Abstract
This chapter focuses on tracing the differences between the ways Romanian and Roma inmates experience and recount the first three months after prison release. Although there are points of convergence between how these two groups mobilize resources and strategies in the reentry project, we argue that there are significant differences in their trajectories. As we were able to observe and document, reentry is a collective project that starts (or should start) prior to release. The broader families’ role is essential, differing for the two groups in terms of structure and engagement. Since Roma participants usually return to large families and reference denser networks of support, their families appear to be more invested in the reentry project, sometimes acting as a source of moral pressure for the newly released. For Romanian participants reentry is a lonelier journey: they seem more affected by courtesy stigma (Goffman 1963), thus making release a private affair, celebrated, transited, and overcome behind closed doors. This analysis takes into account several important dimensions such as the attitude to crime and offenders, forms of support, sources of solidarity, relevant structures, available opportunities, places of residence and occupational strategies, as well as how their importance and visibility fluctuates in different moments of former inmates’ reentry paths. Some of these dimensions are based on previous literature (see Calverley 2013), while others are created based on our own observations and analysis. Throughout this chapter, we show that successful reentry is not only the result of ambition and personal motivation, but also involves the interplay of a complex web of institutions and structural arrangements such as the family, the existence of a strong network of support, as well as more visible state institutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The reason we use the plural for the Roma or Gypsy group is because in this research we use the definition of the Council of Europe1 that covers Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom), and a wide diversity of the groups concerned, including persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. Therefore, we acknowledge that even within the Roma or Gypsy ethnic group there is a wide variety of families or cultural traditions. We will develop this topic more in the next section.
- 2.
Bucharest-Jilava Prison is one of the oldest prisons in Romania. Established in 1907, the prison is situated 5 km from Bucharest and hosts on average 1400 prisoners. Most of the prisoners are sentenced for theft (373 inmates in 2015), robbery (221 inmates in 2015), drug related crimes (204 inmates in 2015) and so on. The structure of crimes follows in general the structure of crimes at the national level, except maybe the high proportion of drug related crimes, which are more prevalent around Bucharest city.
- 3.
While serving the sentence the inmates are entitled to receive up to five visits a month, according to the regime of incarceration. Therefore, inmates in maximum security are allowed two visits a month, in the closed regime three visits a month, in semi-open four visits a month, and in open regime five visits a month.
- 4.
Being visited together with access to goods are not the only criteria to escalating prison hierarchy. Nevertheless, they can represent a fair advantage; we give as an example the case of ZG21, a Roma inmate in his sixties, with very little family support, interviewed the day of the release: ZG21 says he’s happy he’s not a heavy smoker, because that would have cost him the humiliation of addiction. Other inmates in his situation (no money, no support) perform all sorts of demeaning tasks in exchange for smokes, from laundering the socks of the more well off prisoners to accepting debasement as a statement of power. It’s this very inequality that seems to disturb ZG21 most as he recalls doing time in 1995. The situation was different 20 years ago, though escalating to the point where it is now – “it’s the rich who run the prisons and there are people who have a more decent lifestyle in prison than some have outside.” He says he was respected because of his old age, but this observation from the side along with recollecting the minutia of the everyday meals (“some eat expensive salami while others have no other possibility but to watch”; “some have coffee everyday, and only drink expensive coffee”) made me think that he felt deeply deprived. (Fieldnotes, 24th February 2015)
- 5.
Our main references in supporting these claims are represented by literature published outside the traditional academic community, as NGOs and policy organizations have been more inclined to analyze social exclusion (see, for example, Zamfir and Preda, 2002; Bădescu et al, 2007, Fleck and Rughiniș, 2008; Zamfir, 2014).
- 6.
One way of helping fathers stay in touch with their children is Storybook Dads where prisoners are recorded telling a story. The story is edited and recorded on a disc that is sent to their child. For more information, visit: http://www.storybookdads.org.uk/Initial%20Membership%20Info%20Pack%20CD&DVD.pdf
References
Bădescu, Gabriel, Grigoraș, Vlad, Rughiniș, Cosima, Voicu, Mălina, & Voicu, Ovidiu. (2007). Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor (The Barometer for Roma Inclusion). Bucharest: Fundația pentru o Societate Deschisă.
Brubaker, Rogers. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Calverley, Adam. (2013). Cultures of desistance: Rehabilitation, reintegration and ethnic minorities. Routledge: London.
Durnescu, I., Lazar C., & Shaw R. (2002). Incidence and characteristics of Rroma men in Romanian prisons. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(3):,237–244.
Fleck, Gábor, & Cosima Rughiniș. (2008). Come closer. Inclusion and exclusion of Roma in present-day Romanian society. Bucharest: Human Dynamics.
Gobo, Giampietro. (2008). Doing ethnography. London: Sage.
Goffman, Erving. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18(3), 213–231.
Goffman, Erving. (1963). Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Hughes, C.A. (1998). Effective instruction for adults with learning disabilities. In B.K. Lenz, N.A. Sturomski, & M.A. Corley (Eds.), Serving adults with learning disabilities: Implications for effective practice (pp. 27–43). Washington, DC: National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center.
Lebel, T. B., 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.
Mann, Aaron, Solveig Spjeldnes, & Hide Yamatani. (2013). Male county jail inmates: A profile and self-reported human service needs by race. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(4), 265–275.
Maruna, S., & Ramsden, D. (2004). Living to tell the tale: Redemption narratives, shame management and offender rehabilitation. In Lieblich, A., McAdams, D.P., & Josselson, R. (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 129–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McNulty, Thomas L., & Bellair, Paul E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious adolescent violent behaviour. Criminology, 41(3), 709–747.
Nielsen, Amie, L. (1999). Testing Sampson and Laub's life course theory: Age, race/ethnicity, and drunkenness. Deviant behavior, 20(2), 129–151.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Piquero, A.R., MacDonald, J.M., & Parker, K.F. (2002). Race, local life circumstances, and criminal activity. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 654–670.
Rand, Alicia. (1987). Transitional life events and desistance from delinquency and crime. In Marvin E. Wolfgang, Terence P. Thornberry, & Robert M. Figlio (Eds.), From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rughiniș, Cosima. (2010). The forest behind the bar charts: bridging quantitative and qualitative research on Roma/Ț 2010 in contemporary Romania. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(4), 337–367.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schutz, Alfred. (1945). The homecomer. American Journal of Sociology, 50(5), 369–376.
Stepteau-Watson, D., Watson, J., & Lawrence, S.K. (2014). Young African American males in reentry: An Afrocentric cultural approach. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(6), 658–665.
Strauss, Anselm L., & Juliet M. Corbin. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zamfir, Cătălin (Ed.), (2014). Evaluarea capacității Agenției Naționale pentru Romi (Evaluating the capacity of the National Agency for Roma). Bucharest: Institutul de Cercetare a Calităţii Vieţii.
Zamfir, Cătălin, & Preda, Marian. (2002). Romii în România (Roma in Romania). Bucharest: Expert.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Norwegian Funds under the contract 9 SEE coordinated by ANCSI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Durnescu, I., Istrate, A., Teoroc, C., Pitiu, E., Rotariu, L. (2016). Routes to Freedom: Romanian and Roma Prisoners Finding their Way Back into the Romanian Society. In: Armstrong, R., Durnescu, I. (eds) Parole and Beyond. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95118-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95118-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95117-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95118-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)