A reality check on the digitalisation of prisons: Assessing the opportunities and risks of providing digital technologies for prisoners

Abstract

While our societies are developing into digital information societies, most prisoners do not have access to modern information and communications technologies. Smart prisons that provide digital devices for prisoners aim to grant prisoners more autonomy, provide access to education and information, strengthen contact with relatives and friends and reduce the effects of deprivation. The concept of ‘digital rehabilitation’ suggests that digital devices have a positive effect on rehabilitation in various areas. Nonetheless, technological developments also entail risks that go beyond security concerns such as misuse of the devices by prisoners. Based on qualitative interviews with Austrian prisoners and theoretical reflections on the opportunities and risks of digital technologies in prison, we point out ambivalences and possible negative effects for prisoners that have received little attention so far. We outline the importance of a needs-oriented implementation in order to avoid negative outcomes such as a mere expansion of surveillance, an outsourcing of institutional responsibility, a loss of important social interactions and a deepening of the digital divide within the institution. In this paper, we further contend that the selective digital transformation of prisons can function as a ‘Potemkin façade’ enabling prisons to present themselves as modern without structurally improving the conditions of the majority of the prison population. These risks, which might be less obvious than security concerns, must be taken into account when evaluating and implementing digitalisation strategies.

Keywords

smart prison needs-based digitalisation digital technology digital rehabilitation

Introduction

As society undergoes digital transformation, the question of digital accessibility and how it is distributed differently among individuals is becoming increasingly relevant. Scholars, such as Wessels (2013) and Van Dijk (2020), have underscored the widening gap in digital skills, information and opportunities between those with access to digital technologies and those without – the phenomenon commonly referred to as the digital divide. In this context, prisons are particularly affected by this dividing line because, in most cases, detainees are isolated from the digital world or have very limited access to digital services (Reisdorf and Rikard, 2018; Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022). Given that incarcerated populations consist predominantly of marginalised communities (Albrecht, 2011; Skarðhamar, 2003; Western and Pettit, 2010; Wright and Herivel, 2013) and that the penal system aims to rehabilitate offenders, the digital divide in prison therefore poses a distinct challenge for correctional institutions (Pulido, 2023).

Against this background, there has been a compelling emphasis in prison research on the need for digital inclusion of prisoners and the rehabilitative effects associated with expanding their access to digital devices (see e.g. McDougall and Pearson, 2020; Reisdorf and Rikard, 2018; Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022). However, while the importance of these findings cannot be overstated, the potential risks linked to providing prisoners with digital devices have so far not received sufficient scholarly attention. Against this backdrop, this article explores the opportunities and risks of integrating digital tools for prisoners and examines the conditions under which new technological initiatives in prisons may succeed and those under which they may not. As this article argues, without careful consideration of prisoners’ needs and interests and under the influence of prevailing institutional rationalities and constraints, well-intentioned digitalisation initiatives may unintentionally produce counterproductive outcomes.

To systematically address this concern, the first chapter of this article reflects on the opportunities and risks of digital technology in prison by drawing on the existing research literature on ‘digital rehabilitation’ and on critical concepts and contributions to prison research which we apply to analyse the phenomenon of digital transformation in prison. The second chapter of this article presents the empirical findings of a qualitative interview study involving 39 inmates from Austrian prisons, which were conducted as part of an ongoing research project on digital rehabilitation in prison.¹ In the interviews, prisoners were asked about their needs and their assessment of expanding access to digital devices in prison. To offer a nuanced evaluation that combines practical insights with theoretical underpinnings regarding the opportunities and risks of prison digitalisation, the empirical findings and theoretical considerations are synthesised in the concluding chapter.

Digital technologies in prison and digital rehabilitation

In recent years, researchers and practitioners from different countries have addressed the lack of digital inclusion in prisons. In addition to improving the security infrastructure and optimising prison management through digital processes (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 2020), the supportive effects of digital technologies on rehabilitation (McDougall and Pearson, 2020; Reisdorf and Rikard, 2018; Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022) are being highlighted in prison research. Furthermore, ethical and legal implications potentially associated with limiting prisoners’ access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016; Knight, 2017; Knight and Van De Steene, 2020) as well as the legal right to access the Internet (Bode, 2017, 2019) have been addressed. Central arguments that have been articulated with respect to providing digital devices and controlled Internet access to prisoners include the promotion of human rights, such as the right to information, education, communication and access to public services, as well as the principles of normalisation, the strengthening of the autonomy of prisoners and the reduction of disproportionate deprivation effects (see Knight and Van De Steene, 2020: 58–68). All these findings suggest that the provision of digital devices to detainees has significant benefits for prisons and detainees.

Nevertheless, the extended access to digital tools in prison is also associated with risks such as potential abuse by prisoners, the destruction of devices and illegal activities through the use of digital devices. From a human rights perspective, these security risks have to be weighed against the potential benefits of digital devices for prisoners. However, not only security risks but also potential benefits can have detrimental effects. Even though a human rights-sensitive implementation of prison technology would be desirable, prisons tend to follow economic and political imperatives that do not necessarily prioritise the genuine interests of prisoners. It is evident that ICT has the potential to support the rehabilitation of prisoners and make their time in prison more bearable, but it can also have negative effects, such as increasing the restriction of their freedom and depriving them of their fundamental rights such as the right to privacy. In her essay on the concept of the ‘panopticon’, Leclercq-Vandelannoitt (2023) further observes that digital practices frequently entail the promise of an expansion of personal freedom and self-reliance while, at the same time, resulting in an increase in social control and surveillance. Recent studies (Järveläinen and Rantanen, 2021; McKay, 2022) support this diagnosis and argue that digital transformation may not be unequivocally beneficial to prisoners, as it could lead to disadvantages for prisoners, such as increased surveillance, decreased privacy and the outsourcing of institutional services to individuals.

Particularly in the context of scarce resources and staff shortages, digital practices may be used by prison administrations to shift services for incarcerated individuals into the digital realm, thereby reducing meaningful social interaction for cost efficiency reasons. In her article on the concept of digital prison, McKay (2022) observed that reasonable expectations can become a detrimental reality for detained individuals when prison authorities use the advantages of digitalisation for prisoners merely as a means to expand their surveillance:

‘Smart prison discourse refers to the goals of reducing recidivism and perhaps also increasing rehabilitation, but this feels almost tokenistic when the pre-eminent objectives appear to be incapacitation, operational efficiency and designing-out risk’. (McKay, 2022: 112)

In contrast to ‘dehumanisation’, the concept of ‘responsibilisation’ has been primarily used in the context of smart prisons to describe the potential positive effects of digital technology on prisoners (McKay, 2022). In the light of Rose's (1996, 2000) and Garland's (1996, 1997) critical reflections on responsibilisation with reference to Foucault's concept of governmentality, we favour a broader perspective that highlights the ambivalence when prisoners are made individually responsible for tasks that were previously the responsibility of the institution that is supposed to take care of them (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016). Crewe (2011a) observed that as a result of the shift to ‘soft power’ practices through the ‘self-regulation’ of detainees, the prison administration establishes new ways of governing prisoners:

‘These policies encourage prisoners to regulate their own behaviour, putting the onus on them to govern their conduct, address their offending behaviour, engage positively with the regime and accept responsibility for any failings to do so. […] They provide prisoners with pseudo-autonomous space in which to make decisions about their lives at the same time as training them to exercise this autonomy in particular ways and rewarding them for doing so. Where prisoners fail to regulate themselves appropriately, the prison's authoritarian face reveals itself through the orders, controls and punishments that prisoners have no scope to negotiate’ (Crewe, 2011a: 456).

It can be convenient for prison administrations to withdraw from their responsibility and leave prisoners to their own devices. The blame for individual failure in terms of rehabilitation, education and coping with everyday life then lies with the prisoners, not the institution that was initially responsible for their care (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016). Moreover, the question arises as to how far the promise of increased autonomy through digital devices can withstand a reality check in the context of the institutional rationality of prison systems. As Kaun and Stiernstedt (2020: 1592) point out, people who are incarcerated lose their temporal autonomy. They are disciplined by time-based routines and their use of time is regulated by an authority. Therefore, prisoners are not free to dispose of their time as they wish but are subject to the instructions of their administrators. Allowing prisoners to manage their appointments and visits through digital devices can then have two different implications: It can restore some of their autonomy that has been taken away from them, or it can give them pseudo-autonomous freedom in a system that still has full temporal control over them.

Furthermore, expanding access to digital devices for prisoners raises the question of who pays for them and the services they provide. It may be convenient for prison administrators to outsource the costs of digital transformation to detainees and their families, thus creating a regime of digital inequality in prison. Many prison technology providers offer payment options for incarcerated individuals and their families, and prisons already take advantage of this financing option.² The economic rationale behind these solutions is understandable, but they conflict with the initial demand for the human right to digital inclusion and the aspired improvement of the conditions of detention. In conclusion, it can be stated that from a human rights and rehabilitation perspective, the digital technology for prisons not only offers potential advantages but also carries risks that could potentially put prisoners at a disadvantage. However, how can these ambivalences be resolved in practice?

As a practical guideline, Van De Steene and Knight (2017) stress the importance of adopting a needs-based approach to the deployment of digital technologies within correctional institutions. They emphasise that engaging prisoners in the process of digital transformation can enhance its benefits for prisoners while minimising the aforementioned risks. These considerations ultimately provided the background for our research, in which we asked prisoners during in-depth qualitative interviews about their ideas and opinions on digital technology to subsequently conflate their perspective with the potentials and risks identified in research. Our approach was not to take ‘objective needs’ as a starting point but to let the prisoners speak about their wishes and concerns and to consider them in the light of prison research. Through this approach, this study contributes to a more nuanced and reality-based debate about what the often abstractly stated ‘needs’ of prisoners and the risks associated with digitising their everyday life in prison constitute. To date, only a few qualitative studies have examined the perspectives of prisoners on the topic of digital transformation (Järveläinen and Rantanen, 2021; Reisdorf and Jewkes, 2016). This study thus aims to illustrate the complex and often diverging needs of and consequences for a heterogeneous prison population when it comes to expanding access to digital devices and services. By conclusively synthesising the considerations articulated by our interviewees with the scholarly findings on risks and potentials of introducing digital developments, we furthermore contribute to an ongoing debate whose theoretical considerations could benefit from a reality check.

Background and methods of the study

Despite ongoing digitalisation efforts in certain areas of the Austrian prison system, such as security and administration, prisoners continue to face barriers to accessing the Internet and digital technologies. In some prisons, few detainees receive a personal laptop as a concession, which they are allowed to use offline for various activities, such as writing, playing games or working. Additionally, if approved, some prisons have computer rooms in which prisoners can access ELIS.³ Depending on the user, different applications are unlocked, with some offering limited access to certain websites such as news portals or media libraries. Overall, however, the overwhelming majority of inmates does not have legal access to digital devices and, as will be discussed in the results section, there are also barriers to computer use for those who are actually authorised.⁴

In order to understand the perspective of inmates on the current situation and future technological developments in prison a total of 39 qualitative interviews were conducted, with 35 of which were conducted in three prisons and four with formerly incarcerated individuals. The aim of the interviews was to gain insights into prisoners’ experiences and needs regarding their current and future use of digital devices. We wanted to know how prisoners felt about having no or very limited access to digital devices, whether they would support expanding access, which devices and applications they would prefer and whether there are risks associated with digital transformation from their perspective. Additionally, interviews were conducted with formerly long-term incarcerated individuals to discuss if and how a lack of digital skills had affected their reintegration into society and in what ways expanded access to digital devices in prison could have helped them adjust to the needs of a digital society.

Methodologically, the interviews were conducted using the problem-centred interview method developed by Witzel (2000), which aims to offer interviewees enough space to articulate their opinions and needs while simultaneously providing enough structure to systematically address the main topic of research. The problem-centred interview allows the researcher to enter the interview with prior knowledge and clear objectives, but at the same time be flexible enough to take up topics raised by the interviewees and discuss them in detail. Trained personnel conducted the interviews using a semi-structured interview guide based on the literature on digital rehabilitation.

The interviews addressed two main topics. First, the participants were asked about their legal access to digital devices while in prison, how they perceived limited access to ICT, and which digital applications they missed the most. Second, the interviewees were encouraged to develop a vision of a needs-based digital transformation that would help them have a more meaningful and bearable time in prison and prepare for the time after their release. In this context, interviewees were specifically asked about the features and applications provided by major suppliers in the field of prison technology. This approach allowed for broader visions to be considered, while simultaneously bringing them into line with reality. The digital applications discussed in the interviews were related to administration, self-management, education, information, communication, entertainment and preparation for release.

Although the qualitative research design does not claim to be representative in statistical terms, the composition of the interviewees was chosen to reflect the heterogeneity of the Austrian prison population based on key variables such as age, gender, length of detention and access to ICT. Thus, women and men of various ages ranging from 15 to 80 years with sentences of varying length were interviewed. Regarding access to digital devices, people who had a personal computer in their cell, those who had access to computer rooms and those who had no access to digital devices were included. Using this sampling strategy led to an overrepresentation of more educated German-speaking prisoners to the detriment of the average profile of Austrian prisoners.

The interviews lasted between 20 and 40 min and were conducted anonymously in the absence of correctional officers. Depending on the prison, interviewees either volunteered for the conversation (by seeing an announcement in the ward) or were asked by the respective institution beforehand whether they were interested in participating based on the required criteria (access to ICT). Before the interviews, the participants received an information sheet, were informed about the project's goals and made aware that the conversation was voluntary and could be terminated at any time.⁵ The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were analysed using the qualitative analysis program MAXQDA. The experiences, assessments and visions presented in this publication are based on this analysis using thematic categories as put forward by Kuckartz (2018).

As part of the analysis process, the main thematic categories were initially formed through deductive reasoning, before being expanded through an open coding process of inductively generated sub-categories. The main categories were based on the research question and the interview guide and included prisoners’ lived experiences, their assessments of the potential opportunities and risks of digital devices, their evaluation of the relevant digital applications and their suggestions for practical implementation. The sub-categories derived from the empirical data were aligned with the deductive category system, either by expanding it or by subsumption. Through this process, the interviews were systematically evaluated, resulting in a hierarchical category system that ensures analytical depth.

Results from the interviews

The interviews started with questions on prison life without access to digital devices, in an attempt to grasp the effects of being deprived, upon admission, of one's smartphone and all it contains, from access to the Internet to personal pictures, music and all its various communication functions. We then discussed the importance of digital devices for rehabilitation, from the perspective of the prisoners. Subsequently, we asked the prisoners about their attitudes towards various digital applications.

The loss of the digital world

The loss of personal digital devices, such as smartphones and notebooks, associated with entering prison was described as burdening and unsettling, particularly in the early days of incarceration. During the interviews, the participants described what Goffman paradigmatically described in general terms in 1961 in his work ‘Asylums’:

‘[t]he admission procedure can be characterized as a leaving off and a taking on, with the midpoint marked by physical nakedness. Leaving off of course entails a dispossession of property, important because persons invest self feelings in their possession[.]’ (Goffman, 1961: 18)

For example, a young women described her smartphone as an identity-creating property that provides a sense of self. She stated that ‘half of your life is in your phone, your numbers, videos, securities’ and that she was storing ‘everything she needed’ in it. Therefore, when the smartphone was taken away from her, she felt that ‘if that's just gone, there's a part of you that is missing’. Although some added that they gradually became accustomed or resigned to the lack of access to digital devices, the ‘feeling of being excluded from the world’ dominated. While some individuals reported that they missed using their smartphones out of habit, for others the loss of digital devices caused ‘panic’ and ‘insomnia’ or, in the case of a detainee in custody, ‘existential fears’, as the loss of digital devices also meant the loss of control and access to important information and contacts such as contact to his employer and bank manager.

Not being able to take care of obligations that still existed outside of prison and having to burden the family were motives that were repeatedly mentioned in the interviews. Some individuals spoke of how relationships with family members, already strained by incarceration, were subjected to an additional stress test by having to outsource bureaucratic tasks to them. Controlled access to the Internet under supervision and the monitoring of its use in order to access important administrative services could have increased their independence and relieved the already burdened relationship with the family.

In addition to the experiences of loss that dominated the interviews, however, individual respondents perceived the limited access to digital devices positively as ‘liberation’ and articulated fundamental concerns about digital devices and their societal use. While some were sceptical about digital technologies overall, others seemed to make a virtue out of the necessity to cope better with their time in prison, stating that reducing their ‘addiction’ to smartphones was a good thing. However, very few individuals opposed the digital transformation of prisons when asked about the specific functions and services of digital devices.

Digital skills and rehabilitation

Research suggests that implementing needs-based digitalisation strategies in prisons could foster the acquisition of digital skills among prisoners, which is highly relevant for their reintegration into a technology-driven society (Zivanai and Mahlangu, 2022). In interviews with former long-term prisoners, we therefore asked about their experiences with digital devices after release from prison. Were they sufficiently prepared for life in a digital society while in prison? Would extended access to digital resources have helped them adjust to the needs of modern society? How could access to digital devices in prison improve their professional skills and opportunities in the labour market? The responses to this were quite unambiguous: most individuals who had been released from a long prison sentence reported that they had struggled with simple digital applications such as answering a call from a smartphone, especially in the period immediately following their release from prison.

As these interviewees were imprisoned at a time when the world was still predominantly analogue and the first cell phones were just coming onto the market, they were overwhelmed by the fast-paced digital world and its numerous new technologies when released from prison. Initially, many were unable to cope with digital tasks such as using a touchscreen at the post office. One participant reported feeling ashamed and distressed about not being able to operate a computer or use a writing programme. This experience of helplessness was widely shared among the prisoners. Lack of digital skills had a real impact on how they were able to manage their lives. Some participants reported not being able to process digital payments and orders, having problems with email communication or not being able to operate a smartphone. In addition to coping with everyday life, some perceived their lack of digital skills as a disadvantage in the job market. Concerns regarding the effect of digital exclusion on the rehabilitation of prisoners were thus confirmed in the interviews.

Against the backdrop of these experiences, there was criticism of the insufficient provision of digital skills education within the prison system. Several incarcerated individuals expressed the need for additional opportunities to prepare for life after imprisonment and to enhance their digital skills while in confinement. Insufficient digital training programmes within correctional institutions were identified by the interviewees as a significant obstacle to successful reintegration into society – an assessment that is confirmed in the research literature as well (Arguelles and Ortiz-Luis, 2021).

Digital solutions from the perspective of the prisoners

Following discussions with prisoners regarding their general digital needs, the interviews also focused on the practical implementation of permitting the use of digital devices and their applications. To align these perspectives with a realistic framework, participants were asked to evaluate the applications provided by leading companies in the field of prison technology. This section presents an analysis of the assessments and experiences shared by the interviewed individuals, addressing diverse aspects of administration, education, information, entertainment and preparation for release. The initial focus was on exploring how prisoners could utilise digital devices to actively engage in prison procedures and take charge of personal matters. Overall, the interviewees expressed significant enthusiasm for integrating digital technologies into correctional processes as they hoped that it would offer them greater autonomy during their incarceration. Alongside their aspirations to diminish their dependence on others, there was strong emphasis on accessing relevant information and services efficiently and transparently.

(Self) Administration and inclusion in prison management processes. During the interviews, many respondents expressed a positive attitude towards accessing personal and institutional information through digital devices. Obtaining access to account balances and to a personal schedule managing visits, prison-based courses and other appointments in prison were positively evaluated by most participants. The main reason for advocating administrative self-management was the aspiration to organise oneself independently and be less dependent on prison staff. The detainees described it as humiliating and exhausting to ask staff for permission to carry out every small task and constantly be at their mercy. The adoption of digital technology in daily operations was viewed as a viable solution to this problem, alleviating the workload of prison guards and thus potentially reducing conflict between prisoners and staff.

The majority of prisoners further favoured the possibility of submitting applications and complaints digitally. Their primary motivation was to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork, and, consequently, reduce dependency on prison staff. Furthermore, prisoners expected digital solutions to increase transparency and the traceability of any application and complaint processes. Some respondents highlighted the potential for improved data protection and privacy through the digitisation of the application process – an assessment that may seem counterintuitive at first but can be explained by the negative impression held by many that there is little privacy in prison and that other detainees and staff members know about sensitive personal issues. In this context, the interviewees expressed a strong desire for more private, simpler procedures with fewer obstacles and shorter waiting periods. In one prison, detainees complained that they regularly received only a limited number of requests and complaint forms, preventing them from asserting their rights. In other cases, it was reported that completed forms were lost or not processed by staff. Based on these experiences, some concluded that the digitisation of these processes could address those issues and provide a sense of increased control over personal matters. Only a few individuals advocated for maintaining the analogue solution, while the majority viewed the digital transformation of self-administration as positive.

Digital education. The expansion of digital access to educational content through digital devices received considerable support. Many respondents expressed the wish to expand educational programmes and considered digital solutions suitable for providing better access. Digital devices were seen primarily as a potential improvement of the status quo with its long waiting times. A central point of criticism was the limited access to the computer rooms because of restricted opening hours, insufficient staff and high demand. Many respondents believed that expanding access by providing devices in the cells would help make digital educational content more accessible. Autonomy in the use of leisure time and the possibility of engaging in meaningful activities away from television programmes were cited as key reasons for expanding educational content and being able to access them in the cells. The idea of a digital library with e-books, podcasts and audiobooks was positively evaluated. The central motive was not only to access educational content but also to be able to select it independently and according to need. The participants thus also linked independent and free access to educational content with the desire not to be patronised.

Furthermore, the majority supported the expansion of digital solutions to address practical issues such as long waiting times for books. Some detainees were also concerned about their future and wished to make their time in prison more meaningful by catching up on their education, getting training and the opportunity to study. A digital course system, personalised training materials and access to vocational resources were therefore deemed to be valuable. As with the other topics discussed, however, it is crucial, especially in the case of education, that digital services do not replace supervision and instruction by trained personnel. Despite the ultimate goal of empowerment, replacing courses, training opportunities and other educational support with digital devices could have the opposite effect. Interviewees stressed that they valued the social interaction with ‘real’ teachers.

Information. A surprisingly large proportion of interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their limited access to information. Many viewed the provision of digital devices with restricted Internet access and an internal prison intranet as practical solutions for addressing this information deficit. Some individuals who had access to computer rooms positively acknowledged utilising these platforms as a means of staying informed about current events and exploring other areas of interest. Many wished to obtain access to legal information, including digital lawbooks and official resources from institutions such as the job centre or the tax office. General educational information, including health, nutrition and education, were also mentioned. Finally, the possibility of accessing a wide range of news sources was highlighted. The interviewees expressed the wish to independently research spontaneous inquiries, although they acknowledged the challenges and limitations of unrestricted access to search engines such as Google because of security precautions. However, most participants expressed support for access to offline versions of platforms such as Wikipedia, as they believed that it would help them to find answers to their questions.

Digital shopping and entertainment. During the interviews, the prisoners were asked whether or not current shopping and digital entertainment options in the prison should be digitised. While the issue of digital shopping was a rather contentious one, the expansion of entertainment options through digital devices was – unsurprisingly – met with widespread approval. Many interviewees preferred to buy items such as clothing and personal care products from external vendors online instead of using a printed mail-order catalogue with very complicated and limited ordering procedures. However, the question of whether weekly shopping at the prison store should be replaced by a digital store was met with strong resistance from some participants which illustrates that digital technologies can potentially amplify the experience of deprivation on the part of incarcerated individuals without necessarily leading to an improvement in quality of life, from their perspective. The main reason cited by most interviewees was that the current ‘offline’-shopping system was an important and varied part of their daily lives in prison, and they did not want to lose it through the use of digital devices. Some interviewees explained that weekly shopping provides a sense of ‘normality’, a pleasant change from the monotony of prison life, and an opportunity for social interaction.

Entertainment content was rated as less important than expected by the interviewees. Educational opportunities, communication with family and preparation for release from prison were prioritised over entertainment. However, respondents expressed support for expanding access to a wider range of entertainment content via digital devices. Detainees associated their need for expanded access to entertainment content with long confinement periods and monotonous television programmes. The need for privacy in shared rooms and the desire for peace and quiet were further put forward as motives for using personal devices with headphones. Access to streaming platforms such as Netflix for films, series and documentaries was highly welcomed. While many respondents expressed the willingness to pay a monthly fee for streaming services, concerns were raised about affordability and unequal treatment based on the financial status of prisoners – underlining the concern already raised, that selective digitalisation can create regimes of digital inequality within prisons.

Communication with the outside world and preparation for release. The expansion of communication tools through digital devices has emerged as a significant and emotionally charged topic in the interviews. Many respondents expressed a strong need for more communication with their families, especially if they had children, and viewed personal digital devices in their detention rooms as capable of fulfilling this need. Interviews also highlighted the potential benefits of expanded communication for relieving the burden on relatives and strengthening social bonds between detainees and their families. Concerns were additionally raised regarding the current high prices of telephone calls, limited access to telephones and lack of privacy during conversations. Many prisoners expressed the willingness to adhere to security precautions and saw the expansion of communication options as a way to reduce their reliance on illegal cell phones. Video calls, messaging services and email communications were desired to improve communication with relatives and specialised services.

During the interviews, we discussed the potential benefits of expanding access to digital devices to make prison life more meaningful, efficient and bearable. The interviewees explored how digital devices could facilitate successful reintegration into society after release. Respondents agreed that access to digital devices in prison could significantly assist them in organising their post-prison lives and in acquiring relevant skills for employment and daily tasks. They expressed a wish for greater independence and autonomy as well as for broader access to relevant information to prepare for release. Even though the current analogue approach aims to prepare offenders for their release from prison, some individuals expressed concerns that the support staff responsible is scarcely available and that there are lengthy waiting periods between the scheduled appointments, during which one is forced to remain passive. In this context, digital devices should not replace the care provided by trained staff but should give detainees more possibilities to prepare themselves for release, according to many. Limited Internet access is needed to obtain relevant information about official procedures, the labour market, housing and personal matters. Communication with probation officers, employers, landlords and authorities was highlighted as being important as well. According to the interviewees, digital devices could provide crucial support in establishing connections with society and could be used to prepare for life after release.

Risks of prison digitalisation from the perspective of prisoners

While respondents were generally very positive about expanding access to digital devices, they nevertheless expressed some concerns about future implementation and the risks involved. The interviewees associated digitalisation with high costs – money that should be used for more urgent improvements in the chronically underfinanced prison system, some said. Some detainees pointed to the need for supervision in operating the devices and spoke of the different abilities of the heterogeneous prison population, some of whom might have difficulties with the use of digital devices. Factors such as age, language proficiency, illiteracy, digital literacy and cognitive skills were seen as potential barriers to the effective use of digital devices by detainees. While for some it was obvious that prisoners should pay for the devices and services themselves, others spoke of unequal treatment and were firmly against it. In terms of implementation, some also doubted that digital transformation would realistically be achievable without significant additional staffing and the provision of large financial resources. The use of the devices by the detainees themselves was also met with scepticism because many would misuse or damage the devices, according to the assessment of their peers. Furthermore, interviewees expressed concerns about the loss of important interpersonal interactions through the implementation of technological tools in the prison system. For example, and as already explained, the majority preferred to do their shopping in prison in person, not via an online shop. Scepticism was expressed towards being overly dependent on machines and some feared future loneliness in a highly digitalised world.

The interview statements in the light of prison research

As has been outlined in the introduction, critical scholars have described contemporary developments in prison as multifaceted and ambivalent. The introduction of digital technology for prisoners may reduce the digital divide, expand prisoners’ autonomy and support their rehabilitation. Despite the obvious risks associated with the digitalisation of prisoners, such as the mishandling, abuse or vandalism of devices, other risks related to smart prisons are less evident, but still need to be considered.

Some of the interview statements concerned these less obvious risks that have been discussed in prison research, such as the potential of in-cell digital technology to alter prisoner-staff interactions and to generate new forms of isolation (Robberechts and Beyens, 2020). The prisoners and released prisoners we interviewed were also quite aware of the digital divide and the disadvantages of being digitally excluded in prison. Introducing digital technologies was seen as a means to counter this but many respondents rejected the idea of making prisoners pay for digital services, expressing concerns that this would deepen the digital divide within prisons even further.

While the gains in autonomy related to new technologies were very much welcomed by the prisoners, the possible shift of workload from staff to prisoners and the resulting ‘responsibilisation’ was not seen as a possible side effect at all. Being able to take care of one's tasks was seen as a gain in autonomy and an enormous improvement compared to the existing situation of dependency on the prison staff. Currently, prisoners have to ask staff for permission for every little task, from making phone calls to checking account balances to making appointments. From a theoretical perspective, the shift in responsibility (‘responsibilisation’) for vital services from the institution to the inmate via digital devices involves both potentials and risks. On the one hand, there are good arguments in favour of providing detainees with access to the services mentioned above. The strongest argument is that incarcerated individuals themselves crave increased autonomy and accountability, and participation in these processes could enhance transparency and reduce the feeling of alienation and dependency that is characteristic of prison life. Furthermore, it is known that the ability to organise one's own life is essential for successful rehabilitation and integration into society, and prisons often do not strengthen this ability enough. Consequently, digital devices could serve as tools for learning to organise oneself while still in custody and thus prepare for a self-determined life.

On the other hand, delegating these tasks could lead to a redistribution of workload, which could lead to prison administrations reducing their responsibilities, leaving detainees to fend for themselves – a phenomenon that must be understood as part of a general tendency in contemporary penal practices (see Crewe, 2011a; Crewe, 2011b). The providers of prison technologies promote their products as enhancing prisoners’ responsibility and reinforcing accountability (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016).⁶ The digital transformation of everyday prison life could therefore increase the isolation of inmates and reduce important but resource-intensive social interactions. It could also force prisoners to be ‘an agent of one's own incarceration’, and to be ‘active and enthusiastic, rather than passive and resigned, in the process of one's own penal management’ (Crewe, 2011b: 519f.). Outsourcing responsibilities from prison administration and staff to prisoners as ‘self-governing subjects’ could therefore create ‘pains of self-governance’ (Crewe, 2011b: 518ff) and ultimately deprive prisoners of important and necessary support and services. Although some interviewees expressed a desire to be more actively involved in the preparation for their release, leaving this process to the prisoners themselves in a very limited and restricted setting could create pseudo-autonomous spaces and at the same time an obligation to be actively involved. In this way, the ‘pain of loss of autonomy’ (Sykes, 2007 (1958)) and ‘the pains of self-government’ (Crewe, 2011b) coexist.

For prisons facing a number of major challenges, such as overcrowding and staff shortages, as is the case in Austria, the idea of digitising administrative, support and monitoring tasks could be particularly appealing.⁷ In such an environment, the autonomy granted to prisoners could be limited to aspects that reduce the workload of staff and increase security. However, the concept of responsibilisation entails not only the off-loading of state functions to private actors but also new forms of subjectivity and governing-at-a-distance (Garland, 1996: 454). As such, the idea of ‘digital rehabilitation’ fits well with late-modern penal narratives that frame rehabilitation in terms of risk reduction and maximum benefit to society (Robinson, 2008): Offenders are expected to have internalised their responsibility and thus actively manage their everyday life in prison, their rehabilitation process and their risk of reoffending through the ‘autonomous’ use of digital devices.

Additionally, as ‘officers hold a large amount of discretionary power, particularly through their role in determining privilege levels and in their everyday use of authority’ (Crewe, 2011a: 456) prison administrations and their staff could use access to digital devices to exercise new practices of ‘soft power’. While these disciplinary measures are as a rule not illegitimate, they could potentially turn the human right to access digital devices into a means of control intended to produce socially desirable behaviour on the part of prisoners.

Surprisingly, the fear of an expansion of surveillance through digital technologies as described in the literature (e.g. Leclercq-Vandelannoitt, 2023) was hardly mentioned at all in the interviews. On the contrary, some anticipated increased privacy and data security through the digitisation of administration and communication. In the discussions, it was mentioned that by regulating digital access rights, not every prison officer would have access to the detainee's personal information, as was currently the case according to the accounts of prisoners, but only those who are entitled to do so. For instance, when prisoners want to see a doctor, they currently write it on a form that is folded in half and thus remains accessible to prison guards. Sending a digital request to the doctor's office directly guarantees better data protection. The hope that fellow prisoners would no longer find out personal information about others was further mentioned in connection with digital devices. At the moment, information is often passed on orally when fellow prisoners can listen. In order to increase data protection and confidentiality, the implementation of digital tools must be introduced correspondingly by strictly regulating who has access to sensitive information.

However, just because it was not perceived as relevant in the interviews does not mean that the risk of increased surveillance by digital technologies does not exist. Many prisoners seem to have internalised the surveillance imperatives of the prison system and take them for granted. Context- and need-sensitive digitalisation strategies should therefore in principle reflect on the tension between self-assessments of prisoners, goals and requirements of the prison system and the findings of prison research.

Discussion

In this rapidly evolving digital age, it is in society's best interests to prepare prisoners as much as possible for the demands of a digital world to avoid them losing touch with everyday life. Nevertheless, just as the march of digital technology in our society does not proceed without friction or inequality, it is not generally accepted that the digital transformation of penal institutions will always yield a favourable outcome for prisoners. The security and surveillance imperatives of penal systems, resource scarcity and existing power asymmetries raise concerns that especially prisoners, who do not have a say in the conditions of their detention, will be subjected to the digitalisation of their lives and could suffer from its consequences. Authoritarian regimes that disregard fundamental human rights exemplify that vision of a ‘smart society’ or ‘smart prison’ that can quickly turn into a dystopia. Here, digitalisation erodes the last remaining areas of privacy, and questionable algorithmic models predict future behaviour in order to respond pre-emptively (see Polyakova and Meserole, 2019).

However, it would be a mistake to judge the digital transformation of prisons solely against the backdrop of these negative examples. The positive potential and opportunities offered by digital transformation in terms of increasing the quality of life and expanding democratic rights for prisoners as well as its benefits for rehabilitation (McDougall and Pearson, 2020) must be considered as well. As McKay (2022) correctly notes with regard to ‘smart prisons’, it is the provision of digital devices to detainees in particular that can help improve conditions of confinement and increase their autonomy. Likewise, the ethical and legal arguments (Bode, 2017, 2019; Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016; Knight, 2017; Knight and Van De Steene, 2020) put forward in the literature in connection with digital technology, such as the human right to information, education, communication and access to public services and the Internet, argue in favour of seeing the expansion of access to digital devices for prisoners as an opportunity, and not just a risk.

But even the expansion of access to digital devices for detainees, which is largely perceived positively in research, has its hidden risks. It can lead to an expansion of surveillance, an outsourcing of institutional responsibility, a loss of important social interaction, thus negatively impacting affected individuals, their life in prison and their rehabilitation (McKay, 2022). Although expanding access to digital devices for incarcerated individuals can be seen as a way to overcome the digital divide, it can also reproduce and reinforce it, particularly if prisoners have to pay significant amounts of money for using these services, thereby excluding economically disadvantaged prisoners from access. Furthermore, costly digitalisation measures result in expenses that might be needed elsewhere in the prison system, such as general improvements in detention conditions and the reduction of overcrowding. The vision of a ‘smart prison’ may result in a scenario where only a small proportion of prisoners are equipped with digital devices while detention conditions in general remain the same. Selective digital transformation of prisons can function as a ‘Potemkin façade’ which means that prisons could present themselves to the outside world as modern and progressive without structurally improving the conditions of the majority of the prison population. These risks, which might be less obvious than security concerns, must be considered when assessing and implementing digitalisation strategies.

Therefore, the quality of the expansion of access to digital devices for detainees depends first and foremost on the intentions and conditions of their implementation. For this reason, it is crucial, as emphasised by Knight and Van De Steene (2020) and Van De Steene and Knight (2017), to address not only the security and administrative interests of prisons but also ethical and human rights dimensions, as well as the perspective and needs of prisoners. Hence, digitalisation strategies have to consider all possible impacts and take intended as well as unintended consequences into account.

Against the backdrop of economic constraints and the surveillance and control imperatives of the penal system, an adequate and sensitive implementation of digital technology for prisoners has to actively bring in the perspective of the prisoners and consider the risks identified in prison research. A proper needs assessment before implementing digital technologies for prisoners may be a first step in this direction. Moreover, it is of crucial importance to critically assess the actual implementation as well as human rights issues and equality-oriented factors in the process of introducing technological advancements. Evaluative studies accompanying the implementation of digitalisation strategies, examining the relationship between aspiration and reality with reference to the perspectives of detainees, can make an important contribution to a fair digital transformation of everyday life in prison.⁸

Attention must be paid to how the introduction of digital technologies for prisoners is legitimised and implemented in practice. Are the needs of the prisoners, their education, digital skills and rehabilitation, and their legal rights in focus, or is the main goal an expansion of surveillance and a shifting of administrative tasks to the individual? Is the goal of digital transformation a redistribution of workload from prison officers to prisoners or a reduction of paperwork through intelligent digital tools in order to generate more inclusion? Are digital devices a complement to, rather than a substitute for prison services? Against this background, responsibilisation strategies could be evaluated in terms of whether prison administrations see digital devices as a way to expand care services and increase participation by prisoners, or as a way to abdicate social responsibility and leave prisoners to fend for themselves. Moreover, a critical assessment of the introduction of digital technologies for prisoners has to examine whether autonomy and transparency are seen as legitimate claims of the prisoners that are actively supported by the penal system. How far-reaching and encompassing are security and surveillance functions used? Such an assessment should also ask if digital tools are used as a means of soft power, granted to a few selected privileged prisoners, or whether low-threshold access for the many is possible. Are digital illiterates encouraged to use the new technologies or are they excluded from using them? Finally, the data protection framework and the regulations concerning access to data are of crucial importance. Whether the digitalisation of prisoners serves their legitimate needs, improves their life in prison and fosters their rehabilitation depends greatly on how these framework conditions are implemented.

Footnotes

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by the Austrian security research programme KIRAS of the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF).

ORCID iD

Veronika Hofinger

Notes

Veronika Hofinger is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Department of Applied Sociology of Law and Criminology (IRKS) at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Her research focuses on prisons and rehabilitation.

Philipp Pflegerl is a researcher at the Department of Applied Sociology of Law and Criminology (IRKS) at the University of Innsbruck, where he conducts research on digital rehabilitation in prison as part of the DigitRes project.

References

Albrecht

(2011) Bestrafung der Armen? Zu Zusammenhängen zwischen Armut, Kriminalität und Strafrechtsstaat. In: Dollinger

Schmidt-Semisch

(eds) Gerechte Ausgrenzung? Wohlfahrtsproduktion und die neue Lust am Strafen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissen.

Arguelles

Ortiz-Luis

(2021) Bars behind bars: Digital technology in the prison system. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Bode

(2017) Anspruch auf Internet im Gefängnis? Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 12(6): 348–353.

Bode

(2019) Der Einsatz internetbasierter Medien im Strafvollzug. NK Neue Kriminalpolitik 31(1): 30–45.

Crewe

(2011a) Soft power in prison: Implications for staff–prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology 8(6): 455–468.

Crewe

(2011b) Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society 13(5): 509–529.

Garland

(1996) The limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. The British Journal of Criminology 36(4): 445–471.

Garland

(1997) Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology 1(2): 173–214.

Goffman

(1961) Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.

10.

Järveläinen

Rantanen

(2021) Incarcerated people’s challenges for digital inclusion in Finnish prisons. Nordic Journal of Criminology 22(2): 1–20.

11.

Jewkes

Reisdorf

(2016) A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice 16(5): 534–551.

12.

Kaun

Stiernstedt

(2020) Doing time, the smart way? Temporalities of the smart prison. New Media & Society 22(9): 1580–1599.

13.

Knight

(2017) Digitizing the prison: The light and dark future may. Prison Service Journal Issue 231: 22–30.

14.

Knight

Van De Steene

(2020) The digital prison: Towards an ethics of technology. In: Birch

Sicard

(eds) Prisons and Community Corrections: Critical Issues and Emerging Controversies. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 57–71.

15.

Kofman

(2019) Digital jail: How electronic monitoring drives defendants into debt. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/magazine/digital-jail-surveillance.html (accessed 14 July 2023).

16.

Kuckartz

(2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 4. Auflage. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz Juventa.

17.

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte

(2023) The panopticon, an emblematic concept in management and organization studies: Heaven or hell? International Journal of Management Reviews 25(1): 52–74.

18.

McDougall

Pearson

(2020) Technology as a means of rehabilitation: a measurable impact on reducing crime. In: Holt

Bossler

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyberdeviance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 183–206.

19.

McKay

(2022) The carceral automaton: Digital prisons and technologies of detention. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 11(1): 100–119.

20.

Polyakova

Meserole

(2019) Exporting digital authoritarianism: The Russian and Chinese models. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FP_20190827_digital_authoritarianism_polyakova_meserole.pdf (accessed 14 July 2023).

21.

Pulido

(2023) Challenges to the educational “digital divide” in Spanish prisons. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 29: 263–281.

22.

Reisdorf

Jewkes

(2016) (B)Locked sites: Cases of internet use in three British prisons. Information, Communication & Society 19(6): 771–786.

23.

Reisdorf

Rikard

(2018) Digital rehabilitation: A model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist 62(9): 1273–1290.

24.

Robberechts

Beyens

(2020) PrisonCloud: the beating heart of the digital prison cell. In: Turner

Knight

(eds) The Prison Cell: Embodied and Everyday Spaces of Incarceration. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 283–303.

25.

Robinson

(2008) Late-modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy. Punishment & Society 10(4): 429–445.

26.

Rose

(1996) Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In: Barry

Osborne

Rose

(eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government. London: UCL Press, 37–64.

27.

Rose

(2000) Government and control. The British Journal of Criminology 40(2): 321–339.

28.

Skarðhamar

(2003) Inmates’ social background and living conditions. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 4(1): 39–56.

29.

Sykes

(2007 (1958)) The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

30.

Van De Steene

Knight

(2017) Digital transformation for prisons: Developing a needs-based strategy. Probation Journal 64(3): 256–268.

31.

Van Dijk

(2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge, UK; Medford, MA: Polity.

32.

Wessels

(2013) The reproduction and reconfiguration of inequality. Differentiation and class, Status and power in the dynamics of digital divides. In: Ragnedda

Muschert

(eds) The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective. London: Routledge, 17–28.

33.

Western

Pettit

(2010) Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus 139(3): 8–19.

34.

Witzel

(2000) The problem-centered interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1(1).

35.

Wright

Herivel

(2013) Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor. New York: Routledge.

36.

Zivanai

Mahlangu

(2022) Digital prison rehabilitation and successful re-entry into a digital society: A systematic literature review on the new reality on prison rehabilitation. Cogent Social Sciences 8(1).