Abstract
J. Irwin, Lifers: Seeking Redemption in Prison, New York: Routledge, 2009. i–xii + 140 pp. ISBN: 9780415801980, £14.99 (pbk); £70.00 (hbk)
During his life, John Irwin forged new ground in prison research and advocacy. He helped to found Project Rebound in 1967, an initiative that has provided support for hundreds of criminalized individuals to transition from prison to the community through studies at San Francisco State University. In 1997, he helped establish Convict Criminology, a group largely composed of former prisoners-turned-academics who study penal policy and practice. These are just a few of the contributions that define Irwin’s legacy, which will reverberate well beyond the academy for years to come (see Richards and Lenza, 2012). In his many published works, such as The Felon (1970), an ethnography of how criminalization, imprisonment and re-entry is experienced by prisoners informed by his own experience with penality, and The Jail (1985), which sheds light on the often understudied role of jails in the management of the ‘rabble’, Irwin developed important lines of inquiry and ideas.
In keeping with his previous works, Irwin’s final book Lifers (2009) pushes the boundaries of sociological inquiry regarding the question of punishment by challenging assumptions about individuals who find themselves under the control of the penal system, in one form or another, for the balance of their days following a life sentence. He achieves this through an analysis of themes raised by 17 prisoners serving life sentences in San Quentin State Prison in California during in-depth interviews. He identifies a number of common themes that form the basis for the substantive chapters of the book. In discussing their backgrounds and the harms they perpetrated that led to their incarceration, many of the lifers described how immaturity, emotions, and instability in their personal lives culminated in homicide. All prisoners described how they had matured over the numerous years they have spent in prison, and referred to moments where they looked at themselves and decided to make a change in their lives to atone and redeem themselves for the damage they caused to others. They also described the concrete steps they took to achieve these goals, such as participating in programs, getting involved in self-help initiatives, and developing specific concrete plans to ‘do right’ in the community upon release from prison through service. The prisoners also referred to the barriers they faced as they attempted to re-enter society, notably a parole process that fails to acknowledge the steps they had taken to improve their lives. The interview excerpts and the author’s analysis reveal a portrait of individuals who are doing their best to make a life for themselves and contribute to society. Irwin concludes with a brief discussion of the substantive barriers long-term prisoners face upon re-entry to society (e.g. adjusting to what is ostensibly a new world, coping with freedom, securing employment and housing, managing parole conditions) that need to be addressed to maximize their success and end the cycle of incarceration in California.
Lifers is a testament to the possibilities that are opened through qualitative research, which privileges the voices of those at the margins of society. By placing the harms of victimization and punishment in personal contexts through in-depth interviews with the criminalized, Irwin humanizes the dehumanized, arguably making the pains of imprisonment more difficult to justify for those who take the time to read his book. Through his analysis of the lives of individuals who have been convicted of ending the lives of others, he also forcefully demonstrates that people can and do change for the better, despite what they encounter in prison. Such work challenges a penal orthodoxy that sees millions across the world incarcerated, permanently or for shorter periods of time, based on the belief that individuals do not change and must be ‘taken out of circulation for a while’ (Harper, 2011). In examining the aspirations and concrete steps taken by the men he interviewed, Irwin also sheds light on a fundamental aspect of existence that makes human life bearable in even the most trying of times – the promise that tomorrow may bring with it another opportunity to get things right. The book also serves as a reminder of the lives wasted through interpersonal victimization, as well as the lives wasted as a result of victimization by the State through incarceration.
Future work on lifers could address a few of the limitations in Irwin’s book. First, given that scores of individuals are imprisoned for life in some jurisdictions in the United States for reasons other than homicide, it would be worthwhile to examine whether, or to what extent, the pursuit of redemption features in the lives of such prisoners. Second, given that the interviews on which the book is based were conducted with 17 men warehoused in San Quentin State Prison, future work on this topic could involve research with lifers in other jurisdictions, as well as incarcerated women, to elucidate how context and gender affect the various paths taken. A final limitation is normative in nature. Irwin goes to great lengths to challenge the idea that individuals who kill others need to be incarcerated for life, a notion that he attributes to the ascendancy of an excessive brand of punishment. While it would be foolish to argue that nothing should be done when a person takes the life of another, Irwin’s phenomenological deconstruction stops short of calling into question the idea that the prison itself is a necessary social institution.
Despite its limitations, John Irwin has left with us a piece of scholarship that provokes discussion about the role played by the infliction of pain via imprisonment. In a context where incarceration has become increasingly normalized, the narratives of individuals featured in Lifers may prompt readers to reconsider who is in need of redemption: those who pursue atonement in the face of interminable punishment – or those who insist on systematically dismantling the opportunities for second chances for individuals who wish to atone for the harms they have caused.