
after men imprisonment. Schneller (1975) showed as well that the
interviewed women suffered severe income reductions following
the incarceration of their spouses. According to Smith et al.s (2003:
16-18) study among impoverished families in the UK, several
mechanisms explain how incarceration increases financial burdens
the prisoners partners may experience. The first one is the loss of
mens financial earnings even if these gains were illegally made.

Second, prisoners life-partners may choose leaving the job or re-
ducing hours worked in order to devote their time for upbring-
ing of children. Third, the period of transition from paid labour
to public welfare also accounts for worsening the women financial
situation. Fourth, prisoners partners experience the emergence of
new types of expenditure such as those related to the maintenance
of relationships with imprisoned men. Several other studies also
stressed that imprisonment has a larger financial impact on women
who try to preserve the relationships with incarcerated men. As
such, the costs of supporting prisoners during detention (money
and parcels), as much as the costs of visitation and phone calls can
represent severe drains to family budgets.
In Romanian prisons, in particular, there is a heavy reliance
of prisoners on family financial and material support in order to
ensure their subsistence in prison. As noted in the first chapter,
Romanian prisons often failed to provide prisoners with a basic
standard of living (e.g. adequate food, hygiene items). In the same
time, they largely failed to provide prisoners with the legitimate
means (e.g. paid work) that would help them to acquire goods and
live a decent life behind bars. These two coupled aspects generate
the large dependence of prisoners on their familys support.
Stigmatization. A wealthy literature discusses the strongly stig-

matizing effects of incarceration on prisoners families. In his clas-
sic work, Goffman (1968: 30) argues that the prisoners spouses are
subjected to the so-called courtesy stigma that arises from being
treated as one (see Condry, 2011). As such, the many stereotypes
and negative labels attributed to prisoners are transferred via family
relationships to their wives and life-partners (Lopoo and Western,
2005; Comfort, 2007).
Consequently, women may face social stigmatization; they may

be renegaded by their families and may be obliged to deal with the
social hostility of neighbours and co-workers. Building her argu-
ment on Goffman conception, Rachel Condry (2011: 62) coined
the term of secondary stigma, defined as both a stigma by con-
tagion an extension of the offenders stigma travelling through
kinship ties and a stigma attached to the new identity the relatives
hold as a mother of a murder or as wife of a sex offender and the
blame this new status attracts. In another notable study on prison-
ers wives, Laura Fishman (1990: 113) noted that inmates partners
often perceive themselves to be contaminated by the sins of their
spouses and are forced to face the shame of having their partner in
prison. This in turn triggers social disapproval, rejection and blam-
ing. To avoid these negative effects women resort to different strat-
egies: they may hide the fact that their men are locked up in prison,
avoid encounters with neighbours and friends, or isolate complete-
ly from social world and prefer to focus exclusively on the rela-
tionship with the imprisoned partner (idem). Several studies have
shown, however, that stigma is rather context-driven (Massoglia
et al., 2011). It has been argued in this regard that stigma is often
felt by women living in communities where incarceration is a rare
event (Huebner, 2007), as much as by those whose partners were
incarcerated for the first time (Morris, 1965).
Protective factors against separation from life-partners during imprisonment

Recent research on collateral effects of imprisonment on family
relationships has proposed a new framework of analysis that places
the emphasis on the resilience of couples against the crisis induced
by incarceration. These studies are trying to identify the factors
that enable families to withstand and rebound from the disruptive
challenges they face (Walsh, 2003: 1). The classical family studies
conducted among general population provide important contribu-

tions to the understanding of factors that may protect the couples
against separation.
As such, the research focused on the investment in the couple
has advanced the hypothesis that the costs associated with exiting
from a conjugal relationship are greater to the extent that invest-
ments in the couple are higher (Rusbult and Martz, 1995). These
investments are measured, among other things, by the number of
children, number of common friends, and the material goods that
are shared together. According to these studies, lengthy couples,
those who are married (instead of living in cohabitation), those
who have children and spent more time together before mens in-
carceration have lower probabilities of dissolution when a crisis
such as of incarceration occurs.
The research on the preparation for the couple life focuses on
aspects of emotional and social maturity of partners (South and
Spitze, 1986). The assumption is that individuals forming cou-
ple relationships at adult ages are better prepared emotionally
and instrumentally to appropriately perform their conjugal roles.
Thereby, they will have higher levels of marital satisfaction and
therefore will be more able to confront together life adversities
(Lee, 1977). Other studies concluded that partners with high lev-
els of education and stronger personalities are more resilient and
have greater self-efficacy to endure the crisis caused by a stress-
ful event (Karney and Bradbury, 1995). Criminological studies
confirm these findings. An early research conducted by Blackwell
(1959) found, for example, that marital adjustment, as well as cou-
ples economic wealth and wifes level of education, is the main
factor that contribute to the management of crisis induced by men
incarceration.
3.3. Family relationships and imprisonment in Romania

In line with several European recommendations, the Romanian
prison law stipulates the prisoners contact with families as an im-
portant element for the process of offenders rehabilitation and
preparation for resettlement in the community. Consequently, the
law incorporates several channels by which prisoners can main-
tain social bonds with the outside world, including families: prison
visits, phone calls, written correspondence, and temporary leaves.
As such, the frequency of visits the prisoners are entitled to
vary according to the prison regime at which they are incarcerated:
from three visits per month in the case of prisoners held under a
maximum security regime to seven visits per month for those who
served time at open regime. The type of visits prisoners may receive
is also sensitive to prison regime: prisoners held under restrictive
regimes benefit from visits that take place behind glass partition.
Prisoners incarcerated at softer regimes benefit from contact visita-
tion around a table. There is no such concept as prison family visits
in Romania (e.g. overnight stays arranged for prisoners and their
legal wives or other closed relatives) or extended visits (e.g. when
children could spend a whole day with their imprisoned parent).
However, some prisons have arranged friendly rooms for children-
imprisoned fathers meetings. Duration of visits varies from a mini-
mum of 30 minutes to a maximum of two hours. There are limits
on the number of adult and children the prisoners can receive at
one visit (usually, two adults and two children); therefore, prison-
ers may have to be forced to choose which visitors they will see.
Visits are conducted under visual supervision of prison adminis-
tration personnel, directly or through electronic devices.
Prisoners may also receive a conjugal visit every three months

but only if they meet certain conditions such as to be finally con-
victed and classified to serve their sentence on a certain prison re-
gime; to be married or in a cohabitation; not have been disciplinary
sanctioned for a period of six months prior to the application for
intimate visit; to actively participate in educational or work pro-
grams. As such, conjugal visits are granted much as a privilege for
mens good behaviour in prison and less as a prisoner right. The
conjugal visits are usually lasting two hours. Prisoners can also
have the right to marry in prison, in which case, they receive ex-
tended conjugal visit of 48 hours.
In addition, the prison administration allows prisoners to use
the phones for 30 minutes every day. Yet, there is an over-reliance
of prisoners on the illegal use of mobile phones. Data provided by
the NAP showed that, in 2013, over 9000 mobile phones were dis-
covered in prisons; relative to the number of prisoners, this fig-
ure meant one mobile phone for every three detainees. In 2014,
however, the number halved due to increasing security measures
and the implementation of a pilot program consisting in installing
phones in prison cells.
Similar to conjugal visits, the number of prison furloughs re-
mains rather limited as the measure is granted not as the prisoner
right but as an incentive for good behaviour in prison. For exam-
ple, although in 2014 the number of prison leaves for 24 hours has
almost doubled relative to the number recorded in 2010, it kept
below the level of 8% of total prisoners who received a final convic-
tion. The percentage of prisoners granted the permission to leave
prison for more than 24 hours is even lower. Only 2% benefited
from this measure in 2014.
Several prison programs and interventions aimed to develop
prisoners parental and conjugal abilities, as well as to prevent
domestic violence are conducted in Romanian prisons. Yet, the

limited role of social workers in prison represents a significant
drawback. As employees within prison system, they are not al-
lowed to visit prisoners families in the community. Consequently,
the only opportunities when they can mediate the relationships of
prisoners with their wives or life-partners is at the visiting sector or,
if the prisoners are not visited, by official letters sent to local city-
halls by which they require information about prisoners families.

The aim of this study is to examine whether a spell of imprison-
ment is conducive to dissolution of conjugal relationships or there
are protective factors acting as buffer against couple separation. As
such, from the original sample of prisoners (N = 280), we focused
on the sub-sample of prisoners who were married or in cohabi-
tation at the time of arrest (N = 177). Consequently, we have ex-
cluded those who had couple relationships but were not living with
their life partners at the time of arrest (13%) as well as those who
were single (22%).
The dependent variable prisoners separation from their life-
partners is a dummy measure created on the basis of prisoners an-
swers to the specific question: Are you and your life-partner still
together at the moment? As such, the variable measures the separa-
tion at the time of the interview. Prisoners whose conjugal relation-
ships were disintegrated were coded as 1. They represented 41% of
the sub-sample of married/in cohabitation prisoners at the time of
arrest. Prisoners whose relations were intact were coded as 0. They
represented 59%.
Drawing from the literature on prison effects, we included in
the analyses four variables as covariates. They all were dichotomous
recoded: time served (5 years or more = 1 28%; else = 0); length

of sentence (5 years or more = 1 66%; else = 0); prior incarcera-
tions (yes = 1 52%; no = 0); being visited (often/very often = 1
51%; else = 0). We hypothesized that prisoners who spent rela-
tively longer periods in detention, and those convicted to lengthy
sentences are more likely to be separated from life-partners since
they already experienced or anticipate experiencing longer peri-
ods of time apart from their partners. Also, we expect that prior
incarcerations to erode and terminate the conjugal relationships,
while the visits to contribute to their preservation. The protective
factors are borrowed from sociological models of investment
in marriage and preparation for marriage. As such, four vari-
ables all dichotomous were drawn from to the first model: be-
ing married (yes = 1; no = 0); the duration of conjugal relations (10
years or more = 1; else = 0); having under-aged children (yes = 1;
no = 0); and time spent together before incarceration (8 hours or
more = 1; else = 0).
The assumptions are that married prisoners, those having long-
term conjugal relationships, who have under-aged children and
spent more time together with their life-partners before imprison-
ment are less likely than their counterparts to be separated pre-
cisely because they have higher levels of shared (personal, financial,
social) investments. The survey results reveal that almost one third
of participants were married, while 68% were living in cohabita-
tion at the time of arrest. The average duration of relationships with
life-partners was 9.8 years, the shortest lasting 3 months and the
longest 47 years. Roughly 38% of the respondents claim they were
in conjugal relationships for more than 10 years, for the remaining
62% relationship lasts less than 10 years. The quality of relation-
ships between family members is reflected including in the peri-
ods the subjects declare they spent with their partners. Thus, in the
surveyed sample, most of the respondents (58%) stated they spent

more than 8 hours with their wives/ concubines. A similar propor-
tion declares that they have under-aged children (58%).
Congruent with the supposition of the second model, we have
included the following variables: age of prisoners (35 years old or
more = 1; else = 0); age of prisoners partners (35 years old or more
= 1; else = 0); education of prisoners (9 classes or more = 1 ; else
= 0), education of prisoners partners (9 classes or more = 1; else =
0), and prisoners age at current conjugal relationship (25 years old
or less = 1; else = 0). According to this model, older partners, who
are more educated, and were forming couple relations at adult ages
are more mature and more prepared to assume and perform mari-
tal roles and therefore, they have higher levels of resilience when
negative events such as incarceration occur. The descriptive analy-
sis shows that the wives / concubines of survey participants are
slightly older and more educated then prisoner-partner. As such,
32% of respondents were 35 years old at the time of interview
compared with 37% the proportion corresponding to their life-
partners. Almost half of prisoners and two-thirds of their spouses
graduated 9 classes or more. More than 30% of participants were
aged 25 years old or less when they entered the current conjugal
relationship.
In addition, two control-variables were incorporated into the
statistical models. Having a history of violent offences is a recoded
dummy variable (yes, if at least one violent offence was committed
= 1; else = 0) constructed from an 11 items-scale with two response
options (yes or no), measuring the prevalence of various types of
offenses committed by inmates over the life course. Being currently
imprisoned for a violent offence (yes, if prisoners were convicted for
homicide, bodily injury, robbery, and rape = 1; else = 0).
3.5. Results
3.5.1. Quantitative findings
Descriptive statistics. Incidence of breakup/ separation from life-partners

Studies have shown that marital relationships often end in di-
vorce or separation for the period the life partner is in detention.
The results of this study show that, at the time of the survey, 59%
of respondents who were married or in stable cohabiting relation-
ships had intact marital relationships. Instead, for roughly 40% of
the prisoners interviewed the couple bonds were disintegrated.
There are significant differences according to the time spent in
prison regarding the incidence of separation. Over 60% of prison-
ers already spending more than 5 years in detention were separated
from their life-partners compared with 49% the proportion of
medium-serving prisoners (between 2 and 5 years of imprison-
ment) and 22% the percentage of short-serving prisoners (2 years
or less) (2 = 19.686; p = 0.000)
Questioned about which partner initiated the separation, al-
most half said that their life-partners, about 30% reported that the
separation was of mutual intent, and slightly over one fifth men-
tioned that they were the one that ended the relationships.
Figure 3.1: Distribution of prisoners answer to the question:

Who put end to conjugal relationships?
Asked when the separation occurred, one fourth of the respond-

ents mentioned that it happened at a maximum of six months from
custody. For almost half the conjugal relationships ended in the
first year of incarceration. The ties with their wives or life-partner
terminated at two years after imprisonment for two thirds of the
respondents.
Figure 3.2: Distribution of prisoners answer to the question: At what time since
your incarceration did the separation occur?
The main reasons for separation invoked by the respondents

were in order: women infidelity (31%), their imprisonment per se
(29%), the influence of partners family/ entourage (19%), the lack
of communication (9.5%), the crime they committed (9.5%), the
financial difficulties encountered by their partners (5%) and the
frequent disagreements and arguments (5%). About 9% mentioned
other motives such as the fact that their partners went abroad or
they were arrested too.
Figure 3.3: Distribution of prisoners answer to the question: What do you think
were the main reasons you and your wife/life-partner get separated?
Bivariate analyses
In line with prison effects literature, we have hypothesized that
lengthy conviction as much as longer periods spent in prison will
increase the chance of spouses separation. The results of bivariate
analysis support partially this hypothesis. As such, prisoners con-
victed to prison sentences of 5-years or more are twice as likely
to be separated from their life-partners then those sentenced to
shorter prison penalties. Contrary to our expectation, time already
spent in prison is not related to the probability of being separated.

We have also made the supposition that prior incarceration favour
conjugal separation, while prison visits prevent it. None of these
assumptions have been confirmed under the bivariate analysis.
We have also looked on whether several factors protect the
conjugal couple against separation. Accordingly, one of the hy-
potheses tested in the current investigation was drawn from the
investment model. We thus assumed that unlike partners with lit-
tle investments in conjugal relation, those who invested more in
their relationships in terms of time and resources are more likely
to stay together when a negative event such incarceration occurs.
The result of bivariate analysis confirms that indeed variables as-
sociated with investment in relations act as buffer against separa-
tion. Thus, married partners were less likely to be separated at the
time of the interview than partners living in cohabitation (30%
compared with 46%). In addition, partners with at least 10 years
of marriage/ cohabitation were half as likely as those with a shorter
history of spousal relations to be separated. Congruent with invest-
ment theory, one possible explanation is that long-lasting couples
may develop higher personal, social, material, and financial invest-
ments in relationships; therefore the separation may be perceived
as detrimental to these investments. Another potential explanation
is that longer relationships may become immune from separation
because they have presumably survived periods of high risk over
time (Hiedemann et al., 1998).
The results of bivariate analysis further revealed that prisoners
who spent more time with their partners before incarceration were
less likely to be separated (33% compared with 52%). Time spent
together means larger amount of spousal interaction thought to
contribute to marital quality and hence to marital stability (Hill,
1988). Children have been expected to deter conjugal separation.
Yet, the results of the current analysis found no significant relation-

ship between having under-aged children and the dissolution of
the marital couple.
Several variables considered under the preparation for mar-
riage model came as well as deterrents against prisoners separation
from life-partners. Interestingly, all were prisoner-related variables.
As such, older and more educated prisoners were less likely to be
separated than they counterparts. For example, prisoners aged 35
years or more have a 28% chance of being separated from their part-
ners, while the youngest ones have a 48% chance. In the same time,
prisoners who have graduated at least the secondary school have
a 38% probability of having ruptured the relationships with their
life-partners compared with 46% the probability of lower educat-
ed prisoners. Also, in line with our expectation, the age at current
marriage /cohabitation relation has a direct relationship: couples
formed by men at age 25 or less were more likely to be separated
than those entering into the conjugal relations later in life.
Table 3.1: Prisoners and couple characteristics and prevalence of separation

Separated by life-partners
Yes No Sig
Prison characteristics
Length of sentence (5 years or more = 1) 0.51 0.23 ***
Time spent (5 years or more = 1) 0.61 0.34
Prior incarcerations (yes = 1) 0.42 0.40
Visits (often and very often = 1) 0.40 0.59
Investment in conjugal relationships
Married (yes = 1) 0.30 0.46 ***
Length of conjugal relationship (10 years or over = 1) 0.25 0.51 ***
Having under-aged children ( yes = 1) 0.39 0.45
Hours spent together before incarceration (8 hours or more = 1) 0.33 0.52 ***
Separated by life-partners
Yes No Sig
Preparation for marriage
Prisoners partners age (35 years or more = 1) 0.38 0.43
Prisoners age at interview (35 years or more = 1) 0.28 0.48 ***
Prisoners partners level of education (8th grades or more = 1) 0.38 0.46
Prisoners level of education (8th grades or more = 1) 0.36 0.46 **
Prisoners age at marriage (25 years or less = 1) 0.54 0.35 **
Controls
Violent offence at conviction (yes = 1) 0.58 0.26 ***
History of violent offences (yes = 1) 0.44 0.34 **
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
Not least, both control variables hold significant relationships.

Thus, prisoners convicted for violent offences were twice as likely
to be separated from their life-partners at the time of the survey
then those convicted for non-violent offenses (58% compared with
26%). Also prisoners having a history of violent felonies were more
likely to have ended their conjugal relationships during the spell of
imprisonment.
Logistic regression
In order to examine the relationships between separation and
each (independent) characteristic holding constant the other ones,
a logistic regression analyses was employed. The results show that
only three factors were related with prisoners separation from their
life-partners during incarceration. Although holding a moderately
significant relationship (p<0.10), time served in prison came out as
a strong correlate of dissolution of conjugal relationships. In line
with our assumptions, prisoners who have already served 5 years
or more have higher likelihoods of being separated than those with

shorter stays in prison (B = 0.95; S.E. = 0.54).
The other two relevant variables fall under the investment in
couple model and act as protective factors since both hold nega-
tive associations. The first one is the duration of spousal relation-
ships. Prisoners married or in cohabitation for ten years or more
have lower probabilities to be separated from their life-partners
than those coming from couples of shorter-life (B = -1.4; S.E. =
0.58). The second one is time spent together with life-partners be-
fore incarceration. Prisoners spending more than eight hours per
day with their spousal are less likely to have their conjugal relation-
ships terminated in prison compared with those spending less time
(B = -.89; S.E. = 0.39).
Table 3.2: Regression of prisoner and couple characteristics

on prevalence of separation from life-partners
B S.E.
Prison characteristics
Time served (5 years or more = 1) .947 .540
Length of sentence (5 years or more = 1) .682 .492
Prior incarceration (yes = 1) -.439 .451
Visits (yes = 1) -.655 .418
Investments in couple
Duration of relationship (10 years or more = 1) -1.425** .575
Being married (yes = 1) -.492 .449
Time spent together before prison (8 hours or more = 1) -.896** .392
Having minor children (yes = 1) -.093 .428
Preparation for marriage
Prisoners age at admission (35 years or more = 1) -.040 .526
Prisoners partners age (35 years or more = 1) .282 .590
Prisoners partners level of education (8th grades or more = 1) -.157 .468
B S.E.
Prisoners level of education (8th grades or more = 1) -.522 .489
Prisoners age at marriage (25 years or less = 1) .598 .496
Controls
Offence at conviction (violent = 1) .563 .409
History of violent offences (yes = 1) -.189 .421
Intercept .519 .741
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
3.5.2. Qualitative findings

To investigate in more detail the antecedents of separations, the
findings of qualitative interviews conducted with the broader aim
of investigating the influences of imprisonment on Romanian of-
fenders lives are discussed in this section. The interviews were un-
dertaken with 50 prisoners held in three prisons: two of maximum
security Giurgiu and Rahova, and one of open and semi-open
Gaesti. The average age of the interviewed men is of 38 years old,
the youngest being aged 23 years old, and the oldest being aged 65.
In terms of educational level, 22 have graduated secondary school,
14 have graduated high-schools or equivalent institutions. A num-
ber of 14 participants are university graduates. Almost one third of
interviewees had no children. In terms of marital status, 8 were not
married upon the arrest, 3 were widowers, and 1 was divorced. The
other ones (38 participants) were married or were living in cohabi-
tation at the time of arrest. Less than half (23) were recidivists, and
6 were former drug users.
Out of the respondents who were married or in cohabitation
at the time of imprisonment, 15 claimed that during the current
imprisonment they got separated from their life partners. Their
average age was 35 and the majority were either long-term pris-
oners who had already served more than five years in prison or
those who, although relatively newly imprisoned, were facing long-
er prison terms. According to these men, the context and reasons
which left to the dissolution of the relations are extremely varied.
First, separation can intervene at each of the stage of criminal trial.
As such, some of the interviewed subjects declare that the separa-
tion occurred upon the arresting and coincided with the moment
when the women found out of the mens offending behaviour. The
case of S.C. aged 42 is exemplary. Owner of a company active in
the field of the distribution of surveillance and telecommunication
systems, he was condemned for fraud to 13 year of imprisonment.
The prisoner stated that he has been married for almost 10 years
and together with his wife they have a 9 year-old child. Lawyer by
profession, the woman divorced him immediately after he was ar-
rested. After separation, she didnt maintain contact with the man,
as she has not visited him nor has she kept any phone connection.
In his case, the conjugal breakup was associated to the shame his
partner felt due to the mans criminal behaviour and arresting, both
in deep contradiction to her lifestyle and profession.
For others, the moment of the arrest represented a real shock
and the period of the judiciary procedure one with a deep emo-
tional impact. One of the participants in the study (L.C., aged 41
years old), convicted to 7 years of imprisonment also for fraud, as-
serted that he was the one who separated from his wife during the
criminal process on the background of the emotional stress and
anxiety he felt during that period. In this regard, he confessed that,
although his wife was supportive, the arresting and the criminal
process caused him a veritable trauma: he could not sleep, was
stressed, felt helpless and could not come to terms with anyone. In
this context, the relationships with his wife terminated.
Similar, a lawyer of 40 years old, convicted for traffic of influ-

ence recognizes that the problems in the couple relation started
much before his imprisonment. Especially during the period of the
judiciary procedure, he neglected his family life: I was a man wait-
ing for disaster, I was aware I was to be condemned anyway. And I
wanted to take advantage of the freedom that was left to me. Since
then, the relationships with his wife got damaged considerably. The
two have been married for 13 years and have together one boy aged
11 years old. Once imprisoned, he agreed with his wife she should
not visit him in prison. They keep contact by phone but they do not
discuss of the couple relation. He claims he has conflicting feelings
for his wife, and avoids making a decision regarding the continu-
ation / discontinuation of the marriage while he is imprisoned: I
want to make decisions in a normal situation, not in a delicate one.
It is not now the moment to discuss about us as a couple what
should I tell her, or what should she tell me. If we are to make a
decision, we shall do it after the release.
There are also participants who stated that their partners had
left them immediately upon hearing the definitive sentence. For
A.V., this moment brought the sudden end, without any explana-
tion, of the couple relations. The man aged 43 years old, recidivist,
was convicted for aggravated murder to 26 years of imprisonment.
Married for 21 years, he claims that his wife was close to him for
one year and five months, throughout the criminal trial, but as
soon as she heard the sentence she closed the phone and stopped
for good any connection with him. In this case, the duration of the
condemnation seems to have had a direct impact on the marriage
relationship.
For others, separation came somehow immediately after the
current incarceration, but was rather the consequence of prior
prison terms. D.I. a prisoner of 26 years old at the time of the
interview, ex-drug user, convicted for theft at 5 years of imprison-

ment said that the relationship with his life-partner begun dete-
riorating during his previous incarceration. He claimed that they
met precisely during his prior imprisonment. The woman was the
sister of another prisoner and came regularly to visit her brother.
The interviewed prisoner stated that he got her phone number,
contacted her and after a period of two weeks, she came for the first
time to visit him. Since then their relationship continually evolved,
as he said: it became something serious, it wasnt any longer a
childish thing. They kept in touch for 2 years and 3 months. The
phone calls and the visits were an integral part of the routine of
their couple life. The girlfriends parents were also closed to him; as
he mentioned: we became a family. In the last six months of prior
prison sentence, he was transferred to another prison outside the
city of residence, as a result of the fictitious legal arrangements he
made in order to increase his chances of conditional release. They
continue to be in touch via phone calls, but the visits obviously
stopped due to the distance and high financial costs. He considered
that these six months changed everything. His partner has become
distant and disinterested. Three days after release the man resorted
to drug use and shortly after he was rearrested. The relationship
with his life-partner continued throughout this period although he
claimed that it wasnt what he expected. After the first six months
of arrest, the women left him.
For younger respondents, the loss of intimacy represented the
main reason for which the partners got separated from the impris-
oned men. This is the case of G.F., aged 24 years old, convicted to
4 years of imprisonment for rape. He was living since he was 18
years old in a cohabitation relation. His partner was 14 when the
respective relation started. He tells how the partner left him because
she felt the need of having somebody near her. In a previous study,
Schafer (1994: 29) as well found that the willingness of young fe-
male partners to bear the loss of both companionship and sexual
intimacy may depend on the duration of this hardship. As such, the
man in our study mentioned that during the first six months of im-
prisonment, the woman came to visit him once or twice per month,
and then the frequency of the visits decreased constantly, to once in
two months, once in three months, until they stopped for good. He
confesses that the woman announced him in a letter that she is leav-
ing him as she was in a relationship with another man. During the
interview, the man stated that he is grateful to her that she was hon-
est and has not hidden such a thing from him. He further told with
regret he tried to make her change her mind, but the possibilities
of contacting her and talking to her were limited in prison due to
the financial costs of the phone calls. He considered that chances of
reconciliation after release were nil. Consequently, he admitted the
challenging issues of reunification, and declared that if they would
have eventually resumed to live together, quarrels and reproaches
would come up with the potential to degenerate into much more
serious conflicts: knowing that she left me and that she was not by
my side when it was hard for me, I am not thankful to her for that, I
would have a quarrelling feeling, I would quarrel her.
Some claimed that it was they who had ended the relationships
with their partners. They invoke somehow altruistic reasons saying
that they thought about their partners, the fact they were young and
had to move on with their lives in their absence. S.F., aged 26 and
convicted to 2 years and 8 months for manslaughter following a car
accident, claimed that it seemed inhuman to ask his partner to wait
for him during his prison term, especially that the woman was back
then attending the courses of a faculty and he would not have want-
ed her to stop doing this. The two were together for three years and
a half. Similar to the previous interviewee, he also stated that he did
not regret the decision he took as in time quarrels, reproaches and

jealousy would have intervened. In his case, separation was mainly a
coping strategy to prevent a potential emotional break-down which
could prove devastating if he would learn about the infidelity of his
partners: I do not know; there are several things intervening
here, as far as I could see at several fellows, quarrels at home: what
are you doing, are you alone, why didnt you answer? I prefer to not
have such thoughts, to finish what I have to do, I go home, if it is to
call her look, I am home, if youd like come to my place, if not, she
can tell me I am with a boy because no one forbade her that
Actually, partners infidelity is a recurrent theme in the dis-
course of separated participants. Obviously, the discovery that
the spouse has been unfaithful is devastating to any individuals
self-esteem. But for some of the men behind bars it means much
more. Especially prisoners with strong commitment to criminal
lifestyle argue that the spouses infidelity is detrimental to their sta-
tus among prisoners and liable to discredit and compromise them
in the criminal entourages to which they belong. The experience of
infidelity brings shame and disrespect elements that further at-
tract humiliation and negative perception of their community and/
or group of friends (Fitnes, 2001).
S.V., aged 39 and convicted to 12 years of imprisonment for in-
ternational drug traffic, explains this mechanism showing that well
ranked criminals, known in the underworld, care about their repu-
tation and respect and have higher levels of vanity. It is offensive
and degrading, he claimed, to hear other prisoners saying that your
wife is cheating on you: and this news is heard immediately, it
spreads out very fast: man, you stayed in prison and your wife was
with one or with another. And then this law, this megalomania,
this snobbery intervene: wait, man! I am somebody! If we think
things from a human perspective, such things should not interest
us and we should not form our way of thinking that way. We should
be able to pass to more than these things, but having in mind this
criminal life, we have to be grandiose, brilliant! Oh, God, we do, we
undo! We deserve everything!
To avoid the status degradation, they chose to break the relation
at the slightest sign of suspicion. Some resorted to direct (e.g. fre-
quent phone calls) and indirect forms of partners control: friends
or family members are asked to supervise the womens behaviour.
In this regard, Nurse (2001: 383) showed that in the community
men are able to monitor the behaviour of their girlfriends and
make sure that they are being faithful and are acting in what they
consider to be an appropriate manner. The institution turns the
power relationships upside down. () the men are no longer in
the position to monitor or control womens behaviour.
Especially for Roma families, women fidelity is highly prized.
They hold a very rigid distribution of family roles based on the tra-
ditional male domination. According to their own accounts, men
are not to blame for their own infidelity; actually they often de-
scribe it in laudatory terms, connecting it to masculinity and man
sex roles. Yet, they demand their partners to be loyal: they have
to be obedient, devoted, and not to ignore a word they are saying.
Most important, they have the duty to stand by their men no mat-
ter what. One of the respondents, aged 29 years old and recidivist,
convicted to 7 years of imprisonment for attempted murder, men-
tioned: It was her obligation! While I was out, maybe I risked a
lot for her, for the family. I risked for them. People would greet her
when she crossed the street. It did not matter what was her age.
People respected her! No one asked her anything. The man sepa-
rated from his concubine after the woman, influenced by her fam-
ily, started disobeying him. He further recounted that she became a
prostitute and end up dead somewhere in Spain.
These men share the core relational characteristics of career

and lifestyle offenders in Walters (1990) and Gppinger (1987)
studies. As such, they are less educated and with less stable history
of employment before incarceration. Their private lives are defined
as well by high levels of disorganization and instability. Many of
them were not legally married at the time of the interview, prefer-
ring to living in cohabitation. Those who made though this step mo-
tivated by the potential advantages obtained from the marriage (e.g.
S.V. aged 39 changed his family name for putting an end to what
he called police harassment). They show a total lack of emotional
and affective involvement in the couple relation and consequently,
mentioned less time spent together with their life-partners before
incarceration. In fact, they define themselves as vagabonds, per-
sons who had numerous adventures outside the couple life and who
find it very difficult to bind themselves to a single partner (see also
Dmboeanu, 2011). They have a strong tendency to libertinage and
an exaggeratedly high interest towards sex. S.V., for instance, admits
that no matter if he is in a stable relationship or not, he gets involved
in occasional relations, one-night stands, which he doesnt even try
to hide from his partner. This is me. It does not matter with whom
I would try to have a friendly relation and start on a way with the
respective lady, I tell her from the start: I am bitchy, a vagabond, a
thief and a criminal. I have qualities, I also have defects.
Opposed to this group, is that of prisoners who preserved un-
changed their relationships with life-partners23. In general, these
23
Two other sub-groups of prisoners who succeed to preserve intact
their relationships with life-partners were identified, but not discussed here:
prisoners who stated that their relationships with wives or life-partners were
subjected to positive changes during the period of incarceration and prisoners
who claim that although their life partners are close to them and that by no
doubt they will continue the couple relation after release, the conjugal rela-
tionships were affected by marital strain.
are the men convicted for white-collar crimes. They either claim
to be innocent, arguing that their file is a manufacture, or consider
the undertaken deed to be an accident and a lack of justice. Similar
to the non-starters in Burnetts (2004) and Schinkels (2015: 9)
typologies of offenders, they assume the identity of non-criminal;
consequently, they claim it is not in their nature to do criminal
deeds and have the certitude that not even in the future shall they
perform criminal deeds. Men in this group have rich personal re-
sources. Most are higher education graduates, and before impris-
onment they had a high socioeconomic status and a good financial
standing. Some practiced law; others were responsible with the
management/ control of public institutions (like police inspector-
ate, financial guard) or ran their own business.
These participants describe their relations with the life partners
as based on support, trust and mutual understanding. Even if as cou-
ple they encountered several problems, these were rather minor and
characteristic, to a larger or smaller extent, to almost any conjugal
relation. The really difficult moments, if they existed within the cou-
ple, instead of estranging them, consolidated the couple life. In fact
they share the opinion that, when there are strong feelings between
the partners, the problems unite and not divide them. Men in this
group characterize their wives as being compassionate, dedicated to
family life, loyal, but also combative, ambitious and stronger persons.
Before being arrested, they spent enough time together, under-
taking various domestic and/ or recreational activities. Men tell
that before their imprisonment, women lived the shock of their ar-
resting, passed together with them through the encumbrance of
the judiciary procedure, supported and encouraged them when
they found out the definitive conviction. A prisoner aged 40 years
old admits that his wife faced this entire burden of his handling
through the phases of the criminal justice system playacting,
dissimulating, hiding her fears, frustrations, worries, precisely for

giving him the force to go forward. It is precisely this high level
of engagement that makes prisoners and their life partners to live
the experience of mens imprisonment as a loss of the relation
(Christian and Kennedy, 2011).
The men forming this group further argued that the physical dis-
tance, when both partners want to be together, is not an invincible
obstacle; they reinterpret the old aphorism out of sight out of mind at-
tributing positive connotations: distance is not conducive to forget-
ting, but amplifies longing, consolidates feelings of love and makes
the joy of seeing each other more intense. They confess the feelings
they have for each other almost daily, according to C.V. aged 45 years
old convicted for corruption: we live this relation each day as at the
beginning. In their case, imprisonment simply put family relations
on hold. One of the respondent aged 27 years old mentioned in this
regard: For a certain time period we have to wait before being to-
gether again and we have to accept the conditions that are imposed
to us. [The wife] must accept that I have to do punishment here, she
accepted it and she waits for me to return to the family.
Within their discourse on the relations with their life partners,
infidelity does not stand as a main topic. As showed above, most
consider mutual trust and honesty to be basic elements of their
couple. The man of 40 years old confessed: I trust S., like she trusts
me, I guess, we never lied one another while we were together, and
if this happens I am convinced she will tell me, but I repeat, I be-
lieve that educated people can exceed the situation more easily.
3.6. Conclusions
Using a unique research design that combined quantitative and
qualitative data, the current study aimed at identifying the factors
leading to the dissolution of conjugal relationships among a sample

of Romanian prisoners. It also intended to examine the factors with
protective role against separation.
The study found a strong albeit moderately significant corre-
lation between time served and the dissolution of the couple, as
the literature of the effects of imprisonment asserts. Long-served
prisoners had higher probabilities to experience the termination
of the relationships with their life-partners. From a psychosocial
perspective, this can be explained by the negative effects of physi-
cal separation on conjugal relationships: non-cohabitation may
lower the levels of commitment and attachment and may induce
personal changes found as incompatible by partners. Another
explanation relates to the economic and social difficulties expe-
rienced by life-partners left outside as a result of prisoners non-
participation to family life. Basically, men are forced to limit or
even lose definitively the prosocial roles they played in civil life.
It is what Goffman (1961) termed the effect of role dispossession.
Loppo and Western (2005) speak as well about prison effect of
incapacitation/ deactivation of prosocial roles as opposed to the
effect of incapacitation / deactivation of antisocial roles. As such,
during imprisonment the roles of husband, father, and breadwin-
ner are suspended; instead, the role of dependent person is ena-
bled. Women, on the other hand, are forced to take over all the du-
ties and responsibilities previously held by their partners, as much
as to adjust their own. Moerings (1992) suggested in this regard
that the roles of female partners are undergoing a genuine transi-
tion: the role of wife narrows and get to be performed through
visits, phone calls, letters; the role of mother becomes pressurized;
the role of daughter becomes prominent through hard reliance
on parents support. Some women may feel either overwhelmed
or discontent with this new and uneven distribution of roles.
Consequently, conjugal conflicts may intensify and lead to cou-

ples instability and breakup.
The potential factors that can protect families from dissolution
were drawn from sociological models of investment in marriage
and preparation for marriage. We found that the duration of cou-
ple relations is the strongest factor that protects partners against
separation. According to the investment model, the relationship
continuation even in the face of adversity such as incarceration is
influenced by two key factors (see Rusbult et al., 1998: 359-360): the
investment size (the magnitude and importance of the resources
that are attached to a relationship resources that would decline in
value or be lost if the relationship were to end) and commitment
level (sense of we-ness; the intention to persist in a relationship,
including long-term orientation toward the involvement as well as
feelings of psychological attachment). It can be thus argued that
the longer the spouses are together, the greater is the resource in-
vestment in conjugal relationships as much as their commitment
to each other. Several theorists actually suggest that in couples of
longer duration, investments in the spousal relationships may be
sufficient enough to hold the marriage together when a negative
event such as incarceration occurs. Hiedemann et al. (1998: 221-
222) have argued in this regard that lengthy couples are expected
to be reservoirs of jointly held economic and emotional capital
based on long-term investments not easily abandoned. The accu-
mulation of wealth inhibits divorce in longer marriages because the
prospects for rebuilding these reserves after a divorce are limited.
According to the findings of the current study, the time the
partners spent together before men incarceration is another rel-
evant factor that confers resilience against separation. The time
spent together undoubtedly contributes to the welding of the at-
tachment to each other. Hill (1998: 429) asserted in this regard that
high levels of attachment may be conceded as a specific form of

couples capital that prevents the dissolution of conjugal relation-
ships. As such, despite the fact that incarceration may generate so-
cial stigmatization, financial difficulties and emotional problems to
prisoners partners, the conjugal commitment is a powerful protec-
tive factor that can act as buffer against separation. These results are
largely supported by the qualitative findings, as prisoners preserv-
ing intact their conjugal relationships describing higher levels of
mutual commitment, support and understanding.
Yet, several other qualitative findings were relevant. For exam-
ple, we found that separation may occur at all stages of criminal
trial and that for some it is not the arrest or imprisonment per se
but the men criminal behaviour and its attached stigma that con-
tributed to the dissolution of conjugal relationships. There are also
indications for a selection effect. As such, most of separated pris-
oners in our study were recidivists, less educated, having no stable
patterns of employment before incarceration characteristics usu-
ally associated with divorce and separation regardless of the inci-
dence of incarceration. Similar to previous depictions of lifestyle
criminals (Gppinger, 1987; Walters, 1990), they were found to
have negative attitudes towards stable ties and lower commitments
toward their life-partners.
Not least, the qualitative findings highlight the relevance of pris-
oners narratives and the ways they (re)structure prisoners feelings
and emotions during incarceration. Christian and Kennedy (2011:
380) noticed in this regard that narratives are both accounts but also
prescriptions for how individuals manage their environments. As
such, some of the participants to the current study created optimis-
tic scenarios about their conjugal life during and after prison. These
scenarios may act as psycho-social mechanisms for accepting the
punishment as much as for self-motivation. Others created negative
scenarios and decided to break-up the conjugal ties. These men

have pessimistic views on how their life in the couple will be after
release. However, for some the decision to put end to their conjugal
relationships may as well be interpreted as a way of self-condemna-
tion or over-blaming for the offense they committed and/ or for the
suffering caused to their life-partners (see Smith et al., 1993).
3.7. Limitations and future research

Some limitations of the current study warrant attention in fu-
ture research. First, the study is based on cross-sectional data and
examines the prevalence of prisoners separation from life-partners
at the time of the interview. We therefore encourage longitudinal
research to be conducted, e.g. following prisoners from pre-trial
detention to at least six or twelve months after release. In this way,
whether the correlations found in the current quantitative study are
in fact causal relationships can be assessed. Longitudinal research
can also improve the existing knowledge about how relationships
become more or less satisfying and more or less stable during and
after imprisonment (Karney and Bradbury, 1995). Massoglia et al.
(2011) found, for example, that 40% of marriages dissolved after
the incarceration period ended. It would thereby be necessary to
follow up the evolution of prisoners conjugal relationships in order
to better understand the contexts in which they terminated.
Second, only several independent variables have been included
in the quantitative analyses. As a consequence of the relatively small
sample size adding more measures, although theoretically relevant,
could have been proved to severely limit the validity of the findings.
More indicators related to each partners familial background and
the quality of pre-prison conjugal relationships would have defi-
nitely added more value to the current investigation.
Another limitation refers to the generalizability of the quanti-

tative findings to the overall population of prisoners in Romania.
As mentioned in the first chapter, quantitative data for the current
study were collected in only four prisons. Moreover, long-term
prisoners, and hence, prisoners convicted to lengthier sanctions as
much as those sentenced for violent offences were over-represent-
ed. As a result, the findings need to be interpreted with caution
and not generalized to other prisons/ prisoners. Qualitative study
suffered instead from an under-representation of long-term pris-
oners. Some of the men who actually served more than five years
in prison were convicted for murdering their wives and therefore
there accounts were less relevant for the current discussion.
Not least, future studies may wish to investigate the topic from
prisoners life-partners perspective. By doing that, future research
could also incorporate measures of various (social, economic, per-
sonal) difficulties encountered by the women over the course of
mens imprisonment as potential contributors to the dissolution of
conjugal relationships.
3.8. Policy recommendation

Given the research limitations mentioned above, we are cau-
tious about making specific policy recommendations. However,
some general suggestions can be advanced on the basis of this
study. For example, we found that for 95% of separated prisoners
the conjugal relationships ended in the first two years of imprison-
ment. Therefore, we propose that prison and criminal justice prac-
titioners to provide services aimed at preventing family breakup
and at promoting instead closer and supportive family ties dur-
ing this vulnerable period. In an early study, Carlson and Cervera
(1991) also urged practitioners to do more to support and maintain
family ties especially at the beginning and middle of prisoners sen-

tence, and not only at the end of it.
Another notable finding of the current study was that half of
the conjugal separation occurred in our sample were initiated by
prisoners life-partners. Although we did not focused on the con-
sequences of separation, consistent with psycho-sociological litera-
ture on divortiality, we can assume that the spouse on whom the
separation is imposed (e.g. the prisoners) may feel more trauma
than those who initiated it. Accordingly, prison practitioners need
to provide whenever the case increased support (e.g. psycho-
logical counselling) for these prisoners in order to help them cope
with separation.
Closely related to this is the proposal for prison administrations
to start collecting on a regular basis data about prisoners mari-
tal status and changes that intervene during their prison sentence.
Such a database would help, for example, prison specialists to iden-
tify prisoners whose conjugal relationships disintegrate and who
are likely to develop risky behaviour in prison because of that. It
would also be relevant at the time of release, since it could give
indications about which prisoners were affected by family separa-
tion and need professional support upon return in the community,
as they might have no place to go and nobody to turn to for help.
The study also reported findings indicating that the time already
served under the current sentence as well as the time the prison-
ers have to serve (as measured by length of sentence) contribute to
prisoners separation from their wives and life-partners. As many
of these men are incarcerated at maximum security and closed re-
gime characterized by more restrictive conditions related to prison
visits and prison leaves, prison administrators should find a balance
between security requirements and the need these prisoners in par-
ticular have for maintaining contact with their families. As such,
we have speculated that both already experienced and anticipated

time spent apart from life-partners is conducive to separation via
lowering the attachments between spouses and the effects of grow-
ing apart (Massoglia et al., 2011). In line with this argumentation,
prison policies that increase family contact during imprisonment
among this particular group of prisoners should be encouraged.
Time spent apart may also lead to separation as a consequence of cu-
mulative effect of personal, financial and social problems that mens
imprisonment have for the partner left outside. From this point of
view, social policies supporting prisoners wives or life-partners are
needed. One step in this direction might be their inclusion as one of
the main target-groups of the social welfare system.
The findings of the qualitative study are as well relevant for
prison practitioners as they pointing to a particular category of
prisoners lifestyle recidivists whose personal lives are highly dis-
organized and who are at risk of conjugal dissolution regardless the
experience of imprisonment. For them, time spent in prison may
be an opportunity to address these dysfunctionalities. As such, they
should be subjected to a wide range of prison interventions such
as education for family life, family-skills training, social abilities
programs, as much as cognitive behavioural programs.
We conclude by quoting from Carlson and Cervera (1991: 330)
who eloquently asserted that although it is difficult to demonstrate
the effectiveness of services to inmates families in the short run,
leading some to conclude that family intervention services are a
luxury too expensive to afford, especially in times of dramatically
escalating prison costs, it can be argued that family services are
among the most effective services in the long run, services that can
ill afford not to provide.
CHAPTER 4
PRISONERS HUMAN CAPITAL
AND THEIR PERCEPTION ON EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS
AFTER RELEASE24
4.1. Introduction
Employment is commonly perceived by researchers, policy-
makers, and prison practitioners alike as the cornerstone of of-
fender reintegration and desistance from crime (Sampson and
Laub, 1993; Visher and Travis, 2003; Petersilia, 2005; Pager, 2007;
Weiman, 2007; Bushway and Apel, 2012). It is widely acknowl-
edged, however, and the international literature offers compelling
evidence, that prisoners (re)entry on the labour market is severly
limited by numerous social, economic and legal barriers. One of the
most challenging refers to human capital deficits that characterize
the people locked behind bars. A vast scholarship has documented
that prisoners are unduly drawn from the under-educated and un-
der-skilled segments of the population (Western et al., 2001; Visher
et al., 2011; Ramakers et al., 2015). They display high levels of illit-
eracy and few have graduated high-school. Their pre-prison work
24
Special thanks to Anke Ramakers, assistant professor at Leiden
University, for her comments and suggestions to this chapter.
portfolio is also rather limited and often immersed in long periods

of involvement in crime and drug use (Bushway and Reuter, 2001).
Moreover, the negative perceptions and stereotypes they held about
their own access on the labour market may further block their road
toward post-release employment. For example, some may think a
priori that their chances of employment are significantly low and
because of that, they dont even try searching for a job.
Historically, there has been a strong belief in the capacity of
prison to remedy these deficits and to improve the perspectives
of prisoners (re)inclusion on the labour market. It has been con-
sequently argued that through participation in prison-based aca-
demic, vocational and work programs, prisoners succeed to filling
in the gaps in human capital so that after release, they would have
higher employment prospects and thus, higher chances to abandon
crime. The participation in skills and work programs was also pre-
dicted to have indirect positive outcomes via inculcating optimism
to prisoners in relation to their post-release employment prospects.
Most empirical studies on the benefits of prison programs have
been conducted under what works perspective, investigating
whether participation in prison skills and work programs is associ-
ated with higher rates of post-prison participation on the labour
market and/ or lower rates of reoffending (MacKenzie, 2006, 2000;
Cho and Tyler, 2010; Davis et al., 2013; Duwe and Clark, 2014; Aos
et al., 2015). In much lesser extent, the research interest has focused
on the processes that underlie these outcomes: the way prisoners
experience their imprisonment and how they expect their life to be
after release. The relevance of addressing these issues is indisput-
able, since extensive literature on desistance from crime speculates
the existence of a strong correlation between prisoners expectan-
cies and the likelihood of ceasing crime. In his landmark study on
desistance from crime, Shadd Maruna (2001) found, for example,
that desisters hold more positive expectations on their destiny,

while those who persist share rather a fatalistic view claiming that
they are doomed to fail.
The current study contributes to this line of research by focus-
ing on the perceptions of prisoners on their post-release (re)inte-
gration on the labour market, using a same sample of Romanian
prisoners. Two main research questions guide the study. First, how
do prisoners perceive their employment prospects in the community?
As such, we examine how difficult prisoners anticipate that will be
to find a job once they return in the community. Because the crimi-
nological literature postulates that is not only to find a job, but to
find a good job that matters in re-entering on the labour market
(Sampson and Laub, 1993), we also explore how prisoners perceive
their chances of obtaining a quality job upon release. Specifically,
prisoners anticipations of finding a job in a skilled position and
finding a better paid job respectively are investigated. The second
question to which the study tries to find answer is which prisoner
characteristics correlate with perceptions of post-release employment?
More precisely, based on human capital and signalling theories, the
study examines whether there are differences in how prisoners per-
ceive their chances of employment in relation to their pre-prison
human capital characteristics, participation in prison and work
programs, and feelings of being stigmatized by employers.
In this way, the study advances the literature in at least two ways.
First, as mentioned above only a small number of studies has in-
vestigated prisoners perceptions on their future lives. Of the hand-
ful of existing studies, most have examined general measures of
recidivism and desistance from crime, asking prisoners to estimate
their chances of reoffending or abstaining from crime (Visher et
al., 2003; Burnett, 2004; Dhami et al., 2006; Lyod and Serin, 2012).
Even if they have included measures of prisoners beliefs about
finding employment after release, they do that in rather broader

terms (Dhami et al., 2006); consequently, they do not look at par-
ticular outcomes. In addition, even fewer studies have directly ex-
plored whether prisoners participation in skills and work programs
is associated with their perspectives on post-prison labour market
outcomes.
Second, the study brings further contributions by addressing
this topic in the particular context of Romanian prisons. As noted in
the first chapter, the prison system in Romania makes overwhelm-
ing efforts to comply with the European requirements of providing
a meaningful experience of imprisonment. The challenges are mul-
tifaceted: the Romanian prisons are overcrowded, run with small
budgets and shortages of prison staff. Almost half of prisoners they
accommodate are convicted to long-prison sentences; there are few
skills programs available, no operational prison factories, no work
release facilities, and until recently there was no strategy address-
ing the offenders` reintegration into the community. Especially in
such context, defined by paucity of skills programs and work op-
portunities, it becomes important to assess whether the existent
ones bring out the best in prisoners, including via instilling positive
beliefs about their future employment outcomes.
By looking on how specific human capital and signalling meas-
ures relate to prisoners perceptions on their employment chances
after release, important recommendations for prison administra-
tions and social policies can be advanced. For example, if direct
relations between perceptions of employment after release and
measures of educational and work background are found then
more training resources should be directed toward school, educa-
tional, and skill programs. If, on the contrary, prisoners believe that
obtaining a job is hard because they are stigmatized by employers,
then prison interventions that increase prisoners self-efficacy in
overcoming this barrier should definitely be employed. Not least,

for policy purposes, it is also relevant to assess whether in-prison
job training and work programs are related with prisoners opti-
mism about their post-release outcomes.
In what follows, the Romanian prison policy and social context
related to prisoners reintegration on labour market are briefly pre-
sented first. Then the prior literature is reviewed with a focus on: a)
the relationship between desistance from crime and prisoners self-
perception on various post-release outcomes including employ-
ment; b) human capital theory; c) signalling theory. After that the
research methodology is described, followed by the presentation of
the main results. The study concludes with the discussion and the
policy recommendation sections.
4.2. Romanian prison legislation

In line with the European conventions and recommendations,
the Romanian prison law stipulates the prisoners right to educa-
tion, training and work. As such, prisoners can attend school classes
for general education, as well as university courses, in this last case,
at distance or part-time learning only. In practice, a small propor-
tion of prisoners participate at formal education-based programs.
For example, in 2014, the rate of participation was lower than
10 per cent of the total prison population (NAP, 2015). Of these,
nearly 80 per cent have attended primary and secondary school,
and 20 per cent high school. Only 7 prisoners have participated
in university courses. The low level of prisoners involvement in
these programs is in part explained by the uneven access to them.
Due to small budgets allocated to both Ministry of Education and
Ministry of Justice, most prisons organized primary school classes
only. In addition, prisoner who would like to attend high-school or
college courses might be discouraged, since they have to bear all

the costs, including that of traveling from prison to the educational
facility in the community.
Table 4.1: Number of male prisoners enrolled in school classes 2009-2015

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
No. of participants in 1974 1685 1962 2019 1974 2130
school classes
Source: National Administration of Prisons. Response letter no. 200099/DRS/11/06.2015
at the request of the Institute of Sociology
In a similar way, prisoners can participate in skills or vocational

training programs. In 2014, roughly over 8 per cent have attended
such programs of which some were conducted in partnership with
the National Employment Agency (NEA), while others have been
run within various European funded projects. Most prisoners have
participated in programs targeting the first degree level of quali-
fication such as crop production and livestock worker. They have
also been trained in the second-level trades of carpenter, floorer,
construction worker, paver, bricklayer, cooker, baker, beekeeper,
plumber, barber, sewer, typographer, mechanic, pest control agent,
landscape painter etc.
Table 4.2: Number of male prisoners involved in skills programs

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No. of participants 1033 2383 2524 2268 2245
% of finally convicted 4.4 8.8 8.9 7.6 8.3
Source: National Administration of Prisons. Response letter no. 200099/DRS/11/06.2015 at the
request of the Institute of Sociology
Regarding the work programs, the Romanian prison law stipu-

lates that work aims to maintain and increase prisoners ability to
earn a living after release, but also the realization of financial re-
turns that can be used by prison administration to improve prison
conditions and to support the activities aiming to rehabilitate and
re-socialize the prisoners. More specifically, prisoners can partici-
pate in unpaid activities, carried out for the good functioning of
prisons. They can also participate in paid work within or outside
prison. The employment opportunities provided to prisoners are,
however, limited, as a consequence of the fact that the industries
that were operating inside the prison were closed during the eco-
nomic crisis. In this situation, 80 per cent of those who previously
worked are now forced to spend most of their time in their cells.
The most disadvantaged are prisoners who serve their sentence
in closed regime or in maximum security. They hardly work out-
side the prison because this requires a large number of security
guards and of stringent safety conditions, which further raises dif-
ficulties for the beneficiary when contracting such labour force
(Dmboeanu, 2013). In addition, some prisons are located in high-
ly economically disadvantaged areas making difficult for prison ad-
ministrations to obtain labour agreements. This is a problem faced
even by open and semi-open prisons. Not surprisingly, in 2014, just
over a quarter (28 per cent) of all prisoners have participated in
working activities. Of these, less than half (40 per cent) have been
involved in paid service-based contracts activities. Most of these
jobs are unqualified (e.g. in agriculture, sanitation, hygiene etc.) for
which prisoners receive the minimum wage that barely enable in-
mates to financially sustain in prison; they definitely dont enable
them to contribute financially to their families at home.
Re-entry programs provide further support to prisoners to be
released from prison. However, only two types of such programs
are available in Romanian prisons. First, the preparation for release

program is rather informational and focuses on the so-called soft
skills such as CV writing, letters of application and preparing for
interviews etc. (see Eley, 2007). Instead, the program of reducing
reoffending risk after release facilitate the meeting between repre-
sentatives of employment agencies, social services or NGOs to dis-
cuss with prisoners and plan the strategy of their transition to com-
munity. Yet, due to resource deficit, this program is run only in half
of the prisons (Durnescu and Decarpes, 2012). These few oppor-
tunities for both in-prison human capital and re-entry programs
are regrettably complemented by the low availability of post-release
programs, as well as by the low level of community involvement
in assisting prisoners upon their return into the community. Only
recently, when the new Criminal Code came into effects (2014), the
probation service has been vested with responsibilities regarding
the social reintegration of prisoners.
The NEA has also responsibilities regarding the reintegration
on the labour market of persons who are released from prison.
The statistical data for the period 2004-2014 reveal, however, the
extremely low number of former inmates employed on the la-
bour market through its programs. The average number is 32/
year. Moreover, their number decreased dramatically, about 10
times, between 2004-2013, from 94 in 2004 to 9 in 2012 and 13
in 2013. Last year saw a sharp increase, reaching 63, but overall
the number remains extremely low, both in relation to the number
of inmates who are released from detention and in relation to the
number of vulnerable people who make up the target group of the
NEA interventions. These figures can indicate either the employers
preferences for other vulnerable categories of persons (long-term
unemployed, Roma people and disabled people), but also the low
addressability of former prisoners to services provided by NEA.
Table 4.3 Number of ex-prisoners who received NAP services 2004-2014.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
No. of participants 94 28 29 33 41 16 13 11 9 13 63
to N.E.A. services
Source: NEA official letters no. 9118/19.06.2013 and no. 6667/CB/20/05.2015
sent at the requests of the Institute of Sociology
The criminal records are not available to the public in Romania,

and the employers cannot access them in order to check the em-
ployees criminal past. For certain jobs in the public sector, the can-
didates may have to include a copy of their criminal record in the
applicant file, a practice known in the literature as the enforced
subject access (Louks et al., 1998: 200). Little is known however
about the extent to which the criminal record is actually required
by employers. In the private sector, a study conducted by Durnescu
(2008) found that over 75 per cent of the surveyed employers do
not require the criminal record, and more than 65 per cent do not
even ask about the candidates offending antecedents. Yet, the re-
sponse rate of this survey among employers was of only 1 per cent,
which raises questions about the representativeness and the selec-
tion effect of participants. For example, one might ask whether
those who chose to respond to the survey are also those with less
discriminatory attitudes toward ex-prisoners.
4.3. Theory and prior research

A small but increasing literature explores the views and ex-
pectations prisoners hold about their life prospects after release
from prison. This literature asserts that prisoners who are display-
ing higher levels of optimism about their future will have greater
chances to desist from crime and successfully reintegrate into the
mainstream society. In his well-known study on desistance from

crime, S. Maruna (2001) found indeed that the offenders who ab-
stained from crime hold more positive outlook over their destiny.
They have higher levels of self-confidence in their abilities to choose
their path in life and make positive achievements. On contrary, the
offenders who persist in crime hold negativistic perceptions on the
capacity to change their behaviour. As such, they rather see them-
selves as being condemned to crime and deviance.
The research findings of another notable study on recidivism
versus desistance point further to the important role of hope in
ceasing crime. The study, a two-year longitudinal research, was
conducted with the aim of exploring the relationships between so-
cial and subjective factors associated with recidivism and desist-
ance among a sample of 130 property offenders. Re-analyzing the
data of this study, Burnett and Maruna (2004) showed that pris-
oners who displayed high levels of hope in achieving the goal of
desistance the definites as named by the authors have the low-
est probability of reporting new offences after release. The scep-
tics on the other hand have the highest self-reported likelihood of
recidivism. The optimists, the undecided and the pessimists
rank between. In a subsequent ten-year follow-up study based on
offenders official criminal records, the same authors (2004) found
further support for the relationship between hope and desistance
from crime on long-term. This result led them to conclude that
measures of the mindset of men about to leave prison are indeed
predictive of their post-conviction success (p. 399). Another inter-
esting finding of their analysis was the mediator role of hope in the
relation between social difficulties experienced by prisoners after
release and the probability of reconviction. More specifically, they
found that prisoners with high levels of hope to desist from crime
are better able to cope with the problems they face after release.
In another analysis based on the same set of data, LeBel and

his colleagues (2008: 154) made the observation that hope or the
belief in ones ability to go straight or belief in self efficacy may be
a necessary if not a sufficient condition for an individual to be able
to desist from crime. They argued in this regard that prisoners with
high levels of hope may take advantage of positive social oppor-
tunities such as employment and may be better able to move over
disappointments they might encounter after release.
Relevant to our study are also the specific findings on prison-
ers hopes in relation to their employment chances after release.
According to Burnett (2004: 158), almost 70 per cent of the 130 prop-
erty offenders had no definite employment prospects before release;
yet, half of them had plans for employment or thought their pros-
pects of obtaining work were good. Other studies indicate as well that
prisoners usually make optimistic predictions about their chances of
successfully re-entering into the community after release, includ-
ing of finding employment. For example, in the US, The Returning
Home research project also reported high levels of prisoners confi-
dence in their chances of gaining employment (Visher et al., 2003:
62-64). About two thirds felt that it would be easy or very easy to find
a job once they return to the community. Roughly 90 per cent felt
that once they obtained a job, it would be easy or very easy to keep it.
Various factors can be linked to prisoners prospects about their
post-release success. Literature points out the relevance of two
concepts in the reintegration of ex-prisoners in the formal labour
market: human capital and the perceived stigma. Their underlying
theories are discussed next.
Human capital theory

Human capital refers to the stock of education, knowledge and
skills the individuals possess and capitalize on the labour market,
in exchange for economic resources of any kind (Voicu, 2004:

137-138). Gary S. Becker introduced the distinction between gen-
eral capital which provides useful knowledge and skills that can
be applied to various jobs and specific capital, on-the-job training,
which tends to provide a greater rate of return at a particular sec-
tor (1962). As already noticed, most prisoners do suffer serious
(both general and specific) human capital-related gaps. They have
lower levels of literacy than non-incarcerated adults (Greenberg
et al., 2007; Hopkins, 2012); fewer have completed secondary
school, and higher proportions were unemployed before impris-
onment (Petersilia, 2003; Entorf, 2009; Hopkins, 2012, Ramakers
et al., 2015). Even those who worked spent longer unemployment
periods, have changed jobs more often (Ramakers et al., 2015)
and received lower payment compared with general population
(Hopkins, 2012). Lower levels of pre-prison skills and work experi-
ence are expected to be related with less optimistic perspectives on
employment chances after release.
It is also true that time spent in prison may further erode even
the basic human capital endowment of prisoners. A period of in-
carceration is often equalled in prison literature with time spent
outside the labour market. It is usually believed that in prison the
offenders dont have many opportunities to practice their knowl-
edge, professional skills and work habits they might have previous-
ly acquired; consequently, their skills and work experiences may
deteriorate (Holzer et al., 2002). Also, incarceration interrupts the
men work careers (Sampson and Laub, 1993; Raphael, 2004), and
may as well prevent them from gaining new skills and qualifica-
tions (Waldfogel, 1994; Holzer et al., 2002; Uggen et al., 2005; Kling,
2006; Apel and Sweeten, 2010). Moreover, a term of incarceration
may disconnect the individuals from their contacts with former
employers, but also with families and friends who otherwise could
assist them in their efforts of searching for employment (Hagan

and Dinovitzer, 1993). Not least, while in prison the offenders may
increase their stock of criminal skills and knowledge and extend
their involvement in offending social networks while in prison.
This absorption in criminal lifestyle translates further into a low or
no interest to find a job after release (McCarthy and Hagan, 1995).
In line with these arguments, long-term prisoners and recidivists
are the most exposed categories to the abovementioned deleterious
effects of prisons. For example, Raphael (2004) found that among a
cohort of 18-25 years old inmates, almost one quarter spent about
ten years cycling in and out of prisons with consequences on their
potential to accumulate skills and work experience. Accordingly, it
can be assumed that long-serving prisoners, as well as the offenders
with prior prison terms, will be more negativistic with respect to
their post-release employment success.
But time spent in prison may also correspond to improvements
of prisoners general and specific human capital via participation in
work and prison programs. Probably the oldest and universally de-
livered programs in prisons, skills and work programs were mainly
invested in the early times with moralizing functions. Both were
seen then as instruments of moral regeneration and spiritual ref-
ormation (MacKenzie, 2005). Today, more than in the past, the
emphasis is placed on providing prisoners with the opportunities
for developing their human capital and for improving their em-
ployability after release from prison. The expectancies for these
programs to achieve positive outcomes are easily to anticipate.
First, by attending formal education classes, prisoners increase
their general human capital, which provides useful knowledge and
skills that can be applied to various jobs (Becker, 1962). In the same
way, vocational training, as well as prison-based work programs,
contributes to the accumulation of specific human capital, relevant
to a particular job (idem). For example, it is believed that training

prisoners in a certain trade such as carpentry, plumbing, barbering
and construction will equip them with the skills and work habits
that they can practice after release (Richmond, 2015). Second, a
school/ vocational diploma helps prisoners to become eligible can-
didates for those jobs to which access has been previously blocked
precisely due to lack of an academic/ vocational certification (Ubah
and Robinson, 2003; MacKenzie, 2006). By building/ developing
the prisoners general and/ or on-the job specific human capital,
these programs would further increase prisoners value on labour
market and instill a positive outlook toward their future employ-
ment opportunities. Consequently, another hypothesis that can be
drawn from human capital theory is that prison work and train-
ing programs are directly linked to prisoners positive prospects on
employment outcomes after release.
Signalling theory
The attitudes of prisoners toward their chances of (re)entering
the labour market are also influenced by their perceptions on how
employers see and treat them as potential job-candidates. The per-
ception of the stigmatizing effects of the criminal record is a core
element in developing these attitudes. Criminal record is conceived
as a form of status degradation (Schwartz and Skolnick 1962:
136) and/ or as negative credential that cancels any other posi-
tive achievements the individuals might have previously acquired
(Pager, 2007: 32). The explanations of these powerful stigmatizing
effects are mainly rooted in labelling perspective. Prisoners are sub-
jected to an array of negative stereotypes. For example, they may
be perceived as criminals, dangerous, irresponsible and lacking of
self-control persons (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003); to protect their
clients and the others co-workers, employers simply choose not to
hire ex-prisoners. People with experiences of imprisonment may

be seen as well as people with lower educational and work com-
petencies. Apel and Sweeten (2010: 451) argue, in this regard, that
employers often associate prisoners with underclass, to which they
manifest profound negative images: on the one hand, they consider
them as lacking labour ethics, unreliable and dishonest; on the oth-
er hand, they are expected to have a lower level of vocational train-
ing. Graffam et al. (2008) found that both employers and employ-
ment service workers see prisoners as more precarious in terms of
work skills than members of the general workforce.
Several studies documented that prisoners consider that crimi-
nal records is one of the main barrier to secure employment af-
ter release (Fletcher, 2001; Webster et al., 2001). According to a
classical experiment conducted in the particular context of the
US labour market, half of the applicants with a criminal record
having the same qualification and competences as ones who have
no criminal record have been consistently rejected by employers
(Pager, 2003). The surveys conducted among employers have fur-
ther confirmed the high level of employers reluctance to hire ex-
prisoners. For example, the studies conducted by Holzer and his
colleagues in the US showed that employers will prefer to hire a
welfare recipient, a worker with no high school diploma or an ap-
plicant with spotty work histories or who has been unemployed
for at least one year, but not an ex-prisoner (Holzer et al., 2002).
Similarly, Graffam et al. (2008) showed that employers will rather
select an offender serving and completing a community sanction
than a former prisoner.
But even among prisoners there might be a differential effect of
stigmatization according to the individuals personal and offend-
ing characteristics. For example, Sampson and Laub (1997) argue
that the numerous disadvantages faced by prisoners with poor
socio-economic position facilitate stigmatization, whereas prison-

ers with higher human capital stocks and socio-economic status
may be protected against the stigmatizing effects of criminal re-
cord. It can thereby be expected that prisoners better equipped in
terms of pre-prison human capital to be more confident in their
ability to prevent employers stigma and to succeed on labour mar-
ket after release from prison.
As previously discussed, prison skills and work programs may
play an important role in developing prisoners human capital,
and thus in entrusting prisoners that they can overcome stigma
attached to criminal record. They represent positive credentials
appreciated by employers (Pager, 2007). For example, Albright
and Denq (1996) found that employers readiness to hire an ex-
prisoner was higher for those with a college degree and a voca-
tional trade.
Bushaway and Apel (2012) take a step further and argue that
finishing a skills program in prison can be used as a desistance
signal for employers. As such, the authors move beyond the real
effect of training, and rather focus on program completion as an
indicator of persons willingness to make an effort to change. They
based their argument on the assumption that many prisoners do
not participate or finish such programs. For this reason, they can
act to differentiate between the good and bad ex-prisoners
and hence to support employers to make good hiring decisions.
As Bushway and Apel (2012: 33) further noticed, prisoners who
possess unobservable characteristics motivation and ability,
among other intangibles which can result in overly optimistic as-
sessments of the benefits of work programs on employment and
crime. Highly motivated individuals will experience better employ-
ment and recidivism outcomes for reasons that have nothing to do
with the program itself. Individuals therefore sort themselves into
recidivism risk levels, inadvertently, on the basis of their successful

completion of voluntary work programs.
The expectation drawn from this perspective is that the par-
ticipation in skills and work programs will be inversely related to
prisoners perception of stigmatization on the labour market and
hence with the perception on the difficulty to find a job after re-
lease. Conversely, participation in such programs will be positively
related to the perceptions of finding a job in a skilled position and
finding a better paid job.
Moreover, although there is some evidence that stigma might
affect to a greater extant the drug users (Holzer et al., 2002) and
the persons who have committed crimes of fraud or the offenders
whose pre-prison jobs appear to require trust (Waldfogel, 1994),
the general consensus is that prisoners with the most negative im-
age are those who have committed violent offenses (Atkinson et
al., 1976; Albright and Denq, 1996; Atkin and Armstrong, 2011).
Therefore, it can be anticipated that these prisoners will have the
most pessimistic outlooks regarding their post-release employ-
ment outcomes. Also, literature offers further evidence that stig-
matization is greater for first-time than for the recidivist prisoners
(Graffam et al., 2008). Paternoster and Iovanni (1989: 386) ex-
plained this perspective, arguing that once an individual has been
stigmatized it is doubtful that further increases in stigmatization
will produce further effects. As such, the hypothesis that prior in-
carceration will hold no relationship with prisoners perceptions
can be formulated. Not least, several studies found that employers
are more reluctant to hire long-term prisoners, since they associ-
ate a longer prison spell with prisoners difficulties of adjustment
to the free world (Giguere and Dundes, 2002). Accordingly, it can
be assumed that longer prison spells will be associated with more
negativistic views on post-release employment outcomes.

This study investigates prisoners expectations on their post-
release employment outcomes. Specifically, it examines whether
human capital characteristics or rather signalling measures are re-
lated to their perceptions on: a) the difficulty of finding a job after
release; b) finding a job in a skilled position; c) finding a better paid
job. An important focus of the study is placed on the relationship
between participation in skills and work programs and the three
aforementioned outcome variables. A sub-sample of 144 prisoners
who have less than two years left until being hearing for condi-
tional release have been extracted from the original final sample of
280 prisoners (see Chapter 1). The decision to restrict the sample
to this particular category of prisoners was motivated by the inten-
tion to avoid the potential biases that might have arisen from the
use of measure(s) related to prisoners participation in work and
prison programs during the entire period the inmates have been
incarcerated. However, one might argue that the time period of two
years left until conditional release hearing is somehow large and
that prisoners will change their perceptions when release is com-
ing up. Therefore, to test for the robustness of the results, all the
analyses are also applied for prisoners who have left one year or
less until the conditional release hearing (N= 92). Bivariate analy-
ses were conducted aiming to examine the strength and the direc-
tion of the relationships between each human capital and signalling
characteristic and the three outcome variables, followed by multi-
ple logistic regressions.
Measures
Dependent variables
Three (perceptual) measures were included in the analysis as
dependent variables. They all assess prisoners prospects of their
employment chances after release. First, the perception of difficul-
ty of finding a job was dichotomously coded based on prisoners
answers provided to the following question: How difficult do you
think it would be for you to find a job after release? Initially distrib-
uted on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very difficult
to 5 = very easy, the answers were recoded as 1 for prisoners who
considered as being difficult/ very difficult and 0 for prisoners who
mentioned otherwise. Second, because criminological literature
pertaining to desistance from crime indicates that finding a good
job in particular prevent reoffending, two measures related to the
quality of jobs prisoners perceive as being available for them after
release were also included in the analyses. The perception of finding
a skilled job represents the dichotomous recoded variable of nine
possible response options to the questions: What types of jobs do
you think that they will be available for you after release? The code
1 was attributed to prisoners choosing the options corresponding
to skilled jobs, whereas the code 0 was ascribed to those selecting
the answers pertaining to unskilled jobs. The perception of finding
better paid job was as well a dichotomous variable created by recod-
ing the answers to the question: What do you think that it will be
the salary that you will receive? As such, the three initial response
options: 1 = less than minimum wage; 2 = between minimum and
average wage; 3 = more than the average wage, were recoded with 1
for prisoners choosing the last option and 0 for those choosing the
first two response-options.
Independent variables
Based on the theoretical framework described in the previous
section, the following independent variables were operationalized
and used in the current analyses. First, a set of variables related to
prisoners human capital prior to incarceration was included. Level
of education was recoded dichotomously. Prisoners completing nine
grades or more were coded as 1. They represented less than half of
the prisoners (46%) in the 2-years sub-sample. Prisoners who either
had no school education or graduated primary and/ or secondary
school only were coded with 0. Having a trade/ professional qualifi-
cation before arrest was measured by asking prisoners whether they
had or not a qualification before entering to prison (1= yes 45%;
0 = no). Pre-incarceration employment status was also measured by
asking prisoners about their occupational status at the time of ar-
rest. For the purpose of analysis, the variable was dichotomized with
1 corresponding to prisoners who were unemployed or without an
occupation (53%) and 0 to prisoners with other situation. The num-
ber of jobs held before current imprisonment was included in the
questionnaire as continuous variable. However, for the purposes of
the analysis, the measure was broken down in three dummy varia-
bles: no prior jobs (1= yes; 0 = no); 1-3 prior jobs (1= yes; 0 = no); and
4 or more prior jobs (1= yes; 0 = no). About a third (30%) declared
that they have never worked in the community. A similar propor-
tion places at the other extreme reporting a high level of occupa-
tional mobility (4 or more than 4 previous jobs).
Second, we included two measures of prisoners involvement in
prison programs. Participation in prison work was a dichotomous
variable indicating whether prisoners have worked for at least 6
months in prison (1 = yes; 0 = no). In a similar way, participation
in skills programs is coded dichotomously and measures whether
during the current term, the prisoners have participated in school
classes and/ or vocational training programs (1 = yes; 0 = no).

While only 31% had worked for more than 6 months in prison,
over half participated in skills programs.
The perception of labour market stigmatization as a signalling
characteristics was measured by first averaging the five-point
Likert scale answers at the following questions: To what extent to
you think that criminal record would be an obstacle for you to find
a job after release?, and To what extent do you think that employers
reluctance to work with offenders would be an obstacle for you to find
a job after release? The variable thus created was further dichoto-
mously coded for the purposes of this current analysis. As such, 1
corresponded to response options to a great and to a very great
extent (60%) and 0 to the others response options.
We also included three measures of criminal severity (see
Ramakers et al., 2015). These measures have relevance for both hu-
man capital and signalling theory. Having prior incarcerations is a
measure representing the dichotomously coding of four response
options (1 = once/ the current one; 2 = 2-3 times; 3 = 4-5 times;
4 = more than 5 times) to the question: How many times have you
served a prison sentence? First-time incarceration was coded as 0,
and previous prison spells as 1. Being currently imprisoned for a
violent offence was also dichotomous coded with 1 if the prisoners
were incarcerated for homicide, bodily injury, robbery, and rape
and 0 if they were incarcerated for other (non-violent) offences.
Time served under the current prison term was as well dichotomous-
ly coded with 1 corresponding to prisoners who spent 5 years or
more behind bars and 0 otherwise. Almost half of the sub-sample
of prisoners having left 2 years or less until their hearing for condi-
tional release was formed by recidivists; about 40% were convicted
for violent offenses, including robbery and 28% were long-serving
prisoners.
In addition one demographic and three social bonding variables

were included as covariates, although they may as well be related to
prisoners perceptions on post-release employment outcomes. Age
at admission was dichotomous variable, with 1 corresponding to
prisoners aged more than 31 years old (41%) and 0 for the young-
est prisoners. The expectation is that older prisoners will have more
optimistic outlook over their future chances of employment, since
they might be better equipped in terms of human capital, and
might display higher levels of self-efficacy. Having life-partner at
the time of incarceration was included as dichotomous variable,
with married or in cohabitation prisoners at the time of arrest cod-
ed as 1 (54%) and 0 for prisoners defined by other marital status.
Being father of under-aged children was further incorporated in the
statistical models: prisoner parents were coded as 1 (38%) and the
non-parents as 0. Marriage/cohabitation and children are hypoth-
esized in the literature to be linked with optimism since they may
provide prisoners practical and emotional support for succeeding
on the labour market. Not least, prisoners criminogenic families was
a dichotomous variable coded as 1 for prisoners who had at least
one member of family who have served or is currently incarcerated
(49%), and 0 for prisoners with no imprisoned family members.
4.5. Results
The main goal of this study was to identify the factors that influ-
ence prisoners expectations of the following post-release employ-
ment prospects: a) the difficulty of finding a job after release; b)
finding a job in a skilled position; c) finding a better paid job. The
results showed that unlike prior studies that reported high levels of
optimism among prisoners in relation to their future employment
prospects, the prisoners in the current study were rather moderately
confident in their chances to succeed finding a good job once they

return to the community. Roughly over 40% considered that it will
be hard for them to secure a job in the first place. Also, about half
further believe that they will be able to secure jobs in skilled posi-
tion. Interestingly, the majority (almost 60%) holds the view that
they will find better than the minimum wage-paid jobs.
Figure 4.1: Prisoners perceptions of post-release employment outcomes
Bivariate analyses
Perceptions on the difficulty of finding a job after release
The results of the bivariate analysis indicate that several pre-
prison human capital characteristics are significantly related to
prisoners perceptions on the difficulty of finding employment
once they will return to the community. Specifically, prisoners who
have acquired a professional qualification/ trade before admis-
sion to prison and those who held more jobs in the community
are significantly less likely than their counterparts to consider as
being difficult to find a job after release. As such, prisoners hav-
ing a pre-prison qualification have a 35% chance of perceiving as
being complicated to find work once returned in the community,
compared with almost half the chance corresponding to un-

skilled prisoners. Also prisoners with higher pre-prison mobility
on the labour market (e.g. those that have changed 4 or more jobs)
have roughly over 30% chances of worrying about being difficult to
find a job compared with 45% the percentage of prisoners with
lower pre-prison mobility on job market. Conversely, unemployed
prisoners at the time of arrest are more inclined believing that gain-
ing employment after release will be difficult. Two of the signalling
measures included in the analysis introduce as well significant dif-
ferences in prisoners perceptions on the difficulty in securing a
job after prison. The perception of being stigmatized by employers
is the most important. As anticipated, prisoners holding that view
are significantly more likely than their counterparts to consider dif-
ficult to find employment once they will return in the community.
Also, recidivists are significantly more likely than first-time incar-
cerated offenders to perceive as being hard to obtain employment
upon release from prison.
Contrary to our assumptions, neither the participation in skills
programs or working activities did relate with prisoners percep-
tions on the difficulty of reinsertion on the labour market. Yet,
some of the covariates proved instead to be significantly related.
Prisoners age at admission was the most relevant. Unlike younger
prisoners, the older ones seem to be less pessimistic regarding their
chances of finding post-prison employment (32% compared with
45%). Married or in cohabitation prisoners at the time of arrest are
as well less concerned about the difficulty of gaining employment
after release than prisoners defined by other marital status (37%
compared with 47%); however, the relationship is relevant only at a
moderate level of significance (p < 0.10).
Table 4.4: Bivariate relationships between human capital and signalling

characteristics and post-release employment outcomes
Difficult to find Finding skilled Finding better
a job work paid job
yes no sig yes no sig. yes no sig.
Human capital
Completing 9 grades or more 0.40 0.43 0.59 0.35 0.63 0.53
Qualification at admission 0.34 0.47 ** 0.63 0.36 0.66 0.51 **
Unemployed at admission 0.52 0.30 ** 0.39 0.56 0.44 0.71 **
No jobs prior to incarceration 0.54 0.35 0.32 0.53 ** 0.45 0.61
1-3 jobs 0.38 0.43 0.54 0.42 0.53 0.59
4 and more than 4 jobs 0.33 0.45 ** 0.53 0.44 0.72 0.50 ***
Participation in prison programs
Participation in skills programs 0.40 0.43 0.53 0.41 0.59 0.56
Participation in work programs 0.48 0.39 0.43 0.5 0.48 0.61
Signalling
Higher perception of stigmatization 0.61 0.12 *** 0.41 0.61 0.49 0.67 **
Time served 5 years or more 0.53 0.37 0.38 0.51 ** 0.48 0.61
Prior incarceration 0.51 0.33 ** 0.33 0.60 0.48 0.65 **
Violent offence at conviction 0.45 0.39 0.37 0.55 0.56 0.59
Controls
Age at admission 31 yrs. or older 0.32 0.45 ** 0.61 0.42 0.56 0.57
Partner at time of incarceration 0.37 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.60 0.55
Minor children 0.46 0.37 0.49 0.46 0.53 0.60
Criminogenic families 0.47 0.35 ** 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.69 **

***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
Perception on finding a job in a skilled position

As the bivariate analysis further shows, the perception on find-
ing work in a skilled position is influenced by three measures. The
first is a pre-prison human capital characteristic. As expected,
prisoners who held no jobs before entering to prison are signifi-

cantly more inclined than their counterparts to believe that they
will not find a skilled work after release from prison. The other
two are associated to crime severity (see Ramakers et al., 2015). As
such, compared with prisoners serving shorter spells of incarcera-
tion, long-term prisoners are significantly less likely to share the
(optimistic) view that they will find work in a skilled position (38%
versus 51%). Prisoners convicted for violent offences have as well
lower probabilities of considering that after release they will find
skilled jobs when compared with prisoners incarcerated for non-
violent offenses (37% and 55%, respectively). Interestingly, neither
this time participation in skills and work programs makes a signifi-
cant difference between prisoners perceptions of finding or not a
job in a skilled position.
Perception on finding a better paid job

Prisoners views about their chances of finding better paid
jobs also vary according to several variables. Four are related to
the characteristics of offenders human capital. In line with our
assumptions, prisoners unemployed at the time of incarceration
are significantly less inclined than their counterparts to consid-
er that they will find better paid jobs after release from prison.
Unlike them, prisoners who held a professional qualification
before entering to prison, those who hold 4 or more jobs in the
community as much as those with higher levels of education are
significantly more confident than their counterparts that once re-
turned to the community, they will find jobs paying more than
the minimum wages. Consequently, prisoners holding a pre-
prison trade qualification have 66% chances of considering that
these better paid jobs will be available for them compared with
51% the chances of unskilled prisoners. Also prisoners with a
history of employment at 4 or more than 4 jobs before incarcera-

tion have 70% chances of believing as being possible to find jobs
that will pay them above the minimum salary, contrary to prison-
ers defined by other history of employment who have only 50%
chances of sharing that view. More educated people are as well
more optimistic: they have 63% probabilities to consider that af-
ter release from prison they will find better paid jobs compared
with 53% the percentage corresponded to less educated pris-
oners. On the other hand, unlike first-time offenders recidivists
express less confidence in their chances of finding work in jobs
that pay above the minimum wages. Another relevant result is
the significant association between prisoners perception of being
stigmatized by employers and their expectations related to find-
ing better paid jobs. Congruent with our assumptions, prisoners
not concerned about stigmatization are less likely to believe that
they will succeed in securing jobs that will pay salaries higher
than the minimum wage.
Logistic regressions
Perceptions on the difficulty of finding a job after release
The results for the 2-years sub-sample show that none of the
offenders pre-prison human capital-related characteristics hold a
significant relationship with their anticipation of facing difficul-
ties in finding employment after release. Instead, the perception
of being stigmatized by employers is very strong and significantly
related. Actually, the odds of believing as being difficult to secure
a job in the community are 13.74 times higher for prisoners who
expect to encounter employers stigma than for those who do not
foresee that. Surprisingly, the participation in skills programs is
non-significant. On the other hand and highly counterintui-
tive working in prison is positive albeit only moderately related
(p<0.10) with prisoners perception on the difficulty of gaining

employment after release. Participants who worked for at least six
months in prison are more likely than non-participants to con-
sider as being difficult to re-enter on the labour market. Prior in-
carceration is the only crime-severity variable correlated (moder-
ately) with prisoners post-release prospects on finding a job. The
relationship is in the anticipated direction: unlike the offenders
with no previous prison spells, recidivists have higher probabili-
ties of believing as being hard to find employment once return in
the community. Not least, prisoners age is as well significantly
and inversely related to prisoners perception on the difficulty of
finding work. Prisoners aged 35 years old or more are less likely
than the younger ones to see as difficult entering to the labour
market after release. When the regression was repeated for the
1-year sub-sample, the perception of being stigmatized on the la-
bour market not only remained significant, but the strength of its
relationship with prisoners perception increased. Interestingly,
the offense conviction gained significance, but contrary to our
expectations, the relation was negative. Prisoners convicted for
violent crime have lower probability to consider as being prob-
lematic to secure a job after release than prisoners imprisoned for
non-violent offenses.
Perception on finding a job in a skilled position

Results further reveal that having a professional qualification/
trade before current imprisonment is the only human capital-
characteristic that significantly influences prisoners perception of
finding jobs in a skilled position. As expected, the relationship is
positive: the offenders who entered prison holding a professional
qualification/ trade are more likely than their counterparts to be-
lieve that they will find employment in qualified positions. Prior
incarceration as well holds a significant, but negative relationship

with prisoners perception on finding a job in a skilled position. As
such, recidivists are less optimistic in this regard compared with
first-time offenders. The results of the logistic regression conducted
on the 1-year sub-sample are similar.
Perception on finding a better paid job

Two human capital related characteristics are further cor-
related with prisoners perception on finding better paid jobs.
Unemployed prisoners at the time of arrest are significantly
less likely to embrace this (optimistic) perception than prison-
ers defined by other socio-occupational status. Also, prisoners
who worked at 1 to 3 jobs before coming to prison are less in-
clined to share this view than prisoners who held 4 or more jobs.
Participation in work programs is as well significantly related to
prisoners perception on their chances to find better paid jobs, but
contrary to our assumptions, the relationship is negative: partici-
pants working in prison for at least 6 months are less likely to con-
sider that the jobs available to them are those that pay wages above
the minimum salary. Recidivists and prisoners coming from crim-
inogenic families have also lower probabilities than their counter-
parts to hold that view.
When the logistic regression was applied for the sub-sample of
prisoners with one year or less left until conditional release hear-
ing, only the variables related to prisoners human capital remained
significant. As such, unlike prisoners with higher work mobility in
the community, prisoners with no prior work experience before
incarceration as much as those with 1 to 3 previous jobs were less
likely to believe that they would find better paid jobs upon return
to the community. Unemployed persons at the time of arrest were
as well less likely to hold that view.
4.6. Discussion and conclusions

The current study aimed at exploring prisoners perception on
their post-release employment outcomes, and the factors associ-
ated with these perceptions among a sample of Romanian prison-
ers. As such, we looked at how optimistic/ sceptical prisoners in
our sub-samples were in relation to finding employment once they
return in the community. We further examined whether their op-
timism/ scepticism are related to their pre-prison human capital
characteristics, participation in prison programs or the perception
of being stigmatized by employers. The study was based on prior
literature postulating that how prisoners regard their chances of
(re)entering the labour market has profound implications for the
success of their actions (Maruna, 2001; Scott, 2010).
The findings revealed that none of the human capital charac-
teristics were correlated to the perception on the difficulty to find a
job after release from prison. Instead, the stigma prisoners antici-
pate they will encounter on the labour market held a very strong
relationship. This is an important finding for at least two reasons.
First, anticipated stigma may act as deterrent in pursuing life-goals
such as finding work. Prisoners who are aware and foresee that em-
ployers will stigmatize them may be discouraged to look for a job
just to avoid being rejected. Consequently, they may simply choose
to return to criminal activities. This line of argumentation drawn
mainly on the mental health literature assumes the so-called
why try effects (Corrigan et al., 2009). People displaying high
levels of self-stigma may avoid situation and reject opportunities
that would otherwise help them to make positive developments in
life such finding employment (idem). Second, the fact that none of
the characteristics of human capital was related to the perception of

the difficulty on finding jobs may indicate a tendency for prisoners
to attribute this difficulty not to themselves, but to the employers,
and implicitly, to the larger society. However, when the perceptions
of finding good jobs were examined, the human capital charac-
teristics become relevant. Instead, the perception of stigma loses its
significance.
Another important focus of the study was to explore whether
the participation in programs makes prisoners more confident in
their ability to find work easier as much as to find good jobs. The
expectation was that both participation in skills programs and work
programs will be related with an optimistic outlook about post-
release chances. The results didnt support this assumption. First,
skills programs were consistently unrelated with any of the three
outcome variables. Visher and OConnell (2012: 391) reported a
similar finding among the US prisoners: the attendance of prison
programs do not have an impact on how prisoners feel about their
post-release chances. One possible explanation for this is that pris-
oners participation in skills programs was masked by other rea-
sons than the intention of using them on the labour market after
release. The correctional literature points the process of prisoniza-
tion as a potential drawback that may lead to the exploitative use
of prison programs: to spent time out of the cell, to meet friends,
to relief boredom etc. Irwin (1970: 70) described, for example, the
time doers, prisoners with strong commitment to thief subculture,
and who are interested to participate in prison programs as a way
of gaining more freedom, privacy, additional goods and so on.
According to the results of a study we have previously con-
ducted among Romanian prison recidivists, the usefulness of
prison programs was perceived by respondents as being strictly
limited to the period of incarceration (Damboeanu, 2011). Thus,
the participation in skills programs was rather associated with ob-

taining credit-points that further allow prisoners to earn privileges
(e.g. an additional visit), revoking disciplinary sanctions or having
greater chances to be conditionally released. The lack of the rela-
tionship between prison programs and the three perceptual meas-
ures may also suggest that the programs are not a meaningful expe-
rience for prisoners that might increase employment opportunities
after release (Visher and OConnell, 2012). As already mentioned,
most of the skills programs run in Romanian prisons are targeting
the first degree level of qualification or the qualifications in trades
in which there is already a surplus on the labour market, such as
construction workers.
Even more surprisingly, participation in work programs was
positively related with the perception on the difficulty of finding
a job after release and negatively with the perception on find-
ing good jobs. In other words, prisoners with more prison work
experience (6 months or more) are less optimistic about their post-
release employment outcomes than prisoners who didnt work or
worked less. This might be explained by the low-level jobs avail-
able in prison that do not always provide much work experience or
marketable skills.
Another interesting finding was the consistent significant rela-
tionship between prior incarceration and all three outcome meas-
ures. Recidivists were found to be more inclined to believe that it
will be difficult securing employment, and less optimistic regarding
their chances to find good jobs after release. In line with human
capital explanations, recidivists may have poorer rsums than the
first-time prisoners and may have been subjected to the deleteri-
ous effects of imprisonment. Arguably, compared with prisoners
incarcerated for the first time (e.g. people who until current im-
prisonment have been protected from prison negative effects),
recidivists have already been exposed to the multiple harms inflict-

ed by incarceration: depreciation of their stock of knowledge, skills,
work habits; loss of significant relationships with former employers
and persons who might help them find employment after release;
lowering the motivation for work, as well as the attachment to la-
bour market etc. According to the signalling perspective, a prior
incarceration and consequently, a criminal record represents neg-
ative credentials in the eyes of employers (Pager, 2007) that blocks
prisoners efforts of re-entering on the labour market. Both expla-
nations concur to these rather sceptical prospects of recidivists on
finding work after release.
4.7. Limitations and future research

This study gave insight into the perceptions of prisoners about
their post-release employment prospects. It showed which type of
prisoner was more/ less positive about life after release from prison.
In doing so, this study indicated which prisoners might need more
guidance in trying to have a positive outlook and better chances to
reintegrate successfully after release. Future research is warranted
to examine whether the correlations found in the current study are
in fact causal relationships.
As already mentioned, the study was conducted on two sub-
samples of prisoners who were coming to the end of their sentence
(e.g. prisoners who had 2-years and respectively, 1-year or less left
until the hearing in the prison conditional release commission).
The argument was that as the date of returning to the community
was close, so that prisoners became more oriented toward their life
after prison (e.g. they started making plans, anticipated the prob-
lems they would confront with upon release and so on). Yet, given
the relatively small sub-samples of our study, we couldnt conduct
analyses on sub-samples of even sooner to be released prisoners

(e.g. prisoners who have six months or less until leaving prison).
Duplications of the study on such samples of prisoners are further
needed in order to support the findings of the current study. Also,
the data were collected in only four prisons. Therefore, the findings
should be interpreted with cautious and not generalized to other
facilities. Replications of this study among representative samples
of inmates drawn from all Romanian prisons are definitely needed
to confirm the current research findings.
Nevertheless, the findings of this study can raise future research
questions. For example, as just mentioned above, we found a strong
relationship between perceived stigma and the perceptions on the
difficulty to find a job after release. Studies using longitudinal de-
signs should look further on how this actually affects prisoners
functioning in the community (see also Moore et al., 2013). Very
few studies have explored the way prisoners react to the stigmatiz-
ing effects of criminal record. For example, Winnick and Bodkin
(2008) examined the offenders perception on peoples reaction to
the label of ex-con among a sample of 450 male prisoners. Their
findings have highlighted two coping strategies adopted by pris-
oners as means of avoiding stigma: a negative one, based on the
mechanisms of withdrawal and secrecy and a positive one, as-
sociated with preventive telling. The first one was further related
to negative attitudes and fewer searches for job opportunities. In a
qualitative study, Eley (2007: 167) also reported that some research
participants decided to not disclose their criminal records or hav-
ing delayed a disclosure as strategy to avoid stigmatization. Others
have displayed more innovative albeit positive ways of adjustment,
by looking for alternatives to the traditional jobs, for example via
becoming self-employed (Elay, 2007). Whether and how perceived
stigma is related to prisoners success or failure to reintegrate on
the labour market is an area of research that should deserve further

attention.
Not least, future studies may wish to investigate employers pref-
erence toward hiring ex-prisoners. The majority of studies reviewed
here are undertaken in the US particular context, where the access
to criminal record is publicly and the employers usually conduct
criminal background checks (Bushway et al., 2011). In Romania, as
already mentioned, criminal records are not available to the public
although they may be required by employers before they make a
hiring decision. It is important therefore to assess the magnitude to
which this actually happens in practice. If the results of Durnescus
(2007) study confirms, and criminal record does not represent a real
source of discrimination on the labour market, then prisoners per-
ception of being stigmatized on labour market is highly inaccurate
and should be properly addressed by prison practitioners.
4.8. Policy recommendations

Ensuring that prisoners obtain employment after release is es-
sential to any prison policy focused on the prevention of recidi-
vism and offenders social reintegration. The way prisoners antici-
pate their future chances of employment is an important element
that can either deter or encourage their reinsertion on the labour
market upon return to the community. By examining which pris-
oners were more optimistic/ sceptical about their life after release
from prison, the current study provides useful evidence to prison
administrations about which prisoners might need more guidance
in trying to have a positive perspective on their post-release future
and to reintegrate successfully on labour market.
One of the key finding of the current study was the positive and
strong relationship between prisoners perception of stigmatization
and the difficulty of finding a job after release. This observation

might inform prison practitioners about the need to develop initia-
tives focused on increasing prisoners self-efficacy. The term refers
to an individuals belief in their ability to carry out a plan of action
and have control over their life (Visher et al., 2010: 701). As such,
prisoners confidence in their capacity to withstand the difficulties
and setbacks they might face on labour market such as stigma is
crucial for their success. Therefore, we argue that prison interven-
tions teaching prisoners how to overcome the potential stigma of
employers should be conducted in prison. Psychoeducation, cogni-
tive restructuring programs, motivational interviewing, social skills
training, and goal attainment (Mittal et al., 2012) are such prison
interventions that could help prisoners to increase their ability to
withstand to social stigma. A different route is to divert prison-
ers from traditional-types of jobs to less exposing to stigmatization
forms such as self-employment. As such, programs that encourage
the entrepreneurial ethos should also be promoted in prisons.
This recommendation is also supported by another finding of
the current study: the failure of classical in-prison skills and work
programs to instil optimism in relation to post-release employment
outcomes. One possible explanation is that these programs may not
provide qualifications and work experience perceived by prisoners
as relevant to their success on the labour market. As noticed in a
previous section, the majority of skills and vocational training pro-
grams are targeting the first-degree qualifications, and many of the
jobs available to prisoners are as well of low level. We therefore turn
to Solomon et al. (2004: 26) argument that enhancing the qual-
ity of work opportunities available in prison also requires a policy
agenda that assigns priority to prison employment. A legislative
mandate for inmate employment would realign the traditional
goals of the prison system to be more compatible with the broader
societal goal of improved re-entry. If work in prison was assigned

a greater heuristic purpose and job opportunities were structured
to provide more marketable experience, post-release employment
outcomes would likely be improved. By contrast, employing large
numbers of prisoners to general institutional maintenance jobs,
which do not necessarily help prisoners develop useful job skills,
does not necessarily meet broader goals of improved re-entry and
enhanced public safety.
The study also found that recidivists have the less optimistic
outlook over their future. It is precisely why prison practitioners
should consider this group of prisoners as in need of additional
assistance and support in finding a job after release. They might
suffer from more human capital deficits and might as well display
lower levels of attachment to labour market once returned in the
community. Also, they might experience higher levels of stigmati-
zation on labour market. Therefore, we recommend that they be-
come the main target of the strategies discussed above.
APPENDIX 4.A
Table 4.A: Regression of human capital and signalling measures on three post-
release employment outcomes. Results for the 2-years sub-sample
Difficulty of Finding jobs in Finding better
finding a job skilled position paid jobs
Human capital
Completing 9 grades or more .490 .580 .599 .512 -.072 .577
Having qualification at admission to prison -.414 .616 .957 .527 -.125 .569
Being unemployed at admission to prison .395 .551 -.026 .478 -1.192** .506
0 jobs before admission to prison .386 .673 -.176 .608 -.382 .690
1-3 jobs before admission to prison -.033 .598 -.039 .502 -.949 .558
Participation in prison programs
Participation in skills programs .670 .514 .320 .454 -.241 .487
Participation in work programs .997 .549 -.433 .493 -1.134** .568
Signalling
Perception of stigmatization 2.622*** .595 -.676 .440 -.568 .486
Served 5 years or more -.172 .641 .342 .578 -.081 .677
Prior incarceration .879 .518 -1.339*** .498 -.864 .507
Being convicted for violent offenses -.789 .544 -.303 .487 .334 .545
Controls
Aged 35 yrs. or older -1.110 .572 .515 .515 .633 .552
Having life-partner at time of arrest -.832 .555 -.306 .513 -.126 .549
Having underage children .708 .617 .733 .584 .217 .587
Criminogenic families .461 .560 .434 .521 -1.096** .549
Intercept -2.995*** .964 -.288 .783 2.845 .956
Nagelkerke R 0.43 0.25 0.28
***p<0.001; ** p<0.05; p<0.10
Synthetic conclusions
Understanding prison experience and whether or how it chang-

es the offenders lives has raised long-standing preoccupations
among scholars in criminology and sociology of prison. The clas-
sical debate of whether prisons are criminogenic and reoffending-
prone or rehabilitative and desistance-oriented has generated a
fecund area of research examining prison influences on offenders
anti-sociality and criminal behaviour, but also on their physical,
psychological, familial, social and economic wellbeing. The impor-
tance of addressing these issues steams from the fact that detailed
knowledge of the lived experience of imprisonment represents a
key element in developing efficient correctional policies and social
re-entry strategies.
Much of the research on these topics is based on Anglo-
American data; consequently, little empirical evidence transpires
from Eastern European countries that even now, 25 years after the
fall of Communism, remain rather punitive and deficient in pro-
viding adequate conditions of confinement. In an attempt of ad-
dressing this gap, the current book focused on Romania and its
particular prison system. As largely discussed in the first chap-
ter, unlike Western democracies, where imprisonment and its ef-
fects on offenders lives are one of the top priorities issues on po-
litical agenda, in post-communist Romania the topic was rather
neglected. Actually, it was not until the countrys accession to the

EU, when significant prison reforms were embraced. The prison
law adopted in 2006 and its subsequent developments broadcasted
a modern view of imprisonment entrenched in the European prin-
ciples of human rights and offenders reintegration into community.
Yet, as the reality shows, the Romanian prisons seem rather stuck
somewhere in the past: overcrowding, poor prison conditions, un-
der-staffing and small budgets are unsolved problems that continue
to be endemic to many of our prisons. The contemporary develop-
ments in domestic sociological and criminological research have
as well overlooked the topic of imprisonment, since only a handful
of studies have focused on prison life and the consequences that
prison sanctions have for individual offenders.
Starting from these arguments, the book set out to examine
three dominant themes in the literature of prison life and effects
of imprisonment: (1) prisoner violence/ victimization; (2) prisoner
human capital and perception on post-release employment pros-
pects; and (3) prisoner family relationships. As such, the studies
that form the basis of this book are built on the existing lines of
research, and advance them in the particular context of Romania.
In this way, efforts to compensate the lack of domestic research in
the field and to link the Romanian sociological and criminological
research to the international one were made.
As such, the study found support for some of the prior findings
reported in the US and Western European studies, but invalidated
others as well. A brief overview of the main findings reveals, for ex-
ample, that in line with the literature of prison effects time spent
in prison was a main correlate of prison victimization as well as of
family dissolution. Prisoners serving five years or more in detention
were more likely to be mistreated by other prisoners and to termi-
nate their family relationships during the spell of imprisonment. In
addition, those convicted to lengthier sentences were at higher risk

of being victimized by prison staff, but also of behaving violently
against staff. In the same time, prisoners held at maximum security
and closed regimes were more inclined to self-report participation
in violence/ victimization in general and in prisoner-to-prisoner
violence/ victimization in particular. Feelings of stigmatization on
the labour market due to criminal record further made prisoners
less confident in their chances of finding employment after release.
As such, prisoners returning in the community with these disabili-
ties may be more vulnerable and less able to cope with the numer-
ous challenges of the resettlement process.
Prisons seem to offer few protective mechanisms against all
these. Visits were not significantly related to any of the three out-
comes. Work and in-prison vocational and training programs have
not made prisoners more optimistic about their future chances of
employment. Moreover, working in prison actually increased the
probability of being victimized by other prisoners. The only area
in which work and vocational training programs have ameliorative
contributions is that related to prisoner-to-staff violence. As such,
participants in these programs have lower self-reported probabili-
ties of committing violence against prison staff.
Although the three topics that formed the essence of this book
have been discussed separately, they may be interconnected and
mutual related. Separation from life-partner might, for example,
increase aggressive behaviour as prisoners may experience higher
levels of stress, anxiety, and frustration following the dissolution of
conjugal relationships. It might also increase the risk of victimiza-
tion, since prisoners might become more vulnerable as a conse-
quence of losing social, material and emotional support of their life-
partners. On the other hand, separation may be linked to prisoners
less optimistic outlook on future employment since life-partners
may represent an important source of social capital that could help

them to find a (good) job after release. Prison victimization may
as well lead to less positive expectations over own future via de-
creases in prisoners levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem. It might
be a contributor factor for couple dissolution since victimized pris-
oners may choose to withdrawal and isolate from outside world.
Furthermore, prison violence may lead to family disintegration as
aggressive and disobedient prisoners may spend longer periods in
segregation or may have the visiting right suspended repeatedly.
Yet, even though the studies presented in this book provide
important evidence on the determinants of several important out-
comes associated with prison experience, some of the underlying
mechanism could not be untangled. This was partially due to the
relatively small size of the sample which prevented the incorpora-
tion of more variables and/or the usage of more complex statis-
tical analyses. Therefore, future research may want to reproduce
or extent the current investigation on larger samples of prisoners,
ideally representative to the entire prison population. Qualitative
or mixed-method research would be also needed for a deeper un-
derstanding of the process underpinning the current results.
In addition, these studies were framed in a cross-sectional re-
search design. Longitudinal studies are difficult to be conducted
in Romanian prison context, in part due to the duration of prison
sentences that would make such studies to extend over a long pe-
riod of time. Yet, longitudinal studies are definitely needed in order
to examine whether the correlations found in our studies are in fact
causal relationships. Framed in the developmental and life-course
perspectives, these studies may further contribute to a better un-
derstanding on how the experience of imprisonment and the out-
comes discussed in this book are influenced by early life-experi-
ences and in their turn, influence prisoners future pathways in life.
Nevertheless, much remains to be studied about prisons and

imprisonment in Romania. The current book was rather an intro-
duction as much as an invitation to a joint research efforts to ex-
plore some of the main outcomes of prison experience.
References
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2015) Raport de activi-
tate. Available at www.anp.gov.ro (accessed at 26 February 2015).
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2014) Raport de activi-
tate. Available at www.anp.gov.ro (accessed at 9 December 2014).
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2013) Prevalena com-
portamentelor agresive n rndul persoanelor private de libertate, 2010
2012. Unpublished report.
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2011) Document de po-
litic public privind mbuntirea condiiilor de detenie.
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2010a) Sondaj de opinie
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor i unitile subordonate.
Raport de cercetare. Available at:
http://www.fsanp.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Studiu-
identitate-profesionala-sistem-penitenciar.pdf
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2010b) Studiu de eva-
luare a nevoilor elaborat n cadrul proiectului Creterea anselor de
incluziune social a persoanelor aflate n detenie prin o mai bun
educaie, informare a societii i mbuntirea activitii n peniten-
ciar, finanat de Fondul Social European. Raport.
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2007a) Sondaj de opinie
la nivelul personalului din unitatile penitenciare. Raport de cercetare.
Administraia Naional a Penitenciarelor (2007b) Sondaj de opinie
la nivelul persoanelor private de libertate din unitatile penitenciare.
Raport de cercetare.
Aebi M.F., Delgrande N. (2014) Council of Europe, SPACE I Prison
Population Survey 2013, available at http://www3.unil.ch.
Albright S., Denq F. (1996) Employer Attitudes toward Hiring Ex-
Offenders. The Prison Journal, 76: 118-137.
Apel R., Sweeten G. (2010) The Impact of Incarceration on
Employment during the Transition to Adulthood. Social Problems,
57(3): 448-479.
Apel R., Blokland A.A.J., Nieuwbeerta P., van Schellen M. (2010)

The Impact of Imprisonment on Marriage and Divorce: A Risk Set
Matching Approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26: 269300.
Arbach-Lucioni K., Martinez-Garca M. and Andrs-Pueyo
A. (2012) Risk Factors for Violent Behaviour in Prison Inmates: A
Cross-Cultural Contribution. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9):
1219-1239.
Arditti J.A. (2005) Families and Incarceration: An Ecological
Approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 86(2): 251-260.
Arditti J. (2011) Locked Doors and Glass Walls: Family Visiting at
a Local Jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma: International Perspectives on
Stress and Coping, 8(2): 115-138.
Atkin C.A., Armstrong G.S. (2011) Does the Concentration of
Parolees in a Community Impact Employer Attitudes toward the
Hiring of Ex-Offenders? Criminal Justice Policy Review, published
online before print. DOI: 10.1177/0887403411428005.
Atkinson D., Abraham Fenster C., Blumberg A.S. (1976) Employer
Attitudes toward Work-Release Programs and the Hiring of Offenders.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 3(4): 335-344.
Becker G.S. (1962) Investments in Human Capital: A Theoretical
Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5) Part 2 Investments in
Human Beings: 9-49.
Beijersbergen K.A., Dirkzwager A.J.E., Eichelsheim V.I., Van der
Laan P.H. and Nieuwbeerta P. (2014) Procedural Justice, Anger, and
Prisoners' Misconduct: A Longitudinal Study. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, published online before print 26 September 2014. DOI:
10.1177/0093854814550710.
Bennett J. (2008) Cost of Prisons. In: Y. Jewkes, J. Bennett (eds.)
Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment. Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.
Bernburg J.G., Krohn M.D. (2003) Labeling, Life Chances, and
Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention
in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood. Criminology, 41(4):
1287-1318.
Berg M.T. and DeLisi M. (2006) The Correctional Melting Pot:

Race, Ethnicity, Citizenship, and Prison Violence. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 34: 631642.
Blackwell, J. (1959) The Effects of Involuntary Separation on Selected
Families of Men Committed to Prison from Spokane, Washington. Ph.D.
dissertation. State College of Washington.
Blumstein A., Cohen J., Roth J.A., Visher C.A. (1986) Criminal
Careers and Career Criminals, vol. II. Washington: National Academy
Press.
Boboc C., ian E., Tudose D. (2011) Piaa muncii din Romnia
persoane vulnerabile i vulnerabiliti. Romanian Statistical Review,
5/2011 available at:
http://www.revistadestatistica.ro/Articole/2011/art4_ro_rrs%20
5_2011.pdf
Bottoms A.E. (1999) Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in
Prisons. Crime and Justice, 26: 205-281.
Bottoms A.E., Hay W., Sparks R.J. (1995) Situational and Social
Approaches to the Prevention of Disorder in Long-term Prisoners. In:
T.J. Flanagan (ed.): Long-Term Imprisonment. Sage Publications, pp.
186-196.
Bowker L.H. (1980) Victimizers and Victims in American
Correctional Institutions. In R. Johnson and H. Toch (eds.): The Pains
of Imprisonment. Sage Publications, pp. 63-76.
Bowker L.H. (1980) An Essay on Prison Violence. The Prison
Journal, 63(1): 24-31.
Brezeanu, O. (2007) Criza din sistemul penitenciar. Revista de
criminologie, de criminalistic i de penologie, 1: 270-287.
Burnett R. (2004) To Reoffend or Not to Reoffend? The Ambivalence
of Convicted Property Offenders. In Maruna Shadd and Immarigeon
Russ (eds.): After Crime and Punishment. Pathways to Offender
Reintegration. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 152-181.
Burnett R., Maruna S. (2004) So Prison Works, Does It? The
Criminal Careers of 130 Men Released from Prison under Home
Secretary Michael Howard. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43:
390404.
Bushway S., Reuter P. (2006) Labor Markets and Crime. In J. Q.

Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds.): Crime (2nd Edition), pp. 191-224.
Bushway S.D., Nieuwbeerta P., Blokland A. (2011) The Predictive
Value of Criminal Background Checks: Do Age and Criminal History
Affect Time to Redemption? Criminology, 49(1): 2011.
Bushway S., Apel R. (2012) A Signaling Perspective on Employment
Based Reentry Programming. Training Completion as a Desistance
Signal. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(1): 21-50.
Cao L., Zhao J. and Van Dine S. (1997) Prison Disciplinary Tickets:
A Test of the Deprivation and Importation Models. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 25(2): 103113.
Carlson B.E., Cervera N. (1991) Inmates and their Families.
Conjugal Visits, Family Contact, and Family Functioning. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 18(3): 318-331.
Carson E.A., Sabol W.J. (2012) Prisoners in 2011. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Available at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf
Cavadino M., Dignan J. (2006) Penal Policy and Political Economy.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(4): 435456.
Cho R.M., Tyler J.H. (2010) Does Prison-Based Adult Basic
Education Improve Postrelease Outcomes for Male Prisoners in
Florida? Crime and Delinquency, 59(7): 975-1005.
Christian J., Kennedy L.W. (2011) Secondary Narratives in the
Aftermath of Crime: Defining Family Members Relationships with
Prisoners. Punishment and Society, 13(4) 379402.
Cid J. (2009) Is Imprisonment Criminogenic? A Comparative
Study of Recidivism Rates between Prison and Suspended Prison
Sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6(6): 459480.
Clemmer D. [1940] (1966) The Prison Community. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Cobean S.C., Power P.W. (1978) The Role of the Family in the
Rehabilitation of the Offender. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 22(1): 29-38.
Cochran J. C. (2012) The Ties that Bind or the Ties that Break:
Examining the Relationship between Visitation and Prisoner
Misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40: 433440.
Cochran, J. C., Mears D. P., Bales W. D., Stewart, E. A. (2014) Does

Inmate Behavior Affect Post-Release Offending? Investigating the
Misconduct-Recidivism Relationship among Youth and Adults. Justice
Quarterly, 31: 1044-1073.
Codd H. (2007) Prisoners Families and Resettlement: A Critical
Analysis. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3): 255-263.
Codd H. (2008) In the Shadow of Prison. Families, Imprisonment
and Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Comfort M. (2009) Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the
Shadow of the Prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Condry R. [2007] (2011) Families Shamed. The Consequences of Crime
for Relatives of Serious Offenders. London and New York: Routledge.
Corrigan P.W., Larson J.E., Rsch N. (2009) Self-Stigma and the
Why Try Effect: Impact on Life Goals and Evidence-Based Practices.
World Psychiatry, 8(2): 75-81.
Council of Europe (2014) Prison stock on 01 Jan 2013 & 2014.
Available at http://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/prison-stock-2013-2014/
(accessed 30 March 2015).
Crewe B. (2005) Codes and Conventions: The Terms and
Conditions of Contemporary Inmate Values. In: A. Liebling, S. Maruna
(eds.): The Effects of Imprisonment. Collompton: Willan Publishing,
pp. 177-208.
Crewe B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social
Life in an English Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon
Studies in Criminology.
Crewe B. (2011) Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisiting the Pains of
Imprisonment. Punishment and Society, 13(5): 509-529.
Cunningham M.D. and Sorensen J.R. (2007) Predictive Factors for
Violent Misconduct in Close Custody. Prison Journal, 87(2): 241253.
Cunningham M.D. and Sorensen J.R. (2006) Actuarial Models for
Assessing Prison Violence Risk: Revisions and Extensions of the Risk
Assessment Scale for Prison (RASP). Assessment, 13(3): 253265.
Cunningham M.D., Sorensen J.R. and Reidy T.J. (2005) An
Actuarial Model for Assessment of Prison Violence Risk among
Maximum Security Inmates. Assessment, 12(1): 4049.
Damboeanu C. (2011) Fenomenul recidivei n Romnia. Calitatea

Vieii, XXII(3): 295-312.
Damboeanu C. (2012) The Qualitative Approach of Criminal Career.
Life Stories of Persons Incarcerated in Romanian Prisons. In: Balica
and Decarpes (eds.): Violence and Crime in Europe. Bucharest: Ars
Docendi Press, p. 73-86.
Damboeanu C. (2012) Effects of Imprisonment on Romanian
Offenders Lives. Available at www.prisonresearch.ro (accessed at 30
October 2014).
Davis L.M., Bozick R., Steele J.L., Saunders J., Miles J.N.V. (2013)
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education to Incarcerated
Adults. A Meta-Analysis of Programs that Provide Education to
Incarcerated Adults. RAND Corporation.
de Almeida O.L., Paes-Machado E. (2014) No Place to Run,
No Place to Hide : Socio-organizational Processes and Patterns
of Inmate Victimization. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, published online before print 26 August. DOI:
10.1177/0004865814545683.
DeLisi M. (2003) Criminal Career Behind Bars. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 21: 653669.
DeLisi M., Berg M.T. and Hochstetler A. (2004) Gang Members,
Career Criminals and Prison Violence: Further Specification of the
Importation Model of Inmate Behavior. Criminal Justice Studies, 17(4):
369383.
Dhami M.K., Mandel D.R., Loewenstein G., Ayton P. (2006)
Prisoners Positive Illusions of their Post-Release Success. Law and
Human Behavior, 30: 631-647.
Dhami M.K., Ayton P. and Loewenstein G. (2007) Adaptation
to Imprisonment. Indigenous or Imported? Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 34(8), 10851100.
DiIulio J.J. (1987) Governing Prisons. A Comparative Study of
Correctional Management. New York: The Free Press.
Dixey R., Woodall J. (2012) The Significance of the Visit in an
English Category-B Prison: Views from Prisoners, Prisoners Families
and Prison Staff. Community, Work and Family, 15(1): 29-47.
Drury A.J. and DeLisi M. (2010) The Past is Prologue: Prior

Adjustment to Prison and Institutional Misconduct. The Prison
Journal, 90(3): 331352.
Durnescu I. (2008) Atitudinea agenilor economici din sectorul
privat cu privire la angajarea fotilor deinui. In: Pachet Informativ:
Reintegrarea sociala a persoanelor condamnate penal i care aparin
unor grupuri vulnerabile, Fundaia Reforma Justiiei Penale, pp. 70-84.
Durnescu I. (2009) Asistena penal n penitenciar. Iai: Polirom.
Durnescu I., Decarpes P. (2012) Studiu privind nfiinarea unui
mecanism integrat inter-instituional n vederea reintegrrii fotilor
deinui n societate. Realizat n cadrul Proiectului POSDRU/ 70/6.2/S/
33488 Reintegrarea fotilor deinui pe piaa muncii i integrarea lor
n societate.
Duwe G., Clark V. (2014) The Effects of Prison-Based
Educational Programming on Recidivism and Employment. The
Prison Journal, published online before print on September 4. DOI:
10.1177/0032885514548009
Edgar K., ODonnell I., Martin C. (2012) Prison Violence. The
Dynamics of Conflict, Fear and Power. London and New York: Routledge.
Edin K., Nelson T.J., Paranal R. (2004) Fatherhood and Incarceration
as Potential Turning Points in the Criminal Careers of Unskilled Men. In:
Patillo Mary, David Weiman and Bruce Western (eds.), Imprisoning
America: the social effects of mass incarceration. Russell Sage
Foundation, pp. 47-75.
Eley S. (2007) Job Searching with a History of Drugs and Crime.
The Howard Journal, 46(2): 162-175.
Ellis D. (1984) Crowding and Prison Violence. Integration of
Research and Theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11(3): 277-308.
Entorf H. (2009) Crime and the Labour Market: Evidence from a
Survey of Inmates. IZA Discussion Paper no. 3976. Available at http://
ftp.iza.org/dp3976.pdf
Fishman L.T. (1990) Women at the Wall. A Study of Prisoners
Wives Doing Time on the Outside. State University of New York Press.
Florian Gh. (2006) Fenomenologie penitenciar. Bucharest: Ed.
Oscar Print.
Gendreau P., Goggin C.E. and Law M.A. (1997) Predicting Prison
Misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4): 414431.
Giguere R., Dundes L. (2002) Help Wanted: A Survey of Employer
Concerns about Hiring Ex-Convicts. Criminal Justice Policy Review,
13(4): 396-408.
Goffman E. [1961] (2004) Aziluri. Eseuri despre situaia social a
pacienilor psihiatrici i a altor categorii de persoane instituionalizate
(traducere A. Mndril). Iai: Ed. Polirom.
Goffman E. (1968) Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled
Identity. Penguin Books.
Gover A.R., Perez D.M. and Jennings W.G. (2008) Gender
Differences in Factors Contributing to Institutional Misconduct. The
Prison Journal, 88(3): 378403.
Gounev P. (2013) Soft and Harsh Penalties in Bulgaria. In: Ruggiero
V., Ryan M. (eds.) Punishment in Europe: A Critical Anatomy of
Penal Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 206-225.
Gppinger H. (1987) Life Style and Criminality. Basic Research
and Its Application: Criminological Diagnosis and Prognosis. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
GRADO (2008) Raport de Monitorizare a Aplicrii Legii 275/2006,
Articolele 26 i 27.
Graffam J., Shinkfield A.J., Hardcastle L. (2008) The Perceived
Employability of Ex-Prisoners and Offenders. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology: 52(6): 673-685.
Greenberg E., Dunleavy E., Kutner M. (2007) Literacy Behind
Bars. Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy Prison Survey. National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2007/2007473.pdf
Griffin M.L. and Hepburn J.R. (2006) The Effect of Gang Affiliation
on Violent Misconduct among Inmates during the Early Years of
Confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4): 419448.
Hagan J., Dinovitzer R. (1999) Collateral Cosequences of
Imprionmnet for Children, Communities and Prisoners. Crime and
Justice, 26: 121-162.
Hairston C.F. (1991) Family Ties during Imprisonment: Important

to Whom and for What? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 87:
87-104.
Hensley C., Koscheski M., Tewksbury R. (2002) Does Participation
in Conjugal Visitations Reduce Prison Violence in Mississippi?
Criminal Justice Review, 27: 5265.
Hiedemann B., Suhomlinova O., O'Rand A.M. (1998) Economic
Independence, Economic Status, and Empty Nest in Midlife Marital
Disruption. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1): 219-231.
Hill R. (1965) Generic Futures of Families under Stress. In: H.J.
Parad (ed.) Crisis Intervention: Selected Readings. New York: Family
Service Association of America, pp. 32-72.
Hill M.S. (1998) Marital Stability and Spouses Shared Time. A
Multidisciplinary Hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues, 9(4): 427-451.
Holzer H., Raphael S., Stoll M. (2002) Will Employers Hire Ex-
Offenders? Employer Preferences, Background Checks and Their
Determinants. Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion Paper no.
1243.
Hopkins K. (2012) The Pre-Custody Employment, Training and
Education Status of Newly Sentenced Prisoners. Results from the
Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) longitudinal cohort
study of prisoners. Ministry of Justice Analytical Services, Ministry of
Justice Research Series.
Huebner B.M. (2003) Administrative Determinants of Inmate
Violence: A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31:
107-117
Huebner B.M. (2007) Racial and Ethnic Differences in the
Likelihood of Marriage: The Effect of Incarceration. Justice Quarterly,
24(1): 156-183.
Innes C.A. (1997) Patterns of Misconduct in the Federal Prison
System. Criminal Justice Review, 22(2): 157174.
Irwin J. [1970] (1987) The Felon. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Irwin J. and Cressey D.R. (1962) Thieves, Convicts and the Inmate
Culture. Social Problems, 10(2): 142155.
Jacobs J.B. (1977) The Prisoners' Rights Movement and Its Impacts,
1960-80. Crime and Justice, 2: 429-470.
Jiang S. and Fisher-Giorlando M. (2002) Inmate Misconduct: A
Test of the Deprivation, Importation, and Situational Models. The
Prison Journal, 82(3): 335358.
Jiang S. and Winfree L.T. (2006) Social Support, Gender, and
Inmate Adjustment to Prison Life. Insights from a National Sample.
The Prison Journal, 86(1): 3255.
Karney B.R., Bradbury T.N. (1995) The Longitudinal Course
of Marital Quality and Stability: A Review of Theory, Method, and
Research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1): 3-34.
Kling J.R. (2006) Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings.
Working Paper 494 Industrial Relation Section. Princeton University
and National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at http://harris.
princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/494.pdf
Kury H., Smartt U. (2002) Prisoner-on-Prisoner Violence.
Victimization of Young Offenders in Prison. Some German Findings.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2(4): 411437
Lahm K.F. (2008) Inmate-on-Inmate Assault: A Multilevel
Examination of Prison Violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1):
120137.
Lahm, K. F. (2009) Inmate Assaults on Prison Staff: A Multilevel
Examination of an Overlooked Form of Prison Violence. The Prison
Journal, 89: 131150.
Lambert E.G., Hogan N.L., Barton S.M. (2002) Satisfied
Correctional Staff: A Review of the Literature on the Correlates of
Correctional Staff Job Satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
29(2): 115-143.
Lappi-Seppl T. (2011) Explaining Imprisonment in Europe.
European Journal of Criminology, 8(4): 303328.
Lappi-Seppl T. (2012) Explaining National Differences in the
Use of Imprisonment. In: Sonja Snacken and Els Dumortier E. (eds.)
Resisting Punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, Human Rights and
Democracy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 3572.
LeBel T., Burnett R., Maruna S., Bushway S. (2008) The `Chicken
and Egg' of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime.

European Journal of Criminology, 5(2): 131-159.
Lee G.R. (1977) Age at Marriage and Marital Satisfaction: A
Multivariate Analysis with Implications for Marital Stability. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 39(3): 493-504
Liebling A. (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance. A study of
values, quality, and prison life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebling (2011a) Moral Performance, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment, and Prison Pain, Punishment and Society, 13(5): 530-550
Liebling A. (2011b) Distinctions and Distinctiveness in the Work
of Prison Officers: Legitimacy and Authority Revisited. European
Journal of Criminology, 8(6): 484-499.
Listwan S.J., Daigle L.E., Hartman J.L., Guastaferro W.P. (2014)
Poly-Victimization Risk in Prison: The Influence of Individual
and Institutional Factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(13)
2458 2481.
Litzinger S., Gordon K.C. (2007) Exploring Relationships among
Communication, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital Satisfaction. Journal
of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31(5): 409-424.
Lopoo L.M., Western B. (2005). Incarceration and the Formation
and Stability of Marital Unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3):
721-734.
Louks N., Lyner O., Sullivan T. (1998) The Employment of People
with Criminal Records in the European Union. European Journal of
Criminal Policy and Research, 6(2): 195-210.
Lloyd C.D., Serin R.C. (2012) Agency and Outcome Expectancies
for Crime Desistance: Measuring Offenders Personal Beliefs about
Change. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 6: 543-565.
MacKenzie D.L. (1987) Age and Adjustment to Prison: Interactions
with Attitudes and Anxiety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14: 427447.
MacKenzie D.L. (2000) Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying
What Works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4):457- 471.
MacKenzie D.L. (2006) What Works in Corrections. Reducing
the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge
University Press.
Mandaraka-Sheppard A. (1986) The Dynamics of Aggression in

Women's Prisons in England.Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
Maruna S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild
their Lives Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Massoglia M., Remster B., King R.D. (2011) Stigma or Separation?
Understanding the Incarceration-Divorce Relationship. Social Forces,
90(1): 133-155.
McCarthy B., Hagan J. (1995) Getting into Street Crime: The
Structure and Process of Criminal Embeddedness. Social Science
Research, 24: 63-95.
McCarthy B.W. (1997) Strategies and Techniques for Revitalizing a
Nonsexual Marriage. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 23(3): 231-240.
McCorkle R.C., Miethe T.D., Drass K.A. (1995) The Roots of
Prison Violence: A Test of the Deprivation, Management, and Not-
So-Total Institution Models. Crime and Delinquency, 41: 317331.
Mills A. (2005) Great Expectations?: A Review of the Role of
Prisoners Families in England and Wales. Vol. 7 Selected Papers from
the 2004 British Society of Criminology Conference. Available at
http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume7/001.pdf
Mills A., Codd H. (2008) Prisoners Families and Offender
Management: Mobilizing Social Capital. Probation Journal, 55(1):
9-24.
Mittal D., Sullivan G., Chekuri L., Allee E., Corrigan, P.W. (2012)
Empirical Studies of Self-Stigma Reduction Strategies: A Critical
Review of the Literature.Psychiatric Services, 63(10): 974-981.
Moerings M. (1992) Role Transitions and the Wives of Prisoner.
Environment and Behavior, 24(2): 239-259.
Moore K., Stuewig J., Tangney J. (2013) Jail Inmates Perceived and
Anticipated Stigma: Implication for Post-Release Functioning. Self
Identity, 12(5): 527-547.
Morris P. (1965) Prisoners and Their Families. George Allen and
Unwin Ltd.
Morris R.G., Longmire D.R., Buffington-Vollum J. and Vollum
S. (2010) Institutional misconduct and differential parole eligibility
among capital inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4): 417438.
Murray J. (2005) The Effects of Imprisonment on Families and

Children of Prisoners. In Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna (ed.), The
Effects of Imprisonment. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 442-462.
Nagin D.S. (2012) Deterrence: Scaring Offenders Straight. In Francis
Cullen and Cheryl Lero Jonson (ed.): Correctional Theory. Context
and Consequences. Sage Publications, pp. 67-98.
Nieuwbeerta P., Nagin D., Blokland A.A.J. (2009) Assessing
the Impact of First-Time Imprisonment on Offenders Subsequent
Criminal Career Development: A Matched Samples Comparison.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25: 227257.
Nurse A.M. (2001) The Structure of the Juvenile Prison.
Constructing the Inmate Father. Youth and Society, 32(3): 360-394.
Pager D. (2003) The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal
of Sociology, 108(5): 937-975.
Pager D. (2007) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era
of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Paternoster R., Iovanni L. (1989) The Labeling Perspective and
Delinquency: An Elaboration of the Theory and an Assessment of the
Evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6: 359393.
Prez D.M., Gover A.R., Tennyson K.M., Santos S.D. (2010)
Individual and Institutional Characteristics Related to Inmate
Victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 54(3): 378394
Petersilia J. (2005) From Cell to Society: Who is Returning Home? In
Travis Jeremy and Visher Christy (eds.): Prisoner Reentry and Crime
in America. Cambridge University Press, pp.15-50.
Pratt T.C., Turanovic J.J., Fox K.A., Wright K.A. (2014) Self-control
and Victimization: A Meta-Analysis. Criminology, 52(1): 87116.
Ramakers A., van Wilsem J., Nieuwbeerta P., Dirkzwager A. (2015)
Down Before They Go In: A Study on Pre-Prison Labour Market
Attachment. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 21:
65-82.
Raphael S. (2004) The Socioeconomic Status of Black Males: The
Increasing Importance of Incarceration. Available at http://urbanpolicy.
berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch8Raphael0304.pdf
Rdulescu S.M. (1998) Sociologia devianei. Bucharest: Ed. Victor.

Reisig M.D. and Mesko G. (2009) Procedural Justice, Legitimacy,
and Prisoner Misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1): 4159.
Richmond K.M. (2015) Why Work While Incarcerated? Inmate
Perception on Prison Industries Employment. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 53(4): 231-252.
Rindfuss R.R., Stephen E.H. (1990) Marital Noncohabitation:
Separation Does Not Make the Heart Grow Fonder. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 52(1): 259-270
Rusbult C.E., Martz J.M. (1995) Remaining in an Abusive
Relationship: An Investment Model Analysis of Nonvoluntary
Dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6): 558-571.
Rusbult C.E., Martz J.M., Agnew C.R. (1998) The Investment
Model Scale: Measuring Commitment Level, Satisfaction Level,
Quality of Alternatives, and Investment Size. Personal Relationships,
5: 357-391.
Samspon R.J., Laub J.H. (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and
Turning Points through Life. Harvard University Press.
Samspon R.J., Laub J.H. (1997) A Life-Course Theory of
Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency. In
Terence P. Thornberry (ed.): Developmental Theories of Crime and
Delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 133-161.
Sampson R.J., Laub J.H. (2005) Life Course Desisters? Trajectories
of Crime Among Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70. Criminology,
41: 555592.
Sandholtz W., Taagepera R. (2005) Corruption, Culture and
Communism. International Review of Sociology, 15(1): 109131.
Schafer N.E. (1994) Exploring the Link between Visits and Parole
Success: A Survey of Prison Visitors. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Justice, 38(1): 17-32.
Schenk A.M., Fremouw W.J. (2012) Individual Characteristics
Related to Prison Violence: A Critical Review of the Literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17: 430-442.
Schinkel M. (2015) Hook for Change or Shaky Peg? Imprisonment,
Narratives and Desistance. European Journal of Probation, 7(1): 5-20.
Schneller D.P. (1976) Prisoners Families. A Study of Some Social

Psychological Effects of Incarceration on the Families of Negro
Prisoners. Criminology, 12(4): 402-412.
Schwartz R.D., Skolnick J.H. (1962) Two Studies of Legal Stigma.
Social Problems, 10:133-143.
Schwartz M.C., Weintraub J.F. (1974) The Prisoners Wives: A
Study in Crisis. Federal Probation, 38: 20-27.
Scott T.L. (2010) Offender Perceptions on the Value of Employment.
Journal of Correctional Education, 61(1): 46-67.
Shaw R. (1987) Children of Incarcerated Fathers. Hodder and
Stoughton Education.
Siennick S.E., Mears D.P. and Bales W.D. (2013) Here and Gone:
Anticipation and Separation Effects of Prison Visits on Inmate
Infractions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(3):
417444.
Skarbek D. (2014) The Social Order of the Underworld: How
Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Snodgrass G.M., Blockland A.J., Haviland A., Nieuwbeerta P.,
Nagin D.S. (2011). Does the Time Cause the Crime? An Examination
of the Relationship Between Time Served and Reoffending in the
Netherlands. Criminology, 49: 11491194.
Smith R., Grimshaw R., Romeo R., Knapp M. (2007). Poverty
and Disadvantage Among Prisoners Families. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Snacken S., Dumortier E. (2012) Resisting Punitiveness in Europe?
Welfare, Human Rights and Democracy. London and New York:
Routledge.
Solomon A.L., Johnson K.D., Travis J., McBride E.C. (2004) From
Prison to Work: The Employment Dimension of Prisoner Reentry. Urban
Institute, Justice Policy Center available at http://www.urban.org/sites/
default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/411097-From-Prison-to-Work.
PDF
South S.J., Spitze G. (1986) Determinants of Divorce over the
Marital Life Course. American Sociological Review, 4: 583-590.
Spohn C., Holleran D. (2002) The Effect of Imprisonment on

Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A Focus on Drug Offenders.
Criminology, 40(2): 329-358.
Sorensen J. and Cunningham M.D. (2010) Conviction offence and
prison violence: a comparative study of murderers and other offenders.
Crime and Delinquency, 56(1): 103125.
Sorensen J., Wrinkle R. and Gutierrez A. (1998) Patterns of Rule-
Violating Behaviors and Adjustment to Incarceration Among Murders.
The Prison Journal, 78(3): 222231.
South S.J., Lloyd K.M. (1995) Spousal Alternatives and Marital
Dissolution. American Sociological Review, 60: 21-35.
Sparks R., Bottoms A.E., Hay W. (1996) Prisons and the problem
of order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Studies in
Criminology Series.
Steiner B. (2009) Assessing static and dynamic influences on
inmate violence levels. Crime and Delinquency, 55(1): 134161.
Steiner B. and Wooldredge J. (2008) Inmate versus environmental
effects on prison rule violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4):
438456.
Steiner B., Wooldredge J. (2009) Rethinking the Link Between
Institutional Crowding and Inmate Misconduct. The Prison Journal,
89: 205233.
Sykes G. [1958] (2007) The Society of Captives. A Study of a
Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
tefan B. (2006) Mediul penitenciar romnesc. Cultur i civilizaie
carceral. Iai: Ed. Institutului European.
Tewksbury R., Connor D.P. and Denney A.S. (2014) Disciplinary
Infractions Behind Bars: An Exploration of Importation and
Deprivation Theories. Criminal Justice Review, 39(2): 201218.
Thomas C.W. (1973) Prisonization or Resocialization?: A Study of
External Factors Associated with the Impact of Imprisonment. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 10: 1321.
Tonry M. (1999) Why Are U.S. Incarceration Rates So High? Crime
and Delinquency, 45: 419437.
Trudel G. (2002) Sexuality and Marital Life: Results of a Survey.

Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 28(3): 229-249.
Trulson C.R., DeLisi M., Marquart J.W. (2011) Institutional
Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among
Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders. Crime and Delinquency,
57: 709731.
Tylor T.R. (2001) Trust and Law-Abidingness: A Proactive Model
of Social Regulation. Centre for Tax System Integrity, Research
School of Social Sciences, Australian National University: Working
Paper no. 16.
Ubah C.B.A., Robinson Jr. R.L. (2003) A Grounded Look at the
Debate over Prison-Based Education: Optimistic Theory versus
Pessimistic Worldview. The Prison Journal, 83(2): 115-129.
Udry J.R. (1981) Marital Alternatives and Marital Disruption.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(4): 889-897.
Uggen C, Wakefield S., Western B. (2005) Work and Family
Perspectives on Reentry. In Travis Jeremy, Visher Christy (eds.),
Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. Cambridge University
Press, pp. 209-243.
Villettaz P., Killias M., Zoder I. (2006) The Effects of Custodial
vs. Non-Custodial Sentences on Re-Offending: A Systematic Review of
the State of Knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews: DOI 10.4073/
csr.2006.13.
Visher C.A., Travis J. (2003). Transition from Prison to Community:
Understanding the Individual Pathways. Annual Review of Sociology,
29: 89-113.
Visher C.A., La Vigne N.G., Castro J. (2003) Returning Home:
Preliminary Findings from a Pilot Study of Soon-To-Be-Released
Prisoners in Maryland. Justice Research and Policy, 5(2): 55-74.
Visher C.A., Debus-Sherrill S.A., Yahner J. (2011) Employment
after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Former Prisoners. Justice
Quarterly, 28(5): 698-718.
Visher C.A., OConnell D.J. (2012) Incarceration and Inmates
Self-Perceptions about Returning Home. Journal of Criminal Justice,
40: 386-393.
Voicu B. (2001) Capitalul uman: componente, niveluri, structuri.

Romnia n context european. Calitatea Vieii: XV(1-2): 137-157.
Waldfogel J. (1994) The Effect of Criminal Conviction on Income
and the Trust Reposed in the Workmen. The Journal of Human
Resources, 29(1): 62-81.
Walter G.D. (1990) The Criminal Lifestyle. Patterns of Serious
Criminal Conduct. Sage Publications.
Walsh F. (2003) Family Resilience: A Framework for Clinical
Practice. Family Process, 42(1): 1-18.
Weiman D.F. (2007) Barriers to Prisoners' Reentry into the Labor
Market and the Social Costs of Recidivism. Social Research, 74(2):
575-611.
Wermink H.T., Blokland A.A.J., Nieuwbeerta P., Nagin D.,
Tollenaar N. (2010) Comparing the Effects of Community Service
and Short-term Imprisonment on Recidivism: A Matched Samples
Approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6: 325-349.
Western B. (2002) The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility
and Inequality. American Sociological Review, 67(4): 526-554.
Western B., Kling J.R., Weiman D.F. (2001) The Labor Market
Consequences of Incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3): 410-427.
Wheeler S. (1961) Socialization in Correctional Communities.
American Sociological Review, 26: 697712.
Winnick T.A., Bodkin M. (2008) Anticipated Stigma and Stigma
Management among Those to be Labeled Excon. Deviant Behavior,
29:295333
Wolff N., Blitz C.L., Shi J., Siegel J., Bachman R. (2007) Physical
Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 34(5): 588-599.
Wolff N., Shi J. (2009) Feelings of Safety among Male Inmates: The
Safety Paradox. Criminal Justice Review, 34(3): 404-427.
Worrall J.L. and Morris R.G. (2011) Inmate custody levels and
prison rule violations. The Prison Journal, 91(2): 131157.
Wooldredge J. D. (1998) Inmate Lifestyles and Opportunities
for Victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35:
480502.
Wortley R. (2002) Situational Prison Control: Crime Prevention in

Correctional Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prisons in Romania e Book

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prisons in Romania e Book

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PRISONS IN ROMANIA.

EFFECTS ON OFFENDERS LIVES

Copyright Cristina Damboeanu

Toate drepturile rezervate, inclusiv dreptul de a reproduce fragmente din carte.

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education

Tritonic Bucureti apare la poziia 18 n lista cu Edituri de prestigiu recunoscut

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a Romniei

Coperta: ALEXANDRA BARDAN

Orice reproducere, total sau parial, a acestei lucrri, fr acordul scris al

CHAPTER 1 THE RESEARCH CONTEXT 13

Synthetic conclusions 169

imprisonment is often seen by citizens, as much as by criminal

CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

1.2. Background information1

the EU average. Romanian economists consider, however, that this

to the latest data published by the Global Corruption Barometer2, a

Lithuania 314.6 30.8 34.6 16.5 57 11

1.3. Crime and imprisonment trends

Figure 1.1: Crime and imprisonment rates in Romania, 1990-2012.

Specifically, the rate of criminal convictions increased by 3.5

The next period (1998-2008) was characterized by a sound de-

especially since 2007, as many offenders preferred to continue their

implementation of more favourable criminal law principles4, which

1.4. Prison reform: the official rhetoric

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (Durnescu, 2009).

prison is 2 years or more, complies with certain measures and ob-

1.5. Romanian prison system: the reality

problem of overcrowding, as much as to the other dreadful physi-

Not surprisingly, Romania occupies a dishonourable first place

that despite efforts to improve the situation, Romania had to take

viable job opportunities provided to prisoners are just few of the

1.6. Costs of incarceration

1.7. The demographic and criminal profile

Half of Romanian prisoners are serving long-term prison sen-

Table 1.4: Length of sentences in Romania and the EU average, 2013

1.8. Romanian studies on prisons and the effects of imprisonment

1.8.1. E arly academic preoccupations on prisons

and the emergence of criminology as a scientific discipline. The

1.8.2. Current developments in the field of prison effects

remarkable series of books on the dynamics, psychology and phe-

quality of life, staff-prison relationship, prison programs partici-

1.9. The present study

of conjugal relationships; c) participation in prison programs and

Exploratory and pilot studies

consent. The interview guide covered several themes centered on

in the introductory section, data on prisoners institutional status

Thus, the quantitative study was intended to be conducted in

Table 1.5: Characteristics of prisons included in quantitative study

According to the findings of a study conducted by the National

skills programs are similar at Timisoara and Tulcea Prisons (10-13

agreed that their electronic files to be consulted. In 25 cases, some

number of credits to inmates for taking part at the research. In ad-

but with ramifications on long-run. As such, victimized prisoners

characteristics (including several measures grounded in the en-

2.2. P rison violence and victimization:

aggressions committed on other prisoners go largely unreported.

The alternative to official data on prison violence is self-re-

2.3. D efinitions, types and incidence of prison violence

However, just as in the free-world, violence in prison can take

to pent-up tensions and frustrations generated by incarceration.

44% respectively were threatened with violence at least one occa-

2.4. Types and official incidence of prison violence in Romania

prisoners dissatisfaction toward prison staff. Ellis (1984: 289) no-

Table 2.1: Number of misconduct by specific types, 2013

CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

1.7. The demographic and criminal profile

1.8.1. E arly academic preoccupations on prisons

2.2. P rison violence and victimization:

2.3. D efinitions, types and incidence of prison violence